Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

New permissible minimum service requirements for 401(k) plans

10.07.20

Read this if you administer a 401(k) plan.

On December 20, 2019, the Setting Every Community up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act was signed into law. The SECURE Act makes several changes to 401(k) plan requirements. Among those changes is a change to the permissible minimum service requirements.  
 
Many 401(k) retirement plan sponsors have elected to set up minimum service requirements for their plan. Such requirements help eliminate administrative burden of offering participation to part-time employees who may then participate in the plan for a short period of time and then keep their balance within the plan. Although plan sponsors do have the ability to process force-out distributions for smaller account balances, a minimum service requirement, such as one year of service, can help eliminate this situation altogether.  

Long-term part-time employees now eligible

The SECURE Act will now require that long-term part-time employees be offered participation in 401(k) plans if they are over the age of 21. The idea behind the requirement is that 401(k) plans are responsible for an increasingly larger amount of employees’ retirement income. Therefore, it is essential that part-time employees, some of which may not have a full-time job, have the ability to save for retirement.  
 
Long-term is defined as any employee who works three consecutive years with 500 or more hours worked each year. This new secondary service requirement becomes effective January 1, 2021. Previous employment will not count towards the three-year requirement. Therefore, the earliest a long-term part-time employee may become eligible to participate in a plan under the secondary service requirement is January 1, 2024.  

403(b) plans not affected 

Please note this provision is only applicable for 401(k) plans and does not impact 403(b) plans, which are subject to universal availability. Furthermore, although long-term part-time employees will be allowed to make elective deferrals into 401(k) plans, management may choose whether to provide non-elective or matching contributions to such participants. These participants also may be excluded from nondiscrimination and top-heavy requirements.  
 
This requirement will create unique tracking challenges as plans will need to track hours worked for recurring part-time employees over multiple years. For instance, seasonal employees who elect to work multiple seasons may inadvertently become eligible. We recommend plans work with their record keepers and/or third-party administrators to implement a tracking system to ensure participation is offered to those who meet this new secondary service requirement. If a feasible tracking solution does not exist, or plans do not want to deal with the burden of tracking such information, plans may also consider amending their minimum service requirements by reducing the hours of service requirement from 1,000 hours to 500 hours or less. However, this may allow more employees to participate than under the three-year, 500-hour requirement and may increase the employer contributions each year. 

If you have questions regarding your particular situation, please contact our Employee Benefit Audits team. We’re here to help.

Related Services

Related Professionals

Principals

BerryDunn experts and consultants

Read this if you are a community bank.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently issued its third quarter 2021 Quarterly Banking Profile. The report provides financial information based on Call Reports filed by 4,914 FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions. The report also contains a section specific to community bank performance. In third quarter 2021, this section included the financial information of 4,450 FDIC-insured community banks. Community banks are identified based on criteria defined in the FDIC’s 2020 Community Banking Study. Here are BerryDunn’s key takeaways from the community bank section of the report:

  • There was a $1.4 billion increase in quarterly net income from a year prior despite continued net interest margin (NIM) compression. This increase was mainly due to higher net interest income and lower provision expenses. Net interest income had increased $2.2 billion due to lower interest expense and higher commercial and industrial (C&I) loan interest income, mainly due to fees earned through the payoff and forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Provision expense decreased $1.4 billion from third quarter 2020. However, it remained positive at $270.4 million, which was an increase of $219.2 million from second quarter 2021. For noncommunity banks, provision expense was negative $5.2 billion for third quarter 2021

    *See Exhibit B at the end of this article for more information on the third-quarter year-over-year change in income.
     
  • Quarterly NIM increased 3 basis points from third quarter 2020 to 3.31%. The average yield on earning assets fell 20 basis points to 3.60% while the average funding cost fell 23 basis points to 0.29%. This was the first annual expansion of NIM since first quarter 2019. The annual decline in both yield and cost of funds were the smallest reported since first quarter 2020.
  • Net gains on loan sales revenue declined $1.2 billion (41.5%) from third quarter 2020. However, other noninterest income increased $343.3 million or 15.2% while revenue from service charges on deposit accounts increased $100.3 million or 14.5%. In total, noninterest income decreased $616.3 million from third quarter 2020.
  • Noninterest expense increased 5.7% from third quarter 2020. This increase was mainly attributable to salary and benefit expenses, which saw an increase of $402.2 million (4.3%). That being said, average assets per employee increased 10.4% from third quarter 2020. Noninterest expense as a percentage of average assets declined 12 basis points from third quarter 2020 to 2.45%, despite 74.1% of community banks reporting higher noninterest expense.
  • Noncurrent loan balances (loans 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) declined by $847 million, or 7.1%, from second quarter 2021. The noncurrent rate dropped 4 basis points to 0.65% from second quarter 2021.
  • The coverage ratio (allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of loans that are 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) increased 44.1 percentage points year-over-year to 203.5%. This ratio is well above the financial crisis average of 147.9% and is a record high. The coverage ratio for community banks is 26.2 percentage points above the coverage ratio for noncommunity banks.
  • Net charge-offs declined 4 basis points from third quarter 2020 to 0.06%.
  • Loans and leases declined from second quarter 2021 by 0.2%. This decrease was mainly seen in the C&I loan category, which was driven by a $45.6 billion decrease in PPP loan balances due to their payoff and forgiveness. Total loans and leases declined by $19.2 billion (1.1%) from third quarter 2020. The largest decline was shown in C&I loans ($87.3 billion or 24.9%). Growth in other loan categories, such as nonfarm nonresidential commercial real estate, construction & development, and multifamily loans of $69.9 million offset a portion of this decline. 

    *See Exhibit C at the end of this article for more information on the change in loan balances.
     
  • Nearly seven out of ten community banks reported an increase in deposit balances during the third quarter. Growth in deposits above the insurance limit increased by $57.8 billion, or 5.5%, while growth in deposits below the insurance limit showed an increase of $1.7 billion, or 0.1%, from second quarter 2021. In total, deposit growth was 2.6% during third quarter 2021.
  • The average community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) for the 1,737 banks that elected to use the CBLR framework was 11.3%. The average leverage capital ratio was 10.25%.
  • The number of community banks declined by 40 to 4,450 from second quarter 2021. This change includes one new community bank, 10 banks transitioning from community to noncommunity bank, five banks transitioning from noncommunity to community bank, 35 community bank mergers or consolidations, and one community bank having ceased operations.

Third quarter 2021 was another strong quarter for community banks, as evidenced by the increase in year-over-year quarterly net income of 19.6% ($1.4 billion). However, NIMs remain low despite seeing growth in the most recent quarter (for the first time since first quarter 2019), as shown in Exhibit A. The consensus remains that community banks will likely need to find creative ways to increase their NIM, grow their earning asset bases, or continue to increase noninterest income to maintain current net income levels. In regards to the latter, many pressures to noninterest income streams exist. Financial technology (fintech) companies are changing the way we bank by automating processes that have traditionally been manual (for instance, loan approval). Decentralized financing (DeFi) also poses a threat to the banking industry. Building off of fintech’s automation, DeFi looks to cut out the middle-man (banks) altogether by building financial services on a blockchain. Ongoing investment in technology should continue to be a focus, as banks look to compete with nontraditional players in the financial services industry. The larger, noncommunity banks are also putting pressure on community banks and their ability to generate noninterest income, as recently seen by Capital One Bank eliminating all overdraft fees.

According to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the financial services industry brought in $15.5 billion in overdraft fees in 2019. Seen as a move to enhance Capital One Bank’s relationships with its customers, community banks will also need to find innovative ways to enhance relationships with current and potential customers. As fintech companies and DeFi become more mainstream and accepted in the marketplace, the value propositions of community banks will likely need to change.

The importance of the efficiency ratio (noninterest expense as a percentage of total revenue) is also magnified as community banks attempt to manage their noninterest expenses in light of low NIMs. Banks appear to be strongly focusing on noninterest expense management, as seen by the 12 basis point decline from third quarter 2020 in noninterest expense as a percentage of average assets, although inflated balance sheets may have something to do with the decrease in the percentage.

Furthermore, much uncertainty still exists. For instance, although significant charge-offs have not yet materialized, the financial picture for many borrowers remains uncertain. And, payment deferrals have made some credit quality indicators, such as past due status, less reliable. Payment deferrals for many borrowers are coming to a halt. So, the true financial picture of these borrowers may start to come into focus. The ability of community banks to maintain relationships with their borrowers and remain apprised of the results of their borrowers’ operations has never been more important. This monitoring will become increasingly important as we transition into a post-pandemic economy.

For seasonal borrowers, current indications, such as the most recent results from the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book, show that economic activity was modest in August and September 2021. Supply chain pressures, labor shortages, and concerns over COVID-19 variants (delta and now omicron) have slowed economic growth and continue to provide uncertainty as to (1) the trajectory of the economy, (2) whether inflation is transitory, and (3) the need for the Federal Reserve to increase the federal funds target rate. If an increase in the federal funds target rate is used to combat inflation, community banks could see their NIMs in another transitory stage.

Also, as offices start to open, employers will start to reassess their office needs. Many employers have either created or revised remote working policies due to changing employee behavior. If remote working schedules persist, whether it be full-time or hybrid, the demand for office space may decline, causing instability for commercial real estate borrowers. Banks should closely monitor these borrowers, as identifying early signs of credit deterioration could be essential to preserving the relationship.

The financial services industry is full of excitement right now. While the industry faces many challenges, these challenges also bring opportunity for banks to experiment and differentiate themselves. The forces at play right now indicate the industry will likely look much different ten years from now. However, as the pandemic has exhibited, you may be full steam ahead in one direction and then an unforeseen force may totally up-end your plans. As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team if you have any questions.

Article
FDIC Issues its Third Quarter 2021 Quarterly Banking Profile

Read this if you are a Chief Financial Officer, Chief Compliance Officer, FINOP, or charged with governance of a broker-dealer.

The results of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (PCAOB) 2020 inspections are included in its 2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers. There were 65 audit firms inspected in 2020 by the PCAOB and, although deficiencies declined 11% from 2019, 51 firms still had deficiencies. This high level of deficiencies, as well as the nature of the deficiencies, provides insight into audit quality for broker-dealer stakeholders. Those charged with governance should be having conversations with their auditor to see how they are addressing these commonly found deficiencies and asking if the PCAOB identified any deficiencies in the auditor’s most recent examination. 

If there were deficiencies identified, what actions have been taken to eliminate these deficiencies going forward? Although the annual report on the Interim Inspection Program acts as an auditor report card, the results may have implications for the broker-dealer, as gaps in audit quality may mean internal control weaknesses or misstatements go undetected.

Attestation Standard (AT) No. 1 examination engagements test compliance with the financial responsibility rules and the internal controls surrounding compliance with the financial responsibility rules. The PCAOB examined 21 of these engagements and found 14 of them to have deficiencies. The PCAOB continued to find high deficiency rates in testing internal control over compliance (ICOC). They specifically found that many audit firms did not obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence about the operating effectiveness of controls important to the auditor’s conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ICOC. This insufficiency was widespread in all four areas of the financial responsibility rules: the Reserve Requirement rule, possession or control requirements of the Customer Protection Rule, Account Statement Rule, and the Quarterly Security Counts Rule.

The PCAOB also identified a firm that included a statement in its examination report that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that its ICOC was effective as of its fiscal year-end; however, the broker-dealer did not include that required assertion in its compliance report.

AT No. 2 review engagements test compliance with the broker-dealer’s exemption provisions. The PCAOB examined 83 AT No. 2 engagements and found 19 of them to have deficiencies. The most significant deficiencies were that audit firms:

  • Did not make required inquiries, including inquiries about controls in place to maintain compliance with the exemption provisions, and those involving the nature, frequency, and results of related monitoring activities.
  • Similar to AT No. 1 engagements, included a statement in their review reports that referred to an assertion by the broker-dealer that it met the identified exemption provisions throughout the most recent fiscal year without exception; however, the broker-dealers did not include that required assertion in their exemption reports.

The majority of the deficiencies found were in the audits of the financial statements. The PCAOB did not examine every aspect of the financial statement audit, but focused on key areas. These areas were: revenue, evaluating audit results, identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement, related party relationships and transactions, receivables and payables, consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, consideration of materiality in planning and performing an audit, leases, and fair value measurements. Of these areas, revenue and evaluating audit results had the most deficiencies, with 45 and 27 deficiencies, or 47% and 26% of engagements examined, respectively.

Auditing standards indicate there is a rebuttable presumption that improper revenue recognition is a fraud risk. In the PCAOB’s examinations, most audit firms either identified a fraud risk related to revenue or did not rebut the presumption of revenue recognition as a fraud risk. These firms should have addressed the risk of material misstatement through appropriate substantive procedures that included tests of details. The PCAOB noted there were instances of firms that did not perform any procedures for one or more significant revenue accounts, or did not perform procedures to address the assessed risks of material misstatement for one or more relevant assertions for revenue. The PCAOB also identified deficiencies related to revenue in audit firms’ sampling methodologies and substantive analytical procedures. Other deficiencies of note, that were not revenue related, included:

  • Incomplete qualitative and quantitative disclosure information, specifically in regards to revenue from contracts with customers and leases.
  • Missing required elements from the auditor’s report.
  • Missing auditor communications:
    • Not inquiring of the audit committee (or equivalent body) about whether it was aware of matters relevant to the audit.
    • Not communicating the audit strategy and results of the audit to the audit committee (or equivalent body).
  • Engagement quality reviews were not performed for some audit and attestation engagements.
  • Audit firms assisted in the preparation of broker-dealer financial statements and supplemental information.

Although there have been improvements in the amounts of deficiencies found in the PCAOB’s examinations, the 2020 annual report shows that there is still work to be done by audit firms. Just like auditors should be inquiring of broker-dealer clients about the results of their most recent FINRA examination, broker-dealers should be inquiring of auditors about the results of their most recent PCAOB examination. Doing so will help broker-dealers identify where their auditor may reside on the audit quality spectrum. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to reach out to our broker-dealer services team.

Article
2020 Annual Report on the Interim Inspection Program Related to Audits of Brokers and Dealers

Read this if you are working on ESG initiatives at your organization.

Whether you are a director or an executive well into the journey of developing and communicating your company’s strategic sustainability plans or in early stages, the rising public demand for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting is becoming a force that cannot be ignored by boards and management teams.

ESG overview: reminders and FAQs

What does ESG information comprise? The term “ESG” reporting, used broadly, covers qualitative discussions of topics and quantitative metrics used to measure a company’s performance against ESG risks, opportunities, and related strategies. ESG, sustainability, and corporate social responsibility are terms often used interchangeably to describe nonfinancial reporting being shared publicly by companies. Such information is not currently subject to a singular authoritative set of standards.

What are examples of ESG and sustainability information? The following do not represent all-inclusive lists and, while some ESG information may be measured quantitatively, there are often many means to calculate metrics or information that may be difficult to quantify and therefore may be expressed qualitatively and described as such: 

As corporate ESG activities increase in relevance and importance to stakeholders, companies are seeking to both understand the complex landscape of ESG disclosure and reporting and determine the best path forward. This includes identifying, collecting, sharing, and improving upon qualitative and quantitative metrics reflecting long-term, strategic ESG value creation.

Organizations are in various stages of readiness to report on such decision-useful information. Currently, a myriad of reporting frameworks and wide variations in how companies choose to publicly share ESG information exist, making the ESG landscape complex to navigate. However, two things are certain:

  1. The pressure for companies to publicly disclose their approach to sustainability and ESG reporting continues to mount from a broad variety of stakeholders, and 
  2. ESG is rapidly rising to the forefront of boardroom agendas.

We have prepared the following to provide useful reminders, FAQs, and insights for those charged with governance as they consider the rapidly changing current ESG reporting landscape and evolving regulatory developments.

Is there a single authoritative set of ESG reporting standards? 

There are currently several frameworks and standards in use globally by companies to report on ESG, many of which may be complementary and used in combination for external reporting. Some of the more commonly used frameworks are: Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB); Global Reporting Initiative (GRI); Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD); International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC); and Climate Disclosures Standards Board (CDSB). While many of these may already be complementary to each other, there is also growing support for a singular, global set of reporting standards for ESG, though the timing to achieve the necessary convergence remains uncertain.

Are U.S. companies required to disclose ESG information? 

Outside of certain industry regulators, such as required reporting by the Environmental Protection Agency on greenhouse gas emissions, implementation by U.S. companies remains voluntary. However, pressure from institutional investors—BlackRock, State Street and Vanguard—is mounting in support of companies providing ESG disclosures that align with both the SASB and TCFD frameworks. Additionally, sustainability risk issues are increasingly integrated into organizational risk frameworks such as COSO’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) framework.

Companies must also assess whether other ESG information, such as climate risk disclosures, are required under current MD&A disclosure rules. For example, if the risk represents a known trend or uncertainty the company reasonably expects will have a material impact on the company’s results of operations or capital resources, additional disclosure would be required.

What companies are reporting, and what information are they reporting? 

ESG disclosures vary significantly depending on the nature of the business, geography, industry, and stakeholder base, as well as available resources to devote to ESG. The largest global public companies have led the way in external ESG reporting and engagement, but this reporting is rapidly expanding to encompass smaller public entities and private entities. Companies of all sizes are both feeling the pressure to produce ESG reporting and identifying it as a means to differentiate themselves in the market by proactively conveying their corporate stories and strategies.

As noted in a recent White & Case study of proxy statements and filed 10-Ks for the top 50 companies by revenue in the Fortune 100, the following ESG categories showed the most significant increase in disclosures from the prior year:

  • Human capital management (HCM)
  • Environmental
  • Corporate culture
  • Ethical business practices
  • Board oversight of environment & social (E&S) issues
  • Social impact/community
  • E&S issues in shareholder engagement

The study noted that a majority of E&S disclosures in the SEC filings were qualitative and did not provide quantitative metrics. However, disclosures pertaining to environmental, HCM, and E&S goals, along with social impact and community relations were more likely to contain quantitative metrics.

Where do companies report ESG information? The most common places companies are providing public ESG disclosures include:

  • Standalone reports including corporate social responsibility (CSR)/sustainability reports
  • Company websites and marketing materials
  • MD&A sections of annual and quarterly reports
  • Earnings calls
  • Proxy statements and 8-Ks

Evolving auditor ESG attestation

Many of the metrics and qualitative disclosures around ESG information are not “governed” by an established framework such as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and thus, may not be subject to the same rigor of processes and controls over such processes to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the underlying data and the appropriateness of the decisions and judgments being made by management in reporting on such information. For example, the fear of corporate “green or impact washing”—the incentive to make stakeholders believe that a company is doing more to promote ESG activities, particularly environmental protections, than it actually is—has left many stakeholders questioning the reliability, consistency, and accuracy of company ESG reporting. As ESG reporting continues to evolve and become a significant consideration for boards, investors, employees, suppliers, lenders, regulators, and others in making business decisions, there is a growing focus on the value of assurance on such information provided by independent third parties.

Type of attestation services to be provided

Determining the scope and level of assurance to be provided will vary based on company objectives in presenting ESG information, management’s readiness, and intended users and uses of ESG information. Attest services may include:

  • Examination: Consists of an examination performed by an auditor resulting in an independent opinion indicating whether the ESG information is in accordance with the agreed upon criteria, in all material respects. An examination engagement is the closest equivalent to the reasonable assurance obtained in an audit of financial statements.
  • Review: Consists of limited procedures, performed by an auditor, that result in limited assurance. The objective of a review engagement is for the auditor to express a conclusion about whether any material modifications should be made to the ESG information in order for it to be in accordance with the agreed upon criteria. Review engagements are substantially less in scope than examination engagements.


The ESG journey: first steps for boards just beginning the ESG reporting journey

The AICPA and Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) have issued a roadmap for audit practitioners laying out initial steps for those organizations and their boards who are in the beginning phases of the ESG reporting journey:

  • Conduct a materiality or risk assessment to determine which ESG topics are prioritized as important or “material” to the organization, its investors and other stakeholders
  • Implement appropriate board oversight of material ESG matters
  • Integrate/align material ESG topics into the ERM process
  • Integrate ESG matters into the overall company strategy
  • Implement effective internal control over ESG data collection, processing, and reporting


For boards considering an attestation engagement

The CAQ has further prepared the following questions boards may consider for companies that have already started reporting on ESG and may be considering an attestation engagement:

  • What is the purpose and objective of the attestation engagement on ESG information?
  • Who are the intended users of the ESG information and related attestation report?
  • Why do the intended users want or need an attestation report on the ESG information?
  • What are the potential risks associated with a misstatement or omission in the ESG information?
  • Does the company have a clear understanding what ESG information the intended users want or need to be in the scope of the attestation engagement?
  • What level of attestation service (examination or review engagement) will help the company achieve its objective?

Additional questions for board members to consider regarding their company’s preparedness for reporting include:

  • Does management have well established controls, policies, and procedures for the collection of and disclosure of ESG information? Are there gaps to be addressed?
  • Has the board, along with management, set specific objectives and goals for external reporting of ESG information?
  • Is the information disclosed by the company consistent across its various communication channels?
  • Are the ESG responsibilities at the board level clearly defined among appropriate committees and are those responsibilities directly linked to corporate strategic ESG goals and external reporting needs?
  • Have the right advisors been identified to assist in preparing for reporting and/or to attest to the quality of reporting?

Next steps

We encourage management, audit committees, and other board members to continue to educate themselves on the evolving landscape of ESG and carefully consider the needs of various stakeholders broadly when mapping out their ESG reporting needs. Particular attention should be paid to regulatory developments in this area.

Article
ESG reporting: Considerations for boards and those charged with governance

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

The mechanics of interest rate swaps

Interest rate swaps, a form of derivative, are a tool financial institutions can use to manage interest rate risk. In this form of derivative, as an example, the financial institution may hedge the interest rate risk on a pool of fixed rate loans by executing a derivative contract with a counterparty. The derivative contract indicates the financial institution will pay a fixed rate to the counterparty, while the counterparty will pay the financial institution a variable rate. These payments are typically made on a net settlement basis. Thus, the financial institution has effectively turned its fixed rate lending into variable rate lending.

This example is considered a hedge – since the financial institution is mitigating its interest rate risk, as opposed to a speculative transaction – where the financial institution assumes risk with the hope of commensurate reward.

1Original promissory notes
2Derivative contract between financial institution and counterparty

This type of transaction allows the financial institution to separate credit risk from interest rate risk. Borrowers often prefer fixed rate financing, since future cash flows are known. However, a financial institution may avoid lending to creditworthy borrowers that expose the financial institution to excessive interest rate risk. An interest rate swap may allow the financial institution to provide financing to the borrower without having to sell the loan to mitigate interest rate risk.

The accounting for interest rate swaps via hedge accounting

Derivatives are recorded at fair value with changes in fair value generally reported in earnings. Hedge accounting is optional and may help prevent earnings volatility due to changes in the fair value of the derivative. Hedge accounting varies depending on the type of hedge. In the case of an interest rate swap, the hedge may be a cash flow hedge or a fair value hedge. A cash flow hedge is one where the financial institution looks to mitigate risk from variable exposures (such as a swap that effectively hedges LIBOR-based trust preferred securities to a fixed rate). Conversely, a fair value hedge looks to mitigate risk from fixed exposures. A fair value hedge is a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of a recognized asset or liability or an unrecognized firm commitment. 

The example above describes a fair value hedge, since the financial institution is mitigating its exposure to the change in fair value of the fixed rate loans (due to changes in market interest rates) by, in substance, converting its fixed position into a variable position. For fair value hedges, the derivative is recorded at fair value with any changes in fair value recorded through earnings. The hedged item is also adjusted to its fair value through earnings. Thus, to the extent changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument and hedged item offset one another, there is no net impact on earnings.

Cash flow hedges

For cash flow hedges, the derivative is also recorded at fair value; however, the effective portion of changes in fair value of the derivative (i.e., the portion that offsets changes in expected cash flows of the hedged item) is recorded in other comprehensive income (OCI) rather than earnings. These changes are then reclassified into earnings when the hedged item affects earnings. A hedge is considered effective if the changes in the cash flow or fair value of the hedged item and the hedging instrument offset each other. Historically, the ineffective portion of the hedge is immediately recorded through earnings. However, Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2017-12: Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), which we discuss below, simplifies this rule by enabling all changes in fair value of the derivative, not just the effective portion, to be recorded in OCI. For a cash flow hedge, there is no effect on the accounting for the hedged item. 

Measuring the effectiveness of a hedge relationship can prove to be complicated, and may in some cases require statistical methods, such as regression analysis. However, for interest rate swaps only, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) provides a “shortcut” method. If all of the applicable conditions in paragraph 810-20-25-104 of the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (the “official” source of GAAP) are met, an entity may assume perfect effectiveness in a hedging relationship of interest rate risk involving a recognized interest-bearing asset or liability and an interest rate swap. Examples of some of the conditions are: 

  • The notional amount of the interest rate swap must match the principal amount of the interest-bearing asset or liability being hedged; and 
  • For fair value hedges only, the expiration date of the interest rate swap must match the maturity date of the interest-bearing asset or liability or, as amended by ASU 2017-12, the assumed maturity date if the hedged item is measured in accordance with paragraph 815-25-35-13B. Paragraph 815-25-35-13B indicates an entity may measure the change in the fair value of the hedged item attributable to interest rate risk using an assumed term that begins when the first hedged cash flow begins to accrue and ends when the last hedged cash flow is due and payable.

Although use of this approach may be considered a shortcut compared to traditional hedge effectiveness assessments, it can still be difficult to qualify for the shortcut method given the number of conditions that need to be met. The shortcut method is also very rigid – the specified conditions must be met exactly.

ASU 2017-12

In 2017, FASB issued ASU 2017-12 to improve the financial reporting of hedging relationships to better portray the economic results of an entity’s risk management activities in its financial statements. For non-public business entities, ASU 2019-10 delayed the effective date of ASU 2017-12 to fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, and interim periods within fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2021. For public business entities, the ASU is already in effect.

ASU 2017-12 makes several changes, which the FASB refers to as “targeted improvements”, to the accounting requirements for hedging activities. Two of these changes, which will likely be beneficial to many financial institutions, are partial-term hedging and use of the “last-of-layer” method. 

With the adoption of ASU 2017-12, institutions can measure the hedged item in a partial-term fair value hedge of interest rate risk (e.g., a swap whose term is shorter than that of the loan pool it hedges) by assuming the hedged item has a term that reflects only the designated cash flows being hedged (i.e., that only considers the portion of the term of the loans that corresponds with the term of the swap). Prior to ASU 2017-12, GAAP did not allow this methodology when calculating the change in the fair value of the hedged item attributable to interest rate risk. Thus, institutions would often experience a difference between changes in the fair value of the hedging instrument and the hedged item due to the difference in maturities, resulting in hedge ineffectiveness that was recognized in earnings. Under ASU 2017-12, as long as the termination date of the hedging instrument is on or prior to the maturity date of the hedged item (in this case the loans), partial-term hedging may be used for changes in fair value of the loans during the term of the swap.

Prior to ASU 2017-12, GAAP indicated that hedge accounting should generally be applied to specifically identified assets or liabilities or portions thereof. Therefore, prepayment risk at the individual asset or liability level must be considered. The result can be frequent dedesignation and redesignation of hedges since many hedging instruments do not allow for prepayment. The last-of-layer method introduced by ASU 2017-12 allows the entity to designate a portion of the principal balance of a loan pool that is not expected to be affected by prepayments, defaults, or other events affecting the timing and amount of cash flows, without necessarily identifying which loans (or portions thereof) in the pool are expected to remain outstanding during the term of the hedging instrument. Under this designation, prepayment risk is not incorporated into the measurement of the hedged item. So, similar to the partial-term fair value hedge provisions, the last-of-layer method provides added flexibility in matching terms between the hedging instrument and the hedged item.

In May 2021, FASB issued proposed ASU 2021-002, which would provide clarifying and additional guidance on the application of ASU 2017-12. Amongst other things, the proposed ASU would expand the last-of-layer method to allow multiple-layer hedges. As a result, the term “last-of-layer method” would be renamed “the portfolio layer method.” The portfolio layer method would allow the financial institution to establish tranches, or multiple layers, within its hedged loan pool based on, for example, contractual maturity dates. These various layers could then be paired with different hedging arrangements. Multiple layers also provide added flexibility in the event the financial institution needs to dedesignate a portion of the hedging relationship, which would be required if circumstances change such that the hedge is no longer highly effective.

Lastly, ASU 2017-12 also makes changes to the presentation of changes in fair value in the financial statements. Under ASU 2017-12, for fair value hedges, changes in fair value of the hedging instrument should be presented in the same income statement line that is used to present the earnings effect of the hedged item. (Previous GAAP did not specify a required presentation of the change in fair value of the hedging instrument.) For cash flow hedges, the ineffective portion of such hedges is no longer presented separately from the effective portion. Rather, the entire change in fair value of the hedging instrument is presented in other comprehensive income. These amounts are then reclassified to earnings in the same income statement line item that is used to present the earnings effect of the hedged item when the hedged item affects earnings. According to FASB, these changes are thought to make it easier for the user of the financial statements to understand the results and costs of an entity’s hedging program.

ASU 2017-12 appears to make hedging activities, and the resulting accounting, much more flexible while also reducing the complexity of reporting such transactions. While we have only provided a snapshot of what we believe to be some of the most relevant provisions of the ASU for financial institutions, we encourage you to read the ASU in its entirety to see if there are other provisions that may prove to be useful or applicable to your institution. Likewise, with adoption fast approaching, we encourage you to reach out to your auditors to start the discussion as to how this ASU may impact and/or provide additional opportunity for your financial institution.

For more information on ASU 2017-12, including a deeper dive on the proposed portfolio layer method, check out a recent webcast hosted by our colleagues at Stifel.


 

Article
ASU 2017-12 provides added flexibility to hedge accounting

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

This article is the tenth in a series to help employee benefit plan fiduciaries better understand their responsibilities and manage the risks of non-compliance with Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requirements. You can read the previous articles here

ERISA bonding requirements

Generally, every fiduciary of a plan and every person who handles funds or other property of the plan must be bonded. ERISA's bonding requirements are intended to protect employee benefit plans from risk of loss due to fraud or dishonesty on the part of persons who handle plan funds or other property. ERISA refers to persons who handle funds or other property of an employee benefit plan as plan officials. A plan official must be bonded for at least 10% of the amount of funds he or she handles, subject to a minimum bond amount of $1,000 per plan with respect to which the plan official has handling functions. In most instances, the maximum bond amount that can be required under ERISA with respect to any one plan official is $500,000 per plan. If the plan holds employer securities, the maximum required bond amount increases to $1,000,000. The bond must be fixed or estimated at the beginning of the plan's reporting year; that is, as soon after the date when such year begins as the necessary information from the preceding reporting year can practicably be ascertained. The amount of the bond must be based on the highest amount of funds handled by the person in the preceding plan year. Bonds must be placed with a surety or reinsurer that is named on the Department of the Treasury's Listing of Approved Sureties, Department Circular 570.

The US Department of Labor Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2008-04 provides answers to a number of questions that have been raised concerning the bonding rules.

Compliance testing

The Internal Revenue Code requires retirement plans to undergo certain non-discrimination and compliance testing on an annual basis to ensure contributions or benefits do not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees and contributions are not in excess of amounts prescribed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

The tests the plan should perform varies based on the plan’s provisions. However, some of the more common tests for defined contribution plans are:

Actual Deferral Percentage (ADP) Test: This test ensures employee salary deferrals made to the plan do not disproportionately benefit highly compensated employees (HCEs). If this test is failed, the most common correction method is distributing excess contributions to HCEs in the amount necessary to make the test pass. Corrections should be made no later than two-and-a-half months following the close of the plan year to avoid a 10% excise tax. The final deadline is 12 months following the close of the plan year.

Actual Contribution Percentage (ACP) Test: This test ensures the matching and voluntary employer contributions made to the plan do not disproportionately benefit HCEs. If this test is failed, the most common correction method is removing excess contributions from HCE’s accounts in the amount necessary to make the test pass. These excess contributions do not leave the plan. Rather, they are transferred into the forfeiture account of the plan, typically to be used to pay plan expenses or fund future employer contributions. Corrections should be made no later than two-and-a-half months following the close of the plan year to avoid a 10% excise tax. The final deadline is 12 months following the close of the plan year.

416 Top Heavy Test: This test ensures key employees do not represent a disproportionate percentage of plan assets. If this test is failed, the most common correction method is to allocate a 3% top heavy minimum contribution to non-key participants (any participant that is not a key employee). Other employer contributions can be used to offset the 3% contribution. Corrections should be made no later than 12 months following the close of the plan year in which the plan is top heavy.

The ADP, ACP, and Top Heavy Tests can be forgone if the plan qualifies for safe harbor status. Also, 403(b) plans are not required to perform the ADP nor the top-heavy test.

410(b) Minimum Coverage Test: This test ensures each contribution made to the plan benefits a sufficient percentage of non-HCEs. This test is performed for each different contribution type offered within the plan. If this test is failed, the most common correction method is to retroactively amend the plan to benefit more non-HCEs until the test passes. Corrections should be made no later than nine-and-a-half months following the close of the plan year in which the failure occurred.

402(g) Elective Deferral Limit: Participants are limited in the amount of elective deferrals they may contribute to qualified plans and thus exclude from taxable income each calendar year. If a participant contributes in excess of this limit, the most common correction method is to distribute the excess contribution amount. In 2021, the 402(g) Elective Deferral Limit is $19,500. Corrections should be made no later than April 15th following the close of the calendar year during which the excess deferral was made.

415(c) Annual Addition Limit: Participants are also limited in the amount of total contributions that can be credited to their account each limitation year (usually the plan year). If a participant receives total contributions in excess of this limit, the most common correction method is to first distribute elective contributions in excess of the limit. If an excess still remains, employer contributions should then be transferred to the plan’s forfeiture account. In 2021, the 415(c) Annual Addition Limit is $58,000. Corrections should be made no later than nine-and-a-half months following the close of the limitation year in which the failure occurred.

ERISA bonding requirements and compliance testing, although not necessarily related, are two of the compliance matters we, as auditors, commonly look at during our audits. For ERISA bonding requirements, we review to make sure the plan had adequate coverage and the bond is with an approved surety. For compliance testing, we look to make sure the testing has been performed and failed tests, if any, have been appropriately and timely resolved. Plan fiduciaries are not alone in addressing these matters—insurance carriers can help guide plan management in finding a fidelity bond appropriate for their plan and third-party administrators will typically perform compliance testing on behalf of the plan and guide plan management through any necessary corrections. However, it is still important for plan fiduciaries to be aware of the overall purpose of the bonding requirements and the compliance tests and be familiar with the correction methods and deadlines.

If you would like more information, or have specific questions about your specific situation, please contact our Employee Benefits Audit team.

Article
Other ERISA compliance matters: ERISA bonding requirements and compliance testing

Read this if you are a community bank.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) recently issued its second quarter 2021 Quarterly Banking Profile. The report provides financial information based on Call Reports filed by 4,951 FDIC-insured commercial banks and savings institutions. The report also contains a section specific to community bank performance. In second quarter 2021, this section included the financial information of 4,490 FDIC-insured community banks. BerryDunn’s key takeaways from the community bank section of the report are as follows:

  • There was a $1.9 billion increase in quarterly net income from a year prior despite continued net interest margin (NIM) compression. This increase was mainly due to higher net interest income and lower provision expenses. Net interest income had increased $1.4 billion due to 1) lower interest expense, 2) higher commercial and industrial (C&I) loan interest income, and 3) loan fees earned through the payoff and forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Provision expense decreased $2.3 billion from second quarter 2020. However, it remained positive at $46.1 million. For non-community banks, provision expense was negative $10.8 billion for second quarter 2021.
  • Quarterly NIM declined 26 basis points from second quarter 2020 to 3.25%. The average yield on earning assets fell 57 basis points to 3.57% while the average funding cost fell 31 basis points to 0.32%. Both of which are record lows.
  • Net operating revenue (net interest income plus non-interest income) increased by $1.6 billion from second quarter 2020, a 6.5% increase. This increase is attributable to higher revenue from service charges on deposit accounts (increased $134.8 million, or 23.5%, during the year ending second quarter 2021) and an increase in “all other noninterest income,” including, but not limited to, bankcard and credit card interchange fees, income and fees from wire transfers, and income and fees from automated teller machines (up $203.6 million, or 9.3%, during the year ending second quarter 2021).
  • Non-interest expense increased 7.8% from second quarter 2020. This increase was mainly attributable to salary and benefit expenses, which saw an increase of $688.2 million (7.8%). That being said, average assets per employee increased 8.4% from second quarter 2020. Non-interest expense as a percentage of average assets declined 18 basis points from second quarter 2020.
  • Noncurrent loan balances (loans 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) declined by $894.6 million, or 7.1%, from first quarter 2021. The noncurrent rate improved 5 basis points to 0.68% from first quarter 2021.
  • The coverage ratio (allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of loans that are 90 days or more past due or in nonaccrual status) increased 39.8 percentage points year-over-year to 191.7%, a record high, due to declines in noncurrent loans. This ratio is well above the financial crisis average of 64.5%. The coverage ratio for community banks is 15.4 percentage points above the coverage ratio for non-community banks.
  • Eighty-eight community banks had adopted current expected credit loss (CECL) accounting as of second quarter. Community bank CECL adopters reported negative provision expense of $208.3 million in the second quarter compared to positive $254.5 million for community banks that have not yet adopted CECL.
  • Net charge-offs declined 8 basis points from second quarter 2020 to 0.05%. The net charge-off rate for consumer loans declined most among major loan categories, having decreased 51 basis points.
  • Trends in loans and leases showed a slight decrease from first quarter 2021, decreasing by 0.5%. This decrease was mainly seen in the C&I loan category, which was driven by a $38.3 billion decrease in PPP loan balances. The decrease in PPP loans was driven by the payoff and forgiveness of such loans. Despite the decrease in loans quarter-over-quarter, total loans and leases increased by $5.7 billion (0.3%) from second quarter 2020. The majority of growth was seen in commercial real estate portfolios (up $61.7 billion, or 8.9%), which helped to offset the decline in C&I, agricultural production, and 1-4 family mortgage loans during the year.
  • Two-thirds of community banks reported an increase in deposit volume during the second quarter. Growth in deposits above the insurance limit, $250,000, increased by $47.8 billion, or 4.7%, while alternative funding sources, such as brokered deposits, declined by $3.8 billion, or 6.7%, from first quarter 2021. 
  • The average community bank leverage ratio (CBLR) for the 1,789 banks that elected to use the CBLR framework was 11%.
  • The number of community banks declined by 38 to 4,490 from first quarter 2021. This change includes two new community banks, 12 banks transitioning from community to non-community banks, one bank transitioning from non-community to community bank, 27 community bank mergers or consolidations, and two community bank self-liquidations.

Second quarter 2021 was another strong quarter for community banks, as evidenced by the increase in year-over-year quarterly net income of 28.7% ($1.9 billion). However, tightening NIMs will force community banks to find creative ways to increase their NIM, grow their earning asset bases, or find ways to continue to increase non-interest income to maintain current net income levels. Some community banks have already started dedicating more time to non-traditional income streams, as evidenced by a 4.3% year-over-year increase in quarterly non-interest income. The importance of the efficiency ratio (non-interest expense as a percentage of total revenue) is also magnified as community banks attempt to manage their non-interest expenses in light of declining NIMs. Banks appear to be strongly focusing on non-interest expense management, as seen by the 18 basis point decline from second quarter 2020 in non-interest expense as a percentage of average assets, although inflated balance sheets may have something to do with the decrease in the percentage.

Furthermore, much uncertainty still exists. For instance, although significant charge-offs have not yet materialized, the financial picture for many borrowers remains uncertain. And, payment deferrals have made some credit quality indicators, such as past due status, less reliable. Payment deferrals for many borrowers are coming to a halt. So, the true financial picture of these borrowers may start to come into focus. The ability of community banks to maintain relationships with their borrowers and remain apprised of the results of their borrowers’ operations has never been more important. This monitoring will become increasingly important as we transition into a post-pandemic economy. For seasonal borrowers, current indications, such as the most recent results from the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book, show that economic activity was relatively strong over the summer of 2021. However, supply chain pressures and labor shortages could put a damper on the uptick in economic activity for these borrowers, making a successful transition into the “off-season” months that much more important. 

Also, as offices start to open, employers will start to reassess their office needs. Many employers have either created or revised remote working policies due to changing employee behavior. If remote working schedules persist, whether it be full-time or hybrid, the demand for office space may decline, causing instability for commercial real estate borrowers. Recent inflation concerns have also created uncertainty surrounding future Federal Reserve monetary policy. If an increase in the federal funds target rate is used to combat inflation, community banks could see their NIMs in another transitory stage.

As always, please don’t hesitate to reach out to BerryDunn’s Financial Services team if you have any questions.

Article
FDIC Issues its Second Quarter 2021 Quarterly Banking Profile

Read this if you are responsible for meeting your broker-dealer’s annual report filing requirement under Securities Exchange Act (SEA) Section 15.

In February, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approved a 30-day extension for eligible broker-dealers to file their annual reports, effective immediately. Firms that meet the criteria should consider taking advantage of the filing extension. Here are a few details and tips to help broker-dealers understand more about the 30‑day extension.

SEA Section 15 filing extension background

Normally, each broker-dealer registered under Securities Exchange Act (SEA) Section 15 must file annual reports—including financial and compliance or exemption reports, along with those prepared by an independent accountant—no more than 60 days after the broker-dealer’s fiscal year ends. But in light of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) requested that the SEC allow broker-dealers an extra 30 days to file their annual reports. The extension, FINRA argued, would allow broker-dealers more time to obtain audit services.

Criteria for broker-dealers eligible for the extension

To qualify for a filing extension of 30 calendar days, a broker-dealer must meet the following criteria:

  1. Was in compliance with 15c3-1 (Net Capital) as of its most recent fiscal year end and had total capital and allowable subordinated liabilities of less than $50 million,
  2. Is permitted to file an exemption report as part of its most recent fiscal year-end annual reports,
  3. Submits written notification to FINRA and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) of its intent to rely on this order on an ongoing basis for as long as it meets the conditions of the order, and
  4. Files the annual report electronically with the SEC using an appropriate process.

The extension does not apply to just this year alone. It is understood to be in effect on an ongoing basis.

How to notify FINRA of your intent to take advantage of the extension

Broker-dealers that meet the aforementioned conditions are required to notify FINRA of their intent to take advantage of the extension. FINRA advises eligible broker-dealers to send an email to their Risk Monitoring Analyst with a message structured according to the following template:

“My firm wishes to have an additional 30 calendar days for filing its annual report on an ongoing basis for as long as my firm meets the conditions set forth in the SEC Order of February 12, 2021, regarding additional time for filing annual reports under SEA Rule 17a-5.”

How to file electronically

In addition to notifying FINRA, those looking to benefit from the extension are required to file electronically. There are multiple ways to do so, but the most user-friendly and efficient avenue to electronic filing is through the SEC’s Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system.

Using the EDGAR system, broker-dealers must upload only two attachments maximum. The EDGAR system offers two options for electronic filing:

  1. The broker-dealer could attach one document containing all the annual reports as a public document; or
  2. The broker-dealer could attach two documents to its submission: (1) a public document containing the statement of financial condition, the notes to the statement of financial condition and the accountant’s report which covers the statement of financial condition, and (2) a non-public document containing all the components of the annual reports.

Implications for annual filings

An upcoming filing deadline is a stressful event, especially for broker-dealers contending with the upheaval of the past 18 months. Fortunately, FINRA has advocated on their behalf, and the SEC has complied by offering a 30-day filing extension.

The extension provides broker-dealers excess time to review documents and schedule a session with their auditor. Auditors will likely appreciate the extension as well, as it allows them to serve their various clients over a longer period of time, alleviating some of the pressure traditionally associated with filing season.

For these reasons and more, broker-dealers who qualify are encouraged to take the steps required to benefit from this grace period. If you have questions or would like more information, please contact our broker-dealer consulting team. We're here to help.

Article
Eligible broker-dealers: Take advantage of SEC's 30-day filing extension