TRUSTMARK CORP - Quarter Report: 2015 June (Form 10-Q)

---

UNITED STATES 

---

Form 10-Q

☑

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015

 

or

☐

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 000-03683

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

Forward-Looking Statements

Certain statements contained in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  You can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “may,” “hope,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “could,” “future” or the negative of those terms or other words of similar meaning.  You should read statements that contain these words carefully because they discuss our future expectations or state other “forward-looking” information.  These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements relating to anticipated future operating and financial performance measures, including net interest margin, credit quality, business initiatives, growth opportunities and growth rates, among other things, and encompass any estimate, prediction, expectation, projection, opinion, anticipation, outlook or statement of belief included therein as well as the management assumptions underlying these forward-looking statements.  You should be aware that the occurrence of the events described under the caption “Risk Factors” in Trustmark’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.  Should one or more of these risks materialize, or should any such underlying assumptions prove to be significantly different, actual results may vary significantly from those anticipated, estimated, projected or expected.

Risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations of Management include, but are not limited to, changes in the level of nonperforming assets and charge-offs, local, state and national economic and market conditions, including the extent and duration of the current volatility in the credit and financial markets as well as crude oil prices, changes in our ability to measure the fair value of assets in our portfolio, material changes in the level and/or volatility of market interest rates, the performance and demand for the products and services we offer, including the level and timing of withdrawals from our deposit accounts, the costs and effects of litigation and of unexpected or adverse outcomes in such litigation, our ability to attract noninterest-bearing deposits and other low-cost funds, competition in loan and deposit pricing, as well as the entry of new competitors into our markets through de novo expansion and acquisitions, economic conditions, including the potential impact of issues relating to the European financial system, and monetary and other governmental actions designed to address the level and volatility of interest rates and the volatility of securities, currency and other markets, the enactment of legislation and changes in existing regulations, or enforcement practices, or the adoption of new regulations, changes in accounting standards and practices, including changes in the interpretation of existing standards, that affect our consolidated financial statements, changes in consumer spending, borrowings and savings habits, technological changes, changes in the financial performance or condition of our borrowers, changes in our ability to control expenses, changes in our compensation and benefit plans, greater than expected costs or difficulties related to the integration of acquisitions or new products and lines of business, natural disasters, environmental disasters, acts of war or terrorism, and other risks described in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, we can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct.  Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise any of this information, whether as the result of new information, future events or developments or otherwise.

 

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

ITEM 1.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Trustmark Corporation and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Balance Sheets

($ in thousands)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

Trustmark Corporation and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Income

($ in thousands except per share data)

(Unaudited)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

Trustmark Corporation and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

($ in thousands)

(Unaudited)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

Trustmark Corporation and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Equity

($ in thousands)

(Unaudited)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

Trustmark Corporation and Subsidiaries

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

($ in thousands)

(Unaudited)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

 

Trustmark Corporation and Subsidiaries

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

(Unaudited)

Note 1 – Business, Basis of Financial Statement Presentation and Principles of Consolidation

Trustmark Corporation (Trustmark) is a bank holding company headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.  Through its subsidiaries, Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing banking and financial solutions to corporate institutions and individual customers through 201 offices in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas.

Operating results for the interim periods disclosed herein are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for a full year or any future period.  In the opinion of Management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for the fair presentation of these consolidated financial statements have been included.   The preparation of financial statements in conformity with these accounting principles requires Management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and income and expense during the reporting periods and the related disclosures.  Although Management’s estimates contemplate current conditions and how they are expected to change in the future, it is reasonably possible that in 2015 actual conditions could vary from those anticipated, which could affect Trustmark’s results of operations and financial condition.  The allowance for loan losses, the amount and timing of expected cash flows from acquired loans and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) indemnification asset, the valuation of other real estate, the fair value of mortgage servicing rights, the valuation of goodwill and other identifiable intangibles, the status of contingencies and the fair values of financial instruments are particularly subject to change.  Actual results could differ from those estimates.

 

Note 2 – Securities Available for Sale and Held to Maturity

The following tables are a summary of the amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities available for sale and held to maturity ($ in thousands):

During the fourth quarter of 2013, Trustmark reclassified approximately $1.099 billion of securities available for sale to securities held to maturity.  The securities were transferred at fair value, which became the cost basis for the securities held to maturity.  At the date of transfer, the net unrealized holding loss on the available for sale securities totaled approximately $46.6 million ($28.8 million, net of tax).  The net unrealized holding loss is amortized over the remaining life of the securities as a yield adjustment in a manner consistent with the amortization or accretion of the original purchase premium or discount on the associated security.  There were no gains or losses recognized as a result of the transfer.  At June 30, 2015, the net unamortized, unrealized loss on the transferred securities included in accumulated other comprehensive loss in the accompanying balance sheet totaled approximately $37.3 million ($23.0 million, net of tax).

 

Temporarily Impaired Securities

The tables below include securities with gross unrealized losses segregated by length of impairment ($ in thousands):

The unrealized losses shown above are due to increases in market rates over the yields available at the time of purchase of the underlying securities and not credit quality.  Because Trustmark does not intend to sell these securities and it is more likely than not that Trustmark will not be required to sell the investments before recovery of their amortized cost bases, which may be maturity, Trustmark does not consider these investments to be other-than-temporarily impaired at June 30, 2015.  There were no other-than-temporary impairments for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014.

Security Gains and Losses

Gains and losses as a result of calls and dispositions of securities, as well as any associated proceeds, were as follows for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Realized gains and losses are determined using the specific identification method and are included in noninterest income as security gains, net.

 

Contractual Maturities

The amortized cost and estimated fair value of securities available for sale and held to maturity at June 30, 2015, by contractual maturity, are shown below ($ in thousands).  Expected maturities may differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties.

 

 

Note 3 – Loans Held for Investment (LHFI) and Allowance for Loan Losses, LHFI

At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, LHFI consisted of the following ($ in thousands):

 

Loan Concentrations

Trustmark does not have any loan concentrations other than those reflected in the preceding table, which exceed 10% of total LHFI.  At June 30, 2015, Trustmark’s geographic loan distribution was concentrated primarily in its five key market regions, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas.  Accordingly, the ultimate collectability of a substantial portion of these loans and the recovery of a substantial portion of the carrying amount of other real estate are susceptible to changes in market conditions in these areas.

Nonaccrual/Impaired LHFI

At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the carrying amounts of nonaccrual LHFI, which are individually evaluated for impairment, were $68.4 million and $79.3 million, respectively.  Of this total, all commercial nonaccrual LHFI over $500 thousand were specifically evaluated for impairment (specifically evaluated impaired LHFI) using a fair value approach.  The remaining nonaccrual LHFI were not specifically reviewed and not written down to fair value less cost to sell.  No material interest income was recognized in the income statement on impaired or nonaccrual LHFI for each of the periods ended June 30, 2015 and 2014.

All of Trustmark’s specifically evaluated impaired LHFI are collateral dependent loans.  At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, specifically evaluated impaired LHFI totaled $37.9 million and $47.1 million, respectively.  These specifically evaluated impaired LHFI had a related allowance of $12.4 million and $11.3 million at the end of the respective periods.  For collateral dependent loans, when a loan is deemed impaired the full difference between the carrying amount of the loan and the most likely estimate of the collateral’s fair value less cost to sell is charged off.  Charge-offs related to specifically evaluated impaired LHFI totaled $1.3 million and $55 thousand for the first six months of 2015 and 2014, respectively.  Provision expense on specifically evaluated impaired LHFI totaled $1.9 million for the first six months of 2015 compared to provision recapture of $1.4 million for the first six months of 2014.

 

Fair value estimates for specifically evaluated impaired LHFI are derived from appraised values based on the current market value or as is value of the collateral, normally from recently received and reviewed appraisals.  Current appraisals are ordered on an annual basis based on the inspection date.  Appraisals are obtained from state-certified appraisers and are based on certain assumptions, which may include construction or development status and the highest and best use of the property.  These appraisals are reviewed by Trustmark’s Appraisal Review Department to ensure they are acceptable, and values are adjusted down for costs associated with asset disposal.  Once this estimated net realizable value has been determined, the value used in the impairment assessment is updated.  At the time a specifically evaluated impaired LHFI is deemed to be impaired, the full difference between book value and the most likely estimate of the collateral’s net realizable value is charged off.  As subsequent events dictate and estimated net realizable values decline, required reserves may be established or further adjustments recorded.

At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, nonaccrual LHFI not specifically reviewed for impairment and not written down to fair value less cost to sell, totaled $30.5 million and $32.2 million, respectively.  In addition, these nonaccrual LHFI had allocated allowance for loan losses of $1.8 million and $1.5 million at the end of the respective periods.

The following tables detail LHFI individually and collectively evaluated for impairment at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 ($ in thousands):

 

At June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014, the carrying amount of LHFI individually evaluated for impairment consisted of the following ($ in thousands):

A troubled debt restructuring (TDR) occurs when a borrower is experiencing financial difficulties, and for related economic or legal reasons, a concession is granted to the borrower that Trustmark would not otherwise consider.  Whatever the form of concession that might be granted by Trustmark, Management’s objective is to enhance collectability by obtaining more cash or other value from the borrower or by increasing the probability of receipt by granting the concession than by not granting it.  Other concessions may arise from court proceedings or may be imposed by law.  In addition, TDRs also include those credits that are extended or renewed to a borrower who is not able to obtain funds from sources other than Trustmark at a market interest rate for new debt with similar risk.

All loans whose terms have been modified in a troubled debt restructuring are evaluated for impairment under FASB ASC Topic 310. Accordingly, Trustmark measures any loss on the restructuring in accordance with that guidance.  A TDR in which Trustmark receives physical possession of the borrower’s assets, regardless of whether formal foreclosure or repossession proceedings take place, is accounted for in accordance with FASB ASC Subtopic 310-40, “Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors.”  Thus, the loan is treated as if assets have been received in satisfaction of the loan and reported as a foreclosed asset.  At June 30, 2015, Trustmark held $736 thousand of foreclosed residential real estate as a result of foreclosure or in substance repossession of consumer mortgage LHFI classified as TDRs.  Consumer mortgage LHFI classified as TDRs in the process of formal foreclosure proceedings at June 30, 2015 totaled $149 thousand.

A TDR may be returned to accrual status if Trustmark is reasonably assured of repayment of principal and interest under the modified terms and the borrower has demonstrated sustained performance under those terms for a period of at least six months. Otherwise, the restructured loan must remain on nonaccrual.

At June 30, 2015 and 2014, LHFI classified as TDRs totaled $12.1 million and $12.6 million, respectively, and were primarily comprised of credits with interest-only payments for an extended period of time which totaled $8.3 million and $8.4 million, respectively.  The remaining TDRs at June 30, 2015 and 2014, resulted from real estate loans discharged through Chapter 7 bankruptcy that were not reaffirmed or from payment or maturity extensions.

 

For TDRs, Trustmark had a related loan loss allowance of $1.9 million and $1.5 million at June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.  LHFI classified as TDRs are charged down to the most likely fair value estimate less an estimated cost to sell for collateral dependent loans, which would approximate net realizable value.  Specific charge-offs related to TDRs totaled $806 thousand and $55 thousand for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The following tables illustrate the impact of modifications classified as TDRs as well as those TDRs modified within the last 12 months for which there was a payment default during the period for the periods presented ($ in thousands):

Trustmark’s TDRs have resulted primarily from allowing the borrower to pay interest-only for an extended period of time rather than from forgiveness.  Accordingly, as shown above, these TDRs have a similar recorded investment for both the pre-modification and post-modification disclosure.  Trustmark has utilized loans 90 days or more past due to define payment default in determining TDRs that have subsequently defaulted.

 

The following tables detail LHFI classified as TDRs by loan type at June 30, 2015 and 2014 ($ in thousands):

Credit Quality Indicators

Trustmark’s loan portfolio credit quality indicators focus on six key quality ratios that are compared against bank tolerances.  The loan indicators are total classified outstanding, total criticized outstanding, nonperforming loans, nonperforming assets, delinquencies and net loan losses.  Due to the homogenous nature of consumer loans, Trustmark does not assign a formal internal risk rating to each credit and therefore the criticized and classified measures are unique to commercial loans.

In addition to monitoring portfolio credit quality indicators, Trustmark also measures how effectively the lending process is being managed and risks are being identified.  As part of an ongoing monitoring process, Trustmark grades the commercial portfolio as it relates to credit file completion and financial statement exceptions, underwriting, collateral documentation and compliance with law as shown below:

·

Credit File Completeness and Financial Statement Exceptions – evaluates the quality and condition of credit files in terms of content, completeness and organization and focuses on efforts to obtain and document sufficient information to determine the quality and status of credits.  Also included is an evaluation of the systems/procedures used to insure compliance with policy.

·

Underwriting – evaluates whether credits are adequately analyzed, appropriately structured and properly approved within loan policy requirements.  A properly approved credit is approved by adequate authority in a timely manner with all conditions of approval fulfilled.  Total policy exceptions measure the level of underwriting and other policy exceptions within a loan portfolio.

·

Collateral Documentation – focuses on the adequacy of documentation to perfect Trustmark’s collateral position and substantiate collateral value.  Collateral exceptions measure the level of documentation exceptions within a loan portfolio.  Collateral exceptions occur when certain collateral documentation is either not present, is not considered current or has expired.

·

Compliance with Law – focuses on underwriting, documentation, approval and reporting in compliance with banking laws and regulations.  Primary emphasis is directed to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) and Regulation O requirements.

Commercial Credits

Trustmark has established a loan grading system that consists of ten individual credit risk grades (risk ratings) that encompass a range from loans where the expectation of loss is negligible to loans where loss has been established.  The model is based on the risk of default for an individual credit and establishes certain criteria to delineate the level of risk across the ten unique credit risk grades.  Credit risk grade definitions are as follows:

 

·

Risk Rate (RR) 1 through RR 6 – Grades one through six represent groups of loans that are not subject to adverse criticism as defined in regulatory guidance.  Loans in these groups exhibit characteristics that represent low to moderate risk measured by using a variety of credit risk criteria such as cash flow coverage, debt service coverage, balance sheet leverage, liquidity, management experience, industry position, prevailing economic conditions, support from secondary sources of repayment and other credit factors that may be relevant to a specific loan.  In general, these loans are supported by properly margined collateral and guarantees of principal parties.

 

·

Other Assets Especially Mentioned (Special Mention) - (RR 7) – a loan that has a potential weakness that if not corrected will lead to a more severe rating.  This rating is for credits that are currently protected but potentially weak because of an adverse feature or condition that if not corrected will lead to a further downgrade.

·

Substandard (RR 8) – a loan that has at least one identified weakness that is well defined.  This rating is for credits where the primary sources of repayment are not viable at the time of evaluation or where either the capital or collateral is not adequate to support the loan and the secondary means of repayment do not provide a sufficient level of support to offset the identified weakness.  Loss potential exists in the aggregate amount of substandard loans but does not necessarily exist in individual loans.

·

Doubtful (RR 9) – a loan with an identified weakness that does not have a valid secondary source of repayment.  Generally these credits have an impaired primary source of repayment and secondary sources are not sufficient to prevent a loss in the credit.  The exact amount of the loss has not been determined at this time.

·

Loss (RR 10) – a loan or a portion of a loan that is deemed to be uncollectible.

By definition, credit risk grades special mention (RR 7), substandard (RR 8), doubtful (RR 9) and loss (RR 10) are criticized loans while substandard (RR 8), doubtful (RR 9) and loss (RR 10) are classified loans.  These definitions are standardized by all bank regulatory agencies and are generally equally applied to each individual lending institution.  The remaining credit risk grades are considered pass credits and are solely defined by Trustmark.

Each commercial loan is assigned a credit risk grade that is an indication for the likelihood of default and is not a direct indication of loss at default.  The loss at default aspect of the subject risk ratings is neither uniform across the nine primary commercial loan groups or constant between the geographic areas.  To account for the variance in the loss at default aspects of the risk rating system, the loss expectations for each risk rating is integrated into the allowance for loan loss methodology where the calculated loss at default is allotted for each individual risk rating with respect to the individual loan group and unique geographic area.  The loss at default aspect of the reserve methodology is calculated each quarter as a component of the overall reserve factor for each risk grade by loan group and geographic area.

To enhance this process, loans of a certain size that are rated in one of the criticized categories are routinely reviewed to establish an expectation of loss, if any, and if such examination indicates that the level of reserve is not adequate to cover the expectation of loss, a special reserve or impairment is generally applied.

The distribution of the losses is accomplished by means of a loss distribution model that assigns a loss factor to each risk rating (1 to 9) in each commercial loan pool.  A factor is not applied to risk rate 10 as loans classified as Losses are not carried on Trustmark’s books over quarter-end as they are charged off within the period that the loss is determined.

The expected loss distribution is spread across the various risk ratings by the perceived level of risk for loss.  The nine grade scale described above ranges from a negligible risk of loss to an identified loss across its breadth.  The loss distribution factors are graduated through the scale on a basis proportional to the degree of risk that appears manifest in each individual rating and assumes that migration through the loan grading system will occur.

Each loan officer assesses the appropriateness of the internal risk rating assigned to their credits on an ongoing basis.  Trustmark’s Asset Review area conducts independent credit quality reviews of the majority of Trustmark’s commercial loan portfolio concentrations both on the underlying credit quality of each individual loan portfolio as well as the adherence to Trustmark’s loan policy and the loan administration process.  In general, Asset Review conducts reviews of each lending area within a six to eighteen month window depending on the overall credit quality results of the individual area.

In addition to the ongoing internal risk rate monitoring described above, Trustmark’s Credit Quality Review Committee meets monthly and performs a review of all loans of $100 thousand or more that are either delinquent thirty days or more or on nonaccrual.  This review includes recommendations regarding risk ratings, accrual status, charge-offs and appropriate servicing officer as well as evaluation of problem credits for determination of TDRs.  Quarterly, the Credit Quality Review Committee reviews and modifies continuous action plans for all credits risk rated seven or worse for relationships of $100 thousand or more.  In addition, the Credit Quality Review Committee performs the following reviews on an annual basis:

 

·

Residential real estate developments - a development project analysis is performed on all projects regardless of size.  Performance of the development is assessed through an evaluation of the number of lots remaining, payout ratios, and loan-to-value ratios.  Results are stress tested as to the capacity to absorb losses and price of lots.  This analysis is reviewed by each senior credit officer for the respective market to determine the need for any risk rate or accrual status changes.

 

·

Non-owner occupied commercial real estate - a cash flow analysis is performed on all projects with an outstanding balance of $1.0 million or more.  In addition, credits are stress tested for vacancies and rate sensitivity.  Confirmation is obtained that guarantor financial statements are current, taxes have been paid and there are no other issues that need to be addressed.  This analysis is reviewed by each senior credit officer in the respective market to determine the need for any risk rate or accrual status changes.

Consumer Credits

Consumer LHFI that do not meet a minimum custom credit score are reviewed quarterly by Management.  The Retail Credit Review Committee reviews the volume and percentage of approvals that did not meet the minimum passing custom score by region, individual location, and officer.  To assure that Trustmark continues to originate quality loans, this process allows Management to make necessary changes such as revisions to underwriting procedures and credit policies, or changes in loan authority to Trustmark personnel.

Trustmark monitors the levels and severity of past due consumer LHFI on a daily basis through its collection activities.  A detailed assessment of consumer LHFI delinquencies is performed monthly at both a product and market level by delivery channel, which incorporates the perceived level of risk at time of underwriting.  Trustmark also monitors its consumer LHFI delinquency trends by comparing them to quarterly industry averages.

The tables below illustrate the carrying amount of LHFI by credit quality indicator at June 30, 2015 and December 31, 2014 ($ in thousands):