Table of Contents
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
þ | Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
For the Quarterly period ended June 30, 2010
o | Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 000-24478.
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Michigan | 38-3073622 | |
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
1360 Porter Street, Dearborn, MI 48124
(Address of principal executive office) (Zip Code)
(Address of principal executive office) (Zip Code)
(313) 565-5700
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yesþ Noo
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files. Yeso Noo
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company (as defined in rule 12b-2 of the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act).
Large accelerated filero | Accelerated filero | Non-accelerated filero(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | Smaller Reporting Companyþ |
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a shell company, as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Yeso Noþ
Indicate the number of shares outstanding for each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of July 31, 2010.
Class | Shares Outstanding | |
Common Stock | 7,685,705 |
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC.
INDEX
INDEX
Page | ||||||||
Part I. Financial Information: | ||||||||
Item 1. Financial Statements | ||||||||
The following condensed consolidated financial statements of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary are included in this report: | ||||||||
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm | 3 | |||||||
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets — June 30, 2010, December 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009 | 4 | |||||||
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operation — For the Three And Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 | 5 | |||||||
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss — For the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 | 6 | |||||||
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows — For the Six Months Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 | 7 | |||||||
Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements | 9-27 | |||||||
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations | 28-47 | |||||||
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk | 47-50 | |||||||
Item 4. Controls and Procedures | 51 | |||||||
Part II. Other Information: | ||||||||
Pursuant to SEC rules and regulations, the following item(s) are included with the Form 10-Q Report: | ||||||||
Item 1A Risk Factors | 52-53 | |||||||
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders | ||||||||
Item 6. Exhibits | ||||||||
Pursuant to SEC rules and regulations, the following items are omitted from this Form 10-Q as inapplicable or to which the answer is negative: | ||||||||
Item 1. Legal Proceedings | ||||||||
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds | ||||||||
Item 3. Defaults upon Senior Securities | ||||||||
Item 5. Other Information | ||||||||
SIGNATURES | 54 | |||||||
EX-31.1 | ||||||||
EX-31.2 | ||||||||
EX-32.1 | ||||||||
EX-32.2 |
2
Table of Contents
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Audit Committee, Board of Directors and Stockholders
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
Dearborn, Michigan
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc.
Dearborn, Michigan
We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. as of June 30, 2010 and 2009 and the related condensed consolidated statements of operation and comprehensive loss for the three-month and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, and condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009. These interim financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation’s management.
We conducted our reviews in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.
Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the condensed consolidated financial statements referred to above for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
We have previously audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in our report dated March 31, 2010, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2009 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.
BKD,llp
Indianapolis, Indiana
August 16, 2010
August 16, 2010
3
Table of Contents
PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited) | (Unaudited) | |||||||||||
(Dollars, in thousands) | 6/30/2010 | 12/31/2009 | 6/30/2009 | |||||||||
ASSETS | ||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | ||||||||||||
Cash and due from banks | $ | 7,088 | $ | 7,803 | $ | 25,475 | ||||||
Federal funds sold | 57 | 156 | 1,425 | |||||||||
Interest bearing deposits with banks | 67,056 | 69,538 | 18,454 | |||||||||
Total cash and cash equivalents | 74,201 | 77,497 | 45,354 | |||||||||
Mortgage loans held for sale | 1,169 | 1,129 | 60 | |||||||||
Securities available for sale | 46,171 | 45,964 | 3,257 | |||||||||
Securities held to maturity | 336 | 336 | — | |||||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank stock | 3,698 | 3,698 | 3,698 | |||||||||
Loans | ||||||||||||
Loans | 783,032 | 833,136 | 882,568 | |||||||||
Allowance for loan losses | (31,574 | ) | (35,125 | ) | (22,422 | ) | ||||||
Net loans | 751,458 | 798,011 | 860,146 | |||||||||
Premises and equipment, net | 19,724 | 20,194 | 20,784 | |||||||||
Real estate owned | 23,976 | 23,435 | 17,434 | |||||||||
Other intangible assets | — | — | 4,195 | |||||||||
Accrued interest receivable | 3,181 | 3,562 | 3,512 | |||||||||
Other assets | 9,199 | 12,660 | 31,360 | |||||||||
Total assets | $ | 933,113 | $ | 986,486 | $ | 989,800 | ||||||
LIABILITIES | ||||||||||||
Deposits | ||||||||||||
Non-interest bearing deposits | $ | 91,447 | $ | 83,873 | $ | 83,752 | ||||||
Interest bearing deposits | 736,217 | 784,082 | 729,415 | |||||||||
Total deposits | 827,664 | 867,955 | 813,167 | |||||||||
Other liabilities | ||||||||||||
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase | — | — | 2,206 | |||||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank advances | 63,799 | 63,855 | 73,955 | |||||||||
Accrued interest payable | 941 | 1,046 | 1,104 | |||||||||
Other liabilities | 746 | 1,685 | 1,491 | |||||||||
Subordinated debentures | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | |||||||||
Total liabilities | 903,150 | 944,541 | 901,923 | |||||||||
COMMITMENT AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | — | — | — | |||||||||
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY | ||||||||||||
Common stock - 100,000,000 shares authorized, 7,685,705 at 6/30/10, 7,687,470 shares at 12/31/09 and 7,687,470 shares at 6/30/09 | 131,991 | 131,929 | 131,866 | |||||||||
Accumulated deficit | (102,350 | ) | (89,850 | ) | (43,998 | ) | ||||||
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) | 322 | (134 | ) | 9 | ||||||||
Total stockholders’ equity | 29,963 | 41,945 | 87,877 | |||||||||
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 933,113 | $ | 986,486 | $ | 989,800 | ||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated statements.
4
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited)
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
(In thousands, except share data) | 6/30/10 | 6/30/09 | 6/30/10 | 6/30/09 | ||||||||||||
Interest income | ||||||||||||||||
Interest on loans | $ | 11,536 | $ | 13,286 | $ | 23,314 | $ | 27,096 | ||||||||
Interest on securities, available for sale | 157 | 178 | 325 | 434 | ||||||||||||
Interest on deposits with banks | 64 | 103 | 101 | 197 | ||||||||||||
Interest on federal funds | — | 6 | 1 | 12 | ||||||||||||
Total interest income | 11,757 | 13,573 | 23,741 | 27,739 | ||||||||||||
Interest expense | ||||||||||||||||
Interest on deposits | 2,925 | 5,458 | 6,468 | 11,456 | ||||||||||||
Interest on other liabilities | 376 | 578 | 762 | 1,229 | ||||||||||||
Total interest expense | 3,301 | 6,036 | 7,230 | 12,685 | ||||||||||||
Net interest income | 8,456 | 7,537 | 16,511 | 15,054 | ||||||||||||
Provision for loan losses | 11,803 | 13,610 | 11,903 | 24,337 | ||||||||||||
Net interest income (loss) after provision for loan losses | (3,347 | ) | (6,073 | ) | 4,608 | (9,283 | ) | |||||||||
Non-interest loss | ||||||||||||||||
Service charges on deposit accounts | 380 | 375 | 723 | 730 | ||||||||||||
Fees for other services to customers | 49 | 37 | 85 | 62 | ||||||||||||
Gain on the sale of loans | 66 | 160 | 124 | 216 | ||||||||||||
Gain on the sale of securities | — | 270 | 69 | 465 | ||||||||||||
Gain (loss) on the sale of real estate owned | 43 | (32 | ) | 32 | (3 | ) | ||||||||||
Loss on the write-down of real estate owned | (3,693 | ) | (1,506 | ) | (4,349 | ) | (1,860 | ) | ||||||||
Other income | 78 | 125 | 180 | 147 | ||||||||||||
Total non-interest loss | (3,077 | ) | (571 | ) | (3,136 | ) | (243 | ) | ||||||||
Non-interest expense | ||||||||||||||||
Salaries and employee benefits | 3,078 | 3,208 | 6,197 | 6,498 | ||||||||||||
Occupancy and equipment expense | 777 | 916 | 1,631 | 1,850 | ||||||||||||
Amortization of intangible expense | — | 199 | — | 397 | ||||||||||||
FDIC assessment | 1,125 | 833 | 2,075 | 1,181 | ||||||||||||
Advertising and marketing | 33 | 59 | 60 | 129 | ||||||||||||
Stationery and supplies | 75 | 109 | 147 | 220 | ||||||||||||
Professional services | 306 | 173 | 472 | 364 | ||||||||||||
Data processing | 174 | 238 | 360 | 466 | ||||||||||||
Defaulted loan expense | 1,054 | 926 | 2,089 | 1,687 | ||||||||||||
Other operating expenses | 583 | 442 | 942 | 822 | ||||||||||||
Total non-interest expense | 7,205 | 7,103 | 13,973 | 13,614 | ||||||||||||
Loss before federal income tax benefit | (13,629 | ) | (13,747 | ) | (12,501 | ) | (23,140 | ) | ||||||||
Income tax benefit | — | (4,672 | ) | — | (7,816 | ) | ||||||||||
Net loss | ($13,629 | ) | ($9,075 | ) | ($12,501 | ) | ($15,324 | ) | ||||||||
Per share data: | ||||||||||||||||
Net loss — basic | (1.78 | ) | (1.19 | ) | (1.63 | ) | (2.00 | ) | ||||||||
Net loss — diluted | (1.78 | ) | (1.19 | ) | (1.63 | ) | (2.00 | ) | ||||||||
Weighted average number of shares outstanding — basic | 7,645,940 | 7,644,207 | 7,645,940 | 7,644,198 | ||||||||||||
Weighted average number of shares outstanding — diluted | 7,645,940 | 7,644,207 | 7,645,940 | 7,644,198 |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated statements.
5
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE LOSS (unaudited)
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | 06/30/10 | 06/30/09 | 6/30/10 | 6/30/09 | ||||||||||||
Net loss | ($13,629 | ) | ($9,075 | ) | ($12,501 | ) | ($15,324 | ) | ||||||||
Other comprehensive income (loss) , net of tax | ||||||||||||||||
Unrealized gains on securities | ||||||||||||||||
Unrealized holding gains (losses) arising during period | 381 | (350 | ) | 387 | (757 | ) | ||||||||||
Less: reclassification adjustment for gains included in net income | — | 270 | 69 | 465 | ||||||||||||
Tax effects | — | 27 | — | 99 | ||||||||||||
Other comprehensive income (loss) | 381 | (53 | ) | 456 | (193 | ) | ||||||||||
Comprehensive income (loss) | ($13,248 | ) | ($9,128 | ) | ($12,045 | ) | ($15,517 | ) | ||||||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated statements.
6
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited)
Six Months Ended | ||||||||
(In thousands) | 6/30/2010 | 6/30/2009 | ||||||
Cash flows from operating activities | ||||||||
Interest and fees received | $ | 24,122 | $ | 27,726 | ||||
Interest paid | (7,335 | ) | (13,276 | ) | ||||
Proceeds from sale of mortgages held for sale | 10,254 | 21,654 | ||||||
Origination of mortgages held for sale | (10,170 | ) | (19,561 | ) | ||||
Taxes refunded | 4,074 | — | ||||||
(Gain) loss on sale of real estate owned | 32 | (3 | ) | |||||
Gain on sale of securities | (69 | ) | 465 | |||||
Cash paid to suppliers and employees | (13,431 | ) | (13,043 | ) | ||||
Net cash provided by operating activities | 7,477 | 3,962 | ||||||
Cash flows from investing activities | ||||||||
Sale of securities available for sale | 8,289 | 50,126 | ||||||
Proceeds from calls, maturities and repayments of of securities available for sale | 2,538 | 51,033 | ||||||
Purchases of securities available for sale | (10,689 | ) | (21,459 | ) | ||||
Purchase of Federal Home Loan Bank stock | — | (84 | ) | |||||
Decrease in loans, net of payments received | 28,276 | 24,281 | ||||||
Proceeds from the sale of real estate owned | 1,215 | 1,217 | ||||||
Purchases of property and equipment | (55 | ) | (177 | ) | ||||
Net cash provided by investing activities | 29,574 | 104,937 | ||||||
Cash flows from financing activities | ||||||||
Net decrease in non-interest bearing deposits | 7,574 | 2,435 | ||||||
Net increase in interest bearing deposits | (47,865 | ) | (127,663 | ) | ||||
Increase (decrease) in other borrowings | — | (255 | ) | |||||
Repayments on Federal Home Loan Bank advances | (56 | ) | 8,936 | |||||
Net cash provided by financing activities | (40,347 | ) | (116,547 | ) | ||||
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents | (3,296 | ) | (7,648 | ) | ||||
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of year | 77,497 | 53,002 | ||||||
Cash and cash equivalents at the end of year | $ | 74,201 | $ | 45,354 | ||||
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated statements.
7
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (Continued)
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (Continued)
Six Months Ended | ||||||||
(In thousands) | 6/30/2010 | 6/30/2009 | ||||||
Reconciliation of net loss to net cash provided by operating activities | ||||||||
Net loss | ($12,501 | ) | ($15,324 | ) | ||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities | ||||||||
Provision for loan losses | 11,903 | 24,337 | ||||||
Depreciation and amortization expense | 525 | 665 | ||||||
Restricted stock award expense | 32 | 44 | ||||||
Stock option expense | 32 | 39 | ||||||
Accretion of discount on investment securities | (41 | ) | 149 | |||||
Amortization of premium on investment securities | 222 | — | ||||||
Write-down of real estate owned | 4,349 | 1,860 | ||||||
Amortization of intangible assets | — | 397 | ||||||
(Increase) decrease in mortgages held for sale | (40 | ) | 1,774 | |||||
(Increase) decrease in interest receivable | 381 | (13 | ) | |||||
Decrease in interest payable | (105 | ) | (591 | ) | ||||
(Increase) decrease in other assets | 3,659 | (9,829 | ) | |||||
Increase (decrease) in other liabilities | (939 | ) | 454 | |||||
Net cash provided by operating activities | $ | 7,477 | $ | 3,962 | ||||
Supplemental noncash disclosures: | ||||||||
Transfers from loans to real estate owned | $ | 6,374 | $ | 10,803 |
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated statements.
8
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q (continued)
FORM 10-Q (continued)
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
A. | Accounting and Reporting Policies | |
The condensed consolidated financial statements of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) include the consolidation of its only subsidiary, Fidelity Bank (the “Bank”). The accounting and reporting policies of the Corporation are in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and conform to practice within the banking industry. | ||
The condensed consolidated financial statements of the Corporation as of June 30, 2010 and 2009, and December 31, 2009 and for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 reflect all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring items which are in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim period. The condensed consolidated balance sheet of the Corporation as of December 31, 2009 has been derived from the audited consolidated balance sheet as of that date. The operating results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of results of operations for the entire year. | ||
The condensed consolidated financial statements as of June 30, 2010 and 2009, and for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 included herein have been prepared by the Corporation, without an audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in interim financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. These financial statements should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereon included in the Corporation’s 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K. | ||
Certain of the Corporation’s accounting policies are important to the portrayal of the Corporation’s financial condition, since they require management to make difficult, complex or subjective judgments, some of which may relate to matters that are inherently uncertain. Estimates associated with these policies are susceptible to material changes as a result of changes in facts and circumstances. Facts and circumstances which could affect these material judgments include, but without limitation, changes in interest rates, in the performance of the economy or in the financial condition of borrowers. Management believes that its critical accounting policies include determining the allowance for loan losses and determining the fair value of securities and other financial instruments and assessing other than temporary impairments of securities. |
9
Table of Contents
A. | Accounting and Reporting Policies (con’t) | |
Income (Loss) Per Share | ||
Basic income (loss) per share is net income (loss) divided by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted income (loss) per share includes the dilutive effect of additional potential common shares issuable under stock options. Income (loss) per share is restated for all stock splits and dividends through the date of issue of the financial statements. | ||
Factors in the basic and diluted income (loss) per share calculation follow (in thousands, except share and per share data): |
Three Months Ended | Six Months Ended | |||||||||||||||
6/30/2010 | 6/30/2009 | 6/30/2010 | 6/30/2009 | |||||||||||||
Basic | ||||||||||||||||
Net income | ($13,629 | ) | ($9,075 | ) | ($12,501 | ) | ($15,324 | ) | ||||||||
Weighted average common shares | 7,645,940 | 7,644,188 | 7,645,940 | 7,644,198 | ||||||||||||
Basic earnings per common share | ($1.78 | ) | ($1.19 | ) | ($1.63 | ) | ($2.00 | ) | ||||||||
Diluted | ||||||||||||||||
Net income | ($13,629 | ) | ($9,075 | ) | ($12,501 | ) | ($15,324 | ) | ||||||||
Weighted average common shares outstanding for basic earnings per common share | 7,645,940 | 7,644,188 | 7,645,940 | 7,644,198 | ||||||||||||
Add: Dilutive effects of assumed exercise of stock options | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||
Average shares and dilutive potential common shares | 7,645,940 | 7,644,188 | 7,645,940 | 7,644,198 | ||||||||||||
Dilutive earnings per common share | ($1.78 | ) | ($1.19 | ) | ($1.63 | ) | ($2.00 | ) |
Stock options for 549,975 and 592,777 shares of common stock were not considered in computing diluted earnings per common share for the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, because they were antidilutive. All share and per share amounts have been adjusted for stock dividends. |
10
Table of Contents
A. | Accounting and Reporting Policies (con’t) | |
Current Accounting Developments | ||
In June 2009, the FASB issued guidance on accounting for transfers of financial assets to improve the reporting for the transfer of financial assets resulting from (1) practices that have developed since the issuance of the prior standard that are not consistent with the original intent and key requirements of the prior standard, and (2) concerns of financial statement users that many of the financial assets (and related obligations) that have been derecognized should continue to be reported in the financial statements of transferors. This guidance is included in the Codification as ASC 860. The Corporation adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2010. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Corporation’s financial position or statement of operations. | ||
In June 2009, the FASB issued guidance on the consolidation of variable interest entities to improve financial reporting by enterprises involved with variable interest entities and to provide more relevant and reliable information to users of financial statements. This guidance is included in the Codification as part of ASC 810. The Corporation adopted this guidance effective January 1, 2010. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Corporation’s financial position or statement of operations. | ||
In January 2010, the FASB issued guidance for improving disclosures about fair value measurements. The guidance requires additional disclosure in two areas: (1) a description of, as well as the disclosure of, the dollar amount of transfers in or out of Level 1 or Level 2, and (2) in the reconciliation of fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), a reporting entity should present separately information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements. Increased disclosures regarding the transfers in/out of Level 1 and 2 are required for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2009. Increased disclosures for the Level 3 fair value reconciliation are required for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010. The adoption of both parts of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position or statement of operations. | ||
In July 2010, the FASB issued guidance for improving disclosures about an entity’s allowance for loan losses and the credit quality of its loans. The guidance requires additional disclosure to facilitate financial statement users’ evaluation of the following: (1) the nature of credit risk inherent in the entity’s loan portfolio, (2) how that risk is analyzed and assessed in arriving at the allowance for loan losses, and (3) the changes and reasons for those changes in the allowance for loan losses. For public companies, increased disclosures as of the end of a reporting period are effective for periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. Increased disclosures about activity that occurs during a reporting period are effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 31, 2010. The Corporation is currently evaluating the requirements of this guidance, but does not expect it to have a material impact on the Corporation’s consolidated financial position or statement of operations. |
11
Table of Contents
B. | Securities | |
The amortized cost and fair value of securities available for sale are as follows (in thousands): |
June 30, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||
Gross | Gross | |||||||||||||||
Amortized | Unrealized | Unrealized | Fair | |||||||||||||
Cost | Gains | Losses | Value | |||||||||||||
US Government sponsored agency securities | $ | 2,008 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 2,008 | ||||||||
Corporate bonds | 43,778 | 320 | — | 44,098 | ||||||||||||
Mortgage backed securities | 63 | 2 | — | 65 | ||||||||||||
Totals | $ | 45,849 | $ | 322 | $ | — | $ | 46,171 | ||||||||
December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
Gross | Gross | |||||||||||||||
Amortized | Unrealized | Unrealized | Fair | |||||||||||||
Cost | Gains | Losses | Value | |||||||||||||
US Government sponsored agency securities | $ | 12,759 | $ | 20 | ($30 | ) | $ | 12,749 | ||||||||
Corporate bonds | 33,308 | — | (197 | ) | 33,111 | |||||||||||
Mortgage backed securities | 101 | 3 | — | 104 | ||||||||||||
Totals | $ | 46,168 | $ | 23 | ($227 | ) | $ | 45,964 | ||||||||
The amortized cost and fair value of securities available for sale at June 30, 2010 by contractual maturity are shown below (in thousands): |
Amortized | Fair | |||||||
Cost | Value | |||||||
Due in one year through five years | $ | 45,786 | $ | 46,106 | ||||
Mortgage backed securities | 63 | 65 | ||||||
Totals | $ | 45,849 | $ | 46,171 | ||||
The entire portfolio has a net unrealized gain of $322,000 at June 30, 2010, compared to net unrealized loss of $204,000 at December 31, 2009. The Corporation does not hold or utilize derivatives. |
The Corporation did not hold any securities with unrealized losses at June 30, 2010. |
12
Table of Contents
B. Securities (con’t)
Sales of available for sale securities for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 and 2009 are as follows (in thousands):
For the three months ended | For the six months ended | |||||||||||||||
6/30/2010 | 6/30/2009 | 6/30/2010 | 6/30/2009 | |||||||||||||
Gross Gains | $ | — | $ | 272 | $ | 69 | $ | 467 | ||||||||
Gross Losses | — | 2 | — | 2 |
Securities having a carrying value of $22,627,000 and $5,524,000 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, were pledged to secure clearing requirements and borrowings.
The Corporation holds two single issuer trust preferred securities that are classified as securities held to maturity. The amortized cost and fair value of securities, held to maturity are listed below (in thousands):
June 30, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||
Gross | Gross | |||||||||||||||
Amortized | Unrealized | Unrealized | Fair | |||||||||||||
Cost | Gains | Losses | Value | |||||||||||||
Trust preferred securities | $ | 336 | $ | 42 | $ | — | $ | 378 | ||||||||
Totals | $ | 336 | $ | 42 | $ | — | $ | 378 | ||||||||
December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
Gross | Gross | |||||||||||||||
Amortized | Unrealized | Unrealized | Fair | |||||||||||||
Cost | Gains | Losses | Value | |||||||||||||
Trust preferred securities | $ | 336 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 336 | ||||||||
Totals | $ | 336 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 336 | ||||||||
The contractual maturity of these securities are over five years.
The single issuer trust preferred securities were evaluated for other than temporary impairment by determining the strength of the underlying issuer and its ability to make the contractual principal and interest payments.
13
Table of Contents
B. Securities (con’t)
One issuer of a trust preferred security the Corporation holds is a bank holding company, headquartered in Michigan that owns commercial banks in several states. The Corporation received a third party valuation of this security and noted the cost basis exceeded the fair value of the security. Upon further analysis, the Corporation noted that the underlying issuer commenced deferral of interest payments on this trust preferred security for up to a period of five years. This issuer has been negatively impacted by the downturn in the economy and the asset quality issues that have impacted the financial services industry in the Michigan market. Various subsidiary banks held by this issuer have been downgraded to adequately-capitalized status as of June 30, 2010. The Corporation believes that based upon the continued deterioration of asset quality and regulatory capital ratio of this issuer results in an other-than-temporary impairment that is credit related. As a result, the Corporation recorded an other-than-temporary impairment charge of $414,000 during 2009.
Credit losses on debt securities held | Amount | |||
Balance, January 1, 2010 | $ | 414 | ||
Additions related to other than temporary Losses not previously recognized | — | |||
Balance, June 30, 2010 | $ | 414 | ||
14
Table of Contents
C. Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses
Major categories of loans included in the loan portfolio are as follows (in thousands):
6/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Consumer loans | $ | 28,017 | $ | 29,386 | $ | 30,270 | ||||||
Commercial, financial, & other | 134,199 | 144,630 | 157,438 | |||||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 29,233 | 38,472 | 48,454 | |||||||||
Land development loans — non residential property | 9,427 | 11,644 | 13,405 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 11,060 | 13,287 | 13,125 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — non residential property | 17,935 | 20,061 | 22,518 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 511,265 | 531,156 | 549,275 | |||||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 41,896 | 44,500 | 48,083 | |||||||||
783,032 | 833,136 | 882,568 | ||||||||||
Allowance for loan losses | (31,574 | ) | (35,125 | ) | (22,422 | ) | ||||||
$ | 751,458 | $ | 798,011 | $ | 860,146 | |||||||
The following is a summary of non-performing assets and problems loans (in thousands):
6/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Troubled debt restructuring | $ | 38,530 | $ | 59,420 | $ | 46,714 | ||||||
Over 90 days past due and still accruing | — | — | — | |||||||||
Non-accrual loans | 75,146 | 49,341 | 57,610 | |||||||||
Total non-performing loans | 113,676 | 108,761 | 104,324 | |||||||||
Real estate owned | 23,976 | 23,435 | 17,434 | |||||||||
Other repossessed assets | — | — | — | |||||||||
Other non-performing assets | 23,976 | 23,435 | 17,434 | |||||||||
Total non-performing assets | $ | 137,652 | $ | 132,196 | $ | 121,758 | ||||||
The most significant proportion of the Bank’s non-performing loans continues to be in the land development and commercial real estate construction segments of the Bank’s loan portfolio. These loans comprise 9% of loans and 36% of non accrual loans at June 30, 2010. Management has implemented a strategy to decrease the amount of loans in these segments. These loans have decreased 19% during the first six months of 2010, while the loan portfolio has declined by 6% during the same period.
The distribution of non-accrual loans by loan type (in thousands) is as follows:
Number of | ||||||||
Loans | Balance | |||||||
Consumer loans | 16 | $ | 1,051 | |||||
Commercial, financial, & other | 46 | 14,134 | ||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 19 | 17,001 | ||||||
Land development loans — non residential property | 1 | 1,319 | ||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 10 | 8,213 | ||||||
Commercial real estate construction — non residential property | 1 | 333 | ||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 65 | 30,530 | ||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 13 | 2,565 | ||||||
Total non-accrual loans | 171 | $ | 75,146 | |||||
15
Table of Contents
C. Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses (con’t)
The increase in non-accrual loans during the period was primarily due to the downgrading of 66 loans to non-accrual status for $42,796,000 and partially offset by net charge-offs of $15,454,000 and the transfer of 12 loans to other real estate for $6,374,000. This increase was primarily due to the migration of previously identified classified loans. Of this increase, all but approximately $3,070,000 were identified at December 31, 2009 as classified loans with reserves for losses established accordingly. As these loans were identified as classified loans with the appropriate risk allocation in the allowance for loan losses at December 31, 2009, the migration of these loans to non-accrual status did not have a significant impact on the allowance for loan losses.
The following is an analysis of the allowance for loan losses (in thousands):
Six Months Ended | Year Ended | Six Months Ended | ||||||||||
06/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Balance, beginning of year | $ | 35,125 | $ | 14,452 | $ | 14,452 | ||||||
Charge-offs: | ||||||||||||
Consumer loans | 419 | 1,154 | 539 | |||||||||
Commercial, financial & other | 2,725 | 4,878 | 2,490 | |||||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 7,185 | 9,441 | 5,308 | |||||||||
Land development loans — non residential property | 300 | 4,364 | 2,356 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 1,712 | 1,471 | 1,176 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — non residential property | 36 | 1,981 | 430 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 3,023 | 6,919 | 3,708 | |||||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 221 | 701 | 621 | |||||||||
Recoveries: | ||||||||||||
Consumer loans | 33 | 176 | 11 | |||||||||
Commercial, financial & other | 61 | 339 | 189 | |||||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 14 | 107 | 28 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 18 | 61 | 26 | |||||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 40 | 36 | 7 | |||||||||
Net charge-offs (recoveries) | 15,454 | 30,190 | 16,367 | |||||||||
Provision for loan losses | 11,903 | 50,863 | 24,337 | |||||||||
Balance, end of period | $ | 31,574 | $ | 35,125 | $ | 22,422 | ||||||
Allowance to total loans | 4.03 | % | 4.22 | % | 2.54 | % | ||||||
Allowance to nonperforming assets | 27.78 | % | 32.30 | % | 21.49 | % | ||||||
Net charge-offs to average loans | 1.90 | % | 3.40 | % | 1.80 | % | ||||||
16
Table of Contents
C. | Loans and Allowance for Loan Losses (con’t) |
The Bank recorded net charge-offs of $15,454,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2010. Specific allocations of $4,058,000 were recorded on these loans at December 31, 2009. These specific allocations were assigned as of December 31, 2009 based on information that was received in 2010 but where deterioration of the credits related to events that occurred in 2009. Accordingly, the provision for loan losses related to the charge-off of these loans was recorded during the fourth quarter of 2009. Additionally, net charge-offs of $3,667,000 were due to a change in the methodology relating to the valuation of residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. The remaining charge-offs of $7,729,000 were due to the further deterioration of credits during 2010 and updated appraisals received during 2010. The reserves established for classified loans are based on the information currently available to the Corporation. However, in these challenging economic conditions, information could become known in the future that could materially alter our estimate. | ||
A primary factor in the continued decline in the underlying value of our collateral and the decision to recognize these charge-offs was the continuing decline during the first six months of 2010 in the economic environment in Southeastern Michigan. This decline in economic conditions is heavily impacted by conditions and events that impacted the automotive industry during 2009 and continues to impact the local economy. These conditions have had a negative impact on the residential real estate and commercial real estate markets in the Bank’s market area and these loans represent 79% of the Bank’s loan portfolio. These conditions have led to an increase in the Bank’s classified assets during 2010. Management has recognized this trend in our analysis of the allowance for loan losses at June 30, 2010. The allowance for loan losses was based upon management’s assessment of relevant factors, including loan growth, types and amounts of non-performing loans, historical and anticipated loss experience on such types of loans, and current economic conditions. If collateral values continue to decline, additions to the allowance for loan losses will be required and will have an adverse effect on the Corporation’s earnings through increases to the provision for loan losses. |
The aggregate balance in impaired loans are as follows (in thousands): |
06/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Impaired loans with no allocated allowance for loan losses | $ | 72,655 | $ | 83,226 | $ | 104,324 | ||||||
Impaired loans with allocated allowance for loan losses | 44,080 | 43,553 | — | |||||||||
Total | $ | 116,735 | $ | 126,779 | $ | 104,324 | ||||||
Amount of the allowance for loan loss allocated | $ | 10,460 | $ | 10,715 | $ | — |
These loans have been evaluated under impairment standards and have been either charged down to the collateral value or the collateral value exceeds the loan balance. |
17
Table of Contents
D. | Incentive Stock Plans | |
Incentive stock awards have been granted to officers and employees under two Incentive Stock Plans. The first plan is the 1994 Stock Option Plan. Options to buy common stock have been granted to officers and employees under the 1994 Stock Option Plan, which provides for issue of up to 738,729 shares. Exercise price is the market price at date of grant. The maximum option term is ten years, and options vest fully after six months from the date of grant. |
There were 29,391 shares forfeited during the six month ended June 30, 2010. There were no options exercised during the six months ended June 30, 2010. For the options outstanding at June 30, 2010, the range of exercise prices was $4.94 to $14.65 per share with a weighted-average remaining contractual term of 1.7 years. At June 30, 2010, options for 331,010 shares were exercisable at weighted average exercise price of $8.97 per share. There was no intrinsic value at June 30, 2010. |
During 2005, the Corporation initiated the 2005 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Under this plan, up to 347,248 shares may be granted to officers and employees of the Bank. This plan provides that stock awards may take the form of any combination of options, restricted shares, restricted share units or performance awards. |
The administration of the plan, including the granting of awards and the nature of those awards is determined by the Corporation’s Compensation Committee. The Corporation’s Board of Directors approved grants of stock options and restricted stock in 2005, 2006 and 2008. The awards have a term of ten years and typically vest fully three years from the grant date. In order for vesting to occur with some grants, the Corporation must meet certain performance criteria over the vesting period. The expected compensation cost of the 2005 plan is being calculated assuming the Corporation’s attainment of “target” performance goals over the vesting period of the awards. The actual cost of these awards could range from zero to 100% of the currently recorded compensation cost, depending on the Corporation’s actual performance. The awards granted in 2005 and 2006 did have such performance criteria. The awards granted in 2008 did not have performance criteria. |
Stock Options Granted — Stock options were awarded to officers in 2005, 2006 and 2008. The incentive stock options were granted with exercise prices equal to market prices on the day of grant. At June 30, 2010, there were stock options outstanding for 170,846 shares with a weighted average exercise price of $5.46 per share. |
The Corporation recognized stock option compensation expense of $32,000 and $39,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Compensation cost of $62,000 and $26,000 is expected to be recognized during 2010 and 2011, respectively. |
Restricted Stock Grants — Restricted stock was awarded to officers in 2005, 2006 and 2008. The restricted stock is eligible to vest three years from grant date. Upon full vesting, restricted shares are transferred to common shares. At June 30, 2010, there were 39,765 shares of restricted stock outstanding. |
18
Table of Contents
D. | Incentive Stock Plans (con’t) | |
The Corporation recognized restricted stock compensation expense of $31,000 and $44,000, respectively during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Compensation cost of $62,000 and $26,000 is expected to be recognized during 2010 and 2011, respectively. |
E. | Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities |
The Corporation has adopted fair value guidance which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. |
Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. A fair value hierarchy was also established which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs when measuring fair value. The standard describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value: |
Level 1 — | Quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. | ||
Level 2 — | Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Observable inputs may include available credit information and bond terms and conditions of similar securities, market spreads, cash flow analysis and market concensus prepayment speeds. | ||
Level 2 securities include U.S. agency and U.S. government sponsored enterprise mortgage-backed securities. Level 2 securities are valued by a third party pricing service commonly used in the banking industry utilizing observable inputs. The pricing provider utilizes evaluated pricing models that vary based on asset class. These models incorporate available market information including quoted prices of securities with similar characteristics and, because many fixed-income securities do not trade on a daily basis, apply available information through processes such as benchmark curves, benchmarking of like securities, sector grouping and matrix pricing. In addition, model processes, such as an option adjusted spread model is used to develop prepayment and interest rate scenarios for securities with prepayment features. | |||
Level 3 — | Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. |
19
Table of Contents
E. | Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities ( con’t) | |
Following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for instruments measured at fair value on a recurring basis and recognized in the accompanying balance sheet, as well as the general classification of such instruments pursuant to our valuation hierarchy. |
Securities available for sale |
Fair values of securities, available for sale are estimated by a third party using inputs that are observable or that can be corroborated by observable market data and, therefore, are classified within Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy. |
The following table presents the fair value measurements of the Corporation’s assets and liabilities recognized in the accompanying balance sheet measured at fair value on a recurring basis and the level within the ASC 820 fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements fall at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 (in thousands): |
Quoted Prices in | Significant Other | Significant | ||||||||||||||
Active Markets for | Observable | Unobservable | ||||||||||||||
Fair | Identical Assets | Inputs | Inputs | |||||||||||||
At 6/30/2010 | Value | (Level 1) | (Level 2) | (Level 3) | ||||||||||||
US Government sponsored agency securities | $ | 2,008 | $ | — | $ | 2,008 | $ | — | ||||||||
Corporate bonds | 44,098 | — | 44,098 | — | ||||||||||||
Mortgage backed securities | 65 | — | 65 | — | ||||||||||||
Total securities, available for sale | $ | 46,171 | $ | — | $ | 46,171 | $ | — | ||||||||
Quoted Prices in | Significant Other | Significant | ||||||||||||||
Active Markets for | Observable | Unobservable | ||||||||||||||
Fair | Identical Assets | Inputs | Inputs | |||||||||||||
At 12/31/2009 | Value | (Level 1) | (Level 2) | (Level 3) | ||||||||||||
US Government sponsored agency securities | $ | 12,749 | $ | — | $ | 12,749 | $ | — | ||||||||
Corporate bonds | 33,111 | — | 33,111 | — | ||||||||||||
Mortgage backed securities | 104 | — | 104 | — | ||||||||||||
Total securities, available for sale | $ | 45,964 | $ | — | $ | 45,964 | $ | — | ||||||||
20
Table of Contents
E. | Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities ( con’t) | |
Impaired loans and other real estate owned |
Fair value adjustments for impaired and non-accrual loans typically occur when there is evidence of impairment. Loans are designated as impaired when, in the judgment of management based on current information and events, it is probable that all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement will not be collected. The measurement of loss associated with impaired loans can be based on either the observable market price of the loan or the fair value of the collateral. The Company measures fair value based on the value of the collateral securing the loans. Collateral may be in the form of real estate or personal property including equipment and inventory. The value of the collateral is determined based on internal estimates as well as third party appraisals or non-binding broker quotes. These measurements were classified as Level 3. The fair value of the Company’s other real estate owned is determined using Level 3 inputs, which include current and prior appraisals and estimated costs to sell. |
The following table presents the fair value measurements of the Corporation’s assets and liabilities recognized in the accompanying balance sheet measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis and the level within the fair value hierarchy in which the fair value measurements fall at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 (in thousands): |
Quoted Prices in | Significant Other | Significant | ||||||||||||||
Active Markets for | Observable | Unobservable | ||||||||||||||
Identical Assets | Inputs | Inputs | ||||||||||||||
At 6/30/2010 | Fair Value | (Level 1) | (Level 2) | (Level 3) | ||||||||||||
Impaired loans (collateral dependent) | $ | 64,432 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 64,432 | ||||||||
Other real estate | $ | 11,176 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 11,176 |
Quoted Prices in | Significant Other | Significant | ||||||||||||||
Active Markets for | Observable | Unobservable | ||||||||||||||
Identical Assets | Inputs | Inputs | ||||||||||||||
At 12/31/2009 | Fair Value | (Level 1) | (Level 2) | (Level 3) | ||||||||||||
Impaired loans (collateral dependent) | $ | 60,905 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 60,905 | ||||||||
Other real estate | $ | 7,601 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 7,601 |
21
Table of Contents
E. | Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities ( con’t) | |
The carrying amounts and estimated fair value of principal financial assets and liabilities were as follows (in thousands): |
At June 30, 2010 | At December 31, 2009 | |||||||||||||||
Carrying | Fair | Carrying | Fair | |||||||||||||
Amount | Value | Amount | Value | |||||||||||||
Assets: | ||||||||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | $ | 74,201 | $ | 74,201 | $ | 77,497 | $ | 77,497 | ||||||||
Mortgage loans held for sale | 1,169 | 1,186 | 1,129 | 1,146 | ||||||||||||
Securities available for sale | 46,171 | 46,171 | 45,964 | 45,964 | ||||||||||||
Securities held to maturity | 336 | 378 | 336 | 336 | ||||||||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank Stock | 3,698 | 3,698 | 3,698 | 3,698 | ||||||||||||
Loans, net | 783,032 | 780,204 | 833,136 | 829,122 | ||||||||||||
Accrued interest receivable | 3,181 | 3,181 | 3,562 | 3,562 | ||||||||||||
Liabilities: | ||||||||||||||||
Deposits | 827,664 | 828,241 | 867,955 | 871,177 | ||||||||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank advances | 63,799 | 64,318 | 63,855 | 64,275 | ||||||||||||
Subordinated debentures | 10,000 | 4,081 | 10,000 | 4,081 | ||||||||||||
Accrued interest payable | 941 | 941 | 1,046 | 1,046 |
Fair Value of Financial Instruments |
The following methods and assumptions were used by the Corporation in estimating its fair value disclosure for financial instruments: |
Cash and Cash Equivalents, Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase, Interest-bearing Deposits and Federal Home Loan Bank Stock |
The carrying amount approximates fair value. |
Held-to-maturity Securities |
Fair value is based on quoted market prices, if available. If a quoted market price is not available, fair value is estimated using quoted market prices for similar securities. |
Loans Held for Sale |
Fair value is based upon the quoted price for the sale of those loans. |
Loans |
The fair value of loans is estimated by discounting the future cash flows using the market rates at which similar loans would be made to borrowers with similar credit ratings and for the same remaining maturities. Loans with similar characteristics were aggregated for purposes of the calculations. The carrying amount of accrued interest approximates its fair value. |
22
Table of Contents
E. | Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities ( con’t) | |
Deposits |
Deposits include demand deposits, savings accounts, NOW accounts and certain money market deposits. The carrying amount approximates fair value. The fair value of fixed-maturity time deposits is estimated using a discounted cash flow calculation that applies the rates currently offered for deposits of similar remaining maturities. |
Interest Receivable and Interest Payable |
The carrying amount approximates fair value. |
Federal Home Loan Bank Advances |
Rates currently available to the Corporation for debt with similar terms and remaining maturities are used to estimate the fair value of existing debt. Fair value of long-term debt is based on quoted market prices or dealer quotes for the identical liability when traded as an asset in an active market. If a quoted market price is not available, an expected present value technique is used to estimate fair value. |
Subordinated Debentures |
Rates currently available to the Corporation for debt with similar terms and remaining maturities are used to estimate the fair value of existing debt. |
Commitments to Originate Loans, Forward Sale Commitments, Letters of Credit and Lines of Credit |
The fair value of commitments to originate loans is estimated using the fees currently charged to enter into similar agreements, taking into account the remaining terms of the agreements and the present creditworthiness of the counterparties. For fixed-rate loan commitments, fair value also considers the difference between current levels of interest rates and the committed rates. The fair value of forward sale commitments is estimated based on current market prices for loans of similar terms and credit quality. The fair values of letters of credit and lines of credit are based on fees currently charged for similar agreements or on the estimated cost to terminate or otherwise settle the obligations with the counterparties at the reporting date. The fair value of such arrangements are not considered material to this presentation. |
F. | Capital and Operating Matters |
Stockholders’ equity at June 30, 2010 was $29,963,000 compared to $41,945,000 as of December 31, 2009, a decrease of $11,982,000 or 29%. The decrease was due to the net loss during the period. |
23
Table of Contents
F. | Capital and Operating Matters (con’t) |
Based on the respective regulatory capital ratios, the Bank is considered to be undercapitalized at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. |
The following is a presentation of the Corporation’s and Bank’s regulatory capital ratios (in thousands): |
Minimum | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
To Be Well Capitalized | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minimum for Capital | Under Prompt Corrective | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Actual | Adequacy Purposes | Action Provisions | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount | Ratio | Amount | Ratio | Amount | Ratio | |||||||||||||||||||
As of June 30, 2010 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total capital (to risk weighted assets) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated | 49,861 | 6.26 | % | 63,693 | 8.00 | % | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||
Bank | 48,241 | 6.07 | % | 63,540 | 8.00 | % | 79,425 | 10.00 | % | |||||||||||||||
Tier 1 capital (to risk weighted assets) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated | 39,641 | 4.98 | % | 31,846 | 4.00 | % | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||
Bank | 38,046 | 4.79 | % | 31,770 | 4.00 | % | 47,655 | 6.00 | % | |||||||||||||||
Tier 1 capital (to average assets) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated | 39,641 | 4.11 | % | 38,545 | 4.00 | % | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||
Bank | 38,046 | 3.96 | % | 38,462 | 4.00 | % | 48,078 | 5.00 | % | |||||||||||||||
As of December 31, 2009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Total capital (to risk weighted assets) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated | 63,043 | 7.39 | % | 68,264 | 8.00 | % | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||
Bank | 61,169 | 7.19 | % | 68,105 | 8.00 | % | 85,132 | 10.00 | % | |||||||||||||||
Tier 1 capital (to risk weighted assets) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated | 52,080 | 6.10 | % | 34,132 | 4.00 | % | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||
Bank | 50,225 | 5.90 | % | 34,053 | 4.00 | % | 51,079 | 6.00 | % | |||||||||||||||
Tier 1 capital (to average assets) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consolidated | 52,080 | 4.98 | % | 41,838 | 4.00 | % | N/A | N/A | ||||||||||||||||
Bank | 50,225 | 4.81 | % | 41,776 | 4.00 | % | 52,220 | 5.00 | % |
24
Table of Contents
F. | Capital and Operating Matters (con’t) |
The capital ratios disclosed in the middle column of the table above are minimum requirements. Due to our financial condition, the Bank entered into a formal enforcement action (“Consent Order”) with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation for the State of Michigan (“OFIR”) which conveys specific actions needed to address certain findings from their examination and to address our current financial condition. We entered into the Consent Order on February 12, 2010 that includes a capital directive, which requires the Bank to have and maintain its level of tier 1 capital as a percentage of total assets (capital ratio) at a minimum of 9% and its level of qualifying total capital as a percentage of risk-weighted assets (total risk-based capital ratio) at a minimum of 12%. These ratios are in excess of the statutory minimums to be well-capitalized. |
Applicable federal prompt corrective action regulations provide five classifications, including well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. Based on its regulatory capital ratios, the Bank is undercapitalized at June 30, 2010. Undercapitalized institutions are subject to close monitoring by their federal bank regulator, restrictions on asset growth and expansion, and other significantly greater regulatory restrictions than apply to well-capitalized or adequately capitalized institutions. |
The Corporation needs to raise sufficient capital during 2010 to return the Bank to well-capitalized status. Management is considering various sources of capital and estimates the need to raise approximately $50 million to be in compliance with its Consent Order with the FDIC and OFIR. Given the current economic environment, there can be no assurance the Corporation will be able to raise the estimated capital needed. Additionally, if real estate values in the Corporation’s market area continue to decline, this will negatively impact the loan portfolio and values of other real estate owned. Additional declines in real estate values would result in the need for additional provision expense resulting in increased losses and further reducing the Corporation’s and the Bank’s capital. |
Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly discretionary, action by the regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the Corporation’s financial statements and raise substantial doubt about the Corporation’s ability to continue as a going concern. |
25
Table of Contents
G. | Consent Order and Federal Reserve Bank Agreement | |
Consent Order |
Due to our financial condition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation for the State of Michigan (“OFIR”) required that our Board of Directors sign a formal enforcement action (“Consent Order”) with the FDIC and OFIR which conveys specific actions needed to address certain findings from their examination and to address our current financial condition. We entered into the Consent Order on February 12, 2010, which contains a list of requirements that are to be met by specific dates. Certain requirements are listed below: |
Completion of a senior management study by an independent consultant |
Plans for the reduction of delinquencies and classified assets |
Plans for lending and collection policies |
Plans for the reduction of loan concentrations |
The revision and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan |
The revision of its Liquidity Plan and the submission of weekly liquidity reports to the FDIC and OFIR |
The Consent Order also includes a capital directive, which requires the Bank to have and maintain its level of tier 1 capital as a percentage of total assets (capital ratio) at a minimum of 9% and its level of qualifying total capital as a percentage of risk-weighted assets (total risk-based capital ratio) at a minimum of 12% . These ratios are in excess of the statutory minimums to be well-capitalized. At June 30, 2010, the Bank’s capital ratio was 3.96% and the Bank’s total risk-based capital ratio was 6.07%. |
Additionally, the Bank is prohibited from declaring or paying any cash dividends without prior written consent of the FDIC. |
As a result of the loss recorded during 2009, the capitalization status of the Bank declined from “well capitalized” to “undercapitalized.” As a result of the decline in the Bank’s capitalization level, the Bank is limited in its utilization of brokered deposits. The Bank is also restricted in the setting of deposit interest rates. Additionally, there are limitations in the borrowing terms and capacity with the Federal Reserve Bank. The Bank submitted a Capital Restoration Plan (“CRP”) to the FDIC and OFIR on December 15, 2009, due to our undercapitalized status based on our September 30, 2009 regulatory report of condition and income. An amended CRP was submitted to the FDIC and OFIR on May 18, 2010. |
26
Table of Contents
Federal Reserve Board Agreement |
On June 15, 2010, Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. entered into a written agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (the “FRB”). The FRB Agreement prohibits Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. and the Bank from taking any of the following actions without the FRB’s prior written approval: (i) declaring or paying any dividends; (ii) taking dividends from the Bank; (iii) making any distributions of interest, principal or other sums on Dearborn Bancorp’s subordinated debentures; (iv) incurring, increasing or guaranteeing any debt; or (v) repurchasing or redeeming any shares of its stock. |
Under the FRB Agreement, Dearborn Bancorp: must submit a written capital plan to the FRB by August 15, 2010 to maintain sufficient capital, on a consolidated basis. The plan shall, at a minimum, include: (a) the Company’s current and future capital requirements in compliance with FRB Regulation Y and the applicable capital adequacy guidelines for the Bank issued by the FDIC; (b) the adequacy of the Bank’s capital, taking into account the volume of classified credits, concentrations of credit, Allowance for Loan Losses, current and projected growth, and projected retained earnings; (c) the source and timing of additional funds necessary to fulfill the Company’s and Bank’s future capital requirements; (d) supervisory requests for additional capital at the Bank or the requirements of any supervisory action imposed on the Bank by the FDIC; and (e) the requirements of FRB Regulation Y that Dearborn Bancorp serve as a source of strength to the Bank. |
27
Table of Contents
ITEM 2. — MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion and analysis are intended to address significant factors affecting the financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation. The discussion provides a more comprehensive review of the financial position and operating results than can be obtained from a reading of the financial statements and footnotes presented elsewhere in this report.
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains forward-looking statements (within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995) that are based on current expectations. Words such as “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “expects,” “forecasts,” “intends,” “is likely,” “plans,” “projects,” variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify such forward-looking statements. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions (“Future Factors”) that are difficult to predict with regard to timing, extent, likelihood and degree of occurrence. Actual results and outcomes may materially differ from what is expressed in forward-looking statements. The Corporation undertakes no obligation to update, amend or clarify forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events (whether anticipated or unanticipated), or otherwise.
Future Factors include changes in interest rates and interest rate relationships; demand for products and services; the degree of competition by traditional and non-traditional competitors; changes in banking regulation; changes in tax laws; changes in prices, levies and assessments; the impact of technological advances; governmental and regulatory policy changes; the outcomes of contingencies, trends in customer behavior as well as their ability to repay loans; actions by bank regulators; availability of capital; changes in local real estate values; changes in the national and local economy; and other factors, including risk factors disclosed in this report, the Corporation’s 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K, or disclosed from time to time in other filings made by the Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These are representative of the Future Factors and could cause a difference between an ultimate actual outcome and a preceding forward-looking statement.
28
Table of Contents
Company Overview
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. was incorporated as a Michigan business corporation on September 30, 1992. The Corporation was formed to acquire all of the Bank’s issued and outstanding stock and to engage in the business of a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Act”).
Community Bank of Dearborn (the “Bank”), a Michigan banking corporation, commenced business on February 28, 1994 in Dearborn, Michigan. On April 30, 2007, Community Bank of Dearborn was renamed Fidelity Bank. Management believes that its new name, Fidelity Bank, represents a more accurate portrayal to our customers and prospects of the financial products and services offered by the Bank and the Bank’s market area.
The Bank is the only commercial bank headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan and offers a full line of loan and deposit products and services. The Bank offers excellent customer service to its loan and deposit customers and maintains strong relationships with the communities served by the Bank. The Bank emphasizes strong loan quality, excellent customer service and efficient operations in order to maximize profitability and shareholder value.
Subsequent to the commencement of business in Dearborn, Michigan in 1994, the Bank opened five additional offices in Wayne County, Michigan. Since 2001, the Bank opened two offices in Macomb County, Michigan and in 2003, the Bank opened an office in Oakland County, Michigan.
In 2004, the Corporation acquired the Bank of Washtenaw from Pavillion Bancorp. The Bank of Washtenaw’s three banking offices, all of which are located in Washtenaw County, Michigan were successfully consolidated into the Bank.
In 2007, the Corporation acquired Fidelity Financial Corporation of Michigan (“Fidelity”), the holding company for Fidelity Bank, a commercial bank with seven offices in Oakland County, Michigan. The acquisition has significantly expanded the Bank’s presence in Oakland County, Michigan. Additionally, the Bank opened a full service banking office in Shelby Township, Michigan on April 30, 2007. The Bank currently operates seventeen banking offices in Wayne, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan.
The Bank has also formed two subsidiaries that offer additional or specialized services to the Bank’s customers. The Bank’s subsidiaries, their formation date and the type of services offered are listed below:
Date Formed | Name | Services Offered | ||
August 1997 | Community Bank Insurance Agency, Inc. | Limited insurance related activities | ||
March 2002 | Community Bank Audit Services, Inc. | Internal auditing and compliance | ||
services for financial institutions |
The date opened, branch location and branch type of each branch is listed on the following page:
29
Table of Contents
Date Opened | Location | Type of office | ||
February 1994 | 22290 Michigan Avenue | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Dearborn, Michigan 48123 | Regional lending center | |||
December 1995 | 24935 West Warren Avenue | Full service retail branch | ||
Dearborn Heights, Michigan 48127 | ||||
August 1997 | 44623 Five Mile Road | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Plymouth, Michigan 48170 | ||||
May 2001 | 1325 North Canton Center Road | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Canton, Michigan 48187 | ||||
December 2001 | 45000 River Ridge Drive | Regional lending center | ||
Clinton Township, Michigan 48038 | ||||
November 2002 | 19100 Hall Road | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Clinton Township, Michigan 48038 | ||||
February 2003 | 12820 Fort Street | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Southgate, Michigan 48195 | ||||
May 2003 | 3201 University Drive, Suite 180 | Full service retail branch | ||
Auburn Hills, Michigan 48326 | ||||
October 2004 | 450 East Michigan Avenue | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Saline, Michigan 48176 | ||||
October 2004 | 250 West Eisenhower Parkway | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103 | Regional lending center | |||
December 2004 | 1360 Porter Street | Loan production office | ||
Dearborn, Michigan 48123 | Regional lending center | |||
January 2007 | 1040 E. Maple | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Birmingham, Michigan 48009 | Regional lending center | |||
January 2007 | 3681 W. Maple | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Bloomfield Township, Michigan 48301 | ||||
January 2007 | 30700 Telegraph | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025 | ||||
January 2007 | 20000 Twelve Mile Road | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Southfield, Michigan 48076 | ||||
January 2007 | 200 Galleria Officenter | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Southfield, MI 48076 | ||||
April 2007 | 7755 23 Mile Road | Full service retail branch with ATM | ||
Shelby Township, Michigan 48075 |
30
Table of Contents
The Bank’s market area consists primarily of the Metropolitan Detroit area. This is a large real estate market and the Bank’s loan portfolio accounts for less than one percent of this market. The Detroit real estate market has been negatively impacted by the unfavorable economic conditions in the State of Michigan.
The Corporation’s earnings depend primarily on net interest income. Management strives to maximize net interest income through monitoring the economic and competitive environment and making appropriate adjustments in the characteristics and pricing of our products and services.
Other factors that contribute significantly to our earnings are the maintenance of asset quality and efficient operations. Management continually monitors the quality of the loan portfolio and the impact of the economic and competitive environment and works to maintain asset quality.
The Corporation recorded a net loss of ($13,629,000) during the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to a net loss of ($9,075,000) during the same period during 2009, an increase in the net loss of $4,554,000 or 50%. The Corporation recorded a net loss of ($12,501,000) during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to a net loss of ($15,324,000) during the same period during 2009, a decrease in the net loss of $2,823,000 or 18%. The losses experienced during these periods were primarily due to the provision for loan losses and expenses related to the carrying costs of non-performing assets.
The Corporation reported provision for loan losses of $11,803,000 for the three month period ended June 30, 2010, compared to $13,610,000 for the same period in 2009, a decrease of $1,807,000 or 13%. The provision for loan losses was primarily due to net charge-offs during the period. Charge-offs amounting to $3,667,000 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the evaluation of appraisals of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. The decrease in provision for loan losses during the three months ended June 30, 2009 was largely offset by increased write-downs to real estate during the three months ended June 30, 2010. The Corporation reported write-downs on real estate of $3,693,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $1,506,000 for the same period in 2009, an increase of $2,187,000 or 145%. Write-downs to real estate in the amount of $1,581,000 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the valuation of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. The remaining write-downs on real estate were due to the decline in collateral values during 2010.
Therefore, the primary factor for the increase in the net loss during the three month period ended June 30, 2010 compared to the three month period ended June 30, 2009 was the income tax benefit recognized during the three months ended June 30, 2009. The Corporation reported income tax expense of $0 during the three month period ended June 30, 2010 compared to an income tax benefit of $4,672,000 during the same period in 2009.
31
Table of Contents
The primary factor for the decrease in the net loss during the six month period ended June 30, 2010 was the decrease in the provision for loan loss during the six months ended June 30, 2010, which was partially offset by an increase in write-downs to real estate during the six months ended June 30, 2010 and the income tax benefit recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2009. The decrease in the provision for loan losses was further offset by increases in the FDIC assessment expense and defaulted loan expense. The Corporation reported provision for loan losses of $11,903,000 for the six month period ended June 30, 2010, compared to $24,337,000 for the same period in 2009, a decrease of $12,434,000 or 51%. The provision for loan losses were primarily due to net charge-offs during the period. However, certain loans that were charged off during 2010 had specific allocations of $4,058,000 in the allowance for loan loss at December 31, 2009. Therefore, the charge-off of these loans was already recognized in the allowance for loan losses and did not require a provision for loan loss. Additionally, charge-offs amounting to $3,667,000 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the valuation of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. The Corporation reported write-downs on real estate of $4,349,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $1,860,000 for the same period in 2009, an increase of $2,489,000 or 134%. Write-downs to real estate in the amount of $1,581,000 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the valuation of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. The remaining write-downs on real estate were due to the decline in collateral values during 2010.
The Corporation also reported income tax expense of $0 during the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to an income tax benefit of $7,816,000 during the same period in 2009. The Corporation reported FDIC assessment expense of $2,075,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $1,181,000 during the same period in 2009, an increase of $894,000 or 76%. The Corporation reported defaulted loan expense of $2,089,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $1,687,000 during the same period in 2009, an increase of $402,000 or 24%.
As a result of the loss recorded during 2009, the capitalization status of the Bank declined from “well capitalized” to “undercapitalized.” As a result of the decline in the Bank’s capitalization level, the Bank is limited in its utilization of brokered deposits. The Bank is also restricted in the setting of deposit interest rates. Additionally, there are limitations in the borrowing terms and capacity with the Federal Reserve Bank. The Bank submitted a Capital Restoration Plan (“CRP”) to the FDIC and OFIR on December 15, 2009, due to our undercapitalized status based on our September 30, 2009 regulatory report of condition and income. An amended CRP was submitted to the FDIC and OFIR on May 18, 2010.
32
Table of Contents
Management continues to supplement its Special Assets Department, which is responsible for the management of most non-performing loans and the liquidation of real estate owned. During 2010, the Bank will continue to focus on the reduction of non-performing assets. The Special Assets Department was created in 2008 to reduce the amount of non-performing assets and to manage the special assets portfolio effectively. In 2009, additional resources were provided to this department by adding a Special Assets Manager and an additional loan officer in this department. The reduction of non-performing assets is a primary objective of management and is critical to the future success of the Corporation.
Net Interest Income
2010 Compared to 2009.As noted on the chart on the following page, net interest income for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 was $8,456,000 and $16,511,000, compared to $7,537,000 and $15,054,000 for the same periods in 2009, an increase of $919,000 or 12% for the three month period and $1,457,000 or 10% for the six month period. This increase was caused primarily by the increasing spread between interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities. The increase in the Corporation’s net interest spread and net interest margin was primarily due to the decline in the cost on interest bearing liabilities. The Corporation’s interest rate spread was 3.51% and 3.38% for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 compared to 2.68% and 2.63% for the same periods in 2009. The Corporation’s interest rate spread was 3.68% and 3.56% for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 compared to 3.01% and 2.97% for the same periods in 2009.
Average Balances, Interest Rates and Yields.Net interest income is affected by the difference (“interest rate spread”) between rates of interest earned on interest-earning assets and rates of interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities and the relative amounts of interest-bearing liabilities and interest-earning assets. When the total of interest-earning assets approximates or exceeds the total of interest-bearing liabilities, any positive interest rate spread will generate net interest income. Financial institutions have traditionally used interest rate spreads as a measure of net interest income. Another indication of an institution’s net interest income is its “net yield on interest-earning assets” or “net interest margin,” which is net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets.
The following table sets forth certain information relating to the Corporation’s consolidated average interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and reflects the average yield on assets and average cost of liabilities for the periods indicated. Such yields and costs are derived by dividing income or expense by the average daily balance of assets or liabilities, respectively, for the periods presented. During the periods indicated, non-accruing loans, if any, are included in the loan category.
33
Table of Contents
Three months ended June 30, 2010 | Three months ended June 30, 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Average | Average | Average | Average | |||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | Balance | Interest | Rate | Balance | Interest | Rate | ||||||||||||||||||
Assets | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest-bearing deposits with banks | $ | 74,471 | $ | 64 | 0.34 | % | $ | 51,839 | $ | 103 | 0.80 | % | ||||||||||||
Federal funds sold | 57 | 0 | 0.00 | % | 8,026 | 6 | 0.30 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Securities, available for sale | 46,282 | 157 | 1.36 | % | 46,310 | 178 | 1.54 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Loans | 801,464 | 11,536 | 5.77 | % | 898,739 | 13,286 | 5.93 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Sub-total earning assets | 922,274 | 11,757 | 5.11 | % | 1,004,914 | 13,573 | 5.42 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Other assets | 41,345 | 62,037 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets | $ | 963,619 | $ | 1,066,951 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Liabilities and stockholders’ equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest bearing deposits | $ | 754,155 | $ | 2,925 | 1.56 | % | $ | 816,083 | $ | 5,458 | 2.68 | % | ||||||||||||
Other borrowings | 73,800 | 376 | 2.04 | % | 68,951 | 578 | 3.36 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Sub-total interest bearing liabilities | 827,955 | 3,301 | 1.60 | % | 885,034 | 6,036 | 2.74 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Non-interest bearing deposits | 89,846 | 82,304 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other liabilities | 1,704 | 2,159 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stockholders’ equity | 44,114 | 97,454 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 963,619 | $ | 1,066,951 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest income | $ | 8,456 | $ | 7,537 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest rate spread | 3.51 | % | 2.68 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest margin on earning assets | 3.68 | % | 3.01 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
34
Table of Contents
Six months ended June 30, 2010 | Six months ended June 30, 2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Average | Average | Average | Average | |||||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | Balance | Interest | Rate | Balance | Interest | Rate | ||||||||||||||||||
Assets | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest-bearing deposits with banks | $ | 69,904 | $ | 101 | 0.29 | % | $ | 48,562 | $ | 197 | 0.82 | % | ||||||||||||
Federal funds sold | 88 | 1 | 2.29 | % | 7,616 | 12 | 0.32 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Securities, available for sale | 49,908 | 325 | 1.31 | % | 56,874 | 434 | 1.54 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Loans | 814,275 | 23,314 | 5.77 | % | 909,413 | 27,096 | 6.01 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Sub-total earning assets | 934,175 | 23,741 | 5.12 | % | 1,022,465 | 27,739 | 5.47 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Other assets | 34,552 | 60,961 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total assets | $ | 968,727 | $ | 1,083,426 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Liabilities and stockholders’ equity | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest bearing deposits | $ | 761,906 | $ | 6,468 | 1.71 | % | $ | 828,981 | $ | 11,456 | 2.79 | % | ||||||||||||
Other borrowings | 73,814 | 762 | 2.08 | % | 71,127 | 1,229 | 3.48 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Sub-total interest bearing liabilities | 835,720 | 7,230 | 1.74 | % | 900,108 | 12,685 | 2.84 | % | ||||||||||||||||
Non-interest bearing deposits | 87,093 | 80,009 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other liabilities | 2,072 | 2,072 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stockholders’ equity | 43,842 | 101,237 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity | $ | 968,727 | $ | 1,083,426 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest income | $ | 16,511 | $ | 15,054 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest rate spread | 3.38 | % | 2.63 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest margin on earning assets | 3.56 | % | 2.97 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Rate/Volume Analysis.The following table analyzes net interest income in terms of changes in the volume of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and changes in yields and rates. The table reflects the extent to which changes in the interest income and interest expense are attributable to changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior year rate) and changes in rate (changes in rate multiplied by prior year volume). Changes attributable to the combined impact of volume and rate have been allocated proportionately to changes due to volume and changes due to rate.
35
Table of Contents
Three Months Ended June 30, 2010/2009 | Six Months Ended June 30, 2010/2009 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Change in Interest Due to: | Change in Interest Due to: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Average | Average | Net | Average | Average | Net | |||||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | Balance | Rate | Change | Balance | Rate | Change | ||||||||||||||||||
Assets | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest bearing deposits with banks | $ | 20 | (59 | ) | ($39 | ) | $ | 32 | ($128 | ) | ($96 | ) | ||||||||||||
Federal funds sold | — | (6 | ) | (6 | ) | (86 | ) | 75 | (11 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Investment securities, available for sale | — | (21 | ) | (21 | ) | (48 | ) | (61 | ) | (109 | ) | |||||||||||||
Loans | (1,399 | ) | (351 | ) | (1,750 | ) | (2,716 | ) | (1,066 | ) | (3,782 | ) | ||||||||||||
Total earning assets | ($1,379 | ) | ($437 | ) | ($1,816 | ) | ($2,818 | ) | ($1,180 | ) | ($3,998 | ) | ||||||||||||
Liabilities | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest bearing deposits | ($234 | ) | (2,299 | ) | ($2,533 | ) | ($533 | ) | ($4,455 | ) | ($4,988 | ) | ||||||||||||
Other borrowings | 25 | (227 | ) | (202 | ) | 32 | (499 | ) | (467 | ) | ||||||||||||||
Total interest bearing liabilities | ($209 | ) | ($2,526 | ) | ($2,735 | ) | ($501 | ) | ($4,954 | ) | ($5,455 | ) | ||||||||||||
Net interest income | $ | 919 | $ | 1,457 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest rate spread | 0.83 | % | 0.75 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net interest margin on earning assets | 0.67 | % | 0.60 | % | ||||||||||||||||||||
Provision for Loan Losses
2010 Compared to 2009.The provision for loan losses was $11,803,000 and $11,903,000 for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010, compared to $13,610,000 and $24,337,000 for the same periods in 2009, a decrease of $1,807,000 or 13% for the three month period and $12,434,000 or 51% for the six month period.
The provision for loan losses were primarily due to net charge-offs during the period. However, certain loans that were charged off during the six months ended June 30, 2010 had specific allocations of $4,058,000 in the allowance for loan loss at December 31, 2009. Therefore, the charge-off of these loans was already recognized in the allowance for loan losses and did not require a provision for loan loss. Additionally, charge-offs amounting to $3,667,000 during the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the valuation of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral.
Non-accrual loans were $75,146,000 at June 30, 2010 compared to $49,341,000 at December 31, 2009, an increase of $25,805,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2010. This increase was due to the migration of primarily previously identified classified loans. Of this increase, all but approximately $3,070,000 were identified at December 31, 2009 as classified loans with reserves for losses established accordingly.
36
Table of Contents
The decline in the underlying collateral for the Bank’s non-performing loans, which are primarily due to the decline in economic conditions in Southeastern Michigan has continued during the six months ended June 30, 2010. This decline in economic conditions is heavily impacted by conditions and events that impacted the automotive industry during 2009, including the bankruptcy of two major automotive manufacturers and resulting shut down of production and layoffs of employees. These events continue to have a negative impact on the residential real estate and commercial real estate markets in the Bank’s market area. These conditions have led to an increase in the Bank’s classified assets during 2010. Management has recognized this trend in our analysis of the allowance for loan losses at June 30, 2010.
The provision for loan losses for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 is based on the internal analysis of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. The provision for loan losses was based upon management’s assessment of relevant factors, including types and amounts of non-performing loans, historical loss experience on such types of loans, and current economic conditions.
Non-interest Income (Loss)
2010 Compared to 2009.Non-interest loss was ($3,077,000) and ($3,136,000) for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010, compared to non-interest loss of ($571,000) and ($243,000) for the same periods in 2009. The decrease in non-interest income was primarily due to the increase in write-downs on other real estate during 2010. During the six months ended June 30, 2010, the Corporation recorded write-downs on real estate in the amount of $4,349,000. Write-downs to real estate in the amount of $1,581,000 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the valuation of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. The remaining write-downs on real estate were due to the decline in collateral values during 2010.
When these transactions related to other real estate and securities are excluded, non-interest income for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 amounts to $573,000 and $1,112,000 compared to $697,000 and $1,155,000 during the same periods in 2009, a decrease of $124,000 or 18% for the three month period and $43,000 or 4% for the six month period. This decrease is primarily caused by the decrease in the gain on sale of loans in 2010.
Non-interest Expense
2010 Compared to 2009.Non-interest expense was $7,205,000 and $13,973,000 for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010, compared to $7,103,000 and 13,614,000 for the same periods in 2009, an increase of $102,000 or 1% for the three month period and $359,000 or 3% for the six month period. The increase was primarily due to increases in defaulted loan expense and the FDIC assessment and partially offset by decreases to salaries and employee benefits, occupancy expense and the amortization of intangible assets.
37
Table of Contents
Defaulted loan expense amounted to $1,054,000 and $2,089,000 during the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 compared to $926,000 and $1,687,000 during the same periods in 2009, an increase of $128,000 or 14% for the three month period and $402,000 or 24% for the six month period. This increase in defaulted loans expense was primarily due to the payment of property taxes, insurance, legal expenses and maintenance for real estate owned during the period.
The FDIC assessment amounted to $1,125,000 and $2,075,000 during the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010 compared to $833,000 and $1,181,000 during the same periods in 2009, an increase of $292,000 or 35% for the three month period and $894,000 or 76% for the six month period. The increase in the FDIC assessment was due to the decline in the capitalization status to undercapitalized during the fourth quarter of 2009.
Salaries and employee benefits amounted to $3,078,000 and $6,197,000 for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010, compared to $3,208,000 and $6,498,000 for the same periods in 2009, a decrease of $130,000 or 4% for the three month period and $301,000 or 5% for the six month period. As of June 30, 2010, the number of full time equivalent employees was 194 compared to 205 as of June 30, 2009.
Income Tax Provision
2010 Compared to 2009.Income tax expense was $0 for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2010, compared to an income tax benefit of $4,672,000 and $7,816,000 for the same periods in 2009. The benefit for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2009 was the result of the pretax losses incurred during those periods. During 2009, the Corporation recorded a valuation allowance against the entire amount of its deferred tax asset. The Corporation has sufficient federal income tax carryforwards to offset any provision for federal income tax. Therefore, no income tax benefit was recorded for the three or six month periods ended June 30, 2010.
38
Table of Contents
Comparison of Financial Condition at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009
Assets.Total assets at June 30, 2010 were $933,113,000 compared to $986,486,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $53,373,000 or 5%. The decrease was primarily due to the decrease in loans.
Interest bearing deposits with banks.Total interest bearing deposits with banks at June 30, 2010 were $67,056,000 compared to $69,538,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $2,482,000 or 4%. The decrease is primarily due to the Bank’s decision to invest funds in time deposits of other banks in denominations less than the fully insured limit of $250,000 and to retain excess funds with the Federal Reserve Bank to improve our liquidity and capital position. Interest bearing deposits with banks consists primarily of overnight deposits with the Federal Reserve Bank, business accounts with other correspondents banks and time deposits from other banks. These time deposits are fully insured and mature in less than thirty months.
Mortgage Loans Held for Sale.Total mortgage loans held for sale at June 30, 2010 were $1,169,000 compared to $1,129,000 at December 31, 2009, an increase of $40,000 or 4%. This increase was a result of the increase in the level of residential real estate mortgage loans waiting to be purchased by mortgage correspondents.
Securities — Available for Sale.Total securities, available for sale, at June 30, 2010 were $46,171,000 compared to $45,964,000 at December 31, 2009, an increase of $207,000 or 1%. The increase is the result of the fluctuation in the market value of securities, available for sale that are held by the Corporation.
Please refer to Note B of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for the amortized cost and estimated market value of securities, available for sale. The entire portfolio has a net unrealized gain of $322,000 at June 30, 2010. The unrealized gain is reflected by an adjustment to stockholders’ equity.
Federal Home Loan Bank Stock.Federal Home Loan Bank stock was valued at $3,698,000 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009.
Loans.Total loans at June 30, 2010 were $783,032,000 compared to $833,136,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $50,104,000 or 6%. The decrease was primarily due to net charge-offs of $15,454,000, the transfer of loans in the amount of $6,374,000 to other real estate and normal loan amortization during the period. Management expects loan balances to continue to decline during 2010. Major categories of loans included in the loan portfolio are as follows (in thousands):
39
Table of Contents
6/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Consumer loans | $ | 28,017 | $ | 29,386 | $ | 30,270 | ||||||
Commercial, financial, & other | 134,199 | 144,630 | 157,438 | |||||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 29,233 | 38,472 | 48,454 | |||||||||
Land development loans — non residential property | 9,427 | 11,644 | 13,405 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 11,060 | 13,287 | 13,125 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — non residential property | 17,935 | 20,061 | 22,518 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 511,265 | 531,156 | 549,275 | |||||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 41,896 | 44,500 | 48,083 | |||||||||
783,032 | 833,136 | 882,568 | ||||||||||
Allowance for loan losses | (31,574 | ) | (35,125 | ) | (22,422 | ) | ||||||
Total loans | $ | 751,458 | $ | 798,011 | $ | 860,146 | ||||||
�� |
The following is a summary of non-performing assets and problems loans (in thousands):
6/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Troubled debt restructuring | $ | 38,530 | $ | 59,420 | $ | 46,714 | ||||||
Over 90 days past due and still accruing | — | — | — | |||||||||
Non-accrual loans | 75,146 | 49,341 | 57,610 | |||||||||
Total non-performing loans | 113,676 | 108,761 | 104,324 | |||||||||
Real estate owned | 23,976 | 23,435 | 17,434 | |||||||||
Other repossessed assets | — | — | — | |||||||||
Other non-performing assets | 23,976 | 23,435 | 17,434 | |||||||||
Total non-performing assets | $ | 137,652 | $ | 132,196 | $ | 121,758 | ||||||
The increase in non-performing loans was largely due to the increase in non-accrual loans, which amount to $75,146,000, $81,163,000 and $49,341,000 at June 30, 2010, March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, and were substantially offset by the decrease in loans that qualify as troubled debt restructuring, which amounted to $38,530,000, $31,737,000 and $59,420,000 at June 30, 2010, March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. The distribution of non-accrual loans by loan type (in thousands) is as follows:
Number of | ||||||||
Loans | Balance | |||||||
Consumer loans | 16 | $ | 1,051 | |||||
Commercial, financial, & other | 46 | 14,134 | ||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 19 | 17,001 | ||||||
Land development loans — non residential property | 1 | 1,319 | ||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 10 | 8,213 | ||||||
Commercial real estate construction — non residential property | 1 | 333 | ||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 65 | 30,530 | ||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 13 | 2,565 | ||||||
Total non-accrual loans | 171 | $ | 75,146 | |||||
The increase in non-accrual loans during the period was primarily due to the downgrading of 66 loans to non-accrual status for $42,796,000 and partially offset by net charge-offs of $15,454,000 and the transfer of 12 loans to other real estate for $6,374,000. This increase was primarily due to the migration of previously identified classified loans. A summary of the loans transferred to non-accrual status during the six months ended June 30, 2010 is listed below:
40
Table of Contents
Number of Loans | Balance | |||||||
Consumer Loans | 4 | $ | 393 | |||||
Commercial Loans | 16 | 7,355 | ||||||
Land Development — Residential | 9 | 11,328 | ||||||
Commercial Construction Loans — Residential | 2 | 4,037 | ||||||
Commercial Construction Loans — Non Residential | 1 | 333 | ||||||
Commercial Mortgage Loans | 30 | 18,563 | ||||||
Residential Mortgages Loans | 4 | 786 | ||||||
Totals | 66 | $ | 42,796 | |||||
Loans qualifying as troubled debt restructuring amounted to $38,530,000 and $59,420,000 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively. These loans qualified as troubled debt restructuring primarily due to the temporary change in payment type from principal and interest to interest only or the lengthening the amortization period of certain loans. Loans categorized as troubled debt restructuring at June 30, 2010 are in compliance with their modified terms, with the exception of one loan amounting to $1,136,000 that was sixty days past due and two loans amounting to $653,000 that were thirty days past due. The specific allowance of loans categorized as troubled debt restructuring was $4,608,000 and $5,452,000 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.
The most significant proportion of the Bank’s non-performing loans continues to be in the land development and commercial real estate construction segments of the Bank’s loan portfolio. These loans comprise 9% of loans and 36% of non accrual loans at June 30, 2010. Management has implemented a strategy to decrease the amount of loans in these segments. These loans have decreased 19% during 2010, while the loan portfolio has declined by 6%.
Management has identified substandard loans over $500,000. These loans are individually discussed by management and strategies are developed and implemented to manage these loans most effectively.
41
Table of Contents
Allowance for Loan Losses.The allowance for loan losses was $31,574,000 at June 30, 2010 compared to $35,125,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $3,551,000 or 10%. The percentage of allowance for loan loss to loans was 4.03%, 4.22% and 2.54% at June 30, 2010, December 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009, respectively. The Corporation recorded net charge-offs of $15,454,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2010. Charge-offs amounting to $3,667,000 were due to a change in the methodology utilized in the valuation of developed residential building lots. This change was related to the evaluation of appraisals of this type of collateral, where the appraised value of developed residential building lots was required to be discounted based on the absorption factor associated with the collateral. Additionally, charge-offs amounting to $4,058,000 had specific allocations in the allowance for loan loss at December 31, 2009. These specific allocations were assigned because certain charge-offs recorded during the first six months of 2010 were based on information that was received in 2010 but was relevant to the fair value of the collateral at December 31, 2009. The remaining charge-offs, which amount to $7,729,000 were due to the deterioration of non-performing loans during the period.
A primary factor in the continued decline in the underlying value of our collateral and the decision to recognize these charge-offs was the continuing decline in the first six months of 2010 in the economic environment in Southeastern Michigan. This decline in economic conditions is heavily impacted by conditions and events that have recently impacted the automotive industry, including the recent bankruptcy of two major automotive manufacturers and resulting shut down of production and layoffs of employees. These events have a negative impact on the residential real estate and commercial real estate markets in the Bank’s market area and these loans represent 79% of the Bank’s loan portfolio. These conditions have led to an increase in the Bank’s classified assets during 2010. Management has recognized this trend in our analysis of the allowance for loan losses at June 30, 2010. The allowance for loan losses was based upon management’s assessment of relevant factors, including loan growth, types and amounts of non-performing loans, historical and anticipated loss experience on such types of loans, and current economic conditions. If collateral values continue to decline, additions to the allowance for loan losses will be required and will have an adverse effect on the Corporation’s earnings through increases to the provision for loan losses.
The following is an analysis of the allowance for loan losses (in thousands):
42
Table of Contents
Six Months Ended | Year Ended | Six Months Ended | ||||||||||
06/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Balance, beginning of year | $ | 35,125 | $ | 14,452 | $ | 14,452 | ||||||
Charge-offs: | ||||||||||||
Consumer loans | 419 | 1,154 | 539 | |||||||||
Commercial, financial & other | 2,725 | 4,878 | 2,490 | |||||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 7,185 | 9,441 | 5,308 | |||||||||
Land development loans — non residential property | 300 | 4,364 | 2,356 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 1,712 | 1,471 | 1,176 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — non residential property | 36 | 1,981 | 430 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 3,023 | 6,919 | 3,708 | |||||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 221 | 701 | 621 | |||||||||
Recoveries: | ||||||||||||
Consumer loans | 33 | 176 | 11 | |||||||||
Commercial, financial & other | 61 | 339 | 189 | |||||||||
Land development loans — residential property | 14 | 107 | 28 | |||||||||
Commercial real estate construction — residential property | 1 | — | — | |||||||||
Commercial real estate mortgages | 18 | 61 | 26 | |||||||||
Residential real estate mortgages | 40 | 36 | 7 | |||||||||
Net charge-offs (recoveries) | 15,454 | 30,190 | 16,367 | |||||||||
Provision for loan losses | 11,903 | 50,863 | 24,337 | |||||||||
Balance, end of period | $ | 31,574 | $ | 35,125 | $ | 22,422 | ||||||
Allowance to total loans | 4.03 | % | 4.22 | % | 2.54 | % | ||||||
Allowance to nonperforming assets | 27.78 | % | 32.30 | % | 21.49 | % | ||||||
Net charge-offs to average loans | 1.90 | % | 3.40 | % | 1.80 | % | ||||||
Premises and Equipment.Bank premises and equipment at June 30, 2010 were $19,724,000 compared to $20,194,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $470,000 or 2%. The decrease is primarily due to depreciation during the period.
Other Real Estate.Other real estate at June 30, 2010 was $23,976,000 compared to $23,435,000 at December 31, 2009, an increase of $541,000 or 2%. The distribution of other real estate by property type is listed below (in thousands):
Number of | ||||||||
Property Type | Properties | Amount | ||||||
Single Family Homes | 31 | $ | 2,880 | |||||
Condominium | 1 | 727 | ||||||
Vacant Land | 19 | 8,489 | ||||||
Commercial | 7 | 6,208 | ||||||
Office/Retail | 8 | 5,672 | ||||||
Total | 66 | $ | 23,976 | |||||
Other real estate is comprised of real estate owned of $20,080,000 and real estate in redemption status of $3,896,000. Fourteen properties with a book value of $2,985,000 are currently generating rental income.
Accrued Interest Receivable.Accrued interest receivable at June 30, 2010 was $3,181,000 compared to $3,562,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $381,000 or 11%. The decrease was primarily due to the decrease in the accrued interest receivable on loans.
43
Table of Contents
Other Assets. Other assets at June 30, 2010 were $9,199,000 compared to $12,660,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $3,461,000 or 27%. The decrease was primarily due to the receipt of income tax refunds in the amount of $3,815,000 and $259,000 for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2007, respectively.
Deposits.Total deposits at June 30, 2010 were $827,664,000 compared to $867,955,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $40,291,000 or 5%. The following is a summary of the distribution of deposits (in thousands):
06/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Non-interest bearing: | ||||||||||||
Demand | $ | 91,447 | $ | 83,873 | $ | 83,752 | ||||||
Interest bearing: | ||||||||||||
Checking | $ | 79,195 | $ | 83,087 | $ | 106,669 | ||||||
Money market | 57,476 | 52,412 | 72,394 | |||||||||
Savings | 43,343 | 43,343 | 52,017 | |||||||||
Time, under $100,000 | 287,761 | 301,829 | 221,980 | |||||||||
Time, $100,000 and over | 268,442 | 303,411 | 276,355 | |||||||||
736,217 | 784,082 | 729,415 | ||||||||||
Total deposits | $ | 827,664 | $ | 867,955 | $ | 813,167 | ||||||
The decrease in deposits was primarily due to the decrease in brokered time deposits during a period of decreasing interest rates and the accelerated liquidation of a wholesale money market deposit program by management. Management continues to implement a strategy to change the mix of the deposit portfolio by limiting its exposure to wholesale deposits and focusing on retail deposits.
The Bank has implemented a strategy to utilize retail deposits as the primary funding for the Bank’s growth. Public funds and secured borrowings are also utilized as funding sources. The mix of these sources is determined by the Bank’s Asset and Liability Committee.
Public funds consist of interest checking and time deposits of local governmental units. They are the result of strong relationships between the Bank and the communities in the Bank’s marketing area.
Brokered deposits are included in the Time, $100,000 and over category. Brokered deposits were $0, $17,544,000 and $61,322,000 at June 30, 2010, December 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009, respectively.
44
Table of Contents
The following is a summary of the distribution of municipal deposits (in thousands):
06/30/10 | 12/31/09 | 06/30/09 | ||||||||||
Interest bearing checking | $ | 2,819 | $ | 2,715 | $ | 2,577 | ||||||
Time, $100,000 and over | 3,672 | 4,366 | 15,326 | |||||||||
Total municipal deposits | $ | 6,491 | $ | 7,081 | $ | 17,903 | ||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank Advances. Federal Home Loan Bank advances were $63,799,000 at June 30, 2010 compared to $63,855,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $56,000. The decrease was due to the scheduled partial repayment of a Federal Home Loan Bank advance.
Accrued Interest Payable. Accrued interest payable at June 30, 2010 was $941,000 compared to $1,046,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $105,000 or 10%. The decrease was primarily due to the decreasing cost of deposits.
Other Liabilities. Other liabilities at June 30, 2010 were $746,000 compared to $1,685,000 at December 31, 2009, a decrease of $939,000 or 56%. The decrease was primarily due to the decrease in accrued liabilities during the period.
Subordinated Debentures. Subordinated debentures were $10,000,000 at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009.On December 19, 2002, the Corporation issued $10,000,000 of floating rate obligated mandatory redeemable securities through a special purpose entity as part of a pooled offering. The securities have a term of thirty years. The Corporation may redeem the securities after five years at face value. They are considered to be Tier 1 capital for regulatory capital purposes. Debt issue costs of $300,000 have been entirely amortized. During the third quarter of 2009, the Corporation elected to defer regularly scheduled quarterly interest payments on the Corporation’s subordinated debentures. The terms of the subordinated debentures allow for the deferral of regularly scheduled quarterly interest payments for up to twenty consecutive quarters.
Capital
Stockholders’ equity at June 30, 2010 was $29,963,000 compared to $41,945,000 as of December 31, 2009, a decrease of $11,982,000 or 29%. The decrease was due to the net loss during the period.
45
Table of Contents
The Corporation has experienced large net losses during 2008, 2009 and 2010 due to the continued decline in economic conditions in Southeastern Michigan. The recent bankruptcy of two major automotive manufacturers and resulting shut down of production and layoffs of employees have negatively affected the operating results even though the Corporation does not have any direct exposure to the automotive industry. Additionally, economic conditions have continued to erode the value of residential real estate and commercial real estate in the Bank’s market area causing write-downs in the real estate owned portfolio further contributing to net losses.
The regulatory capital ratios of the Corporation’s and the Bank are presented in Note F. Based on the respective regulatory capital ratios, the Bank is considered to be undercapitalized at June 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009. The decline in the Bank’s regulatory capital position has been caused primarily by the losses sustained by the Bank.
The capital ratios disclosed in the middle column of the table in Note F are minimum requirements. Higher capital ratios may be required by federal and state bank regulators if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of specific institutions.
Applicable federal prompt corrective action regulations provide five classifications, including well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. Based on its regulatory capital ratios at June 30, 2010, the Bank is undercapitalized. Undercapitalized institutions are subject to close monitoring by their federal bank regulator, restrictions on asset growth and expansion, and other significantly greater regulatory restrictions than apply to well-capitalized or adequately capitalized institutions.
Without the prior approval of the FDIC, the Bank is prohibited from paying any dividend, or making any other capital distribution to, the Corporation. The Bank is also forbidden to pay any management fee to the Corporation. These restrictions may materially adversely affect the cash flow of the Corporation.
Any proposed addition of any individual to the board of directors of the Corporation or the Bank, or the proposed employment of any individual as a senior executive officer of either, is subject to 30 days’ prior written notice to, and the absence of disapproval by, the FDIC. Moreover, an application to, and approval by, the FDIC will be required before the Bank may (i) enter into any agreement with any current or former director, officer, employee, or shareholder of the Bank or the Corporation (or any other current or former institution affiliated party of either) for a golden parachute payment or excess nondiscriminatory severance pay plan or arrangement (within the meaning of applicable FDIC regulations), or (ii) make any golden parachute payments or excess nondiscriminatory severance pay plan payments to any such persons.
In addition, unless consistent with an approved capital restoration plan and accompanied by a proportionate improvement in its capital ratios which will allow it to become adequately capitalized in a reasonable time, the Bank may not permit any increase, from quarter to quarter, in its average total assets. Further, unless the FDIC has approved its capital restoration plan, the Bank is implementing that plan, and the FDIC finds the proposed action is consistent with the plan, the Bank may not, directly or indirectly, acquire any company, depository institution or additional branch office, or engage in any new line of business.
46
Table of Contents
The Bank is also prohibited from accepting funds obtained, directly or indirectly, by or through any deposit broker. Further, the Bank may not accept employee benefit plan deposits.
The Corporation needs to raise sufficient capital during 2010 to return the Bank to well-capitalized status. Management is considering various sources of capital and estimates the need to raise approximately $50 million in capital to be in compliance with its Consent Order with the FDIC and OFIR. Given the current economic environment, there can be no assurance the Corporation will be able to raise the estimated capital needed.
PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 3. — QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
Interest Rate Sensitivity Analysis.The Corporation has sought to manage its exposure to changes in interest rates by matching the effective maturities or repricing characteristics of the Corporation’s interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. The matching of the assets and liabilities may be analyzed by examining the extent to which the assets and liabilities are interest rate sensitive and by monitoring the expected effects of interest rate changes on net interest income.
An asset or liability is interest rate sensitive within a specific time period if it will mature or reprice within that time period. If the Corporation’s assets mature or reprice more quickly or to a greater extent that its liabilities, the Corporation’s net portfolio value and net interest income would tend to increase during periods of rising interest rates but decrease during periods of falling interest rates. If the Corporation’s assets mature or reprice more slowly or to a lesser extent than its liabilities, its net portfolio value and net interest income would tend to decrease during periods of rising interest rates but increase during periods of falling interest rates.
The matching of assets and liabilities may be analyzed by examining the extent to which such assets and liabilities are “interest rate sensitive” and by monitoring an institution’s interest rate sensitivity “gap.” An asset or liability is said to be interest rate sensitive within a specific period if it will mature or reprice within that period. The interest rate sensitivity “gap” is the difference between the amount of interest-earning assets maturing or repricing within a specific time period and the amount of interest-bearing liabilities maturing or repricing within that time period. A gap is considered positive when the amount of interest rate sensitive assets exceeds the amount of interest rate sensitive liabilities, and is considered negative when the amount of interest rate sensitive liabilities exceed the amount of interest rate sensitive assets. During a period of rising interest rates, a negative gap would be expected to adversely affect net interest income while a positive gap would be expected to result in an increase in net interest income, while conversely during a period of declining interest rates, a negative gap would be expected to result in an increase in net interest income and a positive gap would be expected to adversely affect net interest income.
47
Table of Contents
Different types of assets and liabilities with the same or similar maturities may react differently to changes in overall market rates or conditions, and thus changes in interest rates may affect net interest income positively or negatively even if an institution were perfectly matched in each maturity category. Additionally, the gap analysis does not consider many factors as banking interest rates move. While the interest rate sensitivity gap is a useful measurement and contributes toward effective asset and liability management, it is difficult to predict the effect of changing interest rates solely on that measure, without accounting for alterations in the maturity or repricing characteristics of the balance sheet that occur during changes in market interest rates.
During periods of rising interest rates, the Corporation’s assets tend to have prepayments that are slower than those in an interest rate sensitivity gap and would increase the negative gap position. Conversely, during a period of declining interest rates, the Corporation’s assets would tend to prepay faster than originally expected thus decreasing the negative gap position. In addition, some of the Corporation’s assets, such as adjustable rate mortgages, have caps on the amount by which their interest rates can change in any single period, and therefore may not reprice as quickly as liabilities in the same maturity category.
The following table sets forth the amounts of interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities outstanding at June 30, 2010, which are expected to mature or reprice in each of the time periods shown below.
Interest Rate Sensitivity Period | ||||||||||||||||||||
1-90 | 91-365 | 1-5 | Over | |||||||||||||||||
(In thousands) | Days | Days | Years | 5 Years | Total | |||||||||||||||
Earning assets | ||||||||||||||||||||
Federal funds sold | $ | 57 | $ | — | $ | — | $ | — | $ | 57 | ||||||||||
Interest bearing deposits with Banks | 67,056 | — | — | — | 67,056 | |||||||||||||||
Mortgage loans held for sale | 1,169 | — | — | — | 1,169 | |||||||||||||||
Securities available for sale | — | 5,116 | 41,055 | — | 46,171 | |||||||||||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank stock | 3,698 | — | — | — | 3,698 | |||||||||||||||
Total loans, net of non-accrual | 148,097 | 114,587 | 414,889 | 30,313 | 707,886 | |||||||||||||||
Total earning assets | 220,077 | 119,703 | 455,944 | 30,313 | 826,037 | |||||||||||||||
Interest bearing liabilities | ||||||||||||||||||||
Total interest bearing deposits | 386,016 | 234,026 | 115,908 | 267 | 736,217 | |||||||||||||||
Federal Home Loan Bank advances | 34,083 | 19,500 | 10,216 | — | 63,799 | |||||||||||||||
Other Borrowings | — | — | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Subordinated debentures | 10,000 | — | — | — | 10,000 | |||||||||||||||
Total interest bearing liabilities | 430,099 | 253,526 | 126,124 | 267 | 810,016 | |||||||||||||||
Net asset (liability) funding gap | (210,022 | ) | (133,823 | ) | 329,820 | 30,046 | $ | 16,021 | ||||||||||||
Cumulative net asset (liability) funding gap | ($210,022 | ) | ($343,845 | ) | ($14,025 | ) | $ | 16,021 | ||||||||||||
48
Table of Contents
Liquidity.Liquidity refers to readily available funds to meet the needs of borrowers and depositors. Levels of liquidity are closely monitored in conjunction with loan funding requirements and deposit outflows. Adequate liquidity protects institutions from raising funds under duress at excessive expense and provides a necessary cushion for occasional unpredictable aberrations in demand. While adequate liquidity is imperative, excessive liquidity in lower yielding cash investments or other easily marketable assets reduces potential interest income. Thus, an appropriate balance must be maintained to protect the institution and at the same time, prudently maximize income opportunities. Sources of liquidity include federal funds sold, securities available for sale, loan repayments, core deposits, Federal Home Loan Bank advances and a federal funds purchase credit facility. Liquidity is continually measured and discussed. When liquidity and funding projections indicate that liquidity levels are not adequate to meet the current or projected liquidity needs of the Bank, management intends to make adjustments to improve the liquidity position.
The Corporation reduced its reliance on federal funds lines of credit as a primary source of funds during the second and third quarters of 2008. During the third quarter of 2008, the credit environment became very unstable and the ability to use unsecured federal funds lines of credit became very limited. As the Corporation had already reduced its reliance upon these lines of credit as a funding source, the Corporation was not significantly affected. However, this situation has affected management’s process of maintaining adequate levels of liquidity. As this source of overnight funding has decreased significantly, management has increased the amount of cash and cash equivalents in order to maintain an adequate level of liquidity. Management has also increased the amount of securities, available for sale and interest bearing deposits with banks that can be utilized as collateral against short-term borrowings. The increase in the amount of cash and cash equivalents and securities, available for sale is funded primarily with deposits and decreases in loans.
During the third quarter of 2009, the Corporation elected to defer regularly scheduled quarterly interest payments on the Corporation’s subordinated debentures for the purpose of supplementing holding company liquidity. The terms of the subordinated debentures allow for the deferral of regularly scheduled quarterly interest payments for up to twenty consecutive quarters. The deferral of interest on the subordinated debentures will result in a corresponding annual deferral of distributions on the trust preferred securities of approximately $500,000, based on current interest rates.
The Corporation is currently considering other alternatives to further supplement holding company liquidity, which has decreased primarily due to the Corporation’s repurchase of common stock. One alternative that is being considered is the financing or sale/leaseback of two office buildings that are owned by the Corporation. A decision on the financing or sale/leaseback of the two office buildings that are owned by the Corporation has not been reached at this time.
49
Table of Contents
The following tables provide information about the Bank’s contractual obligations and commitments at June 30, 2010 (in thousands):
Contractual Obligations
Payments Due By Period | ||||||||||||||||||||
Less Than 1 Year | 1-3 Years | 3-5 Years | Over 5 Years | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Certificates of deposit | $ | 440,029 | $ | 114,237 | $ | 1,671 | $ | 267 | $ | 556,204 | ||||||||||
Long-term borrowings | 53,584 | 10,215 | — | — | 63,799 | |||||||||||||||
Lease commitments | 675 | 653 | 286 | — | 1,614 | |||||||||||||||
Subordinated debentures | — | — | — | 10,000 | 10,000 | |||||||||||||||
Totals | $ | 494,288 | $ | 125,105 | $ | 1,957 | $ | 10,267 | $ | 631,617 | ||||||||||
Unused Loan Commitments and Letters of Credit
Amount Of Commitment Expiration Per Period | ||||||||||||||||||||
Less Than 1 Year | 1-3 Years | 3-5 Years | Over 5 Years | Total | ||||||||||||||||
Unused loan commitments | $ | 28,026 | $ | 6,617 | $ | 5,793 | $ | 7,911 | $ | 48,347 | ||||||||||
Standby letters of credit | 448 | 1,500 | — | — | 1,948 | |||||||||||||||
Totals | $ | 28,474 | $ | 8,117 | $ | 5,793 | $ | 7,911 | $ | 50,295 | ||||||||||
50
Table of Contents
Item 4.Controls and Procedures
Disclosure Controls and Procedures—As of the end of the period covered by this report, the registrant carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures. Based on the review of the disclosure controls of the registrant, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer have concluded that the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of June 30, 2010.
Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting — There has been no change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
51
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
FORM 10-Q (continued)
FORM 10-Q (continued)
PART II — OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS |
In addition to the risk factors disclosed in the Corporation’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, the following risk factors may affect the Corporation’s business, financial condition or results of operations. All of the risk factors should be considered in connection with evaluating the forward-looking statements contained in this report because they could cause the actual results and conditions to differ materially from those projected in forward-looking statements. The risks highlighted here and in the Corporation’s annual report are not the only ones the Corporation faces. If the adverse matters referred to in any of the risk factors actually occurs, the Corporation’s business, financial condition or operations could be adversely and materially affected. In that case, the trading price of the Corporation’s common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.
Risks Related to Our Business
We are subject to restrictions and conditions of a Consent Order issued by the FDIC and OFIR, and an FRB Written Agreement. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant additional regulatory compliance expense in connection with these enforcement actions, Failure to comply with the Consent Order or the FRB Written Agreement could result in additional enforcement action against us, including the imposition of further operating restrictions and monetary penalties.
The FDIC and OFIR have issued a Consent Order with Fidelity Bank and the Company has entered into an FRB Written Agreement. The Consent Order contains a number of significant directives, including higher capital requirements, requirements to reduce the level of our classified assets, operating restrictions and restrictions on dividend payments by the Bank. These restrictions may impede our ability to operate our own business. Certain directives are listed below:
• | Completion of a senior management study by an independent consultant | ||
• | Plans for the reduction of delinquencies and classified assets | ||
• | Plans for lending and collection policies | ||
• | Plans for the reduction of loan concentrations | ||
• | The revision and implementation of a comprehensive strategic plan | ||
• | The revision of its Liquidity Plan and the submission of weekly liquidity reports to the FDIC and OFIR |
52
Table of Contents
If we fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the Consent Order or the FRB Written Agreement, the appropriate regulatory authority could take additional enforcement action against us, including the imposition further operating restrictions and monetary penalties. We could also be directed to seek a merger partner. We have incurred and expect to continue to incur significant additional regulatory compliance expense in connection with the enforcement actions, and we will incur ongoing expenses attributable to compliance with the terms of the enforcement actions. Although we do not expect it, it is possible regulatory compliance expenses related to the enforcement actions could have a material adverse impact on us in the future. In addition, our ability to independently make certain changes to our business is restricted by the terms of the Consent Order and the FRB Written Agreement, which could negatively impact the scope and flexibility of our business activities. While we believe that we will be able to take actions that will result in the Consent Order and the FRB Written Agreement being terminated in the future, we cannot guarantee that such actions will result in the termination of the Consent Orders and / or the FRB Written Agreement. Further, the imposition of the Consent Order and the FRB Written Agreement may make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified employees.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTER TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS |
On May 18, 2010, at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the Shareholders of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. approved an amendment to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock from 20,000,000 shares to 100,000,000 shares. The voting results were as follows:
Total For | Total Against | Total Abstain | ||
5,970,651 | 161,163 | 169,504 |
On May 18, 2010, at the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, the Shareholders of Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. re-elected four directors to serve for a term of three years expiring in 2013. The results of the voting were as follows:
Nominee | Total For | Total Against | Total Abstain | |||||
Margaret I Campbell | 2,890,605 | 0 | 43,947 | |||||
John E. Demmer | 2,763,082 | 0 | 171,470 | |||||
Michael V. Dorian Jr. | 2,891,227 | 0 | 41,248 | |||||
Donald G. Karcher | 2,895,561 | 0 | 38,991 |
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS |
Exhibit 31.1 | CEO Certification. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
Exhibit 31.2 | CFO Certification. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
Exhibit 32.1 | CEO Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
Exhibit 32.2 | CFO Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
53
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q (continued)
FORM 10-Q (continued)
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
Dearborn Bancorp, Inc. (Registrant) | ||||
/s/ John E. Demmer | ||||
John E. Demmer | ||||
Chairman | ||||
/s/ Michael J. Ross | ||||
Michael J. Ross | ||||
President and Chief Executive Officer | ||||
/s/ Jeffrey L. Karafa | ||||
Jeffrey L. Karafa | ||||
Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
Date: August 13, 2010
54
Table of Contents
DEARBORN BANCORP, INC.
FORM 10-Q (continued)
FORM 10-Q (continued)
Exhibit Index
Exhibit | Description | |
31.1 | CEO Certification. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
31.2 | CFO Certification. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
32.1 | CEO Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. | |
32.2 | CFO Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
55