Interest income on one-to-four family mortgage loans increased $10.6 million to $152.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $141.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, which was the result of an increase of $809.2 million in the average balance of such loans. The increase in the average balance of one-to-four family mortgage loans was the result of the strong levels of originations and purchases which outpaced the levels of repayments over the past year. The average yield on one-to-four family mortgage loans was 5.27% for both the three months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. The average yield for the three months ended June 30, 2008 was negatively impacted by accelerated loan premium amortization resulting from the substantial increase in mortgage loan prepayments during the first half of 2008 compared to the first half of 2007. Net premium amortization on one-to-four family mortgage loans increased $2.7 million to $8.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $5.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The increase in net premium amortization offset the impact of the upward repricing of our ARM loans and new originations at higher interest rates than the rates on loans repaid.
Interest income on multi-family, commercial real estate and construction loans decreased $5.7 million to $58.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $64.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, which was primarily the result of a decrease of $258.5 million in the average balance of such loans, coupled with a decrease in the average yield to 5.96% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 6.14% for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The decrease in the average balance of multi-family, commercial real estate and construction loans reflects the levels of repayments which outpaced the levels of originations over the past year. Our originations of multi-family, commercial real estate and construction loans have declined in recent periods due primarily to the competitive market pricing and our decision to not aggressively pursue such loans under current market conditions. The decrease in the average yield on multi-family, commercial real estate and construction loans reflects new loan originations at lower interest rates than the rates on the loans being repaid and/or remaining in the portfolio. Prepayment penalties totaled $1.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and $1.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007.
Interest income on consumer and other loans decreased $3.6 million to $4.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $7.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average yield to 4.84% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 7.69% for the three months ended June 30, 2007, coupled with a decrease of $61.2 million in the average balance of the portfolio. The decrease in the average yield on consumer and other loans was primarily the result of a decrease in the average yield on our home equity lines of credit which are adjustable rate loans which generally reset monthly and are indexed to the prime rate which decreased 100 basis points during the second half of 2007 and 225 basis points during the first half of 2008. Home equity lines of credit represented 91.8% of this portfolio at June 30, 2008. The decrease in the average balance of consumer and other loans was primarily the result of our decision to not aggressively pursue the origination of home equity lines of credit in the current economic environment, coupled with more stringent underwriting standards implemented in the 2007 fourth quarter.
Interest income on mortgage-backed and other securities decreased $9.2 million to $46.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $55.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007. This decrease was primarily the result of a decrease of $730.2 million in the average balance of the portfolio, coupled with a decrease in the average yield to 4.41% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.50% for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The decrease in the average balance of mortgage-backed and other securities reflects our strategy in 2007 of reducing the securities portfolio through normal cash flow.
Interest income on federal funds sold and repurchase agreements increased $519,000 to $1.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, primarily due to an increase of $145.7 million in the average balance of the portfolio, partially offset by a decrease in the average yield to 2.22% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 5.29% for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The increase in the average balance of federal funds sold and repurchase agreements reflects the excess cash flows from loan prepayments during the 2008 first quarter, which were used to fund loan originations during the 2008 second quarter. The decrease in the average yield reflects the previously discussed FOMC rate reductions.
Dividend income on Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, or FHLB-NY, stock increased $1.1 million to $3.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, primarily due to an increase of $39.7 million in the average balance of FHLB-NY stock, coupled with an increase in the average yield to 7.81% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 7.09% for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The increase in the average balance of FHLB-NY stock was primarily due to an increase in the levels of FHLB-NY borrowings. The increase in the average yield on FHLB-NY stock was the result of an increase in the dividend rate paid by the FHLB-NY.
Interest income decreased $6.2 million to $538.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $544.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average yield on interest-earning assets to 5.25% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 5.31% for the six months ended June 30, 2007, partially offset by the slight increase in the average balance of interest-earning assets which totaled $20.51 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. The slight increase in the average balance of interest-earning assets was primarily due to increases in the average balances of total loans and federal funds sold and repurchase agreements, substantially offset by a decrease in the average balance of mortgage-backed and other securities.
Interest income on one-to-four family mortgage loans increased $27.7 million to $305.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $278.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, which was primarily the result of an increase of $1.02 billion in the average balance of such loans, coupled with an increase in the average yield to 5.28% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 5.26% for the six months ended June 30, 2007. Net premium amortization on one-to-four family mortgage loans increased $7.4 million to $18.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $10.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007.
Interest income on multi-family, commercial real estate and construction loans decreased $10.1 million to $119.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $129.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, which was primarily the result of a decrease of $240.8 million in the average balance of such loans, coupled with a decrease in the average yield to 5.99% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 6.13% for the six months ended June 30, 2007. Prepayment penalties totaled $3.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and $3.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007.
Interest income on consumer and other loans decreased $6.4 million to $9.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $16.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average yield to 5.48% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 7.65% for the six months ended June 30, 2007, coupled with a decrease of $68.0 million in the average balance of the portfolio.
Interest income on mortgage-backed and other securities decreased $20.3 million to $94.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $114.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. This decrease was primarily the result of a decrease of $831.3 million in the
35
average balance of the portfolio, coupled with a decrease in the average yield to 4.44% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.51% for the six months ended June 30, 2007.
Interest income on federal funds sold and repurchase agreements increased $179,000 to $1.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, primarily due to an increase of $82.8 million in the average balance of the portfolio, substantially offset by a decrease in the average yield to 2.38% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 5.27% for the six months ended June 30, 2007.
Dividend income on FHLB-NY stock increased $2.7 million to $8.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, primarily due to an increase of $43.6 million in the average balance of FHLB-NY stock, coupled with an increase in the average yield to 8.21% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 7.04% for the six months ended June 30, 2007.
The principal reasons for the changes in the average yields and average balances of the various assets noted above for the six months ended June 30, 2008 are consistent with the principal reasons for the changes noted for the three months ended June 30, 2008.
Interest Expense
Interest expense decreased $16.0 million to $174.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $190.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost of interest-bearing liabilities to 3.51% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 3.82% for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to the decreases in the average costs of certificates of deposit, Liquid CDs and borrowings. The average balance of interest-bearing liabilities decreased $71.6 million to $19.82 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $19.90 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2007, due to a decrease in the average balance of deposits, partially offset by an increase in the average balance of borrowings.
Interest expense on deposits decreased $16.2 million to $97.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $114.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost to 3.01% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 3.42% for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The decrease in the average cost of total deposits was primarily due to the impact of the decline in short-term interest rates over the past year on our Liquid CDs and our certificates of deposit which matured and were replaced at lower interest rates. The average balance of total deposits decreased $311.4 million to $13.02 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $13.33 billion for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to decreases in the average balances of Liquid CDs, savings accounts and money market accounts, partially offset by increases in the average balances of certificates of deposit.
Interest expense on Liquid CDs decreased $11.3 million to $8.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $20.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost to 2.73% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.88% for the three months ended June 30, 2007, coupled with a decrease of $357.3 million in the average balance. The decrease in the average cost of Liquid CDs reflects the decline in short-term interest rates over the past year. The decrease in the average balance of Liquid CDs was primarily a result of our decision to maintain our pricing discipline over the past year as short-term interest rates declined.
36
Interest expense on certificates of deposit decreased $4.7 million to $85.9 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $90.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost to 4.29% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.69% for the three months ended June 30, 2007, partially offset by an increase of $283.9 million in the average balance. The decrease in the average cost of certificates of deposit reflects the impact of the decrease in interest rates over the past year as certificates of deposit at higher rates matured and were replaced at lower interest rates. During the three months ended June 30, 2008, $2.65 billion of certificates of deposit, with a weighted average rate of 4.54% and a weighted average maturity at inception of twelve months, matured and $2.78 billion of certificates of deposit were issued or repriced, with a weighted average rate of 3.19% and a weighted average maturity at inception of eleven months. The increase in the average balance of certificates of deposit was primarily a result of the success of our marketing efforts and competitive pricing strategies during the 2008 second quarter.
Interest expense on borrowings increased slightly to $76.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $76.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, resulting from an increase of $239.8 million in the average balance, substantially offset by a decrease in the average cost to 4.48% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.63% for the three months ended June 30, 2007. The increase in the average balance of borrowings was primarily the result of our use of lower cost borrowings to fund some of our loan growth during the second half of 2007. The decrease in the average cost of borrowings reflects the impact of the decline in short-term interest rates over the past year on our short-term and variable rate borrowings, coupled with the downward repricing of borrowings which matured and were refinanced during the 2008 second quarter.
Interest expense decreased $9.1 million to $365.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $374.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost of interest-bearing liabilities to 3.67% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 3.76% for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to decreases in the average cost of Liquid CDs and certificates of deposit. The average balance of interest-bearing liabilities increased slightly and totaled $19.90 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. The slight increase in the average balance of interest-bearing liabilities was due to an increase in the average balance of borrowings, substantially offset by a decrease in the average balance of deposits.
Interest expense on deposits decreased $16.4 million to $208.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $224.5 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost to 3.20% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 3.38% for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The average balance of total deposits decreased $280.4 million to $12.99 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $13.27 billion for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to decreases in the average balances of Liquid CDs, savings accounts and money market accounts, primarily as a result of continued competition for these types of deposits, partially offset by an increase in the average balance of certificates of deposit.
Interest expense on certificates of deposit decreased slightly to $178.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $179.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost to 4.49% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.64% for the six months ended June 30, 2007, substantially offset by an increase of $238.3 million in the average balance. During the six months ended June 30, 2008, $4.44 billion of certificates of deposit, with a weighted average rate of 4.57% and a weighted average maturity at inception of
37
thirteen months, matured and $4.50 billion of certificates of deposit were issued or repriced, with a weighted average rate of 3.36% and a weighted average maturity at inception of ten months.
Interest expense on Liquid CDs decreased $15.4 million to $23.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $38.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a decrease in the average cost to 3.43% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.87% for the six months ended June 30, 2007, coupled with a decrease of $229.0 million in the average balance.
Interest expense on borrowings increased $7.3 million to $157.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $150.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, resulting from an increase of $281.3 million in the average balance, coupled with an increase in the average cost to 4.56% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from 4.53% for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The increase in the average cost of borrowings reflects the upward repricing of borrowings which matured and were refinanced during 2007, substantially offset by the impact of the decline in short-term interest rates over the past year on our short-term and variable rate borrowings.
Except as otherwise noted, the principal reasons for the changes in the average costs and average balances of the various liabilities noted above for the six months ended June 30, 2008 are consistent with the principal reasons for the changes noted for the three months ended June 30, 2008.
Provision for Loan Losses
We continue to closely monitor the local and national real estate markets and other factors related to risks inherent in our loan portfolio. Subprime mortgage lending, which has been the riskiest sector of the residential housing market, is not a market that we have ever actively pursued. During the first half of 2008, the continued decline in the housing and real estate markets, as well as the overall economic environment, contributed to an increase in our non-performing loans and net loan charge-offs. As a geographically diversified lender, we are not immune to, and have been affected by, the negative consequences arising from overall economic weakness and, in particular, a sharp downturn in the housing industry nationally. Based on our evaluation of the issues regarding the real estate and housing markets, the overall economic environment, and the increase in and composition of our delinquencies, non-performing loans and net loan charge-offs, we determined that a provision for loan losses was warranted for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008.
The provision for loan losses totaled $7.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and $11.0 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, reflecting the continued higher levels of non-performing loans and net loan charge-offs experienced since the second half of 2007. No provision for loan losses was recorded for the three and six months ended June 30, 2007. The allowance for loan losses was $81.8 million at June 30, 2008 and $78.9 million at December 31, 2007. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of non-performing loans decreased to 63.64% at June 30, 2008, from 115.97% at December 31, 2007, primarily due to an increase in non-performing loans. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 0.51% at June 30, 2008 and 0.49% at December 31, 2007. We believe our allowance for loan losses has been established and maintained at levels that reflect the risks inherent in our loan portfolio, giving consideration to the composition and size of our loan portfolio, delinquencies, charge-off experience and non-accrual and non-performing loans. The balance of our allowance for loan losses represents management’s best estimate of the probable inherent losses in our loan portfolio at June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007.
38
We review our allowance for loan losses on a quarterly basis. Material factors considered during our quarterly review include our historical loss experience, the composition and direction of loan delinquencies and the impact of current economic conditions. Net loan charge-offs totaled $5.2 million, or thirteen basis points of average loans outstanding, annualized, for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and $8.1 million, or ten basis points of average loans outstanding, annualized, for the six months ended June 30, 2008. This compares to net loan charge-offs of $698,000, or two basis points of average loans outstanding, annualized, for the three months ended June 30, 2007 and $543,000, or one basis point of average loans outstanding, annualized, for the six months ended June 30, 2007. Net loan charge-offs during the six months ended June 30, 2008 included a $1.5 million charge-off related to a single construction loan and a $1.4 million charge-off related to a single multi-family loan.
The composition of our loan portfolio, by property type, has remained relatively consistent over the last several years. At June 30, 2008, our loan portfolio was comprised of 74% one-to-four family mortgage loans, 18% multi-family mortgage loans, 6% commercial real estate loans and 2% consumer and other loan categories. Our loan-to-value ratios upon origination are low overall, have been consistent over the past several years and provide some level of protection in the event of default should property values decline. At June 30, 2008, the average loan-to-value ratio of our mortgage loan portfolio was less than 65% based on current principal balances and original appraisal values. However, the markets in which we lend have experienced declines in real estate values which we have taken into account in evaluating our allowance for loan losses.
Our non-performing loans, which are comprised primarily of mortgage loans, increased $60.5 million to $128.6 million, or 0.79% of total loans, at June 30, 2008, from $68.1 million, or 0.42% of total loans, at December 31, 2007. This increase was primarily due to increases in non-performing one-to-four family, multi-family and commercial real estate mortgage loans. Despite the increase in non-performing loans at June 30, 2008, our non-performing loans continue to remain at low levels relative to the size of our loan portfolio and those of other lending institutions.
We continue to adhere to prudent underwriting standards. We underwrite our one-to-four family mortgage loans primarily based upon our evaluation of the borrower’s ability to pay. We generally do not obtain updated estimates of collateral value for loans until classified or requested by our Asset Classification Committee or, in the case of one-to-four family loans, when such loans are 180 days delinquent. We monitor property value trends in our market areas to determine what impact, if any, such trends may have on our loan-to-value ratios and the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. Based on our review of property value trends, including updated estimates of collateral value on classified loans and related loan charge-offs, we believe the current decline in the housing market has had some negative impact on the value of our non-performing loan collateral as of June 30, 2008.
Effective January 1, 2008, we have revised our presentation of non-performing mortgage loans to report mortgage loans which have missed only two payments as 60-89 days delinquent instead of as non-accrual, which had been our previous practice. All of the non-performing loan, non-performing asset and related asset quality ratio data as of December 31, 2007 has been revised to conform to the current year presentation. For a further discussion of this change in presentation, see “Asset Quality.”
For further discussion of the methodology used to determine the allowance for loan losses, see “Critical Accounting Policies-Allowance for Loan Losses” and for further discussion of our loan portfolio composition and non-performing loans, see “Asset Quality.”
39
Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income decreased $1.5 million to $24.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $26.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, and decreased $1.6 million to $47.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $48.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. These decreases were primarily due to decreases in other non-interest income, partially offset by increases in customer service fees.
Other non-interest income decreased $2.1 million to $1.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $3.5 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, and decreased $2.1 million to $2.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $4.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. These decreases were primarily due to a gain recognized in the 2007 second quarter related to insurance proceeds from an individual life insurance policy on a former executive.
Customer service fees increased $616,000 to $16.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $16.2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, and increased $581,000 to $31.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $31.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. These increases were primarily due to increases in commissions received from sales of tax-deferred annuities and mutual funds through an unaffiliated third party vendor, partially offset by decreases in insufficient fund fees related to transaction accounts and ATM fees.
Non-Interest Expense
Non-interest expense increased $1.3 million to $60.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $58.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to an increase in compensation and benefits expense, partially offset by a decrease in other expense. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, non-interest expense increased $2.4 million to $118.2 million, from $115.8 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to an increase in compensation and benefits expense, partially offset by decreases in advertising expense and other expense. Our percentage of general and administrative expense to average assets, annualized, was 1.12% for the three months ended June 30, 2008, compared to 1.09% for the three months ended June 30, 2007, and 1.10% for the six months ended June 30, 2008, compared to 1.08% for the six months ended June 30, 2007.
Compensation and benefits expense increased $2.4 million, to $32.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $30.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, and increased $3.2 million, to $64.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $61.2 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. These increases were primarily due to increases in salaries, incentive compensation, stock-based compensation, ESOP expense and medical insurance costs, partially offset by decreases in the net periodic cost of pension and other postretirement benefits, which were primarily the result of decreases in the amortization of the net actuarial loss.
Other expense decreased $1.1 million to $8.7 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008, from $9.8 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a $2.0 million decrease in goodwill litigation expense, partially offset by a $1.1 million increase in REO expense. Other expense decreased $584,000 to $16.4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008, from $16.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a $2.1 million decrease in goodwill litigation expense, partially offset by a $1.8 million increase in REO related expense. Advertising expense decreased $1.3 million to $2.6 million for the six months ended
40
June 30, 2008, from $3.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, primarily due to a reduction in print advertising for certificates of deposit during the 2008 first quarter.
Income Tax Expense
For the three months ended June 30, 2008, income tax expense totaled $17.0 million, representing an effective tax rate of 33.7%, compared to $16.4 million for the three months ended June 30, 2007, representing an effective tax rate of 32.5%. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, income tax expense totaled $29.1 million, representing an effective tax rate of 31.8%, compared to $33.6 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007, representing an effective tax rate of 32.5%.
Asset Quality
One of our key operating objectives has been and continues to be to maintain a high level of asset quality. Our concentration on one-to-four family mortgage lending and the maintenance of sound credit standards for new loan originations have resulted in our maintaining a low level of non-performing assets relative to the size of our loan portfolio. Through a variety of strategies, including, but not limited to, aggressive collection efforts and the marketing of non-performing loans and foreclosed properties, we have been proactive in addressing problem and non-performing assets which, in turn, has helped to maintain the strength of our financial condition.
The composition of our loan portfolio, by property type, has remained relatively consistent. At June 30, 2008, our loan portfolio was comprised of 74% one-to-four family mortgage loans, 18% multi-family mortgage loans, 6% commercial real estate loans and 2% consumer and other loan categories. This compares to 73% one-to-four family mortgage loans, 18% multi-family mortgage loans, 6% commercial real estate loans and 3% consumer and other loan categories at December 31, 2007.
The following table provides further details on the composition of our one-to-four family and multi-family and commercial real estate mortgage loan portfolios in dollar amounts and in percentages of the portfolio at the dates indicated.
| | At June 30, 2008 | | At December 31, 2007 | |
| |
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in Thousands) | | Amount | | Percent of Total | | Amount | | Percent of Total | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Full documentation interest-only (1) | | $ | 5,414,728 | | 45.79 | % | | $ | 5,415,787 | | 46.57 | % | |
Full documentation amortizing | | | 3,793,144 | | 32.07 | | | | 3,320,047 | | 28.55 | | |
Reduced documentation interest-only (1) (2) | | | 2,029,700 | | 17.16 | | | | 2,230,041 | | 19.18 | | |
Reduced documentation amortizing (2) | | | 588,390 | | 4.98 | | | | 662,395 | | 5.70 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total one-to-four family | | $ | 11,825,962 | | 100.00 | % | | $ | 11,628,270 | | 100.00 | % | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-family and commercial real estate: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Full documentation amortizing | | $ | 3,206,371 | | 83.38 | % | | $ | 3,337,692 | | 83.92 | % | |
Full documentation interest-only | | | 638,971 | | 16.62 | | | | 639,666 | | 16.08 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total multi-family and commercial real estate | | $ | 3,845,342 | | 100.00 | % | | $ | 3,977,358 | | 100.00 | % | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) | Interest-only loans require the borrower to pay interest only during the first ten years of the loan term. After the tenth anniversary of the loan, principal and interest payments are required to amortize the loan over the remaining loan term. |
(2) | Reduced documentation loans are comprised primarily of SIFA (stated income, full asset) loans which require a potential borrower to complete a standard mortgage loan application and require the verification of a potential borrower’s asset information on the loan application, but not the income information provided. In addition, SIFA loans require the receipt of an appraisal of the real estate used as collateral for the mortgage loan and a credit report on the prospective borrower. We discontinued originating reduced documentation loans during the 2007 fourth quarter. |
41
We do not originate negative amortization loans, payment option loans or other loans with short-term interest-only periods. We are a portfolio lender and, as such, we review all data contained in borrower credit reports and do not base our underwriting decisions solely on FICO scores. We underwrite our one-to-four family interest-only hybrid ARM loans based on a fully amortizing thirty year loan using the higher of the fully indexed rate or the initial note rate.
Non-Performing Assets
Effective January 1, 2008, we have revised our presentation of non-performing mortgage loans to report mortgage loans which have missed only two payments as 60-89 days delinquent instead of as non-accrual, which had been our previous practice. This change was implemented to improve the transparency of loan migration through delinquency status (i.e., 30, 60 and 90 days delinquent); to be consistent with our presentation for reporting non-accrual consumer and other loans; and to improve comparability of our non-performing loan disclosures with other institutions. Under our revised presentation, mortgage loans are classified as non-accrual when such loans become 90 days delinquent as to their payment due date (missed three payments). Under our previous presentation, mortgage loans were classified as non-accrual when such loans became 90 days delinquent as to their interest due, even though in many instances the borrower had only missed two payments. At June 30, 2008, substantially all of the loans reported as 60-89 days delinquent would have been reported as non-accrual under the previous presentation. Loans which had missed two payments and were previously reported as non-accrual as of December 31, 2007 totaling $38.3 million have been reclassified from non-accrual to 60-89 days delinquent as of December 31, 2007 to conform the December 31, 2007 information to the current year presentation. All of the asset quality information presented for December 31, 2007 has been revised to conform to the current year presentation.
The following table sets forth information regarding non-performing assets at the dates indicated.
(Dollars in Thousands) | | At June 30, 2008 | | At December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accrual mortgage loans | | $ | 126,399 | | | $ | 66,126 | |
Non-accrual consumer and other loans | | | 2,082 | | | | 1,476 | |
Mortgage loans delinquent 90 days or more and still accruing interest (1) | | | 122 | | | | 474 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing loans | | | 128,603 | | | | 68,076 | |
REO, net (2) | | | 18,249 | | | | 9,115 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing assets | | $ | 146,852 | | | $ | 77,191 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-performing loans to total loans | | | 0.79 | % | | | 0.42 | % |
Non-performing loans to total assets | | | 0.59 | | | | 0.31 | |
Non-performing assets to total assets | | | 0.68 | | | | 0.36 | |
Allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans | | | 63.64 | | | | 115.97 | |
Allowance for loan losses to total loans | | | 0.51 | | | | 0.49 | |
(1) | Mortgage loans delinquent 90 days or more and still accruing interest consist primarily of loans delinquent 90 days or more as to their maturity date but not their interest due. |
(2) | Real estate acquired as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure is carried in other assets, net of allowances for losses, at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated selling costs. The allowance for losses was $1.1 million at June 30, 2008 and $493,000 at December 31, 2007. |
Total non-performing assets increased $69.7 million to $146.9 million at June 30, 2008, from $77.2 million at December 31, 2007. Non-performing loans, the most significant component of non-performing assets, increased $60.5 million to $128.6 million at June 30, 2008, from $68.1 million at December 31, 2007. As previously discussed, these increases were primarily due to increases in non-performing one-to-four family, multi-family and commercial real estate
42
mortgage loans. During the first half of 2008, the continued decline in the housing and real estate markets, as well as the overall economic environment, continued to contribute to an increase in our non-performing loans. Despite the increase in non-performing loans at June 30, 2008, our non-performing loans continue to remain at low levels relative to the size of our loan portfolio. The ratio of non-performing loans to total loans was 0.79% at June 30, 2008 and 0.42% at December 31, 2007. The ratio of non-performing assets to total assets was 0.68% at June 30, 2008 and 0.36% at December 31, 2007. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total non-performing loans decreased to 63.64% at June 30, 2008, from 115.97% at December 31, 2007.
During the six months ended June 30, 2008, we sold $12.5 million of delinquent loans, primarily one-to-four family and multi-family mortgage loans. The sale of these loans did not have a material impact on our non-performing loans, non-performing assets and related ratios at June 30, 2008.
The following table provides further details on the composition of our non-performing one-to-four family and multi-family and commercial real estate mortgage loans in dollar amounts and in percentages of the portfolio, at the dates indicated.
| | At June 30, 2008 | | At December 31, 2007 | |
| |
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in Thousands) | | Amount | | Percent of Total | | Amount | | Percent of Total | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-performing loans: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One-to-four family: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Full documentation interest-only | | $ | 29,253 | | 28.96 | % | | $ | 16,748 | | 27.79 | % | |
Full documentation amortizing | | | 12,756 | | 12.63 | | | | 11,357 | | 18.85 | | |
Reduced documentation interest-only | | | 49,299 | | 48.80 | | | | 21,896 | | 36.33 | | |
Reduced documentation amortizing | | | 9,712 | | 9.61 | | | | 10,260 | | 17.03 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total one-to-four family | | $ | 101,020 | | 100.00 | % | | $ | 60,261 | | 100.00 | % | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Multi-family and commercial real estate: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Full documentation amortizing | | $ | 17,595 | | 71.68 | % | | $ | 5,067 | | 100.00 | % | |
Full documentation interest-only | | | 6,950 | | 28.32 | | | | — | | — | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total multi-family and commercial real estate | | $ | 24,545 | | 100.00 | % | | $ | 5,067 | | 100.00 | % | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The aggregate amounts of our non-performing one-to-four family interest-only and fully amortizing loans, as measured by their respective percentages of total non-performing one-to-four family loans, is relatively consistent with the aggregate amounts of these types of loans, as measured by their respective percentages, of the entire one-to-four family portfolio. However, our non-performing reduced documentation interest-only loans have increased at a greater pace than our other non-performing loan categories during the first half of 2008.
At June 30, 2008, the geographic composition of our non-performing one-to-four family mortgage loans was consistent with the geographic composition of our one-to-four family mortgage loan portfolio and, as of June 30, 2008, did not indicate a negative trend in any one particular geographic location as detailed in the following table.
43
| | At June 30, 2008 |
| |
|
(Dollars in Millions) | | Total One-to-Four Family Loans | | Percent of Total One-to-Four Family Loans | | Total Non-Performing One-to-Four Family Loans | | Percent of Total Non-Performing One-to-Four Family Loans | | Non-Performing Loans as Percent of State Totals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
State: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
New York Metro (1) | | | $ | 4,947.8 | | | 42 | % | | | $ | 33.3 | | | 33 | % | | 0.67 | % |
California | | | | 1,420.8 | | | 12 | | | | | 8.9 | | | 9 | | | 0.63 | |
Illinois | | | | 1,248.2 | | | 11 | | | | | 10.3 | | | 10 | | | 0.83 | |
Virginia | | | | 955.3 | | | 8 | | | | | 13.4 | | | 13 | | | 1.40 | |
Maryland | | | | 859.4 | | | 7 | | | | | 13.2 | | | 13 | | | 1.54 | |
Massachusetts | | | | 798.9 | | | 7 | | | | | 4.7 | | | 5 | | | 0.59 | |
Florida | | | | 333.9 | | | 3 | | | | | 8.5 | | | 8 | | | 2.55 | |
Washington | | | | 208.7 | | | 2 | | | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
Georgia | | | | 170.1 | | | 1 | | | | | 0.6 | | | 1 | | | 0.35 | |
Washington D.C. | | | | 129.4 | | | 1 | | | | | 2.5 | | | 2 | | | 1.93 | |
Pennsylvania | | | | 129.3 | | | 1 | | | | | 1.5 | | | 2 | | | 1.16 | |
All other states (2) | | | | 624.2 | | | 5 | | | | | 4.1 | | | 4 | | | 0.66 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | | | $ | 11,826.0 | | | 100 | % | | | $ | 101.0 | | | 100 | % | | 0.85 | % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) | Includes New York, New Jersey and Connecticut |
We discontinue accruing interest on loans when they become 90 days delinquent as to their payment due date. In addition, we reverse all previously accrued and uncollected interest through a charge to interest income. While loans are in non-accrual status, interest due is monitored and income is recognized only to the extent cash is received until a return to accrual status is warranted. Prior to January 1, 2008, we discontinued accruing interest on mortgage loans when such loans became 90 days delinquent as to their interest due, even though in many instances the borrower had only missed two payments, and we discontinued accruing interest on consumer and other loans when such loans became 90 days delinquent as to their payment due date. The change in interest accrual for mortgage loans did not have a material impact on our interest income or accrued interest receivable.
If all non-accrual loans at June 30, 2008 and 2007 had been performing in accordance with their original terms, we would have recorded interest income, with respect to such loans, of $4.3 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and $2.1 million for the six months ended June 30, 2007. This compares to actual payments recorded as interest income, with respect to such loans, of $883,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and $698,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2007. The foregone interest data for the period ended June 30, 2007 has not been revised for the current year change in presentation of non-accrual loans and, therefore, reflects foregone interest based on non-accrual loans totaling $63.4 million at June 30, 2007, as previously reported.
In addition to non-performing loans, we had $54.2 million of potential problem loans at June 30, 2008, compared to $39.1 million at December 31, 2007. Such loans include loans which are 60-89 days delinquent as shown in the following table and certain other internally classified loans.
44
Delinquent Loans
The following tables show a comparison of delinquent loans at June 30, 2008 and December 31, 2007. Delinquent loans are reported based on the number of days the loan payments are past due.
| | At June 30, 2008 | |
| |
|
|
| | 30-59 Days | | 60-89 Days | | 90 Days or More | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in Thousands) | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One-to-four family | | 287 | | $ | 84,819 | | 92 | | $ | 33,951 | | 291 | | $ | 101,020 | |
Multi-family | | 45 | | | 43,354 | | 9 | | | 13,676 | | 24 | | | 20,464 | |
Commercial real estate | | 6 | | | 4,097 | | 2 | | | 1,230 | | 3 | | | 4,081 | |
Construction | | — | | | — | | 1 | | | 1,667 | | 2 | | | 956 | |
Consumer and other loans | | 84 | | | 2,223 | | 41 | | | 511 | | 30 | | | 2,082 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total delinquent loans | | 422 | | $ | 134,493 | | 145 | | $ | 51,035 | | 350 | | $ | 128,603 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delinquent loans to total loans | | | | | 0.83 | % | | | | 0.32 | % | | | | 0.79 | % |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | At December 31, 2007 | |
| |
|
|
| | 30-59 Days | | 60-89 Days | | 90 Days or More | |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in Thousands) | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One-to-four family | | 327 | | $ | 111,757 | | 96 | | $ | 29,275 | | 204 | | $ | 60,261 | |
Multi-family | | 34 | | | 25,701 | | 9 | | | 9,133 | | 11 | | | 5,067 | |
Commercial real estate | | 5 | | | 1,992 | | — | | | — | | — | | | — | |
Construction | | 2 | | | 2,839 | | — | | | — | | 2 | | | 1,272 | |
Consumer and other loans | | 96 | | | 2,136 | | 30 | | | 673 | | 41 | | | 1,476 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total delinquent loans | | 464 | | $ | 144,425 | | 135 | | $ | 39,081 | | 258 | | $ | 68,076 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delinquent loans to total loans | | | | | 0.89 | % | | | | 0.24 | % | | | | 0.42 | % |
Allowance for Loan Losses
The following table sets forth the change in our allowance for losses on loans for the six months ended June 30, 2008.
| | (In Thousands) | |
Balance at December 31, 2007 | | $ | 78,946 | |
Provision charged to operations | | | 11,000 | |
Charge-offs: | | | | |
One-to-four family | | | (5,070 | ) |
Multi-family | | | (1,366 | ) |
Construction | | | (1,484 | ) |
Consumer and other loans | | | (477 | ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Total charge-offs | | | (8,397 | ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries: | | | | |
One-to-four family | | | 166 | |
Consumer and other loans | | | 128 | |
|
|
|
|
|
Total recoveries | | | 294 | |
|
|
|
|
|
Net charge-offs | | | (8,103 | ) |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at June 30, 2008 | | $ | 81,843 | |
|
|
|
|
|
45
ITEM 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
As a financial institution, the primary component of our market risk is interest rate risk, or IRR. The objective of our IRR management policy is to maintain an appropriate mix and level of assets, liabilities and off-balance sheet items to enable us to meet our earnings and/or growth objectives, while maintaining specified minimum capital levels as required by the OTS, in the case of Astoria Federal, and as established by our Board of Directors. We use a variety of analyses to monitor, control and adjust our asset and liability positions, primarily interest rate sensitivity gap analysis, or gap analysis, and net interest income sensitivity, or NII sensitivity, analysis. Additional IRR modeling is done by Astoria Federal in conformity with OTS requirements.
Gap Analysis
Gap analysis measures the difference between the amount of interest-earning assets anticipated to mature or reprice within specific time periods and the amount of interest-bearing liabilities anticipated to mature or reprice within the same time periods. Gap analysis does not indicate the impact of general interest rate movements on our net interest income because the actual repricing dates of various assets and liabilities will differ from our estimates and it does not give consideration to the yields and costs of the assets and liabilities or the projected yields and costs to replace or retain those assets and liabilities. Callable features of certain assets and liabilities, in addition to the foregoing, may also cause actual experience to vary from the analysis.
The following table, referred to as the Gap Table, sets forth the amount of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities outstanding at June 30, 2008 that we anticipate will reprice or mature in each of the future time periods shown using certain assumptions based on our historical experience and other market-based data available to us. The Gap Table includes $2.18 billion of callable borrowings classified according to their maturity dates, primarily in the more than five years category, which are callable within one year and at various times thereafter. The classification of callable borrowings according to their maturity dates is based on our experience with, and expectations of, these types of instruments and the current interest rate environment. As indicated in the Gap Table, our one-year cumulative gap at June 30, 2008 was negative 20.14% compared to negative 24.01% at December 31, 2007. The change in our one-year cumulative gap is primarily due to an increase in projected mortgage loan repayments at June 30, 2008, as compared to December 31, 2007, coupled with a decrease in projected borrowings maturing and/or repricing at June 30, 2008, as compared to December 31, 2007.
46
| | At June 30, 2008 | |
| |
|
|
(Dollars in Thousands) | | One Year or Less | | More than One Year to Three Years | | More than Three Years to Five Years | | More than Five Years | | Total | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-earning assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Mortgage loans (1) | | $ | 5,023,576 | | $ | 5,169,577 | | $ | 4,851,456 | | $ | 570,016 | | $ | 15,614,625 | |
Consumer and other loans (1) | | | 309,579 | | | 4,390 | | | 3,279 | | | 16,233 | | | 333,481 | |
Repurchase agreements | | | 42,130 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 42,130 | |
Securities available-for-sale | | | 235,637 | | | 500,917 | | | 300,696 | | | 326,468 | | | 1,363,718 | |
Securities held-to-maturity | | | 643,151 | | | 1,100,170 | | | 900,293 | | | 259,115 | | | 2,902,729 | |
FHLB-NY stock | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 200,260 | | | 200,260 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets | | | 6,254,073 | | | 6,775,054 | | | 6,055,724 | | | 1,372,092 | | | 20,456,943 | |
Net unamortized purchase premiums and deferred costs (2) | | | 36,662 | | | 34,286 | | | 32,687 | | | 3,193 | | | 106,828 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest-earning assets (3) | | | 6,290,735 | | | 6,809,340 | | | 6,088,411 | | | 1,375,285 | | | 20,563,771 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-bearing liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Savings | | | 240,434 | | | 400,950 | | | 400,950 | | | 844,136 | | | 1,886,470 | |
Money market | | | 140,182 | | | 86,454 | | | 86,454 | | | 3,517 | | | 316,607 | |
NOW and demand deposit | | | 116,863 | | | 233,738 | | | 233,738 | | | 922,210 | | | 1,506,549 | |
Liquid CDs | | | 1,246,359 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 1,246,359 | |
Certificates of deposit | | | 6,365,224 | | | 1,381,981 | | | 385,856 | | | — | | | 8,133,061 | |
Borrowings, net | | | 2,535,400 | | | 1,449,180 | | | 1,224,535 | | | 1,728,860 | | | 6,937,975 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities | | | 10,644,462 | | | 3,552,303 | | | 2,331,533 | | | 3,498,723 | | | 20,027,021 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest sensitivity gap | | | (4,353,727 | ) | | 3,257,037 | | | 3,756,878 | | | (2,123,438 | ) | $ | 536,750 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative interest sensitivity gap | | $ | (4,353,727 | ) | $ | (1,096,690 | ) | $ | 2,660,188 | | $ | 536,750 | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative interest sensitivity gap as a percentage of total assets | | | (20.14 | )% | | (5.07 | )% | | 12.30 | % | | 2.48 | % | | | |
Cumulative net interest-earning assets as a percentage of interest-bearing liabilities | | | 59.10 | % | | 92.28 | % | | 116.09 | % | | 102.68 | % | | | |
(1) | Mortgage loans and consumer and other loans include loans held-for-sale and exclude non-performing loans and the allowance for loan losses. |
(2) | Net unamortized purchase premiums and deferred costs are prorated. |
(3) | Includes securities available-for-sale at amortized cost. |
In managing IRR, we also use an internal income simulation model for our NII sensitivity analyses. These analyses measure changes in projected net interest income over various time periods resulting from hypothetical changes in interest rates. The interest rate scenarios most commonly analyzed reflect gradual and reasonable changes over a specified time period, which is typically one year. The base net interest income projection utilizes similar assumptions as those reflected in the Gap Table, assumes that cash flows are reinvested in similar assets and liabilities and that interest rates as of the reporting date remain constant over the projection period. For each alternative interest rate scenario, corresponding changes in the cash flow and repricing assumptions of each financial instrument are made to determine the impact on net interest income.
Assuming the entire yield curve was to increase 200 basis points, through quarterly parallel increments of 50 basis points, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning July 1, 2008 would decrease by approximately 4.87% from the base projection. At December 31, 2007, in the up 200 basis point scenario, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning January 1, 2008 would have decreased by approximately 9.85% from the base projection. Assuming the entire yield curve was to decrease 200 basis points, through quarterly parallel decrements of 50 basis points, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning July 1, 2008 would increase by approximately
47
2.46% from the base projection. At December 31, 2007, in the down 200 basis point scenario, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning January 1, 2008 would have increased by approximately 5.05% from the base projection.
Various shortcomings are inherent in both the Gap Table and NII sensitivity analyses. Certain assumptions may not reflect the manner in which actual yields and costs respond to market changes. Similarly, prepayment estimates and similar assumptions are subjective in nature, involve uncertainties and, therefore, cannot be determined with precision. Changes in interest rates may also affect our operating environment and operating strategies as well as those of our competitors. In addition, certain adjustable rate assets have limitations on the magnitude of rate changes over specified periods of time. Accordingly, although our NII sensitivity analyses may provide an indication of our IRR exposure, such analyses are not intended to and do not provide a precise forecast of the effect of changes in market interest rates on our net interest income and our actual results will differ. Additionally, certain assets, liabilities and items of income and expense which may be affected by changes in interest rates, albeit to a much lesser degree, and which do not affect net interest income, are excluded from this analysis. These include income from bank owned life insurance and changes in the fair value of MSR. With respect to these items alone, and assuming the entire yield curve was to increase 200 basis points, through quarterly parallel increments of 50 basis points, our projected net income for the twelve month period beginning July 1, 2008 would increase by approximately $4.2 million. Conversely, assuming the entire yield curve was to decrease 200 basis points, through quarterly parallel decrements of 50 basis points, our projected net income for the twelve month period beginning July 1, 2008 would decrease by approximately $7.8 million with respect to these items alone.
For further information regarding our market risk and the limitations of our gap analysis and NII sensitivity analysis, see Part II, Item 7A, “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk,” included in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
ITEM 4. Controls and Procedures
George L. Engelke, Jr., our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Frank E. Fusco, our Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, conducted an evaluation of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, as of June 30, 2008. Based upon their evaluation, they each found that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports we file and submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported as and when required and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
There were no changes in our internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the three months ended June 30, 2008 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
48
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. Legal Proceedings
In the ordinary course of our business, we are routinely made defendant in or a party to pending or threatened legal actions or proceedings which, in some cases, seek substantial monetary damages from or other forms of relief against us. In our opinion, after consultation with legal counsel, we believe it unlikely that such actions or proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.
Goodwill Litigation
We are a party to two actions against the United States, involving assisted acquisitions made in the early 1980’s and supervisory goodwill accounting utilized in connection therewith, or goodwill litigation, which could result in a gain.
In one of the actions, entitled The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB et al vs. The United States, the Court of Federal Claims rendered a decision on September 15, 2005 awarding us $435.8 million in damages from the U.S. Government. No portion of the $435.8 million award was recognized in our consolidated financial statements. On February 1, 2007, the Court of Appeals reversed such award. On April 2, 2007, we filed a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. Acting en banc, the Court of Appeals returned the case to the original panel of judges for revision. The panel, on September 13, 2007, withdrew and vacated its earlier opinion and issued a new decision. This decision also reversed the award of $435.8 million in damages awarded to us by the Court of Federal Claims. We again filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. On December 28, 2007, the Court of Appeals denied our petition. We have filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
The other action is entitled Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association vs. United States. The trial in this action took place during 2007 before the Court of Federal Claims. The Court of Federal Claims, by decision filed on January 8, 2008, awarded to us $16.0 million in damages from the U.S. Government. No portion of the $16.0 million award was recognized in our consolidated financial statements. The U.S. Government has filed a Notice of Appeal in such action.
The ultimate outcomes of the two actions pending against the United States and the timing of such outcomes are uncertain and there can be no assurance that we will benefit financially from such litigation. Legal expense related to these two actions has been recognized as it has been incurred.
McAnaney Litigation
In 2004, an action entitled David McAnaney and Carolyn McAnaney, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Astoria Financial Corporation, et al. was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, or the District Court. The action, commenced as a class action, alleges that in connection with the satisfaction of certain mortgage loans made by Astoria Federal, The Long Island Savings Bank, FSB, which was acquired by Astoria Federal in 1998, and their related entities, customers were charged attorney document preparation fees, recording fees and facsimile fees allegedly in violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, the Fair
49
Debt Collection Act, or FDCA, the New York State Deceptive Practices Act, and alleges actions based upon unjust enrichment and common law fraud.
Astoria Federal previously moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was granted in part and denied in part, dismissing claims based on violations of RESPA and FDCA. The District Court further determined that class certification would be considered prior to considering summary judgment. The District Court, on September 19, 2006, granted the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Astoria Federal has denied the claims set forth in the complaint. Both we and the plaintiffs subsequently filed motions for summary judgment with the District Court. The District Court, on September 12, 2007, granted our motion for summary judgment on the basis that all named plaintiffs’ Truth in Lending claims are time barred. All other aspects of plaintiffs’ and defendant’s motions for summary judgment were dismissed without prejudice. The District Court found the named plaintiffs to be inadequate class representatives and provided plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to submit a motion for the substitution or intervention of new named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion with the District Court for partial reconsideration of its decision. The District Court, by order dated January 25, 2008, granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial reconsideration and again determined that all named plaintiffs’ Truth-in Lending claims are time barred. Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently submitted a motion to intervene or substitute plaintiff proposing a single substitute plaintiff. On April 18, 2008, we filed with the District Court our opposition to such motion. We currently do not believe this action will likely have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. However, no assurance can be given at this time that this litigation will be resolved amicably, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will not be material.
ITEM 1A. Risk Factors
For a summary of risk factors relevant to our operations, see Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in our 2007 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Part II, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in our March 31, 2008 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. There are no other material changes in risk factors relevant to our operations since March 31, 2008 except as discussed below.
Changes in the fair value of our securities may reduce our stockholders’ equity and net income.
At June 30, 2008, $1.31 billion of our securities were classified as available-for-sale. The estimated fair value of our available-for-sale securities portfolio may increase or decrease depending on changes in interest rates. In general, as interest rates rise, the estimated fair value of our fixed rate securities portfolio will decrease. Our securities portfolio is comprised primarily of fixed rate securities. We increase or decrease stockholders’ equity by the amount of the change in the unrealized gain or loss (difference between the estimated fair value and the amortized cost) of our available-for-sale securities portfolio, net of the related tax benefit, under the category of accumulated other comprehensive income/loss. Therefore, a decline in the estimated fair value of this portfolio will result in a decline in reported stockholders’ equity, as well as book value per common share and tangible book value per common share. This decrease will occur even though the securities are not sold. In the case of debt securities, if these securities are never sold, the decrease will be recovered over the life of the securities. In the case of equity securities, such as our Freddie Mac preferred stock, which have no stated maturity, the declines in fair value may or may not be recovered over time.
50
We conduct a periodic review and evaluation of the securities portfolio to determine if the decline in the fair value of any security below its cost basis is other-than-temporary. Factors which we consider in our analysis include, but are not limited to, the severity and duration of the decline in fair value of the security, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, whether the decline appears to be related to issuer conditions or general market or industry conditions, our intent and ability to retain the security for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value and the likelihood of any near-term fair value recovery. We generally view changes in fair value caused by changes in interest rates as temporary, which is consistent with our experience. If we deem such decline to be other-than-temporary, the security is written down to a new cost basis and the resulting loss is charged to earnings as a component of non-interest income.
We own two preferred securities issued by Freddie Mac with an adjusted book value of $83.0 million and a related market value of $76.9 million at June 30, 2008. Subsequent to June 30, 2008, Freddie Mac has been subject to significant market disruption, as well as political and regulatory discussions, which has caused its preferred stock fair values to decline further. We will continue to monitor the fair value of the preferred stock we hold as related market events unfold as part of our ongoing other-than-temporary impairment evaluation process. No assurance can be given that we will not need to recognize an other-than-temporary impairment charge related to these securities if the fair values do not recover in the future.
ITEM 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds
The following table sets forth the repurchases of our common stock by month during the three months ended June 30, 2008.
Period | | Total Number of Shares Purchased | | Average Price Paid per Share | | Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans | | Maximum Number of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2008 | | 110,000 | | | $ | 26.06 | | 110,000 | | | 8,462,300 | | |
May 1, 2008 through May 31, 2008 | | 90,000 | | | $ | 23.46 | | 90,000 | | | 8,372,300 | | |
June 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008 | | 100,000 | | | $ | 22.09 | | 100,000 | | | 8,272,300 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | | 300,000 | | | $ | 23.96 | | 300,000 | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of the shares repurchased during the three months ended June 30, 2008 were repurchased under our twelfth stock repurchase plan, approved by our Board of Directors on April 18, 2007, which authorized the purchase of 10,000,000 shares, or approximately 10% of our common stock outstanding, in open-market or privately negotiated transactions.
ITEM 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities |
Not applicable.
ITEM 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders |
Our Annual Meeting of shareholders, referred to as the Annual Meeting, was held May 21, 2008. At the Annual Meeting, our shareholders re-elected George L. Engelke, Jr., Peter C. Haeffner, Jr. and Ralph F. Palleschi as directors, each to serve for a three year term and Leo J. Waters to serve for a two year term. In all cases, directors serve until their respective successors are duly elected and
51
qualified. The shareholders also ratified our appointment of KPMG LLP as our independent registered public accounting firm for our 2008 fiscal year.
The number of votes cast with respect to each matter acted upon at the Annual Meeting was as follows:
| (a) | Election of Directors: |
| | For | | Withheld | |
| |
| |
| |
George L. Engelke, Jr. | | 80,270,535 | | 6,993,788 | |
Peter C. Haeffner, Jr. | | 80,240,126 | | 7,024,197 | |
Ralph F. Palleschi | | 80,242,822 | | 7,021,501 | |
Leo J. Waters | | 85,875,723 | | 1,388,600 | |
There were no broker held non-voted shares represented at the meeting with respect to this proposal.
| (b) | Ratification of the appointment of KPMG LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm of Astoria Financial Corporation for the 2008 fiscal year: |
For: | | 78,609,245 | |
Against: | | 8,588,651 | |
Abstained: | | 66,427 | |
There were no broker held non-voted shares represented at the meeting with respect to this proposal.
ITEM 5. Other Information |
Not applicable.
See Index of Exhibits on page 53.
SIGNATURE
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.
| | | Astoria Financial Corporation |
| | | |
Dated: | August 8, 2008 | | By: | /s/ Frank E. Fusco
|
| | | |
|
| | | | | Frank E. Fusco |
| | | | | Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) |
52
ASTORIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit No. | | Identification of Exhibit |
| |
|
31.1 | | Certifications of Chief Executive Officer. |
31.2 | | Certifications of Chief Financial Officer. |
32.1 | | Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. Pursuant to SEC rules, this exhibit will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. |
32.2 | | Written Statement of Chief Financial Officer furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. Pursuant to SEC rules, this exhibit will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. |
53