PROVIDENT FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC - Quarter Report: 2009 March (Form 10-Q)
UNITED
STATES
SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington,
D.C. 20549
FORM
10-Q
(Mark
One)
[X]
|
QUARTERLY
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
For
the quarterly period ended ……………………………………........... March
31, 2009
|
[ ]
|
TRANSITION
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934
|
For
the transition period from ________________ to
_________________
|
Commission
File Number 000-28304
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL
HOLDINGS, INC.
(Exact
name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware | 33-0704889 | |
(State or
other jurisdiction of
incorporation or
organization)
|
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification
No.)
|
|
3756 Central Avenue, Riverside, California 92506
(Address
of principal executive offices and zip code)
(951)
686-6060
(Registrant’s telephone
number, including area code)
.
(Former
name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
report)
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 X .
No .
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on
its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data 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 .
No .
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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer”,
“accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer [ ] | Accelerated filer [X] | Non-accelerated filer [ ] | Smaller reporting company [ ] |
Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule
12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes . No X .
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.
Title of class: | As of May 5, 2009 | |
Common stock, $ 0.01 par value, per share | 6,219,654 shares | |
Table
of Contents
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition
(Unaudited)
Dollars
in Thousands
March
31,
|
June
30,
|
|||||
2009
|
2008
|
|||||
Assets
|
||||||
Cash
and due from banks
|
$ 12,254
|
$ 12,614
|
||||
Federal
funds sold
|
-
|
2,500
|
||||
Cash
and cash equivalents
|
12,254
|
15,114
|
||||
Investment
securities – available for sale, at fair value
|
137,178
|
153,102
|
||||
Loans
held for investment, net of allowance for loan losses of
|
||||||
$42,178
and $19,898, respectively
|
1,213,368
|
1,368,137
|
||||
Loans
held for sale, at lower of cost or market
|
116,098
|
28,461
|
||||
Accrued
interest receivable
|
6,162
|
7,273
|
||||
Real
estate owned, net
|
13,861
|
9,355
|
||||
Federal
Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) – San Francisco stock
|
32,929
|
32,125
|
||||
Premises
and equipment, net
|
6,461
|
6,513
|
||||
Prepaid
expenses and other assets
|
24,657
|
12,367
|
||||
Total
assets
|
$
1,562,968
|
$
1,632,447
|
||||
Liabilities
and Stockholders’ Equity
|
||||||
Liabilities:
|
||||||
Non
interest-bearing deposits
|
$ 44,718
|
$ 48,056
|
||||
Interest-bearing
deposits
|
903,229
|
964,354
|
||||
Total
deposits
|
947,947
|
1,012,410
|
||||
Borrowings
|
477,903
|
479,335
|
||||
Accounts
payable, accrued interest and other liabilities
|
20,926
|
16,722
|
||||
Total
liabilities
|
1,446,776
|
1,508,467
|
||||
Commitments
and Contingencies
|
||||||
Stockholders’
equity:
|
||||||
Preferred
stock, $.01 par value (2,000,000 shares authorized;
none
issued and outstanding)
|
||||||
-
|
-
|
|||||
Common
stock, $.01 par value (15,000,000 shares authorized;
12,435,865
and 12,435,865 shares issued, respectively;
6,219,654
and 6,207,719 shares outstanding, respectively)
|
||||||
124
|
124
|
|||||
Additional
paid-in capital
|
75,252
|
75,164
|
||||
Retained
earnings
|
133,494
|
143,053
|
||||
Treasury
stock at cost (6,216,211 and 6,228,146 shares,
respectively)
|
||||||
(93,942
|
) |
|
(94,798
|
)
|
||
Unearned
stock compensation
|
-
|
(102
|
)
|
|||
Accumulated
other comprehensive income, net of tax
|
1,264
|
539
|
||||
Total
stockholders’ equity
|
116,192
|
123,980
|
||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’ equity
|
$ 1,562,968
|
$
1,632,447
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated
financial statements.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Operations
(Unaudited)
In
Thousands, Except Per Share Information
|
|||||||||||
Quarter
Ended
March
31,
|
Nine
Months Ended
March
31,
|
||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||
Interest
income:
|
|||||||||||
Loans
receivable, net
|
$
18,850
|
$
21,645
|
$
59,156
|
$
64,859
|
|||||||
Investment
securities
|
1,635
|
1,959
|
5,344
|
5,605
|
|||||||
FHLB
– San Francisco stock
|
-
|
419
|
324
|
1,320
|
|||||||
Interest-earning
deposits
|
6
|
4
|
16
|
18
|
|||||||
Total
interest income
|
20,491
|
24,027
|
64,840
|
71,802
|
|||||||
Interest
expense:
|
|||||||||||
Checking
and money market deposits
|
282
|
351
|
914
|
1,275
|
|||||||
Savings
deposits
|
484
|
725
|
1,588
|
2,316
|
|||||||
Time
deposits
|
4,479
|
7,393
|
16,047
|
23,339
|
|||||||
Borrowings
|
4,575
|
4,839
|
14,086
|
15,212
|
|||||||
Total
interest expense
|
9,820
|
13,308
|
32,635
|
42,142
|
|||||||
Net
interest income, before provision for loan losses
|
10,671
|
10,719
|
32,205
|
29,660
|
|||||||
Provision
for loan losses
|
13,541
|
3,150
|
35,809
|
6,809
|
|||||||
Net
interest (expense) income, after provision for
loan
losses
|
(2,870
|
)
|
7,569
|
(3,604
|
)
|
22,851
|
|||||
Non-interest
income:
|
|||||||||||
Loan
servicing and other fees
|
91
|
350
|
605
|
1,354
|
|||||||
Gain
on sale of loans, net
|
6,107
|
306
|
8,692
|
1,362
|
|||||||
Deposit
account fees
|
684
|
768
|
2,219
|
2,211
|
|||||||
Gain
on sale of investment securities
|
-
|
-
|
356
|
-
|
|||||||
Loss
on sale and operations of real estate owned
acquired
in the settlement of loans
|
(952
|
)
|
(680
|
)
|
(1,838
|
)
|
(1,688
|
)
|
|||
Other
|
457
|
860
|
1,153
|
1,687
|
|||||||
Total
non-interest income
|
6,387
|
1,604
|
11,187
|
4,926
|
|||||||
Non-interest
expense:
|
|||||||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
5,025
|
4,816
|
14,175
|
14,462
|
|||||||
Premises
and occupancy
|
695
|
645
|
2,129
|
2,183
|
|||||||
Equipment
|
340
|
379
|
1,097
|
1,170
|
|||||||
Professional
expenses
|
294
|
323
|
986
|
1,116
|
|||||||
Sales
and marketing expenses
|
93
|
112
|
393
|
415
|
|||||||
Deposit
insurance premiums and regulatory
assessments
|
403
|
111
|
1,013
|
342
|
|||||||
Other
|
1,098
|
913
|
2,758
|
2,699
|
|||||||
Total
non-interest expense
|
7,948
|
7,299
|
22,551
|
22,387
|
|||||||
(Loss)
income before income taxes
|
(4,431
|
)
|
1,874
|
(14,968
|
)
|
5,390
|
|||||
(Benefit)
provision for income taxes
|
(1,861
|
)
|
917
|
(6,216
|
)
|
2,777
|
|||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$ (2,570
|
)
|
$ 957
|
$ (8,752
|
)
|
$ 2,613
|
|||||
Basic
(loss) earnings per share
|
$
(0.41
|
)
|
$
0.16
|
$
(1.41
|
)
|
$
0.42
|
|||||
Diluted
(loss) earnings per share
|
$
(0.41
|
)
|
$
0.15
|
$
(1.41
|
)
|
$
0.42
|
|||||
Cash
dividends per share
|
$ 0.03
|
$
0.18
|
$ 0.13
|
$
0.54
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated
financial statements.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity
(Unaudited)
Dollars
in Thousands
For
the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
Common
Stock
|
Additional
Paid-In
|
Retained
|
Treasury
|
Unearned
Stock
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income,
|
|||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Earnings
|
Stock
|
Compensation
|
Net
of Tax
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Balance
at January 1, 2009
|
6,208,519
|
$
124
|
$
74,943
|
$
136,251
|
$
(93,930
|
)
|
$
-
|
$
466
|
$
117,854
|
|||||||
Comprehensive
loss:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
(2,570
|
)
|
(2,570
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Unrealized
holding gain on
|
||||||||||||||||
securities
available for sale,
|
||||||||||||||||
net
of tax expense of $577
|
798
|
798
|
||||||||||||||
Total
comprehensive loss
|
(1,772
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
Purchase
of treasury stock (1)
|
(65
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Distribution
of restricted stock
|
11,200
|
|||||||||||||||
Amortization
of restricted stock
|
112
|
112
|
||||||||||||||
Forfeiture
of restricted stock
|
12
|
(12
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Stock
options expense
|
185
|
185
|
||||||||||||||
Cash
dividends
|
(187
|
)
|
(187
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2009
|
6,219,654
|
$
124
|
$
75,252
|
$
133,494
|
$
(93,942
|
)
|
$
-
|
$
1,264
|
$
116,192
|
(1)
|
All
of which are repurchases made to satisfy the minimum income tax required
to be withheld from employees in connection with the vesting of restricted
stock granted to them pursuant to the Corporation’s share-based
compensation plans.
|
Common
Stock
|
Additional
Paid-In
|
Retained
|
Treasury
|
Unearned
Stock
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income,
|
|||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Earnings
|
Stock
|
Compensation
|
Net
of Tax
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Balance
at January 1, 2008
|
6,196,434
|
$
124
|
$
74,180
|
$
145,587
|
$
(94,797
|
)
|
$
(261
|
)
|
$
1,290
|
$
126,123
|
||||||
Comprehensive
income:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
income
|
957
|
957
|
||||||||||||||
Unrealized holding gain on | ||||||||||||||||
securities
available for sale,
|
||||||||||||||||
net
of tax expense of $397
|
548
|
548
|
||||||||||||||
Total
comprehensive income
|
1,505
|
|||||||||||||||
Purchase
of treasury stock (1)
|
(65
|
)
|
(1
|
)
|
(1
|
)
|
||||||||||
Distribution
of restricted stock
|
11,350
|
|||||||||||||||
Amortization
of restricted stock
|
81
|
81
|
||||||||||||||
Stock
options expense
|
293
|
293
|
||||||||||||||
Allocations
of contribution to ESOP (2)
|
209
|
80
|
289
|
|||||||||||||
Cash
dividends
|
(1,117
|
)
|
(1,117
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2008
|
6,207,719
|
$
124
|
$
74,763
|
$
145,427
|
$
(94,798
|
)
|
$
(181
|
)
|
$
1,838
|
$
127,173
|
(1)
|
All
of which are repurchases made to satisfy the minimum income tax required
to be withheld from employees in connection with the vesting of restricted
stock granted to them pursuant to the Corporation’s share-based
compensation plans.
|
(2) Employee
Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”).
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated
financial statements.
PROVIDENT
FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Stockholders' Equity
(Unaudited)
Dollars
in Thousands
For
the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2009 and 2008
Common
Stock
|
Additional
Paid-In
|
Retained
|
Treasury
|
Unearned
Stock
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income,
|
|||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Earnings
|
Stock
|
Compensation
|
Net
of Tax
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Balance
at July 1, 2008
|
6,207,719
|
$
124
|
$
75,164
|
$
143,053
|
$
(94,798
|
)
|
$ (
102
|
)
|
$
539
|
$
123,980
|
||||||
Comprehensive
loss:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
loss
|
(8,752
|
)
|
(8,752
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Unrealized
holding gain on
|
||||||||||||||||
securities
available for sale,
|
||||||||||||||||
net
of tax expense of $524
|
725
|
725
|
||||||||||||||
Total
comprehensive loss
|
(8,027
|
)
|
||||||||||||||
Purchase
of treasury stock (1)
|
(65
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Distribution
of restricted stock
|
12,000
|
|||||||||||||||
Amortization
of restricted stock
|
320
|
320
|
||||||||||||||
Awards
of restricted stock
|
(868
|
)
|
868
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Forfeiture
of restricted stock
|
12
|
(12
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Stock
options expense
|
554
|
554
|
||||||||||||||
Allocations
of contribution to ESOP
|
70
|
102
|
172
|
|||||||||||||
Cash
dividends
|
(807
|
)
|
(807
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2009
|
6,219,654
|
$
124
|
$
75,252
|
$
133,494
|
$
(93,942
|
)
|
$ -
|
$
1,264
|
$
116,192
|
(1)
|
All
of which are repurchases made to satisfy the minimum income tax required
to be withheld from employees in connection with the vesting of restricted
stock granted to them pursuant to the Corporation’s share-based
compensation plans.
|
Common
Stock
|
Additional
Paid-In
|
Retained
|
Treasury
|
Unearned
Stock
|
Accumulated
Other
Comprehensive
Income,
|
|||||||||||
Shares
|
Amount
|
Capital
|
Earnings
|
Stock
|
Compensation
|
Net
of Tax
|
Total
|
|||||||||
Balance
at July 1, 2007
|
6,376,945
|
$
124
|
$
72,935
|
$
146,194
|
$
(90,694
|
)
|
$ (
455
|
)
|
$ 693
|
$
128,797
|
||||||
Comprehensive
income:
|
||||||||||||||||
Net
income
|
2,613
|
2,613
|
||||||||||||||
Unrealized
holding gain on
|
||||||||||||||||
securities
available for sale,
|
||||||||||||||||
net
of tax expense of $829
|
1,145
|
1,145
|
||||||||||||||
Total
comprehensive income
|
3,758
|
|||||||||||||||
Purchase
of treasury stock (1)
|
(188,076
|
)
|
(4,097
|
)
|
(4,097
|
)
|
||||||||||
Exercise
of stock options
|
7,500
|
-
|
69
|
69
|
||||||||||||
Distribution
of restricted stock
|
11,350
|
|||||||||||||||
Amortization
of restricted stock
|
212
|
212
|
||||||||||||||
Awards
of restricted stock
|
(45
|
)
|
45
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Forfeiture
of restricted stock
|
52
|
(52
|
)
|
-
|
||||||||||||
Stock
options expense
|
569
|
569
|
||||||||||||||
Tax
benefit from non-qualified
|
||||||||||||||||
equity
compensation
|
6
|
6
|
||||||||||||||
Allocations
of contribution to ESOP
|
965
|
274
|
1,239
|
|||||||||||||
Cash
dividends
|
(3,380
|
)
|
(3,380
|
)
|
||||||||||||
Balance
at March 31, 2008
|
6,207,719
|
$
124
|
$
74,763
|
$
145,427
|
$
(94,798
|
)
|
$
(181
|
)
|
$
1,838
|
$
127,173
|
(1)
|
Includes
the repurchase of 995 shares repurchased to satisfy the minimum income tax
required to be withheld from employees in connection with the vesting of
restricted stock granted to them pursuant to the Corporation’s share-based
compensation plans.
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated
financial statements.
Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
(Unaudited
- In Thousands)
Nine
Months Ended
March
31,
|
|||||
2009
|
2008
|
||||
Cash
flows from operating activities:
|
|||||
Net
(loss) income
|
$ (8,752
|
)
|
$ 2,613
|
||
Adjustments
to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash (used for) provided
by
|
|||||
operating
activities:
|
|||||
Depreciation
and amortization
|
1,565
|
1,707
|
|||
Provision
for loan losses
|
35,809
|
6,809
|
|||
Provision
for losses on real estate owned
|
226
|
435
|
|||
Gain
on sale of loans
|
(8,692
|
)
|
(1,362
|
)
|
|
Net
gain on sale of investment securities
|
(356
|
)
|
-
|
||
Net
loss on sale of real estate owned
|
109
|
470
|
|||
Stock-based
compensation
|
1,019
|
1,934
|
|||
FHLB
– San Francisco stock dividend
|
(804
|
)
|
(1,447
|
)
|
|
Tax
benefit from non-qualified equity compensation
|
-
|
(6
|
)
|
||
Increase
(decrease) in accounts payable and other liabilities
|
1,095
|
(2,700
|
)
|
||
(Increase)
decrease in prepaid expense and other assets
|
(7,202
|
)
|
722
|
||
Loans
originated for sale
|
(701,044
|
)
|
(284,772
|
)
|
|
Proceeds
from sale of loans and net change in receivable from sale of loans
|
620,464
|
328,127
|
|||
Net
cash (used for) provided by operating activities
|
(66,563
|
)
|
52,530
|
||
Cash
flows from investing activities:
|
|||||
Net
decrease (increase) in loans held for investment
|
89,067
|
(74,240
|
)
|
||
Maturity
and call of investment securities held to maturity
|
-
|
19,000
|
|||
Maturity
and call of investment securities available for sale
|
65
|
5,979
|
|||
Principal
payments from mortgage-backed securities
|
24,973
|
35,131
|
|||
Purchase
of investment securities available for sale
|
(8,135
|
)
|
(75,774
|
)
|
|
Proceeds
from sale of investment securities available for sale
|
480
|
-
|
|||
Purchase
of FHLB – San Francisco stock
|
-
|
(39
|
)
|
||
Redemption
of FHLB – San Francisco stock
|
-
|
13,638
|
|||
Proceeds
from sale of real estate owned
|
24,622
|
8,211
|
|||
Purchase
of premises and equipment
|
(675
|
)
|
(229
|
)
|
|
Net
cash provided by (used for) investing activities
|
130,397
|
(68,323
|
)
|
||
Cash
flows from financing activities:
|
|||||
Net
(decrease) increase in deposits
|
(64,463
|
)
|
30,770
|
||
(Repayments
of) proceeds from short-term borrowings, net
|
(81,400
|
)
|
29,000
|
||
Proceeds
from long-term borrowings
|
130,000
|
80,000
|
|||
Repayments
of long-term borrowings
|
(50,032
|
)
|
(112,030
|
)
|
|
ESOP
loan payment
|
8
|
63
|
|||
Exercise
of stock options
|
-
|
69
|
|||
Tax
benefit from non-qualified equity compensation
|
-
|
6
|
|||
Cash
dividends
|
(807
|
)
|
(3,380
|
)
|
|
Treasury
stock purchases
|
-
|
(4,097
|
)
|
||
Net
cash (used for) provided by financing activities
|
(66,694
|
)
|
20,401
|
||
Net
(decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents
|
(2,860
|
)
|
4,608
|
||
Cash
and cash equivalents at beginning of period
|
15,114
|
12,824
|
|||
Cash
and cash equivalents at end of period
|
$ 12,254
|
$ 17,432
|
|||
Supplemental
information:
|
|||||
Cash
paid for interest
|
$
32,335
|
$
42,381
|
|||
Cash
paid for income taxes
|
$ 2,599
|
$ 3,100
|
|||
Transfer
of loans held for sale to loans held for investment
|
$ 1,004
|
$ 9,605
|
|||
Real
estate acquired in the settlement of loans
|
$
41,636
|
$
17,762
|
The
accompanying notes are an integral part of these condensed consolidated
financial statements.
NOTES
TO UNAUDITED INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
March
31, 2009
Note
1: Basis of Presentation
The
unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements included herein
reflect all adjustments which are, in the opinion of management, necessary to
present a fair statement of the results of operations for the interim periods
presented. All such adjustments are of a normal, recurring
nature. The condensed consolidated financial statements at June 30,
2008 are derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of Provident
Financial Holdings, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Provident Savings
Bank, F.S.B. (the “Bank”) (collectively, the “Corporation”). Certain
information and note disclosures normally included in financial statements
prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America have been omitted pursuant to the rules and regulations
of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) with respect to interim
financial reporting. It is recommended that these unaudited interim
condensed consolidated financial statements be read in conjunction with the
audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in the
Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2008. Certain amounts in the prior periods’ financial statements have
been reclassified to conform to the current period’s
presentation. The results of operations for the quarter and nine
months ended March 31, 2009 are not necessarily indicative of results that may
be expected for the entire fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.
Note
2: Recent Accounting Pronouncements
Financial Accounting
Standards Board (“FASB”) Staff Position (“FSP”) FAS 107-1 and Accounting
Principles Board (“APB”) 28-1:
On April
9, 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1, “Interim Disclosures about
Fair Value of Financial Instruments.” This FSP amends FASB Statement
No. 107, “Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments,” to require
disclosures about fair value of financial instruments for interim reporting
periods of publicly traded companies as well as in annual financial
statements. This FSP also amends APB Opinion No. 28, “Interim
Financial Reporting,” to require those disclosures in summarized financial
information at interim reporting periods. This FSP shall be effective
for interim reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption
permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The Corporation will adopt
this FSP for interim and annual reporting ending after June 15, 2009 and the
impact of the adoption of this FSP has not been determined with respect to the
Corporation’s consolidated financial statements.
FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS
124-2:
On April
9, 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 115-2 and FAS 124-2, “Recognition and
Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments.” The objective of
an other-than-temporary impairment analysis under existing U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) is to determine whether the holder of an
investment in a debt or equity security for which changes in fair value are not
regularly recognized in earnings (such as securities classified as
held-to-maturity or available-for-sale) should recognize a loss in earnings when
the investment is impaired. An investment is impaired if the fair
value of the investment is less than its amortized cost basis. This
FSP amends the other-than-temporary impairment guidance in GAAP for debt
securities to make the guidance more operational and to improve the presentation
and disclosure of other-than-temporary impairments on debt and equity securities
in the financial statements. This FSP does not amend existing
recognition and measurement guidance related to other-than-temporary impairments
of equity securities. The FSP shall be effective for interim and
annual reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption
permitted for periods ending after March 15, 2009. The Corporation
will adopt this FSP for interim and annual reporting ending after June 15, 2009
and the impact of the adoption of this FSP has not been determined with respect
to the Corporation’s consolidated financial statements.
FSP FAS
157-4:
On April
9, 2009, the FASB issued FSP FAS 157-4, “Determining Fair Value When the Volume
and Level of Activity for the Asset or Liability Have Significantly Decreased
and Identifying Transactions That Are Not Orderly.” This FSP provides
additional guidance for estimating fair value in accordance with FASB Statement
No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements,” when the volume and level of activity for
the asset or liability have significantly decreased. This FSP also
includes guidance on identifying circumstances that indicate a transaction is
not orderly. This FSP emphasizes that even if there has been a
significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or
liability and regardless of the valuation technique(s) used, the objective of a
fair value measurement remains the same. Fair value is the price that
would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly
transaction (that is, not a forced liquidation or distressed sale) between
market participants at the measurement date under current market
conditions. This FSP shall be effective for interim and annual
reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, and shall be applied
prospectively. Early adoption is permitted for periods ending after
March 15, 2009. The Corporation will adopt this FSP for interim and
annual reporting ending after June 15, 2009 and the impact of the adoption of
this FSP has not been determined with respect to the Corporation’s consolidated
financial statements.
FSP No. 133-1 and FASB
Interpretation (“FIN”) 45-4:
In
September 2008, the FASB issued FSP No. 133-1 and FIN 45-4, “Disclosures about
Credit Derivatives and Certain Guarantees: An Amendment of FASB Statement No.
133 and FASB Interpretation No. 45; and Clarification of the Effective Date of
FASB Statement No. 161.” The FSP is intended to improve disclosures
about credit derivatives by requiring more information about the potential
adverse effects of changes in credit risk on the financial position, financial
performance, and cash flows of the sellers of credit derivatives. It
amends Statement of Financial Accounting Standard (“SFAS”) No. 133 to require
disclosures by sellers of credit derivatives, including credit derivatives
embedded in hybrid instruments. The FSP also amends FIN 45,
“Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including
Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness to Others,” to require an additional
disclosure about the current status of the payment/performance risk of a
guarantee. Finally, the FSP clarifies the Board’s intent about the
effective date of SFAS No. 161. Accordingly, the FSP clarifies that
the disclosures required by SFAS No. 161 will be incorporated upon adoption of
SFAS No. 161 on July 1, 2009. The adoption of this FSP did not have
material impact on the Corporation’s consolidated financial
statements.
Note
3: Earnings (Loss) Per Share and Stock-Based Compensation
Earnings
(Loss) Per Share:
Basic
earnings per share (“EPS”) excludes dilution and is computed by dividing income
or loss available to common shareholders by the weighted-average number of
shares outstanding for the period. Diluted EPS reflects the potential
dilution that could occur if securities or other contracts to issue common stock
were exercised or converted into common stock or resulted in the issuance of
common stock that would then share in the earnings of the entity. As
of March 31, 2009 and 2008, there were outstanding options to purchase 905,500
shares and 727,700 shares of the Corporation common stock, respectively, of
which 905,500 shares and 590,000 shares, respectively, were excluded from the
diluted EPS computation as their effect was anti-dilutive.
The
following table provides the basic and diluted EPS computations for the quarters
and nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
For
the Quarter
Ended
March
31,
|
For
the Nine Months
Ended
March
31,
|
||||||
(In
Thousands, Except Earnings (Loss) Per Share)
|
|||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||
Numerator:
|
|||||||
Net (loss) income – numerator for basic (loss) | |||||||
earnings
per share and diluted (loss) earnings
|
|||||||
per
share - available to common stockholders
|
$
(2,570
|
) |
$
957
|
$ (8,752 | ) |
$2,613
|
|
Denominator:
|
|||||||
Denominator
for basic (loss) earnings per share:
|
|||||||
Weighted-average shares |
6,215
|
6,145
|
6,201
|
6,173
|
|||
Effect
of dilutive securities:
|
|||||||
Stock
option dilution
|
-
|
55
|
-
|
57
|
|||
Denominator
for diluted (loss) earnings per share:
|
|||||||
Adjusted
weighted-average shares
|
|||||||
and
assumed conversions
|
6,215
|
6,200
|
6,201
|
6,230
|
|||
Basic
(loss) earnings per share
|
$
(0.41
|
)
|
$
0.16
|
$
(1.41
|
)
|
$
0.42
|
|
Diluted
(loss) earnings per share
|
$
(0.41
|
)
|
$
0.15
|
$
(1.41
|
)
|
$
0.42
|
SFAS No.
123R, “Share-Based Payment,” requires companies to recognize in the statement of
operations the grant-date fair value of stock options and other equity-based
compensation issued to employees and directors. Effective July 1,
2005, the Corporation adopted SFAS No. 123R using the modified prospective
method under which the provisions of SFAS No. 123R are applied to new awards and
to awards modified, repurchased or cancelled after June 30, 2005 and to awards
outstanding on June 30, 2005 for which requisite service has not yet been
rendered.
The
adoption of SFAS No. 123R resulted in incremental stock-based compensation
expense and is solely related to issued and unvested stock option
grants. The incremental stock-based compensation expense for the
quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 was $185,000 and $293,000,
respectively. For the nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the
incremental stock-based compensation expense was $554,000 and $569,000,
respectively. For the first nine months of fiscal 2009 and 2008, cash
provided by operating activities decreased by $0 and $6,000, respectively, and
cash provided by financing activities increased by an identical amount,
respectively, related to excess tax benefits from stock-based payment
arrangements. These amounts are reflective of the tax benefit for
stock options exercised and restricted stock distributions during the respective
periods.
Note
4: Operating Segment Reports
The
Corporation operates in two business segments: community banking through the
Bank and mortgage banking through Provident Bank Mortgage (“PBM”), a division of
the Bank.
The
following tables set forth condensed statements of operations and total assets
for the Corporation’s operating segments for the quarters ended March 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively (in thousands).
For
the Quarter Ended March 31, 2009
|
||||||
Provident
|
||||||
Provident
|
Bank
|
Consolidated
|
||||
Bank
|
Mortgage
|
Totals
|
||||
Net
interest income, before provision for loan
losses
|
$
10,485
|
$ 186
|
$
10,671
|
|||
Provision
for loan losses
|
12,178
|
1,363
|
13,541
|
|||
Net
interest expense, after provision for loan losses
|
(1,693
|
)
|
(1,177
|
)
|
(2,870
|
)
|
Non-interest
income:
|
||||||
Loan
servicing and other fees (1)
|
50
|
41
|
91
|
|||
Gain
on sale of loans, net
|
6
|
6,101
|
6,107
|
|||
Deposit
account fees
|
684
|
-
|
684
|
|||
Loss
on sale and operations of real estate owned
acquired
in the settlement of loans, net
|
(896
|
)
|
(56
|
)
|
(952
|
)
|
Other
|
454
|
3
|
457
|
|||
Total
non-interest income
|
298
|
6,089
|
6,387
|
|||
Non-interest
expense:
|
||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
3,478
|
1,547
|
5,025
|
|||
Premises
and occupancy
|
564
|
131
|
695
|
|||
Operating
and administrative expenses
|
1,218
|
1,010
|
2,228
|
|||
Total
non-interest expense
|
5,260
|
2,688
|
7,948
|
|||
(Loss)
income before taxes
|
(6,655
|
)
|
2,224
|
(4,431
|
)
|
|
(Benefit)
provision for income taxes
|
(2,796
|
)
|
935
|
(1,861
|
)
|
|
Net
(loss) income
|
$
(3,859
|
)
|
$
1,289
|
$
(2,570
|
)
|
|
Total
assets, end of period
|
$
1,445,310
|
$
117,658
|
$
1,562,968
|
(1)
|
Includes
an inter-company charge of $21 credited to PBM by the Bank during the
period to compensate PBM for originating loans held for
investment.
|
For
the Quarter Ended March 31, 2008
|
||||||
Provident
|
||||||
Provident
|
Bank
|
Consolidated
|
||||
Bank
|
Mortgage
|
Totals
|
||||
Net
interest income (expense), before provision for
loan
losses
|
$
10,771
|
$ (52
|
)
|
$
10,719
|
||
Provision
for loan losses
|
2,287
|
863
|
3,150
|
|||
Net
interest income (expense), after provision for
loan
losses
|
8,484
|
(915
|
)
|
7,569
|
||
Non-interest
income:
|
||||||
Loan
servicing and other fees (1)
|
51
|
299
|
350
|
|||
Gain
on sale of loans, net
|
7
|
299
|
306
|
|||
Deposit
account fees
|
768
|
-
|
768
|
|||
Loss
on sale and operations of real estate owned
acquired
in the settlement of loans, net
|
(171
|
)
|
(509
|
)
|
(680
|
)
|
Other
|
856
|
4
|
860
|
|||
Total
non-interest income
|
1,511
|
93
|
1,604
|
|||
Non-interest
expense:
|
||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
3,817
|
999
|
4,816
|
|||
Premises
and occupancy
|
514
|
131
|
645
|
|||
Operating
and administrative expenses
|
931
|
907
|
1,838
|
|||
Total
non-interest expense
|
5,262
|
2,037
|
7,299
|
|||
Income
(loss) before taxes
|
4,733
|
(2,859
|
)
|
1,874
|
||
Provision
(benefit) for income taxes
|
2,307
|
(1,390
|
)
|
917
|
||
Net
income (loss)
|
$
2,426
|
$
(1,469
|
)
|
$ 957
|
||
Total
assets, end of period
|
$
1,653,016
|
$
21,283
|
$
1,674,299
|
(1)
|
Includes
an inter-company charge of $309 credited to PBM by the Bank during the
period to compensate PBM for originating loans held for
investment.
|
The
following tables set forth condensed statements of operations and total assets
for the Corporation’s operating segments for the nine months ended March 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively (in thousands).
For
the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2009
|
||||||
Provident
|
||||||
Provident
|
Bank
|
Consolidated
|
||||
Bank
|
Mortgage
|
Totals
|
||||
Net
interest income, before provision for loan
losses
|
$
31,862
|
$ 343
|
$ 32,205
|
|||
Provision
for loan losses
|
32,387
|
3,422
|
35,809
|
|||
Net
interest expense, after provision for loan losses
|
(525
|
)
|
(3,079
|
)
|
(3,604
|
)
|
Non-interest
income:
|
||||||
Loan
servicing and other fees (1)
|
393
|
212
|
605
|
|||
Gain
on sale of loans, net
|
13
|
8,679
|
8,692
|
|||
Deposit
account fees
|
2,219
|
-
|
2,219
|
|||
Gain
on sale of investment securities
|
356
|
-
|
356
|
|||
Loss
on sale and operations of real estate owned
acquired
in the settlement of loans, net
|
(1,516
|
)
|
(322
|
)
|
(1,838
|
)
|
Other
|
1,147
|
6
|
1,153
|
|||
Total
non-interest income
|
2,612
|
8,575
|
11,187
|
|||
Non-interest
expense:
|
||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
10,144
|
4,031
|
14,175
|
|||
Premises
and occupancy
|
1,749
|
380
|
2,129
|
|||
Operating
and administrative expenses
|
3,528
|
2,719
|
6,247
|
|||
Total
non-interest expense
|
15,421
|
7,130
|
22,551
|
|||
Loss
before taxes
|
(13,334
|
)
|
(1,634
|
)
|
(14,968
|
)
|
Benefit
for income taxes
|
(5,529
|
)
|
(687
|
)
|
(6,216
|
)
|
Net
loss
|
$
(7,805
|
)
|
$ (947
|
)
|
$ (8,752
|
)
|
Total
assets, end of period
|
$
1,445,310
|
$
117,658
|
$
1,562,968
|
(1)
|
Includes
an inter-company charge of $123 credited to PBM by the Bank during the
period to compensate PBM for originating loans held for
investment.
|
For
the Nine Months Ended March 31, 2008
|
||||||
Provident
|
||||||
Provident
|
Bank
|
Consolidated
|
||||
Bank
|
Mortgage
|
Totals
|
||||
Net
interest income (expense), before provision for
loan
losses
|
$
29,877
|
$ (217
|
)
|
$
29,660
|
||
Provision
for loan losses
|
4,059
|
2,750
|
6,809
|
|||
Net
interest income (expense), after provision for
loan
losses
|
25,818
|
(2,967
|
)
|
22,851
|
||
Non-interest
income:
|
||||||
Loan
servicing and other fees (1)
|
50
|
1,304
|
1,354
|
|||
Gain
on sale of loans, net
|
40
|
1,322
|
1,362
|
|||
Deposit
account fees
|
2,211
|
-
|
2,211
|
|||
Loss
on sale and operations of real estate owned
acquired
in the settlement of loans, net
|
(526
|
)
|
(1,162
|
)
|
(1,688
|
)
|
Other
|
1,683
|
4
|
1,687
|
|||
Total
non-interest income
|
3,458
|
1,468
|
4,926
|
|||
Non-interest
expense:
|
||||||
Salaries
and employee benefits
|
10,618
|
3,844
|
14,462
|
|||
Premises
and occupancy
|
1,555
|
628
|
2,183
|
|||
Operating
and administrative expenses
|
2,846
|
2,896
|
5,742
|
|||
Total
non-interest expense
|
15,019
|
7,368
|
22,387
|
|||
Income
(loss) before taxes
|
14,257
|
(8,867
|
)
|
5,390
|
||
Provision
(benefit) for income taxes
|
7,345
|
(4,568
|
)
|
2,777
|
||
Net
income (loss)
|
$ 6,912
|
$
(4,299
|
)
|
$ 2,613
|
||
Total
assets, end of period
|
$
1,653,016
|
$
21,283
|
$
1,674,299
|
(1)
|
Includes
an inter-company charge of $1.0 million credited to PBM by the Bank during
the period to compensate PBM for originating loans held for
investment.
|
Note
5: Derivative and Other Financial Instruments with Off-Balance Sheet
Risks
The
Corporation is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in
the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its
customers. These financial instruments include commitments to extend
credit in the form of originating loans or providing funds under existing lines
of credit, and forward loan sale agreements to third parties. These
instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest-rate
risk in excess of the amount recognized in the accompanying Condensed
Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. The Corporation’s
exposure to credit loss, in the event of non-performance by the counterparty to
these financial instruments, is represented by the contractual amount of these
instruments. The Corporation uses the same credit policies in
entering into financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk as it does for
on-balance sheet instruments. As of March
31, 2009 and June 30, 2008, the Corporation had commitments to extend credit (on
loans to be held for investment and loans to be held for sale) of $207.8 million
and $29.4 million, respectively. The following table provides
information regarding undisbursed funds to borrowers on existing loans and lines
of credit with the Bank as well as commitments to originate loans to be held for
investment.
March
31,
|
June
30,
|
||
Commitments
|
2009
|
2008
|
|
(In
Thousands)
|
|||
Undisbursed
loan funds – Construction loans
|
$ 1,493
|
$ 7,864
|
|
Undisbursed
lines of credit – Mortgage loans
|
2,704
|
4,880
|
|
Undisbursed
lines of credit – Commercial business loans
|
5,194
|
6,833
|
|
Undisbursed
lines of credit – Consumer loans
|
1,532
|
1,672
|
|
Commitments
to extend credit on loans to be held for investment
|
850
|
6,232
|
|
Total
|
$
11,773
|
$
27,481
|
In
accordance with SFAS No. 133 and interpretations of the Derivatives
Implementation Group of the FASB, the fair value of the commitments to extend
credit on loans to be held for sale, loan sale commitments, commitments to
purchase mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”), put option contracts and call
option contracts are recorded at fair value on the balance sheet, and are
included in other assets or other liabilities. The Corporation does
not apply hedge accounting to its derivative financial instruments; therefore,
all changes in fair value are recorded in earnings. The net impact of
derivative financial instruments on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations during the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 were a gain of $2.5
million and a loss of $70,000, respectively. For the nine months
ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the net impact of derivative financial
instruments on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations was a gain of
$3.1 million and a loss of $112,000, respectively.
March
31, 2009
|
June
30, 2008
|
March
31, 2008
|
||||||||||
Fair
|
Fair
|
Fair
|
||||||||||
Derivative
Financial Instruments
|
Amount
|
Value
|
Amount
|
Value
|
Amount
|
Value
|
||||||
(In
Thousands)
|
||||||||||||
Commitments
to extend credit
|
||||||||||||
on
loans to be held for sale (1)
|
$
206,966
|
$
4,242
|
$
23,191
|
$
(304
|
)
|
$ 14,037
|
$
(90
|
)
|
||||
Best-efforts
loan sale
commitments
|
(3,669
|
)
|
-
|
(51,652
|
)
|
-
|
(32,878
|
)
|
-
|
|||
Mandatory
loan sale
commitments
|
(279,538
|
)
|
(1,485
|
)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
||||
Total
|
$
(76,241
|
)
|
$
2,757
|
$
(28,461
|
)
|
$
(304
|
)
|
$
(18,841
|
)
|
$
(90
|
)
|
(1)
|
Net
of 38.8 percent at March 31, 2009, 48.0 percent at June 30, 2008 and 63.0
percent at March 31, 2008 of commitments, which may not
fund.
|
Note
6: Income Taxes
FASB
Interpretation 48, “Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes,” requires the
affirmative evaluation that it is more likely than not, based on the technical
merits of a tax position, that an enterprise is entitled to economic benefits
resulting from positions taken in income tax returns. If a tax position does not
meet the more-likely-than-not recognition threshold, the benefit of that
position is not recognized in the financial statements. Management has
determined that there are no unrecognized tax benefits to be reported in the
Corporation’s financial statements, and none are anticipated during the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2009.
SFAS No.
109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” requires that when determining the need for
a valuation allowance against a deferred tax asset, management must assess both
positive and negative evidence with regard to the realizability of the tax
losses represented by that asset. To the extent available sources of taxable
income are insufficient to absorb tax losses, a valuation allowance is
necessary. Sources of taxable income for this analysis include prior years’ tax
returns, the expected reversals of taxable temporary differences between book
and tax income, prudent and feasible tax-planning strategies, and future taxable
income. The Corporation’s tax asset has increased during the
first nine months of fiscal 2009 due to an increase in its loan loss allowances.
The deferred tax asset related to loan loss allowances will be realized when
actual charge-offs are made against the loan loss allowances. Based on the
availability of loss carry-backs and projected taxable income during the periods
for which
loss
carry-forwards are available, management does not believe that a valuation
allowance is necessary at this time. As of March 31, 2009, the
Corporation has estimated deferred tax assets of $12.3 million and current tax
receivables of $1.4 million.
The
Corporation files income tax returns for the United States and state of
California jurisdictions. In September 2008, the Internal Revenue
Service (“IRS”) completed its examination of the Corporation’s tax returns for
2006 and 2007. Tax years subsequent to 2007 remain subject to federal
examination, while the California state tax returns for years subsequent to 2004
are subject to examination by taxing authorities. It is the
Corporation’s policy to record any penalties or interest arising from federal or
state taxes as a component of income tax expense. There were no
penalties or interest included in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations for the quarter and nine months ended March 31, 2009.
Note
7: Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The
Corporation adopted SFAS No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements,” and SFAS No. 159,
“The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities,” on July
1, 2008. SFAS No. 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for
measuring fair value, and expands disclosures about fair value
measurements. SFAS No. 159 permits entities to elect to measure many
financial instruments and certain other assets and liabilities at fair value on
an instrument-by-instrument basis (the Fair Value Option) at specified election
dates. At each subsequent reporting date, an entity is required to
report unrealized gains and losses on items in earnings for which the fair value
option has been elected at each subsequent reporting date. The
objective of the statement is to provide entities with the opportunity to
mitigate volatility in earnings caused by measuring related assets and
liabilities differently without having to apply complex accounting
provisions. The Corporation did not elect to measure any
financial instruments at fair value under SFAS No. 159. Under FSP
157-2, portions of SFAS No. 157 have been deferred until years beginning after
November 15, 2008 for all nonfinancial assets and nonfinancial liabilities
recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring
basis. Therefore, the Corporation has partially adopted the provisions of SFAS
No. 157.
In
October 2008, the FASB issued FSP 157-3 – “Determining the Fair Value of a
Financial Asset When the Market for that Asset is not Active.” FSP
157-3 clarifies the application of SFAS No. 157 in a market that is not active
and provides an example to illustrate key considerations in determining the fair
value of a financial asset when the market for that financial asset is not
active.
SFAS No.
157 establishes a three-level valuation hierarchy that prioritizes inputs to
valuation techniques used in fair value calculations. The three
levels of inputs are defined as follows:
Level
1
|
-
|
Unadjusted
quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that
the Corporation has the ability to access at the measurement
date.
|
Level
2
|
-
|
Observable
inputs other than Level 1 such as: quoted prices for similar assets or
liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar
assets or liabilities in markets that are not active, or other inputs that
are observable or can be corroborated to observable market data for
substantially the full term of the asset or liability.
|
Level
3
|
-
|
Unobservable
inputs for the asset or liability that use significant assumptions,
including assumptions of risks. These unobservable assumptions
reflect our own estimate of assumptions that market participants would use
in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include
use of pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar
techniques.
|
SFAS No.
157 requires the Corporation to maximize the use of observable inputs and
minimize the use of unobservable inputs. If a financial instrument
uses inputs that fall in different levels of the hierarchy, the instrument will
be categorized based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the
fair value calculation.
The
Corporation’s financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a
recurring basis consist of investment securities and derivative financial
instruments, while loans held for sale, impaired loans and mortgage servicing
assets are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring
basis.
Investment
securities are primarily comprised of U.S. government sponsored enterprise debt
securities, U.S. government agency mortgage-backed securities, U.S. government
sponsored enterprise mortgage-backed securities and private issue collateralized
mortgage obligations. The Corporation utilizes unadjusted quoted
prices in active markets for identical securities (Level 1) for its fair value
measurement of debt securities, quoted prices in active and less than active
markets for similar securities (Level 2) for its fair value measurement of
mortgage-backed securities and broker price indications for similar securities
in non-active markets (Level 3) for its fair value measurement of collateralized
mortgage obligations (“CMO”).
Derivative
financial instruments are comprised of commitments to extend credit on loans to
be held for sale and mandatory loan sale commitments. The fair value
is determined, when possible, using quoted secondary-market
prices. If no such quoted price exists, the fair value of a
commitment is determined by quoted prices for a similar commitment or
commitments, adjusted for the specific attributes of each
commitment.
Loans
held for sale are primarily single-family loans and are written down to fair
value. The fair value is determined, when possible, using quoted
secondary-market prices. If no such quoted price exists, the fair
value of a loan is determined by quoted prices for a similar loan or loans,
adjusted for the specific attributes of each loan.
Impaired
loans are loans which are inadequately protected by the current net worth and
paying capacity of the borrowers or of the collateral pledged. The
impaired loans are characterized by the distinct possibility that the Bank will
sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. The fair
value of an impaired loan is determined based on an observable market price or
current appraised value of the underlying collateral. Appraised
and reported values may be discounted based on management’s historical
knowledge, changes in market conditions from the time of valuation, and/or
management’s expertise and knowledge of the borrower. Impaired loans
are reviewed and evaluated on at least a quarterly basis for additional
impairment and adjusted accordingly, based on the same factors identified
above. This loss is not recorded directly as an adjustment to current
earnings or other comprehensive income, but rather as a component in determining
the overall adequacy of the allowance for losses on loans. These
adjustments to the estimated fair value of impaired loans may result in
increases or decreases to the provision for losses on loans recorded in current
earnings.
The
Corporation uses the amortization method for its mortgage servicing assets,
which amortizes servicing assets in proportion to and over the period of
estimated net servicing income and assesses servicing assets for impairment
based on fair value at each reporting date. The fair value of
mortgage servicing assets are calculated using the present value method; which
includes a third party’s prepayment projections of similar instruments, weighted
average coupon rates and the estimated average life.
The
Corporation’s valuation methodologies may produce a fair value calculation that
may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future fair
values. While management believes the Corporation’s valuation
methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the
use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of
certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value
at the reporting date.
The
following fair value hierarchy table presents information about the
Corporation’s assets measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
Fair
Value Measurement at March 31, 2009 Using:
|
|||||||
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
Level
1
|
Level
2
|
Level
3
|
Total
|
|||
Investment
securities
|
$
5,381
|
$
130,343
|
$
1,454
|
$
137,178
|
|||
Derivative
financial instruments
|
-
|
-
|
2,757
|
2,757
|
|||
Total
|
$
5,381
|
$
130,343
|
$
4,211
|
$
139,935
|
Fair
Value Measurement at June 30, 2008 Using:
|
|||||||
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
Level
1
|
Level
2
|
Level
3
|
Total
|
|||
Investment
securities
|
$
5,685
|
$
145,192
|
$
2,225
|
$
153,102
|
|||
Derivative
financial instruments
|
-
|
-
|
(304
|
)
|
(304
|
)
|
|
Total
|
$
5,685
|
$
145,192
|
$
1,921
|
$
152,798
|
The
following is a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of recurring
fair value measurements recognized in the accompanying condensed consolidated
statement of financial condition using Level 3 inputs:
Fair
Value Measurement
Using
Significant Other Unobservable Inputs
(Level
3)
|
||||||||
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
CMO
|
Derivative
Financial
Instruments
|
Total
|
|||||
Beginning
balance at January 1, 2009
|
$
1,756
|
$ 292
|
$
2,048
|
|||||
Total
gains or losses (realized/unrealized):
|
||||||||
Included
in earnings
|
-
|
(292
|
)
|
(292
|
)
|
|||
Included
in other comprehensive income
|
(205
|
)
|
-
|
(205
|
)
|
|||
Purchases,
issuances, and settlements
|
(97
|
)
|
2,757
|
2,660
|
||||
Transfers
in and/or out of Level 3
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||
Ending
balance at March 31, 2009
|
$
1,454
|
$
2,757
|
$
4,211
|
Fair
Value Measurement
Using
Significant Other Unobservable Inputs
(Level
3)
|
||||||||
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
CMO
|
Derivative
Financial
Instruments
|
Total
|
|||||
Beginning
balance at July 1, 2008
|
$
2,225
|
$ (304
|
)
|
$
1,921
|
||||
Total
gains or losses (realized/unrealized):
|
||||||||
Included
in earnings
|
-
|
468
|
468
|
|||||
Included
in other comprehensive income
|
(381
|
)
|
-
|
(381
|
)
|
|||
Purchases,
issuances, and settlements
|
(390
|
)
|
2,593
|
2,203
|
||||
Transfers
in and/or out of Level 3
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|||||
Ending
balance at March 31, 2009
|
$
1,454
|
$
2,757
|
$
4,211
|
The
following fair value hierarchy table presents information about the
Corporation’s assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring
basis:
Fair
Value Measurement at March 31, 2009 Using:
|
||||||||
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
Level
1
|
Level
2
|
Level
3
|
Total
|
||||
Impaired
loans (1)
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
57,515
|
$
57,515
|
||||
Mortgage
servicing assets
|
-
|
-
|
362
|
362
|
||||
Total
|
$
-
|
$
-
|
$
57,877
|
$
57,877
|
|
(1)
The fair value of the impaired loans are derived from their respective
estimated collateral values, less disposition
costs.
|
On April
30, 2009, the Corporation announced a cash dividend of $0.03 per share on the
Corporation’s outstanding shares of common stock for shareholders of record as
of the close of business on May 21, 2009, payable on June 12, 2009.
Provident
Financial Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, was organized in January 1996
for the purpose of becoming the holding company of Provident Savings Bank,
F.S.B. upon the Bank’s conversion from a federal mutual to a federal stock
savings bank (“Conversion”). The Conversion was completed on June 27,
1996. At March 31, 2009, the Corporation had total assets of $1.56
billion, total deposits of $947.9 million and total stockholders’ equity of
$116.2 million. The Corporation has not engaged in any significant
activity other than holding the stock of the Bank. Accordingly, the
information set forth in this report, including financial statements and related
data, relates primarily to the Bank and its subsidiaries.
The Bank,
founded in 1956, is a federally chartered stock savings bank headquartered in
Riverside, California. The Bank is regulated by the Office of Thrift
Supervision (“OTS”), its primary federal regulator, and the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), the insurer of its deposits. The
Bank’s deposits are federally insured up to applicable limits by the
FDIC. The Bank has been a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System
since 1956.
The
Bank’s business consists of community banking activities and mortgage banking
activities. Community banking activities primarily consist of
accepting deposits from customers within the communities surrounding the Bank’s
full service offices and investing those funds in single-family loans,
multi-family loans, commercial real estate loans, construction loans, commercial
business loans, consumer loans and other real estate loans. The Bank
also offers business checking accounts, other business banking services, and
services loans for others. Mortgage banking activities consist of the
origination and sale of mortgage and consumer loans secured primarily by
single-family residences. The Bank currently operates 14
retail/business banking offices in Riverside County and San Bernardino County
(commonly known as the Inland Empire), including the newly opened Iris Plaza
office in Moreno Valley, California. Provident Bank Mortgage operates
wholesale loan production offices in Pleasanton and Rancho Cucamonga, California
and retail loan production offices in Glendora and Riverside,
California. The Bank’s revenues are derived principally from interest
on its loans and investment securities and fees generated through its community
banking and mortgage banking activities. There are various risks
inherent in the Bank’s business including, among others, the general business
environment, interest rates, the California real estate market, the demand for
loans, the prepayment of loans, the repurchase of loans previously sold to
investors, competitive conditions between banks and non-bank financial services
providers, legislative and regulatory changes, fraud and other
risks.
The
Corporation, from time to time, may repurchase its common stock. The
Corporation evaluates the repurchase of its common stock when the market price
of the stock is lower than its book value and/or the Corporation believes that
the current market price is not commensurate with its current and future
earnings potential. Consideration is also given to the Corporation’s
liquidity, regulatory capital requirements and future capital needs based on the
Corporation’s current business plan. The Corporation’s Board of
Directors authorizes each stock repurchase program, the duration of which is
typically one year. Once the stock repurchase program is authorized,
management may repurchase the Corporation’s common stock from time to time in
the open market or in privately negotiated transactions, depending upon market
conditions and the factors described above. On June 26, 2008, the
Corporation announced that its Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of
up to five percent of its outstanding common stock, or approximately 310,385
shares, over a one-year period. As a result of current economic
conditions, the Corporation did not repurchase any of its shares during the
quarter ended March 31, 2009. See Part II, Item 2 – “Unregistered
Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds” on page 51.
The
Corporation began to distribute quarterly cash dividends in the quarter ended
September 30, 2002. On January 20, 2009, the Corporation declared a
quarterly cash dividend of $0.03 per share for the Corporation’s shareholders of
record at the close of business on February 10, 2009, which was paid on March 6,
2009. On April 30, 2009, the Corporation declared a cash dividend of
$0.03 per share on the Corporation’s outstanding shares of common stock for
shareholders of record as of the close of business on May 21, 2009, payable on
June 12, 2009. Future declarations or payments of dividends will be
subject to the consideration of the Corporation’s Board of Directors, which will
take into account the Corporation’s financial condition, results of operations,
tax considerations, capital requirements, industry standards, legal
restrictions, economic conditions and other factors, including the regulatory
restrictions which affect the payment of dividends by the Bank to the
Corporation. Under Delaware law, dividends may be paid either out of
surplus or, if there is no surplus, out of net profits for the current fiscal
year and/or the preceding fiscal year in which the dividend is
declared.
Management’s
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is
intended to assist in understanding the financial condition and results of
operations of the Corporation. The information contained in this
section should be read in conjunction with the Unaudited Interim Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying selected Notes to Unaudited
Interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements.
This Form
10-Q contains statements that the Corporation believes are “forward-looking
statements.” These statements relate to the Corporation’s financial
condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance or
business. You should not place undue reliance on these statements, as they are
subject to risks and uncertainties. When considering these forward-looking
statements, you should keep in mind these risks and uncertainties, as well as
any cautionary statements the Corporation may make. Moreover, you
should treat these statements as speaking only as of the date they are made and
based only on information then actually known to the Corporation. There are a
number of important factors that could cause future results to differ materially
from historical performance and these forward-looking statements. Factors which
could cause actual results to differ materially include, but are not limited to,
the credit risks of lending activities, including changes in the level and trend
of loan delinquencies and write-offs that may be impacted by deterioration in
the housing and commercial real estate markets and may lead to increased losses
and non-performing assets in our loan portfolio, resulting in our allowance for
loan losses not being adequate to cover actual losses, and require us to
materially increase our reserves; changes in general economic conditions, either
nationally or in our market areas; changes in the levels of general interest
rates, and the relative differences between short and long term interest rates,
deposit interest rates, our net interest margin and funding sources;
fluctuations in the demand for loans, the number of unsold homes and other
properties and fluctuations in real estate values in our market areas; results
of examinations of us by the Office of Thrift Supervision and our bank
subsidiary by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of Thrift
Supervision or other regulatory authorities, including the possibility that any
such regulatory authority may, among other things, require us to increase our
reserve for loan losses to write-down assets, change our regulatory capital
position or affect our ability to borrow funds or maintain or increase deposits,
which could adversely affect our liquidity and earnings; our ability to control
operating costs and expenses; our ability to implement our branch expansion
strategy; our ability to successfully integrate any assets, liabilities,
customers, systems, and management personnel we have acquired or may in the
future acquire into our operations and our ability to realize related revenue
synergies and cost savings within expected time frames and any goodwill charges
related thereto; our ability to manage loan delinquency rates; the use of
estimates in determining fair value of certain of our assets, which estimates
may prove to be incorrect and result in significant declines in valuation;
difficulties in reducing risk associated with the loans on our balance sheet;
staffing fluctuations in response to product demand or the implementation of
corporate strategies that affect our work force and potential associated
charges; computer systems on which we depend could fail or experience a security
breach, or the implementation of new technologies may not be successful; our
ability to retain key members of our senior management team; costs and effects
of litigation, including settlements and judgments; increased competitive
pressures among financial services companies; changes in consumer spending,
borrowing and savings habits; legislative or regulatory changes that adversely
affect our business; adverse changes in the securities markets; the inability of
key third-party providers to perform their obligations to us; changes in
accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the financial
institution regulatory agencies or the Financial Accounting Standards Board
including additional guidance and interpretation on accounting issues and
details of the implementation of new accounting methods; the economic impact of
war or terrorist activities; other economic, competitive, governmental,
regulatory, and technological factors affecting our operations, pricing,
products and services and other risks detailed in the Corporation’s reports
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including its Annual Report
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008.
The
discussion and analysis of the Corporation’s financial condition and results of
operations are based upon the Corporation’s condensed consolidated financial
statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles
generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation
of these financial statements requires management to make estimates and
judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, revenues
and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities at
the date of the financial statements. Actual results may differ from
these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.
The
allowance for loan losses involves significant judgment and assumptions by
management, which have a material impact on the carrying value of net
loans. Management considers this accounting policy to be a critical
accounting policy. The allowance is based on two principles of accounting:
(i) SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies,” which requires that losses be
accrued when they are probable of occurring and can be estimated; and (ii) SFAS
No. 114, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan,” and SFAS No. 118,
“Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan-Income Recognition and
Disclosures,” which require that losses be accrued based on the differences
between the value of collateral, present value of future cash flows or values
that are observable in the secondary market and the loan balance. The
allowance has two components: a formula allowance for groups of homogeneous
loans and a specific valuation allowance for identified problem
loans. Each of these components is based upon estimates that can
change over time. The formula allowance is based primarily on
historical experience and as a result can differ from actual losses incurred in
the future. The history is reviewed at least quarterly and
adjustments are made as needed. Various techniques are used to arrive
at specific loss estimates, including historical loss information, discounted
cash flows and the fair market value of collateral. The use of these
techniques is inherently subjective and the actual losses could be greater or
less than the estimates.
Interest
is not accrued on any loan when its contractual payments are more than 90 days
delinquent or if the loan is deemed impaired. In addition, interest
is not recognized on any loan where management has determined that collection is
not reasonably assured. A non-accrual loan may be restored to accrual
status when delinquent principal and interest payments are brought current and
future monthly principal and interest payments are expected to be
collected.
SFAS No.
133, “Accounting for Derivative Financial Instruments and Hedging Activities,”
requires that derivatives of the Corporation be recorded in the consolidated
financial statements at fair value. Management considers this
accounting policy to be a critical accounting policy. The Bank’s
derivatives are primarily the result of its mortgage banking activities in the
form of commitments to extend credit, commitments to sell loans, commitments to
purchase MBS and option contracts to mitigate the risk of the commitments to
extend credit. Estimates of the percentage of commitments to extend
credit on loans to be held for sale that may not fund are based upon historical
data and current market trends. The fair value adjustments of the
derivatives are recorded in the consolidated statements of operations with
offsets to other assets or other liabilities in the consolidated statements of
financial condition.
Management
accounts for income taxes by estimating future tax effects of temporary
differences between the tax and book basis of assets and liabilities considering
the provisions of enacted tax laws. These differences result in
deferred tax assets and liabilities, which are included in the Corporation’s
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial
Condition. Management’s judgment is required in determining the
amount and timing of recognition of the resulting deferred tax assets and
liabilities, including projections of future taxable
income. Therefore, management considers its accounting for income
taxes a critical accounting policy.
Provident
Savings Bank, F.S.B., established in 1956, is a financial services company
committed to serving consumers and small to mid-sized businesses in the Inland
Empire region of Southern California. The Bank conducts its business
operations as Provident Bank, Provident Bank Mortgage, a division of the Bank,
and through its subsidiary, Provident Financial Corp. The business
activities of the Corporation, primarily through the Bank and its subsidiary,
consist of community banking, mortgage banking and, to a lesser degree,
investment services for customers and trustee services on behalf of the
Bank.
Community
banking operations primarily consist of accepting deposits from customers within
the communities surrounding the Bank’s full service offices and investing those
funds in single-family, multi-family, commercial real estate, construction,
commercial business, consumer and other loans. Additionally, certain
fees are collected from depositors, such as returned check fees, deposit account
service charges, ATM fees, IRA/KEOGH fees, safe deposit box fees, travelers
check fees, and wire transfer fees, among others. The primary source
of income in community banking is net interest income, which is the difference
between the interest income earned on loans and investment securities, and the
interest expense paid on interest-bearing deposits and borrowed
funds. During the next three years, although not immediately given
the uncertain environment, the Corporation intends to improve the community
banking business by moderately growing total assets; by decreasing the
concentration of single-family mortgage loans within loans held for investment;
and by increasing the concentration of higher yielding multi-family, commercial
real estate, construction and commercial business loans (which are sometimes
referred to in this
report as
“preferred loans”). In addition, over time, the Corporation intends
to decrease the percentage of time deposits in its deposit base and to increase
the percentage of lower cost checking and savings accounts. This
strategy is intended to improve core revenue through a higher net interest
margin and ultimately, coupled with the growth of the Corporation, an increase
in net interest income. While the Corporation’s long-term strategy is
for moderate growth, management has determined that shrinking the balance sheet
is the most prudent short-term strategy in response to deteriorating general
economic conditions. Shrinking the balance sheet improves capital
ratios and mitigates liquidity risk.
Mortgage
banking operations primarily consist of the origination and sale of mortgage
loans secured by single-family residences. The primary sources of
income in mortgage banking are gain on sale of loans and certain fees collected
from borrowers in connection with the loan origination process. The
Corporation will continue to modify its operations in response to the rapidly
changing mortgage banking environment. Most recently, the Corporation
has been increasing the number of mortgage banking personnel to capitalize on
the increasing loan demand, the result of significantly lower mortgage interest
rates. Changes may also include a different product mix, further
tightening of underwriting standards, an increase in its operating expenses or a
combination of these and other changes.
Provident
Financial Corp performs trustee services for the Bank’s real estate secured loan
transactions and has in the past held, and may in the future hold, real estate
for investment. Investment services operations primarily consist of
selling alternative investment products such as annuities and mutual funds to
the Bank’s depositors. Investment services and trustee services
contribute a very small percentage of gross revenue.
There are
a number of risks associated with the business activities of the Corporation,
many of which are beyond the Corporation’s control, including: changes in
accounting principles, changes in regulation and changes in the economy, among
others. The Corporation attempts to mitigate many of these risks
through prudent banking practices such as interest rate risk management, credit
risk management, operational risk management, and liquidity
management. The current economic environment presents heightened risk
for the Corporation primarily with respect to falling real estate values and
higher loan delinquencies. Declining real estate values may lead to
higher loan losses since the majority of the Corporation’s loans are secured by
real estate located within California. Significant declines in the
value of California real estate may inhibit the Corporation’s ability to recover
on defaulted loans by selling the underlying real estate. For further
details on risk factors, see the “Safe-Harbor Statement” on page 18 and “Item 1A
– Risk Factors” on page 47.
The
following table summarizes the Corporation’s contractual obligations at March
31, 2009 and the effect these obligations are expected to have on the
Corporation’s liquidity and cash flows in future periods (in
thousands):
Payments
Due by Period
|
|||||||||
1
year
|
Over
1 year
|
Over
3 years
|
Over
|
||||||
or
less
|
to
3 years
|
to
5 years
|
5
years
|
Total
|
|||||
Operating
obligations
|
$ 748
|
$ 1,163
|
$ 418
|
$ -
|
$ 2,329
|
||||
Pension
benefits
|
185
|
601
|
602
|
3,812
|
5,200
|
||||
Time
deposits
|
536,836
|
52,111
|
32,324
|
57
|
621,328
|
||||
FHLB
– San Francisco advances
|
149,499
|
245,829
|
104,895
|
19,119
|
519,342
|
||||
FHLB
– San Francisco letter of credit
|
3,500
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3,500
|
||||
Total
|
$
690,768
|
$
299,704
|
$
138,239
|
$
22,988
|
$
1,151,699
|
The
expected obligation for time deposits and FHLB – San Francisco advances include
anticipated interest accruals based on the respective contractual
terms.
In
addition to the off-balance sheet financing arrangements and contractual
obligations mentioned above, the Corporation has derivatives and other financial
instruments with off-balance sheet risks as described in Note 5 of the Notes to
Unaudited Interim Consolidated Financial Statements on page 12.
Total
assets decreased $69.5 million, or four percent, to $1.56 billion at March 31,
2009 from $1.63 billion at June 30, 2008. The decrease was primarily
attributable to a decrease in loans held for investment, partly offset by an
increase in loans held for sale.
Loans
held for investment decreased $154.8 million, or 11 percent, to $1.21 billion at
March 31, 2009 from $1.37 billion at June 30, 2008. Total loan
principal payments during the first nine months of fiscal 2009 were $126.0
million, compared to $186.6 million during the comparable period in fiscal
2008. During the first nine months of fiscal 2009, the Bank
originated $20.1 million of loans held for investment, of which $10.1 million,
or 49 percent, were “preferred loans” (multi-family, commercial real estate,
construction and commercial business loans). In addition, the Bank
purchased $595,000 of loans for investment in the first nine months of fiscal
2009, down substantially from $99.8 million during the same period last
year. The decrease in purchased loans was due to the Corporation’s
decision to compete less aggressively for origination volume given the economic
uncertainty of the current banking environment. The balance of
preferred loans decreased to $513.6 million, or 41 percent of loans held for
investment at March 31, 2009, as compared to $569.6 million, or 41 percent of
loans held for investment at June 30, 2008. Purchased loans serviced
by others at March 31, 2009 were $129.8 million, or 10 percent of loans held for
investment, compared to $146.5 million, or 11 percent of loans held for
investment at June 30, 2008.
The table
below describes the geographic dispersion of real estate secured loans held for
investment at March 31, 2009, as a percentage of the total dollar amount
outstanding:
Inland
Empire
|
Southern
California
(1)
|
Other
California
|
Other
States
|
Total
|
||||||
Loan
Category
|
Balance
|
%
|
Balance
|
%
|
Balance
|
%
|
Balance
|
%
|
Balance
|
%
|
Single-family
|
$222,227
|
30%
|
$399,060
|
55%
|
$101,062
|
14%
|
$9,601
|
1%
|
$731,950
|
100%
|
Multi-family
|
34,399
|
9%
|
268,725
|
71%
|
71,607
|
19%
|
3,694
|
1%
|
378,425
|
100%
|
Commercial
real estate
|
56,505
|
48%
|
57,636
|
49%
|
2,373
|
2%
|
1,650
|
1%
|
118,164
|
100%
|
Construction
|
8,708
|
96%
|
400
|
4%
|
-
|
0%
|
-
|
0%
|
9,108
|
100%
|
Other
|
4,413
|
100%
|
-
|
0%
|
-
|
0%
|
-
|
0%
|
4,413
|
100%
|
Total
|
$326,252
|
26%
|
$725,821
|
59%
|
$175,042
|
14%
|
$14,945
|
1%
|
$1,242,060
|
100%
|
(1) Other
than the Inland Empire.
Total
loans held for sale increased $87.6 million, or 307 percent, to $116.1 million
at March 31, 2009 from $28.5 million at June 30, 2008. The increase
was due primarily to the timing difference between loan originations and loan
sale settlements. See “Loan Volume Activities” on page
38. For the first nine months of fiscal 2009, total loans originated
for sale were $701.0 million, up from $284.8 million in the same period last
year, while total loan sale settlements were $616.8 million and $269.2 million,
respectively.
Total
investment securities decreased $15.9 million, or 10 percent, to $137.2 million
at March 31, 2009 from $153.1 million at June 30, 2008. The decrease
was primarily the result of scheduled and accelerated principal payments on
mortgage-backed securities. The Bank evaluates individual investment
securities quarterly for other-than-temporary declines in market
value. The Bank does not believe that there are any
other-than-temporary impairments at March 31, 2009; therefore, no impairment
losses have been recorded as of March 31, 2009.
Total
deposits decreased $64.5 million, or six percent, to $947.9 million at March 31,
2009 from $1.01 billion at June 30, 2008. This decrease was primarily
attributable to the strategic decision to compete less aggressively on time
deposit interest rates, partly offset by the Bank’s marketing strategy to
promote transaction accounts.
Borrowings,
consisting of FHLB – San Francisco advances, decreased slightly to $477.9
million at March 31, 2009 from $479.3 million at June 30, 2008. The
weighted-average maturity of the Bank’s FHLB – San Francisco advances was
approximately 27 months (25 months, if put options are exercised by the FHLB –
San Francisco) at March 31, 2009, as compared to the weighted-average maturity
of 23 months (20
months, if put options were exercised by the FHLB – San Francisco) at June 30,
2008.
Total
stockholders’ equity decreased $7.8 million, or six percent, to $116.2 million
at March 31, 2009, from $124.0 million at June 30, 2008, primarily as a result
of the net loss and the quarterly cash dividends paid during the first nine
months of fiscal 2009. During the first nine months of fiscal 2009,
no stock options were exercised and no
common
stock was repurchased under the June 2008 stock repurchase
program. During the first nine months of fiscal 2009, the Corporation
repurchased 65 shares of restricted stock in lieu of distribution to employees
(to satisfy the minimum income tax required to be withheld from employees) at an
average price of $4.11 per share. The total cash dividend paid to the
Corporation’s shareholders in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was
$807,000.
The
Corporation’s net loss for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 was $2.6 million,
compared to net income of $957,000 during the same quarter of fiscal
2008. The decrease in net earnings was primarily a result of an
increase in the provision for loan losses, partly offset by an increase in
non-interest income. For the nine months ended March 31, 2009, the
Corporation’s net loss was $8.8 million, compared to net income of $2.6 million
during the same period of fiscal 2008. The decrease in net earnings
was primarily a result of an increase in the provision for loan losses, partly
offset by an increase in non-interest income and an increase in net interest
income (before provision for loan losses).
The
Corporation’s efficiency ratio improved to 47 percent in the third quarter of
fiscal 2009 from 59 percent in the same period of fiscal 2008. The
improvement in the efficiency ratio was a result of an increase in non-interest
income, partly offset by an increase in non-interest expenses. For
the nine months ended March 31, 2009, the efficiency ratio improved to 52
percent from 65 percent in the nine months ended March 31, 2008. The
improvement in the efficiency ratio was a result of an increase in net interest
income (before provision for loan losses) and an increase in non-interest
income, partly offset by an increase in non-interest expenses.
(Loss)
return on average assets for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 decreased 90 basis
points to (0.67) percent from 0.23 percent in the same period last
year. For the nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the (loss)
return on average assets was (0.74) percent and 0.22 percent, respectively, a
decrease of 96 basis points.
(Loss)
return on average equity for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 decreased to
(8.69) percent from 2.99 percent for the same period last year. For
the nine months ended March 31, 2009, the return (loss) on average equity
decreased to (9.62) percent from 2.73 percent for the same period last
year.
Diluted
(loss) earnings per share for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 were $(0.41),
compared to $0.15 for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. For the nine
months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, diluted (loss) earnings per share were
$(1.41) and $0.42, respectively.
Net
Interest Income:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. The Corporation’s net interest income (before the
provision for loan losses) remained relatively unchanged at $10.7 million for
the quarter ended March 31, 2009 from the comparable period in fiscal
2008. The net interest margin was 2.87 percent in the third quarter
of fiscal 2009, up 18 basis points from 2.69 percent for the same period of
fiscal 2008. The increase in the net interest margin during the third
quarter of fiscal 2009 was primarily attributable to a decrease in the average
cost of funds which declined more than the average yield on earning
assets. The average balance of earning assets decreased $106.6
million to $1.49 billion in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 from $1.59 billion
in the comparable period of fiscal 2008.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. Net interest income (before the provision for
loan losses) for the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was $32.2 million, up $2.5
million or eight percent from $29.7 million during the same period of fiscal
2008. This increase was the result of a higher net interest margin,
partly offset by lower average earning assets. The net interest
margin was 2.82 percent in the first nine months of fiscal 2009, up 32 basis
points from 2.50 percent during the same period of fiscal 2008. The
increase in the net interest margin during the first nine months of fiscal 2009
was primarily attributable to a decrease in the average cost of funds which
decreased more than the average yield on earning assets, which remained
relatively stable. The average balance of earning assets decreased
$54.7 million, or three percent, to $1.52 billion in the first nine months of
fiscal 2009 from $1.58 billion in the comparable period of fiscal
2008.
Interest
Income:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. Total interest income decreased by $3.5 million, or
15 percent, to $20.5 million for the third quarter of fiscal 2009 from $24.0
million in the same quarter of fiscal 2008.
This
decrease was primarily the result of a lower average earning asset yield and a
lower average balance of earning assets. The average yield on earning
assets during the third quarter of fiscal 2009 was 5.51 percent, 52 basis points
lower than the average yield of 6.03 percent during the same period of fiscal
2008. The average balance of earning assets decreased $106.6 million
to $1.49 billion in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 from $1.59 billion in the
comparable period of fiscal 2008.
Loans
receivable interest income decreased $2.7 million, or 13 percent, to $18.9
million in the quarter ended March 31, 2009 from $21.6 million for the same
quarter of fiscal 2008. This decrease was attributable to a lower
average loan yield and a lower average loan balance. The average loan
yield during the third quarter of fiscal 2009 decreased 39 basis points to 5.78
percent from 6.17 percent during the same quarter last year. The
decrease in the average loan yield was primarily attributable to accrued
interest reversals from newly classified non-accrual loans and loan payoffs
which carried a higher average yield than the average yield of loans
receivable. The average balance of loans outstanding, including loans
held for sale and receivables due from the sale of loans, decreased $100.1
million, or seven percent, to $1.30 billion during the third quarter of fiscal
2009 from $1.40 billion in the same quarter of fiscal 2008.
Interest
income from investment securities decreased $324,000, or 17 percent, to $1.6
million during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 from $2.0 million in the same
quarter of fiscal 2008. This decrease was primarily a result of a
decrease in average yield and a decrease in the average balance. The
average yield on investment securities decreased 34 basis points to 4.61 percent
during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 from 4.95 percent during the quarter
ended March 31, 2008. The decrease in the average yield of investment
securities was primarily attributable to the net premium amortization of $63,000
in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 as compared to the net discount amortization
of $9,000 in the comparable quarter of fiscal 2008. During the third
quarter of fiscal 2009, the Bank did not purchase any investment securities,
while $9.1 million of principal payments were received on mortgage-backed
securities. The average balance of investment securities decreased
$16.4 million, or 10 percent, to $141.8 million in the third quarter of fiscal
2009 from $158.2 million in the same quarter of fiscal 2008.
The FHLB
– San Francisco did not pay a dividend on its stock in the third quarter of
fiscal 2009 as compared to $419,000 in the same quarter last year and announced
that it will not redeem excess capital stock on the next regularly scheduled
repurchase date of April 30, 2009 as a result of its desire to strengthen its
capital ratios.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. Total interest income decreased by $7.0
million, or 10 percent, to $64.8 million for the first nine months of fiscal
2009 from $71.8 million in the same period of fiscal 2008. This
decrease was primarily the result of a lower average balance of earning assets
and a lower average earning asset yield. The average balance of
earning assets decreased $54.7 million, or three percent, to $1.52 billion in
the first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $1.58 billion in the comparable period
of fiscal 2008. The average yield on earning assets during the first
nine months of fiscal 2009 was 5.67 percent, 39 basis points lower than the
average yield of 6.06 percent during the same period of fiscal
2008.
Loans
receivable interest income decreased $5.7 million, or nine percent, to $59.2
million in the nine months ended March 31, 2009 from $64.9 million for the same
period of fiscal 2008. This decrease was attributable to a lower
average loan balance and a lower average loan yield. The average
balance of loans outstanding, including the receivable from sale of loans and
loans held for sale, decreased $57.4 million, or four percent, to $1.33 billion
during the first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $1.39 billion during the same
period of fiscal 2008. The average loan yield during the first nine
months of fiscal 2009 decreased 30 basis points to 5.91 percent from 6.21
percent during the same period last year. The decrease in the average
loan yield was primarily attributable to accrued interest reversals from newly
classified non-accrual loans and loan payoffs which carried a higher average
yield than the average yield of loans receivable.
Interest
income from investment securities decreased $261,000 to $5.3 million during the
nine months ended March 31, 2009 from $5.6 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. This decrease was primarily a result of a decrease in average
yield and a decrease in the average balance. The average yield on the
investment securities decreased seven basis points to 4.79 percent during the
nine months ended March 31, 2009 from 4.86 percent during the nine months ended
March 31, 2008. The average balance of investment securities
decreased $5.2 million, or three percent, to $148.6 million in the first nine
months of fiscal 2009 from $153.8 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. During the first nine months of fiscal 2009, $8.1 million of
investment securities were purchased, while $25.0 million of principal payments
were received on mortgage-backed securities.
FHLB –
San Francisco stock dividends decreased by $996,000, or 75 percent, to $324,000
in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $1.3 million in the same period of
fiscal 2008. This decrease was primarily attributable to the FHLB –
San Francisco announcement on January 8, 2009 and April 10, 2009 that they would
not pay a dividend for the quarters ended December 31, 2008 and March 31, 2009,
respectively. The balance of FHLB – San Francisco stock was
consistent with the borrowing requirements of the FHLB – San
Francisco.
Interest
Expense:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. Total interest expense for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 was $9.8 million as compared to $13.3 million for the same period of
fiscal 2008, a decrease of $3.5 million, or 26 percent. This decrease
was primarily attributable to a lower average cost of interest-bearing
liabilities and a lower average balance. The average cost of
interest-bearing liabilities, principally deposits and borrowings, was 2.84
percent during the quarter ended March 31, 2009, down 76 basis points from 3.60
percent during the same period of fiscal 2008. The average balance of
interest-bearing liabilities, principally deposits and borrowings, decreased
$84.2 million, or six percent, to $1.40 billion during the third quarter of
fiscal 2009 from $1.49 billion during the same period of fiscal
2008.
Interest
expense on deposits for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 was $5.2 million as
compared to $8.5 million for the same period of fiscal 2008, a decrease of $3.3
million, or 39 percent. The decrease in interest expense on deposits
was primarily attributable to a lower average cost and a lower average
balance. The average cost of deposits decreased to 2.26 percent
during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 from 3.36 percent during the same
quarter of fiscal 2008, a decrease of 110 basis points. The decrease
in the average cost of deposits was attributable primarily to new time deposits
with a lower average cost replacing maturing time deposits, consistent with
declining short-term interest rates. The average balance of deposits
decreased $71.2 million, or seven percent, to $941.1 million during the quarter
ended March 31, 2009 from $1.01 billion during the same period of fiscal
2008. The decline in the average balance was primarily in time
deposits, the result of the Bank’s strategic decision to compete less
aggressively for this product. The average balance of transaction
account deposits to total deposits in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 was 35
percent, compared to 34 percent in the same period of fiscal 2008.
Interest
expense on borrowings, consisting primarily of FHLB – San Francisco advances,
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 decreased $264,000, or five percent, to
$4.6 million from $4.8 million for the same period of fiscal
2008. The decrease in interest expense on borrowings was primarily a
result of a lower average cost and a lower average balance. The
average cost of borrowings decreased to 4.03 percent for the quarter ended March
31, 2009 from 4.11 percent in the same quarter of fiscal 2008, a decrease of
eight basis points. The decrease in the average cost of borrowings
was primarily the result of maturing long-term advances which had a higher
average cost than the average cost of short-term advances. Short-term
advance interest rates remained at relatively low levels as a result of U.S.
Treasury and Federal Reserve Board actions. The average balance of borrowings
decreased $13.0 million, or three percent, to $460.3 million during the quarter
ended March 31, 2009 from $473.3 million during the same period of fiscal
2008.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. Total interest expense was $32.6 million for
the first nine months of fiscal 2009 as compared to $42.1 million for the same
period of fiscal 2008, a decrease of $9.5 million, or 23
percent. This decrease was primarily attributable to a lower average
balance of interest-bearing liabilities and a decrease in the average
cost. The average balance of interest-bearing liabilities,
principally deposits and borrowings, decreased $45.0 million, or three percent,
to $1.43 billion during the first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $1.47 billion
during the same period of fiscal 2008. The average cost of
interest-bearing liabilities was 3.05 percent during the nine months ended March
31, 2009, down 77 basis points from 3.82 percent during the same period of
fiscal 2008.
Interest
expense on deposits for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 was $18.5 million
as compared to $26.9 million for the same period of fiscal 2008, a decrease of
$8.4 million, or 31 percent. The decrease in interest expense on
deposits was primarily attributable to a lower average cost and a lower average
balance. The average cost of deposits decreased to 2.59 percent
during the nine months ended March 31, 2009 from 3.55 percent during the same
period of fiscal 2008, a decrease of 96 basis points. The decline in
the average balance was primarily in time deposits, the result of the Bank’s
strategic decision to compete less aggressively for this product. The
average balance of deposits decreased $55.7 million, or six percent, to $953.2
million during the nine months ended March 31, 2009 from $1.01 billion during
the same period of fiscal 2008. The average balance of transaction
accounts decreased by $14.4 million, or four percent, to $329.8 million in the
nine months ended March 31, 2009 from $344.2 million in the nine months ended
March 31, 2008. The average balance of time deposits decreased by
$41.2 million,
or six
percent, to $623.4 million in the nine months ended March 31, 2009 as compared
to $664.6 million in the nine months ended March 31, 2008. The
average balance of transaction account deposits to total deposits in the first
nine months of fiscal 2009 was 35 percent, compared to 34 percent in the same
period of fiscal 2008.
Interest
expense on borrowings, consisting primarily of FHLB – San Francisco advances,
for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 decreased $1.1 million, or seven
percent, to $14.1 million from $15.2 million for the same period of fiscal
2008. The decrease in interest expense on borrowings was primarily a
result of a lower average cost, partly offset by a higher average
balance. The average cost of borrowings decreased 41 basis points to
3.98 percent for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 from 4.39 percent in the
same period ended March 31, 2008. The decrease in the average cost of
borrowings was primarily the result of maturing long-term advances which had a
higher average cost than the average cost of new
advances. Additionally, short-term advance interest rates have fallen
as a result of U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Board actions. The
average balance of borrowings increased $10.7 million, or two percent, to $471.9
million during the nine months ended March 31, 2009 from $461.2 million during
the same period of fiscal 2008.
The
following table depicts the average balance sheets for the quarters and nine
months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively:
Average
Balance Sheets
(Dollars
in thousands)
Quarter
Ended
|
Quarter
Ended
|
||||||||||
March
31, 2009
|
March
31, 2008
|
||||||||||
Average
|
Yield/
|
Average
|
Yield/
|
||||||||
Balance
|
Interest
|
Cost
|
Balance
|
Interest
|
Cost
|
||||||
Interest-earning
assets:
|
|||||||||||
Loans
receivable, net (1)
|
$
1,303,625
|
$
18,850
|
5.78%
|
$
1,403,695
|
$
21,645
|
6.17%
|
|||||
Investment
securities
|
141,802
|
1,635
|
4.61%
|
158,187
|
1,959
|
4.95%
|
|||||
FHLB
– San Francisco stock
|
32,929
|
-
|
-%
|
31,274
|
419
|
5.36%
|
|||||
Interest-earning
deposits
|
8,707
|
6
|
0.28%
|
562
|
4
|
2.85%
|
|||||
Total
interest-earning assets
|
1,487,063
|
20,491
|
5.51%
|
1,593,718
|
24,027
|
6.03%
|
|||||
Non
interest-earning assets
|
53,521
|
37,948
|
|||||||||
Total
assets
|
$
1,540,584
|
$
1,631,666
|
|||||||||
Interest-bearing
liabilities:
|
|||||||||||
Checking
and money market accounts (2)
|
$ 189,339
|
282
|
0.60%
|
$ 196,711
|
351
|
0.72%
|
|||||
Savings
accounts
|
140,717
|
484
|
1.39%
|
145,783
|
725
|
2.00%
|
|||||
Time
deposits
|
611,032
|
4,479
|
2.97%
|
669,789
|
7,393
|
4.44%
|
|||||
Total
deposits
|
941,088
|
5,245
|
2.26%
|
1,012,283
|
8,469
|
3.36%
|
|||||
Borrowings
|
460,296
|
4,575
|
4.03%
|
473,334
|
4,839
|
4.11%
|
|||||
Total
interest-bearing liabilities
|
1,401,384
|
9,820
|
2.84%
|
1,485,617
|
13,308
|
3.60%
|
|||||
Non
interest-bearing liabilities
|
20,934
|
18,028
|
|||||||||
Total
liabilities
|
1,422,318
|
1,503,645
|
|||||||||
Stockholders’
equity
|
118,266
|
128,021
|
|||||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’
equity
|
|||||||||||
$
1,540,584
|
$
1,631,666
|
||||||||||
Net
interest income
|
$
10,671
|
$
10,719
|
|||||||||
Interest
rate spread (3)
|
2.67%
|
2.43%
|
|||||||||
Net
interest margin (4)
|
2.87%
|
2.69%
|
|||||||||
Ratio
of average interest-earning
assets
to average interest-bearing
liabilities
|
|||||||||||
106.11%
|
107.28%
|
||||||||||
(Loss)
return on average assets
|
(0.67)%
|
0.23%
|
|||||||||
(Loss)
return on average equity
|
(8.69)%
|
2.99%
|
(1) | Includes the receivable from sale of loans, loans held for sale and non-accrual loans, as well as net deferred loan cost amortization of $142 and $209 for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. |
(2) | Includes the average balance of non interest-bearing checking accounts of $43.7 million and $46.2 million during the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. |
(3) | Represents the difference between the weighted-average yield on all interest-earning assets and the weighted-average rate on all interest-bearing liabilities. |
(4) | Represents net interest income before provision for loan losses as a percentage of average interest-earning assets. |
Nine
Months Ended
|
Nine
Months Ended
|
||||||||||
March
31, 2009
|
March
31, 2008
|
||||||||||
Average
|
Yield/
|
Average
|
Yield/
|
||||||||
Balance
|
Interest
|
Cost
|
Balance
|
Interest
|
Cost
|
||||||
Interest-earning
assets:
|
|||||||||||
Loans
receivable, net (1)
|
$
1,334,841
|
$
59,156
|
5.91%
|
$
1,392,243
|
$
64,859
|
6.21%
|
|||||
Investment
securities
|
148,625
|
5,344
|
4.79%
|
153,808
|
5,605
|
4.86%
|
|||||
FHLB
– San Francisco stock
|
32,692
|
324
|
1.32%
|
32,392
|
1,320
|
5.43%
|
|||||
Interest-earning
deposits
|
8,167
|
16
|
0.26%
|
613
|
18
|
3.92%
|
|||||
Total
interest-earning assets
|
1,524,325
|
64,840
|
5.67%
|
1,579,056
|
71,802
|
6.06%
|
|||||
Non
interest-earning assets
|
42,463
|
36,805
|
|||||||||
Total
assets
|
$
1,566,788
|
$
1,615,861
|
|||||||||
Interest-bearing
liabilities:
|
|||||||||||
Checking
and money market accounts (2)
|
$ 190,600
|
914
|
0.64%
|
$ 196,804
|
1,275
|
0.86%
|
|||||
Savings
accounts
|
139,200
|
1,588
|
1.52%
|
147,416
|
2,316
|
2.09%
|
|||||
Time
deposits
|
623,383
|
16,047
|
3.43%
|
664,629
|
23,339
|
4.67%
|
|||||
Total
deposits
|
953,183
|
18,549
|
2.59%
|
1,008,849
|
26,930
|
3.55%
|
|||||
Borrowings
|
471,860
|
14,086
|
3.98%
|
461,161
|
15,212
|
4.39%
|
|||||
Total
interest-bearing liabilities
|
1,425,043
|
32,635
|
3.05%
|
1,470,010
|
42,142
|
3.82%
|
|||||
Non
interest-bearing liabilities
|
20,462
|
18,233
|
|||||||||
Total
liabilities
|
1,445,505
|
1,488,243
|
|||||||||
Stockholders’
equity
|
121,283
|
127,618
|
|||||||||
Total
liabilities and stockholders’
equity
|
|||||||||||
$
1,566,788
|
$
1,615,861
|
||||||||||
Net
interest income
|
$
32,205
|
$
29,660
|
|||||||||
Interest
rate spread (3)
|
2.62%
|
2.24%
|
|||||||||
Net
interest margin (4)
|
2.82%
|
2.50%
|
|||||||||
Ratio
of average interest-earning
assets
to average interest-bearing
liabilities
|
|||||||||||
106.97%
|
107.42%
|
||||||||||
(Loss)
return on average assets
|
(0.74)%
|
0.22%
|
|||||||||
(Loss)
return on average equity
|
(9.62)%
|
2.73%
|
(1) | Includes the receivable from sale of loans, loans held for sale and non-accrual loans, as well as net deferred loan cost amortization of $430 and $599 for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. |
(2) | Includes the average balance of non interest-bearing checking accounts of $43.0 million and $43.9 million during the nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. |
(3) | Represents the difference between the weighted-average yield on all interest-earning assets and the weighted-average rate on all interest-bearing liabilities. |
(4) | Represents net interest income before provision for loan losses as a percentage of average interest-earning assets. |
The
following table provides the rate/volume variances for the quarters and nine
months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively:
Rate/Volume
Variance
(In
Thousands)
Quarter
Ended March 31, 2009 Compared
|
|||||||||||
To
Quarter Ended March 31, 2008
|
|||||||||||
Increase
(Decrease) Due to
|
|||||||||||
Rate/
|
|||||||||||
Rate
|
Volume
|
Volume
|
Net
|
||||||||
Interest-earning
assets:
|
|||||||||||
Loans
receivable (1)
|
$
(1,349
|
)
|
$
(1,544
|
)
|
$ 98
|
$
(2,795
|
)
|
||||
Investment
securities
|
(135
|
)
|
(203
|
)
|
14
|
(324
|
)
|
||||
FHLB
– San Francisco stock
|
(419
|
)
|
22
|
(22
|
)
|
(419
|
)
|
||||
Interest-bearing
deposits
|
(4
|
)
|
58
|
(52
|
)
|
2
|
|||||
Total
net change in income
on
interest-earning assets
|
|||||||||||
(1,907
|
)
|
(1,667
|
)
|
38
|
(3,536
|
)
|
|||||
Interest-bearing
liabilities:
|
|||||||||||
Checking
and money market accounts
|
(58
|
)
|
(13
|
)
|
2
|
(69
|
)
|
||||
Savings
accounts
|
(224
|
)
|
(25
|
)
|
8
|
(241
|
)
|
||||
Time
deposits
|
(2,484
|
)
|
(643
|
)
|
213
|
(2,914
|
)
|
||||
Borrowings
|
(135
|
)
|
(132
|
)
|
3
|
(264
|
)
|
||||
Total
net change in expense on
interest-bearing
liabilities
|
|||||||||||
(2,901
|
)
|
(813
|
)
|
226
|
(3,488
|
)
|
|||||
Net
increase (decrease) in net interest
income
|
|||||||||||
$ 994
|
$ (854
|
)
|
$
(188
|
)
|
$ (48
|
)
|
|||||
(1) Includes
the receivable from sale of loans, loans held for sale and non-accrual
loans. For purposes of calculating volume, rate and rate/volume
variances, non-accrual loans were included
in the weighted-average balance
outstanding.
|
Nine
Months Ended March 31, 2009 Compared
|
|||||||||||
To
Nine Months Ended March 31, 2008
|
|||||||||||
Increase
(Decrease) Due to
|
|||||||||||
Rate/
|
|||||||||||
Rate
|
Volume
|
Volume
|
Net
|
||||||||
Interest-earning
assets:
|
|||||||||||
Loans
receivable (1)
|
$
(3,159
|
)
|
$
(2,673
|
)
|
$ 129
|
$
(5,703
|
)
|
||||
Investment
securities
|
(75
|
)
|
(189
|
)
|
3
|
(261
|
)
|
||||
FHLB
– San Francisco stock
|
(999
|
)
|
12
|
(9
|
)
|
(996
|
)
|
||||
Interest-bearing
deposits
|
(17
|
)
|
222
|
(207
|
)
|
(2
|
)
|
||||
Total
net change in income
on
interest-earning assets
|
|||||||||||
(4,250
|
)
|
(2,628
|
)
|
(84
|
)
|
(6,962
|
)
|
||||
Interest-bearing
liabilities:
|
|||||||||||
Checking
and money market accounts
|
(331
|
)
|
(40
|
)
|
10
|
(361
|
)
|
||||
Savings
accounts
|
(634
|
)
|
(129
|
)
|
35
|
(728
|
)
|
||||
Time
deposits
|
(6,230
|
)
|
(1,446
|
)
|
384
|
(7,292
|
)
|
||||
Borrowings
|
(1,446
|
)
|
353
|
(33
|
)
|
(1,126
|
)
|
||||
Total
net change in expense on
interest-bearing
liabilities
|
|||||||||||
(8,641
|
)
|
(1,262
|
)
|
396
|
(9,507
|
)
|
|||||
Net
increase (decrease) in net interest
income
|
|||||||||||
$ 4,391
|
$
(1,366
|
)
|
$
(480
|
)
|
$ 2,545
|
||||||
(1) Includes
the receivable from sale of loans, loans held for sale and non-accrual
loans. For purposes of calculating volume, rate and rate/volume
variances, non-accrual loans were included
in the weighted-average balance
outstanding.
|
Provision
for Loan Losses:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. During the third quarter of fiscal 2009, the
Corporation recorded a provision for loan losses of $13.5 million, compared to a
provision for loan losses of $3.2 million during the same period of fiscal
2008. The loan loss provision in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 was
primarily attributable to loan classification downgrades ($12.6 million) and an
increase in the general loan loss provision for loans held for investment ($2.1
million), partly offset by a decrease in loans held for investment ($1.2
million). The general loan loss allowance was augmented through
qualitative adjustments to reflect the impact on loans held for investment
resulting from the deteriorating general economic conditions of the U.S. economy
such as the higher unemployment rates, negative gross domestic product, lower
retail sales, and declining home prices in Southern California. See
related discussion on “Asset Quality” on page 33.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. The Corporation recorded a provision for loan
losses of $35.8 million for the first nine months of fiscal 2009, compared to a
provision for loan losses of $6.8 million during the same period of fiscal
2008. The provision for loan losses in the first nine months of
fiscal 2009 was primarily attributable to loan classification downgrades ($30.1
million) and an increase in the general loan loss provision for loans held for
investment ($8.0 million), partly offset by a decrease in loans held for
investment ($2.3 million). The general loan loss allowance was
augmented through qualitative adjustments to reflect the impact on loans held
for investment resulting from the deteriorating general economic conditions of
the U.S. economy such as the higher unemployment rates, negative gross domestic
product, lower retail sales, and declining home prices in Southern
California.
At March
31, 2009, the allowance for loan losses was $42.2 million, comprised of $18.2
million of general loan loss reserves and $24.0 million of specific loan loss
reserves, in comparison to the allowance for loan losses of $19.9 million at
June 30, 2008, comprised of $13.4 million of general loan loss reserves and $6.5
million of specific loan loss reserves. The allowance for loan losses
as a percentage of gross loans held for investment was 3.36 percent at March 31,
2009 compared to 1.43 percent at June 30, 2008. Management considers,
based on currently available information, the allowance for loan losses
sufficient to absorb potential losses inherent in loans held for
investment.
The
allowance for loan losses is maintained at a level sufficient to provide for
estimated losses based on evaluating known and inherent risks in the loans held
for investment and upon management’s continuing analysis of the factors
underlying the quality of the loans held for investment. These
factors include changes in the size and composition of the loans held for
investment, actual loan loss experience, current economic conditions, detailed
analysis of individual loans for which full collectibility may not be assured,
and determination of the realizable value of the collateral securing the
loans. Provisions for loan losses are charged against operations on a
monthly basis, as necessary, to maintain the allowance at appropriate
levels. Management believes that the amount maintained in the
allowance will be adequate to absorb losses inherent in the loans held for
investment. Although management believes it uses the best information
available to make such determinations, there can be no assurance that
regulators, in reviewing the Bank’s loans held for investment, will not request
that the Bank significantly increase its allowance for loan
losses. Future adjustments to the allowance for loan losses may be
necessary and results of operations could be significantly and adversely
affected as a result of economic, operating, regulatory, and other conditions
beyond the control of the Bank.
The
following table is provided to disclose additional details on the Corporation’s
allowance for loan losses:
For
the Quarter Ended
|
For
the Nine Months Ended
|
|||||||||||
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
|||||||||||
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||
Allowance
at beginning of period
|
$
34,953
|
$
17,171
|
$
19,898
|
$
14,845
|
||||||||
Provision
for loan losses
|
13,541
|
3,150
|
35,809
|
6,809
|
||||||||
Recoveries:
|
||||||||||||
Mortgage
loans:
|
||||||||||||
Single-family
|
44
|
-
|
155
|
-
|
||||||||
Construction
|
21
|
-
|
71
|
-
|
||||||||
Consumer
loans
|
-
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
||||||||
Total
recoveries
|
65
|
1
|
227
|
2
|
||||||||
Charge-offs:
|
||||||||||||
Mortgage
loans:
|
||||||||||||
Single-family
|
(6,350
|
)
|
(2,253
|
)
|
(13,610
|
)
|
(3,585
|
)
|
||||
Multi-family
|
-
|
(125
|
)
|
-
|
(125
|
)
|
||||||
Construction
|
-
|
(1,200
|
)
|
(73
|
)
|
(1,200
|
)
|
|||||
Consumer
loans
|
(2
|
)
|
(2
|
)
|
(6
|
)
|
(4
|
)
|
||||
Other
loans
|
(29
|
)
|
-
|
(67
|
)
|
-
|
||||||
Total
charge-offs
|
(6,381
|
)
|
(3,580
|
)
|
(13,756
|
)
|
(4,914
|
)
|
||||
Net
charge-offs
|
(6,316
|
)
|
(3,579
|
)
|
(13,529
|
)
|
(4,912
|
)
|
||||
Balance
at end of period
|
$
42,178
|
$
16,742
|
$
42,178
|
$
16,742
|
||||||||
Allowance
for loan losses as a
percentage
of gross loans held for
investment
|
||||||||||||
3.36%
|
1.18%
|
3.36%
|
1.18%
|
|||||||||
Net
charge-offs as a percentage of
average
loans outstanding during
the
period
|
||||||||||||
1.94%
|
1.02%
|
1.35%
|
0.47%
|
|||||||||
Allowance
for loan losses as a
percentage
of non-performing loans
at
the end of the period (1)
|
||||||||||||
62.82%
|
85.53%
|
62.82%
|
85.53%
|
(1) Does
not include approximately $7.3 million and $9.1 million at March 31, 2009 and
June 30, 2008, respectively, of restructured loans. See “Asset
Quality” on page 33.
Non-Interest
Income:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. Total non-interest income increased $4.8 million, or
300 percent, to $6.4 million during the quarter ended March 31, 2009 from $1.6
million during the same period of fiscal 2008. The increase was
primarily attributable to an increase in the gain on sale of loans, partly
offset by a decrease in loan servicing and other fees, a greater loss on sale
and operations of real estate owned acquired in the settlement of loans and a
decline in other income.
Loan
servicing and other fees decreased $259,000, or 74 percent, to $91,000 in the
third quarter of fiscal 2009 from $350,000 in the same quarter of fiscal
2008. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower loan
prepayment fees and higher reserves on mortgage servicing assets resulting from
higher loan prepayment estimates. Total loan payments declined $15.7
million, or 30 percent, to $36.2 million in the third quarter of fiscal 2009
from $51.9 million in the same quarter last year.
The gain
on sale of loans increased $5.8 million to $6.1 million for the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 from $306,000 in the same quarter of fiscal 2008. The
average loan sale margin for PBM during the third quarter of fiscal 2009 was
1.33 percent, up 92 basis points from 0.41 percent in the same period of fiscal
2008. The gain on sale of loans for the third quarter of fiscal 2009
includes a $384,000 recourse provision on loans sold that are subject to
repurchase, compared to a $264,000 recourse provision in the comparable quarter
last year. The gain on sale of loans also includes a favorable
fair-value adjustment on derivative financial instruments pursuant to the SFAS
No. 133 (a gain of $2.5 million versus a loss of $70,000 in the prior
period). As of March 31, 2009, the fair value of derivative financial
instruments was a gain of $2.8 million as compared to a loss of $304,000 at June
30, 2008 and a loss of $90,000 at March 31, 2008. As of March 31,
2009, the total recourse reserve for loans sold that are subject to repurchase
was $3.1 million, compared to $2.1 million at June 30, 2008 and $660,000 at
March 31, 2008. Total loans sold for the quarter ended March 31, 2009
were $300.4 million, an increase of $230.4 million or 329 percent, from $70.0
million for the same quarter last year. The mortgage banking
environment has shown tremendous improvement recently as a result of the
significant decline in mortgage interest rates but remains highly volatile as a
result of the well-publicized deterioration of the single-family real estate
market.
The
volume of loans originated for sale increased to $366.4 million in the third
quarter of fiscal 2009 as compared to $86.9 million during the same period last
year. The increase in loan originations was primarily attributable to
better liquidity in the secondary mortgage market particularly in FHA/VA loan
products and an increase in activity resulting from lower mortgage interest
rates.
The net
loss on sale and operations of real estate owned acquired in the settlement of
loans was $952,000 in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 compared to a net loss of
$680,000 in the same quarter last year. Twenty-eight real estate
owned properties were sold in the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as compared to 12
properties in the quarter ended March 31, 2008. See the related
discussion on “Asset Quality” on page 33.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. Total non-interest income increased $6.3
million, or 129 percent, to $11.2 million for the first nine months of fiscal
2009 from $4.9 million during the same period of fiscal 2008. The
increase was primarily attributable to an increase in the gain on sale of loans
and the gain on sale of investment securities, partly offset by a decrease in
loan servicing and other fees, a higher loss on sale and operations of real
estate owned acquired in the settlement of loans and a decline in other
income.
Loan
servicing and other fees decreased $749,000, or 55 percent, to $605,000 in the
first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $1.4 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. The decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in loan
prepayment fees, lower brokered loan fees and an increase in reserves on the
mortgage servicing assets. Total loan payments declined $60.6
million, or 32 percent, to $126.0 million in the first nine months of fiscal
2009 from $186.6 million in the same period last year.
The gain
on sale of loans increased $7.3 million, or 521 percent, to $8.7 million for the
nine months ended March 31, 2009 from $1.4 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. The increase was a result of a higher volume of loans sold and
a higher average loan sale margin in the first nine months of fiscal
2009. Total loans sold for the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was
$616.8 million, an increase of $347.6 million or 129 percent, from $269.2
million in the comparable period last year. The volume of loans
originated for sale increased by $416.2 million, or 146 percent, to $701.0
million in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 as compared to $284.8 million
during the same period of fiscal 2008. The average loan sale margin
for PBM during the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was 1.09 percent, up 55
basis points from 0.54 percent in the same period of fiscal 2008. The
increase in the average loan sale margin was primarily attributable to better
liquidity in the secondary market, particularly in FHA/VA loan products, and an
increase in activity resulting from lower mortgage interest
rates. The gain on sale of loans for the first nine months of fiscal
2009 includes a $2.7 million recourse provision on loans sold that are subject
to repurchase, compared to a recourse provision of $183,000 in the comparable
period last year. The gain on sale of loans also includes a favorable
fair-value adjustment on derivative financial instruments pursuant to the SFAS
No. 133 (a gain of $3.1 million versus a loss of $112,000 in the prior
period).
The gain
on sale of investment securities for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 was
$356,000, resulting from the sale of equity investments.
The net
loss on sale and operations of real estate owned acquired in the settlement of
loans was $1.8 million for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 as compared to a
net loss of $1.7 million in the same period ended March 31,
2008. A
total of 75 real estate owned properties were sold during the nine months ended
March 31, 2009 as compared to 22 real estate owned properties in the comparable
period in fiscal 2008.
Other
non-interest income in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was $1.2 million as
compared to $1.7 million in the same period of fiscal 2008. The
decrease was primarily attributable to a decrease in investment service fees, a
loan litigation settlement in fiscal 2008 (not repeated in fiscal 2009) and the
VISA mandatory stock redemption in fiscal 2008 (not repeated in fiscal
2009).
Non-Interest
Expense:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. Total non-interest expense in the quarter ended
March 31, 2009 was $7.9 million, an increase of $649,000 or nine percent, as
compared to $7.3 million in the same quarter of fiscal 2008. The
increase in non-interest expense was primarily the result of a significant
increase in mortgage banking operating expenses and higher deposit insurance
premiums and regulatory assessments.
Total
compensation increased $209,000, or four percent, to $5.0 million in the third
quarter of fiscal 2009 from $4.8 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. The increase was primarily attributable to compensation
incentives related to higher mortgage banking loan volume (refer to “Loan
Volume” on page 38 for details), partly offset by lower deferred compensation
costs.
Total
deposit insurance premiums and regulatory assessments increased $292,000, or 263
percent, to $403,000 in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 from $111,000 in the
same period of fiscal 2008. The increase was primarily attributable
to higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. Total non-interest expense was $22.6 million
for the first nine months of fiscal 2009, an increase of $164,000 or one
percent, as compared to $22.4 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. The increase in non-interest expense was primarily the result
of decreases in compensation and professional expenses, partly offset by higher
deposit insurance premiums and regulatory assessments.
Total
compensation expense in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was $14.2 million,
down $287,000 or two percent, from $14.5 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. The decrease in compensation expense was primarily attributable
to lower ESOP expenses, partly offset by higher compensation incentives related
to higher mortgage banking loan volume. Total ESOP expenses in the
first nine months of fiscal 2009 decreased $1.0 million, or 86 percent, to
$164,000 from $1.2 million in the same period of fiscal 2008. This
decrease was primarily due to fewer shares allocated and a lower average share
price.
Total
professional expenses decreased $130,000, or 12 percent, to $986,000 in the
first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $1.1 million in the same period of fiscal
2008. The decrease was primarily attributable to lower legal expenses
related to delinquent loans.
Total
deposit insurance premiums and regulatory assessments increased $671,000, or 196
percent, to $1.0 million in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 from $342,000
in the same period of fiscal 2008. The increase was primarily
attributable to higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums.
Provision
(benefit) for income taxes:
For the Quarters Ended March 31, 2009
and 2008. The income tax benefit was $1.9 million for the
quarter ended March 31, 2009 as compared to an income tax provision of $917,000
during the same period of fiscal 2008. The effective income tax rate
for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 decreased to 42.0 percent as compared to
48.9 percent for the same quarter last year. The decrease in the
effective income tax rate was primarily the result of a lower percentage of
permanent tax differences relative to income or loss before
taxes. The Corporation believes that the effective income tax rate
applied in the third quarter of fiscal 2009 reflects its current income tax
obligations.
For the Nine Months Ended March 31,
2009 and 2008. The income tax benefit was $6.2 million for the
first nine months of fiscal 2009 as compared to an income tax provision of $2.8
million during the same period of fiscal 2008. The effective income
tax rate for the nine months ended March 31, 2009 decreased to 41.5 percent as
compared to 51.5 percent for the same period last year. The decrease
in the effective income tax rate was primarily the result of a lower percentage
of permanent tax differences relative to income or loss before
taxes. The Corporation believes that
the
effective income tax rate applied in the first nine months of fiscal 2009
reflects its current income tax obligations.
Non-performing
loans, consisting solely of non-accrual loans with collateral primarily located
in Southern California, increased to $67.1 million at March 31, 2009 from $23.2
million at June 30, 2008. The non-accrual loans at March 31, 2009
were primarily comprised of 195 single-family loans ($56.4 million); six
multi-family loans ($4.1 million); 10 construction loans ($2.3 million, nine of
which, or $263,000, are associated with the Coachella, California construction
loan fraud); three commercial real estate loans ($2.2 million); one lot loan
($1.0 million); four commercial business loans ($159,000); and nine
single-family loans repurchased from, or unable to sell to investors ($1.0
million). No interest accruals were made for loans that were past due
90 days or more or if the loans were deemed impaired. As of March 31,
2009, restructured loans, within the meaning of SFAS No. 15, “Accounting by
Debtors and Creditors for Troubled Debt Restructurings”, increased to $28.2
million from $10.5 million at June 30, 2008. At March 31, 2009 and
June 30, 2008, $20.9 million and $1.4 million, respectively, of these
restructured loans were classified as non-accrual.
The
non-accrual loans as a percentage of net loans held for investment increased to
5.53 percent at March 31, 2009 from 1.70 percent at June 30,
2008. Real estate owned was $13.9 million (73 properties) at March
31, 2009, an increase of $4.5 million or 48 percent from $9.4 million (45
properties) at June 30, 2008. Non-performing assets, which includes
non-performing loans and real estate owned, as a percentage of total assets
increased to 5.18 percent at March 31, 2009 from 1.99 percent at June 30,
2008. Restructured loans which are performing in accordance with
their modified terms and are not otherwise classified non-accrual are not
included in non-performing assets.
The Bank
remains entangled in litigation on the 23 individual construction loans in a
single-family construction project located in Coachella,
California. The Bank believes that significant misrepresentations
were made to secure the Bank’s involvement in the project and as a result the
Bank is vigorously pursuing legal remedies to protect the Bank’s
interests. The Bank has delivered demands to the individual
borrowers, mortgage loan broker and builder who knowingly misled the Bank on
certain key aspects of the loans and the project, which were ignored by the
respective parties. Therefore, the Bank has filed lawsuits alleging
loan fraud by the 23 individual borrowers, misrepresentation fraud by the
mortgage loan broker and misuse of funds fraud by the contractor. The
establishment of the specific loan loss reserve is consistent with the improved
land value based on an appraisal. Given the number of parties
involved or soon to be involved, the complexity of the transaction and probable
fraud, this matter may take an extended period of time to resolve. As
of March 31, 2009, the Bank foreclosed on 14 of these loans which were converted
to real estate owned with a total fair value of $409,000, while the remaining
nine loans are classified as substandard non-accrual with a total fair value of
$263,000.
During
the third quarter of fiscal 2009, the Bank repurchased $1.3 million of loans
from investors, fulfilling certain recourse/repurchase covenants in the
respective loan sale agreements. This compares to zero repurchased
loans in the same period of fiscal 2008. For the first nine months of
fiscal 2009, the Bank repurchased $2.8 million of loans from investors and
originated $96,000 of loans that could not be sold to investors. This
compares to $3.8 million of repurchased loans and $5.4 million of loans that
could not be sold to investors in the same period of fiscal 2008. As
of March 31, 2009, the total recourse reserve for loans sold that are subject to
repurchase was $3.1 million, compared to $2.1 million at June 30, 2008 and
$660,000 at March 31, 2008. Many of the repurchases and loans that
could not be sold were the result of fraud. The Bank has implemented
tighter underwriting standards to reduce this problem.
The Bank
reviews loans individually to identify when impairment has
occurred. A loan is identified as impaired when it is deemed probable
that the borrower will be unable to meet the scheduled principal and interest
payments under the terms of the loan agreement. Impairment is based
on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s
effective interest rate, except that as a practical expedient, the Bank may
measure impairment based on a loan’s observable market price or the fair value
of the collateral if the loan is collateral dependent.
The
following table describes certain credit risk characteristics of the
Corporation’s single-family, first trust deed, mortgage loans held for
investment as of March 31, 2009, which totaled $726.9 million at March 31, 2009
compared to $802.2 million at June 30, 2008:
Weighted-
|
Weighted-
|
Weighted-
|
||
Outstanding
|
Average
|
Average
|
Average
|
|
(Dollars
in Thousands)
|
Balance
(1)
|
FICO
(2)
|
LTV
(3)
|
Seasoning
(4)
|
Interest
only
|
$
522,259
|
734
|
74%
|
3.03
years
|
Stated
income (5)
|
$
379,139
|
732
|
73%
|
3.25
years
|
FICO
less than or equal to 660
|
$ 20,229
|
641
|
71%
|
4.02
years
|
Over
30-year amortization
|
$ 23,023
|
738
|
68%
|
3.57
years
|
(1)
|
Of
the outstanding balance, $65.1 million of “Interest Only,” $48.1 million
of “Stated Income,” $4.0 million of “FICO Less Than or Equal to 660,” and
$1.1 million of “Over 30-Year Amortization” balances were
non-performing. The outstanding balance presented on this table
may overlap more than one category.
|
(2)
|
The
FICO score represents the creditworthiness of a borrower based on the
borrower’s credit history, as reported by an independent third
party. A higher FICO score indicates a greater degree of
creditworthiness. Bank regulators have issued guidance stating
that a FICO score of 660 and below is indicative of a “subprime”
borrower.
|
(3)
|
Loan
to Value (“LTV”) is the ratio calculated by dividing the current loan
balance by the original appraised value of the real estate
collateral.
|
(4)
|
Seasoning
describes the number of years since the funding date of the
loan.
|
(5)
|
Stated
income is defined as borrower provided income which is not subject to
verification during the loan origination
process.
|
The
following table describes certain credit risk characteristics, geographic
locations and the year of loan origination of the Corporation’s single-family,
first trust deed, mortgage loans held for investment as of March 31, 2009, which
totaled $726.9 million at March 31, 2009 compared to $802.2 million at June 30,
2008:
Year
of Origination
|
|||||||||||
2001
&
Prior
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
YTD
2009
|
Total
|
||
Loan
balance (in thousands)
|
$12,528
|
$3,524
|
$26,996
|
$96,570
|
$233,040
|
$186,463
|
$114,014
|
$52,961
|
$833
|
$726,929
|
|
Weighted-average
LTV (1)
|
51%
|
66%
|
72%
|
76%
|
73%
|
70%
|
72%
|
75%
|
66%
|
72%
|
|
Weighted-average
age (in years)
|
14.90
|
6.60
|
5.57
|
4.54
|
3.69
|
2.70
|
1.49
|
0.98
|
0.07
|
3.32
|
|
Weighted-average
FICO
|
695
|
695
|
724
|
720
|
731
|
742
|
735
|
744
|
749
|
733
|
|
Number
of loans
|
152
|
13
|
100
|
287
|
599
|
417
|
228
|
94
|
3
|
1,883
|
|
Geographic
breakdown (%)
|
|||||||||||
Inland
Empire
|
36%
|
34%
|
38%
|
31%
|
32%
|
29%
|
29%
|
23%
|
97%
|
30%
|
|
Southern
California (2)
|
53%
|
57%
|
59%
|
63%
|
60%
|
52%
|
42%
|
52%
|
1%
|
55%
|
|
Other
California
|
7%
|
9%
|
3%
|
5%
|
7%
|
17%
|
28%
|
25%
|
2%
|
14%
|
|
Other
States
|
4%
|
-
|
-
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
1%
|
-
|
-
|
1%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
(1)
|
Loan
to Value (“LTV”) is the ratio calculated by dividing the current loan
balance by the original appraised value of the real estate
collateral.
|
(2)
|
Other
than Inland Empire.
|
The
following table describes certain credit risk characteristics, geographic
locations and the year of loan origination of the Corporation’s commercial real
estate loans held for investment as of March 31, 2009, which totaled $118.2
million at March 31, 2009 compared to $136.2 million at June 30,
2008:
Year
of Origination
|
|||||||||||
2001
&
Prior
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
YTD
2009
|
Total
(4)
|
||
Loan
balance (in thousands)
|
$3,807
|
$7,039
|
$14,143
|
$13,407
|
$21,854
|
$27,042
|
$22,851
|
$6,371
|
$1,650
|
$118,164
|
|
Weighted-average
LTV (1)
|
37%
|
53%
|
48%
|
53%
|
50%
|
56%
|
56%
|
38%
|
51%
|
52%
|
|
Weighted-average
DCR (2)
|
1.37x
|
1.45x
|
1.64x
|
2.22x
|
2.08x
|
2.49x
|
2.34x
|
1.67x
|
1.26x
|
2.09x
|
|
Weighted-average
age (in years)
|
13.61
|
6.71
|
5.75
|
4.70
|
3.71
|
2.68
|
1.75
|
0.93
|
0.13
|
3.75
|
|
Weighted-average
FICO
|
745
|
735
|
732
|
713
|
712
|
722
|
717
|
756
|
722
|
722
|
|
Number
of loans
|
12
|
5
|
24
|
22
|
27
|
32
|
26
|
12
|
1
|
161
|
|
Geographic
breakdown (%):
|
|||||||||||
Inland
Empire
|
80%
|
96%
|
52%
|
49%
|
71%
|
25%
|
45%
|
7%
|
-
|
48%
|
|
Southern
California (3)
|
17%
|
4%
|
48%
|
51%
|
29%
|
74%
|
47%
|
93%
|
-
|
49%
|
|
Other
California
|
3%
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1%
|
8%
|
-
|
-
|
2%
|
|
Other
States
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
100%
|
1%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
(1)
|
Loan
to Value (“LTV”) is the ratio calculated by dividing the current loan
balance by the original appraised value of the real estate
collateral.
|
(2)
|
Debt
Coverage Ratio (“DCR”) at time of
origination.
|
(3)
|
Other
than Inland Empire.
|
(4)
|
Comprised
of the following: $29.1 million in Office; $23.2 million in
Retail; $15.2 million in Light Industrial/Manufacturing; $12.5 million in
Mixed Use; $10.8 million in Medical/Dental Office; $6.9 million in
Warehouse; $4.1 million in Restaurant/Fast Food; $3.8 million in
Mini-Storage; $3.2 million in Research and Development; $2.7 million in
Mobile Home Park; $2.0 million in Hotel and Motel; $1.8 million in
Automotive – Non Gasoline; $1.3 million in School; and $1.6 million in
Other.
|
The
following table describes certain credit risk characteristics, geographic
locations and the year of loan origination of the Corporation’s multi-family
loans held for investment as of March 31, 2009, which totaled $378.4 million at
March 31, 2009 compared to $399.7 million at June 30, 2008:
Year
of Origination
|
|||||||||||
2001
&
Prior
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
YTD
2009
|
Total
|
||
Loan
balance (in thousands)
|
$2,037
|
$4,295
|
$21,150
|
$43,491
|
$67,476
|
$113,885
|
$104,119
|
$20,222
|
$1,750
|
$378,425
|
|
Weighted-average
LTV (1)
|
29%
|
46%
|
59%
|
53%
|
56%
|
57%
|
58%
|
56%
|
53%
|
56%
|
|
Weighted-average
DCR (2)
|
2.57x
|
1.56x
|
1.41x
|
1.45x
|
1.28x
|
1.27x
|
1.25x
|
1.28x
|
1.21x
|
1.30x
|
|
Weighted-average
age (in years)
|
14.19
|
6.45
|
5.59
|
4.75
|
3.72
|
2.77
|
1.73
|
0.82
|
0.12
|
3.03
|
|
Weighted-average
FICO
|
720
|
744
|
737
|
709
|
706
|
714
|
701
|
763
|
735
|
718
|
|
Number
of loans
|
7
|
8
|
34
|
58
|
100
|
125
|
123
|
23
|
1
|
479
|
|
Geographic
breakdown (%)
|
|||||||||||
Inland
Empire
|
78%
|
16%
|
4%
|
21%
|
7%
|
11%
|
3%
|
8%
|
-
|
9%
|
|
Southern
California (3)
|
22%
|
84%
|
84%
|
75%
|
60%
|
59%
|
83%
|
91%
|
100%
|
71%
|
|
Other
California
|
-
|
-
|
12%
|
3%
|
32%
|
28%
|
14%
|
1%
|
-
|
19%
|
|
Other
States
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1%
|
1%
|
2%
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1%
|
|
Total
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
100%
|
(1)
|
Loan
to Value (“LTV”) is the ratio calculated by dividing the current loan
balance by the original appraised value of the real estate
collateral.
|
(2)
|
Debt
Coverage Ratio (“DCR”) at time of
origination.
|
(3)
|
Other
than Inland Empire.
|
The
following table sets forth information with respect to the Bank’s non-performing
assets and restructured loans, net of specific loan loss reserves, within the
meaning of SFAS No. 15, “Accounting by Debtors and Creditors for Troubled Debt
Restructurings,” at the dates indicated:
At
March 31,
|
At
June 30,
|
||
(Dollars
In Thousands)
|
2009
|
2008
|
|
Loans
accounted for on a non-accrual basis:
|
|||
Mortgage
loans:
|
|||
Single-family
|
$
57,434
|
$
17,330
|
|
Multi-family
|
4,076
|
-
|
|
Commercial
real estate
|
2,168
|
572
|
|
Construction
|
2,300
|
4,716
|
|
Commercial
business loans
|
159
|
-
|
|
Other
loans
|
1,000
|
575
|
|
Total
|
67,137
|
23,193
|
|
Accruing
loans which are contractually past due
90
days or more
|
-
|
-
|
|
Total
of non-performing loans (1)
|
67,137
|
23,193
|
|
Real
estate owned, net
|
13,861
|
9,355
|
|
Total
non-performing assets (1)
|
$
80,998
|
$
32,548
|
|
Restructured
loans
|
$
28,233
|
$
10,484
|
|
Non-performing
loans as a percentage of loans held for
investment,
net
|
5.53%
|
1.70%
|
|
Non-performing
loans as a percentage of total assets
|
4.30%
|
1.42%
|
|
Non-performing
assets as a percentage of
total
assets
|
5.18%
|
1.99%
|
(1)
Includes $20.9 million of restructured loans at March 31, 2009 and $1.4 million
of restructured loans at June 30, 2008.
All of
the loans set forth in the table above have been classified in accordance with
OTS regulations. Total classified loans (including loans designated
as special mention) were $87.5 million at March 31, 2009, an increase of $28.3
million or 48 percent, from $59.2 million at June 30, 2008. The
classified loans at March 31, 2009 consist of 38 loans in the special mention
category (28 single-family loans of $11.1 million, five multi-family loans of
$5.8 million, three commercial business loans of $496,000, one construction loan
of $400,000 and one commercial real estate loan of $265,000) and 235 loans in
the substandard category (209 single-family loans of $59.0 million, six
multi-family loans of $4.1 million, four commercial real estate loans of $2.6
million, 10 construction loans of $2.3 million, two land loans of $1.2 million
and four commercial business loans of $259,000).
The
classified loans at June 30, 2008 consisted of 46 loans in the special mention
category (33 single-family loans of $11.8 million, two construction loans of
$8.1 million, six multi-family loans of $8.0 million, two commercial real estate
loans of $1.4 million, one commercial business loan of $100,000, one land loan
of $28,000 and one consumer loan of $20,000) and 97 loans in the substandard
category (79 single-family loans of $23.6 million, 12 construction loans of $4.7
million, two land loans of $575,000, one commercial real estate loan of
$572,000, one multi-family loan of $367,000 and two fully reserved commercial
business loans).
As of
March 31, 2009, real estate owned was comprised of 73 properties (seven from
loan repurchases and loans which could not be sold and 66 from loans held for
investment), primarily located in Southern California, with a net
fair
value of $13.9 million. A new appraisal was obtained on each of the
properties at the time of foreclosure and fair value was calculated by using the
lower of appraised value or the listing price of the property, net of
disposition costs. Any initial loss is recorded as a charge to the
allowance for loan losses before being transferred to real estate
owned. Subsequently, if there is further deterioration in real estate
values, specific real estate owned loss reserves are established and charged to
the statement of operations. In addition, the Corporation reflects
costs to carry real estate owned as real estate operating expenses as
incurred. As of June 30, 2008, real estate owned was comprised of 45
properties (nine from loan repurchases and 36 from loans held for investment),
primarily located in Southern California, with a net fair value of $9.4
million. For the quarter ended March 31, 2009, forty real estate
owned properties were acquired in the settlement of loans, while 28 real estate
owned properties were sold for a $606,000 net loss. For the nine
months ended March 31, 2009, one hundred and three real estate owned properties
were acquired in the settlement of loans, while 75 real estate owned properties
were sold for a net loss of $109,000 (inclusive of subsequent recoveries of
$57,000).
For the
quarter ended March 31, 2009, thirty-one loans for $13.1 million were modified
from their original terms, were re-underwritten and were identified in the
Corporation’s asset quality reports as restructured loans. For the
nine months ended March 31, 2009, sixty-one loans for $27.3 million were
modified from their original terms, were re-underwritten and were identified in
the Corporation’s asset quality reports as restructured loans. As of
March 31, 2009, the outstanding balance of restructured loans was $28.2
million: 20 are classified as pass and remain on accrual status ($7.1
million); one is classified as substandard and remains on accrual status
($240,000); 58 are classified as substandard on non-accrual status ($20.9
million); and two are classified as loss and fully reserved on non-accrual
status. To qualify for restructuring, a borrower must provide
evidence of their creditworthiness such as, current financial statements, their
most recent income tax returns, current paystubs, current W-2s, and most recent
bank statements, among other documents, which are then verified by the
Bank. The Bank re-underwrites the loan with the borrower’s updated
financial information, new credit report, current loan balance, new interest
rate, remaining loan term, updated property value and modified payment schedule,
among other considerations, to determine if the borrower
qualifies.
The
following table is provided to disclose details related to the volume of loans
originated, purchased and sold (in thousands):
For
the Quarter
Ended
|
For
the Nine Months
Ended
|
||||||||||
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
||||||||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
||||||||
Loans
originated for sale:
|
|||||||||||
Retail
originations
|
$ 66,965
|
$ 30,691
|
$ 166,792
|
$ 95,325
|
|||||||
Wholesale
originations
|
299,419
|
56,169
|
534,252
|
189,447
|
|||||||
Total
loans originated for sale (1)
|
366,384
|
86,860
|
701,044
|
284,772
|
|||||||
Loans
sold:
|
|||||||||||
Servicing
released
|
(300,398
|
)
|
(67,986
|
)
|
(616,560
|
)
|
(264,634
|
)
|
|||
Servicing
retained
|
-
|
(2,000
|
)
|
(193
|
)
|
(4,534
|
)
|
||||
Total
loans sold (2)
|
(300,398
|
)
|
(69,986
|
)
|
(616,753
|
)
|
(269,168
|
)
|
|||
Loans
originated for investment:
|
|||||||||||
Mortgage
loans:
|
|||||||||||
Single-family
|
802
|
30,810
|
8,278
|
93,843
|
|||||||
Multi-family
|
1,750
|
2,969
|
6,250
|
29,397
|
|||||||
Commercial
real estate
|
-
|
3,955
|
2,073
|
14,713
|
|||||||
Construction
|
-
|
1,230
|
265
|
12,892
|
|||||||
Commercial
business loans
|
358
|
266
|
938
|
627
|
|||||||
Consumer
loans
|
-
|
24
|
531
|
236
|
|||||||
Other
loans
|
-
|
-
|
1,740
|
1,680
|
|||||||
Total
loans originated for investment (3)
|
2,910
|
39,254
|
20,075
|
153,388
|
|||||||
Loans
purchased for investment:
|
|||||||||||
Mortgage
loans:
|
|||||||||||
Multi-family
|
595
|
28,272
|
595
|
96,402
|
|||||||
Commercial
real estate
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1,996
|
|||||||
Construction
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
400
|
|||||||
Other
loans
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1,000
|
|||||||
Total
loans purchased for investment
|
595
|
28,272
|
595
|
99,798
|
|||||||
Mortgage
loan principal payments
|
(36,246
|
)
|
(51,936
|
)
|
(125,977
|
)
|
(186,618
|
)
|
|||
Real
estate acquired in settlement of loans
|
(15,485
|
)
|
(9,369
|
)
|
(41,636
|
)
|
(17,762
|
)
|
|||
(Decrease)
increase in other items, net (4)
|
(145
|
)
|
7,127
|
(4,480
|
)
|
9,183
|
|||||
Net
increase (decrease) in loans held for
|
|||||||||||
investment
and loans held for sale
|
$ 17,615
|
$ 30,222
|
$ (67,132
|
)
|
$ 73,593
|
(1)
|
Primarily
comprised of PBM loans originated for sale, totaling $366.3 million, $86.4
million, $701.0 million and $281.9 million for the quarters and nine
months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
|
(2)
|
Primarily
comprised of PBM loans sold, totaling $296.6 million, $68.0 million,
$613.0 million and $264.7 million for the quarters and nine months ended
March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
|
(3)
|
Primarily
comprised of PBM loans originated for investment, totaling $802, $31.6
million, $8.8 million and $98.0 million for the quarters and nine months
ended March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
|
(4)
|
Includes
net changes in undisbursed loan funds, deferred loan fees or costs, escrow
accounts and allowance for loan
losses.
|
The
Corporation’s primary sources of funds are deposits, proceeds from the sale of
loans originated for sale, proceeds from principal and interest payments on
loans, proceeds from the maturity of investment securities and FHLB – San
Francisco advances. While maturities and scheduled amortization of loans and
investment securities are a relatively predictable source of funds, deposit
flows, mortgage prepayments and loan sales are greatly influenced by general
interest rates, economic conditions and competition.
The
primary investing activity of the Bank is the origination and purchase of loans
held for investment. During the first nine months of fiscal 2009 and
2008, the Bank originated loans in the amounts of $721.1 million and $438.2
million, respectively. In addition, the Bank purchased $595,000 from
other financial institution in the first nine months of fiscal 2009 compared to
purchases of $99.8 million in the first nine months of fiscal
2008. The total loans sold in the first nine months of fiscal 2009
and 2008 were $616.8 million and $269.2 million, respectively. At
March 31, 2009, the Bank had loan origination commitments totaling $207.8
million and undisbursed loans in process and lines of credit totaling $10.9
million. The Bank anticipates that it will have sufficient funds
available to meet its current loan commitments.
The
Bank’s primary financing activity is gathering deposits. During the
first nine months of fiscal 2009, the net decrease in deposits was $64.5 million
in comparison to a net increase in deposits of $30.8 million during the same
period in fiscal 2008. The decrease in deposits was consistent with
the Corporation’s short-term strategy (refer to “Executive Summary and Operating
Strategy” on page 19). On March 31, 2009, time deposits that are
scheduled to mature in one year or less were $528.3
million. Historically, the Bank has been able to retain a significant
amount of its time deposits as they mature by adjusting deposit rates to the
current interest rate environment.
The Bank
must maintain an adequate level of liquidity to ensure the availability of
sufficient funds to support loan growth and deposit withdrawals, to satisfy
financial commitments and to take advantage of investment
opportunities. The Bank generally maintains sufficient cash and cash
equivalents to meet short-term liquidity needs. At March 31, 2009,
total cash and cash equivalents were $12.3 million, or 0.78 percent of total
assets. Depending on market conditions and the pricing of deposit
products and FHLB – San Francisco advances, the Bank may continue to rely on
FHLB – San Francisco advances for part of its liquidity needs. As of
March 31, 2009, the financing availability at FHLB – San Francisco is limited to
45 percent of total assets and the remaining borrowing capacity was $213.5
million.
On
December 3, 2008, the Bank elected to participate in the FDIC Temporary
Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLGP”), which consists of the Transaction Account
Guarantee Program (“TAGP”) and Debt Guarantee Program
(“DGP”). Through the TAGP, the FDIC will provide unlimited deposit
insurance coverage for all non interest-bearing transaction accounts through
December 31, 2009. This includes traditional non interest-bearing
checking accounts, certain types of attorney trust accounts and NOW accounts as
long as the interest rate does not exceed 0.50 percent. The program
is designed to enhance depositor confidence in the safety of the United States
banking system. Through the DGP, the Bank has an option to issue
senior unsecured debt (fully guaranteed by the FDIC) on or before June 30, 2009
with a maturity of June 30, 2012 or sooner. If the Bank chooses to
issue debt under the DGP program it will be limited to two percent of its
liabilities as of September 30, 2008, or approximately $29.4
million. As of March 31, 2009, the Corporation has not issued any
debt under the DGP.
Although
the OTS eliminated the minimum liquidity requirement for savings institutions in
April 2002, the regulation still requires thrifts to maintain adequate liquidity
to assure safe and sound operations. The Bank’s average liquidity ratio (defined
as the ratio of average qualifying liquid assets to average deposits and
borrowings) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 increased to 11.2 percent from
4.6 percent during the quarter ended June 30, 2008. During the first
nine months of fiscal 2009, the United States (“the U.S.”) and international
banking systems were under a considerable strain as a result of large financial
losses experienced by many financial institutions worldwide. As a
result, the U.S. government has taken many actions designed to alleviate
liquidity concerns in the U.S. banking system. Those well publicized
actions seem to have stabilized the U.S. banking system. The Bank did
not experience any specific liquidity problems during the course of the third
quarter of fiscal 2009 although it is probable that interest rates paid for
deposits and borrowings were elevated as a result of the market
turmoil.
The Bank
is required to maintain specific amounts of capital pursuant to OTS
requirements. Under the OTS prompt corrective action provisions, a
minimum ratio of 1.5 percent for Tangible Capital is required to be deemed other
than “critically undercapitalized,” while a minimum of 5.0 percent for Core
Capital, 10.0 percent for Total Risk-Based
Capital
and 6.0 percent for Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital is required to be deemed “well
capitalized.” As of March 31, 2009, the Bank exceeded all regulatory
capital requirements. The Bank’s actual and required capital amounts
and ratios as of March 31, 2009 are as follows (dollars in
thousands):
Amount
|
Percent
|
||
Tangible
capital
|
$
110,220
|
7.06%
|
|
Requirement
|
31,215
|
2.00
|
|
Excess
over requirement
|
$ 79,005
|
5.06%
|
|
Core
capital
|
$
110,220
|
7.06%
|
|
Requirement
to be “Well Capitalized”
|
78,039
|
5.00
|
|
Excess
over requirement
|
$ 32,181
|
2.06%
|
|
Total
risk-based capital
|
$
119,040
|
12.68%
|
|
Requirement
to be “Well Capitalized”
|
93,877
|
10.00
|
|
Excess
over requirement
|
$ 25,163
|
2.68%
|
|
Tier
1 risk-based capital
|
$
107,226
|
11.42%
|
|
Requirement
to be “Well Capitalized”
|
56,326
|
6.00
|
|
Excess
over requirement
|
$ 50,900
|
5.42%
|
The
Corporation is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk in
the normal course of business to meet the financing needs of its
customers. These financial instruments include commitments to extend
credit, in the form of originating loans or providing funds under existing lines
of credit, and mandatory loan sale agreements to third parties. These
instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest-rate
risk in excess of the amount recognized in the accompanying condensed
consolidated statements of financial condition. The Corporation’s
exposure to credit loss, in the event of non-performance by the counterparty to
these financial instruments, is represented by the contractual amount of these
instruments. The Corporation uses the same credit policies in
entering into financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk as it does for
on-balance sheet instruments. For a discussion on commitments and
derivative financial instruments, see Note 5 of the Notes to Unaudited Interim
Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements on page 12.
The
ability of the Corporation to pay dividends to stockholders depends >
primarily on the >ability of the Bank to pay dividends to the
Corporation. The >Bank may not declare or pay a cash dividend if
the effect thereof >would cause its net worth to be reduced below the
regulatory capital requirements imposed >by federal and state
regulation. The Corporation paid $807,000 of cash dividends to its
shareholders in the first nine months of fiscal 2009.
In June
2008, the Corporation’s Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase
program; however, in order to preserve capital during this difficult banking
environment, the Corporation has not repurchased any of its stock under this
program during the nine months ended March 31, 2009. As of March 31,
2009, all of the 310,385 authorized shares from the June 2008 stock repurchase
program are available for future repurchase.
During
the first nine months of fiscal 2009, the Corporation repurchased 65 shares of
restricted stock from employees in lieu of distribution (to satisfy the minimum
income tax required to be withheld from employees) at an average price of $4.11
per share. During the first nine months of fiscal 2009, there were no
stock options exercised.
As of
March 31, 2009, the Corporation had three share-based compensation plans, which
are described below. These plans include the 2006 Equity Incentive
Plan, 2003 Stock Option Plan and 1996 Stock Option Plan. The
compensation cost that has been charged against income for these plans was
$297,000 and $374,000 for the quarters ended March 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and there was no tax benefit from these plans during either
quarter. For the nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008, the
compensation cost for these plans was $855,000 and $758,000, respectively, and
the tax benefit from these plans was $0 and $6,000, respectively.
Equity Incentive
Plan. The Corporation established and the shareholders
approved the 2006 Equity Incentive Plan (“2006 Plan”) for directors, advisory
directors, directors emeriti, officers and employees of the Corporation and its
subsidiary. The 2006 Plan authorizes 365,000 stock options and
185,000 shares of restricted stock. The 2006 Plan also provides that
no person may be granted more than 73,000 shares of stock options or 27,750
shares of restricted stock in any one year.
Equity Incentive Plan - Stock
Options. Under the 2006 Plan, options may not be granted at a
price less than the fair market value at the date of the
grant. Options typically vest over a five-year or shorter period as
long as the director, advisory director, director emeriti, officer or employee
remains in service to the Corporation. The options are exercisable
after vesting for up to the remaining term of the original grant. The
maximum term of the options granted is 10 years.
The fair
value of each option grant is estimated on the date of the grant using the
Black-Scholes option valuation model with the assumptions noted in the following
table. The expected volatility is based on implied volatility from
historical common stock closing prices for the last 84 months. The
expected dividend yield is based on the most recent quarterly dividend on an
annualized basis. The expected term is based on the historical
experience of all fully vested stock option grants and is reviewed
annually. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury
note rate with a term similar to the underlying stock option on the particular
grant date.
Quarter
|
Quarter
|
Nine
Months
|
Nine
Months
|
|||||
Ended
|
Ended
|
Ended
|
Ended
|
|||||
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
|||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||
Expected
volatility
|
-
|
-
|
35%
|
-
|
||||
Weighted-average
volatility
|
-
|
-
|
35%
|
-
|
||||
Expected
dividend yield
|
-
|
-
|
2.8%
|
-
|
||||
Expected
term (in years)
|
-
|
-
|
7.0
|
-
|
||||
Risk-free
interest rate
|
-
|
-
|
3.5%
|
-
|
In the
third quarter of fiscal 2009, a total of 2,200 stock options were forfeited,
while no stock options were granted or exercised. This compares to no
stock option activity in the third quarter of fiscal 2008. For the
first nine months of fiscal 2009, a total of 182,000 stock options were granted,
while 2,200 stock options were forfeited and no stock options were
exercised. This compares to a total of 12,000 stock options
forfeited, while no stock options were granted or exercised during the first
nine months of fiscal 2008. As of March 31, 2009 and 2008, there were
9,900 stock options and 189,700 stock options available for future grants under
the 2006 Plan, respectively.
The
following table summarizes the stock option activity in the 2006 Plan for the
quarter and nine months ended March 31, 2009.
Options
|
Shares
|
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(Years)
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
($000)
|
||||
Outstanding
at January 1, 2009
|
357,300
|
$
17.47
|
||||||
Granted
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Forfeited
|
(2,200
|
)
|
$
18.64
|
|||||
Outstanding
at March 31, 2009
|
355,100
|
$
17.46
|
8.62
|
$
-
|
||||
Vested
and expected to vest at March 31, 2009
|
298,044
|
$
17.97
|
8.59
|
$
-
|
||||
Exercisable
at March 31, 2009
|
69,820
|
$
28.31
|
7.86
|
$
-
|
Options
|
Shares
|
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(Years)
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
($000)
|
||||
Outstanding
at July 1, 2008
|
175,300
|
$
28.31
|
||||||
Granted
|
182,000
|
$ 7.03
|
||||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Forfeited
|
(2,200
|
)
|
$
18.64
|
|||||
Outstanding
at March 31, 2009
|
355,100
|
$
17.46
|
8.62
|
$
-
|
||||
Vested
and expected to vest at March 31, 2009
|
298,044
|
$
17.97
|
8.59
|
$
-
|
||||
Exercisable
at March 31, 2009
|
69,820
|
$
28.31
|
7.86
|
$
-
|
As of
March 31, 2009 and 2008, there was $799,000 and $749,000 of unrecognized
compensation expense, respectively, related to unvested share-based compensation
arrangements granted under the stock options in the 2006 Plan. The
expense is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.7 years
and 3.9 years, respectively. The forfeiture rate during the first
nine months of fiscal 2009 was 20 percent and was calculated by using the
historical forfeiture experience of all fully vested stock option grants and is
reviewed annually.
Equity Incentive Plan – Restricted
Stock. The Corporation will use 185,000 shares of its treasury
stock to fund the 2006 Plan. Awarded shares typically vest over a
five-year or shorter period as long as the director, advisory director, director
emeriti, officer or employee remains in service to the
Corporation. Once vested, a recipient of restricted stock will have
all rights of a shareholder, including the power to vote and the right to
receive dividends. The Corporation recognizes compensation expense
for the restricted stock awards based on the fair value of the shares at the
award date.
In the
third quarter of fiscal 2009, a total of 11,200 shares of restricted stock were
vested and distributed, while 1,400 shares were forfeited and no shares were
awarded. This compares to a total of 11,350 shares of restricted
stock vested and distributed, and no restricted stock awarded or forfeited in
the third quarter of 2008. For the first nine months of fiscal 2009,
a total of 100,300 shares of restricted stock were awarded, while 12,000 shares
were vested and distributed, and 1,400 shares were forfeited. This
compares to a total of 4,000 shares of restricted stock awarded, 11,350 shares
vested and distributed, and 6,000 shares forfeited during the first nine months
of fiscal 2008. As of March 31, 2009 and 2008, there were 25,350
shares and 124,250 shares of restricted stock available for future awards,
respectively.
The
following table summarizes the unvested restricted stock activity in the quarter
and nine months ended March 31, 2009.
Unvested
Shares
|
Shares
|
Weighted-Average
Award
Date
Fair
Value
|
||
Unvested
at January 1, 2009
|
148,900
|
$
14.84
|
||
Granted
|
-
|
-
|
||
Vested
|
(11,200
|
)
|
$
26.49
|
|
Forfeited
|
(1,400
|
)
|
$
15.04
|
|
Unvested
at March 31, 2009
|
136,300
|
$
13.85
|
||
Expected
to vest at March 31, 2009
|
109,040
|
$
13.85
|
Unvested
Shares
|
Shares
|
Weighted-Average
Award
Date
Fair
Value
|
||
Unvested
at July 1, 2008
|
49,400
|
$
25.81
|
||
Granted
|
100,300
|
$ 6.46
|
||
Vested
|
(12,000
|
)
|
$
25.93
|
|
Forfeited
|
(1,400
|
)
|
$
15.04
|
|
Unvested
at March 31, 2009
|
136,300
|
$
13.85
|
||
Expected
to vest at March 31, 2009
|
109,040
|
$
13.85
|
As of
March 31, 2009 and 2008, there was $1.7 million and $1.4 million of unrecognized
compensation expense, respectively, related to unvested share-based compensation
arrangements awarded under the restricted stock in the 2006 Plan, and reported
as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. This expense is expected to
be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.7 years and 3.9 years,
respectively. Similar to stock options, a forfeiture rate of 20
percent is used for the restricted stock compensation expense
calculations.
Stock Option
Plans. The Corporation established the 1996 Stock Option Plan
and the 2003 Stock Option Plan (collectively, the “Stock Option Plans”) for key
employees and eligible directors under which options to acquire up to 1.15
million shares and 352,500 shares of common stock, respectively, may be
granted. Under the Stock Option Plans, stock options may not be
granted at a price less than the fair market value at the date of the
grant. Stock options vest over a five-year period on a pro-rata basis
as long as the employee or director remains in service to the
Corporation. The stock options are exercisable after vesting for up
to the remaining term of the original grant. The maximum term of the
stock options granted is 10 years.
The fair
value of each stock option grant is estimated on the date of the grant using the
Black-Scholes option valuation model with the assumptions noted in the following
table. The expected volatility is based on implied volatility from
historical common stock closing prices for the last 84 months. The
expected dividend yield is based on the most recent quarterly dividend on an
annualized basis. The expected term is based on the historical
experience of all fully vested stock option grants and is reviewed
annually. The risk-free interest rate is based on the U.S. Treasury
note rate with a term similar to the underlying stock option on the particular
grant date.
Quarter
|
Quarter
|
Nine
Months
|
Nine
Months
|
|||||
Ended
|
Ended
|
Ended
|
Ended
|
|||||
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
March
31,
|
|||||
2009
|
2008
|
2009
|
2008
|
|||||
Expected
volatility
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
22%
|
||||
Weighted-average
volatility
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
22%
|
||||
Expected
dividend yield
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3.6%
|
||||
Expected
term (in years)
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
6.9
|
||||
Risk-free
interest rate
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
4.8%
|
There was
no activity in the third quarter of fiscal 2009, as compared to 7,000 stock
options that were forfeited in the third quarter of fiscal 2008. For
the first nine months of fiscal 2009, there was no stock option
activity. This compares to a total of 50,000 stock options that were
granted, 7,500 stock options that were exercised, and 55,700
stock
options forfeited in the first nine months of fiscal 2008. As of
March 31, 2009 and 2008, the number of stock options available for future grants
under the Stock Option Plans were 14,900 and 14,900 stock options,
respectively.
The
following is a summary of the activity in the Stock Option Plans for the quarter
and nine months ended March 31, 2009.
Options
|
Shares
|
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(Years)
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
($000)
|
||||
Outstanding
at January 1, 2009
|
550,400
|
$
20.52
|
||||||
Granted
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Forfeited
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Outstanding
at March 31, 2009
|
550,400
|
$
20.52
|
4.86
|
$
-
|
||||
Vested
and expected to vest at March 31, 2009
|
525,160
|
$
20.30
|
4.76
|
$
-
|
||||
Exercisable
at March 31, 2009
|
424,200
|
$
19.19
|
4.26
|
$
-
|
Options
|
Shares
|
Weighted-
Average
Exercise
Price
|
Weighted-
Average
Remaining
Contractual
Term
(Years)
|
Aggregate
Intrinsic
Value
($000)
|
||||
Outstanding
at July 1, 2008
|
550,400
|
$
20.52
|
||||||
Granted
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Exercised
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Forfeited
|
-
|
-
|
||||||
Outstanding
at March 31, 2009
|
550,400
|
$
20.52
|
4.86
|
$
-
|
||||
Vested
and expected to vest at March 31, 2009
|
525,160
|
$
20.30
|
4.76
|
$
-
|
||||
Exercisable
at March 31, 2009
|
424,200
|
$
19.19
|
4.26
|
$
-
|
The
weighted-average grant-date fair value of stock options granted during the nine
months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 was $0 and $3.94 per share,
respectively. The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised
during the nine months ended March 31, 2009 and 2008 was $0 and $104,000,
respectively.
As of
March 31, 2009 and 2008, there was $1.1 million and $1.5 million of unrecognized
compensation expense, respectively, related to unvested share-based compensation
arrangements granted under the Stock Option Plans. The expense is
expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.7 years and 2.6
years, respectively. The forfeiture rate during the first nine months
of fiscal 2009 was 20% and was calculated by using the historical forfeiture
experience of all fully vested stock option grants and is reviewed
annually.
At
|
At
|
At
|
|||
March
31,
|
June
30,
|
March
31,
|
|||
2009
|
2008
|
2008
|
|||
Loans
serviced for others (in thousands)
|
$
166,939
|
$
181,032
|
$
187,533
|
||
Book
value per share
|
$
18.68
|
$
19.97
|
$ 20.49
|
The
principal financial objective of the Corporation’s interest rate risk management
function is to achieve long-term profitability while limiting exposure to the
fluctuation of interest rates. The Bank, through its Asset Liability
Committee seeks to reduce the exposure of its earnings to changes in market
interest rates by managing the mismatch between asset and liability
maturities. The principal element in achieving this objective is to
manage the interest-rate sensitivity of the Bank’s assets by holding loans with
interest rates subject to periodic market adjustments. In addition,
the Bank maintains a liquid investment securities portfolio comprised of
government agency securities and mortgage-backed securities. The Bank
relies on retail deposits as its primary source of funding while utilizing FHLB
– San Francisco advances as a secondary source of funding. As part of
its interest rate risk management strategy, the Bank promotes transaction
accounts and time deposits with terms up to five years.
Through
the use of an internal interest rate risk model and the OTS interest rate risk
model, the Bank is able to analyze its interest rate risk exposure by measuring
the change in net portfolio value (“NPV”) over a variety of interest rate
scenarios. NPV is defined as the net present value of expected future
cash flows from assets, liabilities and off-balance sheet
contracts. The calculation is intended to illustrate the change in
NPV that would occur in the event of an immediate change in interest rates of at
least 100 basis points with no effect given to steps that management might take
to counter the effect of the interest rate movement. The results of the
internal interest rate risk model are reconciled with the results provided by
the OTS on a quarterly basis. Significant deviations are researched
and adjusted where applicable.
The
following table is derived from the OTS interest rate risk model and represents
the NPV based on the indicated changes in interest rates as of March 31, 2009
(dollars in thousands).
NPV
as Percentage
|
|||||||||||||
Net
|
NPV
|
Portfolio
|
of
Portfolio Value
|
Sensitivity
|
|||||||||
Basis
Points ("bp")
|
Portfolio
|
Change
|
Value
of
|
Assets
|
Measure
|
||||||||
Change
in Rates
|
Value
|
(1)
|
Assets
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
||||||||
+300
bp
|
$
122,859
|
$ (3,765
|
)
|
$
1,537,501
|
7.99%
|
+15 bp
|
|||||||
+200
bp
|
$
125,979
|
$ (645
|
)
|
$
1,567,756
|
8.04%
|
+19 bp
|
|||||||
+100
bp
|
$
124,459
|
$ (2,165
|
)
|
$
1,591,757
|
7.82%
|
-2 bp
|
|||||||
0
bp
|
$
126,624
|
$ -
|
$
1,614,411
|
7.84%
|
-
|
||||||||
-100
bp
|
$
129,431
|
$ 2,807
|
$
1,634,625
|
7.92%
|
+7 bp
|
||||||||
(1)
|
Represents
the increase (decrease) of the NPV at the indicated interest rate change
in comparison to the NPV at March 31, 2009 (“base
case”).
|
(2)
|
Calculated
as the NPV divided by the portfolio value of total
assets.
|
(3)
|
Calculated
as the change in the NPV ratio from the base case amount assuming the
indicated change in interest rates (expressed in basis
points).
|
The
following table is derived from the OTS interest rate risk model, the OTS
interest rate risk regulatory guidelines, and represents the change in the NPV
at a 0 basis point rate shock at March 31, 2009 and a +200 basis point rate
shock at June 30, 2008.
At
March 31, 2009
|
At
June 30, 2008
|
|||||||
(0
bp rate
shock)
|
(+200
bp rate shock)
|
|||||||
Pre-Shock
NPV ratio: NPV as a % of PV Assets
|
7.84
|
%
|
9.01
|
%
|
||||
Post-Shock
NPV ratio: NPV as a % of PV Assets
|
7.84
|
%
|
8.07
|
%
|
||||
Sensitivity
Measure: Change in NPV Ratio
|
0
|
bp
|
95
|
bp
|
||||
TB
13a Level of Risk
|
Minimal
|
Minimal
|
As with any method of measuring
interest rate risk, certain shortcomings are inherent in the method of analysis
presented in the foregoing tables. For example, although certain
assets and liabilities may have similar maturities or periods to repricing, they
may react in different degrees to changes in market interest
rates. Also, the interest rates
on
certain types of assets and liabilities may fluctuate in advance of changes in
market interest rates, while interest rates on other types of assets and
liabilities may lag behind changes in market interest
rates. Additionally, certain assets, such as adjustable rate mortgage
(“ARM”) loans, have features that restrict changes in interest rates on a
short-term basis and over the life of the asset. Further, in the
event of a change in interest rates, expected rates of prepayments on loans and
early withdrawals from time deposits could likely deviate significantly from
those assumed when calculating the tables above. It is also possible
that, as a result of an interest rate increase, the higher mortgage payments
required from ARM borrowers could result in an increase in delinquencies and
defaults. Changes in market interest rates may also affect the volume
and profitability of the Corporation’s mortgage banking
operations. Accordingly, the data presented in the tables in this
section should not be relied upon as indicative of actual results in the event
of changes in interest rates. Furthermore, the NPV presented in the
foregoing tables is not intended to present the fair market value of the Bank,
nor does it represent amounts that would be available for distribution to
shareholders in the event of the liquidation of the Corporation.
The Bank
also models the sensitivity of net interest income for the 12-month period
subsequent to any given month-end assuming a dynamic balance sheet (accounting
for the Bank’s current balance sheet, 12-month business plan, embedded options,
rate floors, periodic caps, lifetime caps, and loan, investment, deposit and
borrowing cash flows, among others), and immediate, permanent and parallel
movements in interest rates of plus 100, plus 200, minus 100 and minus 200 basis
points. The following table describes the results of the analysis at
March 31, 2009 and June 30, 2008.
At
March 31, 2009
|
At June 30, 2008
|
|||||
Basis
Point (bp)
|
Change
in
|
Basis
Point (bp)
|
Change
in
|
|||
Change
in Rates
|
Net
Interest Income
|
Change
in Rates
|
Net
Interest Income
|
|||
+200
bp
|
+4.27%
|
+200
bp
|
-9.78%
|
|||
+100
bp
|
+5.60%
|
+100
bp
|
-5.29%
|
|||
-100
bp
|
-14.70%
|
-100
bp
|
+3.62%
|
|||
-200
bp
|
-13.92%
|
-200
bp
|
+8.58%
|
Management
believes that the assumptions used to complete the analysis described in the
table above are reasonable. However, past experience has shown that
immediate, permanent and parallel movements in interest rates will not
necessarily occur. Additionally, while the analysis provides a tool
to evaluate the projected net interest income to changes in interest rates,
actual results may be substantially different if actual experience differs from
the assumptions used to complete the analysis, particularly with respect to the
12-month business plan when asset growth is forecast. Therefore, the
model results that we disclose should be thought of as a risk management tool to
compare the trends of the Corporation’s current disclosure to previous
disclosures, over time, within the context of the actual performance of the
treasury yield curve.
a) An
evaluation of the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedure (as defined in
Section 13a-15(e) or 15d-15(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
“Act”)) was carried out under the supervision and with the participation of the
Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and the
Corporation’s Disclosure Committee as of the end of the period covered by this
quarterly report. In designing and evaluating the Corporation’s
disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that disclosure
controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide
only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the disclosure
controls and procedures are met. Additionally, in designing
disclosure controls and procedures, management necessarily was required to apply
its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible disclosure
controls and procedures. The design of any disclosure controls and procedures
also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future
events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving
its stated goals under all potential future conditions. Based on
their evaluation, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer concluded that the Corporation’s disclosure controls and procedures as
of March 31, 2009 are effective in ensuring that the information required to be
disclosed by the Corporation in the reports it files or submits under the Act is
(i) accumulated and communicated to the Corporation’s management (including the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer) in a timely manner, and
(ii) recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods
specified in the SEC’s rules and forms.
b) There
have been no changes in the Corporation’s internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) of the Act) that occurred during the
quarter ended March 31, 2009, that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the Corporation’s internal control over financial
reporting. The Corporation does not expect that its internal control
over financial reporting will prevent all error and all fraud. A
control procedure, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only
reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control procedure
are met. Because of the inherent limitations in all control
procedures, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all
control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Corporation have been
detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that
judgments in decision-making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur
because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be
circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more
people, or by management override of the control. The design of any
control procedure also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the
likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will
succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions;
over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or
the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may
deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost-effective
control procedure, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be
detected.
From time
to time, the Corporation or its subsidiaries are engaged in legal proceedings in
the ordinary course of business, none of which are currently considered to have
a material impact on the Corporation’s financial position or results of
operations.
There
have been no material changes in the risk factors previously disclosed in Part
I, Item IA of our Annual Report of Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008,
except that the following risk factors are added to those previously contained
in the Form 10-K.
If external funds were not
available, this could adversely impact our growth and
prospects.
We rely
on retail deposits, advances from the FHLB - San Francisco and other borrowings
to fund our operations. Although we have historically been able to
replace maturing deposits and advances as necessary, we might not be able to
replace such funds in the future if, among other things, our results of
operations or financial condition, or the results of operations or financial
condition of the FHLB - San Francisco, or market conditions were to change. In
addition, if we fall below the FDIC’s thresholds to be considered “well
capitalized” we will be unable to continue with uninterrupted access to the
brokered funds markets.
Although
we consider these sources of funds adequate for our liquidity needs, we may be
compelled or elect to seek additional sources of financing in the
future. Likewise, we may seek additional debt in the future to
achieve our long-term business objectives, in connection with future
acquisitions or for other reasons. Additional borrowings, if sought,
may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on reasonable
terms. If additional financing sources are unavailable or not
available on reasonable terms, our financial condition, results of operations
and future prospects could be materially adversely affected.
Difficult market conditions
have adversely affected our industry.
We are
particularly exposed to downturns in the U.S. housing market. Dramatic declines
in the housing market over the past year, with falling home prices and
increasing foreclosures, unemployment and under-employment, have negatively
impacted the credit performance of mortgage loans and resulted in significant
write-downs of asset values by financial institutions, including
government-sponsored entities, major commercial and investment banks, and
regional financial institutions such as our Corporation. Reflecting
concern about the stability of the financial markets generally and the strength
of counterparties, many lenders and institutional investors have reduced or
ceased providing funding to borrowers, including to other financial
institutions. This market turmoil and tightening of credit have led to an
increased level of commercial and consumer delinquencies, lack of consumer
confidence, increased market volatility and widespread reduction of business
activity generally. The resulting economic pressure on consumers and lack of
confidence in the financial markets have adversely affected our business,
financial condition and results of operations. We do not expect that the
difficult conditions in the financial markets are likely to improve
in the
near future. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse
effects of these difficult market conditions on us and others in the financial
institutions industry. In particular, we may face the following risks
in connection with these events:
·
|
Increased
regulation of our industry. Compliance with such regulation may increase
our costs and limit our ability to pursue business
opportunities.
|
·
|
The
process we use to estimate losses inherent in our credit exposure requires
difficult, subjective and complex judgments, including forecasts of
economic conditions and how these economic conditions might impair the
ability of our borrowers to repay their loans. The level of
uncertainty concerning economic conditions may adversely affect the
accuracy of our estimates which may, in turn, impact the reliability of
the process.
|
·
|
We
may be required to pay significantly higher FDIC deposit premiums because
market developments have significantly depleted the insurance fund of the
FDIC and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured
deposits.
|
Recently enacted legislation
and other measures undertaken by the Treasury, the Federal Reserve and other
governmental agencies may not be successful in stabilizing the U.S. financial
system or improving the housing market.
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
of 2008. On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed into law
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”), which, among
other measures, authorized the Treasury Secretary to establish the Troubled
Asset Relief Program (“TARP”). EESA gives broad authority to Treasury
to purchase, manage, modify, sell and insure the troubled mortgage related
assets that triggered the current economic crisis as well as other “troubled
assets.” EESA includes additional provisions directed at bolstering
the economy, including:
·
|
Authority
for the Federal Reserve to pay interest on depository institution
balances;
|
·
|
Mortgage
loss mitigation and homeowner
protection;
|
·
|
Temporary
increase in FDIC insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 through
December 31, 2009; and
|
·
|
Authority
to the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) to suspend
mark-to-market accounting requirements for any issuer or class of category
of transactions.
|
Pursuant
to the TARP, the Treasury has the authority to, among other things, purchase up
to $700 billion of mortgages, mortgage-backed securities and certain other
financial instruments from financial institutions for the purpose of stabilizing
and providing liquidity to the U.S. financial markets. Under the
TARP, the Treasury has created a capital purchase program (“CPP”), pursuant to
which it is providing access to capital to financial institutions through a
standardized program to acquire preferred stock (accompanied by warrants) from
eligible financial institutions that will serve as Tier 1 capital.
EESA also
contains a number of significant employee benefit and executive compensation
provisions, some of which apply to employee benefit plans generally, and others
which impose on financial institutions that participate in the CPP restrictions
on executive compensation.
EESA
followed, and has been followed by, numerous actions by the Federal Reserve,
Congress, Treasury, the SEC and others to address the liquidity and credit
crisis that has followed the sub-prime meltdown that commenced in
2007. These measures include homeowner relief that encourage loan
restructuring and modification; the establishment of significant liquidity and
credit facilities for financial institutions and investment banks; the lowering
of the federal funds rate; emergency action against short selling practices; a
temporary guaranty program for money market funds; the establishment of a
commercial paper funding facility to provide back-stop liquidity to commercial
paper issuers; coordinated international efforts to address illiquidity and
other weaknesses in the banking sector.
In
addition, the Internal Revenue Service has issued an unprecedented wave of
guidance in response to the credit crisis, including a relaxation of limits on
the ability of financial institutions that undergo an “ownership change” to
utilize their pre-change net operating losses and net unrealized built-in
losses. The relaxation of these limits may make it
significantly more attractive to acquire financial institutions whose tax basis
in their loan portfolios significantly exceeds the fair market value of those
portfolios.
On
October 14, 2008, the FDIC announced the establishment of a temporary liquidity
guarantee program to provide insurance for all non-interest bearing transaction
accounts and guarantees of certain newly issued senior unsecured
debt issued by financial institutions (such as the Bank), bank
holding companies and savings and loan holding companies (such as the
Corporation). Financial institutions are automatically covered by
this program for the 30-day period commencing October 14, 2008 and will continue
to be covered as long as they do not affirmatively opt out of the
program. Under the program, newly issued senior unsecured debt issued
on or before June 30, 2009 will be insured in the event the issuing institution
subsequently fails, or its holding company files for bankruptcy. The
debt includes all newly issued unsecured senior debt (e.g., promissory notes,
commercial paper and inter-bank funding). The aggregate coverage for an
institution may not exceed 125% of its debt outstanding on December 31, 2009
that was scheduled to mature before June 30, 2009. The guarantee will
extend to June 30, 2012 even if the maturity of the debt is after that
date.
The
actual impact that EESA and such related measures undertaken to alleviate the
credit crisis will have generally on the financial markets, including the
extreme levels of volatility and limited credit availability currently being
experienced, is unknown. The failure of such measures to help
stabilize the financial markets and a continuation or worsening of current
financial market conditions could materially and adversely affect our business,
financial condition, results of operations, access to credit or the trading
price of our common stock.
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed The
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, into law. The ARRA is
intended to revive the US economy by creating millions of new jobs and stemming
home foreclosures. In addition, the ARRA significantly rewrites the original
executive compensation and corporate governance provisions of Section 111 of the
EESA, which pertains to financial institutions that have received or will
receive financial assistance under TARP or related programs. The specific impact
that these measures may have on us is unknown.
Continued capital and credit
market volatility may adversely affect our ability to access capital and may
have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results
of operations.
The
capital and credit markets have been experiencing volatility and disruption for
more than a year. In recent months, the volatility and disruption has reached
unprecedented levels. In some cases, the markets have produced downward pressure
on stock prices and credit availability for certain issuers without regard to
those issuers’ underlying financial strength. If current levels of market
disruption and volatility continue or worsen, our ability to access capital may
be adversely affected which may, in turn, adversely affect our business,
financial condition and results of operations.
Our deposit insurance
assessments will increase substantially, which will adversely affect our
profits.
Our FDIC
deposit insurance expense for the first nine months of fiscal 2009 was
$760,000. Deposit insurance assessments will increase in 2009 due to
recent strains on the FDIC deposit insurance fund (“DFI”) resulting from the
cost of recent bank failures and an increase in the number of institutions
likely to fail over the next few years. The FDIC assesses deposit
insurance premiums on all FDIC-insured institutions quarterly based on
annualized rates for four risk categories. Each institution is assigned to one
of four risk categories based on its capital, supervisory ratings and other
factors. Well capitalized institutions that are financially sound with only a
few minor weaknesses are assigned to Risk Category I. Risk Categories II, III
and IV present progressively greater risks to the DIF. Assessment
rates ranged from 12 to 50 basis points for the first quarter of 2009, depending
on the applicable Risk Category. Effective April 1, 2009, the initial
base assessment rates prior to adjustments range from 12 to 45 basis points
depending on the applicable Risk Category. Initial base assessment
rates are subject to adjustments based on an institution’s unsecured debt,
secured liabilities and brokered deposits, such that the total base assessment
rates after adjustments range from 7 to 24 basis points for Risk Category I, 17
to 43 basis points for Risk Category II, 27 to 58 basis points for Risk Category
III, and 40 to 77.5 basis points for Risk Category IV. The FDIC also
has authority to increase or decrease total base assessment rates in the future
by as much as three basis points without a formal rulemaking
proceeding.
In
addition to the regular quarterly assessments, due to losses and projected
losses attributed to failed institutions, the FDIC has adopted a rule, effective
April 1, 2009, imposing on every insured institution a special assessment equal
to 20 basis points of its assessment base as of June 30, 2009, to be collected
on September 30, 2009. There are proposals under discussion under
which the FDIC would reduce the special assessment to 10 basis
points. There can be no assurance whether any such proposal will
become effective. The special assessment rule also authorizes the FDIC to impose
additional special assessments if the reserve ratio of the DIF is estimated to
fall to a level that the FDIC’s board believes would adversely affect public
confidence or that is close to zero or negative. Any
additional
special
assessment would be an amount up to 10 basis points on the assessment base for
the quarter in which it is imposed and would be collected at the end of the
following quarter.
Liquidity risk could impair
our ability to fund operations and jeopardize our financial
condition.
Liquidity
is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through
deposits, borrowings, the sale of investments or loans, and other sources could
have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our access to
funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities or the terms of
which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us
specifically or the financial services industry or economy in
general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to
liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity as a
result of a downturn in the markets in which our loans are concentrated or
adverse regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could
also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a disruption in
the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for
the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking
organizations and the continued deterioration in credit markets.
Provident
Bank can borrow up to 45% of its assets from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San
Francisco, subject to the amount of qualifying collateral it
holds. At March 31, 2009, we held $703.4 million in qualifying
collateral with the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and had utilized
$484.5 million (including letters of credit of $3.5 million and credit
enhancement of $3.1 million), compared to $504.9 million (including letters of
credit of $2.0 million and credit enhancement of $3.1 million) at March 31,
2008. The unused borrowing capacity available from the Federal Home
Loan Bank of San Francisco at March 31, 2009 was $213.5 million. If
our funding needs were greater than the remaining $213.5 million available from
the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, we would have to raise deposits or
sell assets to provide additional funding. If the Bank had to quickly
raise deposits or sell assets, we may have to pay above market rates to raise
those deposits or sell assets at a loss, both of which would adversely affect
our financial condition and results of operations, perhaps
materially. At March 31, 2009 and 2008, we have no brokered
deposits.
We
may elect or be compelled to seek additional capital in the future, but that
capital may not be available when it is needed.
We are
required by federal and state regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels
of capital to support our operations. In addition, we may elect to
raise additional capital to support our business or to finance acquisitions, if
any, or we may otherwise elect to raise additional capital. In that
regard, a number of financial institutions have recently raised considerable
amounts of capital as a result of a deterioration in their results of operations
and financial condition arising from the turmoil in the mortgage loan market,
deteriorating economic conditions, declines in real estate values and other
factors. Should we be required by regulatory authorities to raise
additional capital, we may seek to do so through the issuance of, among other
things, our common stock or preferred stock, which could dilute your ownership
interest in the Corporation.
Our
ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the
capital markets, economic conditions and a number of other factors, many of
which are outside our control, and on our financial performance. If
we cannot raise additional capital when needed, it may have a material adverse
effect on our financial condition, results of operations and
prospects.
The table
below represents the Corporation’s purchases of equity securities for the third
quarter of fiscal 2009.
Period
|
(a)Total
Number
of
Shares
Purchased
|
(b)Average
Price
Paid
per
Share
|
(c)
Total Number of
Shares
Purchased as
Part
of Publicly
Announced
Plan
|
(d)
Maximum
Number
of Shares
that
May Yet Be
Purchased
Under the
Plan
(1)
|
|
January
1 – 31, 2009
|
-
|
$ -
|
-
|
310,385
|
|
February
1 – 28, 2009 (2)
|
65
|
4.11
|
-
|
310,385
|
|
March
1 – 31, 2009
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
310,385
|
|
Total
|
65
|
$
4.11
|
-
|
310,385
|
(1)
|
On
June 26, 2008, the Corporation announced a new repurchase plan of 310,385
shares, which expires on June 26,
2009.
|
(2)
|
Purchases
of the Corporation’s common stock (65 shares) to satisfy the minimum
income tax required to be withheld from employees, as part of their
participation in a share-based compensation plan, not deducted from column
(d).
|
During
the quarter ended March 31, 2009, the Corporation did not sell any securities
that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933.
Not
applicable.
Not
applicable.
Not
applicable.
Exhibits:
|
3.1
|
Certificate
of Incorporation of Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. (Incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 3.1 to the Corporation’s Registration Statement on
Form S-1 (File No. 333-02230))
|
|
3.2
|
Bylaws
of Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. (Incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 3.2 to the Corporation’s Form 8-K dated October 25,
2007).
|
10.1
|
Employment
Agreement with Craig G. Blunden (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1
to the Corporation’s Form 8-K dated December 19,
2005)
|
10.2
|
Post-Retirement
Compensation Agreement with Craig G. Blunden (Incorporated by reference to
Exhibit 10.2 to the Corporation’s Form 8-K dated December 19,
2005)
|
10.3
|
1996
Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the
Corporation’s proxy statement dated December 12,
1996)
|
10.4
|
1996
Management Recognition Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit B to the
Corporation’s proxy statement dated December 12,
1996)
|
10.5
|
Severance
Agreement with Richard L. Gale, Kathryn R. Gonzales, Lilian
Salter, Donavon P. Ternes and David S. Weiant (incorporated by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 in the Corporation’s Form 8-K dated July 3,
2006)
|
10.6
|
2003
Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the
Corporation’s proxy statement dated October 21,
2003)
|
10.7
|
Form
of Incentive Stock Option Agreement for options granted under the 2003
Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the
Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2005)
|
10.8
|
Form
of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement for options granted under the 2003
Stock Option Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the
Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2005)
|
10.9
|
2006
Equity Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the
Corporation’s proxy statement dated October 12,
2006)
|
10.10
|
Form
of Incentive Stock Option Agreement for options granted under the 2006
Equity Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 in the
Corporation’s Form 10-Q ended December 31,
2006)
|
10.11
|
Form
of Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement for options granted under the 2006
Equity Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 in the
Corporation’s Form 10-Q ended December 31,
2006)
|
10.12
|
Form
of Restricted Stock Agreement for restricted shares awarded under the 2006
Equity Incentive Plan (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.12 in the
Corporation’s Form 10-Q ended December 31,
2006)
|
|
14
|
Code
of Ethics for the Corporation’s directors, officers and employees
(incorporated by reference to Exhibit 14 in the Corporation’s Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30,
2007)
|
31.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
31.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
32.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
32.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
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.
Provident Financial Holdings, Inc. | ||
May 8, 2009 | /s/ Craig G. Blunden | |
Craig G. Blunden | ||
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer | ||
(Principal Executive Officer) | ||
May 8, 2009 | /s/ Donavon P. Ternes | |
Donavon P. Ternes | ||
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer | ||
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) | ||
Exhibit
Index
31.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
31.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002
|
32.1
|
Certification
of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|
32.2
|
Certification
of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002.
|