ENB Financial Corp - Quarter Report: 2010 June (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
(Mark
One)
T QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
For the
quarterly period ended June 30,
2010
OR
o TRANSITION REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
For the
transition period from to
ENB
Financial Corp
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Pennsylvania
|
000-53297
|
51-0661129
|
||
(State
or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation)
|
(Commission
File Number)
|
(IRS
Employer Identification No)
|
31 E. Main St., Ephrata, PA
|
17522-0457
|
|||
(Address
of principal executive offices)
|
(Zip
Code)
|
Registrant’s
telephone number, including area code (717)
733-4181
Former
name, former address, and former fiscal year, if changed since last report Not
Applicable
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be
filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the
preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required
to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for
the past 90 days. Yes T No o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Date File required to be
submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to submit and post such files.)
Yes o No o
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an
accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting
company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated
filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
(Check one):
Large
Accelerated filer o
|
Accelerated
filer o
|
Non-accelerated
filer o (Do
not check if a smaller reporting company)
|
Smaller
reporting company T
|
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No T
APPLICABLE
ONLY TO CORPORATE ISSUERS:
Indicate
the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common
stock, as of the latest practicable date. As of August
10, 2010, the registrant had 2,848,852
shares of $0.20 (par) Common Stock outstanding.
ENB FINANCIAL CORP
INDEX TO
FORM 10-Q
June 30,
2010
Part
I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
||||
Item
1.
|
||||
3
|
||||
4
|
||||
5
|
||||
6
|
||||
7-16
|
||||
Item
2.
|
17-43
|
|||
Item
3.
|
44-46
|
|||
Item
4.
|
47
|
|||
Item
4T.
|
47
|
|||
Part
II – OTHER INFORMATION
|
48
|
|||
Item
1.
|
48
|
|||
Item
1A.
|
48
|
|||
Item
2.
|
48
|
|||
Item
3.
|
48
|
|||
Item
4.
|
48
|
|||
Item
5.
|
48
|
|||
Item
6.
|
48
|
|||
49
|
||||
50
|
PART
I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
||||||||||||
Item 1. Financial Statements
|
||||||||||||
ENB Financial Corp
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
Balance Sheets (Unaudited)
|
||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
|
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
June
30,
|
|||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2009
|
||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | ||||||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||||||
Cash
and due from banks
|
20,335 | 12,396 | 13,541 | |||||||||
Intererest-bearing
deposits in other banks
|
18 | 51 | 118 | |||||||||
Federal
funds sold
|
3,000 | 4,300 | - | |||||||||
Total
cash and cash equivalents
|
23,353 | 16,747 | 13,659 | |||||||||
Securities
available for sale (at fair value)
|
256,079 | 236,335 | 240,581 | |||||||||
Loans
held for sale
|
111 | 179 | 945 | |||||||||
Loans
(net of unearned income)
|
426,713 | 427,852 | 420,644 | |||||||||
Less:
Allowance for loan losses
|
6,413 | 5,912 | 4,447 | |||||||||
Net
loans
|
420,300 | 421,940 | 416,197 | |||||||||
Premises
and equipment
|
20,844 | 20,858 | 19,842 | |||||||||
Regulatory
stock
|
4,916 | 4,916 | 4,916 | |||||||||
Bank
owned life insurance
|
15,567 | 15,248 | 14,859 | |||||||||
Other
assets
|
10,675 | 9,729 | 8,147 | |||||||||
Total
assets
|
751,845 | 725,952 | 719,146 | |||||||||
LIABILITIES
AND STOCKHOLDERS' EQUITY
|
||||||||||||
Liabilities:
|
||||||||||||
Deposits:
|
||||||||||||
Noninterest-bearing
|
124,260 | 121,665 | 112,295 | |||||||||
Interest-bearing
|
468,242 | 448,278 | 445,187 | |||||||||
Total
deposits
|
592,502 | 569,943 | 557,482 | |||||||||
Short-term
borrowings
|
- | - | 1,880 | |||||||||
Long-term
debt
|
80,000 | 82,500 | 87,000 | |||||||||
Other
liabilities
|
4,975 | 3,933 | 5,113 | |||||||||
Total
liabilities
|
677,477 | 656,376 | 651,475 | |||||||||
Stockholders'
equity:
|
||||||||||||
Common
stock, par value $0.20;
|
||||||||||||
Shares: Authorized
12,000,000
|
||||||||||||
Issued
2,869,557 and Outstanding 2,848,270
|
||||||||||||
(Issued
2,869,557 and Outstanding 2,839,000 as of 12/31/09)
|
||||||||||||
(Issued
2,869,557 and Outstanding 2,833,880 as of 06/30/09)
|
574 | 574 | 574 | |||||||||
Capital
surplus
|
4,364 | 4,415 | 4,442 | |||||||||
Retained
earnings
|
67,368 | 65,613 | 65,213 | |||||||||
Accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax
|
2,597 | (258 | ) | (1,648 | ) | |||||||
Less:
Treasury stock at cost 21,287 shares (30,557 shares as
|
||||||||||||
of
12/31/09, and 35,677 shares as of 06/30/09)
|
(535 | ) | (768 | ) | (910 | ) | ||||||
Total
stockholders' equity
|
74,368 | 69,576 | 67,671 | |||||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders' equity
|
751,845 | 725,952 | 719,146 |
See Notes
to the Unaudited Consolidated Interim Financial Statements
ENB Financial Corp
|
||||||||||||||||
Consolidated
Statements of Income (Unaudited)
|
||||||||||||||||
Periods
Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
|
Three
Months
|
Six
Months
|
||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||
Interest
and dividend income:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
and fees on loans
|
5,657 | 5,657 | 11,245 | 11,316 | ||||||||||||
Interest
on securities available for sale
|
||||||||||||||||
Taxable
|
1,910 | 2,197 | 3,841 | 4,288 | ||||||||||||
Tax-exempt
|
739 | 520 | 1,341 | 1,136 | ||||||||||||
Interest
on Federal funds sold
|
2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | ||||||||||||
Dividend
income
|
32 | 35 | 63 | 75 | ||||||||||||
Total
interest and dividend income
|
8,340 | 8,411 | 16,494 | 16,817 | ||||||||||||
Interest
expense:
|
||||||||||||||||
Interest
on deposits
|
1,885 | 2,386 | 3,812 | 4,690 | ||||||||||||
Interest
on short-term borrowings
|
- | 2 | 1 | 9 | ||||||||||||
Interest
on long-term debt
|
830 | 968 | 1,713 | 1,931 | ||||||||||||
Total
interest expense
|
2,715 | 3,356 | 5,526 | 6,630 | ||||||||||||
Net
interest income
|
5,625 | 5,055 | 10,968 | 10,187 | ||||||||||||
Provision
for loan losses
|
450 | 226 | 900 | 376 | ||||||||||||
Net
interest income after provision for loan losses
|
5,175 | 4,829 | 10,068 | 9,811 | ||||||||||||
Other
income:
|
||||||||||||||||
Trust
and investment services income
|
277 | 327 | 564 | 544 | ||||||||||||
Service
fees
|
578 | 660 | 1,122 | 1,285 | ||||||||||||
Commissions
|
408 | 362 | 761 | 683 | ||||||||||||
Gains
on securities transactions, net
|
350 | 88 | 558 | 156 | ||||||||||||
Impairment
losses on securities:
|
||||||||||||||||
Impairment
losses on investment securities
|
(666 | ) | - | (715 | ) | - | ||||||||||
Non-credit
related losses on securities not expected
|
||||||||||||||||
to
be sold in other comprehensive income before tax
|
611 | - | 611 | - | ||||||||||||
Net
impairment losses on investment securities
|
(55 | ) | - | (104 | ) | - | ||||||||||
Gains
on sale of mortgages
|
48 | 80 | 63 | 147 | ||||||||||||
Earnings
on bank owned life insurance
|
142 | 159 | 289 | 316 | ||||||||||||
Other
|
51 | 74 | 227 | 191 | ||||||||||||
Total
other income
|
1,799 | 1,750 | 3,480 | 3,322 | ||||||||||||
Operating
expenses:
|
||||||||||||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
2,728 | 2,708 | 5,420 | 5,572 | ||||||||||||
Occupancy
|
408 | 354 | 815 | 704 | ||||||||||||
Equipment
|
208 | 210 | 416 | 417 | ||||||||||||
Advertising
& marketing
|
122 | 101 | 234 | 204 | ||||||||||||
Computer
software & data processing
|
396 | 400 | 759 | 770 | ||||||||||||
Bank
shares tax
|
191 | 183 | 382 | 364 | ||||||||||||
Professional
services
|
414 | 452 | 784 | 943 | ||||||||||||
FDIC
Insurance
|
172 | 299 | 340 | 716 | ||||||||||||
Other
|
452 | 424 | 794 | 876 | ||||||||||||
Total
operating expenses
|
5,091 | 5,131 | 9,944 | 10,566 | ||||||||||||
Income
before income taxes
|
1,883 | 1,448 | 3,604 | 2,567 | ||||||||||||
Provision
for federal income taxes
|
233 | 188 | 486 | 226 | ||||||||||||
Net
income
|
1,650 | 1,260 | 3,118 | 2,341 | ||||||||||||
Earnings
per share of common stock
|
0.58 | 0.45 | 1.10 | 0.83 | ||||||||||||
Cash
dividends paid per share
|
0.24 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 0.62 | ||||||||||||
Weighted
average shares outstanding
|
2,843,176 | 2,834,073 | 2,841,311 | 2,835,506 |
See Notes
to the Unaudited Consolidated Interim Financial
Statements
ENB Financial Corp
|
||||||||||||||||
Consolidated
Statements of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited)
|
||||||||||||||||
Periods
Ended June 30, 2010 and 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE DATA)
|
Three
Months
|
Six
Months
|
||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||
Net
income
|
1,650 | 1,260 | 3,118 | 2,341 | ||||||||||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss) arising during the period
|
1,910 | 851 | 3,872 | (1,194 | ) | |||||||||||
Reclassification
adjustment for gains realized in income
|
(350 | ) | (88 | ) | (558 | ) | (156 | ) | ||||||||
Reclassification adjustment for other-than-temporary impairment | ||||||||||||||||
losses
realized in income
|
55 | - | 104 | - | ||||||||||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss) before tax
|
2,205 | 939 | 4,326 | (1,038 | ) | |||||||||||
Income
taxes (benefit) related to comprehensive income (loss)
|
750 | 319 | 1,471 | (353 | ) | |||||||||||
Other
comprehensive income (loss)
|
1,455 | 620 | 2,855 | (685 | ) | |||||||||||
Comprehensive
income
|
3,105 | 1,880 | 5,973 | 1,656 |
See Notes
to the Unaudited Consolidated Interim Financial Statements
ENB Financial Corp
|
||||||||
Consolidated
Statements of Cash Flows (Unaudited)
|
||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
|||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||
$ | $ | |||||||
Net
income
|
3,118 | 2,341 | ||||||
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash | ||||||||
provided
by operating activities:
|
||||||||
Net
amortization of securities and loan fees
|
590 | 334 | ||||||
Increase
in interest receivable
|
(171 | ) | (274 | ) | ||||
Increase/(decrease)
in interest payable
|
(91 | ) | 7 | |||||
Provision
for loan losses
|
900 | 376 | ||||||
Gains
on securities transactions
|
(558 | ) | (156 | ) | ||||
Impairment
losses on securities
|
104 | - | ||||||
Gains
on sale of mortgages
|
(63 | ) | (147 | ) | ||||
Loans
originated for sale
|
(483 | ) | (2,556 | ) | ||||
Proceeds
from sales of loans
|
614 | 2,003 | ||||||
Earnings
on bank-owned life insurance
|
(289 | ) | (316 | ) | ||||
Losses
on other real estate owned
|
34 | - | ||||||
Depreciation
of premises and equipment and amortization of software
|
680 | 626 | ||||||
Deferred
income tax
|
(282 | ) | (205 | ) | ||||
Decrease
in prepaid federal deposit insurance
|
305 | - | ||||||
Other
assets and other liabilities, net
|
(647 | ) | (416 | ) | ||||
Net
cash provided by operating activities
|
3,761 | 1,617 | ||||||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
||||||||
Securities
available for sale:
|
||||||||
Proceeds
from maturities, calls, and repayments
|
27,126 | 29,105 | ||||||
Proceeds
from sales
|
24,689 | 10,166 | ||||||
Purchases
|
(67,401 | ) | (66,666 | ) | ||||
Purchase
of bank-owned life insurance
|
(30 | ) | (31 | ) | ||||
Net
(increase)/decrease in loans
|
343 | (8,805 | ) | |||||
Purchases
of premises and equipment
|
(530 | ) | (448 | ) | ||||
Purchase
of computer software
|
(230 | ) | (91 | ) | ||||
Net
cash used in investing activities
|
(16,033 | ) | (36,770 | ) | ||||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
||||||||
Net
increase in demand, NOW, and savings accounts
|
16,326 | 12,260 | ||||||
Net
increase in time deposits
|
6,233 | 34,110 | ||||||
Net
decrease in short-term borrowings
|
- | (9,920 | ) | |||||
Proceeds
from long-term debt
|
7,500 | 7,500 | ||||||
Repayments
of long-term debt
|
(10,000 | ) | (12,500 | ) | ||||
Dividends
paid
|
(1,363 | ) | (1,757 | ) | ||||
Treasury
stock sold
|
182 | 184 | ||||||
Treasury
stock purchased
|
- | (457 | ) | |||||
Net
cash provided by financing activities
|
18,878 | 29,420 | ||||||
Increase/(decrease)
in cash and cash equivalents
|
6,606 | (5,733 | ) | |||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
16,747 | 19,392 | ||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
23,353 | 13,659 | ||||||
Supplemental
disclosures of cash flow information:
|
||||||||
Interest
paid
|
5,618 | 6,622 | ||||||
Income
taxes paid
|
940 | 210 | ||||||
Supplemental
disclosure of non-cash investing and financing activities:
|
||||||||
Net
transfer of other real estate owned held for sale from
loans
|
429 | - |
See Notes
to the Unaudited Consolidated Interim Financial Statements
1. Basis
of Presentation
The
accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for interim
financial information and to general practices within the banking
industry. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and
footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete
financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments
considered necessary for fair presentation have been
included. Certain items previously reported have been reclassified to
conform to the current period’s reporting format. Such
reclassifications did not affect net income or stockholders’
equity.
ENB
Financial Corp (“the Corporation”) is the bank holding company for Ephrata
National Bank (the “Bank”), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ENB Financial
Corp. This Form 10-Q, for the second quarter of 2010, is reporting on
the results of operations and financial condition of ENB Financial
Corp.
Operating
results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, are not necessarily
indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ended December 31,
2010. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial
statements and footnotes thereto included in ENB Financial Corp’s Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.
2. Securities
Available for Sale
|
||||||||||||||||
The
amortized cost and fair value of securities held at June 30, 2010, and
December 31, 2009, are as follows:
|
||||||||||||||||
Gross
|
Gross
|
|||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
Amortized
|
Unrealized
|
Unrealized
|
Fair
|
||||||||||||
Cost
|
Gains
|
Losses
|
Value
|
|||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||
June
30, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
52,051 | 1,683 | - | 53,734 | ||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
31,952 | 1,365 | - | 33,317 | ||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
72,294 | 1,285 | (1 | ) | 73,578 | |||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
14,171 | 78 | (1,677 | ) | 12,572 | |||||||||||
Corporate
bonds
|
11,238 | 326 | (29 | ) | 11,535 | |||||||||||
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions
|
67,438 | 1,331 | (362 | ) | 68,407 | |||||||||||
Total
debt securities
|
249,144 | 6,068 | (2,069 | ) | 253,143 | |||||||||||
Marketable
equity securities
|
3,000 | - | (64 | ) | 2,936 | |||||||||||
Total
securities available for sale
|
252,144 | 6,068 | (2,133 | ) | 256,079 | |||||||||||
December
31, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
47,018 | 740 | (187 | ) | 47,571 | |||||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
41,392 | 1,073 | (75 | ) | 42,390 | |||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
53,284 | 947 | (249 | ) | 53,982 | |||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
16,568 | 21 | (3,841 | ) | 12,748 | |||||||||||
Corporate
bonds
|
12,933 | 436 | - | 13,369 | ||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions
|
62,531 | 1,310 | (472 | ) | 63,369 | |||||||||||
Total
debt securities
|
233,726 | 4,527 | (4,824 | ) | 233,429 | |||||||||||
Marketable
equity securities
|
3,000 | - | (94 | ) | 2,906 | |||||||||||
Total
securities available for sale
|
236,726 | 4,527 | (4,918 | ) | 236,335 |
The
amortized cost and fair value of debt securities available for sale at June 30,
2010, by contractual maturity, are shown below. Actual maturities may
differ from contractual maturities due to certain call or prepayment
provisions.
CONTRACTUAL
MATURITY OF DEBT SECURITIES
|
||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||
Amortized
|
||||||||
Cost
|
Fair
Value
|
|||||||
$ | $ | |||||||
Due
in one year or less
|
25,508 | 26,112 | ||||||
Due
after one year through five years
|
93,746 | 96,176 | ||||||
Due
after five years through ten years
|
65,763 | 67,549 | ||||||
Due
after ten years
|
64,127 | 63,306 | ||||||
Total
debt securities
|
249,144 | 253,143 |
Securities
available for sale with a par value of $72,546,000 and $64,568,000 at June 30,
2010, and December 31, 2009, respectively, were pledged or restricted for public
funds, borrowings, or other purposes as required by law. The fair
value of these pledged securities was $77,047,000 at June 30, 2010, and
$67,383,000 at December 31, 2009.
Proceeds
from active sales of securities available for sale, along with the associated
gross realized gains and gross realized losses, are shown
below. Realized gains and losses are computed on the basis of
specific identification.
PROCEEDS
FROM SALES OF SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE
|
||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||
$ | $ | |||||||
Proceeds
from sales
|
24,689 | 10,166 | ||||||
Gross
realized gains
|
591 | 216 | ||||||
Gross
realized losses
|
33 | 60 | ||||||
SUMMARY
OF GAINS AND LOSSES ON SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE
|
||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
||||||||
2010 | 2009 | |||||||
$ | $ | |||||||
Gross
realized gains
|
591 | 216 | ||||||
Gross
realized losses
|
33 | 60 | ||||||
Impairment
on securities
|
104 | - | ||||||
Total
gross realized losses
|
137 | 60 | ||||||
Net
gains on securities
|
454 | 156 |
The
bottom portion of the above chart shows the net gains on security transactions,
including any impairment taken on securities held by the
Corporation. Unlike the sale of a security, impairment is a
write-down of the book value of the security which produces a loss and does not
provide any proceeds. The net gain or loss from security transactions
is also reflected on the Corporation’s consolidated income statements and
consolidated statements of cash flows.
Management
evaluates all of the Corporation’s securities for other than temporary
impairment (OTTI) on a periodic basis. As of June 30, 2010, three
private collateralized mortgage obligations (PCMO) were considered to be other-
than-temporarily impaired, and the cash flow analysis on two of these securities
indicated a need to take impairment charges. These securities were
written down by a cumulative total of $444,000 as of June 30,
2010. The other
security
was showing projected losses within the total amount of remaining accretion,
resulting in no impairment charges to this point. As of December 31,
2009, three PCMOs were considered to be other than temporarily impaired as
well. These securities were written down by a cumulative total of
$369,000 as of December 31, 2009. One of the impaired securities as
of December 31, 2009, was sold in the second quarter of 2010 for a minimal loss
of $8,000. Information pertaining to securities with gross unrealized
losses at June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, aggregated by investment
category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous
loss position follows:
TEMPORARY
IMPAIRMENTS OF SECURITIES
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Less
than 12 months
|
More
than 12 months
|
Total
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Gross
|
Gross
|
Gross
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Fair
|
Unrealized
|
Fair
|
Unrealized
|
Fair
|
Unrealized
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Value
|
Losses
|
Value
|
Losses
|
Value
|
Losses
|
|||||||||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||||||||
As
of June 30, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
- | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
- | - | - | - | - | - | ||||||||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
2,975 | (1 | ) | - | - | 2,975 | (1 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
- | - | 11,103 | (1,677 | ) | 11,103 | (1,677 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Corporate
bonds
|
2,098 | (29 | ) | - | - | 2,098 | (29 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
political
subdivisions
|
7,358 | (113 | ) | 7,405 | (249 | ) | 14,763 | (362 | ) | |||||||||||||||
- | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
debt securities
|
12,431 | (143 | ) | 18,508 | (1,926 | ) | 30,939 | (2,069 | ) | |||||||||||||||
- | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Marketable
equity securities
|
- | - | 2,936 | (64 | ) | 2,936 | (64 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
- | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
temporarily impaired securities
|
12,431 | (143 | ) | 21,444 | (1,990 | ) | 33,875 | (2,133 | ) | |||||||||||||||
As
of December 31, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
14,315 | (187 | ) | - | - | 14,315 | (187 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
9,380 | (75 | ) | - | - | 9,380 | (75 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
9,737 | (249 | ) | - | - | 9,737 | (249 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
- | - | 11,262 | (3,841 | ) | 11,262 | (3,841 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
political
subdivisions
|
6,407 | (64 | ) | 9,451 | (408 | ) | 15,858 | (472 | ) | |||||||||||||||
- | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
debt securities
|
39,839 | (575 | ) | 20,713 | (4,249 | ) | 60,552 | (4,824 | ) | |||||||||||||||
- | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Marketable
equity securities
|
- | - | 2,906 | (94 | ) | 2,906 | (94 | ) | ||||||||||||||||
- | - | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
temporarily impaired securities
|
39,839 | (575 | ) | 23,619 | (4,343 | ) | 63,458 | (4,918 | ) |
In the
debt security portfolio, there are 40 positions that are considered temporarily
impaired at June 30, 2010. Of those 40 positions, three PCMOs were
the only instruments considered other than temporarily impaired at June 30,
2010.
The
Corporation evaluates both equity and fixed maturity positions for
other-than-temporary impairment at least on a quarterly basis, and more
frequently when economic and market concerns warrant such evaluation. The
Corporation adopted a provision of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
which provides for the bifurcation of OTTI into two categories: (a) the amount
of the total OTTI related to a decrease in cash flows expected to be collected
from the debt security (the credit loss) which is recognized in earnings, and
(b), the amount of total OTTI related to all other factors, which is recognized,
net of taxes, as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income. The
adoption of this provision has only been applicable to three of the
Corporation’s PCMOs since these instruments were the only instruments management
has deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired.
The
Corporation recorded $55,000 of impairment in the second quarter of 2010, and
$104,000 of impairment for the year-to-date period on two of the three PCMOs
that were previously recognized as other-than-temporarily impaired
in
2009. The third PCMO that was impaired as of December 31, 2009, was
sold at a minimal loss during the second quarter of 2010. No
impairment was recorded during the first six months of 2009. The
impairment on the PCMOs is a result of a deterioration of expected cash flows on
these securities due to higher foreclosure and severity rates indicating
expected principal losses in excess of the remaining credit protection on these
instruments. Management tested the bonds and determined that it is
likely all of the PCMOs will continue to pay an average of 8 constant prepayment
rate (CPR) or higher. An 8 CPR speed means that eight percent of the
principal would be expected to prepay in one year’s time. The average
CPR speed for these two PCMOs for the second quarter of 2010 was 15 CPR;
however, these speeds are expected to slow going forward. Based on
the historical, current, and expected prepayment speeds, management determined
that it was appropriate to take additional impairment on one PCMO in the first
quarter of 2010, and additional impairment on another PCMO in the second quarter
of 2010, based on expected principal losses with these securities paying at an 8
CPR going forward.
The
following table summarizes the cumulative roll-forward of credit losses on the
Corporation’s other-than-temporarily impaired PCMOs recorded in earnings, for
which a portion was also recognized as a component of other comprehensive income
for the quarter ending June 30, 2010:
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||
2010
|
||||
$ | ||||
Balance
as of January 1, 2010
|
369 | |||
Additional
credit losses on debt securities for which other-
|
||||
than-temporary
impairment was previously recognized
|
104 | |||
Balance
as of June 30, 2010
|
473 |
The
following table reflects the book value, market value, and unrealized loss as of
June 30, 2010, on the two PCMO securities held which had impairment taken in
2010. The values shown are after the Corporation recorded
year-to-date impairment charges of $104,000 through June 30,
2010. The $104,000 is deemed to be a credit loss and is the amount
that management expects the principal loss will be by the time these three
securities mature. The remaining $611,000 of unrealized losses is
deemed to be a market value loss that is considered temporary. Prior
to the impairment charge, these two securities had unrealized losses of
$715,000.
SECURITY
IMPAIRMENT CHARGES
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
Year-to-Date
|
||||||||||||||||
As
of June 30, 2010
|
2010
|
|||||||||||||||
Book
|
Market
|
Unrealized
|
Impairment
|
|||||||||||||
Value
|
Value
|
Loss
|
Charge
|
|||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
4,341 | 3,730 | (611 | ) | (104 | ) |
Recent market conditions
throughout the financial sector have made the evaluation regarding the possible
impairment of PCMOs difficult to fully determine given the volatility of their
pricing, based not only on interest rate changes, but collateral uncertainty as
well. The Corporation’s MBS and CMO holdings are backed by the U.S.
government, and therefore, experience significantly less volatility and
uncertainty than the PCMO securities. The Corporation’s PCMO holdings
make up a minority of the total MBS, CMO, and PCMO securities
held. As of June 30, 2010, on an amortized cost basis, PCMOs
accounted for approximately 12.0% of the Corporation’s total MBS, CMO, and PCMO
holdings, compared to 14.8% as of December 31, 2009. As of June 30,
2010, six PCMOs were held with two of the six rated AAA by either Moody’s or
S&P. The remaining four securities were rated below investment
grade. Impairment charges, as detailed above, were taken on two of
these securities during 2010. Management conducts impairment analysis
on a quarterly basis and currently has no plans to sell these securities as cash
flow analysis performed under severe stress testing does not indicate a need to
take impairment on the remaining bonds. Management has concluded that, as of
June 30, 2010, the unrealized losses outlined in the above table represent
temporary declines. The Corporation does not intend to sell, and does
not believe it will be required to sell
these securities before recovery of their cost basis, which may be at
maturity.
3. Fair
Value Presentation
U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles establish a hierarchal disclosure
framework associated with the level of observable pricing utilized in measuring
assets and liabilities at fair value. The three broad levels defined by the
hierarchy are as follows:
Level
I:
|
Quoted
prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities
as of the reported date.
|
Level
II:
|
Pricing
inputs are other than the quoted prices in active markets, which are
either directly or indirectly observable as of the reported
date. The nature of these assets and liabilities includes items
for which quoted prices are available but traded less frequently and items
that are fair-valued using other financial instruments, the parameters of
which can be directly observed.
|
Level
III:
|
Assets
and liabilities that have little to no observable pricing as of the
reported date. These items do not have two-way markets and are
measured using management’s best estimate of fair value, where the inputs
into the determination of fair value require significant management
judgment or estimation.
|
The
following tables present the assets reported on the consolidated balance sheets
at their fair value as of June 30, 2010, December 31, 2009, and June 30, 2009,
by level within the fair value hierarchy. As required by U.S.
generally accepted accounting principles, financial assets and liabilities are
classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is
significant to the fair value measurement.
Fair
Value Measurements:
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
June
30, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
$ | - | $ | 53,734 | $ | - | $ | 53,734 | ||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
- | 33,317 | - | 33,317 | ||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
- | 73,578 | - | 73,578 | ||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
- | 12,572 | - | 12,572 | ||||||||||||
Corporate
debt securities
|
- | 11,535 | - | 11,535 | ||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions
|
- | 68,407 | - | 68,407 | ||||||||||||
Equity
securities
|
2,936 | - | - | 2,936 | ||||||||||||
Total
securities
|
$ | 2,936 | $ | 253,143 | $ | - | $ | 256,079 |
On June
30, 2010, the Corporation held no securities valued using level III
inputs. All of the Corporation’s debt instruments were valued using
level II inputs, where quoted prices are available and observable, but not
necessarily quotes on identical securities traded in active markets on a daily
basis. The Corporation’s CRA fund investments are fair valued
utilizing level I inputs because the funds have their own quoted prices in an
active market. As of June 30, 2010, the CRA fund investments had a
$3,000,000 book value with a fair market value of $2,936,000.
Fair
Value Measurements:
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
December
31, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
$ | - | $ | 47,571 | $ | - | $ | 47,571 | ||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
- | 42,390 | - | 42,390 | ||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
- | 53,982 | - | 53,982 | ||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
- | 12,748 | - | 12,748 | ||||||||||||
Corporate
debt securities
|
- | 13,369 | - | 13,369 | ||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions
|
- | 63,369 | - | 63,369 | ||||||||||||
Equity
securities
|
2,906 | - | - | 2,906 | ||||||||||||
Total
securities
|
$ | 2,906 | $ | 233,429 | $ | - | $ | 236,335 |
On
December 31, 2009, the Corporation held no securities valued using level III
inputs. All of the Corporation’s debt instruments were valued using
level II inputs, where quoted prices are available and observable but not
necessarily quotes on identical securities traded in active markets on a daily
basis. As of December 31, 2009, the Corporation’s CRA fund
investments had a book value of $3,000,000 and a fair market value of $2,906,000
utilizing level I pricing.
Fair
Value Measurements:
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
June
30, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
$ | - | $ | 54,122 | $ | - | $ | 54,122 | ||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
- | 51,698 | - | 51,698 | ||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
- | 47,691 | - | 47,691 | ||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
- | 11,546 | 2,873 | 14,419 | ||||||||||||
Corporate
debt securities
|
- | 16,135 | - | 16,135 | ||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions
|
- | 53,629 | - | 53,629 | ||||||||||||
Equity
securities
|
2,887 | - | - | 2,887 | ||||||||||||
Total
securities
|
$ | 2,887 | $ | 234,821 | $ | 2,873 | $ | 240,581 |
On June
30, 2009, the Corporation held one private label bond that was valued using
level III inputs due to the limited reliable observable inputs for this
security. The security had a book value of $3,527,000 with a fair
market value of $2,873,000 using level III inputs. As of June 30,
2009, the Corporation’s CRA fund investments had a book value of $3,000,000 and
a fair market value of $2,887,000 utilizing level I pricing.
Financial
instruments are considered level III when their values are determined using
pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, and
at least one significant model assumption or input is
unobservable. In addition to these unobservable inputs, the valuation
models for level III financial instruments typically also rely on a number of
inputs that are readily observable either directly or
indirectly. Level III financial instruments also include those for
which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment
or estimation. There were no level III securities as of June 30,
2010, or December 31, 2009.
The
following tables present the assets measured on a nonrecurring basis on the
consolidated balance sheets at their fair value as of June 30, 2010, December
31, 2009, and June 30, 2009, by level within the fair value
hierarchy:
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
June
30, 2010
|
||||||||||||||||
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
Assets:
|
||||||||||||||||
Impaired
Loans
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 6,361 | $ | 6,361 | ||||||||
OREO
|
914 | - | - | 914 | ||||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 914 | $ | - | $ | 6,361 | $ | 7,275 |
December
31, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
Assets:
|
||||||||||||||||
Impaired
Loans
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 6,804 | $ | 6,804 | ||||||||
OREO
|
520 | - | - | 520 | ||||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 520 | $ | - | $ | 6,804 | $ | 7,324 |
June
30, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||
Level
I
|
Level
II
|
Level
III
|
Total
|
|||||||||||||
Assets:
|
||||||||||||||||
Impaired
Loans
|
$ | - | $ | - | $ | 2,833 | $ | 2,833 | ||||||||
OREO
|
520 | - | - | 520 | ||||||||||||
Total
|
$ | 520 | $ | - | $ | 2,833 | $ | 3,353 |
The
Corporation had a total of $6,939,000 of impaired loans as of June 30, 2010,
with $578,000 of specifically allocated allowance against these
loans. The Corporation had a total of $7,615,000 of impaired loans as
of December 31, 2009, with $811,000 of specifically allocated allowance against
these loans. The Corporation had a total of $3,129,000 of impaired loans as of
June 30, 2009, with $296,000 of specifically allocated allowance against these
loans. Impaired loans are valued based on a discounted present value
of expected future cash flow.
Other
real estate owned (OREO) is measured at fair value, less estimated costs to sell
at the date of foreclosure, establishing a new cost basis. Subsequent
to foreclosure, valuations are periodically performed by
management. The assets are carried at the lower of carrying amount or
fair value, less estimated costs to sell. The Corporation’s OREO
balance consists of one manufacturing property that has been classified as OREO
since December 2006 and a residential real estate property that was placed in
OREO in the first quarter of 2010. The manufacturing property has
been under an agreement of sale. Settlement on the sale has
been deferred, pending the completion of a due-diligence period whereby, for the
sale to occur, the property would need to meet all contingencies of the
agreement. The sales agreement has been extended until December 31,
2010, with the same sales price. The residential property was
placed under an agreement of sale in the second quarter of 2010 with settlement
to occur in July of 2010.
Subsequent
to June 30, 2010, but prior to the filing of this report, settlement of the
residential property did occur on July 27, 2010. In final
negotiations, the property had to be written down an additional
$24,000. After the July 27, 2010, settlement of this residential
property, the Corporation’s OREO balance returned to $520,000.
Income
and expenses from operations and changes in valuation allowance are included in
the net expenses from OREO.
4. Interim
Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The
following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each
class of financial instrument:
Cash
and Cash Equivalents, Accrued Interest Receivable, and Accrued Interest
Payable
For these
short-term instruments, the carrying amount is a reasonable estimate of fair
value.
Securities
Available for Sale
Management
utilizes quoted market pricing for the fair value of the Corporation's
securities that are available for sale, if available. If a quoted
market rate is not available, fair value is estimated using quoted market prices
for similar securities.
Loans
Held for Sale
Loans
held for sale are individual loans for which the Corporation has a firm sales
commitment; therefore, the carrying value is a reasonable estimate of the fair
value.
Loans
The fair
value of fixed and variable rate loans is estimated by discounting back the
scheduled future cash flows of the particular loan product, using the market
interest rates of comparable loan products in the Corporation’s greater market
area, with the same general structure, comparable credit ratings, and for the
same remaining maturities.
Bank
Owned Life Insurance
Fair
value is equal to the cash surrender value of the life insurance
policies.
Mortgage
Servicing Asset
The fair
value of mortgage servicing assets is based on the present value of future cash
flows for pools of mortgages, stratified by rate and maturity date.
Deposits
The fair
value of non-interest bearing demand deposit accounts and interest bearing
demand deposit and savings accounts is based on the amount payable on demand at
the reporting date. The fair value of fixed-maturity time deposits is
estimated by discounting back the expected cash flows of the time deposit using
market interest rates from the Corporation’s greater market area currently
offered for similar time deposits with similar remaining
maturities.
Borrowings
The fair
value for overnight borrowings is equal to the carrying value. The
fair value of a term borrowing is estimated by comparing the rate currently
offered for the same type of borrowing instrument with a matching remaining
term.
Firm
Commitments to Extend Credit, Lines of Credit, and Open Letters of
Credit
These
financial instruments are generally not subject to sale and estimated fair
values are not readily available. The carrying value, represented by
the net deferred fee arising from the unrecognized commitment or letter of
credit, and the fair value, determined by discounting the remaining contractual
fee over the term of the commitment, using fees currently charged to enter into
similar agreements with similar credit risk, is not considered material for
disclosure purposes. The contractual amounts of unfunded commitments
are presented in Note 5.
The
carrying amounts and estimated fair values of the Corporation's financial
instruments at June 30, 2010, and December 31, 2009, are as
follows:
FAIR
VALUE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Carrying
|
Carrying
|
Carrying
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
Amount
|
Fair
Value
|
|||||||||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||||||||
Financial
Assets:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
23,353 | 23,353 | 16,747 | 16,747 | 13,659 | 13,659 | ||||||||||||||||||
Securities
available for sale
|
256,079 | 256,079 | 236,335 | 236,335 | 240,581 | 240,581 | ||||||||||||||||||
Loans
held for sale
|
111 | 111 | 179 | 179 | 945 | 945 | ||||||||||||||||||
Loans,
net of allowance
|
420,300 | 425,492 | 421,940 | 419,961 | 416,197 | 412,596 | ||||||||||||||||||
Accrued
interest receivable
|
3,300 | 3,300 | 3,129 | 3,129 | 3,068 | 3,068 | ||||||||||||||||||
Bank
owned life insurance
|
15,567 | 15,567 | 15,248 | 15,248 | 14,859 | 14,859 | ||||||||||||||||||
Mortgage
servicing asset
|
39 | 39 | 46 | 46 | 49 | 49 | ||||||||||||||||||
Financial
Liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demand
deposits
|
124,260 | 124,260 | 121,665 | 121,665 | 112,295 | 112,295 | ||||||||||||||||||
Interest
demand deposits
|
58,153 | 58,153 | 51,680 | 51,680 | 54,997 | 54,997 | ||||||||||||||||||
Savings
deposits
|
92,180 | 92,180 | 86,534 | 86,534 | 82,703 | 82,703 | ||||||||||||||||||
Money
market deposit accounts
|
50,014 | 50,014 | 48,404 | 48,404 | 42,428 | 42,428 | ||||||||||||||||||
Time
deposits
|
267,895 | 272,679 | 261,660 | 265,284 | 265,059 | 269,554 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
deposits
|
592,502 | 597,286 | 569,943 | 573,567 | 557,482 | 561,977 | ||||||||||||||||||
Short-term
borrowings
|
- | - | - | - | 1,880 | 1,880 | ||||||||||||||||||
Long-term
borrowings
|
80,000 | 85,318 | 82,500 | 87,490 | 87,000 | 91,846 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
borrowings
|
80,000 | 85,318 | 82,500 | 87,490 | 88,880 | 93,726 | ||||||||||||||||||
Accrued
interest payable
|
1,401 | 1,401 | 1,493 | 1,493 | 1,710 | 1,710 |
5. Commitments
and Contingent Liabilities
In order
to meet the financing needs of its customers in the normal course of business,
the Corporation makes various commitments that are not reflected in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements. These commitments
include firm commitments to extend credit, unused lines of credit, and open
letters of credit. As of June 30, 2010, firm loan commitments were
$6.2 million, unused lines of credit were $95.7 million, and open letters of
credit were $7.7 million. The total of these commitments was $109.6
million, which represents the Corporation’s exposure to credit loss in the event
of nonperformance by its customers with respect to these financial
instruments. The actual credit losses that may arise from these
commitments are expected to compare favorably with the Corporation’s loan loss
experience on its loan portfolio taken as a whole. The Corporation
uses the same credit policies in making commitments and conditional obligations
as it does for balance sheet financial instruments.
On
November 5, 2008, the Corporation filed a Form 8-K announcing a one-time charge
of $1,222,000 in connection with workforce realignment. The workforce
realignment is one element of a larger business process improvement engagement
that the Corporation entered into with the consulting division of the Bank’s
core processor in early 2008. The $1,222,000 charge was for salary
and employee benefit costs for 35 employees that accepted a voluntary early
separation package. As of June 30, 2010, $65,000 of contractual
obligations remained to be paid to these employees.
6.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards
In
December 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-16, Accounting for Transfer of Financial
Assets. ASU 2009-16 provides guidance to improve the
relevance, representational faithfulness, and comparability of the information
that an entity provides in its financial statements about a transfer of
financial assets; the effects of a transfer on its
financial
position, financial performance, and cash flows; and a transferor’s continuing
involvement, if any, in transferred financial assets. ASU 2009-16 is
effective for annual periods beginning after November 15, 2009, and for interim
periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of this guidance did
not have a material impact on the Corporation’s financial position or results of
operation.
In
January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-01, Equity (Topic 505): Accounting for
Distributions to Shareholders with Components of Stock and Cash – a consensus of
the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force. ASU 2010-01 clarifies that the stock
portion of a distribution to shareholders that allows them to elect to receive
cash or stock with a potential limitation on the total amount of cash that all
shareholders can elect to receive in the aggregate, is considered a share
issuance that is reflected in EPS prospectively and is not a stock
dividend. ASU 2010-01 is effective for interim and annual periods
ending on or after December 15, 2009, and should be applied on a retrospective
basis. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact
on the Corporation’s financial position or results of operation.
In
January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-05, Compensation – Stock Compensation
(Topic 718): Escrowed Share Arrangements and the Presumption of
Compensation. ASU 2010-05 updates existing guidance to address the SEC
staff’s views on overcoming the presumption that, for certain shareholders,
escrowed share arrangements represent compensation. ASU 2010-05 is
effective January 15, 2010. The adoption of this guidance did not
have a material impact on the Corporation’s financial position or results of
operation.
In
January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and
Disclosures (Topic 820): Improving Disclosures about Fair Value
Measurements. ASU 2010-06 amends Subtopic 820-10 to clarify existing
disclosures, require new disclosures, and includes conforming amendments to
guidance on employers’ disclosures about postretirement benefit plan
assets. ASU 2010-06 is effective for interim and annual periods
beginning after December 15, 2009, except for disclosures about purchases,
sales, issuances, and settlements in the roll forward of activity in Level III
fair value measurements. Those disclosures are effective for fiscal years
beginning after December 15, 2010, and for interim periods within those fiscal
years. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a
significant impact on the Corporation’s financial statements.
In
February 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-08, Technical Corrections to Various
Topics. ASU 2010-08 clarifies guidance on embedded derivatives and
hedging. ASU 2010-08 is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after
December 15, 2009. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact
on the Corporation’s financial position or results of operation.
In March
2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-11, Derivatives and
Hedging. ASU 2010-11 provides clarification and related
additional examples to improve financial reporting by resolving potential
ambiguity about the breadth of the embedded credit derivative scope exception in
ASC 815-15-15-8. ASU 2010-11 is effective at the beginning of the
first fiscal quarter beginning after June 15, 2010. The adoption of this
guidance is not expected to have a significant impact on the Corporation’s
financial statements.
In April
2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-18, Receivables (Topic
310): Effect of a Loan Modification When the Loan is a Part of a Pool
That is Accounted for as a Single Asset – a consensus of the FASB Emerging
Issues Task Force. ASU 2010-18 clarifies the treatment for a
modified loan that was acquired as part of a pool of
assets. Refinancing or restructuring the loan does not make it
eligible for removal from the pool, the FASB said. The amendment will
be effective for loans that are part of an asset pool and are modified during
financial reporting periods that end July 15, 2010, or later and is not expected
to have a significant impact on the Corporation’s financial
statements.
In July
2010, FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures
about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit
Losses. ASU 2010-20 is intended to provide additional information
to assist financial statement users in assessing an entity’s credit risk
exposures and evaluating the adequacy of its allowance for credit losses. The
disclosures as of the end of a reporting period are effective for interim and
annual reporting periods ending on or after December 15, 2010. The disclosures
about activity that occurs during a reporting period are effective for interim
and annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2010. The
amendments in ASU 2010-20 encourage, but do not require, comparative disclosures
for earlier reporting periods that ended before initial adoption. However, an
entity should provide comparative disclosures for those reporting periods ending
after initial adoption. The Corporation is currently evaluating the impact
the adoption of this guidance will have on the its financial
position or results of operations.
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The
following discussion and analysis represents management’s view of the financial
condition and results of operations of the Corporation. This
discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the consolidated
financial statements and other financial schedules included in this quarterly
report, and in conjunction with the 2009 Annual Report to Shareholders of the
Corporation. The financial condition and results of operations
presented are not indicative of future performance.
Forward-Looking
Statements
The U.S.
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor in regards
to the inclusion of forward-looking statements in this document and documents
incorporated by reference. Forward-looking statements pertain to
possible or assumed future results that are made using current
information. These forward-looking statements are generally
identified when terms such as: “believe,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “expect,”
“project,” “forecast,” and other similar wordings are used. The
readers of this report should take into consideration that these forward-looking
statements represent management’s expectations as to future forecasts of
financial performance, or the likelihood that certain events will or will not
occur. Due to the very nature of estimates or predications, these
forward-looking statements should not be construed to be indicative of actual
future results. Additionally, management may change estimates of
future performance, or the likelihood of future events, as additional
information is obtained. This document may also address targets,
guidelines, or strategic goals that management is striving to reach but may not
be indicative of actual results.
Readers
should note that many factors affect this forward-looking information, some of
which are discussed elsewhere in this document and in the documents that are
incorporated by reference into this document. These factors include,
but are not limited to, the following:
|
·
|
Economic
conditions
|
|
·
|
Impact
of new laws and regulations, specifically the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act
|
|
·
|
Monetary
and interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve
Board
|
|
·
|
Volatility
of the securities markets
|
|
·
|
Effects
of deteriorating market conditions, specifically the effect on loan
customers to repay loans
|
|
·
|
Political
changes and their impact on new laws and
regulations
|
|
·
|
Competitive
forces
|
|
·
|
Changes
in deposit flows, loan demand, or real estate and investment securities
values
|
|
·
|
Changes
in accounting principles, policies, or
guidelines
|
|
·
|
Ineffective
business strategy due to current or future market and competitive
conditions
|
|
·
|
Management’s
ability to manage credit risk, liquidity risk, interest rate risk, and
fair value risk
|
|
·
|
Operation,
legal, and reputation risk
|
|
·
|
The
risk that our analyses of these risks and forces could be incorrect and/or
that the strategies developed to address them could be
unsuccessful.
|
Readers
should be aware if any of the above factors change significantly, the statements
regarding future performance could also change materially. The safe
harbor provision provides that ENB Financial Corp is not required to publicly
update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances
that arise after the date of this report. Readers should review any
changes in risk factors in documents filed by ENB Financial Corp periodically
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including Item 1A of this Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q, Annual Reports on Form 10-K, and Current Reports on Form
8-K.
Results
of Operations
Overview
The
Corporation recorded net income of $1,650,000 and $3,118,000 for the three and
six-month periods ended June 30, 2010, a 31.0% and 33.2% increase over the
$1,260,000 and $2,341,000 earned during the same periods in
2009. Earnings per share, basic and diluted, were $0.58 and $1.10 for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $0.45 and $0.83 for
the same periods in 2009.
The
Corporation’s net interest income for the three and six months ended June 30,
2010, showed significant improvement over the same periods in
2009. Net interest income amounted to $5,625,000 for the second
quarter of 2010, compared to $5,055,000 for the same quarter in 2009, an 11.3%
increase. Year-to-date net interest income was $10,968,000 as of June
30, 2010, a 7.7% increase over the $10,187,000 earned in the first six months of
2009. The Corporation’s net interest margin was 3.56% for the second
quarter of 2010, compared to 3.26% for the second quarter of
2009. The Corporation’s year-to-date net interest margin was 3.48%
through June 30, 2010, as compared to 3.37% for the same period in
2009.
Another
significant item impacting the Corporation’s quarterly earnings was an increase
in the provision for loan loss expense. The Corporation recorded a
provision for loan loss expense of $450,000 for the three months ended June 30,
2010, and $900,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2010, a $224,000 and
$524,000 increase over the $226,000 and $376,000 recorded for the respective
periods in 2009. The higher provision was a result of an increase in
the level of delinquencies and classified loans. Because of the
higher provision, the allowance as a percentage of loans increased from 1.06% as
of June 30, 2009, to 1.50% as of June 30, 2010.
Other
income, excluding the gain or loss on the sale of securities and impairment
losses on securities, decreased 9.5%, or $158,000, for the second quarter of
2010, compared to 2009. For the first six months of 2010, other
income, excluding the gain or loss on the sale of securities and impairment
losses on securities, decreased 4.4%, or $140,000, compared to the same period
in 2009. Meanwhile, operational costs for the three months ended June
30, 2010, compared to the same period in 2009, decreased at a pace of 0.8%, or
$40,000, including the decrease in FDIC insurance expenses. For the
first six months of 2010, total operational costs, including FDIC insurance
expenses, decreased by 5.9%, or $622,000, from the same period in
2009. Excluding the decrease in FDIC insurance expense, total
operating expenses would have increased 1.8% for the quarter-to-date period and
decreased 2.5% for the year-to-date period.
The
financial services industry uses two primary performance measurements to gauge
performance: return on average assets (ROA) and return on average equity
(ROE). ROA measures how efficiently a bank generates income based on
the amount of assets or size of a company. ROE measures the
efficiency of a company in generating income based on the amount of equity or
capital utilized. The latter measurement typically receives more
attention from shareholders. The ROA and ROE for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2010, increased compared to the same periods in 2009 due
to the increase in the Corporation’s income.
Key
Ratios
|
Three
Months Ended
|
Six
Months Ended
|
||||||||||||||
June
30,
|
June
30,
|
|||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||
Return
on Average Assets
|
0.88 | % | 0.71 | % | 0.85 | % | 0.67 | % | ||||||||
Return
on Average Equity
|
9.14 | % | 7.50 | % | 8.84 | % | 6.96 | % |
The
results of the Corporation’s operations are best explained by addressing, in
further detail, the five major sections of the income statement, which are as
follows:
|
·
|
Net
interest income
|
|
·
|
Provision
for loan losses
|
|
·
|
Non-interest
income
|
|
·
|
Non-interest
expenses
|
|
·
|
Provision
for income taxes
|
The
following discussion analyzes each of these five components.
Net
Interest Income
Net
interest income (NII) represents the largest portion of the Corporation’s
operating income. Net interest income typically generates more than
75% of the Corporation’s gross revenue stream. The overall
performance of the Corporation is highly dependent on the changes in net
interest income since it comprises such a significant portion of the operating
income.
The
following table shows a summary analysis of net interest income on a fully
taxable equivalent (FTE) basis. For analytical purposes and
throughout this discussion, yields, rates, and measurements such as NII, net
interest spread, and net yield on interest earning assets are presented on an
FTE basis. The FTE net interest income shown in both tables below
will exceed the NII reported on the consolidated statements of
income. The amount of FTE adjustment totaled $509,000 for the three
months ended June 30, 2010, and $946,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2010,
compared to $372,000 and $804,000 for the same periods in 2009.
The
amount of the tax adjustment varies depending on the amount of income earned on
tax-free assets. The Corporation had been in an alternative minimum
tax (AMT) position for years 2006 through 2009. As a result, tax–free
loans and securities do not offer the full tax advantage they do when the
Corporation is not subject to AMT. During 2008 and into the first
quarter of 2009, management was actively reducing the tax-free municipal bond
portfolio in an effort to reduce the Corporation’s AMT position, which acted to
reduce the tax-equivalent adjustments. However, because of
legislation that followed the credit crisis in the fall of 2008, beginning in
2009, financial institutions were permitted to purchase 2009 and 2010 newly
issued tax-free municipal bonds, which are AMT-exempt for the life of the
bond. As a result, management resumed normal purchasing of municipal
bonds, but only purchased AMT-exempt municipal bonds. This action
began to increase the size of the tax-free municipal bond portfolio, which
resulted in a slightly higher tax-equivalent adjustment in 2010. The
tax-equivalent adjustment is expected to grow slowly throughout 2010 as more
AMT-exempt municipal bond securities are added.
Net
Interest Income
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended
|
Six
Months Ended
|
|||||||||||||||
June
30,
|
June
30,
|
|||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | $ | |||||||||||||
Total
interest income
|
8,340 | 8,411 | 16,494 | 16,817 | ||||||||||||
Total
interest expense
|
2,715 | 3,356 | 5,526 | 6,630 | ||||||||||||
Net
interest income
|
5,625 | 5,055 | 10,968 | 10,187 | ||||||||||||
Tax
equivalent adjustment
|
509 | 372 | 946 | 804 | ||||||||||||
Net
interest income (fully taxable equivalent)
|
6,134 | 5,427 | 11,914 | 10,991 |
NII is
the difference between interest income earned on assets and interest expense
incurred on liabilities. Accordingly, two factors affect net interest
income:
|
·
|
The
rates charged on interest earning assets and paid on interest bearing
liabilities
|
|
·
|
The
average balance of interest earning assets and interest bearing
liabilities
|
The
Federal funds rate, the Prime rate, and the shape of the U.S. Treasury curve all
affect net interest income.
The
Federal funds rate, which is the overnight rate financial institutions charge
other financial institutions to borrow or invest overnight funds, declined from
5.25% in August 2007 to 0.25% by December 2008. On December 16, 2008,
the Federal Reserve Bank cut the Federal funds rate from 1.00% to a target rate
of 0.00% to 0.25%. The Federal funds rate has effectively remained at
0.25% through June 30, 2010, and is the rate at the time of this
filing. The decrease in the Federal funds rate has reduced the cost
of funds on overnight borrowings and allowed lower interest rates paid on
deposits, reducing the Corporation’s interest expense. The Prime rate
declined in tandem with the Federal funds rate over the same period mentioned
above. The above rate reductions have generally had offsetting
positive and negative impacts respectively to the Corporation’s
NII.
The
decrease in the Prime rate, and a prolonged period with a Prime rate of 3.25%,
has reduced the yield on the Corporation’s Prime-based loans, having a direct
negative impact on the interest income for the Corporation. The
Corporation’s fixed rate loans do not reprice as rates change; however, with the
steep decline in interest rates, more customers have moved into Prime-based
loans or have refinanced into lower fixed rate loans. Management has
instituted floors on certain loan instruments and revised pricing standards to
counter balance the reduction of loan yield during this historically low-rate
period.
Even
though the Federal funds rate remains at an historical low of 0.25%, the
Treasury yield curve has remained relatively sharp allowing banks the ability to
invest or lend at longer terms with higher yields. However, mid-term
and long-term rates have come down significantly in the second quarter of
2010. As of March 31, 2010, the two-year Treasury was approximately
1.00%, and as of June 30, 2010, it had declined to 0.60%. Similarly,
the five-year and ten-year Treasury rates were 2.55% and 3.84%, respectively as
of March 31, 2010, and had declined to 1.79% and 2.97% as of June 30,
2010. These decreases of 76 basis points in the five-year Treasury
and 87 basis points in the ten-year Treasury are not only large absolute
declines, but, on a percentage basis, represent nearly a 30% and 20% drop in
rates in just one quarter. Since deposits and borrowings generally
price off short-term rates, the extremely low cost of short funds permitted
management to continue to reduce the overall cost of funds during the first half
of 2010. Management continued to reprice time deposits and borrowings
to lower levels. Rates on interest bearing core deposit accounts were
also reduced during the first six months of 2010, with additional reductions
after June 30, 2010, but prior to the filing of this
report. Meanwhile, management continued to invest in securities and
originate loans at longer terms, where the U.S. Treasury curve and market rates
are higher, but down from levels experienced in the first quarter of
2010.
Management
anticipates that interest rates will remain at these historically low rates for
the remainder of 2010 because of the current economic and credit
situation. This will likely result in the U.S. Treasury curve
retaining a significant positive slope for most of 2010, based on the economic
data currently available. This allows management to continue to price
the vast majority of liabilities off lower short-term rates, while pricing loans
and investing in longer securities, which are based off the five-year and
ten-year Treasury rates that are significantly higher. The
Corporation’s margin has generally improved since the second quarter of 2009,
but the margin grew faster in the second half of 2009 and then declined in the
first quarter of 2010 before increasing again. The Corporation’s
margin was 3.56% for the second quarter of 2010, a 30 basis-point improvement
over the 3.26% for the second quarter of 2009. The Corporation’s
margin declined in the first quarter of 2010 due to increased security
amortization and increased levels of non-accrual loans resulting in lower
interest income. Improvement was made on the margin in the second
quarter of 2010, as the cost of funds continued to decline, and there were fewer
non-recurring items.
For the
second quarter of 2010, the Corporation’s NII on an FTE basis increased by
$707,000, or 13.0%, compared to the same period in 2009. For the
first six months of 2010, the Corporation’s NII on an FTE basis increased by
$923,000, or 8.4%, compared to the same period in 2009. As shown on
the tables that follow, interest income, on an FTE basis for the quarter ending
June 30, 2010, increased by $66,000, or 0.8%, and interest expense decreased by
$641,000, or 19.1%, compared to the same period in 2009. For the
first six months of 2010, interest income and interest expense on an FTE basis
decreased by $181,000, or 1.0%, and $1,104,000, or 16.7%, compared to the first
six months of 2009.
Earnings
and yields on loans were lower for the three and six-month periods ended June
30, 2010, compared to the same periods in 2009. Earnings and yields
continue to be negatively impacted by the very low Prime rate of 3.25% and the
increased volume in Prime-based loans. Even with a Prime floor of
4.00% in place for new volumes of Prime-based loans, this rate is significantly
below typical fixed rate business and commercial loans, which generally range
between 5.50% and 7.50%. Most of the Corporation’s loan growth has
occurred in Prime-based loans, which will aid the Corporation when interest
rates rise. Currently, the increased levels of Prime-based loans
continue to cause the Corporation’s average loan yield to
decrease. There are times when sufficient growth in the loan
portfolio can make up for decreases in yield while still allowing for higher
overall interest income on loans. However, with the Prime rate at
extremely low levels, even with Prime-plus loans being originated, the net
impact is a reduction of loan yield. This occurs as more variable
rate loan growth is occurring than fixed rate loan
growth. Additionally, many consumers and businesses are taking the
opportunity presented by the historically low Prime rate to borrow additional
amounts on existing lines of credit not fully utilized. Nearly all of
the Prime-plus rates on the Corporation’s business and commercial lines of
credit are below the business and commercial fixed rates. This type
of growth substantially reduces the amount of income generated on
loans. Management instituted floors on certain types of consumer home
equity lines of credit at the end of 2008, and instituted limited floors on
business and commercial Prime-based loans in 2009. However, effective
January 1, 2010, all new Prime-based lines of credit were floored at
4.00%. Additionally in 2010, as lines of credit are renewed, a
Prime-plus tiered rating system will factor in downgrades in credit rating,
resulting in an immediate impact on the rate. These actions are
designed to preserve loan yield and more effectively assign higher Prime-based
loan rates to weaker credits to be adequately compensated for the higher degree
of credit risk.
Earnings
and yields on the Corporation’s securities have also been negatively impacted by
the historically low interest rates. The Corporation’s securities
portfolio consists of nearly all fixed income instruments. The U.S.
Treasury rates have remained at historically low levels since the Federal funds
rate was reduced to 0.25% in December 2008. As the low-rate period
continues to extend, larger amounts of securities are maturing forcing the
proceeds to be reinvested into lower-yielding instruments. The
Corporation’s taxable securities experienced a 49 basis-point and a 53
basis-point reduction in yield for the three and six months ending June 30,
2010, compared to the same periods in 2009, due to reinvesting into
lower-yielding instruments. Tax-exempt security earnings and yields
were affected by two events; lower investment yields during the first and second
quarters, and heavier-than-normal amortization on instruments purchased at
premiums during the first quarter 2010. Several municipal securities
were called during the first quarter of 2010 that carried large amounts of
premium. These premiums had to be amortized to the call
date. The yield on tax-exempt securities increased by 103 basis
points for the three months ended June 30, 2010, over the same period in
2009. This was primarily a result of increased investment in
AMT-exempt municipal bonds with higher tax-equivalent yields. For the
six months ended June 30, 2010, the yield on tax-exempt securities decreased by
11 basis points over the same period in 2009.
The
Corporation’s interest bearing liabilities have continued to grow steadily
through 2009 and during the first half of 2010. With significantly
lower interest rates, total interest expense declined despite the increase in
balances. Lower rates on all deposit types helped to reduce total
interest expense by $641,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2010, and
$1,104,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods
in 2009. Demand and savings deposits reprice in entirety whenever the
offering rates are changed. This allows management to reduce interest
costs rapidly; however, it becomes difficult to continue to gain cost savings
once offering rates decline to these historically low levels. The
annualized rate on interest bearing demand and savings accounts decreased by 39%
and 38% when comparing the three and six month periods in both
years. The scope of further reductions is limited since rates cannot
conceivably be reduced much further.
Time
deposits reprice over time according to their maturity schedule. This
enables management to both reduce and increase rates slowly over
time. Historically, the Corporation has seen increases in time
deposit balances when the equity markets decline, as investors attempt to
protect principal. This occurred to an even larger degree during 2009
and throughout the first half of 2010, as the equity markets faced unprecedented
weakness. The significant growth of the time deposit portfolio at low
rates means that the Corporation has additional funds to utilize on the asset
side of the balance sheet while keeping interest expense costs
low. Additionally, time deposits that matured in the last eighteen
months have mostly repriced to a lower rate, saving significant funding
costs. The Corporation was able to reduce interest expense on time
deposits by $434,000 for the second quarter of 2010, and $741,000 for the
year-to-date period compared to the same periods in 2009, while still increasing
average balances by $8.2 million and $16.8 million,
respectively. This effectively reduced the annualized rate paid on
time deposits by 74 basis points when comparing the three-month periods in both
years, and 77 basis points when comparing the six-month periods in both
years.
The
Corporation historically uses both short-term and long-term borrowings to
supplement liquidity generated by deposit growth. Because of the
faster-paced growth in deposits compared to a slower growth in the loan
portfolio, management reduced total borrowing levels from June 30, 2009 to June
30, 2010. The Corporation decreased average borrowings by $11.1
million in the second quarter of 2010, compared to the same quarter in 2009,
reducing interest expense on borrowings by $140,000. The year-to-date
period shows a decrease in average borrowings of $11.7 million with a
corresponding decrease in interest expense of $226,000 compared to the
year-to-date period in 2009.
The
following tables show a more detailed analysis of net interest income on an FTE
basis with all the major elements of the Corporation’s consolidated balance
sheet, which consists of interest earning and non-interest earning assets and
interest bearing and non-interest bearing liabilities. Additionally,
the analysis provides the net interest spread and the net yield on interest
earning assets. The net interest spread is the difference between the
yield on interest earning assets and the rate paid on interest bearing
liabilities. The net interest spread has the deficiency of not giving
credit for the non-interest bearing funds and capital used to fund a portion of
the total interest earning assets. For this reason, management
emphasizes the net yield on interest earning assets, also referred to as the net
interest margin (NIM). The NIM is calculated by dividing net interest
income on an FTE basis into total average interest earning
assets. NIM is generally the benchmark used by analysts to measure
how efficiently a bank generates net interest income. For example, a
financial institution with a NIM of 3.75% would be able to use fewer
interest-earning assets and still achieve the same level of net interest income
as a financial institution with a NIM of 3.50%.
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE BALANCE SHEETS AND NET INTEREST INCOME
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
For
the Three Months Ended June 30,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(c)
|
(c)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Average
|
Annualized
|
Average
|
Annualized
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
|
Interest
|
Yield/Rate
|
Balance
|
Interest
|
Yield/Rate
|
|||||||||||||||||||
$ | $ | % | $ | $ | % | |||||||||||||||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest
earning assets:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Federal
funds sold and interest
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
on
deposits at other banks
|
2,862 | 3 | 0.36 | 1,865 | 2 | 0.34 | ||||||||||||||||||
Securities
available for sale:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxable
|
183,909 | 1,939 | 4.22 | 189,461 | 2,230 | 4.71 | ||||||||||||||||||
Tax-exempt
|
64,769 | 1,096 | 6.77 | 53,058 | 762 | 5.74 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
securities (d)
|
248,678 | 3,035 | 4.88 | 242,519 | 2,992 | 4.94 | ||||||||||||||||||
Loans
(a)
|
431,915 | 5,809 | 5.38 | 416,510 | 5,787 | 5.56 | ||||||||||||||||||
Regulatory
stock
|
4,916 | 2 | 0.20 | 4,916 | 2 | 0.20 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
interest earning assets
|
688,371 | 8,849 | 5.15 | 665,810 | 8,783 | 5.28 | ||||||||||||||||||
Non-interest
earning assets (d)
|
59,491 | 50,448 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
assets
|
747,862 | 716,258 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
LIABILITIES
&
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest
bearing liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demand
deposits
|
106,072 | 111 | 0.42 | 96,736 | 157 | 0.65 | ||||||||||||||||||
Savings
deposits
|
90,691 | 28 | 0.12 | 80,628 | 49 | 0.24 | ||||||||||||||||||
Time
deposits
|
270,411 | 1,746 | 2.59 | 262,222 | 2,180 | 3.33 | ||||||||||||||||||
Borrowed
funds
|
80,520 | 830 | 4.13 | 91,616 | 970 | 4.25 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
interest bearing liabilities
|
547,694 | 2,715 | 1.99 | 531,202 | 3,356 | 2.53 | ||||||||||||||||||
Non-interest
bearing liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demand
deposits
|
122,829 | 112,159 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
4,915 | 6,051 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
liabilities
|
675,438 | 649,412 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
72,424 | 66,846 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
liabilities & stockholders' equity
|
747,862 | 716,258 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
interest income (FTE)
|
6,134 | 5,427 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
interest spread (b)
|
3.16 | 2.75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Effect of non-interest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
bearing
funds
|
0.40 | 0.51 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
yield on interest earning assets (c)
|
3.56 | 3.26 |
(a)
Includes balances of nonaccrual loans and the recognition of any related
interest income. The quarter-to-date avg balances include net
deferred loan fees and costs of ($248,000) as of June 30, 2010, and ($315,000)
as of June 30, 2009. Such fees and costs recognized through income
and included in the interest amounts totaled $13,000 in 2010, and $9,000 in
2009.
(b) Net
interest spread is the arithmetic difference between the yield on interest
earning assets and the rate paid on interest bearing liabilities.
(c) Net
yield, also referred to as net interest margin, is computed by dividing net
interest income (FTE) by total interest earning assets.
(d)
Securities recorded at amortized cost. Unrealized holding gains and
losses are included in non-interest earning assets.
COMPARATIVE
AVERAGE BALANCE SHEETS AND NET INTEREST INCOME
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
For
the Six Months Ended June 30,
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
(c)
|
(c)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Average
|
Annualized
|
Average
|
Annualized
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Balance
|
Interest
|
Yield/Rate
|
Balance
|
Interest
|
Yield/Rate
|
|||||||||||||||||||
$ | $ | % | $ | $ | % | |||||||||||||||||||
ASSETS
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest
earning assets:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Federal
funds sold and interest
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
on
deposits at other banks
|
2,927 | 4 | 0.29 | 1,311 | 2 | 0.31 | ||||||||||||||||||
Securities
available for sale:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taxable
|
179,469 | 3,899 | 4.35 | 178,699 | 4,357 | 4.88 | ||||||||||||||||||
Tax-exempt
|
64,041 | 1,982 | 6.19 | 52,995 | 1,670 | 6.30 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
securities (d)
|
243,510 | 5,881 | 4.83 | 231,694 | 6,027 | 5.20 | ||||||||||||||||||
Loans
(a)
|
431,914 | 11,550 | 5.36 | 414,177 | 11,586 | 5.61 | ||||||||||||||||||
Regulatory
stock
|
4,916 | 5 | 0.21 | 4,916 | 6 | 0.23 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
interest earning assets
|
683,267 | 17,440 | 5.11 | 652,098 | 17,621 | 5.42 | ||||||||||||||||||
Non-interest
earning assets (d)
|
56,255 | 50,017 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
assets
|
739,522 | 702,115 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
LIABILITIES
&
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
STOCKHOLDERS'
EQUITY
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interest
bearing liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demand
deposits
|
103,423 | 236 | 0.46 | 95,344 | 337 | 0.71 | ||||||||||||||||||
Savings
deposits
|
88,923 | 61 | 0.14 | 77,997 | 97 | 0.25 | ||||||||||||||||||
Time
deposits
|
267,920 | 3,515 | 2.65 | 251,147 | 4,256 | 3.42 | ||||||||||||||||||
Borrowed
funds
|
83,007 | 1,714 | 4.16 | 94,734 | 1,940 | 4.13 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
interest bearing liabilities
|
543,273 | 5,526 | 2.05 | 519,222 | 6,630 | 2.58 | ||||||||||||||||||
Non-interest
bearing liabilities:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Demand
deposits
|
120,484 | 109,389 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Other
|
4,605 | 6,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
liabilities
|
668,362 | 634,611 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Stockholders'
equity
|
71,160 | 67,504 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Total
liabilities & stockholders' equity
|
739,522 | 702,115 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
interest income (FTE)
|
11,914 | 10,991 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
interest spread (b)
|
3.06 | 2.84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Effect of non-interest | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
bearing
funds
|
0.42 | 0.53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Net
yield on interest earning assets (c)
|
3.48 | 3.37 |
(a)
Includes balances of nonaccrual loans and the recognition of any related
interest income. Year-to-date avg balances include net deferred loan fees and
costs of ($266,000) as of June 30, 2010, and ($306,000) as of June
30, 2009. Such fees and costs recognized through income and included
in the interest amounts totaled $32,000 in 2010, and $17,000 in
2009.
(b) Net
interest spread is the arithmetic difference between the yield on interest
earning assets and the rate paid on interest bearing liabilities.
(c) Net
yield, also referred to as net interest margin, is computed by dividing net
interest income (FTE) by total interest earning assets.
(d)
Securities recorded at amortized cost. Unrealized holding gains and
losses are included in non-interest earning assets.
The NIM
was 3.56% for the second quarter of 2010, and 3.48% for the six months ended
June 30, 2010, compared to 3.26% and 3.37% for the same periods in
2009. For the three-month period ended June 30, 2010, the net
interest spread increased forty-one basis points to 3.16%, from 2.75% for the
same period in 2009. For the six-month period ended June 30, 2010,
the net interest spread increased twenty-two basis points to 3.06%, from 2.84%
for the same period in 2009. The effect of non-interest bearing funds
dropped eleven basis points for both time periods compared to
2009. The effect of non-interest bearing funds refers to the benefit
gained from deposits on which the Bank does not pay interest. As
rates go lower, the benefit of non-interest bearing deposits is reduced because
there is less difference between no-cost funds and interest bearing
liabilities. For example, if a savings account with $10,000 earns 1%,
the benefit for $10,000 non-interest bearing deposits is equivalent to $100; but
if the rate is reduced to 0.20%, then the benefit is only $20. This
assumes dollar-for-dollar replacement, which is not realistic, but demonstrates
the way the lower cost of funds affects the benefit to non-interest bearing
deposits.
The Asset
Liability Committee (ALCO) carefully monitors the NIM because it indicates
trends in net interest income, the Corporation’s largest source of
revenue. For more information on the plans and strategies in place to
protect the NIM and moderate the impact of rising rates, please see Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.
Provision
for Loan Losses
The
allowance for loan losses provides for losses inherent in the loan portfolio as
determined by a quarterly analysis and calculation of various factors related to
the loan portfolio. The amount of the provision reflects the
adjustment management determines necessary to ensure the allowance for loan
losses is adequate to cover any losses inherent in the loan
portfolio. The Corporation added $900,000 to the allowance for the
six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to $376,000 for the same period in
2009. The Corporation gives special attention to the level of
delinquent loans. The analysis of the allowance for loan losses takes
into consideration, among other things, the following factors:
|
·
|
Historical
loan loss experience by loan type
|
|
·
|
Concentrations
of credit risk
|
|
·
|
Volume
of delinquent and non-performing
loans
|
|
·
|
Collateral
evaluation on a liquidation basis for specifically reviewed
credits
|
|
·
|
Loan
portfolio characteristics
|
|
·
|
Current
economic conditions
|
Coupled
with the prolonged period of economic decline, specifically the weaker housing
market and ongoing credit concerns, the Corporation has experienced a general
increase in loan delinquencies since the beginning of 2009, however
delinquencies did not rise materially until the third quarter of
2009. Total delinquencies, as a percentage of total loans, stood at
1.23% as of March 31, 2009, and 1.25% as of June 30, 2009. In the
third and fourth quarters of 2009, delinquencies rose moderately, standing at
1.53% as of September 30, 2009, and 1.83% as of December 31,
2009. However, delinquencies declined in the first and second
quarters of 2010, ending at 1.58% as of June 30, 2010. The reduction
in delinquencies through the first half of 2010 was affected by $417,000 of
commercial charge-offs and a transfer of a $463,000 delinquent real estate loan
to OREO. The Corporation’s total substandard and doubtful loans,
which are considered classified loans, increased from $17.9 million as of June
30, 2009, to $20.0 million as of December 31, 2009, and $20.7 million as of June
30, 2010. Management closely tracks delinquencies and classified
loans as a percentage of the loan portfolio. This information is
utilized in the quarterly allowance for loan loss (ALLL) calculation, which
directly affects the provision expense. A sharp increase or decrease
in delinquencies and/or classified loans during the quarter would be cause for
management to increase or decrease the provision expense. Generally,
management will evaluate, and adjust if necessary, the provision expense each
quarter upon completion of the quarterly ALLL calculation.
The
provision expense of $900,000 for the first half of 2010 was necessary to
maintain the allowance for loan losses at desired levels, based on the quarterly
calculation of the ALLL. This provision, while significantly higher
than the amount recorded for the same period in 2009, was necessary to provide
for potential losses on several commercial loans. Specific
allocations are examined each quarter to determine if adjustments need to be
made. It is common for specific allocations to be reduced as
additional principal payments are made, so while some specific allocations are
being added, others are being reduced. In addition to specific
allocations, management continues to provide for estimated losses on pools of
similar loans based on historical loss experience. Management
utilizes qualitative factors every quarter designed to adjust historical loss
experience to take into consideration the current trends in loan volume,
delinquencies, charge-offs, changes in lending practices, and the quality of the
Corporation’s underwriting, credit analysis, lending staff, and Board
oversight. Additionally, national and
local
economic
trends and conditions are helpful to determine the amount of loan loss allowance
the Corporation should be carrying on the various types of loans. Management
evaluates and adjusts, if necessary, the qualitative factors on a quarterly
basis. In the third quarter of 2009, several factors related to external
economic and regulatory conditions were increased 5 basis
points. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the factor for regulatory
oversight was increased 10 basis points due to stricter adherence in the
commercial portfolio to determination of impairment, which has resulted in
increased charge-offs. Over the past two quarters, the collateral
factor for commercial loans was increased by 20 basis points, reflecting
re-appraisals of commercial properties coming in at lower values, which is
resulting in higher charge-offs. The impact of all of these
higher qualitative factors is resulting in a higher required allowance for loan
losses, assuming all other factors remained constant. The periodic
adjustment of qualitative factors allows the Corporation’s historical loss
experience to be continually brought current to more accurately reflect
estimated credit losses based on the current environment.
Management
has also deemed it prudent to increase the allowance as a percentage of total
loans to reflect the increased risk in the outstanding loan portfolio because of
economic weaknesses. As of June 30, 2010, the allowance as a
percentage of total loans was 1.50%, up from 1.38% at December 31, 2009, and
1.06% at June 30, 2009.
Management
continues to evaluate the allowance for loan losses in relation to the growth of
the loan portfolio and its associated credit risk. Management
believes the monthly provision level and the allowance for loan losses are
adequate to provide for future loan losses based on the current portfolio and
the current economic environment. For further discussion of the
calculation, see the Allowance for Loan Losses section under Financial
Condition.
Other
Income
Other
income for the second quarter of 2010 was $1,799,000, an increase of $49,000, or
2.8%, compared to the $1,750,000 earned during the second quarter of
2009. For the year-to-date period ended June 30, 2010, other income
totaled $3,480,000, an increase of $158,000, or 4.8% over the same period in
2009. The following tables detail the categories that comprise other
income.
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended June 30,
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | % | |||||||||||||
Trust
and investment services
|
277 | 327 | (50 | ) | (15.3 | ) | ||||||||||
Service
charges on deposit accounts
|
459 | 514 | (55 | ) | (10.7 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
service charges and fees
|
119 | 146 | (27 | ) | (18.5 | ) | ||||||||||
Commissions
|
408 | 362 | 46 | 12.7 | ||||||||||||
Gains
on securities transactions
|
350 | 88 | 262 |
>
100
|
% | |||||||||||
Impairment
losses on securities
|
(55 | ) | - | (55 | ) | - | ||||||||||
Gains
on sale of mortgages
|
48 | 80 | (32 | ) | (40.0 | ) | ||||||||||
Earnings
on bank owned life insurance
|
142 | 159 | (17 | ) | (10.7 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
miscellaneous income
|
51 | 74 | (23 | ) | (31.1 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
other income
|
1,799 | 1,750 | 49 | 2.8 |
OTHER
INCOME
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | % | |||||||||||||
Trust
and investment services
|
564 | 544 | 20 | 3.7 | ||||||||||||
Service
charges on deposit accounts
|
898 | 990 | (92 | ) | (9.3 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
service charges and fees
|
224 | 295 | (71 | ) | (24.1 | ) | ||||||||||
Commissions
|
761 | 683 | 78 | 11.4 | ||||||||||||
Gains
on securities transactions
|
558 | 156 | 402 |
>
100%
|
||||||||||||
Impairment
losses on securities
|
(104 | ) | - | (104 | ) | - | ||||||||||
Gains
on sale of mortgages
|
63 | 147 | (84 | ) | (57.1 | ) | ||||||||||
Earnings
on bank owned life insurance
|
289 | 316 | (27 | ) | (8.5 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
miscellaneous income
|
227 | 191 | 36 | 18.8 | ||||||||||||
Total
other income
|
3,480 | 3,322 | 158 | 4.8 |
Trust and
investment services revenue consists of income from traditional trust services
and income from alternative investment services provided through a third
party. For the three months ended June 30, 2010, traditional trust
service income decreased $50,000, or 20.0%, from the same period in 2009, while
income from alternative investment services remained flat. It has
been more difficult to grow the trust and investment services area in the past
two years due to a very weak stock market that coincided with the sub-prime and
credit crisis that began in 2008. However, there has been an increase
in activity throughout the first half of 2010, as some stabilization of the
stock market has occurred. Additionally, the fee income the
Corporation generates from this business is based upon a percentage of market
value, which was down materially during 2009 and began to recover in
2010.
Service
charges on deposit accounts decreased by $55,000, or 10.7%, and $92,000, or
9.3%, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same
periods in 2009. Overdraft service charges are the largest component
of this category, as well as the primary reason for the
decrease. These fees comprised over 90% of the total deposit service
charges for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, and they
decreased 13.4% and 11.4% compared to the same periods in 2009. New
regulatory guidelines regarding overdraft charges on ATM and one-time debit card
transactions became effective in the third quarter of 2010, which will result in
lower overdraft service charges for the remainder of 2010 and in future
years. It has not yet been determined how significant the decrease in
fees will be, but management is currently evaluating the various possible
scenarios.
Other
fees decreased by $27,000, or 18.5%, and $71,000, or 24.1%, for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. This is primarily due to a decrease in loan-related
fees. When customers choose to amend the original terms of their
mortgage agreement, to change the length of the term, or to change the rate,
they are assessed fees based on the remaining loan balance. These
amendments allow customers to obtain favorable terms without completely
rewriting the loan. These loan amendments do not involve delinquent
loans, or loans with collateral quality deterioration, which are restructured
loans. Mortgage amendment activity has slowed down significantly in
both the three and six month periods of 2010, resulting in lower
fees.
Commission
income increased $46,000, or 12.7%, and $78,000, or 11.4%, for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in 2009. The
largest component of commission income is from Debit MasterCard®
commissions. The amount of customer usage of cards at point of sale
transactions determines the level of commission income received. The
debit card income of $353,000 and $658,000 for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2010, is an increase of $55,000, or 18.3%, and $93,000, or 16.4%, over
the same periods in 2009. Customers have become more comfortable with
the use of debit cards, as they are now widely accepted by merchants, thereby
increasing the number of transactions processed. Another significant
component of commission income is from MasterCard and Visa® commissions, which
provided income of $49,000 and $78,000 for the three and six months ended June
30, 2010. This is $4,000, or 8.1% higher, and $5,000, or 5.6% lower,
than the commissions earned during the same periods in 2009. The
reduction in the six months ended June 30, 2010 amount is a result of lower
levels of business activity during the first half of 2010 with the Corporation’s
customers that use this product. MasterCard and Visa commissions are
the amount the Corporation earns on transactions processed through the
MasterCard and Visa systems for business customers. Management
expects that the total of both of these categories will increase as the reliance
on electronic payment systems expands and economic recovery occurs.
For the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010, $350,000 and $558,000 of gains on
securities transactions were recorded compared to $88,000 and $156,000 for the
same periods in 2009. Gains or losses on securities transactions
fluctuate based on opportunities to reposition the securities portfolio to
improve long-term earnings, or as part of management’s asset liability goals to
improve liquidity or reduce interest rate risk or fair value
risk. The gains or losses on this type of activity fluctuate based on
current market prices and the volume of security sales.
Impairment
losses on securities were $55,000 and $104,000, for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2010. There were no impairment losses recorded in the
same periods in 2009. Impairment losses occur when securities are
written down to a lower value based on anticipated credit losses. The
other than temporary impairment losses recorded in 2010 were related to two
private collateralized mortgage obligations. Further information on
securities and other than temporary impairment is provided in the Securities
Available for Sale section under Financial Condition in this
filing.
Gains on
the sale of mortgages have been lower in 2010 compared to 2009, primarily
because of a decrease in mortgage activity. Secondary mortgage
financing activity drives the gains on the sale of mortgages, which showed a
decrease of $32,000, or 40.0%, and $84,000, or 57.1%, for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. Mortgage activity significantly increased throughout 2009 due
to the historically low interest rate environment. Many customers
have already refinanced their higher-rate mortgages to lower rates, so this
activity has declined significantly throughout the first half of
2010. Given the current housing market conditions, management
anticipates that the gain or loss on the sale of mortgages may continue to
decline throughout the remainder of 2010.
For the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010, earnings on BOLI decreased by $17,000,
or 10.7%, and $27,000, or 8.5%, compared to the same periods in
2009. Decreases in BOLI income are reflective in higher insurance
cost components on the Corporation’s BOLI policies and small reductions on the
actual annual return. Management does not foresee any further BOLI
purchases in 2010; therefore, increases or decreases in BOLI income generally
result from increases or decreases in the cash surrender
value. Increases in cash surrender value are a function of the return
of the policy net of all expenses. Benefits paid upon death that
exceed the policy’s cash surrender value are recorded as miscellaneous
income.
The
miscellaneous income category decreased $23,000, or 31.1%, and increased
$36,000, or 18.8%, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to
the same periods in 2009. The quarterly decrease was primarily a
result of a lower amount of sales tax refunds for the three months ended June
30, 2010, compared to the prior year, and the year-to-date increase was
primarily due to an adjustment to the allowance for off-balance sheet credit
losses in 2010. This adjustment increased income by $30,000 during
the first quarter of 2010 with no comparable increase in 2009.
Operating
Expenses
The
following table provides details of the Corporation’s operating expenses for the
three and six-month periods ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009.
OPERATING
EXPENSES
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
Three
Months Ended June 30,
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | % | |||||||||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
2,728 | 2,708 | 20 | 0.7 | ||||||||||||
Occupancy
expenses
|
408 | 354 | 54 | 15.3 | ||||||||||||
Equipment
expenses
|
208 | 210 | (2 | ) | (1.0 | ) | ||||||||||
Advertising
& marketing expenses
|
122 | 101 | 21 | 20.8 | ||||||||||||
Computer
software & data processing expenses
|
396 | 400 | (4 | ) | (1.0 | ) | ||||||||||
Bank
shares tax
|
191 | 183 | 8 | 4.4 | ||||||||||||
Professional
services
|
414 | 452 | (38 | ) | (8.4 | ) | ||||||||||
FDIC
Insurance
|
172 | 299 | (127 | ) | (42.5 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
operating expenses
|
452 | 424 | 28 | 6.6 | ||||||||||||
Total
Operating Expenses
|
5,091 | 5,131 | (40 | ) | (0.8 | ) |
OPERATING
EXPENSES
|
||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||
Six
Months Ended June 30,
|
Increase
(Decrease)
|
|||||||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | % | |||||||||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
5,420 | 5,572 | (152 | ) | (2.7 | ) | ||||||||||
Occupancy
expenses
|
815 | 704 | 111 | 15.8 | ||||||||||||
Equipment
expenses
|
416 | 417 | (1 | ) | (0.2 | ) | ||||||||||
Advertising
& marketing expenses
|
234 | 204 | 30 | 14.7 | ||||||||||||
Computer
software & data processing expenses
|
759 | 770 | (11 | ) | (1.4 | ) | ||||||||||
Bank
shares tax
|
382 | 364 | 18 | 4.9 | ||||||||||||
Professional
services
|
784 | 943 | (159 | ) | (16.9 | ) | ||||||||||
FDIC
Insurance
|
340 | 716 | (376 | ) | (52.5 | ) | ||||||||||
Other
operating expenses
|
794 | 876 | (82 | ) | (9.4 | ) | ||||||||||
Total
Operating Expenses
|
9,944 | 10,566 | (622 | ) | (5.9 | ) |
Salaries
and employee benefits are the largest category of operating
expenses. In general, they comprise more than 50% of the
Corporation’s total operating expenses. For the three months ended
June 30, 2010, salaries and benefits increased $20,000, or 0.7%, over the same
period in 2009. For the six months ended June 30, 2010, salaries and
benefits decreased $152,000, or 2.7%, compared to the same period in
2009. Salaries increased by $34,000, or 1.7%, and employee benefits
decreased by $15,000, or 2.1%, for the three months ended June 30, 2010,
compared to the same period in 2009. For the year-to-date period,
salaries decreased by $26,000, or 0.7%, and employee benefits decreased by
$126,000, or 8.2%, compared to the same period in 2009. The overall
decrease and stabilization of salary expense was primarily due to efficiencies
gained from the organizational structure changes enacted in late 2008 and early
2009. The decrease in employee benefits expense was primarily due to
savings associated with the bank’s health insurance plan. Health
insurance benefit costs decreased by $42,000, or 13.4%, and $142,000, or 20.7%
for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods
in 2009, primarily because of a change in medical insurance
providers.
Occupancy
expenses consist of the following:
|
·
|
Depreciation
of bank buildings
|
|
·
|
Real
estate taxes and property insurance
|
|
·
|
Utilities
|
|
·
|
Building
repair and maintenance
|
Occupancy
expenses increased $54,000, or 15.3%, and $111,000, or 15.8%, for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. The increases were spread across all occupancy
categories. Building depreciation increased $9,000, or 6.4%, and
$14,000, or 5.1%, over the same periods in 2009, primarily due to renovations at
the Denver branch office that were placed in service in the first quarter of
2010. Utility expenses were higher by $20,000, or 17.0%, and $60,000,
or 25.4%, over the same periods in 2009, due to higher telephone costs and
increased energy costs affecting electric and oil prices. The cost of
electricity alone increased $7,000, or 10.7%, and $25,000, or 19.3%, compared to
the same periods in 2009. The Corporation’s main electricity provider
increased rates approximately 40% in 2009 and rates were increased for the
Corporation’s branch offices in 2010. Building repair and maintenance
costs continue to rise in tandem with more facilities, higher costs related to
materials and supplies, and costs associated with the aging of
facilities.
Equipment
expenses did not change materially for the three and six months ended June 30,
2010, compared to the same periods in 2009. This expense category
includes equipment depreciation, repair and maintenance, and various other
equipment-related expenses. Depreciation expense increased slightly
due to the new Denver branch assets being placed into service in the first
quarter of 2010. However, there were also a number of assets that
became fully depreciated throughout 2009, which helped to offset depreciation on
new assets during 2010. Equipment assets have shorter asset
depreciation lives, generally five to seven years.
Advertising
and marketing expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, were
$21,000, or 20.8%, and $30,000, or 14.7% higher, than the same periods in
2009. The expenses of this category support the overall business
strategies of the Corporation; therefore, the timing of these expenses is
dependent upon those strategies.
The
computer software and data processing expenses are comprised of STAR® network
processing fees, software amortization, software purchases, and software
maintenance agreements. This expense category decreased $4,000, or
1.0%, and $11,000, or 1.4%, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010,
compared to the same periods in 2009. The STAR network fees are the
fees paid to process all ATM and debit card transactions. The total
STAR network service fees were down $2,000, or 0.7%, and $5,000, or 1.3%, for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. Software-related expenses were down $2,000, or 1.1%, and
$5,000, or 1.5%, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to
the same periods in 2009 as more software completed the three-year amortization
period then new software was added.
Bank
shares tax expense increased $8,000, or 4.4%, and $18,000, or 4.9%, for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. This is primarily a result of an increase in the number of
shares outstanding that requires the Corporation to pay more tax related to
those shares.
Professional
services expense decreased $38,000, or 8.4%, and $159,000, or 16.9%, for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. These services include accounting and auditing fees, legal
fees, loan review fees, and fees for other third-party services. In
2008, management engaged the consulting unit of the Corporation’s
core-processing vendor to conduct an organizational efficiency and income
generation initiative. The fees associated with that contract were
paid in 2008 and into the first half of 2009. These fees amounted to
$69,000 and $275,000 for the three and six months ended June 30,
2009. No corresponding expense was incurred for
2010. Legal costs increased $3,000 and $9,000 for the three and six
months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. Accounting and auditing fees increased $6,000 and $23,000 for
the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same periods in
2009. These fees were elevated due to an increase in internal and
external audit fees related to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act. In addition, student loan servicing expense increased $31,000
and $95,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the
same periods in 2009. Previously, servicing costs on student loans
were offset by a credit from the Department of Education. Those
credits are no longer available. Therefore, the expenses are higher
than in the past. Management decided to stop originating student
loans in the first quarter of 2010 and expects this expense to decline
throughout the remainder of 2010.
The
expenses associated with FDIC insurance decreased by $127,000, or 42.5%, and
$376,000, or 52.5%, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared
to the same periods in 2009. The FDIC expenses for 2009 included
significantly higher charges for the FDIC insurance fund, which included a 140%
rate increase that became effective in the fourth quarter of 2008, and expenses
for a special one-time assessment of 5.0 basis points, which
was due
as of June 30, 2009. Although the charges for the FDIC insurance fund
are still at increased levels in 2010, there has been no accrual for a special
assessment, thus resulting in a decrease in this expense.
In the
third quarter of 2009, the FDIC announced that they would be requiring that
banks prepay three years’ worth of assessments at the end of 2009 to help
replenish the severely depleted Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF). On
December 30, 2010, the Corporation prepaid $2,467,000 of FDIC assessments due
for the periods beginning with December 31, 2009, and ending with December 31,
2012. The Corporation recorded $2,467,000 as a prepaid asset as of
December 30, 2009. As of December 31, 2009, and each quarter
thereafter, the Corporation will record an expense (charge to earnings) for its
regular quarterly assessment for the quarter and an offsetting credit to the
prepaid assessment until the asset is exhausted. Once the asset is
exhausted, the Corporation would record an accrued expense payable each quarter
for the assessment payment, which would be paid in arrears to the FDIC at the
end of the following quarter. If the prepaid assessment is not
exhausted by December 30, 2013, any remaining amount would be returned to the
Corporation. The Corporation had a total of $2,013,000 outstanding in
the prepaid FDIC insurance assessment asset account as of June 30,
2010.
Other
operating expenses include the remainder of the Corporation’s operating
expenses. Some of the larger items included in this category
are:
|
·
|
Postage
|
|
·
|
Director
fees and expense
|
|
·
|
Travel
expense
|
|
·
|
General
supplies
|
|
·
|
Charitable
contributions
|
|
·
|
Delinquent
loan expenses
|
|
·
|
Deposit
account charge-offs and recoveries
|
Other
operating expenses increased by $28,000, or 6.6%, and decreased $82,000, or
9.4%, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to the same
periods in 2009. The increase in the three months ended June 30,
2010, can be attributed to additional OREO expenses of $31,000. For
the year-to-date period, the largest decreases occurred in director fees, down
$41,000, supplies, down $26,000, and deposit and fraud-related charge-off
expense, down $52,000, from the same period in 2009. Director fees
decreased as a result of the completion of deferred compensation payments for
several past directors. Expenses related to the purchase of supplies
fluctuate depending on supply demand at any given time. Deposit
charge-off expenses are down due to a decrease in the amount of fees being
charged off as well as a decrease in fraud-related charge-offs.
Income
Taxes
The
majority of the Corporation’s income is taxed at a corporate rate of 34% for
Federal income tax purposes. The Corporation is also subject to
Pennsylvania Corporate Net Income Tax; however, the Corporation has no taxable
corporate net income activities. The Corporation’s wholly owned
subsidiary, Ephrata National Bank, is not subject to state corporate income tax,
but does pay Pennsylvania Bank Shares Tax. The Bank Shares Tax
expense appears on the Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Income, under
operating expenses.
Certain
items of income are not subject to Federal income tax, such as tax-exempt
interest income on loans and securities, and BOLI income; therefore, the
effective income tax rate for the Corporation is lower than the stated tax
rate. The effective tax rate is calculated by dividing the
Corporation’s provision for income tax by the pre-tax income for the applicable
period.
For the
three and six months ended June 30, 2010, the Corporation recorded tax expense
of $233,000 and $486,000, compared to $188,000 and $226,000 for the same periods
in 2009. The effective tax rate for the Corporation was 12.4% and
13.5% for the three and six months ended June 30, 2010, compared to 13.0% and
8.8% for the same periods in 2009. The Corporation’s level of
tax-free income through June 30, 2010, was 15.3% higher in 2010 than 2009, while
the pre-tax income was 40.4% higher for the same period. This
resulted in a larger component of income being taxed at 34% and elevating the
effective tax rate for the six-month period ending June 30, 2010. The
effective tax rate for the quarter ending June 30, 2010, was slightly lower than
the effective tax rate for the prior year’s period because the tax-free assets
grew at a slightly faster pace than pre-tax income; 32.1% compared to
30.0%, respectively.
Due to
lower earnings and a large percentage of tax-free income compared to total
income, the Corporation became subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) in
2006. The Corporation remained in an AMT position in 2007, 2008, and
2009; and therefore, when the Corporation is no longer in an AMT position, the
AMT credits can be utilized. The Corporation is not expected to be in
an AMT position in 2010. The AMT affects the amount of Federal income
tax due and paid, but it does not affect the book tax provision.
Financial
Condition
Securities
Available for Sale
The
Corporation classifies all of its securities as available for sale and reports
the portfolio at fair market value. As of June 30, 2010, the
Corporation had $256.1 million of securities available for sale, which accounted
for 34.1% of assets, compared to 32.6% as of December 31, 2009, and 33.5% as of
June 30, 2009. Based on ending balances, the securities portfolio
increased 6.4% from June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2010.
The
Corporation typically invests excess liquidity into securities, primarily
fixed-income bonds. The securities portfolio provides interest and
dividend income to supplement the interest income on loans. Additionally, the
securities portfolio assists in the management of both liquidity risk and
interest rate risk. In order to provide maximum flexibility for
management of liquidity and interest rate risk, the securities portfolio is
classified as available for sale and reported at fair
value. Management adjusts the value of all the Corporation’s
securities on a monthly basis to fair market value as determined in accordance
with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Management has the ability
and intent to hold all debt securities until maturity, and does not generally
record impairment on bonds that are currently valued below book
value. Equity securities generally pose a greater risk to loss of
principal since there is no specified maturity date on which the Corporation
will recover the entire principal. Recovery of the principal
investment is dependent on the fair value of the security at the time of
sale. All securities are evaluated for impairment on a quarterly
basis. Should any impairment occur, management would write down the
security to a fair market value in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles, with the amount of the write down recorded as a loss on
securities.
Each
quarter, management sets portfolio allocation guidelines and adjusts the
security portfolio strategy generally based on the following
factors:
·
|
Performance
of the various instruments
|
·
|
Direction
of interest rates
|
·
|
Slope
of the yield curve
|
·
|
ALCO
positions as to liquidity, interest rate risk, and net portfolio
value
|
·
|
State
of the economy and credit risk
|
The
investment policy of the Corporation imposes guidelines to ensure
diversification within the portfolio. The diversity specifications provide
opportunities to shorten or lengthen duration, maximize yield, and mitigate
credit risk. The composition of the securities portfolio based on fair market
value is shown in the following table.
SECURITIES
PORTFOLIO
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Period
Ending
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
June
30, 2010
|
December
31, 2009
|
June
30, 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
$ | % | $ | % | $ | % | |||||||||||||||||||
U.S.
treasuries & government agencies
|
53,734 | 21.0 | 47,571 | 20.2 | 54,122 | 22.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Mortgage-backed
securities
|
33,317 | 13.0 | 42,390 | 17.9 | 51,698 | 21.5 | ||||||||||||||||||
Collateralized
mortgage obligations
|
73,578 | 28.8 | 53,982 | 22.8 | 47,691 | 19.8 | ||||||||||||||||||
Private
collateralized mortgage obligations
|
12,572 | 4.9 | 12,748 | 5.4 | 14,419 | 6.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
Corporate
debt securities
|
11,535 | 4.5 | 13,369 | 5.7 | 16,135 | 6.7 | ||||||||||||||||||
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions
|
68,407 | 26.7 | 63,369 | 26.8 | 53,629 | 22.3 | ||||||||||||||||||
Equity
securities
|
2,936 | 1.1 | 2,906 | 1.2 | 2,887 | 1.2 | ||||||||||||||||||
Total
securities
|
256,079 | 100.0 | 236,335 | 100.0 | 240,581 | 100.0 |
The
majority of growth in the Corporation’s securities occurred in collateralized
mortgage obligations (CMOs). Management added U.S. Agency CMOs, as
these instruments have higher yields than similar mortgage-backed securities and
agencies, steady cash flow payment streams, and the backing of the U.S.
Government. As such, the U.S. Agency CMOs provide solid credit risk
protection and all have AAA ratings. Due to the structure of the U.S.
Agency CMOs that management has purchased, these securities tend to be shorter
and have higher monthly cash flow streams to assist with liquidity
management. In the current low interest rate environment, these cash
flow streams have
increased
as borrowers are making additional principal payments on
mortgages. These additional principal payments provide the
Corporation with more liquidity but also cause both premium risk and
reinvestment risk. Premium risk occurs as management is forced to
amortize any premiums on these securities more rapidly as principal payments
increase. This causes the yield on these investments to
decrease. Reinvestment risk occurs when interest rates are low and
principal payments increase forcing management to reinvest these proceeds into
instruments carrying lower market rates.
Obligations
of states and political subdivisions, or municipal bonds, are tax-free
securities that generally provide the highest yield in the securities
portfolio. In 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, the Corporation was in an
alternative minimum tax (AMT) position when income levels fell and tax-exempt
income remained high. The AMT requires the payment of a minimum level
of tax should an entity have excessive amounts of tax preference items relative
to a Corporation’s income. The Corporation’s primary tax preference
item is the large amount of tax-free income generated by tax-free loans and
tax-exempt securities. As a result of the Corporation’s AMT position,
management had determined that the size of the municipal bond holdings in
relation to the rest of the securities portfolio should be
decreased. During 2008 management was actively reducing the tax-free
municipal bond portfolio in an effort to reduce the Corporation’s AMT
position. However, because of legislation that followed the credit
crisis in the fall of 2008, beginning in 2009, financial institutions were now
permitted to purchase 2009 and 2010 newly issued tax-free municipal bonds, which
are AMT-exempt for the life of the bond. As a result, management has
begun to purchase these AMT-exempt municipal bonds, increasing the size of the
tax-free municipal bond portfolio. Consequently, municipal bonds as a
percentage of the total investment portfolio have increased to 26.7% at June 30,
2010, compared to 22.3% at June 30, 2009.
During
the fourth quarter of 2008, through all of 2009, and into the first half of
2010, market volatility, economic slowdown, and the collapse of several large
financial institutions caused the downgrading of many
securities. This phenomenon has affected all segments of the
Corporation’s portfolio not backed by the U.S. Government, specifically PCMOs,
corporate bonds, and municipal bonds. According to policy, management
has decided to hold all securities with credit ratings that have fallen below
minimum policy credit ratings required at the time of
purchase. Management monitors the security ratings on a monthly basis
and quarterly, with Board approval, determines whether it is in the
Corporation’s best interest to continue to hold any security that has fallen
below policy guidelines.
As of
June 30, 2010, the Corporation held six PCMO securities with a book value of
$14.2 million, a reduction of $2.4 million from the balance as of December 31,
2009. One PCMO security was sold during the second quarter of 2010
for a minimal loss of $8,000, contributing to the decrease in balance since
December 31, 2009. Two of the remaining six PCMO securities, with a
book value of $4.5 million, carried an AAA credit rating by at least one of the
major credit rating services. The four remaining PCMOs, with a book
value of $9.7 million, had credit ratings below investment grade, which is BBB-
for S&P and Baa3 for Moody’s. Management currently has no plans
to sell these securities as management believes the current market values are
not true indications of the value of the bonds based on cash flow analysis
performed under severe stress testing. In 2009, cash flow analysis on
all of the Corporation’s PCMOs indicated a need to take impairment on three of
the five PCMOs with below investment grade credit
ratings. Management’s March 31, 2010 cash flow analysis indicated a
need to take additional impairment of $49,000 on two of these
bonds. The third bond, which was impaired as of December 31, 2009,
was sold in the second quarter of 2010. Of the two bonds with
impairment charges in the first quarter of 2010, only one indicated the need to
take additional impairment during the second quarter of 2010. The
cash flow analysis, conducted at slower prepayment speeds than the securities
have been paying, revealed that there was an expectation that these bonds will
suffer 3.7% loss of principal, resulting in a second quarter impairment charge
of $55,000. Total impairment taken on these two bonds during the
first half of 2010 was $104,000. Based on management’s methodology,
current data does not support additional impairment, but it is possible further
impairment would be necessary if both default rates rose to levels that have not
yet been experienced, and if prepayment speeds slowed to speeds not previously
experienced. Management will continue to update cash flow analysis
quarterly that incorporates the most current default rates and prepayment
speeds. Prepayment speeds on all of the Corporation’s PCMOs have been
relatively fast, which is assisting in the cash flow analysis. Faster
prepayment speeds make it more likely that the Corporation’s principal will be
returned before additional credit losses are incurred.
As of
June 30, 2010, the Corporation held corporate bonds with a total book value of
$11.2 million and fair market value of $11.5 million. Management
continues to hold corporate securities at approximately 4% to 6% of the
portfolio. Like any security, corporate bonds have both positive and
negative qualities and management must evaluate these securities on a risk
versus reward basis. Corporate bonds add diversity to the portfolio
and provide strong yields for short maturities; however, by their very nature,
corporate bonds carry a high level of credit risk should the entity experience
financial difficulties. Management stands to possibly lose the entire
principal amount if the entity that
issued
the corporate paper fails. As a result of the higher level of credit
risk taken by purchasing a corporate bond, management has in place minimal
credit ratings that must be met in order for management to purchase a corporate
bond.
As of
June 30, 2010, two of the eleven corporate securities held by the Corporation
were showing unrealized holding losses. These securities with
unrealized holding losses were valued at 98.6% of book value. As of
June 30, 2010, all of these corporate bonds have single A credit ratings by at
least one major credit rating service. Currently, there are no
indications that any of these bonds would discontinue contractual
payments.
Since
2008, the municipal bond ratings have been adversely affected by downgrades on
nearly all of the insurance companies backing municipal bond
issues. Previous to the sharp decline in the health of the insurance
companies, nearly 95% of the Corporation’s municipal bonds carried AAA credit
ratings with the added insurance protection. Now, with the health of
most of the insurers greatly diminished, the final rating of most municipal
bonds has fallen to AA or A. As of June 30, 2010, only 28% of the
Corporation’s municipal bonds carried an AAA rating. The
Corporation’s investment policy requires that municipal bonds not carrying
insurance have a minimum credit rating of single A at the time of
purchase. As of June 30, 2010, sixteen municipal bonds with a book
value of $6.7 million carried credit ratings under A. In the current
environment, the major rating services have tightened their credit underwriting
procedures and are more apt to downgrade
municipalities. Additionally, the very weak economy has reduced
revenue streams for many municipalities and has called into question the basic
premise that municipalities have unlimited power to tax, i.e. the ability to
raise taxes to compensate for revenue shortfalls. Presently, despite
the lower credit ratings on the sixteen municipal securities, management has the
intent and the ability to hold these securities to maturity and believes that
full recovery of principal is probable.
The
entire securities portfolio is reviewed monthly for credit risk and evaluated
quarterly for possible impairment. In terms of credit risk and
impairment, management views the Corporation’s CRA fund investment differently
because it is an equity investment with no maturity date. Bond
investments could have larger unrealized losses but significantly less
probability of impairment due to having a fixed maturity date. As of
June 30, 2010, the CRA fund was showing unrealized losses of $64,000, or a 3.2%
price decline. The prices on this fund tend to lag behind decreases in U.S.
Treasury rates. Management believes that the price declines are
primarily rate driven, and temporary as opposed to
permanent. Corporate bonds and private collateralized mortgage
obligations have the most potential credit risk out of the Corporation’s debt
instruments. Due to the rapidly changing credit environment and weak
economic conditions, management is closely monitoring all corporate bonds and
all private label securities. As of June 30, 2010, three private
collateralized mortgage obligations were considered to be other than temporarily
impaired. Two of these securities were written down by $104,000 in
the first half of 2010. The other security was showing projected
losses within the total amount of remaining accretion, resulting in no
impairment charges to this point.
Loans
Net loans
outstanding increased $4.1 million, or 1.0%, to $420.3 million at June 30, 2010,
from $416.2 million at June 30, 2009. Net loans decreased $1.6
million, or 0.4%, since December 31, 2009. The following
table shows the composition of the loan portfolio as of June 30, 2010, December
31, 2009, and June 30, 2009.
LOANS
BY MAJOR CATEGORY
|
||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2009
|
||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | ||||||||||
Real
Estate
|
||||||||||||
Residential
(a)
|
169,031 | 163,625 | 162,320 | |||||||||
Commercial
|
159,107 | 152,108 | 147,846 | |||||||||
Construction
|
16,198 | 23,382 | 24,706 | |||||||||
Commercial
|
69,217 | 76,526 | 74,911 | |||||||||
Consumer
|
13,388 | 12,506 | 11,170 | |||||||||
426,941 | 428,147 | 420,953 | ||||||||||
Less:
|
||||||||||||
Deferred
loan fees, net
|
228 | 295 | 309 | |||||||||
Allowance
for loan losses
|
6,413 | 5,912 | 4,447 | |||||||||
Total
net loans
|
420,300 | 421,940 | 416,197 |
(a)
|
Residential
real estate loans do not include mortgage loans sold to and serviced for
Fannie Mae. These loans totaled $11,713,000 as of June 30,
2010, $11,754,000 as of December 31, 2009, and $11,777,000 as of June
30, 2009.
|
The
composition of the loan portfolio has undergone minor changes in recent
years. The total of all categories of real estate loans comprises
more than 80% of total net loans. Residential real estate is the
largest category of the loan portfolio, consisting of approximately 40% of total
net loans. This category includes first mortgages, second mortgages,
and home equity loans. The residential real estate loans grew
throughout 2009 and continued to grow in the first half of
2010. Current economic and market conditions have reduced the demand
for residential real estate loans resulting in slower growth in this category
compared to prior years. Total residential real estate loans grew
4.1% from June 30, 2009 to June 30, 2010. More of this growth
actually occurred in the first half of 2010. The Corporation
generally only holds 10, 15, and 20-year mortgages, and will sell any mortgage
over 20 years. While terms of 10, 15, 20, and 30 years are offered to
the customer, the most popular term is the 30-year, which are all sold to the
secondary market. Therefore, to grow the Corporation’s residential
real estate loans, of which traditional residential mortgages consist of
approximately 60% of this amount, a sufficient number of 10, 15, and 20-year
residential mortgages must be originated to compensate for normal principal
paydowns and still grow the portfolio. Requests for fixed-rate home
equity loans have also slowed in the current environment, while home equity
lines of credit, which float on the Prime rate, have increased. This
trend is occurring because consumers are seeking the lowest interest rate to
borrow money against their home value. This trend is likely to
reverse once the Prime rate is increased and floating rate loans become less
attractive to borrowers. Management anticipates moderate growth in
the residential real estate area throughout the remainder of 2010.
Commercial
real estate loans have also grown since June 2009, and have continued to grow in
the first half of 2010. Commercial real estate includes both owner
and non-owner occupied properties. The majority of growth has
occurred in owner occupied, which does not rely substantially on lease
agreements. However, even the demand for owner occupied loans has
slowed since most businesses are not expanding during uncertain economic
conditions. It is anticipated that significant growth in commercial
real estate will lag a recovery by the economy.
Commercial
loans not secured by real estate are approximately half the size of the
Corporation’s real estate secured commercial loans. This portfolio of
loans showed moderate growth from June 30, 2009 to December 31, 2009, and then
declined significantly from December 31, 2009 to June 30, 2010. The
decline in the first half of 2010 was primarily the result of a $5 million
commercial loan payoff. Outside of this payoff, commercial loans not
secured by real estate still would have declined slightly, attributed to weaker
economic conditions. In the current interest rate environment, with
fixed commercial loan rates significantly higher than Prime-based variable rate
lines of credit, the Corporation is experiencing a shift from fixed rate
commercial loans to more Prime-based variable rate loans. The
majority of commercial customers believe the Prime rate will remain low for a
period of time, therefore when seeking new financing they prefer variable rate
financing as opposed to fixed, whether it is real estate secured or
not. In other cases, they often desire to lower their borrowing costs
by drawing on their lines of credit to pay down their fixed rate
loans. Both of these contribute to more variable rate commercial
loans and less fixed rate commercial loans.
The
construction loans secured by real estate declined slightly between June 30,
2009 and December 31, 2009, and then declined more significantly by $7.2
million, or 30.7%, in the first half of 2010. After slowing
throughout most of 2008, several of the Bank’s commercial customers went ahead
with construction projects in the last quarter of 2008 and into
2009. Some projects were started in the fourth quarter of 2008, but
draws on their lines of credit only began in 2009. These projects
were not necessarily residential real estate construction, but construction
undertaken by commercial customers to update or expand facilities, with a
significant portion of these agricultural related. This activity has
slowed in the first half of 2010 and more construction loans have been paid down
or converted to other fixed-term loans.
The
consumer loan portfolio increased slightly from June 30, 2009 to December 31,
2009, and again from December 31, 2009 to June 30, 2010. Consumer
loans made up 2.7% of total net loans on June 30, 2009, 3.0% of total net loans
on December 31, 2009, and 3.2% of total net loans on June 30,
2010. In recent years, homeowners have turned to equity in their
homes to finance cars and education rather than traditional consumer loans for
those expenditures. However, in the current economic environment with
reduced housing values, many borrowers no longer have available equity in their
home for additional borrowings. This has reduced the demand for fixed
home equity loans and increased the need for unsecured
credit. Additionally, due to current liquidity conditions,
specialized lenders began pulling back on the availability of credit and more
favorable credit terms. The underwriting standards of major financing
and credit card companies began to strengthen after years of lower credit
standards. This led consumers to seek unsecured credit away from
national finance companies and back to their bank of
choice. Management has seen the need for additional unsecured credit
increase; however, this increased need for credit has only resulted in low
levels of increases in consumer loans for the Corporation. Slightly
higher demand for unsecured credit is being offset by principal payments on
existing loans. In the current weak economy, customers delay
purchasing new and used cars which has the impact of reducing the consumer loan
portfolio, as lower amounts of new loans are going on the
books. Management anticipates that the need for unsecured credit may
grow during this current credit crisis and economic downturn, as many consumers
need to access all available credit.
Non-Performing
Assets
Non-performing
assets include:
·
|
Non-accrual
loans
|
·
|
Loans
past due 90 days or more and still
accruing
|
·
|
Troubled
debt restructurings
|
·
|
Other
real estate owned
|
NON-PERFORMING
ASSETS
|
||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2009
|
||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | ||||||||||
Non-accrual
loans
|
5,389 | 6,076 | 1,077 | |||||||||
Loans
past due 90 days or more and still accruing
|
165 | 742 | 1,470 | |||||||||
Troubled
debt restructurings
|
1,550 | 1,540 | 2,052 | |||||||||
Total
non-performing loans
|
7,104 | 8,358 | 4,599 | |||||||||
Other
real estate owned
|
914 | 520 | 520 | |||||||||
Total
non-performing assets
|
8,018 | 8,878 | 5,119 | |||||||||
Non-performing
assets to net loans
|
1.91 | % | 2.10 | % | 1.23 | % |
Non-performing
assets increased $2.9 million from June 30, 2009 to June 30,
2010. This increase was primarily the result of an increase in
non-accrual loans and other real estate owned (OREO). The
Corporation’s total non-accrual loans increased $4.3 million from June 30, 2009,
to June 30, 2010. The increase in non-accrual loans was a direct
result of the deteriorating financial condition of several of the Corporation’s
commercial and business loan customers.
Loans
past due 90 days or more and still accruing and troubled debt restructurings
decreased from the levels reported at June 30, 2009. Management is
monitoring delinquency trends closely in light of the current weak economic
conditions. At this time, management believes that the potential for
significant losses related to non-performing loans is moderate.
As of
June 30, 2010, the book value of the Corporation’s OREO was $914,000, which is
fair market value less anticipated selling costs. The balance
consists of one manufacturing property that has been in OREO since December 2006
and a residential real estate property that was placed in OREO in the first
quarter of 2010. The manufacturing property has been under an
agreement of sale. Settlement on the sale has been deferred,
pending the completion of a due-diligence period whereby the condition of the
property would need to meet all contingencies of the agreement. The
sales agreement has been extended until December 31, 2010, with the same sales
price. Subsequent to June 30, 2010, but prior to the filing of
this report, the residential property was sold and removed from
OREO. In the final negotiations, the property had to be written down
an additional $24,000. As a result of this July 2010 OREO sale, the
amount of the Corporation’s OREO returned to the December 31, 2009 level of
$520,000.
Allowance
for Loan Losses
The
allowance for loan losses is established to cover any losses inherent in the
loan portfolio. Management reviews the adequacy of the allowance each
quarter based upon a detailed analysis and calculation of the allowance for loan
losses. This calculation is based upon a systematic methodology for
determining the allowance for loan losses in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. The calculation includes estimates and is
based upon losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The allowance
calculation includes specific provisions for under-performing loans and general
allocations to cover anticipated losses on all loan types based on historical
losses. Based on the quarterly loan loss calculation, management will
adjust the allowance for loan losses through the provision as
necessary. Changes to the allowance for loan losses during the year
are primarily affected by three events:
·
|
Charge
off of loans considered not
recoverable
|
·
|
Recovery
of loans previously charged
off
|
·
|
Provision
for loan losses
|
Strong
credit and collateral policies have been instrumental in producing a favorable
history of loan losses. The Allowance for Loan Losses table below
shows the activity in the allowance for loan losses for the six-month periods
ended June 30, 2010, and June 30, 2009. At the bottom of the table,
two benchmark percentages are shown. The first is net charge-offs as
a percentage of average loans outstanding for the year. The second is
the total allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans.
ALLOWANCE
FOR LOAN LOSSES
|
||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||
Six
Months Ended
|
||||||||
June
30,
|
||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
|||||||
$ | $ | |||||||
Balance
at January 1,
|
5,912 | 4,203 | ||||||
Loans
charged off:
|
||||||||
Real
estate
|
156 | - | ||||||
Commercial
and industrial
|
261 | 55 | ||||||
Consumer
|
50 | 98 | ||||||
Total
charged off
|
467 | 153 | ||||||
Recoveries
of loans previously charged off:
|
||||||||
Real
estate
|
- | - | ||||||
Commercial
and industrial
|
62 | 10 | ||||||
Consumer
|
6 | 11 | ||||||
Total
recovered
|
68 | 21 | ||||||
Net
loans charged off
|
399 | 132 | ||||||
Provision
charged to operating expense
|
900 | 376 | ||||||
Balance
at June 30,
|
6,413 | 4,447 | ||||||
Net
charge-offs as a % of average total loans
outstanding
|
0.09 | % | 0.03 | % | ||||
Allowance
at end of period as a % of total loans
|
1.50 | % | 1.06 | % |
Charge-offs
for the six months ended June 30, 2010, were $467,000, compared to $153,000 for
the same period in 2009. Management typically charges off unsecured
debt over 90 days delinquent with little likelihood of recovery. The
real estate and commercial and industrial charge-offs were higher in the first
six months of 2010 compared to 2009, due to a single real estate loan that was
charged off for $156,000, and a single commercial and industrial loan that was
charged off for $261,000.
The
allowance as a percentage of total loans represents the portion of the total
loan portfolio for which an allowance has been provided. The
composition of the Corporation’s loan portfolio has not changed materially from
June 30, 2009. However, management regularly reviews the overall risk profile of
the loan portfolio and the impact that current economic trends have on the
Corporation’s loans. The financial industry typically evaluates the
quality of loans on a scale with unclassified representing healthy loans, to
special mention being the first indication of credit concern, to several
successive classified ratings indicating further credit declines of substandard,
doubtful, and ultimately loss. Continued downgrades by
management in the business loan and business mortgage portfolios have resulted
in more classified loans. The Corporation’s total classified loans
increased from $17.9 million as of June 30, 2009, to $20.0 million as of
December 31, 2009, and $20.7 million as of June 30, 2010, net of specifically
allocated allowance against these loans of $1,116,000, $811,000, and $579,000,
respectively. These classifications require larger provision amounts
due to a higher potential risk of loss. Management anticipates
maintaining the allowance as a percentage of total loans in the range of 1.00%
to 2.00% for the foreseeable future.
The net
charge-offs as a percentage of average total loans outstanding indicates the
percentage of the Corporation’s total loan portfolio that has been charged off
during the period, after reducing charge-offs by recoveries. The
Corporation has historically experienced very low net charge-off percentages due
to strong credit practices. Management continually monitors
delinquencies, classified loans, and charge-off activity closely, and is
anticipating that there may be some increases throughout the remainder of
2010. Management practices are in place to reduce the number and
severity of losses. In regard to severely delinquent loans,
management attempts to improve the Corporation’s collateral or credit position
and, in the case of a loan workout, intervene to minimize additional
charge-offs.
Premises
and Equipment
Premises
and equipment, net of accumulated depreciation, increased by $1,002,000, or
5.0%, to $20,844,000 as of June 30, 2010, from $19,842,000, as of June 30,
2009. In the first quarter of 2010, the renovations at the Denver
branch office were placed into service. These fixed asset additions
were primarily responsible for the increase in premises and
equipment. As of June 30, 2010, $71,000 was classified as
construction in process. This amount is related to a property the
bank owns and is not the result of a construction commitment.
Regulatory
Stock
The
Corporation owns multiple forms of regulatory stock that is required in order to
be a member of the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) and members of banks such as the
Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and Atlantic Central Bankers Bank
(ACBB). The Corporation’s $4,916,000 of regulatory stock holdings as
of June 30, 2010, consisted of $4,728,000 of FHLB of Pittsburgh stock, $151,000
of FRB stock, and $37,000 of ACBB stock. All of these stocks are
valued at a stable dollar price, which is the price used to purchase or
liquidate shares; therefore the investment is carried at book value and there is
no fair market value adjustment.
The
Corporation’s investment in FHLB stock is required for membership in the
organization. The amount of stock required is dependent upon the
relative size of outstanding borrowings from FHLB. Excess stock is
typically repurchased from the Corporation at par if the borrowings decline to a
predetermined level. In years preceding 2008 and throughout most of
2008, the Corporation earned a return or dividend on the amount
invested. In December 2008, the FHLB announced that it had suspended
the payment of dividends and the repurchase of excess capital stock to preserve
its capital level. That decision was based on FHLB’s analysis and
consideration of certain negative market trends and the impact those trends had
on their financial condition. Based on the financial results of the
FHLB for the year ended December 31, 2009, and for the six months ended June 30,
2010, management believes that the suspension of both the dividend payments and
excess capital stock repurchase is temporary in nature. Management
further believes that the FHLB will continue to be a primary source of wholesale
liquidity for both short-term and long-term funding and has concluded that its
investment in FHLB stock is not other-than-temporarily impaired. The
Corporation will continue to monitor the financial condition of the FHLB
quarterly to assess its ability to resume these activities in the
future. Management’s strategy in terms of future use of FHLB
borrowings is addressed under the Borrowings section of this Management’s
Discussion and Analysis.
Deposits
The
Corporation’s total ending deposits increased $35.0 million, or 6.3%, and $22.6
million, or 4.0%, from June 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009,
respectively. Customer deposits are the Corporation’s primary source
of funding for loans and investments. During 2009 and continuing into
2010, the economic concerns and poor performance of other types of investments
led customers back to banks for safe places to invest money, despite low
interest rates. The mix of deposit categories has remained relatively
stable. The Deposits by Major Classification table, shown below,
provides the balances of each category for June 30, 2010, December 31, 2009, and
June 30, 2009.
DEPOSITS
BY MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
|
||||||||||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||||||||||
June
30,
|
December
31,
|
June
30,
|
||||||||||
2010
|
2009
|
2009
|
||||||||||
$ | $ | $ | ||||||||||
Non-interest
bearing demand deposits
|
124,260 | 121,665 | 112,295 | |||||||||
NOW
accounts
|
58,153 | 51,680 | 54,997 | |||||||||
Money
market deposit accounts
|
50,014 | 48,404 | 42,428 | |||||||||
Savings
deposits
|
92,180 | 86,533 | 81,394 | |||||||||
Time
deposits
|
258,525 | 249,504 | 256,209 | |||||||||
Brokered
time deposits
|
9,370 | 12,157 | 10,159 | |||||||||
Total
deposits
|
592,502 | 569,943 | 557,482 |
The
growth and mix of deposits is often driven by several factors
including:
·
|
Convenience
and service provided
|
·
|
Fees
|
·
|
Financial
condition and perceived safety of the
institution
|
·
|
Possible
risks associated with other investment
opportunities
|
·
|
Current
rates paid on deposits compared to competitor
rates
|
The
Corporation has been a stable presence in the local area and offers convenient
locations, low service fees, and competitive interest rates because of a strong
commitment to the customers and the communities that it
serves. Management has always priced products and services in a
manner that makes them affordable for all customers. This in turn
creates a high degree of customer loyalty and a stable deposit
base. Additionally, as financial institutions have come under
increased scrutiny from both regulators and customers, the Corporation has
maintained an outstanding reputation. The Corporation’s deposit base
increased as a result of customers seeking a longstanding, reliable institution
as a partner to meet their financial needs. Additionally, a new
branch location opened in September 2008, contributing to additional deposit
growth.
Time
deposits are typically a more rate-sensitive product, making them a source of
funding that is prone to balance variations depending on the interest rate
environment and how the Corporation’s time deposit rates compare with the local
market rates. Time deposits fluctuate as consumers search for the
best rates in the market, with less allegiance to any particular financial
institution. As of June 30, 2010, time deposit balances, excluding
brokered deposits, had increased $2.3 million, or 0.9%, and $9.0 million, or
3.6%, from June 30, 2009, and December 31, 2009, respectively. Due to
an asset liability strategy of lengthening liabilities while interest rates are
at historical lows, the Corporation’s recent time deposit strategy has been to
offer long-term time deposit rates that exceed the average rates offered by the
local competing banks. This strategy was successful in both
increasing and lengthening the Corporation’s liabilities. The
Corporation’s time deposits also increased due to consumers who were concerned
with a declining stock market and declining financial conditions of local,
regional, and national banks that compete with the
Corporation. Customers have been seeking a safe, consistent
investment to an even greater extent than during previous declines in the equity
markets. This condition continues to prevail at the time of the
writing of this filing. Time deposits are a safe investment with FDIC
coverage insuring no loss of principal up to certain levels. Prior to
October 3, 2008, FDIC coverage was $100,000 on non-IRA time deposits and
$250,000 on IRA time deposits. Effective October 3, 2008, the FDIC
insurance increased to $250,000 for all deposit accounts with the signing of the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which was made permanent under the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. As the
equity market continued to decline in 2008 and 2009, customers began placing
more and more time deposits in financial institutions; however, they did not
want to exceed the FDIC insurance limits. The increase in FDIC
coverage generally enabled time deposit customers to increase their deposit
balances held with the Corporation. Previously, a significant segment
of the Corporation’s larger CD customers would limit their deposit by account
title to $100,000. Now customers can deposit up to $250,000 with full
FDIC coverage, under each form of eligible account
ownership. Management anticipates that the growth of time deposits
will slow when the stock market and other financial institutions begin to
strengthen.
Borrowings
Total
borrowings were $80.0 million, $82.5 million, and $88.9 million as of June 30,
2010, December 31, 2009, and June 30, 2009, respectively. The
Corporation was purchasing short-term funds of $1,880,000 as of June 30, 2009,
and no short-term funds as of June 30, 2010, or December 31,
2009. Short-term funds are used for immediate liquidity needs and are
not typically part of an ongoing liquidity or interest rate risk strategy;
therefore, they fluctuate more rapidly. The short-term funds are
purchased through correspondent and member bank relationships as overnight
borrowings.
Total
long-term borrowings were $80.0 million, $82.5 million, and $87.0 million as of
June 30, 2010, December 31, 2009, and June 30, 2009. The Corporation
uses two main sources for long-term borrowings: FHLB advances and repurchase
agreements obtained through brokers. Both of these types of
borrowings are used as a secondary source of funding and to mitigate interest
rate risk. These long-term funding instruments are typically a more
manageable funding source in regard to amount, timing, and rate for interest
rate risk and liquidity purposes compared to deposits. Over the
course of the past year, the Corporation has minimally changed the ladder of
long-term borrowings consisting of FHLB advances and brokered repurchase
borrowing agreements. Management will continue to analyze and compare
the costs and benefits of borrowing versus obtaining funding from
deposits.
In order
to limit the Corporation’s exposure and reliance to a single funding source, the
Corporation’s Asset Liability Policy sets a goal of maintaining the amount of
borrowings from the FHLB to 15% of asset size. As of June 30, 2010,
the Corporation was within this policy guideline at 6.7% of asset size with
$50.0 million of total FHLB borrowings. The Corporation also
has a policy that limits total borrowings from all sources to 150% of the
Corporation’s capital. As of June 30, 2010, the Corporation was
within this policy guideline at 107.6% of capital with $80.0 million total
borrowings from all sources. The Corporation has maintained FHLB
borrowings and total borrowings within these policy guidelines throughout all of
2009 and the first six months of 2010.
The
Corporation continues to be well under the FHLB maximum borrowing capacity
(MBC), which is currently $213.8 million. The Corporation’s two
internal policy limits are far more restrictive than the FHLB MBC, which is
calculated and set quarterly by the FHLB. The nation’s sub-prime and
credit crisis of 2008 has led to negative economic events, which has
significantly affected real estate valuations, the residential housing industry,
and securities consisting of various forms of mortgage-backed financial
instruments. The FHLB has been impacted by these events and is under
operating performance pressures and increased regulatory oversight, and has
taken steps to preserve capital. As a result, the FHLB has suspended
the dividend paid on stock owned by banks that have outstanding FHLB borrowings,
and has discontinued repurchasing excess stock if a bank reduces its
borrowings. Because of these actions by the FHLB, management is
committed to not placing significantly more reliance on the FHLB and staying
well below the level of borrowings that would require additional capital
stock.
Stockholders’
Equity
Federal
regulatory authorities require banks to meet minimum capital
levels. The Corporation maintains capital ratios well above those
minimum levels and higher than the Corporation’s peer group
average. The risk-weighted capital ratios are calculated by dividing
capital by total risk-weighted assets. Regulatory guidelines
determine the risk-weighted assets by assigning assets to one of four
risk-weighted categories. The calculation of tier I capital to
risk-weighted average assets does not include an add-back to capital for the
amount of the allowance for loan losses, thereby making this ratio lower than
the total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio.
The
following table reflects the capital ratios for the Corporation and Bank
compared to the regulatory capital requirements.
REGULATORY
CAPITAL RATIOS:
|
||||||||||||
Regulatory
Requirements
|
||||||||||||
Capital |
Adequately
|
Well
|
||||||||||
As
of June 30, 2010
|
Ratios
|
Capitalized
|
Capitalized
|
|||||||||
Total
Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
|
16.7 | % | 8.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||
Bank
|
16.6 | % | 8.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||
Tier
I Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
|
15.5 | % | 4.0 | % | 6.0 | % | ||||||
Bank
|
15.3 | % | 4.0 | % | 6.0 | % | ||||||
Tier
I Capital to Average Assets
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
|
9.6 | % | 4.0 | % | 5.0 | % | ||||||
Bank
|
9.5 | % | 4.0 | % | 5.0 | % | ||||||
As
of June 30, 2009
|
||||||||||||
Total
Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
|
15.6 | % | 8.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||
Bank
|
15.5 | % | 8.0 | % | 10.0 | % | ||||||
Tier
I Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
|
14.6 | % | 4.0 | % | 6.0 | % | ||||||
Bank
|
14.5 | % | 4.0 | % | 6.0 | % | ||||||
Tier
I Capital to Average Assets
|
||||||||||||
Consolidated
|
9.7 | % | 4.0 | % | 5.0 | % | ||||||
Bank
|
9.6 | % | 4.0 | % | 5.0 | % |
The
dividends per share for the second quarter of 2010 were $0.24 per share, a 22.6%
decrease from the $0.31 per share in the second quarter of
2009. Year-to-date dividends per share were $0.48, a 22.6% decrease
from the year-to-date dividends per share of $0.62 in 2009. Dividends
are paid from current earnings and available retained
earnings. Management’s current capital plan calls for management to
maintain tier I leverage capital to average assets between 9.5% and
12.0%. Management also desires a dividend payout ratio between 40%
and 50%. This ratio will vary according to income, but over the long
term, management’s goal is to average a payout ratio in this
range. Since the amount of the dividends paid and the payout ratio
are heavily dependent on income earned, management decided to reduce the
dividend level in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $0.24 per
share. Management determined that a reduction in the quarterly
dividend was prudent and appropriate given the current economic
conditions. Reducing the quarterly dividend will bring it more fully
in line with lower current earning levels, which are primarily a result of
substantially higher loan loss provisions and FDIC insurance
premiums.
The
amount of unrealized gain or loss on the securities portfolio is reflected, net
of tax, as an adjustment to capital, as required by U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles. This is recorded as accumulated other
comprehensive income or loss in the capital section of the consolidated balance
sheet. An unrealized gain increases capital, while an unrealized loss
reduces capital. This requirement takes the position that, if the
Corporation liquidated the securities portfolio at the end of each period, the
current unrealized gain or loss on the securities portfolio would directly
impact the Corporation’s capital. As of June 30, 2010, the
Corporation showed unrealized gains, net of tax, of $2,597,000, compared to
unrealized losses of $258,000 as of December 31, 2009, and $1,648,000 as of June
30, 2009. The amounts of unrealized net gain or loss on the
securities portfolio, shown net of tax, as an adjustment to capital, do not
include any actual impairment taken on securities which are reflected on the
Corporation’s Consolidated Statements of Income. The changes in
unrealized gains and losses are due to normal changes in market valuations of
the Corporation’s securities as a result of interest rate
movements.
Contractual
Cash Obligations
Management
signed a contract in March 2008 with the Corporation’s core processing vendor to
conduct a comprehensive business processing improvement (BPI)
engagement. The majority of the engagement occurred over the
six-month period beginning in July 2008. Some benefits were realized
in the fourth quarter of 2008 with an acceleration of benefits occurring in 2009
and subsequent years. The financial goal of the BPI is to obtain $1.4
million to $2.2 million of annual pre-tax benefit through operational cost
savings and revenue enhancements. The strategic goal of the BPI
engagement is to be a more efficient organization - with better customer service
- at increased levels of profitability. The fees for the entire BPI
engagement were $756,000 plus travel-related expenses, which were billed through
April 2009 at a rate of $68,700 per month. All expenses related to
this engagement have been paid.
Workforce
realignment was a significant component of the Corporation’s BPI
engagement. In conjunction with the workforce realignment, a
voluntary separation package was offered in September 2008 to all employees with
twenty or more years of service. On October 31, 2008, management
established a $1,222,000 liability in connection with the voluntary separation
package. The liability covered all future separation obligations that
were scheduled to be paid in 2009 and 2010 to 35 employees who accepted the
package. The separation package liability stood at $1,188,000 as of
December 31, 2008, $476,000 as of June 30, 2009, and $186,000 as of December 31,
2009. As of June 30, 2010, $65,000 remained to be paid of the initial
$1,222,000 liability established.
Off-Balance
Sheet Arrangements
In the
normal course of business, the Corporation typically has off-balance sheet
arrangements related to loan funding commitments. These arrangements
may impact the Corporation’s financial condition and liquidity if they were to
be exercised within a short period of time. As discussed in the
following liquidity section, the Corporation has in place sufficient liquidity
alternatives to meet these obligations. The following table presents information
on the commitments by the Corporation as of June 30, 2010.
OFF-BALANCE
SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
|
||||
(DOLLARS
IN THOUSANDS)
|
||||
June
30,
|
||||
2010
|
||||
$ | ||||
Commitments
to extend credit:
|
||||
Revolving
home equity
|
16,437 | |||
Construction
loans
|
12,978 | |||
Real
estate loans
|
6,900 | |||
Business
loans
|
59,106 | |||
Consumer
loans
|
2,904 | |||
Other
|
3,574 | |||
Standby
letters of credit
|
7,667 | |||
Total
|
109,566 |
Recent
Developments
On July
21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (the “Act”). The Act will result in sweeping
financial regulatory reform aimed at strengthening the nation’s financial
services sector.
The Act’s
provisions that have received the most public attention generally have been
those applying to larger institutions or institutions that engage in practices
in which we do not engage. These provisions include growth
restrictions, credit exposure limits, sponsoring and investing in hedge funds
and private equity funds.
However,
the Act contains numerous other provisions that likely will directly impact us
and our banking subsidiary. These include increased fees payable by
banks to regulatory agencies, new capital guidelines for banks and bank holding
companies, permanently increasing the FDIC insurance coverage from $100,000 to
$250,000 per depositor, new liquidation procedures for banks, new regulations
affecting consumer financial products, new corporate governance disclosures and
requirements and the increased cost of supervision and compliance more
generally. Many aspects of the law are subject to rulemaking by
various government agencies and will take effect over several
years. This time table, combined with the Act’s significant deference
to future rulemaking by various regulatory agencies, makes it difficult for us
to anticipate the Act’s overall financial, competitive and regulatory impact on
us, our customers, and the financial industry more generally.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about
Market Risk
As a
financial institution, the Corporation is subject to three primary
risks:
|
·
|
Credit
risk
|
|
·
|
Liquidity
risk
|
|
·
|
Interest
rate risk
|
The Board
of Directors has established an Asset Liability Management Committee (ALCO) to
measure, monitor, and manage these primary market risks. The Asset
Liability Policy has instituted guidelines for all of these primary risks, as
well as other financial performance measurements with target
ranges. The Asset Liability goals and guidelines are consistent with
the Strategic Plan goals.
Credit
Risk
For
discussion on credit risk refer to the sections in Item 2. Management’s
Discussion and Analysis, on securities, non-performing assets, and allowance for
loan losses.
Liquidity
Risk
Liquidity
refers to having an adequate supply of cash available to meet business
needs. Financial institutions must ensure that there is adequate
liquidity to meet a variety of funding needs, at a minimal
cost. Minimal cost is an important component of
liquidity. If a financial institution is required to take significant
action to obtain funding, and is forced to utilize an expensive source, it has
not properly planned for its liquidity needs. Funding new loans and
covering deposit withdrawals are the primary liquidity needs of the
Corporation. The Corporation uses a variety of funding sources to
meet liquidity needs, such as:
|
·
|
Deposits
|
|
·
|
Loan
repayments
|
|
·
|
Maturities
and sales of securities
|
|
·
|
Borrowings
from correspondent and member banks
|
|
·
|
Repurchase
agreements
|
|
·
|
Brokered
deposits
|
|
·
|
Current
earnings
|
As noted
in the discussion on deposits, customers have historically provided a reliable
and steadily increasing source of funds liquidity. The Corporation
also has in place relationships with other banking institutions for the purpose
of buying and selling Federal funds. The lines of credit with these
institutions provide immediate sources of additional liquidity. The
Corporation currently has unsecured lines of credit totaling $25
million. An additional $2 million would be available upon pledging of
sufficient collateral. This does not include amounts available from
member banks such as the Federal Reserve Discount Window, the FHLB, and Atlantic
Central Bankers Bank.
Management
uses a cumulative maturity gap analysis to measure the amount of assets maturing
within various periods versus liabilities maturing in those same
periods. Management monitors six-month, one-year, three-year, and
five-year cumulative gaps to determine liquidity risk. The
Corporation was outside of internal gap guidelines for the one-year and
three-year gap ratios as of March 31, 2010, with the one-year at 52% versus 60%
guideline and the three-year at 72% versus 75% guideline. During the
second quarter of 2010, Management implemented prepayment speed assumptions for
its securities portfolio to more accurately model principal paydowns received on
securities. It is management’s opinion that these investments are now
modeled as accurately as possible and the cash flows received on each bond are
reflected appropriately. After these changes were made, as of June
30, 2010, the Corporation was within the internal gap guidelines for one-year
and three-year gap ratios with the one-year gap at 66% and the three-year gap at
87%. Lower interest rates during the second quarter of 2010 also had
an impact in increasing prepayments speeds and the cash flow coming back from
MBS and CMO securities which assisted in increasing the gap ratios.
Generally,
through 2009 and into 2010, management had a bias towards rates remaining
unchanged for a longer period of time and preferred to maintain gap ratios on
the low end of gap guidelines as it is advantageous to have a smaller amount of
assets subject to repricing while interest rates were at historically low
levels. Management took the position that rates could remain low for
an extended period of time, which has occurred. Management also
believes that the Corporation’s large securities portfolio with the vast
majority of these securities carrying unrealized gains is a readily accessible
source of liquidity in the event any repositioning of assets is
needed. However, based on the length of past interest rate cycles,
and the length that short-term rates have been at historically low
levels,
there is
an increased likelihood that short term rates will have to be
increased. While management believes at this point the current
economic conditions have to improve further for short term rates to be
increased, it is only prudent to be planning for higher interest rates in
2011. Therefore, it was important for the Corporation to bring its
gap ratios back within guidelines and begin to transition to a rates-up bias in
2011. To transition too quickly would subject the Corporation to more
repricing risk and could lower net interest margin. To that regard,
it is appropriate to position to have higher gap ratios after short term
interest rates have moved up materially. That way a significant
amount of the Corporation’s assets, both loans and securities, do not reprice at
the very beginning of the rates-up cycle.
Management
expects that the gap ratios will remain within the established guidelines
throughout the remainder of 2010.
In
addition to the cumulative maturity gap analysis discussed above, management
utilizes a number of liquidity measurements that management believes has
advantages over and gives better clarity to the Corporation’s present
and projected liquidity that the static gap analysis offers.
The
Corporation analyzes the following liquidity measurements in an effort to
monitor and mitigate liquidity risk:
|
·
|
Core
Deposit Ratio – Core deposits as a percentage of
assets
|
|
·
|
Funding
Concentration Analysis – Alternative funding sources outside of core
deposits as percentage of assets
|
|
·
|
Short-term
Funds Availability – Readily available short-term funds as a percentage of
assets
|
|
·
|
Securities
Portfolio Liquidity – Cash flows maturing in one year or less as a
percentage of assets and securities
portfolio
|
|
·
|
Borrowing
Limits – Internal borrowing limits in terms of both FHLB and total
borrowings
|
|
·
|
Three,
Six, and Twelve-month Projected Sources and Uses of
Funds
|
These
measurements are designed to prevent undue reliance on outside sources of
funding and to ensure a steady stream of liquidity is available should events
occur that would cause a sudden decrease in deposits or large increase in loans
or both, which would in turn draw significantly from the Corporation’s available
liquidity sources. As of June 30, 2010, the Corporation was within
guidelines for nearly all of the above measurements. The only
measurement that fell outside of the established guidelines was the securities
portfolio liquidity. As of December 31, 2009, management felt it
would be advantageous to change the guideline for securities portfolio liquidity
to 5.0-10.0% of assets up from the previous guideline of 2.5-7.5% of
assets. This change was instituted to afford for greater liquidity
within the securities portfolio. However, the new target will take
some time to reach and, as of June 30, 2010, securities portfolio liquidity was
4.1% of assets. While well within the former guideline, this ratio
does fall outside of the newly established target. Management
anticipates that this ratio will be within the newly established guidelines by
December 31, 2010. All liquidity measurements are tracked and
reported quarterly by management to both observe trends and ensure the
measurements stay within desired ranges. Management is
confident that a sufficient amount of internal and external liquidity exists to
provide for significant unanticipated liquidity needs.
Interest
Rate Risk
Interest
rate risk is measured using two analytical tools:
|
·
|
Changes
in net interest income
|
|
·
|
Changes
in net portfolio value
|
Financial
modeling is used to forecast net interest income and earnings, as well as net
portfolio value, also referred to as fair value. The modeling is
generally conducted under seven different interest rate
scenarios. The scenarios consist of a projection of net interest
income if rates remain flat, increase 100, 200, or 300 basis points, or decrease
100, 200, or 300 basis points. The results obtained through the use
of forecasting models are based on a variety of factors. Both the
income and fair value forecasts make use of the maturity and repricing schedules
to determine the changes to the balance sheet over the course of
time. Additionally, there are many assumptions that factor into the
results. These assumptions include, but are not limited to, the
following:
|
·
|
Projected
interest rates
|
|
·
|
Timing
of interest rate changes
|
|
·
|
Prepayment
speeds on the loans and mortgage-backed
securities
|
|
·
|
Anticipated
calls on financial instruments with call
options
|
|
·
|
Deposit
and loan balance fluctuations
|
|
·
|
Economic
conditions
|
|
·
|
Consumer
reaction to interest rate changes
|
Each
month, new financial information is supplied to the model and new forecasts are
generated at least quarterly. The model has the ability to
automatically revise growth rates for assets and liabilities, and reinvestment
rates for interest earning and bearing funds based on a databank of historical
financial information and key interest rates that the model
retains. Personnel perform an in-depth annual validation and
quarterly review of the settings and assumptions used in the model to ensure
reliability of the forecast results. Back testing of the model to
actual results is performed quarterly to ensure the validity of the assumptions
in the model. Both the validation and back testing indicate that the
model assumptions are reliable.
Changes
in Net Interest Income
The
change in net interest income measures the amount of net interest income
fluctuation that would be experienced over one year, assuming interest rates
change immediately and remain the same for one year. This is considered to be a
short-term view of interest rate risk. The analysis of changes in net
interest income due to changes in interest rates is commonly referred to as
interest rate sensitivity. The Corporation has historically been liability
sensitive; meaning that as interest rates go up, the Corporation would likely
achieve lower levels of net interest income due to sharper increases in the cost
of funds than increases in asset yield. Likewise, if rates go down,
there would be sharper reductions in the cost of funds than decreases to asset
yield, causing an increase to net interest income.
The
analysis projects the net interest income expected in the seven rate scenarios
on a one-year time horizon. As of June 30, 2010, the Corporation was
within guidelines for the maximum amount of net interest income declines given
all seven rate scenarios. The Corporation’s projected net interest
income fluctuations given the seven different rate scenarios did not change
materially from December 31, 2009.
As of
June 30, 2010, the Federal funds target rate was between 0.00% and 0.25%, so it
is likely the Federal Reserve will not lower rates any further. This
means the Corporation’s primary concern in this current rate environment is with
higher interest rate scenarios; therefore, they are reviewed with more
scrutiny. For the rates-up 100 and 200 basis-point scenario, net
interest income decreases slightly compared to the rates unchanged
scenario. For the rates-up 300 basis-point scenario, the net interest
income increases slightly compared to the rates unchanged
scenario. Unlike the rates down scenarios, the amount of negative
impact of rising rates is very minimal and the larger rate movements do not get
progressively worse. The rates-up 300 basis-point scenario shows
slight improvements over the rates-up 100 and 200 basis points. The
slightly positive impact of higher rates is because the impact of assets
repricing to higher rates offsets the normal liability sensitivity of the
Corporation, where a larger amount of liabilities reprice than
assets. In the rates-up scenarios, most of the Corporation’s variable
rate loans reprice higher by the full amount of the Federal Reserve’s action;
whereas management is generally able to limit the amount of liabilities
repricing to a fraction of the rate increase. Management does not
expect the Corporation’s exposure to interest rate changes to increase or change
significantly over the next twelve months.
Changes
in Net Portfolio Value
The
change in net portfolio value is considered a tool to measure long-term interest
rate risk. The analysis measures the exposure of the balance sheet to
valuation changes due to changes in interest rates. The calculation
of net portfolio value discounts future cash flows to the present value based on
current market rates. The change in net portfolio value estimates the
gain or loss that would occur on market sensitive instruments given an interest
rate increase or decrease in the same seven scenarios mentioned under “Changes
in Net Interest Income” above. As of June 30, 2010, the Corporation
was within guidelines for all scenarios although the analysis indicated some
exposure in the rates-up scenarios. This indicates that, as rates
rise, the Corporation loses net portfolio value, with the value of assets
declining at a faster rate than the decrease in the value of
deposits.
The
weakness with the net portfolio analysis is that it assumes liquidation of the
Corporation rather than as a going concern. For that reason, it is
considered a secondary measurement of interest rate risk to “Changes in Net
Interest Income” discussed above.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
(a)
Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures.
Management
carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of
the Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer), of the
effectiveness of the design and the operation of the Corporation’s disclosure
controls and procedures (as such term as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act) as of June 30, 2010, pursuant to Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer
along with the Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) concluded that the
Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2010, are
effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed in the reports
that the company files or submits under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is
recorded, processed, summarized, and reported within the time periods specified
in the rules and forms of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
(b)
Changes in Internal Controls.
There
have been no changes in the Corporation’s internal controls over financial
reporting that occurred during the most recent fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting.
Item 4T. Controls and Procedures
The
information in Item 4 above is incorporated herein by reference.
PART II –
OTHER INFORMATION
June 30,
2010
Item 1. Legal Proceedings
Management
is not aware of any litigation that would have a material adverse effect on the
financial position of the Corporation. There are no proceedings
pending other than ordinary routine litigation incident to the business of the
Corporation. In addition, no material proceedings are pending, are
known to be threatened, or contemplated against the Corporation by governmental
authorities.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
The
Corporation continually monitors the risks related to the Corporation’s
business, other events, the Corporation’s Common Stock and the Corporation’s
industry. There have not been any material changes in the primary
risks since the December 31, 2009, Form 10-K and the March 31, 2010, Form
10-Q. Additionally, no new risks have been identified since the last
Form 10-K and the last Form 10-Q.
Item
2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and use of
Proceeds – Nothing to Report
Item
3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities – Nothing to
Report
Item 4. (Removed and Reserved)
Item
5. Other Information – Nothing to Report
Item 6. Exhibits:
Exhibits
- The following exhibits are filed as part of this filing on Form 10-Q or
incorporated by reference hereto:
Page
|
||||
3
(i)
|
Articles
of Association of the Registrant, as amended
|
*
|
||
3
(ii)
|
By-Laws
of the Registrant, as amended
|
**
|
||
10.1
|
Form
of Deferred Income Agreement.
|
***
|
||
10.2
|
2001
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
|
****
|
||
11
|
Statement
re: computation of per share earnings
|
4
|
||
(Included
on page 4 herein)
|
||||
31.1
|
Section
302 Chief Executive Officer Certification
|
51
|
||
31.2
|
Section
302 Principal Financial Officer Certification
|
52
|
||
32.1
|
Section
1350 Chief Executive Officer Certification
|
53
|
||
32.2
|
Section
1350 Principal Financial Officer Certification
|
54
|
|
*
|
Incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Corporation’s Form 8-K12g3 filed
with the SEC on July 1, 2008.
|
|
**
|
Incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 3.2 of the Corporation’s Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on January 15, 2010.
|
|
***
|
Incorporated
herein by reference to the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q,
filed with the SEC on August 13,
2008.
|
|
****
|
Incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 99.1 of the Corporation’s Registration
Statement on Form S-8 filed with the SEC on July 9,
2008.
|
Pursuant
to the requirements of Section 13 or 15 (d) 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.
ENB Financial
Corp
|
|||
(Registrant) | |||
Dated:
August 13,
2010
|
By:
|
/s/ Aaron L. Groff,
Jr.
|
|
Aaron
L. Groff, Jr.
|
|||
Chairman
of the Board,
|
|||
President
& CEO
|
|||
Dated:
August 13,
2010
|
By:
|
/s/ Scott E.
Lied
|
|
Scott
E. Lied, CPA
|
|||
Treasurer
|
|||
Principal
Financial Officer
|
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit
No.
|
Description
|
Page
number
on
Manually Signed
Original
|
3(i)
|
Articles
of Association of the Registrant, as amended. (Incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 3.1 of the Corporation’s Form 8-K12g3 filed with the
SEC on July 1, 2008.)
|
|
3
(ii)
|
By-Laws
of the Registrant, as amended. (Incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 3.2 of the Corporation’s Form 8-K filed with the SEC on January
15, 2010.)
|
|
10.1
|
Form
of Deferred Income Agreement. (Incorporated herein by reference
to the Corporation’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the SEC on
August 13, 2008.)
|
|
10.2
|
2001
Employee Stock Purchase Plan (Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
99.1 of the Corporation’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with
the SEC on July 9, 2008.)
|
|
11
|
Statement
re: Computation of Earnings Per Share as found on page 4 of Form 10-Q,
which is included herein.
|
Page
4
|
Section
302 Chief Executive Officer Certification (Required by Rule
13a-14(a)).
|
Page
51
|
|
Section
302 Principal Financial Officer Certification (Required by Rule
13a-14(a)).
|
Page
52
|
|
Section
1350 Chief Executive Officer Certification (Required by Rule
13a-14(b)).
|
Page
53
|
|
Section
1350 Principal Financial Officer Certification (Required by Rule
13a-14(b)).
|
Page
54
|
50