Tackling M&A as a Board

Success in executing a bank’s growth strategy — from acquiring another institution to even selling the bank — begins with the discussions that should take place in the boardroom. But few — just 31%, according to Bank Director’s 2020 Bank M&A Survey — discuss these issues at least quarterly as a regular part of the board’s agenda.

Boards have a fiduciary duty to act in the best decisions of shareholders, and these discussions are vital to the bank’s overall strategy and future. Even if management drives the process, directors must deliberate these issues, whether it’s the prospective purchase or another entity of selling the bank.

The survey affirms the factors driving M&A activity today: deposits, increased profitability and growth, and the pursuit of scale. There are common barriers, as well; price in particular has long been a sticking point for buyers and sellers.

M&A plays an important role in most banks’ strategies. One-quarter intend to be active acquirers, and 60% prefer to focus on organic growth while remaining open to making an acquisition.

However, roughly 4% of banks are acquired annually — a figure that doesn’t line up with the 44% of survey respondents who believe their bank will acquire another institution this year.

Conversations in the boardroom, and the strategy set by the board, will ultimately lead to success in a competitive deal landscape.

“Having strong, frequent communications with the board is very much part of our M&A process, and I can’t emphasize how important it is,” says Alberto Paracchini, CEO at Chicago-based Byline Bancorp. The $5.4 billion asset bank has closed three deals in the past five years. “With proper communication, good transparency and frequent communication as to where the transaction stands, the board is and can be not only a great advisor but a good check on management.”

The board at Nashville, Tennessee-based FB Financial Corp. discusses M&A as part of its annual strategic planning meeting. Typically, an outside advisor talks to the board at that time about the industry and provides an outlook on M&A. Also, they’ll “talk about our bank and how we fit into that from their perspective,” including potential opportunities the advisor sees for the organization, says Christopher Holmes, CEO of the $6.1 billion asset bank. Progress on the strategy is discussed in every board meeting; that includes M&A.

So, what should directors discuss? Overall, survey respondents say their board focuses on markets where they’d like to grow (69%), deal pricing (60%), the size of deals their bank can afford (57%) and/or specific targets (54%).

“It starts with defining what your acquisition strategy is,” says Rick Childs, a partner at Crowe LLP. Identifying attractive markets and the size of the target the bank is comfortable integrating is a good place to start.

At $6.1 billion asset Midland States Bancorp, strategic discussions around M&A center around defining the attributes the board seeks in a deal. Annually, directors at the Effingham, Illinois-based bank discuss “what do we like in M&A — deposits and wealth management and market share,” says CEO Jeffrey Ludwig. “[We] continue to define what those types of items are, what the marketplace looks like, where’s pricing today.”

Given the more than 400 charters in Illinois, the board sees ample opportunity to acquire, and the board evaluates potential deals regularly. The framework provided by the board ensures management focuses on opportunities that meet the bank’s overall strategy.

The board at $13.7 billion asset Glacier Bancorp, based in Kalispell, Montana, is “very involved in M&A,” says CEO Randall Chesler. Management shares with the board which potential targets they’re having conversations with and how these could fuel the bank’s strategy. “We start to show them financial modeling early on [so] that they can start to understand what a transaction might look like,” he says. “They’re really engaged early on, through the process and afterwards.” Once a transaction goes through, the board keeps tabs on the status of the conversion and integration.

Having M&A experience on the board can aid these discussions. Overall, 78% of respondents say their board includes at least one director with an M&A background.

These directors can help explain M&A to other board members and challenge management when necessary, says Childs. “They can be a really valuable member of the team and add their experience to the overall process to make sure that it isn’t all groupthink; that there’s somebody that can challenge the process, and make sure [they’re] asking the right questions and keeping everybody focused on what the impact is.”

A number of banks don’t plan to acquire via acquisition. How often should these boards discuss M&A? More than half of survey respondents who say their bank is unlikely to acquire reveal that their board discusses M&A infrequently; another 20% only discuss M&A annually.

Jamie Cox, the board chair at $265 million asset Alamosa State Bank, based in Alamosa, Colorado, says her bank strongly prefers organic growth. Still, the board discusses M&A quarterly at a minimum. “We would be remiss if we ignored it completely, because opportunity is always out there, but you’ve got to be looking for it,” she says. “Whether it’s your key strategy or a secondary strategy, it’s always got to be on the table.”

In charter-rich Wisconsin, Mike Daniels believes too many community bank boards aren’t adequately weighing whether now’s the time to sell. “I don’t want to be as bold as to say that they’re not doing their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders, but are they really looking at what their strategic options are?” says Daniels, executive vice president at $3.1 billion asset Nicolet Bancshares and CEO of its subsidiary, Nicolet National Bank.

Green Bay, Wisconsin-based Nicolet has an investment banker on staff who can model the financial results for potential acquisition targets. “We’re having M&A dialogue on a regular basis at the board level because we can do this modeling — here’s who we’re talking to, here’s what we’re talking about, here’s what it would mean,” says Daniels.

The board sets the direction for what the bank should evaluate as a potential target. How success is measured should derive from those initial discussions in the boardroom.

“We’re real disciplined on that tangible book value earnback and making sure there’s enough earnings accretion,” says Ludwig. A deal isn’t worth the effort if earnings per share accretion is less than 2% in his view. Any cost saves or revenue synergies are factored into the bank’s earnback estimate. “We’re fairly conservative on the expense saves and diligent about getting at least what we’ve disclosed we could get, and we don’t put any revenue synergies in our model.”

Bank Director’s 2020 Bank M&A Survey, sponsored by Crowe, surveyed more than 200 independent directors, CEOs and senior executives to examine acquisition and growth trends. The survey was conducted in August and September 2019. Bank Director’s 2020 RankingBanking study, also sponsored by Crowe, examines the best M&A deals completed between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jun. 30, 2018, detailing what made those deals successful. Additional context around some of these top dealmakers can be found in the article “What Top Acquirers Know.” The Online Training Series also includes a unit on M&A Basics.

Keeping Benefits Simple During M&A

Mergers and acquisitions are an attractive growth strategy for many banks, but deals are increasingly and needlessly complicated by existing employee benefit plans.

The United States entered the longest economic expansion in history during the third quarter of 2019, surpassing the 120-month run between March 1991 to March 2001. There have been parallels of economic events and potential perils between then and now: a strong housing market, corporate tax cuts, low interest rates, and a mergers and acquisitions environment that rivals the 1990s, resulting in a loss of more than 4% of the nation’s banks per annum on average. From March 1991 to today, the number of U.S. banks has decreased by over 60%. The industry is not only used to M&A but expects it.

But in recent years, we’ve seen a growing burden and complexity in navigating through bank M&A deals, in part due to existing nonqualified benefit plans and bank-owned life insurance, or BOLI, programs. Burdens include heightened regulations on allowable plan designs, evolving tax laws and stricter compliance and due diligence requirements.

Now more than ever, it has become increasingly likely that BOLI or nonqualified benefit plans will be involved in a transaction, and odds are that the acquired portfolio and plans were part of a previous deal.

About 64% of banks across the country owned BOLI at the end of 2018, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence, including 63% of banks under $2.5 billion in total assets, 82% of banks between $2.5 billion and $35 billion, and 64% of banks over $35 billion.

The BOLI market continues to expand as banks continue to consolidate, and new premium sales have averaged over $3.5 billion annually in the past five years. Additionally, approximately 65% of banks have a nonqualified benefit plan, split-dollar life insurance plan or both, based on records of Newcleus’ 750 clients.

Program sponsorship continues to expand, because BOLI and nonqualified benefits continue to be important programs for institutions. Implementing nonqualified benefit plans can serve as a valuable resource for banks looking to attract and retain key talent. Both selling and acquiring institutions need to understand the mechanics of benefit and BOLI programs in order to avoid inaccurate plan administration and mismanagement following a combination. This includes:

Non-Qualified Benefit Plans

  • Reviewing the plan agreement: Complete a thorough analysis of the established plan agreements. Understand all triggering events for benefits, available options to exit the plan and the agreement’s change-in-control language.
  • Accounting implications: The bank, in partnership with their plan administrator, should properly vet the mechanics and assumptions used in existing plan accounting. For example, change-in-control benefits could specify a discount rate that must be used for benefit payments, which may differ from rates used on existing accounting reports. They should also ensure that all plan benefits deemed de minimis have been accounted for, such as small split-dollar plans.
  • 280G: Complete a 280G analysis to understand the possible implications of excess parachute payments, including limitations (i.e. net best benefit provisions) caused by existing employee agreements and related non-compete provisions.

BOLI Programs

  • Insurance carrier due diligence: Bankers should complete a thorough review to ensure that acquired BOLI meets the holding requirement that is outlined by the bank’s existing BOLI investment policy, if applicable.
  • Active/inactive BOLI population: As the insured and surviving owner relationship becomes more separated, it is paramount that executives maintain detailed census information, including Social Security numbers, for mortality and insurable interest purposes.
  • Policy ownership: Many banks have implemented trusts to act as the owner of certain BOLI policies. While this setup is permissible, changes in control can impact a trust’s revocability. Institutions should review this information prior to closing, given that there may be limited options to directly manage those policies post-deal close.

These programs are not in the executives’ everyday purview, nor should they be. That’s why it’s so important for institutions to establish partnerships that help guide them through the analysis, documentation and due diligence process for BOLI and nonqualified benefit plans.

Banks may want to consider working with external advisors to conduct a thorough review of existing programs and examine all plan details. They may also want to consider administrative systems, like Newcleus MINTS, that streamline reporting and compliance requirements. Taking these steps can help reduce unnecessary headaches, and create a solid foundation for future BOLI purchases and new nonqualified benefit plans.

Getting your Digital Growth Strategy Right from the Start


Digital growth is only as good as the metrics used to measure it.

Growth is one of an executives’ most important responsibilities, whether that comes from the branch, through mergers and acquisitions or digital channels. Digital growth can be a scalable and predictable way for a bank to grow, if executives can effectively and accurately measure and execute their efforts. By using Net Present Value as the lens to evaluate digital marketing, a bank’s leadership team can make informed decisions on the future of the organization.

Banks need a well-thought-out digital growth strategy because of the changing role of the branch and big bank competition. The branch used to spearhead an institution’s growth efforts, but that is changing as branch sales decline. At the same time, the three biggest banks in the country rang up 50% of the new deposit account openings last year (even though they have only 24% of branches) as they lure depositors away from community banks, given regulators’ prohibition on acquisition.

Physical Branch Decline chart.pngImage courtesy of Ron Shevlin of Cornerstone Advisors

Even in the face of these changes, many institutions are nervous about adopting an aggressive digital growth plan or falter in their execution.

A typical bank’s digital marketing efforts frequently rely on analytics that have been designed for another business altogether. They may want to place a series of ads on digital channels or social media sites, but how will they know if those work? They may use data points such as clicks or views to gauge the effectiveness of a campaign, even if those metrics don’t speak to the conversion process. They will also track metrics such as the number of new accounts opened after the start of a campaign or relate the number of clicks placed in new accounts.

But this approach assumes a direct link between the campaign and the new customers. In addition, acquisition and data teams will spend valuable time creating reports from disparate data sources to get the proper measurement, instead of analyzing generated reports to come up with better strategies.

Additionally, a bank’s CFO can’t really measure the effectiveness of an acquisition campaign if they aren’t able to see how the relationships with these new customers flourish and provides value to the institution. The conversion is not over with a click — it’s continuous.

This leads to another obstacle to measuring digital growth efforts: communication. Banks use three internal teams to generate growth: finance to fund the efforts; marketing to execute and measure it; and operations to provide the workflow to fulfill it.

Each team measures and expresses success differently, and each has its inherent shortcomings. Finance would like to know the cost and profitability of the new deposits generated, to assess the efficiency of the spend. Marketing might consider clicks or views. Operations will report on the number of accounts opened, but do not know definitively if existing workflows support the market segmentation that the bank seeks.

There is not a single group of metrics shared by the teams. However, the CEO will be most interested in cost of acquisition, the long-term profitability of the accounts and the return on investment of the total efforts.

But it’s now possible for banks to see the full measurement of their digital campaigns, from the disbursement of funds provided by the finance group to the success of these campaigns, in terms of deposits raised and net present value generated. These ads entice prospects into the account origination funnel, managed by operations, who open accounts and deposit initial funds. Those new customers then go through an onboarding process to switch their direct deposits and bill pay accounts. The new customer’s engagement can be measured six to 12 months later for value, and tied back to the original investment that brought them in the first place.

Bank leadership needs to be able to make decisions for the long-term health of their organizations. CEOs tell us they have a “data problem” when it comes to empowering their decisions. For this to work, the core system, the account origination funnel and the marketing channels all need to be tied together. This is true Integrated Value Measurement.

Community Banks and Derivatives: Debunking the Four Biggest Myths


derivatives-4-8-19.pngThose of us who were in banking when Ronald Reagan entered the White House remember the interest rate rollercoaster ride brought about by the Federal Reserve when it aggressively tightened the money supply to tame inflation. It was during this era of unprecedented volatility that interest rate swaps, caps and floors were introduced to help financial institutions keep their books in balance. But over the years, opaque pricing, unnecessary complexity and misuse by speculators led Richard Syron, former chairman of the American Stock Exchange, to observe, “Derivative. That’s the 11-letter four-letter word.”

As community banks bought into Syron’s “D-word” conclusion and resolved to avoid their use altogether, several providers fed these fears and designed programs that promise a derivative-free balance sheet. But many banks are beginning to question the effectiveness of these solutions.

Today, as commercial borrowers seek long-term, fixed-rate funding for 10 years and longer, risk-averse community banks want to know how to solve this term mismatch problem in a responsible and sustainable manner. The fact that Syron voiced his opinion on derivatives in 1995 suggests that now might be a good time to examine the roots of “derivative-phobia,” by considering what has changed in the past quarter-century and challenging four frequently heard biases against community banks using swaps.

1. None of my community bank peers use interest rate derivatives.
If you are not hedging with swaps, and your total assets are between $500 million and $1 billion, then you are in good company: More than nine out of ten of your peers have also avoided their use.

5m-1b-assets-chart.png

But if your bank is larger, or your growth plans anticipate crossing the $1 billion asset level, more than one in four of your new peers use swaps.

1-2b-assets-chart.png

Once your bank crosses the $2 billion mark, more than half of your peers manage interest rate risk with derivatives, and institutions not using swaps become a shrinking minority.

2-5-b-assets-chart.png

Community banks should consider their growth path and the best practices of their expected peer group before dismissing out-of-hand the use of derivatives.

2. The derivatives market is a big casino, and swaps are always a bet.
While some firms (AIG in 2008, for example) have used complex derivatives to speculate, a vanilla swap designed to neutralize a bank’s natural risks operates as a hedge. Post-crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act brought more transparency to swap pricing, as swap dealers are now required to disclose the wholesale cost of the swap to their customers. In addition, most dealers are now willing to operate on a bilateral secured basis, removing most of the counterparty risk that the trading partners of Lehman Brothers experienced firsthand when that company collapsed. These changes in market practices have made it much more practical for community banks to execute simple hedging transactions at fair prices with manageable credit risk.

3. Derivatives accounting always results in unwanted surprises and volatility.
Derivatives missteps led to FAS 133—regarding the measurement of derivative instruments and hedging activities—being issued in 1998, bringing the fair value of derivatives out of the footnotes and onto the balance sheet for the first time. But the standard (now ASC 815) proved difficult to apply, leading to some notable financial restatements in the early 2000s. Fast forward nearly twenty years, and the Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued an overhaul to hedge accounting (ASU 2017-12) that is a game-changer for community banks. With mandatory adoption in 2019, there are more viable ways to solve the age-old mismatch facing banks. And the addition of fallback provisions, combined with improvements to “the shortcut method,” greatly reduces the risk of unexpected earnings volatility.

4. ISDA documents should always be avoided.
While admittedly lengthy, the Master Agreement published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association was designed to protect both parties to a derivative contract and is the industry standard for properly documenting an interest rate swap. Many community banks seeking an ISDA-free solution for their customers are actually placing the borrower into a lightly-documented derivative with an unknown third-party. If a borrower is not sophisticated enough to read and sign the ISDA Master Agreement, they have no business executing a swap in the first place. A simpler solution is to make a fixed-rate loan and execute a swap behind the scenes to neutralize the interest rate risk. This keeps the swap and the agreement between two banks, and removes the borrower from the derivative altogether.

For community banks that have been trying to solve their mismatch problem in a manner that is derivative-free, it is worth re-examining the factors that have led to pursuing a derivatives-avoidance strategy, and counting the costs and hidden exposures involved in doing so.

Exclusive: How U.S. Bancorp Views Expansion


bancorp-3-14-19.pngGreat leaders are eager to learn from others, even their competitors. That’s why Bank Director is making available—exclusively to our members—the unabridged transcripts of the in-depth conversations our writers have with the executives of top-performing banks.

Few banks fit this description as well as U.S. Bancorp, the fifth-largest retail bank in the United States. It has generated one of the most consistently superior performances in the banking industry over the past decade. It’s the most profitable and efficient bank among superregional and national banks. It’s the highest-rated bank by Moody’s. It’s also been named one of the world’s most ethical companies for five years in a row by the Ethisphere Institute. And it has emerged as a leader of the digital banking revolution.

Bank Director’s executive editor, John J. Maxfield, interviewed U.S. Bancorp Chairman and CEO Andy Cecere for the first quarter 2019 issue of Bank Director magazine. (You can read that story, “Growth Through Digital Banking, Not M&A,” by clicking here.)

In the interview, Cecere sheds light on U.S. Bancorp’s:

  • Strategy for expanding into new markets
  • Progress on the digital banking front
  • Perspective on the changes underway in banking
  • Experience through the financial crisis

The interview has been edited for brevity, clarity and flow.

download.png Download transcript for the full exclusive interview

The Most Important Question in Banking Right Now


banking-2-15-19.pngTo understand the seismic shifts underway in the banking industry today, it’s helpful to look back at what a different industry went through in the 1980s—the industry for computer memory chips.

The story of Intel Corp. through that period is particularly insightful.

Intel was founded in 1968.

Within four years, it emerged as one of the leading manufacturers of semiconductor memory chips in the world.

Then something changed.

Heightened competition from Japanese chip manufacturers dramatically shrank the profits Intel earned from producing memory chips.

The competition was so intense that Intel effectively abandoned its bread-and-butter memory chip business in favor of the relatively new field of microprocessors.

It’s like McDonald’s switching from hamburgers to tacos.

In the words of Intel’s CEO at the time, Andy Grove, the industry had reached a strategic inflection point.

“[A] strategic inflection point is a time in the life of a business when its fundamentals are about to change,” Grove later wrote his book, “Only the Paranoid Survive.”

“That change can mean an opportunity to rise to new heights,” Grove continued. “But it may just as likely signal the beginning of the end.”

The parallels to the banking industry today are obvious.

Over the past decade, as attention has been focused on the recovery from the financial crisis, there’s been a fundamental shift in the way banks operate.

To make a deposit a decade ago, a customer had to visit an ATM or walk into a branch. Nowadays, three quarters of deposit transactions at Bank of America, one of the biggest retail banks in the country, are completed digitally.

The implications of this are huge.

Convenience and service quality are no longer defined by the number and location of branches. Now, they’re a function of the design and functionality of a bank’s website and mobile app.

This shift is reflected in J.D. Power’s 2019 Retail Banking Advice Study, a survey of customer satisfaction with advice and account-opening processes at regional and national banks.

Overall customer satisfaction with advice provided by banks increased in the survey compared to the prior year. Yet, advice delivered digitally (via website or mobile app) had the largest satisfaction point gain over the prior year, with the most profound improvement among consumers under 40 years old.

It’s this change in customers’ definition of convenience and service quality that has enabled the biggest banks over the past few years to begin growing deposits organically, as opposed to through acquisitions, for the first time since the consolidation cycle began in earnest nearly four decades ago.

And as we discussed in our latest issue of Bank Director magazine, the new definition of convenience has also altered the growth strategy of these same big banks.

If they want to expand into a new geographic market today, they don’t do so by buying a bunch of branches. They do so, instead, by opening up a few de novo locations and then supplementing those branches with aggressive marketing campaigns tied to their digital banking offerings.

It’s a massive shift. But is it a strategic inflection point along the same lines as that faced by Intel in the 1980s?

Put another way, has the debut and adoption of digital banking changed the fundamental competitive dynamics of banking? Or is digital banking just another distribution channel, along the lines of phone banking, drive-through windows or ATMs?

There’s no way to know for sure, says Don MacDonald, the former chief marketing officer of Intel, who currently holds the same position at MX, a fintech company helping banks, credit unions, and developers better leverage their customer data.

In MacDonald’s estimation, true strategic inflection points are caused by changes on multiple fronts.

In the banking industry, for instance, the fronts would include regulation, technology, customer expectations and competition.

Viewed through this lens, it seems reasonable to think that banking has indeed passed such a threshold.

On the regulatory front, for the first time ever, a handful of banks don’t have a choice but to focus on organic deposit growth—once the exclusive province of community and regional banks—as the three largest retail banks each hold more than 10 percent of domestic deposits and are thus prohibited from growing through acquisition.

Furthermore, regulators are making it easier for firms outside the industry—namely, fintechs—to compete directly against banks, with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fintech charter being the most obvious example.

Technology has changed, too, with customers now using their computers and smartphones to complete deposits and apply for mortgages, negating the need to walk into a branch.

And customer expectations have been radically transformed, as evidenced by the latest J.D. Power survey revealing a preference toward digital banking advice over personal advice.

To be clear, whether a true strategic inflection point is here or not doesn’t absolve banks of their traditional duty to make good loans and provide excellent customer service. But it does mean the rules of the game have changed.

Exclusive: An Interview with Brian Moynihan


bank-of-america-2-14-19.pngBank Director’s writers and editors talk with the best bankers in the United States to inform the stories we publish on BankDirector.com and in Bank Director magazine. But these conversations often go deeper and extend beyond the subject matter of those stories, leaving a lot of immensely valuable information on the cutting room floor, so to speak.

With this in mind, we are making available—exclusively to our members—the unabridged transcripts of these conversations. It is our belief that the insights found within them can help bankers gain knowledge and improve their own institutions.

For the cover story in the fourth quarter 2018 issue of Bank Director magazine, Executive Editor John Maxfield interviewed Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America Corp., at the bank’s New York City offices.

While the story focused on how Moynihan, who has led Bank of America since 2010, transformed the bank’s culture and performance, the conversation also delved into his views on growth, risk management and other topics of interest to bank leaders.

In this lengthy interview, which has been lightly edited for clarity and brevity, Moynihan shares:

  • The sources of his philosophy on banking
  • The principles that inform Bank of America’s revamped growth philosophy
  • How history informs his view of the future
  • Lessons learned from the financial crisis
  • How Bank of America deepens relationships with existing customers
  • Why operating leverage helps the bank better manage risk

Larry De Rita, Bank of America’s senior vice president of corporate communications, is also quoted in the transcript.

download.png Download transcript for the full exclusive interview

Two Traditional Strategies to Supercharge a Bank’s Growth


strategy-10-26-18.pngBankers would be excused for thinking right now that everything has changed in the industry and nothing is the same—that all of the old rules of banking should be thrown out, replaced by digital strategies catering to the next generation of customers.

There is some truth to this, of course, given how quickly customers have taken to depositing money and checking their account balances on their smartphones. Yet, banks should nevertheless think twice before throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater.

This is especially true when it comes to growth strategies.

Make no mistake about it, digital banking channels are thriving. At PNC Financial Services Group, two-thirds of customers are primarily digital, up from roughly a third of customers five years ago. And a quarter of sales at Bank of America Corp., the nation’s second biggest bank by assets, now come by way of its digital channels.

Yet, just because digital banking is transforming the way customers access financial products doesn’t logically mean that the old rules of banking no longer apply.

In a recent conversation with Bank Director, Tim Spence, the head of consumer banking at Fifth Third Bancorp, observed that digital channels are still not as effective as traditional mergers and acquisitions when it comes to moving into a new geographic market.

If a bank wants to grow at an accelerated rate, in other words, it shouldn’t cast aside the traditional method of doing so. This is why it’s valuable to continue learning from those who have safely and rapidly built banks over the past 30 years—as the barriers to interstate banking came down.

One approach is to wait for a downturn in the credit cycle to make acquisitions.

This strategy has been used repeatedly by $117 billion asset M&T Bank Corp., based in Buffalo, New York. In the most recent cycle, it acquired the largest independent bank in New Jersey, Hudson City Bancorp, as well as one of the nation’s preeminent trust businesses, Wilmington Trust—both at meaningful discounts to their book values.

Great Southern Bancorp, a $4.6 billion asset bank based in Springfield, Missouri, followed a similar strategy in the wake of the financial crisis. Through four FDIC-assisted transactions between 2009 and 2012, Great Southern transformed from a community bank based in southwestern Missouri into a regional bank operating in multiple states along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.

A second approach that has proven to be effective is to buy healthy banks in good times and then accelerate their growth.

Bank One did this to grow from the third largest bank in Columbus, Ohio, into the sixth largest bank in the country, at which point it was acquired by JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Its former chief executive officer, John B. McCoy, pioneered what he called the uncommon partnership: a non-confrontational, Warren Buffett-type approach to buying banks, where the acquired bank’s managers remain on board.

Another bank that has applied this acquisition philosophy is Glacier Bancorp, an $11.8 billion asset bank headquartered in Kalispell, Montana. Starting in 1987 under former CEO Michael “Mick” Blodnick, Glacier bought more than two dozen banks throughout the Rocky Mountain region.

Importantly, however, it wasn’t the assets acquired in the deals that helped Glacier grow from $700 million to $9.5 billion in assets in the 18 years Blodnick ran the bank. Rather, it was the subsequent growth of those banks post-acquisition that accounted for the majority of this ascent.

Glacier’s success in this regard boiled down to its model.

Today, it operates more than a dozen banks in cities and towns throughout the West as divisions of the holding company. These banks have retained their original names—First Security Bank, Big Sky Western Bank and Mountain West Bank, among others—as well as a significant amount of autonomy to make decisions locally.

Approaching acquisitions in this way has reduced the customer attrition that tends to follow a traditional acquisition and rebranding. At the same time, because these banks are now within a much larger organization, they have larger lending limits and access to new, often more profitable deposit products, allowing them to expand both sides of their balance sheets.

In short, while it’s true that the financial services industry is changing as a result of the proliferation of digital distribution channels, it isn’t true that these changes render the traditional growth strategies that have worked so well over the years obsolete.

You’ll Never Guess Where BB&T Gets Its Big Ideas


strategy-10-19-18.pngIt is well worth any banker’s time to read the vision, mission and purpose statements of BB&T, the eighth biggest commercial bank in the United States.

They will sound at first like similar statements from any other bank, but what makes BB&T’s unique is the inspiration behind them.

They weren’t drawn up with the help of consultants or survey data; they are grounded instead in the writings of philosophers—classical thinkers as well as modern proponents of capitalism.

“The philosophers that influenced me the most are Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, and Ayn Rand,” writes John Allison, the chairman and CEO of BB&T from 1989 to 2008, in his 2014 book, The Leadership Crisis and the Free Market Cure.

BB&T has published an entire pamphlet outlining its culture, encapsulated in its vision, mission and purpose statements, which reduce to one key objective: “Our ultimate purpose is to create superior long-term economic rewards for our shareholders.”

The $223-billion bank based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, doesn’t just talk the talk; it walks the walk. It ranks in the 98th percentile among publicly traded banks in terms of the total amount of shareholder value it has created during its time as a public entity.

Yet, there’s a nuance to BB&T’s philosophy on creating value that’s easy to overlook. It doesn’t talk about “maximizing” long-term economic rewards for shareholders; it talks instead about “optimizing” those rewards.

Why the difference?

As Allison writes in his book:

When free market economists and finance theorists refer to maximizing shareholders’ returns, they imply a long-term context. In the real world, maximizing tends to be a short-term concept. BB&T’s mission also focuses on ‘creating a safe and sound investment,’ The goal with this wording is to communicate to potential purchasers of the company’s stock that we are in the game for the long-term and will not take inordinate risk even if that risk could maximize short-term returns.

In no industry is a long-term view more important than banking. Banks, as a group, use more leverage than companies in any other industry, typically borrowing $10 for every $1 worth of capital.

This is by design, of course, as a principal purpose of banking is to leverage society’s capital to fuel economic growth—a point Bank of America’s chairman and CEO, Brian Moynihan, made in a recent interview with Bank Director:

[B]anks came up to help people borrow money, which helps economies grow faster. If you’re constrained to only your equity, you only have so much money to spend. But if you borrow against it, now you can spend more. That’s the magic of leverage in terms of accelerating progress.

But there is a downside to all that leverage—it makes banks vulnerable to economic cycles, explaining why more than 17,000 banks have failed since the Civil War.

Bankers are prone to the same impulses that, at the top of a cycle, cause real estate developers to break ground on skyscrapers, retailers to over-invest in inventory and technology entrepreneurs to believe that traditional rules of economics no longer apply.

The difference is that, thanks to leverage, there’s less margin for error in banking than there is in other industries. A mere 10 percent decline in the value of a typical bank’s assets will render it insolvent.

This is one reason BB&T chose the words of its mission statement so carefully in terms of “optimizing” as opposed to “maximizing” shareholder value.

Another reason is that shareholders aren’t a bank’s only constituency—there are also clients, employees and communities. A bank that doesn’t tend to all four is like a table with only three legs.

It’s by optimizing returns among multiple constituencies, in other words, that a bank can maximize the returns to anyone of them. And if a bank does that through multiple cycles, the outcome is even better.

The net result at BB&T, writes Allison, is that “we operate our business in a long-term context by adding value to our clients, employees, and communities and in that context create superior rewards for shareholders.”

In short, while Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke and Ayn Rand may seem like an unlikely source for inspiration in banking, if BB&T’s success is any indication, it’s safe to say they were onto something.