interest rates over the past year on our short-term borrowings and certificates of deposit, coupled with the impact of the increases in the average balances of certificates of deposit and Liquid CDs, which have a higher average cost than our other deposit products.
Interest expense on deposits increased $17.7 million to $82.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $65.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to an increase of $430.6 million in the average balance of total deposits, coupled with an increase in the average cost of total deposits to 2.57% for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from 2.09% for the three months ended March 31, 2005. The increase in the average balance of total deposits was primarily the result of increases in the average balances of certificates of deposit and Liquid CDs, partially offset by decreases in the average balances of savings, money market and NOW and demand deposit accounts primarily as a result of continued intense competition for these types of deposits. The increase in the average cost of total deposits was primarily due to the impact of the increase in short- and medium-term interest rates on our certificates of deposit, coupled with the increases in the average balances of certificates of deposit and Liquid CDs.
Interest expense on certificates of deposit increased $12.6 million to $71.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $58.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to an increase in the average cost to 3.79% for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from 3.40% for the three months ended March 31, 2005, coupled with an increase of $617.5 billion in the average balance. During the three months ended March 31, 2006, $1.31 billion of certificates of deposit, with a weighted average rate of 3.14% and a weighted average maturity at inception of sixteen months, matured and $1.32 billion of certificates of deposit were issued or repriced, with a weighted average rate of 4.41% and a weighted average maturity at inception of ten months. Interest expense on Liquid CDs increased $6.0 million to $7.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $1.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to an increase of $553.4 million in the average balance, coupled with an increase in the average cost to 3.87% for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from 2.43% for the three months ended March 31, 2005. The increases in the average balances of certificates of deposit and Liquid CDs were primarily a result of the success of our marketing campaigns which focused on attracting these types of deposits. Growth in our certificates of deposit and Liquid CDs contributes to the management of interest rate risk, enables us to reduce our borrowing levels and continues to produce new customers from our communities, creating relationship development opportunities.
Interest expense on borrowings for the three months ended March 31, 2006 decreased $5.9 million to $77.0 million, from $82.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, resulting from a decrease of $1.63 billion in the average balance, partially offset by an increase in the average cost to 4.02% for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from 3.57% for the three months ended March 31, 2005. The decrease in the average balance of borrowings was primarily the result of our previously discussed strategy of reducing the securities and borrowings portfolios. The increase in the average cost of borrowings reflects the impact of the increase in short-term interest rates over the past year on our short-term borrowings.
During the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005, no provision for loan losses was recorded. The allowance for loan losses totaled $81.1 million at March 31, 2006 and $81.2 million at December 31, 2005. 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, our charge-off experience and our non-accrual and non-performing loans. The composition of our loan portfolio has remained consistent over the last several years. At March 31, 2006, our loan portfolio was comprised of 68% one-to-four family mortgage loans, 20% multi-family mortgage loans, 8% commercial real estate loans and 4% other loan categories. Our non-performing loans continue to remain at low levels relative to the size of our loan portfolio. Non-performing loans, which are comprised primarily of mortgage loans, decreased $15.0 million to $50.0 million, or 0.34% of total loans, at March 31, 2006, from $65.0 million, or 0.45% of total loans, at December 31, 2005. This decrease was primarily due to a decrease in non-performing multi-family mortgage loans, which was primarily attributable to five non-performing loans at December 31, 2005, totaling $11.7 million, returning to performing status as all payments were brought current by the borrowers during the three months ended March 31, 2006. The average loan-to-value ratio of our non-performing mortgage loans was 65.6% at March 31, 2006 and 66.1% at December 31, 2005, which is indicative of the substantial collateral value supporting these loans. Loan-to-value ratios are based on current principal balance and original appraised value.
We review our allowance for loan losses on a quarterly basis. Material factors considered during our quarterly review are our historical loss experience and the impact of current economic conditions. Our net charge-off experience was less than one basis point of average loans outstanding, annualized, for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005. Net loan charge-offs totaled $16,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 compared to $28,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2005. In addition to our consistent charge-off experience, general economic conditions in our market area remained consistent with prior periods. Based on the foregoing factors, our 2006 analyses did not indicate that a change in our allowance for loan losses was warranted.
The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of non-performing loans increased to 162.13% at March 31, 2006, from 124.81% at December 31, 2005, primarily due to the decrease in non-performing loans from December 31, 2005 to March 31, 2006. The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 0.56% at both March 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005. For further discussion of the methodology used to evaluate the allowance for loan losses, see “Critical Accounting Policies” and for further discussion of non-performing loans, see “Asset Quality.”
Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income for the three months ended March 31, 2006 decreased $5.8 million to $18.9 million, from $24.7 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005. The decrease in non-interest income was primarily due to a decrease in other non-interest income and mortgage banking income, net, partially offset by an increase in customer service fees.
Other non-interest income decreased $5.6 million primarily due to a $5.5 million charge for the termination of our interest rate swap agreements. The rising interest rate environment reduced the potential future economic value of maintaining the swaps. Accordingly, the swap agreements were terminated on March 8, 2006.
Mortgage banking income, net, which includes loan servicing fees, net gain on sales of loans, amortization of MSR and valuation allowance adjustments for the impairment of MSR, decreased $1.4 million to $1.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $2.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to a decrease in the recovery of the valuation allowance for the impairment of MSR. For the three months ended March 31, 2006, we recorded a recovery of $677,000, compared to $2.4 million for the three months ended
31
March 31, 2005. The recoveries recorded for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and 2005 reflect decreases in projected loan prepayment speeds resulting from increases in interest rates.
Customer service fees increased $1.7 million to $16.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $14.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to an increase in insufficient fund fees related to transaction accounts resulting from the implementation of an enhanced overdraft protection program in 2005.
Non-Interest Expense
Non-interest expense decreased $4.2 million to $56.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $60.5 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to decreases in other expense and advertising expense.
Other expense decreased $2.5 million to $6.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $9.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to decreased legal fees and other costs as a result of the completion of the trial phase of the LISB goodwill litigation in the first half of 2005. See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1, “Financial Statements (Unaudited),” for further discussion of the goodwill litigation.
Advertising expense decreased $2.0 million to $1.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $3.9 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to the introduction of a business banking marketing campaign in the 2005 first quarter, which was not repeated in the first quarter of 2006.
Compensation and benefits expense decreased $479,000 to $30.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from $30.8 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to cost savings associated with the outsourcing of our mortgage loan servicing activities effective December 1, 2005 and other company-wide cost saving initiatives initiated during the 2005 third quarter, partially offset by stock-based compensation cost recognized in 2006 reflecting our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R), effective January 1, 2006. During the 2006 first quarter, we recognized $1.2 million in stock-based compensation cost related to restricted stock and stock options granted to select officers in December 2005 and stock options granted to directors in January 2006. See Note 3 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1, “Financial Statements (Unaudited),” for further discussion of the impact of our adoption of SFAS No. 123(R).
Our percentage of general and administrative expense to average assets was 1.01% for the three months ended March 31, 2006, compared to 1.03% for the three months ended March 31, 2005. The efficiency ratio, which represents general and administrative expense divided by the sum of net interest income plus non-interest income, increased to 43.17% for the three months ended March 31, 2006, from 40.35% for the three months ended March 31, 2005, primarily due to the previously discussed decreases in net interest income and non-interest income.
Income Tax Expense
For the three months ended March 31, 2006, income tax expense totaled $25.2 million representing an effective tax rate of 34.0%, compared to $30.0 million for the three months ended March 31, 2005, representing an effective tax rate of 33.5%.
32
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, the maintenance of sound credit standards for new loan originations and a strong real estate market 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 marketing of 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.
Non-Performing Assets
The following table sets forth information regarding non-performing assets at the dates indicated.
| | | | | | | | | |
(Dollars in Thousands) | | At March 31, 2006 | | At December 31, 2005 | |
|
Non-accrual delinquent mortgage loans (1) | | | $ | 49,541 | | | | $ | 64,351 | | |
Non-accrual delinquent consumer and other loans | | | | 403 | | | | | 500 | | |
Mortgage loans delinquent 90 days or more and still accruing interest (2) | | | | 104 | | | | | 176 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing loans | | | | 50,048 | | | | | 65,027 | | |
Real estate owned, net (3) | | | | 1,202 | | | | | 1,066 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing assets | | | $ | 51,250 | | | | $ | 66,093 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Non-performing loans to total loans | | | | 0.34 | % | | | | 0.45 | % | |
Non-performing loans to total assets | | | | 0.23 | | | | | 0.29 | | |
Non-performing assets to total assets | | | | 0.23 | | | | | 0.30 | | |
Allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans | | | | 162.13 | | | | | 124.81 | | |
Allowance for loan losses to total loans | | | | 0.56 | | | | | 0.56 | | |
| |
(1) | Includes multi-family and commercial real estate loans totaling $15.6 million at March 31, 2006 and $28.6 million at December 31, 2005. |
(2) | Mortgage loans delinquent 90 days or more and still accruing interest consist solely of loans delinquent 90 days or more as to their maturity date but not their interest due. |
(3) | Real estate acquired as a result of foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure is recorded at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated selling costs. |
Non-performing assets decreased $14.8 million to $51.3 million at March 31, 2006, from $66.1 million at December 31, 2005. Non-performing loans, the most significant component of non-performing assets, decreased $15.0 million to $50.0 million at March 31, 2006, from $65.0 million at December 31, 2005. As previously discussed, these decreases were primarily due to a decrease in non-performing multi-family mortgage loans, which was primarily attributable to five non-performing loans at December 31, 2005, totaling $11.7 million, returning to performing status as all payments were brought current by the borrowers during the three months ended March 31, 2006. At March 31, 2006, non-performing multi-family loans totaled $14.2 million and had an average loan-to-value ratio of 68.6%. At March 31, 2006, non-performing one-to-four family mortgage loans totaled $34.0 million and had an average loan-to-value ratio of 64.3%. Loan-to-value ratios are based on current principal balance and original appraised value. 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 decreased to 0.34% at March 31, 2006, from 0.45% at December 31, 2005. Our ratio of non-performing assets to total assets decreased to 0.23% at March 31, 2006, from 0.30% at December 31, 2005.
33
We discontinue accruing interest on mortgage loans when such loans become 90 days delinquent as to their interest due, even though in some instances the borrower has only missed two payments. At March 31, 2006, $10.4 million of mortgage loans classified as non-performing had missed only two payments, compared to $28.1 million at December 31, 2005. We discontinue accruing interest on consumer and other loans when such loans become 90 days delinquent as to their payment due. 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.
If all non-accrual loans had been performing in accordance with their original terms, we would have recorded interest income, with respect to such loans, of $794,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and $451,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2005. This compares to actual payments recorded as interest income, with respect to such loans, of $165,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2006 and $111,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2005.
In addition to the non-performing loans, we had $449,000 of potential problem loans at March 31, 2006, compared to $813,000 at December 31, 2005. Such loans are 60-89 days delinquent as shown in the following table.
Delinquent Loans
The following table shows a comparison of delinquent loans at the dates indicated.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | At March 31, 2006 | | At December 31, 2005 | |
| |
|
| | 60-89 Days | | 90 Days or More | | 60-89 Days | | 90 Days or More | |
| |
|
(Dollars in Thousands) | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | | Number of Loans | | Amount | |
|
Mortgage loans: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
One-to-four family | | 1 | | | $ | 125 | | 137 | | | $ | 34,019 | | 6 | | | $ | 174 | | 152 | | | $ | 35,727 | |
Multi-family | | 1 | | | | 83 | | 21 | | | | 14,175 | | 1 | | | | 101 | | 26 | | | | 26,256 | |
Commercial real estate | | — | | | | — | | 2 | | | | 1,451 | | — | | | | — | | 6 | | | | 2,544 | |
Consumer and other loans | | 30 | | | | 241 | | 26 | | | | 403 | | 47 | | | | 538 | | 47 | | | | 500 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total delinquent loans | | 32 | | | $ | 449 | | 186 | | | $ | 50,048 | | 54 | | | $ | 813 | | 231 | | | $ | 65,027 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Delinquent loans to total loans | | | | | | 0.00 | % | | | | | 0.34 | % | | | | | 0.01 | % | | | | | 0.45 | % |
Allowance for Loan Losses
The following table sets forth the change in our allowance for losses on loans for the three months ended March 31, 2006.
| | | | |
| | (In Thousands) | |
Balance at December 31, 2005 | | | $ | 81,159 | | |
Provision charged to operations | | | | — | | |
Charge-offs: | | | | | | |
One-to-four family | | | | (25 | ) | |
Consumer and other loans | | | | (90 | ) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total charge-offs | | | | (115 | ) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries: | | | | | | |
One-to-four family | | | | 4 | | |
Consumer and other loans | | | | 95 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recoveries | | | | 99 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net charge-offs | | | | (16 | ) | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at March 31, 2006 | | | $ | 81,143 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34
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. The following table, referred to as the Gap Table, sets forth the amount of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities outstanding at March 31, 2006 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. As indicated in the Gap Table, our one-year cumulative gap at March 31, 2006 was negative 11.61%. This compares to a one-year cumulative gap of negative 6.79% at December 31, 2005. The change in our one-year cumulative gap is primarily attributable to a decrease in projected mortgage loan and securities repayments as a result of rising interest rates.
The Gap Table 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 that indicated.
35
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | At March 31, 2006 | |
| |
|
|
(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) | | $ | 3,730,035 | | $ | 5,355,574 | | $ | 4,501,808 | | $ | 394,181 | | $ | 13,981,598 | |
Consumer and other loans (1) | | | 454,500 | | | 21,987 | | | 10,442 | | | — | | | 486,929 | |
Repurchase agreements | | | 241,912 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 241,912 | |
Securities available-for-sale | | | 234,261 | | | 677,033 | | | 600,583 | | | 338,557 | | | 1,850,434 | |
Securities held-to-maturity | | | 1,227,518 | | | 2,013,994 | | | 1,243,787 | | | 3,123 | | | 4,488,422 | |
FHLB-NY stock | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 143,341 | | | 143,341 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets | | | 5,888,226 | | | 8,068,588 | | | 6,356,620 | | | 879,202 | | | 21,192,636 | |
Net unamortized purchase premiums and deferred costs (2) | | | 24,515 | | | 29,994 | | | 25,937 | | | 1,930 | | | 82,376 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest-earning assets (3) | | | 5,912,741 | | | 8,098,582 | | | 6,382,557 | | | 881,132 | | | 21,275,012 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-bearing liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Savings | | | 280,000 | | | 226,799 | | | 226,799 | | | 1,704,492 | | | 2,438,090 | |
Money market | | | 190,000 | | | 163,958 | | | 103,958 | | | 140,850 | | | 598,766 | |
NOW and demand deposit | | | 77,037 | | | 154,073 | | | 154,073 | | | 1,177,429 | | | 1,562,612 | |
Liquid CDs | | | 843,131 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 843,131 | |
Certificates of deposit | | | 4,406,969 | | | 2,666,601 | | | 446,845 | | | 25,924 | | | 7,546,339 | |
Borrowings, net | | | 2,698,301 | | | 4,218,743 | | | 299,123 | | | 378,308 | | | 7,594,475 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities | | | 8,495,438 | | | 7,430,174 | | | 1,230,798 | | | 3,427,003 | | | 20,583,413 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest sensitivity gap | | | (2,582,697 | ) | | 668,408 | | | 5,151,759 | | | (2,545,871 | ) | $ | 691,599 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative interest sensitivity gap | | $ | (2,582,697 | ) | $ | (1,914,289 | ) | $ | 3,237,470 | | $ | 691,599 | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cumulative interest sensitivity gap as a percentage of total assets | | | (11.61 | )% | | (8.61 | )% | | 14.56 | % | | 3.11 | % | | | |
Cumulative net interest-earning assets as a percentage of interest-bearing liabilities | | | 69.60 | % | | 87.98 | % | | 118.87 | % | | 103.36 | % | | | |
| |
(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. |
36
NII Sensitivity Analysis
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 and remain at that level thereafter, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning April 1, 2006 would decrease by approximately 6.00% from the base projection. At December 31, 2005, in the up 200 basis point scenario, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning January 1, 2006 would have decreased by approximately 5.94% from the base projection. Assuming the entire yield curve was to decrease 200 basis points, through quarterly parallel decrements of 50 basis points, and remain at that level thereafter, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning April 1, 2006 would increase by approximately 2.07% from the base projection. At December 31, 2005, in the down 200 basis point scenario, our projected net interest income for the twelve month period beginning January 1, 2006 would have increased by approximately 2.12% 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, changes in the fair value of MSR and the mark-to-market adjustments on certain derivative instruments. 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, and remain at that level thereafter, our projected net income for the twelve month period beginning April 1, 2006 would increase by approximately $4.1 million. Conversely, assuming the entire yield curve was to decrease 200 basis points, through quarterly parallel decrements of 50 basis points, and remain at that level thereafter, our projected net income for the twelve month period beginning April 1, 2006 would decrease by approximately $8.9 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 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
37
ITEM 4. Controls and Procedures
George L. Engelke, Jr., our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Monte N. Redman, our Executive Vice President 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 March 31, 2006. 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 March 31, 2006 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
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 a number of 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.
As previously discussed, we are a party to two actions pending against the United States, involving assisted acquisitions made in the early 1980’s and supervisory goodwill accounting utilized in connection therewith, which could result in a gain.
On September 15, 2005, the Court rendered a decision in the LISB goodwill litigation awarding us $435.8 million in damages from the U.S. government. On December 14, 2005, the United States filed an appeal of such award. The appeal is currently pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. No assurance can be given as to the timing, content or ultimate outcome of any such appeal. See Note 5 of Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Part I, Item 1, “Financial Statements (Unaudited),” for further discussion of the LISB goodwill litigation.
The other action, entitledAstoria Federal Savings and Loan Association vs. United States, has not yet been scheduled for trial. The Court is currently considering a summary judgment motion filed by the U.S. government.
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.
On or about February 24, 2005, the Attorney General of the State of New York, or the Attorney General, served on Astoria Federal a subpoenaduces tecum, or the Subpoena, seeking documents and information concerning, among other things, our contractual relationship with Independent Financial Marketing Group, Inc., or IFMG, IFMG Securities, Inc. and IFS Agencies, Inc., and the marketing and sale of Alternative Investment Products (i.e., financial products that are not bank instruments insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation). On several occasions
38
thereafter in 2005, and again in January 2006, the Attorney General supplemented the Subpoena with requests for additional documents and information.
Our arrangements with IFMG impose on IFMG compliance, disclosure and oversight-related obligations in connection with their sale of Alternative Investment Products to our customers at our branch locations. In this regard, we believe we are in full compliance with the Interagency Statement on Retail Sales of Nondeposit Investment Products issued by the federal bank regulatory authorities and Part 536 of the OTS Regulations regarding Consumer Protection in the Sale of Insurance.
We are cooperating with the Attorney General’s inquiry. No charges of wrongdoing on our part in connection with the sale of Alternative Investment Products have been filed by the Attorney General against us. Given the current status of the inquiry, no assurance can be given as to when the inquiry may be concluded, the ultimate result of the inquiry or any potential impact on our financial condition or results of operations.
ITEM 1A. Risk Factors
For a summary of risk factors relevant to our operations, see Part I, Item 1A, “Risk Factors,” in our 2005 Annual Report on Form 10-K. There has been no material change in risk factors relevant to our operations since December 31, 2005.
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 March 31, 2006.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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 | |
|
January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2006 | | | 1,000,000 | | $ | 29.71 | | 1,000,000 | | | 9,262,300 | | |
February 1, 2006 through February 28, 2006 | | | 950,000 | | $ | 28.31 | | 950,000 | | | 8,312,300 | | |
March 1, 2006 through March 31, 2006 | | | 530,000 | | $ | 30.15 | | 530,000 | | | 7,782,300 | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total | | | 2,480,000 | | $ | 29.27 | | 2,480,000 | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the quarter ended March 31, 2006, we completed our tenth stock repurchase plan which was approved by our Board of Directors on May 19, 2004 and authorized the purchase, at management’s discretion, of 12,000,000 shares, or approximately 10% of our common stock then outstanding, over a two year period in open-market or privately negotiated transactions. On December 21, 2005, our Board of Directors approved our eleventh stock repurchase plan authorizing the purchase, at management’s discretion, of 10,000,000 shares, or approximately 10% of our common stock outstanding, through December 31, 2007 in open-market or privately negotiated transactions. Stock repurchases under our eleventh stock repurchase plan commenced immediately following the completion of the tenth stock repurchase plan on January 10, 2006.
ITEM 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities
Not applicable.
39
ITEM 4.Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders
Not applicable.
ITEM 5. Other Information
Not applicable.
ITEM 6. 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. |
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.
| | |
| | Astoria Financial Corporation |
| | |
Dated: May 10, 2006 | By: | /s/Monte N. Redman |
| |
|
| | Monte N. Redman |
| | Executive Vice President |
| | and Chief Financial Officer |
| | (Principal Accounting Officer) |
40
Exhibit Index
| | |
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. |
41