Decision Analytics | Loan Portfolio Monitoring

We have talked about: the creation of the vision for our loan portfolios (current state versus future state) – e.g. the strategy for moving our current portfolio to the future vision. Now comes the time for execution of that strategy.

In changing portfolio composition and improving credit quality, the discipline of credit must be strong (this includes in the arenas of commercial loan origination, loan portfolio monitoring, and credit risk modeling of course). Consistency, especially, in the application of policy is key. Early on in the change/execution process there will be strong pressure to revert back to the old ways and stay in a familiar comfort zone.  Credit criteria/underwriting guidelines will have indeed changed in the strategy execution.

In the coming blogs we will be discussing:

• assessment of the current state in your loan portfolio;
• development of the specific strategy to effect change in the portfolio from a credit quality perspective and composition;
• business development efforts to affect change in the portfolio composition; and 
• policy changes to support the strategy/vision.

This post is a feature from my colleague and guest blogger, Barry Timm, Senior Process Architect in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian.

2008 has proven to be an unbelievably challenging year for the economy as a whole, let alone the financial industry.  Never before have we experienced the type and degree of turmoil that we did in 2008, even since the “Great Depression”.
 

These economic challenges have been quick, severe and widespread; and, from large corporations to the individual consumer, all have been impacted to some degree.  The stock market is down, unemployment up, consumer confidence down, delinquencies up ….not exactly a pleasant roller coaster ride. 
 

And, there is no longer any projecting as to when the “bubble” is going to burst.  It happened.   Decreased real estate values have occurred not only in high impact geographic regions but throughout the country.  While home equity products have traditionally been the “golden child” of consumer loan product offerings, recent economic changes have caused a shift in that perspective.  As a result, tightened underwriting standards have limited the availability of the product as a whole.  In some markets the product offering has even been temporarily halted.
 

We frequently hear the terminology “bailout” being used in the news.  While we all have expectations as it relates to the bailout approach, I thought I would “Google” the word “bailout” to see what would magically appear.  Interestingly enough, the first listing was titled “Walk away from your home”, with a link to the home page for a mortgage default legal team.  This is not exactly what I was expecting to find, but is definitely reflective of the times.
 

And, according to the FDIC, there have been 25 failed financial instituions in the year 2008.  This single year number equates to the total number of failed financial institutions between the prior periods 2001 through 2007. 

Okay … enough doom and gloom.  In spite of all that has occurred within the economy, some financial institutions continue to maintain a strong credit quality position in their consumer portfolios and have maintained profitability throughout all of the market volatility.  

What are the strong survivors doing that differentiates themselves from the others?

1. They understand their portfolio.  
Advisory Services frequently assists clients with various types of portfolio management analysis and often presents those findings to senior management.  We often hear that management is surprised by the results of that analysis. The point is that high-level management reporting is not enough these days. Additional detail and depth are necessary. 

More specifically, as opposed to evaluating payment performance at the portfolio level, it is important to consider the following:

• Do you know your delinquency numbers at the product level? 
• How do delinquencies compare to your product approval rates? 
• Do you routinely compare approval/decline rates and delinquencies to scorecard results and/or credit bureau scores?  
• Do you know where pricing exceptions are being made and are you receiving sufficient return for the level of risk?

2. A focused strategy is in place.
It is important to re-emphasize the specific, strategic direction and focus of your defined market.  Now is not the time to be “pushing the envelope” and extending into untested waters.  There is something to be said about focusing on your strengths, staying within your defined footprint and meeting the needs of your core, proven line of business while following sound financial risk management.

3. The underwriting process is under control.
This does not automatically mean that a “tightening” of underwriting standards is necessary.  It does mean, however, that stronger attention to detail is warranted.  It is important that underwriting criteria is reviewed and that you are sure that defined underwriting practices are consistently applied.  As noted in item number one above, this may require digging a little deeper and reviewing current and past decisioned loans (preferably with a critical eye of an independent third party).  Assessing the underwriting process becomes increasing complex and more critical with a decentralized underwriting approach.

Focus on the positive
Now that 2008 is behind us, let’s continue to focus on the positives to come in 2009.  Reflect on the past, but strive to center your attention on ongoing portfolio monitoring, financial risk management assessments and improvements for the future. 

 

Part 1

Ok, it’s me again, your business development guy in financial risk management clothing. In my first blog, I promised that I would start providing specific tactics related to optimizing penetration and retention efforts.
 
So, in “non-consultant” speak, we’re trying to figure out:

• how we are going to get deeper with existing clients;
• keep the (good) business we have; and 
• find new opportunities.

Today, we’ll focus on client penetration strategies. Some of this should be pretty self-explanatory.  If it is, that’s good. If it isn’t, you have a lot of work to do.

First, let’s recognize that not clients are going to be suitable candidates for increasing the existing relationship. Secondly, we can’t focus strictly on those “A” clients in our portfolio (assuming that you’ve implemented even the most rudimentary sales segmentation strategy, which is categorization into three to four tiers based on total relationship). There simply aren’t that many and if you’ve done your job effectively, there shouldn’t be many more “A” clients to add.

Getting deeper requires a defined approach. It doesn’t just happen. Clients will not call you on a regular or on-going basis and tell you that they need more services (well not usually). Rather, the responsibility rests on our shoulders to uncover changes in their operations and to look for signs that indicate growth, changes in direction and/or priority or changes in their day-to-day activities.

Sounds simple right? So, how should you do this?

One approach might be to engage in a “client call/touch routine” that will have you contacting the upper 65 percent of your portfolio on a pre-defined schedule or frequency. The rationale being that continued and consistent interaction with the client base will result in both uncovering possible “new” needs as well ensuring that in the event there is a competitive effort underway, we will have the opportunity to provide our recommendation.  

My next blog will feature two additional tactics to include in your relationship management process.
 

Hello. My name is Prince Varma and I’ve spent the better part of the last 16 years helping financial institutions (FI) successfully improve their in business development, portfolio growth and client relationship management practices.

So, since the focus of this blog is to speak to readers about risk management, many of you are probably wondering what a “sales and business development” guy is doing writing a piece related to mitigating and managing risk?

Great question!

The simple fact is that the traditional or prevailing sentiment or definition related to risk management – mitigating credit risk -- is incomplete. A more accurate and comprehensive approach would be to recognize, acknowledge and address that “risk” cuts across the entire client relationship spectrum of:

• client penetration/growth;
• client retention; and
• client credit risk mitigation.

How do penetration and retention count as “risk factors”?
(this is where the sales guy stuff comes in)

From a penetration perspective, the failure to recognize potential opportunities either within the existing client base or in the operating market, introduces revenue growth risk (meaning we aren’t keeping our eye on the top line). Ultimately it impacts the FI’s ability to add assets (either deposits or loans) and also has a direct affect on efficiency and deposit to loan ratios.

From a retention perspective, the risk is even more obvious. Our most valued clients are the ones that we must continuously engage in a proactive manner. Let’s face it. In even the smallest markets, there are no less than four to six other institutions waiting to jump on your client in the event that you grow complacent. There is a huge difference between selection and satisfaction. And, if we aren’t focused on keeping a client after securing them, our net portfolio growth targets will be impossible to achieve. 

Considering the current market environment, now more than ever, effectively managing these three elements of “risk/exposure to the FI” is crucial to an institutions success both practically and pragmatically. Everyone internally at the bank is focused on the “credit risk mitigation” piece. The conversations that are occurring outside of the bank’s walls however are focused on the “L” word or liquidity and getting credit flowing again.

How many times have we read or more frankly been beaten with this comment from business owners “…there’s no one making loans anymore…” or “…its impossible to get credit…?”

That should be read as … penetration and retention

Striking a balance between effective and appropriate credit risk exposure and deepening or growing the portfolio has been a challenge facing those of us in the front office for as long as I can remember. The “sales revolution” is effectively over. We’ve learned the critical lesson that we need to evolve beyond being strictly a credit officer (you did learn that right??!!). And, you didn’t/shouldn’t become a “banking products generalist” with no analytical depth. Knowing all this, it is important that we return to the guiding principles of effective lending which include:
- evaluating the scope of the opportunity;
- isolating the risk and identifying a reasonable and realistic recovery/mitigation remedy;
- determining what other alternatives the borrower might be considering; and
- being willing to let the “bad deals” walk.

In subsequent blogs, I’ll provide you with specific tactics aimed at optimizing penetration and retention efforts and implementing effective and practical client management strategies.

After all what would you expect from a business development guy…
 

What is porfolio risk management? It is the active and effective oversight of the current client base with the intent of:

• Maximizing client retention –LOVE
  • Everyone wants to retain clients and deepen relationships!
• Maximize cross-sell opportunities –LOVE
  • Again, everyone wants to retain clients and deepen relationships!
• Minimize loss potential due to credit risk issues –HATE
  • No one wants credit issues to develop!
• Minimize loss potential due to operational risks –HATE
• Maximize profitability through timely identification of risk and appropriate allocation of capital –LOVE / HATE

• Which clients are likely to need additional products and services?
• Which clients have a high potential of leaving your financial institution?
• When do you shift from client retention to credit risk management?
  
   

Part 2

In my last post, I started my review of the Uniform Bank Performance Reports for the two largest financial institution peer groups through the end of 2008.

Now, lets look at the resutls relating to credit cost, loss allowance accounts and the impacts on earnings. Again, as you look at these results, I encourage you to consider the processes that your bank currently utilizes for credit risk modeling and financial risk management.

Credit costs
More loans, especially in an economic downturn, mean more credit risk. Credit costs were up tremendously. The Peer group 1 banks reported net loan losses of .89% of total loans. This is an increase from .28% in 2007, which was up from an average of 18 basis points on the portfolio in 2006/2005.  The Peer group 2 banks reported net loan losses of .74%. This is also up substantially from 24 basis points in 2007 and an average of 15 basis points in 2006/2005. The net loan losses reported in the fourth quarter significantly boosted both groups’ year-end loss percentages above where they stood through the first three quarters last year.

Loss allowance accounts
Both groups also ramped up their reserve for future expected losses substantially. The year-end loss allowance account (ALLL) as a percent of total loans stood at 1.81% for the largest banks. This is an increase of almost 50% from an average of 1.21% in the years 2007/2004. Peer group 2 banks saw their reserve for losses go up to 1.57% from an average of 1.24% in the years 2007/2004.

The combination of covering the increased net loan losses and also increasing the loss reserve balance required a huge provision expenses. So, loan balances were up even in the face of increased write-offs and expected forward losses.

Impacts on earnings
Obviously, we would expect this provisioning burden to negatively impact earnings. It did, greatly. Peer group 1 banks saw a decline in return on assets to a negative .07%. This is just below break-even as a group. The average net income percentage stood at .42% of average assets at the end of the third quarter. So, the washout in the fourth quarter reports took the group average to a net loss position for the year. The ROA was at .96% in 2007 and an average of 1.26% in 2006/2005. That is a 111% decline in ROA from 2007. Return on equity also went into the red, down from 11.97% in 2007. ROE stood at 14.36% in 2005.

For the $1B to $3B banks, ROA stood at .35%. This is still a positive number, however, it is way down from 1.08% in 2007, 1.30% in 2006 and 1.33% in 2005. The decline in 2008 was 67% from 2007. ROE for the group was also down, at 4.11% from 12.37% in 2007. The drops in profitability were not entirely the result of credit losses, but this was by far the largest impact from 2007.

The seriously beefed-up ALLL accounts would seem to indicate that, as a group, the banks expect further loan losses, at least through 2009.  These numbers largely pre-dated the launch of the Troubled Asset Relief Program and the tier one funding it provided in 2008. But, it is clear that banks had not contracted lending for all of 2008, even in the face of mounting credit issues and a declining economic picture. It will be interesting to see how things unfold in the next several quarters.
 

Part 1

It may be quite useful to compare your financial institution's portfolio risk management process or your investment plans , to the results of peer group averages. Not all banks are the same -- believe it or not. Here are the averages. You should look for differences in your target institution. About half of them beat certain performance numbers and the other half may be naturally worse.

As promised, I have again reviewed the Uniform Bank Performance Reports for the two largest peer groups through the end 2008. The Uniform Bank Performance Report (UBPR) is a compilation of the FDIC, based on the call reports submitted by insured banks. The FDIC reports peer averages for various bank size groupings and here are a few notable findings for the two largest groups that covers 494 reporting banks.

Peer group 1

• Peer group 1 consisted of 189 institutions over $3 billion in average total assets for the year.
• Net loans accounted for 67.31% of average total assets, which is up from 65.79 % in 2007. 
• Loans, as a percent of assets, have increased steadily since at least 2004. The loan-to-deposit ratio for the largest banks was also up to 96% from 91% in 2007 and 88% in both 2006 and 2005.

So, it appears these banks were lending more in 2008 as an allocation of their total asset base and relative to their deposit sources of funding.

In fact, net loans grew at a rate of 9.34% for this group, which is down from the average growth rate of 15.07% for the years 2005 through 2007.  The growth rate in loans is down, which is probably due to tightened credit standards. However, it is still growth. And, since total average assets also had growth of 11.58% in 2008, the absolute dollars of loan balances increased at the largest banks.

• Peer group 2 consisted of 305 reporting financial institutions between $1B and $3B in total assets.
• The net loans accounted for 72.96% of average total assets, up from 71.75% in 2007. 
• Again, the loans as a percent of total assets have increased steadily since at least 2004. The loan-to-deposit ratio for these banks was up to 95% from 92% in 2007 and an average of 90% for 2006 and 2005.

So, these banks are also lending more in 2008 as a portion of their asset base and relative to their deposit source of funding.

Net loans grew at a rate of 10.48% for this group in 2008 which is down from 11.94% growth in 2007 and down from an average growth of 15.04% for 2006 and 2005. And, since total average assets also had growth of 10.02% in 2008, the absolute dollars of loan balances also increased at the intermediate size banks. Again here, the growth rate in loans is down, probably due to tightened credit standards, but it is still growth and it is at a slightly more aggressive rate than the largest bank group.

Combined, for these 494 largest financial institutions, loans were still growing through 2008 both as a percentage of asset allocation and in absolute dollars.

Tune in to my next blog to read more about the results shown relating to credit costs, loss allowance accounts and the impacts on earnings.
 

Part 1

Beyond the risk management considerations related to a bank’s capital position, which is directly impacted by Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) participation, it should be clear that TARP also involves business (or strategic) risk.  We have spoken in the past of several major categories of risk: credit risk, market risk, operational risk and business risk.

Business risk includes:

• A variety of risks associated with the outcomes from strategic decision making;
• Governance considerations; 
• Executive behavior (for lack of better terminology);
• Management succession events or other leadership occurrences that may affect the performance and financial viability of the business.

Aside from the monetary impact on the bank’s capital position, TARP involves a new capital securities owner being in the mix. And, with a 20% infusion of added tier 1 capital, we are almost always talking about a very large, new owner relative to existing shareholders. The United States Department of the Treasury is the investor or holder of the newly issued preferred stock and warrants. The Treasury Department does not have voting rights like common shareholders, but the Treasury’s Securities Purchase Agreement – Standard Form includes at least 35 pages of terms, plus the required Letter Agreement, Schedules attached to the Letter Agreement and at least five significant Annex’s to the Purchase Agreement. It’s NOT an easy, quick or fun read.

In the Recitals section, it states that the bank: “agrees to expand the flow of credit to U.S. consumers and businesses on competitive terms as appropriate to strengthen the health of the U.S. economy” and, later, “agrees to work diligently, under existing programs, to modify the terms of residential mortgages as appropriate to strengthen the health of the U.S. economy.” Fortunately, if you’re a banker, these topics are not (currently) revisited elsewhere in the document, period. However, these are examples of the new shareholder effecting business decision making without the need to be on the Board of Directors, or voting common shares.

The Agreement covers a number of other requirements and limitations, such as executive compensation, dividend payments, other capital sourcing and retention of bank holding company status. None of these are particularly onerous, but they must be taken into account by management.

Visit my next post to read about the very interesting Amendment clause that may represent an open-ended business portfolio risk management decision for the future.
 

We have been hearing quite a bit about the ponzi scheme that was created and managed by Bernie Madoff.  Almost $50 billion dollars was taken from those that were considered to be sophisticated and definitely not the typical type to be scammed.  So, what created the environment that allowed such large sums of money to be lost in such a basic con game as a ponzi scheme?  I believe there are a few basic factors that prompted these seemingly sophisticated people to invest in this ill-fated “investment.”

• A strong desire to generate investment returns when the typical channels were not delivering.
• The reputation(s) of the existing client list -- If they invested why shouldn’t I? 
• The thought that if it paid off with smaller dollar investments, just think what could be made with larger dollars!

Hmmm!  Sounds like how we got ourselves into today’s credit situation.  Basically, we were distracted by the items noted above and ignored the warning signs. 

Putting the items above into credit industry terms it can be summed up as follows:

• We have to continue to grow and we are pressured to find more opportunities.  If we go lower in the credit quality spectrum, it can generate immediate volume from the existing application volume.
• Other financial institutions have gone into this type of lending and they aren’t showing any signs of significant distress in their portfolios.  We need to do the same.  (Everyone in the herd in favor of this action please respond by saying “Moo.”)
• Our test portfolio has performed acceptably, so let’s increase the volume.

Let’s continue the correlation between these two “problems.”  In the Madoff ponzi scheme, there were warning signs that cropped up - some earlier than others. These included:

• In 2000, the Securities and Exchange Commission received a letter from an outside money manager which warned of a possible scheme.
• In 2005, the Bostonian submitted an 18-page document to the SEC citing 29 red flags and indicated some level of corruption within Madoff’s investment company. 
• The SEC’s own earlier investigation conducted in 1999, included an acknowledgement that they had received “credible allegations” but these allegations were ignored.

So, what were the signs that were in front of us but we simply chose to ignore?

• Were the portfolios turning over so fast that we could not actually gather statistically valid data to support performance?
• Since we were selling off the loans, either individually or in bulk, did we ignore the actual risk that was taken by the industry? 
• Were we appropriately monitoring the portfolio growth and performance, utilizing risk reduction and risk avoidance techniques, doing regular rescores and tracking potential behavioral issues?

Whether the signs were visible to us or not, the fact remains that they existed in the past and they will likely exist in the future.  As we continue to clean up the mess of our past, we need to consider a few items:

• What we did in the past will no longer be acceptable going forward. We must change. We must improve.
• Regulatory pressures will increase and changes will continue to be made. 
• We will not have the luxury of time to respond to these pressures and/or changes. We must act now.

What is a financial institution to do?  Well, the worst thing we can do is wait for the regulators to tell us what to do because that is simply too late.  We need to act and act now.

• Assess the risk management methods that were employed in the past and determine deficiencies. Note the gaps between the historical tools and data sources compared with the updated credit decisioning tools and sources available in the industry.
• Develop a plan for implementing the new risk reduction methods and tools. Determine the estimated lift and manage/monitor your performance against your estimates.
• Don’t forget about the new additions to the portfolio. Once you have the existing risk identified, you should make the appropriate adjustments to the product risk parameters and terms and conditions to improve the overall quality of the new portfolio.

Overall, the worst thing that we can do is nothing. 

Remember,

“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana, a philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist
 

Part 2

Reason one
Unfortunately, there is a management issue regarding their transparency with the investment community and/or client base.  Regrettably for the managers and leaders choosing this approach, if this problem persists too long, the organization may choose to rectify with a change in the management and leadership

Reason two
The solution is both simple and complex.  In simplistic terms, the financial institution must evolve its portfolio risk management reduction techniques and take a more proactive stance.  Both internal and external data exists that can provide significant insight to the portfolio, its trends and potential future loss. 

Such data sources include:

• Internal behavioral characteristics (negative changes outside of just delinquencies)
  • High line usage
  • Non sufficient funds frequency & severity (for those borrowers who also have a deposit account with the institution)
  • Deposit account closures
    
    External data
  • Regular rescore of the borrowers (both small business and consumer)
  • Derogatory payment trends with other creditors (the borrower may be current with you but for how long?)
  • Judgments or liens
     

Such data can be used to create models for portfolio performance calculating:

• Delinquency trends by score (as the portfolio trends up or down in the score ranges we can adjust the expected loss rates, delinquency rates, etc.)
• Within score ranges and based upon other behavioral characteristics, what is the likelihood for charge-off or recovery.

The biggest takeaway is that these portfolio management techniques are not new and untested.  Your data provider (such as Experian), has used these techniques and has the data to support the effectiveness.  While we are in trouble, we may find ourselves wanting to keep the “dirty secrets” to ourselves.  Too often such an approach leads to one’s demise.  Seek information, seek help, get control and truly start to move in a positive direction.
 

“Unprecedented times,” “financial crisis,” “credit crisis” and many other terms continue to be buzzwords that we hear every day.  We are almost becoming desensitized to the terms, yet we feel the impact on a daily basis.  Everyone is waiting for some positive news in the financial services industry and more bad news keeps coming.

Each quarter we continue to read about financial institutions claiming that the worst is over. They have recognized the risk in their portfolios through risk assessment, set aside adequate reserves or loan loss allowances and are now ready to turn the corner.  Yet we continue to read about these same institutions coming back with more bad news, more credit losses and a restatement of the assurance that the problems have been recognized. As a result, this financial risk management has brought to light all of the high-risk accounts and the trend will begin to change.

Why does this story keep repeating itself? 

Reason one 
Management assesses to what extent the market (both stock market and the client base) will tolerate the level or degree of bad news, recognize losses to that extent and will then work hard to try to correct any known issues before we actually have to report the next quarter.  Unfortunately, this approach simply delays the inevitable and brings into question the risk management practices of the particular institution.  Like the boy who cried wolf, the more times you make a statement and it proves to be false, the less likely you will be believed the next time. 

Reason two
The financial institutions are actually surprised each quarter with a new batch of credit losses.  The institution, its credit management team and workout areas are diligently trying to address the current problem. But, just when they start to see the light at the end of the tunnel, a new batch of credit problems arise.  For the most part, the credit issues still persist in the high-volume, low-dollar credits such as residential mortgages, home equity loans, automobiles, credit cards and small business loans.  Due to the sheer volume of clients/loans, it becomes more difficult to assess what issues may be brewing in the portfolio.  For the large volume, small dollar portfolios, the notion of a pending credit issue comes when the delinquency starts to rise to a delinquency of 60 or 90 days. The real issue is identifying those accounts that are likely to go 60 or 90 days past due and then assess the likelihood that they will go into charge-off.

Regardless of the reason, we have a “credibility” problem in addition to a “credit” problem.
 

Part 3

This post continues my discussion of the reasons for going through the time and trouble to analyze risk-based pricing for loans. I mentioned before that the second general major justification for going through the effort to risk-adjust loan pricing as a normal part of the lending function is financial.

I thought it might help put this into perspective by offering rough numbers that relate to risk-adjusted profit performance, bottom line earnings and expand on the premise that risk has a cost. Lending, in the leveraged/banking sense, involves credit risk, market (interest rate) risk and operational risk. The fourth area, the risk of unexpected loss, is covered by capital. Unmitigated risk will eventually impact earnings and common equity.  The question is when and by how much? It’s important to understand that the cost of risk mitigation efforts depend on the various risk characteristics of the bank’s loans and loan portfolio.

The differential cost of market risk
As an example, a floating rate loan that reprices every month involves little market risk, requiring little if any expense to offset. Compare it to a five-year fixed rate, interest-only loan that involves greater exposure to market risk. That risk costs something to offset. The difference in annualized marginal funding cost ranges widely depending on the steepness of the yield curve on the date the loan is closed. The difference between Federal Home Loan Banks 30-day rates and five-year bullet funding today, for instance, is close to 200 basis points. If risk-based loan pricing models don’t reflect this difference by using a matched marginal funding cost, the bank is voluntarily assuming some or all of the market (or interest rate) risk. Multiply an implied 200 bps risk-based funding cost difference by $100M in average loan balances and the implied annualized additional risk-free funding expense is $2,000,000. Multiply that by the average life of the portfolio to get the full risk-adjusted cost difference that the bank is assuming. And that’s just for the market risk.

The implied cost of credit risk
A loan with a pass risk rating of ‘2’ involves a lower likelihood of defaulting than a loan with a pass risk rating of ‘4.’ The lower risk (grade 2) loan, therefore, involves less of an Allowance for Loan Lease and Losses reserve requirement and an implied lower provisioning expense than the higher risk (grade 4) loan.

• Depending on the credit regimen and net loss experience of a given bank, the difference in the implied annualized expected loss due to credit risk could be 40 bps or more.
• Multiply the implied 40 bps credit risk cost difference by $100M in average loan balances and the implied annualized additional risk-adjusted credit expense is $400,000. 
• Multiply that by the average tenor of the portfolio to get the full risk-adjusted cost difference to the bank.

The implied difference in administrative (or operations) expenses
These expenses include all mitigated (insured) operational risk. An owner occupied commercial mortgage is normally much less expensive to monitor than a line of credit backing a construction project. Those cost differences often range into several thousand dollars per annum.

• If, in our example of the $100M portfolio, our average credit is $400K, then we have around 250 loans.
• These loans multiplied by $3,000 in fully-absorbed annual non-interest expense differences would amount to $750K. A competent risk-adjusted loan pricing effort would take this cost difference into account. 
• Again, multiply that yearly amount by the average life of the portfolio to get the full cost difference that the bank is incurring.

In reality, the three sample portfolios above would not overlap perfectly. The total actual assets from the above examples would lie between $100M and $300M. However, the total pretax cost difference of these three sample risk-based costs adds up to $3.15M per annum. The after-tax negative impact on risk-adjusted earnings is therefore about $2M yearly. So, the impact on ROA would be between 2.00% (if the three portfolios overlapped perfectly, for $100M in total assets) down to .67% (if there was no overlap, for $300M in total assets). This is a huge difference in earnings, on a risk-adjusted and fully cost-absorbed basis.

Finally, the amount of risk-based capital needed to back loans with differing risk characteristics, for purposes of unexpected loss, can be substantially different. This can be looked at as a difference in the implied cost of capital or in the performance ratio of ROE.

• In a simple application, the implied required equity might range from say 6% on the lower-risk loans up to 8% for moderate risk (average pass grade risk rating).
• If the portfolio in question is earning 1% ROA, the difference in risk-based equity would result in an ROE of either 12.5% for the higher risk loans versus 16.7% for the lower risk loans. 
• The differences in fully risk-based ROE, or RAROC, could easily be more dramatic than this.

As stated before, if these differences are not “priced” into the loans somehow, the bank is not getting paid for the risk it is incurring or it is charging the lower risk borrowers a rate that pays for the added risk expenses of the higher risk borrowers. The business risk to the bank then becomes losing the better clients over time rather than attracting the riskier deals.

An economic look at performance
We are not talking in terms of “normal” accounting practices or “typical” quarterly reporting periods. We do use general ledger numbers to start the analysis process by relying on actual balances, rates and maturities. But, GAAP doesn’t address risk. So the risk adjustments are a more “economic” look at performance. Eventually, the risk reduction approach and the GL-based results will even out. The question is not “if” risk will eventually surface, but when and how it will manifest itself in GL results. We’ve seen a lot of this in the news the past eighteen months – and there’s likely more to come as the economy is in a downturn phase.

Going through the effort is worth it
Once risk is created by making a loan or placing a bet, someone owns it. The reason to go through the effort to price loans (and relationships) on a fully risk-adjusted basis is to understand the impact of risk at the only point in time when you can do something about getting paid for it – at the time the loan is agreed upon. After that, the bank is pretty much along for the ride. Risk-adjusted pricing is smart banking. It not only puts some teeth in the bank’s already existing risk management policies, it is justifiable to the client and it makes sense to most lending officers. 
 

Stephanie Butler, manager of Process Architects, in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian continues from her last post by adding how to get back to the risk management basics.

With all that said, what is next?  You’ve learned the lessons and are ready to begin 2009 fresh.  How do you make sure that history does not repeat itself?  Simply get back to the basics by:

• Refocusing your lenders

The lenders are your first line of defense.  Make sure they understand the importance of accurate, complete information.  Through their incentives, hold them accountable for credit quality.  Retrain them, if necessary, on credit policy, financial analysis, business development, etc. 

• Creating or enhancing your loan review staff

A strong, internal loan review staff is crucial.  They are your second line of defense.  By sampling the entire portfolio on a regular basis, loan review can see trends that an individual loan officer cannot.  Loan review can aid in the portfolio management concentrations,  policy adherence and portfolio growth.  By reporting to either the holding company or credit administration, loan policy review can give an unbiased opinion on the quality of lending and the portfolio.

• Bring back the credit department and formally-trained credit analysts

For larger commercial loan underwriting requests, it is important to bring back the use of credit analysts and the credit department for in-depth financial analysis, loan write-ups and the discussion of strengths and weaknesses.  Don’t forget to train the credit analysts!  If you don’t feel you have the skill set within your institution for training, there are many good courses that your credit analysts can take.  Remember, this is your bench for future lenders.

• Bring accountability back

Everyone in your organization is accountable for a specific job or task.  You must hold your entire team, including senior management, accountable for their tasks, roles and the process of risk management. 

Remember, a lot of lessons were learned in 2008.  The key is not to waste this knowledge going forward.  Don’t keep doing what you have been doing!  Embrace the potential to improve your lending practices, financial risk management, training opportunities and customer satisfaction.  2009 is a new year!
 

This post is a feature from my colleague and guest blogger, Stephanie Butler, manager of Process Architects in Advisory Services at Baker Hill, a part of Experian.

Are you tired of the economic doom and gloom yet?  I am.  I’m not in denial about what is happening -- far from it.  But, we can wallow or move forward, and I chose to move forward.  Let’s look at a few of the many lessons that can be learned from the year and some action steps for the future.

1. Collateral does not make a bad loan good 
Remember this one? If you didn’t relearn this in 2008, you are in trouble.  Using real estate as collateral does not guarantee a loan will be paid back.  In small business/commercial lending, we should be looking at time in business, repayment trends and personal credit.  In consumer lending, time with an employer, time at the residence and net revolving burden are all key.  If these are weak, collateral will not make things all better.

2. Balance the loan portfolio 
Too much of a good thing is ultimately never a good thing.  First, we loaded our portfolios with real estate because real estate could never go bad.  Now, financial institutions are trying to diversify out of real estate and move into the “next great thing.”  Is it consumer credit cards, commercial C&I, or small business lines of credit?  It’s anyone’s guess.  The key is to balance the portfolio.  A balanced portfolio can help smooth the impact of economic trends and help managing uncertainty.  We all know that policy requires monitoring industry concentrations.  But, balancing the portfolio means more than that.  You also need to look at the product mix, collateral taken, loan size and customer location.  Are you too concentrated in unsecured lending?  How about lines of credit?  Are all of your customers in three zip codes?

3. Proactive vs. reactive
The days of using past dues for portfolio risk management are gone.  We need to understand our customers by using relationship management and looking for proactive markers to anticipate problems.  Whether this is done manually or through the use of technology, a process must be in place to gather data, analyze and anticipate loans that may need extra attention.  Proactive portfolio risk management can lessen potential charge-offs and allow the bank to renegotiate loans from a position of strength.

Be sure to check my next post as Stephanie continues with tips on how to get back to risk management basics.
 

Part 2

My colleague, Prince Varma, Senior Client Partner -- Portfolio Growth and Client Management, shares his advice on the best practices for portfolio risk management in these trying times.

Boy; this is an interesting time.

Banks today are at a critical threshold -- the biggest question that they are trying to answer is, "How do we continue to grow -- or at least avoid contracting -- without sacrificing profitability or credit quality?”
The urge to overcompensate, or engage in ultra conservative lending practices, must be resisted.  That said, we are already seeing a trend in which mid-sized and regional lenders are abandoning mid-tier credit.
This vacuum is being filled by community banks and credit unions which are implementing aggressive risk-based pricing programs in order to target the small business market.

These organizations are also introducing "safe and secure" campaigns that specifically target existing clients of banks in the news -- and attempting to entice those clients to switch over.

We are strongly urging banks to engage in an analysis of their existing portfolios in order to pinpoint opportunities for expanding their relationships with existing key clients.

Many senior executives are expressing apprehension about undertaking new projects given current levels of uncertainty.  Our best advice is two-fold.. First, focus on identifying those areas where process remediation will have long term and sustained value. Second, do not allow uncertainty to paralyze your internal improvement efforts.  Strong business cases lead to good decisions; don't let fear and apprehension cloud what you know needs to be done.