Deposit Costs Creep Up Following Rate Increases

Written by

The rapidly rising interest rate environment is beginning to impact the funding dynamics at banks as deposit competition increases and they pay up for time deposits.

While rising rates are generally good for lending, the unrelenting climb in interest rates hasn’t been uniformly positive for banks. Since the pandemic, many banks have had historic deposit growth and liquidity. The aggressive and continuous rising interest rate environment could change that. 

There was a 1.1% drop in total deposits at all Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.-chartered banks in the third quarter, according to a November report from analysts at Janney Montgomery Scott. Excluding time deposits like certificates of deposits, or CDs, core deposits dropped 2%. But over that time, 40% of banks reported positive deposit growth in excess of 1%. That could mean that as core deposits leave banks, they are growing time deposits. 

The median cost of deposits for banks in the Kroll Bond Rating Agency universe more than doubled in the third quarter to 37 basis points. 

“No longer content with letting the hot money exit, this sharp increase in deposit costs is the product of a strategy of rate increases designed to stem outflows of less sticky or rate sensitive deposits,” wrote KBRA in a Nov. 15 report.  

One reason for this deposit shift is consumers and businesses are leveraging technology to move their funds into higher rate accounts. Core deposit outflows in future quarters could be unpredictable for institutions: they might happen at a faster pace or higher volume than a bank is prepared for, or a few large, important deposit relationships may leave. This could deplete available cash on hand that an institution would use for ongoing operations or to fund new loan opportunities. 

“The last time we went through a significantly rising rate environment, in the 1970s, money market funds did not exist. People were captive to the bank,” says Nate Tobik, CEO of CompleteBankData and author of “The Bank Investor’s Handbook.” “Now we’re [repeating] the ‘70s, except there are alternatives.”

One option banks had in the past to raise short-term liquidity — selling securities marked as available for sale (AFS) — may be off the table for the time being. The bank space carried a total unrealized loss, mostly tied to bonds, of more than $450 billion in the second quarter, according to the FDIC. This loss is recorded outside of net income, in a call report line item called accumulated other comprehensive income. Selling AFS securities right now would mean the bank needs to record the loss. 

“Over the past couple weeks, we have had multiple discussions with community bankers that have been very focused on deposit generation,” wrote attorney Jeffrey Gerrish, of Gerrish Smith Tuck, in a late October client newsletter. “Unfortunately, many of these community banks have a securities portfolio that is so far under water they really don’t see the ability to sell any securities to generate cash because they cannot afford to take the loss. This is a very common scenario and will result in a pretty healthy competition for deposits over the next 12 to 24 months.”

In response, banks will need to consider other options to raise alternative funds fast. Noncore funding can include brokered CDs, wholesale funding or advances from the Federal Home Loan Banks system. Tobik says CDs appeal to banks because they are relatively easy to raise and are “time deterministic” — the funding is locked for the duration of the certificate. 

All of those products come at a higher rate that could erode the bank’s profit margin. 

Another ratio to watch at this time is the liquidity ratio, wrote Janney analysts in a Nov. 21 report. The liquidity ratio, which compares liquid assets to total liabilities, is used by examiners as a more “holistic” alternative to ratios like loans-to-deposits. The median liquidity ratio for all publicly traded banks at the end of the third quarter was 20%, with most banks falling in a distribution curve ranging from 10% to 25%.

The 20% median is still 4% higher than the median ratio in the fourth quarter of 2019. The effective federal funds rate got as high as 2.4% in summer 2019, compared to 3.08% in October. Janney did find that banks between $1 billion and $10 billion had “relatively lower levels” of liquidity compared to their smaller and bigger peers.

But for now, they see little to worry about, but a lot to keep their eyes on. “Our analysis shows that while liquidity has tightened slightly by several measures since a [fourth quarter 2021] peak, banks still maintain much higher levels of liquidity than prior to the pandemic and have plenty of capacity to take on additional wholesale funding as needed to supplement their core funding bases,” they wrote.

Going forward, banks will need to balance the tension between managing their liquidity profile and keeping their cost of funds low. What is the line between excess liquidity and adequate liquidity? How many deposit relationships need to leave any given bank before it starts a liquidity crunch? What is cost of paying more for existing deposits, versus the potential cost of bringing in wholesale or brokered deposits? 

The answers will be different for every bank, but every bank needs to have these answers.

Safeguarding Credit Portfolios in Today’s Uncertain Economic Landscape

Written by

Rising interest rates are impacting borrowers across the nation. The Federal Open Market Committee decided to raise the federal funds rate by 75 basis points in its June, July and September meetings, the largest increases in three decades. Additional increases are expected to come later this year in an attempt to slow demand.

These market conditions present significant potential challenges for community institutions and their commercial borrowers. To weather themselves against the looming storm, community bankers should take proactive steps to safeguard their portfolios and support their borrowers before issues arise.

During uncertain market conditions, it’s even more critical for banks to keep a close pulse on borrower relationships. Begin monitoring loans that may be at risk; this includes loans in construction, upcoming renewals, loans without annual caps on rate increases and past due loans. Initiating more frequent check-ins to evaluate each borrower’s unique situation and anticipated trajectory can go a long way.

Increased monitoring and borrower communication can be strenuous on lenders who are already stretched thin; strategically using technology can help ease this burden. Consider leveraging relationship aggregation tools that can provide more transparency into borrower relationships, or workflow tools that can send automatic reminders of which borrower to check in with and when. Banks can also use automated systems to conduct annual reviews of customers whose loans are at risk. Technology can support lenders by organizing borrower information and making it more accessible. This allows lenders to be more proactive and better support borrowers who are struggling.

Technology is also a valuable tool once loans is classified as special assets. Many banks still use manual, paper-based processes to accomplish time consuming tasks like running queries, filling out spreadsheets and writing monthly narratives.

While necessary for managing special assets, these processes can be cumbersome, inefficient and prone to error even during the best of times — let alone during a potential downturn, a period with little room for error. Banks can use technology to implement workflows that leverage reliable data and automate processes based directly on metrics, policies and configurations to help make downgraded loan management more efficient and accurate.

Fluctuating economic conditions can impact a borrower’s ability to maintain solid credit quality. Every institution has their own criteria for determining what classifies a loan as a special asset, like risk ratings, dollar amounts, days past due and accrual versus nonaccrual. Executives should make time to carefully consider evaluating their current criteria and determine if these rules should be modified to catch red flags sooner. Early action can make a world of difference.

Community banks have long been known for their dependability; in today’s uncertain economic landscape, customers will look to them for support more than ever. Through strategically leveraging technology to make processes more accurate and prioritizing the management of special assets, banks can keep a closer pulse on borrowers’ loans and remain resilient during tough times. While bankers can’t stop a recession, they can better insulate themselves and their customers against one.

3 Ways to Help Businesses Manage Market Uncertainty

Written by

Amid mounting regulatory scrutiny, heightened competition and rising interest rates, senior bank executives are increasingly looking to replace income from Paycheck Protection Program loans, overdrafts and ATM fees, and mortgage originations with other sources of revenue. The right capital markets solutions can enable banks of all sizes to better serve their business customers in times of financial uncertainty, while growing noninterest income.

Economic and geopolitical conditions have created significant market volatility. According to Nasdaq Market Link, since the beginning of the year through June 30, the Federal Reserve lifted rates 150 basis points, and the 10-year Treasury yielded between 1.63% and 3.49%. Wholesale gasoline prices traded between $2.26 and $4.28 per gallon during the same time span. Corn prices rose by as much as 39% from the start of the year, and aluminum prices increased 31% from January 1 but finished down 9% by the end of June. Meanwhile, as of June 30, the U.S. dollar index has strengthened 11% against major currencies from the start of the year.

Instead of worrying about interest rate changes, commodity-based input price adjustments or the changing value of the U.S. dollar, your customers want to focus on their core business competencies. By mitigating these risks with capital market solutions, banks can balance their business customers’ needs for certainty with their own desire to grow noninterest income. Here are three examples:

Interest Rate Hedging
With expectations for future rate hikes, many commercial borrowers prefer fixed rate financing for interest rate certainty. Yet many banks prefer floating rate payments that benefit from rising rates. Both can achieve the institution’s goals. A bank can provide a floating rate loan to its borrower, coupled with an interest rate hedge to mitigate risk. The bank can offset the hedge with a swap dealer and potentially book noninterest income.

Commodity Price Hedging
Many commercial customers — including manufacturers, distributors and retailers — have exposure to various price risks related to energy, agriculture or metals. These companies may work with a commodities futures broker to hedge these risks but could be subject to minimum contract sizes and inflexible contract maturity dates. Today, there are swap dealers willing to provide customized, over-the-counter commodity hedges to banks that they can pass down to their customers. The business mitigates its specific commodity price risk, while the bank generates noninterest income on the offsetting transaction.

International Payments and Foreign Exchange Hedging
Since 76% of companies that conduct business overseas have fewer than 20 employees, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there is a good chance your business customers engage in international trade. While some choose to hedge the risk of adverse foreign exchange movements, all have international payment needs. Banks can better serve these companies by offering access to competitive exchange rates along with foreign exchange hedging tools. In turn, banks can potentially book noninterest income by leveraging a swap dealer for offsetting trades.

Successful banks meet the needs of their customers in any market environment. During periods of significant market volatility, businesses often prefer interest rate, commodity price or foreign exchange rate certainty. Banks of all sizes can offer these capital markets solutions to their clients, offset risks with swap dealers and potentially generate additional income.

How High Inflation, High Rates Will Impact Banking

Written by

In the latest episode of The Slant Podcast, former Comptroller of the Currency Gene Ludwig believes the combination of high inflation and rising interest rates present unique risks to the banking industry. Ludwig expects that higher interest rates will lead to more expensive borrowing for many businesses while also increasing their operating costs. This could ultimately result in “real credit risk problems that we haven’t seen for some time.”

While the banking industry is well capitalized and asset quality levels are still high, Ludwig says the combination of high inflation and rising interest rates will be a challenge for younger bankers who have never experienced an environment like this before.

Ludwig knows a lot about banking, but his journey after leaving the Comptroller of the Currency’s office has been an interesting one. After completing his five-year term as comptroller in 1998, Ludwig could have returned to his old law firm of Covington & Burling LLP and resumed his legal practice. Looking back on it, he says he was motivated by two things. One was to put “food on the table” for his family because he left the comptroller’s office “with negative net worth – [and] it was negative by a lot.”

His other motivation was to find ways of fixing people’s problems from a broader perspective than the law sometimes allows. “I love the practice of law,’’ he says. “It’s intellectually satisfying.” But from his perspective, the law is just one way to solve a problem. Ludwig says he was looking for a way to “solve problems more broadly and bring in lawyers when they’re needed.” This led to a prolonged burst of entrepreneurial activity in which Ludwig established several firms in the financial services space. His best known venture is probably the Promontory Financial Group, a regulatory consulting firm that he eventually sold to IBM.

Ludwig’s most recent initiative is the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity, which he started in 2019. Ludwig believes the American dream has vanished for many median- and low-income families, and the institute has developed a new metric which makes a more accurate assessment of how inflation is hurting those families than traditional measurements such as the Consumer Price Index — which he says drastically understates the impact.

Ludwig hopes the Institute’s work gives policymakers in Washington, D.C., a clearer sense of how desperate the situation is for millions of American families and leads to positive action.

This episode, and all past episodes of The Slant Podcast, are available on Bank Director, Spotify and Apple Music.

Student Loans Come Due

Written by

Just as the Federal Reserve raises rates and inflation hits a 40-year high, Americans with federal student loan debt will start making payments on the debt after a two-year pause. On Aug. 31, the Department of Education will require 41 million people with student loans to begin paying again. 

According to the Federal Reserve, about one in five Americans have federal student loan debt and they saved $5 billion per month from the forbearance. It’s safe to say that a lot of people are going to struggle to restart those payments again and some of them work for banks.

The good news is that there are new employee programs that can help. One CARES Act provision allowed companies to pay up to $5,250 toward an employee’s student loans without a negative tax hit for the employee. Ally Financial, Fidelity Investments, SoFi Technologies, and First Republic Bank are a few of the many financial companies offering this benefit to employees. First Republic launched its program in 2016, after its purchase of the fintech Gradifi, which helps employers repay their employees’ loans. These programs typically pay between $100 and $200 a month on an employee’s loans, and usually have a cap.

The 2020 Bank Director Compensation Survey shows that 29% of financial institutions offered student loan repayment assistance to some or all employees. Many of those programs discontinued when the student forgiveness program started. In the anticipation of government forbearance coming to a close, now is a good time to think about restarting your program or even developing one. 

Americans now hold $1.59 trillion in student loan debt, according to the Federal Reserve. How did we get here? College got more expensive— much more expensive. 

Earlier this summer, the Federal Reserve and Aspen Institute had a joint summit to discuss household debt and its chilling effect on wealth building. The average cost of college tuition and fees at public 4-year institutions has risen 179.2% over the last 20 years for an average annual increase of 9.0%, according to EducationData.org.

At the same time, wages have not shown much inflation-adjusted growth. ProPublica found in 2018 that the real average wage of workers, after accounting for inflation, has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And inflation in 2022 has far outpaced wage increases. Some economists speculate that any pandemic-era wage increases are effectively nullified by this rapid inflation.

Not all borrowers are equally impacted. Sixteen percent of graduates will have a debt-to-income ratio of over 20% from their student loans alone, according to the website lendedu.com, while another 28% will have a DTI of over 15%. The 44% of graduates with that level of debt exiting school will face a steep climb to meaningful wealth building. The students that didn’t graduate will have an even harder climb.

Those graduates who struggle with their student loans will be less likely to buy a home or more likely to delay home ownership. They will be less likely to take on business debt or save for retirement. Housing prices have risen in tandem with education prices. The “starter home” of generations past has become unattainable to many millennial and Gen Z debt holders.

More than half of borrowers owe $20,000 or less. Seven percent of people with federal debt owe more than $100,000, according to The Washington Post. Economists at the Federal Reserve say borrowers with the least amount of debt often have difficulty repaying their loans, especially if they didn’t finish their degree. Conversely, people with the highest loan balances are often current on their payments. It’s likely that people with higher loan debt generally have higher education levels and incomes.

The Aspen Institute published a book known as “The Future of Building Wealth: Brief Essays on the Best Ideas to Build Wealth — for Everyone,” in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. It illuminates long-term solutions for financial planning, focusing on policies and programs that could be applied at a national scale. 

In the absence of these national solutions, some employers are taking the matter into their own hands with company policies designed to help employees with student debt. Those banks are making a difference for their own employees and are part of the solution. 

Getting the Most out of the Profitability Process

Written by

The banking industry is increasingly using profitability measurements and analysis tools, including branch, product, officer and customer levels of profitability analysis.

But a profitability initiative can be a considerable undertaking for an organization from both process and cultural perspectives. One way that institutions can define, design, implement and manage all aspects of a profitability initiative is with a profitability steering committee and charter — yet less than 20% of financial institutions choose to leverage a profitability steering committee, according to the 2020 Profitability Survey from the Financial Managers Society. Over the past 30 years, we have found that implementing a profitability process inherently presents several challenges for institutions, including:

  • Organizational shock, due to a change in focus, culture and potentially compensation.
  • Profitability measurement that can be as much art as it is science.
  • A lack of the right tools, rules and data needed.
  • A lack of knowledge to best measure profitability.
  • A lack of understanding regarding the interpretation and use of results.
  • An overall lack of buy-in from people across the organization.

The best approach for banks to address and overcoming these challenges is to start with the end in mind. The graphic below depicts what this looks like from a profitability initiative perspective. Executives should start from the top left and let each step influence the decisions and needs of the subsequent step. Unfortunately, many organizations start at the bottom right and work their way up to the left. This is analogous to driving without a destination in mind, or directions for where you want to go.

The best way for banks to work through the above process, and all the related nuances and decisions, to ensure the successful implementation of a profitability initiative is by creating and leveraging a profitability steering committee and related charter. There are three primary components of a profitability steering committee and charter. The first task for the committee is to define the overall purpose and scope of the profitability initiative. This includes:

  • Defining the goals of the steering committee.
  • Outlining the governance of the initiative.
  • Defining how the profitability results will be used.

The committee’s next step is to define the structure of the profitability process, including:

  • The employees or roles that will receive profitability results, based on the decisions to be made, the results they will identify, any needed metrics and reports and any examples of reports.
  • The tool selection process, including determining whether an existing tool exists or if the bank needs a new tool, documenting system/tool requirements, creating the procurement process details and ownership of the tool.
  • Deciding and documenting governance concerns that relate to profitability rules, including identifying the primary owner of the rules, the types of rules needed (net interest margin, costs, fees, provision or capital), the process for proposing and approving rules, any participants in the process and any education, if needed.
  • Identifying the data needs and related processes for the initiative, such as the types of data needed, the sources and process for providing that data, ownership of the data process and the priority and timelines for each data type.

The committee’s final step focuses on the communication and training needs for the profitability initiative, including defining:

  • A training plan for stakeholders.
  • A communication plan that includes how executive will support for the initiative, a summary of the goals, decisions that need to be made, and any expectations and timelines, as well as details of the process, as needed.
  • An escalation process for handling questions, issues or disputes, and the role that committee members are expected to play in the escalation process.
  • The help and support, such as personnel and documents. that will be available.

Additional Best Practices
When creating a profitability steering committee and related charter, we have found it helpful to consider the following items as appropriate:

  • If profitability results will be included as part of individual or team incentive compensation, be sure to work through the necessary details, such as process flows, additional reporting, required integration points and data flows, dispute management, additional education and training, among others.
  • Consider aligning any metrics, approaches and reporting structures if the budgeting and planning process forecasts profitability.
  • Document plans for assessing the profitability initiative over time.
  • Finally, keep it suitably simple. Expect to be asked to explain the initiative’s approaches, details and results; the bank can always increase the precision and/or complexity over time.

Inflation, Interest Rates and ‘Inevitable’ Recession Complicate Risks

Written by

What is the bigger risk to banks: inflation, or the steps the Federal Reserve is taking to bring it to heel?

Community banks are buffeted by an increasingly complicated operating environment, said speakers at Bank Director’s 2022 Bank Audit and Risk Committees Conference in Chicago, held June 13 to 15. In rather fortuitous timing, the conference occurred in advance of the Federal Reserve’s Federal Open Market Committee’s June meeting, where expectations were high for another potential increase in the federal funds rate. 

On one hand, inflation remains high. On the other hand, rapidly increasing interest rates aimed at interrupting inflation are also increasing risk for banks — and could eventually put the economy into a tailspin. Accordingly, interest rates and the potential for a recession were the biggest issues that could impact banks over the next 12 to 18 months, according to a pop up poll of some 250 people attending the event.  

Brandon Koeser, a financial services senior analyst at audit and consulting firm RSM US, said that inflation is the “premier risk” to the economic outlook right now. He called the consumer price index trend line “astonishing” — and its upward path may still have some momentum, given persistently high energy prices. Just days prior, on June 10, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the CPI increased 1% in May, to 8.6% over the last 12 months. 

Koeser also pointed out that inflation is morphing, broadening from goods into services. That “rotation” creates a stickiness in the market that will be harder for the Federal Reserve to fight, increasing the odds that inflation persists.

It is “paramount” that the economy regain some semblance of price stability, Koeser said. In response, central bankers are increasing the pace, and potential size, of federal fund rate increases. But jacking up rates to lower prices without causing a recession is a blunt approach akin to “trying to thread a needle wearing boxing gloves,” he said.

While higher interest rates are generally good for banks, an inflationary environment could dampen loan growth while intensifying interest rate and credit risk, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s 2022 Risk Review. Inflation could lead consumers to cut back on spending, leading to lower business sales, and it could make it harder for borrowers to afford their payments.

At the same time, banks awash in pandemic liquidity added longer-term assets in 2021 in an attempt to capture some yield. Assets with maturities that were longer than three years made up 39% of assets at banks in 2021, compared with 36% in 2019, according to the FDIC. Community banks were even more vulnerable. Longer-term assets made up 52% of total assets at community banks at the end of 2021.

Managing this interest rate risk could be a challenge for banks that lack institutional knowledge of this unique environment. Kyle Manny, a partner at audit and consulting firm Plante Moran, pointed out that many banks are staffed with individuals who weren’t working in the industry in the 1980s or prior. He shared an anecdote of a seasoned banker who admitted he was “caught flat footed” by taking too much risk on the yield curve in the securities portfolio, and was now paying the price after the fair value of those assets fell. 

And high enough rates may ultimately send the economy into a recession. In Koeser’s poll of the audience, about 34% of audience members believe a recession will occur within the next six months; another 36% saw one as likely occurring in the next six to 12 months. Koeser said he doesn’t think it’s “impossible” for the central bank to avert a recession with a soft landing — but the margin for error is getting so small that a downturn may be “inevitable.”

Banks have limited options in the face of such macroeconomic trends, but they can still manage their own credit risk. David Ruffin, principal at credit risk analytics firm IntelliCredit, a division of Qwickrate, said that credit metrics today are the most “pristine” he had seen in his nearly 50 years in the industry. Still, the impact of the coronavirus pandemic and inflation could hide emerging credit risk on community bank portfolios. Kamal Mustafa, chairman of the strategic advisory firm Invictus Group, advised bankers to dig into their loan categories, industry by industry, to analyze how different borrowers will be impacted by these countervailing forces. Not all businesses in a specific industry will be impacted equally, he said.

So while banks can’t control the environment, they can at least understand their own loan books. 

The Opposite of Blissfully Unaware

Written by

There’s been an increasingly common refrain from bank executives as the United States moves into the second half of 2022: Risk and uncertainty are increasing.

For now, things are good: Credit quality is strong, consumer spending is robust and loan pipelines are healthy. But all that could change.

The president and chief operating officer of The Goldman Sachs Group, John Waldron, called it “among — if not the most —complex, dynamic environments” he’s seen in his career. And Jamie Dimon, chair and CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., changed his economic forecast from “big storm clouds” on the horizon to “a hurricane” in remarks he gave on June 1. While he doesn’t know if the impact will be a “minor one or Superstorm Sandy,” the bank is “bracing” itself and planning to be “very conservative” with its balance sheet.

Bankers are also pulling forward their expectations of when the next recession will come, according to a sentiment survey conducted at the end of May by the investment bank Hovde Group. In the first survey, conducted at the end of March, about 9% of executives expected a recession by the end of 2022 and 26.6% expected a recession by the end of June 2023. Sixty days later, nearly 23% of expect a recession by the end of 2022 and almost 51% expect one by the end of June 2023.

“More than 75% of the [regional and community bank management teams] we surveyed [believe] we will be in a recession in the next 12 months,” wrote lead analyst Brett Rabatin.

“[B]anks face downside risks from inflation or slower-than-expected economic growth,” the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. wrote in its 2022 Risk Review. Higher inflation could squeeze borrowers and compromise credit quality; it could also increase interest rate risk in bank security portfolios.

Risk is everywhere, and it is rising. This only adds to the urgency surrounding the topics that we’ll discuss at Bank Director’s Bank Audit & Risk Committees Conference, taking place June 13 through 15 at the Marriott Magnificent Mile in Chicago. We’ll explore issues such as the top risks facing banks over the next 18 months, how institutions can take advantage of opportunities while leveraging an environmental, social and governance framework, and how executives can balance loan growth and credit quality. We’ll also look at strategic and operational risk and opportunities for boards.

In that way, the uncertainty we are experiencing now is really a gift of foresight. Already, there are signs that executives are responding to the darkening outlook. Despite improved credit quality across the industry, provision expenses in the first quarter of 2022 swung more than $19.7 billion year over year, from a negative $14.5 billion during last year’s first quarter to a positive $5.2 billion this quarter, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.’s quarterly banking profile. It is impossible to know if, and when, the economy will tip into a recession, but it is possible to prepare for a bad outcome by increasing provisions and allowances.

“It’s the opposite of ‘blissfully unaware,’” writes Morgan Housel, a partner at the investment firm The Collaborative Fund, in a May 25 essay. “Uncertainty hasn’t gone up this year; complacency has come down. People are more aware that the future could go [in any direction], that what’s prosperous today can evaporate tomorrow, and that predictions that seemed assured a few months ago can look crazy today. That’s always been the case. But now we’re keenly aware of it.”

Are Fixed-Rate Loans the Quick Fix?

Written by

Commercial fixed-rate loans can be an alluring quick fix for the net interest margin pressure that many banks face today, but could expose banks to several risks while providing tepid returns.

Future earnings are largely out of the bank’s control. While the current yield of a fixed-rate loan can look attractive relative to the historic lows of short-term funding costs, its long-term return is highly dependent on the future path of short-term interest rates. When interest rates increase, the spread between the yield earned on a fixed-rate loan and the ongoing funding cost for a bank decreases — and could even go negative.

While banks have some control over funding costs, the largest factors that influence short-term funding rates are external: central bank monetary policy, inflation expectations and the overall business cycle. None of these factors are controlled by any individual bank, which means the ongoing net yield of a fixed-rate loan depends on factors outside your bank’s control.

Prepayment penalties often do not protect banks. Bank executives should temper expectations that prepayment penalties protect bank income or influence borrower behavior for fixed-rate loans. Many borrowers negotiate limited prepayment provisions in advance, or ask that prepayment penalties be fully or partially waived when refinancing. Additionally, fixed-rate borrowers are most likely to prepay when refinancing lowers their borrowing cost. These realities mean borrower prepayments often result in the loss of higher-yielding loans with little or no compensation to banks.

Interest rates and prepayments have a unique relationship that can reduce returns. Higher interest rates generally mean higher funding costs and lower prepayments, while lower interest rates result in lower funding costs and higher loan prepayments. In other words, a fixed-rate loan is most likely to remain on-balance sheet when interest rates are high and a bank would prefer it go away, but pay off quickly when interest rates are low and a bank would prefer it stay. This inverse relationship between interest rates and prepayments can significantly reduce the lifetime earnings of a fixed-rate loan.

There are tools to help. Below are some strategies that banks can use to reduce the risks of fixed-rate loans:

  • Consider a customer swap program. Banks can offer borrowers a pay-fixed interest rate swap paired with a floating-rate loan instead of originating a traditional fixed-rate loan. The borrower ends up with a fixed rate; the bank books a floating rate asset that is less sensitive to future interest rate movements. These programs can also be a significant source of non-interest fee income. Modern capital markets technology and advisory companies enable banks of all sizes to offer loan-level hedging programs to qualifying commercial clients.
  • Hedge large deals on a one-off basis. Banks can use an interest rate swap to transform the return of an individual loan from fixed to floating. The borrower maintains a conventional fixed-rate borrowing structure. Separately, the bank executes a pay-fixed swap that effectively converts the loan interest to a variable rate that aligns more closely with its funding costs. While this strategy can be used on any fixed-rate loan, it can be particularly prudent for larger and longer-term transactions.
  • Use longer-duration funding. Banks can borrow for longer terms to match fixed-rate loan maturities, or “match fund,” to reduce interest rate risk. Banks can either issue new longer-term funding vehicles or use interest rate swaps to synthetically convert the maturity of existing short-term funding instruments to longer-duration liabilities. While match funding does not address fixed-rate loan prepayment risks, it does help mitigate some of the earnings risk associated with fixed-rate loans.

How does your bank evaluate fixed-rate loans? Fixed-rate loans are not inherently bad. A well-diversified balance sheet will include a mix of fixed- and floating-rate loans. But originating an outsized portfolio of commercial fixed-rate loans comes with risks that banks should properly evaluate. How is your bank managing the risks associated with fixed-rate loans? Are you booking deals as a quick fix to get through this quarter, or building a safe balance sheet with steady earnings for the future?

With Sector Primed to Consolidate Further, Large Mergers Magnify Opportunity, Risk

Written by

The highly competitive and regulated US banking industry has grown increasingly concentrated over the past few decades, and continued ultralow interest rates will spur increased consolidation over at least the next two years, particularly among small and midsized banks that rely heavily on net interest income. Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) offer these banks opportunity to achieve greater scale, efficiency and profitability, a credit positive, but also introduce execution and integration risks that can erode these benefits.

Low interest rates are not the sole driver of consolidation but they increase the likelihood of a jump in M&A activity. The pace of sector consolidation slowed in 2020 as the coronavirus pandemic subdued business activity. But small and mid-sized banks retain a particular motivation to pursue M&A because their earnings potential rests more heavily on net interest income, which is hobbled in the current low interest rate environment. Other motivations for M&A include opportunities to cut expenses and the need to obtain and invest in emerging technologies.

In-market transactions present the greatest cost-saving opportunities. Acquisition targets that present the opportunity for efficiency gains have greater relative value. They are also easier for management teams to assess and evaluate, particularly because loan growth and business activity remain hard to forecast in the present economic environment. Branch reductions are a primary means of reducing expenses.

Banks have warmed up to larger deals and so-called ‘mergers of equals.’ The attractiveness of these transactions has grown in the past couple of years, partly because of favorable equity market response. However, execution risk grows with the size of a transaction because issues such as cultural fit become more prominent, with the potential to erode the credit benefits of the combination.

Click here to explore these trends further as part of Moody’s research.