FDIC issues its First Quarter 2022 Quarterly Banking Profile

Read this if you are a plan sponsor of employee benefit plans.

UPDATE: On December 1, 2022, the proposed rule was finalized with changes and will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register (therefore, January 30, 2023).

The Department of Labor (DOL) is preparing to finalize a proposed rule that changes the way environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors are viewed in a plan sponsor’s investment process and proxy voting methods. The proposal, which was issued in October 2021, aims to help plan sponsors understand their responsibilities when investing in ESG strategies and makes significant changes to two previously issued ESG rules.

Here, we provide an update on the DOL’s proposed rule and seek to help plan sponsors understand their potential new responsibilities when considering ESG investments. 

Background on ESG rules

For many years, the DOL has considered how non-financial factors, such as the effects of climate change, may affect plan sponsors’ fiduciary obligations. Amid an increasing focus on ESG investments, the Trump administration issued a final rule on ESG in November 2020 that required plan fiduciaries to only consider financial returns on investments—and to disregard non-financial factors like environmental or social effects. The rule also banned plan sponsors from using ESG investments as the Qualified Default Investment Alternative (QDIA).

A separate ruling issued in December 2020 said that managing proxy and shareholder duties (for investments within the plan) should be done for the sole benefit of the participants and beneficiaries—not for environmental or social advancements. It also stated that fiduciaries weren’t required to vote on every proxy and exercise every shareholder right.

In March 2021, the Biden Administration said it would not enforce the previous year’s rulings until it finished its own review. The current proposed rule is the result of that research.

Overview of the new proposed ESG rule

In October 2021, the DOL proposed a new rule, “Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights.” According to the proposed rule, fiduciaries may be required to consider the economic effects of climate change and other ESG factors when making investment decisions and exercising proxy voting and other shareholder rights. The proposal states that fiduciaries must consider ESG issues when they are material to an investment’s risk/return profile. The rule also reversed a previous provision on QDIAs, paving the way for ESG investment options to be used in automatic enrollment as long as such investment options meet QDIA requirements.

The new ESG rule also made several changes to fiduciaries’ responsibilities when exercising shareholder rights. First, it changed a provision on proxy voting, giving fiduciaries more responsibility in deciding whether voting is in the best interest of the plan. Second, it removed two “safe harbor” examples of proxy voting policies. Next, the proposed rule eliminated fiduciaries’ need to monitor third-party proxy voting services. Lastly, the proposal removed the requirement to keep detailed records on proxy voting and other shareholder rights.

In addition, the DOL updated the “tie-breaker test” to allow fiduciaries the ability to choose an investment that has separate benefits (e.g., ESG factors) if competing investments equally serve the financial interests of the plan.

Comment letter analysis shows broad support for the proposed rule

The DOL received more than 22,000 comment letters for the proposed regulation. Ninety-seven percent of respondents support the proposed changes according to an analysis of the comment letters by the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment (US SIF), a membership association that promotes sustainable investing. While some respondents asked the DOL to revisit the tie-breaker provision and other specifics of the proposed rule, many respondents agreed that the proposed rule clears the way for fiduciaries to consider adding ESG investment options to benefit plans.

Insight: Consider how the proposed ESG rule affects your plan today

Based on the typical timeline for similar rule changes, the DOL is expected to issue its final version of the proposed rule by mid- to late-2022. This means that plan sponsors shouldn’t have to wait long for clarification on their ability to add ESG investments to their plans. To prepare for the potential changes, plan sponsors should review the proposed rule and consider creating a prudent selection process that reviews all aspects that are relevant to an investment’s risk and return profile. As always, documentation is a critical step in this process.

If you have any questions about your specific situation, please reach out to our employee benefit consulting team. We're here to help.

Read this if you are a community bank.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently issued its second quarter 2022 Quarterly Banking Profile. The report provides financial information based on call reports filed by 4,771 FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions. The report also contains a section specific to community bank performance. In second quarter 2022, this section included the financial information of 4,333 FDIC-insured community banks. BerryDunn’s key takeaways from the report are as follows:

Community banks see quarterly growth in net income despite year-over-year decline.

Community bank quarterly net income increased to $7.6 billion in second quarter 2022, despite being down $523.0 million from one year ago. Higher noninterest expense, lower noninterest income, and higher provision expense offset growth in net interest income. Nearly three-quarters of community banks reported higher net income than one quarter ago. More than two-thirds of community banks reported an increase in net interest income from the year-ago quarter.

Loan and lease balances continue to show widespread growth in second quarter 2022.

Community banks saw a $82.3 billion increase in loan and lease balances from first quarter 2022. All major loan categories except commercial & industrial (C&I) and agricultural production grew year over year, and 69.9% of community banks reported annual loan growth. Total loan and lease balances increased $125.4 billion, or 7.7%, from one year ago. Excluding Paycheck Protection Program loans, annual total loan growth would have been 14.0% and annual C&I growth would have been 21.9%.

Community bank net interest margin (NIM) increased to 3.33% due to strong interest income growth.

Community bank NIM increased eight basis points from the year-ago quarter and 22 basis points from first quarter 2022. Net interest income growth exceeded the pace of average earning asset growth. The average yield on earning assets rose 25 basis points while the average cost of funding earning assets rose three basis points from the previous quarter. The quarterly increase in NIM was the largest reported since second quarter 1985. However, NIM remains below the pre-pandemic average of 3.63%. 

Slightly more than half of community banks reported quarter-over-quarter reductions in noncurrent loan balances.

The allowance for credit losses (ACL) as a percentage of total loans and leases decreased six basis points from the year-ago quarter to 1.25%. The coverage ratio for community banks is 46.4 percentage points above the coverage ratio for noncommunity banks. The coverage ratio increased 54.1 percentage points from the year-ago quarter to 245.4%, a record high since Quarterly Banking Profile data collection began in first quarter 1984.

It has been a time of momentous change for the banking industry; this has been the case since the pandemic but continues to hold true. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) had already risen the target federal funds rate by 225 basis points in 2022 at the time of writing this summary, with further increases throughout the remainder of 2022 anticipated. Although rising rates have been the largest contributor to strengthening net interest margins, the impact these rate increases will have on the long-term economy is still to be seen.

Inflation also continues to run rampant, with rate increases thus far seeming to be ineffective in slowing inflation. The continued inflation has many wondering if rate increases are not the answer and that there may be other, inalterable forces at play. If this is the case, the FOMC’s target rate increases could have the effect of worsening an economic slowdown. Furthermore, although loan growth remained relatively strong in quarter two, deposit growth waned. Community banks saw only a 0.4% increase in deposits from a quarter ago. This has put some institutions in a liquidity crunch, having to rely more heavily on wholesale funding to fund loan growth. However, making funding decisions has proven to be difficult, given the economic uncertainty and potential target rate increases.

Community banks will have to continue to remain vigilant and remain a resource to their customers. Banks’ customers are facing many of the same challenges that banks are facing—interest rate uncertainty, rising costs, staffing shortages, etc. Therefore, as we’ve previously mentioned, it continues to be important for banks to maintain open dialogue with customers. As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team if you have any questions. You can also visit our Ask the Advisor page to submit your questions.

Read this if you are a chief executive officer, chief operations officer, or chief retail officer at a financial institution.

There’s been much buzz around the recent announcement by the Biden administration that up to $20,000 in federal student loans will be cancelled for low- to middle-income families. And, rightfully so, as the debt cancellation is anticipated to be eligible for up to 43 million Americans with roughly 20 million borrowers expected to have their remaining student loan debt eliminated entirely.¹ Although the relief does not apply to private loans, financial institutions should see this as an opportunity to enhance the customer experience. 

Trusted advisors 

Financial institutions are often seen as trusted advisors by their customers and may be a go-to resource for customers when making financial decisions. Debt cancellation of up to $20,000 can have a major financial impact on households, especially provided relief is only eligible to borrowers with household income below $250,000 ($125,000 for individuals).² And, with roughly 20 million borrowers expected to have their remaining student loan debt eliminated, this may free up significant monthly cash flow for those borrowers. Even though student loan repayments have been on hold for the past couple of years for many borrowers, the cancellation of this debt may free up deposits those borrowers had set aside in anticipation of the recommencement of loan payments. Now that this remaining debt is expected to be forgiven, how might they use this debt forgiveness to better their financial health? Community banks and credit unions are in the driver’s seat to assist customers in making this decision.

Data analytics

With the onset of data analytics—the understanding of how transaction, financial, and other information may be used to understand customer needs—many financial institutions are well-positioned to recommend services tailored to each customer. Although making sense of this data and putting it into something actionable can be challenging, the rewards can be tremendous. For instance, analyzing spending habits or cash flow trends can equip an institution with the insights needed to assist a customer when asked how best to deploy this excess wealth. Do they have any loans with your institution they should pay off or pay down? Given the current interest rate environment, this may also prove to be beneficial for the institution, as it could then re-deploy these funds at a higher interest rate. 

Knowing your customer

A simpler approach than using data analytics to provide actionable insights is just simply knowing your customer. This is something community financial institutions excel at and is one of their biggest value propositions. When working on financial institution audits, we often ask about specific customers as part of our audit procedures. I am always awed by our clients’ ability to provide one of their customer's stories on a whim. Bankers have well-developed relationships with their customers. Customers are neighbors, restaurant servers, bartenders, firefighters, the list goes on. These are people bankers see out in their communities—you may even have children that go to the same school together. The point I am trying to make is that these relationships are much deeper than any relationship data analytics can provide. What major life events are your customers anticipating? A wedding? A child? A vacation? Needing a new car? These are all items that data analytics may not be able to tell you but personal relationships with your customer, and general knowledge about your community, will. How can you, as their trusted advisor, provide them opportunities to save for these major life events? I don’t want to discount the importance of data analytics but, I also want to stress the importance of these personal relationships. However, combined, they create a powerful tool for community bankers.

Knowing your customer—an example

As an example, you may know your customer is planning for a wedding and that they took some wedding wish-list items off their list because they couldn't afford them. Does the proposed debt cancellation allow your customer to now afford—or save for—some of these items? You may not know the answer simply based off previous conversations with the customer but, a quick phone call and discussion will provide you with an answer. And, even if the answer is: “No, this does not change my wedding budget,” it at least shows them that you were looking out for your customer and being proactive. 

Knowing your customer combined with data analytics—an example

Taking this example a step further, what if you had data analytics that displayed your customer’s spending habits? Is there a way to query payment transactions that would allow you to identify which customers have federal student loans? This information, paired with your knowledge gained from knowing the customer, allows you to provide targeted, actionable insights. Knowing their monthly cash flow, what loans they have outstanding (based on cash outflows), and deposit balances, you can be more strategic in your outreach, not only in who you reach out to but how you structure your outreach. For instance, could a customer benefit from using those forgiven student loan payments to now pay down other debt carried at higher interest rates?  Or, going back to an earlier example, if you know when the customer’s wedding is and their monthly net cash flow, is there a deposit product you could sign them up for that would allow them to work towards affording some of their wedding wish-list items that previously couldn’t be afforded?

Saving for retirement

Another aspect to consider is saving for retirement. Although borrowers are eligible for loan forgiveness of up to $20,000, most will likely only be eligible for $10,000 in forgiveness, as the $20,000 is only for Pell Grant recipients.² To some customers, $10,000 may not seem like a lot. But, when considering the time value of money, a customer’s perception may change. Using an example from a recent Accounting Today article¹, a 40-year-old man is expected to live to 81.5 years old. Therefore, assuming an annual return of 6% over 40 years, $10,000 can turn into more than $110,000 over four decades. Those who live to 90 can turn $10,000 into more than $200,000. Institutions with wealth management divisions may find colleagues who have great suggestions on how best to approach these conversations. Even if the customer has short-term spending needs/desires, as many do, steering these forgiven student loan payments towards retirement may be the most prudent decision. But sometimes a customer needs to see the potential impact plotted out and hear it from an outside, trusted source.

Customers with loan repayments restarting

To this point, the discussion has been on those customers that will benefit from loan forgiveness. But what about those that will not benefit as well as those that will only partially benefit (i.e., the entirety of their loan balance will not be forgiven)? Loan repayments are set to recommence in January 2023. Many borrowers haven’t had to make loan payments for over two years and some newer college graduates have never had to make a loan payment. These loan payments could come as a shock to those who have never made such a payment, as well as to those who previously had, if their spending habits have changed due to loan forbearance. There are two different perspectives to consider for these customers: credit risk and, sticking with the theme of the article, the customer experience.

Credit risk

The end of the loan forbearance period could have a significant impact on certain customers’ financial situations. For some, it could be the make-or-break point on being able to make their loan payments on other loans, possibly some of which are with your institution. Does the recommencement of these student loan payments change your customer’s risk profile? Do they now require closer monitoring?

Customer experience

Closely linked to credit risk, financial institutions should also see the recommencement of student loan payments as an opportunity to enhance the customer experience. Financial institutions should be proactive in reaching out to customers they know will be impacted to see if they feel prepared. This may be a difficult conversation to have but, it is one your customers will likely appreciate. If they aren’t prepared, are there steps the institution can take to assist the customer? Deposit products may again be worth mentioning to customers. Or, for those severely impacted, does the institution need to consider workout agreements with such customers? This provides a prime opportunity to work with your institution’s collections and credit risk departments. Keeping them in the loop (and vice versa) will help provide a seamless customer experience.

Institutions should also consider if this presents itself as a larger marketing opportunity, to attract new business. Although marketing decisions are generally based on potential return on investment (ROI), the ROI in this case may not quite be there, given the relatively small amounts. However, is this an opportunity for your institution to highlight its financial advisory services? 

In closing

For something that seems so simple on the surface, there is a lot to consider once you start diving in. Financial institutions have a big role to play and should see this as an opportunity to increase what are hopefully already strong relationships with customers. For those customers anticipating debt cancellation, financial institutions should essentially ask themselves: how can customers utilize their debt cancellation in a way that makes the most sense for them given their current financial situation and anticipated life events? For those that aren’t anticipating debt cancellation, financial institutions have an opportunity to be proactive. This proactivity will not only benefit the institution but will also show the institution is prepared and cares about assisting their customers and helping them transition back into student loan payments as smoothly as possible. 

This is a lot to unravel, especially in such a short time. As always, your BerryDunn Financial Services team is here to assist. Also, please feel free to reach out via our Ask the Advisor feature.

¹How student loan relief can turbocharge retirement savings | Accounting Today
²The Biden-Harris Administration's Student Debt Relief Plan Explained (studentaid.gov)

Read this if you are a Chief Compliance Officer at a broker-dealer.

On August 3, 2022, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued Regulatory Notice 22-18 (the Notice), which addresses the increasing number of reports regarding registered representatives and associated persons (representatives) forging or falsifying customer signatures, and in some cases signatures of colleagues or supervisors, through third-party digital signature platforms. The Notice details multiple FINRA Rules that may be violated in the case of a forgery or falsification and also provides five scenarios member firms reported to FINRA in which representatives forged or falsified customer signatures, including the methods firms used to identify the forgeries or falsifications. The detection methods outlined are:

• Customer inquiries or complaint investigations
• Digital signature audit trail reviews
• Email correspondence reviews
• Administrative staff inquiries
• Customer authentication supervision

There is no doubt that digital signatures provide convenience for customers. But this convenience can sometimes lead to unethical or non-compliant behavior. Even situations that representatives believe pass the “straight face” test may be considered non-compliance under FINRA regulations. Member firms should review the Notice carefully and implement some of FINRA’s detection methods, if not already implemented. Some of these methods are likely already in place since they may be duplicative of methods used to satisfy other FINRA Rules. For instance, reviewing customer inquiries or complaints is likely already occurring to satisfy FINRA Rule 4530, Reporting Requirements. As always, if any questions arise, please don’t hesitate to reach out to BerryDunn’s broker-dealer services team.

Read this if you are a Chief Financial Officer or Controller at a financial institution.

Back in April, we wrote about recently released Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2022-02, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326). Here, we are going to look at the standard in more depth. 

One of the most notable items this ASU addresses, is that it eliminates the often tedious troubled debt restructuring (TDR) accounting and disclosure requirements. Accounting for loan modifications will now be maintained under extant US generally accepted accounting principles, specifically Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 310-20-35-9 through 35-11. However, rather than eliminate loan modification disclosure requirements altogether, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) created some new requirements, inspired by voluntary disclosures many financial institutions made during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Rather than disclosing information on TDRs, financial institutions will now be required to disclose information on loan modifications that were in the form of principal forgiveness, an interest rate reduction, an other-than-insignificant payment delay, or a term extension (or a combination thereof) made to debtors experiencing financial difficulty. These disclosures must be made regardless of whether a modification to a debtor experiencing financial difficulty results in a new loan or not. 

ASC 310-10-50-42 through 50-44 establishes these new disclosure requirements, and ASC 310-10-55-12A provides an example of the required disclosures. 

Financial institutions have long had internal controls surrounding the determination of TDRs given the impact such restructurings can have on the allowance for credit losses and financial statement disclosures. Banks may find they are able to leverage those controls to satisfy the new modification disclosures, with only minor adjustments. Similar to previous TDR determinations, the above disclosures are only required for modifications to debtors experiencing financial difficulty. Therefore, financial institutions will need to have a process —or defined set of parameters—in place to determine debtor “financial difficulty”, thus triggering the need for modification disclosure. Banks may also find that the specific data gathered for preparation of these new disclosures will change, but should be readily available, with (hopefully) only minor manipulation required.

ASU No. 2022-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal years—the same effective date for those who have not yet adopted ASU No. 2016-13, more commonly referred to as CECL (Current Expected Credit Loss). As always, if you have any questions as to how this new ASU may impact your financial institution, please reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team or submit a question via our Ask the Advisor feature.

Read this if you are a depository institution.

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) matters are all the rage right now. From new disclosures to personal, professional, investor, and social media pressures, ESG presents itself as a vast topic, encompassing many facets of an organization. It can be daunting to even know where to begin ESG efforts. 

ESG issues seem pervasive and may be best thought of as residing on a spectrum, with some industries further along this spectrum than others. However, each industry can make its own mark, with initiatives that can propel it along the ESG spectrum. Even within one industry, individual organizations may have their own initiatives and areas of focus. Equal importance does not need be given to the E, the S, and the G, and some industries may be better equipped to address one of these pillars over the others. We would like to share what we believe to be four areas of opportunity for banks as they think about ESG, their customers, and their employees.

Credit decisions

Many financial institutions currently base credit decisions on an array of financial metrics of the prospective borrower. Their reviews include financial forecasts, historical financial results, collateral values, etc., all with the intent of predicting if the prospective borrower will be able to repay the credit. Given the increasing regulatory and social pressure regarding ESG, bankers should be aware of how ESG requirements and industry initiatives could impact a borrower’s financial condition. For instance, consider the following:

• Where does the prospective borrower reside on the ESG spectrum, collectively and individually (the separate E, the S, and the G spectrums)? 
• If they are a carbon-intensive company, what additional risks does that pose to the relationship, if any? (E)
  • Are there pending regulations (or fines) that could significantly impact their operations?
  • Although their finances may be strong currently, are there alternative products or services that are seen as “greener” that may jeopardize future profits and cash flows?
  • If the company plans to become less carbon-intensive, either voluntarily or out of necessity, are there significant costs anticipated to be incurred during this transition?
• Do they have, or anticipate, community investment initiatives? (S)
• Are they viewed as a reputable company in their respective communities? (S)
• Is there adequate board and executive management oversight? (G)

ESG-specific products

Financial institutions can reward borrowers for their stewardship. This concept is not new, as “green bonds” have been around for years to incentivize climate and environmental projects. Some financial institutions, such as TD Bank and Barclays, offer preferred interest rates to ESG-conscious borrowers, such as those that purchase houses that meet certain energy efficiency ratings. Financial institutions could further expand on this idea and offer loans earmarked for certain ESG-related purposes, such as development of low-carbon manufacturing techniques or investment in the company’s workforce. Such products can be a great way to position your financial institution as an ESG leader in the community and assist borrowers on their ESG journey. 

Financial institutions can act as a connector for like-minded parties

Financial institutions are in a unique position, as aside from the borrower themselves, a financial institution likely knows the most about the borrower’s business. Financial institutions may become aware of customers further along their ESG journeys and could help connect those resources to other customers who may want to know and learn more. Customers are increasingly looking for more from their financial institution outside of traditional banking services. Given their unique position, financial institutions are best equipped to act as a connector for like-minded parties. 

Customers and employees may want their supply chain/employer to be ESG conscious

Customers, whether they be individuals or businesses, and employees are increasingly considering the actions of potential vendors and employers before partnering with them. Likely a result of their own ESG mission, customers are starting to realize that, even if they feel as if they are ESG conscious, it is their responsibility to also hold their vendors accountable. Therefore, customers may elect to go to another financial institution that is more ESG conscious even if your financial institution offers a better product. Employees are also factoring this into employment decisions. Employees want to feel as if they are part of a larger mission. Focusing on ESG could give your financial institution a competitive advantage.

When considering ESG matters, some believe they are faced with two mutually exclusive decisions: (1) what makes the most sense financially, and (2) what will propel our organization further along the ESG spectrum? What some leading companies have found, however, is that by focusing first on where they lie on the ESG spectrum and defining where they want to be in the future helps clarify future decision-making so that cost and ESG progress are aligned rather than opposing forces. As always, BerryDunn’s Financial Services team is here to help.

Read this if you are a financial institution.

As you know by now, ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), better known as the CECL standard, has already been implemented for some and will soon be implemented for all others (fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022 to be exact). During your implementation process, the focus has likely been on your loan portfolio, and rightfully so, as CECL overhauls 40+ years of loan loss reserve practices. But, recall that the CECL standard applies to all financial instruments carried at amortized cost. So, it therefore includes held-to-maturity (HTM) debt securities. And, although not carried at amortized cost, the CECL standard also makes targeted enhancements to available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities. As if re-hauling your entire allowance methodology wasn’t enough! Before tearing out your hair because of another CECL-related change, let’s quickly review what is currently required for securities, and then focus on how this will change when you implement CECL.

Current US GAAP

Under current US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), direct write-downs on HTM and AFS debt securities are recorded when (1) a security’s fair value has declined below its amortized cost basis and (2) the impairment is deemed other-than-temporary. This assessment must be completed on an individual debt security basis. Providing a general allowance for unidentified impairment in a portfolio of securities is not appropriate. The previous amortized cost basis less the other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) recognized in earnings becomes the new amortized cost basis and subsequent recoveries of OTTI may not be directly reversed into interest income. Rather, subsequent recoveries of credit losses must be accreted into interest income.

CECL: Held-to-maturity securities

Then comes along CECL  and changes everything. Once the CECL standard is implemented, expected losses on HTM debt securities will be recorded immediately through an allowance for credit loss (ACL) account, rather than as a direct write-down of the security’s cost basis. These securities should be evaluated for risk of loss over the life of the securities. Another key difference from current GAAP is that securities with similar risk characteristics will need to be assessed for credit losses collectively, or on a pool basis, not on an individual basis as currently prescribed. Also, contrary to current GAAP, since expected losses will be recorded through an ACL account, subsequent improvements in cash flow expectations will be immediately recognized through earnings via a reduction in the ACL account. CECL effectively eliminates the direct write-down method, with write-offs only occurring when the security, or a portion thereof, is deemed to be uncollectible. 

In practice, there may be some types of HTM debt securities that your institution believes have no risk of nonpayment and thus risk of loss is zero. An example may be a US Treasury debt security or possibly a debt security guaranteed by a government-sponsored enterprise, such as Ginnie Mae or Freddie Mac. In these instances, it is acceptable to conclude that no allowance on such securities is necessary. However, such determination should be documented and changes to the credit situation of these securities should be closely monitored.

Financial institutions that have already implemented CECL have appreciated its flexibility; however, just like anything else, there are challenges. One of the biggest questions that has risen is related to complexity, specifically from financial statement users in regards to the macroeconomic assumptions used in models. Another common challenge is comparability to competitors’ models and estimates. Each financial institution will likely have a different methodology when recording expected losses on HTM debt securities due to the judgment involved. These concerns are not unique to the ACL on HTM debt securities but are nonetheless concerns that will need to be addressed. A description of the methodology used to estimate the ACL, as well as a discussion of the factors that influenced management’s current estimate of expected losses must be disclosed in the financial statements. Therefore, management should ensure adequate information is provided to address financial statement users’ concerns.  

CECL: Available-for-sale securities

Upon CECL adoption, you are also expected to implement enhancements to existing practices related to AFS debt securities. Recall that AFS debt securities are recorded at fair value through accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI). This will not change after adoption of the CECL standard. However, the concept of OTTI will no longer exist. Rather, if an AFS debt security’s fair value is lower than its amortized cost basis, any credit related loss will be recorded through an ACL account, rather than as a direct write-down to the security. This ACL account will be limited to the amount by which fair value is below the amortized cost basis of the security. Credit losses will be determined by comparing the present value of cash flows expected to be collected from the security with its amortized cost basis. Non-credit related changes in fair value will continue to be recorded through an investment contra account and other comprehensive income. So, on the balance sheet, AFS debt securities could have an ACL account and an unrealized gain/loss contra account. The financial institution will be responsible for determining if the decline in the value below amortized cost is the result of credit factors or other macroeconomic factors. In practice, the following flowchart may be helpful:

Although changes to debt securities may not be top of mind when working through CECL implementation, ensuring you reserve time to understand and assess the impact of these changes is important. Depending on the significance and composition of your institution’s debt security portfolio, these changes may have a significant impact on your financial institution’s financial statements from CECL adoption forward. For more information, visit the CECL page on our website. If you would like specific answers to questions about your CECL implementation, please visit our Ask the Advisor page to submit your questions.

Read this if you are a Chief Financial Officer at a financial institution.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued its second Accounting Standards Update (ASU) of 2022 on March 31, 2022. Seen as a fairly quiet year thus far on the accounting standards issuance front, both ASUs issued so far should catch the attention of financial institutions’ accounting and finance teams. For readers who may have missed it, on March 31, 2022, we wrote about the FASB’s first ASU of 2022: ASU No. 2022-01, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Fair Value Hedging – Portfolio Layer Method. Seen as enhancing the flexibility of hedge accounting, this ASU, among other things, expands on the “last-of-layer” hedging method by allowing multiple hedged layers to be designated for a single closed portfolio of financial assets or one or more beneficial interests secured by a portfolio of financial instruments.

The most recently issued ASU, ASU No. 2022-02, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Troubled Debt Restructurings and Vintage Disclosures, responds to feedback received during the FASB’s Post-Implementation Review process of ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. Commonly known as the “CECL (current expected credit loss) standard,” financial institutions that have not yet adopted ASU No. 2016-13 should be well into their CECL implementation plan. ASU No 2016-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal years. 

The CECL standard is seen as a major disruptor event for financial institutions. I encourage you to check out my colleague Susan Weber’s CECL implementation series (the latest article can be found here) for best practices on a successful CECL implementation.

As soon as you see the acronym “CECL” in an article, especially one in regards to a new accounting standard, you may be already looking to “X” out of your web browser and save whatever horrors this ASU brings for another day. But, the changes that are forthcoming as a result of ASU No. 2022-02 are generally seen as being well received by accounting and finance teams (and likely credit teams as well). 

As its name implies, ASU No. 2022-02 addresses two separate issues: Troubled debt restructurings and vintage disclosures.

Troubled debt restructurings

The ASU eliminates the current troubled debt restructuring accounting guidance within Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Subtopic 310-40 in its entirety. To help illustrate the impact of the proposed changes, let’s quickly review ASC Subtopic 310-40. ASC Subtopic 310-40, among other things, indicates a troubled debt restructuring should not be accounted for as a new loan because a troubled debt restructuring is part of a creditor’s ongoing effort to recover its investment in the original loan. A loan modification is considered a troubled debt restructuring if made to a borrower experiencing financial difficulty and if the modification grants a concession. Furthermore, all troubled debt restructurings are considered impaired loans. After adoption of the ASU, financial institutions will evaluate whether the modification represents a new loan or a continuation of an existing loan, in accordance with current ASC guidance (ASC 310-20-35-9 through 35-11). 

Current ASC guidance indicates a loan modification shall be treated as a new loan if the terms of the modification are at least as favorable to the lender as the terms for comparable loans to other customers with similar collection risks who are not refinancing or restructuring a loan with the lender. This condition would be met if the new loan’s effective yield is at least equal to the effective yield for such loans and modifications of the original debt instrument are more than minor. A modification is considered “more than minor” if the present value of the cash flows under the terms of the new debt instrument is at least 10 percent different from the present value of the remaining cash flows under the terms of the original instrument. However, even if the difference is less than 10 percent, the financial institution should evaluate whether the modification is more than minor based on the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the modification.

The ASU also modifies disclosure requirements. Rather than disclosing information on troubled debt restructurings, financial institutions will now be required to disclose information on loan modifications that were in the form of principal forgiveness, an interest rate reduction, an other-than-insignificant payment delay, or a term extension (or a combination thereof) made to debtors experiencing financial difficulty. Among other things, ASC 310-10-50-42 through 50-44 requires financial institutions to disclose, by class of financing receivable, the types of modifications utilized and certain financial effects of the modification, depending on the type of modification. ASC 310-10-55-12A provides an example of the disclosures required by ASC 310-10-50-42 through 50-44. The new disclosures must be made regardless of whether a modification to a debtor experiencing financial difficulty results in a new loan. In part, this section of the ASU is seen as providing structure around some of the types of modification disclosures financial institutions were providing during the coronavirus pandemic. 

Financial institutions have long had internal controls surrounding the determination of troubled debt restructurings given the impact such restructurings can have on the allowance for loan losses and financial statement disclosures. Although internal controls surrounding loan modifications will still need to exist, they will likely need to evolve as a result of ASU No. 2022-02. Furthermore, the data gathered for preparation of financial statement disclosures will also change. However, the data needed to satisfy the new disclosure requirements should be readily available, with possibly minor manipulation required to obtain the information needed under the new disclosure requirements.

Vintage disclosures

The ASU amends ASC 326-20-50-6 to require public business entities to disclose current-period gross writeoffs by year of origination for financing receivables and net investment in leases within the scope of ASC Subtopic 326-20. ASC 326-20-55-79 provides an example of this disclosure.

ASU No. 2022-02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2022, including interim periods within those fiscal years—the same effective date for those who have not yet adopted ASU No. 2016-13. As always, if you have any questions as to how this ASU may impact your financial institution, please reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team or submit a question via our Ask the Advisor feature.