View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

ESSAYS ON ISSUES

THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK
OF CHICAGO

MARCH 2010
NUMBER 272a

Chicag­o Fed Letter
The impact of the financial crisis on community banks:
A conference summary
by Mark H. Kawa, vice president, Supervision and Regulation, and Steven VanBever, lead supervision analyst, Supervision and Regulation

The fifth annual Community Bankers Symposium, co-sponsored by the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago and the Midwest Region of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
was held at the Chicago Fed on November 6, 2009. This article summarizes the key
presentations and discussions at the conference.

Representing the Federal Reserve System

Materials presented at the
conference are available at
www.chicagofed.org/
webpages/events/2009/
community_bankers_
symposium.cfm.

at the Community Bankers Symposium
were Elizabeth A. Duke, Governor, Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System; and Charles L. Evans, president
and CEO, Carl R. Tannenbaum, vice
president, and Mark H. Kawa, vice
president—all from the Federal Reserve
Bank of Chicago. Speakers from the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) were Richard Brown, chief economist, and M. Anthony Lowe, regional
director of the Midwest Region. Mark
Zandi, chief economist and co-founder,
Moody’s Economy.com, also addressed
the gathering. Nearly 300 individuals,
primarily representatives from community
banks1 in the Seventh Federal Reserve
District,2 attended the symposium.
This year’s theme for the symposium was
“Are We There Yet?” Symposium participants discussed whether the overall economy had yet reached the point of recovery
from the financial crisis. They also explored the risks facing community banks
in the current environment and helped
identify key supervisory and policy issues.
On the surface, the current financial crisis appears to be mainly a story about very
large banks. Many of these banks undertook excessive risks in the environment
of strong economic growth that existed
until around mid-2007. When economic
conditions changed dramatically, banks

began facing severe liquidity strains and
a loss of market confidence. The financial
system was stabilized only through an unprecedented range of new federal government and Federal Reserve programs to
support firms and consumers and to restore the flow of capital in the economy.
Less obvious is the connection between
community banks and risks to the financial system. The failure of a single community bank does not generally have a
significant impact on the financial system
as a whole. However, because community
banks individually lack the geographical
and product diversification available to
larger banks, they can become exposed
collectively to regional and sectoral economic downturns—such as a downturn
in residential and commercial real estate
(CRE) markets.3 These downturns can
then cause a large number of community
banks to weaken or fail, which in turn can
lead to significant credit constraints on
firms (particularly small businesses) that
rely heavily on these banks for working
capital. This can then adversely affect
local communities and the broader economy. It is this dynamic that we have been
seeing in the current crisis.
Community banks and the financial
crisis

Tannenbaum proposed that, while the
extent and magnitude of the recent

financial crisis were unexpected, the
groundwork for such an event was
formed over the past generation by evolutions in financial products, business models, and government regulations. These
evolutions affected banks of all sizes.
Prior to the 1970s, commercial banking
was heavily regulated, quite stable, and
profitable, but not especially innovative
or dynamic. Then, beginning in the
1970s, the traditional bank business model came under increasing pressure from
macroeconomic volatility, new technologies, and business innovations, such as

development lending but was spreading
to other types of loans. Nonperforming
loan and net charge-off ratios continued
to increase, but not as quickly as before.
Growth in loan loss reserves was still lagging the rise in nonperforming loans. For
the industry as a whole, reserves covered
only about 60% of these loans (about
50% at community banks). This low coverage suggested that additional provisions
would be needed in future quarters.
The number of banks on the FDIC’s
“Problem List” continued to rise, reaching 552 as of September 30, 2009. In

Community banks in virtually every region of the country face
significant economic challenges in the near and medium term.
securitization4 and the originate-todistribute model.5 It also appears that in
some cases incentives were misaligned,
said Tannenbaum. The existence of a
“shadow banking system”6 created incentives to shift risks to unregulated or less
regulated firms. Finally, bankers, investors, and rating agencies should have
adopted a more critical attitude toward
new financial products; they should have
also been more skeptical about the mathematical models used to measure and
manage risk.
According to Tannenbaum, these ­
industry-wide developments “trickled
down” to community banks in various
ways. Some banks invested in complex
securities. Some relied on selling assets
into the credit markets. Some adjusted
their pricing and underwriting to compete with larger organizations. And some
increased their reliance on wholesale
funding sources,7 which are less stable
than the retail (or “core”) deposits community banks have historically relied on
for funding.
Current banking conditions

Duke, Brown, and Tannenbaum all addressed banking conditions at the time
of the conference. These conditions continued to deteriorate, lagging trends in
the overall economy. High loan loss provisions8 still severely depressed bank earnings. Credit deterioration had centered
so far in real estate construction and

addition, the number of bank failures
remained elevated. The 115 institutions
that had failed or received assistance
from the FDIC in 2009 by the date of
the conference was the most in any
year since 1992.
These speakers also noted that capital
ratios for the banking industry remained
satisfactory overall, with the vast majority
of banks still considered well capitalized
under regulatory standards. However,
continuing credit deterioration raised
questions about the adequacy of capital
going forward. Other strains on capital
were weak earnings, unreceptive capital
markets, and the potential stigma associated with using federal government and
Federal Reserve support programs. These
were leading banks to conserve capital
(e.g., by reducing dividends) and/or
decrease the overall size of their balance
sheets, which could reduce the availability
of credit to the economy.
Recent policy initiatives

Speakers discussed two recent policy
initiatives that will significantly affect
community banks. Duke presented the
recent interagency policy on CRE loan
workouts.9 This statement provides guidance for examiners and for financial institutions working with CRE borrowers
experiencing diminished operating cash
flows, depreciated collateral values, or
prolonged delays in selling or renting
commercial properties. Duke emphasized

that performing loans made to creditworthy borrowers—including those renewed or restructured on reasonable
modified terms—will not be adversely
classified solely because the value of the
underlying collateral has declined. She
also stressed that prudent loan workouts
are often in the best interest of both financial institutions and borrowers. Duke
recommended that bankers maintain
good documentation on the status of
real estate projects, cash flows (both
borrowers’ and guarantors’), and current collateral values. Finally, she encouraged bankers to continue to lend
to sound borrowers and expressed the
hope that the new guidance would help
them assess new loan prospects, as well
as existing credits.
Brown outlined the FDIC’s proposal to
have banks prepay deposit-insurance assessments10 in order to provide additional
liquidity to the Deposit Insurance Fund.
The FDIC proposed that insured institutions prepay their estimated quarterly
assessments for all of 2010, 2011, and
2012 by year-end 2009, which would yield
approximately $45 billion. The FDIC determined that this arrangement, unlike
a one-time special assessment, would
not significantly affect banks’ earnings,
capital, or lending.
Economic challenges

Community banks in virtually every region
of the country face significant economic
challenges in the near and medium term.
According to Evans, while many broad
indicators of economic recovery are becoming more favorable, unemployment
remains very high and is likely to continue to be high for some time. A number
of crosscurrents in the economy introduce significant uncertainty into any forecasts. Downside risks include a lagging
labor market, weakness in CRE, the prospect of further asset losses at financial
intermediaries, higher personal savings
rates impinging on consumption, and
the weak fiscal condition of state and local
governments. Positive trends include
financial market improvements, inventory levels that are under control, good
productivity numbers, the beginnings
of a worldwide economic recovery, and
effects of the fiscal stimulus.

According to Evans, two extreme outlooks
for inflation are frequently expressed
today. One view has inflation greatly ­
increasing in the future, based on the
explosion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, which has enormously increased the money supply. The other
view sees strong deflationary forces, based
on high unemployment rates and slack
capacity utilization,11 which are often
associated with falling inflation. Evans
argued that sound macroeconomic policies would allow us to avoid the extremes
of either scenario.

troubled or are failing. Current debates
center on which regulator(s) should be
responsible for this process and how it
should be funded. A second reform is
to make it more expensive for firms to
be systemically important. This could
be achieved through higher deposit-­
insurance premiums, greater oversight,
higher capital and liquidity requirements,
and other methods.
Conference participants also discussed
the restructuring of regulatory agencies.
Brown contended that the creation of a

Many speakers expressed confidence that community banks
would continue to play a key role in the financial system.
Zandi agreed that the recovery will be
difficult. Hiring by businesses remains
dormant, he said, and the residential mortgage foreclosure crisis shows no indication
of letting up. The current bust in the CRE
market is also a serious threat. Furthermore, the budget problems of state and
local governments continue to intensify,
and credit is still impaired because securitization markets remain frozen.
According to Zandi, monetary and fiscal
policy will provide just enough additional
support in 2010 to prevent the economy
from sliding back into recession. He predicted that in mid-2010, foreclosures and
unemployment would peak and housing
prices would bottom out. Zandi also projected that in 2011, a self-sustaining expansion would begin, bank failures would
subside, and securities markets would
return to more normal functioning.
Some long-term trends highlighted by
Zandi were the growth of exports to fill
the void left by cautious U.S. consumers
and the eventual need to return to greater fiscal austerity.
Regulatory reform

As a result of the financial crisis, community banks face the prospect of major
changes in bank regulation. Brown outlined some of the changes the FDIC supports in response to the financial crisis.
Two reforms could help solve the toobig-to-fail problem.12 One is an effective
resolution process for handling large,
complex financial firms that become

single federal bank regulator might not
be necessary. Instead, he said, the FDIC
supports the creation of a systemic risk
council to identify, monitor, and take
action on future systemic risks, as well as
the increased use of “macroprudential”
supervision (i.e., supervision focusing on
emerging risks to the financial system as
a whole). Finally, to remedy weaknesses
in consumer protection highlighted by
the financial crisis, he noted, the FDIC
supports establishing a new agency dedicated to creating standards and protections for consumers.
Duke outlined several interconnected
reforms the Federal Reserve is seeking.
These included consolidated supervision
of, and a resolution regime for, systemically
important institutions; a more macroprudential view of risk; and enhanced
consumer-compliance supervision for
nonbank firms. The Federal Reserve is
also seeking greater powers to oversee
systemically important payments systems.
What should community banks
focus on?

Kawa provided a number of suggestions
for how community banks can respond
effectively to current risk-management
challenges. In light of current weaknesses
in CRE lending, he said, banks should
“expect the unexpected.” This means
anticipating a range of adverse scenarios
that reflect local economic conditions
and the bank’s individual risk profile.
Such “stress testing” can be very helpful

in identifying potential effects on earnings and capital and developing appropriate responses. Since market analysts
are conducting their own stress tests of
banks’ exposures, it is better for banks
to be ahead of the curve.
In an effort to diversify away from CRE
lending, many community banks have
increased their exposure to commercial
lending.13 However, credit deterioration
is spilling over to this type of lending as
well. Banks now focusing on increasing
commercial lending, Kawa recommended,
should develop sound business strategies
based on a realistic assessment of internal
and external strengths and weaknesses.
They should also have a robust process
for approving new products or activities
and appropriate policies and limits governing loan participations and purchases.
For most community banks, funding
has stabilized since the earlier stages of
the financial crisis. However, funding
sources can disappear when a bank is
perceived to have asset quality or earnings problems. Therefore, banks should
perform liquidity risk analyses that consider potential funding pressures, Kawa
advised. These analyses should make
use of forward-looking metrics as much
as possible and consider a wide range
of stress scenarios.

Charles L. Evans, President; Daniel G. Sullivan, Senior
Vice President and Director of Research; Douglas D. Evanoff,
Vice President, financial studies; Jonas D. M. Fisher,
Vice President, macroeconomic policy research; Daniel
Aaronson, Vice President, microeconomic policy research;
William A. Testa, Vice President, regional programs, and
Economics Editor; Helen O’D. Koshy and Han Y. Choi,
Editors; Rita Molloy and Julia Baker, Production
Editors; Sheila A. Mangler, Editorial Assistant.
Chicago Fed Letter is published by the Economic
Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank
of Chicago. The views expressed are the authors’
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal
Reserve System.
© 2010 Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago ­
Chicago Fed Letter articles may be reproduced in
whole or in part, provided the articles are not ­
reproduced or distributed for commercial gain
and provided the source is appropriately credited.
Prior written permission must be obtained for
any other reproduction, distribution, republication, or creation of derivative works of Chicago Fed
Letter articles. To request permission, please contact
Helen Koshy, senior editor, at 312-322-5830 or
email Helen.Koshy@chi.frb.org. Chicago Fed
Letter and other Bank publications are available
at www.chicagofed.org.

  

ISSN 0895-0164

In today’s volatile environment, capital
adequacy is critical. While many banks
have capital ratios well above regulatory
minimums, Kawa said, this does not
guarantee that a bank will have enough
capital to survive a severe shock. Regulators are placing more emphasis than
ever on sound capital planning. Capital
plans should include forward-looking
analyses of different economic scenarios.
They should also take into account dividend payouts and stock repurchases
and redemptions.14

Conclusion

1 Community banks are typically smaller

6

While the symposium highlighted numerous challenges facing community banks,
many of the speakers also expressed confidence that community banks would
continue to play a key role in the financial system. Community banks’ local connections and greater familiarity with local
conditions can give them an edge in meeting the needs of households and small
businesses. The information they possess
about local borrowers can be a source of
competitive advantage in making judgments about creditworthiness. In the

banks that conduct most of their business in
their local communities. The size threshold
most often used is $1 billion in assets.

2 The Chicago Fed serves the Seventh Federal
Reserve District, which comprises all of Iowa
and most of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
and Wisconsin.

7

Examples of wholesale funding are federal
funds, Federal Home Loan Bank advances,
and brokered certificates of deposit.

commercial real estate (e.g., office buildings
and shopping centers), whose repayment
typically comes from rental income or
sale/refinancing of the property.

8

The provision for loan losses is the amount
set aside by a bank to maintain its loan
loss reserve at a level sufficient to absorb
estimated loan losses.

Securitization is the process of taking an
illiquid asset (or group of assets) and,
through financial engineering, converting
it into a security.

9

See www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/
press/bcreg/20091030a.htm. This policy was
issued by the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the
National Credit Union Administration, the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the
Federal Financial Institutions Examination
Council State Liaison Committee.

3 CRE lending refers to loans secured by

4

5

The shadow banking system is a network
of lenders, brokers, and opaque financing
vehicles outside the traditional banking
system that has grown substantially in recent
years and is much less regulated than the
traditional banking system.

Originate-to-distribute is a business model
for financial intermediation, under which
financial institutions originate loans such as
mortgages, repackage them into securitized
products, and then sell these products ­
to investors.

10

For the final rule, see www.fdic.gov/news/
news/press/2009/pr09203.html.

current crisis, as some larger banks are
improving their capital and liquidity
positions and cutting back on new lending, community banks may discover new
opportunities to serve customers. Community banks continue to be a leading
provider of credit to small businesses,
whose growth is critical to creating new
jobs and improving the broader economy.
In his closing comments, Lowe stressed
that the FDIC and the other regulators
will work with community banks to find
solutions and strategies that address
their mutual concerns.
11 Capacity utilization is calculated as the actual

output produced with installed equipment
divided by the potential output that could
be produced with it if used to its full capacity.

12 Regulatory authorities have strong incentives

to prevent the failure of a large, highly interconnected financial firm because of the risks
that such a failure would pose to the financial system and the broader economy. However, the belief of market participants that
a particular firm is considered too big to
fail has a number of potential undesirable
effects, including reduced market discipline,
excessive risk-taking, and increased costs
to the Deposit Insurance Fund.

13 Commercial loans are loans made to busi-

nesses for a wide variety of business purposes
(such as inventory financing and investments
in equipment).

14

See www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/
srletters/2009/SR0904.htm.