sv1
|
|
|
As filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2010 |
|
Registration No. 333- |
|
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
FORM S-1
REGISTRATION STATEMENT
UNDER
THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
Independent Bank Corporation
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
|
|
Michigan
|
|
6021
|
|
38-2032782 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
(Primary Standard Industrial
|
|
(I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Classification Code Number)
|
|
Identification Number) |
230 West Main Street
Ionia, Michigan 48846
(616) 527-5820
(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code,
of registrants principal executive offices)
Robert N. Shuster
Chief Financial Officer
230 West Main Street
Ionia, Michigan 48846
(616) 527-5820
(Name, address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of agent for service)
Copies to:
|
|
|
Michael G. Wooldridge
Varnum LLP
333 Bridge Street, P.O. Box 352
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-0352
(616) 336-6000
|
|
Tom W. Zook
Lewis, Rice & Fingersh, L.C.
600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
(314) 444-7600 |
Approximate date of commencement of proposed sale of the securities to the public: As soon as
practicable after this registration statement becomes effective.
If the securities being registered on this form are being offered in connection with the
formation of a holding company and there is compliance with General Instruction G, check the
following box. o
If this Form is filed to register additional securities for an offering pursuant to
Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act
registration statement number of the earlier effective registration statement for the same
offering. o
If this Form is a post-effective amendment filed pursuant to Rule 462(d) under the Securities
Act, check the following box and list the Securities Act registration statement number of the
earlier effective registration statement for the same offering. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions
of large accelerated filer, accelerated filer and smaller reporting
company in Rule 12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer o | |
Accelerated filer o | |
Non-accelerated filer o | |
Smaller reporting company þ |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
|
CALCULATION OF REGISTRATION FEE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
maximum aggregate |
|
|
Amount of |
|
|
Title of each class of securities to be registered |
|
|
offering price |
|
|
registration fee |
|
|
Common Stock, no par value per share |
|
|
$126,500,000(1)(2) |
|
|
$9,019.45(3) |
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Estimated solely for the purpose of calculating the registration fee pursuant to Rule 457(o) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act). |
|
(2) |
|
Includes offering price of shares that the underwriters have the option to purchase to cover over-allotments, if any. |
|
(3) |
|
The registrant previously paid a registration fee of $4,682.29 in connection with a registration statement on Form S-4, File No. 333-164546, initially filed on
January 27, 2010. Pursuant to Rule 457(p) of the Securities Act, $3,154.45 of the previously paid registration fee is offset against the registration fee otherwise
due for this registration statement. The balance of $5,865 has been paid in connection with the initial filing hereof. |
The registrant hereby amends this registration statement on such date or dates as may be
necessary to delay its effective date until the registrant shall file a further amendment which
specifically states that this registration statement shall thereafter become effective in
accordance with Section 8(a) of the Securities Act or until the registration statement shall become
effective on such date as the Securities and Exchange Commission, acting pursuant to said
Section 8(a), may determine.
The information in this prospectus is not complete and may be changed. We may not complete this
offer and sell these securities until the registration statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission is effective. This prospectus is not an offer to sell these securities and it
is not soliciting an offer to buy these securities in any state where the offer or sale is not
permitted.
SUBJECT TO COMPLETION, DATED JULY 8, 2010
PROSPECTUS
[] Shares
Common Stock
We are offering [] shares of our common stock. Our common stock is listed on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market under the symbol IBCP. As of July 7, 2010, the closing sale price for our
common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market was $0.35 per share. However, there is a risk our
common stock could be delisted from the Nasdaq Global Select Market in the near future. Please see
Market Price and Dividend Information on page 45 for more information.
Investing in our common stock involves risks. We encourage you to read and carefully consider
this prospectus in its entirety, in particular the risk factors beginning on page 25, for a
discussion of factors that you should consider with respect to this offering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per Share |
|
Total |
|
|
|
Public offering price |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
110,000,000 |
|
Underwriting discounts and commissions |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Proceeds to us (before expenses) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
This is a firm commitment underwriting. The underwriters have the option to purchase up to an
additional [] shares of our common stock at the public offering price, less underwriting discounts
and commissions, within 30 days of the date of this prospectus solely to cover over-allotments, if
any.
The underwriters expect to deliver the common stock in book-entry form only, through the
facilities of The Depository Trust Company, against payment on or
about [], 2010.
The shares of common stock offered are not savings accounts, deposits, or other obligations of
any of our bank or non-bank subsidiaries and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation or any other governmental agency.
Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission, any state securities commission, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, nor any other
regulatory body has approved or disapproved of these securities or determined if this prospectus is
truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.
Joint Lead Managing Underwriters and Joint Book-Running Managers
|
|
|
Stifel Nicolaus
|
|
FBR Capital Markets & Co. |
The date of this prospectus is [], 2010.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
You should rely only on the information contained in this prospectus and any free writing
prospectus we authorize to be delivered to you. We have not, and the underwriters have not,
authorized anyone to provide you with additional information or information different from that
contained in this prospectus and any such free writing prospectus. If anyone provides you with
different or inconsistent information, you should not rely on it. We are offering to sell, and
seeking offers to buy, our common stock only in jurisdictions where those offers and sales are
permitted. The information contained in this prospectus and any such free writing prospectus is
accurate only as of their respective dates. Our business, financial condition, results of
operations and prospects may have changed since those dates.
This prospectus describes the specific details regarding this offering and the terms and
conditions of the common stock being offered and the risks of investing in our common stock. You
should read this prospectus and the additional information about us described in the section
entitled Where You Can Find More Information before making your investment decision.
As used in this prospectus, the terms we, our, us, and IBC refer to Independent Bank
Corporation and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless the context indicates otherwise. When we
refer to our bank or Independent Bank in this prospectus, we are referring to Independent
Bank, a Michigan banking corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Independent Bank Corporation.
WHERE YOU CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION
This prospectus, which forms a part of a registration statement filed with the SEC, does not
contain all of the information set forth in the registration statement. For further information
with respect to us and the securities offered, reference is made to the registration statement.
We file annual, quarterly, and current reports, proxy statements, and other information with
the SEC. You may read and copy any document we file at the SECs public reference room at
100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549. You can also request copies of the documents, upon
payment of a duplicating fee, by writing the Public Reference Section of the SEC. Please call the
SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information on the public reference room. These SEC filings are
also available to the public from the SECs web site at http://www.sec.gov.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Discussions and statements in this prospectus that are not statements of historical fact,
including, without limitation, statements that include terms such as will, may, should,
believe, expect, forecast, anticipate, estimate, project, intend, likely,
optimistic and plan, and statements about future or projected financial and operating results,
plans, projections, objectives, expectations, and intentions and other statements that are not
historical facts, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not
limited to, descriptions of plans and objectives for future operations, products or services, and
projections of our future revenue, earnings or other measures of economic performance (including
our projected pre-provision earnings, projected capital, projected provision for loan losses, and
projected Mepco counterparty expenses set forth under Summary Our Projections), forecasts of
credit losses and other asset quality trends, predictions as to our banks ability to maintain
certain regulatory capital standards, our expectation that we will have sufficient cash on hand to
meet expected obligations during 2010, and our expectations regarding a decrease in payment plan
receivables held by Mepco and the resulting effect on our net interest margin. These
forward-looking statements express our current expectations, forecasts of future events, or
long-term goals and, by their nature, are subject to assumptions, risks, and uncertainties.
Although we believe that the expectations, forecasts, and goals reflected in these forward-looking
statements are reasonable, actual results could differ materially for a variety of reasons,
including the risks and uncertainties detailed under Risk Factors set forth in this prospectus
and the following:
|
|
|
our ability to successfully raise new equity capital in this offering, effect a conversion of our outstanding preferred stock
held by the U.S. Treasury into our common stock, and otherwise implement our Capital Plan; |
|
|
|
|
the failure of assumptions underlying the establishment of and provisions made to our allowance for loan losses; |
|
|
|
|
the timing and pace of an economic recovery in Michigan and the United States in general, including regional and local real
estate markets; |
|
|
|
|
the ability of our bank to remain well-capitalized; |
|
|
|
|
increased competition for deposits and loans which could affect portfolio compositions, rates, and terms; |
|
|
|
|
changes in the levels of prepayments received on loans and investment securities that adversely affect the yield and value of
our earning assets; |
|
|
|
|
the failure of assumptions underlying our estimate of probable incurred losses from vehicle service contract payment plan
counterparty contingencies, including our assumptions regarding future cancellations of vehicle service contracts, the value
to us of collateral that may be available to recover funds due from our counterparties, and our ability to enforce the
contractual obligations of our counterparties to pay amounts owing to us; |
|
|
|
|
further adverse developments in the vehicle service contract industry, whose current turmoil has increased the credit risk
and reputation risk for our subsidiary, Mepco; |
|
|
|
|
potential limitations on our ability to access and rely on wholesale funding sources; |
|
|
|
|
the continued services of our management team, particularly as we work through our asset quality issues and the
implementation of our Capital Plan; |
|
|
|
|
adoption and implementation of legislation, regulations, or programs to address capital and liquidity issues in the banking
system, which may have significant effects on us and the financial services industry, the exact nature and extent of which
cannot be determined at this time; |
1
|
|
|
the impact of compensation and other restrictions imposed under the TARP until the Treasury ceases to own any of our debt or
equity securities acquired pursuant to the Exchange Agreement or the amended and restated Warrant; |
|
|
|
|
changes in the scope and cost of FDIC insurance, increases in regulatory capital requirements, and changes in the TARPs CPP; |
|
|
|
|
the impact of legislative and regulatory changes, including laws, regulations and policies concerning taxes, banking,
securities and insurance, and the application of such laws, regulations, and policies by regulators; |
|
|
|
|
the potential loss of core deposits if the challenging banking environment persists or the economy significantly deteriorates; |
|
|
|
|
changes in accounting principles, policies, and guidelines applicable to bank holding companies and the financial services
industry; |
|
|
|
|
the risk that sales of our capital stock in this offering and/or other transfers of our capital stock could trigger a
reduction in the amount of net operating loss carryforwards that we may be able to utilize for income tax purposes; |
|
|
|
|
the risk that our common stock may be delisted from the Nasdaq Global Select Market; |
|
|
|
|
the ability to manage the risks involved in the foregoing; and |
|
|
|
|
other factors and risks described under Risk Factors in this prospectus, which we urge you to read carefully. |
In addition, other factors not currently anticipated may also materially and adversely affect
our results of operations, cash flows, financial position, and prospects. We cannot assure you that
our future results will meet expectations. While we believe the forward-looking statements in this
prospectus are reasonable, you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement. In
addition, these statements speak only as of the date made. We do not undertake, and expressly
disclaim, any obligation to update or alter any statements, whether as a result of new information,
future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
2
SUMMARY
This summary does not contain all of the information that may be important to you or that you
should consider before investing in our common stock. You should read this entire prospectus,
including the Risk Factors section. Unless otherwise expressly stated or the context otherwise
requires, all information in this prospectus assumes that the underwriters do not exercise their
option to purchase additional shares of our common stock to cover over-allotments, if any.
Investment Highlights
This Summary section contains an overview of our company and the investment opportunity
described in this prospectus. Key highlights of the investment opportunity are as follows:
|
|
|
We are a regional bank holding company with total assets of
approximately $2.9 billion. Our subsidiary bank, Independent Bank, is
one of the oldest banks in Michigan and operates 105 banking offices
across the lower peninsula of Michigan. We are founded on a community
banking philosophy and emphasize service and convenience as a
principal means of competing in the delivery of financial services. |
|
|
|
|
This offering is a critical component of a capital plan we recently
adopted. The primary objective of our capital plan is to raise
sufficient capital so that our bank will continue to remain
well-capitalized and be in a position to take advantage of
opportunities within Michigan as market conditions stabilize and
improve. |
|
|
|
|
We believe there have been some early, positive trends in the Michigan
economy, including signs that may show a stabilization of unemployment
rates and housing values. While we continue to exercise prudence in
monitoring our loan portfolios, we are optimistic that our asset
quality trends reflect both our disciplined approach to the credit
problems we face as well as improving market conditions within
Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
On a short term basis, the capital raised in this offering will have
an immediate and favorable impact on our net interest margin by
allowing us to restructure our balance sheet to pay down higher-cost
funding sources we have accessed recently to enhance our liquidity
position. On a longer term basis, we believe the capital will allow
us to opportunistically take advantage of FDIC-assisted and
traditional acquisitions within Michigan that strategically make sense
for our core banking franchise. |
|
|
|
|
We believe our competitive strengths include our historically strong
core earnings, our core deposit base, our experienced management team,
our successful acquisition and integration history, and our position
as a local community bank within our multiple banking markets. |
|
|
|
|
We have deleveraged our loan portfolios and intend to employ our
enhanced credit policies to focus our loan origination efforts on high
quality, profitable commercial loan segments and residential mortgage
loans eligible for sale in the secondary market. |
|
|
|
|
Our nonperforming loans are down 24% in the first quarter of 2010 from
their peak in the first quarter of 2009. Nonperforming commercial
loans have declined for the past five quarters, and nonperforming
retail loans have shown three quarters of improvement. |
|
|
|
|
We engaged independent third parties to perform a review (stress
test) on our commercial and retail loan portfolios to confirm that
the similar analyses we performed were reasonable and do not
materially understate our projected loan losses. Based on the
conclusions of these reviews, we determined that we did not need to
modify our projections used for purposes of our capital plan. |
|
|
|
|
Mepco Finance Corporation (Mepco) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
our bank that operates a vehicle service contract payment plan
business throughout the United States. Mepco has recently experienced
significant losses as a result of the failure of one of its
counterparties and other adverse changes in its market. However, we
believe the current amount of reserves we have established for Mepcos
business are appropriate given our estimate of probable incurred
losses. In addition, we have begun to significantly reduce the size
of Mepcos business. Although such reduction is likely to have a
material adverse impact on our earnings, we believe the reduction is
desirable in order for us to reduce the risk associated with this
business and return to our core banking competencies. As of March 31,
2010, the net payment plan receivables held by Mepco represented
approximately 11.7% of our consolidated assets (down from 13.7% at
December 31, 2009 and as high as 15.0% at July 31, 2009). |
|
|
|
|
We reported a first quarter 2010 net loss applicable to our common
stock of $14.9 million, or $0.62 per share, compared to a net loss
applicable to our common stock of $19.7 million, or $0.84 per share,
in the first quarter of 2009. |
3
|
|
|
Near the end of this Summary section is information regarding our
projected earnings and capital level at December 31, 2011. We caution
investors not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking
statements given the inherently uncertain nature of projections,
particularly in such an uncertain economic environment and in light of
recent legislative efforts by the federal government. See
BusinessRegulatory Developments below for additional information
regarding these efforts. |
About Independent Bank Corporation
Independent Bank Corporation, headquartered in Ionia, Michigan, is a regional bank holding
company providing commercial banking services to individuals, small to medium-sized businesses,
community organizations, and public entities. Our wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Independent
Bank, was founded in 1864 and operates 105 banking offices that are primarily located in mid-sized
Michigan communities such as Grand Rapids, Battle Creek, Lansing, Troy, Bay City, and Saginaw, as
well as more rural and suburban communities throughout the lower peninsula of Michigan.
Our bank provides a comprehensive array of products and services to individuals and businesses
in the markets we serve. These products and services include checking and savings accounts,
commercial loans, direct and indirect consumer financing, mortgage lending, and commercial and
municipal treasury management services. Our banks mortgage lending activities are primarily
conducted through a separate mortgage bank subsidiary. In addition, Mepco acquires and services
payment plans used by consumers to purchase vehicle service contracts and similar products provided
and administered by third parties. We also offer title insurance services through a separate
subsidiary of our bank and investment and insurance services through a third party agreement with
PrimeVest Financial Services.
Background to the Offering
Our bank began to experience rising levels of non-performing loans and higher provisions for
loan losses in 2006 as the Michigan economy experienced economic stress ahead of national trends.
Although our bank remained profitable through the second quarter of 2008, it has incurred seven
consecutive quarterly losses since the third quarter of 2008, which have pressured its capital
ratios. While our bank still remains well-capitalized under federal regulatory guidelines, we
project that due to our elevated levels of non-performing assets, as well as anticipated losses in
the future, an increase in equity capital is necessary in order for our bank to remain
well-capitalized and take advantage of opportunities outlined in our business strategy below.
In 2009, we retained financial and legal advisors to assist us in reviewing our capital
alternatives. We have since discontinued cash dividends on our common stock and exercised our
right to defer all quarterly distributions on our outstanding trust preferred securities, as well
as on all shares of preferred stock issued to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the
Treasury) pursuant to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). In December 2009, the board of
directors of our bank adopted resolutions designed to enhance and strengthen our operations,
performance, and financial condition. Importantly, alongside other resolutions aimed at improving
asset quality, earnings, liquidity, and risk management, the resolutions require our bank to
achieve and maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8% and a minimum total risk-based capital
ratio of 11% by September 30, 2010. As of March 31, 2010, these ratios were 6.4% and 10.4%,
respectively.
In January 2010, our board of directors adopted a capital restoration plan (the Capital
Plan) that documents our objectives and plans for meeting these target ratios. The three primary
initiatives of our Capital Plan are
|
|
|
the conversion of our shares of Series A Preferred Stock which we issued to the Treasury under the
Capital Purchase Program (CPP) of TARP into shares of our common stock; |
|
|
|
|
an offer to exchange shares of our common stock for our outstanding trust preferred securities; and |
|
|
|
|
a public offering of our common stock, as described in this prospectus, in which we seek to raise
approximately $110 million of new equity capital. |
The exchange of our trust preferred securities has not resulted, and the conversion of the
preferred stock held by the Treasury into shares of common stock will not result, in any cash
proceeds to us. However, both initiatives will give us additional tangible common equity and allow
us to reduce our future interest expense and eliminate preferred dividend payments to the Treasury.
The public offering of our common stock described in this prospectus will result in cash proceeds
and a corresponding increase in our tangible common equity. We anticipate contributing all or
substantially all of the net proceeds from this offering to our bank in order to strengthen its
capital ratios in accordance with the objectives of our Capital Plan and better position us to
pursue our core business strategy and take advantage of opportunities in Michigan.
4
To date, we have made progress on a number of initiatives to advance the Capital Plan:
|
|
|
On January 29, 2010, we held a special shareholder meeting at which our
shareholders approved an increase in the number of shares of common stock
we are authorized to issue from 60 million to 500 million. Our
shareholders also gave the required shareholder approval for the
conversion of preferred stock held by the Treasury into shares of our
common stock and the issuance of shares of our common stock in exchange
for our outstanding trust preferred securities. |
|
|
|
|
On April 16, 2010, we closed an Exchange Agreement with the Treasury
pursuant to which the Treasury exchanged $72 million in aggregate
liquidation value of our Series A Preferred Stock issued to the Treasury
under TARP, plus approximately $2.4 million in accrued but unpaid
dividends on such shares, into mandatory convertible preferred stock (new
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock). As part of this exchange, we also
amended and restated the terms of the Warrant issued to the Treasury in
December 2008 to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock in order
to adjust the initial exercise price of the Warrant to be equal to the
conversion price applicable to the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. |
|
|
|
|
The shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are convertible into
shares of our common stock. Subject to the receipt of applicable
approvals, the Treasury has the right to convert the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock into our common stock at any time. We have the right to
compel a conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock into our
common stock at any time provided the following conditions are met: |
|
(1) |
|
we receive appropriate approvals from the Federal Reserve; |
|
|
(2) |
|
at least $40 million aggregate liquidation amount of our
trust preferred securities are exchanged for shares of
our common stock; |
|
|
(3) |
|
we complete a new cash equity raise of not less than $100
million on terms acceptable to the Treasury in its sole
discretion (other than with respect to the price offered
per share); and |
|
|
(4) |
|
we make any required anti-dilution adjustments to the
rate at which the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is
converted into our common stock, to the extent required.
(See Description of Our Capital Stock below.) |
|
|
|
Once we meet the conditions described above, which we expect will occur
if we are successful in raising capital in this offering, we intend to
immediately convert the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock into shares
of our common stock. For each share of Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock with a $1,000 liquidation value, we will issue a number of shares
of common stock equal to $750 divided by a conversion price of $0.7234,
subject to any necessary anti-dilution adjustments. Unless earlier
converted, the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock will convert into
shares of our common stock on a mandatory basis on April 16, 2017,
subject to the prior receipt of any required regulatory and shareholder
approvals. In that case, the shares of preferred stock will convert
based on the full $1,000 liquidation value per share (i.e., there will be
no 25% discount to the liquidation value, as there will be for an early
conversion by us or the Treasury). |
|
|
|
|
On June 23, 2010, we completed the exchange of an aggregate of 51,091,250
newly issued shares of our common stock for $41.4 million in aggregate
liquidation amount of our outstanding trust preferred securities. As a
result, we have satisfied the condition to our ability to compel a
conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock held by the
Treasury that at least $40 million aggregate liquidation amount of our
trust preferred securities are exchanged for shares of our common stock. |
The offering described in this prospectus is a critical step to our ability to achieve the
target capital ratios set forth in our Capital Plan. While we are not currently subject to a
regulatory agreement or enforcement action and while our bank remains well capitalized under
federal regulatory standards, we believe our bank is likely to fall below the standards necessary
to remain well-capitalized during the third or fourth quarter of 2010 if we are unable to raise
additional capital in this offering. We expect this would have a number of material and adverse
consequences, as discussed in our Risk Factors section below. In addition to our goal of
remaining well-capitalized, we believe an injection of capital from this offering will allow us to
pursue the strategies described below and optimize our community bank franchise to take advantage
of opportunities within Michigan as market conditions stabilize.
5
Our Markets
We have a relationship-based, community bank model, with a 105-branch network that provides a
full offering of banking products and services to retail and business customers in the Michigan
markets we cover.
The table below presents the composition of our branch footprint and core deposit base as of
March 31, 2010 by the regions of Michigan in which we operate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
($ in millions) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core |
|
|
% of Core |
|
Region |
|
Representative Cities |
|
Branches |
|
|
Deposits(1) |
|
|
Deposits |
|
East / Thumb |
|
Bay City / Saginaw |
|
|
37 |
|
|
$ |
626 |
|
|
|
32 |
% |
West |
|
Ionia / Grand Rapids |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
517 |
|
|
|
27 |
% |
Central |
|
Lansing / Battle Creek |
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
364 |
|
|
|
19 |
% |
Northeast |
|
Gaylord / Alpena / Tawas |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
284 |
|
|
|
15 |
% |
Southeast |
|
Troy |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
7 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
$ |
1,939 |
|
|
|
100 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes core deposits only. At March 31, 2010, core deposits accounted for approximately 78% of our total deposits of $2.5 billion. |
These regions have distinct demographic and economic characteristics, as summarized
below:
|
|
|
East / Thumb Region: We have a substantial branch footprint in the
eastern part of the state, which is primarily comprised of rural
communities that provide strong core deposits and pricing leverage.
Saginaw, Midland, and Bay counties are included in this region. The
counties of Saginaw and Bay are well-known for their agricultural
communities and manufacturing sector and are also home to a growing
medical device and technology sector. Midland County includes the
headquarters for Dow Chemical Company. |
|
|
|
|
West Region: The west region includes our headquarters in Ionia and
the Grand Rapids metropolitan statistical area. Grand Rapids is in
Kent County, which has generally experienced lower levels of
unemployment as compared to the Michigan state level. As of
April 2010, Kent County had an unemployment rate of 10.9%, compared to
13.7% for the state of Michigan as a whole, on a seasonally unadjusted
basis. Kent County is the home to several major employers, including
Meijer, Steelcase, Spectrum Heath, Spartan Stores, Wolverine World
Wide, and the world headquarters for Alticor Inc., the parent company
of Amway. |
|
|
|
|
Central Region: Our operations throughout the central part of
Michigan are primarily located in Lansing and Battle Creek. Lansing,
in Ingham County, is the state capital and home to Michigan State
University, which provides the core of a stable employment base.
Calhoun County, home to Battle Creek, includes the corporate
headquarters for The Kellogg Company and maintains an unemployment
rate below the state average. |
|
|
|
|
Northeast Region: With branch locations throughout the northeast
portion of the lower peninsula, we maintain a strong base of core
deposits in our northeast region. Longer distances between
communities and a loyal customer base create distinct pricing
advantages in these markets. Seasonal and tourism-related employment
is significant in this region, which contains a large portion of the
Great Lakes shoreline. The local economy also includes a small
industrial base, including cement manufacturers and limestone and
gypsum mining, and a small agricultural base of potato, dry bean, and
grape farmers. |
|
|
|
|
Southeast Region: A smaller portion of our franchise is in
southeastern Michigan, primarily in Oakland County, which has
attractive demographics. With a population of 1.2 million people,
Oakland County has a strong median household income of over $78,000,
which is the second highest in the state. While the southeast region
currently only accounts for approximately 7% of our deposit base, we
believe Oakland County presents a good opportunity for future deposit
growth and lending opportunities. |
6
Michigan Economic Update
While the Michigan economy has been under stress for the past several years, we believe our
markets are beginning to stabilize. Below is a summary of certain economic trends of our markets:
|
|
|
Unemployment: While Michigan has the second highest unemployment rate
in the United States (as of May 2010), both the unemployment rate and
nonfarm payrolls have showed positive trends for the past several
quarters. On a seasonally-adjusted basis, the May unemployment rate
of 13.6% for Michigan was the lowest monthly rate since June 2009. A
number of our key counties have unemployment rates below the rate for
the entire state, including Kent, Bay, Saginaw, Calhoun, Oakland and
Ingham counties. After losing approximately 200,000 jobs in each of
2008 and 2009, the loss rate stabilized in the second half of 2009 and
into the first part of 2010. In addition, University of Michigan
economists expect positive private sector job growth in 2011, which
would be the first year of positive private sector employment growth
in a decade. |
|
|
|
|
Housing Market: The Michigan housing market is beginning to see signs
of stabilization. Based on U.S. Census data, Michigan housing
building permits in March 2010 are up 93% from March 2009, pointing to
early signs of a recovery in the Michigan housing market. In
addition, during the past decade, Michigan did not experience as rapid
of an increase in housing prices as compared to the rest of the United
States. According to the Freddie Mac house price index, housing
prices in Michigan were flat from March 2000 through March 2010, as
compared to an increase of 54% for the United States as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
Reduced Dependence on Automotive Sector: Over the past 10 years, the
Michigan economy has significantly reduced its reliance on the
automotive and other manufacturing sectors and shifted to
service-based industries. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the motor vehicle industry comprised 7.1% of nonfarm
payrolls as of April 2000 as compared to 3.3% as of April 2010. Over
the same time period, total manufacturing jobs decreased
substantially, from 19.2% to 11.9%. Meanwhile, jobs in education and
health services have increased by 25% over the 10-year period and now
represent over 16% of Michigans jobs as compared to approximately 11%
in 2000. Trade, transportation, utilities and government now provide
the largest contribution to the Michigan economy in terms of number of
jobs. In addition, since our franchise is primarily located in the
western and northern portions of Michigan, our markets are not as
dependent on the U.S. auto industry as other parts of Michigan, such
as Detroit and southeast Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
Other Economic Indicators: The Michigan Economic Activity Index
equally weighs nine, seasonally adjusted coincident indicators of real
economic activity that reflect activity in the construction,
manufacturing and service sectors as well as job growth and consumer
outlays. The index is measured on a scale of 110. Although the index
fell two points in April 2010, the April index level of 82 represents
a 15% gain over April 2009 and marks the third consecutive
double-digit increase in the index on a 12-month basis. Prior to the
recession, the index ranged between approximately 93 and 105 between
January 2000 and mid-2007. |
Our asset quality trends are consistent with these recent positive economic trends for the
state of Michigan. Although we posted a net loss in the first quarter of 2010, we believe we have
made additional progress in improving asset quality, as reflected in a reduction of our
nonperforming loans, classified assets, early stage delinquencies and provisions for loan losses.
As of March 31, 2010, our levels of non-performing loans have now declined for four consecutive
quarters, and our loans 30-89 days past due have consistently improved over the last three
quarters. These indicators support our belief that our emphasis on managing asset quality and the
beginning stabilization of the Michigan economy is resulting in improving asset quality metrics.
Our Business Strategy
In response to difficult market conditions and the losses we incurred in the past two years,
we have taken steps and initiated actions designed to increase our capital, improve our operations,
and further augment our liquidity. The successful completion of our Capital Plan should enable us
to withstand the current economic cycle, return to profitability, and better position our community
bank franchise to take advantage of the improving market conditions in Michigan. With the
successful implementation of our Capital Plan, our primary strategies are as follows:
|
|
|
Restructure Balance Sheet to Improve Profitability and Net Interest
Margin: Over the past three quarters, we have taken steps to enhance
our liquidity position in the face of current economic conditions by
investing in shorter-term money market assets supported by higher-cost
funding. This has negatively impacted our net interest margin during
these periods. With the capital raised in this offering, we intend to
take immediate steps to restructure our balance sheet in order to pay
down higher-cost funding sources. This should have a relatively
immediate, favorable impact on our net interest margin. In addition,
the successful completion of other components of our Capital Plan
should significantly decrease our interest expense and dividend costs. |
7
|
|
|
Opportunistically Take Advantage of Market Disruption and
FDIC-Assisted and Other Growth Opportunities: As many of our largest
competitors have exited, pulled back, or reduced their marketing
efforts in Michigan, we believe opportunities exist to increase our
lending and core deposit market share through organic growth. In
addition, with additional capital, we intend to opportunistically take
advantage of FDIC-assisted and traditional merger transactions within
Michigan that strategically make sense for our core banking franchise.
Our seasoned management team and our established infrastructure and
statewide branch network provide us a solid platform from which to
pursue these opportunities. We have a demonstrated history of
successful and profitable bank and branch acquisitions. |
|
|
|
|
Renew Efforts to Strategically Grow Our Loan Portfolio: Following the
completion of this offering, we believe we will be well-positioned to
take advantage of new opportunities in our markets to serve commercial
clients, including by providing Small Business Administration
(SBA) loans and other business loans through our well-developed branch
network. In the near term, we expect our primary commercial lending
opportunities to be in the form of commercial and industrial
(C&I) loans, as opposed to commercial real estate loans. We have
highly experienced teams of credit professionals and senior lenders to
execute prudently our loan strategy, and we continue to invest in our
credit and lending teams, through both hiring experienced commercial
lenders and additional underwriting and credit monitoring training of
our employees. In addition, we plan to continue our efforts in retail
loan origination, with a focus on originating mortgage loans for sale,
rather than portfolio lending. |
|
|
|
|
Continued Development of New Offerings, Particularly Technology-Based
Products and Services to Grow Deposit Market Share: We intend to
continue our investment in and improve our online banking and other
technology-based services. Recently, we introduced and launched
online account creation, a competitive health savings account
(HSA) product, and certain social media channels, such as Facebook,
Twitter and a customer blog area on our website to offer support to
current customers and to attract new deposit relationships. We also
are developing a new mobile banking product that will provide our
customers with a portable, secure, and increasingly popular channel
with which to manage their finances. Our continued focus on
technology, particularly in the context of our established,
service-oriented, community banking model, should further strengthen
our ability to maintain and grow the core deposit base within our
markets. |
|
|
|
|
Focus on Credit Monitoring and Improvement of Asset Quality: One of
our top priorities is to continue to maintain a careful focus on our
existing problem assets in order to minimize further credit losses and
continue to reduce the level of our nonperforming assets. Beginning
in 2007, we implemented initiatives to strengthen our credit oversight
function, including the consolidation of our 4 bank subsidiaries into
a single bank charter and the hiring of a new Chief Lending Officer
who previously served as a Senior Vice President of a bank with over
$50 billion in assets. We also created a centralized special asset
group to enable us to more effectively deal with problem credits. We
developed and implemented best credit practices, including, among
other credit initiatives, a comprehensive quarterly watch process,
deal-by-deal real estate portfolio review, and independent risk
ratings provided by experienced credit officers. Further, we engaged
third parties to perform extensive independent loan reviews to
identify potential problem areas, ensure the effectiveness of our
quality controls, and stress test our loan portfolio. In addition, we
regularly monitor the secondary market for potential sale of our
non-performing loans; however, we have used this strategy on only a
limited basis over the past 18 months as we are currently achieving
much higher realization rates by managing the workouts internally. As
market conditions improve, an increased capital base may allow us to
consider bulk sales of non-performing assets. We believe we have a
very disciplined and proactive approach in managing and pursuing
workouts and other resolutions of non-performing loans, and we intend
to continue to pursue these activities. |
|
|
|
|
Capitalize on Our Customer Service-Focused, Community Banking Model:
We believe our relationship-based, know your customer business model
and our customer service culture, known within our organization as the
Eagle Experience, are appealing to customers in our market,
particularly customers who value local bankers who understand their
needs and have local decision-making authority. For example, in a
recent J.D. Power and Associates 2010 Retail Banking Satisfaction
Study (based on a survey of 48,000 consumers in January and
February 2010 that measured customer satisfaction among 19 banks in
Michigan and 4 nearby states), Independent Bank was one of two banks
that received a perfect five Power Circle Rating for customer
service. We believe our recognized brand, core franchise, and loyal
customer base, as well as our cross-selling sales culture, help to
differentiate us from many of our competitors, including larger banks
that have reduced their presence or marketing efforts in Michigan, and
should position us to further increase our lending and our strong core
deposit market share within the communities we serve. |
8
Our Competitive Strengths
We believe we are well positioned to take advantage of opportunities in Michigan. Our key
competitive strengths include:
|
|
|
Strong Core Earnings: We have historically had strong pre-tax,
pre-provision earnings, which we believe is largely attributable to
our community bank business model. Our loyal customer base has
allowed us to price deposits competitively, contributing to a net
interest margin that compares favorably to our peers even after
removing the significant positive impact Mepco has had on our net
interest margin. In addition, our non-interest income has
historically been a significant element of our financial performance,
and we are attempting to grow non-interest income in order to
diversify our revenues within the financial services industry.
Finally, we are focused on reducing non-interest expenses, such as
moving towards a paperless operating environment, which allows for a
more efficient business unit workflow, and working with our vendors to
improve the pricings for the services and products they provide. |
|
|
|
|
Substantial Core Deposit Base: We have a large, stable base of core
deposits that provides cost-effective funding for our lending
operations. We believe our full product suite of electronic banking
and remote deposit capture is attractive to our customer base and
allows us to efficiently attract new deposit relationships. At
March 31, 2010, core deposits accounted for approximately 78% of our
total deposits. |
|
|
|
|
Experienced Management Team: Our management team includes executives
with extensive experience in the banking industry, both at larger
financial institutions and in the Michigan market. Michael M. Magee,
our President and Chief Executive Officer, has over 32 years of
banking experience and has been with us for 23 years. Four of the
other five members of our executive management each have over 23 years
of banking experience, a majority of which have been in our core
Michigan markets. Our recently-hired General Counsel has over 25
years experience specializing in commercial law and creditors rights
and was hired as part of our comprehensive efforts to improve and make
more cost-efficient our management of problem loans and other assets.
Key roles within our management team are held by executives with
extensive bank backgrounds: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Years in |
|
Years at |
Name |
|
Title |
|
Banking |
|
the Bank |
Michael M. Magee |
|
President & CEO |
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
23 |
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
EVP CFO |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
11 |
|
W. Brad Kessel |
|
EVP COO |
|
|
23 |
(1) |
|
|
16 |
|
David C. Reglin |
|
EVP Retail Banking |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
28 |
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
EVP Chief Lending Officer |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
Mark Collins |
|
EVP General Counsel |
|
|
25 |
(2) |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Experience includes positions within the financial services group at a large accounting firm. |
|
(2) |
|
Experience includes specialization in commercial law and creditors rights at a large, Grand
Rapids-based law firm. |
|
|
|
Successful Acquisition and Integration History: Over the past 20
years, we have made 12 acquisitions of depository institutions and
branches. Our management team has a history of successfully
integrating these acquisitions and delivering strong operating
results. In 2007, following our most recent acquisition of 10
branches, we consolidated our 4 charters under Independent Bank to
improve operational efficiency, credit and risk management
processes, and reduce expenses. We believe our management team
possesses the capabilities and experience to successfully pursue
strategic opportunities in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Well-Positioned for Growth: We have operated in the Michigan
market for over 100 years and are one of the largest banks solely
focused on the state of Michigan. We are positioned in the
marketplace as a local community bank that is large enough to
provide a wide range of banking services, yet small enough to
deliver personalized service to our customer base. We have strong
commercial lending capabilities, including an experienced credit
administration team and group of senior lenders. We believe the
completion of this offering will provide us the capital to pursue
local, high quality commercial lending relationships. |
|
|
|
|
Proactive Approach to Credit: We believe the improvements we made
to our credit administration and risk management programs and
processes since the second quarter of 2007 in response to
deteriorating economic conditions allow us to better identify
problem areas and respond quickly, decisively, and aggressively.
We implemented industry best practices throughout the life cycle
of a loan to include the loan origination, monitoring, and
servicing as well as, if necessary, workout stages. Our
philosophy of working with our clients as long as they are
working with us has resulted in numerous successful restructured
loans. As an example of our approach to the recent credit
environment, we began curtailing new originations of commercial
loans in the second quarter of 2007 and have reduced the
construction, land, and land development segments of our
commercial loan portfolio from approximately $229 million at
December 31, 2007 to $82 million at March 31, 2010. |
9
Our Credit Strategy
We believe we employ a prudent credit culture that includes sound underwriting, centralized
credit and risk management functions, comprehensive loan review processes, and diligent asset
workout and collection efforts. Highlights of our credit strategy are set forth below.
Our Relationship Banking Approach
Our credit strategy reflects the main principles of our community banking model which
emphasize development of a full customer relationship. We emphasize a know your customer approach
and seek to provide credit together with primary depository and cash management services. This
strategy enables our bankers to listen closely to our clients in order to improve their
understanding of our customers needs and facilitate their ability to offer tailored banking
solutions. We believe our recent, excellent J. D. Power ratings reflect our customers appreciation
and high satisfaction with the services we provide.
Improvements to Our Credit Policy and Processes
As Michigan began to experience economic stress and our asset quality deteriorated, we
completed comprehensive reviews of our credit policy and processes and revised them as we believed
appropriate for the current credit cycle, including:
|
|
|
We strengthened our credit team through key appointments and
experienced hires from larger commercial banks, including a Chief
Lending Officer, to oversee the implementation of best credit
practices. We made key additions to our already experienced
commercial lending team, including Senior Vice Presidents of Credit
Processes, Special Assets, and Credit Administration, and a new Loan
Review Manager. In our retail department, we made key appointments and
realigned the critical collection function of two Senior Vice
Presidents and two Vice Presidents. We also hired an in-house general
counsel to specifically focus on workouts, provide legal guidance to
our workout team, and improve our management of legal costs in the
workout and other disposition processes. |
|
|
|
|
We enhanced our training to provide comprehensive and ongoing in-house
credit, underwriting, and risk management training programs that
leverage our systems and infrastructure. Further, we implemented a
process to provide ongoing coaching of our lenders in negotiations,
customer communication, problem credit resolution, and development of
specific action plans. |
|
|
|
|
We implemented a range of credit initiatives designed to strengthen
our credit oversight and risk management function, minimize losses
from our legacy portfolio and reduce the level of our non-performing
assets. In addition to the consolidation of our 4 bank charters, we
implemented a new process to increase the coordination between our
retail and commercial operations as they relate to underwriting, loan
review and oversight, and problem credit resolution. We also expanded
our quality control function that monitors new retail loan
originations. |
Realignment of Credit Portfolios
For the past two years, we have pursued a conservative credit strategy of net deleveraging in
order to meet the challenges of this credit cycle. In response to the changing economic
circumstances and opportunities in Michigan, we shifted our strategic direction in portfolio
lending towards high quality loan segments and sustainable organic growth in the markets we serve.
Since 2007, we have significantly reduced our exposure to commercial real estate (CRE). Our CRE
portfolio (excluding owner occupied) was $443.7 million at March 31, 2010, down from $607.2 million
in the fourth quarter of 2007. We have also de-emphasized other high risk segments, such as land,
land development, and construction loans, which currently represent less than 4% of our total loan
portfolio. As a result of these efforts and the curtailment of originations in recent years, our
income producing portfolio is more seasoned and diversified. We continue to focus our loan
origination efforts on high quality, profitable commercial loan segments such as small business and
middle market loans generated through our branch and referral networks. We utilize government
guarantee programs, such as the SBA program, where appropriate. We also intend to continue our
focus on building relationships with C&I clients as an attractive target customer segment. We
believe we underwrite consumer loans for boats, autos, and home improvements on a conservative
basis. We have focused our retail mortgage loan efforts on originating loans for sale, which are
attractive for their associated gains on sales. Our strategy is to sell the majority of our first
mortgage loans into the secondary market and selectively retain in our portfolio adjustable rate
mortgage (ARM) products with strong underwriting metrics. In addition, as described in more detail
below, we have implemented a strategy to significantly reduce the payment plan
receivables generated by Mepco in light of losses Mepco has recently incurred, increased risks in
the vehicle service contract industry, and our desire to return our focus to our core banking
competencies.
10
Our Proactive Management of Troubled Loans
We proactively manage troubled loans and have focused on early loss recognition throughout the
current credit cycle. In response to challenges in this credit cycle, we have implemented a
comprehensive foundation of credit best practices. Highlights include:
|
|
|
Formation of a special assets team of experienced lenders and collection personnel to ensure effective management
of the substandard and nonaccrual loans; |
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive review and enhancement of our portfolio analytics, specifically as they relate to segment reporting,
migration analysis, and stress testing; |
|
|
|
|
Implementation of independent risk ratings designed to ensure consistent risk measurement; |
|
|
|
|
Adherence to a disciplined quarterly watch process to manage high-risk loans; |
|
|
|
|
Strengthening of our collateral monitoring process for CRE, construction loans, and C&I lending, with centralized
monitoring and reporting functions; |
|
|
|
|
Regular analysis of portfolio migration to establish the appropriate level of general reserves for each loan grade; |
|
|
|
|
Establishment of key vendor relationships with realtors, property managers, and other real estate management
service providers to obtain up-to-date market feedback and for assistance in the workout and disposition process; |
|
|
|
|
Regular acquisition and review of new credit bureau scores on our retail portfolios to aid collection efforts and
guide retail loss forecasts; |
|
|
|
|
Implementation of retail collection initiatives and loss mitigation programs to increase home retention, avoid
unnecessary foreclosures, and minimize associated costs; and |
|
|
|
|
Regular monitoring of the secondary market for potential sale of our non-performing loans, which we will consider
as market conditions warrant. |
Our approach is to work with our clients as long as they are working with us. We believe
this customized approach to our clients lending needs has produced, and should continue to
produce, better results for us than if we used the less personalized approaches of some of our
competitors. One indicator of the success of our approach is, for example, that approximately 78%
of our retail restructured loans remained performing six months after modification as of April 30,
2010.
Loan Quality Update and Trends
We believe our asset quality metrics and credit trends have started to show signs of
improvement over the last several quarters. Our non-performing loans (NPLs) decreased 24.0% in the
first quarter of 2010 from their peak in the first quarter of 2009 and declined 10.9% from the
fourth quarter of 2009. A breakdown of NPLs (excluding loans classified as troubled debt
restructurings (TDRs) that are still performing) by loan type is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
Dec. 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
Loan Type |
|
($ in millions) |
|
Commercial |
|
$ |
43.9 |
|
|
$ |
50.4 |
|
|
$ |
68.9 |
|
Consumer/installment |
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
|
Mortgage |
|
|
43.2 |
|
|
|
48.0 |
|
|
|
50.8 |
|
Payment plan receivables(1) |
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
3.1 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
98.3 |
|
|
$ |
109.9 |
|
|
$ |
129.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of non-performing loans to total portfolio loans |
|
|
4.56 |
% |
|
|
4.78 |
% |
|
|
5.27 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of non-performing assets to total assets |
|
|
4.78 |
|
|
|
4.77 |
|
|
|
5.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of the allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans |
|
|
77.48 |
|
|
|
74.35 |
|
|
|
45.18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of 30-89 days past due loans to total portfolio loans |
|
|
2.57 |
|
|
|
2.81 |
|
|
|
2.55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents payment plans for which no payments have been
received for 90 days or more and for which Mepco has not yet completed the
process to charge the applicable counterparty for the balance due to Mepco. |
11
The decrease in NPLs since year-end 2009 is due principally to declines in non-performing
commercial loans and residential mortgage loans. These declines primarily reflect net charge-offs
of loans, negotiated transactions, and the migration of loans into other real estate (ORE).
Non-performing commercial loans largely relate to delinquencies caused by cash flow difficulties
encountered by real estate investors. Non-performing commercial loans have declined for the past
five quarters. The elevated level of non-performing residential mortgage loans is primarily due to
delinquencies reflecting both weak economic conditions and soft residential real estate values in
many parts of Michigan. However, retail NPLs have shown three quarters of improvement and are now
at their lowest level since the first quarter of 2009.
Loans classified as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs) are loans for which we have modified
the terms. A TDR loan that continues to perform after being modified is not included in our NPLs,
except with respect to certain retail loans, as noted in footnote (2) to the table below. However,
NPLs do include TDRs that are no longer performing, including TDRs that are on non-accrual or are
90 days or more past due. A breakdown of our TDRs as of March 31, 2010, is as follows (in 000s):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
Retail |
|
|
Total |
|
Performing TDRs |
|
$ |
16,668 |
|
|
$ |
78,483 |
|
|
$ |
95,151 |
|
Non-performing TDRs (1) |
|
|
7,211 |
|
|
|
18,049 |
(2) |
|
|
25,260 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
23,879 |
|
|
$ |
96,532 |
|
|
$ |
120,411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Included in NPL table above. |
|
|
(2) |
|
Also includes loans on non-accrual at the time of modification until six payments are
received on a timely basis. |
The majority of our TDRs are accruing as they have a demonstrated ability to pay. Our
approach to residential mortgage TDRs is to re-underwrite the loan with relatively conservative
credit criteria. Almost 80% of these modified mortgage loans continue to pay six or more months
after the modifications. On the commercial side, we perform a detailed analysis to determine TDR
status. We restructure commercial TDR loans to right-size the debt to a level that can be
supported by the cash flow and meet other more conservative credit criteria. We re-evaluate
performance on a quarterly basis and update TDR status as warranted.
Non-performing assets (NPAs) declined 10.3% in the first quarter of 2010 from their peak in
the first quarter of 2009 and decreased 1.24% from the fourth quarter of 2009. Our commercial NPAs
have declined in each of the past five quarters.
Our 30-89 day past due loans are down 28.1% at March 31, 2010 from their peak in the second
quarter of 2009, exhibiting three consecutive quarters of improvement. Commercial 30-89 day past
due loans have remained stable at 1.68% of the commercial loan portfolio as of March 31, 2010. Our
retail 30-89 day past due credits show three quarters of improvement as of March 31, 2010, and are
now at their lowest level since the end of 2007. Our level of watch credits has been relatively
stable over the past four quarters. Classified assets as of March 31, 2010 are also showing three
quarters of improvement and are down 7% from their peak in the second quarter of 2009. Both retail
and commercial nonaccruals are decreasing.
We believe we have a focused and disciplined approach to managing ORE that leverages our
networks and knowledge of the communities we serve. While we have explored bulk sale transactions
from time to time, we have found that our approach of dealing with each property on an individual
basis is more likely to result in a higher recovery. ORE and repossessed assets totaled $40.3
million at March 31, 2010, compared to $31.5 million at December 31, 2009, and $26.1 million at
March 31, 2009. As we expected, our commercial ORE increased slightly in the first quarter of 2010
as new inflows exceeded sales. Retail ORE transfers also outpaced ORE sales in the first quarter of
2010; however, our average holding period for retail ORE remains at approximately six months. We
have a focused disposition process, which targets core interested investors and local realtors
followed by sales through the auction channel. We expect ORE to continue to rise throughout 2010
as workout loans move through the cycle. Recent sales activity shows a realization equal to
approximately 90% to 100% of our adjusted book value evidencing conservative mark-downs and some
stabilization trends we are seeing in our markets.
Our provision for loan losses decreased by $13.0 million, or 43.2%, in the first quarter of
2010 compared to the year-ago level, primarily reflecting a reduction in non-performing loans, a
lower level of watch credits and an overall decline in total loan balances. The provision for loan
losses was $17.1 million and $30.0 million in the first quarters of 2010 and 2009, respectively.
The level of the provision for loan losses in each period reflects our overall assessment of the
allowance for loan losses, taking into consideration factors such as loan mix, levels of
non-performing and classified loans and loan net charge-offs. Loan net charge-offs were $22.6
million (4.10% annualized of average loans) in the first quarter of 2010, compared to $29.7 million
(4.91% annualized of average loans) in the first quarter of 2009. The decline in first quarter
2010 loan net charge-offs compared to year ago levels is primarily due to an $8.1 million decline
in commercial loan net charge-offs. At March 31, 2010, the allowance for loan losses totaled $76.1
million, or 3.53% of portfolio loans, compared to $81.7 million, or 3.55% of portfolio loans, at
December 31, 2009. Our portfolio of commercial loans on nonaccrual status have been written down,
or reserved for, approximately 61% from the original loan balance.
12
We are optimistic that our teams continued efforts in managing our commercial and retail loan
portfolios will yield further improvements in asset quality.
Recent Credit Reviews in Advance of This Offering
In advance of this offering, we conducted a series of loan portfolio analyses, both internally
and externally through third parties, to assist in our projections for potential future provisions
for loan losses.
Third Party, External Loan Reviews and Stress Testing
In connection with the preparation of our Capital Plan, we engaged a third party to perform a
review (a stress test) on our commercial loan portfolio and a separate third party to perform a
similar review of our retail loan portfolio. Approximately $1.8 billion of our $2.3 billion
commercial and retail loan portfolios was subjected to a detailed loan review, with extrapolation
for the remainder of the portfolios plus random testing of loan files from the minority segments.
The loan reviews were conducted at the loan level for the commercial portfolio and at the pool
level for our retail portfolio. These external stress tests were concluded in January 2010. The
analyses of the loan portfolio conducted by these independent parties included different scenarios
based on a set of expectations of future economic conditions.
The external review of our commercial loan portfolio included a detailed review of 69% of the
total portfolio outstanding (1,056 individual loan files), supplemented by an extrapolation for the
remaining 31% of the portfolio. The review included key credit processes and a comparison of the
external firms loss forecasts to those conducted internally by management. The external firms
methodology resulted in a loan-by-loan loss forecast over an estimated 30-month time period ending
April 30, 2012.
The external review of our retail loan portfolio covered the entire real estate portion of our
portfolio and examined three retail loan pools of (1) owned residential mortgages, (2) real estate
secured installment loans, and (3) home equity lines of credit. The external firms methodology
modeled, under various economic stress environments, risk-adjusted prepayment curves, default
curves, and loss severity curves for each loan based on its borrower, recent FICO score, product
type, property, and other risk characteristics and developed a loan loss forecast over a 60-month
period ending December 31, 2014.
We engaged these external reviews in order to ensure that the similar analyses we performed
internally in 2009, on which we based our projections in our Capital Plan for future potential loan
losses, were reasonable and did not materially understate such projections. Based on the
conclusions of these third party reviews, we determined that we did not need to modify our
projections used for purposes of our Capital Plan.
The analyses conducted by the independent third parties were limited to our commercial and
retail loan portfolios and did not include any analysis of potential losses associated with Mepcos
payment plan business or any other asset category.
SCAP Stress Testing
In May 2009, the Federal Reserve announced the results of the Supervisory Capital Assessment
Program, or SCAP, of the near-term capital needs of the 19 largest U.S. bank holding companies.
The SCAP process involves the projections of losses on loans, assets held in investment portfolios,
and trading related exposure over a two year time period (2009 and 2010). Although we were not
subject to the Federal Reserves review under the SCAP, we conducted, with assistance from our
financial advisors, our own internal cumulative loss analysis or stress test of our loan
portfolio and resulting capital position at March 31, 2010, using the same methodologies as the
SCAP. Our analysis used a baseline scenario and a more adverse scenario as provided in the
SCAP methodology. The SCAP baseline scenario was developed to reflect consensus expectations of
economic forecasters in early 2009 on the depth and duration of the economic recession. The more
adverse scenario was designed to characterize a recession that is longer and more severe than
consensus expectations.
We performed our analysis by applying the SCAP guidelines under both the baseline and more
adverse economic scenarios to our year-end 2008 loan balances. As of March 31, 2010, we compared
the losses that would have been projected by the SCAP methodology in our loan portfolio over 2009
and 2010 to our actual loan losses over 2009 and the first quarter of 2010. Based on this
methodology, our cumulative losses for 2009 and 2010 predicted by the SCAP analysis would have been
$132 million under the midpoint of the baseline case and $206 million under the midpoint of the
more adverse case. In comparison, based on our actual net charge-offs during 2009 and first
quarter of 2010 ($102.1 million) as well as our internal projections of remaining net charge-offs
for 2010 ($57.6 million), our losses over that comparable two year period would have been
approximately $160 million. See Our Projections Projected Provision for Loan Losses below.
The results of this SCAP analysis are hypothetical and are not indicative of losses we expect
to incur, but rather show potential losses in our loan portfolio during a specific period of time
based on the U.S. Treasury SCAP framework.
Based on the results of the SCAP analysis, we believe our projections for our provision for
loan losses through the end of 2011, set forth under Our Projections Our Projected Provision for
Loan Losses below, are reasonable.
13
Mepco Finance Corporation
Mepco is a wholly-owned subsidiary of our bank. At the time we acquired Mepco in April of
2003, Mepco was engaged in its current vehicle service contract payment plan business (described
below) and more traditional insurance premium financing. Mepco sold its insurance premium
financing business in January 2007. As a result, Mepcos sole business activity is its vehicle
service contract payment plan business.
Description of Payment Plan Business
Vehicle service contracts are contracts purchased by consumers to cover the cost of certain
vehicle repairs. They have historically been known as after-market extended automobile warranties
and are sometimes still referred to as such. The service contracts are written and provided by
parties commonly referred to in the industry as administrators. The administrators are generally
not affiliated with any automobile manufacturer. In most states, the administrator is required to
purchase a contractual liability insurance policy (CLIP) from an insurance company or a risk
retention group that guaranties performance of the service contract to the consumer in the event
the administrator fails to perform the service contract. The administrators sell the service
contracts through a network of third party marketing companies and/or through automobile dealers.
Vehicle service contracts typically cost between $1,000 and $2,500. Of this purchase price, a
portion is paid to the insurer for providing the CLIP, a portion is paid to the administrator for
administering the service contract and maintaining required reserves for potential claims, and a
portion is paid to the seller of the service contract as a sales commission and for providing
customer service. While the full purchase price of the service contract is sometimes paid by the
consumer at the time of purchase, the administrators and sellers of the service contracts (which we
refer to as Mepcos counterparties) generally also allow the consumer to pay the cost of the
coverage on a monthly basis, through a payment plan.
Mepco acquires the payment plans from its counterparties at a discount from the face amount of
the payment plan. Each payment plan permits a consumer to purchase a service contract by making
monthly payments, generally for a term of 12 to 24 months. Mepco thereafter collects the payments
from consumers. In acquiring the payment plan, Mepco generally funds a portion of the cost to the
seller of the service contract and a portion of the cost to the administrator of the service
contract. The administrator, in turn, pays the necessary CLIP premium to the insurer or risk
retention group.
Consumers are allowed to voluntarily cancel the service contract at any time and are generally
entitled to receive a refund from the administrator of the unearned portion of the service contract
at the time of cancellation. As a result, while Mepco does not owe any refund to the consumer, it
also does not have any recourse against the consumer for nonpayment of a payment plan and therefore
does not evaluate the creditworthiness of the individual consumer. If a consumer stops making
payments on a payment plan or exercises the right to voluntarily cancel the service contract, the
service contract seller and administrator are each obligated to refund to Mepco the amount
necessary to make Mepco whole as a result of its funding of the service contract. As described
below, the insurer or risk retention group that issued the CLIP for the service contract often
guarantees all or a portion of the refund to Mepco.
If a service contract is cancelled, Mepco typically recovers a portion of the unearned cost of
the service contract from the seller and a portion of the unearned cost from the administrator
(who, in turn, receives unearned premium from the insurer involved). However, the administrator is
generally obligated to refund to Mepco the entire unearned cost of the service contract, including
the portion Mepco typically collects from the seller. In addition, as of May 31, 2010,
approximately 67% of the aggregate amount of Mepcos outstanding payment plan receivables relate to
programs in which a third party insurer or risk retention group is obligated to pay Mepco the full
refund owing upon cancellation of the related service contract (including with respect to both the
portion funded to the service contract seller and the portion funded to the administrator).
Another approximately 15% of Mepcos outstanding payment plan receivables as of May 31, 2010,
relate to programs in which a third party insurer or risk retention group is obligated to Mepco to
pay the refund owing upon cancellation only with respect to the unearned portion previously funded
by Mepco to the administrator (i.e., but not to the service contract seller). The balance of
Mepcos outstanding payment plan receivables relate to programs in which there is no insurer
guarantee of any portion of the refund amount.
In some cases, Mepco requires collateral or guaranties by the principals of the counterparties
to secure these refund obligations; however, this is generally only the case when no rated
insurance company is involved to guarantee the repayment obligation of the seller and administrator
counterparties. In most cases, there is no collateral to secure the counterparties refund
obligations to Mepco, but Mepco has the contractual right to offset unpaid refund obligations
against amounts Mepco would otherwise be obligated to fund to the counterparties. In addition,
even when other collateral is involved, the refund obligations of these counterparties are not
fully secured. Mepco incurs losses when it is unable to fully recover funds owing to it by
counterparties upon cancellation of the underlying service contracts.
Mepco presently does business with approximately 200 different sellers (direct marketers and
automobile dealerships). However, as of May 31, 2010, Mepcos top 15 current seller counterparties
(which do not include the seller counterparty described below that declared bankruptcy in March
2010) represent approximately 85% of the total monthly payment plan volume, with the largest single
seller counterparty generally representing approximately 20% of such volume. Each seller generally
sells vehicle service contacts issued by a number of different
administrators and insurance companies. See footnote 20 to our audited financial statements
on page F-78 for more information about the concentrations in Mepcos business.
14
Mepcos new payment plan volume for the five months ended May 31, 2010 was approximately 65%
lower than the same period in 2009. This decline reflects our intention to reduce payment plan
receivables as a percentage of total assets as well as general industry conditions (which include a
decline in the volume of sales of vehicle service contracts). In addition to reducing the size of
this business, given recent losses incurred by Mepco, we have begun implementing changes to the
funding policies followed by Mepco (i.e., the amounts and timing of funds advanced by Mepco to the
sellers of the service contracts) as a way of further reducing the risk associated with this
business segment by decreasing the amount Mepco will need to recover from its counterparties upon
cancellation of a vehicle service contract.
Presentation in Consolidated Financial Statements
The aggregate net amount of outstanding payment plans held by Mepco is recorded on our
consolidated statements of financial condition as payment plan receivables (formerly referred to
as finance receivables). Net payment plan receivables totaled $340.7 million, or 11.7% of total
assets at March 31, 2010 compared to $406.3 million, or 13.7% of total assets at December 31, 2009.
The $65.6 million decline in net payment plan receivables during the first quarter of 2010
represents an annualized decline of 64.6% and is consistent with our goal, noted above, of reducing
payment plan receivables as a percentage of total assets.
The aggregate amount of obligations owing to Mepco by counterparties (triggered by the
cancellation of the related service contracts), net of write-downs made through the recognition of
vehicle service contract counterparty contingency expense, is recorded on our consolidated
statements of financial condition in accrued income and other assets. At March 31, 2010, this
amount totaled $10.0 million (compared to $1.2 million at March 31, 2009). As a result, upon the
cancellation of a service contract and the completion of the billing process to the counterparties
for amounts due to Mepco, there is a decrease in the amount of payment plan receivables and an
increase in the amount of accrued income and other assets until such time as the amount due from
the counterparty is collected. These amounts represent funds actually due to Mepco from its
counterparties for cancelled service contracts, as opposed to estimated incurred losses associated
with payment plan receivables that are still outstanding (which estimated incurred losses are
recorded as vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense, described below).
Mepco purchases the payment plans (which are non-interest bearing) at a discount. This
discount is initially recorded as unearned revenue and is netted against payment plan receivables
in our consolidated statements of financial condition. At March 31, 2010, this unearned discount
totaled $23.8 million (compared to $28.1 million at March 31, 2009). This discount or unearned
revenue is then accreted into earnings using a level yield method over the life of the payment
plan. This discount accretion is recorded as interest and fees on loans in our consolidated
statements of operations.
We record estimated incurred losses associated with the administration of Mepcos vehicle
service contract payment plans in our provision for loan losses and establish a related allowance
for loan losses. We record estimated incurred losses associated with defaults by Mepcos
counterparties as vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense, which is included
in non-interest expenses in our consolidated statements of operations. These expenses are described
in more detail below.
Calculation of the Allowance for Loan Losses
Mepcos allowance for loan losses is determined in a similar manner to that of Independent
Bank and primarily takes into account historical loss experience and other subjective factors
deemed relevant to Mepcos payment plan business. Estimated incurred losses associated with the
administration of Mepcos vehicle service contract payment plans are included in the provision for
loan losses. Mepco recorded a credit of $0.1 million for its provision for loan losses in the
first quarter of 2010 due primarily to a significant decline ($65.6 million) in the balance of
payment plan receivables. This compares to a provision for loan losses of $0.2 million in the first
quarter of 2009. Mepcos allowance for loan losses totaled $0.7 million and $0.8 million at
March 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009, respectively. Mepco has established procedures for vehicle
service contract payment plan servicing, administration and collections, including the timely
cancellation of the vehicle service contract, in order to protect our setoff position in the event
of payment default or voluntary cancellation by the customer. Mepco has also established
procedures to attempt to prevent and detect fraud since the payment plan origination activities and
initial customer contact is done entirely through unrelated third parties (vehicle service contract
administrators and sellers or automobile dealerships). However, there can be no assurance that the
aforementioned risk management policies and procedures will prevent us from the possibility of
incurring significant credit or fraud related losses in this business segment.
Calculation of Vehicle Service Contract Counterparty Contingencies Expense
Our estimate of vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense (probable incurred
losses for estimated defaults by Mepcos counterparties) requires a significant amount of judgment
because a number of factors can influence the amount of loss Mepco may ultimately incur. These
factors include our estimate of future cancellations of vehicle service contracts, our evaluation
of collateral that may be available to recover funds due from our counterparties, and our
assessment of the amount that may ultimately be collected from counterparties in
15
connection with their contractual obligations to us. We apply a rigorous process, based upon
observable contract activity and past experience, to estimate probable incurred losses and quantify
the necessary reserves for our vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies, but there can
be no assurance that our modeling process will successfully identify all such losses. As a result,
actual future losses associated with in these receivables may exceed the charges we have taken.
In 2009, we recorded a total of $31.2 million in vehicle service contract counterparty
contingencies expense. For the first quarter of 2010, we recorded $3.4 million in vehicle service
contract counterparty contingencies expense.
Risk Inherent in Calculation of Estimated Probable Incurred Losses
The vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense represents our estimate of the
probable incurred losses of Mepco as a result of its inability to fully recover on the contractual
rights it has against its counterparties and any guarantors upon cancellation of service contracts.
One of the most significant risks we face is the possibility we have underestimated these probable
incurred losses. As noted above, our estimate of these probable incurred losses requires a
significant amount of judgment because there are a number of factors that can influence the amount
of the loss. In addition, it is only since mid- to late-2009 that events have occurred that have
led to a significant increase in vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense. The
aggregate amount of vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense recorded in past
years has grown from $0 in 2007, to $1.0 million in 2008, to $31.2 million in 2009 (and was $3.4
million during the first quarter of 2010). As a result, Mepco does not have much historical data
to draw from in making the assumptions necessary to predict probable incurred losses (such as the
ability to successfully recover from service contract administrators amounts funded by Mepco to the
service contract seller). Finally, the difficulty of estimating such losses is exacerbated by the
potential magnitude of the losses, which may threaten the viability of counterparties owing
obligations to Mepco.
Of the aggregate $34.7 million of vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies charges
recorded since January 1, 2009, $19.5 million relates to a single counterparty that declared
bankruptcy on March 1, 2010. The amount of payment plans purchased from this counterparty and
outstanding at May 31, 2010 totaled approximately $110.8 million (compared to $147.4 million and
$206.1 million at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively). In addition, as of May 31,
2010, this counterparty owed Mepco $34.6 million for previously purchased payment plans associated
with cancelled service contracts. We added approximately $0.5 million in May 2010 to the $19.5
million reserve that was previously established as of March 31, 2010, for the relationship with
this counterparty given a review of all relevant factors. The amount of this reserve was
calculated making assumptions about a number of factors. The primary assumptions made are as
follows:
|
|
|
Cancellation Rates. We have assumed the cancellation rate for
outstanding payment plans for the book of business with this
counterparty will be similar to cancellation rates historically
experienced with this counterparty. We believe this is a reasonable
assumption because the failure of this counterparty does not affect
the validity of the related service contract, which continues to be
administered by a third party administrator and backed by a third
party insurer. Higher cancellation rates increase the amount of funds
Mepco needs to recover from its counterparties to be made whole. To
date, actual cancellation rates for this program have generally been
in line with our assumptions. We have no reason to believe
cancellation rates will materially increase; however, there are events
that could occur that could cause cancellation rates to increase. For
example, weaker economic conditions generally cause an increase in
cancellation rates as consumers seek to reduce their monthly expenses
and choose to voluntarily cancel their service contracts or simply
cannot continue to make payments. In addition, it is possible that a
court or regulatory authority could attempt to force a mass
cancellation of all outstanding payment plans originated by this
counterparty (e.g., if it alleged the service contracts had been
marketed or sold in a fraudulent matter or if it had reason to believe
the continued performance of the service contract by the administrator
was in question). If cancellation rates are higher than assumed, the
aggregate exposure faced by Mepco increases, and actual losses may
exceed the charges taken for probable incurred losses as of March 31,
2010. As of May 31, 2010, $0.5 million of additional reserves have
been added thus far in the second quarter due primarily to slightly
higher actual cancellation rates than what had been previously
projected. |
|
|
|
|
Recoveries from Collateral. While Mepco generally does not maintain
collateral for its counterparties refund obligations, Mepco does have
certain collateral for this counterpartys obligations as a result of
the amount of business conducted with this counterparty and actions
taken when the financial viability of this counterparty came into
question. The estimated amount of probable incurred losses for this
counterparty includes assumptions regarding our ability to realize
upon and liquidate certain collateral securing the obligations of this
counterparty. In making these assumptions, we applied liquidation and
other discounts to the value of this collateral and also deducted
holding and sales costs. However, we may be unable to liquidate the
collateral at the levels we have assumed or our costs in doing so may
be higher than expected. It is also possible that Mepcos claims as a
secured and unsecured creditor in this counterpartys bankruptcy
proceeding may result in additional recoveries. We have currently
assumed no recovery from the bankruptcy estate as a result of these
claims, but we currently believe there may be substantial assets
available for recovery by Mepco. It will be some period of time
before we are able to assess the magnitude and likelihood of any such
recovery. |
16
|
|
|
Recoveries from Counterparties. As noted above, the administrator of
a service contract is generally obligated to refund to Mepco not only
the unearned portion of the amount previously advanced by Mepco to the
administrator, but also the unearned portion of the amount previously
advanced by Mepco to the seller of the service contract.
Historically, Mepco has not had to collect the entire unearned cost
from the administrator as it has been successful in collecting refunds
from the seller of the service contract. Given the failure of this
seller counterparty, Mepco intends to pursue collection of the amount
it previously funded to this service contract seller from the
administrators and third party insurance companies involved. Mepco
currently expects it may need to file lawsuits against one or more of
these administrators and insurers in order to recover amounts owing to
Mepco. There are more than 25 administrators and more than 10
insurers that have refund obligations owing to Mepco as a result of
the failure of this counterparty. We estimate that over 70% of the
aggregate amount to be collected as a result of this counterpartys
failure will be owed by only six different administrators and, of this
amount, approximately 70% is guaranteed by insurers. In addition to
challenges and delays associated with pursuing collection through
litigation, the amounts owing with respect to the failure of this
large counterparty could be catastrophic to one or more of these
administrators or insurance companies. Mepco intends to vigorously
pursue collection of the full amount owing from each obligor of
amounts owed by this counterparty. However, in making assumptions
regarding recovery from these counterparties, we applied discounts
from the full amount owed to take into account the factors described
above and potential litigation expenses and the possibility that
payment of the full amount owed to Mepco, together with other
obligations owing by these parties as a result of the failure of this
counterparty, could threaten the continued financial viability of one
or more of these parties. |
The balance of the vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense incurred since
January 1, 2009 (approximately $15.1 million) relates to estimated probable incurred losses
associated with Mepcos relationships with its counterparties other than the large counterparty
described above. In calculating our estimate of incurred probable losses if counterparties fail to
fulfill their contractual repayment obligations to Mepco, we have made a number of assumptions
similar to those described above, namely:
|
|
|
The amount of collateral held by Mepco to secure such obligations and
the likelihood of realizing upon and liquidating such collateral; |
|
|
|
|
The ability of Mepco to fully recover on its contractual rights
against other counterparties (i.e., administrators and insurance
companies) involved; and |
|
|
|
|
Cancellation rates of the underlying payment plans. |
We believe our assumptions regarding these factors are reasonable, and we based them on our
good faith judgments using data currently available. As a result, we believe the current amount of
reserves we have established and the vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense
that we have recorded are appropriate given our estimate of probable incurred losses at the
applicable balance sheet date. However, because of the uncertainty surrounding the numerous and
complex assumptions made, actual losses could exceed the charges we have taken to date. See Risk
Factors below.
First Quarter 2010 Earnings Overview
We reported a first quarter 2010 net loss applicable to our common stock of $14.9 million, or
$0.62 per share, compared to a net loss applicable to our common stock of $19.7 million, or $0.84
per share, in the first quarter of 2009. The reduced loss was primarily due to a decline in the
provision for loan losses, partially offset by a decline in net interest income and an increase in
non-interest expense.
Our net interest income was $30.0 million for the first quarter of 2010, a decrease of $4.3
million or 12.6% from the year-ago period, and a decrease of $3.4 million or 10.1% from the fourth
quarter of 2009. Our annualized net interest income as a percent of our average interest-earning
assets (our net interest margin) was 4.45% during the first quarter of 2010 compared to 5.03% in
the year ago period, and 4.78% in the fourth quarter of 2009. The decrease in our net interest
margin is primarily due to a change in asset mix as higher yielding loans declined and lower
yielding overnight investments at the Federal Reserve Bank increased. This change in asset mix
principally reflects our current strategy of maintaining significantly higher balances of overnight
investments to enhance liquidity and our reduction in payment plan receivables attributable to our
Mepco business. Average interest-earning assets declined to $2.73 billion in the first quarter of
2010 compared to $2.75 billion in the year ago quarter and $2.78 billion in the fourth quarter of
2009.
Pre-tax, pre-provision core operating earnings, as defined by management, represents our
income (loss) excluding: income tax expense (benefit), provision for loan losses, securities gains
or losses, vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies, and any impairment charges
(including loan servicing rights, goodwill, losses on ORE or repossessed assets, and certain
fair-value adjustments) and elevated loan and collection costs incurred in the current economic
cycle. The decline in our pre-tax, pre-provision core operating earnings in the first quarter of
2010 is principally due to a decrease in our net interest income as described above.
17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter Ended |
|
Pre-Tax, Pre-Provision Core Operating Earnings(1) |
|
3/31/10 |
|
|
12/31/09 |
|
|
3/31/09 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(13,837 |
) |
|
$ |
(48,155 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,597 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
(264 |
) |
|
|
(1,456 |
) |
|
|
293 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
17,070 |
|
|
|
25,116 |
|
|
|
30,038 |
|
Securities (gains) losses |
|
|
(147 |
) |
|
|
26 |
|
|
|
581 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies |
|
|
3,418 |
|
|
|
19,506 |
|
|
|
800 |
|
Impairment (recovery) charge on capitalized loan servicing |
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
(890 |
) |
|
|
697 |
|
Impairment charge on goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on ORE and repossessed assets |
|
|
2,029 |
|
|
|
1,796 |
|
|
|
1,261 |
|
Elevated loan and collection costs(2) |
|
|
3,536 |
|
|
|
2,584 |
|
|
|
2,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-Tax, Pre-Provision Core Operating Earnings |
|
$ |
11,660 |
|
|
$ |
15,261 |
|
|
$ |
17,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
This table reconciles consolidated net income (loss) presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) to pre-tax, pre-provision core operating earnings. Pre-tax, pre-provision core
operating earnings is not a measurement of our financial performance under GAAP and should not be considered
as an alternative to net income (loss) under GAAP. Pre-tax, pre-provision core operating earnings has
limitations as an analytical tool and should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for an
analysis of our results as reported under GAAP. However, we believe presenting pre-tax, pre-provision core
operating earnings provides investors with the ability to gain a further understanding of our underlying
operating trends separate from the direct effects of any impairment charges, credit issues, certain fair
value adjustments, securities gains or losses, and challenges inherent in the real estate downturn and other
economic cycle issues, and displays a consistent core operating earnings trend before the impact of these
challenges. |
|
(2) |
|
Represents the excess amount over a normalized level (experienced prior to 2008) of $1.25 million quarterly. |
Our Projections
Set forth below is our projection of our tangible common equity and related capital measures
as of December 31, 2011. These projections are based on our projected pre-provision earnings for
the period from March 31, 2010, to December 31, 2011, our projected provisions for loan losses
during that period, and our projected contingency expenses at Mepco during that period. Those
projections, in turn, are based on a number of assumptions, including the key assumptions described
below.
We caution investors that projections are inherently uncertain. Our actual capital adequacy,
results of operations, and performance may differ significantly from our current estimates due to
the inaccuracy or non-realization of the assumptions upon which our projections are based, as well
as other uncertainties and risks related to our business, including those described under Risk
Factors beginning on page 25 and elsewhere in this prospectus. Our projections constitute
forward-looking statements as described under Forward-Looking Statements on page 1 of this
prospectus and are not a guarantee by us of our future capital adequacy, results of operations, or
performance. Key assumptions upon which various of our projections are based are summarized under
Our Projected Earnings, Our Projected Provision for Loan Losses, and Our Projected Mepco
Counterparty Expenses below. We do not intend to issue any update to our projections at any time
in the future.
Our Projected Capital
As of March 31, 2010, our tangible common equity was $17.9 million, or $0.75 per share.
Taking into account various factors and current assumptions that we believe are reasonable, we
currently project, as set forth in the table below, that our tangible book value per share will be
approximately $0.58 as of December 31, 2011. This does not take into account any proceeds from
this offering, although (as noted below) it does take into account the conversion of our Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock at 75% of par, which is contingent on our completion of a new cash
equity raise of not less than $100 million on terms acceptable to the Treasury in its sole
discretion (other than with respect to the price offered per share).
Our
projection of our tangible book value per share of $0.58 at December 31, 2011:
|
|
|
Is based on various assumptions we have made, including those
described under Our Projected Earnings, Our Projected Provision
for Loan Losses, and Our Projected Mepco Counterparty Expenses
below, as well as the accuracy of our projected pre-provision earnings
or loss, provision expenses, and Mepco counterparty contingency
expenses for the period from April 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011, as
described in greater detail below; |
|
|
|
|
Includes the issuance of 51.1 million shares of our common stock in
exchange for $41.4 million in aggregate liquidation amount of our
trust preferred securities, which was completed on June 23, 2010, and
the issuance of 78.2 million shares of our common stock upon
conversion of all of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock held by
the Treasury, which we expect to occur immediately after this
offering; |
18
|
|
|
Reflects the benefit of a reduction in our future interest expense and
dividend payments and the addition of equity capital (resulting from
the issuance of new shares plus the associated after-tax gain) on the
two transactions described in the preceding bullet point; and |
|
|
|
|
Does not include the net cash proceeds to us as a result of this offering,
which will further significantly strengthen our capital position;
however, we did assume use of such proceeds in projecting our pre-provision earnings through the end of 2011.
The last column in the following table reflects the addition of the net proceeds to our pro forma tangible common equity and resulting capital ratios. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Pro Forma as of December 31, 2011 |
|
(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of Trust |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of Trust |
|
|
Preferred Securities(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conversion of |
|
|
Preferred Securities(1) |
|
|
and Preferred Stock(2), |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust Preferred |
|
|
and Preferred Stock(2), |
|
|
plus Projected 2010- |
|
|
|
As Reported |
|
|
Securities(1) and |
|
|
plus Projected 2010- |
|
|
2011 Earnings and |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
Preferred |
|
|
2011 Earnings and |
|
|
Credit Costs, plus |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
Stock(2) |
|
|
Credit Costs |
|
|
Capital Raise |
|
Tangible Common Equity(3) |
|
$ |
17.9 |
|
|
$ |
17.9 |
|
|
$ |
17.9 |
|
|
$ |
17.9 |
|
Pre-Provision Projected GAAP Earnings(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59.8 |
|
|
|
59.8 |
|
Amortization of Intangible Assets included in
Pre-Provision Projected GAAP Earnings(4) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
Projected Provision Expenses(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(98.0 |
) |
|
|
(98.0 |
) |
Projected Mepco Counterparty Contingency Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.9 |
) |
|
|
(6.9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjusted Tangible Common Equity |
|
|
17.9 |
|
|
|
17.9 |
|
|
|
(24.9 |
) |
|
|
(24.9 |
) |
|
Common Equity Created Through Conversions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
114.0 |
|
|
|
114.0 |
|
|
|
114.0 |
|
Common Equity From this Offering(6) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pro Forma Tangible Common Equity |
|
$ |
17.9 |
|
|
$ |
131.9 |
|
|
$ |
89.1 |
|
|
$ |
192.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares Outstanding (mm) |
|
|
24.032 |
|
|
|
153.346 |
|
|
|
153.346 |
|
|
|
TBD |
|
Tangible Book Value/Share |
|
$ |
0.75 |
|
|
$ |
0.86 |
|
|
$ |
0.58 |
|
|
|
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tangible Common Equity/Tangible Assets |
|
|
0.62 |
% |
|
|
4.56 |
% |
|
|
3.70 |
% |
|
|
7.97 |
% |
Tier 1 Common Ratio |
|
|
1.04 |
|
|
|
4.93 |
|
|
|
4.23 |
|
|
|
8.51 |
|
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio |
|
|
4.67 |
|
|
|
6.60 |
|
|
|
5.76 |
|
|
|
10.54 |
|
Tier 1 Risk Based Capital Ratio |
|
|
6.64 |
|
|
|
9.36 |
|
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
13.71 |
|
Total Risk Based Capital Ratio |
|
|
10.49 |
|
|
|
10.65 |
|
|
|
9.40 |
|
|
|
14.97 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Reflects our issuance of 51.1 million shares of common stock in
exchange for $41.4 million in aggregate liquidation amount of trust
preferred securities, which exchange occurred June 23, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Reflects our issuance of $74.4 million in aggregate liquidation amount
of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock in exchange for $72.0 million
in aggregate liquidation amount of Series A Preferred Stock held by
the Treasury plus approximately $2.4 million in accrued and unpaid
dividends on such shares, which exchange occurred April 16, 2010.
Also assumes the conversion on July 1, 2010 of all of such Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock at 75% of par, plus approximately $0.8
million in accrued and unpaid dividends as of June 30, 2010, at a
reference price of $0.7234 per share, which conversion is subject to
certain conditions described above, resulting in the issuance of 78.2
million shares of our common stock to the Treasury. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes a net deferred tax asset of $1.2 million. |
|
(4) |
|
Assumes cumulative pre-provision earnings from April 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2011 based on our internal projections and assuming we
have access to the expected proceeds of this offering. This excludes
any gains on the conversion transactions, which are included in
Common Equity Created Through Conversions. |
|
(5) |
|
Assumes cumulative provisions from April 1, 2010 through December 31,
2011 based upon our internal projections of losses and ending ALLL /
Total Loans ratio of 2.32% at December 31, 2011. |
|
(6) |
|
Assumes $110 million gross proceeds from this offering. |
Our Projected Earnings
Taking into account various factors and current assumptions that we believe are reasonable,
including those set forth below, we currently project our pre-provision earnings to be
approximately $59.8 million for the period from April 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. As set forth
in the preceding table, we expect these projected pre-provision earnings will offset a significant
portion of our projected future loan losses and Mepco counterparty expenses during the same period.
19
Our projections are based upon numerous complex assumptions, estimates, and judgments, which
may or may not be realized, including the following:
|
|
|
Net Interest Margin: In 2008 and 2009, our net interest margin was
4.63% and 5.08%, respectively. During the first quarter of 2010, our
net interest margin declined to 4.45% due to our increased reliance on
higher-cost wholesale funding sources as a means of building reserve
liquidity and our reduction in payment plan receivables attributable
to our Mepco business. Following the completion of this offering, we
intend to repay some of our higher-cost wholesale funds and continue
to build our core deposits. We believe doing so will have a relatively
immediate and favorable impact on our net interest margin, which we
project will continue to improve over 2010 and 2011. In addition, we
intend to opportunistically increase our investments in long-term,
fixed-rate agency mortgage backed securities, which we believe could
present attractive returns. Further, the conversion of $41.4 million
in aggregate liquidation amount of trust preferred securities into our
common stock in June 2010 will reduce future interest expense by $3.5
million annually. |
|
|
|
|
Realignment of Loans to Deposits: We expect our core deposit base to
grow 2% to 3% per year reflecting our view of the opportunities in the
markets we serve and the overall macroeconomic environment in Michigan
in 2010 and 2011. We plan to continue our focus to realign our ratio
of loans to deposits to be approximately 95%, as set forth in federal
regulatory guidance. This compares to our loan to deposit ratios in
2008 and 2009 of 119.02% and 89.62%, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
Managed Loan Growth: We intend to continue to grow certain high
quality segments of our commercial portfolio. We expect we will be
able to grow our commercial portfolio at a rate of approximately 5% in
2011 as the environment for commercial credit underwriting improves
and we redeploy personnel to loan origination in select loan segments.
We expect to continue to make select consumer loans as market
opportunities warrant. We expect to see some further decline in
consumer loans over 2010 with stabilization and an eventual turnaround
point in mid-2011. We expect our portfolio mortgage lending volume to
continue to be modest due to our focus on originating only mortgage
loans eligible for sale in the secondary market, which are attractive
for their associated gains on sale. |
|
|
|
|
Smaller Mepco Business: We expect to continue to see payment plan
receivables run off as management continues reducing the size of this
portfolio and strategically focuses on reducing our risk exposure at
our Mepco subsidiary. We have projected outstanding payment plan
receivables to be $271.7 million and $245.3 million at December 31,
2010, and December 31, 2011, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
Modest Growth of Non-Interest Income: We expect to benefit from some
modest growth in non-interest income. While we expect service charges
on deposits to decline in 2010 and 2011 from their 2009 level due to
new legislation regarding overdraft fees, we believe we will see some
modest growth by 2012. There is additional uncertainty with respect
to interchange fee income in light of recent legislative efforts by
the federal government. See BusinessRegulatory Developments below
for additional information regarding these efforts. |
|
|
|
|
Cost Reduction Initiatives: We anticipate realizing cost savings of
$23.9 million in 2011, thus reducing our expenses by approximately 17%
over 2010. We are currently reviewing the efficiency of our operations
and exploring ways to lower our costs through a variety of
initiatives. We believe our focus to date on problem credit workouts
and our continued work on managing dispositions on a cost-effective
basis will translate into significantly lower credit related costs in
the future. We expect our credit related costs such as loan and
collection costs, losses on sale of ORE, and vehicle service contract
counterparty contingency costs to decline by approximately $20.3
million in 2011 from $32.9 million in 2010. We also expect our FDIC
insurance expense to decline modestly due to the projected expiration
of the FDIC Transaction Account Guarantee Program, or TAGP, on
December 31, 2010. We believe other potential areas of cost savings
are a reduction in occupancy and equipment costs, data processing
costs, and some reduction in salaries and benefits. However, to
motivate our personnel, we plan to partially reinstate several benefit
programs in 2011, including the reinstatement of a 401(k) match of 2%,
an ESOP contribution of 3%, threshold incentive payments, and merit
pay increases of 2%. On an aggregate basis, we expect the
reinstatement of these benefits to lead to a $5.4 million increase in
salaries and benefits in 2011 over 2010. |
|
|
|
|
No Tax Effect: Our projections do not include any provision for
federal income tax expense or benefit. We currently have a valuation
allowance against the majority of our deferred tax assets, including
net operating loss carryforwards. Reversal of the valuation allowance
will occur at such time that we determine these deferred tax assets
could be realized, but we do not expect any such reversal prior to
December 31, 2011. Our current capital raising efforts may result in
an ownership change for tax purposes, which could limit our ability to
realize some of the deferred tax assets. |
|
|
|
|
No Extraordinary Transactions. Our projections assume we will not
engage in any acquisitions, divestitures, or other transactions
outside the ordinary course of business. |
20
Our Projected Provision for Loan Losses
We have projected approximately $98 million of provision expenses between April 1, 2010 and
December 31, 2011. Taking into account various factors and current assumptions that we believe are
reasonable, including those set forth below and also described above under Our Projected
Earnings, the table below presents our current projections for provision expenses, net charge
offs, and our allowance for loan losses for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, as compared to our actual
results for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007 |
|
2008 |
|
2009 |
|
2010P |
|
2011P |
|
|
($ in millions) |
Provision expense |
|
$ |
43.2 |
|
|
$ |
71.3 |
|
|
$ |
103.0 |
|
|
$ |
73.2 |
|
|
$ |
41.9 |
|
% of Total Loans |
|
|
1.71 |
% |
|
|
2.80 |
% |
|
|
4.25 |
% |
|
|
3.86 |
% |
|
|
2.35 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Charge Offs |
|
$ |
24.7 |
|
|
$ |
58.5 |
|
|
$ |
79.5 |
|
|
$ |
80.2 |
|
|
$ |
72.2 |
|
% Loss Rate |
|
|
0.98 |
% |
|
|
2.30 |
% |
|
|
3.28 |
% |
|
|
4.24 |
% |
|
|
4.06 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance |
|
$ |
45.3 |
|
|
$ |
57.9 |
|
|
$ |
81.7 |
|
|
$ |
74.6 |
|
|
$ |
44.4 |
|
% of Loans |
|
|
1.80 |
% |
|
|
2.35 |
% |
|
|
3.55 |
% |
|
|
3.94 |
% |
|
|
2.32 |
% |
Our provision projections take into consideration the extensive internal and external analyses
performed on our loan portfolio and are established based on what we believe to be reasonable
assumptions of little to no improvement in the Michigan economy in 2010 with stabilization in 2011.
Our net charge-offs in 2007, 2008, and 2009 were $24.7 million (0.98% loss rate), $58.5
million (2.30% loss rate), and $79.5 (3.28% loss rate), respectively. We project net charge-offs to
be approximately $80.2 million (3.84% loss rate) in 2010 and $72.2 million (3.74% loss rate) in
2011.
In developing our net charge-off projections for 2010 and 2011, we followed a methodology that
predicates commercial loss projections on a probability of default (PD) and loss given default
(LGD) based on our actual historical experience during the last 12 months applied against March 31,
2010 loan balances. Another component of our commercial loan loss forecast methodology is the
inclusion of an adjustment factor that assumes further declines in the Michigan commercial real
estate market. We assume stabilization of commercial real estate values and default rates in
Michigan in 2011.
Our retail loan loss forecast for 2010 and 2011 was developed based on a segmentation analysis
of the portfolio by product type and updated FICO scores reflecting retail loan balances as of
March 31, 2010. We developed our retail loss forecast over the next 36 months utilizing both
default tables for FICO scores and our actual recent historical loss rates.
At the end of 2009, our allowance for loan and lease losses amounted to $81.7 million (3.55%
of total loans), compared to $57.9 million (2.35% of total loans) for 2008 and $45.3 million (1.80%
of total loans) in 2007. Our forecasts anticipate our allowance for loan and lease losses to be
approximately $74.6 million (3.94% of total loans) at end of 2010 and $44.4 million (2.32% of total
loans) at the end of 2011. We expect our allowance, compared to total loans, to decrease in
percentage terms in 2011 reflecting our expectations of a more normalized credit environment in
Michigan in 2011, with stabilization in real estate values, no further increase in default levels,
and a seasoning of our legacy portfolios.
Our Projected Mepco Counterparty Expenses
In addition to expected provision expenses for loan losses, we expect to incur additional
expenses at Mepco related to our counterparty exposure. We incurred $34.7 million of aggregate
counterparty expenses in 2009 and the first quarter of 2010. Taking into account various factors,
including those described above under Mepco Finance Corporation, and current assumptions that we
believe are reasonable, including those described above under Our Projected Earnings, we
currently project to incur additional expenses of $6.9 million from April 1, 2010 through the
December 31, 2011.
Corporate Information
Our principal executive offices are located at 230 West Main Street, Ionia, Michigan 48846,
and our telephone number at that address is (616) 527-5820.
Our common stock trades on The NASDAQ Global Select Market under the ticker symbol IBCP.
21
The Offering
|
|
|
Common stock offered
|
|
[] shares ([] shares if the
underwriters exercise their
over-allotment option in full). |
|
|
|
Common stock outstanding after the
offering(1), (2)
|
|
[] shares ([] shares if the
underwriters exercise their
over-allotment option in full). |
|
|
|
Net proceeds
|
|
Our estimated net proceeds from
this offering are approximately
$[] million, or approximately
$[] million if the underwriters
exercise their over-allotment
option in full, after deducting
the underwriting discounts and
commissions and other estimated
expenses of this offering. |
|
|
|
Use of proceeds
|
|
We intend to contribute all or
substantially all of the net
proceeds from this offering to
our bank to strengthen its
regulatory capital ratios. We
expect to use any remaining net
proceeds for general working
capital purposes. |
|
|
|
No dividends on common stock
|
|
We are not currently paying any
cash dividends on our common
stock and our ability to pay
cash dividends in the near term
is significantly restricted by
the factors described below. See
Dividend Policy below for more
information. |
|
|
|
Market trading
|
|
Our common stock is currently
traded on the Nasdaq Global
Select Market under the symbol
IBCP. The last reported
closing price of our common
stock on July 7, 2010, the last
trading day prior to the date of
this prospectus, was $0.35 per
share. |
|
|
|
|
|
As noted above, our common stock
is currently listed on the
Nasdaq Global Select Market.
However, on June 23, 2010, we
received a letter from The
Nasdaq Stock Market notifying us
that we no longer meet Nasdaqs
continued listing requirements
under Listing
Rule 5450(a)(1) because the bid
price for our common stock had
closed below $1.00 per share for
30 consecutive business days.
We have until December 20, 2010
to demonstrate compliance with
this bid price rule by
maintaining a minimum closing
bid price of at least $1.00 for
a minimum of 10 consecutive
business days. If we are unable
to establish compliance with the
bid price rule within such time
period, our common stock will be
subject to delisting from the
Nasdaq Global Select Market.
However, in that event, we may
be eligible for an additional
grace period by transferring our
common stock listing from the
Nasdaq Global Select Market to
the Nasdaq Capital Market. This
would require us to meet the
initial listing criteria of the
Nasdaq Capital Market, other
than with respect to the minimum
closing bid price requirement.
If we are then permitted to
transfer our listing to the
Nasdaq Capital Market, we expect
we would be granted an
additional 180 calendar day
period in which to demonstrate
compliance with the minimum bid
price rule. On April 27, 2010,
our shareholders approved a
reverse stock split. If
implemented, this reverse stock
split would likely have the
effect of raising our stock
price above the $1.00 per share
minimum; however, there is no
assurance the price would be
maintained at a level necessary
for us to meet the bid price
rule discussed above. Please
see Risk Factors below. |
|
|
|
Risk factors
|
|
See Risk Factors beginning on
page 25 and other information
included in this prospectus for
a discussion of factors you
should consider before investing
in our common stock. |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The number of our shares outstanding immediately after the closing of
this offering is based on [] shares of our common stock outstanding
as of [], 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
Unless otherwise indicated, the number of shares of common stock
stated to be outstanding in this prospectus excludes (a) [] shares
issuable upon exercise of the underwriters over-allotment option,
(b) [] shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of outstanding
stock options as of [], 2010 (with a weighted average exercise price
of $[]), (c) [] shares issuable pursuant to potential future awards
under our equity compensation plans, (d) 3,461,538 shares issuable
upon exercise of the amended and restated Warrant (as such number may
be adjusted pursuant to the terms of the amended and restated Warrant)
held by the Treasury, and (e) all shares issuable upon conversion of
our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock held by the Treasury. |
22
SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following tables set forth selected consolidated financial data for us at and for each of
the years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2009 and at and for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2010 and 2009.
The selected financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
has been derived from our audited financial statements included in this prospectus beginning on
page F-39. The selected financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 has
been derived from our audited financial statements included in our annual report on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2006.
The selected financial data as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009 has
been derived from our unaudited interim financial statements included in this prospectus beginning
on page F-2. In the opinion of our management, these financial statements reflect all necessary
adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring adjustments) for a fair presentation of the data
for those periods. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of future results and the
results for the three months ended March 31, 2010 are not necessarily indicative of our expected
results for the full year ending December 31, 2010 or any other period.
You should read this information in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and
related notes included at page F-1 below, from which this information is derived.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
($ in 000s, except per share amounts) |
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
(Audited) |
|
SUMMARY OF OPERATIONS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income |
|
$ |
41,244 |
|
|
$ |
47,565 |
|
|
$ |
189,056 |
|
|
$ |
203,736 |
|
|
$ |
223,254 |
|
|
$ |
216,895 |
|
|
$ |
193,035 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
11,213 |
|
|
|
13,218 |
|
|
|
50,533 |
|
|
|
73,587 |
|
|
|
102,663 |
|
|
|
93,698 |
|
|
|
63,099 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income |
|
|
30,031 |
|
|
|
34,347 |
|
|
|
138,523 |
|
|
|
130,149 |
|
|
|
120,591 |
|
|
|
123,197 |
|
|
|
129,936 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
17,070 |
|
|
|
30,038 |
|
|
|
103,032 |
|
|
|
71,321 |
|
|
|
43,160 |
|
|
|
16,344 |
|
|
|
7,806 |
|
Net gains (losses) on securities |
|
|
147 |
|
|
|
(581 |
) |
|
|
3,744 |
|
|
|
(14,961 |
) |
|
|
(705 |
) |
|
|
171 |
|
|
|
1,484 |
|
Other non-interest income |
|
|
11,870 |
|
|
|
12,159 |
|
|
|
54,915 |
|
|
|
44,682 |
|
|
|
47,850 |
|
|
|
44,679 |
|
|
|
41,342 |
|
Non-interest expenses |
|
|
39,079 |
|
|
|
34,191 |
|
|
|
187,587 |
|
|
|
177,150 |
|
|
|
115,724 |
|
|
|
106,216 |
|
|
|
101,785 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income tax |
|
|
(14,101 |
) |
|
|
(18,304 |
) |
|
|
(93,437 |
) |
|
|
(88,601 |
) |
|
|
8,852 |
|
|
|
45,487 |
|
|
|
63,171 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
(264 |
) |
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
(3,210 |
) |
|
|
3,063 |
|
|
|
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
11,662 |
|
|
|
17,466 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations |
|
|
(13,837 |
) |
|
|
(18,597 |
) |
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
|
|
9,955 |
|
|
|
33,825 |
|
|
|
45,705 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
(622 |
) |
|
|
1,207 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(13,837 |
) |
|
|
(18,597 |
) |
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
|
|
10,357 |
|
|
|
33,203 |
|
|
|
46,912 |
|
Preferred dividends |
|
|
1,077 |
|
|
|
1,075 |
|
|
|
4,301 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to
common stock |
|
$ |
(14,914 |
) |
|
$ |
(19,672 |
) |
|
$ |
(94,528 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,879 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
$ |
33,203 |
|
|
$ |
46,912 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PER COMMON SHARE DATA(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) per common share
from continuing operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(0.62 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.84 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
$ |
1.48 |
|
|
$ |
1.96 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
(0.62 |
) |
|
|
(0.84 |
) |
|
|
(3.96 |
) |
|
|
(4.00 |
) |
|
|
0.44 |
|
|
|
1.45 |
|
|
|
1.92 |
|
Net income (loss) per common share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(0.62 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.84 |
) |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.46 |
|
|
$ |
1.45 |
|
|
$ |
2.01 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
(0.62 |
) |
|
|
(0.84 |
) |
|
|
(3.96 |
) |
|
|
(4.00 |
) |
|
|
0.45 |
|
|
|
1.43 |
|
|
|
1.97 |
|
Cash dividends declared |
|
|
0.00 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
0.03 |
|
|
|
0.14 |
|
|
|
0.84 |
|
|
|
0.78 |
|
|
|
0.71 |
|
Book value |
|
|
1.16 |
|
|
|
4.53 |
|
|
|
1.69 |
|
|
|
5.49 |
|
|
|
10.62 |
|
|
|
11.29 |
|
|
|
10.75 |
|
23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
($ in 000s, except per share amounts) |
|
(Unaudited) |
|
|
(Audited) |
|
SELECTED BALANCES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
$ |
2,900,770 |
|
|
$ |
2,952,981 |
|
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
|
$ |
2,956,245 |
|
|
$ |
3,247,516 |
|
|
$ |
3,406,390 |
|
|
$ |
3,348,707 |
|
Loans |
|
|
2,155,598 |
|
|
|
2,446,959 |
|
|
|
2,299,372 |
|
|
|
2,459,529 |
|
|
|
2,518,330 |
|
|
|
2,459,887 |
|
|
|
2,365,176 |
|
Allowance for loan losses |
|
|
76,132 |
|
|
|
58,305 |
|
|
|
81,717 |
|
|
|
57,900 |
|
|
|
45,294 |
|
|
|
26,879 |
|
|
|
22,420 |
|
Deposits |
|
|
2,497,542 |
|
|
|
2,161,028 |
|
|
|
2,565,768 |
|
|
|
2,066,479 |
|
|
|
2,505,127 |
|
|
|
2,602,791 |
|
|
|
2,474,239 |
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
97,211 |
|
|
|
177,436 |
|
|
|
109,861 |
|
|
|
194,877 |
|
|
|
240,502 |
|
|
|
258,167 |
|
|
|
248,259 |
|
Long-term debt - FHLB advances |
|
|
122,372 |
|
|
|
276,705 |
|
|
|
94,382 |
|
|
|
314,214 |
|
|
|
261,509 |
|
|
|
63,272 |
|
|
|
81,525 |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
60,888 |
|
|
|
60,888 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SELECTED RATIOS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income to
average interest earning assets |
|
|
4.45 |
% |
|
|
5.03 |
% |
|
|
5.00 |
% |
|
|
4.48 |
% |
|
|
4.26 |
% |
|
|
4.41 |
% |
|
|
4.85 |
% |
Income (loss) from continuing
operations to(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common equity |
|
|
(184.46 |
) |
|
|
(62.73 |
) |
|
|
(90.72 |
) |
|
|
(39.01 |
) |
|
|
3.96 |
|
|
|
13.06 |
|
|
|
18.63 |
|
Average assets |
|
|
(2.06 |
) |
|
|
(2.68 |
) |
|
|
(3.17 |
) |
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
0.31 |
|
|
|
0.99 |
|
|
|
1.42 |
|
Net income (loss) to(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common equity |
|
|
(184.46 |
) |
|
|
(62.73 |
) |
|
|
(90.72 |
) |
|
|
(39.01 |
) |
|
|
4.12 |
|
|
|
12.82 |
|
|
|
19.12 |
|
Average assets |
|
|
(2.06 |
) |
|
|
(2.68 |
) |
|
|
(3.17 |
) |
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
0.97 |
|
|
|
1.45 |
|
Average shareholders equity to
average assets |
|
|
3.48 |
|
|
|
6.58 |
|
|
|
5.80 |
|
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
7.72 |
|
|
|
7.60 |
|
|
|
7.61 |
|
Tier 1 capital to average assets |
|
|
4.67 |
|
|
|
7.97 |
|
|
|
5.27 |
|
|
|
8.61 |
|
|
|
7.44 |
|
|
|
7.62 |
|
|
|
7.40 |
|
Non-performing loans to portfolio loans |
|
|
4.56 |
|
|
|
5.27 |
|
|
|
4.78 |
|
|
|
5.09 |
|
|
|
3.07 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
0.70 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Per share data has been adjusted for 5% stock dividends in 2006 and 2005. |
|
(2) |
|
These amounts are calculated using income (loss) from continuing
operations applicable to common stock and net income (loss) applicable
to common stock. |
24
RISK FACTORS
An investment in our common stock involves risks. You should carefully consider all of the
information contained in this prospectus, including the risks described below, before investing in
our common stock. The trading price of our common stock could decline due to any of these risks,
and you may lose all or part of your investment. The risk factors described in this section, as
well as any cautionary language in this prospectus, provide examples of risks, uncertainties, and
events that could have a material adverse effect on our business, including our operating results
and financial condition. This prospectus also contains forward-looking statements that involve
risks and uncertainties. These risks could cause our actual results to differ materially from the
expectations that we describe in our forward-looking statements. See Forward-Looking Statements.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS
Our results of operations, financial condition, and business may be materially and adversely
affected if we are unable to successfully implement our Capital Plan.
Our Capital Plan, which is described in more detail under Capital Plan and This Offering below,
contemplates three primary initiatives that have been undertaken in order to increase our common
equity capital, decrease our expenses, and enable us to better withstand and respond to current
market conditions and the potential for worsening market conditions. Those three initiatives are
the offer to exchange our common stock for our outstanding trust preferred securities, a conversion
of the preferred stock held by the Treasury into shares of our common stock, and a public offering
of our common stock for cash as described in this prospectus. We cannot be sure we will be able to
successfully execute on the public offering of our common stock in a timely manner or at all. The
successful implementation of our Capital Plan is, in many respects, largely out of our control as
it primarily depends on our success in this offering, which depends on factors such as the
stability of the financial markets, other macro economic conditions, and investors perception of
the ability of the Michigan economy to continue to recover from the current recession.
If we are unable to achieve the minimum capital ratios set forth in our Capital Plan in the near
future, it would likely materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, and the
value of our securities. An inability to improve our capital position would make it very difficult
for us to withstand continued losses as a result of continued economic difficulties in Michigan
and other factors, as described elsewhere in this Risk Factors section.
In addition, we believe that if we are unable to achieve the minimum capital ratios set forth in
our Capital Plan as a result of our inability to raise sufficient capital in this offering and if
our financial condition and performance otherwise fail to improve significantly, it is likely our
banks capital will fall below the levels necessary to remain well-capitalized under federal
regulatory standards during 2010. In that case, our primary bank regulators may impose regulatory
restrictions and requirements on us through a regulatory enforcement action. If our bank fails to
remain well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards, it will be prohibited from accepting or
renewing brokered deposits without the prior consent of the FDIC, which would likely have a
material adverse impact on our business and financial condition. If our regulators take
enforcement action against us, it would likely increase our expenses and could limit our business
operations, as described under Capital Plan and This Offering below. There could be other
expenses associated with a continued deterioration of our capital, such as increased deposit
insurance premiums payable to the FDIC.
Because of our financial condition at March 31, 2010, we received a letter from Fannie Mae in May
2010 advising us that we were in breach of our selling and servicing contract with Fannie Mae. The
letter states that if this breach is not remedied as evidenced by our call report as of June 30,
2010, Fannie Mae will suspend our servicing contract. The suspension of our contract with Fannie
Mae could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. We
are in discussions with Fannie Mae to address the concerns in its May 2010 letter and avoid any
suspension of our contract; however, this matter remains unresolved and the risk exists that Fannie
Mae may require us to very quickly sell or transfer mortgage servicing rights to a third party or
unilaterally strip us of such servicing rights if we cannot complete an approved transfer.
Depending on the terms of any such transaction, this forced sale or transfer of such mortgage loan
servicing rights could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and future
earnings prospects. Although we have not received any notice from Freddie Mac similar to the
notice we received from Fannie Mae, a similar type of action could be taken by Freddie Mac.
Additional restrictions would make it increasingly difficult for us to withstand the current
economic conditions, any continued deterioration in our loan portfolio, or any additional charges
related to estimated potential losses for Mepco from vehicle service contract counterparty
contingencies. We could then be required to engage in a sale or other transaction with a third
party or our bank could be placed into receivership by bank regulators. Any such event could be
expected to result in a loss of the entire value of our outstanding shares of common stock,
including any common stock issued in this offering, and it could also result in a loss of the
entire value of our outstanding trust preferred securities and preferred stock.
25
We may not achieve results similar to the financial projections contained in this prospectus.
This prospectus contains various projections and related assumptions regarding our future financial
performance and condition. These projections and assumptions were based on information about
circumstances and conditions existing as of the date of this prospectus. The projections and
estimated financial results are based on estimates and assumptions that are inherently uncertain
and, though considered reasonable by us, are subject to significant business, economic, and
competitive uncertainties and contingencies, all of which are difficult to predict and many of
which are beyond our control. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that the projected results
will be realized or that actual results will not be significantly different than projected. We do
not intend to update the projections. Neither we nor any other person or entity assumes any
responsibility for the accuracy or validity of the projections, as the projections are not, and
should not be taken as, a guarantee of our future financial performance or condition.
We have credit risk inherent in our asset portfolios, and our allowance for loan losses may not be
sufficient to cover actual loan losses, despite analyses that have been conducted (both internally
and externally by independent third parties) to assess the adequacy of our allowance.
Our loan customers may not repay their loans according to their respective terms, and the
collateral securing the payment of these loans may be insufficient to cover any losses we may
incur. We have experienced and may continue to experience significant credit losses which could
have a material adverse effect on our operating results. We make various assumptions and judgments
about the collectability of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and
the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many of
our loans. In determining the size of the allowance for loan losses, we rely on our experience and
our evaluation of current economic conditions. If our assumptions or judgments prove to be
incorrect, our current allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover certain loan losses
inherent in our loan portfolio, and adjustments may be necessary to account for different economic
conditions or adverse developments in our loan portfolio. Material additions to our allowance would
adversely impact our operating results. In addition, federal and state regulators periodically
review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses
or recognize additional loan charge-offs. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan
charge-offs required by these regulatory agencies would have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations and financial condition.
We have performed internal stress testing of our loan portfolio and resulting capital position at
March 31, 2010, using the same methodologies as used by the Federal Reserve in the Supervisory
Capital Assessment Program (SCAP). We performed the SCAP test based on our December 2008 loan
portfolio and took into account actual losses/charge-offs during 2009 and first quarter 2010. We
also engaged independent third parties to perform a stress test on each of our commercial and
retail loan portfolios. See the discussions of these analyses under Summary Recent Credit
Reviews in Advance of this Offering above for more details.
Although we have performed internal and external testing of our loan portfolio to help ensure the
adequacy of our allowance for loan losses, if the assumptions or judgments used in these analyses
prove to be incorrect, our current allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover loan
losses inherent in our loan portfolio. Material additions to our allowance would adversely impact
our operating results. In addition, federal and state regulators periodically review our allowance
for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or recognize
additional loan charge-offs, notwithstanding any internal or external analysis that has been
performed.
Our business has been and may continue to be adversely affected by current conditions in the
financial markets and economic conditions generally, and particularly by economic conditions in
Michigan.
Our success depends to a great extent upon the general economic conditions in Michigans lower
peninsula. We have in general experienced a slowing economy in Michigan since 2001. Unlike larger
banks that are more geographically diversified, we provide banking services to customers primarily
in Michigans lower peninsula. Our loan portfolio, the ability of the borrowers to repay these
loans, and the value of the collateral securing these loans will be impacted by local economic
conditions. The economic difficulties faced in Michigan have had and may continue to have many
adverse consequences, including the following:
|
|
|
Loan delinquencies may increase; |
|
|
|
|
Problem assets and foreclosures may increase; |
|
|
|
|
Demand for our products and services may decline; and |
|
|
|
|
Collateral for our loans may decline in value, in turn reducing
customers borrowing power and reducing the value of assets and
collateral associated with existing loans. |
Additionally, the overall capital and credit markets have experienced unprecedented levels of
volatility and disruption since the start of the U.S. recession. 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. As a consequence of the U.S. recession,
business activity across a wide range of industries faces serious difficulties due to the lack of
consumer spending and the extreme lack of liquidity in the global credit markets. Unemployment has
also increased significantly and may continue to increase. In particular, according to data
published by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, Michigans unemployment rate of 13.6% as of
May 2010 is the second highest among all states.
26
While we believe we have started to see some positive trends in the Michigan economy (as described
under Summary above), the general business environment has continued to have an overall adverse
effect on our business during the past year. If conditions do not show some meaningful and
sustainable improvement, our business, financial condition, and results of operations will likely
continue to be adversely affected by economic conditions.
Current market developments, particularly in real estate markets, may adversely affect our
industry, business and results of operations.
Dramatic declines in the housing market in recent years, with falling home prices and increasing
foreclosures and unemployment, have resulted in, and may continue to result in, significant
write-downs of asset values by us and other financial institutions. These write-downs have caused
many financial institutions to seek additional capital, to merge with larger and stronger
institutions and, in some cases, to fail. As a result of these conditions, many lenders and
institutional investors have reduced, and in some cases ceased to provide, funding to borrowers
including financial institutions.
Although we believe the Michigan economy has shown signs of stabilization recently (as described
under Summary above), it is possible conditions will not stabilize or recover at or even close to
the pace expected.
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 lack of available credit, lack of
confidence in the financial sector, increased volatility in the financial markets, and reduced
business activity could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and
results of operations.
Further negative market developments may continue to negatively affect consumer confidence levels
and may continue to contribute to increases in delinquencies and default rates, which may impact
our charge-offs and provisions for credit losses. A worsening of these conditions would likely
exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us and others in the
financial services industry.
Events in the vehicle service contract industry over the past year have increased our credit risk
and reputation risk and could expose us to further significant losses.
One of our subsidiaries, Mepco, is engaged in the business of acquiring and servicing payment plans
for consumers who purchase vehicle service contracts and similar products. The receivables
generated in this business involve a different, and generally higher, level of risk of delinquency
or collection than generally associated with the loan portfolios of our bank. Upon cancellation of
the payment plans acquired by Mepco (whether due to voluntary cancellation by the consumer or
non-payment), the third party entities that provide the service contracts or other products to
consumers become obligated to refund Mepco the unearned portion of the sales price previously
funded by Mepco. The refund obligations of these counterparties are not fully secured.
In addition, several of these providers, including the counterparty described in the next risk
factor below and other companies from which Mepco has purchased payment plans, have been sued or
are under investigation for alleged violations of telemarketing laws and other consumer protection
laws. The actions have been brought primarily by state attorneys general and the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) but there have also been class action and other private lawsuits filed. In some
cases, the companies have been placed into receivership, filed bankruptcy, or discontinued their
business. In addition, the allegations, particularly those relating to blatantly abusive
telemarketing practices by a relatively small number of marketers, have resulted in a significant
amount of negative publicity that has adversely affected and may in the future continue to
adversely affect sales and customer cancellations of purchased products throughout the industry,
which have already been negatively impacted by the economic recession. It is possible these events
could also cause federal or state lawmakers to enact legislation to further regulate the industry.
These events have had and may continue to have an adverse impact on Mepco in several ways. First,
we face increased risk with respect to certain counterparties defaulting in their contractual
obligations to Mepco which could result in additional charges for losses if these counterparties go
out of business. In 2009 and in the first quarter of 2010, we recorded $31.2 million and $3.4
million of charges, respectively, related to estimated potential losses for vehicle service
contract counterparty contingencies. We may incur similar charges in the future. In addition to
these potential losses, the recent events within the vehicle service contract industry have
negatively affected sales and customer cancellations, which has had and is expected to continue to
have a negative impact on the profitability of Mepcos business. Largely as a result of these
events, at the end of 2009, we wrote down all of the $16.7 million of goodwill associated with
Mepco that was being carried on our balance sheet. In addition, if any federal or state
investigation is expanded to include finance companies such as Mepco, Mepco will face additional
legal and other expenses in connection with any such investigation. An increased level of private
actions in which Mepco is named as a defendant will also cause Mepco to incur additional legal
expenses as well as potential liability. Finally, Mepco has incurred and will likely continue to
incur additional legal and other expenses, in general, in dealing with these industry problems,
including efforts to collect amounts owed to Mepco by its counterparties.
27
Mepco has significant exposure to a single counterparty that recently filed bankruptcy. The
charges we have taken for expected losses related to the failure of this counterparty have had a
material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. If actual losses
exceed the charges we have taken, we may incur additional losses that could be material.
Approximately 40% of Mepcos current outstanding payment plans were purchased from a single
counterparty. Beginning in the second half of 2009, this counterparty experienced decreased sales
(and ceased all new sales in December 2009) and significantly increased levels of customer
cancellations. Customer cancellations trigger an obligation of this counterparty to repay us the
unearned portion of the sales price for the
payment plan previously advanced by us to this counterparty. In addition, this counterparty is
subject to a multi-state attorney general investigation regarding certain of its business practices
and multiple civil lawsuits. These events have increased costs for this counterparty, putting
further pressure on its cash flow and profitability. This counterparty filed for bankruptcy on
March 1, 2010.
Mepco is actively working to reduce its credit exposure to this counterparty. The amount of payment
plan receivables (formerly referred to as finance receivables) purchased from this counterparty and
outstanding at May 31, 2010 totaled approximately $110.8 million (compared to approximately $147.1
million at March 31, 2010, and $206.1 million at December 31, 2009). In addition, as of May 31,
2010, this counterparty owed Mepco $34.6 million for previously cancelled payment plans. The
bankruptcy filing by this counterparty is likely to lead to substantial potential losses as this
entity will not be in a position to honor its obligations to Mepco for previously cancelled payment
plans and outstanding payment plans that cancel prior to payment in full. Mepco will seek to
recover amounts owed by this counterparty from various co-obligors and guarantors and through the
liquidation of certain collateral held by Mepco. However, we are not certain as to the amount of
any such recoveries. In 2009, Mepco recorded an aggregate $19.0 million expense (as part of
vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense that is included in non-interest
expense) to establish a reserve for losses related to this counterparty. In 2010, this reserve
was increased by approximately $0.5 million due primarily to actual payment plan cancellation rates
being slightly higher than what was originally projected. In calculating the amount of the reserve
in 2009, we took into account the significant likelihood that this counterparty would file for
bankruptcy protection. As a result, we currently do not expect to materially increase the amount
of our reserve solely as a result of the bankruptcy filing. However, Mepco has committed to
provide financing to this counterparty while it is in bankruptcy of up to an aggregate of
approximately $4 million. This was done as part of Mepcos overall efforts to minimize the loss
associated with this counterparty. At June 30, 2010, approximately $2.8 million of the $4 million
commitment had been advanced. We believe the orderly wind-down of this counterpartys business is
critical as it allows this counterparty to continue providing customer service to consumers to whom
it sold vehicle service contracts. As described in the following risk factor, there is a risk that
the reserves we have established related to the failure of this counterparty will not be
sufficient to absorb the actual losses we may incur.
The assumptions we make in calculating estimated potential losses for Mepco may be inaccurate,
which could lead to losses that are materially greater than the charges we have taken to date.
We make a number of key assumptions in calculating the estimated potential losses for Mepco,
including the likelihood that a counterparty could discontinue its business operations, the
cancellation rates for outstanding payment plans, the value of and our ability to collect any
collateral securing the amounts owed to Mepco upon cancellation of outstanding payment plans, and
our ability to collect such amounts from other counterparties obligated to Mepco. It is only
within the approximately past 12 months that events have occurred that have led to a significant
increase in vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense. The aggregate amount of
vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense recorded in past years has grown from
$0 in 2007, to $1.0 million in 2008, to $31.2 million in 2009 (and was $3.4 million during the
first quarter of 2010). As a result, Mepco does not have much historical data to draw from in
making the assumptions necessary to predict probable incurred losses (such as the ability to
successfully recover from service contract administrators amounts funded by Mepco to the service
contract seller). If actual cancellation rates are higher than we estimated or if actual
counterparty repayments are less than we estimated, the amount of our reserves may be insufficient
to cover our actual losses, and the additional losses we incur could be significant. Moreover, we
may be forced to bring suit against counterparties in order to collect amounts owed to Mepco, which
adds further uncertainty to our assumptions. These assumptions are very difficult to make, and
actual events could be materially different from any one or more of our assumptions. In that case,
we may incur additional, and possibly material, losses in excess of the charges we have taken.
Mepco has historically contributed a meaningful amount of profit to our consolidated results of
operations, but we expect the size of its business to shrink significantly in 2010 and beyond.
For 2008 and 2007, Mepco had net income of $10.7 million and $5.5 million, respectively. With the
counterparty losses experienced by Mepco late in 2009 (including those related to the counterparty
described above) and a $16.7 million goodwill impairment charge, Mepco incurred an $11.7 million
loss in 2009. For the first quarter of 2010, Mepco reported net income of $0.7 million.
As of March 31, 2010, the net payment plan receivables held by Mepco represented approximately
11.7% of our consolidated assets (down from 13.7% at December 31, 2009 and as high as 15.0% at July
31, 2009). As a result of the loss of business with the counterparty described above as well as our
desire to reduce payment plan receivables as a percentage of total assets, we expect Mepcos total
earning assets to decrease by approximately 50% in 2010 over the 2009 year-end level. As a result,
the reduction in the size of Mepcos business will adversely affect our financial results as
compared to our historical results and make it more difficult for us to be profitable on a
consolidated basis in the
28
near future. Historically, Mepco has had a significant positive impact
on our net interest margin. Without Mepco, our net interest margin would have been lower by
approximately 0.65%, 1.40%, and 1.25% in 2008, 2009, and the first quarter of 2010, respectively.
As the size of Mepcos business shrinks, it will have a negative impact on our net interest margin.
We are considering strategic options for Mepco, which could include a sale or wind-down of this
business.
Mepcos business is highly specialized and presents unique operational and internal control
challenges.
Mepco faces unique operational and internal control challenges due to the relatively rapid turnover
of its portfolio and high volume of new payment plans. Mepcos business is highly specialized, and
its success depends largely on the continued services of its executives and other
key employees familiar with its business. In addition, because financing in this market is
conducted primarily through relationships with unaffiliated automobile service contract direct
marketers and administrators and because the customers are located nationwide, risk management and
general supervisory oversight is generally more difficult than in our bank. The risk of third party
fraud is also higher as a result of these factors. Acts of fraud are difficult to detect and deter,
and we cannot assure investors that the risk management procedures and controls will prevent losses
from fraudulent activity. Although we have an internal control system at Mepco, we may be exposed
to the risk of material loss in this business.
Our operations may be adversely affected if we are unable to secure adequate funding. Our use of
wholesale funding sources exposes us to liquidity risk and potential earnings volatility.
We rely on wholesale funding, including Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings, brokered deposits, and
Federal Reserve Bank borrowings, to augment our core deposits to fund our business. As of
March 31, 2010, our use of such wholesale funding sources amounted to approximately $680.6 million
or 25.6% of total funding. Because wholesale funding sources are affected by general market
conditions, the availability of funding from wholesale lenders may be dependent on the confidence
these investors have in our commercial and consumer banking operations. The continued availability
to us of these funding sources is uncertain, and brokered deposits may be difficult for us to
retain or replace at attractive rates as they mature. Our liquidity will be constrained if we are
unable to renew our wholesale funding sources or if adequate financing is not available in the
future at acceptable rates of interest or at all. We may not have sufficient liquidity to continue
to fund new loans, and we may need to liquidate loans or other assets unexpectedly, in order to
repay obligations as they mature.
The constraint on our liquidity would be exacerbated if we were to experience a reduction in our
core deposits, and we cannot be sure we will be able to maintain our current level of core
deposits. In particular, those deposits that are currently uninsured or those deposits in the
TAGP, which is set to expire on December 31, 2010 for participating institutions that have not
opted out, may be particularly susceptible to outflow. At March 31, 2010, $1.423 billion of our
deposits (compared to $1.394 billion at December 31, 2009), were in account types from which the
customer could withdraw the funds on demand.
As a result of these liquidity risks, we have increased our level of overnight cash balances in
interest-bearing accounts to $323.5 million at March 31, 2010 from $223.5 million at December 31,
2009 and $7.2 million at March 31, 2009. We have also issued longer-term (two to five year)
callable brokered CDs and reduced certain secured borrowings (such as from the Federal Reserve) to
increase available funding sources. We believe these actions will assist us in meeting our
liquidity needs during 2010. However, these actions have had (in the first quarter of 2010) and
are expected to continue to have an adverse impact on our 2010 net interest income and net interest
margin. Net interest income totaled $30.0 million during the first quarter of 2010, which
represents a $4.3 million or 12.6% decrease from the comparable quarter in 2009. The decrease in
net interest income in 2010 compared to 2009 reflects a 58 basis point decline in our net interest
margin as well as a $28.5 million decrease in average interest-earning assets.
In addition, if we fail to remain well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards, which is
likely if we are unable to successfully implement our Capital Plan (as discussed under Capital
Plan and This Offering below), we will be prohibited from accepting or renewing brokered deposits
without the prior consent of the FDIC. As of March 31, 2010, we had brokered deposits of
approximately $523 million. Approximately $86 million of these brokered deposits mature by March
31, 2011. As a result, any such restrictions on our ability to access brokered deposits is likely
to have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition.
Moreover, we cannot be sure we will be able to maintain our current level of core deposits. Our
deposit customers could move their deposits in reaction to media reports about bank failures in
general or, particularly, if we are unable to successfully complete our Capital Plan. A reduction
in core deposits would increase our need to rely on wholesale funding sources, at a time when our
ability to do so may be more restricted, as described above.
Our financial performance will be materially and adversely affected if we are unable to maintain
our access to funding or if we are required to rely more heavily on more expensive funding sources.
In such case, our net interest income and results of operations would be adversely affected.
29
Dividends being deferred on our outstanding trust preferred securities and our outstanding
preferred stock are accumulating as a liability on our balance sheet, and this liability is
expected to continue to increase as we have no current plans to resume such dividend payments at
any time in the near future.
We are currently deferring payment of quarterly dividends on our preferred stock held by the
Treasury, which pays cumulative dividends quarterly at a rate of 5% per annum through February 14,
2014, and 9% per annum thereafter. In addition, we have exercised our right to defer all quarterly
interest payments on the subordinated debentures we issued to our trust subsidiaries. As a result,
all quarterly dividends on the related trust preferred securities are also being deferred. We may
defer such interest payments for a total of 20 consecutive calendar quarters without causing an
event of default under the documents governing these securities. After such period, we must pay
all deferred interest and resume quarterly interest payments or we will be in default.
We do not have any current plans to resume dividend payments on our outstanding trust preferred
securities or our outstanding preferred stock. If and when either of such payments resume,
however, the accrued amounts must be paid and made current. As of June 30, 2010, the amount of
these accrued but unpaid dividends on our outstanding trust preferred securities and our
outstanding Series B Convertible Preferred Stock was $20.0 million.
We face uncertainty with respect to legislative efforts by the federal government to help stabilize
the U.S. financial system, address problems that caused the recent crisis in the U.S. financial
markets, or otherwise regulate the financial services industry.
Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2008, the federal government enacted new laws intended to
strengthen and restore confidence in the U.S. financial system. See BusinessRegulatory
Developments below for additional information regarding these developments. There can be no
assurance, however, as to the actual impact that such programs will have on the financial markets,
including the extreme levels of volatility and limited credit availability currently being
experienced. The failure of these and other programs to stabilize the financial markets and a
continuation or worsening of depressed 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.
In addition, additional legislation or regulations may be adopted in the future that could
adversely impact us. For example, on May 20, 2010, the U.S. Senate passed a bill, a version of
which the U.S. House of Representatives passed in December 2009, that proposes broad changes to the
U.S. financial system. As released on June 25, 2010, the reconciled version of the bill or
conference report, now known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,
includes the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with power to promulgate and,
with respect to financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, enforce consumer
protection laws, the creation of a Financial Stability Oversight Council chaired by the Secretary
of the Treasury with authority to identify institutions and practices that might pose a systemic
risk, provisions affecting corporate governance and executive compensation of all companies whose
securities are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission, a provision that would
broaden the base for FDIC insurance assessments, a provision under which interchange fees for debit
cards would be set by the Federal Reserve under a restrictive reasonable and proportional cost
per transaction standard, a provision that would require bank regulators to set minimum capital
levels for bank holding companies that are as strong as those required for their insured depository
subsidiaries, subject to a grandfather clause for financial institutions with less than $15 billion
in assets as of December 31, 2009, and new restrictions on how mortgage brokers and loan
originators may be compensated. On June 30, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This legislation, if enacted into law,
as well as other similar federal initiatives could have a material adverse impact on our business.
We have credit risk inherent in our securities portfolio.
We maintain diversified securities portfolios, which include obligations of the Treasury and
government-sponsored agencies as well as securities issued by states and political subdivisions,
mortgage-backed securities, and asset-backed securities. We also invest in capital securities,
which include preferred stocks and trust preferred securities. We seek to limit credit losses in
our securities portfolios by generally purchasing only highly rated securities (rated AA or
higher by a major debt rating agency) or by conducting significant due diligence on the issuer for
unrated securities. However, gross unrealized losses on securities available for sale in our
portfolio totaled approximately $7 million as of March 31, 2010 (compared to approximately $10
million as of December 31, 2009). We believe these unrealized losses are temporary in nature and
are expected to be recovered within a reasonable time period as we believe we have the ability to
hold the securities to maturity or until such time as the unrealized losses reverse. However, we
evaluate securities available for sale for other than temporary impairment (OTTI) at least
quarterly and more frequently when economic or market concerns warrant such evaluation. Those
evaluations may result in OTTI charges to our earnings. In addition to these impairment charges,
we may, in the future, experience additional losses in our securities portfolio which may result in
charges that could materially adversely affect our results of operations.
Our mortgage-banking revenues are susceptible to substantial variations dependent largely upon
factors that we do not control, such as market interest rates.
A portion of our revenues are derived from gains on the sale of real estate mortgage loans. For
first quarter 2010 and the year 2009, these gains represented over 3% and over 4% of our total
revenues, respectively. These net gains primarily depend on the volume of loans we sell, which
30
in
turn depends on our ability to originate real estate mortgage loans and the demand for fixed-rate
obligations and other loans that are outside of our established interest-rate risk parameters. Net
gains on real estate mortgage loans are also dependent upon economic and competitive
factors as well as our ability to effectively manage exposure to changes in interest rates.
Consequently, they can often be a volatile part of our overall revenues.
Fluctuations in interest rates could reduce our profitability.
We realize income primarily from the difference between interest earned on loans and investments
and the interest paid on deposits and borrowings. Our interest income and interest expense are
affected by general economic conditions and by the policies of regulatory authorities. While we
have taken measures intended to manage the risks of operating in a changing interest rate
environment, there can be no assurance that these measures will be effective in avoiding undue
interest rate risk. We expect that we will periodically experience gaps in the interest rate
sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities
will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or
vice versa. In either event, if market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this
gap will work against us, and our earnings may be negatively affected.
We are unable to predict fluctuations of market interest rates, which are affected by, among other
factors, changes in the following:
|
|
|
inflation or deflation rates; |
|
|
|
|
levels of business activity; |
|
|
|
|
recession; |
|
|
|
|
unemployment levels; |
|
|
|
|
money supply; |
|
|
|
|
domestic or foreign events; and |
|
|
|
|
instability in domestic and foreign financial markets. |
Changes in accounting standards could impact our reported earnings.
Financial accounting and reporting standards are periodically changed by the Financial Accounting
Standards Board (FASB), the SEC, and other regulatory authorities. Such changes affect how we are
required to prepare and report our consolidated financial statements. These changes are often hard
to predict and may materially impact our reported financial condition and results of operations. In
some cases, we may be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in the
restatement of prior period financial statements.
In particular, in May 2010, the FASB issued an exposure draft of a proposed accounting standards
update that would materially affect the accounting for financial instruments. The proposed
accounting changes would force us to use market prices to value almost all of our financial
instruments (mark-to-market), including our loan portfolio, and record any changes on our balance
sheet. Our loans (other than certain mortgage loans intended for sale into the secondary market)
are recorded on our balance sheet at their amortized or historical cost. If these proposed
accounting changes are implemented, it would likely have a material adverse effect on our business.
We rely heavily on our management team, and the unexpected loss of key managers may adversely
affect our operations and the ability to implement our Capital Plan and business strategies.
The continuity of our operations is influenced strongly by our ability to attract and to retain
senior management experienced in banking and financial services. Our ability to retain executive
officers and the current management teams of each of our lines of business will continue to be
important to successful implementation of our Capital Plan and our strategies. We do not have
employment or non-compete agreements with any of our executives or other key employees. In
addition, we face restrictions on our ability to compensate our executives as a result of our
participation in the CPP under TARP. Many of our competitors do not face these same restrictions.
The unexpected loss of services of any key management personnel, or the inability to recruit and
retain qualified personnel in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our business and
financial results.
Competition with other financial institutions could adversely affect our profitability.
We face vigorous competition from banks and other financial institutions, including savings banks,
finance companies, and credit unions. A number of these banks and other financial institutions have
substantially greater resources and lending limits, larger branch systems, and a wider array of
banking services. To a limited extent, we also compete with other providers of financial services,
such as money market mutual funds, brokerage firms, consumer finance companies, and insurance
companies, which are not subject to the same degree of regulation as that imposed on bank holding
companies. As a result, these non-bank competitors may have an advantage over us in providing
certain services, and this competition may reduce or limit our margins on banking services, reduce
our market share, and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
31
Even if we are successful in raising capital in this offering, we will face challenges in our
ability to achieve future growth in the near term.
Our current capital position has prevented us from pursuing any meaningful growth initiatives, and
we have taken actions to shrink our balance sheet. If we are successful in raising at least $100
million of net proceeds in this offering and otherwise restoring our capital levels in accordance
with the targets established in our Capital Plan, we believe we will be well-positioned to take
advantage of growth opportunities that strategically make sense for our core banking franchise,
particularly opportunities created as a result of competitive entities exiting or reducing their
resources in the Michigan market. However, we cannot be sure that these opportunities will exist
or that we will have sufficient capital or other resources to effectively pursue them. In
addition, other competitors may have the same strategy, which may prevent us from realizing these
opportunities or may increase our costs of pursuing these opportunities. These factors and others
may impede our ability to effectively deploy capital raised in this offering and achieve growth in
the near term.
We operate in a highly regulated environment and may be adversely affected by changes in federal
and local laws and regulations.
We are generally subject to extensive regulation, supervision, and examination by federal and state
banking authorities. The burden of regulatory compliance has increased under current legislation
and banking regulations and is likely to continue to have a significant impact on the financial
services industry. Recent legislative and regulatory changes as well as changes in regulatory
enforcement policies and capital adequacy guidelines are likely to increase our cost of doing
business. In addition, future legislative or regulatory changes could have a substantial impact on
us. Additional legislation and regulations may be enacted or adopted in the future that could
significantly affect our powers, authority, and operations; increase our costs of doing business;
and, as a result, give an advantage to our competitors who may not be subject to similar
legislative and regulatory requirements. Further, regulators have significant discretion and power
to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of laws by banks and bank holding
companies in the performance of their supervisory and enforcement duties. The exercise of
regulatory power may have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition.
There have been numerous media reports about bank failures, which we expect will continue as
additional banks fail. These reports have created concerns among certain of our customers,
particularly those with deposit balances in excess of deposit insurance limits.
We have proactively sought to provide appropriate information to our deposit customers about our
organization in order to retain our business and deposit relationships. To date, we have not
experienced a meaningful loss of core deposits, nor have we had to offer above market interest
rates in order to retain our core deposits. However, we cannot be sure we will continue to be
successful in maintaining the majority of our core deposit base. The outflow of significant
amounts of deposits could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity and results of
operations.
Increases in FDIC insurance premiums may have a material adverse effect on our earnings.
As an FDIC-insured institution, we are required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the
FDIC. Due to higher levels of bank failures beginning in 2008, the FDIC has taken numerous steps
to restore reserve ratios of the deposit insurance fund. Our deposit insurance expense increased
substantially in 2009 compared to prior periods, reflecting higher rates and a special assessment
of $1.4 million in the second quarter of 2009. This industry-wide special assessment was equal to
5 basis points on our total assets less our Tier 1 capital. In addition, our balance of total
deposits increased during 2009. During 2007, we fully utilized the assessment credits that reduced
our expense during that year.
Under the FDICs risk-based assessment system for deposit insurance premiums, all insured
depository institutions are placed into one of four categories and assessed insurance premiums
based primarily on their level of capital and supervisory evaluations. Insurance assessments
ranged from 0.12% to 0.50% of total deposits for the first quarter 2009 assessment. Effective
April 1, 2009, insurance assessments ranged from 0.07% to 0.78%, depending on an institutions risk
classification and other factors. As a result, our deposit insurance expense will increase if our
financial condition worsens and our Tier 1 capital continues to deteriorate. The amount of deposit
insurance that we are required to pay is also subject to factors outside of our control, including
bank failures and regulatory initiatives. Such increases may adversely affect our results of
operations.
RISKS RELATED TO OUR EFFORTS TO RAISE CAPITAL
If successful, the initiatives set forth in our Capital Plan will be highly dilutive to our
existing common shareholders.
Our Capital Plan contemplates capital raising initiatives that involve the issuance of a
significant number of shares of our common stock. You should read Capitalization and Capital
Plan and This Offering below for more information. The completion of any of these capital raising
transactions will be highly dilutive to our existing common shareholders and their voting power.
The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of the dilutive effect of the
capital raising transactions we may enter into or the perception that such transactions could
occur.
32
The capital raising initiatives we are pursuing would result in the Treasury or one or more private
investors owning a significant percentage of our stock and having the ability to exert significant
influence over our management and operations.
One of the primary capital raising initiatives set forth in our Capital Plan consists of the
conversion of the preferred stock held by the Treasury into shares of our common stock.
As described under Capital Plan and This Offering below, the Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock currently held by the Treasury is convertible into shares of our common stock. Any such
conversion is likely to result in the Treasury owning a significant percentage of our outstanding
common stock, perhaps over 50%.
Except with respect to certain Designated Matters, Treasury has agreed in the Exchange Agreement to
vote all shares of our common stock acquired upon conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock or upon exercise of the amended and restated Warrant that are beneficially owned by it and
its controlled affiliates in the same proportion (for, against or abstain) as all other shares of
our common stock are voted. Designated Matters means (i) the election and removal of our
directors, (ii) the approval of any merger, consolidation or similar transaction that requires the
approval of our shareholders, (iii) the approval of a sale of all or substantially all of our
assets or property, (iv) the approval of our dissolution, (v) the approval of any issuance of any
of our securities on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, (vi) the approval of any
amendment to our organizational documents on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, and (vii)
the approval of any other matters reasonably incidental to the foregoing as determined by the
Treasury.
It is also possible that one or more investors, other than the Treasury, could end up as the owner
of a significant portion of our common stock. This could occur, for example, if the Treasury
transfers shares of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock it holds or, upon conversion of such
stock, transfers to a third party the common stock issued upon conversion. It also could occur if
one or more large investors makes a significant investment in our common stock in this offering.
Subject to the voting limitations applicable to the Treasury and its controlled affiliates
described above, any such significant shareholder could exercise significant influence on matters
submitted to our shareholders for approval, including the election of directors. In addition,
having a significant shareholder could make future transactions more difficult or even impossible
to complete without the support of such shareholder, whose interests may not coincide with
interests of smaller shareholders. These possibilities could have an adverse effect on the market
price of our common stock.
In addition to the foregoing, the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock we issued to the Treasury
contains a provision that automatically increases the size of our board of directors by two persons
and allows the Treasury to fill the two new director positions at such time, if any, as dividends
payable on the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have not been paid for an aggregate of six
quarterly dividend periods or more, whether or not consecutive. We are currently deferring
quarterly dividends on the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. If we continue to defer dividends
each quarter, the Treasury would have the right to appoint these two directors beginning in
approximately August 2011. Assuming we are successful in raising capital in this offering, we
intend to exercise our right to convert the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock held by the
Treasury into shares of our common stock immediately after this offering. However, if we are
unable to do so for any reason, this risk of the Treasury having the right to appoint two directors
to our board will continue.
We expect that the sale of our common stock in this offering will trigger an ownership change under
federal tax law that will negatively affect our ability to utilize net operating loss carryforwards
and other deferred tax assets in the future.
As of March 31, 2010, we had a federal net operating loss carryforward of approximately
$53.5 million. Under federal tax law, our ability to utilize this carryforward and other deferred
tax assets is limited if we are deemed to experience a change of ownership pursuant to Section 382
of the Internal Revenue Code. This would result in our loss of the benefit of these deferred tax
assets. Please see the more detailed discussion of these tax rules under Results of Operations -
Income Tax Expense (Benefit) below.
We will retain broad discretion in using the net proceeds from this offering.
We intend to contribute all or substantially all of the net proceeds from this offering to our bank
to strengthen its regulatory capital ratios. We expect to use any remaining net proceeds for
general working capital purposes, which may include repaying certain of our funding obligations,
and business acquisitions and combinations. Accordingly, our management will retain broad
discretion to allocate the net proceeds of this offering. Our management may use the proceeds for
corporate purposes that may not increase our market value or make us more profitable. In addition,
it may take us some time to effectively deploy the proceeds from this offering. Until the proceeds
are effectively deployed, our return on equity and earnings per share may be adversely impacted.
Managements failure to use the net proceeds of this offering effectively could have a material
adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
33
RISKS RELATED TO THE MARKET PRICE AND VALUE OF THE COMMON STOCK OFFERED
You may not receive dividends on the shares of common stock you purchase in this offering at any
time in the near future.
Holders of our common stock are only entitled to receive such dividends as our board of directors
may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. We are currently prohibited from
paying any cash dividends on our common stock. Even when such prohibitions end (which we do not
expect to occur in the near term, even upon completion of the offering described in this
prospectus), there are restrictions on our
ability to pay cash dividends that will likely continue to materially limit our ability to pay cash
dividends. We cannot provide any assurances of when we may pay cash dividends in the future.
Furthermore, our common shareholders are subject to the prior dividend rights of any holders of our
preferred stock. See Dividend Policy below for more information.
The trading price of our common stock may be subject to continued significant fluctuations and
volatility.
The market price of our common stock could be subject to significant fluctuations due to, among
other things:
|
|
|
actual or anticipated quarterly fluctuations in our operating and financial results, particularly if such results vary
from the expectations of management, securities analysts, and investors, including with respect to further loan losses
or vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expenses we may incur; |
|
|
|
|
announcements regarding significant transactions in which we may engage, including this offering and the other
initiatives that are part of our Capital Plan; |
|
|
|
|
market assessments regarding such transactions, including the timing, terms, and likelihood of success of this offering; |
|
|
|
|
developments relating to litigation or other proceedings that involve us; |
|
|
|
|
changes or perceived changes in our operations or business prospects; |
|
|
|
|
legislative or regulatory changes affecting our industry generally or our businesses and operations; |
|
|
|
|
the failure of general market and economic conditions to stabilize and recover, particularly with respect to economic
conditions in Michigan, and the pace of any such stabilization and recovery; |
|
|
|
|
the possible delisting of our common stock from Nasdaq or perceptions regarding the likelihood of such delisting; |
|
|
|
|
the operating and share price performance of companies that investors consider to be comparable to us; |
|
|
|
|
future offerings by us of debt, preferred stock, or trust preferred securities, each of which would be senior to our
common stock upon liquidation and for purposes of dividend distributions; |
|
|
|
|
actions of our current shareholders, including future sales of common stock by existing shareholders and our directors
and executive officers; and |
|
|
|
|
other changes in U.S. or global financial markets, economies, and market conditions, such as interest or foreign
exchange rates, stock, commodity, credit or asset valuations or volatility. |
Stock markets in general, and our common stock in particular, have experienced significant
volatility since October 2007 and continue to experience significant price and volume volatility.
As a result, the market price of our common stock, which has ranged
from $0.34 per share to
$14.12 per share during this period, may continue to be subject to similar market fluctuations that
may or may not be related to our operating performance or prospects. Increased volatility could
result in a decline in the market price of our common stock.
In addition, on April 27, 2010, our shareholders approved a 1-for-10 reverse stock split. If
implemented, such reverse stock split could have a significant effect on the market price of our
common stock. The primary objective of the reverse stock split is to raise the per share trading
price of the Companys common stock sufficiently above the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement
imposed by Nasdaq listing standards so that our common stock can continue to be listed on the
Nasdaq Global Select Market. However, there is no assurance that, if made effective, the reverse
stock split will result in our ability to comply with the Nasdaq minimum bid price rule in the long
term.
We urge you to obtain current market quotations for our common stock when you consider this
offering.
34
Our common stock trading volumes may not provide adequate liquidity for investors.
Shares of our common stock are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market; however, the average
daily trading volume in our common stock is less than that of many larger financial services
companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity, and
orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of a sufficient number of willing buyers and
sellers of the common stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions
of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. This
capital offering is likely to positively impact the liquidity in our common stock; however, we
cannot be sure this expectation will materialize. Given the current daily average trading volume
of our common stock, if there is no change in liquidity as a result of this offering, significant
sales of our common stock in a brief period of time, or the expectation of these sales, could cause
a decline in the price of the stock.
Our common stock could be delisted from Nasdaq.
Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. However, on June 23,
2010, we received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market notifying us that we no longer meet
Nasdaqs continued listing requirements under Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) because the bid price for our
common stock had closed below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days. We have until
December 20, 2010 to demonstrate compliance with this bid price rule by maintaining a minimum
closing bid price of at least $1.00 for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days. If we are
unable to establish compliance with the bid price rule within such time period, our common stock
will be subject to delisting from the Nasdaq Global Select Market. However, in that event, we may
be eligible for an additional grace period by transferring our common stock listing from the Nasdaq
Global Select Market to the Nasdaq Capital Market. This would require us to meet the initial
listing criteria of the Nasdaq Capital Market, other than with respect to the minimum closing bid
price requirement. If we are then permitted to transfer our listing to the Nasdaq Capital Market,
we expect we would be granted an additional 180 calendar day period in which to demonstrate
compliance with the minimum bid price rule.
The delisting of our common stock from Nasdaq, whether in connection with the foregoing or as a
result of our future inability to meet any listing standards, would have an adverse effect on the
liquidity of our common stock and, as a result, the market price of our common stock might become
more volatile. Even the perception that our common stock may be delisted could affect its
liquidity and market price. Delisting could also make it more difficult to raise additional
capital.
If our common stock is delisted from the Nasdaq, it is likely that quotes for our common stock
would continue to be available on the OTC Bulletin Board or on the Pink Sheets. However, these
alternatives are generally considered to be less efficient markets and it is likely that the
liquidity of our common stock as well as our stock price would be adversely impacted as a result.
One of the proposals voted upon at our annual meeting of shareholders on April 27, 2010 was a
proposal to amend our Articles of Incorporation to effect a one 1-for-10 reverse split of our
common stock. The primary objective of the reverse stock split is to raise the per share trading
price of the Companys common stock sufficiently above the $1.00 minimum bid price requirement for
continued listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Although our shareholders authorized this
amendment to our Articles of Incorporation, there can be no assurance that, if made effective, the
reverse stock split will result in our ability to comply or thereafter maintain compliance with the
Nasdaq minimum bid price rule. We have not yet made a determination as to whether or when to
implement this reverse stock split.
Any future offerings of debt, preferred stock, or trust preferred securities, each of which would
be senior to our common stock upon liquidation and for purposes of dividend distributions, and any
future equity offerings may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
We may attempt to increase our capital resources, or we or our bank could be forced by federal and
state bank regulators to raise additional capital, by making additional offerings of debt or
preferred equity securities, including medium-term notes, trust preferred securities, senior or
subordinated notes and preferred stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares
of preferred stock and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive distributions of our
available assets prior to the holders of our outstanding shares of common stock. Additional equity
offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing shareholders or reduce the market price of our
common stock, or both. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other
protections against dilution.
Our board of directors is authorized to issue one or more classes or series of preferred stock from
time to time without any action on the part of our shareholders. Our board of directors also has
the power, without shareholder approval, to set the terms of any such classes or series of
preferred stock that may be issued, including voting rights, dividend rights, and preferences over
our common stock with respect to dividends or upon our dissolution, winding-up and liquidation and
other terms. Therefore, if we issue preferred stock in the future that has a preference over our
common stock with respect to the payment of dividends or upon our liquidation, dissolution, or
winding up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of our
common stock, the rights of holders of our common stock or the market price of our common stock
could be adversely affected.
35
Our Articles of Incorporation as well as certain banking laws may have an anti-takeover effect.
Provisions of our Articles of Incorporation and certain federal banking laws, including regulatory
approval requirements, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing
so would be perceived to be beneficial to our shareholders. The combination of these provisions may
inhibit a non-negotiated merger or other business combination, which, in turn, could adversely
affect the market price of our common stock.
Investors could become subject to regulatory restrictions upon ownership of our common stock.
Under the federal Change in Bank Control Act, a person may be required to obtain prior approval
from the Federal Reserve before acquiring the power to direct or indirectly control our management,
operations, or policy or before acquiring 10% or more of our common stock. As a
result, potential investors who seek to participate in this offering should evaluate whether they
could become subject to the approval and other requirements of this federal statute.
36
NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES
The following table presents computations of certain financial measures related to
tangible common equity and Tier 1 common equity. The tangible common equity ratio has become a
focus of some investors, and we believe this ratio may assist investors in analyzing our capital
position absent the effects of intangible assets and preferred stock. Traditionally, the Federal
Reserve and other banking regulators have assessed a banks capital adequacy based on Tier 1
capital, the calculation of which is codified in federal banking regulations. More recently, the
banking regulators have also supplemented their assessment of the capital adequacy of a bank based
on a variation of Tier 1 capital, known as Tier 1 common equity. Because tangible common equity and
Tier 1 common equity are not formally defined by generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) or
codified in the federal banking regulations, these measures are considered to be non-GAAP financial
measures. Because analysts and banking regulators may assess our capital adequacy using tangible
common equity and Tier 1 common equity, we believe it is useful to provide investors the ability to
assess our capital adequacy on these same bases.
Tier 1 common equity is often expressed as a percentage of net risk-weighted assets. Under the
risk-based capital framework, a banks balance sheet assets and credit equivalent amounts of
off-balance sheet items are assigned to one of four broad risk categories. The aggregated dollar
amount in each category is then multiplied by the risk weight assigned to that category. The
resulting weighted values from each of the four categories are added together and this sum is the
risk-weighted assets total that, as adjusted, comprises the denominator of certain risk-based
capital ratios. Tier 1 capital is then divided by this denominator (net risk-weighted assets) to
determine the Tier 1 capital ratio. Adjustments are made to Tier 1 capital to arrive at Tier 1
common equity. Tier 1 common equity is also divided by net risk-weighted assets to determine the
Tier 1 common equity ratio. The amounts disclosed as net risk-weighted assets are calculated
consistent with banking regulatory requirements.
Non-GAAP financial measures have inherent limitations, are not required to be uniformly
applied, and are not audited. To mitigate these limitations, we have procedures in place to ensure
that these measures are calculated using the appropriate GAAP or regulatory components and to
ensure that our capital performance is properly reflected to facilitate period-to-period
comparisons. Although these non-GAAP financial measures are frequently used by investors in the
evaluation of a company, they have limitations as analytical tools, and should not be considered in
isolation, or as a substitute for analyses of results as reported under GAAP.
The following table provides reconciliations of the following:
|
|
|
Total assets (GAAP) to tangible assets (non-GAAP) |
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity (GAAP) to tangible common equity (non-GAAP) |
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity (GAAP) to Tier 1 common equity (non-GAAP) |
These computations are based on our actual results without giving effect to the potential
conversion of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock into common stock or the offering
contemplated by this prospectus.
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
($ in 000s) |
|
(Unaudited) |
|
TANGIBLE COMMON EQUITY TO TANGIBLE ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets (GAAP) |
|
$ |
2,900,770 |
|
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
|
$ |
2,956,245 |
|
|
$ |
3,247,516 |
|
|
$ |
3,406,390 |
|
|
$ |
3,348,707 |
|
Deduct: Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
66,754 |
|
|
|
52,842 |
|
|
|
55,946 |
|
Deduct: Core deposit intangible
assets (all other intangibles) |
|
|
9,938 |
|
|
|
10,260 |
|
|
|
12,190 |
|
|
|
15,262 |
|
|
|
8,157 |
|
|
|
10,729 |
|
Deduct: Deferred taxes |
|
|
1,207 |
|
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
6,892 |
|
|
|
18,572 |
|
|
|
10,597 |
|
|
|
7,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tangible assets (non-GAAP) |
|
$ |
2,889,625 |
|
|
$ |
2,954,413 |
|
|
$ |
2,920,429 |
|
|
$ |
3,146,928 |
|
|
$ |
3,334,794 |
|
|
$ |
3,274,523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity (GAAP) |
|
$ |
97,211 |
|
|
$ |
109,861 |
|
|
$ |
194,877 |
|
|
$ |
240,502 |
|
|
$ |
258,167 |
|
|
$ |
248,259 |
|
Deduct: Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
66,754 |
|
|
|
52,842 |
|
|
|
55,946 |
|
Deduct: Core deposit intangible
assets (all other intangibles) |
|
|
9,938 |
|
|
|
10,260 |
|
|
|
12,190 |
|
|
|
15,262 |
|
|
|
8,157 |
|
|
|
10,729 |
|
Deduct: Deferred taxes |
|
|
1,207 |
|
|
|
691 |
|
|
|
6,892 |
|
|
|
18,572 |
|
|
|
10,597 |
|
|
|
7,509 |
|
Deduct: Preferred stock |
|
|
69,334 |
|
|
|
69,157 |
|
|
|
68,456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tangible common equity (non-GAAP) |
|
$ |
16,732 |
|
|
$ |
29,753 |
|
|
$ |
90,605 |
|
|
$ |
139,914 |
|
|
$ |
186,571 |
|
|
$ |
174,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tangible common equity to tangible assets
ratio (non-GAAP) |
|
|
0.58 |
% |
|
|
1.01 |
% |
|
|
3.10 |
% |
|
|
4.45 |
% |
|
|
5.59 |
% |
|
|
5.32 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TIER 1 COMMON EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity (GAAP) |
|
$ |
97,211 |
|
|
$ |
109,861 |
|
|
$ |
194,877 |
|
|
$ |
240,502 |
|
|
$ |
258,167 |
|
|
$ |
248,259 |
|
Add: Qualifying capital securities |
|
|
37,019 |
|
|
|
41,880 |
|
|
|
72,751 |
|
|
|
80,309 |
|
|
|
62,350 |
|
|
|
62,350 |
|
Deduct: Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
66,754 |
|
|
|
52,842 |
|
|
|
55,946 |
|
(Add) deduct: Accumulated other
comprehensive (loss) income |
|
|
(13,749 |
) |
|
|
(15,679 |
) |
|
|
(23,318 |
) |
|
|
(339 |
) |
|
|
3,370 |
|
|
|
4,297 |
|
Deduct: Intangible assets |
|
|
9,938 |
|
|
|
10,260 |
|
|
|
12,190 |
|
|
|
15,262 |
|
|
|
8,157 |
|
|
|
10,729 |
|
Deduct: Disallowed servicing assets |
|
|
544 |
|
|
|
559 |
|
|
|
1,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deduct: Disallowed deferred tax assets |
|
|
720 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deduct: Net unrealized losses on
equity securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,155 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Add) deduct: Other |
|
|
(98 |
) |
|
|
(101 |
) |
|
|
(59 |
) |
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
(139 |
) |
|
|
(294 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 capital (regulatory) |
|
|
136,875 |
|
|
|
156,702 |
|
|
|
261,063 |
|
|
|
236,065 |
|
|
|
256,287 |
|
|
|
239,931 |
|
Deduct: Qualifying capital securities |
|
|
37,019 |
|
|
|
41,880 |
|
|
|
72,751 |
|
|
|
80,309 |
|
|
|
62,350 |
|
|
|
62,350 |
|
Deduct: Preferred stock |
|
|
69,334 |
|
|
|
69,157 |
|
|
|
68,456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 common equity (non-GAAP) |
|
$ |
30,522 |
|
|
$ |
45,665 |
|
|
$ |
119,856 |
|
|
$ |
155,756 |
|
|
$ |
193,937 |
|
|
$ |
177,581 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net risk-weighted assets (regulatory) |
|
$ |
2,062,677 |
|
|
$ |
2,204,157 |
|
|
$ |
2,365,082 |
|
|
$ |
2,525,594 |
|
|
$ |
2,664,931 |
|
|
$ |
2,578,081 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 common equity ratio (non-GAAP) |
|
|
1.48 |
% |
|
|
2.07 |
% |
|
|
5.07 |
% |
|
|
6.17 |
% |
|
|
7.28 |
% |
|
|
6.89 |
% |
38
USE OF PROCEEDS
Our estimated net proceeds from this offering are approximately $103 million, or
approximately $118.5 million if the underwriters exercise their over-allotment option in full,
after deducting the underwriting discounts and commissions and other estimated expenses of this
offering. We intend to contribute all or substantially all of the net proceeds from this offering
to our bank to strengthen its regulatory capital ratios. We expect to use any remaining net
proceeds for general working capital purposes.
We do not intend to use any proceeds from this offering to resume quarterly dividend payments
on our outstanding trust preferred securities or our outstanding Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock. We have no current intention of resuming such payments at any time in the near future.
CAPITALIZATION
The following table sets forth our capitalization and selected capital ratios for our
bank, as of March 31, 2010, (a) on an actual basis and (b) on a pro forma basis to give effect to
(i) the issuance of 51.1 million shares of our common stock on June 23, 201 in exchange for
tendered shares of our outstanding trust preferred securities, (ii) the issuance and sale of []
shares of common stock in this offering, assuming that the underwriters over-allotment is not
exercised, at an assumed price per share of $[], net of underwriting discounts and commissions and
estimated offering expenses, and (iii) an assumed issuance of 78.2 million shares of our common
stock to the Treasury upon conversion on July 1, 2010 of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
at 75% of par ($74.4 million), plus approximately $0.8 million in accrued and unpaid dividends as
of June 30, 2010, which is contingent on our completion of a new cash equity raise of not less than
$100 million on terms acceptable to the Treasury in its sole discretion (other than with respect to
the price offered per share). This table assumes that all of the net proceeds from this offering
are contributed to our bank. This table should be read in conjunction with the historical financial
data included within this prospectus, including the consolidated financial statements (and notes
thereto) beginning on page F-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
Actual |
|
|
As adjusted |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
Certain Long-Term Debt: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
|
$ |
[] |
|
Amount not qualifying as regulatory capital |
|
|
(2,788 |
) |
|
|
[] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount qualifying as regulatory capital |
|
|
90,100 |
|
|
|
[] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
69,334 |
|
|
|
[] |
|
Common stock |
|
|
23,884 |
|
|
|
[] |
|
Capital surplus |
|
|
201,754 |
|
|
|
[] |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(184,012 |
) |
|
|
[] |
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(13,749 |
) |
|
|
[] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
97,211 |
|
|
|
[] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
$ |
187,311 |
|
|
$ |
[] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Ratios for Independent Bank: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio |
|
|
10.41 |
% |
|
|
[] |
|
Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio |
|
|
6.43 |
% |
|
|
[] |
|
39
CAPITAL PLAN AND THIS OFFERING
We are conducting the offering described in this prospectus as part of the more comprehensive
Capital Plan adopted by our board of directors and described below. The primary objective of our
Capital Plan is to enable our bank to achieve and thereafter maintain the minimum capital ratios
established by its board pursuant to resolutions adopted in December 2009.
Adoption of Board Resolutions
In December 2009, the board of directors of our bank, adopted resolutions designed to enhance
and strengthen our operations. Importantly, alongside other resolutions regarding the improvement
of asset quality, liquidity, and cash management, the resolutions require our bank to improve its
capital position. Our bank began to experience rising levels of non-performing loans and higher
provisions for loan losses in 2006. Although our bank remained profitable through the second
quarter of 2008, it has incurred seven consecutive quarterly losses since then (and anticipates
future losses), which have pressured its capital ratios. In response to these losses, economic
stress in Michigan, and elevated levels of non-performing assets, and in conjunction with
discussions with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve), as
our banks primary federal regulator, and the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation
(the Michigan OFIR), as our banks state regulator, the board of directors of our bank adopted
resolutions that require the following:
|
|
|
The adoption by our bank of a capital restoration plan designed to achieve a minimum Tier 1 capital leverage ratio of 8% and
a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 11%, and a regular periodic review and evaluation of such capital plan by the
board of directors of our bank thereafter; |
|
|
|
|
The enhancement of our banks documentation of the rationale for discounts applied to collateral valuations on impaired loans
and improved support for the identification, tracking, and reporting of loans classified as troubled debt restructurings; |
|
|
|
|
The adoption of certain changes and enhancements to our liquidity monitoring and contingency planning and our interest rate
risk management practices; |
|
|
|
|
Additional reporting to our board regarding initiatives and plans pursued by management to improve our banks risk management
practices; |
|
|
|
|
Prior approval of the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR for any dividends or distributions to be paid to us by our bank;
and |
|
|
|
|
Notice to the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR of any rescission of or material modification to any of these resolutions. |
In addition to these resolutions adopted for our bank, our board of directors (which is
comprised of the same members as our banks board) adopted resolutions in December of 2009 that
impose the following restrictions:
|
|
|
We will not pay dividends on our outstanding common stock or the outstanding preferred stock held by the Treasury, and we
will not pay distributions on our outstanding trust preferred securities without, in each case, the prior written approval of
the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR; |
|
|
|
|
We will not incur or guarantee any additional indebtedness without the prior approval of the Federal Reserve; |
|
|
|
|
We will not repurchase or redeem any of our common stock without the prior approval of the Federal Reserve; and |
|
|
|
|
We will not rescind or materially modify any of these limitations without notice to the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR. |
The substance of all of the resolutions described above was developed in conjunction with
discussions held with the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR in response to the Federal
Reserves examination report of our bank completed in October 2009. Based on those discussions,
we acted proactively to adopt the resolutions described above to address those areas of our banks
condition and operations that were highlighted in the exam report and that we believe most require
our focus at this time. It is very possible that if we had not adopted these resolutions, the
Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR may have imposed similar requirements on us through a
memorandum of understanding or similar undertaking. We are not currently subject to any such
regulatory agreement or enforcement action. However, we believe that if we are unable to
substantially comply with the resolutions set forth above and if our financial condition and
performance do not otherwise materially improve, it is likely our primary bank regulators will
impose additional regulatory restrictions and requirements on us through a regulatory enforcement
action.
40
Subsequent to the adoption of the resolutions described above, we adopted the capital
restoration plan (the Capital Plan), required by the resolutions. Other than fully implementing
our Capital Plan and achieving the minimum capital ratios set forth in the resolutions, we believe
we have already taken appropriate actions to fully comply with these board resolutions.
Capital Plan
In January 2010, we adopted our Capital Plan, as required by the board resolutions adopted in
December 2009 described above, and submitted our Capital Plan to the Federal Reserve and the
Michigan OFIR. The offering described in this prospectus, the offer to exchange our common stock
for our outstanding trust preferred securities, and the early conversion of the preferred stock
held by the Treasury are the cornerstones of our Capital Plan.
The primary objective of our Capital Plan is to enable our bank to achieve and thereafter
maintain the minimum capital ratios required by the board resolutions adopted in December 2009. As
of March 31, 2010, our bank continued to be meet the requirements to be considered
well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards. However, as a matter of prudence and
commitment to restoring capital strength, the minimum capital ratios established by our banks
board are higher than the ratios required in order to be considered well-capitalized under
federal standards. Our board imposed these higher ratios in order to ensure we have sufficient
capital to withstand potential continuing losses based on our elevated level of non-performing
assets and given the other risks and uncertainties we face, as described in this prospectus. Set
forth below are the actual capital ratios of our bank as of March 31, 2010, the minimum capital
ratios imposed by the board resolutions, and the minimum ratios necessary to be considered
well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independent Bank |
|
Minimum Ratios |
|
|
|
|
Actual as of |
|
Established by |
|
Required to be |
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
Banks Board |
|
Well-Capitalized |
Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio |
|
|
10.41 |
% |
|
|
11.0 |
% |
|
|
10.0 |
% |
Tier 1 Capital Leverage Ratio |
|
|
6.43 |
% |
|
|
8.0 |
% |
|
|
5.0 |
% |
Our Capital Plan sets forth an objective of achieving these minimum capital ratios as
soon as practicable and maintaining such capital ratios though at least the end of 2012. Although
our board initially set a deadline of April 30, 2010 to achieve these minimum capital ratios, it
subsequently approved extensions to September 30, 2010, and we notified the Federal Reserve and the
Michigan OFIR of these extensions.
Our Capital Plan includes projections we prepared that reflect forecasted financial data
through 2012. These projections anticipate a need of a minimum of $60 million of new capital in
order for our bank to achieve and maintain the minimum ratios established by our board. These
projections take into account the various risks and uncertainties we face, as described in this
prospectus. However, because projections are inherently uncertain and based on assumptions that
may not prove to be accurate, our Capital Plan contains a target of $100 million to $125 million of
new capital to be raised by us.
In anticipation of the capital raising initiatives described in our Capital Plan, we engaged
an independent third party to perform a review (a stress test) on our commercial loan portfolio
and a separate independent third party to perform a similar review of our retail loan portfolio.
These independent stress tests were concluded in January 2010. Each analysis included different
scenarios based on expectations of future economic conditions. We engaged these independent
reviews in order to ensure that the similar analyses we had performed internally in 2009, on which
we based our projections for future expected loan losses and our need for additional capital, were
reasonable and did not materially understate our projected loan losses. Based on the conclusions
of these third party reviews, we determined that we did not need to modify our projections used for
purposes of our Capital Plan. Even though we have had independent third party reviews of these
loan portfolios, we cannot be sure that our allowance for loan losses and the additional provisions
we anticipate taking in the future to increase such allowance will be sufficient to absorb all loan
losses.
Our Capital Plan sets forth certain initiatives in order to raise new capital and meet the
objectives of our Capital Plan. In addition to contemplating the offering described in this
prospectus, our Capital Plan contemplates two other primary initiatives: (1) an offer to exchange
shares of our common stock for any or all of our outstanding trust preferred securities, and
(2) the conversion of the shares of preferred stock held by the Treasury into shares of our common
stock. Completion of these two initiatives will reduce required annual interest and dividend
payments by reducing the aggregate principal amount of outstanding trust preferred securities and
outstanding shares of preferred stock. The conversion of $41.4 million in aggregate liquidation
amount of trust preferred securities into our common stock in June 2010 will reduce future interest
expense by $3.5 million annually. In addition, they will improve our holding companys ratio of
tangible common equity (TCE) to tangible assets. See Our Projections above. We believe both
of these initiatives will improve our ability to successfully raise additional capital through the
offering described in this prospectus. We recently completed the issuance of shares of our common
stock in exchange for tendered shares of our outstanding trust preferred securities, as described
below. Our ability to convert the shares of preferred stock held by the Treasury into shares of
our common stock likely depends on our success in raising capital in this offering, as described
below.
41
Our Capital Plan also outlines various contingency plans in case we do not succeed in raising
all additional capital needed. These contingency plans include a possible further reduction in our
assets (such as through a sale of branches, loans, and/or other operating divisions or
subsidiaries), more significant expense reductions than those that have already been implemented
and those that are currently being considered, and a sale of our bank. The contingency plans were
considered and included within our Capital Plan in recognition of the possibility that market
conditions for these transactions may improve and that such transactions may be necessary or
required by our regulators if we are unable to raise sufficient equity capital through the capital
raising initiatives described above.
Our Capital Plan concludes with a recognition that our strategy and focus for the near term
will be to improve our asset quality and pursue the initiatives described above in order to
strengthen our capital position.
Suspension of Quarterly Dividends and Distributions
We have recently taken several actions to improve our regulatory capital ratios and preserve
capital and liquidity. Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2009, we eliminated the $0.01 per share
quarterly cash dividend on our common stock. In addition, we suspended payment of quarterly
dividends on our preferred stock held by the Treasury. We also have exercised our right to defer
all quarterly interest payments on the subordinated debentures we issued to our trust subsidiaries.
As a result, all quarterly dividends on the related trust preferred securities were also deferred.
Based on current dividend rates and after taking into account the trust preferred securities
accepted for exchange in our recently completed exchange offer (described below), the cash
dividends on all outstanding trust preferred securities amount to approximately $2.1 million per
year. These actions will preserve cash for us as we do not expect our bank to be able to pay any
cash dividends in the near term. Dividends from our bank are restricted by federal and state law
and are further restricted by the board resolutions adopted in December of 2009 and described
above. For additional information on restrictions on the ability of our bank and Independent Bank
Corporation to pay dividends and similar distributions, please see Dividend Policy and
Description of Our Capital Stock below.
We do not have any current plans to resume dividend payments on our outstanding trust
preferred securities or the outstanding shares of our preferred stock. We do not know if or when
any such payments will resume.
Exchange with the U.S. Treasury
In December 2009, we made a proposal to the Treasury to exchange all of the shares of the
Series A Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock purchased by the Treasury in December 2008
under the TARPs CPP for shares of our common stock with a value (based on market prices at the
time of the exchange) equal to 75% of the aggregate liquidation value of the Series A Preferred
Stock surrendered in the exchange. The aggregate liquidation value of the Series A Preferred
stock was $72 million.
As a result of our discussions with the Treasury, on April 2, 2010 we entered into an Exchange
Agreement with the Treasury. We subsequently closed the Exchange Agreement on April 16, 2010.
Under the Exchange Agreement, the Treasury accepted our newly issued shares of Series B Fixed Rate
Cumulative Mandatorily Convertible Preferred Stock in exchange for the entire $72 million in
aggregate liquidation value of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock, plus the value of all
accrued and unpaid dividends on such shares of Series A Preferred Stock (approximately $2.4
million). The shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have an aggregate liquidation
preference equal to $74,426,000.
With the exception of being convertible into shares of our common stock, the terms of the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are substantially similar to the terms of the Series A
Preferred Stock that were exchanged. The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock qualifies as Tier 1
regulatory capital, subject to limitations, and is entitled to cumulative dividends quarterly at a
rate of 5% per annum through February 14, 2014, and 9% per annum thereafter. A detailed description
of the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is set forth under Description of Our
Capital Stock below.
The Treasury (and any subsequent holder of the shares) has the right to convert the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock into our common stock at any time, subject to the receipt of any
applicable approvals, We have the right to compel a conversion of the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock into our common stock if the following conditions are met:
|
(i) |
|
we receive appropriate approvals from the Federal Reserve; |
|
|
(ii) |
|
at least $40 million aggregate liquidation amount of trust preferred securities have been exchanged for our common stock; |
|
|
(iii) |
|
we complete a new cash equity raise of not less than $100 million on terms acceptable to the Treasury in its sole
discretion (other than with respect to the price offered per share); and |
|
|
(iv) |
|
we make any required anti-dilution adjustments to the rate at which the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is
converted into our common stock, to the extent required. |
42
If converted by the Treasury (or any subsequent holder) or by us pursuant to either of the
above-described conversion rights, each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (liquidation
preference of $1,000 per share) will convert into a number of shares of our common stock equal to a
fraction, the numerator of which is $750 and the denominator of which is $0.7234, referred to as
the conversion rate, provided that such conversion rate will be subject to certain anti-dilution
adjustments. As an example only, at the time they were issued, the shares of Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock were convertible into approximately 77.2 million shares of our common stock. This
conversion rate will be subject to certain anti-dilution adjustments that may result in a greater
number of shares being issued to the holder of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
Unless earlier converted by the Treasury (or any subsequent holder) or by us as described
above, the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock will convert into shares of our common stock on a
mandatory basis on the seventh anniversary of the date of issuance. In any such mandatory
conversion, each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (liquidation preference of $1,000
per share) will convert into a number of shares of our common stock equal to a fraction, the
numerator of which is $1,000 and the denominator of which is the market price of our common stock
at the time of such mandatory conversion (as such market price is determined pursuant to the terms
of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock).
At the time any shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are converted into our common
stock, we will be required to pay all accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares being converted in
cash or, at our option, in shares of our common stock at the same conversion rate as is applicable
to the conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued upon conversion of all
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (including any accrued dividends) is 144 million, unless we
receive shareholder approval to issue a greater number of shares.
As part of the terms of the Exchange Agreement, we also amended and restated the terms of the
Warrant, dated December 12, 2008, issued to the Treasury to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common
stock. The amended and restated Warrant issued upon the closing of the Exchange Agreement adjusted
the initial exercise price of the Warrant to be equal to the initial conversion price applicable to
the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock described above.
Exchange Offer for Trust Preferred Securities
On June 23, 2010, we completed the exchange of an aggregate of 51,091,250 newly issued shares
of our common stock for $41.4 million in aggregate liquidation amount of our outstanding trust
preferred securities. One of the conditions to our right to compel a conversion of the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock held by the Treasury into our common stock is our exchange of shares of
our common stock for at least $40 million in aggregate liquidation amount of trust preferred
securities in the pending exchange offer. The results of our exchange offer satisfied this
condition to our ability to compel a conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
43
DIVIDEND POLICY
We are not currently paying any cash dividends on our common stock and our ability to pay
cash dividends in the near term is significantly restricted by the factors described below.
Current Prohibitions on Our Payment of Dividends
Pursuant to resolutions adopted by our board in December 2009, we are currently prohibited
from paying any dividends on our common stock without the prior written approval of the Federal
Reserve and the Michigan OFIR. We may not rescind or materially modify these resolutions without
notice to the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR. Moreover, our primary source for dividends
are dividends payable to us by our bank. The board of directors of our bank adopted similar
resolutions in December 2009 that prohibit our bank from paying any dividends to us without the
prior written approval of the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR. For more information about
these board resolutions, please see Capital Plan and this Offering above.
In addition, as a result of our election to defer regularly scheduled quarterly payments on
our outstanding trust preferred securities and our outstanding shares of Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock, we are currently prohibited from paying any cash dividends on shares of our common
stock. We may not pay any cash dividends on our common stock until all accrued but unpaid
dividends and distributions on such senior securities have been paid in full. We do not have any
current plans to begin making quarterly payments on our trust preferred securities or our Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock.
Moreover, even if we were to re-commence regularly scheduled quarterly payments on our
outstanding trust preferred securities and Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, there are still
significant restrictions on our ability to pay dividends on our common stock. Our agreements with
Treasury, including the Exchange Agreement discussed above, prevent us from paying quarterly cash
dividends on our common stock in excess of $.01 per share and (with certain exceptions)
repurchasing shares of common stock. These restrictions will remain in effect until the earlier of
December 12, 2011 or such time as Treasury ceases to own any of our debt or equity securities
acquired pursuant to the Exchange Agreement or the amended and restated Warrant.
Other Restrictions
Aside from the specific restrictions set forth above that result from our current financial
condition, there are other restrictions that apply under federal and state law to restrict our
ability to pay dividends to our shareholders and the ability of our bank to pay dividends to us.
For example, the Federal Reserve requires bank holding companies like us to act as a source of
financial strength to their subsidiary banks. Accordingly, we are required to inform and consult
with the Federal Reserve before paying dividends that could raise safety and soundness concerns.
See BusinessSupervision and Regulation for more information.
44
MARKET PRICE AND DIVIDEND INFORMATION
Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol
IBCP. As of June 30, 2010, we had 75,123,427 shares of our common stock outstanding, which were
held by approximately 2,138 shareholders. The following table sets forth, for the periods
indicated, the high and low closing sales prices per share and the cash dividends declared per
share of our common stock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash |
|
|
Closing Sales Price |
|
Dividends |
|
|
Per Share |
|
Declared per |
|
|
Low |
|
High |
|
Share |
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third Quarter through July 7, 2010 |
|
$ |
0.34 |
|
|
$ |
0.37 |
|
|
None |
Second Quarter ended June 30, 2010 |
|
|
0.35 |
|
|
|
1.62 |
|
|
None |
First Quarter ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
0.69 |
|
|
|
1.20 |
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter ended December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
0.59 |
|
|
$ |
1.89 |
|
|
None |
Third Quarter ended September 30, 2009 |
|
|
1.09 |
|
|
|
2.16 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
Second Quarter ended June 30, 2009 |
|
|
1.11 |
|
|
|
2.90 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
First Quarter ended March 31, 2009 |
|
|
0.90 |
|
|
|
3.00 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fourth Quarter ended December 31, 2008 |
|
$ |
1.48 |
|
|
$ |
6.95 |
|
|
$ |
0.01 |
|
Third Quarter ended September 30, 2008 |
|
|
2.52 |
|
|
|
8.40 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
Second Quarter ended June 30, 2008 |
|
|
3.66 |
|
|
|
10.98 |
|
|
|
0.01 |
|
First Quarter ended March 31, 2008 |
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
14.12 |
|
|
|
0.11 |
|
On July 7, 2010, the closing sales price of our common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market was $0.35 per share.
On June 23, 2010, we received a letter from The Nasdaq Stock Market notifying us that we no
longer meet Nasdaqs continued listing requirements under Listing Rule 5450(a)(1) because the bid
price for our common stock had closed below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days. We
have until December 20, 2010 to demonstrate compliance with this bid price rule by maintaining a
minimum closing bid price of at least $1.00 for a minimum of 10 consecutive business days. If we
are unable to establish compliance with the bid price rule within such time period, our common
stock will be subject to delisting from the Nasdaq Global Select Market. However, in that event,
we may be eligible for an additional grace period by transferring our common stock listing from the
Nasdaq Global Select Market to the Nasdaq Capital Market. This would require us to meet the
initial listing criteria of the Nasdaq Capital Market, other than with respect to the minimum
closing bid price requirement. If we are then permitted to transfer our listing to the Nasdaq
Capital Market, we expect we would be granted an additional 180 calendar day period in which to
demonstrate compliance with the minimum bid price rule.
At our annual meeting of shareholders on April 27, 2010, our shareholders approved a 1-for-10
reverse split of our common stock. The primary objective of the reverse stock split is to raise
the per share trading price of our common stock sufficiently above the $1.00 minimum bid price
requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. However, there can be no
assurance that, if made effective, the reverse stock split will result in our ability to comply or
thereafter maintain compliance with the Nasdaq minimum bid price rule. We have not yet made a
determination as to whether or when to implement this reverse stock split.
There are restrictions that currently materially limit our ability to pay dividends on our
common stock and that may continue to materially limit future payment of dividends on our common
stock. Please see Dividend Policy above.
45
DESCRIPTION OF OUR CAPITAL STOCK
The following section is a summary and does not describe every aspect of our capital stock. In
particular, we urge you to read our articles of incorporation and bylaws because they describe the
rights of holders of our common stock. Our articles of incorporation and bylaws are exhibits to the
registration statement filed with the SEC of which this prospectus is a part.
Common Stock
General
Our authorized capital stock consists of 500,000,000 shares of common stock and 200,000 shares
of preferred stock (described below). As of June 30, 2010, there were 75,123,427 shares of common
stock and 74,426 shares of preferred stock outstanding. Effective as of April 9, 2010, we amended
our articles of incorporation to delete any reference to par value with respect to our common
stock, which previously had a par value of $1.00 per share. The amendment was approved by our
board on April 6, 2010, pursuant to the authority granted it under Sections 301a and 611(2) of the
Michigan Business Corporation Act.
All of the outstanding shares of our common stock are fully paid and nonassessable. Subject to
the prior rights of the holders of shares of preferred stock that may be issued and outstanding,
the holders of common stock are entitled to receive:
|
|
|
dividends when, as, and if declared by our board out of funds legally available for the payment of dividends; and |
|
|
|
|
in the event of our dissolution, to share ratably in all assets remaining after payment of liabilities and
satisfaction of the liquidation preferences, if any, of then outstanding shares of our preferred stock, as
provided in our articles of incorporation. |
We do not currently pay any cash dividends on our common stock and are currently prohibited
from doing so. See Dividend Policy above for information regarding these prohibitions and other
restrictions that materially limit our ability to pay dividends on our common stock.
Under our agreements with the Treasury, including the Exchange Agreement discussed above, we
are only permitted to repurchase shares of our common stock under limited circumstances, including
the following:
|
|
|
in connection with the administration of any employee benefit plan in the
ordinary course of business and consistent with past practice; |
|
|
|
|
the redemption or repurchase of rights pursuant to any shareholders rights plan; |
|
|
|
|
our acquisition of record ownership of common stock or other securities that are
junior to or on a parity with the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock for the
beneficial ownership of any other persons, including trustees or custodians; and |
|
|
|
|
the exchange or conversion of our common stock for or into other securities that
are junior to or on a parity with the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock or
trust preferred securities for or into common stock or other securities that are
junior to or on a parity with the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, in each
case solely to the extent required pursuant to binding contractual agreements
entered into prior to December 12, 2008 or any subsequent agreement for the
accelerated exercise, settlement or exchange thereof for common stock. |
Except with respect to certain Designated Matters, Treasury has agreed in the Exchange
Agreement to vote all shares of our common stock acquired upon conversion of the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock or upon exercise of the amended and restated Warrant that are
beneficially owned by it and its controlled affiliates in the same proportion (for, against or
abstain) as all other shares of our common stock are voted. Designated Matters means (i) the
election and removal of our directors, (ii) the approval of any merger, consolidation or similar
transaction that requires the approval of our shareholders, (iii) the approval of a sale of all or
substantially all of our assets or property, (iv) the approval of our dissolution, (v) the approval
of any issuance of any of our securities on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, (vi) the
approval of any amendment to our organizational documents on which our shareholders are entitled to
vote, and (vii) the approval of any other matters reasonably incidental to the foregoing as
determined by the Treasury.
In addition, as a bank holding company, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock is
affected by the ability of our bank to pay dividends to us under applicable laws, rules and
regulations. The ability of our bank, as well as us, to pay dividends in the future currently is,
and could be further, influenced by bank regulatory requirements and capital guidelines. See
Dividend Policy above for more information.
Each holder of our common stock is entitled to one vote for each share held of record on all
matters presented to a vote at a shareholders meeting, including the election of directors. Holders
of our common stock have no cumulative voting rights or preemptive rights to purchase or
46
subscribe
for any additional shares of our common stock or other securities, and there are no conversion
rights or redemption or sinking fund provisions with respect to our common stock. Our common stock
is currently listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol
IBCP. However, as described under Market Price of and Dividends on Our Common Stock
above, our common stock may be delisted from Nasdaq in the near future.
Certain Restrictions under Federal Banking Laws
As a bank holding company, the acquisition of large interests in our common stock is subject
to certain limitations described below. These limitations may have an anti-takeover effect and
could prevent or delay mergers, business combination transactions, and other large investments in
our common stock that may otherwise be in our best interests and the best interests of our
shareholders.
The federal Bank Holding Company Act generally would prohibit any company that is not engaged
in banking activities and activities that are permissible for a bank holding company or a financial
holding company from acquiring control of us. Control is generally defined as ownership of 25% or
more of the voting stock or other exercise of a controlling influence. In addition, any existing
bank holding company would require the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before acquiring 5% or
more of our voting stock. In addition, the federal Change in Bank Control Act prohibits a person
or group of persons from acquiring control of a bank holding company unless the Federal Reserve
has been notified and has not objected to the transaction. Under a rebuttable presumption
established by the Federal Reserve, the acquisition of 10% or more of a class of voting stock of a
bank holding company with a class of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act,
such as us, would, under the circumstances set forth in the presumption, constitute acquisition of
control of the bank holding company. See BusinessSupervision and Regulation for more
information.
Certain Other Limitations
In addition to the foregoing limitations, our articles of incorporation and bylaws contain
provisions that could also have an anti-takeover effect. Some of the provisions also may make it
difficult for our shareholders to replace incumbent directors with new directors who may be willing
to entertain changes that our shareholders may believe will lead to improvements in our business.
Preferred Stock
Our authorized capital stock includes 200,000 shares of preferred stock, no par value per
share. Our board of directors is authorized to issue preferred stock in one or more series, to fix
the number of shares in each series, and to determine the designations and preferences,
limitations, and relative rights of each series, including dividend rates, terms of redemption,
liquidation amounts, sinking fund requirements, and conversion rights, all without any vote or
other action on the part of our shareholders. This power is limited by applicable laws or
regulations and may be delegated to a committee of our board of directors.
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
On April 16, 2010, we issued 74,426 shares of Series B Fixed Rate Cumulative Mandatorily
Convertible Preferred Stock (the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock) to the Treasury pursuant
to the terms of the Exchange Agreement. Under the Exchange Agreement, the Treasury accepted the
shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock in exchange for the entire $72 million in aggregate
liquidation value of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock we issued to the Treasury under its
Capital Purchase Program, plus the value of all accrued and unpaid dividends on such shares of
Series A Preferred Stock (approximately $2.4 million). The shares of Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock have an aggregate liquidation preference equal to $74,426,000.
With the exception of being convertible into shares of our common stock, the terms of the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are substantially similar to the terms of the Series A
Preferred Stock that were exchanged. The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock qualifies as Tier 1
regulatory capital, subject to limitations, and pays cumulative dividends quarterly at a rate of 5%
per annum through February 14, 2014, and 9% per annum thereafter. The Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock is non-voting, other than class voting rights on certain matters that could
adversely affect such shares. If dividends on the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have not
been paid for an aggregate of six quarterly dividend periods or more, whether consecutive or not,
our authorized number of directors will be automatically increased by two and the holders of the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, voting together with holders of any then outstanding voting
parity stock, will have the right to elect those directors at our next annual meeting of
shareholders or at a special meeting of shareholders called for that purpose. These directors would
be elected annually and serve until all accrued and unpaid dividends on the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock have been paid.
The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is callable at par plus accrued and unpaid dividends
at any time (however, if a redemption occurs on or after the first dividend payment date falling on
or after the second anniversary of the issuance of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, the
redemption price is the greater of (i) par plus accrued and unpaid dividends, and (ii) the product
of the conversion rate (as described below) and the average of the market prices per share of our
common stock over the 20 consecutive trading day period after the notice of redemption is given,
plus all accrued and unpaid dividends).
47
The terms of the Exchange Agreement carry over the restrictions on dividends and repurchases
from the original transaction with the Treasury in all material respects. Specifically, the terms
of the transaction with the Treasury include prohibitions on our ability to pay
dividends and repurchase our common stock. Until the Treasury no longer holds any Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock, we will not be able to declare or pay any dividends, nor will we be
permitted to repurchase any of our common stock unless all accrued and unpaid dividends on all
outstanding shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have been paid in full, subject to the
availability of certain limited exceptions (e.g., for purchases in connection with benefit plans).
The Treasury (and any subsequent holder of the shares) has the right to convert the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock into our common stock at any time, subject to the receipt of any
applicable approvals. We have the right to compel a conversion of the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock into our common stock if the following conditions are met:
|
(i) |
|
we receive appropriate approvals from the Federal Reserve; |
|
|
(ii) |
|
at least $40 million aggregate liquidation amount of our trust
preferred securities are exchanged for shares of our common stock; |
|
|
(iii) |
|
we complete a new cash equity raise of not less than $100 million on
terms acceptable to the Treasury in its sole discretion (other than
with respect to the price offered per share); and |
|
|
(iv) |
|
we make any required anti-dilution adjustments to the rate at which
the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is converted into our
common stock, to the extent required. |
On June 23, 2010, we completed the exchange of an aggregate of 51,091,250 newly issued shares
of our common stock for $41.4 million in aggregate liquidation amount of our outstanding trust
preferred securities. As a result, we have satisfied the condition to our ability to compel a
conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock that at least $40 million aggregate
liquidation amount of our trust preferred securities are exchanged for shares of our common stock.
If converted by the Treasury (or any subsequent holder) or by us pursuant to either of the
above-described conversion rights, each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (liquidation
preference of $1,000 per share) will convert into a number of shares of our common stock equal to a
fraction, the numerator of which is $750 and the denominator of which is $0.7234, referred to as
the conversion rate, provided that such conversion rate will be subject to certain anti-dilution
adjustments. As an example only, at the time they were issued, the shares of Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock were convertible into approximately 77.2 million shares of our common stock.
The conversion rate is subject to anti-dilution adjustments that may result in a greater
number of shares being issued to the holder of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
Specifically, the conversion rate is subject to adjustment in the event of any of the following:
48
|
|
|
Cash Offering. If we issue shares of our common stock (or rights or
warrants or other securities exercisable or convertible into or
exchangeable for such shares) to one or more investors other than the
Treasury pursuant to an offering providing a minimum aggregate amount
of $100 million in cash proceeds to us, including pursuant to the
offering described in this prospectus, at a consideration per share
(or having a conversion price per share) that is less than 90% of the
market price of our common stock on the trading day immediately
preceding the pricing of such offering (as such market price is
determined pursuant to the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock), then the conversion rate is subject to adjustment. |
|
|
|
|
Other Issuances of Common Stock. If we otherwise issue shares of our
common stock or convertible securities, other than pursuant to certain
permitted transactions (including issuances to fund acquisitions or
in connection with employee benefit plans and compensation
arrangements or a public or broadly marketed registered offering for
cash), at a consideration per share (or having a conversion price per
share) that is less than the conversion rate in effect immediately
prior to such issuance, then the conversion rate is subject to
adjustment. |
|
|
|
|
Stock Splits, Subdivisions, Reclassifications or Combinations. If we
(i) pay a dividend or make a distribution on our common stock in
shares of our common stock, (ii) subdivide or reclassify the
outstanding shares of our common stock into a greater number of such
shares, or (iii) combine or reclassify the outstanding shares of our
common stock into a smaller number of such shares, then the conversion
rate is subject to adjustment. |
|
|
|
|
Other Events. The conversion rate is also subject to adjustment in
connection with certain distributions to our shareholders (excluding
permitted cash dividends and certain other distributions) and in
connection with a pro rata repurchase of our common stock. In
addition, if any event occurs as to which the other anti-dilution
adjustments are not strictly applicable or, if strictly applicable,
would not fairly and adequately protect the conversion rights of the
Treasury in accordance with their intent, then we must make such
adjustments in the application thereof as necessary to protect such
conversion rights. |
Unless earlier converted by the Treasury (or any subsequent holder) or by us as described
above, the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock will convert into shares of our common stock on a
mandatory basis on the seventh anniversary of the date of issuance. In any such mandatory
conversion, each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (liquidation preference of $1,000
per share) will convert into a number of shares of our common stock equal to a fraction, the
numerator of which is $1,000 and the denominator of which is the market price of the
Companys common stock at the time of such mandatory conversion (as such market price is
determined pursuant to the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock).
At the time any shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are converted into our common
stock, we will be required to pay all accrued and unpaid dividends on the shares being converted in
cash or, at our option, in shares of our common stock at the same conversion rate as is applicable
to the conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued upon conversion of all
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (including any accrued dividends) is 144 million, unless we
receive shareholder approval to issue a greater number of shares.
As part of the terms of the Exchange Agreement, we also amended and restated the terms of the
Warrant, dated December 12, 2008, issued to the Treasury to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common
stock. The amended and restated Warrant issued upon the closing of the Exchange Agreement adjusted
the exercise price of the Warrant to be the same as the conversion rate applicable to the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock described above.
As a result of the transactions contemplated by the Exchange Agreement, all outstanding shares
of Series A Preferred Stock were surrendered in exchange for the Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock. As a result, our only series of preferred stock issued and outstanding is our Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock.
49
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF
FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following discussion and analysis is intended as a review of significant factors
affecting our financial condition and results of operations for the periods indicated. The
discussion should be read in conjunction with the historical financial data included within this
prospectus, including the selected financial data beginning on page 23 above and the consolidated
financial statements (and notes thereto) beginning on page F-1 below and all other information set
forth in this prospectus. In addition to historical information, the following Managements
Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contains forward-looking
statements that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ significantly from
those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors discussed in
this prospectus, including the factors described under Forward-Looking Statements beginning on
page 1 and Risk Factors beginning on page 25.
Introduction
Our bank began to experience rising levels of non-performing loans and higher provisions for
loan losses in 2006 as the Michigan economy experienced economic stress ahead of national trends.
Although our bank remained profitable through the second quarter of 2008, our bank has incurred
seven consecutive quarterly losses since the third quarter of 2008, which have pressured its
capital ratios. Although our bank still remains well-capitalized under federal regulatory
guidelines, we project that due to economic stress in Michigan, our elevated levels of
non-performing assets, and anticipated losses in the future, an increase in equity capital is
necessary in order for our bank to remain well-capitalized and take advantage of opportunities
outlined in our business strategy described in the Summary section above.
Our projected need for capital, our strategies for strengthening and increasing our capital,
and related matters are set forth in our Capital Plan we adopted in January 2010. The primary
objective of our Capital Plan is the achievement by our bank of a minimum Tier 1 capital leverage
ratio of 8% and a minimum total risk based capital ratio of 11%. As of March 31, 2010, these
ratios were 6.4% and 10.4%, respectively. The offering described in this prospectus is one of
several actions we have taken to pursue the objective of achieving those target ratios. See
Capital Plan and This Offering above for more detailed information.
If the capital raised in this offering and contributed to our bank is not sufficient for us to
achieve these target capital ratios, we believe it is likely our bank will not be able to remain
well-capitalized through the remainder of 2010, as we work through our asset quality issues and
seek to return to profitability. As described in more detail under Risk Factors above, we
believe failing to remain well-capitalized would have a material adverse effect on our business and
financial condition as it would, among other consequences, likely lead to a regulatory enforcement
action, a loss of our mortgage servicing rights with Fannie Mae (which are already at risk, as
described above in Risk Factors) and/or Freddie Mac, and limits on our access to certain
wholesale funding sources. In addition, an inability to improve our capital position would make it
very difficult for us to withstand continued losses that we may incur and that may be increased or
made more likely as a result of continued economic difficulties and other factors. See Risk
Factors above for a description of these risks.
It is against this backdrop that we discuss our results of operations and financial condition
in 2009 and in the first quarter of 2010 as compared to earlier periods.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Summary
We incurred a loss from continuing operations of $90.2 million in 2009 compared to a loss of
$91.7 million in 2008 and compared to income from continuing operations of $10.0 million in 2007.
The net loss in 2009 and 2008 also totaled $90.2 million and $91.7 million, respectively, compared
to net income of $10.4 million in 2007. The net loss applicable to common stock was $94.5 million
and $91.9 million in 2009 and 2008, respectively. The significant change in 2009 and 2008 compared
to 2007 is due primarily to an increase in the provision for loan losses, impairment charges on
goodwill, increases in vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense, loan and
collection costs, losses on other real estate and repossessed assets, and a charge to income tax
expense for a valuation allowance on most of our net deferred tax assets. These adverse changes
were partially offset by an increase in net interest income.
During the three months ended March 31, 2010, we incurred a net loss of $13.8 million and a
net loss applicable to common stock of $14.9 million, compared to a net loss of $18.6 million and a
net loss applicable to common stock of $19.7 million during the three months ended March 31, 2009.
These losses are primarily due to elevated provisions for loan losses, loan and collection costs,
losses on other real estate and repossessed assets, vehicle service contract counterparty
contingencies expense, and FDIC deposit insurance premiums.
On December 12, 2008, we issued to the Treasury 72,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and
a warrant to purchase 3,461,538 shares our common stock (at a strike price of $3.12 per share) in
return for $72.0 million under the TARP CPP. (See Liquidity and Capital Resources.) On April 16,
2010, we exchanged with the Treasury such Series A Preferred Stock for our Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock
50
and reduced the strike price on the warrants to $0.7234 per share. During periods
in which this preferred stock remains outstanding, we will also be reporting our net income (loss)
applicable to common stock.
On January 15, 2007, Mepco sold substantially all of the assets related to its insurance
premium finance business to Premium Financing Specialists, Inc. Mepco continues to own and operate
its vehicle service contract payment plan business. The assets, liabilities and operations of
Mepcos insurance premium finance business are reported as discontinued operations for 2007.
We completed the acquisition of 10 branches with total deposits of approximately $241.4
million from TCF National Bank on March 23, 2007. These branches are located in or near Battle
Creek, Bay City, and Saginaw, Michigan. As a result of this transaction, we received $210.1 million
of cash. We used the proceeds from this transaction primarily to repay higher cost short term
borrowings and Brokered CDs. The acquisition of these branches resulted in an increase in
non-interest income, particularly service charges on deposit accounts and VISA check card
interchange income, during the last nine months of 2007 and in 2008 and 2009. However, non-interest
expenses also increased due to compensation and benefits for the employees at these branches as
well as occupancy, furniture and equipment, data processing, communications, supplies, and
advertising expenses. As is customary in branch acquisitions, the purchase price ($28.1 million)
was based on acquired deposit balances. We also reimbursed the seller $0.2 million for certain
transaction related costs. Approximately $10.8 million of the premium paid was recorded as deposit
customer relationship value, including core deposit value, and will be amortized over 15 years.
The remainder of the premium paid was recorded as goodwill. We also incurred other transaction
costs (primarily investment banking fees, legal fees, severance costs, and data processing
conversion fees) of approximately $0.8 million, of which $0.5 million was capitalized as part of
the acquisition price and $0.3 million was expensed. In addition, the transaction included $3.7
million for the personal property and real estate associated with these branches. In the last
quarter of 2008 we determined that all of the goodwill at our bank reporting unit, including the
goodwill recorded as a part of this branch acquisition, was impaired, and we recorded a $50.0
million goodwill impairment charge. (See Non-Interest Expenses.)
In September 2007, we completed the consolidation of our four bank charters into one. The
primary reasons for this bank consolidation were:
|
|
|
To better streamline our operations and corporate governance structure; |
|
|
|
|
To enhance our risk management processes, particularly credit risk management through
more centralized credit management functions; |
|
|
|
|
To allow for more rapid development and deployment of new products and services; and |
|
|
|
|
To improve productivity and resource utilization leading to lower non-interest expenses. |
During the last half of 2007, we incurred approximately $0.8 million of one-time expenses
(primarily related to the data processing conversion and severance costs for employee positions
that were eliminated) associated with this consolidation. To date, the benefit of the reductions in
non-interest expenses due to the bank consolidation have been more than offset by higher loan and
collection costs and increased staffing associated with the management of significantly higher
levels of watch credits, non-performing loans, and other real estate owned. (See Portfolio Loans
and Asset Quality.)
Key Performance Ratios (Full Fiscal Years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
Income (loss) from continuing operations to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common equity |
|
|
(90.72 |
)% |
|
|
(39.01 |
)% |
|
|
3.96 |
% |
Average assets |
|
|
(3.17 |
) |
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
0.31 |
|
Net income (loss) to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common equity |
|
|
(90.72 |
)% |
|
|
(39.01 |
)% |
|
|
4.12 |
% |
Average assets |
|
|
(3.17 |
) |
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
0.32 |
|
Income (loss) per common share from continuing operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
(3.96 |
) |
|
|
(4.00 |
) |
|
|
0.44 |
|
Net income (loss) per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.46 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
(3.96 |
) |
|
|
(4.00 |
) |
|
|
0.45 |
|
51
Key Performance Ratios (Interim Periods)(a)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
Net loss (annualized) to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average assets |
|
|
(2.06 |
)% |
|
|
(2.68 |
)% |
Average common shareholders equity |
|
|
(184.46 |
) |
|
|
(62.73 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss per common share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(0.62 |
) |
|
$ |
(0.84 |
) |
Diluted |
|
|
(0.62 |
) |
|
|
(0.84 |
) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
These amounts are calculated using net income applicable to common stock. |
Net Interest Income
Net interest income is the most important source of our earnings and thus is critical in
evaluating our results of operations. Changes in our net interest income are primarily influenced
by our level of interest-earning assets and the income or yield that we earn on those assets and
the manner and cost of funding our interest-earning assets. Certain macro-economic factors can also
influence our net interest income such as the level and direction of interest rates, the difference
between short-term and long-term interest rates (the steepness of the yield curve), and the general
strength of the economies in which we are doing business. Finally, management of credit risk and
interest rate risk plays an important role in our level of net interest income.
Net interest income totaled $138.5 million during 2009, compared to $130.1 million and $120.6
million during 2008 and 2007, respectively. The increase in net interest income in 2009 compared to
2008 reflects a 52 basis point rise in our net interest margin that was partially offset by a
$138.2 million decrease in average interest-earning assets. The increase in net interest income in
2008 compared to 2007 reflects a 42 basis point rise in our net interest margin that was partially
offset by a $65.7 million decrease in average interest-earning assets. The decline in average
interest-earning assets during 2009 and 2008 generally reflects our desire to reduce total assets
in order to try to preserve our regulatory capital ratios in light of our recent losses.
Net interest income totaled $30.0 million during the first quarter of 2010, which represents a
$4.3 million or 12.6% decrease from the comparable quarter one year earlier. The decrease in net
interest income in 2010 compared to 2009 reflects a 58 basis point decline in our net interest
margin as well as a $28.5 million decrease in average interest-earning assets. The decline in the
net interest margin primarily reflects a decrease in the yield on interest earning assets that fell
to 6.12% during the first quarter of 2010 from 6.98% in the year ago period. This decline is
principally due to a change in the mix of interest-earning assets with a declining level of higher
yielding loans and an increasing level of lower yielding short-term investments, as described in
more detail below. The change in asset mix reflects our strategy to preserve our regulatory
capital levels by reducing loan balances that have higher risk weightings for regulatory capital
purposes.
From September 2007 to December 2008, the Federal Reserve reduced the target federal funds
rate from 5.25% to 0.25%, where it has since remained. In addition, the yield curve has steepened
considerably. The current interest rate environment (lower short-term interest rates and steeper
yield curve) has had a favorable impact on our net interest margin during 2008 and 2009 which more
than offset the adverse impact of a declining level of average interest earnings assets, as
described above. Our balance sheet during 2008 and much of 2009 was generally structured to benefit
from lower short-term interest rates. For example, most of our brokered CDs were callable which
allowed us to call (retire) them and replace them at much lower interest rates. However, some of
the benefits of the current interest rate environment are being partially offset by our increased
level of non-accrual loans that create a drag on our net interest margin and net interest income.
Average non-accrual loans totaled $120.2 million, $104.7 million and $53.1 million in 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively. In the first quarter of 2010, non-accrual loans averaged $103.3 million
compared to $127.5 million in the first quarter of 2009. In addition, we reversed $0.4 million of
accrued and unpaid interest on loans placed on non-accrual in the first quarter of 2010 compared to
$0.9 million during the first quarter of 2009.
Beginning in the last half of 2009 and continuing into the first quarter of 2010, we increased
our level of lower-yielding interest bearing cash balances to augment our liquidity in response to
our deteriorating financial condition (see Liquidity and Capital Resources below). In addition,
due to the challenges facing Mepco (see Noninterest Expense below), we expect the balance of
payment plan receivables to decline by approximately 50% in 2010 from their year-end 2009 levels.
These payment plan receivables declined by $65.6 million, or 16.1%, during the first quarter of
2010, which represents a 64.6% annualized rate. These payment plan receivables are the highest
yielding segment of our
52
loan portfolio, with an average yield of approximately 13% to 14%. The
combination of an increase in the level of lower-yielding interest bearing cash balances and a
decrease in the level of higher-yielding payment plan receivables has had (in the first quarter)
and is expected to continue to have an adverse impact on our 2010 net interest income and net
interest margin. The current interest rate environment (lower short-term interest rates and a
steeper yield curve) has exacerbated the adverse earnings impact of maintaining a high level of
liquidity.
Average Balances and Rates (Full Fiscal Years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
ASSETS (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans |
|
$ |
2,461,896 |
|
|
$ |
177,557 |
|
|
|
7.21 |
% |
|
$ |
2,558,621 |
|
|
$ |
186,259 |
|
|
|
7.28 |
% |
|
$ |
2,531,737 |
|
|
$ |
201,924 |
|
|
|
7.98 |
% |
Tax-exempt loans (2) |
|
|
8,672 |
|
|
|
391 |
|
|
|
4.51 |
|
|
|
10,747 |
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
4.54 |
|
|
|
9,568 |
|
|
|
437 |
|
|
|
4.57 |
|
Taxable securities |
|
|
111,558 |
|
|
|
6,333 |
|
|
|
5.68 |
|
|
|
144,265 |
|
|
|
8,467 |
|
|
|
5.87 |
|
|
|
179,878 |
|
|
|
9,635 |
|
|
|
5.36 |
|
Tax-exempt securities (2) |
|
|
85,954 |
|
|
|
3,669 |
|
|
|
4.27 |
|
|
|
162,144 |
|
|
|
7,238 |
|
|
|
4.46 |
|
|
|
225,676 |
|
|
|
9,920 |
|
|
|
4.40 |
|
Cash interest bearing |
|
|
72,606 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
0.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments |
|
|
28,304 |
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
3.29 |
|
|
|
31,425 |
|
|
|
1,284 |
|
|
|
4.09 |
|
|
|
26,017 |
|
|
|
1,338 |
|
|
|
5.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest earning assets
continuing operations |
|
|
2,768,990 |
|
|
|
189,056 |
|
|
|
6.83 |
|
|
|
2,907,202 |
|
|
|
203,736 |
|
|
|
7.01 |
|
|
|
2,972,876 |
|
|
|
223,254 |
|
|
|
7.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
|
55,451 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,873 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans
discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets, net |
|
|
157,762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
227,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
218,553 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,982,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,189,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,257,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
$ |
992,529 |
|
|
|
5,751 |
|
|
|
0.58 |
|
|
$ |
968,180 |
|
|
|
10,262 |
|
|
|
1.06 |
|
|
$ |
971,807 |
|
|
|
18,768 |
|
|
|
1.93 |
|
Time deposits |
|
|
1,019,624 |
|
|
|
29,654 |
|
|
|
2.91 |
|
|
|
917,403 |
|
|
|
36,435 |
|
|
|
3.97 |
|
|
|
1,439,177 |
|
|
|
70,292 |
|
|
|
4.88 |
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
4.86 |
|
|
|
2,240 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
4.64 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
394,975 |
|
|
|
15,128 |
|
|
|
3.83 |
|
|
|
682,884 |
|
|
|
26,878 |
|
|
|
3.94 |
|
|
|
205,811 |
|
|
|
13,499 |
|
|
|
6.56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest bearing
liabilities
continuing operations |
|
|
2,407,128 |
|
|
|
50,533 |
|
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
|
2,568,714 |
|
|
|
73,587 |
|
|
|
2.86 |
|
|
|
2,619,035 |
|
|
|
102,663 |
|
|
|
3.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand deposits |
|
|
321,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
301,117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300,886 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time deposits
discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
80,281 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,929 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
172,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
239,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
shareholders equity |
|
$ |
2,982,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,189,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,257,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
138,523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
130,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
120,591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income as a
percent of average
interest earning assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.48 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.06 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for $5.1 million of payment plan receivables
in 2009 included in taxable loans from customers domiciled in
Canada. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented on a
fully tax equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
53
Average Balances and Rates (Interim Periods)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
ASSETS(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans |
|
$ |
2,252,674 |
|
|
$ |
38,922 |
|
|
|
6.98 |
% |
|
$ |
2,497,623 |
|
|
$ |
44,300 |
|
|
|
7.16 |
% |
Tax-exempt loans(2) |
|
|
10,128 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
4.20 |
|
|
|
9,927 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
4.13 |
|
Taxable securities |
|
|
96,213 |
|
|
|
1,160 |
|
|
|
4.89 |
|
|
|
114,823 |
|
|
|
1,733 |
|
|
|
6.12 |
|
Tax-exempt securities(2) |
|
|
64,415 |
|
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
4.31 |
|
|
|
103,070 |
|
|
|
1,107 |
|
|
|
4.36 |
|
Cash interest bearing |
|
|
274,955 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
0.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments |
|
|
27,854 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
3.13 |
|
|
|
29,277 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
4.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Earning Assets |
|
|
2,726,239 |
|
|
|
41,244 |
|
|
|
6.12 |
|
|
|
2,754,720 |
|
|
|
47,565 |
|
|
|
6.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
|
59,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets, net |
|
|
148,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158,443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
2,933,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,974,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
$ |
1,084,499 |
|
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
$ |
944,904 |
|
|
|
1,581 |
|
|
|
0.68 |
|
Time deposits |
|
|
1,127,618 |
|
|
|
7,356 |
|
|
|
2.65 |
|
|
|
855,025 |
|
|
|
6,967 |
|
|
|
3.30 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
227,621 |
|
|
|
2,994 |
|
|
|
5.33 |
|
|
|
599,379 |
|
|
|
4,670 |
|
|
|
3.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Bearing Liabilities |
|
|
2,439,738 |
|
|
|
11,213 |
|
|
|
1.86 |
|
|
|
2,399,308 |
|
|
|
13,218 |
|
|
|
2.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand deposits |
|
|
327,570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308,538 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
64,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70,737 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
102,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
2,933,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,974,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
30,031 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,347 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income as a Percent
of Earning Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.45 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.03 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for $0.9 million and $6.9 million for the three
months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, of average payment
plan receivables included in taxable loans from customers domiciled in
Canada. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented on a
fully tax equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation allowance. |
54
Change in Net Interest Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Compared to 2008 |
|
|
2008 Compared to 2007 |
|
|
|
Volume |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Volume |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Increase (decrease) in interest income(1)(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans |
|
$ |
(6,989 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,713 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,702 |
) |
|
$ |
2,124 |
|
|
$ |
(17,789 |
) |
|
$ |
(15,665 |
) |
Tax-exempt loans(3) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
51 |
|
Taxable securities |
|
|
(1,865 |
) |
|
|
(269 |
) |
|
|
(2,134 |
) |
|
|
(2,031 |
) |
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
(1,168 |
) |
Tax-exempt securities(3) |
|
|
(3,265 |
) |
|
|
(304 |
) |
|
|
(3,569 |
) |
|
|
(2,834 |
) |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
(2,682 |
) |
Cash interest bearing |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
|
(352 |
) |
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest income |
|
|
(12,158 |
) |
|
|
(2,522 |
) |
|
|
(14,680 |
) |
|
|
(2,438 |
) |
|
|
(17,080 |
) |
|
|
(19,518 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in interest expense(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(4,763 |
) |
|
|
(4,511 |
) |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(8,436 |
) |
|
|
(8,506 |
) |
Time deposits |
|
|
3,740 |
|
|
|
(10,521 |
) |
|
|
(6,781 |
) |
|
|
(22,342 |
) |
|
|
(11,515 |
) |
|
|
(33,857 |
) |
Long-term debt |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
Other borrowings |
|
|
(11,046 |
) |
|
|
(704 |
) |
|
|
(11,750 |
) |
|
|
20,619 |
|
|
|
(7,240 |
) |
|
|
13,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest expense |
|
|
(7,066 |
) |
|
|
(15,988 |
) |
|
|
(23,054 |
) |
|
|
(1,890 |
) |
|
|
(27,186 |
) |
|
|
(29,076 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income |
|
$ |
(5,092 |
) |
|
$ |
13,466 |
|
|
$ |
8,374 |
|
|
$ |
(548 |
) |
|
$ |
10,106 |
|
|
$ |
9,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The change in interest due to changes in both balance and rate
has been allocated to change due to balance and change due to
rate in proportion to the relationship of the absolute dollar
amounts of change in each. |
|
(2) |
|
All domestic, except for $0.5 million of interest income in 2009
on payment plan receivables included in taxable loans from
customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
(3) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented on a
fully tax equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
Composition of Average Interest Earning Assets and Interest Bearing Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
As a percent of average interest earning assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans(1) |
|
|
89.2 |
% |
|
|
88.4 |
% |
|
|
85.5 |
% |
Other interest earning assets |
|
|
10.8 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average interest earning assets |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
35.8 |
% |
|
|
33.3 |
% |
|
|
32.7 |
% |
Time deposits |
|
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
23.9 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
|
Brokered CDs |
|
|
22.7 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
26.5 |
|
Other borrowings and long-term debt |
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
23.5 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average interest bearing liabilities |
|
|
86.9 |
% |
|
|
88.4 |
% |
|
|
88.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earning asset ratio(2) |
|
|
92.9 |
% |
|
|
91.2 |
% |
|
|
91.3 |
% |
Free-funds ratio(3) |
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
11.9 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for 0.2% of payment plan receivables in 2009 from customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
(2) |
|
Average interest earning assets divided by average assets. |
|
(3) |
|
Average interest bearing assets minus average interest bearing liabilities, divided by average interest bearing assets. |
55
Provision for Loan Losses
The provision for loan losses was $103.0 million during 2009 compared to $71.3 million and
$43.2 million during 2008 and 2007, respectively. The provision for loan losses was $17.1 million
and $30.0 million during the three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Changes in
the provision for loan losses reflect our assessment of the allowance for loan losses taking into
consideration factors such as loan mix, levels of non-performing and classified loans, and net
charge-offs. While we use relevant information to recognize losses on loans, additional provisions
for related losses may be necessary based on changes in economic conditions, customer
circumstances, and other credit risk factors. The significant increases in the provision for loan
losses over the last three years principally reflect a rise in the level of net loan charge-offs
and an elevated level of non-performing loans. The decrease in the provision for loan losses in
the first quarter of 2010 primarily reflects reduced levels of non-performing loans, lower total
loan balances, and a decline in loan net charge-offs. See Portfolio Loans and Asset Quality for
a discussion of the various components of the allowance for loan losses and their impact on the
provision for loan losses during these periods.
Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income is a significant element in assessing our results of operations. On a
long-term basis, we are attempting to grow non-interest income in order to diversify our revenues
within the financial services industry. We regard net gains on mortgage loan sales as a core
recurring source of revenue but they are quite cyclical and volatile. We regard net gains (losses)
on securities as a non-operating component of non-interest income. As a result, we believe it is
best to evaluate our success in growing non-interest income and diversifying our revenues by also
comparing non-interest income when excluding net gains (losses) on assets (mortgage loans and
securities).
Non-interest income totaled $58.7 million during 2009 compared to $29.7 million and $47.1
million during 2008 and 2007, respectively. Excluding net gains and losses on mortgage loans and
securities, non-interest income grew by 11.5% to $44.1 million during 2009 and declined by 9.3% to
$39.5 million during 2008. These variances are primarily due to changes in the valuation allowance
related to capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights.
Non-interest income totaled $12.0 million during the first three months of 2010 compared to
$11.6 million during the first three months of 2009.
Non-Interest Income (Full Fiscal Years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Service charges on deposit accounts |
|
$ |
24,370 |
|
|
$ |
24,223 |
|
|
$ |
24,251 |
|
Net gains (losses) on assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans |
|
|
10,860 |
|
|
|
5,181 |
|
|
|
4,317 |
|
Securities |
|
|
3,826 |
|
|
|
(14,795 |
) |
|
|
295 |
|
Other than temporary loss on securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impairment loss |
|
|
(4,073 |
) |
|
|
(166 |
) |
|
|
(1,000 |
) |
Loss recognized in other comprehensive loss |
|
|
3,991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net impairment loss recognized in earnings |
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
(166 |
) |
|
|
(1,000 |
) |
VISA check card interchange income |
|
|
5,922 |
|
|
|
5,728 |
|
|
|
4,905 |
|
Mortgage loan servicing |
|
|
2,252 |
|
|
|
(2,071 |
) |
|
|
2,236 |
|
Mutual fund and annuity commissions |
|
|
2,017 |
|
|
|
2,207 |
|
|
|
2,072 |
|
Bank owned life insurance |
|
|
1,615 |
|
|
|
1,960 |
|
|
|
1,830 |
|
Title insurance fees |
|
|
2,272 |
|
|
|
1,388 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
Other |
|
|
5,607 |
|
|
|
6,066 |
|
|
|
6,688 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-interest income |
|
$ |
58,659 |
|
|
$ |
29,721 |
|
|
$ |
47,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56
Non-Interest Income (Interim Periods)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Service charges on deposit accounts |
|
$ |
5,275 |
|
|
$ |
5,507 |
|
Net gains (losses) on assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans |
|
|
1,843 |
|
|
|
3,281 |
|
Securities |
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
(564 |
) |
Other than temporary loss on securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impairment loss |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Loss recognized in other comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net impairment loss recognized in earnings |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
VISA check card interchange income |
|
|
1,572 |
|
|
|
1,415 |
|
Mortgage loan servicing |
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
(842 |
) |
Mutual fund and annuity commissions |
|
|
389 |
|
|
|
453 |
|
Bank owned life insurance |
|
|
468 |
|
|
|
401 |
|
Title insurance fees |
|
|
494 |
|
|
|
609 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,397 |
|
|
|
1,335 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-interest income |
|
$ |
12,017 |
|
|
$ |
11,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service charges on deposit accounts totaled $24.4 million during 2009, compared to $24.2
million and $24.3 million during 2008 and 2007, respectively. The overall level of service charges
on deposits has remained relatively consistent for the past three years. In late 2009, the Federal
Reserve adopted rules that will require a written opt-in from customers before a bank can assess
overdraft fees on ATM or debit card transactions. These rules are effective July 1, 2010. We
believe that such legislation will have a material adverse impact on our present level of service
charges on deposits accounts.
Service charges on deposit accounts totaled $5.3 million in the first quarter of 2010, a
$0.2 million or 4.2% decrease from the comparable period in 2009. The decrease in such service
charges principally relates to a decline in non-sufficient funds (NSF) occurrences and related NSF
fees. We believe the decline in NSF occurrences is due to our customers managing their finances
more closely in order to reduce NSF activity and avoid the associated fees because of the current
challenging economic conditions.
We realized net gains of $10.9 million on the sale of mortgage loans during 2009, compared to
$5.2 million and $4.3 million during 2008 and 2007, respectively. Effective January 1, 2008, we
implemented fair value accounting for mortgage loans held for sale and on commitments to originate
mortgage loans.
The volume of loans sold is dependent upon our ability to originate mortgage loans as
well as the demand for fixed-rate obligations and other loans that we cannot profitably fund within
established interest-rate risk parameters. (See Portfolio Loans and Asset Quality.) Net gains on
mortgage loans are also dependent upon economic and competitive factors as well as our ability to
effectively manage exposure to changes in interest rates and thus can often be a volatile part of
our overall revenues. In 2009, mortgage loan origination and sales volumes increased from 2008 and
2007 reflecting generally lower interest rates that led to a significant increase in refinance
volumes. Additionally, new tax credits for first-time home buyers during 2009 also spurred home
sales and hence mortgage loan origination volume. These positive factors were partially offset by
weak economic conditions, lower home values, and more stringent underwriting criteria required by
the secondary mortgage market, which reduced the number of applicants being approved for mortgage
loans.
Gains on the sale of mortgage loans were $1.8 million and $3.3 million in the first quarters
of 2010 and 2009, respectively. Mortgage loan sales totaled $87.7 million in the first quarter of
2010 compared to $142.6 million in the first quarter of 2009. Mortgage loans originated totaled
$90.0 million in the first quarter of 2010 compared to $154.6 million in the comparable quarter of
2009. The decline in mortgage loan originations is primarily due to a decrease in refinancing
activity.
57
Mortgage Loan Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Mortgage loans originated |
|
$ |
90,007 |
|
|
$ |
154,608 |
|
|
$ |
576,018 |
|
|
$ |
368,517 |
|
|
$ |
507,211 |
|
Mortgage loans sold |
|
|
87,708 |
|
|
|
142,636 |
|
|
|
540,713 |
|
|
|
267,216 |
|
|
|
288,826 |
|
Mortgage loans sold with servicing rights released |
|
|
11,864 |
|
|
|
5,429 |
|
|
|
55,495 |
|
|
|
51,875 |
|
|
|
47,783 |
|
Net gains on the sale of mortgage loans |
|
|
1,843 |
|
|
|
3,281 |
|
|
|
10,860 |
|
|
|
5,181 |
|
|
|
4,317 |
|
Net gains as a percent of mortgage loans sold (loan
sale margin) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.01 |
% |
|
|
1.94 |
% |
|
|
1.49 |
% |
Fair value adjustments included in the Loan Sales Margin |
|
|
2.10 |
% |
|
|
2.30 |
% |
|
|
0.07 |
|
|
|
0.36 |
|
|
|
(0.06 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(.07 |
) |
|
|
0.65 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains as a percentage of mortgage loans sold, which we refer to as loan sales margin,
are impacted by several factors including competition and the manner in which the loan is sold
(with servicing rights retained or released). Our decision to sell or retain real estate mortgage
loan servicing rights is primarily influenced by an evaluation of the price being paid for mortgage
loan servicing by outside third parties compared to our calculation of the economic value of
retaining such servicing. The sale of mortgage loan servicing rights may result in declines in
mortgage loan servicing income in future periods. Gains on the sale of mortgage loans were also
impacted by recording fair value accounting adjustments. Excluding the aforementioned accounting
adjustments, the loan sales margin would have been 1.94% in 2009, 1.58% in 2008, and 1.55% in 2007.
The improved loan sales margin in 2009 was generally due to more favorable competitive conditions
in 2009 as many mortgage brokers left the market during 2008.
We generated securities net gains of $3.7 million in 2009. The 2009 securities net gains
were primarily due to increases in the fair value and gains on the sale of our Bank of America
preferred stock as well as gains on the sale of municipal securities. We sold all of our Bank of
America preferred stock in June 2009. The 2009 gains were partially offset by $0.1 million of
other than temporary impairment recognized on one private label mortgage-backed security and one
trust preferred security.
We incurred securities net losses of $15.0 million in 2008. These net losses were
comprised of $7.7 million of losses from the sale of securities, $2.8 million of unrealized losses
related to declines in the fair value of trading securities that were still being held at year-end,
$0.2 million of other than temporary impairment charges, and a $6.2 million charge related to the
dissolution of a security as described below. These losses were partially offset by $1.9 million of
gains on sales of securities (primarily municipal securities sales). 2008 was an unusual year as we
historically have not incurred any significant net losses on securities. We elected, effective
January 1, 2008, to measure the majority of our preferred stock investments at fair value. As a
result of this election, we recorded an after tax cumulative reduction of $1.5 million to retained
earnings associated with the initial adoption of fair value accounting for these preferred stocks.
This preferred stock portfolio included issues of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Merrill Lynch, and
Goldman Sachs. During 2008, we recorded unrealized net losses on securities of $2.8 million related
to the decline in fair value of the preferred stocks that were still being held at year-end. We
also recorded realized net losses of $7.6 million on the sale of several of these preferred stocks.
The 2008 securities net losses also include a write down of $6.2 million (from a par value of $10.0
million to a fair value of $3.8 million) related to the dissolution of a money-market auction rate
security and the distribution of the underlying Bank of America preferred stock. The
conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008 resulted in the market values of
the preferred stocks issued by these entities plummeting to low single digit prices per share.
Prices on other preferred stocks that we owned also declined sharply as the market for these
securities came under considerable stress. These were the primary factors leading to the large
securities losses that we incurred during 2008.
The $0.7 million of securities net losses in 2007 include $1.0 million of other than
temporary impairment charges. These charges related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred stocks.
We also recorded securities gains of approximately $0.3 million in 2007 primarily related to the
sale of municipal securities.
We generated net securities gains of $0.1 million and net securities losses of $0.6 million in
the first quarters of 2010 and 2009, respectively. The 2010 securities gains were due primarily to
a $0.3 million net gain on the sale of municipal, bank trust preferred and private-label
residential mortgage-backed investment securities. The gains were offset by $0.1 million of other
than temporary impairment charges. The 2009 securities losses were due to a decline in the fair
value of trading securities of $0.8 million that was partially offset by $0.2 million of net
securities gains due principally to the sale of municipal securities. (See Securities.)
58
Gains and Losses on Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
Proceeds |
|
Gains |
|
Losses(1) |
|
Net |
2009 |
|
$ |
43,525 |
|
|
$ |
3,957 |
|
|
$ |
213 |
|
|
$ |
3,744 |
|
2008 |
|
|
80,348 |
|
|
|
1,903 |
|
|
|
16,864 |
|
|
|
(14,961 |
) |
2007 |
|
|
61,520 |
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
1,032 |
|
|
|
(705 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Losses in 2009 include $.08 million of other than temporary
impairment charges. Losses in 2008 include a $6.2 million
write-down related to the dissolution of a money-market auction
rate security and the distribution of the underlying preferred
stock, $0.2 million of other than temporary impairment charges,
and $2.8 million of losses recognized on trading securities still
held at December 31, 2008. Losses in 2007 include $1.0 million
of other than temporary impairment charges. |
VISA check card interchange income increased to $5.9 million in 2009 compared to $5.7
million in 2008 and $4.9 million in 2007. The significant increase in 2009 and 2008 compared to
2007 is primarily due to the branch acquisition described above (which occurred in March 2007). In
addition, these results are also due to increases in the size of our card base due to growth in
checking accounts as well as increases in the frequency of use of our VISA check card product by
our customer base. VISA check card interchange income increased by 11.1% in the first quarter of
2010 compared to the year ago period. However, pending federal legislation, if enacted into law,
could have an adverse impact on this aspect of our business. See Risk Factors above for more
information.
Mortgage loan servicing generated revenue of $2.3 million and $2.2 million in 2009 and
2007, respectively, and an expense of $2.1 million in 2008. These yearly comparative variances are
primarily due to changes in the valuation allowance on capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights
and the level of amortization of this asset. The period end valuation allowance is based on the
valuation of the mortgage loan servicing portfolio, and the amortization is primarily impacted by
prepayment activity. In particular, mortgage loan interest rates declined significantly in December
2008 resulting in higher estimated future prepayment rates and a significant increase in the
valuation allowance at the end of that year. Mortgage loan servicing generated income of $0.4
million and a loss of $0.8 million in the first quarters of 2010 and 2009, respectively. As
compared to the first quarter of 2010, the year-ago quarter included a $0.8 million higher
impairment charge and $0.4 million in higher amortization of capitalized mortgage loan servicing
rights. The 2009 impairment charge primarily reflects declining mortgage loan interest rates
resulting in higher estimated future prepayment rates during that year-ago period.
Capitalized Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights (Full Fiscal Years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Balance at January 1, |
|
$ |
11,966 |
|
|
$ |
15,780 |
|
|
$ |
14,782 |
|
Originated servicing rights capitalized |
|
|
5,213 |
|
|
|
2,405 |
|
|
|
2,873 |
|
Amortization |
|
|
(4,255 |
) |
|
|
(1,887 |
) |
|
|
(1,624 |
) |
(Increase)/decrease in valuation allowance |
|
|
2,349 |
|
|
|
(4,332 |
) |
|
|
(251 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, |
|
$ |
15,273 |
|
|
$ |
11,966 |
|
|
$ |
15,780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance at December 31, |
|
$ |
2,302 |
|
|
$ |
4,651 |
|
|
$ |
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2009, we were servicing approximately $1.73 billion in mortgage loans for
others on which servicing rights have been capitalized. This servicing portfolio had a weighted
average coupon rate of 5.73% and a weighted average service fee of approximately 26 basis points.
Remaining capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights at December 31, 2009 totaled $15.3 million,
representing approximately 89 basis points on the related amount of mortgage loans serviced for
others. The capitalized mortgage loan servicing had an estimated fair market value of $16.3 million
at December 31, 2009.
59
Capitalized Mortgage Loan Servicing Rights (Interim Periods)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of period |
|
$ |
15,273 |
|
|
$ |
11,966 |
|
Originated servicing rights capitalized |
|
|
775 |
|
|
|
1,499 |
|
Amortization |
|
|
(758 |
) |
|
|
(1,179 |
) |
(Increase)/decrease in impairment reserve |
|
|
145 |
|
|
|
(697 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of period |
|
$ |
15,435 |
|
|
$ |
11,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impairment reserve at end of period |
|
$ |
2,157 |
|
|
$ |
5,348 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At March 31, 2010, we were servicing approximately $1.73 billion in mortgage loans for others
on which servicing rights have been capitalized. This servicing portfolio had a weighted average
coupon rate of approximately 5.68% and a weighted average service fee of 25.6 basis points.
Remaining capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights at March 31, 2010 totaled $15.4 million and
had an estimated fair market value of $16.5 million.
Mutual fund and annuity commissions totaled $2.0 million, $2.2 million and $2.1 million in
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The decline in 2009 generally reflects difficult market
conditions and reduced commission payouts on certain annuity products. The increase in 2008 is due
to higher sales of these products as a result of growth in the number of our licensed sales
representatives. Mutual fund and annuity commissions decreased during the first quarter of 2010
compared to the year ago period primarily reflecting lower sales of these products. These lower
sales are primarily due to the elimination of certain personnel within the wealth management
portion of our investment and insurance sales force in early 2010.
In August 2002 we acquired $35.0 million in separate account bank owned life insurance on
which we earned $1.6 million, $2.0 million and $1.8 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively,
principally as a result of increases in cash surrender value. Our separate account is primarily
invested in agency mortgage-backed securities. The reduced crediting rate in 2009 generally
reflects lower interest rates on mortgage-backed securities. The total cash surrender value of our
bank owned life insurance was $46.5 million and $44.9 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Income from bank owned life insurance increased in 2010 due to a higher average
crediting rate on our cash surrender value reflecting generally improved total returns on the
underlying separate account assets.
Title insurance fees totaled $2.3 million in 2009, $1.4 million in 2008 and $1.6 million in
2007. The fluctuation in title insurance fees is primarily a function of the level of mortgage
loans that we originated. The growth in 2009 reflects a significant increase in mortgage loan
refinance volume. Title insurance fees decreased during the first quarter of 2010 compared to the
year ago period primarily as a result of the recent decline in mortgage lending origination volume.
Other non-interest income totaled $5.6 million, $6.1 million and $6.7 million in 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively. Our 2009 other non-interest income includes $1.0 million related to foreign
currency transaction gains associated with Canadian dollar denominated payment plan receivables.
The Canadian dollar appreciated significantly compared to the U.S. dollar during 2009. Total
Canadian dollar denominated payment plan receivables had declined to $1.7 million at December 31,
2009. As a result, we would expect future foreign currency transaction gains or losses to be
relatively minor. These foreign currency transaction gains were substantially offset by the change
in the results of our private mortgage reinsurance captive in 2009. Our private mortgage
reinsurance captive incurred a loss of $0.6 million in 2009 compared to income of $0.4 million and
$0.3 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. The 2009 loss reflects increased mortgage loan
defaults and lower real estate values which lead to higher private mortgage insurance claims. 2008
other non-interest income included revenue of $0.4 million from the redemption of 8,551 shares of
Visa, Inc. Class B Common Stock as part of the Visa initial public offering. Other non-interest
income also
includes zero, $0.1 million and $0.5 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively, of fee
income from our MoneyGram official checks program. This fee income is determined largely by the
level of short-term interest rates. The very low short term interest rates have currently
eliminated this source of revenue. Finally, 2007 also included $0.3 million of income from interest
rate swap or interest rate cap termination fees.
Other non-interest income was relatively unchanged between the first quarters of 2010 and
2009.
60
Non-Interest Expense
Non-interest expense is an important component of our results of operations. Historically, we
primarily focused on revenue growth, and while we strive to efficiently manage our cost structure,
our non-interest expenses generally increased from year to year because we expanded our operations
through acquisitions and by opening new branches and loan production offices. Because of the
current challenging economic environment that we are confronting, our expansion through
acquisitions or by opening new branches is unlikely in the near term absent new capital, which we
are pursuing in the offering described in this prospectus. Further, management is focused on a
number of initiatives to reduce and contain non-interest expenses.
Non-interest expense totaled $187.6 million during 2009, compared to $177.2 million and
$115.7 million during 2008 and 2007, respectively. 2009 non-interest expense includes $31.2 million
for vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies and a $16.7 million goodwill impairment
charge. 2008 non-interest expense includes a $50.0 million goodwill impairment charge. 2007
non-interest expense includes $1.7 million of severance and other (primarily data processing and
legal and professional fees) expenses associated with the bank consolidation described above and
staff reductions and $0.3 million of goodwill impairment charges. In addition, the branch
acquisition described above resulted in increases in several categories of non-interest expenses in
2009 and 2008 compared to 2007. Loan and collection costs and losses on other real estate (ORE) and
repossessed assets have also increased reflecting higher levels of non-performing loans and
ORE.
Non-interest expense totaled $39.1 million in the first quarter of 2010 compared to $34.2
million in the year ago period. This increase was primarily due to a rise in compensation and
employee benefits expense, credit related costs (loan and collection expenses and loss on ORE and
repossessed assets), vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense, and deposit
insurance costs.
Non-Interest Expense (Full Fiscal Years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Compensation |
|
$ |
40,053 |
|
|
$ |
40,181 |
|
|
$ |
40,373 |
|
Performance-based compensation and benefits |
|
|
2,889 |
|
|
|
4,861 |
|
|
|
4,979 |
|
Other benefits |
|
|
10,061 |
|
|
|
10,137 |
|
|
|
10,459 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation and benefits |
|
|
53,003 |
|
|
|
55,179 |
|
|
|
55,811 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies |
|
|
31,234 |
|
|
|
966 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loan and collection |
|
|
14,727 |
|
|
|
9,431 |
|
|
|
4,949 |
|
Occupancy, net |
|
|
11,092 |
|
|
|
11,852 |
|
|
|
10,624 |
|
Loss on other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
8,554 |
|
|
|
4,349 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
Data processing |
|
|
8,386 |
|
|
|
7,148 |
|
|
|
6,957 |
|
Deposit Insurance |
|
|
7,328 |
|
|
|
1,988 |
|
|
|
628 |
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
|
7,159 |
|
|
|
7,074 |
|
|
|
7,633 |
|
Credit card and bank service fees |
|
|
6,608 |
|
|
|
4,818 |
|
|
|
3,913 |
|
Advertising |
|
|
5,696 |
|
|
|
5,534 |
|
|
|
5,514 |
|
Communications |
|
|
4,424 |
|
|
|
4,018 |
|
|
|
3,809 |
|
Legal and professional |
|
|
3,222 |
|
|
|
2,032 |
|
|
|
1,978 |
|
Amortization of intangible assets |
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
|
3,072 |
|
|
|
3,373 |
|
Supplies |
|
|
1,835 |
|
|
|
2,030 |
|
|
|
2,411 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
50,020 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
Other |
|
|
5,655 |
|
|
|
7,639 |
|
|
|
7,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-interest expense |
|
$ |
187,587 |
|
|
$ |
177,150 |
|
|
$ |
115,724 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decline in total compensation and benefits is primarily due to a reduction in
performance based compensation. In addition, the deferral (as direct loan origination costs) of
compensation and benefits has increased in 2009 as a result of the rise in mortgage loan
origination activity. These compensation cost reductions were partially offset by additional staff
added during 2009 to manage non-performing assets and loan collections. The reduction in
performance based compensation reflects our near-term financial performance. In 2009, no employee
stock ownership contribution was made, and no bonuses were paid. In addition, executive and senior
officer salaries were frozen at 2008 levels for 2009. In 2008, no executive officer bonuses were
paid. Salaries in 2007 also include $1.1 million of severance costs from staff reductions
associated with the consolidation of our bank charters as well as downsizing initiatives.
61
We maintain performance-based compensation plans which, in addition to commissions and
cash incentive awards, include an employee stock ownership plan and a long-term equity based
incentive plan. The amount of expense recognized in 2009, 2008 and 2007 for share-based awards
under our long-term equity based incentive plan was $0.8 million, $0.6 million and $0.3 million,
respectively.
We recorded an expense of $31.2 million and $1.0 million for vehicle service contract
counterparty contingencies in 2009 and 2008, respectively. No such expense was recorded in 2007.
These vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expenses relate to estimated potential
losses based on our expectation that Mepco will be unable to fully collect amounts owed to it from
its counterparties upon cancellation of outstanding payment plan receivables (formerly referred to
as finance receivables) held by Mepco prior to payment in full of those payment plans. (See
Summary Mepco Finance Corporation above for a more complete description of Mepcos business.)
The $31.2 million charge taken in 2009 includes a $19.0 million charge related to the business
failure of Mepcos largest single counterparty, which filed bankruptcy on March 1, 2010.
The amount of payment plans purchased from this counterparty and outstanding at December 31,
2009 totaled approximately $206.1 million. In addition, as of December 31, 2009, this counterparty
owed Mepco $16.2 million for previously cancelled payment plans. In addition to the $19.0 million
charge taken in 2009 related to this counterparty, Mepco recorded an additional $12.2 million of
expense in 2009 for the default by other counterparties in their recourse obligations to Mepco.
Please see Risk Factors above for a description of the significant risks and challenges currently
associated with Mepcos business.
Loan and collection expenses primarily reflect collection costs related to non-performing or
delinquent loans. The sharp rise in these expenses in 2009 and 2008 reflects our elevated level of
non-performing loans and ORE.
Occupancy expenses, net, totaled $11.1 million, $11.9 million and $10.6 million in 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively. A portion of the increase in 2009 and 2008 is due to the branch acquisition
that occurred in March 2007. In addition, we closed several loan production offices in 2008, and
occupancy expenses in that year include $0.2 million of costs associated with such office closings.
Loss on ORE and repossessed assets primarily represents the loss on the sale or additional
write downs on these assets subsequent to the transfer of the asset from our loan portfolio. This
transfer occurs at the time we acquire the collateral that secured the loan. At the time of
acquisition, the real estate or other repossessed asset is valued at fair value, less estimated
costs to sell, which becomes the new basis for the asset. Any write-downs at the time of
acquisition are charged to the allowance for loan losses. The significant increase in loss on ORE
and repossessed assets in 2009 and 2008 compared to earlier years ($8.6 million in 2009, compared
to $4.3 million in 2008, compared to $0.3 million in 2007) is primarily due to declines in the
value of these assets subsequent to the acquisition date. These declines in value have been
accentuated by the high inventory of foreclosed homes for sale in many of our markets as well as
Michigans relatively weak economic conditions.
Data processing and communications expenses all generally increased over the periods presented
as a result of the growth of the organization and from the 2007 branch acquisition. In addition,
2009 data processing expense includes $0.6 million related to a revenue enhancement project
performed by our core data processing company.
Deposit insurance expense increased substantially in 2009, compared to the prior periods,
reflecting higher rates and an industry-wide special assessment of $1.4 million in the second
quarter of 2009. This special assessment was equal to 5 basis points on our total assets less our
Tier 1 capital. In addition, our balance of total deposits increased during 2009. During 2007, we
fully utilized the assessment credits that reduced our expense during that year.
As an FDIC insured institution, we are required to pay deposit insurance premium
assessments to the FDIC. Under the FDICs risk-based assessment system for deposit insurance
premiums, all insured depository institutions are placed into one of four categories and assessed
insurance premiums based primarily on their level of capital and supervisory evaluations. Insurance
assessments ranged from 0.12% to 0.50% of total deposits for the first quarter 2009 assessment.
Effective April 1, 2009, insurance assessments ranged from 0.07% to 0.78%, depending on an
institutions risk classification and other factors.
Furniture, fixtures and equipment expense has generally declined since 2007, due in
part to cost reduction initiatives. In addition, certain fixed assets became fully depreciated in
2008 and were not replaced. The decline in supplies expense since 2007, was due in part to somewhat
lower business volumes relative to 2007 and the aforementioned cost reduction initiatives.
Advertising expense was relatively comparable across all years and primarily
represents direct mail costs for our high performance checking program, costs associated with our
VISA debit card rewards program and media advertising.
Credit card and bank service fees increased in each year presented primarily due to growth in
the number of vehicle service contract payment plans being administered by Mepco. As described
above, we expect payment plans at Mepco to decline in 2010, and would therefore expect these
expenses to eventually decline as well.
Legal and professional fees increased substantially in 2009, over 2008 and 2007 levels due
primarily to increased legal expenses associated with the issues described above related to Mepco
and due to various regulatory matters and increased third-party costs principally associated with
external reviews of our loan portfolio.
62
The amortization of intangible assets primarily relates to the branch acquisition and the
amortization of the deposit customer relationship value, including core deposit value, that was
acquired in this transaction.
During 2009, we recorded a $16.7 million goodwill impairment charge at our Mepco segment. In
the fourth quarter of 2009, we updated our goodwill impairment testing (interim tests had also been
performed in each of the first three quarters of 2009). The results of the year end goodwill
impairment testing showed that the estimated fair value of our Mepco reporting unit was now less
than the carrying value of equity. The fair value of Mepco is principally based on estimated future
earnings utilizing a discounted cash flow methodology. As described above and in Business
Segments below, Mepco recorded a substantial loss in the fourth quarter of 2009. Mepco had been
profitable during the first nine months of 2009. Further, Mepcos largest business counterparty,
who accounted for approximately 40% of Mepcos payment plan business, defaulted in its obligations
to Mepco and this counterparty filed bankruptcy on March 1, 2010. These factors adversely impacted
the level of Mepcos expected future earnings and hence its fair value. A step 2 analysis and
valuation was performed. Based on the step 2 analysis (which involved determining the fair value of
Mepcos assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles), we concluded that goodwill was impaired,
resulting in this $16.7 million charge.
During 2008, we recorded a $50.0 million goodwill impairment charge. In the fourth quarter of
2008, we updated our goodwill impairment testing (interim tests had also been performed in the
second and third quarters of 2008). Our common stock price dropped even further in the fourth
quarter of 2008 resulting in a wider difference between our market capitalization and book value.
The results of the year-end goodwill impairment testing showed that the estimated fair value of our
bank reporting unit was less than the carrying value of equity. This necessitated a step 2 analysis
and valuation. Based on the step 2 analysis (which involved determining the fair value of our
banks assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles) we concluded that goodwill was impaired,
resulting in this $50.0 million charge. The remaining goodwill at December 31, 2008 of $16.7
million was at our Mepco reporting unit and the testing performed at that time indicated that this
goodwill was not impaired. Mepco had net income from continuing operations of $10.7 million and
$5.1 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively. Based primarily on Mepcos estimated future earnings,
the fair value of this reporting unit (utilizing a discounted cash flow method) was determined to
be in excess of its carrying value at the end of 2008. A portion of the $50.0 goodwill impairment
charge was tax deductible and a $6.3 million tax benefit was recorded related to this charge.
During 2007, we recorded a $0.3 million goodwill impairment charge. This charge related to
writing off the remaining goodwill associated with our mobile home lending subsidiary, First Home
Financial, which was dissolved in June 2007.
Other non-interest expense decreased to $5.7 million in 2009, compared to $7.6 million in
2008, and $7.5 million in 2007. The decrease in 2009 compared to 2008 was primarily due to a
decrease in costs associated with a deferred compensation plan, travel and entertainment expenses
and bank courier costs, while the decrease from 2007 was primarily attributed to decreases in
branch conversion costs, travel and entertainment expenses and bank courier costs.
In July 2007, the State of Michigan replaced its Single Business Tax, or SBT, with a new
Michigan Business Tax, or MBT which became effective in 2008. Financial institutions are subject to
an industry-specific tax which is based on net capital. Both the MBT and the SBT are recorded in
other non-interest expenses in the consolidated statements of operations. Our MBT expense was $0.1
million and $0.2 million in 2009 and 2008, respectively. Our SBT expense was zero in 2007.
63
Non-Interest Expense (Interim Periods)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Salaries |
|
$ |
10,176 |
|
|
$ |
9,669 |
|
Performance-based compensation and benefits |
|
|
644 |
|
|
|
329 |
|
Other benefits |
|
|
2,393 |
|
|
|
2,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation and employee benefits |
|
|
13,213 |
|
|
|
12,577 |
|
Loan and collection |
|
|
4,786 |
|
|
|
4,038 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies |
|
|
3,418 |
|
|
|
800 |
|
Occupancy, net |
|
|
2,909 |
|
|
|
3,048 |
|
Data processing |
|
|
2,105 |
|
|
|
2,096 |
|
Loss on other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
2,029 |
|
|
|
1,261 |
|
FDIC deposit insurance |
|
|
1,802 |
|
|
|
1,186 |
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
|
1,719 |
|
|
|
1,849 |
|
Credit card and bank service fees |
|
|
1,675 |
|
|
|
1,464 |
|
Legal and professional fees |
|
|
1,136 |
|
|
|
641 |
|
Communications |
|
|
1,073 |
|
|
|
1,045 |
|
Advertising |
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
1,442 |
|
Supplies |
|
|
393 |
|
|
|
469 |
|
Amortization of intangible assets |
|
|
322 |
|
|
|
501 |
|
Other |
|
|
1,720 |
|
|
|
1,774 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-interest expense |
|
$ |
39,079 |
|
|
$ |
34,191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation and employee benefit expenses increased by $0.6 million, or 5.1%, in the first
quarter of 2010, primarily because the deferral (as direct loan origination costs) of such expenses
has decreased in 2010 as a result of the decline in loan origination activity. The amount of
compensation and employee benefits expenses that were deferred as direct loan origination costs
declined by $1.0 million in 2010 compared to 2009. For 2010, we froze salaries at 2009 levels,
eliminated bonuses, eliminated our 401(k) match, and eliminated any employee stock ownership plan
contribution. Further, the number of full time equivalent employees has declined slightly in 2010
compared to year ago levels.
The increase in loan and collection expenses is primarily due to costs incurred at Mepco
related to counterparty defaults, and the increased loss on ORE and repossessed assets principally
reflects continuing weak prices for real estate. (See Portfolio Loans and Asset Quality.)
We recorded an expense of $3.4 million and $0.8 million for vehicle service contract payment
plan counterparty contingencies in the first quarters of 2010 and 2009, respectively. The $3.4
million charge taken in the first quarter of 2010 included an additional $0.5 million related to
the failure of Mepcos largest counterparty, as described above and in more detail in Risk
Factors above. The amount of payment plans purchased from this counterparty and outstanding at
March 31, 2010 totaled approximately $147.4 million (compared to $206.1 million at December 31,
2009). In addition, as of March 31, 2010, this counterparty owed Mepco $27.0 million for previously
cancelled payment plans. The remaining $2.9 million charge in the first quarter of 2010 related to
potential losses associated with other of Mepcos counterparties. Please see Risk Factors above
for a description of the significant risks and challenges currently associated with Mepcos
business.
Occupancy, net, data processing, furniture, fixtures and equipment, communications, supplies
and other non-interest expenses in the first quarter of 2010 were generally comparable to first
quarter 2009 levels. Collectively, these expense categories declined by $0.4 million, or 3.5%, in
2010 compared to the year ago period due primarily to our cost reduction efforts.
Deposit insurance expense rose by $0.6 million, or 51.9%, in the first quarter of 2010
compared to the year ago period reflecting both higher assessment rates in 2010 and an increased
balance of total deposits.
Credit card and bank service fees increased primarily due to an increase in the number of
payment plans being serviced by Mepco in the first quarter of 2010 compared to the first quarter of
2009. However, as described above, the level of such payment plans have declined since the end of
2009 and are expected to continue to decline in 2010.
64
Legal and professional fees increased substantially in the first quarter of 2010 compared to
the year earlier period due primarily to increased legal expenses associated with the issues
described above related to Mepco, various regulatory matters, and a variety of initiatives related
to our Capital Plan. (See Liquidity and Capital Resources.)
Total advertising expense was lower in 2010 compared to 2009 due primarily to a reduction in
outdoor advertising (billboards) and the elimination of our VISA check card rewards program.
Income Tax Expense (Benefit)
We assess the need for a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets periodically. The
realization of deferred tax assets (net of the recorded valuation allowance) is largely dependent
upon future taxable income, future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, and the
ability to carry-back losses to available tax years. In assessing the need for a valuation
allowance, we consider all positive and negative evidence, including anticipated operating results,
taxable income in carry-back years, scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, and tax
planning strategies.
In 2008, our conclusion that we needed a valuation allowance was based on a number of factors,
including our declining operating performance since 2005, our net operating loss in 2008, overall
negative trends in the banking industry, and our expectation that our operating results would
continue to be negatively affected by the overall economic environment. As a result, we recorded a
valuation allowance in 2008 of $36.2 million on our deferred tax assets, which consisted of $27.6
million recognized as income tax expense and $8.6 million recognized through the accumulated other
comprehensive loss component of shareholders equity. The valuation allowance against our deferred
tax assets at December 31, 2008 of $36.2 million represented our entire net deferred tax asset
except for that amount which could be carried back to 2007 and recovered in cash as well as for
certain deferred tax assets at Mepco that relate to state income taxes and that can be recovered
based on Mepcos individual earnings.
During 2009, we concluded that we needed to continue to carry a valuation allowance based on
similar factors. As a result, we recorded an additional net valuation allowance of $24.0 million
recognized as income tax expense (which is net of a $4.1 million allocation of deferred taxes on
the accumulated other comprehensive loss component of shareholders equity). The valuation
allowance against our deferred tax assets totaled $60.2 million at December 31, 2009. This
valuation allowance represents our entire net deferred tax asset except for certain deferred tax
assets at Mepco that relate to state income taxes and that can be recovered based on Mepcos
individual earnings.
Despite the valuation allowance, these deferred tax assets remain available to offset future
taxable income. Our deferred tax assets will be analyzed quarterly for changes affecting the
valuation allowance, which may be adjusted in future periods accordingly. In making such judgments,
significant weight will be given to evidence that can be objectively verified. We will analyze
changes in near-term market conditions and consider both positive and negative evidence as well as
other factors that may impact future operating results in making any decision to adjust this
valuation allowance.
Companies are subject to a change of ownership test under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), that, if met, would limit the annual utilization of tax
losses and credits carrying forward from pre-change of ownership periods, as well as the ability to
deduct certain unrealized built-in losses that are subsequently realized. We currently expect that
the sale of our common stock in this offering will trigger an ownership change that will negatively
affect our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards and other deferred tax assets in
the future. As a result, we may suffer higher-than-anticipated tax expense and, consequently, lower
net income and cash flow in future years. As of March 31, 2010, we had a federal net operating loss
carryforward of approximately $53.5 million. Generally, under Section 382, the yearly limitation on
our ability to utilize such losses will be equal to the product of the applicable long-term tax
exempt rate (presently 4.03%) and the sum of the values of all of our outstanding common and
preferred shares immediately before the ownership change. In addition to limits on the use of our
net operating loss carryforward, our ability to utilize deductions related to bad debts and other
losses for up to a five-year period following such an ownership change would also be limited under
Section 382, to the extent that such deductions reflect a net loss that was built-in to our
assets immediately prior to the ownership change.
Because we currently have a valuation allowance intended to fully offset our net operating
loss carryforward and the majority of other net deferred tax assets, we do not expect these tax
rules to cause a material impact to our net income or loss in the near term.
Income tax expense (benefit) was $(3.2) million, $3.1 million, and $(1.1) million in 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively. A valuation allowance of $24.0 million and $27.6 million in 2009 and
2008, respectively, on deferred tax assets largely offset the effect of pre-tax losses. The 2009
valuation allowance is net of a $4.1 million allocation of deferred taxes on accumulated other
comprehensive income. The income tax (benefit) of $(1.1) million in 2007 and relative effective
tax rate is principally attributed to tax exempt income representing a much higher percentage of
pre-tax income from continuing operations in that year.
We recorded an income tax benefit of $0.3 million in the first quarter of 2010 compared to
income tax expense of $0.3 million in the year ago quarter. The benefit recognized during the first
quarter of 2010 was primarily the result of current period adjustments to other comprehensive
income, or OCI, net of state income tax expense and adjustments to the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. Generally, the
65
calculation for the income tax provision expense (benefit) does not
consider the tax effects of changes in other comprehensive income or loss, which is a component of
shareholders equity on the balance sheet. However, an exception is provided in certain
circumstances, such as when there is a pre-tax loss from continuing operations. In such case,
pre-tax income from other categories (such as changes in OCI) is included in the calculation of the
tax provision expense for the current year. For the first quarter of 2010 and 2009, this resulted
in an income tax benefit of $0.2 million and zero, respectively.
Our actual federal income tax expense (benefit) is different than the amount computed by
applying our statutory federal income tax rate to our pre-tax income from continuing operations
primarily due to tax-exempt interest income and tax-exempt income from the increase in the cash
surrender value on life insurance.
Income tax expense in the consolidated statements of operations also includes income taxes in
a variety of other states due primarily to Mepcos operations. The amounts of such state income
taxes were zero, $1.0 million and $0.4 million in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively. The amounts
of such state income taxes were $0.07 million and $0.15 million in the first quarter of 2010 and
2009, respectively.
Discontinued Operations, Net of Tax
On January 15, 2007, we sold substantially all of the assets of Mepcos insurance premium
finance business to Premium Financing Specialists, Inc., or PFS. We received $176.0 million of
cash, which was utilized to repay brokered CDs and short-term borrowings at our bank level. Under
the terms of the sale, PFS also assumed approximately $11.7 million in liabilities. We allocated
$4.1 million of goodwill and $0.3 million of other intangible assets to this business. Revenues and
expenses associated with Mepcos insurance premium finance business have been presented as
discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations. Likewise, the assets and
liabilities associated with this business have been reclassified to discontinued operations in the
consolidated statements of financial condition. In 2007, the $0.4 million of income from
discontinued operations relates primarily to operations during the first 15 days of January 2007
and the recovery of certain previously charged-off insurance premium finance receivables.
We have elected to not make any reclassifications in the consolidated statements of cash flows
for discontinued operations. Prior to the sale to PFS, which was announced in December of 2006, our
insurance premium finance business was included in the Mepco segment.
Business Segments
Our reportable segments are based upon legal entities. We currently have two reportable
segments: Independent Bank and Mepco. These business segments are also differentiated based on the
products and services provided. We evaluate performance based principally on net income (loss) of
the respective reportable segments.
The following table presents net income (loss) by business segment for the full fiscal years
referenced in the table.
Business Segments (Full Fiscal Years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007(1) |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Independent Bank |
|
$ |
(71,095 |
) |
|
$ |
(92,551 |
) |
|
$ |
9,729 |
|
Mepco |
|
|
(11,689 |
) |
|
|
10,729 |
|
|
|
5,070 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
(7,636 |
) |
|
|
(9,780 |
) |
|
|
(5,439 |
) |
Elimination |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
595 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
9,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
2007 represents income (loss) from continuing operations after income taxes and
excludes $0.4 million of income from discontinued operations, net of income taxes. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes amounts relating to our parent company and certain insignificant operations. |
The losses recorded by our bank in 2009 and 2008 are primarily due to higher provisions
for loan losses, loan and collection costs and losses on ORE. The higher credit related costs
reflect elevated levels of non-performing loans and loan net charge-offs. (See Portfolio Loans and
Asset Quality.) 2008 bank results also included a $50.0 million goodwill impairment charge. (See
Non-Interest Expense.) In addition, our bank results included $24.0 million and $27.6 million in
2009 and 2008, respectively, of income tax expense for a valuation allowance against deferred tax
assets. (See Income Tax Expense (Benefit).)
66
Mepcos net income had generally been increasing due to growth in payment plan
receivables and lower short-term interest rates. However, in 2009, Mepco recorded $31.2 million of
vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense and a goodwill impairment charge of
$16.7 million, both as described above. (See Non-Interest Expense.) All of Mepcos funding is
provided by Independent Bank and is priced principally based on brokered CD rates. It is unlikely
that Mepco could obtain such favorable funding costs on its own in the open market.
The following table presents net income (loss) by business segment for the interim
periods referenced in the table.
Business Segments (Interim Periods)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Independent Bank |
|
$ |
(12,042 |
) |
|
$ |
(21,145 |
) |
Mepco |
|
|
669 |
|
|
|
4,585 |
|
Other(1) |
|
|
(2,440 |
) |
|
|
(2,013 |
) |
Elimination |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(13,837 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes amounts relating to our parent company and certain insignificant operations. |
The decrease in the net loss recorded by our bank in 2010 compared to 2009 is primarily due to
a lower provision for loan losses that was partially offset by a decline in net interest income.
(See Provision for Loan Losses, Portfolio Loans and Asset Quality, and Net Interest Income.)
Mepcos net income declined in 2010 compared to 2009 due primarily to a decrease in net
interest income and increases in vehicle service contract payment plan counterparty contingency
expense and loan and collection expense (see Non-Interest Expense). All of Mepcos funding is
provided by Independent Bank through an intercompany loan (that is eliminated in consolidation).
The rate on this intercompany loan was increased to the prime rate (currently 3.25%) effective
January 1, 2010. Prior to 2010, this intercompany loan was priced principally based on brokered CD
rates.
FINANCIAL CONDITION
Summary
Our total assets rose slightly to $2.97 billion at December 31, 2009 compared to $2.96 billion
at December 31, 2008. The increase in total assets primarily reflects increases in cash and cash
equivalents and in prepaid FDIC deposit insurance assessments that were substantially offset by
decreases in securities available for sale, loans and goodwill. Loans, excluding loans held for
sale, referred to as portfolio loans, decreased $184.0 million in 2009 as every category of loans
declined except for payment plan receivables. Total deposits increased by $499.3 million in 2009
principally as a result of an increase in checking and savings accounts and in brokered CDs. Other
borrowings decreased by $410.8 million in 2009 as maturing borrowings from the Federal Reserve or
Federal Home Loan Bank, referred to as FHLB, were replaced with brokered CDs.
Our total assets decreased by $64.6 million during the first three months of 2010.
Portfolio loans totaled $2.156 billion at March 31, 2010, down 6.3% from $2.299 billion at December
31, 2009. (See Portfolio Loans and Asset Quality.) Deposits totaled $2.498 billion at March 31,
2010, compared to $2.566 billion at December 31, 2009. The $68.2 million decline in total deposits
during the period is primarily due to a decrease in brokered CDs that was partially offset by an
increase in savings and checking accounts and retail time deposits. Other borrowings totaled
$157.5 million at March 31, 2010, an increase of $26.3 million from December 31, 2009. This
increase primarily reflects additional borrowings from the FHLB.
Securities
We maintain diversified securities portfolios, which include obligations of U.S.
government-sponsored agencies, securities issued by states and political subdivisions, corporate
securities, mortgage-backed securities and asset-backed securities. We also invest in capital
securities, which include preferred stocks and trust preferred securities. We regularly evaluate
asset/liability management needs and attempt to maintain a portfolio structure that provides
sufficient liquidity and cash flow. Except as discussed below, we believe that the unrealized
losses on securities available for sale are temporary in nature and are expected to be recovered
within a reasonable time period. We believe that we have the ability to hold securities with
unrealized losses to maturity or until such time as the unrealized losses reverse. (See
Asset/Liability Management.)
67
Securities (Fiscal Year Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
Gains |
|
Losses |
|
Value |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
171,049 |
|
|
$ |
3,149 |
|
|
$ |
10,047 |
|
|
|
164,151 |
|
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
231,746 |
|
|
|
3,707 |
|
|
|
20,041 |
|
|
|
215,412 |
|
December 31, 2007 |
|
|
363,237 |
|
|
|
6,013 |
|
|
|
5,056 |
|
|
|
364,194 |
|
Securities available for sale declined during 2009 and 2008 because maturities and principal
payments in the portfolio were not replaced with new purchases. We also sold municipal securities
during 2009 and 2008 primarily because our current tax situation (net operating loss carryforward)
negates the benefit of holding tax exempt securities.
As discussed earlier, we elected, effective January 1, 2008, to measure the majority of our
preferred stock investments at fair value. These investments are classified as trading securities
in our consolidated statements of financial condition. During 2009, we recorded unrealized net
gains on trading securities of $0.04 million related to an increase in fair value of preferred
stocks and recorded realized net gains of $0.9 million on the sale of preferred stocks. During
2008, we recorded unrealized net losses on trading securities of $2.8 million related to a decline
in fair value of the preferred stocks. We also recorded realized net losses of $7.6 million in 2008
on the sale of several of these preferred stocks. (See Non-Interest Income.) At December 31,
2009, we only had $0.1 million of trading securities remaining.
We recorded other than temporary impairment, or OTTI, charges on securities of $0.1 million,
$0.2 million, and $1.0 million in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively. The 2009 impairment charge
relates to a private label mortgage-backed security and a trust preferred security issued by a
small Michigan-based community bank. The 2008 impairment charge relates to this same trust
preferred security. In 2007, we recorded $1.0 million of impairment charges on Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac preferred securities. In these instances, we believe that the decline in value is
directly due to matters other than changes in interest rates, are not expected to be recovered
within a reasonable timeframe based upon available information, and are therefore other than
temporary in nature. (See Non-Interest Income and Asset/Liability Management.) In addition, in
the fourth quarter of 2008, we recorded a write down of $6.2 million (from a par value of $10.0
million to a fair value of $3.8 million) related to the dissolution of a money-market auction rate
security and the distribution of the underlying Bank of America preferred stock.
We evaluate securities for OTTI at least quarterly and more frequently when economic or market
concerns warrant such evaluation. In performing this review, we consider (1) the length of time and
extent that fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near term prospects
of the issuer, (3) the impact of changes in market interest rates on the fair value of the security
and (4) an assessment of whether we intend to sell, or it is more likely than not that we will be
required to sell, a security in an unrealized loss position before recovery of its amortized cost
basis. If either of the criteria in clause (4) is met, the entire difference between amortized cost
and fair value is recognized in earnings.
For securities that do not meet the aforementioned criteria, the amount of impairment
recognized in earnings is limited to the amount related to credit losses, while impairment related
to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income.
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed securities at December 31, 2009, we had five
securities whose fair value was less than amortized cost. The unrealized losses are largely
attributed to rising interest rates. As we do not intend to liquidate these securities and it is
more likely than not that we will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of
these unrealized losses, no declines are deemed to be other than temporary.
Private label residential mortgage and other asset-backed securities at December 31,
2009, we had 23 securities whose fair value was less than amortized cost. Twenty-two of the issues
are rated by a major rating agency as investment grade while one is below investment grade. Pricing
conditions in the private label residential mortgage and asset-backed security markets are
characterized by sporadic secondary market flow, significant implied liquidity risk premiums, a
wide bid/ask spread, and an absence of new issuances of similar securities. This market has been
closed to new issuances since the third quarter of 2007. Investors in this asset class have
suffered significant losses, and at present there are few active buyers for this product. During
the fourth quarter of 2009, secondary market trading activity increased modestly. Prices for many
securities improved. Much of this improvement is due to technical issues; namely, negative new
supply. One dealer reports that price improvements are generally met with increased selling, which
serves to mute sustained price recovery.
The unrealized losses are largely attributable to credit spread widening on these
securities. The underlying loans within these securities include Jumbo (60%), Alt A (25%), and
manufactured housing (15%).
68
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jumbo |
|
$ |
21,718 |
|
|
$ |
(5,749 |
) |
|
$ |
26,139 |
|
|
$ |
(9,349 |
) |
Alt-A |
|
|
9,257 |
|
|
|
(1,807 |
) |
|
|
10,748 |
|
|
|
(2,685 |
) |
Other asset-backed Manufactured housing |
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
7,421 |
|
|
|
(855 |
) |
All of the private label mortgage-backed transactions have geographic concentrations in
California, ranging from 29% to 59% of the collateral pool. Typical exposure levels to California
(median exposure is 43%) are consistent with overall market collateral characteristics. Six
transactions have modest exposure to Florida, ranging from 5% to 11%, and one transaction has
modest exposure to Arizona (5%). The underlying collateral pools do not have meaningful exposure to
Nevada, Michigan or Ohio. None of the issues involve subprime mortgage collateral. Thus the impact
of this market segment is only indirect, in that it has impacted liquidity and pricing in general
for private label mortgage-backed securities. The majority of transactions are backed by fully
amortizing loans. However, eight transactions have concentrations in interest only loans ranging
from 31% to 94%. The structure of the mortgage and asset-backed securities portfolio provides
protection to credit losses. The portfolio primarily consists of senior securities as demonstrated
by the following: super senior (7%), senior (73%), senior support (12%) and mezzanine (8%). The
mezzanine classes are from seasoned transactions (65 to 95 months) with significant levels of
subordination (8% to 23%). Except for the additional discussion below relating to OTTI, we believe
each private label mortgage and asset-backed security has sufficient credit enhancement via
subordination to reasonably assure full realization of book value. Our belief is based on a
transaction level review of the portfolio. Individual security reviews include: external credit
ratings, forecasted weighted average life, recent prepayment speeds, underwriting characteristics
of the underlying collateral, the structure of the securitization and the credit performance of the
underlying collateral. The review of underwriting characteristics considers: average loan size,
type of loan (fixed or ARM), vintage, rate, FICO, loan-to-value, scheduled amortization, occupancy,
purpose, geographic mix and loan documentation. The review of the securitization structure focuses
on the priority of cash flows to the bond, the priority of the bond relative to the realization of
credit losses and the level of subordination available to absorb credit losses. The review of
credit performance includes: current period as well as cumulative realized losses; the level of
severe payment problems, which includes ORE, foreclosures, bankruptcy and 90 day delinquencies; and
the level of less severe payment problems, which consists of 30 and 60 day delinquencies.
While the levels of identified payment problems increased modestly during 2009, we
believe the amount of subordination protection remains adequate. Nevertheless, the non-performing
asset coverage ratio (credit subordination divided by non-performing assets) deteriorated for four
structures with five bonds. This deterioration in structure accounts for the majority of the
increase in unrealized loss late in 2009. All of these securities are receiving principal and
interest payments. Most of these transactions are pass-through structures, receiving pro rata
principal and interest payments from a dedicated collateral pool. The non-receipt of interest cash
flows is not expected and thus not presently considered in our discounted cash flow methodology
discussed below.
In addition to the review discussed above, certain securities, including the one security
with a rating below investment grade, were reviewed for OTTI utilizing a cash flow projection. The
scope of review included securities that account for 97% of the $7.8 million in unrealized losses.
In our analysis, recovery was evaluated by discounting the expected cash flows back at the book
yield. If the present value of the future cash flows is less than amortized cost, then there would
be a credit loss. Our cash flow analysis forecasted cash flow from the underlying loans in each
transaction and then applied these cash flows to the bonds in the securitization. The cash flows
from the underlying loans considered contractual payment terms (scheduled amortization),
prepayments, defaults and severity of loss given default. The analysis used dynamic assumptions for
prepayments, defaults and severity. Near term prepayment assumptions were based on recently
observed prepayment rates. In many cases, recently observed prepayment rates are depressed due to a
sharp decline in new jumbo loan issuance. This loan market is heavily dependent upon securitization
for funding, and new securitization transactions have been minimal. Our model projects that
prepayment rates gradually revert to historical levels. For seasoned adjustable rate mortgage
(ARM), transactions, normalized prepayment rates are estimated at 15% to 25% Conditional Prepayment
Rate (CPR). For fixed rate collateral, our analysis considers the spread differential between the
collateral and the current market rate for conforming mortgages. Near term default assumptions were
based on recent default observations as well as the volume of existing real-estate owned, pending
foreclosures and severe delinquencies. Default levels generally are projected to remain elevated or
increase for a period of time sufficient to address the level of distressed loans in the
transaction. Our model expects defaults to then decline gradually as the housing market and the
economy stabilize, generally after two to three years. Current severity assumptions are based on
recent observations. Loss severity is expected to decline gradually as the housing market and the
economy stabilize, generally after two to three years. Except for one below investment grade
security discussed in further detail below, our cash flow analysis forecasts complete recovery of
our cost basis for each reviewed security.
69
The private label mortgage-backed security with a below investment grade credit rating
was evaluated for OTTI using the cash flow analysis discussed above. At December 31, 2009, this
security had a fair value of $3.9 million and an unrealized loss of $4.1 million (amortized cost of
$8.0 million). The underlying loans in this transaction are 30 year fixed rate jumbos with an
average origination date FICO of 748 and an average origination date loan-to-value ratio of 73%.
The loans backing this transaction were originated in 2007 and is our only security backed by 2007
vintage loans. We believe that this vintage is a key differentiating factor between this security
and the others in our portfolio that are rated above investment grade. The bond is a senior
security that is receiving principal and interest payments similar to principal reductions in the
underlying collateral. The cash flow analysis described above calculated an OTTI of $4.1 million at
December 31, 2009, $0.065 million of this amount was attributed to credit and was recognized in our
consolidated statements of operations while the balance was attributed to other factors and
reflected in our consolidated statements of other comprehensive income (loss).
As we do not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely than not that we will
not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of these unrealized losses, no other
declines discussed above are deemed to be other than temporary.
Obligations of states and political subdivisions at December 31, 2009, we had 32
municipal securities whose fair value was less than amortized cost. The unrealized losses are
largely attributed to a widening of market spreads and continued illiquidity for certain issues.
The majority of the securities are not rated by a major rating agency. Approximately 75% of the non
rated securities originally had a AAA credit rating by virtue of bond insurance. However, the
insurance provider no longer has an investment grade rating. The remaining non rated issues are
small local issues that did not receive a credit rating due to the size of the transaction. The
non-rated securities have a periodic internal credit review according to established procedures. As
we do not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely than not that we will not be
required to sell these securities prior to recovery of these unrealized losses, no declines are
deemed to be other than temporary.
Trust preferred securities at December 31, 2009, we had six securities whose fair value was
less than amortized cost. All of our trust preferred securities are single issue securities issued
by a trust subsidiary of a bank holding company. The pricing of trust preferred securities over the
past two years has suffered from significant credit spread widening fueled by uncertainty regarding
potential losses of financial companies, the absence of a liquid functioning secondary market and
potential supply concerns from financial companies issuing new debt to recapitalize themselves.
Since the end of the first quarter of 2009, although still showing signs of weakness, pricing has
improved somewhat as some uncertainty has been taken out of the market. Two of the six securities
are rated by a major rating agency as investment grade, while two are split rated (these securities
are rated as investment grade by one major rating agency and below investment grade by another) and
the other two are non-rated. The two non-rated issues are relatively small banks and neither of
these issues were ever rated. The issuers on these trust preferred securities, which had a combined
book value of $2.8 million and a combined fair value of $1.8 million as of December 31, 2009,
continue to make interest payments and have satisfactory credit metrics.
Our OTTI analysis for trust preferred securities is based on a security level financial
analysis of the issuer. This review considers: external credit ratings, maturity date of the
instrument, the scope of the banks operations, relevant financial metrics and recent issuer
specific news. The analysis of relevant financial metrics includes: capital adequacy, assets
quality, earnings and liquidity. We use the same OTTI review methodology for both rated and
non-rated issues. During the first quarter of 2009, we recorded OTTI on an unrated trust preferred
security whose fair value at December 31, 2009 now exceeds its amortized cost. Specifically, this
issuer has deferred interest payments on all of its trust preferred securities and is operating
under a written agreement with the regulatory agencies that specifically prohibit dividend
payments. The issuer is a relatively small bank with operations centered in southeast Michigan. The
issuer reported losses in 2009 and 2008 and has a high volume of nonperforming assets relative to
tangible capital. This investments amortized cost has been written down to a price of 26.75, or
$0.07 million, compared to a par value of 100.00, or $0.25 million.
Securities (Quarter Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
|
Cost |
|
Gains |
|
Losses |
|
Value |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
154,066 |
|
|
$ |
2,853 |
|
|
$ |
7,061 |
|
|
$ |
149,858 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
171,049 |
|
|
|
3,149 |
|
|
|
10,047 |
|
|
|
164,151 |
|
Securities available for sale declined during 2010 because sales, maturities and principal
payments in the portfolio were not entirely replaced with new purchases. We sold municipal
securities in 2010 and 2009 primarily because our current tax situation (net operating loss
carryforward) negates the benefit of holding tax exempt securities. In 2010, we also sold certain
private label residential mortgage-backed securities and bank trust preferred securities to augment
our liquidity. (See Liquidity and Capital Resources.)
We recorded OTTI charges on securities of $0.1 million and $0.02 million during the first
quarter of 2010 and 2009, respectively. In these instances, we believe that the decline in value is
directly due to matters other than changes in interest rates, are not expected to be recovered
within a reasonable timeframe based upon available information, and are therefore other than
temporary in nature. The 2010 charge related to a
trust preferred security and a private label residential mortgage-backed security. The 2009
charge related to a trust preferred security. (See Non-Interest Income and Asset/Liability
Management.)
70
Sales of securities were as follows (See Non-Interest Income.):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Proceeds |
|
$ |
25,415 |
|
|
$ |
6,434 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross gains |
|
$ |
304 |
|
|
$ |
225 |
|
Gross losses |
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
(6 |
) |
Impairment charges |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Fair value adjustments |
|
|
(5 |
) |
|
|
(783 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains (losses) |
|
$ |
147 |
|
|
$ |
(581 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portfolio Loans and Asset Quality
In addition to the communities served by our bank branch network, our principal lending
markets also include nearby communities and metropolitan areas. Subject to established underwriting
criteria, we also historically participated in commercial lending transactions with certain
non-affiliated banks and also purchased mortgage loans from third-party originators. Currently, we
are not engaging in any new commercial loan participations with non-affiliated banks or purchasing
any mortgage loans from third party originators.
The senior management and board of directors of our bank retain authority and responsibility
for credit decisions, and we have adopted uniform underwriting standards. Our loan committee
structure and the loan review process attempt to provide requisite controls and promote compliance
with such established underwriting standards. There can be no assurance that these lending
procedures and the use of uniform underwriting standards will prevent us from incurring significant
credit losses in our lending activities. In fact, we have experienced an elevated provision for
loan losses since 2007, compared to historical levels.
We generally retain loans that may be profitably funded within established risk parameters.
(See Asset/Liability Management.) As a result, we may hold adjustable-rate and balloon real
estate mortgage loans as portfolio loans, while 15- and 30-year, fixed-rate obligations are
generally sold to mitigate exposure to changes in interest rates. (See Non-Interest Income.)
Loan Portfolio Composition (Fiscal Year Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Real estate(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential first mortgages |
|
$ |
684,567 |
|
|
$ |
760,201 |
|
Residential home equity and other junior mortgages |
|
|
203,222 |
|
|
|
229,865 |
|
Construction and land development |
|
|
69,496 |
|
|
|
127,092 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
585,988 |
|
|
|
666,876 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
406,341 |
|
|
|
286,836 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
187,110 |
|
|
|
207,516 |
|
Consumer |
|
|
156,213 |
|
|
|
171,747 |
|
Agricultural |
|
|
6,435 |
|
|
|
9,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loans |
|
$ |
2,299,372 |
|
|
$ |
2,459,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes both residential and non-residential commercial loans secured by real estate. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes loans secured by multi-family residential and non-farm, non-residential property. |
Future growth of overall portfolio loans is dependent upon a number of competitive and
economic factors. Overall loan growth has slowed since 2007, reflecting weak economic conditions in
Michigan. Further, it is our desire to reduce certain loan categories in order to
preserve our
71
regulatory capital ratios or for risk management reasons. For example, construction
and land development loans have been declining because we are seeking to shrink this portion of our
portfolio loans due to a very poor economic climate for real estate development, particularly
residential real estate. In addition, payment plan receivables have declined since 2009 and are
expected to continue to decline significantly as we seek to reduce Mepcos vehicle service contract
payment plan business. (See Non-Interest Expense.) Declines in portfolio loans or competition
that leads to lower relative pricing on new portfolio loans could adversely impact our future
operating results.
Non-Performing Assets (Fiscal Year Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Non-accrual loans |
|
$ |
105,965 |
|
|
$ |
122,639 |
|
|
$ |
72,682 |
|
Loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest |
|
|
3,940 |
|
|
|
2,626 |
|
|
|
4,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing loans |
|
|
109,905 |
|
|
|
125,265 |
|
|
|
77,076 |
|
Other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
31,534 |
|
|
|
19,998 |
|
|
|
9,723 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing assets |
|
$ |
141,439 |
|
|
$ |
145,263 |
|
|
$ |
86,799 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a percent of Portfolio Loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-performing loans |
|
|
4.78 |
% |
|
|
5.09 |
% |
|
|
3.06 |
% |
Allowance for loan losses |
|
|
3.55 |
|
|
|
2.35 |
|
|
|
1.80 |
|
Non-performing assets to total assets |
|
|
4.77 |
|
|
|
4.91 |
|
|
|
2.67 |
|
Allowance for loan losses as a percent of non-performing loans |
|
|
74 |
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Non-Performing Assets(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Non-accrual loans |
|
$ |
95,989 |
|
|
$ |
105,965 |
|
Loans 90 days or more past due and
still accruing interest |
|
|
2,266 |
|
|
|
3,940 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing loans |
|
|
98,255 |
|
|
|
109,905 |
|
Other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
40,284 |
|
|
|
31,534 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing assets |
|
$ |
138,539 |
|
|
$ |
141,439 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a percent of Portfolio Loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-performing loans |
|
|
4.56 |
% |
|
|
4.78 |
% |
Allowance for loan losses |
|
|
3.53 |
|
|
|
3.55 |
|
Non-performing assets to total assets |
|
|
4.78 |
|
|
|
4.77 |
|
Allowance for loan losses as a percent of
non-performing loans |
|
|
77.48 |
|
|
|
74.35 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes loans classified as troubled debt restructured that are not past due. |
Non-performing loans declined by $15.4 million, or 12.3%, from year-end 2008 to year-end 2009.
An increase in non-performing mortgage loans and consumer loans was more than offset by a decline
in non-performing commercial loans. The decline in non-performing commercial loans is primarily due
to net charge-offs and the payoff or other disposition of non-performing credits during 2009. The
decrease in non-performing loans since year-end 2009 is due principally to declines in
non-performing commercial loans and residential mortgage loans. These declines primarily reflect
net charge-offs of loans and the migration of loans into ORE during the first quarter of 2010.
Non-performing commercial loans largely relate to delinquencies caused by cash flow difficulties
encountered by real estate developers (primarily due to a decline in sales of real estate) as well
as owners of income-producing properties (primarily due to higher vacancy rates). The elevated
level of
non-performing residential mortgage loans is primarily due to increased delinquencies
reflecting both weak economic conditions and soft residential real estate values in many parts of
Michigan.
72
ORE and repossessed assets totaled $40.3 million at March 31, 2010, compared to $31.5 million
at December 31, 2009 and $20.0 million at December 31, 2008. This increase is the result of the
migration of non-performing loans secured by real estate into ORE as the foreclosure process is
completed and any redemption period expires. High foreclosure rates are evident nationwide, but
Michigan has consistently had one of the higher foreclosure rates in the U.S. during the past few
years. We believe this high foreclosure rate is due to both weak economic conditions and declining
residential real estate values. Because the redemption period on foreclosures is relatively long in
Michigan (six months to one year) and we have many non-performing loans that were in the process of
foreclosure at December 31, 2009, we anticipate that our level of ORE and repossessed assets will
likely remain at elevated levels for some period of time. The high level of non-performing assets
is adversely impacting our net interest income.
We will place a loan that is 90 days or more past due on non-accrual, unless we believe the
loan is both well secured and in the process of collection. Accordingly, we have determined that
the collection of the accrued and unpaid interest on any loans that are 90 days or more past due
and still accruing interest is probable.
Allocation of the Allowance for Loan Losses (Fiscal Year Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Specific allocations |
|
$ |
29,593 |
|
|
$ |
16,788 |
|
|
$ |
10,713 |
|
Other adversely rated loans |
|
|
14,481 |
|
|
|
9,511 |
|
|
|
10,804 |
|
Historical loss allocations |
|
|
22,777 |
|
|
|
20,270 |
|
|
|
14,668 |
|
Additional allocations based on subjective factors |
|
|
14,866 |
|
|
|
11,331 |
|
|
|
9,109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allocation of the Allowance for Loan Losses (Quarter Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Specific allocations |
|
$ |
30,424 |
|
|
$ |
29,593 |
|
Other adversely rated loans |
|
|
9,369 |
|
|
|
14,481 |
|
Historical loss allocations |
|
|
21,646 |
|
|
|
22,777 |
|
Additional allocations based on subjective factors |
|
|
14,693 |
|
|
|
14,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
76,132 |
|
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In determining the allowance and the related provision for credit losses, we consider four
principal elements: (i) specific allocations based upon probable losses identified during the
review of the loan portfolio, (ii) allocations established for other adversely rated loans, (iii)
allocations based principally on historical loan loss experience, and (iv) additional allowances
based on subjective factors, including local and general economic business factors and trends,
portfolio concentrations and changes in the size, mix and/or the general terms of the loan
portfolios.
The first element reflects our estimate of probable losses based upon our systematic review of
specific loans. These estimates are based upon a number of objective factors, such as payment
history, financial condition of the borrower, and discounted collateral exposure.
The second element reflects the application of our loan rating system. This rating system is
similar to those employed by state and federal banking regulators. Loans that are rated below a
certain predetermined classification are assigned a loss allocation factor for each loan
classification category that is based upon a historical analysis of both the probability of default
and the expected loss rate, or loss given default. The lower the rating assigned to a loan or
category, the greater the allocation percentage that is applied. For higher rated loans non-watch
credit, we again determine a probability of default and loss given default in order to apply an
allocation percentage.
The third element is determined by assigning allocations to homogeneous loan groups based
principally upon the five-year average of loss experience for each type of loan. Recent years are
weighted more heavily in this average. Average losses may be further adjusted based on an analysis
of delinquent loans. Loss analyses are conducted at least annually.
73
The fourth element is based on factors that cannot be associated with a specific credit or
loan category and reflects our attempt to ensure that the overall allowance for loan losses
appropriately reflects a margin for the imprecision necessarily inherent in the estimates of
expected credit losses. We consider a number of subjective factors when determining this fourth
element, including local and general economic business factors and trends, portfolio concentrations
and changes in the size, mix and the general terms of the loan portfolios. (See Provision for
Credit Losses.)
Mepcos allowance for loan losses is determined in a similar manner as discussed above and
primarily takes into account historical loss experience and other subjective factors deemed
relevant to its business. Losses associated with the administration of Mepcos vehicle service
contract payment plans are included in the provision for loan losses. Such losses totaled $0.3
million, $0.04 million and $0.4 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Mepco recorded a
credit of $0.1 million for its provision for loan losses in the first quarter of 2010 due
primarily to a significant decline ($65.6 million) in the balance of payment plan receivables.
This compares to a provision for loan losses of $0.2 million in the first quarter of 2009. Mepcos
allowance for loan losses totaled $0.7 million, $0.8 million and $0.5 million at March 31, 2010,
December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively. Mepco has established procedures for payment
plan servicing/administration and collections, including the timely cancellation of the vehicle
service contract, in order to protect our collateral position in the event of payment default or
voluntary cancellation by the customer. Mepco also has established procedures to attempt to prevent
and detect fraud since the payment plan origination activities and initial customer contact is
entirely done through unrelated third parties (vehicle service contract administrators and sellers
or automobile dealerships). However, there can be no assurance that the aforementioned risk
management policies and procedures will prevent us from the possibility of incurring significant
credit or fraud related losses in this business segment. The allowance for loan losses for Mepco
discussed in this paragraph represents losses associated with outstanding payment plan receivables
and is to be distinguished from losses associated with amounts owing to Mepco from its
counterparties as a result of the cancellation of a service contract. The provision taken for this
latter type of losses is referred to as vehicle service contract payment plan counterparty
contingencies expense and is described in more detail under Summary Mepco Finance Corporation
above.
The allowance for loan losses increased to 3.55% of total portfolio loans at December 31, 2009
from 2.35% at December 31, 2008. This increase is primarily due to increases in all of the
components of the allowance for loan losses outlined above. The allowance for loan losses related
to specific loans increased due to larger reserves on some individual credits even though total
non-performing commercial loans have declined since year end 2008. The allowance for loan losses
related to other adversely rated loans increased primarily due to changes in the mix of commercial
loan ratings. The allowance for loan losses related to historical losses increased due to higher
loan net charge-offs (which was largely offset by declines in loan balances). Finally, the
allowance for loan losses related to subjective factors increased primarily due to weaker economic
conditions in Michigan that have contributed to elevated levels of non-performing loans and net
loan charge-offs.
The allowance for loan losses decreased $5.6 million from $81.7 million at December 31, 2009
to $76.1 million at March 31, 2010 and was equal to 3.53% of total portfolio loans at March 31,
2010 compared to 3.55% at December 31, 2009. Three of the four components of the allowance for loan
losses outlined above declined during the first quarter of 2010. The allowance for loan losses
related to specific loans increased due to larger loss allocations on some individual credits, even
though total non-performing loans declined from $109.9 million at December 31, 2009 to $98.3
million at March 31, 2010. The allowance for loan losses related to other adversely rated loans
decreased $5.1 million from December 31, 2009 to March 31, 2010 primarily due to a $15.7 million
decrease in the balance of such loans from $140.4 million at December 31, 2009 to $124.7 million at
March 31, 2010, with the most significant decrease occurring in non-impaired substandard commercial
loans with balances of over $1 million, which decreased $12.0 million from $19.5 million at
December 31, 2009 to $7.5 million at March 31, 2010. The allowance allocation determined on these
loans, based on discounted collateral or cash flow analysis, was reduced $4.8 million from $6.0
million at December 31, 2009 to $1.2 million at March 31, 2010. The allowance for loan losses
related to historical losses decreased due to declines in loan balances, as total loans declined
$143.8 million from $2.299 billion at December 31, 2009 to $2.156 billion at March 31, 2010.
Finally, the allowance for loan losses related to subjective factors decreased slightly primarily
due to the improvement in certain economic indicators used in computing this portion of the
allowance.
74
Allowance for Losses on Loans and Unfunded Commitments (Fiscal Year Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
$ |
26,879 |
|
|
$ |
1,881 |
|
Provision charged to operating expense |
|
|
103,318 |
|
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
71,113 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
43,105 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
Recoveries credited to allowance |
|
|
2,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans charged against the allowance |
|
|
(82,296 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(61,996 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,036 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged against the
allowance to average portfolio loans |
|
|
3.28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.30 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.98 |
% |
|
|
|
|
Allowance for Losses on Loans and Unfunded Commitments (Quarter Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
Loan Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
Loan Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of period |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision charged to operating expense |
|
|
17,014 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
30,124 |
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
Recoveries credited to allowance |
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans charged against the allowance |
|
|
(23,590 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,326 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of period |
|
$ |
76,132 |
|
|
$ |
1,914 |
|
|
$ |
58,305 |
|
|
$ |
2,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged against the allowance to
average portfolio loans (annualized) |
|
|
4.10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.91 |
% |
|
|
|
|
The ratio of loan net charge-offs to average loans was 3.28% in 2009 (or $79.5 million)
compared to 2.30% in 2008 (or $58.5 million). The rise in loan net charge-offs primarily reflects
increases of $9.3 million for commercial loans and $10.5 million for residential mortgage loans.
These increases in loan net charge-offs primarily reflect elevated levels of non-performing loans
and lower collateral liquidation values, particularly on residential real estate or real estate
held for development. We do not believe that the elevated level of total loan net charge-offs in
2009 is indicative of what we will experience in the future. Loan net charge-offs have moderated
during 2009 with $48.4 million in the first six months compared to $31.1 million in the last six
months. The majority of the loan net charge-offs in the first part of 2009 related to commercial
loans and in particular several land or land development loans (due to significant drops in real
estate values) and one large commercial credit (which defaulted in March 2009). Land and land
development loans now total just $59.8 million (or 2.0% of total assets) and approximately 56% of
these loans are already in non-performing or watch credit status and the entire portfolio has been
carefully evaluated and we believe an appropriate allowance or charge-off has been recorded.
Further, the commercial loan portfolio is thoroughly analyzed each quarter through our credit
review process and we believe an appropriate allowance and provision for loan losses is recorded
based on such review and in light of prevailing market conditions.
The ratio of loan net charge-offs to average loans was 4.10% on an annualized basis in the
first quarter of 2010 (or $22.6 million) compared to 4.91% in the first quarter of 2009 (or $29.7
million). The decline in loan net charge-offs primarily reflects a decrease of $8.1 million for
commercial loans. These loan net charge-offs primarily reflect elevated levels of non-performing
assets and lower collateral liquidation values, particularly on residential real estate or real
estate held for development. We do not believe that the elevated level of loan net charge-offs in
the first quarter of 2010 is necessarily indicative of what we will experience during the balance
of 2010 and beyond. Commercial loan net charge-offs in the first quarter of 2010 totaled $15.7
million and included a couple of larger credits on which specific reserves allowance allocations
had been previously established. The commercial loan portfolio is thoroughly analyzed each quarter
through our credit review process and we believe an appropriate allowance and provision for loan
losses is recorded based on such review and in light of prevailing market and loan collection
conditions.
75
We have taken a variety of steps, beginning in 2007, to address the credit issues identified
above (elevated levels of watch credits, non-performing loans and other real estate and repossessed
assets), including the following:
|
|
|
An enhanced quarterly watch credit review process to proactively manage higher risk loans. |
|
|
|
|
Loan risk ratings are independently assigned and structure recommendations made upfront by our credit officers. |
|
|
|
|
A special assets group has been established to provide more effective management of our most troubled loans. A select group of law firms
supports this team, providing professional advice and systemic feedback. |
|
|
|
|
An independent loan review function provides portfolio/individual loan feedback to evaluate the effectiveness of processes by market. |
|
|
|
|
Management (incentive) objectives for each commercial lender and senior commercial lender emphasize credit quality in addition to profitability. |
|
|
|
|
Portfolio concentrations are monitored with select loan types encouraged and other loan types (such as residential real estate development)
requiring significantly higher approval authorities. |
Deposits and Borrowings
Historically, the loyalty of our customer base has allowed us to price deposits competitively,
contributing to a net interest margin that compares favorably to our peers. However, we still face
a significant amount of competition for deposits within many of the markets served by our branch
network, which limits our ability to materially increase deposits without adversely impacting the
weighted-average cost of core deposits. Accordingly, we principally compete on the basis of
convenience and personal service, while employing pricing tactics that are intended to enhance the
value of core deposits.
To attract new core deposits, we have implemented a high-performance checking program that
utilizes a combination of direct mail solicitations, in-branch merchandising, gifts for customers
opening new checking accounts or referring business to our bank, and branch staff sales training.
This program has historically generated increases in customer relationships as well as deposit
service charges. Over the past two to three years, we have also expanded our treasury management
products and services for commercial businesses and municipalities or other governmental units and
have also increased our sales calling efforts in order to attract additional deposit relationships
from these sectors. Despite these efforts, our historic core deposit growth has not kept pace with
the historic growth of our portfolio loans. Core deposits generally provide a more stable and lower
cost source of funds than alternative sources such as short-term borrowings. As a result, the
continued funding of portfolio loans with alternative sources of funds (as opposed to core
deposits) may erode certain of our profitability measures, such as return on assets, and may also
adversely impact our liquidity. (See Liquidity and Capital Resources.)
During the fourth quarter of 2009, we prepaid estimated quarterly deposit insurance
premium assessments to the FDIC for periods through the fourth quarter of 2012. These estimated
quarterly deposit insurance premium assessments were based on projected deposit balances over the
assessment periods. The prepaid deposit insurance premium assessments totaled $20.4 million and
$22.0 million at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively, and will be expensed over the
assessment period (through the fourth quarter of 2012). The actual expense over the assessment
periods may be different from this prepaid amount due to various factors including variances in
actual deposit balances and assessment rates used during each assessment period.
We have also implemented strategies that incorporate federal funds purchased, other
borrowings and brokered CDs to fund a portion of any increases in interest earning assets. The use
of such alternate sources of funds supplements our core deposits and is also an integral part of
our asset/liability management efforts.
76
Alternate Sources of Funds (Fiscal Year Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Maturity |
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Brokered CDs(1) |
|
$ |
629,150 |
|
|
2.2 years |
|
|
|
2.46 |
% |
|
$ |
182,283 |
|
|
1.1 years |
|
|
3.63 |
% |
Fixed-rate FHLB advances(1) |
|
|
27,382 |
|
|
5.5 years |
|
|
|
6.59 |
|
|
|
95,714 |
|
|
2.2 years |
|
|
3.64 |
|
Variable-rate FHLB advances(1) |
|
|
67,000 |
|
|
1.4 years |
| |
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
218,500 |
|
|
2.3 years |
|
|
3.43 |
|
Securities sold under agreements to
repurchase(1) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
.9 years |
|
|
|
4.42 |
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
1.9 years |
|
|
4.42 |
|
FRB borrowings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,500 |
|
|
.1 years |
|
|
0.54 |
|
Federal funds purchased |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
750 |
|
|
1 day |
|
|
0.25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
758,532 |
|
|
2.2 years |
|
|
|
2.51 |
% |
|
$ |
721,747 |
|
|
1.4 years |
|
|
2.80 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Certain of these items have had their average maturity and rate altered through the use of derivative instruments, such as pay-fixed interest-rate swaps. |
Alternate Sources of Funds (Quarter Ends)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Maturity |
|
Rate |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Maturity |
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Brokered CDs(1) |
|
$ |
523,052 |
|
|
2.4 years |
|
|
2.81 |
% |
|
$ |
629,150 |
|
|
2.2 years |
|
|
2.46 |
% |
Fixed rate FHLB advances(1) |
|
|
52,372 |
|
|
2.8 years |
|
|
3.76 |
|
|
|
27,382 |
|
|
5.5 years |
|
|
6.59 |
|
Variable rate FHLB advances(1) |
|
|
70,000 |
|
|
1.3 years |
|
|
0.30 |
|
|
|
67,000 |
|
|
1.4 years |
|
|
0.32 |
|
Securities sold under agreements to
repurchase(1) |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
.6 years |
|
|
4.42 |
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
.9 years |
|
|
4.42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
680,424 |
|
|
2.2 years |
|
|
2.71 |
% |
|
$ |
758,532 |
|
|
2.2 years |
|
|
2.51 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Certain of these items have had their average maturity and rate altered through the use of derivative instruments, including pay-fixed interest rate swaps. |
Other borrowings, principally advances from the FHLB, borrowings from the Federal Reserve, and
securities sold under agreements to repurchase, or repurchase agreements, totaled $157.5 million at
March 31, 2010, compared to $131.2 million at December 31, 2009 and $542.0 million at December 31,
2008. The $410.8 million decrease in other borrowed funds from December 31, 2009 to December 31,
2008 principally reflects the repayment of borrowings from the Federal Reserve and the FHLB with
funds from new brokered CDs or from the growth in other deposits. The increase in brokered CDs and
use of these funds to repay borrowings from the Federal Reserve and the FHLB is designed to improve
our liquidity profile. The brokered CDs that we are issuing do not require any collateral and have
longer maturity dates (generally two to five years). By paying off Federal Reserve and the FHLB
borrowings (which do require collateral), we increase our secured borrowing capacity. The $26.3
million increase in other borrowed funds from March 31, 2010 to December 31, 2009 principally
reflects additional borrowings from the FHLB.
As described above, we rely to some degree on wholesale funding (including Federal Reserve
and the FHLB borrowings and brokered CDs) to augment our core deposits to fund our business. As of
March 31, 2010, our use of such wholesale funding sources amounted to approximately $680.6 million
or 25.6% of total funding. Because wholesale funding sources are affected by general market
conditions, the availability of funding from wholesale lenders may be dependent on the confidence
these investors have in our financial condition and operations. In addition, if we fail to remain
well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards, which is likely if we are unable to
successfully raise additional capital in this offering, we will be prohibited from accepting or
renewing brokered CDs without the prior consent of the FDIC. As of March 31, 2010, we had brokered
CDs of approximately $523.1 million or 21% of total deposits. Of this amount $85.9 million mature
during the next 12 months. See Risk Factors above for more information.
Moreover, we cannot be sure we will be able to maintain our current level of core
deposits. In particular, those deposits that are currently uninsured or those deposits in the FDIC
Transaction Account Guarantee Program, or TAGP, which is set to expire on December 31, 2010 for
participating institutions that have not opted out, may be particularly susceptible to outflow. At
March 31, 2010, we had $92.0 million of
77
uninsured deposits and an additional $195.8 million of
deposits in the TAGP. A reduction in core deposits would increase our need to rely on wholesale
funding sources, at a time when our ability to do so may be more restricted, as described above.
See Risk Factors above for more information.
Prior to April 2008, we had an unsecured revolving credit facility and term loan (that had
a remaining balance of $2.5 million). The lender elected to not renew the $10.0 million unsecured
revolving credit facility (which matured in April 2008) and required repayment of the term loan
because we were out of compliance with certain financial covenants contained within the loan
documents. The $2.5 million term loan was repaid in full in April 2008 (it would have otherwise
been repaid in full in accordance with the original terms in May 2009).
We employ derivative financial instruments to manage our exposure to changes in interest
rates. At March 31, 2010, we employed interest-rate swaps with an aggregate notional amount of
$115.0 million and interest rate caps with an aggregate notional amount of $85.0 million.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
Liquidity risk is the risk of being unable to timely meet obligations as they come due at a
reasonable funding cost or without incurring unacceptable losses. Our liquidity management involves
the measurement and monitoring of a variety of sources and uses of funds. Our consolidated
statements of cash flows categorize these sources and uses into operating, investing, and financing
activities. We primarily focus our liquidity management on developing access to a variety of
borrowing sources to supplement our deposit gathering activities and provide funds for growing our
investment and loan portfolios as well as to be able to respond to unforeseen liquidity needs.
Our sources of funds include our deposit base, secured advances from the FHLB, secured
borrowings from the Federal Reserve, a federal funds purchased borrowing facility with another
commercial bank, and access to the capital markets (for brokered CDs).
At March 31, 2010 we had $460.2 million of time deposits that mature in the next 12
months, compared to $512.4 million at December 31, 2009. Historically, a majority of these maturing
time deposits are renewed by our customers or are brokered CDs that we expect to replace.
Additionally $1.423 billion of our deposits at March 31, 2010, compared to $1.394 billion at
December 31, 2009, were in account types from which the customer could withdraw the funds on
demand. Changes in the balances of deposits that can be withdrawn upon demand are usually
predictable, and the total balances of these accounts have generally grown or have been stable over
time as a result of our marketing and promotional activities. However, there can be no assurance
that historical patterns of renewing time deposits or overall growth in deposits will continue in
the future.
In particular, media reports about bank failures have created concerns among depositors at
banks throughout the country, including certain of our customers, particularly those with deposit
balances in excess of deposit insurance limits. In response, the FDIC announced several programs
during 2008 including increasing the deposit insurance limit from $100,000 to $250,000 at least
until December 31, 2013 and providing unlimited deposit insurance for balances in non-interest
bearing demand deposit and certain low-interest (an interest rate of 0.50% or less and, after June
30, 2010, an interest rate of 0.25% or less) transaction accounts until December 31, 2010 for
participating institutions that have not opted out. We have proactively sought to provide
appropriate information to our deposit customers about our organization in order to retain our
business and deposit relationships. See Risk Factors above for information regarding risks we
face with respect to a possible outflow of our core deposits. We have developed contingency
funding plans that stress tests our liquidity needs that may arise from certain events such as an
adverse credit event or a disaster recovery situation. Our liquidity management also includes
periodic monitoring that segregates assets between liquid and illiquid and classifies liabilities
as core and non-core. This analysis compares our total level of illiquid assets to our core
funding. It is our goal to have core funding sufficient to finance illiquid assets.
As a result of the liquidity risks described above and in Deposits and Borrowings, we have
increased our level of overnight cash balances in interest-bearing accounts to $323.5 million at
March 31, 2010 from $223.5 million at December 31, 2009 and $0.2 million at December 31, 2008. We
have also issued longer-term (two to five years) callable brokered CDs and reduced certain secured
borrowings (such as the Federal Reserve) to increase available funding sources. We believe these
actions will assist us in meeting our liquidity needs during 2010.
In addition to these measures, on July 7, 2010, we entered into an Investment Agreement with
Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP (the Investor) that establishes an equity line facility as a
contingent source of liquidity for our holding company. Pursuant to the Investment Agreement, the
Investor committed to purchase up to $15 million of our common stock over a 36-month period after
the registration statement referenced below becomes effective. We have the right, but no
obligation, to draw on this equity line facility from time to time during such 36-month period by
selling shares of our common stock to the Investor. The sales price would be at a 5% discount to
the market price of our common stock at the time of the draw, as such market price is determined
pursuant to the terms of the Investment Agreement. To date, no securities have been sold under the
equity line facility. In connection with such Investment Agreement, we entered into a Registration
Rights Agreement with the Investor, pursuant to which we agreed to register for resale the shares
that may be sold to the Investor with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Copies of the
Investment Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement have been filed as exhibits to our
registration statement on Form S-1 of which this prospectus is a part. These agreements were
entered into as a private offering exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the
Securities Act.
78
In the normal course of business, we enter into certain contractual obligations. Such
obligations include requirements to make future payments on debt and lease arrangements,
contractual commitments for capital expenditures, and service contracts. The table below summarizes
our significant contractual obligations at December 31, 2009.
Contractual Commitments(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After |
|
|
|
|
|
|
or Less |
|
|
1-3 Years |
|
|
3-5 Years |
|
|
5 Years |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Time deposit maturities |
|
$ |
512,415 |
|
|
$ |
399,255 |
|
|
$ |
257,483 |
|
|
$ |
2,167 |
|
|
$ |
1,171,320 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
42,800 |
|
|
|
69,634 |
|
|
|
4,240 |
|
|
|
14,508 |
|
|
|
131,182 |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
Operating lease obligations |
|
|
1,179 |
|
|
|
1,979 |
|
|
|
1,658 |
|
|
|
4,813 |
|
|
|
9,629 |
|
Purchase obligations(2) |
|
|
1,469 |
|
|
|
1,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,427 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
557,863 |
|
|
$ |
472,826 |
|
|
$ |
263,381 |
|
|
$ |
114,376 |
|
|
$ |
1,408,446 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes approximately $0.9 million of accrued tax and interest relative to uncertain tax benefits due
to the high degree of uncertainty as to when, or if, those amounts would be paid. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes contracts with a minimum annual payment of $1.0 million and are not cancellable within one year. |
Effective management of capital resources is critical to our mission to create value
for our shareholders. The cost of capital is an important factor in creating shareholder value
and, accordingly, our capital structure includes cumulative trust preferred securities and
cumulative preferred stock.
Capitalization
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
Amount not qualifying as regulatory capital |
|
|
(2,788 |
) |
|
|
(2,788 |
) |
|
|
(2,788 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount qualifying as regulatory capital |
|
|
90,100 |
|
|
|
90,100 |
|
|
|
90,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
69,334 |
|
|
|
69,157 |
|
|
|
68,456 |
|
Common stock |
|
|
23,884 |
|
|
|
23,863 |
|
|
|
22,791 |
|
Capital surplus |
|
|
201,754 |
|
|
|
201,618 |
|
|
|
200,687 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(184,012 |
) |
|
|
(169,098 |
) |
|
|
(73,849 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(13,749 |
) |
|
|
(15,679 |
) |
|
|
(23,208 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
|
97,211 |
|
|
|
109,861 |
|
|
|
194,877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capitalization |
|
$ |
187,311 |
|
|
$ |
199,961 |
|
|
$ |
284,977 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have four special purpose entities that have issued $90.1 million of cumulative trust
preferred securities. The Federal Reserve has issued rules regarding trust preferred securities as
a component of the Tier 1 capital of bank holding companies. The aggregate amount of trust
preferred securities and certain other capital elements is limited to 25 percent of Tier 1 capital
elements, net of goodwill (net of any associated deferred tax liability). The amount of trust
preferred securities and certain other elements in excess of the limit could be included in the
Tier 2 capital, subject to restrictions. Currently, for us, $41.9 million of these securities
qualify as Tier 1 capital and the balance qualify as Tier 2 capital. These entities have also
issued common securities and capital to us, and we, in turn, issued subordinated debentures to
these special purpose entities equal to the trust preferred securities, common securities and
capital issued. The subordinated debentures represent the sole asset of the special purpose
entities. The common securities, capital and subordinated debentures are included in our
consolidated statements of financial condition at March 31, 2010 and at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
79
In December 2008, we issued 72,000 shares of Series A, $1,000 liquidation preference,
fixed rate cumulative perpetual preferred stock and a warrant to purchase 3,461,538 shares (at
$3.12 per share) of our common stock to the Treasury in return for $72.0 million under the TARP
CPP. Of the total proceeds, $68.4 million was originally allocated to the Series A Preferred Stock
and $3.6 million was allocated to the Warrant (included in capital surplus) based on the relative
fair value of each. The $3.6 million discount on the Preferred Stock is being accreted using an
effective yield method over five years. The accretion was being recorded as part of the Series A
Preferred Stock dividend up until April 16, 2010.
As described under Capital Plan and This Offering above, on April 16, 2010, we exchanged
the Series A Preferred Stock for our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. The shares of Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock were issued in a private placement exempt from registration pursuant to
Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. We did not receive any cash proceeds from the issuance
of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. In general, the terms of the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock are substantially similar to the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock that was
held by the Treasury, except that the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is convertible into our
common stock. When we completed this exchange, we also amended and restated the Warrant to make
the initial exercise price of the Warrant equal to the initial conversion price for the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock. See Capital Plan and This Offering and Description of Our Capital
Stock for more information regarding the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock and the
amended Warrant.
We will record the exchange of the Series A Preferred Stock for the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock and the exchange of the original Warrant for the amended and restated Warrant in
the second quarter of 2010 based on the relative fair values of these newly issued instruments.
Because we have exchanged one equity instrument for another, similar equity instrument, no gain or
loss will be recorded related to this exchange.
In the fourth quarter of 2009, we took certain actions to improve our regulatory capital
ratios and preserve capital and liquidity. These actions are described in Capital Plan and This
Offering above. See also Description of Our Capital Stock below for more information regarding
the terms of our capital stock, including certain restrictions imposed on us as a result of our
decision to defer dividends on our trust preferred securities and preferred stock.
To supplement our balance sheet and capital management activities, we historically would
repurchase our common stock. The level of share repurchases in a given time period generally
reflected changes in our need for capital associated with our balance sheet growth and our level of
earnings. The only share repurchases currently being executed are for our deferred compensation and
stock purchase plan for non-employee directors. Such repurchases are funded by the director
deferring a portion of his or her fees.
Shareholders equity applicable to common stock declined to $40.7 million at December 31,
2009 from $126.4 million at December 31, 2008. Our tangible common equity, or TCE, totaled $30.4
million and $97.5 million, respectively, at those same dates. Our ratio of TCE to tangible assets
was 1.03% at December 31, 2009 compared to 3.33% at December 31, 2008 (this calculation does not
deduct any net deferred taxes). Shareholders equity applicable to common stock declined to $27.9
million at March 31, 2010 from $40.7 million at December 31, 2009. Our TCE totaled $17.9 million
and $30.4 million, respectively, at those same dates. Our ratio of TCE to tangible assets was 0.62%
at March 31, 2010 compared to 1.03% at December 31, 2009. As previously noted, the foregoing are
considered to be non-GAAP financial measures. Please refer to Non-GAAP Financial Measures above
for certain reconciliations to GAAP.
We are pursuing various alternatives in order to increase our TCE and regulatory capital
ratios. These initiatives are described under Capital Plan and This Offering above. Although our
banks regulatory capital ratios remain at levels above well capitalized standards, because of:
(a) the losses that we have incurred in recent quarters; (b) our elevated levels of non-performing
loans and other real estate; (c) increases in vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies
expense; (d) the ongoing economic stress in Michigan; and (e) our anticipated future losses, we
believe our pursuit of the initiatives described in our Capital Plan is important.
The primary objective of our Capital Plan is to achieve and thereafter maintain the
minimum capital ratios required by our banks board resolutions adopted in December 2009. As of
March 31, 2010, our bank continued to meet the requirements to be considered well-capitalized
under federal regulatory standards. However, the minimum capital ratios established by our banks
board are higher than the ratios required in order to be considered well-capitalized under
federal standards. The board imposed these higher ratios in order to ensure that we have sufficient
capital to withstand potential continuing losses based on our elevated level of non-performing
assets and given certain other risks and
uncertainties we face. Set forth below are the actual capital ratios of our bank as of March
31, 2010, the minimum capital ratios imposed by the board resolutions, and the minimum ratios
necessary to be considered well-capitalized and adequately capitalized under federal regulatory
standards:
80
Bank Capital Ratios
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum |
|
Minimum |
|
Minimum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios |
|
Ratio for |
|
Ratio for |
|
|
Actual - |
|
Actual - |
|
Established |
|
Adequately |
|
Well |
|
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
By Our |
|
Capitalized |
|
Capitalized |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
Board |
|
Institutions |
|
Institutions |
Tier 1 capital to average assets |
|
|
6.43 |
% |
|
|
6.72 |
% |
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
|
5.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 risk-based capital |
|
|
9.13 |
|
|
|
9.08 |
|
|
|
N/A |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
|
Total risk-based capital |
|
|
10.41 |
|
|
|
10.36 |
|
|
|
11.00 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
|
|
|
10.00 |
|
Shareholders equity totaled $109.9 million at December 31, 2009. The decrease from $194.9
million at December 31, 2008 primarily reflects the loss that we incurred in 2009 that was
partially offset by a decline in the accumulated other comprehensive loss. Shareholders equity was
equal to 3.70% of total assets at December 31, 2009, compared to 6.59% a year earlier.
Total shareholders equity at March 31, 2010 decreased $12.7 million from December 31, 2009,
due primarily to our first quarter 2010 net loss of $13.8 million. Shareholders equity totaled
$97.2 million, equal to 3.35% of total assets at March 31, 2010.
Please review Summary and Capital Plan and This Offering above for more details regarding
our projected need for capital, our engagement of third parties to verify certain assumptions used
in our projections, the capital raising initiatives contemplated by our Capital Plan, the current
status of those initiatives, contingency plans we have developed if we are not successful in
completing those initiatives, and related information.
Asset/Liability Management
Interest-rate risk is created by differences in the cash flow characteristics of our assets
and liabilities. Options embedded in certain financial instruments, including caps on
adjustable-rate loans as well as borrowers rights to prepay fixed-rate loans also create
interest-rate risk.
Our asset/liability management efforts identify and evaluate opportunities to structure
the balance sheet in a manner that is consistent with our mission to maintain profitable financial
leverage within established risk parameters. We evaluate various opportunities and alternate
balance-sheet strategies carefully and consider the likely impact on our risk profile as well as
the anticipated contribution to earnings. The marginal cost of funds is a principal consideration
in the implementation of our balance-sheet management strategies, but such evaluations further
consider interest-rate and liquidity risk as well as other pertinent factors. We have established
parameters for interest-rate risk. We regularly monitor our interest-rate risk and report at least
quarterly to our board of directors.
We employ simulation analyses to monitor our interest-rate risk profile and evaluate
potential changes in our net interest income and market value of portfolio equity that result from
changes in interest rates. The purpose of these simulations is to identify sources of interest-rate
risk inherent in our balance sheet. The simulations do not anticipate any actions that we might
initiate in response to changes in interest rates and, accordingly, the simulations do not provide
a reliable forecast of anticipated results. The simulations are predicated on immediate, permanent
and parallel shifts in interest rates and generally assume that current loan and deposit pricing
relationships remain constant. The simulations further incorporate assumptions relating to changes
in customer behavior, including changes in prepayment rates on certain assets and liabilities.
81
Changes in Market Value of Portfolio Equity and Net Interest Income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Market Value of |
|
Percent |
|
Net Interest |
|
Percent |
Change in Interest Rates |
|
Portfolio Equity(1) |
|
Change |
|
Income(2) |
|
Change |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200 basis point rise |
|
$ |
145,600 |
|
|
|
12.96 |
% |
|
$ |
122,200 |
|
|
|
1.83 |
% |
100 basis point rise |
|
|
136,700 |
|
|
|
6.05 |
|
|
|
119,800 |
|
|
|
(0.17 |
) |
Base-rate scenario |
|
|
128,900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
100 basis point decline |
|
|
110,700 |
|
|
|
(14.12 |
) |
|
|
119,800 |
|
|
|
(0.17 |
) |
200 basis point decline |
|
|
103,000 |
|
|
|
(20.09 |
) |
|
|
117,400 |
|
|
|
(2.17 |
) |
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200 basis point rise |
|
$ |
160,500 |
|
|
|
16.14 |
% |
|
$ |
134,000 |
|
|
|
2.52 |
% |
100 basis point rise |
|
|
150,400 |
|
|
|
8.83 |
|
|
|
131,300 |
|
|
|
0.46 |
|
Base-rate scenario |
|
|
138,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
100 basis point decline |
|
|
128,100 |
|
|
|
(7.31 |
) |
|
|
129,900 |
|
|
|
(0.61 |
) |
200 basis point decline |
|
|
126,300 |
|
|
|
(8.61 |
) |
|
|
128,900 |
|
|
|
(1.38 |
) |
December 31, 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
200 basis point rise |
|
$ |
202,900 |
|
|
|
(2.50 |
)% |
|
$ |
125,800 |
|
|
|
(4.77 |
)% |
100 basis point rise |
|
|
206,500 |
|
|
|
(0.77 |
) |
|
|
128,700 |
|
|
|
(2.57 |
) |
Base-rate scenario |
|
|
208,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132,100 |
|
|
|
|
|
100 basis point decline |
|
|
204,600 |
|
|
|
(1.68 |
) |
|
|
134,300 |
|
|
|
1.67 |
|
200 basis point decline |
|
|
192,400 |
|
|
|
(7.54 |
) |
|
|
130,800 |
|
|
|
(0.98 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Simulation analyses calculate the change in the net present value
of our assets and liabilities, including debt and related
financial derivative instruments, under parallel shifts in
interest rates by discounting the estimated future cash flows
using a market-based discount rate. Cash flow estimates
incorporate anticipated changes in prepayment speeds and other
embedded options. |
|
(2) |
|
Simulation analyses calculate the change in net interest income
under immediate parallel shifts in interest rates over the next
twelve months, based upon a static balance sheet, which includes
debt and related financial derivative instruments, and do not
consider loan fees. |
Management Plans and Expectations
As described earlier, we have adopted the Capital Plan which includes a series of actions
designed to increase our common equity capital, decrease our expenses and enable us to withstand
and better respond to current market conditions and the potential for worsening market conditions.
While we are not currently subject to a regulatory agreement or enforcement action and while our
bank remains well capitalized under federal regulatory standards, we believe our bank is likely
to fall below the standards necessary to remain well-capitalized during the third or fourth
quarter of 2010 if we are unable to raise additional capital in this offering. We expect this
would have a number of material and adverse consequences, as discussed in our Risk Factors
section above.
LITIGATION MATTERS
We are involved in various litigation matters in the ordinary course of business and at
the present time, we do not believe that any of these matters will have a significant impact on our
financial condition or results of operation.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Our accounting and reporting policies are in accordance with GAAP and conform to general
practices within the banking industry. Accounting and reporting policies for other than temporary
impairment of investment securities, the allowance for loan losses, originated mortgage loan
servicing rights, derivative financial instruments, vehicle service contract counterparty
contingencies, income taxes and goodwill
are deemed critical since they involve the use of estimates and require significant management
judgments. Application of assumptions different than those that we have used could result in
material changes in our financial position or results of operations.
We are required to assess our investment securities for other than temporary impairment
on a periodic basis. The determination of other than temporary impairment for an investment
security requires judgment as to the cause of the impairment, the likelihood of recovery and the
82
projected timing of the recovery. The topic of other than temporary impairment has been at the
forefront of discussions within the accounting profession during 2008 and 2009 because of the
dislocation of the credit markets that has occurred. On January 12, 2009 the FASB issued ASC
325-40-65-1 (formerly Staff Position No. EITF 99-20-1 Amendments to the Impairment Guidance of
EITF Issue No. 99-20.) This standard has been applicable to our financial statements since
December 31, 2008. In particular, this standard strikes the language that required the use of
market participant assumptions about future cash flows from previous guidance. This change now
permits the use of reasonable management judgment about whether it is probable that all previously
projected cash flows will not be collected in determining other than temporary impairment. Our
assessment process resulted in recording other than temporary impairment charges of $0.1 million,
$0.2 million, and $1.0 million in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively, in our consolidated
statements of operations. Our assessment process resulted in recording other than temporary
impairment charges of $0.1 million and $0.02 million in the first quarters of 2010 and 2009,
respectively, in our consolidated statements of operations. Further, we did elect (effective
January 1, 2008) fair value accounting pursuant to FASB ASC topic 825 for certain of our preferred
stock investments. We believe that our assumptions and judgments in assessing other than temporary
impairment for our investment securities are reasonable and conform to general industry practices.
Prices for investment securities are largely provided by a pricing service. These prices consider
benchmark yields, reported trades, broker / dealer quotes and issuer spreads. Furthermore, prices
for mortgage securities consider: To Be Announced (TBA) prices, monthly payment information and
collateral performance. As of December 31, 2009, the pricing service did not provide fair values
for securities with a fair value of $36.5 million. Management estimated the fair value of these
securities using similar techniques including: observed prices, benchmark yields, dealer bids and
TBA pricing. These estimates are subject to change and the resulting level 3 valued securities may
be volatile as a result. At March 31, 2010 the cost basis of our investment securities classified
as available for sale exceeded their estimated fair value at that same date by $4.2 million
(compared to $6.9 million at December 31, 2009 and $16.3 million at December 31, 2008). This amount
is included in the accumulated other comprehensive loss section of shareholders equity.
Our methodology for determining the allowance and related provision for loan losses is
described above in Portfolio Loans and Asset quality. In particular, this area of accounting
requires a significant amount of judgment because a multitude of factors can influence the ultimate
collection of a loan or other type of credit. It is extremely difficult to precisely measure the
amount of losses that are probable in our loan portfolio. We use a rigorous process to attempt to
accurately quantify the necessary allowance and related provision for loan losses, but there can be
no assurance that our modeling process will successfully identify all of the losses that are
probable in our loan portfolio. As a result, we could record future provisions for loan losses that
may be significantly different than the levels that we recorded in the first quarter of 2010 and in
2009.
At March 31, 2010 we had approximately $15.4 million of mortgage loan servicing rights
capitalized on our balance sheet (compared to $15.3 million at December 31, 2009). There are
several critical assumptions involved in establishing the value of this asset including estimated
future prepayment speeds on the underlying mortgage loans, the interest rate used to discount the
net cash flows from the mortgage loan servicing, the estimated amount of ancillary income that will
be received in the future (such as late fees) and the estimated cost to service the mortgage loans.
We believe the assumptions that we utilize in our valuation are reasonable based upon accepted
industry practices for valuing mortgage loan servicing rights and represent neither the most
conservative nor aggressive assumptions. We recorded a decrease in the valuation allowance on
capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights of $0.1 million in the first quarter of 2010 (compared
to an increase in such valuation allowance of $0.7 million in the first quarter of 2009 and a
decrease in such valuation allowance of $2.3 million in 2009). Nearly all of our mortgage loans
serviced for others at March 31, 2010 are for either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Because of our
financial condition at March 31, 2010, we received a letter from Fannie Mae in May 2010 advising us
that we were in breach of the selling and servicing contract between IBC and Fannie Mae. The
letter states that if this breach is not remedied as evidenced by our call report as of June 30,
2010, Fannie Mae will suspend our servicing contract. The suspension of our contract with Fannie
Mae could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. We
are in discussions with Fannie Mae to address the concerns in its May 2010 letter and avoid any
suspension of our contract; however, this matter remains unresolved and the risk exists that Fannie
Mae may require us to very quickly sell or transfer mortgage servicing rights to a third party or
unilaterally strip us of such servicing rights if we cannot complete an approved transfer.
Depending on the terms of any such transaction, this forced sale or transfer of such mortgage loan
servicing rights could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and future
earnings prospects. Although we have not received any notice from Freddie Mac similar to the
notice we received from Fannie Mae, a similar type of action could be taken by Freddie Mac.
We use a variety of derivative instruments to manage our interest rate risk. These derivative
instruments may include interest rate swaps, collars, floors and caps and mandatory forward
commitments to sell mortgage loans. Under FASB ASC topic Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging the
accounting for increases or decreases in the value of derivatives depends upon the use of the
derivatives and whether the derivatives qualify for hedge accounting. At March 31, 2010 we had
approximately $105.5 0 million in notional amount of derivative financial instruments that
qualified for hedge accounting under this standard (compared to $160.0 million at December 31,
2009). As a result, generally, changes in the fair market value of those derivative financial
instruments qualifying as cash flow hedges are recorded in other comprehensive income or loss. The
changes in the fair value of those derivative financial instruments qualifying as fair value hedges
are recorded in earnings
and, generally, are offset by the change in the fair value of the hedged item which is also
recorded in earnings (we currently do not have any fair value hedges). The fair value of derivative
financial instruments qualifying for hedge accounting was a negative $2.2 million at March 31, 2010
(compared to a negative $2.3 million at December 31, 2009).
83
Mepco acquires payment plans from companies (which we refer to as Mepcos counterparties)
that provide vehicle service contracts and similar products to consumers. The payment plans (which
are classified as payment plan receivables in our consolidated statements of financial condition)
permit a consumer to purchase a service contract by making installment payments, generally for a
term of 12 to 24 months, to the sellers of those contracts (one of the counterparties). Mepco
does not evaluate the creditworthiness of the individual customer but instead primarily relies on
the payment plan collateral (the unearned vehicle service contract and unearned sales commission)
in the event of default. When consumers stop making payments or exercise their right to voluntarily
cancel the contract, the remaining unpaid balance of the payment plan is normally recouped by Mepco
from the counterparties that sold the contract and provided the coverage. The refund obligations of
these counterparties are not fully secured. We record losses, included in non-interest expenses,
for estimated defaults by these counterparties in their recourse obligations to Mepco. These losses
(which totaled $31.2 million, $1.0 million, and zero, in 2009, 2008, and 2007, respectively, and
which totaled $3.4 million and $0.8 million in the first quarters of 2010 and 2009, respectively)
are titled vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies in our consolidated statements of
operations. This area of accounting requires a significant amount of judgment because a number of
factors can influence the amount of loss that we may ultimately incur. These factors include our
estimate of future cancellations of vehicle service contracts, our evaluation of collateral that
may be available to recover funds due from our counterparties, and the amount collected from
counterparties in connection with their contractual recourse obligations. We apply a rigorous
process, based upon observable contract activity and past experience, to estimate probable losses
and quantify the necessary reserves for our vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies,
but there can be no assurance that our modeling process will successfully identify all such losses.
As a result, we could record future losses associated with vehicle service contract counterparty
contingencies that may be significantly different than the levels that we recorded in the first
quarter of 2010 and in 2009.
Our accounting for income taxes involves the valuation of deferred tax assets and
liabilities primarily associated with differences in the timing of the recognition of revenues and
expenses for financial reporting and tax purposes. At December 31, 2009 we had gross deferred tax
assets of $67.3 million, gross deferred tax liabilities of $6.5 million and a valuation allowance
of $60.2 million ($24.0 million of such valuation allowance was established in 2009 and $36.2
million of which was established in 2008) resulting in a net deferred tax asset of $0.7 million. At
March 31,2010 we had gross deferred tax assets of $72.4 million, gross deferred tax liabilities of
$6.7 million and a valuation allowance of $64.5 million ($4.3 million of such valuation allowance
was established during the three months ended March 31, 2010, $24.0 million of which was
established in 2009 and $36.2 million of which was established in 2008) resulting in a net deferred
tax asset of $1.2 million. This valuation allowance represents our entire net deferred tax asset
except for certain deferred tax assets at Mepco that relate to state income taxes and that can be
recovered based on Mepcos individual earnings. We are required to assess whether a valuation
allowance should be established against our deferred tax assets based on the consideration of all
available evidence using a more likely than not standard. In accordance with this standard, we
reviewed our deferred tax assets and determined that based upon a number of factors including our
declining operating performance since 2005 and our net loss in 2009 and 2008, overall negative
trends in the banking industry and our expectation that our operating results will continue to be
negatively affected by the overall economic environment, we should establish a valuation allowance
for our deferred tax assets. In the last quarter of 2008, we recorded a $36.2 million valuation
allowance, which consisted of $27.6 million recognized as income tax expense and $8.6 million
recognized through the accumulated other comprehensive loss component of shareholders equity and
in 2009 we recorded an additional $24.0 million valuation allowance (which is net of a $4.1 million
allocation of deferred taxes on the accumulated other comprehensive loss component of shareholders
equity). We had recorded no valuation allowance on our net deferred tax asset in prior years
because we believed that the tax benefits associated with this asset would more likely than not, be
realized. Changes in tax laws, changes in tax rates and our future level of earnings can impact the
ultimate realization of our net deferred tax asset as well as the valuation allowance that we have
established.
At March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 we had no remaining goodwill. We test our goodwill
for impairment utilizing the methodology and guidelines established in this standard. This
methodology involves assumptions regarding the valuation of the business segments that contain the
acquired entities. We believe that the assumptions we utilize are reasonable. During 2009, we
recorded a $16.7 million goodwill impairment charge at our Mepco segment. In the fourth quarter of
2009 we updated our goodwill impairment testing (interim tests had also been performed in each of
the first three quarters of 2009). The results of the year end goodwill impairment testing showed
that the estimated fair value of our Mepco reporting unit was now less than the carrying value of
equity. The fair value of Mepco is principally based on estimated future earnings utilizing a
discounted cash flow methodology. As described above in Non-Interest Expense and in Business
Segments, Mepco recorded a loss in the fourth quarter of 2009. Further, Mepcos largest business
counterparty, which accounted for nearly one-half of Mepcos payment plan business, defaulted on
its obligations to Mepco and this counterparty filed bankruptcy on March 1, 2010. These factors
adversely impacted the level of Mepcos expected future earnings and hence its fair value. A step 2
analysis and valuation was performed. Based on the step 2 analysis (which involved determining the
fair value of Mepcos assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles), we concluded that goodwill
was now impaired, resulting in this $16.7 million charge. During 2008, we recorded a $50.0 million
goodwill impairment charge. In the fourth quarter of 2008, we updated our goodwill impairment
testing (interim tests had also been performed in the second and third quarters of 2008). Our
common stock price dropped even further in the fourth quarter of 2008, resulting in a wider
difference between our market capitalization and book value. The results of the year end goodwill
impairment testing showed that the estimated fair value of our bank reporting unit was less than
the carrying value of equity. This necessitated a step 2 analysis and valuation. Based on the step
2
analysis (which involved determining the fair value of our banks assets, liabilities and
identifiable intangibles) we concluded that goodwill was now impaired, resulting in this $50.0
million charge.
84
BUSINESS
We were incorporated under the laws of the state of Michigan on September 17, 1973 for the
purpose of becoming a bank holding company. We are registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of
1956, as amended, and own the outstanding stock of Independent Bank which is organized under the
laws of the state of Michigan. During 2007, we consolidated our existing four bank charters into
one.
Aside from the stock of our bank, we have no other substantial assets. We conduct no business
except for the collection of dividends from our bank and, when declared by our board of directors,
the payment of dividends to our shareholders. Certain employee retirement plans (including employee
stock ownership and deferred compensation plans) as well as health and other insurance programs
have been established by us. The costs of these plans are borne by our bank and its subsidiaries.
We have no material patents, trademarks, licenses or franchises except the corporate franchise
of our bank which permits it to engage in commercial banking pursuant to Michigan law.
Our banks main office location is Ionia, Michigan, and it had total loans (excluding loans
held for sale) and total deposits of $2.15 billion and $2.49 billion, respectively, at March 31,
2010.
Our bank transacts business in the single industry of commercial banking. Most of our banks
offices provide full-service lobby and drive-thru services in the communities which they serve.
Automatic teller machines are also provided at most locations.
Our bank provides a comprehensive array of products and services to individuals and businesses
in the markets we serve. These products and services include checking and savings accounts,
commercial loans, direct and indirect consumer financing, mortgage lending, and commercial and
municipal treasury management services. Our banks mortgage lending activities are primarily
conducted through a separate mortgage bank subsidiary. In addition, Mepco acquires and services
payment plans used by consumers to purchase vehicle service contracts and similar products provided
and administered by third parties. We also offer title insurance services through a separate
subsidiary of our bank. Further, we provide investment and insurance services through a third
party agreement with PrimeVest Financial Services, Inc. Our bank does not offer trust services.
Our principal markets are the rural and suburban communities across lower Michigan that are served
by our banks branch network. Our bank serves its markets through its main office and a total of
105 branches, 4 drive-thru facilities and 5 loan production offices. The ongoing economic stress
in Michigan has adversely impacted many of our markets, which is manifested in higher levels of
loan defaults and lower demand for credit.
Our bank competes with other commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, mortgage banking
companies, securities brokerage companies, insurance companies, and money market mutual funds. Many
of these competitors have substantially greater resources than we do and offer certain services
that we do not currently provide. Such competitors may also have greater lending limits than our
bank. In addition, non-bank competitors are generally not subject to the extensive regulations
applicable to us.
Price (the interest charged on loans and/or paid on deposits) remains a principal means of
competition within the financial services industry. Our bank also competes on the basis of service
and convenience in providing financial services.
The principal sources of revenue, on a consolidated basis, are interest and fees on loans,
other interest income and non-interest income. The sources of revenue for the three most recent
years are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
Interest and fees on loans |
|
|
71.8 |
% |
|
|
80.0 |
% |
|
|
74.8 |
% |
Other interest income |
|
|
4.5 |
|
|
|
7.3 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
Non-interest income |
|
|
23.7 |
|
|
|
12.7 |
|
|
|
17.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 31, 2010, we had 1,033 full-time employees and 274 part-time employees.
Supervision and Regulation
The following is a summary of certain statutes and regulations affecting us. A change in
applicable laws or regulations may have a material effect on us and our bank.
General
Financial institutions and their holding companies are extensively regulated under federal and
state law. Consequently, our growth and earnings performance can be affected not only by management
decisions and general and local economic conditions, but also by the statutes administered by, and
the regulations and policies of, various governmental regulatory authorities. Those authorities
include, but are not limited
85
to, the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Michigan OFIR,
the Internal Revenue Service, and state taxing authorities. The effect of such statutes,
regulations and policies and any changes thereto can be significant and cannot necessarily be
predicted.
Federal and state laws and regulations generally applicable to financial institutions and
their holding companies regulate, among other things, the scope of business, investments, reserves
against deposits, capital levels, lending activities and practices, the nature and amount of
collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, mergers, consolidations and dividends. The
system of supervision and regulation applicable to us establishes a comprehensive framework for our
operations and is intended primarily for the protection of the FDICs deposit insurance funds, our
depositors, and the public, rather than our shareholders.
Federal law and regulations establish supervisory standards applicable to the lending
activities of our bank, including internal controls, credit underwriting, loan documentation and
loan-to-value ratios for loans secured by real property.
Regulatory Developments
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. On October 3, 2008, Congress enacted
the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA). The EESA enables the federal government,
under terms and conditions developed by the Secretary of the Treasury, to insure troubled assets,
including mortgage-backed securities, and collect premiums from participating financial
institutions. The EESA includes, among other provisions: (a) the $700 billion Troubled Assets
Relief Program (TARP), under which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to purchase, insure,
hold, and sell a wide variety of financial instruments, particularly those that are based on or
related to residential or commercial mortgages originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008;
and (b) an increase in the amount of deposit insurance provided by the FDIC. Both of these specific
provisions are discussed in the below sections.
Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Under TARP, the Treasury authorized a voluntary
capital purchase program (CPP) to purchase senior preferred shares of qualifying financial
institutions that elected to participate. Participating companies must adopt certain standards for
executive compensation, including (a) prohibiting golden parachute payments as defined in the
EESA to senior executive officers; (b) requiring recovery of any compensation paid to senior
executive officers based on criteria that is later proven to be materially inaccurate; and (c)
prohibiting incentive compensation that encourages unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten
the value of the financial institution. The terms of the CPP also limit certain uses of capital by
the issuer, including repurchases of company stock and increases in dividends.
On December 12, 2008, we participated in the CPP and issued $72 million in capital to the
Treasury in the form of the Series A Preferred Stock that paid cash dividends at the rate of 5% per
annum through February 14, 2014, and 9% per annum thereafter. In addition, the Treasury received a
Warrant to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock at a price of $3.12 per share. Of the
total proceeds, $68.4 million was initially allocated to the Series A Preferred Stock and $3.6
million was allocated to the Warrant (included in capital surplus) based on the relative fair value
of each. The exercise price for the Warrant was determined based on the average of closing prices
of our common stock during the 20-trading day period ended November 20, 2008, the last trading day
prior to the date the Treasury approved our participation in the CPP. The Warrant was exercisable,
in whole or in part, over a term of 10 years.
On April 16, 2010, we exchanged the shares of our Series A Preferred Stock for shares of our
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock and issued to the Treasury an amended and restated Warrant.
For more information about this transaction, please see Capital Plan and this Offering Exchange
with the U.S. Treasury above.
Federal Deposit Insurance Coverage. The EESA temporarily raised the limit on federal
deposit insurance coverage from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor, and on May 20, 2009 this
temporary increase in the insurance limit was extended until December 31, 2013. Separate from the
EESA, in October 2008 the FDIC also announced the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. Under one
component of this program, for participating institutions that have not opted out, the FDIC
temporarily provides unlimited coverage for noninterest bearing transaction deposit accounts
through December 31, 2010.
Financial Stability Plan. On February 10, 2009, the Treasury announced the Financial
Stability Plan (FSP), which is a comprehensive set of measures intended to shore up the U.S.
financial system and earmarks the balance of the unused funds originally authorized under the EESA.
The major elements of the FSP include: (i) a capital assistance program that will invest in
convertible preferred stock of certain qualifying institutions; (ii) a consumer and business
lending initiative to fund new consumer loans, small business loans and commercial mortgage
asset-backed securities issuances; (iii) a new public-private investment fund that will leverage
public and private capital with public financing to purchase up to $500 billion to $1 trillion of
legacy toxic assets from financial institutions; and (iv) assistance for homeowners by providing
up to $75 billion to reduce mortgage payments and interest rates and establishing loan modification
guidelines for government and private programs.
Financial institutions receiving assistance under the FSP going forward will be subject to
higher transparency and accountability standards, including restrictions on dividends, acquisitions
and executive compensation and additional disclosure requirements. We cannot predict at this time
the effect that the FSP may have on us or our business, financial condition or results of
operations.
86
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On February 17, 2009, Congress
enacted the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In enacting the ARRA, Congress
intended to provide a stimulus to the U.S. economy in light of the significant economic downturn.
The ARRA includes federal tax cuts, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare
provisions, and numerous
domestic spending efforts in education, healthcare and infrastructure. The ARRA also includes
numerous non-economic recovery related items, including a limitation on executive compensation in
federally-aided financial institutions, including banks that have received or will receive
assistance under TARP.
Under the ARRA, a financial institution will be subject to the following restrictions and
standards throughout the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided
under TARP remains outstanding:
|
|
|
Limits on compensation incentives for risk-taking by senior executive officers; |
|
|
|
|
Requirement of recovery of any compensation paid based on inaccurate financial information; |
|
|
|
|
Prohibition on golden parachute payments as defined in the ARRA; |
|
|
|
|
Prohibition on compensation plans that would encourage manipulation of reported earnings to enhance the compensation of employees; |
|
|
|
|
Establishment of board compensation committees by publicly-registered TARP recipients comprised entirely of independent
directors, for the purpose of reviewing employee compensation plans; |
|
|
|
|
Prohibition on bonuses, retention awards, and incentive compensation, except for payments of long-term restricted stock; and |
|
|
|
|
Limitation on luxury expenditures. |
In addition, TARP recipients are required to permit a separate non-binding shareholder vote to
approve the compensation of executives. The chief executive officer and chief financial officer of
each TARP recipient will be required to provide a written certification of compliance with these
standards to the SEC.
Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan. On February 18, 2009, President Obama
announced the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan (HASP). The HASP is intended to support a
recovery in the housing market and ensure that workers can continue to pay off their mortgages
through the following elements:
|
|
|
Provide access to low-cost refinancing for responsible homeowners suffering from falling home prices; |
|
|
|
|
A $75 billion homeowner stability initiative to prevent foreclosure and help responsible families stay in their homes; and |
|
|
|
|
Support low mortgage rates by strengthening confidence in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. |
More details regarding HASP are expected to be announced at a future date.
Future Legislation. Various other legislative and regulatory initiatives, including
proposals to overhaul the banking regulatory system are from time to time introduced in Congress
and state legislatures, as well as regulatory agencies. For example, on May 20, 2010, the U.S.
Senate passed a bill, a version of which the U.S. House of Representatives passed in December 2009,
that proposes broad changes to the U.S. financial system. As released on June 25, 2010, the
reconciled version of the bill or conference report, now known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act, includes the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau with power to promulgate and, with respect to financial institutions with more than $10
billion in assets, enforce consumer protection laws, the creation of a Financial Stability
Oversight Council chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury with authority to identify institutions
and practices that might pose a systemic risk, provisions affecting corporate governance and
executive compensation of all companies whose securities are registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, a provision that would broaden the base for FDIC insurance assessments, a
provision under which interchange fees for debit cards would be set by the Federal Reserve under a
restrictive reasonable and proportional cost per transaction standard, a provision that would
require bank regulators to set minimum capital levels for bank holding companies that are as strong
as those required for their insured depository subsidiaries, subject to a grandfather clause for
financial institutions with less than $15 billion in assets as of December 31, 2009, and new
restrictions on how mortgage brokers and loan originators may be compensated. On June 30, 2010,
the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act.
The current legislation being considered and other future legislation regarding financial
institutions may change banking statutes and our operating environment in substantial and
unpredictable ways, and could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand
permissible activities or affect the competitive balance depending on whether any of this potential
legislation will be enacted. The nature and
87
extent of future legislative and regulatory changes
affecting financial institutions is very unpredictable at this time. We cannot determine the
ultimate effect that any such potential legislation, if enacted, would have upon our financial
condition or results of operations.
Independent Bank Corporation
General
We are a bank holding company and, as such, are registered with, and subject to regulation by,
the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. Under the BHCA, we are subject to periodic examination by the
Federal Reserve, and are required to file periodic reports of operations and such additional
information as the Federal Reserve may require.
In accordance with Federal Reserve policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a
source of financial strength to its subsidiary banks and to commit resources to support the
subsidiary banks in circumstances where the bank holding company might not do so absent such
policy.
In addition, if the Michigan OFIR deems a banks capital to be impaired, the Michigan OFIR may
require a bank to restore its capital by special assessment upon a bank holding company, as the
banks sole shareholder. If the bank holding company fails to pay such assessment, the directors of
that bank would be required, under Michigan law, to sell the shares of bank stock owned by the bank
holding company to the highest bidder at either public or private auction and use the proceeds of
the sale to restore the banks capital.
Any capital loans by a bank holding company to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of
payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a
bank holding companys bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank
regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy
trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.
Investments and Activities
In general, any direct or indirect acquisition by a bank holding company of any voting shares
of any bank which would result in the bank holding companys direct or indirect ownership or
control of more than 5% of any class of voting shares of such bank, and any merger or consolidation
of the bank holding company with another bank holding company, will require the prior written
approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. In acting on such applications, the Federal Reserve
must consider various statutory factors including the effect of the proposed transaction on
competition in relevant geographic and product markets, and each partys financial condition,
managerial resources, and record of performance under the Community Reinvestment Act.
In addition and subject to certain exceptions, the Change in the Bank Control Act (Control
Act) and regulations promulgated thereunder by the Federal Reserve, require any person acting
directly or indirectly, or through or in concert with one or more persons, to give the Federal
Reserve 60 days written notice before acquiring control of a bank holding company. Transactions
which are presumed to constitute the acquisition of control include the acquisition of any voting
securities of a bank holding company having securities registered under Section 12 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, if, after the transaction, the acquiring person (or
persons acting in concert) owns, controls or holds with power to vote 10% or more of any class of
voting securities of the institution. The acquisition may not be consummated subsequent to such
notice if the Federal Reserve issues a notice within 60 days, or within certain extensions of such
period, disapproving the acquisition.
The merger or consolidation of an existing bank subsidiary of a bank holding company with
another bank, or the acquisition by such a subsidiary of the assets of another bank, or the
assumption of the deposit and other liabilities by such a subsidiary requires the prior written
approval of the responsible Federal depository institution regulatory agency under the Bank Merger
Act, based upon a consideration of statutory factors similar to those outlined above with respect
to the BHCA. In addition, in certain cases an application to, and the prior approval of, the
Federal Reserve under the BHCA and/or the Michigan OFIR under Michigan banking laws, may be
required.
With certain limited exceptions, the BHCA prohibits any bank holding company from engaging,
either directly or indirectly through a subsidiary, in any activity other than managing or
controlling banks unless the proposed non-banking activity is one that the Federal Reserve has
determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. Under current
Federal Reserve regulations, such permissible non-banking activities include such things as
mortgage banking, equipment leasing, securities brokerage, and consumer and commercial finance
company operations. Well-capitalized and well-managed bank holding companies may, however, engage
de novo in certain types of non-banking activities without prior notice to, or approval of, the
Federal Reserve, provided that written notice of the new activity is given to the Federal Reserve
within ten business days after the activity is commenced. If a bank holding company wishes to
engage in a non-banking activity by acquiring a going concern, prior notice and/or prior approval
will be required, depending upon the activities in which the company to be acquired is engaged, the
size of the company to be acquired and the financial and managerial condition of the acquiring bank
holding company.
Eligible bank holding companies that elect to operate as financial holding companies may
engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including
securities and insurance activities and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in
88
consultation with the Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature,
incidental to any such financial activity or complementary to any such financial activity and does
not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial
system generally. The BHCA generally does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic
activities of non-bank subsidiaries of
bank or financial holding companies. We have not applied for approval to operate as a
financial holding company and have no current intention of doing so.
Capital Requirements
The Federal Reserve uses capital adequacy guidelines in its examination and regulation of bank
holding companies. If capital falls below minimum guidelines, a bank holding company may, among
other things, be denied approval to acquire or establish additional banks or non-bank businesses.
The Federal Reserves capital guidelines establish the following minimum regulatory capital
requirements for bank holding companies: (i) a leverage capital requirement expressed as a
percentage of total assets, and (ii) a risk-based requirement expressed as a percentage of total
risk-weighted assets. The leverage capital requirement consists of a minimum ratio of Tier 1
capital (which consists principally of shareholders equity) to total assets of 3% for the most
highly rated companies with minimum requirements of 4% to 5% for all others. The risk-based
requirement consists of a minimum ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8%, of
which at least one-half must be Tier 1 capital.
The risk-based and leverage standards presently used by the Federal Reserve are minimum
requirements, and higher capital levels will be required if warranted by the particular
circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations.
Included in our Tier 1 capital is $41.9 million of trust preferred securities (classified on
our balance sheet as Subordinated debentures). The Federal Reserve has issued rules regarding
trust preferred securities as a component of the Tier 1 capital of bank holding companies. The
aggregate amount of trust preferred securities and certain other capital elements is limited to 25
percent of Tier 1 capital elements, net of goodwill (net of any associated deferred tax liability).
The amount of trust preferred securities and certain other elements in excess of the limit could be
included in the Tier 2 capital, subject to restrictions.
The Federal bank regulatory agencies are required biennially to review risk-based capital
standards to ensure that they adequately address interest rate risk, concentration of credit risk
and risks from non-traditional activities.
Dividends
Most of our revenues are received in the form of dividends paid by our bank. Thus, our ability
to pay dividends to our shareholders is indirectly limited by statutory restrictions on the ability
of our bank to pay dividends, as discussed below. Further, in a policy statement, the Federal
Reserve has expressed its view that a bank holding company experiencing earnings weaknesses should
not pay cash dividends exceeding its net income or which can only be funded in ways that weaken the
bank holding companys financial health, such as by borrowing. Additionally, the Federal Reserve
possesses enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries to prevent
or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices or violations of applicable statutes
and regulations. Among these powers is the ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks
and bank holding companies. The prompt corrective action provisions of federal law and regulation
authorizes the Federal Reserve to restrict the amount of dividends that an insured bank can pay
which fails to meet specified capital levels.
In addition to the restrictions on dividends imposed by the Federal Reserve, the Michigan
Business Corporation Act provides that dividends may be legally declared or paid only if after the
distribution a corporation can pay its debts as they come due in the usual course of business and
its total assets equal or exceed the sum of its liabilities plus the amount that would be needed to
satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of any holders of preferred stock whose
preferential rights are superior to those receiving the distribution.
Finally, dividends on our common stock must be paid in accordance with the terms and
restrictions of the CPP and our Exchange Agreement with the Treasury. Prior to December 12, 2011,
unless we have redeemed all of the shares of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock or unless the
Treasury ceases to own any of our debt or equity securities acquired pursuant to the Exchange
Agreement or the Amended and restated Warrant, the consent of the Treasury will be required for us
to declare or pay any dividend or make any distribution on or repurchase of common stock other than
(i) regular quarterly cash dividends of not more than $0.01 per share, as adjusted for any stock
split, stock dividend, reverse stock split, reclassification or similar transaction, (ii) dividends
payable solely in shares of our common stock, and (iii) dividends or distributions of rights or
junior stock in connection with any shareholders rights plan.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, because we have suspended all dividends on the shares of the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock and all quarterly payments on our outstanding trust preferred
securities, we are currently prohibited from paying any cash dividends on our common stock. In
addition, in December of 2009, our board of directors adopted resolutions that prohibit us from
paying any dividends on our common stock without, in each case, the prior written approval of the
Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR. See Capital Plan and this Offering above and Dividend
Policy below for more information.
89
Federal Securities Regulation
Our common stock is registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). We are therefore subject to
the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading and other restrictions and requirements of the
SEC under the Exchange Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 provides for numerous changes to the
reporting,
accounting, corporate governance and business practices of companies as well as financial and
other professionals who have involvement with the U.S. public markets.
Our Bank
General
Independent Bank is a Michigan banking corporation, is a member of the Federal Reserve System
and its deposit accounts are insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) of the FDIC. As a member
of the Federal Reserve System, and a Michigan chartered bank, our bank is subject to the
examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the Federal Reserve as its
primary federal regulator, and Michigan OFIR, as the chartering authority for Michigan banks. These
agencies and the federal and state laws applicable to our bank and its operations, extensively
regulate various aspects of the banking business including, among other things, permissible types
and amounts of loans, investments and other activities, capital adequacy, branching, interest rates
on loans and on deposits, the maintenance of non-interest bearing reserves on deposit accounts, and
the safety and soundness of banking practices.
Deposit Insurance
As an FDIC-insured institution, our bank is required to pay deposit insurance premium
assessments to the FDIC. Under the FDICs risk-based assessment system for deposit insurance
premiums, all insured depository institutions are placed into one of four categories and assessed
insurance premiums based primarily on their level of capital and supervisory evaluations.
The FDIC is required to establish assessment rates for insured depository institutions at
levels that will maintain the DIF at a Designated Reserve Ratio (DRR) selected by the FDIC within a
range of 1.15% to 1.50%. The FDIC is allowed to manage the pace at which the reserve ratio varies
within this range. The DRR is currently established at 1.25%.
Under the FDICs prevailing rate schedule, assessments are made and adjusted based on risk.
Premiums are assessed and collected quarterly by the FDIC. Beginning as of the second quarter of
2009, banks in the lowest risk category paid an initial base rate ranging from 12 to 16 basis
points (calculated as an annual rate against the banks deposit base) for insurance premiums, with
certain potential adjustments based on certain risk factors affecting the bank. That base rate is
subject to increase to 45 basis points for banks that pose significant supervisory concerns, with
certain potential adjustments based on certain risk factors affecting the bank. FDIC insurance
assessments could continue to increase in the future due to continued depletion of the DIF.
On May 22, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule imposing a five basis point special assessment
on each insured depository institutions assets minus Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009. This
special assessment (which totaled $1.4 million for our bank) was paid on September 30, 2009. The
FDIC may impose additional special assessments under certain circumstances.
During the fourth quarter of 2009 we prepaid estimated quarterly deposit insurance premium
assessments to the FDIC for periods through the fourth quarter of 2012. These estimated quarterly
deposit insurance premium assessments were based on projected deposit balances over the assessment
periods. The prepaid deposit insurance premium assessments totaled $20.4 million at March 31, 2010
and will be expensed over the assessment period (through the fourth quarter of 2012). The actual
expense over the assessment periods may be different from this prepaid amount due to various
factors including variances in actual deposit balances and assessment rates used during each
assessment period.
In addition, in 2008, the bank elected to participate in the FDICs Transaction Account
Guarantee Program (TAGP). Under the TAGP, funds in non-interest bearing transaction accounts, in
interest-bearing transaction accounts with an interest rate of 0.50% or less, and in Interest on
Lawyers Trust Accounts (IOLTA) will have a temporary (until December 31, 2010) unlimited guarantee
from the FDIC. The coverage under the TAGP is in addition to and separate from the coverage
available under the FDICs general deposit insurance rules which insure accounts up to $250,000.
Participation in the TAGP requires the payment of additional insurance premiums to the FDIC.
FICO Assessments
Our bank, as a member of the DIF, is subject to assessments to cover the payments on
outstanding obligations of the Financing Corporation (FICO). FICO was created to finance the
recapitalization of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the predecessor to the
FDICs Savings Association Insurance Fund which was created to insure the deposits of thrift
institutions and was merged with the Bank Insurance Fund into the newly formed DIF in 2006. From
now until the maturity of the outstanding FICO obligations in 2019, DIF members will share the cost
of the interest on the FICO bonds on a pro rata basis. It is estimated that FICO assessments during
this period will be approximately 0.011% of deposits.
90
Michigan OFIR Assessments
Michigan banks are required to pay supervisory fees to the Michigan OFIR to fund their
operations. The amount of supervisory fees paid by a bank is based upon the banks total assets.
Capital Requirements
The Federal Reserve has established the following minimum capital standards for
state-chartered, FDIC-insured member banks, such as our bank: a leverage requirement consisting of
a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 3% for the most highly-rated banks with
minimum requirements of 4% to 5% for all others, and a risk-based capital requirement consisting of
a minimum ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8%, at least one-half of which
must be Tier 1 capital. Tier 1 capital consists principally of shareholders equity. These capital
requirements are minimum requirements. Higher capital levels will be required if warranted by the
particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual institutions. For example, Federal Reserve
regulations provide that higher capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other
things, interest rate risk and the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional
activities or securities trading activities.
Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective
action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions. The extent of the regulators
powers depends on whether the institution in question is well capitalized, adequately
capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically
undercapitalized. Federal regulations define these capital categories as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
Tier 1 |
|
|
|
|
Risk-Based |
|
Risk-Based |
|
|
|
|
Capital Ratio |
|
Capital Ratio |
|
Leverage Ratio |
Well capitalized |
|
10% or above |
|
6% or above |
|
5% or above |
Adequately capitalized |
|
8% or above |
|
4% or above |
|
4% or above |
Undercapitalized |
|
Less than 8% |
|
Less than 4% |
|
Less than 4% |
Significantly undercapitalized |
|
Less than 6% |
|
Less than 3% |
|
Less than 3% |
Critically undercapitalized |
|
|
|
|
|
A ratio of tangible equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
to total assets of 2% or less |
At March 31, 2010, our banks ratios exceeded minimum requirements for the well-capitalized
category.
In conjunction with its discussions with federal and state regulators, the board of directors
of our bank adopted resolutions in December 2009 requiring our bank to achieve minimum capital
ratios that are higher than the minimum requirements described in the Federal Reserves capital
guidelines. See Capital Plan and this Offering above for more information. Our bank currently
does not meet these higher capital ratios.
Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators
corrective powers include: requiring the submission of a capital restoration plan; placing limits
on asset growth and restrictions on activities; requiring the institution to issue additional
capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to be acquired; restricting transactions with
affiliates; restricting the interest rates the institution may pay on deposits; ordering a new
election of directors of the institution; requiring that senior executive officers or directors be
dismissed; prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; requiring
the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on
subordinated debt; and ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.
In general, a depository institution may be reclassified to a lower category than is indicated
by its capital levels if the appropriate federal depository institution regulatory agency
determines the institution to be otherwise in an unsafe or unsound condition or to be engaged in an
unsafe or unsound practice. This could include a failure by the institution, following receipt of a
less-than-satisfactory rating on its most recent examination report, to correct the deficiency.
Dividends
Under Michigan law, banks are restricted as to the maximum amount of dividends they may pay on
their common stock. Our bank may not pay dividends except out of its net income after deducting its
losses and bad debts. A Michigan state bank may not declare or pay a dividend unless the bank will
have a surplus amounting to at least 20% of its capital after the payment of the dividend.
As a member of the Federal Reserve System, our bank is required to obtain the prior approval
of the Federal Reserve for the declaration or payment of a dividend if the total of all dividends
declared in any year will exceed the total of (a) the banks retained net income (as defined by
federal regulation) for that year, plus (b) the banks retained net income for the preceding two
years. Federal law generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital
distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company
if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. In addition, the Federal
Reserve may prohibit the payment of
dividends by a bank, if such payment is determined, by reason
of the financial condition of the bank, to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice or if the bank
is in default of payment of any assessment due to the FDIC.
91
In addition to these restrictions, in December of 2009, the board of directors of our bank
adopted resolutions that prohibit our bank from paying any dividends to our holding company without
the prior written approval of the Federal Reserve and the Michigan OFIR. See Capital Plan and
this Offering above for more information.
Insider Transactions
Our bank is subject to certain restrictions imposed by the Federal Reserve Act on covered
transactions with us or our subsidiaries, which include investments in our stock or other
securities issued by us or our subsidiaries, the acceptance of our stock or other securities issued
by us or our subsidiaries as collateral for loans and extensions of credit to us or our
subsidiaries. Certain limitations and reporting requirements are also placed on extensions of
credit by our bank to its directors and officers, to our directors and officers and those of our
subsidiaries, to our principal shareholders, and to related interests of such directors, officers
and principal shareholders. In addition, federal law and regulations may affect the terms upon
which any person becoming one of our directors or officers or a principal shareholder may obtain
credit from banks with which our bank maintains a correspondent relationship.
Safety and Soundness Standards
Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA), the
FDIC adopted guidelines to establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and
soundness of federally insured depository institutions. The guidelines establish standards for
internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit
underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality
and earnings.
Investment and Other Activities
Under federal law and regulations, FDIC-insured state banks are prohibited, subject to certain
exceptions, from making or retaining equity investments of a type, or in an amount, that are not
permissible for a national bank. FDICIA, as implemented by FDIC regulations, also prohibits
FDIC-insured state banks and their subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions, from engaging as a
principal in any activity that is not permitted for a national bank or its subsidiary,
respectively, unless the bank meets, and continues to meet, its minimum regulatory capital
requirements and the banks primary federal regulator determines the activity would not pose a
significant risk to the DIF. Impermissible investments and activities must be otherwise divested or
discontinued within certain time frames set by the banks primary federal regulator in accordance
with federal law. These restrictions are not currently expected to have a material impact on the
operations of our bank.
Consumer Banking
Our banks business includes making a variety of types of loans to individuals. In making
these loans, our bank is subject to state usury and regulatory laws and to various federal
statutes, including the privacy of consumer financial information provisions of the Gramm
Leach-Bliley Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in
Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and the
regulations promulgated under these statutes, which (among other things) prohibit discrimination,
specify disclosures to be made to borrowers regarding credit and settlement costs, and regulate the
mortgage loan servicing activities of our bank, including the maintenance and operation of escrow
accounts and the transfer of mortgage loan servicing. In receiving deposits, our bank is subject to
extensive regulation under state and federal law and regulations, including the Truth in Savings
Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Violation of these laws could result in the imposition of
significant damages and fines upon our bank and its directors and officers.
Branching Authority
Michigan banks, such as our bank, have the authority under Michigan law to establish branches
anywhere in the state of Michigan, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals. Banks
may establish interstate branch networks through acquisitions of other banks. The establishment of
de novo interstate branches or the acquisition of individual branches of a bank in another state
(rather than the acquisition of an out-of-state bank in its entirety) is allowed only if
specifically authorized by state law.
Michigan permits both U.S. and non-U.S. banks to establish branch offices in Michigan. The
Michigan Banking Code permits, in appropriate circumstances and with the approval of the Michigan
OFIR (1) acquisition of Michigan banks by FDIC-insured banks or savings banks located in other
states; (2) sale by a Michigan bank of branches to an FDIC-insured bank or savings bank located in
a state in which a Michigan bank could purchase branches of the purchasing entity; (3)
consolidation of Michigan banks and FDIC-insured banks or savings banks located in other states
having laws permitting such consolidation; (4) establishment of branches in Michigan by
FDIC-insured banks located in other states, the District of Columbia or U.S. territories or
protectorates having laws permitting a Michigan bank to establish a branch in such jurisdiction;
and (5) establishment by foreign banks of branches located in Michigan.
92
Mepco Finance Corporation
Our subsidiary, Mepco, is engaged in the business of acquiring and servicing payment plans
used by consumers throughout the United States who have purchased a vehicle service contract and
choose to make monthly payments for their coverage. In the typical transaction, no interest or
other finance charge is charged to these consumers. As a result, Mepco is generally not subject to
regulation under consumer lending laws. However, Mepco is subject to various federal and state laws
designed to protect consumers, including laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices and laws
regulating Mepcos payment processing activities, such as the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.
Mepco purchases these payment plans from companies (which we refer to as Mepcos
counterparties) that provide vehicle service contracts and similar products to consumers. The
payment plans (which are classified as payment plan receivables in our consolidated statements of
financial condition) permit a consumer to purchase a service contract by making installment
payments, generally for a term of 12 to 24 months, to the sellers of those contracts (one of the
counterparties). Mepco does not evaluate the creditworthiness of the individual customer but
instead primarily relies on the payment plan collateral (the unearned vehicle service contract and
unearned sales commission) in the event of default. When consumers stop making payments or exercise
their right to voluntarily cancel the contract, the remaining unpaid balance of the payment plan is
normally recouped by Mepco from the counterparties that sold the contract and provided the
coverage. The refund obligations of these counterparties are not fully secured. We record losses,
included in non-interest expenses, for estimated defaults by these counterparties in their recourse
obligations to Mepco.
Our estimate of vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies expense (probable incurred
losses for estimated defaults by Mepcos counterparties) requires a significant amount of judgment
because a number of factors can influence the amount of loss Mepco may ultimately incur. These
factors include our estimate of future cancellations of vehicle service contracts, our evaluation
of collateral that may be available to recover funds due from our counterparties, and the amount
that may ultimately be collected from counterparties in connection with their contractual
obligations to us. We apply a rigorous process, based upon observable contract activity and past
experience, to estimate probable incurred losses and quantify the necessary reserves for our
vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies, but there can be no assurance that our
modeling process will successfully identify all such losses. As a result, actual future losses
associated with in these receivables may exceed the charges we have taken.
Properties
We and our bank operate a total of 120 facilities in Michigan and 1 facility in Chicago,
Illinois. The individual properties are not materially significant to us or our banks business or
to the consolidated financial statements.
With the exception of the potential remodeling of certain facilities to provide for the
efficient use of work space or to maintain an appropriate appearance, each property is considered
reasonably adequate for current and anticipated needs.
Legal Proceedings
Due to the nature of our business, we are often subject to numerous legal actions. These legal
actions, whether pending or threatened, arise through the normal course of business and are not
considered unusual or material.
93
Statistical Disclosures
I. |
|
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY; INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL |
AVERAGE BALANCES AND RATES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
ASSETS (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans |
|
$ |
2,461,896 |
|
|
$ |
177,557 |
|
|
|
7.21 |
% |
|
$ |
2,558,621 |
|
|
$ |
186,259 |
|
|
|
7.28 |
% |
|
$ |
2,531,737 |
|
|
$ |
201,924 |
|
|
|
7.98 |
% |
Tax-exempt loans (2) |
|
|
8,672 |
|
|
|
391 |
|
|
|
4.51 |
|
|
|
10,747 |
|
|
|
488 |
|
|
|
4.54 |
|
|
|
9,568 |
|
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
4.57 |
|
Taxable securities |
|
|
111,558 |
|
|
|
6,333 |
|
|
|
5.68 |
|
|
|
144,265 |
|
|
|
8,467 |
|
|
|
5.87 |
|
|
|
179,878 |
|
|
|
9,635 |
|
|
|
5.36 |
|
Tax-exempt securities (2) |
|
|
85,954 |
|
|
|
3,669 |
|
|
|
4.27 |
|
|
|
162,144 |
|
|
|
7,238 |
|
|
|
4.46 |
|
|
|
225,676 |
|
|
|
9,920 |
|
|
|
4.40 |
|
Cash interest bearing |
|
|
72,606 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
0.24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments |
|
|
28,304 |
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
3.29 |
|
|
|
31,425 |
|
|
|
1,284 |
|
|
|
4.09 |
|
|
|
26,017 |
|
|
|
1,338 |
|
|
|
5.14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest earning
assets continuing
operations |
|
|
2,768,990 |
|
|
|
189,056 |
|
|
|
6.83 |
|
|
|
2,907,202 |
|
|
|
203,736 |
|
|
|
7.01 |
|
|
|
2,972,876 |
|
|
|
223,254 |
|
|
|
7.51 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
|
55,451 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,873 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
57,174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans
discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets, net |
|
|
157,762 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
227,969 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
218,553 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,982,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,189,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,257,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
$ |
992,529 |
|
|
|
5,751 |
|
|
|
0.58 |
|
|
$ |
968,180 |
|
|
|
10,262 |
|
|
|
1.06 |
|
|
$ |
971,807 |
|
|
|
18,768 |
|
|
|
1.93 |
|
Time deposits |
|
|
1,019,624 |
|
|
|
29,654 |
|
|
|
2.91 |
|
|
|
917,403 |
|
|
|
36,435 |
|
|
|
3.97 |
|
|
|
1,439,177 |
|
|
|
70,292 |
|
|
|
4.88 |
|
Long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
247 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
4.86 |
|
|
|
2,240 |
|
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
4.64 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
394,975 |
|
|
|
15,128 |
|
|
|
3.83 |
|
|
|
682,884 |
|
|
|
26,878 |
|
|
|
3.94 |
|
|
|
205,811 |
|
|
|
13,499 |
|
|
|
6.56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest bearing
liabilities continuing
operations |
|
|
2,407,128 |
|
|
|
50,533 |
|
|
|
2.10 |
|
|
|
2,568,714 |
|
|
|
73,587 |
|
|
|
2.86 |
|
|
|
2,619,035 |
|
|
|
102,663 |
|
|
|
3.92 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand deposits |
|
|
321,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
301,117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
300,886 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time deposits
discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
80,281 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,929 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
172,992 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
239,284 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251,308 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and
shareholders equity |
|
$ |
2,982,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,189,044 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,257,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
138,523 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
130,149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
120,591 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income as
a percent of average
interest earning assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.48 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.06 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for $5.1 million of payment plan receivables in 2009 included in taxable loans from customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented on a fully tax equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation allowance. |
94
I. |
|
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY; INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL (continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Interest |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Assets(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans |
|
$ |
2,252,674 |
|
|
$ |
38,922 |
|
|
|
6.98 |
% |
|
$ |
2,497,623 |
|
|
$ |
44,300 |
|
|
|
7.16 |
% |
Tax-exempt loans(2) |
|
|
10,128 |
|
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
4.20 |
|
|
|
9,927 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
4.13 |
|
Taxable securities |
|
|
96,213 |
|
|
|
1,160 |
|
|
|
4.89 |
|
|
|
114,823 |
|
|
|
1,733 |
|
|
|
6.12 |
|
Tax-exempt securities(2) |
|
|
64,415 |
|
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
4.31 |
|
|
|
103,070 |
|
|
|
1,107 |
|
|
|
4.36 |
|
Cash interest bearing |
|
|
274,955 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
0.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments |
|
|
27,854 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
3.13 |
|
|
|
29,277 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
4.49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Earning Assets |
|
|
2,726,239 |
|
|
|
41,244 |
|
|
|
6.12 |
|
|
|
2,754,720 |
|
|
|
47,565 |
|
|
|
6.98 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
|
59,018 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,139 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other assets, net |
|
|
148,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158,443 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
2,933,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,974,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
$ |
1,084,499 |
|
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
$ |
944,904 |
|
|
|
1,581 |
|
|
|
0.68 |
|
Time deposits |
|
|
1,127,618 |
|
|
|
7,356 |
|
|
|
2.65 |
|
|
|
855,025 |
|
|
|
6,967 |
|
|
|
3.30 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
227,621 |
|
|
|
2,994 |
|
|
|
5.33 |
|
|
|
599,379 |
|
|
|
4,670 |
|
|
|
3.16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Bearing Liabilities |
|
|
2,439,738 |
|
|
|
11,213 |
|
|
|
1.86 |
|
|
|
2,399,308 |
|
|
|
13,218 |
|
|
|
2.23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand deposits |
|
|
327,570 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
308,538 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
64,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
70,737 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
102,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
195,719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and shareholders equity |
|
$ |
2,933,717 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,974,302 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
30,031 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
34,347 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income as a Percent
of Earning Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.45 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.03 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for $0.9 million and $6.9 million for the
three months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively, of
average payment plan receivables included in taxable loans from
customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented
on a fully tax equivalent basis due to the current net operating
loss carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
95
I. |
|
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY; INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL (continued) |
CHANGE IN NET INTEREST INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 Compared to 2008 |
|
|
2008 Compared to 2007 |
|
|
|
Volume |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Net |
|
|
Volume |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Increase (decrease) in
interest income(1)(2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans |
|
$ |
(6,989 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,713 |
) |
|
$ |
(8,702 |
) |
|
$ |
2,124 |
|
|
$ |
(17,789 |
) |
|
$ |
(15,665 |
) |
Tax-exempt loans(3) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
(3 |
) |
|
|
51 |
|
Taxable securities |
|
|
(1,865 |
) |
|
|
(269 |
) |
|
|
(2,134 |
) |
|
|
(2,031 |
) |
|
|
863 |
|
|
|
(1,168 |
) |
Tax-exempt securities(3) |
|
|
(3,265 |
) |
|
|
(304 |
) |
|
|
(3,569 |
) |
|
|
(2,834 |
) |
|
|
152 |
|
|
|
(2,682 |
) |
Cash interest bearing |
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
174 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other investments |
|
|
(119 |
) |
|
|
(233 |
) |
|
|
(352 |
) |
|
|
249 |
|
|
|
(303 |
) |
|
|
(54 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest income |
|
|
(12,158 |
) |
|
|
(2,522 |
) |
|
|
(14,680 |
) |
|
|
(2,438 |
) |
|
|
(17,080 |
) |
|
|
(19,518 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in
interest expense(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
252 |
|
|
|
(4,763 |
) |
|
|
(4,511 |
) |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(8,436 |
) |
|
|
(8,506 |
) |
Time deposits |
|
|
3,740 |
|
|
|
(10,521 |
) |
|
|
(6,781 |
) |
|
|
(22,342 |
) |
|
|
(11,515 |
) |
|
|
(33,857 |
) |
Long-term debt |
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
(12 |
) |
|
|
(97 |
) |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(92 |
) |
Other borrowings |
|
|
(11,046 |
) |
|
|
(704 |
) |
|
|
(11,750 |
) |
|
|
20,619 |
|
|
|
(7,240 |
) |
|
|
13,379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest expense |
|
|
(7,066 |
) |
|
|
(15,988 |
) |
|
|
(23,054 |
) |
|
|
(1,890 |
) |
|
|
(27,186 |
) |
|
|
(29,076 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income |
|
$ |
(5,092 |
) |
|
$ |
13,466 |
|
|
$ |
8,374 |
|
|
$ |
(548 |
) |
|
$ |
10,106 |
|
|
$ |
9,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The change in interest due to changes in both balance and rate has
been allocated to change due to balance and change due to rate in
proportion to the relationship of the absolute dollar amounts of
change in each. |
|
(2) |
|
All domestic, except for $0.5 million of interest income in 2009
on payment plan receivables included in taxable loans from
customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
(3) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented on a
fully tax equivalent basis due to the net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
96
I. |
|
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY; INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL (continued) |
CHANGE IN NET INTEREST INCOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 Compared to 2009 |
|
|
|
Volume |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Increase (decrease) in interest income(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable loans(2) |
|
$ |
(4,256 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,122 |
) |
|
$ |
(5,378 |
) |
Tax-exempt loans(2)(3) |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
Taxable securities(2) |
|
|
(256 |
) |
|
|
(317 |
) |
|
|
(573 |
) |
Tax-exempt securities(2)(3) |
|
|
(411 |
) |
|
|
(11 |
) |
|
|
(422 |
) |
Cash interest bearing(2) |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157 |
|
Other investments(2) |
|
|
(15 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(109 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest income |
|
|
(4,779 |
) |
|
|
(1,542 |
) |
|
|
(6,321 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (decrease) in interest expense(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
$ |
207 |
|
|
$ |
(925 |
) |
|
$ |
(718 |
) |
Time deposits |
|
|
1,949 |
|
|
|
(1,560 |
) |
|
|
389 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
(3,841 |
) |
|
|
2,165 |
|
|
|
(1,676 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest expense |
|
|
(1,685 |
) |
|
|
(320 |
) |
|
|
(2,005 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income |
|
$ |
(3,094 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,222 |
) |
|
$ |
(4,316 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The change in interest due to changes in both balance and rate has
been allocated to change due to balance and change due to rate in
proportion to the relationship of the absolute dollar amounts of
change in each. |
|
(2) |
|
All domestic except for $0.03 million and $0.18 million of
interest income for the three month periods ending March 31, 2010
and 2009 on payment plan receivables included in taxable loans
from customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
(3) |
|
Interest on tax-exempt loans and securities is not presented on a
fully tax equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
97
I. |
|
DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY; INTEREST RATES AND INTEREST DIFFERENTIAL (continued) |
COMPOSITION OF AVERAGE INTEREST EARNING ASSETS AND INTEREST BEARING LIABILITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
As a percent of average interest earning assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans(1) |
|
|
89.2 |
% |
|
|
88.4 |
% |
|
|
85.5 |
% |
Other interest earning assets |
|
|
10.8 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
14.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average interest earning assets |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
35.8 |
% |
|
|
33.3 |
% |
|
|
32.7 |
% |
Time deposits |
|
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
23.9 |
|
|
|
21.9 |
|
Brokered CDs |
|
|
22.7 |
|
|
|
7.7 |
|
|
|
26.5 |
|
Other borrowings and long-term debt |
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
23.5 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average interest bearing liabilities |
|
|
86.9 |
% |
|
|
88.4 |
% |
|
|
88.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earning asset ratio |
|
|
92.9 |
% |
|
|
91.2 |
% |
|
|
91.3 |
% |
Free-funds ratio |
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
|
|
11.9 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for 0.2% of payment plan receivables in 2009 from customers domiciled in Canada. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
As a percent of average interest earning assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans-all domestic |
|
|
83.0 |
% |
|
|
91.0 |
% |
Other interest earning assets |
|
|
17.0 |
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average interest earning assets |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
39.8 |
% |
|
|
34.3 |
% |
Time deposits |
|
|
20.1 |
|
|
|
24.1 |
|
Brokered CDs |
|
|
21.3 |
|
|
|
7.0 |
|
Other borrowings and long-term debt |
|
|
8.3 |
|
|
|
21.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average interest bearing liabilities |
|
|
89.5 |
% |
|
|
87.1 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earning asset ratio |
|
|
92.9 |
% |
|
|
92.6 |
% |
Free-funds ratio |
|
|
10.5 |
|
|
|
12.9 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
All domestic, except for payment plan receivables from customers
domiciled in Canada of 0.03% and 0.25%, for the three month
periods ending March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
98
II. |
|
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO |
|
(A) |
|
The following table sets forth the book value of securities at the dates indicated: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Trading Preferred stock |
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
1,929 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
States and political subdivisions |
|
$ |
60,307 |
|
|
$ |
67,132 |
|
|
$ |
105,553 |
|
|
$ |
208,132 |
|
U.S. agency mortgage-backed |
|
|
59,318 |
|
|
|
47,522 |
|
|
|
48,029 |
|
|
|
59,004 |
|
Private label mortgage-backed |
|
|
15,953 |
|
|
|
30,975 |
|
|
|
36,887 |
|
|
|
50,475 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
7,421 |
|
|
|
10,400 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
8,848 |
|
|
|
13,017 |
|
|
|
12,706 |
|
|
|
9,985 |
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,816 |
|
|
|
24,198 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
149,858 |
|
|
$ |
164,151 |
|
|
$ |
215,412 |
|
|
$ |
364,194 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(B) |
|
The following table sets forth contractual maturities of securities at December 31,
2009 and the weighted average yield of such securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
After One |
|
|
After Five |
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
|
Within |
|
|
But Within |
|
|
But Within |
|
|
After |
|
|
|
One Year |
|
|
Five Years |
|
|
Ten Years |
|
|
Ten Years |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Trading Preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
|
0.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax equivalent adjustment for
calculations of yield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
States and political subdivisions |
|
$ |
2,741 |
|
|
|
4.66 |
% |
|
$ |
13,320 |
|
|
|
4.86 |
% |
|
$ |
25,478 |
|
|
|
4.07 |
% |
|
$ |
25,593 |
|
|
|
4.14 |
% |
U.S. agency mortgage-backed |
|
|
836 |
|
|
|
4.60 |
|
|
|
26,742 |
|
|
|
4.19 |
|
|
|
11,176 |
|
|
|
6.48 |
|
|
|
8,768 |
|
|
|
4.62 |
|
Private label mortgage-backed |
|
|
565 |
|
|
|
4.83 |
|
|
|
24,094 |
|
|
|
4.83 |
|
|
|
6,316 |
|
|
|
5.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
6.97 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,017 |
|
|
|
7.66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
4,142 |
|
|
|
4.67 |
% |
|
$ |
69,661 |
|
|
|
4.76 |
% |
|
$ |
42,970 |
|
|
|
4.85 |
% |
|
$ |
47,378 |
|
|
|
5.20 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax equivalent adjustment for
calculations of yield |
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The rates set forth in the table above for obligations of state
and political subdivisions have not been restated on a tax
equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
99
II. |
|
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO (continued) |
The following table sets forth contractual maturities of securities at March 31, 2010 and the
weighted average yield of such securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
After One |
|
|
After Five |
|
|
Maturing |
|
|
|
Within |
|
|
But Within |
|
|
But Within |
|
|
After |
|
|
|
One Year |
|
|
Five Years |
|
|
Ten Years |
|
|
Ten Years |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Yield |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Trading Preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax equivalent adjustment for
calculations of yield |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available for sale(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
States and political subdivisions |
|
$ |
2,582 |
|
|
|
4.64 |
% |
|
$ |
12,076 |
|
|
|
4.85 |
% |
|
$ |
25,225 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
$ |
20,424 |
|
|
|
4.14 |
% |
U.S. agency residential
mortgage-backed |
|
|
595 |
|
|
|
4.62 |
|
|
|
24,756 |
|
|
|
4.59 |
|
|
|
10,431 |
|
|
|
5.63 |
|
|
|
23,536 |
|
|
|
4.33 |
|
Private label residential
mortgage-backed |
|
|
297 |
|
|
|
5.14 |
|
|
|
7,828 |
|
|
|
5.10 |
|
|
|
7,828 |
|
|
|
5.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
6.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,848 |
|
|
|
6.99 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,474 |
|
|
|
4.68 |
% |
|
$ |
50,092 |
|
|
|
4.99 |
% |
|
$ |
43,484 |
|
|
|
4.62 |
% |
|
$ |
52,808 |
|
|
|
4.70 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax equivalent adjustment for
calculations of yield |
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The rates set forth in the table above for obligations of state
and political subdivisions have not been restated on a tax
equivalent basis due to the current net operating loss
carryforward position and the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance. |
100
|
(A) |
|
The following table sets forth total loans outstanding at the dates indicated: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Loans held for sale |
|
$ |
30,531 |
|
|
$ |
34,234 |
|
|
$ |
27,603 |
|
|
$ |
33,960 |
|
|
$ |
31,846 |
|
|
$ |
28,569 |
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
728,705 |
|
|
|
749,298 |
|
|
|
839,496 |
|
|
|
873,945 |
|
|
|
865,522 |
|
|
|
852,742 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
799,673 |
|
|
|
840,367 |
|
|
|
976,391 |
|
|
|
1,066,276 |
|
|
|
1,083,921 |
|
|
|
1,030,095 |
|
Installment |
|
|
286,501 |
|
|
|
303,366 |
|
|
|
356,806 |
|
|
|
368,478 |
|
|
|
350,273 |
|
|
|
304,053 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
340,719 |
|
|
|
406,341 |
|
|
|
286,836 |
|
|
|
209,631 |
|
|
|
160,171 |
|
|
|
178,286 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Loans |
|
$ |
2,186,129 |
|
|
$ |
2,333,606 |
|
|
$ |
2,487,132 |
|
|
$ |
2,552,290 |
|
|
$ |
2,491,733 |
|
|
$ |
2,393,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The loan portfolio is periodically and systematically reviewed, and the results of these
reviews are reported to the board of directors of our bank. The purpose of these reviews is to
assist in assuring proper loan documentation, to facilitate compliance with consumer protection
laws and regulations, to provide for the early identification of potential problem loans (which
enhances collection prospects) and to evaluate the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses.
(B) The following table sets forth scheduled loan repayments (excluding 1-4 family
residential mortgages and installment loans) at December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due |
|
|
After One |
|
|
Due |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within |
|
|
But Within |
|
|
After |
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year |
|
|
Five Years |
|
|
Five Years |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
$ |
39,153 |
|
|
$ |
18,145 |
|
|
$ |
6,068 |
|
|
$ |
63,366 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
393,732 |
|
|
|
386,879 |
|
|
|
59,756 |
|
|
|
840,367 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
119,119 |
|
|
|
287,222 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
406,341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
552,004 |
|
|
$ |
692,246 |
|
|
$ |
65,824 |
|
|
$ |
1,310,074 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table sets forth loans due after one year which have predetermined (fixed)
interest rates and/or adjustable (variable) interest rates at December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed |
|
|
Variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Due after one but within five years |
|
$ |
674,252 |
|
|
$ |
17,994 |
|
|
$ |
692,246 |
|
Due after five years |
|
|
60,089 |
|
|
|
5,735 |
|
|
|
65,824 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
734,341 |
|
|
$ |
23,729 |
|
|
$ |
758,070 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table sets forth scheduled loan repayments (excluding 1-4 family residential
mortgages and installment loans) at March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due |
|
|
After One |
|
|
Due |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within |
|
|
But Within |
|
|
After |
|
|
|
|
|
|
One Year |
|
|
Five Years |
|
|
Five Years |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
$ |
40,547 |
|
|
$ |
15,418 |
|
|
$ |
5,983 |
|
|
$ |
61,948 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
373,943 |
|
|
|
368,155 |
|
|
|
57,575 |
|
|
|
799,673 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
122,232 |
|
|
|
218,487 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
340,719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
536,722 |
|
|
$ |
602,060 |
|
|
$ |
63,558 |
|
|
$ |
1,202,340 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101
III. |
|
LOAN PORTFOLIO (continued) |
The following table sets forth loans due after one year which have predetermined (fixed)
interest rates and/or adjustable (variable) interest rates at March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed |
|
|
Variable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Due after one but within five years |
|
$ |
586,767 |
|
|
$ |
15,293 |
|
|
$ |
602,060 |
|
Due after five years |
|
|
58,071 |
|
|
|
5,487 |
|
|
|
63,558 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
644,838 |
|
|
$ |
20,780 |
|
|
$ |
665,618 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(C) |
|
The following table sets forth loans on non-accrual, loans ninety days or more past due
and troubled debt restructured loans at the dates indicated: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
(a) Loans accounted for
on a non-accrual
basis (1)(2) |
|
$ |
95,989 |
|
|
$ |
105,965 |
|
|
$ |
122,639 |
|
|
$ |
72,682 |
|
|
$ |
35,683 |
|
|
$ |
11,546 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(b) Aggregate amount of
loans ninety days
or more past due
(excludes loans in
(a) above) |
|
|
2,266 |
|
|
|
3,940 |
|
|
|
2,626 |
|
|
|
4,394 |
|
|
|
3,479 |
|
|
|
4,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) Loans not included
above which are
troubled debt
restructurings as
defined by
accounting guidance |
|
|
95,467 |
|
|
|
71,961 |
|
|
|
9,160 |
|
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
60 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
193,722 |
|
|
$ |
181,866 |
|
|
$ |
134,425 |
|
|
$ |
77,249 |
|
|
$ |
39,222 |
|
|
$ |
16,492 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The accrual of interest income is discontinued when a loan becomes
90 days past due and the borrowers capacity to repay the loan and
collateral values appear insufficient. Non-accrual loans may be
restored to accrual status when interest and principal payments
are current and the loan appears otherwise collectible. |
|
(2) |
|
Interest in the amount of $11,201,000 would have been earned in
2009 had loans in categories (a) and (c) remained at their
original terms; however, only $3,817,000 was included in interest
income for the year with respect to these loans. Interest in the
amount of $2,860,000 would have been earned in the three month
period ended March 31, 2010 had loans in categories (a) and (c)
remained at their original terms; however, only $1,142,000 was
included in interest income for the three month period with
respect to these loans. |
Other loans of concern identified by the loan review department which are not included as
non-performing totaled approximately $10,700,000 at March 31, 2010 (compared to $24,264,000 at
December 31, 2009). These loans involve circumstances which have caused management to place
increased scrutiny on the credits and may, in some instances, represent an increased risk of loss.
At December 31, 2009 and March 31, 2010, there was no concentration of loans exceeding 10% of
total loans which is not already disclosed as a category of loans in this section Loan Portfolio
(Item III(A)).
There were no other interest-bearing assets at December 31, 2009 or March 31, 2010, that would
be required to be disclosed above (Item III(C)), if such assets were loans.
At December 31, 2009, total loans include $1.7 million of payment plan receivables from
customers domiciled in Canada and there were no other foreign loans outstanding. At March 31,
2010, total loans include $0.8 million of payment plan receivables from customers domiciled in
Canada and there were no other foreign loans outstanding.
102
IV. |
|
SUMMARY OF LOAN LOSS EXPERIENCE |
|
|
|
(A) |
|
The following table sets forth loan balances and summarizes the changes in the allowance
for loan losses for each of the periods indicated: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Twelve months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Total loans
outstanding at the
end of the year
(net of unearned
fees) |
|
$ |
2,186,129 |
|
|
$ |
2,481,051 |
|
|
$ |
2,333,606 |
|
|
$ |
2,487,132 |
|
|
$ |
2,552,290 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average total loans
outstanding for the
year (net of
unearned fees) |
|
$ |
2,262,802 |
|
|
$ |
2,507,550 |
|
|
$ |
2,470,568 |
|
|
$ |
2,569,368 |
|
|
$ |
2,541,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of period |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
$ |
26,879 |
|
|
$ |
1,881 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans charged-off |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
5,304 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,703 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,869 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,942 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,644 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
16,025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,923 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,840 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,641 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,236 |
|
|
|
|
|
Installment |
|
|
2,247 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,562 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
213 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loans charged-off |
|
|
23,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,326 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82,296 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,036 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries of loans previously charged-off |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
791 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
381 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
731 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
Installment |
|
|
391 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
314 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,271 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,340 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,629 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recoveries |
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged-off |
|
|
22,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,719 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,501 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58,507 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,690 |
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to allowance charged to operating expense |
|
|
17,014 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
30,124 |
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
|
|
103,318 |
|
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
71,113 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
43,105 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
76,132 |
|
|
$ |
1,914 |
|
|
$ |
58,305 |
|
|
$ |
2,058 |
|
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged-off as a percent of average
loans outstanding (includes loans held for sale)
annualized |
|
|
4.05 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.81 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.22 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.97 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for loan losses as a percent of loans
outstanding (includes loans held for sale) at the
end of the period |
|
|
3.48 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.77 |
|
|
|
|
|
103
IV. |
|
SUMMARY OF LOAN LOSS EXPERIENCE (continued) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twelve months ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Total loans outstanding at the end of the year (net of unearned fees) |
|
$ |
2,491,733 |
|
|
$ |
2,393,745 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average total loans outstanding for the year (net of unearned fees) |
|
$ |
2,472,091 |
|
|
$ |
2,268,846 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Commit- |
|
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
ments |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
22,420 |
|
|
$ |
1,820 |
|
|
$ |
24,162 |
|
|
$ |
1,846 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans charged-off |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
2,660 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,611 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
6,214 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,141 |
|
|
|
|
|
Installment |
|
|
4,913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,246 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
274 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loans charged-off |
|
|
14,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,092 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recoveries of loans previously charged-off |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
496 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
226 |
|
|
|
|
|
Installment |
|
|
1,526 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total recoveries |
|
|
2,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,518 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged-off |
|
|
11,824 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,574 |
|
|
|
|
|
Additions to allowance charged to operating expense |
|
|
16,283 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
7,832 |
|
|
|
(26 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
26,879 |
|
|
$ |
1,881 |
|
|
$ |
22,420 |
|
|
$ |
1,820 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged-off as a percent of average
loans outstanding (includes loans held for sale)
for the year |
|
|
.48 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
.42 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for loan losses as a percent of loans
outstanding (includes loans held for sale) at the
end of the year |
|
|
1.08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.94 |
|
|
|
|
|
The allowance for loan losses reflected above is a valuation allowance in its entirety and the
only allowance available to absorb probable loan losses.
Further discussion of the provision and allowance for loan losses (a critical accounting
policy) as well as non-performing loans, is presented in Managements Discussion and Analysis of
Financial Condition and Results of Operations above.
104
IV. |
|
SUMMARY OF LOAN LOSS EXPERIENCE (continued) |
(B) We have allocated the allowance for loan losses to provide for the possibility of losses
being incurred within the categories of loans set forth in the table below. The amount of the
allowance that is allocated and the ratio of loans within each category to total loans at the dates
indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans to |
|
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
Total |
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Loans |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Loans |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Loans |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Commercial |
|
$ |
33,808 |
|
|
$ |
36.6 |
% |
|
$ |
41,259 |
|
|
|
36.1 |
% |
|
$ |
33,090 |
|
|
|
39.3 |
% |
|
$ |
27,829 |
|
|
|
41.8 |
% |
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
20,040 |
|
|
|
34.7 |
|
|
|
18,434 |
|
|
|
33.5 |
|
|
|
8,729 |
|
|
|
34.9 |
|
|
|
4,657 |
|
|
|
35.6 |
|
Installment |
|
|
6,943 |
|
|
|
13.1 |
|
|
|
6,404 |
|
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
|
4,264 |
|
|
|
14.3 |
|
|
|
3,224 |
|
|
|
14.4 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
648 |
|
|
|
15.6 |
|
|
|
754 |
|
|
|
17.4 |
|
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
475 |
|
|
|
8.2 |
|
Unallocated |
|
|
14,693 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,331 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,109 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
76,132 |
|
|
$ |
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2006 |
|
|
2005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
of Loans |
|
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
to Total |
|
|
Allowance |
|
|
to Total |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Loans |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Loans |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Commercial |
|
$ |
15,010 |
|
|
|
43.5 |
% |
|
$ |
11,735 |
|
|
|
43.0 |
% |
Real estate mortgage |
|
|
1,645 |
|
|
|
36.0 |
|
|
|
1,156 |
|
|
|
36.8 |
|
Installment |
|
|
2,469 |
|
|
|
14.1 |
|
|
|
2,835 |
|
|
|
12.7 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
292 |
|
|
|
6.4 |
|
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
Unallocated |
|
|
7,463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,401 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
26,879 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
$ |
22,420 |
|
|
|
100.0 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
105
The following table sets forth average deposit balances and the weighted-average rates paid
thereon for the periods indicated:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
Twelve months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Balance |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Non-interest
bearing demand |
|
$ |
327,570 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
308,538 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
321,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
301,117 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
300,886 |
|
|
|
|
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
1,084,499 |
|
|
|
0.32 |
% |
|
|
944,904 |
|
|
|
0.68 |
% |
|
|
992,529 |
|
|
|
0.58 |
% |
|
|
968,180 |
|
|
|
1.06 |
% |
|
|
971,807 |
|
|
|
1.93 |
% |
Time deposits |
|
|
1,127,618 |
|
|
|
2.65 |
|
|
|
855,025 |
|
|
|
3.30 |
|
|
|
1,019,624 |
|
|
|
2.91 |
|
|
|
917,403 |
|
|
|
3.97 |
|
|
|
1,439,177 |
|
|
|
4.88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
2,539,687 |
|
|
|
1.31 |
% |
|
$ |
2,108,467 |
|
|
|
1.64 |
% |
|
$ |
2,333,955 |
|
|
|
1.52 |
% |
|
$ |
2,186,700 |
|
|
|
2.14 |
% |
|
$ |
2,711,870 |
|
|
|
3.28 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes time deposits in amounts of $100,000 or more by time
remaining until maturity at December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Three months or less |
|
$ |
25,646 |
|
Over three through six months |
|
|
29,463 |
|
Over six months through one year |
|
|
45,756 |
|
Over one year |
|
|
66,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
167,662 |
|
|
|
|
|
The following table summarizes time deposits in amounts of $100,000 or more by time remaining
until maturity at March 31, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Three months or less |
|
$ |
39,854 |
|
Over three through six months |
|
|
31,597 |
|
Over six months through one year |
|
|
36,025 |
|
Over one year |
|
|
59,250 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
166,726 |
|
|
|
|
|
106
VI. |
|
RETURN ON EQUITY AND ASSETS |
The ratio of net income (loss) to average shareholders equity and to average total assets,
and certain other ratios, for the periods indicated follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
Twelve months ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
March 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
December 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
2007 |
|
2006 |
|
2005 |
Income (loss) from continuing
operations as a percent of (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common equity |
|
|
(184.46 |
)% |
|
|
(62.73 |
)% |
|
|
(90.72 |
)% |
|
|
(39.01 |
)% |
|
|
3.96 |
% |
|
|
13.06 |
% |
|
|
18.63 |
% |
Average total assets |
|
|
(2.06 |
) |
|
|
(2.68 |
) |
|
|
(3.17 |
) |
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
0.31 |
|
|
|
0.99 |
|
|
|
1.42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) as a percent of (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average common equity |
|
|
(184.46 |
)% |
|
|
(62.73 |
)% |
|
|
(90.72 |
) |
|
|
(39.01 |
) |
|
|
4.12 |
|
|
|
12.82 |
|
|
|
19.12 |
|
Average total assets |
|
|
(2.06 |
) |
|
|
(2.68 |
) |
|
|
(3.17 |
) |
|
|
(2.88 |
) |
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
0.97 |
|
|
|
1.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends declared per share as a
percent of diluted net income per share |
|
NM |
|
|
NM |
|
|
NM |
|
|
NM |
|
|
|
186.67 |
|
|
|
54.55 |
|
|
|
36.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average shareholders equity as a
percent of average total assets |
|
|
3.48 |
|
|
|
6.58 |
|
|
|
5.80 |
|
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
7.72 |
|
|
|
7.60 |
|
|
|
7.61 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For 2010, 2009 and 2008, these amounts are calculated using loss from continuing operations applicable to common stock and net loss applicable to common stock. |
NM Not meaningful.
Additional performance ratios are set forth in Selected Financial Data, located earlier in
this prospectus. Any significant changes in the current trend of the above ratios are reviewed in
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations above.
VII. |
|
SHORT-TERM BORROWINGS |
Short-term borrowings are discussed in note 9 to the consolidated financial statements,
included at page F-61 of this prospectus.
107
MANAGEMENT
Executive Officers and Directors
Listed below are our executive officers and directors as of March 31, 2010.
|
|
|
Name (Age) |
|
Position |
Jeffrey A. Bratsburg (age 66)
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors |
|
|
|
Michael M. Magee, Jr. (54)
|
|
President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
|
|
|
James E. McCarty (age 63)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Donna J. Banks, Ph.D. (age 53)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Robert L. Hetzler (age 65)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Charles C. Van Loan (age 62)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Stephen L. Gulis, Jr. (age 52)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Terry L. Haske (age 62)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Clarke B. Maxson (age 70)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Charles A. Palmer (age 65)
|
|
Director |
|
|
|
Robert N. Shuster (52)
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
Stefanie M. Kimball (50)
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Lending Officer |
|
|
|
William B. Kessel (45)
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer |
|
|
|
David C. Reglin (50)
|
|
Executive Vice President, Retail Banking |
|
|
|
Mark L. Collins (52)
|
|
Executive Vice President, General Counsel |
|
|
|
Richard E. Butler (59)
|
|
Senior Vice President, Operations |
|
|
|
Peter R. Graves (53)
|
|
Senior Vice President, Chief Information Officer |
|
|
|
James J. Twarozynski (44)
|
|
Senior Vice President, Controller |
Directors
Mr. Bratsburg is the Chairman of our Board of Directors. Mr. Bratsburg served as President
and CEO of Independent Bank West Michigan (one of our former subsidiary banks whose charter was
consolidated with the charter of Independent Bank in 2007) from 1985 until his retirement in 1999.
He became a Director in 2000.
Mr. Magee is our President and Chief Executive Officer. See Executive Management Team below
for more information.
Mr. McCarty is the retired President of McCarty Communications (commercial printing). He
became a Director in 2002.
Dr. Banks is a retired Senior Vice President of the Kellogg Company. She became a Director in
2005.
Mr. Hetzler is the retired President of Monitor Sugar Company (food processor). He became a
Director in 2000.
Mr. Van Loan served as our President and CEO from 1993 until 2004 and as executive Chairman
during 2005. He retired on December 31, 2005. He became a Director in 1992.
108
Mr. Gulis is the retired Executive Vice President and President of Wolverine Worldwide Global
Operations Group. He became a Director in 2004.
Mr. Haske is a CPA and Principal with Anderson, Tuckey, Bernhardt & Doran, P.C. since 2008.
Prior to 2008 he was the President of Ricker & Haske, CPAs, and P.C. He became a Director in 1996.
Mr. Maxson served as Chairman, President and CEO of Midwest Guaranty Bancorp, Inc. from its
founding in 1988 until July 2004 when he retired. We acquired Midwest Guaranty Bancorp in
July 2004, at which time Mr. Maxson joined the Board of Directors of Independent Bank East Michigan
(which merged into Independent Bank in September 2007). He was appointed as a Director in
September 2007.
Mr. Palmer is an attorney and a professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He became a
Director in 1991.
Executive Management Team
We believe we have a strong executive management team that has the appropriate experience and
capabilities to lead us in pursuit of the strategies discussed in Summary above. Our executive
management team consists of the following:
|
|
|
Michael M. Magee President & Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Magee,
age 54, was appointed as our President and Chief Executive Officer
effective January 1, 2005. He served as our Chief Operating Officer
from April to December, 2004. From 1993 until April 2004, he was the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Independent Bank (prior to
the consolidation of our four bank charters in 2007). He joined us in
1987. |
|
|
|
|
Robert N. Shuster Executive Vice President & Chief Financial
Officer. Mr. Shuster, age 52, was appointed Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company in 2001. Prior to this
appointment, he was President and Chief Executive Officer of
Independent Bank MSB since 1999 and was President and Chief Executive
Officer of Mutual Savings Bank, f.s.b since 1994. Mr. Shuster is a
certified public accountant and received his degree from the
University of Michigan. |
|
|
|
|
William Brad Kessel Executive Vice President and Chief Operations
Officer. Mr. Kessel, age 45, was appointed Executive Vice President -
Chief Operations Officer of Independent Bank in September 2007 in
conjunction with the consolidation of our bank charters. He joined
Independent Bank Corporation in 1994 as Vice President of Finance. In
1996 he was appointed Senior Vice President of Branch Administration
for Independent Bank, a position he held until being named as
President and CEO of Independent Bank in 2004 (prior to the
consolidation of our four bank charters in 2007). Mr. Kessel is a
certified public accountant and received his undergraduate degree from
Miami University (Ohio) and his MBA from Grand Valley State
University. |
|
|
|
|
David C. Reglin Executive Vice President Retail Banking. Mr.
Reglin, age 50, was appointed Executive Vice President Retail
Banking in September 2007 in conjunction with our bank charter
consolidation. Prior to September 2007, he had been the President and
Chief Executive Officer of Independent Bank West Michigan since 1999
and prior to that time he was Senior Vice President of the Bank since
1991. Mr. Reglin is also the President of Independent Title Services,
Inc. He originally joined Independent Bank Corporation in 1981. Mr.
Reglin received his bachelors degree from Central Michigan
University. |
|
|
|
|
Stefanie M. Kimball Executive Vice President and Chief Lending
Officer. Ms. Kimball, age 50, joined the Company in April 2007 as
Executive Vice President Commercial Lending. Prior to joining
Independent Bank, she had been with Comerica Incorporated for 25
years, serving as a Senior Vice President for 10 years. Ms. Kimball
held several notable positions during her Comerica tenure including
Senior Credit Officer responsible for various lending businesses to
Middle Market, Small Business, Private Banking as well as Consumer
Lending. In addition she assumed the role of Senior Vice President,
Credit Risk Management and was responsible for design and
implementation of the banks Basel credit risk initiatives. Ms.
Kimball received her undergraduate degree from Oakland University and
her MBA from the University of Detroit. |
|
|
|
|
Mark Collins Executive Vice President and General Counsel. Mr.
Collins, age 52, joined the Company as General Counsel in 2009. In
June 2010, he was also appointed as President and Chief Executive
Officer of Mepco Finance Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Independent Bank. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Collins was a
partner with Varnum LLP, a Grand Rapids-based law firm, where he
specialized in commercial law and creditors rights. Mr. Collins
received his law degree in 1982 from the Villanova University School
of Law. |
109
Executive Compensation
Compensation Discussion and Analysis
Overview and Objectives
The primary objectives of our executive compensation program are to (1) attract and retain
talented executives; (2) motivate and reward executives for achieving our business goals; (3) align
our executives incentives with our strategies and goals, as well as the creation of shareholder
value; and (4) provide competitive compensation at a reasonable cost. Consequently, our executive
compensation plans are designed to achieve these objectives.
As described in more detail below, our executive compensation program has three primary
components: base salary; an annual cash incentive bonus; and long-term incentive compensation that
is payable in cash, stock options and stock grant awards. The compensation committee of our board
has not established policies or guidelines with respect to the specific mix or allocation of total
compensation among base salary, annual incentive bonuses, and long-term compensation. However, as
part of our long-standing pay-for-performance compensation philosophy, we typically set the base
salaries of our executives somewhat below market median base salaries in return for above market
median incentive opportunities. Combined, our five named executives (identified below) have served
us for a total of 84 years.
The compensation committee of our board has utilized the services of third-party consultants
from time to time to assist in the design of our executive compensation programs and render advice
on compensation matters generally. In 2006, the compensation committee engaged the services of
Mercer Human Resource Consulting to review our executive compensation programs. As part of those
services, Mercer (1) reviewed our existing compensation strategies and plans; (2) conducted a study
of peer group compensation, including the competitiveness and effectiveness of each element of our
compensation program, as well as our historical performance relative to that peer group; and
(3) recommended changes to our compensation program, including those directly applicable to our
executive officers. Neither we, our board, nor any committee of our board retained any compensation
consultants during 2009.
Restrictions on Executive Compensation Under Federal Law
On December 12, 2008, we sold $72 million of our Series A Preferred Stock and Warrants to
Treasury under TARPs CPP . Participants in TARP are subject to a number of limitations and
restrictions on executive compensation, including certain provisions of the ARRA. Under the ARRA,
Treasury established standards regarding executive compensation relative to the requirements listed
below on June 15, 2009. The substance of this Compensation Discussion and Analysis is based upon
the existing guidance issued by Treasury. The compensation committee of our board conducted the
required review of our named executives incentive compensation arrangements with our senior risk
officers, within the 90 day period following our sale of securities to the Treasury under TARP.
As a general matter, until such time that we are no longer a TARP participant, we will be
subject to the following requirements, among others:
|
|
|
Our incentive compensation program may not include incentives for our named executives (defined below) to take
unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of our company; |
|
|
|
|
We are entitled to recover any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation paid to any of our 25 most
highly compensated employees based upon statements of earnings, revenues, gains, or other criteria that are
later found to be materially inaccurate; |
|
|
|
|
We are prohibited from making any golden parachute payments to any of our ten most highly compensated employees; |
|
|
|
|
We are prohibited from paying to any named executive or the next 20 most highly compensated employees any tax
gross-ups on compensation such as perquisites. |
|
|
|
|
Our compensation program may not encourage the manipulation of reported earnings to enhance the compensation of
our employees; |
|
|
|
|
We may not pay or accrue any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation to any of our named executives,
other than payments made in the form of restricted stock, subject to the further condition that any such awards
may not vest while we are a participant in TARP and that any award not have a value greater than one-third of
the named executives total annual compensation; and |
|
|
|
|
Our shareholders must be given the opportunity to vote on an advisory (non-binding) resolution at our annual
meeting to approve the compensation of our executives. |
110
The foregoing discussion is intended to provide a background and context for the information
that follows regarding our existing compensation programs to those persons who served as our
executive officers during 2009 and to assist in understanding the information included in the
executive compensation tables included below.
Components of Compensation
The principal components of compensation we pay to our executives consist of the following:
|
|
|
Base salary; |
|
|
|
|
Annual cash incentive; and |
|
|
|
|
Long-term incentive compensation, generally payable in the form of a combination of cash, stock options and restricted stock. |
Base Salary
Base salaries are established each year for our executive officers. None of our executive
officers has a separate employment agreement. In determining base salaries, we consider a variety
of factors. Peer group compensation is a primary factor, but additional factors include an
individuals performance, experience, expertise, and tenure with us. The executive compensation
review conducted by Mercer, including its update in 2008, revealed that the base salaries of most
of our executives are at or below competitive rates and market median levels.
Each year the compensation committee recommends the base salary for our President and CEO for
consideration and approval by the full board. For 2009, the committee approved managements
recommendation to freeze the base salary levels of all of our executive officers, including
Mr. Magee. Similarly, for 2010, the base salary levels of our named executives were frozen at the
2008 levels. Accordingly, Mr. Magees salary of $382,000 has remained unchanged since 2008.
The base salaries of other executive officers are established by our President and CEO. In
setting base salaries, our President and CEO considers peer group compensation, as well as the
individual performance of each respective executive officer. For the reasons noted above, the base
salaries of our other named executives for 2009 remained unchanged from 2008 and were as follows:
Mr. Shuster $230,000; Mr. Reglin $226,000; Mr. Kessel $226,000; and Ms. Kimball $226,000.
To date, these salaries are the same for 2010.
Annual Cash Incentives
Annual cash incentives are paid under the terms of our Management Incentive Compensation Plan.
This Plan sets forth performance incentives that are designed to provide for annual cash awards
that are payable if we meet or exceed the annual performance objectives established by our board.
Under this Plan, our board establishes annual performance levels as follows: (1) threshold
represents the performance level of what must be achieved before any incentive awards are payable;
(2) target performance is defined as a desired level of performance in view of all relevant
factors, as described in more detail below; and (3) the maximum represents that which reflects
outstanding performance. As noted above, target performance under this Plan is intended to provide
for aggregate annual cash compensation (salary and bonus) that approximates peer level
compensation.
Threshold performance would result in earning 50 percent of the target incentive, target would
be 100 percent, and maximum would be 200 percent, with compensation prorated between these award
levels. Target incentive is defined as 65 percent of base salary for our CEO and 50 percent of base
salary for our other named executives.
For 2009, 75 percent of the performance goal was based upon our performance, while 25 percent
was based upon predetermined individual goals. The corporate performance standards for 2009 were
based upon our success in after-tax earnings per share (EPS), on success in reducing our loan loss
provision and our success in growing core deposits. Each of the factors were weighted 25 percent.
For 2009, the performance goals for our company were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loan Loss |
|
Core |
|
|
EPS |
|
Provision |
|
Deposits |
Threshold |
|
$ |
0.00 |
|
|
$ |
51 million |
|
|
$ |
1.9 billion |
|
Target |
|
|
0.30 |
|
|
45 million |
|
2.0 billion |
Maximum |
|
|
1.00 |
|
|
16 million |
|
2.2 billion |
Following the adoption of the ARRA, discussed above, none of the named executives are
currently eligible to receive any payments under our annual Management Incentive Compensation Plan.
Given our performance during 2009, no bonuses were paid to any of our employees for
111
2009. Annually, the committee is to set these performance goals not later than the 60th day
of each year. The performance goals for 2010 were not established due to the suspension of annual
cash incentives under this plan for 2010. The awards are paid in full following certification of
our financial results for the performance period.
Long-Term Incentive Program
Following the committees and our boards review and analysis of the Mercer report, effective
January 1, 2007, the board adopted a long-term incentive program that includes three separate
components: stock options, restricted stock, and long-term cash, each of which comprise one-third
of the total long-term incentive grant each year. The target value of the cumulative amount of
these awards is set at 100 percent of our CEOs salary and 50 percent for each of our other named
executives. Because the first possible payout under the cash portion of the long-term program
cannot be made until 2010 (the year after the first three-year performance period), the committee
elected to grant stock options and restricted stock having a value equal to the aggregate target
bonuses under the long-term incentive program for both 2007 and 2008. For 2009, and as explained in
more detail below, the committee authorized only the grant of stock options under this program at a
target value well below two-thirds of the target bonus.
Cash Incentive Elements. The committee adopted performance goals for the cash portion of
this long-term incentive program, based upon our three-year total shareholder return (TSR). TSR is
determined by dividing the sum of our stock price appreciation and dividends by our stock price at
the beginning of the performance period. The first performance period is the three year period
beginning January 1, 2007. For purposes of determining achievement, our TSR is measured against the
Nasdaq Bank Index median TSR over the same period. The committee established the three target
levels of performance, with threshold at the 50th percentile, target at the 70th percentile and
maximum at the 90th percentile.
Equity-Based Incentive Element. The other two-thirds of the program are made up of stock
options and shares of restricted stock, each of which are awarded under the terms of our Long-Term
Incentive Plan. As a general practice, these awards are recommended by the committee, and approved
by our board, at our boards first meeting in each calendar year and after the announcement of our
earnings for the immediately preceding year. Under this Plan, the committee has the authority to
grant a wide variety of stock-based awards. The exercise price of options granted under this Plan
may not be less than the fair market value of our common stock at the date of grant; options are
restricted as to transferability and generally expire ten years after the date of grant. The Plan
is intended to assist our executive officers in the achievement of our share ownership guidelines.
Under these guidelines (1) our CEO is expected to own Independent Bank Corporation stock having a
market value equal to twice his base salary, (2) our executive vice presidents are to own stock
having a market value of not less than 125 percent of their respective base salaries, and (3) our
senior vice presidents are to own stock having a market value of not less than 50 percent of their
respective base salaries. Once these guidelines are achieved, the failure to maintain the
guidelines due to decreases in the market value of our common stock does not mandate additional
purchases; rather, further sales of our common stock are prohibited until the employee again
reaches the required level of ownership. Not more than 75 percent of the shares held by an
executive in our Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) may count toward the achievement of these
guidelines, and only in the money stock options granted after January 1, 2004, count as well.
These guidelines apply ratably over a five-year period commencing January 1, 2004, or the date of
hire or promotion to one of these positions.
The value of the options that make up one-third of our long-term incentive program is
measured under ASC topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation and vest ratably over three
years. The value of the shares of the restricted stock that make up the final one-third of our
long-term incentive program is based upon the grant date value of the shares of our common stock.
These shares do not vest until the fifth anniversary of the grant date.
Due to the limited number of shares available for issuance under the terms of our Long-Term
Incentive Plan, the committee elected to grant the entire amount of the equity portion of the
long-term incentive program in the form of restricted shares of common stock for 2008. The value of
the shares of restricted stock, based upon the grant date values, equaled 100 percent of our CEOs
base compensation and 50 percent of the base compensation of each of our other named executives. As
of the time of the annual grant for equity-based awards under the Plan in 2009, there remained
approximately 300,000 shares available for grant under the Plan. Due to the limited number of
remaining shares available for award, and due to the fact that the committee utilized restricted
stock awards exclusively in 2008, the committee approved the grant of options covering a total of
299,987 shares for 2009, which were allocated among participants in accordance with their
respective target bonuses under the Long-Term Incentive Program. Based upon the restrictions
imposed by ARRA, our named executives may only receive awards under the Plan in the form of
restricted stock, subject to the further limitation that those shares may not vest while we are a
TARP participant and the value of any award may not exceed one-third of that employees total
annual compensation. No awards under the Long-Term Incentive Program have been made or authorized
for 2010.
Severance and Change in Control Payments
We have in place Management Continuity Agreements for each of our executive officers. These
agreements provide severance benefits if an individuals employment is terminated within 36 months
after a change in control or within six months before a change in control and if the individuals
employment is terminated or constructively terminated in contemplation of a change in control for
three years thereafter. For
112
purposes of these agreements, a change in control is defined to mean any occurrence
reportable as such in a proxy statement under applicable rules of the SEC, and would include,
without limitation, the acquisition of beneficial ownership of 20 percent or more of our voting
securities by any person, certain extraordinary changes in the composition of our Board, or a
merger or consolidation in which we are not the surviving entity, or our sale or liquidation.
Severance benefits are not payable if an individuals employment is terminated for cause,
employment terminates due to an individuals death or disability, or the individual resigns without
good reason. An individual may resign with good reason after a change in control and receive
his or her severance benefits if an individuals salary or bonus is reduced, his or her duties and
responsibilities are inconsistent with his or her prior position, or there is a material, adverse
change in the terms or conditions of the individuals employment. The agreements are for
self-renewing terms of three years unless we elect not to renew the agreement. The agreements are
automatically extended for a three-year term from the date of a change in control. These agreements
provide for a severance benefit in a lump sum payment equal to 18 months to three years salary and
bonus and a continuation of benefits coverage for 18 months to three years. These benefits are
limited, however, to one dollar less than three times an executives base amount compensation as
defined in Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Following the adoption of the ARRA, discussed above, none of our ten most highly compensated
employees will be eligible to receive any severance or change in control benefits due to the
prohibition related to golden parachute payments for the period during which any obligation we
have arising under TARP remains outstanding.
Other Benefits
We believe that other components of our compensation program, which are generally provided to
other full-time employees, are an important factor in attracting and retaining highly qualified
personnel. Executive officers are eligible to participate in all of our employee benefit plans,
such as medical, group life and accidental death and dismemberment insurance and our 401(k) Plan,
and in each case on the same basis as other employees. We also maintain an ESOP that provides
substantially all full-time employees with an equity interest in Independent Bank Corporation.
Contributions to the ESOP are determined annually and are subject to the approval of our board. We
did not make any contributions to the plan for the year ended December 31, 2009.
Perquisites
Our board and compensation committee regularly reviews the perquisites offered to our
executive officers. The committee believes that the cost of such perquisites is relatively minimal.
Under the standards established by the Treasury on June 15, 2009, we may not pay to any named
executive or the next 20 most highly compensated employees any tax gross-ups on compensation such
as perquisites.
113
Summary Compensation Table 2009
The following table shows certain information regarding the compensation for our Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and the three most highly compensated executive
officers other than our CEO and CFO, referred to in this prospectus as named executives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock |
|
Option |
|
Incentive Plan |
|
All Other |
|
|
Name and Principal Position |
|
Year |
|
Salary(1) |
|
Bonus |
|
Awards(2) |
|
Awards(2) |
|
Compensation |
|
Compensation(3) |
|
Totals |
Michael M. Magee |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
$ |
382,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
42,677 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
26,853 |
|
|
$ |
451,530 |
|
President and Chief |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
382,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
349,996 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35,904 |
|
|
|
767,900 |
|
Executive Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
350,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
174,995 |
|
|
|
174,998 |
|
|
|
51,186 |
|
|
|
21,878 |
|
|
|
773,057 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
230,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,959 |
|
|
|
271,807 |
|
Executive Vice President and |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
230,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,318 |
|
|
|
364,312 |
|
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
220,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,994 |
|
|
|
54,999 |
|
|
|
39,600 |
|
|
|
21,051 |
|
|
|
390,644 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
226,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,612 |
|
|
|
263,236 |
|
Executive Vice President - |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
226,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
109,994 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,415 |
|
|
|
363,409 |
|
Retail Banking |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
220,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,994 |
|
|
|
54,999 |
|
|
|
33,000 |
|
|
|
24,017 |
|
|
|
387,010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefanie M. Kimball(4) |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
226,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,414 |
|
|
|
253,038 |
|
Executive Vice President - |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
226,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
99,999 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,558 |
|
|
|
342,557 |
|
Chief Lending Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
130,769 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,987 |
|
|
|
49,997 |
|
|
|
25,000 |
|
|
|
3,399 |
|
|
|
259,152 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
226,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,624 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,363 |
|
|
|
260,987 |
|
Executive Vice President - |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
226,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107,499 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,431 |
|
|
|
360,930 |
|
Chief Operations Officer |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
215,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,742 |
|
|
|
53,748 |
|
|
|
32,500 |
|
|
|
25,494 |
|
|
|
380,484 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes elective deferrals by employees pursuant to
Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code and elective deferrals
pursuant to a non-qualified deferred compensation plan. |
|
(2) |
|
Amounts set forth in the stock award and option award columns
represent the aggregate fair value of the awards as of the grant
date, computed in accordance with FASB ASC topic 718,
Compensation Stock Compensation. The assumptions used in
calculating these amounts are set forth in Note 15 in our
consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31,
2009, included in this prospectus. |
|
(3) |
|
Amounts include our contributions to the ESOP (subject to certain
age and service requirements, all employees are eligible to
participate in the plan), matching contributions to qualified
defined contribution plans, IRS determined personal use of company
owned automobiles, country club and other social club dues and
restricted stock dividends. |
|
(4) |
|
Ms. Kimball began employment with us on April 25, 2007. |
114
Grants of Plan-Based Awards 2009
The following table sets forth information on equity awards granted by us to the named
executives during 2009 under our Long-Term Incentive Plan. The Compensation Discussion and Analysis
provides further details on these awards under the Long-Term Incentive Plan. As noted in the
Compensation Discussion and Analysis, our named executives are not eligible to participate in our
Management Incentive Compensation Plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option |
|
|
|
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All Other Stock |
|
Awards: |
|
Exercise |
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awards: |
|
Number of |
|
Base Price |
|
of Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non- |
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity |
|
Number of |
|
Securities |
|
of Option |
|
and Option |
|
|
Grant |
|
Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
|
Incentive Plan Awards |
|
Shares of Stock |
|
Underlying |
|
Awards |
|
Awards |
Name |
|
Date |
|
Threshold $(1) |
|
Target $ |
|
Maximum $ |
|
Threshold $ |
|
Target $ |
|
Maximum $ |
|
or Units |
|
Options(2) |
|
($/Sh)(3) |
|
($)(4) |
Michael M. Magee |
|
|
1/30/09 |
|
|
|
58,333 |
|
|
|
116,667 |
|
|
|
233,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,655 |
|
|
$ |
1.59 |
|
|
$ |
42,678 |
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
1/30/09 |
|
|
|
18,333 |
|
|
|
36,667 |
|
|
|
73,333 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,561 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
12,848 |
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
1/3009 |
|
|
|
18,333 |
|
|
|
36,667 |
|
|
|
73,333 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,238 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
12,624 |
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
|
1/30/09 |
|
|
|
16,667 |
|
|
|
33,333 |
|
|
|
66,667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,238 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
12,624 |
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
1/30/09 |
|
|
|
17,917 |
|
|
|
35,833 |
|
|
|
71,667 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,238 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
12,624 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents awards granted under our long term incentive program. The referenced payouts are dependent
upon our three-year total shareholder return (TSR) as described in our Compensation Discussion and
Analysis above for the period ending December 31, 2010, relative to the Nasdaq Bank Index median TSR
over the same period. |
|
(2) |
|
Each option has a term of ten years and vests pro rata over three years. |
|
(3) |
|
The exercise price of all stock options equals the market value of our common stock on the grant date. |
|
(4) |
|
Grant date values are computed in accordance with ASC topic 718, Compensation Stock Compensation. |
As shown in the Summary Compensation Table above, each named executives base salary
generally constitutes the majority of his or her respective compensation for 2009, 2008 and 2007.
This is due to the fact that no annual bonus was paid in 2008 or 2009 under the Management
Incentive Compensation Plan and bonuses earned under that plan for 2007 were attributable to the
achievement of certain individual performance goals. Effective January 1, 2007, our Management
Incentive Compensation Plan was modified to permit our executives to earn relatively modest bonuses
based upon individual achievement, irrespective of whether we achieved our financial performance
targets.
115
Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End
The following table shows the option and restricted stock awards that were outstanding as of
December 31, 2009. The table shows both exercisable and unexercisable options, as well as shares of
restricted stock that have not yet vested, all of which were granted under our long term incentive
plan. During 2009, our named executives voluntarily surrendered, for no consideration, options
providing for the purchase of 335,645 shares of our common stock. Each of these options had an
exercise price of $10.00 or greater and an expiration date of greater than one year from the date
of surrender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards |
|
Stock Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
Market Value of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Underlying |
|
Option |
|
Option |
|
or Units of Stock |
|
Shares or Units of |
|
|
Grant |
|
Unexercised Options |
|
Exercise |
|
Exercise |
|
That Have |
|
Stock That Have |
Name |
|
Date |
|
Exercisable |
|
Unexercisable(1) |
|
Price |
|
Date |
|
Not Vested(2) |
|
Not Vested(3) |
Michael M. Magee |
|
|
01/21/01 |
|
|
|
10,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
9.79 |
|
|
|
01/21/11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/24/07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,485 |
|
|
$ |
7,549 |
|
|
|
|
01/15/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45,871 |
|
|
|
33,027 |
|
|
|
|
01/30/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,655 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
01/30/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
04/17/01 |
|
|
|
4,765 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.97 |
|
|
|
04/17/11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/11/04 |
|
|
|
1,686 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22.13 |
|
|
|
04/20/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/24/07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,295 |
|
|
|
2,372 |
|
|
|
|
01/15/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,416 |
|
|
|
10,380 |
|
|
|
|
01/30/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,561 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
01/30/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
01/21/01 |
|
|
|
9,298 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.79 |
|
|
|
01/21/11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/17/01 |
|
|
|
6,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.97 |
|
|
|
04/17/11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05/21/01 |
|
|
|
3,267 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.97 |
|
|
|
01/18/10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
04/24/07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,295 |
|
|
|
2,372 |
|
|
|
|
01/15/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,416 |
|
|
|
10,380 |
|
|
|
|
01/30/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,238 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
01/30/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
|
04/24/07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,995 |
|
|
|
2,156 |
|
|
|
|
01/15/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,106 |
|
|
|
9,436 |
|
|
|
|
01/30/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,238 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
01/30/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
04/24/07 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,220 |
|
|
|
2,318 |
|
|
|
|
01/15/08 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,089 |
|
|
|
10,144 |
|
|
|
|
01/30/09 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18,238 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
01/30/19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The options granted on January 30, 2009, vest ratably over the three-year period beginning January 30, 2010. |
|
(2) |
|
The shares of restricted stock are subject to risks of forfeiture until they vest, in full, on the fifth anniversary of the grant date. |
|
(3) |
|
The market value of the shares of restricted stock that have not vested is based on the closing price of our common stock as of December 31, 2009. |
116
Option Exercises and Stock Vested 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Option Awards |
|
Stock Awards |
|
|
Number of Shares |
|
Value Realized on |
|
Number of Shares |
|
Value Realized on |
Name |
|
Acquired on Exercise |
|
Exercise |
|
Acquired on Vesting |
|
Vesting |
|
Michael M. Magee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None of our named executives exercised any options during 2009, nor were any restricted stock
awards vested during 2009.
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
The table below provides certain information relating to each defined contribution plan that
provides for the deferral of compensation on a basis that is not tax qualified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive |
|
Registrant |
|
Aggregate |
|
Aggregate |
|
Aggregate |
|
|
Contributions in |
|
Contributions in |
|
Earnings in |
|
Withdrawals/ |
|
Balance |
Name |
|
Last FY |
|
Last FY |
|
Last FY |
|
Distributions |
|
at Last FYE |
|
Michael M. Magee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(14,482 |
) |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
7,505 |
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,446 |
|
|
|
(8,512 |
) |
|
|
52,416 |
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
107 |
|
|
|
(23,057 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Certain of our officers, including the named executives, can contribute, on a tax deferred
basis, up to 80% of his or her base salary and 100% of his or her annual cash bonus into our
executive non-qualified excess plan. We make no contributions to this plan, and contributions by
participants may be directed into various investment options as selected by each participant.
Earnings on the investments accrue to the participants on a tax deferred basis. Participants can
withdraw balances from their accounts in accordance with plan provisions.
117
Other Potential Post-Employment Payments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
(2) |
|
|
Estimated Liability for Severance |
|
Payment Limitation Based on IRS |
|
|
Payments & Benefit Amounts Under |
|
Section 280G Limitation on Severance |
Executive Name |
|
Continuity Agreements |
|
Amounts |
Michael M. Magee |
|
$ |
1,302,958 |
|
|
$ |
1,141,078 |
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
810,064 |
|
|
|
707,834 |
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
790,798 |
|
|
|
704,045 |
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
|
794,285 |
|
|
|
642,490 |
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
789,688 |
|
|
|
778,298 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
We have entered into Management Continuity Agreements with each of the
above named executives that provide for defined severance compensation
and other benefits if they are terminated following a change of
control of our company. The Agreements provide for a lump sum payout
of the severance compensation and a continuation of certain health and
medical insurance related benefits for a period of three years. For
further detailed information, see the section titled Severance and
Change in Control Payments included as part of the Compensation
Discussion and Analysis in this prospectus. |
|
(2) |
|
The total amounts which may be due under the Management Continuity
Agreements are subject to and limited by Internal Revenue Code
Section 280G, as amended. This column indicates the estimated payout
based on IRS limitations. |
As long as we have any obligation outstanding arising under TARP, none of the potential
payments described above can be paid due to the prohibition related to golden parachute payments
under ARRA, as discussed above.
Director Compensation
During 2009, in response to the prevailing, uncertain economic conditions, our board reduced
by ten percent the annual retainer paid to non-employee directors as well as the annual retainer
payable to non-employee directors of our bank. As a result, these amounts were $40,500 and
$10,800, respectively for 2009, and will remain the same for 2010. Half of the combined retainer
is paid in cash and the other half is paid under our Deferred Compensation and Stock Purchase Plan
for Non-Employee Directors (the Purchase Plan) described below until that director achieves the
required share ownership under our share ownership guidelines. Once a director has achieved the
requisite level of share ownership under those guidelines, each director then has a choice of
receiving his or her director compensation in cash or deferred share units under our Purchase Plan,
at his or her discretion. Our board approved the payment of additional retainers of $5,000, $3,000,
and $2,000 to the Chairpersons of our boards audit committee, compensation committee, and
nominating and corporate governance committee, respectively. No fees are payable for attendance at
either board or committee meetings.
Pursuant to our long term incentive plan, the compensation committee may grant options to each
non-employee director to purchase shares of our common stock. No such stock options were granted
during 2009, 2008 or 2007.
The Purchase Plan provides that non-employee directors may defer payment of all or a part of
their director fees (Fees) or receive shares of our common stock in lieu of cash payment of Fees.
Under the Purchase Plan, each non-employee director may elect to participate in a Current Stock
Purchase Account, a Deferred Cash Investment Account or a Deferred Stock Account.
A Current Stock Purchase Account is credited with shares of our common stock having a fair
market value equal to the Fees otherwise payable. A Deferred Cash Investment Account is credited
with an amount equal to the Fees deferred and on each quarterly credit date with an appreciation
factor that may not exceed the prime rate of interest charged by our bank. A Deferred Stock Account
is credited with the amount of Fees deferred and converted into stock units based on the fair
market value of our common stock at the time of the deferral. Amounts in the Deferred Stock Account
are credited with cash dividends and other distributions on our common stock. Fees credited to a
Deferred Cash Investment Account or a Deferred Stock Account are deferred for income tax purposes.
The Purchase Plan does not provide for distributions of amounts deferred prior to a participants
termination as a non-employee director. Participants may generally elect either a lump sum or
installment distributions.
118
Director Compensation 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock Options |
|
|
|
Fees Earned or |
|
|
Option |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Held |
|
Name |
|
Paid in Cash |
|
|
Awards(1) |
|
|
Totals |
|
|
as of 12/31/09 |
|
Donna J. Banks |
|
$ |
51,300 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
51,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jeffrey A. Bratsburg |
|
|
51,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,300 |
|
|
|
30,993 |
|
Stephen L. Gulis, Jr.(2) |
|
|
71,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Terry L. Haske(3) |
|
|
59,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,300 |
|
|
|
16,455 |
|
Robert L. Hetzler(4) |
|
|
51,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,800 |
|
|
|
16,455 |
|
Clarke B. Maxson |
|
|
51,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
51,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
James E. McCarty(5) |
|
|
54,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
Charles A. Palmer(6) |
|
|
53,300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
53,300 |
|
|
|
16,455 |
|
Charles C. Van Loan(4) |
|
|
59,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
59,800 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Totals |
|
$ |
503,700 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
503,700 |
|
|
|
80,358 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
No stock options were awarded to our board during 2009, 2008, or 2007. No amounts
were recognized as compensation expense in 2009 for financial reporting purposes with
respect to stock options granted to directors in accordance with SFAS No. 123R. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes additional retainer for service as chairperson of the audit committee and
service on ad hoc special committee of our board. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes additional retainer for service on ad hoc special committee of our board. |
|
(4) |
|
Includes fees received for attendance at Mepco board meetings during 2009. |
|
(5) |
|
Includes additional retainer for service as chairperson of the compensation committee. |
|
(6) |
|
Includes additional retainer for service as chairperson of the nominating and
corporate governance committee and for service on ad hoc special committee of our
board. |
Director Independence
For many years, our board of directors has been committed to sound and effective corporate
governance practices. Our board has documented those practices in our Corporate Governance
Principles. These principles address director qualifications, periodic performance evaluations,
stock ownership guidelines and other corporate governance matters. Under those principles, a
majority of the members of our board must qualify as independent under the rules established by the
Nasdaq stock market on which our stock trades. Our principles also require our board to have an
audit committee, compensation committee and a nominating and corporate governance committee, and
that each member of those committees qualifies as independent under the Nasdaq rules. Our Corporate
Governance Principles, as well as the charters of each of the foregoing committees are available
for review on our website at www.IndependentBank.com under the Investor Relations tab.
(The reference to our website is not intended to be an active link and the information on our
website is not, and you must not consider the information to be, a part of this prospectus.)
As required by our Corporate Governance Principles, our board has determined that each of the
following directors qualifies as an Independent Director, as such term is defined in Market Place
Rule 5605(a)(2) of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC: Donna J. Banks, Jeffrey A. Bratsburg, Stephen L.
Gulis, Terry L. Haske, Robert L. Hetzler, Clarke B. Maxson, James E. McCarty, Charles A. Palmer and
Charles C. Van Loan. Our board has also determined that each member of the three committees of our
board meets the independence requirements applicable to those committees as prescribed by the
Nasdaq listing requirements, and, as to the audit committee, under the applicable rules of the SEC.
There are no family relationships between or among our directors, nominees or executive officers.
Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation
Our compensation committee, which met on five occasions in 2009, consists of directors Banks,
Gulis, Hetzler, Van Loan, and McCarty (Chairman). Mr. Van Loan previously served as our CEO. None
of our directors has interlocking or other relationships with other boards, compensation
committees, or our executive officers that require disclosure under Item 407(e)(4) of Regulation
S-K.
119
Our compensation committee reviews and makes recommendations to our board on executive
compensation matters, including any benefits to be paid to our executives and officers. At the
beginning of each year, the committee meets to review our CEOs performance against our corporate
goals and objectives for the preceding year and also to review and approve the corporate goals and
objectives that relate to CEO compensation for the forthcoming year. The committee also evaluates
the CEO and other key executives payouts against (a) pre-established, measurable performance goals
and budgets; (b) generally comparable groups of executives; and (c) external market trends.
Following this review, the committee recommends to the full board, the annual base salary, annual
incentive compensation, total compensation and benefits for our CEO. The committee is also
responsible for approving equity-based compensation awards under our long term incentive plan. Base
salaries of executive officers, other than our CEO, are established by our CEO.
The committee is also responsible to recommend to the full board the amount and form of
compensation payable to directors. From time to time, the committee relies upon third party
consulting firms to assist the committee in its oversight of our executive compensation policy and
our board compensation. This is discussed in more detail above.
SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT
As of June 30, 2010, no person was known by us to be the beneficial owner of 5% or more
of our common stock.
The following table sets forth the beneficial ownership of our common stock by our named
executives, set forth in the compensation table above, and by all directors and executive officers
as a group as of June 30, 2010:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount and |
|
|
|
|
Nature of |
|
|
|
|
Beneficial |
|
Percent of |
Name |
|
Ownership(1) |
|
Outstanding |
Michael M. Magee |
|
|
154,673 |
(2) |
|
|
. 20 |
|
Robert N. Shuster |
|
|
156,850 |
|
|
|
. 21 |
|
David C. Reglin |
|
|
98,396 |
|
|
|
. 13 |
|
William B. Kessel |
|
|
38,398 |
|
|
|
. 05 |
|
Stefanie M. Kimball |
|
|
26,925 |
|
|
|
. 04 |
|
All executive officers and directors as a group (consisting of 18 persons) |
|
|
3,653,587 |
(3) |
|
|
4.82 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In addition to shares held directly or under joint ownership with their
spouses, beneficial ownership includes shares that are issuable under
options exercisable within 60 days, and shares that are allocated to
their accounts as participants in the ESOP. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes 10,424 common stock units held in a deferred compensation plan. |
|
(3) |
|
Beneficial ownership is disclaimed as to 2,026,332 shares, all of which
are held by the Independent Bank Corporation Employee Stock Ownership
Trust (which is the beneficial owner of 2,193,745 shares of our common
stock (or 2.92%) as of June 30, 2010). |
120
CERTAIN MANAGEMENT RELATIONSHIPS AND BENEFITS
Equity Compensation Plan Information
We maintain certain equity compensation plans under which our common stock is authorized for
issuance to employees and directors, including our Non-employee Director Stock Option Plan,
Employee Stock Option Plan and Long-Term Incentive Plan.
The following sets forth certain information regarding our equity compensation plans as of
December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(c) |
|
|
|
(a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of securities |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
remaining available for |
|
|
|
securities to be |
|
|
(b) |
|
|
future issuance under |
|
|
|
issued upon exercise |
|
|
Weighted-average |
|
|
equity compensation |
|
|
|
of outstanding |
|
|
exercise price of |
|
|
plans (excluding |
|
|
|
options, warrants |
|
|
outstanding options, |
|
|
securities reflected in |
|
Plan Category |
|
and rights |
|
|
warrants and rights |
|
|
column (a)) |
|
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders |
|
|
1,099,000 |
|
|
$ |
13.19 |
|
|
|
528,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity compensation plan not approved by security holders |
|
|
None |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None |
|
Certain Relationships and Related Transactions
Our board of directors and executive officers and their associates were customers of, and had
transactions with, our bank subsidiary in the ordinary course of business during 2009. All loans
and commitments included in such transactions were made in the ordinary course of business on
substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the
time for comparable transactions with other persons and do not involve an unusual risk of
collectability or present other unfavorable features. Such loans totaled $599,000 at December 31,
2009, equal to 0.5% of shareholders equity.
121
UNDERWRITING
Subject to the terms and conditions stated in the underwriting agreement with Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and FBR Capital Markets & Co. as the representatives of the
underwriters named below, each underwriter named below has severally agreed to purchase from us the
respective number of shares of our common stock set forth opposite its name in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
Name |
|
Shares |
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated |
|
|
[] |
|
FBR Capital Markets & Co. |
|
|
[] |
|
[] |
|
|
[] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
[] |
|
The underwriting agreement provides that the underwriters obligations are several, which
means that each underwriter is required to purchase a specific number of shares of common stock,
but it is not responsible for the commitment of any other underwriter. The underwriting agreement
provides that the underwriters several obligations to purchase our shares of common stock depend
on the satisfaction of the conditions contained in the underwriting agreement, including:
|
|
|
the representations and warranties made by us to the underwriters are true; |
|
|
|
|
there is no material adverse change in the financial markets; and |
|
|
|
|
we deliver customary closing documents and legal opinions to the underwriters. |
Subject to these conditions, the underwriters are committed to purchase and pay for all shares
of common stock offered by this prospectus, if any such shares of common stock are purchased.
However, the underwriters are not obligated to purchase or pay for the shares of common stock
covered by the underwriters over-allotment option described below, unless and until they exercise
this option.
The shares of common stock are being offered by the several underwriters, subject to prior
sale, when, as and if issued to and accepted by them, subject to approval of certain legal matters
by counsel for the underwriters and other conditions. The underwriters reserve the right to
withdraw, cancel, or modify this offering and to reject orders in whole or in part.
Offering Price
We have been advised that the underwriters propose to offer the shares of common stock to the
public at the offering price set forth on the cover of this prospectus and to certain selected
dealers at this price, less a concession not in excess of $[] per share. The underwriters may
allow, and any selected dealers may reallow, a concession not to exceed $[] per share to certain
brokers and dealers. After the shares of common stock are released for sale to the public, the
offering price and other selling terms may from time to time be changed by the underwriters.
Over-Allotment Option
We have granted to the underwriters an over-allotment option, exercisable no later than 30
days from the date of this prospectus, to purchase up to an aggregate of [] additional shares of
our common stock at the public offering price, less the underwriting discount and commission set
forth on the cover page of this prospectus. To the extent that the underwriters exercise their
over-allotment option, the underwriters will become obligated, so long as the conditions of the
underwriting agreement are satisfied, to purchase the additional shares of our common stock in
proportion to their respective initial purchase amounts. We will be obligated to sell the shares
of our common stock to the underwriters to the extent the over-allotment option is exercised. The
underwriters may exercise this option only to cover over-allotments made in connection with the
sale of the shares of our common stock offered by this prospectus.
Commissions and Expenses
The following table shows the per share and total underwriting discount that we will pay to
the underwriters. These amounts are shown assuming both no exercise and full exercise of the
underwriters over-allotment option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Without Option |
|
Total With Option |
|
|
Per Share |
|
Exercised |
|
Exercised |
Public offering price |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Underwriting discount |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
122
In addition to the underwriting discount, we will pay the legal fees of underwriters counsel
up to a maximum of $17,500 per month and reimburse it for its out-of-pocket expenses.
We estimate that our share of the total offering expenses, excluding underwriting discounts
and commissions, will be approximately $[].
Lock-Up Agreements
We, our executive officers and our directors have agreed that for a period of [] days from
the date of this prospectus (subject to possible extension), neither we nor any of our executive
officers or directors will, without the prior written consent of Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, on behalf of the underwriters, subject to certain exceptions, sell, offer to sell or
otherwise dispose of or hedge any shares of our common stock or any securities convertible into or
exercisable or exchangeable for our common stock. The []-day restricted period described above
will be automatically extended if (1) during the last 17 days of the []-day restricted period, we
issue an earnings release or material news or a material event relating to us occurs or (2) prior
to the expiration of the []-day restricted period, we announce we will release earnings results or
become aware that material news or a material event will occur during the 16-day period beginning
on the last day the []-day restricted period, in which case the restricted period will continue to
apply until the expiration of the 18-day period beginning on the date on which the earnings release
is issued or the material news or material event related to us occurs. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated in its sole discretion may release the securities subject to these lock-up agreements
at any time without notice.
Indemnity
We and our bank, jointly and severally, have agreed to indemnify the underwriters and persons
who control the underwriters against certain liabilities, including liabilities under the
Securities Act, and to contribute to payments that the underwriters may be required to make for
these liabilities.
Electronic Prospectus Delivery
A prospectus in electronic format may be made available on the web sites maintained by one or
more of the underwriters. In connection with this offering, certain of the underwriters or
securities dealers may distribute this prospectus electronically. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated and FBR Capital Markets & Co. as representatives for the several underwriters may
agree to allocate a number of shares of common stock to underwriters for sale to their online
brokerage account holders. The representatives will allocate shares of common stock to
underwriters that may make Internet distributions on the same basis as other allocations. Other
than this prospectus in electronic format, the information on any of these web sites and any other
information contained on a web site maintained by an underwriter or syndicate member is not part of
this prospectus.
Passive Market Making
In connection with this offering, the underwriters and selected dealers, if any, who are
qualified market makers on The Nasdaq Global Select Market, may engage in passive market making
transactions in our common stock on The Nasdaq Global Select Market in accordance with Rule 103 of
Regulation M under the Securities Act. Rule 103 permits passive market making activity by the
participants in our common stock offering. Passive market making may occur before the pricing of
our offering, or before the commencement of offers or sales of our common stock. Each passive
market maker must comply with applicable volume and price limitations and must be identified as a
passive market maker. In general, a passive market maker must display its bid at a price not in
excess of the highest independent bid for the security. If all independent bids are lowered below
the bid of the passive market maker, however, the bid must then be lowered when purchase limits are
exceeded. Net purchases by a passive market maker on each day are limited to a specified
percentage of the passive market makers average daily trading volume in our common stock during a
specified period and must be discontinued when that limit is reached. The underwriters and other
dealers are not required to engage in passive market making and may end passive market making
activities at any time.
Stabilization
In connection with this offering, the underwriters may engage in stabilizing transactions,
over-allotment transactions, covering transactions, and penalty bids in accordance with Regulation
M under the Exchange Act as set forth below:
|
|
|
Over-allotment involves sales by the underwriters of shares in excess
of the number of shares the underwriters are obligated to purchase,
which creates a short position. The short position may be either a
covered short position or a naked short position. In a covered short
position, the number of shares over-allotted by the underwriters is
not greater than the number of shares that they may purchase in the
over-allotment option. In a naked short position, the number of
shares involved is greater than the number of shares in the
over-allotment option. The underwriters may close out any covered
short position by either exercising their over-allotment option or
purchasing shares in the open market; |
|
|
|
|
Covering transactions involve the purchase of common stock in the open
market after the distribution has been completed in order to cover
short positions. In determining the source of shares to close out the
short position, the underwriters will consider, among other |
123
|
|
|
things,
the price of shares available for purchase in the open market as
compared to the price at which they may purchase shares through the
over-allotment option. If the underwriters sell more shares than
could be covered by the over-allotment option, a naked short position,
the position can only be closed out by buying shares in the open
market. A naked short position is more likely to be created if the
underwriters are concerned that there could be downward pressure on
the price of the shares in the open market after pricing that could
adversely affect investors who purchase in this offering; and |
|
|
|
|
Penalty bids permit the underwriters to reclaim a selling concession
from a selected dealer when the common stock originally sold by the
selected dealer is purchased in a stabilizing covering transaction to
cover short positions. |
These stabilizing transactions, covering transactions and penalty bids may have the effect of
raising or maintaining the market price of our common stock or preventing or retarding a decline in
the market price of our common stock. As a result, the price of our common stock may be higher
than the price that might otherwise exist in the open market. Neither we nor the underwriters make
any representation or prediction as to the effect that the transactions described above may have on
the price of our common stock. These transactions may be effected on the Nasdaq Global Select
Market or otherwise and, if commenced, may be discontinued at any time.
Other Considerations
It is expected that delivery of the shares of our common stock will be made against payment
therefor on or about the date specified on the cover page of this prospectus. Under Rule 15c6-1
promulgated under the Exchange Act, trades in the secondary market generally are required to settle
in three business days, unless the parties to any such trade expressly agree otherwise.
Certain of the underwriters and their affiliates have in the past provided, and may in the
future from time to time provide, investment banking and other financing and banking services to
us, for which they have in the past received, and may in the future receive, customary fees and
reimbursement for their expenses.
LEGAL MATTERS
The validity of the shares of common stock to be issued in this offering will be passed
upon for us by Varnum LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Certain legal matters related to this offering
are being passed upon for the underwriters by Lewis, Rice & Fingerish, L.C., St. Louis, Missouri.
EXPERTS
The financial statements as of December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 and for each of
the three years in the period ended December 31, 2009, which are included in this prospectus, have
been included in reliance on the report of Crowe Horwath LLP, an independent registered public
accounting firm, given on the authority of said firm as experts in auditing and accounting.
124
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
|
|
|
CONTENTS |
|
PAGE |
|
|
F-2 |
|
|
F-3 |
|
|
F-5 |
|
|
F-6 |
|
|
F-7 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-38 |
|
|
F-39 |
|
|
F-40 |
|
|
F-42 |
|
|
F-43 |
|
|
F-44 |
|
|
F-45 |
F-1
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
$ |
46,939 |
|
|
$ |
65,214 |
|
Interest bearing deposits |
|
|
323,495 |
|
|
|
223,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
370,434 |
|
|
|
288,736 |
|
Trading securities |
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
54 |
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
149,858 |
|
|
|
164,151 |
|
Federal Home Loan Bank and Federal Reserve Bank stock, at cost |
|
|
27,854 |
|
|
|
27,854 |
|
Loans held for sale, carried at fair value |
|
|
30,531 |
|
|
|
34,234 |
|
Loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
799,673 |
|
|
|
840,367 |
|
Mortgage |
|
|
728,705 |
|
|
|
749,298 |
|
Installment |
|
|
286,501 |
|
|
|
303,366 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
340,719 |
|
|
|
406,341 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Loans |
|
|
2,155,598 |
|
|
|
2,299,372 |
|
Allowance for loan losses |
|
|
(76,132 |
) |
|
|
(81,717 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loans |
|
|
2,079,466 |
|
|
|
2,217,655 |
|
Other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
40,284 |
|
|
|
31,534 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
71,910 |
|
|
|
72,616 |
|
Bank owned life insurance |
|
|
46,982 |
|
|
|
46,514 |
|
Other intangibles |
|
|
9,938 |
|
|
|
10,260 |
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights |
|
|
15,435 |
|
|
|
15,273 |
|
Prepaid FDIC deposit insurance assessment |
|
|
20,352 |
|
|
|
22,047 |
|
Accrued income and other assets |
|
|
37,677 |
|
|
|
34,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
2,900,770 |
|
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and Shareholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-interest bearing |
|
$ |
331,217 |
|
|
$ |
334,608 |
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
1,092,273 |
|
|
|
1,059,840 |
|
Retail time |
|
|
551,000 |
|
|
|
542,170 |
|
Brokered time |
|
|
523,052 |
|
|
|
629,150 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Deposits |
|
|
2,497,542 |
|
|
|
2,565,768 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
157,524 |
|
|
|
131,182 |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty payables |
|
|
14,387 |
|
|
|
21,309 |
|
Accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
|
41,218 |
|
|
|
44,356 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
|
2,803,559 |
|
|
|
2,855,503 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, Series A, no par value, $1,000
liquidation preference per share200,000 shares
authorized; 72,000 shares issued and outstanding at
March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 |
|
|
69,334 |
|
|
|
69,157 |
|
Common stock, $1.00 par valueauthorized: 500,000,000
shares at March 31, 2010 and 60,000,000 shares at
December 31, 2009; issued and outstanding: 24,032,177
shares at March 31, 2010 and 24,028,505 shares at
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
23,884 |
|
|
|
23,863 |
|
Capital surplus |
|
|
201,754 |
|
|
|
201,618 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(184,012 |
) |
|
|
(169,098 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(13,749 |
) |
|
|
(15,679 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Shareholders Equity |
|
|
97,211 |
|
|
|
109,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Shareholders Equity |
|
$ |
2,900,770 |
|
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to interim condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited)
F-2
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
(in thousands, except per |
|
|
|
share data) |
|
Interest Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and fees on loans |
|
$ |
39,027 |
|
|
$ |
44,401 |
|
Interest on securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable |
|
|
1,160 |
|
|
|
1,733 |
|
Tax-exempt |
|
|
685 |
|
|
|
1,107 |
|
Other investments |
|
|
372 |
|
|
|
324 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Interest Income |
|
|
41,244 |
|
|
|
47,565 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits |
|
|
8,219 |
|
|
|
8,548 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
2,994 |
|
|
|
4,670 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Interest Expense |
|
|
11,213 |
|
|
|
13,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income |
|
|
30,031 |
|
|
|
34,347 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
17,070 |
|
|
|
30,038 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income After Provision for Loan Losses |
|
|
12,961 |
|
|
|
4,309 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-interest Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service charges on deposit accounts |
|
|
5,275 |
|
|
|
5,507 |
|
Net gains (losses) on assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans |
|
|
1,843 |
|
|
|
3,281 |
|
Securities |
|
|
265 |
|
|
|
(564 |
) |
Other than temporary loss on securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impairment loss |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
Loss recognized in other comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net impairment loss recognized in earnings |
|
|
(118 |
) |
|
|
(17 |
) |
VISA check card interchange income |
|
|
1,572 |
|
|
|
1,415 |
|
Mortgage loan servicing |
|
|
432 |
|
|
|
(842 |
) |
Title insurance fees |
|
|
494 |
|
|
|
609 |
|
Other income |
|
|
2,254 |
|
|
|
2,189 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Non-interest Income |
|
|
12,017 |
|
|
|
11,578 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-interest Expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation and employee benefits |
|
|
13,213 |
|
|
|
12,577 |
|
Loan and collection |
|
|
4,786 |
|
|
|
4,038 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies |
|
|
3,418 |
|
|
|
800 |
|
Occupancy, net |
|
|
2,909 |
|
|
|
3,048 |
|
Data processing |
|
|
2,105 |
|
|
|
2,096 |
|
Loss on other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
2,029 |
|
|
|
1,261 |
|
FDIC deposit insurance |
|
|
1,802 |
|
|
|
1,186 |
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
|
1,719 |
|
|
|
1,849 |
|
Credit card and bank service fees |
|
|
1,675 |
|
|
|
1,464 |
|
Advertising |
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
1,442 |
|
Other expenses |
|
|
4,644 |
|
|
|
4,430 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Non-interest Expense |
|
|
39,079 |
|
|
|
34,191 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss Before Income Tax |
|
|
(14,101 |
) |
|
|
(18,304 |
) |
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
(264 |
) |
|
|
293 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss |
|
$ |
(13,837 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Months Ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
(in thousands, except per |
|
|
|
share data) |
|
Preferred dividends and discount accretion |
|
|
1,077 |
|
|
|
1,075 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss Applicable to Common Stock |
|
$ |
(14,914 |
) |
|
$ |
(19,672 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Loss |
|
$ |
(11,907 |
) |
|
$ |
(17,664 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loss Per Common Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(.62 |
) |
|
$ |
(.84 |
) |
Diluted |
|
|
(.62 |
) |
|
|
(.84 |
) |
Dividends Per Common Share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Declared |
|
$ |
.00 |
|
|
$ |
.01 |
|
Paid |
|
|
.00 |
|
|
|
.01 |
|
See notes to interim condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited)
F-4
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Net Loss |
|
$ |
(13,837 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,597 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adjustments to Reconcile Net Loss to Net Cash from (used in) Operating Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sales of loans held for sale |
|
|
91,496 |
|
|
|
145,692 |
|
Disbursements for loans held for sale |
|
|
(85,950 |
) |
|
|
(148,900 |
) |
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
17,070 |
|
|
|
30,038 |
|
Depreciation, amortization of intangible assets and premiums and accretion of
discounts on securities and loans |
|
|
(9,321 |
) |
|
|
(8,809 |
) |
Net gains on sales of mortgage loans |
|
|
(1,843 |
) |
|
|
(3,281 |
) |
Net (gains) losses on securities |
|
|
(265 |
) |
|
|
564 |
|
Securities impairment recognized in earnings |
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
Net loss on other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
2,029 |
|
|
|
1,261 |
|
Deferred loan fees |
|
|
329 |
|
|
|
(9 |
) |
Share based compensation |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
(Increase) decrease in accrued income and other assets |
|
|
(3,059 |
) |
|
|
5,386 |
|
Increase (decrease) in accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
|
(3,916 |
) |
|
|
5,334 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,845 |
|
|
|
27,463 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash from (used in) Operating Activities |
|
|
(6,992 |
) |
|
|
8,866 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from (used in) Investing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the sale of securities available for sale |
|
|
25,415 |
|
|
|
6,434 |
|
Proceeds from the maturity of securities available for sale |
|
|
890 |
|
|
|
1,293 |
|
Principal payments received on securities available for sale |
|
|
6,006 |
|
|
|
6,610 |
|
Purchases of securities available for sale |
|
|
(15,188 |
) |
|
|
(11,386 |
) |
Portfolio loans originated, net of principal payments |
|
|
117,797 |
|
|
|
(14,537 |
) |
Proceeds from the sale of other real estate |
|
|
4,008 |
|
|
|
1,624 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(1,432 |
) |
|
|
(2,988 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash from (used in) Investing Activities |
|
|
137,496 |
|
|
|
(12,950 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow from (used in) Financing Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in total deposits |
|
|
(68,226 |
) |
|
|
94,549 |
|
Net decrease in other borrowings and federal funds purchased |
|
|
(1,648 |
) |
|
|
(60,839 |
) |
Proceeds from Federal Home Loan Bank advances |
|
|
28,000 |
|
|
|
176,524 |
|
Payments of Federal Home Loan Bank advances |
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
(214,033 |
) |
Net increase (decrease) in vehicle service contract counterparty payables |
|
|
(6,922 |
) |
|
|
13,423 |
|
Dividends paid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(861 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash from (used in) Financing Activities |
|
|
(48,806 |
) |
|
|
8,763 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
81,698 |
|
|
|
4,679 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period |
|
|
288,736 |
|
|
|
57,705 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Period |
|
$ |
370,434 |
|
|
$ |
62,384 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the period for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
$ |
9,892 |
|
|
$ |
14,169 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
62 |
|
|
|
59 |
|
Transfer of loans to other real estate |
|
|
14,787 |
|
|
|
9,009 |
|
See notes to interim condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited)
F-5
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Shareholders Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of period |
|
$ |
109,861 |
|
|
$ |
194,877 |
|
Net loss |
|
|
(13,837 |
) |
|
|
(18,597 |
) |
Preferred dividends |
|
|
(900 |
) |
|
|
(900 |
) |
Cash dividends declared |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(240 |
) |
Issuance of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,193 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
157 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
Net change in accumulated other comprehensive income, net of related tax effect |
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
|
933 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of period |
|
$ |
97,211 |
|
|
$ |
177,436 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See notes to interim condensed consolidated financial statements (unaudited)
F-6
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(unaudited)
1. The interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared pursuant to the
rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Certain information and note
disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles have been condensed or omitted pursuant to those rules and
regulations, although we believe that the disclosures made are adequate to make the information not
misleading. The unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read in
conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and notes for the year ended
December 31, 2009 included in our annual report on Form 10-K.
In our opinion, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements contain all
the adjustments necessary to present fairly our consolidated financial condition as of March 31,
2010 and December 31, 2009, and the results of operations for the three-month periods ended
March 31, 2010 and 2009. The results of operations for the three-month period ended March 31,
2010, are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. Certain
reclassifications have been made in the prior period financial statements to conform to the current
period presentation. Our critical accounting policies include the assessment for other than
temporary impairment (OTTI) on investment securities, the determination of the allowance for
loan losses, the determination of vehicle service contract payment plan counterparty contingencies,
the valuation of derivative financial instruments, the valuation of originated mortgage loan
servicing rights and the valuation of deferred tax assets. Refer to our 2009 Annual Report on Form
10-K for a disclosure of our accounting policies.
2. In June 2009, the FASB issued FASB ASC Topic 860 Transfers and Servicing (formerly SFAS No.
166 Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets an Amendment of FASB Statement No. 140). This
standard removes the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity and limits the circumstances in
which a financial asset, or portion of a financial asset, should be derecognized when the
transferor has not transferred the entire financial asset to an entity that is not consolidated
with the transferor in the financial statements being presented and/or when the transferor has
continuing involvement with the transferred financial asset. The adoption of this standard on
January 1, 2010 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued FASB ASC Topic 810-10, Consolidation (formerly SFAS No. 167
Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)). The standard amends tests for variable interest
entities to determine whether a variable interest entity must be consolidated. This standard
requires an entity to perform an analysis to determine whether an entitys variable interest or
interests give it a controlling financial interest in a variable interest entity. This standard
requires ongoing reassessments of whether an entity is the primary beneficiary of a variable
interest entity and enhanced disclosures that provide more transparent information about an
entitys involvement with a variable interest entity. The adoption of this standard on January 1,
2010 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
F-7
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
3. Securities available for sale consist of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
57,992 |
|
|
$ |
1,381 |
|
|
$ |
55 |
|
|
$ |
59,318 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
21,879 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
5,931 |
|
|
|
15,953 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,411 |
|
|
|
29 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
5,432 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
59,321 |
|
|
|
1,255 |
|
|
|
269 |
|
|
|
60,307 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
9,463 |
|
|
|
183 |
|
|
|
798 |
|
|
|
8,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
154,066 |
|
|
$ |
2,853 |
|
|
$ |
7,061 |
|
|
$ |
149,858 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
46,108 |
|
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
47,522 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
38,531 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
7,653 |
|
|
|
30,975 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
66,439 |
|
|
|
1,096 |
|
|
|
403 |
|
|
|
67,132 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
14,272 |
|
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
13,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
171,049 |
|
|
$ |
3,149 |
|
|
$ |
10,047 |
|
|
$ |
164,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our investments gross unrealized losses and fair values aggregated by investment type and
length of time that individual securities have been at a continuous unrealized loss position
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than Twelve Months |
|
|
Twelve Months or More |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency
residential
mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
5,816 |
|
|
$ |
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,816 |
|
|
$ |
55 |
|
Private label
residential
mortgage-backed |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
$ |
14,386 |
|
|
$ |
5,930 |
|
|
|
14,681 |
|
|
|
5,931 |
|
Other asset backed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,477 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
2,477 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
Obligations of
states and
political
subdivisions |
|
|
1,401 |
|
|
|
49 |
|
|
|
4,262 |
|
|
|
220 |
|
|
|
5,663 |
|
|
|
269 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,884 |
|
|
|
798 |
|
|
|
3,884 |
|
|
|
798 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
7,512 |
|
|
$ |
105 |
|
|
$ |
25,009 |
|
|
$ |
6,956 |
|
|
$ |
32,521 |
|
|
$ |
7,061 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency
residential
mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
7,310 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,310 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
Private label
residential
mortgage-backed |
|
|
4,343 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
$ |
18,126 |
|
|
$ |
7,541 |
|
|
|
22,469 |
|
|
|
7,653 |
|
Other asset backed |
|
|
783 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4,722 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
Obligations of
states and
subdivisions |
|
|
4,236 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
3,960 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
8,196 |
|
|
|
403 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,715 |
|
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
7,715 |
|
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
16,672 |
|
|
$ |
325 |
|
|
$ |
34,523 |
|
|
$ |
9,722 |
|
|
$ |
51,195 |
|
|
$ |
10,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-8
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Our portfolio of available-for-sale securities is reviewed quarterly for impairment in value. In
performing this review management considers (1) the length of time and extent that fair value has
been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near term prospects of the issuer, (3) the
impact of changes in market interest rates on the market value of the security and (4) an
assessment of whether we intend to sell, or it is more likely than not that we will be required to
sell a security in an unrealized loss position before recovery of its amortized cost basis. For
securities that do not meet the aforementioned recovery criteria, the amount of impairment
recognized in earnings is limited to the amount related to credit losses, while impairment related
to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income or loss.
U.S. Agency residential mortgage-backed securities at March 31, 2010 we had 3 securities whose
fair market value is less than amortized cost. The unrealized losses are largely attributed to
rising interest rates. As management does not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more
likely than not that we will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of these
unrealized losses, no declines are deemed to be other than temporary.
Private label residential mortgage and other asset-backed securities at March 31, 2010 we had 14
securities whose fair value is less than amortized cost. Eleven of the issues are rated by a major
rating agency as investment grade while three are below investment grade. During 2009 pricing
conditions in the private label residential mortgage and other asset-backed security markets were
characterized by sporadic secondary market flow, significant implied liquidity risk premiums, a
wide bid / ask spread and an absence of new issuances of similar securities. In the first quarter
of 2010, while this market is still closed to new issuance, secondary market trading activity
increased and appeared to be more orderly than compared to 2009. In addition, many bonds are
trading at levels near their economic value with fewer distressed valuations relative to 2009.
Prices for many securities have been rising, due in part to negative new supply. This improvement
in trading activity is supported by sales of 11 securities with an amortized cost of $14.2 million
at a $0.2 million gain during the first quarter of 2010.
The unrealized losses, while showing improvement in the aggregate in the first quarter of 2010, are
largely attributable to credit spread widening on these securities. The underlying loans within
these securities include Jumbo (46%), Alt A (29%) and manufactured housing (25%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jumbo |
|
$ |
9,732 |
|
|
$ |
(3,571 |
) |
|
$ |
21,718 |
|
|
$ |
(5,749 |
) |
Alt-A |
|
|
6,221 |
|
|
|
(2,355 |
) |
|
|
9,257 |
|
|
|
(1,807 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other asset-backed Manufactured housing |
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
(194 |
) |
F-9
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
All of the private label residential mortgage-backed transactions have geographic concentrations in
California, ranging from 29% to 59% of the collateral pool. Typical exposure levels to California
(median exposure is 39%) are consistent with overall market collateral characteristics. Five
transactions have modest exposure to Florida, ranging from 5% to 11%, and one transaction has
modest exposure to Arizona (5%). The underlying collateral pools do not have meaningful exposure to
Nevada, Michigan or Ohio. None of the issues involve subprime mortgage collateral. Thus the impact
of this market segment is only indirect, in that it has impacted liquidity and pricing in general
for private label residential mortgage-backed securities. The majority of transactions are backed
by fully amortizing loans. However, eight transactions have concentrations in interest only loans
ranging from 31% to 94%. The structure of the residential mortgage and other asset-backed
securities portfolio provides protection to credit losses. The portfolio primarily consists of
senior securities as demonstrated by the following: super senior (7%), senior (66%), senior support
(15%) and mezzanine (12%). The mezzanine classes are from seasoned transactions (68 to 96
months) with significant levels of subordination (8% to 24%). Except for the additional discussion
below relating to other than temporary impairment, each private label residential mortgage and
other asset-backed security has sufficient credit enhancement via subordination to reasonably
assure full realization of book value. This assertion is based on a transaction level review of the
portfolio. Individual security reviews include: external credit ratings, forecasted weighted
average life, recent prepayment speeds, underwriting characteristics of the underlying collateral,
the structure of the securitization and the credit performance of the underlying collateral. The
review of underwriting characteristics considers: average loan size, type of loan (fixed or ARM),
vintage, rate, FICO, loan-to-value, scheduled amortization, occupancy, purpose, geographic mix and
loan documentation. The review of the securitization structure focuses on the priority of cash
flows to the bond, the priority of the bond relative to the realization of credit losses and the
level of subordination available to absorb credit losses. The review of credit performance
includes: current period as well as cumulative realized losses; the level of severe payment
problems, which includes other real estate (ORE), foreclosures, bankruptcy and 90 day
delinquencies; and the level of less severe payment problems, which consists of 30 and 60 day
delinquencies.
All of these securities are receiving principal and interest payments. Most of these transactions
are passthrough structures, receiving pro rata principal and interest payments from a dedicated
collateral pool. The nonreceipt of interest cash flows is not expected and thus not presently
considered in our discounted cash flow methodology discussed below.
In addition to the review discussed above, certain securities, including the three securities with
a rating below investment grade, were reviewed for OTTI utilizing a cash flow projection. The scope
of review included securities that account for 91% of the $5.9 million in gross unrealized losses.
The cash flow analysis forecasted cash flow from the underlying loans in each transaction and then
applied these cash flows to the bonds in the securitization. The cash flows from the underlying
loans considered contractual payment terms (scheduled amortization), prepayments, defaults and
severity of loss given default. The analysis used dynamic assumptions for prepayments, defaults and
severity. Near term prepayment assumptions were based on recently observed prepayment rates. In
many cases, recently observed prepayment rates are depressed due to a sharp decline in new jumbo
loan issuance. This loan market is heavily dependent upon securitization for funding, and new
securitization transactions have been minimal. Some transactions have experienced a decline in
prepayment activity due to the lack of refinancing opportunities for nonconforming mortgages. In
these cases, our projections anticipate that prepayment rates gradually revert to historical
levels. For seasoned ARM transactions, normalized prepayment rates are estimated at 15% to 25% CPR.
For fixed rate collateral (one transaction), the prepayment speed is projected to increase modestly
given the spread differential between the collateral and the current market rate for conforming
mortgages.
F-10
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Near term default assumptions were based on recent default observations as well as the volume of
existing real-estate owned, pending foreclosures and severe delinquencies. Default levels generally
are projected to remain elevated for a period of time sufficient to address the level of distressed
loans in the transaction. Our projections expect defaults to then decline as the housing market and
the economy stabilize, generally after 2 to 3 years. Current severity assumptions are based on
recent observations. Loss severity is expected to decline gradually as the housing market and the
economy stabilize, generally after 2 to 3 years. Except for one below investment grade security
discussed in further detail below, our cash flow analysis forecasts complete recovery of our cost
basis for each reviewed security.
At March 31, 2010 one below investment grade private label residential mortgage-backed security
with a fair value of $6.1 million and an unrealized loss of $1.4 million (amortized cost of $7.5
million) had unrealized losses that were considered other than temporary. The underlying loans in
this transaction are 30 year fixed rate jumbos with an average origination date FICO of 748 and an
average origination date loan-to-value ratio of 73%. The loans backing this transaction were
originated in 2007 and is our only security backed by 2007 vintage loans. We believe that this
vintage is a key differentiating factor between this security and the others in our portfolio that
do not have unrealized losses that are considered OTTI. The bond is a senior security that is
receiving principal and interest payments similar to principal reductions in the underlying
collateral. The cash flow analysis described above calculated an OTTI of $1.4 million at March 31,
2010, $0.116 million of this amount was attributed to credit and was recognized in our consolidated
statements of operations ($0.051 million during the three months ending March 31, 2010 and $0.065
million during the three months ending December 31, 2009) while the balance was attributed to other
factors and reflected in other comprehensive income (loss) during those same periods.
As management does not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely than not that we
will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of these unrealized losses, no
other declines discussed above are deemed to be other than temporary.
Obligations of states and political subdivisions at March 31, 2010 we had 22 municipal securities
whose fair value is less than amortized cost. The unrealized losses are largely attributed to a
widening of market spreads and continued illiquidity for certain issues. The majority of the
securities are not rated by a major rating agency. Approximately 76% of the non rated securities
originally had a AAA credit rating by virtue of bond insurance. However, the insurance provider no
longer has an investment grade rating. The remaining non rated issues are small local issues that
did not receive a credit rating due to the size of the transaction. The non rated securities have a
periodic internal credit review according to established procedures. As management does not intend
to liquidate these securities and it is more likely than not that we will not be required to sell
these securities prior to recovery of these unrealized losses, no declines are deemed to be other
than temporary.
Trust preferred securities at March 31, 2010 we had four securities whose fair value is less than
amortized cost. All of our trust preferred securities are single issue securities issued by a trust
subsidiary of a bank holding company. The pricing of trust preferred securities over the past two
years has suffered from significant credit spread widening fueled by uncertainty regarding
potential losses of financial companies, the absence of a liquid functioning secondary market and
potential supply concerns from financial companies issuing new debt to recapitalize themselves.
During the first quarter of 2010, although still showing signs of weakness, pricing for non-rated
issues improved due to Libor spread tightening. One of the four securities is rated by a major
rating agency as investment grade, while one is split rated (this security is rated as investment
grade by one major rating agency and below investment grade by another) and the other two are
non-rated. The two non-rated issues are relatively small banks and neither of these issues were
ever rated. The issuers on these trust preferred securities, which had a combined book value of
$2.8 million and a combined fair value of $2.5 million as of March 31, 2010, continue to make
interest payments and have satisfactory credit metrics.
F-11
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Our OTTI analysis for trust preferred securities is based on a security level financial analysis of
the issuer. This review considers: external credit ratings, maturity date of the instrument, the
scope of the banks operations, relevant financial metrics and recent issuer specific news. The
analysis of relevant financial metrics includes: capital adequacy, asset quality, earnings and
liquidity. We use the same OTTI review methodology for both rated and non-rated issues. During the
first quarter of 2010 we recorded OTTI on an unrated trust preferred security of $0.067 million (we
had recorded OTTI on this security of $0.183 million in prior periods). Specifically, this issuer
has deferred interest payments on all of its trust preferred securities and is operating under a
written agreement with the regulatory agencies that specifically prohibits dividend payments. The
issuer is a relatively small bank with operations centered in southeast Michigan. The issuer
reported losses in 2008 and 2009 and now is insolvent. Additionally, the issuer has a high volume
of nonperforming assets. This investments amortized cost has been written down to zero, compared
to a par value of $0.25 million.
The following table breaks out our trust preferred securities in further detail as of March 31,
2010 and December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
(In thousands) |
Trust preferred securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rated issues no OTTI |
|
$ |
6,392 |
|
|
$ |
(267 |
) |
|
$ |
11,188 |
|
|
$ |
(212 |
) |
Unrated issues no OTTI |
|
|
2,456 |
|
|
|
(348 |
) |
|
|
1,761 |
|
|
|
(1,044 |
) |
Unrated issues with OTTI |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
As management does not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely than not
that we will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of these unrealized losses,
no other declines discussed above are deemed to be other than temporary.
The amortized cost and fair value of securities available for sale at March 31, 2010, by
contractual maturity, follow. The actual maturity may differ from the contractual maturity because
issuers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment
penalties.
F-12
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Maturing within one year |
|
$ |
2,559 |
|
|
$ |
2,582 |
|
Maturing after one year but within five years |
|
|
11,728 |
|
|
|
12,076 |
|
Maturing after five years but within ten years |
|
|
24,857 |
|
|
|
25,225 |
|
Maturing after ten years |
|
|
29,640 |
|
|
|
29,272 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,784 |
|
|
|
69,155 |
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
57,992 |
|
|
|
59,318 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
21,879 |
|
|
|
15,953 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,411 |
|
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
154,066 |
|
|
$ |
149,858 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gains and losses realized on the sale of securities available for sale are determined using
the specific identification method and are recognized on a trade-date basis. A summary of proceeds
from the sale of securities available for sale and gains and losses for the three month periods
ending March 31, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
|
|
Proceeds |
|
Gains |
|
Losses(1) |
|
|
(In thousands) |
2010 |
|
$ |
25,415 |
|
|
$ |
304 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
2009 |
|
|
6,434 |
|
|
|
225 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Losses in 2010 and 2009 exclude $0.118 million and $0.017 million of other than temporary impairment, respectively. |
During 2010 and 2009 our trading securities consisted of various preferred stocks. During the
first three months of 2010 and 2009 we recognized losses on trading securities of $0.005 million
and $0.783 million, respectively, that are included in net gains (losses) on assets in the
consolidated statements of operations. Both of these amounts relate to losses recognized on trading
securities still held at each respective period end.
4. Our assessment of the allowance for loan losses is based on an evaluation of the loan
portfolio, recent loss experience, current economic conditions and other pertinent factors. Loans
on non-accrual status and past due more than 90 days (Non-performing Loans) amounted to $98.3
million at March 31, 2010, and $109.9 million at December 31, 2009.
Impaired loans are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Impaired loans with no allocated allowance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TDR |
|
$ |
8,846 |
|
|
$ |
9,059 |
|
Non TDR |
|
|
5,364 |
|
|
|
2,995 |
|
Impaired loans with an allocated allowance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TDR allowance based on collateral |
|
|
29,267 |
|
|
|
3,552 |
|
TDR allowance based on present value cash flow |
|
|
82,298 |
|
|
|
74,287 |
|
Non TDR allowance based on collateral |
|
|
43,105 |
|
|
|
68,032 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impaired loans |
|
$ |
168,880 |
|
|
$ |
157,925 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of allowance for loan losses allocated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TDR allowance based on collateral |
|
$ |
7,850 |
|
|
$ |
761 |
|
TDR allowance based on present value cash flow |
|
|
9,996 |
|
|
|
7,828 |
|
Non TDR allowance based on collateral |
|
|
12,578 |
|
|
|
21,004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total amount of allowance for losses allocated |
|
$ |
30,424 |
|
|
$ |
29,593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-13
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Our average investment in impaired loans was approximately $163.4 million and $90.3 million for the
three-month periods ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Cash receipts on impaired loans
on non-accrual status are generally applied to the principal balance. Interest income recognized
on impaired loans during the first three months of 2010 and 2009 was approximately $1.3 million and
$0.2 million, respectively, the majority of which was received in cash.
The increase in impaired loans relative to the decrease in Non-performing Loans during the first
quarter of 2010 reflects a $23.5 million increase from December 31, 2009 in troubled debt
restructured (TDR) loans that remain performing at March 31, 2010. The increase in TDR loans is
primarily attributed to the restructuring of repayment terms of residential mortgage and
commercial loans. TDR loans not already included in Non-performing Loans totaled $95.5 million and
$72.0 million at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.
An analysis of the allowance for loan losses is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
Loans |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
Loans |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of period |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
Additions (deduction) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision charged to operating expense |
|
|
17,014 |
|
|
|
56 |
|
|
|
30,124 |
|
|
|
(86 |
) |
Recoveries credited to allowance |
|
|
991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
607 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans charged against the allowance |
|
|
(23,590 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(30,326 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of period |
|
$ |
76,132 |
|
|
$ |
1,914 |
|
|
$ |
58,305 |
|
|
$ |
2,058 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loans charged against the allowance
to average Portfolio Loans (annualized) |
|
|
4.10 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.91 |
% |
|
|
|
|
5. |
|
Comprehensive loss for the three-month periods ended March 31 follows: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Net loss |
|
$ |
(13,837 |
) |
|
$ |
(18,597 |
) |
Net change in unrealized loss on securities available for sale, net of related tax effect |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
833 |
|
Change in unrealized losses on securities available for sale for which a portion of
other than temporary impairment has been recognized in earnings |
|
|
1,667 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized loss on derivative instruments, net of related tax effect |
|
|
106 |
|
|
|
100 |
|
Reclassification adjustment for accretion on settled derivative instruments |
|
|
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive loss |
|
$ |
(11,907 |
) |
|
$ |
(17,664 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-14
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The net change in unrealized loss on securities available for sale reflects net gains reclassified
into earnings as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
|
(in thousands) |
Net gain reclassified into earnings |
|
$ |
152 |
|
|
$ |
202 |
|
Federal income tax expense as a result
of the reclassification of these
amounts from comprehensive income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Our reportable segments are based upon legal entities. We currently have two reportable
segments: Independent Bank (IB) and Mepco Finance Corporation (Mepco). These business
segments are also differentiated based on the products and services provided. We evaluate
performance based principally on net income (loss) of the respective reportable segments.
In the normal course of business, our IB segment provides funding to our Mepco segment through an
intercompany line of credit priced at Prime beginning on January 1, 2010 and priced principally
based on Brokered CD rates prior to that time. Our IB segment also provides certain administrative
services to our Mepco segment which reimburses at an agreed upon rate. These intercompany
transactions are eliminated upon consolidation. The only other material intersegment balances and
transactions are investments in subsidiaries at the parent entities and cash balances on deposit at
our IB segment.
A summary of selected financial information for our reportable segments as of or for the
three-month periods ended March 31, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IB |
|
Mepco (1) |
|
Other (2) |
|
Elimination (3) |
|
Total |
|
|
(in thousands) |
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,533,434 |
|
|
$ |
365,248 |
|
|
$ |
200,554 |
|
|
$ |
(198,466 |
) |
|
$ |
2,900,770 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
29,661 |
|
|
|
11,583 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
41,244 |
|
Net interest income |
|
|
22,889 |
|
|
|
8,977 |
|
|
|
(1,835 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,031 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
17,173 |
|
|
|
(103 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,070 |
|
Income (loss) before income tax |
|
|
(12,721 |
) |
|
|
1,084 |
|
|
|
(2,440 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(14,101 |
) |
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(12,042 |
) |
|
|
669 |
|
|
|
(2,440 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(13,837 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,572,665 |
|
|
$ |
380,492 |
|
|
$ |
273,369 |
|
|
$ |
(273,545 |
) |
|
$ |
2,952,981 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
36,282 |
|
|
|
11,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,565 |
|
Net interest income |
|
|
25,628 |
|
|
|
10,428 |
|
|
|
(1,709 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34,347 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
29,876 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,038 |
|
Income (loss) before income tax |
|
|
(23,363 |
) |
|
|
7,096 |
|
|
|
(2,013 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(18,304 |
) |
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(21,145 |
) |
|
|
4,585 |
|
|
|
(2,013 |
) |
|
|
(24 |
) |
|
|
(18,597 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total assets include gross payment plan receivables of $0.8 million and $12.0 million at
March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively from customers domiciled in Canada. The amount at
March 31, 2010 represents less than 1% of total payment plan receivables outstanding and we
anticipate this balance to decline in future periods. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes amounts relating to our parent company and certain insignificant operations. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes parent companys investment in subsidiaries and cash balances maintained at subsidiary. |
F-15
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
7. Basic income per share includes weighted average common shares outstanding during the period
and participating share awards. Diluted income per share includes the dilutive effect of
additional potential common shares to be issued upon the exercise of stock options and stock units
for a deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors.
A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the three-month periods ended March 31
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months |
|
|
|
ended |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands, except per share |
|
|
|
amounts) |
|
Net loss applicable to common stock |
|
$ |
(14,914 |
) |
|
$ |
(19,672 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding |
|
|
24,032 |
|
|
|
23,366 |
|
Effect of stock options |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stock units for deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors |
|
|
72 |
|
|
|
66 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding for calculation of diluted earnings per share |
|
|
24,104 |
|
|
|
23,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss per common share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(.62 |
) |
|
$ |
(.84 |
) |
Diluted(1) |
|
|
(.62 |
) |
|
|
(.84 |
) |
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For any period in which a loss is recorded, the assumed exercise of
stock options and stock units for deferred compensation plan for
non-employee directors would have an anti-dilutive impact on the loss
per share and thus are ignored in the diluted per share calculation. |
Weighted average stock options outstanding that were anti-dilutive totaled 1.1 million and 1.5
million for the three-months ended March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
8. We are required to record derivatives on the balance sheet as assets and liabilities measured at
their fair value. The accounting for increases and decreases in the value of derivatives depends
upon the use of derivatives and whether the derivatives qualify for hedge accounting.
Our derivative financial instruments according to the type of hedge in which they are designated
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional |
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
(years) |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands) |
|
Cash Flow Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay fixed interest-rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
70,000 |
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
$ |
(2,211 |
) |
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
(7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
105,000 |
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
$ |
(2,218 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hedge designation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay fixed interest-rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
45,000 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
$ |
(1,919 |
) |
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
0.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rate-lock mortgage loan commitments |
|
|
25,284 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
512 |
|
Mandatory commitments to sell mortgage loans |
|
|
54,992 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
108 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
175,276 |
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
$ |
(1,299 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-16
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
We have established management objectives and strategies that include interest-rate risk parameters
for maximum fluctuations in net interest income and market value of portfolio equity. We monitor
our interest rate risk position via simulation modeling reports. The goal of our asset/liability
management efforts is to maintain profitable financial leverage within established risk parameters.
We use variable-rate and short-term fixed-rate (less than 12 months) debt obligations to fund a
portion of our balance sheet, which exposes us to variability in interest rates. To meet our
objectives, we may periodically enter into derivative financial instruments to mitigate exposure to
fluctuations in cash flows resulting from changes in interest rates (Cash Flow Hedges). Cash Flow
Hedges currently include certain pay-fixed interest-rate swaps and interest-rate cap agreements.
Through certain special purposes entities we issue trust preferred securities as part of our
capital management strategy. Certain of these trust preferred securities are variable rate which
exposes us to variability in cash flows . To mitigate our exposure to fluctuations in cash flows
resulting from changes in interest rates, on approximately $20.0 million of variable rate trust
preferred securities, we entered into a pay-fixed interest-rate swap agreement in September, 2007.
During the fourth quarter of 2009 we elected to defer payment of interest on this variable rate
trust preferred security. As a result, this pay-fixed interest rate swap was transferred to a no
hedge designation and the $1.6 million unrealized loss which was included as a component of
accumulated other comprehensive loss at the time of the transfer will be reclassified into earnings
over the remaining life of this pay-fixed swap. Subsequent changes in the fair value of this
pay-fixed swap are recorded in earnings.
Pay-fixed interest-rate swaps convert the variable-rate cash flows on debt obligations to
fixed-rates. Under interest-rate cap agreements, we will receive cash if interest rates rise above
a predetermined level. As a result, we effectively have variable-rate debt with an established
maximum rate. We pay an upfront premium on interest rate caps which is recognized in earnings in
the same period in which the hedged item affects earnings. Unrecognized premiums from interest
rate caps aggregated to $0.1 million at both March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009, respectively.
We record the fair value of Cash Flow Hedges in accrued income and other assets and accrued
expenses and other liabilities. On an ongoing basis, we adjust our balance sheet to reflect the
then current fair value of Cash Flow Hedges. The related gains or losses are reported in other
comprehensive income or loss and are subsequently reclassified into earnings, as a yield adjustment
in the same period in which the related interest on the hedged items (primarily variable-rate debt
obligations) affect earnings. It is anticipated that approximately $2.2 million, of unrealized
losses on Cash Flow Hedges at March 31, 2010 will be reclassified to earnings over the next twelve
months. To the extent that the Cash Flow Hedges are not effective, the ineffective portion of the
Cash Flow Hedges are immediately recognized as interest expense. The maximum term of any Cash Flow
Hedge at March 31, 2010 is 4.8 years.
Certain financial derivative instruments are not designated as hedges. The fair value of these
derivative financial instruments have been recorded on our balance sheet and are adjusted on an
ongoing basis to reflect their then current fair value. The changes in the fair value of
derivative financial instruments not designated as hedges, are recognized currently in earnings.
F-17
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
In the ordinary course of business, we enter into rate-lock mortgage loan commitments with
customers (Rate Lock Commitments). These commitments expose us to interest rate risk. We also
enter into mandatory commitments to sell mortgage loans (Mandatory Commitments) to reduce the
impact of price fluctuations of mortgage loans held for sale and Rate Lock Commitments. Mandatory
Commitments help protect our loan sale profit margin from fluctuations in interest rates. The
changes in the fair value of Rate Lock Commitments and Mandatory Commitments are recognized
currently as part of gains on the sale of mortgage loans. We obtain market prices on Mandatory
Commitments and Rate Lock Commitments. Net gains on the sale of mortgage loans, as well as net
income may be more volatile as a result of these derivative instruments, which are not designated
as hedges.
The following table illustrates the impact that the derivative financial instruments discussed
above have on individual line items in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition
for the periods presented:
Fair Values of Derivative Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives |
|
|
Liability Derivatives |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
Derivatives
designated as hedging
instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest
rate swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
$ |
2,211 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
$ |
2,328 |
|
Interest-rate cap
agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
7 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,218 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not
designated as hedging
intruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest
rate swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
1,919 |
|
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
1,930 |
|
Interest-rate cap
agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate-lock mortgage
loan commitments |
|
Other assets |
|
$ |
512 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
$ |
217 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandatory
commitments to sell
mortgage loans |
|
Other assets |
|
|
108 |
|
|
Other assets |
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-18
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The effect of derivative financial instruments on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of
Operations follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three Month Periods Ended March 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reclassified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from |
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Reclassified from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Accumulated Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Income into |
|
|
Income |
|
|
Location of |
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
Income |
|
|
Income |
|
|
into Income |
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
Recognized |
|
|
|
(Effective Portion) |
|
|
(Effective |
|
|
(Effective Portion) |
|
|
Recognized |
|
|
in Income(1) |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
Portion) |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
in Income(1) |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Cash Flow Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest
rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
931 |
|
|
$ |
429 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(699 |
) |
|
$ |
(493 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-rate cap
agreements |
|
|
92 |
|
|
|
330 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(46 |
) |
|
|
(166 |
) |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,023 |
|
|
$ |
759 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(745 |
) |
|
$ |
(659 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(6 |
) |
|
$ |
(16 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hedge designation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest
rate swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
11 |
|
|
$ |
(99 |
) |
Interest-rate cap
agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90 |
) |
Rate-lock mortgage
loan commitments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loan gains |
|
|
295 |
|
|
|
653 |
|
Mandatory
commitments to sell
mortgage loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loan gains |
|
|
(607 |
) |
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(301 |
) |
|
$ |
510 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For cash flow hedges, this location and amount refers to the ineffective portion. |
F-19
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
9. Intangible assets, net of amortization, were comprised of the following at March 31, 2010 and
December 31, 2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Amortized intangible assets Core deposit |
|
$ |
31,326 |
|
|
$ |
21,388 |
|
|
$ |
31,326 |
|
|
$ |
21,066 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of intangibles has been estimated through 2015 and thereafter in the following
table, and does not take into consideration any potential future acquisitions or branch purchases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in |
|
|
|
thousands) |
|
Nine months ended December 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
958 |
|
Year ending December 31: |
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
1,371 |
|
2012 |
|
|
1,088 |
|
2013 |
|
|
1,078 |
|
2014 |
|
|
801 |
|
2015 and thereafter |
|
|
4,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
9,938 |
|
|
|
|
|
10. We maintain performance-based compensation plans that include a long-term incentive plan that
permits the issuance of share based compensation, including stock options and non-vested share
awards. This plan, which is shareholder approved, permits the grant of additional share based
awards for up to 0.9 million shares of common stock as of March 31, 2010. Share based compensation
awards are measured at fair value at the date of grant and are expensed over the requisite service
period. Common shares issued upon exercise of stock options come from currently authorized but
unissued shares.
During the first quarter of 2010 we completed a stock option exchange program under which eligible
employees were able to exchange certain stock options for a lesser amount of new stock options.
Pursuant to this stock option exchange program, 0.5 million stock options were exchanged for 0.1
million new stock options. The new stock options granted have an exercise price equal to the
market value on the date of grant, generally vest over a one year period and have the same
expiration dates as the options exchanged which ranged from 1.2 years to 7.2 years. The new
options had a value substantially equal to the value of the options exchanged.
We also granted, pursuant to our performance-based compensation plans, 0.3 million stock options to
our officers on January 30, 2009. The stock options have an exercise price equal to the market
value on the date of grant, vest ratably over a three year period and expire 10 years from date of
grant. We use the Black Scholes option pricing model to measure compensation cost for stock
options. We also estimate expected forfeitures over the vesting period.
F-20
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Total compensation cost recognized during the first three months of 2010 and 2009 for stock option
and restricted stock grants was $0.2 million in each period, respectively. The corresponding tax
benefit relating to this expense was zero for the first three months of 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
At March 31, 2010, the total expected compensation cost related to non-vested stock option and
restricted stock awards not yet recognized was $1.5 million. The weighted-average period over
which this amount will be recognized is 2.5 years.
A summary of outstanding stock option grants and transactions follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three-months ended March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Aggregated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
Intrinsic |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Term |
|
|
Value (in |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Price |
|
|
(years) |
|
|
thousands) |
|
Outstanding at January 1, 2010 |
|
|
1,098,550 |
|
|
$ |
13.19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
99,855 |
|
|
|
0.74 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchanged |
|
|
(547,138 |
) |
|
|
20.86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expired |
|
|
(17,806 |
) |
|
|
7.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2010 |
|
|
633,461 |
|
|
$ |
4.76 |
|
|
|
5.34 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
624,754 |
|
|
$ |
4.81 |
|
|
|
5.31 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at March 31, 2010 |
|
|
333,625 |
|
|
$ |
7.87 |
|
|
|
3.46 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of non-vested restricted stock and transactions follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Outstanding at January 1, 2010 |
|
|
262,381 |
|
|
$ |
9.27 |
|
Granted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at March 31, 2010 |
|
|
262,381 |
|
|
$ |
9.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of the weighted-average assumptions used in the Black-Scholes option pricing model
for grants of stock options during 2010 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Expected dividend yield |
|
|
0.33 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
2.10 |
|
Expected life (in years) |
|
|
4.60 |
|
Expected volatility |
|
|
91.77 |
% |
Per share weighted-average fair value |
|
$ |
0.50 |
|
F-21
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The risk-free interest rate for the expected term of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield
curve in effect at the time of the grant. The expected life was obtained using the weighted
average original contractual term of the stock option. This method was used as relevant historical
data of actual exercise activity was not available. The expected volatility was based on
historical volatility of our common stock.
There were no stock option exercises during the three month periods ending March 31, 2010 and 2009,
respectively.
11. At both March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 we had approximately $2.0 million of gross
unrecognized tax benefits. If recognized, the entire amount of unrecognized tax benefits, net of
$0.5 million federal tax on state benefits, would affect our effective tax rate. We do not expect
the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits to significantly increase or decrease during the
balance of 2010.
As a result of being in a net operating loss carryforward position, we have established a deferred
tax asset valuation allowance against the majority of our net deferred tax assets. Accordingly, we
are not able to recognize much income tax benefit related to the loss before income tax. The
income tax expense (benefit) was $(0.26) million and $0.29 million for the three month periods
ending March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. The benefit recognized during the three-month period
in 2010 was primarily the result of current period adjustments to other comprehensive income
(OCI), net of state income tax expense and adjustments to the deferred tax asset valuation
allowance.
Generally, the calculation for income tax expense (benefit) does not consider the tax effects of
changes in other comprehensive income or loss, which is a component of shareholders equity on the
balance sheet. However, an exception is provided in certain circumstances, such as when there is a
pre-tax loss from continuing operations. In such case, pre-tax income from other categories (such
as changes in OCI) is included in the calculation of the tax expense (benefit) for the current
year. For the three month period in 2010, this resulted in an income tax benefit of $0.24 million.
12. Capital guidelines adopted by Federal and State regulatory agencies and restrictions imposed
by law limit the amount of cash dividends our bank can pay to us. Under these guidelines, the
amount of dividends that may be paid in any calendar year is limited to the banks current years
net profits, combined with the retained net profits of the preceding two years. It is not our
intent to have dividends paid in amounts which would reduce the capital of our bank to levels below
those which we consider prudent and in accordance with guidelines of regulatory authorities.
In December 2009, the Board of Directors of Independent Bank Corporation adopted resolutions that
impose the following restrictions:
|
|
|
We will not pay dividends on our outstanding common stock or the outstanding preferred stock held by the U.S.
Department of Treasury (UST) and we will not pay distributions on our outstanding trust preferred securities
without, in each case, the prior written approval of the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) and the Michigan Office of
Financial and Insurance Regulation (OFIR); |
|
|
|
|
We will not incur or guarantee any additional indebtedness without the prior approval of the FRB; |
|
|
|
|
We will not repurchase or redeem any of our common stock without the prior approval of the FRB; and |
|
|
|
|
We will not rescind or materially modify any of these limitations without notice to the FRB and the Michigan OFIR. |
F-22
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
In December 2009, the Board of Directors of Independent Bank, our subsidiary bank, adopted
resolutions designed to enhance certain aspects of the Banks performance and, most importantly, to
improve the Banks capital position. These resolutions require the following:
|
|
|
The adoption by the Bank of a capital restoration plan as described below; |
|
|
|
|
The enhancement of the Banks documentation of the rationale for discounts applied to collateral
valuations on impaired loans and improved support for the identification, tracking, and reporting of loans
classified as troubled debt restructurings; |
|
|
|
|
The adoption of certain changes and enhancements to our liquidity monitoring and contingency planning
and our interest rate risk management practices; |
|
|
|
|
Additional reporting to the Banks Board of Directors regarding initiatives and plans pursued by
management to improve the Banks risk management practices; |
|
|
|
|
Prior approval of the FRB and OFIR for any dividends or distributions to be paid by the Bank to
Independent Bank Corporation; and |
|
|
|
|
Notice to the FRB and the OFIR of any rescission of or material modification to any of these resolutions. |
The substance of all of the resolutions described above was developed in conjunction with
discussions held with the FRB and the OFIR in response to the FRBs most recent examination report
of Independent Bank, which was completed in October 2009. Based on those discussions, we acted
proactively to adopt the resolutions described above to address those areas of the Banks condition
and operations that were highlighted in the examination report and that we believe most require our
focus at this time. It is very possible that if we had not adopted these resolutions, the FRB and
the OFIR may have imposed similar requirements on us through a memorandum of understanding or
similar undertaking. We are not currently subject to any such regulatory agreement or enforcement
action. However, we believe that if we are unable to substantially comply with the resolutions set
forth above and if our financial condition and performance do not otherwise materially improve, we
may face additional regulatory scrutiny and restrictions in the form of a memorandum of
understanding or similar undertaking imposed by the regulators.
We are also subject to various regulatory capital requirements. The prompt corrective action
regulations establish quantitative measures to ensure capital adequacy and require minimum amounts
and ratios of total and Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 capital to average
assets. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly
discretionary, actions by regulators that could have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines, we must meet specific capital requirements
that involve quantitative measures as well as qualitative judgments by the regulators. The most
recent regulatory filings as of March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009 categorized our bank as well
capitalized. Management is not aware of any conditions or events that would have changed the most
recent FDIC categorization.
F-23
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Our actual capital amounts and ratios follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum for |
|
Minimum for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequately Capitalized |
|
Well-Capitalized |
|
|
Actual |
|
Institutions |
|
Institutions |
|
|
Amount |
|
Ratio |
|
Amount |
|
Ratio |
|
Amount |
|
Ratio |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
March 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital to
risk-weighted
assets
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
216,385 |
|
|
|
10.49 |
% |
|
$ |
165,014 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
NA |
Independent Bank |
|
|
214,551 |
|
|
|
10.41 |
|
|
|
164,844 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
|
|
$ |
206,054 |
|
|
|
10.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 capital to
risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
136,875 |
|
|
|
6.64 |
% |
|
$ |
82,507 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
NA |
Independent Bank |
|
|
188,149 |
|
|
|
9.13 |
|
|
|
82,422 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
123,633 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 capital to
average assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
136,875 |
|
|
|
4.67 |
% |
|
$ |
117,114 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
NA |
Independent Bank |
|
|
188,149 |
|
|
|
6.43 |
|
|
|
117,034 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
146,292 |
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital to
risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
233,166 |
|
|
|
10.58 |
% |
|
$ |
176,333 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
NA |
Independent Bank |
|
|
228,128 |
|
|
|
10.36 |
|
|
|
176,173 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
|
|
$ |
220,216 |
|
|
|
10.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 capital to
risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
156,702 |
|
|
|
7.11 |
% |
|
$ |
88,166 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
NA |
Independent Bank |
|
|
199,909 |
|
|
|
9.08 |
|
|
|
88,086 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
132,130 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 capital to
average assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
156,702 |
|
|
|
5.27 |
% |
|
$ |
119,045 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
NA |
Independent Bank |
|
|
199,909 |
|
|
|
6.72 |
|
|
|
118,909 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
148,636 |
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
F-24
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The components of our regulatory capital are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
March 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Total shareholders equity |
|
$ |
97,211 |
|
|
$ |
109,861 |
|
|
$ |
186,857 |
|
|
$ |
196,416 |
|
Add (deduct) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifying trust preferred securities |
|
|
37,019 |
|
|
|
41,880 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
13,749 |
|
|
|
15,679 |
|
|
|
12,394 |
|
|
|
14,208 |
|
Intangible assets |
|
|
(9,938 |
) |
|
|
(10,260 |
) |
|
|
(9,936 |
) |
|
|
(10,257 |
) |
Disallowed capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights |
|
|
(544 |
) |
|
|
(559 |
) |
|
|
(544 |
) |
|
|
(559 |
) |
Disallowed deferred tax assets |
|
|
(720 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(720 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
|
101 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tier 1 capital |
|
|
136,875 |
|
|
|
156,702 |
|
|
|
188,149 |
|
|
|
199,909 |
|
Qualifying trust preferred securities |
|
|
53,081 |
|
|
|
48,220 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for loan losses and allowance for unfunded
commitments limited to 1.25% of total risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
26,429 |
|
|
|
28,244 |
|
|
|
26,402 |
|
|
|
28,219 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total risk-based capital |
|
$ |
216,385 |
|
|
$ |
233,166 |
|
|
$ |
214,551 |
|
|
$ |
228,128 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In January 2010, we adopted a Capital Restoration Plan (the Capital Plan), as required by
the Board resolutions adopted in December 2009, and described above, and submitted such Capital
Plan to the FRB and the OFIR.
The primary objective of our Capital Plan is to achieve and thereafter maintain the minimum capital
ratios required by the Board resolutions adopted in December 2009. As of March 31, 2010, our Bank
continued to meet the requirements to be considered well-capitalized under federal regulatory
standards. However, the minimum capital ratios established by our Board are higher than the ratios
required in order to be considered well-capitalized under federal standards. The Board imposed
these higher ratios in order to ensure that we have sufficient capital to withstand potential
continuing losses based on our elevated level of non-performing assets and given certain other
risks and uncertainties we face.
F-25
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Set forth below are the actual capital ratios of our subsidiary bank as of March 31, 2010, the
minimum capital ratios imposed by the Board resolutions, and the minimum ratios necessary to be
considered well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum |
|
|
|
|
Independent |
|
Ratios |
|
Ratios Required |
|
|
Bank Actual |
|
Established by |
|
to be Well- |
|
|
at 3/31/10 |
|
our Board |
|
Capitalized |
Total capital to risk weighted assets |
|
|
10.41 |
% |
|
|
11.0 |
% |
|
|
10.0 |
% |
Tier 1 capital to average assets |
|
|
6.43 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
The Capital Plan (as modified in March 2010) sets forth an objective of achieving these
minimum capital ratios as soon as practicable, but no later than June 30, 2010, and maintaining
such capital ratios though at least the end of 2012.
The Capital Plan includes projections prepared by us that reflect forecasted financial data through
2012. Those projections anticipate a need for a minimum of $60 million of additional capital in
order for us to achieve and maintain the minimum ratios established by our Board. The projections
take into account the various risks and uncertainties we face. However, because the projections are
based on assumptions regarding such risks and uncertainties, which assumptions may not prove to be
true, the Capital Plan contains a target of $100 million to $125 million of additional capital to
be raised by us. The Capital Plan sets forth certain initiatives to be pursued in order to raise
additional capital and meet the objectives of the Capital Plan.
13. FASB ASC topic 820 defines fair value as the exchange price that would be received for an
asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market
for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement
date. FASB ASC topic 820 also establishes a fair value hierarchy which requires an entity to
maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring
fair value.
The standard describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure fair value:
Level 1: Valuation is based upon quoted prices for identical instruments traded
in active markets. Level 1 instruments include securities traded on active
exchange markets, such as the New York Stock Exchange, as well as U.S. Treasury
securities that are traded by dealers or brokers in active over-the-counter
markets.
Level 2: Valuation is based upon quoted prices for similar instruments in
active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets
that are not active, and model-based valuation techniques for which all
significant assumptions are observable in the market. Level 2 instruments
include securities traded in less active dealer or broker markets.
Level 3: Valuation is generated from model-based techniques that use at least
one significant assumption not observable in the market. These unobservable
assumptions reflect estimates of assumptions that market participants would use
in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of option
pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.
F-26
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
We used the following methods and significant assumptions to estimate fair value:
Securities: Where quoted market prices are available in an active market, securities (trading or
available for sale) are classified as Level 1 of the valuation hierarchy. At March 31, 2010, Level
1 securities included certain preferred stocks included in our trading portfolio for which there
are quoted prices in active markets. A trust preferred security included in our available for sale
portfolio and classified as Level 1 at December 31, 2009 was sold during the first quarter of 2010.
If quoted market prices are not available for the specific security, then fair values are
estimated by (1) using quoted market prices of securities with similar characteristics, (2) matrix
pricing, which is a mathematical technique used widely in the industry to value debt securities
without relying exclusively on quoted prices for specific securities but rather by relying on the
securities relationship to other benchmark quoted prices, or (3) a discounted cash flow analysis
whose significant fair value inputs can generally be verified and do not typically involve judgment
by management. These securities are classified as Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy and include
agency and private label residential mortgage-backed securities, other asset-backed securities,
municipal securities and trust preferred securities. Level 3 securities at December 31, 2009
consisted of certain private label residential mortgage-backed and other asset-backed securities
whose fair values were estimated using an internal discounted cash flow analysis. At December 31,
2009, the underlying loans within these securities included Jumbo (60%), Alt A (25%) and
manufactured housing (15%). Except for the discount rate, the inputs used in this analysis could
generally be verified and did not involve judgment by management. The discount rate used (an
unobservable input) was established using a multifactored matrix whose base rate was the yield on
agency mortgage-backed securities. The analysis added a spread to this base rate based on several
credit related factors, including vintage, product, payment priority, credit rating and non
performing asset coverage ratio. The add-on for vintage ranged from zero for transactions backed by
loans originated before 2003 to 0.525% for the 2007 vintage. Product adjustments to the discount
rate were: 0.05% to 0.20% for jumbo, 0.35% to 2.575% for Alt-A, and 3.00% for manufactured housing.
Adjustments for payment priority were -0.25% for super seniors, zero for seniors, 1.00% for senior
supports and 3.00% for mezzanine securities. The add-on for credit rating ranged from zero for AAA
securities to 5.00% for ratings below investment grade. The discount rate for subordination
coverage of nonperforming loans ranged from zero for structures with a coverage ratio of more than
10 times to 10.00% if the coverage ratio declined to less than 0.5 times. The discount rate
calculation had a minimum add on rate of 0.25%. These discount rate adjustments were reviewed for
reasonableness and considered trends in mortgage market credit metrics by product and vintage. The
discount rates calculated in this manner were intended to differentiate investments by risk
characteristics. Using this approach, discount rates ranged from 4.11% to 16.64%, with a weighted
average rate of 8.91% and a median rate of 7.99%. The assumptions used reflected what we believed
market participants would use in pricing these assets. See discussion below regarding transfer of
these securities from Level 3 to Level 2 pricing.
F-27
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights: The fair value of capitalized mortgage loan servicing
rights is based on a valuation model that calculates the present value of estimated net servicing
income. The valuation model incorporates assumptions that market participants would use in
estimating future net servicing income. The valuation model inputs and results can be compared to
widely available published industry data for reasonableness and, therefore, are recorded as
nonrecurring Level 2.
Loans held for sale: The fair value of mortgage loans held for sale is based on mortgage backed
security pricing for comparable assets (recurring Level 2). During the fourth quarter of 2009, we
transferred a $2.2 million commercial real-estate loan from the commercial loan portfolio to held
for sale. The fair value of this loan was based on a bid from a buyer and, therefore, is
classified as a recurring Level 1 at December 31, 2009. This loan was sold for the recorded amount
in January, 2010.
Derivatives: The fair value of derivatives, in general, is determined using a discounted cash flow
model whose significant fair value inputs can generally be verified and do not typically involve
judgment by management (recurring Level 2).
Impaired loans with specific loss allocations: From time to time, certain loans are considered
impaired and an allowance for loan losses is established. Loans for which it is probable that
payment of interest and principal will not be made in accordance with the contractual terms of the
loan agreement are considered impaired. We measure our investment in an impaired loan based on one
of three methods: the loans observable market price, the fair value of the collateral or the
present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loans effective interest rate. Those
impaired loans not requiring an allowance represent loans for which the fair value of the expected
repayments or collateral exceed the recorded investments in such loans. At March 31, 2010, all of
our total impaired loans were evaluated based on either the fair value of the collateral or the
present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loans effective interest rate. When
the fair value of the collateral is based on an appraised value or when an appraised value is not
available we record the impaired loan as nonrecurring Level 3.
Other real estate: At the time of acquisition, other real estate is recorded at fair value, less
estimated costs to sell, which becomes the propertys new basis. Subsequent write-downs to reflect
declines in value since the time of acquisition may occur from time to time and are recorded in
other expense in the consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the property used at
and subsequent to the time of acquisition is typically determined by a third party appraisal of the
property (nonrecurring Level 3).
F-28
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value, including financial assets for which we have elected
the fair value option, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prices |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Active |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markets |
|
Significant |
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
for |
|
Other |
|
Un- |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Identical |
|
Observable |
|
observable |
|
|
Measure- |
|
Assets |
|
Inputs |
|
Inputs |
|
|
ments |
|
(Level 1) |
|
(Level 2) |
|
(Level 3) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities |
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
$ |
49 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
59,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
59,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
15,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,953 |
|
|
|
|
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,432 |
|
|
|
|
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
60,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,307 |
|
|
|
|
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
8,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,848 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans held for sale |
|
|
30,531 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,531 |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(1) |
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
620 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(2) |
|
|
4,137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,137 |
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Non-recurring basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights(3) |
|
|
9,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
Impaired loans |
|
|
51,943 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
51,943 |
|
Other real estate |
|
|
39,606 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39,606 |
|
December 31, 2009: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities |
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
47,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
47,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
30,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
30,975 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
67,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
13,017 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
12,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans held for sale |
|
|
34,234 |
|
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
32,034 |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(1) |
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(2) |
|
|
4,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Non-recurring basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights(3) |
|
|
9,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
Impaired loans |
|
|
49,819 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
49,819 |
|
Other real estate |
|
|
30,821 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,821 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Included in accrued income and other assets |
|
(2) |
|
Included in accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
(3) |
|
Only includes servicing rights that are carried at fair value due to recognition of a valuation allowance. |
F-29
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
Changes in fair values for financial assets which we have elected the fair value option for the
periods presented were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in Fair Values for the Three-Month |
|
|
Periods Ended March 31 for items Measured at |
|
|
Fair Value Pursuant to Election of the Fair Value Option |
|
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included |
|
|
Net Gains (Losses) |
|
in Current |
|
Net Gains (Losses) |
|
in Current |
|
|
on Assets |
|
Period |
|
on Assets |
|
Period |
|
|
Securities |
|
Loans |
|
Earnings |
|
Securities |
|
Loans |
|
Earnings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities |
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(5 |
) |
|
$ |
(785 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(785 |
) |
Loans held for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
255 |
|
|
|
255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
224 |
|
|
|
224 |
|
For those items measured at fair value pursuant to election of the fair value option, interest
income is recorded within the consolidated statements of operations based on the contractual amount
of interest income earned on these financial assets and dividend income is recorded based on cash
dividends declared.
The following represent impairment charges recognized during the three month period ended March 31,
2010 relating to assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis:
|
|
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights, whose individual
strata are measured at fair value had a carrying amount of $9.1
million which is net of a valuation allowance of $2.2 million at
March 31, 2010 and had a carrying amount of $9.6 million which is
net of a valuation allowance of $2.3 million at December 31, 2009.
A recovery (charge) of $0.1 million and $(0.7) million was
included in our results of operations for the three month periods
ending March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
Loans which are measured for impairment using the fair value
of collateral for collateral dependent loans, had a carrying
amount of $72.4 million, with a valuation allowance of $20.4
million at March 31, 2010 and had a carrying amount of $71.6
million, with a valuation allowance of $21.8 million at
December 31, 2009. An additional provision for loan losses
relating to impaired loans of $13.6 million was included in our
results of operations for the three month period ending March 31,
2010, and $22.0 million during the same period in 2009. |
|
|
|
|
Other real estate, which is measured using the fair value of
the property, had a carrying amount of $39.6 million which is net
of a valuation allowance of $6.9 million at March 31, 2010 and a
carrying amount of $30.8 million which is net of a valuation
allowance of $6.5 million at December 31, 2009. An additional
charge of $2.0 million and $1.0 million was included in our
results of operations during the three month periods ended
March 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. |
F-30
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
A reconciliation for all assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using
significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) for the three months ended March 31, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Available for Sale |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
36,480 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Total gains (losses) realized and unrealized: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in results of operations |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
|
|
Included in other comprehensive income |
|
|
1,713 |
|
|
|
|
|
Purchases, issuances, settlements, maturities and calls |
|
|
(16,940 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Transfers in and/or out of Level 3 |
|
|
(21,385 |
) |
|
|
47,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
47,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of total gains (losses) for the period
included in earnings attributable to the change in
unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets still held at
March 31 |
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the first quarter of 2009, certain private label residential mortgage- and other
asset-backed securities totaling $47.4 million were transferred to a level 3 valuation technique.
We believe that market dislocation for these securities began in the last four months of 2008,
particularly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Since the disruption was very
recent and historically there exists seasonally poor liquidity conditions at year end, we decided
that it was appropriate to retain Level 2 pricing in 2008 and continue to monitor and review market
conditions as we moved into 2009. During the first quarter of 2009 market conditions did not
improve, in fact we believe market conditions worsened due to continued declines in residential
home prices, increased consumer credit delinquencies, high levels of foreclosures, continuing
losses at many financial institutions, and further weakness in the U.S. and global economies. This
resulted in the market for these securities being extremely dislocated, Level 2 pricing not being
based on orderly transactions and such pricing possibly being described as based on distressed
sales. As a result, we determined that it was appropriate to modify the discount rate in the
valuation model described above which resulted in these securities being reclassified to Level 3
pricing in the first quarter of 2009.
During the first quarter of 2010, we transferred these private label residential mortgage- and
other asset-backed securities, totaling $21.4 million, to a Level 2 valuation technique. In the
first quarter of 2010, while this market is still closed to new issuance, secondary market
trading activity increased and appeared to be more orderly than compared to 2009. In addition,
many bonds are trading at levels near their economic value with fewer distressed valuations
relative to 2009. Prices for many securities have been rising, due in part to negative new supply.
This improvement in trading activity is supported by sales of 11 securities with a par value of
$14.2 million at a $0.2 million gain during the first quarter of 2010 (none of these securities
were originally purchased at a discount). The Level 2 valuation technique has also been supported
through bids received from dealers on certain private label securities that approximated Level 2
pricing.
F-31
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The following table reflects the difference between the aggregate fair value and the aggregate
remaining contractual principal balance outstanding for loans held for sale for which the fair
value option has been elected for the periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Difference |
|
Principal |
|
|
(in thousands) |
Loans held for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
30,531 |
|
|
$ |
533 |
|
|
$ |
29,998 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
34,234 |
|
|
|
278 |
|
|
|
33,956 |
|
14. Most of our assets and liabilities are considered financial instruments. Many of these
financial instruments lack an available trading market and it is our general practice and intent to
hold the majority of our financial instruments to maturity. Significant estimates and assumptions
were used to determine the fair value of financial instruments. These estimates are subjective in
nature, involving uncertainties and matters of judgment, and therefore, fair values cannot be
determined with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the estimates.
Estimated fair values have been determined using available data and methodologies that are
considered suitable for each category of financial instrument. For instruments with
adjustable-interest rates which reprice frequently and without significant credit risk, it is
presumed that estimated fair values approximate the recorded book balances.
Financial instrument assets actively traded in a secondary market, such as securities, have been
valued using quoted market prices while recorded book balances have been used for cash and due from
banks, interest bearing deposits and accrued interest.
It is not practicable to determine the fair value of Federal Home Loan Bank and Federal Reserve
Bank Stock due to restrictions placed on transferability.
The fair value of loans is calculated by discounting estimated future cash flows using estimated
market discount rates that reflect credit and interest-rate risk inherent in the loans.
Financial instrument liabilities with a stated maturity, such as certificates of deposit and other
borrowings, have been valued based on the discounted value of contractual cash flows using a
discount rate approximating current market rates for liabilities with a similar maturity.
Subordinated debentures have generally been valued based on a quoted market price of the specific
or similar instruments.
Derivative financial instruments have principally been valued based on discounted value of
contractual cash flows using a discount rate approximating current market rates.
Financial instrument liabilities without a stated maturity, such as demand deposits, savings, NOW
and money market accounts, have a fair value equal to the amount payable on demand.
F-32
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The estimated fair values and recorded book balances follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2010 |
|
December 31, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
|
|
Estimated |
|
Book |
|
Estimated |
|
Book |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance |
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance |
|
|
(in thousands) |
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
$ |
46,900 |
|
|
$ |
46,900 |
|
|
$ |
65,200 |
|
|
$ |
65,200 |
|
Interest bearing deposits |
|
|
323,500 |
|
|
|
323,500 |
|
|
|
223,500 |
|
|
|
223,500 |
|
Trading securities |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
149,900 |
|
|
|
149,900 |
|
|
|
164,200 |
|
|
|
164,200 |
|
Federal Home Loan Bank and
Federal Reserve Bank Stock |
|
NA |
|
|
|
27,900 |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
27,900 |
|
Net loans and loans held for sale |
|
|
2,029,500 |
|
|
|
2,110,000 |
|
|
|
2,178,000 |
|
|
|
2,251,900 |
|
Accrued interest receivable |
|
|
8,500 |
|
|
|
8,500 |
|
|
|
8,900 |
|
|
|
8,900 |
|
Derivative financial instruments |
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
600 |
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits with no stated maturity |
|
$ |
1,423,500 |
|
|
$ |
1,423,500 |
|
|
$ |
1,394,400 |
|
|
$ |
1,394,400 |
|
Deposits with stated maturity |
|
|
1,086,300 |
|
|
|
1,074,100 |
|
|
|
1,183,200 |
|
|
|
1,171,300 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
161,900 |
|
|
|
157,500 |
|
|
|
136,300 |
|
|
|
131,200 |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
|
57,400 |
|
|
|
92,900 |
|
|
|
46,500 |
|
|
|
92,900 |
|
Accrued interest payable |
|
|
5,900 |
|
|
|
5,900 |
|
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
|
4,500 |
|
Derivative financial instruments |
|
|
4,100 |
|
|
|
4,100 |
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
The fair values for commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit are estimated
to approximate their aggregate book balance, which is nominal.
Fair value estimates are made at a specific point in time, based on relevant market information and
information about the financial instrument. These estimates do not reflect any premium or discount
that could result from offering for sale the entire holdings of a particular financial instrument.
Fair value estimates are based on existing on- and off-balance sheet financial instruments without
attempting to estimate the value of anticipated future business, the value of future earnings
attributable to off-balance sheet activities and the value of assets and liabilities that are not
considered financial instruments.
Fair value estimates for deposit accounts do not include the value of the core deposit intangible
asset resulting from the low-cost funding provided by the deposit liabilities compared to the cost
of borrowing funds in the market.
15. Mepco purchases payment plans, on a full recourse basis, from companies (which we
refer to as Mepcos counterparties) that provide vehicle service contracts and similar products
to consumers. The payment plans (which are classified as payment plan receivables in our
consolidated statements of financial condition) permit a consumer to purchase a service contract by
making installment payments, generally for a term of 12 to 24 months, to the sellers of those
contracts (one of the counterparties). Mepco does not evaluate the creditworthiness of the
individual customer but instead primarily relies on the payment plan collateral (the unearned
vehicle service contract and unearned sales commission) in the event of default. When consumers
stop making payments or exercise their right to voluntarily cancel the contract, the remaining
unpaid balance of the payment plan is normally recouped by Mepco from the counterparties that sold
the
F-33
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
contract and provided the coverage. The refund obligations of these counterparties are not fully
secured. We record losses or charges in vehicle service contract contingencies expense, included in
non-interest expenses, for estimated defaults by these counterparties in their obligations to
Mepco.
We recorded an expense of $3.4 million and $0.8 million for vehicle service contract payment plan
counterparty contingencies in the first quarters of 2010 and 2009, respectively. These charges
relate to Mepcos aforementioned business activities and are being classified in non-interest
expense because they are associated with a default or potential default of a contractual obligation
under Mepcos contracts with business counterparties as opposed to loss on the administration of
the payment plan itself. Our estimate of probable incurred losses from vehicle service contract
payment plan counterparty contingencies requires a significant amount of judgment because a number
of factors can influence the amount of loss that we may ultimately incur. These factors include our
estimate of future cancellations of vehicle service contracts, our evaluation of collateral that
may be available to recover funds due from our counterparties, and the amount collected from
counterparties in connection with their contractual recourse obligations. We apply a rigorous
process, based upon observable contract activity and past experience, to estimate probable incurred
losses and quantify the necessary reserves for our vehicle service contract counterparty
contingencies, but there can be no assurance that our modeling process will successfully identify
all such losses. As a result, we could record future losses associated with vehicle service
contract counterparty contingencies that may be materially different than the levels that we
recorded in 2010 and 2009.
In particular, Mepco had purchased a significant amount of payment plans from a single counterparty
that declared bankruptcy on March 1, 2010. Mepco is actively working to reduce its credit exposure
to this counterparty. The amount of payment plan receivables purchased from this counterparty and
outstanding at March 31, 2010 totaled approximately $147.4 million (compared to $206.1 million at
December 31, 2009). In addition, as of March 31, 2010, this counterparty owes Mepco $27.0 million
for previously cancelled payment plans. The bankruptcy and wind down of operations by this
counterparty is likely to lead to substantial potential losses as this entity will not be in a
position to honor its recourse obligations on payment plans that Mepco has purchased which are
cancelled prior to payment in full. Mepco will seek to recover amounts owed by the counterparty
from various co-obligors and guarantors, through the liquidation of certain collateral held by
Mepco, and through claims against this counterpartys bankruptcy estate. In the second half of
2009, Mepco established a $19.0 million reserve for losses related to this counterparty. During
the first quarter of 2010 this reserve was increased by $0.5 million, to $19.5 million as of
March 31, 2010. We currently believe this reserve is adequate given a review of all relevant
factors.
In addition, several of these vehicle service contract marketers, including the counterparty
described above and other companies, from which Mepco has purchased payment plans, have been sued
or are under investigation for alleged violations of telemarketing laws and other consumer
protection laws. The actions have been brought primarily by state attorneys general and the Federal
Trade Commission but there have also been class action and other private lawsuits filed. In some
cases, the companies have been placed into receivership or have discontinued business. In addition,
the allegations, particularly those relating to blatantly abusive telemarketing practices by a
relatively small number of marketers, have resulted in a significant amount of negative publicity
that has adversely affected and may in the future continue to adversely affect sales and customer
cancellations of purchased products throughout the industry, which have already been negatively
impacted by the economic recession. It is possible these events could also cause federal or state
lawmakers to enact legislation to further regulate the industry.
F-34
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
The above described events have had and may continue to have an adverse impact on Mepco in several
ways. First, we face increased risk with respect to certain counterparties defaulting in their
contractual obligations to Mepco which could result in additional charges for losses if these
counterparties go out of business. Second, these events have negatively affected sales and customer
cancellations in the industry, which has had and is expected to continue to have a negative impact
on the profitability of Mepcos business. In addition, if any federal or state investigation is
expanded to include finance companies such as Mepco, Mepco will face additional legal and other
expenses in connection with any such investigation. An increased level of private actions in which
Mepco is named as a defendant will also cause Mepco to incur additional legal expenses as well as
potential liability. Finally, Mepco has incurred and will likely continue to incur additional legal
and other expenses, in general, in dealing with these industry problems. Net payment plan
receivables held by Mepco totaled $340.7 million (or approximately 11.7% of total assets) and
$406.3 million (or approximately 13.7% of total assets) at March 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009,
respectively. We expect that the amount of total payment plan receivables held by Mepco will
continue to decline during the remainder of 2010, due to the loss of business from the above
described counterparty as well as our desire to reduce payment plan receivables as a percentage of
total assets. This decline in payment plan receivables is expected to adversely impact our net
interest income and net interest margin.
16. On January 29, 2010, we held a special shareholders meeting at which our shareholders
approved an amendment to our Articles of Incorporation to increase the number of shares of common
stock we are authorized to issue from 60 million to 500 million. They also approved the issuance of
our common stock in exchange for certain of our trust preferred securities and in exchange for the
shares of our preferred stock held by the UST.
On April 2, 2010, we entered into an exchange agreement with the UST pursuant to which the UST
agreed to exchange all 72,000 shares of the our Series A Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred
Stock, with a liquidation preference of $1,000 per share (Series A Preferred Stock), beneficially
owned and held by the UST, plus accrued and unpaid dividends on such Series A Preferred Stock, for
shares of our Series B Fixed Rate Cumulative Mandatorily Convertible Preferred Stock, with a
liquidation preference of $1,000 per share (Series B Convertible Preferred Stock). As part of
the terms of the exchange agreement, we also agreed to amend and restate the terms of the warrant,
dated December 12, 2008, issued to the UST to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock.
On April 16, 2010, we closed the transactions described in the exchange agreement and we issued to
the UST (1) 74,426 shares of our Series B Convertible Preferred Stock and (2) an Amended and
Restated Warrant to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $0.7234
per share (the Amended Warrant) for all of the 72,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock and the
original warrant that had been issued to the UST in December 2008 pursuant to the TARP Capital
Purchase Program, plus approximately $2.4 million in accrued dividends on such Series A Preferred
Stock.
With the exception of being convertible into shares of our common stock, the terms of the Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock are substantially similar to the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock
that was exchanged. The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock qualifies as Tier 1 regulatory
capital and pays cumulative dividends quarterly at a rate of 5% per annum through February 14,
2014, and at a rate of 9% per annum thereafter. The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are
non-voting, other than class voting rights on certain matters that could adversely affect the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. If dividends on the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock have
not been paid for an aggregate of six quarterly dividend periods or more, whether consecutive or
not, our authorized number of directors will be automatically increased by two and the holders of
the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, voting together with holders of any then outstanding
voting parity stock, will have the right to elect those directors at our next annual meeting of
shareholders or at a special meeting of shareholders called for that purpose. These directors would
be elected annually and serve until all accrued and unpaid dividends on the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock have been paid.
Under the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, UST (and any subsequent holder of the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock) will have the right to convert the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock into our common stock at any time. In addition, we will have the right to compel a
conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock into common stock, subject to the following
conditions:
F-35
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
|
(i) |
|
we shall have received all appropriate approvals from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; |
|
|
(ii) |
|
we shall have issued our common stock in exchange for at least $40 million aggregate original liquidation
amount of the trust preferred securities issued by the Companys trust subsidiaries, IBC Capital Finance II,
IBC Capital Finance III, IBC Capital Finance IV, and Midwest Guaranty Trust I; |
|
|
(iii) |
|
we shall have closed one or more transactions (on terms reasonably acceptable to the UST, other than the
price per share of common stock) in which investors, other than the UST, have collectively provided a minimum
aggregate amount of $100 million in cash proceeds to us in exchange for our common stock; and |
|
|
(iv) |
|
we shall have made the anti-dilution adjustments to the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock, if any,
required by the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. |
If converted by the holder or by us pursuant to either of the above-described conversion rights,
each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (liquidation preference of $1,000 per
share) will convert into a number of shares of our common stock equal to a fraction, the numerator
of which is $750 and the denominator of which is $0.7234, which was the market price of our common
stock at the time the exchange agreement was signed (as such market price was determined pursuant
to the terms of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock), referred to as the Conversion Rate,
provided that such Conversion Rate is subject to certain anti-dilution adjustments. As an example
only, at the time they were issued, the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock were convertible into
approximately 77.2 million shares of our common stock. This Conversion Rate is subject to certain
anti-dilution adjustments that may result in a greater number of shares being issued to the holder
of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock.
Unless earlier converted by the holder or by us as described above, the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock will convert into shares of our common stock on a mandatory basis on the seventh
anniversary of the issuance of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock. In any such mandatory
conversion, each share of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (liquidation preference of $1,000
per share) will convert into a number of shares of our common stock equal to a fraction, the
numerator of which is $1,000 and the denominator of which is the market price of our common stock
at the time of such mandatory conversion (as such market price is determined pursuant to the terms
of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock).
At the time any Series B Convertible Preferred Stock are converted into our common stock, we will
be required to pay all accrued and unpaid dividends on the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
being converted in cash or, at our option, in shares of our common stock at the same conversion
rate as is applicable to the conversion of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock (as described
above).
The maximum number of shares of our common stock that may be issued upon conversion of all Series B
Convertible Preferred Stock and any accrued dividends on Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is
144.0 million, unless we receive shareholder approval to issue a greater number of shares.
The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock may be redeemed by us, subject to the approval of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, at any time, in an amount up to the cash proceeds
(minimum of approximately $18.6 million) from qualifying equity offerings of common stock (plus any
net increase to our retained earnings after the original issue date). If the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock are redeemed prior to the first dividend payment date falling on or after the
second anniversary of the original issue date, the redemption price will be equal to the $1,000
liquidation amount per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends. If the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock are redeemed on or after such date, the redemption price will be the greater of
(a) the $1,000 liquidation amount per share plus any accrued and unpaid dividends and (b) the
product of the applicable Conversion Rate (as described above) and the average of the market prices
per share of our common stock (as such market price is determined pursuant to the terms of the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock) over a 20 trading day period beginning on the trading day
immediately after the Company gives notice of redemption to the holder (plus any accrued and unpaid
dividends). In any redemption, we must redeem at least 25% of the number of Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock originally issued to the UST, unless fewer of such shares are then outstanding (in
which case all of the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock must be redeemed).
F-36
NOTES TO INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued)
(unaudited)
In April of 2010, we commenced an offer to exchange up to 180.2 million newly issued shares of our
common stock for properly tendered and accepted trust preferred securities issued by IBC Capital
Finance II, IBC Capital Finance III, IBC Capital Finance IV, and Midwest Guaranty Trust I (the
Exchange Offer). The Exchange Offer will expire at 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time, on Tuesday, June 1,
2010, unless extended or earlier terminated by us. In connection with the Exchange Offer, for each
trust preferred security of IBC Capital Finance II, IBC Capital Finance III, IBC Capital Finance
IV, and Midwest Guaranty Trust I accepted in accordance with the terms of the Exchange Offer, we
will issue a number of shares of our common stock having an aggregate dollar value as set forth in
the prospectus for the Exchange Offer and in our registration statement filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2010.
On April 27, 2010, at our annual meeting of shareholders, our shareholders also approved an
amendment to our Articles of Incorporation that will allow us to effect a 1-for-10 reverse stock
split. Although approved by our shareholders, we have not yet undertaken this reverse stock.
F-37
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Board of Directors and Shareholders
Independent Bank Corporation
Ionia, Michigan
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial condition of Independent Bank
Corporation as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, shareholders equity, comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three year period ended December 31, 2009. Independent Bank Corporations management is
responsible for these financial statements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. Our
audits of the financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the
amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement
presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material
respects, the financial position of Independent Bank Corporation as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the three year period
ended December 31, 2009, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States of America.
/s/ Crowe Horwath LLP
Grand Rapids, Michigan
February 26, 2010
F-38
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except share |
|
|
|
amounts) |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
$ |
65,214 |
|
|
$ |
57,463 |
|
Interest bearing deposits |
|
|
223,522 |
|
|
|
242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
288,736 |
|
|
|
57,705 |
|
Trading securities |
|
|
54 |
|
|
|
1,929 |
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
164,151 |
|
|
|
215,412 |
|
Federal Home Loan Bank and Federal Reserve Bank stock, at cost |
|
|
27,854 |
|
|
|
28,063 |
|
Loans held for sale, carried at fair value |
|
|
34,234 |
|
|
|
27,603 |
|
Loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
|
|
840,367 |
|
|
|
976,391 |
|
Mortgage |
|
|
749,298 |
|
|
|
839,496 |
|
Installment |
|
|
303,366 |
|
|
|
356,806 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
406,341 |
|
|
|
286,836 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Loans |
|
|
2,299,372 |
|
|
|
2,459,529 |
|
Allowance for loan losses |
|
|
(81,717 |
) |
|
|
(57,900 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Loans |
|
|
2,217,655 |
|
|
|
2,401,629 |
|
Other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
31,534 |
|
|
|
19,998 |
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
|
72,616 |
|
|
|
73,318 |
|
Bank owned life insurance |
|
|
46,514 |
|
|
|
44,896 |
|
Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
Other intangibles |
|
|
10,260 |
|
|
|
12,190 |
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights |
|
|
15,273 |
|
|
|
11,966 |
|
Prepaid FDIC deposit insurance assessment |
|
|
22,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued income and other assets |
|
|
34,436 |
|
|
|
44,802 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
|
$ |
2,956,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-interest bearing |
|
$ |
334,608 |
|
|
$ |
308,041 |
|
Savings and NOW |
|
|
1,059,840 |
|
|
|
907,187 |
|
Retail time |
|
|
542,170 |
|
|
|
668,968 |
|
Brokered time |
|
|
629,150 |
|
|
|
182,283 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Deposits |
|
|
2,565,768 |
|
|
|
2,066,479 |
|
Federal funds purchased |
|
|
|
|
|
|
750 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
131,182 |
|
|
|
541,986 |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
|
92,888 |
|
|
|
92,888 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty payables |
|
|
21,309 |
|
|
|
26,636 |
|
Accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
|
44,356 |
|
|
|
32,629 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities |
|
|
2,855,503 |
|
|
|
2,761,368 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingent liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, Series A, no par value, $1,000 liquidation preference per
share 200,000 shares authorized; 72,000 shares issued and outstanding
at December 31, 2009 and 2008 |
|
|
69,157 |
|
|
|
68,456 |
|
Common stock, $1.00 par value 60,000,000 shares authorized; issued and outstanding; 24,028,505 shares at December 31, 2009 and 23,013,980 shares at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
23,863 |
|
|
|
22,791 |
|
Capital surplus |
|
|
201,618 |
|
|
|
200,687 |
|
Accumulated deficit |
|
|
(169,098 |
) |
|
|
(73,849 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(15,679 |
) |
|
|
(23,208 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Shareholders Equity |
|
|
109,861 |
|
|
|
194,877 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Shareholders Equity |
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
|
$ |
2,956,245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-39
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
INTEREST INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and fees on loans |
|
$ |
177,948 |
|
|
$ |
186,747 |
|
|
$ |
202,361 |
|
Interest on securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxable |
|
|
6,333 |
|
|
|
8,467 |
|
|
|
9,635 |
|
Tax-exempt |
|
|
3,669 |
|
|
|
7,238 |
|
|
|
9,920 |
|
Other investments |
|
|
1,106 |
|
|
|
1,284 |
|
|
|
1,338 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Interest Income |
|
|
189,056 |
|
|
|
203,736 |
|
|
|
223,254 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTEREST EXPENSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits |
|
|
35,405 |
|
|
|
46,697 |
|
|
|
89,060 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
15,128 |
|
|
|
26,890 |
|
|
|
13,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Interest Expense |
|
|
50,533 |
|
|
|
73,587 |
|
|
|
102,663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income |
|
|
138,523 |
|
|
|
130,149 |
|
|
|
120,591 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
103,032 |
|
|
|
71,321 |
|
|
|
43,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income After Provision for Loan Losses |
|
|
35,491 |
|
|
|
58,828 |
|
|
|
77,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NON-INTEREST INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service charges on deposit accounts |
|
|
24,370 |
|
|
|
24,223 |
|
|
|
24,251 |
|
Net gains (losses) on assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans |
|
|
10,860 |
|
|
|
5,181 |
|
|
|
4,317 |
|
Securities |
|
|
3,826 |
|
|
|
(14,795 |
) |
|
|
295 |
|
Other than temporary loss on securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impairment loss |
|
|
(4,073 |
) |
|
|
(166 |
) |
|
|
(1,000 |
) |
Loss recognized in other comprehensive loss |
|
|
3,991 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net impairment loss recognized in earnings |
|
|
(82 |
) |
|
|
(166 |
) |
|
|
(1,000 |
) |
VISA check card interchange income |
|
|
5,922 |
|
|
|
5,728 |
|
|
|
4,905 |
|
Mortgage loan servicing |
|
|
2,252 |
|
|
|
(2,071 |
) |
|
|
2,236 |
|
Title insurance fees |
|
|
2,272 |
|
|
|
1,388 |
|
|
|
1,551 |
|
Other income |
|
|
9,239 |
|
|
|
10,233 |
|
|
|
10,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Non-interest Income |
|
|
58,659 |
|
|
|
29,721 |
|
|
|
47,145 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NON-INTEREST EXPENSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compensation and employee benefits |
|
|
53,003 |
|
|
|
55,179 |
|
|
|
55,811 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies |
|
|
31,234 |
|
|
|
966 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loan and collection |
|
|
14,727 |
|
|
|
9,431 |
|
|
|
4,949 |
|
Occupancy, net |
|
|
11,092 |
|
|
|
11,852 |
|
|
|
10,624 |
|
Loss on other real estate and repossessed assets |
|
|
8,554 |
|
|
|
4,349 |
|
|
|
276 |
|
Data processing |
|
|
8,386 |
|
|
|
7,148 |
|
|
|
6,957 |
|
Deposit insurance |
|
|
7,328 |
|
|
|
1,988 |
|
|
|
628 |
|
Furniture, fixtures and equipment |
|
|
7,159 |
|
|
|
7,074 |
|
|
|
7,633 |
|
Credit card and bank service fees |
|
|
6,608 |
|
|
|
4,818 |
|
|
|
3,913 |
|
Advertising |
|
|
5,696 |
|
|
|
5,534 |
|
|
|
5,514 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
50,020 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
Other expenses |
|
|
17,066 |
|
|
|
18,791 |
|
|
|
19,076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Non-interest Expense |
|
|
187,587 |
|
|
|
177,150 |
|
|
|
115,724 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations Before Income Tax |
|
|
(93,437 |
) |
|
|
(88,601 |
) |
|
|
8,852 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
(3,210 |
) |
|
|
3,063 |
|
|
|
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) From Continuing Operations |
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
|
|
9,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-40
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
Preferred dividends |
|
|
4,301 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) Applicable to Common Stock |
|
$ |
(94,528 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,879 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) per common share from continuing operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per common share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash dividends declared per common share |
|
$ |
0.03 |
|
|
$ |
0.14 |
|
|
$ |
0.84 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-41
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retained |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Earnings |
|
|
Other |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
Preferred |
|
|
Common |
|
|
Capital |
|
|
(Accumulated |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Shareholders |
|
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Stock |
|
|
Surplus |
|
|
Deficit) |
|
|
Income (Loss) |
|
|
Equity |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balances at December 31, 2006 |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
22,865 |
|
|
$ |
200,241 |
|
|
$ |
31,420 |
|
|
$ |
3,641 |
|
|
$ |
258,167 |
|
Net income for 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,357 |
|
Cash dividends declared, $.84 per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,007 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(19,007 |
) |
Issuance of 46,056 shares of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
46 |
|
|
|
433 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
479 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
307 |
|
Repurchase and retirement of 313,728 shares of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(314 |
) |
|
|
(5,675 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,989 |
) |
Net change in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net
of $2.1 million related tax effect |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,812 |
) |
|
|
(3,812 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
22,601 |
|
|
|
195,302 |
|
|
|
22,770 |
|
|
|
(171 |
) |
|
|
240,502 |
|
Net loss for 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
Cash dividends |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common, declared $.14 per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,222 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,222 |
) |
Preferred, 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(180 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(180 |
) |
Issuance of preferred stock |
|
|
68,421 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,421 |
|
Issuance of common stock warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,579 |
|
Issuance of 171,977 shares of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
172 |
|
|
|
1,236 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,408 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
553 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
588 |
|
Repurchase and retirement of 17,287 shares of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
|
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
Accretion of preferred stock discount |
|
|
35 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(35 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
Reclassification adjustment upon adoption of the fair value option |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,518 |
) |
|
|
1,518 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
Net change in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net
of no related tax effect |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(24,555 |
) |
|
|
(24,555 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
68,456 |
|
|
|
22,791 |
|
|
|
200,687 |
|
|
|
(73,849 |
) |
|
|
(23,208 |
) |
|
|
194,877 |
|
Net loss for 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
Cash dividends |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common, declared $.03 per share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(721 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(721 |
) |
Preferred, 5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,600 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,600 |
) |
Issuance of 1,032,105 shares of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,032 |
|
|
|
162 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,194 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
58 |
|
|
|
751 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
809 |
|
Repurchase and retirement of 17,586 shares of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(18 |
) |
|
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
Accretion of preferred stock discount |
|
|
701 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(701 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
Net change in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net
of $4.1 million related tax effect |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,529 |
|
|
|
7,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balances at December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
69,157 |
|
|
$ |
23,863 |
|
|
$ |
201,618 |
|
|
$ |
(169,098 |
) |
|
$ |
(15,679 |
) |
|
$ |
109,861 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-42
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
Other comprehensive income (loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized gain (loss) on securities available for sale, including reclassification adjustments |
|
|
8,721 |
|
|
|
(19,626 |
) |
|
|
(2,318 |
) |
Change in unrealized losses on securities available for sale for which a portion of other than temporary impairment has been recognized in earnings |
|
|
(2,594 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in unrealized gain (loss) on derivative instruments |
|
|
1,402 |
|
|
|
(4,929 |
) |
|
|
(1,332 |
) |
Reclassification adjustment for accretion on settled derivative instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
(82,698 |
) |
|
$ |
(116,219 |
) |
|
$ |
6,545 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-43
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADJUSTMENTS
TO RECONCILE NET INCOME (LOSS) TO NET CASH
FROM (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the sale of trading securities |
|
|
2,827 |
|
|
|
2,688 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sales of loans held for sale |
|
|
551,977 |
|
|
|
271,715 |
|
|
|
293,143 |
|
Disbursements for loans held for sale |
|
|
(545,548 |
) |
|
|
(260,177 |
) |
|
|
(290,940 |
) |
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
103,032 |
|
|
|
71,321 |
|
|
|
43,168 |
|
Deferred federal income tax expense (benefit) |
|
|
2,146 |
|
|
|
10,936 |
|
|
|
(6,347 |
) |
Deferred loan fees |
|
|
(439 |
) |
|
|
(649 |
) |
|
|
(1,068 |
) |
Depreciation, amortization of intangible assets and premiums and
accretion of discounts on securities and loans |
|
|
(43,337 |
) |
|
|
(22,778 |
) |
|
|
(12,555 |
) |
Net gains on sales of mortgage loans |
|
|
(10,860 |
) |
|
|
(5,181 |
) |
|
|
(4,317 |
) |
Net (gains) losses on securities |
|
|
(3,826 |
) |
|
|
14,795 |
|
|
|
(295 |
) |
Securities impairment recognized in earnings |
|
|
82 |
|
|
|
166 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
50,020 |
|
|
|
343 |
|
Share based compensation |
|
|
809 |
|
|
|
588 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
Increase in accrued income and other assets |
|
|
(46,796 |
) |
|
|
(17,857 |
) |
|
|
(12,304 |
) |
Increase (decrease) in accrued expenses and other liabilities |
|
|
14,258 |
|
|
|
(3,162 |
) |
|
|
(7,290 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Adjustments |
|
|
41,059 |
|
|
|
112,425 |
|
|
|
2,845 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash (Used in) From Operating Activities |
|
|
(49,168 |
) |
|
|
20,761 |
|
|
|
13,202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOW FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from the sale of securities available for sale |
|
|
43,525 |
|
|
|
80,348 |
|
|
|
61,520 |
|
Proceeds from the maturity of securities available for sale |
|
|
8,345 |
|
|
|
29,979 |
|
|
|
38,509 |
|
Principal payments received on securities available for sale |
|
|
27,326 |
|
|
|
21,775 |
|
|
|
30,752 |
|
Purchases of securities available for sale |
|
|
(15,806 |
) |
|
|
(22,826 |
) |
|
|
(65,366 |
) |
Purchase of Federal Home Loan Bank Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,224 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchase of Federal Reserve Bank Stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,514 |
) |
Redemption of Federal Reserve Bank Stock |
|
|
209 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of non-performing and other loans of concern |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,315 |
|
Portfolio loans originated, net of principal payments |
|
|
133,235 |
|
|
|
35,252 |
|
|
|
(62,107 |
) |
Acquisition of business offices, less cash paid |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210,053 |
|
Proceeds from sale of insurance premium finance business |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
175,901 |
|
Proceeds from the sale of other real estate |
|
|
12,336 |
|
|
|
5,987 |
|
|
|
4,445 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
(7,995 |
) |
|
|
(8,128 |
) |
|
|
(10,342 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash From Investing Activities |
|
|
201,175 |
|
|
|
136,163 |
|
|
|
380,166 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOW FROM (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in total deposits |
|
|
499,289 |
|
|
|
(438,826 |
) |
|
|
(508,797 |
) |
Net increase (decrease) in other borrowings and federal funds purchased |
|
|
(191,722 |
) |
|
|
135,039 |
|
|
|
(89,008 |
) |
Proceeds from Federal Home Loan Bank advances |
|
|
242,524 |
|
|
|
824,101 |
|
|
|
331,500 |
|
Payments of Federal Home Loan Bank advances |
|
|
(462,356 |
) |
|
|
(770,395 |
) |
|
|
(131,263 |
) |
Repayment of long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,000 |
) |
|
|
(2,000 |
) |
Net change in vehicle service contract counterparty payables |
|
|
(5,327 |
) |
|
|
10,291 |
|
|
|
8,196 |
|
Dividends paid |
|
|
(3,384 |
) |
|
|
(7,769 |
) |
|
|
(18,874 |
) |
Repurchase of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,989 |
) |
Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,421 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of subordinated debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,991 |
|
Redemption of subordinated debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,300 |
) |
Proceeds from issuance of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
51 |
|
|
|
156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash From (Used in) Financing Activities |
|
|
79,024 |
|
|
|
(178,508 |
) |
|
|
(387,388 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
231,031 |
|
|
|
(21,584 |
) |
|
|
5,980 |
|
Change in cash and cash equivalents of discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
167 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year |
|
|
57,705 |
|
|
|
79,289 |
|
|
|
73,142 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year |
|
$ |
288,736 |
|
|
$ |
57,705 |
|
|
$ |
79,289 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash paid during the year for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest |
|
$ |
50,420 |
|
|
$ |
79,714 |
|
|
$ |
107,797 |
|
Income taxes |
|
|
335 |
|
|
|
877 |
|
|
|
7,409 |
|
Transfer of loans to other real estate |
|
|
35,252 |
|
|
|
20,609 |
|
|
|
11,244 |
|
Transfer of loans to held for sale |
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes to consolidated financial statements
F-44
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
NOTE 1 ACCOUNTING POLICIES
The accounting and reporting policies and practices of Independent Bank
Corporation and subsidiaries conform with accounting principles generally accepted in
the United States of America and prevailing practices within the banking industry. Our
critical accounting policies include the assessment for other than temporary impairment
on investment securities, the determination of the allowance for loan losses, the
determination of vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies, the valuation of
derivative financial instruments, the valuation of originated mortgage servicing
rights, the valuation of deferred tax assets and the valuation of goodwill. We are
required to make material estimates and assumptions that are particularly susceptible
to changes in the near term as we prepare the consolidated financial statements and
report amounts for each of these items. Actual results may vary from these estimates.
Our bank subsidiary transacts business in the single industry of commercial
banking. Our banks activities cover traditional phases of commercial banking,
including checking and savings accounts, commercial lending, direct and indirect
consumer financing and mortgage lending. Our principal markets are the rural and
suburban communities across lower Michigan that are served by our banks branches and
loan production offices. We also purchase payment plans, on a full recourse basis, from
companies (which we refer to as counterparties) that provide vehicle service
contracts and similar products to consumers, through our wholly owned subsidiary, Mepco
Finance Corporation (Mepco). Subject to established underwriting criteria, our bank
subsidiary also used to participate in commercial lending transactions with certain
non-affiliated banks and used to purchase real estate mortgage loans from third-party
originators. At December 31, 2009, 67% of our banks loan portfolio was secured by real
estate.
On January 15, 2007 we sold substantially all of the assets of Mepcos insurance
premium finance business to Premium Financing Specialists, Inc. See note #26.
PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION The consolidated financial statements include the
accounts of Independent Bank Corporation and its subsidiaries. The income, expenses,
assets and liabilities of the subsidiaries are included in the respective accounts of
the consolidated financial statements, after elimination of all material intercompany
accounts and transactions.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS For purposes of reporting cash flows, cash and cash
equivalents include cash on hand, amounts due from banks, interest bearing deposits and
federal funds sold. Generally, federal funds are sold for one-day periods. We report
net cash flows for customer loan and deposit transactions, for short-term borrowings
and for vehicle service contract counterparty payables.
INTEREST BEARING DEPOSITS Interest bearing deposits consist of overnight
deposits with the Federal Reserve Bank.
LOANS HELD FOR SALE Loans held for sale are carried at fair value at
December 31, 2009 and 2008. Fair value adjustments as well as realized gains and
losses, are recorded in current earnings. We recognize as separate assets the rights to
service mortgage loans for others. The fair value of originated mortgage loan servicing
rights has been determined based upon fair value indications for similar servicing. The
mortgage loan servicing rights are amortized in proportion to and over the period of
estimated net loan servicing income. We assess mortgage loan servicing rights for
impairment based on the fair value of those rights. For purposes of measuring
impairment, the primary characteristics used include interest rate, term and type.
Amortization of and changes in the impairment reserve on servicing rights are included
in mortgage loan servicing in the consolidated statements of operations.
TRANSFERS OF FINANCIAL ASSETS Transfers of financial assets are accounted for as
sales, when control over the assets has been relinquished. Control over transferred
assets is deemed to be surrendered when the assets have been isolated from us, the
transferee obtains the right (free of conditions that constrain it from taking
advantage of that right) to pledge or exchange the transferred assets, and we do not
maintain effective control over the transferred assets through an agreement to
repurchase them before their maturity.
SECURITIES We classify our securities as trading, held to maturity or available
for sale. Trading securities are bought and held principally for the purpose of selling
them in the near term and are reported at fair value with realized and unrealized gains
and losses included in earnings. Securities held to maturity represent those securities
for which we
F-45
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
have the positive intent and ability to hold until maturity and are reported at cost,
adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts computed on the
level-yield method. We did not have any securities held to maturity at December 31,
2009 and 2008. Securities available for sale represent those securities not classified
as trading or held to maturity and are reported at fair value with unrealized gains and
losses, net of applicable income taxes reported in comprehensive income. We evaluate
securities for other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) at least on a quarterly basis
and more frequently when economic or market conditions warrant such an evaluation.
Gains and losses realized on the sale of securities available for sale are determined
using the specific identification method and are recognized on a trade-date basis.
Premiums and discounts are recognized in interest income computed on the level-yield
method.
LOAN REVENUE RECOGNITION Interest on loans is accrued based on the principal
amounts outstanding. The accrual of interest income is discontinued when a loan becomes
90 days past due and the borrowers capacity to repay the loan and collateral values
appear insufficient. All interest accrued but not received for loans placed on
non-accrual is reversed from interest income. Payments on such loans are generally
applied to the principal balance until qualifying to be returned to accrual status. A
non-accrual loan may be restored to accrual status when interest and principal payments
are current and the loan appears otherwise collectible. Delinquency status is based on
contractual terms of the loan agreement.
Certain loan fees and direct loan origination costs are deferred and recognized as
an adjustment of yield generally over the contractual life of the related loan. Fees
received in connection with loan commitments are deferred until the loan is advanced
and are then recognized generally over the contractual life of the loan as an
adjustment of yield. Fees on commitments that expire unused are recognized at
expiration. Fees received for letters of credit are recognized as revenue over the life
of the commitment.
PAYMENT PLAN RECEIVABLE REVENUE RECOGNITION Payment plans (which are classified
as payment plan receivables in our consolidated statements of financial condition) are
acquired by our Mepco segment at a discount and reported net of this discount in the
consolidated statements of financial condition. This discount is accreted into interest
and fees on loans over the life of the receivable computed on a level-yield method.
ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES Some loans will not be repaid in full. Therefore, an
allowance for loan losses is maintained at a level which represents our best estimate
of losses incurred. In determining the allowance and the related provision for loan
losses, we consider four principal elements: (i) specific allocations based upon
probable losses identified during the review of the loan portfolio, (ii) allocations
established for other adversely rated loans, (iii) allocations based principally on
historical loan loss experience, and (iv) additional allowances based on subjective
factors, including local and general economic business factors and trends, portfolio
concentrations and changes in the size and/or the general terms of the loan portfolios.
Increases in the allowance are recorded by a provision for loan losses charged to
expense. Although we periodically allocate portions of the allowance to specific loans
and loan portfolios, the entire allowance is available for incurred losses. We
generally charge-off homogenous residential mortgage, installment and payment plan
receivable loans when they are deemed uncollectible or reach a predetermined number of
days past due based on loan product, industry practice and other factors. Collection
efforts may continue and recoveries may occur after a loan is charged against the
allowance.
While we use relevant information to recognize losses on loans, additional
provisions for related losses may be necessary based on changes in economic conditions,
customer circumstances and other credit risk factors.
A loan is impaired when full payment under the loan terms is not expected.
Generally, those commercial loans that are rated substandard, classified as
non-performing or were classified as non-performing in the preceding quarter are
evaluated for impairment. Generally, those mortgage loans whose terms have been
modified and considered a troubled debt restructuring are also evaluated for
impairment. We measure our investment in an impaired loan based on one of three
methods: the loans observable market price, the fair value of the collateral or the
present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loans effective interest
rate. Large groups of smaller balance homogeneous loans, such as installment and
mortgage loans and payment plan receivables are collectively evaluated for impairment,
and accordingly, they are not separately identified for impairment disclosures.
Troubled debt restructurings are measured at the present value of estimated future cash
flows using the loans effective interest rate at inception of the loan.
F-46
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The allowance for loan losses on unfunded commitments is determined in a similar
manner to the allowance for loan losses and is recorded in accrued expenses and other
liabilities.
PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT Property and equipment is stated at cost less accumulated
depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization is computed using both
straight-line and accelerated methods over the estimated useful lives of the related
assets. Buildings are generally depreciated over a period not exceeding 39 years and
equipment is generally depreciated over periods not exceeding 7 years. Leasehold
improvements are depreciated over the shorter of their estimated useful life or lease
period.
BANK OWNED LIFE INSURANCE We have purchased a group flexible premium
non-participating variable life insurance contract on approximately 270 salaried
employees in order to recover the cost of providing certain employee benefits. Bank
owned life insurance is recorded at its cash surrender value or the amount that can be
currently realized.
OTHER REAL ESTATE AND REPOSSESSED ASSETS Other real estate at the time of
acquisition is recorded at fair value, less estimated costs to sell, which becomes the
propertys new basis. Fair value is typically determined by a third party appraisal of
the property. Any write-downs at date of acquisition are charged to the allowance for
loan losses. Expense incurred in maintaining assets and subsequent write-downs to
reflect declines in value and gains or losses on the sale of other real estate are
recorded in the consolidated statements of operations. Non-real estate repossessed
assets are treated in a similar manner.
GOODWILL AND OTHER INTANGIBLE ASSETS Goodwill results from business acquisitions
and represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of acquired
tangible assets and liabilities and identifiable intangible assets. Goodwill is
assessed at least annually for impairment and any such impairment will be recognized in
the period identified.
Other intangible assets consist of core deposit, customer relationship intangible
assets and covenants not to compete. They are initially measured at fair value and then
are amortized on both straight-line and accelerated methods over their estimated useful
lives, which range from 5 to 15 years.
INCOME TAXES We employ the asset and liability method of accounting for income
taxes. This method establishes deferred tax assets and liabilities for the temporary
differences between the financial reporting basis and the tax basis of our assets and
liabilities at tax rates expected to be in effect when such amounts are realized or
settled. Under this method, the effect of a change in tax rates is recognized in the
period that includes the enactment date. The deferred tax asset is subject to a
valuation allowance for that portion of the asset for which it is more likely than not
that it will not be realized.
We adopted guidance issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB) with respect to accounting for uncertainty in income taxes as of January 1,
2007. A tax position is recognized as a benefit only if it is more likely than not
that the tax position would be sustained in a tax examination, with a tax examination
being presumed to occur. The amount recognized is the largest amount of tax benefit
that is greater than 50% likely of being realized on examination. The adoption of this
guidance did not have an impact on our financial statements.
We recognize interest and/or penalties related to income tax matters in income tax
expense.
We file a consolidated federal income tax return. Intercompany tax liabilities are
settled as if each subsidiary filed a separate return.
SECURITIES SOLD UNDER AGREEMENTS TO REPURCHASE Securities sold under agreements
to repurchase are treated as debt and are reflected as a liability in the consolidated
statements of financial condition. The securities pledged to secure the repurchase
agreements remains in the securities portfolio.
VEHICLE SERVICE CONTRACT COUNTERPARTY PAYABLES Vehicle service contract
counterparty payables represent amounts owed to insurance companies or other
counterparties for vehicle service contract payment plans provided by us for our
customers. The vehicle service contract counterparty payables become due in accordance
with the terms of the specific contract between Mepco and the counterparty. Typically
these terms require payment after Mepco has received one or two payments from the
consumer on the payment plan.
F-47
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS We record derivatives on the balance sheet as
assets and liabilities measured at their fair value. The accounting for increases and
decreases in the value of derivatives depends upon the use of derivatives and whether
the derivatives qualify for hedge accounting.
We record the fair value of cash-flow hedging instruments (Cash Flow Hedges) in
accrued income and other assets and accrued expenses and other liabilities. On an
ongoing basis, we adjust the balance sheet to reflect the then current fair value of
the Cash Flow Hedges. The related gains or losses are reported in other comprehensive
income and are subsequently reclassified into earnings, as a yield adjustment in the
same period in which the related interest on the hedged items (primarily variable-rate
debt obligations) affect earnings. To the extent that the Cash Flow Hedges are not
effective, the ineffective portion of the Cash Flow Hedges are immediately recognized
as interest expense.
We also record fair-value hedging instruments (Fair Value Hedges) at fair value
in accrued income and other assets and accrued expenses and other liabilities. The
hedged items (primarily fixed-rate debt obligations) are also recorded at fair value
through the statement of operations, which offsets the adjustment to the Fair Value
Hedges. On an ongoing basis, we adjust the balance sheet to reflect the then current
fair value of both the Fair Value Hedges. and the respective hedged items. To the
extent that the change in value of the Fair Value Hedges do not offset the change in
the value of the hedged items, the ineffective portion is immediately recognized as
interest expense.
Certain derivative financial instruments are not designated as hedges. The fair
value of these derivative financial instruments have been recorded on our balance sheet
and are adjusted on an ongoing basis to reflect their then current fair value. The
changes in the fair value of derivative financial instruments not designated as hedges,
are recognized currently in earnings.
When hedge accounting is discontinued because it is determined that a derivative
financial instrument no longer qualifies as a fair-value hedge, we continue to carry
the derivative financial instrument on the balance sheet at its fair value, and no
longer adjust the hedged item for changes in fair value. The adjustment of the carrying
amount of the previously hedged item is accounted for in the same manner as other
components of similar instruments. When hedge accounting is discontinued because it is
probable that a forecasted transaction will not occur, we continue to carry the
derivative financial instrument on the balance sheet at its fair value, and gains and
losses that were included in accumulated other comprehensive income are recognized
immediately in earnings. In all other situations in which hedge accounting is
discontinued, we continue to carry the derivative financial instrument at its fair
value on the balance sheet and recognize any subsequent changes in its fair value in
earnings.
When a derivative financial instrument that qualified for hedge accounting is
settled and the hedged item remains, the gain or loss on the derivative financial
instrument is accreted or amortized over the life that remained on the settled
derivative financial instrument.
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME Comprehensive Income consists of unrealized gains and
losses on securities available for sale and derivative instruments classified as cash
flow hedges. The net change in unrealized loss on securities available for sale
reflects net gains reclassified into earnings of $2.8 million and $0.7 million in 2009
and 2007, respectively and reflects net losses reclassified into earnings of
$4.6 million in 2008. The reclassification of these amounts from comprehensive income
resulted in an income tax expense of $1.0 million and $0.2 million in 2009 and 2007,
respectively, and resulted in an income tax benefit of $1.6 million in 2008.
EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE Basic earnings per common share is computed by
dividing net income applicable to common stock by the weighted average number of common
shares outstanding during the period and participating share awards. All outstanding
unvested share-based payment awards that contain rights to nonforfeitable dividends are
considered participating securities for this calculation. For diluted earnings per
common share net income applicable to common stock is divided by the weighted average
number of common shares outstanding during the period plus amounts representing the
dilutive effect of stock options outstanding and stock units for deferred compensation
plan for non-employee directors. For any period in which a loss is recorded, the
assumed exercise of stock options, unvested restricted stock and stock units for
deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors would have an anti-dilutive
impact on the loss per share and thus are ignored in the diluted per share calculation.
F-48
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
STOCK BASED COMPENSATION Compensation cost is recognized for stock options and
non-vested share awards issued to employees, based on the fair value of these awards at
the date of grant. A Black-Scholes model is utilized to estimate the fair value of
stock options, while the market price of our common stock at the date of grant is used
for non-vested share awards. Compensation cost is recognized over the required service
period, generally defined as the vesting period.
COMMON STOCK At December 31, 2009, 0.5 million shares of common stock were
reserved for issuance under the dividend reinvestment plan and 1.6 million shares of
common stock were reserved for issuance under our long-term incentive plans.
RECLASSIFICATION Certain amounts in the 2008 and 2007 consolidated financial
statements have been reclassified to conform with the 2009 presentation.
ADOPTION OF NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARDS In July 2009, the FASB issued Accounting
Standards Codification (ASC) topic 105 Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(formerly Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 168, The FASB
Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles, a replacement of FASB Statement No. 162). ASC 105 establishes the FASB
Accounting Standards Codification as the source of authoritative accounting principles
recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities in the preparation of
financial statements in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP). Rules and interpretive releases of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative
GAAP for SEC registrants. This statement is effective for financial statements issued
for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. The adoption of this
standard did not have an effect on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued FASB ASC topic 860 Transfers and Servicing
(formerly SFAS No. 166 Accounting for Transfers of Financial Assets an amendment of
FASB Statement No. 140). This standard removes the concept of a qualifying
special-purpose entity and limits the circumstances in which a financial asset, or
portion of a financial asset, should be derecognized when the transferor has not
transferred the entire financial asset to an entity that is not consolidated with the
transferor in the financial statements being presented and/or when the transferor has
continuing involvement with the transferred financial asset. The effective date of this
standard is January 1, 2010. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a
material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In June 2009, the FASB issued FASB ASC 810-10, Consolidation (formerly
SFAS No. 167 Amendments to FASB Interpretation No. 46(R)). The standard amends tests
for variable interest entities to determine whether a variable interest entity must be
consolidated. FASB ASC 810-10 requires an entity to perform an analysis to determine
whether an entitys variable interest or interests give it a controlling financial
interest in a variable interest entity. This standard requires ongoing reassessments of
whether an entity is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity and enhanced
disclosures that provide more transparent information about an entitys involvement
with a variable interest entity. The effective date of this standard is January 1,
2010. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on our
consolidated financial statements.
In August 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update ASU 2009-5
Measuring Liabilities at Fair Value. This ASU provides amendments to ASC 820-10 Fair
Value Measurements and Disclosures to address concerns regarding the determination of
the fair value of liabilities. Because liabilities are often not traded, due to
restrictions placed on their transferability, there is typically a very limited amount
of trades (if any) from which to draw market participant data. As such, many entities
have had to determine the fair value of a liability through the use of a hypothetical
transaction. This ASU clarifies the valuation techniques that must be used when the
liability subject to the fair value determination is not traded as an asset in an
active market. The effective date is the first reporting period beginning after
issuance. The adoption of this ASU did not have a material effect on our consolidated
financial statements.
F-49
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
In April 2009, the FASB issued ASC 320-10-65-1 (formerly FASB Staff Position
(FSP) No. 115-2 and No. 124-2, Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments). This standard amends existing guidance for determining whether
impairment is other-than-temporary for debt securities and requires an entity to assess
whether it intends to sell, or it is more likely than not that it will be required to
sell a security in an unrealized loss position before recovery of its amortized cost
basis. If either of these criteria is met, the entire difference between amortized cost
and fair value is recognized in earnings. For securities that do not meet the
aforementioned criteria, the amount of impairment recognized in earnings is limited to
the amount related to credit losses, while impairment related to other factors is
recognized in other comprehensive income. Additionally, this standard expands and
increases the frequency of existing disclosures about other-than-temporary impairments
for debt and equity securities. This standard is effective for interim and annual
reporting periods ending after June 15, 2009, with early adoption permitted for periods
ending after March 15, 2009. The adoption of this standard resulted in $4.0 million of
OTTI relating to other factors being recognized in other comprehensive income during
2009.
In April 2009, the FASB issued ASC 820-10-65-4 (formerly FSP No. 157-4,
Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of Activity for the Asset and
Liability Have Significantly Decreased and Identifying Transactions That Are Not
Orderly). This standard emphasizes that even if there has been a significant decrease
in the volume and level of activity, 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. This standard provides a number of
factors to consider when evaluating whether there has been a significant decrease in
the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability in relation to normal market
activity. In addition, when transactions or quoted prices are not considered orderly,
adjustments to those prices based on the weight of available information may be needed
to determine the appropriate fair value. This standard is 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
adoption of this standard did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements.
In May 2009, the FASB issued ASC topic 855 Subsequent Events (formerly
SFAS No. 165, Subsequent Events). This standard establishes general standards of
accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but
before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. This standard is
effective for financial statements issued for interim or annual periods ending after
June 15, 2009. We adopted this statement during the second quarter of 2009. We have
evaluated subsequent events through February 26, 2010 which represents the date our
financial statements included in our December 31, 2009 Form 10-K were filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (financial statement issue date). We have not
evaluated subsequent events relating to these financial statements after that date.
In February 2008, the FASB issued ASC 820-10-65-1 (formerly FSP 157-2, Effective
Date of FASB Statement No. 157). This standard delays the effective date of SFAS #157,
Fair Value measure for all non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except
those that are recognized or disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis (at least
annually) to fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2008, and interim periods within
those fiscal years. The adoption of this standard on January 1, 2009 did not have a
material impact on our consolidated financial statements.
In March 2008, the FASB issued ASC 815-10-65-1 (formerly SFAS No. 161,
Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, an amendment of
SFAS No. 133). This standard amends and expands the disclosure requirements of FASB
ASC topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging (previously SFAS No. 133, Accounting for
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities) and requires qualitative disclosure
about objectives and strategies for using derivative and hedging instruments,
quantitative disclosures about fair value amounts of the instruments and gains and
losses on such instruments, as well as disclosures about credit-risk features in
derivative agreements. This standard is effective for financial statements issued for
fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008, with early
application encouraged. We adopted this standard on January 1, 2009.
F-50
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
In June 2008, the FASB amended certain provisions of ASC 260-10-45 (formerly FASB
Staff Position EITF 03-6-1, Determining Whether Instruments Granted in Share-Based
Payment Transactions are Participating Securities). These provisions address whether
instruments granted in share-based payment transactions are participating securities
prior to vesting and, therefore need to be included in the earnings allocation in
computing earnings per share under the two class method. These provisions are effective
for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008, and interim periods within those
years. All prior-period earnings per share data presented shall be adjusted
retrospectively. The adoption of these provisions on January 1, 2009 had the effect of
treating our unvested share payment awards as participating in the earnings allocation
when computing our basic earnings per share. Prior period earnings per share data has
been adjusted to treat unvested share awards as participating.
In December 2007, the FASB issued ASC topic 805 Business Combinations (formerly
SFAS No. 141(R), Business Combination). This standard establishes principles and
requirements for how an acquirer recognizes and measures in its financial statements
the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any non-controlling
interest in an acquiree, including the recognition and measurement of goodwill acquired
in a business combination. This standard is effective for fiscal years beginning on or
after December 15, 2008. Earlier adoption is prohibited. The adoption of this standard
on January 1, 2009 did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements.
NOTE 2 RESTRICTIONS ON CASH AND DUE FROM BANKS
Our bank is required to maintain reserve balances in the form of vault cash and
non-interest earning balances with the Federal Reserve Bank. The average reserve
balances to be maintained during 2009 and 2008 were $25.5 million and $16.9 million
respectively. We do not maintain compensating balances with correspondent banks. We are
also required to maintain reserve balances related to our visa debit card operations
and merchant payment processing operations. These balances are held at unrelated
financial institutions and totaled $7.6 million and $0.5 million at December 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively.
NOTE 3 SECURITIES
Securities available for sale consist of the following at December 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Gains |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
46,108 |
|
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
$ |
47,522 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
38,531 |
|
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
7,653 |
|
|
|
30,975 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,699 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
66,439 |
|
|
|
1,096 |
|
|
|
403 |
|
|
|
67,132 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
14,272 |
|
|
|
456 |
|
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
13,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
171,049 |
|
|
$ |
3,149 |
|
|
$ |
10,047 |
|
|
$ |
164,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
47,376 |
|
|
$ |
715 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
$ |
48,029 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
48,921 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,034 |
|
|
|
36,887 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
8,276 |
|
|
|
338 |
|
|
|
1,193 |
|
|
|
7,421 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
105,499 |
|
|
|
1,638 |
|
|
|
1,584 |
|
|
|
105,553 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
17,874 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,168 |
|
|
|
12,706 |
|
Preferred stock |
|
|
3,800 |
|
|
|
1,016 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,816 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
231,746 |
|
|
$ |
3,707 |
|
|
$ |
20,041 |
|
|
$ |
215,412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-51
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Our investments gross unrealized losses and fair values aggregated by investment
type and length of time that individual securities have been at a continuous unrealized
loss position, at December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less Than Twelve Months |
|
|
Twelve Months or More |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized |
|
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
7,310 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
7,310 |
|
|
$ |
86 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
4,343 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
$ |
18,126 |
|
|
$ |
7,541 |
|
|
|
22,469 |
|
|
|
7,653 |
|
Other asset backed |
|
|
783 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
4,722 |
|
|
|
191 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
4,236 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
3,960 |
|
|
|
279 |
|
|
|
8,196 |
|
|
|
403 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,715 |
|
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
7,715 |
|
|
|
1,711 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
16,672 |
|
|
$ |
325 |
|
|
$ |
34,523 |
|
|
$ |
9,722 |
|
|
$ |
51,195 |
|
|
$ |
10,047 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
$ |
4,827 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,827 |
|
|
$ |
62 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
23,297 |
|
|
|
5,224 |
|
|
$ |
13,590 |
|
|
$ |
6,810 |
|
|
|
36,887 |
|
|
|
12,034 |
|
Other asset backed |
|
|
5,838 |
|
|
|
1,193 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,838 |
|
|
|
1,193 |
|
Obligations of states and political subdivisions |
|
|
31,273 |
|
|
|
1,507 |
|
|
|
1,258 |
|
|
|
77 |
|
|
|
32,531 |
|
|
|
1,584 |
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
9,490 |
|
|
|
2,409 |
|
|
|
3,132 |
|
|
|
2,759 |
|
|
|
12,622 |
|
|
|
5,168 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
74,725 |
|
|
$ |
10,395 |
|
|
$ |
17,980 |
|
|
$ |
9,646 |
|
|
$ |
92,705 |
|
|
$ |
20,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We evaluate securities for other-than-temporary impairment at least quarterly and
more frequently when economic or market concerns warrant such evaluation. In performing
this review management considers (1) the length of time and extent that fair value has
been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near term prospects of the issuer,
(3) the impact of changes in market interest rates on the fair value of the security
and (4) an assessment of whether we intend to sell, or it is more likely than not that
we will be required to sell a security in an unrealized loss position before recovery
of its amortized cost basis. If either of these criteria is met, the entire difference
between amortized cost and fair value is recognized in earnings.
For securities that do not meet the aforementioned criteria, the amount of
impairment recognized in earnings is limited to the amount related to credit losses,
while impairment related to other factors is recognized in other comprehensive income.
U.S. Agency residential mortgage-backed securities at December 31, 2009 we had 5
securities whose fair market value is less than amortized cost. The unrealized losses
are largely attributed to rising interest rates. As management does not intend to
liquidate these securities and it is more likely than not that we will not be required
to sell these securities prior to recovery of these unrealized losses, no declines are
deemed to be other than temporary.
Private label residential mortgage and other asset-backed securities at
December 31, 2009 we had 23 securities whose fair value is less than amortized cost. 22
of the issues are rated by a major rating agency as investment grade while 1 is below
investment grade. Pricing conditions in the private label residential mortgage and
asset-backed security markets are characterized by sporadic secondary market flow,
significant implied liquidity risk premiums, a wide bid / ask spread and an absence of
new issuances of similar securities.
F-52
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The unrealized losses are largely attributable to credit spread widening on these
securities. The underlying loans within these securities include Jumbo (60%), Alt A
(25%) and manufactured housing (15%).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jumbo |
|
$ |
21,718 |
|
|
$ |
(5,749 |
) |
|
$ |
26,139 |
|
|
$ |
(9,349 |
) |
Alt-A |
|
|
9,257 |
|
|
|
(1,807 |
) |
|
|
10,748 |
|
|
|
(2,685 |
) |
Other asset-backed Manufactured housing |
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
(194 |
) |
|
|
7,421 |
|
|
|
(855 |
) |
All of the private label mortgage-backed transactions have geographic
concentrations in California, ranging from 29% to 59% of the collateral pool. Typical
exposure levels to California (median exposure is 43%) are consistent with overall
market collateral characteristics. Six transactions have modest exposure to Florida,
ranging from 5% to 11%, and one transaction has modest exposure to Arizona (5%). The
underlying collateral pools do not have meaningful exposure to Nevada, Michigan or
Ohio. None of the issues involve subprime mortgage collateral. Thus the impact of this
market segment is only indirect, in that it has impacted liquidity and pricing in
general for private label mortgage-backed securities. The majority of transactions are
backed by fully amortizing loans. However, eight transactions have concentrations in
interest only loans ranging from 31% to 94%. The structure of the mortgage and
asset-backed securities portfolio provides protection to credit losses. The portfolio
primarily consists of senior securities as demonstrated by the following: super senior
(7%), senior (73%), senior support (12%) and mezzanine (8%). The mezzanine classes are
from seasoned transactions (65 to 95 months) with significant levels of subordination
(8% to 23%). Except for the additional discussion below relating to other than
temporary impairment, each private label mortgage and asset-backed security has
sufficient credit enhancement via subordination to reasonably assure full realization
of book value. This assertion is based on a transaction level review of the portfolio.
Individual security reviews include: external credit ratings, forecasted weighted
average life, recent prepayment speeds, underwriting characteristics of the underlying
collateral, the structure of the securitization and the credit performance of the
underlying collateral. The review of underwriting characteristics considers: average
loan size, type of loan (fixed or ARM), vintage, rate, FICO, loan-to-value, scheduled
amortization, occupancy, purpose, geographic mix and loan documentation. The review of
the securitization structure focuses on the priority of cash flows to the bond, the
priority of the bond relative to the realization of credit losses and the level of
subordination available to absorb credit losses. The review of credit performance
includes: current period as well as cumulative realized losses; the level of severe
payment problems, which includes other real estate (ORE), foreclosures, bankruptcy and
90 day delinquencies; and the level of less severe payment problems, which consists of
30 and 60 day delinquencies.
All of these securities are receiving principal and interest payments. Most of
these transactions are pass-through structures, receiving pro rata principal and
interest payments from a dedicated collateral pool. The non-receipt of interest cash
flows is not expected and thus not presently considered in our discounted cash flow
methodology discussed below.
In addition to the review discussed above, certain securities, including the one
security with a rating below investment grade, were reviewed for OTTI utilizing a cash
flow projection. The scope of review included securities that account for 97% of the
$7.8 million in unrealized losses. In our analysis, recovery was evaluated by
discounting the expected cash flows back at the book yield. If the present value of the
future cash flows is less than amortized cost, then there would be a credit loss. Our
cash flow analysis forecasted cash flow from the underlying loans in each transaction
and then applied these cash flows to the bonds in the securitization. The cash flows
from the underlying loans considered contractual payment terms (scheduled
amortization), prepayments, defaults and severity of loss given default. The analysis
used dynamic assumptions for prepayments, defaults and severity. Near term prepayment
assumptions were based on recently observed prepayment rates. In many cases, recently
observed prepayment
F-53
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
rates are depressed due to a sharp decline in new jumbo loan issuance. This loan market
is heavily dependent upon securitization for funding, and new securitization
transactions have been minimal. Our model projects that prepayment rates gradually
revert to historical levels. For seasoned ARM transactions normalized prepayment rates
are estimated at 15% to 25% CPR. For fixed rate collateral, the analysis considers the
spread differential between the collateral and the current market rate for conforming
mortgages. Near term default assumptions were based on recent default observations as
well as the volume of existing real-estate owned, pending foreclosures and severe
delinquencies. Default levels generally are projected to remain elevated or increase
for a period of time sufficient to address the level of distressed loans in the
transaction. Our model expects defaults to then decline gradually as the housing market
and the economy stabilize, generally after 2 to 3 years. Current severity assumptions
are based on recent observations. Loss severity is expected to decline gradually as the
housing market and the economy stabilize, generally after 2 to 3 years. Except for one
below investment grade security discussed in further detail below, our cash flow
analysis forecasts complete recovery of our cost basis for each reviewed security.
The private label mortgage-backed security with a below investment grade credit
rating was evaluated for OTTI using the cash flow analysis discussed above. At
December 31, 2009 this security had a fair value of $3.9 million and an unrealized loss
of $4.1 million (amortized cost of $8.0 million). The underlying loans in this
transaction are 30 year fixed rate jumbos with an average origination date FICO of 748
and an average origination date loan-to-value ratio of 73%. The loans backing this
transaction were originated in 2007 and is our only security backed by 2007 vintage
loans. We believe that this vintage is a key differentiating factor between this
security and the others in our portfolio that are rated above investment grade. The
bond is a senior security that is receiving principal and interest payments similar to
principal reductions in the underlying collateral. The cash flow analysis described
above calculated an OTTI of $4.1 million at December 31, 2009, $0.065 million of this
amount was attributed to credit and was recognized in our consolidated statements of
operations while the balance was attributed to other factors and reflected in our
consolidated statements of other comprehensive income (loss).
As management does not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely
than not that we will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of
these unrealized losses, no other declines discussed above are deemed to be other than
temporary.
Obligations of states and political subdivisions at December 31, 2009 we had 32
municipal securities whose fair value is less than amortized cost. The unrealized
losses are largely attributed to a widening of market spreads and continued illiquidity
for certain issues. The majority of the securities are not rated by a major rating
agency. Approximately 75% of the non rated securities originally had a AAA credit
rating by virtue of bond insurance. However, the insurance provider no longer has an
investment grade rating. The remaining non rated issues are small local issues that did
not receive a credit rating due to the size of the transaction. The non rated
securities have a periodic internal credit review according to established procedures.
As management does not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely than
not that we will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of these
unrealized losses, no declines are deemed to be other than temporary.
Trust preferred securities at December 31, 2009 we had six securities whose
fair value is less than amortized cost. All of our trust preferred securities are
single issue securities issued by a trust subsidiary of a bank holding company. The
pricing of trust preferred securities over the past two years has suffered from
significant credit spread widening fueled by uncertainty regarding potential losses of
financial companies, the absence of a liquid functioning secondary market and potential
supply concerns from financial companies issuing new debt to recapitalize themselves.
Since the end of the first quarter, although still showing signs of weakness, pricing
has improved somewhat as some uncertainty has been taken out of the market. Two of the
six securities are rated by a major rating agency as investment grade, while two are
split rated (these securities are rated as investment grade by one major rating agency
and below investment grade by another) and the other two are non-rated. The two
non-rated issues are relatively small banks and neither of these issues were ever
rated. The issuers on these trust preferred securities, which had a combined book value
of $2.8 million and a combined fair value of $1.8 million as of December 31, 2009,
continue to make interest payments and have satisfactory credit metrics.
F-54
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Our OTTI analysis for trust preferred securities is based on a security level
financial analysis of the issuer. This review considers: external credit ratings,
maturity date of the instrument, the scope of the banks operations, relevant financial
metrics and recent issuer specific news. The analysis of relevant financial metrics
includes: capital adequacy, assets quality, earnings and liquidity. We use the same
OTTI review methodology for both rated and non-rated issues. During the first quarter
of 2009 we recorded OTTI on an unrated trust preferred security whose fair value at
December 31, 2009 now exceeds its amortized cost. Specifically, this issuer has
deferred interest payments on all of its trust preferred securities and is operating
under a written agreement with the regulatory agencies that specifically prohibits
dividend payments. The issuer is a relatively small bank with operations centered in
southeast Michigan. The issuer reported losses in 2008 and 2009 and has a high volume
of nonperforming assets relative to tangible capital. This investments amortized cost
has been written down to a price of 26.75, or $0.07 million, compared to a par value of
100.00, or $0.25 million.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
|
|
|
Net |
|
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
Fair |
|
Unrealized |
|
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
Value |
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Trust preferred securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rated issues |
|
$ |
11,188 |
|
|
$ |
(212 |
) |
|
$ |
11,114 |
|
|
$ |
(3,874 |
) |
Unrated issues no OTTI |
|
|
1,761 |
|
|
|
(1,044 |
) |
|
|
1,508 |
|
|
|
(1,294 |
) |
Unrated issues with OTTI |
|
|
68 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
|
84 |
|
|
|
|
|
As management does not intend to liquidate these securities and it is more likely
than not that we will not be required to sell these securities prior to recovery of
these unrealized losses, no declines are deemed to be other than temporary.
During 2009, 2008 and 2007 we recorded OTTI charges on securities available for
sale of $0.1 million, $0.2 million and $1.0 million respectively.
The amortized cost and fair value of securities available for sale at December 31,
2009, by contractual maturity, follow. The actual maturity may differ from the
contractual maturity because issuers may have the right to call or prepay obligations
with or without call or prepayment penalties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Cost |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Maturing within one year |
|
$ |
2,700 |
|
|
$ |
2,742 |
|
Maturing after one year but within five years |
|
|
12,957 |
|
|
|
13,320 |
|
Maturing after five years but within ten years |
|
|
25,260 |
|
|
|
25,478 |
|
Maturing after ten years |
|
|
39,794 |
|
|
|
38,609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
80,711 |
|
|
|
80,149 |
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
46,108 |
|
|
|
47,522 |
|
Private label residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
38,531 |
|
|
|
30,975 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,699 |
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
171,049 |
|
|
$ |
164,151 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-55
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
A summary of proceeds from the sale of securities available for sale and gains and
losses follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized |
|
|
|
|
Proceeds |
|
Gains |
|
Losses(1) |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
2009 |
|
$ |
43,525 |
|
|
$ |
3,003 |
|
|
$ |
130 |
|
2008 |
|
|
80,348 |
|
|
|
1,903 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
2007 |
|
|
61,520 |
|
|
|
327 |
|
|
|
32 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Losses in 2009 exclude $0.1 million of other than temporary
impairment; losses in 2008 exclude a $6.2 million write-down related
to the dissolution of a money-market auction rate security and the
distribution of the underlying preferred stock and $0.2 million of
other than temporary impairment; and losses in 2007 exclude
$1.0 million of other than temporary impairment charges on preferred
stock. |
During 2009 and 2008 our trading securities consisted of various preferred stocks.
During 2009 and 2008 we recognized gains (losses) on trading securities of $1.0 million
and $(10.4) million, respectively, that are included in net gains (losses) on
securities in the consolidated statements of operations. Of these amounts,
$0.04 million and $(2.8) million relates to gains (losses) recognized on trading
securities still held at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Securities with a book value of $82.6 million and $94.2 million at December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively, were pledged to secure borrowings, public deposits and for
other purposes as required by law. There were no investment obligations of state and
political subdivisions that were payable from or secured by the same source of revenue
or taxing authority that exceeded 10% of consolidated shareholders equity at
December 31, 2009 or 2008.
NOTE 4 LOANS
Our loan portfolios at December 31 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Real estate(1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Residential first mortgages |
|
$ |
684,567 |
|
|
$ |
760,201 |
|
Residential home equity and other junior mortgages |
|
|
203,222 |
|
|
|
229,865 |
|
Construction and land development |
|
|
69,496 |
|
|
|
127,092 |
|
Other(2) |
|
|
585,988 |
|
|
|
666,876 |
|
Payment plan receivables |
|
|
406,341 |
|
|
|
286,836 |
|
Commercial |
|
|
187,110 |
|
|
|
207,516 |
|
Consumer |
|
|
156,213 |
|
|
|
171,747 |
|
Agricultural |
|
|
6,435 |
|
|
|
9,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loans |
|
$ |
2,299,372 |
|
|
$ |
2,459,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes both residential and non-residential commercial loans secured by real estate. |
|
(2) |
|
Includes loans secured by multi-family residential and non-farm, non-residential property. |
Loans are presented net of deferred loan fees of $0.2 million at December 31, 2009
and $0.6 million at December 31, 2008. Payment plan receivables totaling $436.4 million
and $307.4 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, are presented net of
unamortized discount of $30.8 million and $21.2 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. These payment plan receivables had effective yields at December 31, 2009
and 2008 of 13.0% and 14.0%, respectively. These receivables have various due dates
through January, 2012.
F-56
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
An analysis of the allowance for loan losses for the years ended December 31
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
Loan |
|
|
Unfunded |
|
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
Losses |
|
|
Commitments |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
$ |
26,879 |
|
|
$ |
1,881 |
|
Provision charged to operating expense |
|
|
103,318 |
|
|
|
(286 |
) |
|
|
71,113 |
|
|
|
208 |
|
|
|
43,105 |
|
|
|
55 |
|
Recoveries credited to allowance |
|
|
2,795 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,489 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,346 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans charged against the allowance |
|
|
(82,296 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(61,996 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(27,036 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
81,717 |
|
|
$ |
1,858 |
|
|
$ |
57,900 |
|
|
$ |
2,144 |
|
|
$ |
45,294 |
|
|
$ |
1,936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-performing loans at December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Non-accrual loans |
|
$ |
105,965 |
|
|
$ |
122,639 |
|
|
$ |
72,682 |
|
Loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest |
|
|
3,940 |
|
|
|
2,626 |
|
|
|
4,394 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing loans |
|
$ |
109,905 |
|
|
$ |
125,265 |
|
|
$ |
77,076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonperforming loans includes both smaller balance homogeneous loans that are
collectively evaluated for impairment and individually classified impaired loans. If
these loans had continued to accrue interest in accordance with their original terms,
approximately $7.3 million, $7.2 million, and $4.7 million of interest income would
have been recognized in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Interest income recorded on
these loans was approximately $0.2 million, $0.4 million and $0.6 million in 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively.
Impaired loans at December 31, follows :
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Impaired loans with no allocated allowance |
|
$ |
12,054 |
|
|
$ |
14,228 |
|
Impaired loans with an allocated allowance |
|
|
145,871 |
|
|
|
76,960 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total impaired loans |
|
$ |
157,925 |
|
|
$ |
91,188 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of allowance for loan losses allocated |
|
$ |
29,593 |
|
|
$ |
16,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our average investment in impaired loans was approximately $111.2 million,
$84.2 million and $40.3 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Cash receipts on
impaired loans on non-accrual status are generally applied to the principal balance.
Interest income recognized on impaired loans was approximately $1.6 million,
$0.6 million and $0.5 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively of which the
majority of these amounts were received in cash.
The increase in impaired loans relative to the decrease in non-performing loans
during 2009 reflects a $62.8 million increase in trouble debt restructured
(TDR) loans that remain performing at December 31, 2009. The increase in TDR loans is
primarily attributed to the restructuring of repayment terms of residential mortgage
loans. Restructured loans not already included in non-performing loans above totaled
$72.0 million, $9.2 million and $0.2 million at December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
respectively.
F-57
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Mortgage loans serviced for others are not reported as assets. The principal
balances of these loans at year end are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Mortgage loans serviced for : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fannie Mae |
|
$ |
1,021,982 |
|
|
$ |
931,904 |
|
|
$ |
933,353 |
|
Freddie Mac |
|
|
708,054 |
|
|
|
721,777 |
|
|
|
699,297 |
|
Other |
|
|
291 |
|
|
|
433 |
|
|
|
598 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,730,327 |
|
|
$ |
1,654,114 |
|
|
$ |
1,633,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An analysis of capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights for the years ended
December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
11,966 |
|
|
$ |
15,780 |
|
|
$ |
14,782 |
|
Originated servicing rights capitalized |
|
|
5,213 |
|
|
|
2,405 |
|
|
|
2,873 |
|
Amortization |
|
|
(4,255 |
) |
|
|
(1,887 |
) |
|
|
(1,624 |
) |
Change in valuation allowance |
|
|
2,349 |
|
|
|
(4,332 |
) |
|
|
(251 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
15,273 |
|
|
$ |
11,966 |
|
|
$ |
15,780 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance |
|
$ |
2,302 |
|
|
$ |
4,651 |
|
|
$ |
319 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans sold and serviced that have had servicing rights capitalized |
|
$ |
1,725,278 |
|
|
$ |
1,647,664 |
|
|
$ |
1,623,797 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fair value of capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights was $16.3 million and
$12.2 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Fair value was determined
using an average coupon rate of 5.73%, average servicing fee of 0.257%, average
discount rate of 10.08% and an average PSA rate of 210 for December 31, 2009; and an
average coupon rate of 6.06%, average servicing fee of 0.258%, average discount rate of
9.82% and an average PSA rate of 360 for December 31, 2008.
NOTE 5 OTHER REAL ESTATE OWNED
During 2009 and 2008 we foreclosed on certain loans secured by real estate and
transferred approximately $35.3 million and $20.6 million to other real estate in each
of those years, respectively. At the time of acquisition amounts were charged-off
against the allowance for loan losses to bring the carrying amount of these properties
to their estimated fair values, less estimated costs to sell. During 2009 and 2008 we
sold other real estate with book balances of approximately $16.7 million and
$7.2 million, respectively. Gains or losses on the sale of other real estate are
included in non-interest expense on the income statement.
We periodically review our real estate owned properties and establish valuation
allowances on these properties if values have declined since the date of acquisition.
An analysis of our valuation allowance for other real estate owned follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
2,363 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions charged to expense |
|
|
7,108 |
|
|
|
3,130 |
|
Direct write-downs |
|
|
2,973 |
|
|
|
767 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
6,498 |
|
|
$ |
2,363 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We had no valuation allowance at December 31, 2007.
F-58
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other real estate and repossessed assets totaling $31.5 million and $20.0 million
at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively are presented net of valuation allowance.
NOTE 6 PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
A summary of property and equipment at December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Land |
|
$ |
19,403 |
|
|
$ |
19,298 |
|
Buildings |
|
|
69,286 |
|
|
|
68,433 |
|
Equipment |
|
|
73,122 |
|
|
|
66,171 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
161,811 |
|
|
|
153,902 |
|
Accumulated depreciation and amortization |
|
|
(89,195 |
) |
|
|
(80,584 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Property and equipment, net |
|
$ |
72,616 |
|
|
$ |
73,318 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation expense was $8.7 million, $8.3 million and $8.5 million in 2009, 2008
and 2007, respectively.
NOTE 7 INTANGIBLE ASSETS
Intangible assets, net of amortization, at December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Carrying |
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Amortization |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Amortized intangible assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Core deposit |
|
$ |
31,326 |
|
|
$ |
21,066 |
|
|
$ |
31,326 |
|
|
$ |
19,381 |
|
Customer relationship |
|
|
1,302 |
|
|
|
1,302 |
|
|
|
1,302 |
|
|
|
1,165 |
|
Covenants not to compete |
|
|
1,520 |
|
|
|
1,520 |
|
|
|
1,520 |
|
|
|
1,412 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
34,148 |
|
|
$ |
23,888 |
|
|
$ |
34,148 |
|
|
$ |
21,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unamortized intangible assets Goodwill |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
16,734 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intangible amortization expense was $1.9 million, $3.1 million and $3.4 million in
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
A summary of estimated intangible amortization, primarily amortization of core
deposit and customer relationship intangibles, at December 31, 2009, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
1,280 |
|
2011 |
|
|
1,371 |
|
2012 |
|
|
1,088 |
|
2013 |
|
|
1,078 |
|
2014 |
|
|
801 |
|
2015 and thereafter |
|
|
4,642 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
10,260 |
|
|
|
|
|
F-59
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Changes in the carrying amount of goodwill by reporting segment for the years
ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IB |
|
|
Mepco |
|
|
Other(1) |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January 1, 2008 |
|
$ |
49,677 |
|
|
$ |
16,734 |
|
|
$ |
343 |
|
|
$ |
66,754 |
|
Acquired during the year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
Impairment |
|
|
(49,677 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(343 |
) |
|
|
(50,020 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2008 |
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
|
|
0 |
|
|
|
16,734 |
|
Acquired during the year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 |
|
Impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,734 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16,734 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009 |
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes items relating to our parent company. |
During 2009 we recorded a $16.7 million goodwill impairment charge at our Mepco
segment. In the fourth quarter of 2009 we updated our goodwill impairment testing
(interim tests had also been performed in the prior quarters of 2009). The results of
the year end goodwill impairment testing showed that the estimated fair value of our
Mepco reporting unit was less than the carrying value of equity. The fair value of
Mepco is principally based on estimated future earnings utilizing a discounted cash
flow methodology. Mepco recorded a loss in the fourth quarter of 2009. Further, Mepcos
largest business counterparty, who accounted for nearly one-half of Mepcos payment
plan business, defaulted in its obligations to Mepco and this counterparty is expected
to cease operations in 2010. These factors adversely impacted the level of Mepcos
expected future earnings and hence its fair value. This necessitated a step 2 analysis
and valuation. Based on the step 2 analysis (which involved determining the fair value
of Mepcos assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles) we concluded that goodwill
was now impaired, resulting in this $16.7 million charge. In addition, we accelerated
the amortization of a customer relationship intangible at Mepco in the amount of
$0.1 million. This customer relationship intangible had a zero balance at December 31,
2009.
During 2008 we recorded a $50.0 million goodwill impairment charge. In the fourth
quarter of 2008 we updated our goodwill impairment testing (interim tests had also been
performed in the second and third quarters of 2008). Our common stock price dropped
even further in the fourth quarter resulting in a wider difference between our market
capitalization and book value. The results of the year end goodwill impairment testing
showed that the estimated fair value of our bank reporting unit was less than the
carrying value of equity. This necessitated a step 2 analysis and valuation. Based on
the step 2 analysis (which involved determining the fair value of our banks assets,
liabilities and identifiable intangibles) we concluded that goodwill was now impaired,
resulting in this $50.0 million charge. A portion of the $50.0 goodwill impairment
charge was tax deductible and a $6.3 million tax benefit was recorded related to this
charge.
During 2007 we recorded a goodwill impairment charge of $0.3 million at First Home
Financial (FHF) which was acquired in 1998. Based on the fair value of FHF the goodwill
associated with FHF was written down to zero. Goodwill was previously written down in
2006 from $1.5 million to $0.3 million. FHF was a loan origination company based in
Grand Rapids, Michigan that specialized in the financing of manufactured homes located
in mobile home parks or communities and was a subsidiary of our IB segment above.
Revenues and profits had declined at FHF over the last few years and had continued to
decline through the second quarter of 2007. As a result of these declines, the
operations of FHF ceased effective June 15, 2007 and this entity was dissolved on
June 30, 2007.
F-60
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE 8 DEPOSITS
A summary of interest expense on deposits for the years ended December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Savings and NOW |
|
$ |
5,751 |
|
|
$ |
10,262 |
|
|
$ |
18,768 |
|
Time deposits under $100,000 |
|
|
25,202 |
|
|
|
28,572 |
|
|
|
61,664 |
|
Time deposits of $100,000 or more |
|
|
4,452 |
|
|
|
7,863 |
|
|
|
8,628 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
35,405 |
|
|
$ |
46,697 |
|
|
$ |
89,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate time deposits in denominations of $100,000 or more amounted to
$167.7 million and $191.2 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
A summary of the maturity of time deposits at December 31, 2009, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
$ |
512,415 |
|
2011 |
|
|
243,158 |
|
2012 |
|
|
156,097 |
|
2013 |
|
|
131,938 |
|
2014 |
|
|
125,545 |
|
2015 and thereafter |
|
|
2,167 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,171,320 |
|
|
|
|
|
Time deposits acquired through broker relationships totaled $629.2 million and
$182.3 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
NOTE 9 OTHER BORROWINGS
A summary of other borrowings at December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank |
|
$ |
94,382 |
|
|
$ |
314,214 |
|
Repurchase agreements |
|
|
35,000 |
|
|
|
35,000 |
|
U.S. Treasury demand notes |
|
|
1,796 |
|
|
|
3,270 |
|
Federal Reserve Bank borrowings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,500 |
|
Other |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
131,182 |
|
|
$ |
541,986 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) are secured by unencumbered
qualifying mortgage and home equity loans equal to at least 130% and 200%, respectively
of outstanding advances, as well as certain agency and private label mortgage backed
securities. Advances are also secured by FHLB stock that we own. As of December 31,
2009, we had unused borrowing capacity with the FHLB (subject to the FHLBs credit
requirements and policies) of $211.9 million. Interest expense on advances amounted to
$4.5 million, $12.6 million and $4.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2009,
2008 and 2007, respectively. During 2009 and 2008 FHLB advances totaling $151.5 million
and $0.5 million were terminated with no realized gain or loss. No FHLB advances were
prepaid during 2007.
F-61
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
As a member of the FHLB, we must own FHLB stock equal to the greater of 1.0% of
the unpaid principal balance of residential mortgage loans or 5.0% of our outstanding
advances. At December 31, 2009, we were in compliance with the FHLB stock ownership
requirements.
The maturity dates and weighted average interest rates of FHLB advances at
December 31 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
Rate |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Fixed-rate advances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
68,000 |
|
|
|
2.44 |
% |
2010 |
|
$ |
6,000 |
|
|
|
7.46 |
% |
|
|
6,000 |
|
|
|
7.46 |
|
2011 |
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
|
5.89 |
|
|
|
2,250 |
|
|
|
5.89 |
|
2012 |
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
6.90 |
|
|
|
384 |
|
|
|
6.90 |
|
2013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2014 |
|
|
4,240 |
|
|
|
5.73 |
|
|
|
4,240 |
|
|
|
5.73 |
|
2015 and thereafter |
|
|
14,508 |
|
|
|
6.58 |
|
|
|
14,840 |
|
|
|
6.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total fixed-rate advances |
|
|
27,382 |
|
|
|
6.59 |
|
|
|
95,714 |
|
|
|
3.64 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate advances 2011 |
|
|
67,000 |
|
|
|
0.32 |
|
|
|
218,500 |
|
|
|
3.43 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total advances |
|
$ |
94,382 |
|
|
|
2.14 |
% |
|
$ |
314,214 |
|
|
|
3.50 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of repayments of FHLB Advances at December 31, 2009, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
$ |
6,359 |
|
2011 |
|
|
2,638 |
|
2012 |
|
|
762 |
|
2013 |
|
|
441 |
|
2014 |
|
|
4,717 |
|
2015 and thereafter |
|
|
12,465 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
27,382 |
|
|
|
|
|
Repurchase agreements are secured by mortgage-backed securities with a carrying
value of approximately $38.4 million and $39.0 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008
respectively. These securities are being held by the counterparty to the repurchase
agreement. The cost of funds on repurchase agreements at December 31, 2009 and 2008
approximated 4.42%.
Repurchase agreements averaged $35.0 million, $35.0 million and $11.5 million
during 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The maximum amounts outstanding at any month
end during 2009, 2008 and 2007 was $35.0 million in each year, respectively. Interest
expense on repurchase agreements totaled $1.6 million, $1.6 million and $0.6 million,
for the years ended 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The $35.0 million of repurchase
agreements at December 31, 2009 all mature in 2010. No repurchase agreements were
prepaid during 2009 or 2008.
We had no borrowings outstanding to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) at
December 31, 2009. We had unused borrowing capacity with the FRB (subject to the FRBs
credit requirements and policies) of $502.5 million at December 31, 2009. Collateral
for FRB borrowings are qualifying commercial, mortgage and consumer loans as well as
certain securities available for sale. Interest expense on these borrowings amounted to
$0.2 million and $3.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. No interest expense was incurred on FRB borrowings during 2007. FRB
borrowings averaged $59.8 million and $182.9 million during 2009 and 2008,
F-62
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
respectively. The maximum amount outstanding at any month end during 2009 and 2008 were
$206.0 million and $331.0 million, respectively. We had no FRB borrowings outstanding
during 2007.
Interest expense on Federal funds purchased was zero, $0.3 million and
$1.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and in 2007, respectively.
We had established an unsecured credit facility at the parent company comprised of
a term loan and a revolving credit agreement. During 2008 the term loan was paid off
and the revolving credit agreement was not renewed. Interest expense on the term loan
totaled $0.1 million and $0.3 million during 2008 and 2007 respectively. Interest
expense on the revolving credit agreement totaled $0.3 million 2007. No interest
expense was incurred on the revolving credit agreement during 2008.
Assets, including securities available for sale and loans, pledged to secure other
borrowings totaled $1.489 billion at December 31, 2009.
NOTE 10 SUBORDINATED DEBENTURES
We have formed various special purpose entities (the trusts) for the purpose of
issuing trust preferred securities in either public or pooled offerings or in private
placements. Independent Bank Corporation owns all of the common stock of each trust and
has issued subordinated debentures to each trust in exchange for all of the proceeds
from the issuance of the common stock and the trust preferred securities. Trust
preferred securities totaling $41.9 million and $72.8 million at December 31, 2009 and
2008, respectively, qualified as Tier 1 regulatory capital and the remaining amount
qualified as Tier 2 regulatory capital.
These trusts are not consolidated with Independent Bank Corporation and
accordingly, we report the common securities of the trusts held by us in other assets
and the subordinated debentures that we have issued to the trusts in the liability
section of our consolidated statements of financial condition.
Summary information regarding subordinated debentures as of December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 and 2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trust |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred |
|
|
Common |
|
|
|
Issue |
|
Subordinated |
|
|
Securities |
|
|
Stock |
|
Entity Name |
|
Date |
|
Debentures |
|
|
Issued |
|
|
Issued |
|
IBC Capital Finance II |
|
March 2003 |
|
$ |
52,165 |
|
|
$ |
50,600 |
|
|
$ |
1,565 |
|
IBC Capital Finance III |
|
May 2007 |
|
|
12,372 |
|
|
|
12,000 |
|
|
|
372 |
|
IBC Capital Finance IV |
|
September 2007 |
|
|
20,619 |
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
619 |
|
Midwest Guaranty Trust I |
|
November 2002 |
|
|
7,732 |
|
|
|
7,500 |
|
|
|
232 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
|
$ |
90,100 |
|
|
$ |
2,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other key terms for the subordinated debentures and trust preferred securities
that were outstanding at December 31, 2009 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
|
First Permitted |
Entity Name |
|
Date |
|
Interest Rate |
|
Redemption Date |
IBC Capital Finance II |
|
March 31, 2033 |
|
8.25% fixed |
|
March 31, 2008 |
IBC Capital Finance III |
|
July 30, 2037 |
|
3 month LIBOR plus 1.60% |
|
July 30, 2012 |
IBC Capital Finance IV |
|
September 15, 2037 |
|
3 month LIBOR plus 2.85% |
|
September 15, 2012 |
Midwest Guaranty Trust I |
|
November 7, 2032 |
|
3 month LIBOR plus 3.45% |
|
November 7, 2007 |
In the fourth quarter of 2009 we elected to defer distributions (payment of
interest) on each of the subordinated debentures and trust preferred securities. The
subordinated debentures and trust preferred securities are cumulative
F-63
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
and have a feature that permits us to defer distributions (payment of interest) from
time to time for a period not to exceed 20 consecutive quarters. While we defer the
payment of interest, we will continue to accrue the interest expense owed at the
applicable interest rate. Upon the expiration of the deferral, all accrued and unpaid
interest is due and payable. At December 31, 2009 we had $1.2 million of accrued and
unpaid interest. We have the right to redeem the subordinated debentures and trust
preferred securities (at par) in whole or in part from time to time on or after the
first permitted redemption date specified above or upon the occurrence of specific
events defined within the trust indenture agreements. Issuance costs have been
capitalized and are being amortized on a straight- line basis over a period not
exceeding 30 years and are included in interest expense in the consolidated statements
of operations. Distributions (payment of interest) on the trust preferred securities
are also included in interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations.
We have announced our intention to pursue an offer to our trust preferred
securities holders to convert the securities they hold into shares of our common stock.
In January 2009, we filed a preliminary registration statement with the SEC to register
the common shares needed for this exchange offer. Additionally, in January 2009, our
shareholders approved, at a special meeting, the issuance of common stock in exchange
for our trust preferred securities. There is no assurance that our efforts related to
the above described exchange offer will be successful.
NOTE 11 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
In the normal course of business, we enter into financial instruments with
off-balance sheet risk to meet the financing needs of customers or to reduce exposure
to fluctuations in interest rates. These financial instruments may include commitments
to extend credit and standby letters of credit. Financial instruments involve varying
degrees of credit and interest-rate risk in excess of amounts reflected in the
consolidated statements of financial condition. Exposure to credit risk in the event of
non-performance by the counterparties to the financial instruments for loan commitments
to extend credit and letters of credit is represented by the contractual amounts of
those instruments. We do not, however, anticipate material losses as a result of these
financial instruments.
A summary of financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk at December 31
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Financial instruments whose risk is represented by contract amounts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commitments to extend credit |
|
$ |
136,862 |
|
|
$ |
159,883 |
|
Standby letters of credit |
|
|
13,824 |
|
|
|
15,900 |
|
Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to a customer as long as there
is no violation of any condition established in the contract. Commitments generally
have fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses and generally require payment
of a fee. Since commitments may expire without being drawn upon, the commitment amounts
do not represent future cash requirements. Commitments are issued subject to similar
underwriting standards, including collateral requirements, as are generally involved in
the extension of credit facilities.
Standby letters of credit are written conditional commitments issued to guarantee
the performance of a customer to a third party. The credit risk involved in such
transactions is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities and,
accordingly, standby letters of credit are issued subject to similar underwriting
standards, including collateral requirements, as are generally involved in the
extension of credit facilities. The majority of the letters of credit are to
corporations, have variable rates that range from 2.5% to 8.5% and mature through 2013.
Our Mepco segment conducts its payment plan business activities across the United
States and also entered Canada in early 2009. The payment plans permit a consumer to
purchase a vehicle service contract or product warranty by making installment payments,
generally for a term of 12 to 24 months, to the sellers of those contracts or product
warranties (one of the counterparties). Mepco purchases these payment plans from
these counterparties on a recourse basis. Mepco generally does not evaluate the
creditworthiness of the individual customer but
F-64
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
instead primarily relies on the payment plan collateral (the unearned vehicle service
contract and unearned sales commission) in the event of default. When consumers stop
making payments or exercise their right to voluntarily cancel the contract, the
remaining unpaid balance of the payment plan is recouped by Mepco from the
counterparties that sold the vehicle service contract or product warranty and provided
the coverage. The sudden failure of one of Mepcos major counterparties (an insurance
company, administrator, or seller/dealer) could expose us to significant losses.
Payment defaults and voluntary cancellations have increased significantly during
2009, reflecting both weak economic conditions and adverse publicity impacting the
vehicle service contract industry. When counterparties do not honor their contractual
obligations to Mepco to repay advanced funds, we recognize estimated losses. Mepco
vigorously pursues collection (including commencing legal action) of funds due to it
under its various contracts with counterparties. During the third quarter of 2009, we
identified a counterparty that is experiencing particularly severe financial
difficulties and have accrued for estimated potential losses related to that
relationship. 2009 and 2008 non-interest expenses include $31.2 million and
$1.0 million, respectively, charge related to estimated losses for vehicle service
contract counterparty contingencies. These charges are being classified in non-interest
expense because they are associated with a default or potential default of a
contractual obligation under our counterparty contracts as opposed to loss on the
administration of the payment plan itself.
An analysis of our counterparty contingency accrual follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
Additions charged to expense |
|
|
31,234 |
|
|
|
966 |
|
|
|
|
|
Charge-offs |
|
|
(18,990 |
) |
|
|
(966 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
12,244 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several marketers and sellers of the vehicle service contracts, including
companies from which Mepco has purchased payment plans, have been sued or are under
investigation for alleged violations of telemarketing laws and other consumer
protection laws. The actions have been brought primarily by state attorneys general and
the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) but there have also been class action and other
private lawsuits filed. In some cases, the companies have been placed into receivership
or have discontinued business. In addition, the allegations, particularly those
relating to blatantly abusive telemarketing practices by a relatively small number of
marketers, have resulted in a significant amount of negative publicity that has
affected the industry. It is possible these events could also cause federal or state
lawmakers to enact legislation to further regulate the industry.
We are also involved in various other litigation matters in the ordinary course of
business and at the present time, we do not believe that any of these matters will have
a significant impact on our financial condition or results of operation.
NOTE 12 SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY AND EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
In December 2008, we issued 72,000 shares of Series A, no par value, $1,000
liquidation preference, fixed rate cumulative perpetual preferred stock (Preferred
Stock) and a warrant to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock (Warrants) to
the U.S. Department of Treasury (UST) in return for $72.0 million under the CPP. Of
the total proceeds, $68.4 million was allocated to the Preferred Stock and $3.6 million
was allocated to the Warrants (included in capital surplus) based on the relative fair
value of each. The $3.6 million discount on the Preferred Stock is being accreted using
an effective yield method over five years. The accretion is being recorded as part of
the Preferred Stock dividend.
The Preferred Stock requires a quarterly cumulative cash dividend at a rate of 5%
per annum on the $1,000 liquidation preference to, but excluding February 15, 2014 and
a rate of 9% per annum thereafter. We accrue dividends based on this rate, liquidation
preference and time since last quarterly dividend payment was made. In the
F-65
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
fourth quarter of 2009, we elected, beginning with the payment that was due on
November 16, 2009, to defer regularly scheduled quarterly dividend payments on the
Preferred Stock. We will continue to accrue for these dividends during the deferral
period. At December 31, 2009 we had cumulative Preferred Stock dividends in arrears of
$0.9 million.
So long as any shares of Preferred Stock remain outstanding, unless all accrued
and unpaid dividends for all prior dividend periods have been paid or are
contemporaneously declared and paid in full, (a) no dividend whatsoever may be paid or
declared on the Companys common stock or other junior stock, other than a dividend
payable solely in common stock and other than certain dividends or distributions of
rights in connection with a shareholders rights plan; and (b) neither the Company nor
its subsidiaries may purchase, redeem or otherwise acquire for consideration any shares
of its common stock or other junior stock unless the Company has paid in full all
accrued dividends on the Preferred Stock for all prior dividend periods, other than
purchases, redemptions or other acquisitions of the Companys common stock or other
junior stock in connection with the administration of its employee benefit plans in the
ordinary course of business and consistent with past practice; pursuant to a publicly
announced repurchase plan up to the increase in diluted shares outstanding resulting
from the grant, vesting or exercise of equity-based compensation; any dividends or
distributions of rights or junior stock in connection with any shareholders rights
plan, redemptions or repurchases of rights pursuant to any shareholders rights plan;
acquisition of record ownership of common stock or other junior stock or parity stock
for the beneficial ownership of any other person who is not the Company or one of its
subsidiaries, including as trustee or custodian; and the exchange or conversion of
common stock or other junior stock for or into other junior stock or of parity stock
for or into other parity stock or junior stock but only to the extent that such
acquisition is required pursuant to binding contractual agreements entered into before
December 12, 2008 or any subsequent agreement for the accelerated exercise, settlement
or exchange thereof for common stock.
The Preferred Stock may be redeemed at any time, in whole or in part, subject to
the USTs prior consultation with the Federal Reserve Board. Prior to the recent
enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, there were certain
restrictions on our ability to redeem the Preferred Stock. In any redemption, the
redemption price is an amount equal to the per share liquidation amount plus accrued
and unpaid dividends to but excluding the date of redemption. The Preferred Stock will
not be subject to any mandatory redemption, sinking fund or similar provisions. Holders
of shares of Preferred Stock have no right to require the redemption or repurchase of
the Preferred Stock. Our Board of Directors, or a duly authorized committee of the
Board of Directors, has full power and authority to prescribe the terms and conditions
upon which the Preferred Stock will be redeemed from time to time, subject to the
provisions of the Certificate of Designation (including the limitations described in
this paragraph). If fewer than all of the outstanding shares of Preferred Stock are to
be redeemed, the shares to be redeemed will be selected either pro rata from the
holders of record of shares of Preferred Stock in proportion to the number of shares
held by those holders or in such other manner as our Board of Directors or a committee
thereof may determine to be fair and equitable.
The Warrant is initially exercisable for 3,461,538 shares of our common stock. The
initial exercise price applicable to the Warrant is $3.12 per share of common stock for
which the Warrant may be exercised. The number of shares of common stock underlying the
Warrant and the exercise price applicable to the Warrant are both subject to adjustment
for certain dilutive actions we may take, including stock dividends, stock splits, and
similar transactions. The Warrant may be exercised at any time on or before
December 12, 2018 by surrender of the Warrant and a completed notice of exercise
attached as an annex to the Warrant and the payment of the exercise price for the
shares of common stock for which the Warrant is being exercised.
In December 2009, we made a proposal to the UST to exchange all of the shares of
the Preferred Stock for shares of our common stock with a value (based on market prices
at the time of the exchange) equal to 75% of the aggregate liquidation value of the
preferred stock surrendered in the exchange. The aggregate liquidation value of the
Preferred Stock is $72.0 million. As a result, if our proposal is accepted by the UST,
it would result in us issuing the UST shares of our common stock with a value of
$54.0 million.
F-66
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
We continue to hold discussions with the UST regarding our proposal and continue
to provide them with additional information for them to evaluate our proposal. However,
we do not know at this time whether the UST will accept our proposal, whether they will
make a counterproposal, or, if they agree to any form of an exchange, what conditions
might be imposed on their participation. We also do not know the timing of when the UST
will make its decision or whether, if the UST agrees to participate in an exchange,
what the timing of that exchange may be.
A reconciliation of basic and diluted earnings per share for the years ended
December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(In thousands, except per share amounts) |
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
9,955 |
|
Preferred dividends |
|
|
4,301 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) from continuing operations applicable to common shareholders |
|
$ |
(94,528 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,879 |
) |
|
$ |
9,955 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
Preferred dividends |
|
|
4,301 |
|
|
|
215 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common stock |
|
$ |
(94,528 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,879 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding(1) |
|
|
23,866 |
|
|
|
22,985 |
|
|
|
22,684 |
|
Stock units for deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors |
|
|
70 |
|
|
|
61 |
|
|
|
62 |
|
Effect of stock options |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
118 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares outstanding for calculation of diluted earnings per share(1) |
|
|
23,936 |
|
|
|
23,049 |
|
|
|
22,864 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) per common share from continuing operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.44 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) per common share |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.46 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
(3.96 |
) |
|
$ |
(4.00 |
) |
|
$ |
0.45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For any period in which a loss is recorded, the assumed exercise of stock options and stock units for the deferred compensation plan for non-employee directors would have an anti-dilutive impact on the loss per share and thus are ignored in the diluted per share calculation. |
Diluted income/loss per share attributed to discontinued operations was income of
$0.02 in 2007.
Weighted average stock options outstanding that were not considered in computing
diluted earnings (loss) per share because they were anti-dilutive totaled 1.5 million,
1.5 million and 1.1 million for 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Warrant to
purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock was also not considered in computing the
loss per share in 2009 and 2008 as it was anti-dilutive.
F-67
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE 13 INCOME TAX
The composition of income tax expense (benefit) from continuing operations for the
years ended December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Current |
|
$ |
(5,356 |
) |
|
$ |
(7,873 |
) |
|
$ |
5,160 |
|
Deferred |
|
|
(4,504 |
) |
|
|
(16,629 |
) |
|
|
(6,263 |
) |
Change in valuation allowance |
|
|
6,650 |
|
|
|
27,565 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense (benefit) |
|
$ |
(3,210 |
) |
|
$ |
3,063 |
|
|
$ |
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The deferred income tax benefit of $4.5 million during 2009 is primarily
attributed to the affects of pretax other comprehensive income while the deferred
income tax benefits of $16.6 million and $6.3 million in 2008 and 2007, respectively
can be attributed to tax effects of temporary differences. The tax benefit related to
the exercise of stock options recorded in shareholders equity was none during 2009 and
$0.02 million and $0.3 million during 2008 and 2007, respectively.
A reconciliation of income tax expense to the amount computed by applying the
statutory federal income tax rate of 35% in each year presented to income from
continuing operations before income tax for the years ended December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Statutory rate applied to income (loss) from continuing operations
before income tax |
|
$ |
(32,703 |
) |
|
$ |
(31,010 |
) |
|
$ |
3,098 |
|
Change in valuation allowance |
|
|
23,999 |
|
|
|
27,565 |
|
|
|
|
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
5,857 |
|
|
|
11,172 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
Tax-exempt income |
|
|
(1,455 |
) |
|
|
(3,047 |
) |
|
|
(4,031 |
) |
Bank owned life insurance |
|
|
(565 |
) |
|
|
(682 |
) |
|
|
(674 |
) |
Non-deductible meals, entertainment and memberships |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
157 |
|
Dividends paid to Employee Stock Ownership Plan |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(145 |
) |
|
|
(366 |
) |
Other, net |
|
|
1,599 |
|
|
|
(923 |
) |
|
|
593 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax expense |
|
$ |
(3,210 |
) |
|
$ |
3,063 |
|
|
$ |
(1,103 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Generally, the amount of tax expense or benefit allocated to continuing operations
is determined without regard to the tax effects of other categories of income or loss,
such as other comprehensive income. However, an exception to the general rule is
provided when there is a pretax loss from continuing operations and pretax income from
other categories in the current year. In such instances, income from other categories
must offset the current loss from operations, the tax benefit of such offset being
reflected in continuing operations even when a valuation allowance has been established
against deferred tax assets. In 2009, pretax other comprehensive income of
$11.6 million reduced our current year valuation allowance and resulted in a benefit of
$4.1 million being allocated to the current year loss from continuing operations.
We assess the need for a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets
periodically. The realization of deferred tax assets (net of the recorded valuation
allowance) is largely dependent upon future taxable income, future reversals of
existing taxable temporary differences and ability to carry-back losses to available
tax years. In assessing the need for a valuation allowance, we consider all positive
and negative evidence, including anticipated operating results, taxable income in
carry-back years, scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities and tax planning
strategies. In 2008, our conclusion that we needed a valuation allowance was based on a
number of factors, including our declining operating performance since 2005 and our net
operating loss in 2008, overall negative trends in the banking industry and our
expectation that our operating results will continue to be negatively affected
F-68
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
by the overall economic environment. As a result, we recorded a valuation allowance in
2008 of $36.2 million on our deferred tax assets which consisted of $27.6 million
recognized as income tax expense and $8.6 million recognized through the accumulated
other comprehensive loss component of shareholders equity. The valuation allowance
against our deferred tax assets at December 31, 2008 of $36.2 million represented our
entire net deferred tax asset except for that amount which could be carried back to
2007 and recovered in cash as well as for certain deferred tax assets at Mepco that
relate to state income taxes and that can be recovered based on Mepcos individual
earnings. During 2009, we concluded that we needed to continue to carry a valuation
allowance based on similar factors discussed above. As a result we recorded an
additional valuation allowance of $24.0 million. The valuation allowance against our
deferred tax assets of $60.2 million at December 31, 2009 may be reversed to income in
future periods to the extent that the related deferred income tax assets are realized
or the valuation allowance is otherwise no longer required. This valuation allowance
represents our entire net deferred tax asset except for certain deferred tax assets at
Mepco that relate to state income taxes and that can be recovered based on Mepcos
individual earnings.
F-69
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The tax effects of temporary differences that give rise to significant
portions of the deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities at December 31 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Deferred tax assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allowance for loan losses |
|
$ |
29,290 |
|
|
$ |
21,054 |
|
Net operating loss carryforward |
|
|
14,378 |
|
|
|
2,760 |
|
Purchase premiums, net |
|
|
5,317 |
|
|
|
5,563 |
|
Vehicle service contract counterparty risk reserve |
|
|
4,867 |
|
|
|
768 |
|
Unrealized loss on securities available for sale |
|
|
2,414 |
|
|
|
5,714 |
|
Alternative minimum tax credit carry forward |
|
|
2,577 |
|
|
|
1,678 |
|
Valuation allowance on other real estate owned |
|
|
2,274 |
|
|
|
827 |
|
Unrealized loss on derivative financial instruments |
|
|
1,545 |
|
|
|
2,220 |
|
Fixed assets |
|
|
1,276 |
|
|
|
1,379 |
|
Deferred compensation |
|
|
779 |
|
|
|
790 |
|
Nonaccrual loan interest income |
|
|
774 |
|
|
|
457 |
|
Unrealized loss on trading securities |
|
|
611 |
|
|
|
1,668 |
|
Share based payments |
|
|
574 |
|
|
|
303 |
|
Mepco claims expense |
|
|
571 |
|
|
|
608 |
|
Other than temporary impairment charge on securities available for sale |
|
|
87 |
|
|
|
209 |
|
Unrealized loss on available for sale security upon dissolution of money
market auction rate security |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,170 |
|
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
177 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross deferred tax assets |
|
|
67,334 |
|
|
|
48,345 |
|
Valuation allowance |
|
|
(60,158 |
) |
|
|
(36,159 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net deferred tax assets |
|
|
7,176 |
|
|
|
12,186 |
|
Deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage servicing rights |
|
|
5,345 |
|
|
|
4,188 |
|
Federal Home Loan Bank stock |
|
|
480 |
|
|
|
480 |
|
Deferred loan fees |
|
|
477 |
|
|
|
387 |
|
Loans held for sale |
|
|
97 |
|
|
|
239 |
|
Other |
|
|
86 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross deferred tax liabilities |
|
|
6,485 |
|
|
|
5,294 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net deferred tax assets |
|
$ |
691 |
|
|
$ |
6,892 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-70
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
At December 31, 2009, we had a net operating loss (NOL) carryforward of
approximately $42.8 million which, if not used against taxable income, will expire as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
$ |
929 |
|
2011 |
|
|
411 |
|
2012 |
|
|
3,437 |
|
2013 |
|
|
189 |
|
2019 |
|
|
194 |
|
2020 |
|
|
359 |
|
2029 |
|
|
37,264 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
42,783 |
|
|
|
|
|
The use of $5.5 million NOL carryforward in the total above, which was
acquired through the acquisitions of two financial institutions is limited to $3.3
million per year as the result of a change in control as defined in the Internal
Revenue Code.
Changes in unrecognized tax benefits for the year ended December 31, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
1,736 |
|
|
$ |
2,821 |
|
|
$ |
2,303 |
|
Additions based on tax positions related to the current year |
|
|
443 |
|
|
|
483 |
|
|
|
633 |
|
Reductions due to the statute of limitations |
|
|
(198 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39 |
) |
Reductions based on tax position related to prior years |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,513 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Settlements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55 |
) |
|
|
(76 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
1,981 |
|
|
$ |
1,736 |
|
|
$ |
2,821 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If recognized, the entire amount of unrecognized tax benefits, net of $0.5
million federal tax on state benefits, would affect our effective tax rate. We do not
expect the total amount of unrecognized tax benefits to significantly increase or
decrease in the next twelve months. No amounts were expensed for interest and penalties
for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, while $0.03 million was expensed for
the year ended December 31, 2007. No amounts were accrued for interest and penalties at
December 31, 2009 or 2008. At December 31, 2009, U.S. Federal tax years 2006 through
the present remain open.
NOTE 14 SHARE BASED COMPENSATION
We maintain performance-based compensation plans that include a long-term
incentive plan that permits the issuance of share based compensation, including stock
options and non-vested share awards. This plan, which is shareholder-approved, permits
the grant of share based awards for up to 0.5 million shares of common stock as of
December 31, 2009. Share based compensation awards are measured at fair value at the
date of grant and are expensed over the requisite service period. Common shares issued
upon exercise of stock options come from currently authorized but unissued shares.
Pursuant to our performance-based compensation plans we granted 0.3 million
and 0.2 million stock options to our officers in 2009 and 2007, respectively. We also
granted 0.2 million and 0.1 million shares of non-vested common stock to
these same individuals in 2008 and 2007, respectively. The stock options have an
exercise price equal to the market value of the common stock on the date of grant, vest
ratably over a three year period and expire 10 years from date of grant. The non-vested
common stock cliff vests in five years. We use the Black-Scholes option pricing model
to measure compensation cost for stock options and use the market value of the common
stock on the
F-71
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
date of grant to measure compensation cost for non-vested share awards. We also
estimate expected forfeitures over the vesting period.
During 2008 and 2007 we modified 0.1 million stock options in each year
originally issued in prior years for two former officers. These modified options vested
immediately and the expense associated with these modifications of $0.01 million and
$0.1 million, in 2008 and 2007, respectively, was included in compensation and benefits
expense. The modification consisted of extending the date of exercise subsequent to
resignation of the officers from 3 months to 18 months.
Total compensation expense recognized for stock option and non-vested common
stock grants was $0.8 million, $0.6 million and $0.3 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. The corresponding tax benefit relating to this expense was $0.3 million,
$0.2 million and $0.1 million during 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
A summary of outstanding stock option grants and transactions follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
Remaining |
|
|
Aggregated |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Exercise |
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
Intrinsic |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Price |
|
|
Term (Years) |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Outstanding at January 1, 2009 |
|
|
1,502,038 |
|
|
$ |
19.73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Granted |
|
|
299,987 |
|
|
|
1.59 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercised |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
(703,475 |
) |
|
|
22.21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
1,098,550 |
|
|
$ |
13.19 |
|
|
|
5.06 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested and expected to vest at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
1,090,597 |
|
|
$ |
13.27 |
|
|
|
5.04 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exercisable at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
762,649 |
|
|
$ |
17.59 |
|
|
|
3.38 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of non-vested stock and transactions follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
Grant Date |
|
|
|
Shares |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Outstanding at January 1, 2009 |
|
|
262,381 |
|
|
$ |
9.27 |
|
Granted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vested |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forfeited |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at December 31, 2009 |
|
|
262,381 |
|
|
$ |
9.27 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A summary of the weighted-average assumptions used in the Black-Scholes
option pricing model for grants of stock options follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2007 |
Expected dividend yield |
|
|
2.60 |
% |
|
|
3.76 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
2.59 |
|
|
|
4.55 |
|
Expected life (in years) |
|
|
6.00 |
|
|
|
5.99 |
|
Expected volatility |
|
|
58.39 |
% |
|
|
27.64 |
% |
Per share weighted-average fair value |
|
$ |
0.69 |
|
|
$ |
3.74 |
|
F-72
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The risk-free interest rate for the expected term of the option is based on
the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of the grant. The expected life was
obtained using a simplified method that, in general, averaged the vesting term and
original contractual term of the stock option. This method was used as relevant
historical data of actual exercise activity was not available. The expected volatility
was based on historical volatility of our common stock.
At December 31, 2009, the total expected compensation cost related to non
vested stock option and restricted stock awards not yet recognized was $1.6 million.
The weighted-average period over which this amount will be recognized is 2.7 years.
Certain information regarding options exercised during the periods ending
December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
Intrinsic value |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
|
$ |
144 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash proceeds received |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
51 |
|
|
$ |
156 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax benefit realized |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
21 |
|
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE 15 BENEFIT PLANS
We maintain 401(k) and employee stock ownership plans covering substantially all
of our full-time employees. We match employee contributions to the 401(k) plan up to a
maximum of 3% of participating employees eligible wages. The match of employee
contributions was 3% of eligible wages during each of the years 2009, 2008 and 2007.
Contributions to the employee stock ownership plan are determined annually and require
approval of our Board of Directors. The maximum contribution is 6% of employees
eligible wages. The contribution to the employee stock ownership plan was zero, 3% and
3% in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Amounts expensed for these retirement plans
was $1.0 million, $2.1 million and $2.1 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Our officers participate in various performance-based compensation plans.
Amounts expensed for all incentive plans totaled $1.1 million, $2.2 million, and $2.4
million, in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
We also provide certain health care and life insurance programs to
substantially all full-time employees. Amounts expensed for these programs totaled $4.6
million in each year ending December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. These insurance programs
are also available to retired employees at their own expense.
NOTE 16 DERIVATIVE FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
We are required to record derivatives on the balance sheet as assets and
liabilities measured at their fair value. The accounting for increases and decreases in
the value of derivatives depends upon the use of derivatives and whether the
derivatives qualify for hedge accounting.
F-73
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Our derivative financial instruments according to the type of hedge in which
they are designated at December 31 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional |
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
(Years) |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Cash Flow Hedge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest-rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
115,000 |
|
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
$ |
(2,328 |
) |
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
45,000 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
(1 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
160,000 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
$ |
(2,329 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hedge designation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest-rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
45,000 |
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
$ |
(1,930 |
) |
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
50,000 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rate-lock mortgage loan commitments |
|
|
28,952 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
217 |
|
Mandatory commitments to sell mortgage loans |
|
|
61,140 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
185,092 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
$ |
(998 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional |
|
|
Maturity |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Amount |
|
|
(Years) |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Cash Flow Hedge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest-rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
142,000 |
|
|
|
2.3 |
|
|
$ |
(5,622 |
) |
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
168,500 |
|
|
|
0.7 |
|
|
|
(8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
310,500 |
|
|
|
1.4 |
|
|
$ |
(5,630 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hedge designation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest-rate swap agreements |
|
$ |
26,000 |
|
|
|
1.8 |
|
|
$ |
(241 |
) |
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
110,000 |
|
|
|
1.5 |
|
|
|
202 |
|
Rate-lock mortgage loan commitments |
|
|
43,090 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
839 |
|
Mandatory commitments to sell mortgage loans |
|
|
67,406 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
(663 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
246,496 |
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
$ |
137 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have established management objectives and strategies that include
interest-rate risk parameters for maximum fluctuations in net interest income and
market value of portfolio equity. We monitor our interest rate risk position via
simulation modeling reports. The goal of our asset/liability management efforts is to
maintain profitable financial leverage within established risk parameters.
We use variable-rate and short-term fixed-rate (less than 12 months) debt
obligations to fund a portion of our balance sheet, which exposes us to variability in
interest rates. To meet our objectives, we may periodically enter into derivative
financial instruments to mitigate exposure to fluctuations in cash flows resulting from
changes in interest rates. Cash flow hedges currently include certain pay-fixed
interest-rate swaps and interest-rate cap agreements.
Through certain special purposes entities (see note #10) we issue trust
preferred securities as part of our capital management strategy. Certain of these trust
preferred securities are variable rate which exposes us to variability in cash flows .
To mitigate our exposure to fluctuations in cash flows resulting from changes in
interest rates, on
F-74
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
approximately $20.0 million of variable rate trust preferred securities, we
entered into a pay-fixed interest-rate swap agreement in September, 2007. During the
fourth quarter of 2009 we elected to defer payment of interest on this variable rate
trust preferred security. As a result, this pay-fixed interest rate swap was
transferred to a no hedge designation and the $1.6 million unrealized loss which was
included as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income at the time of the
transfer will be reclassified into earnings over the remaining life of this pay-fixed
swap. Any future changes in the fair value of this pay-fixed swap will be recorded in
earnings.
Pay-fixed interest-rate swaps convert the variable-rate cash flows on debt
obligations to fixed-rates. Under interest-rate cap agreements, we will receive cash if
interest rates rise above a predetermined level. As a result, we effectively have
variable-rate debt with an established maximum rate. We pay an upfront premium on
interest rate caps which is recognized in earnings in the same period in which the
hedged item affects earnings. Unrecognized premiums from interest rate caps aggregated
to $0.1 million and $0.5 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008 respectively.
It is anticipated that $2.5 million of unrealized losses on Cash Flow Hedges
at December 31, 2009, will be reclassified into earnings over the next twelve months.
The maximum term of any Cash Flow Hedge at December 31, 2009 is 5.0 years.
We also use long-term, callable fixed-rate brokered certificates of deposit
(Brokered CDs) to fund a portion of our balance sheet. These instruments expose us to
variability in fair value due to changes in interest rates. To meet our objectives, we
may enter into derivative financial instruments to mitigate exposure to fluctuations in
fair values of such callable fixed-rate debt instruments. We did not have any fair
value hedges at December 31, 2009 or 2008. Fair Value Hedges at December 31, 2007
included pay-variable interest-rate swaps whereby the counterparty had the right to
terminate the transaction without paying a fee. During 2008, interest rates declined
which caused the counterparties to exercise their right to cancel the pay-variable
interest rate swaps. These terminations totaled $318.2 million.
Certain financial derivative instruments have not been designated as hedges.
The fair value of these derivative financial instruments have been recorded on our
balance sheet and are adjusted on an ongoing basis to reflect their then current fair
value. The changes in fair value of derivative financial instruments not designated as
hedges, are recognized in earnings.
In the ordinary course of business, we enter into rate-lock mortgage loan
commitments with customers (Rate Lock Commitments). These commitments expose us to
interest rate risk. We also enter into mandatory commitments to sell mortgage loans
(Mandatory Commitments) to reduce the impact of price fluctuations of mortgage loans
held for sale and Rate Lock Commitments. Mandatory Commitments help protect our loan
sale profit margin from fluctuations in interest rates. The changes in the fair value
of Rate Lock Commitments and Mandatory Commitments are recognized currently as part of
gains on the sale of mortgage loans. We obtain market prices on Mandatory Commitments
and Rate Lock Commitments. Net gains on the sale of mortgage loans, as well as net
income may be more volatile as a result of these derivative instruments, which are not
designated as hedges.
F-75
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The following table illustrates the impact that the derivative financial
instruments discussed above have on individual line items in the consolidated
statements of financial condition for the periods presented:
Fair Values of Derivative Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Derivatives |
|
|
Liability Derivatives |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
Sheet |
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
Location |
|
|
Value |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
Derivatives designated
as hedging instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
$ |
2,328 |
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
$ |
5,622 |
|
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
assets |
|
$ |
2 |
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
|
1 |
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,329 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,632 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated
as hedging instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest rate swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
|
241 |
|
Interest-rate cap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
assets |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate-lock mortgage loan commitments |
|
Other
assets |
|
$ |
217 |
|
|
Other
assets |
|
|
839 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mandatory commitments to sell mortgage loans |
|
Other
assets |
|
|
715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
liabilities |
|
|
663 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,041 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
904 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
4,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,536 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-76
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
The effect of derivative financial instruments on the Consolidated
Statements of Operations follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) Reclassified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated |
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
Reclassified from |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
Comprehensive |
|
|
Accumulated Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in Other |
|
|
Income into |
|
|
Comprehensive Income |
|
|
Location of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive Income |
|
|
Income |
|
|
into Income |
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
Gain (Loss) |
|
|
|
(Effective Portion) |
|
|
(Effective |
|
|
(Effective Portion) |
|
|
Recognized |
|
|
Recognized in Income(1) |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
Portion) |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
in Income(1) |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash Flow Hedges |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest
rate swap
agreements |
|
$ |
4,834 |
|
|
$ |
(4,918 |
) |
|
$ |
(2,767 |
) |
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(3,110 |
) |
|
$ |
(478 |
) |
|
$ |
909 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-rate cap
agreements |
|
|
871 |
|
|
|
1,241 |
|
|
|
(505 |
) |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
(437 |
) |
|
|
(774 |
) |
|
|
65 |
|
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
|
(10 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
5,705 |
|
|
$ |
(3,677 |
) |
|
$ |
(3,272 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(3,547 |
) |
|
$ |
(1,252 |
) |
|
$ |
974 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
8 |
|
|
$ |
(9 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Hedges
pay-variable
interest rate
swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6 |
|
|
$ |
45 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No hedge designation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pay-fixed interest rate
swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
$ |
(120 |
) |
|
$ |
(254 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Pay-variable interest rate
swap agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
Interest-rate cap
agreements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
(457 |
) |
|
|
223 |
|
Rate-lock mortgage
loan commitments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loan gains |
|
|
(622 |
) |
|
|
887 |
|
|
|
(17 |
) |
Mandatory
commitments to
sell mortgage loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loan gains |
|
|
1,378 |
|
|
|
(600 |
) |
|
|
(162 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
641 |
|
|
$ |
(411 |
) |
|
$ |
78 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For cash flow hedges, this location and amount refers to the ineffective portion. |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss included derivative losses of $4.0
million and $6.2 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively and derivative
losses, net of tax, of $0.8 million at December 31, 2007.
NOTE 17 RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
Certain of our directors and executive officers, including companies in which they
are officers or have significant ownership, were loan and deposit customers during 2009
and 2008.
A summary of loans to directors and executive officers whose borrowing
relationship exceeds $60,000, and to entities in which they own a 10% or more voting
interest for the years ended December 31 follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Balance at beginning of year |
|
$ |
363 |
|
|
$ |
902 |
|
New loans and advances |
|
|
298 |
|
|
|
817 |
|
Repayments |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(1,356 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at end of year |
|
$ |
599 |
|
|
$ |
363 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits held by us for directors and executive officers totaled $0.9 million
and $0.6 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
F-77
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE 18 OTHER NON-INTEREST EXPENSES
Other non-interest expenses for the years ended December 31 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Communications |
|
$ |
4,424 |
|
|
$ |
4,018 |
|
|
$ |
3,809 |
|
Legal and professional |
|
|
3,222 |
|
|
|
2,032 |
|
|
|
1,978 |
|
Amortization of intangible assets |
|
|
1,930 |
|
|
|
3,072 |
|
|
|
3,373 |
|
Supplies |
|
|
1,835 |
|
|
|
2,030 |
|
|
|
2,411 |
|
Other |
|
|
5,655 |
|
|
|
7,639 |
|
|
|
7,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other non-interest expense |
|
$ |
17,066 |
|
|
$ |
18,791 |
|
|
$ |
19,076 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE 19 LEASES
We have non-cancelable operating leases for certain office facilities, some of
which include renewal options and escalation clauses.
A summary of future minimum lease payments under non-cancelable operating
leases at December 31, 2009, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
2010 |
|
$ |
1,179 |
|
2011 |
|
|
1,047 |
|
2012 |
|
|
932 |
|
2013 |
|
|
843 |
|
2014 |
|
|
815 |
|
2015 and thereafter |
|
|
4,813 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
9,629 |
|
|
|
|
|
Rental expense on operating leases totaled $1.2 million, $1.5 million and
$1.4 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
NOTE 20 CONCENTRATIONS OF CREDIT RISK
Credit risk is the risk to earnings and capital arising from an obligors failure
to meet the terms of any contract with our organization, or otherwise fail to perform
as agreed. Credit risk can occur outside of our traditional lending activities and can
exist in any activity where success depends on counterparty, issuer or borrower
performance. Concentrations of credit risk (whether on- or off-balance sheet) arising
from financial instruments can exist in relation to individual borrowers or groups of
borrowers, certain types of collateral, certain types of industries or certain
geographic regions. Credit risk associated with these concentrations could arise when a
significant amount of loans or other financial instruments, related by similar
characteristics, are simultaneously impacted by changes in economic or other conditions
that cause their probability of repayment or other type of settlement to be adversely
affected. Our major concentrations of credit risk arise by collateral type and by
industry. The significant concentrations by collateral type at December 31, 2009
include $887.8 million of loans secured by residential real estate and $69.5 million of
construction and development loans. In addition, we have a concentration of credit
within the vehicle service contract industry. At December 31, 2009, we had $406.3
million of payment plan receivables. Our recourse for nonpayment of these payment plan
receivables is against our counterparties operating within the vehicle service contract
industry.
Additionally, within our commercial real estate and commercial loan portfolio
we had significant standard industry classification concentrations in the following
categories as of December 31, 2009: Lessors of Nonresidential Real Estate ($211.5
million); Lessors of Residential Real Estate ($91.7 million); Construction General
F-78
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Contractors and Land Development ($99.2 million); and Health Care and Social
Assistance ($62.3 million). A geographic concentration arises because we primarily
conduct our lending activities in the state of Michigan.
Mepco purchases payment plans, on a full recourse basis, from companies
(which we refer to as Mepcos counterparties) that provide vehicle service contracts
and similar products to consumers. When a consumers payment plan is voluntarily or
involuntarily cancelled, Mepco has recourse against certain counterparties involved
pursuant to Mepcos contractual arrangements with the counterparties. Mepco generally
has recourse against the seller and the administrator of the vehicle service contract.
In addition, the insurance company or risk retention group (RRG) that provides the
coverage for the vehicle service contract may also guarantee the full recourse
obligation or a portion of the recourse obligation of the administrator to Mepco. The
sudden failure of one of Mepcos major counterparties (an insurance company, RRG,
vehicle service contract administrator or seller) could expose us to significant
losses. In 2009, we incurred $31.2 million of such losses (compared to $1.0 million in
2008 and none in 2007). The determination of losses related to vehicle service contract
counterparty contingencies requires a significant amount of judgment because a number
of factors can influence the amount of loss that we may ultimately incur. These factors
include our estimate of future cancellations of vehicle service contracts, our
evaluation of collateral that may be available to recover funds due from our
counterparties, and the amount collected from counterparties in connection with their
contractual recourse obligations. We apply a rigorous process, based upon observable
contract activity and past experience, to estimate probable losses and quantify the
necessary reserves for our vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies, but
there can be no assurance that our modeling process will successfully identify all such
losses. As a result, we could record future losses associated with vehicle service
contract counterparty contingencies that may be significantly different than the levels
that we recorded in 2009.
Mepco monitors counterparty concentrations in order to attempt to manage our
exposure for recourse obligations from each of these counterparties. In addition, even
where an insurance company or RRG does not have a recourse obligation to Mepco, the
failure of the insurance company or RRG could result in a mass cancellation of the
vehicle service contracts (and the related payment plans) insured by such insurance
company or RRG. Such a mass cancellation would trigger and accelerate the recourse
obligations of the counterparties that did have recourse obligations to Mepco. The
counterparty concentration levels are managed based on the AM Best rating and statutory
surplus level for an insurance company and on other factors including financial
evaluation, collateral, funding holdbacks, guarantees, and distribution of
concentrations for vehicle service contract administrators and vehicle service contract
sellers/dealers.
The five largest concentrations by insurance company, risk retention group or
other party backing the service contract represents approximately 16.6%, 13.7%, 13.2%,
9.8% and 8.9%, respectively, of Mepcos payment plan receivables at December 31, 2009.
These companies have provided the insurance coverage for the vehicle service
contracts underlying the payment plan receivables; however, these companies are not all
obligated to Mepco for the repayment of the payment plan receivables upon cancellation
of the underlying vehicle service contracts and payment plans. Mepco has varying levels
of recourse against such companies.
The top five vehicle service contract sellers from which Mepco purchases
payment plans represent approximately 45.6%, 12.9%, 4.5%, 4.1% and 4.1%, respectively
of Mepcos payment plan receivables at December 31, 2009. As described in note 11
Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Mepcos largest counterparty from which it
acquired payment plans has defaulted in its obligations to Mepco and is in the process
of winding down its operations.
NOTE 21 REGULATORY MATTERS
Capital guidelines adopted by Federal and State regulatory agencies and
restrictions imposed by law limit the amount of cash dividends our bank can pay to us.
Under these guidelines, the amount of dividends that may be paid in any calendar year
is limited to the banks current years net profits, combined with the retained net
profits of the preceding two years. It is not our intent to have dividends paid in
amounts which would reduce the capital of our bank to levels below those which we
consider prudent and in accordance with guidelines of regulatory authorities.
F-79
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
In December 2009 the Board of Directors of Independent Bank Corporation
adopted resolutions that impose the following restrictions:
|
|
|
We will not pay dividends on our outstanding common stock or the outstanding preferred stock held
by the UST and we will not pay distributions on our outstanding trust preferred securities
without, in each case, the prior written approval of the FRB and the Michigan Office of Financial
and Insurance Regulation (OFIR); |
|
|
|
|
We will not incur or guarantee any additional indebtedness without the prior approval of the FRB; |
|
|
|
|
We will not repurchase or redeem any of our common stock without the prior approval of the FRB; and |
|
|
|
|
We will not rescind or materially modify any of these limitations without notice to the FRB and
the Michigan OFIR. |
The substance of all of the resolutions described above was developed in
conjunction with discussions held with the FRB and the Michigan OFIR in response to the
FRBs most recent examination report of Independent Bank, which was completed in
October of 2009. It is very possible that if we had not adopted these resolutions, the
FRB and the Michigan OFIR may have imposed similar requirements on us through a
memorandum of understanding or similar undertaking. We are not currently subject to any
such regulatory agreement or enforcement action. However, we believe that if our
financial condition and performance do not materially improve, we may face additional
regulatory scrutiny and restrictions in the form of a memorandum of understanding or
similar undertaking imposed by the regulators.
We are also subject to various regulatory capital requirements. The prompt
corrective action regulations establish quantitative measures to ensure capital
adequacy and require minimum amounts and ratios of total and Tier 1 capital to
risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 capital to average assets. Failure to meet minimum
capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory, and possibly discretionary,
actions by regulators that could have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines, we must meet specific capital
requirements that involve quantitative measures as well as qualitative judgments by the
regulators. The most recent notifications from the FDIC as of December 31, 2009 and
2008, categorized our bank as well capitalized. Management is not aware of any
conditions or events that would have changed the most recent FDIC categorization.
F-80
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Our actual capital amounts and ratios at December 31, follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum for |
|
Minimum for |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adequately Capitalized |
|
Well-Capitalized |
|
|
Actual |
|
Institutions |
|
Institutions |
|
|
Amount |
|
Ratio |
|
Amount |
|
Ratio |
|
Amount |
|
Ratio |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital to risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
233,166 |
|
|
|
10.58 |
% |
|
$ |
176,333 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
228,128 |
|
|
|
10.36 |
|
|
|
176,173 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
|
|
$ |
220,216 |
|
|
|
10.00 |
% |
Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
156,702 |
|
|
|
7.11 |
% |
|
$ |
88,166 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
199,909 |
|
|
|
9.08 |
|
|
|
88,086 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
132,130 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
% |
Tier 1 capital to average assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
156,702 |
|
|
|
5.27 |
% |
|
$ |
119,045 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
199,909 |
|
|
|
6.72 |
|
|
|
118,909 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
148,636 |
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital to risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
308,649 |
|
|
|
13.05 |
% |
|
$ |
189,207 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
280,971 |
|
|
|
11.91 |
|
|
|
188,784 |
|
|
|
8.00 |
|
|
$ |
235,980 |
|
|
|
10.00 |
% |
Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted
assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
261,063 |
|
|
|
11.04 |
% |
|
$ |
94,603 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
250,639 |
|
|
|
10.62 |
|
|
|
94,392 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
141,588 |
|
|
|
6.00 |
% |
Tier 1 capital to average assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated |
|
$ |
261,063 |
|
|
|
8.61 |
% |
|
$ |
121,350 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
% |
|
NA |
|
|
NA |
|
Independent Bank |
|
|
250,639 |
|
|
|
8.25 |
|
|
|
121,503 |
|
|
|
4.00 |
|
|
$ |
151,879 |
|
|
|
5.00 |
% |
As of December 31, 2009, our bank continued to meet the requirements to be
considered well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards. However, minimum
capital ratios established by the Board of Directors of our bank are higher than the
ratios required in order to be considered well-capitalized under federal standards.
The Board imposed these higher ratios in order to ensure we have sufficient capital to
withstand potential continuing losses based on our elevated level of non-performing
assets and given certain other risks and uncertainties we face. Set forth below are the
actual capital ratios of our subsidiary bank as of December 31, 2009, the minimum
capital ratios imposed by the Board resolutions, and the minimum ratios necessary to be
considered well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Independent Bank - |
|
Minimum Ratios |
|
|
|
|
Actual as of |
|
Established by Our |
|
Required to be |
|
|
12/31/09 |
|
Board |
|
Well-Capitalized |
Total Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets |
|
|
10.36 |
% |
|
|
11.0 |
% |
|
|
10.0 |
% |
Tier 1 Capital to Average Total Assets |
|
|
6.72 |
|
|
|
8.0 |
|
|
|
5.0 |
|
In January of 2010, we adopted a Capital Restoration Plan (the Capital
Plan), as required by Board resolutions adopted in December of 2009 and submitted such
Capital Plan to the FRB and the Michigan OFIR. The Capital Plan sets forth an objective
of achieving these minimum capital ratios as soon as practicable, but no later than
April 30, 2010, and maintaining such capital ratios though at least the end of 2012.
If we are unable to achieve the minimum capital ratios set forth in our
Capital Plan it would likely materially and adversely affect our business and financial
condition. An inability to improve our capital position would make it
F-81
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
very difficult for us to withstand continued losses that we may incur and that may
be increased or made more likely as a result of continued economic difficulties and
other factors.
In addition, we believe that if we are unable to achieve the minimum capital
ratios set forth in our capital restoration plan by or within a reasonable time after
the April 30, 2010 deadline imposed by our Board of Directors and if our financial
condition and performance otherwise fail to improve significantly, it is likely we will
not be able to remain well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards. In that
case, we also expect our primary bank regulators would impose additional regulatory
restrictions and requirements on us through a regulatory enforcement action. If we fail
to remain well-capitalized under federal regulatory standards, we will be prohibited
from accepting or renewing brokered certificates of deposit (Brokered CDs) without
the prior consent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which would
likely have a material adverse impact on our business and financial condition. If our
regulators take enforcement action against us, it would likely increase our expenses
and could limit our business operations. There could be other expenses associated with
a continued deterioration of our capital, such as increased deposit insurance premiums
payable to the FDIC.
NOTE 22 FAIR VALUE DISCLOSURES
FASB ASC topic 820 defines fair value as the exchange price that would be received
for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most
advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market
participants on the measurement date. FASB ASC topic 820 also establishes a fair value
hierarchy which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable inputs and
minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value.
The standard describes three levels of inputs that may be used to measure
fair value:
|
|
|
Level 1:
|
|
Valuation is based upon quoted prices for identical
instruments traded in active markets. Level 1 instruments
include securities traded on active exchange markets, such
as the New York Stock Exchange, as well as U.S. Treasury
securities that are traded by dealers or brokers in active
over-the-counter markets. |
|
|
|
Level 2:
|
|
Valuation is based upon quoted prices for similar
instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical
or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and
model-based valuation techniques for which all significant
assumptions are observable in the market. Level 2
instruments include securities traded in less active dealer
or broker markets. |
|
|
|
Level 3:
|
|
Valuation is generated from model-based techniques that use
at least one significant assumption not observable in the
market. These unobservable assumptions reflect estimates of
assumptions that market participants would use in pricing
the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of
option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and
similar techniques. |
We used the following methods and significant assumptions to estimate fair
value:
Securities: Where quoted market prices are available in an active market,
securities (trading or available for sale) are classified as level 1 of the valuation
hierarchy. Level 1 securities include certain preferred stocks and a trust preferred
security for which there are quoted prices in active markets. If quoted market prices
are not available for the specific security, then fair values are estimated by (1)
using quoted market prices of securities with similar characteristics, (2) matrix
pricing, which is a mathematical technique used widely in the industry to value debt
securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for specific securities but
rather by relying on the securities relationship to other benchmark quoted prices, or
(3) a discounted cash flow analysis whose significant fair value inputs can generally
be verified and do not typically involve judgment by management. These securities are
classified as level 2 of the valuation hierarchy and include agency mortgage-backed
securities, municipal securities and certain trust preferred securities. Level 3
securities at December 31, 2009 consist of certain private label mortgage-backed and
asset-backed securities whose fair values are estimated using an internal discounted
cash flow analysis. The underlying loans within these securities include Jumbo (60%),
Alt A (25%) and
manufactured housing (15%). Except for the discount rate, the inputs used in this
analysis can generally be verified and do not
F-82
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
involve judgment by management. The discount rate used (an unobservable input) was
established using a multi-factored matrix whose base rate was the yield on agency
mortgage-backed securities. The analysis adds a spread to this base rate based on
several credit related factors, including vintage, product, payment priority, credit
rating and non performing asset coverage ratio. The add-on for vintage ranges from zero
for transactions backed by loans originated before 2003 to 0.525% for the 2007 vintage.
Product adjustments to the discount rate are: 0.05% to 0.20% for jumbo, 0.35% to 2.575%
for Alt-A, and 3.00% for manufactured housing. Adjustments for payment priority are
-0.25% for super seniors, zero for seniors, 1.00% for senior supports and 3.00% for
mezzanine securities. The add-on for credit rating ranges from zero for AAA securities
to 5.00% for ratings below investment grade. The discount rate for subordination
coverage of nonperforming loans ranges from zero for structures with a coverage ratio
of more than 10 times to 10.00% if the coverage ratio declines to less than 0.5 times.
The discount rate calculation has a minimum add on rate of 0.25%. These discount rate
adjustments are reviewed quarterly for reasonableness. This review considers trends in
mortgage market credit metrics by product and vintage. The discount rates calculated in
this manner are intended to differentiate investments by risk characteristics. Using
this approach, discount rates range from 4.11% to 16.64%, with a weighted average rate
of 8.91% and a median rate of 7.99%.
The assumptions used reflect what we believe market participants would use in
pricing these assets. The unrealized losses at December 31, 2009 ($7.8 million and
included in accumulated other comprehensive loss) were not considered to be other than
temporary as we continue to have sufficient credit enhancement via subordination to
assure full realization of amortized cost and continue to receive principal and
interest payments (see note 3).
Loans held for sale: The fair value of mortgage loans held for sale is
based on mortgage-backed security pricing for comparable assets (recurring level 2).
During the fourth quarter of 2009, we transferred a $2.2 million commercial real estate
loan from the commercial loan portfolio to held for sale. The fair value of this loan
was based on a bid from a buyer and, therefore, is classified as a recurring level 1.
This loan was sold for the recorded amount in January, 2010.
Impaired loans: From time to time, certain loans are considered impaired
and an allowance for loan losses is established. Loans for which it is probable that
payment of interest and principal will not be made in accordance with the contractual
terms of the loan agreement are considered impaired. We measure our investment in an
impaired loan based on one of three methods: the loans observable market price, the
fair value of the collateral or the present value of expected future cash flows
discounted at the loans effective interest rate. Those impaired loans not requiring an
allowance represent loans for which the fair value of the expected repayments or
collateral exceed the recorded investments in such loans. At December 31, 2009, all of
the total impaired loans were evaluated based on either the fair value of the
collateral or the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loans
effective interest rate. When the fair value of the collateral is based on an
observable market price we record the impaired loan as nonrecurring Level 2. When the
fair value of the collateral is based on an appraised value or when an appraised value
is not available we record the impaired loan as nonrecurring Level 3.
Other real estate: At the time of acquisition, other real estate is
recorded at fair value, less estimated costs to sell, which becomes the propertys new
basis. Subsequent write-downs to reflect declines in value since the time of
acquisition may occur from time to time and are recorded in other expense in the
consolidated statements of operations. The fair value of the property used at and
subsequent to the time of acquisition is typically determined by a third party
appraisal of the property (nonrecurring Level 3).
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights: The fair value of capitalized
mortgage loan servicing rights is based on a valuation model that calculates the
present value of estimated net servicing income. The valuation model incorporates
assumptions that market participants would use in estimating future net servicing
income. The valuation model inputs and results can be compared to widely available
published industry data for reasonableness.
Derivatives The fair value of derivatives, in general, is determined using
a discounted cash flow model whose significant fair value inputs can generally be
verified and do not typically involve judgment by management.
F-83
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Assets and liabilities measured at fair value, including financial
liabilities for which we have elected the fair value option, are summarized below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Measurements Using |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quoted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prices in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active |
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markets for |
|
Other |
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identical |
|
Observable |
|
Un-observable |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Assets |
|
Inputs |
|
Inputs |
|
|
Measurements |
|
(Level 1) |
|
(Level 2) |
|
(Level 3) |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
December 31, 2009: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities |
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
$ |
54 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency residential mortgage-backed |
|
|
47,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
47,522 |
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential
mortgage-backed |
|
|
30,975 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
30,975 |
|
Other asset-backed |
|
|
5,505 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,505 |
|
Obligations of states and political
subdivisions |
|
|
67,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,132 |
|
|
|
|
|
Trust preferred |
|
|
13,017 |
|
|
|
612 |
|
|
|
12,405 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans held for sale |
|
|
34,234 |
|
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
32,034 |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(1) |
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
932 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(2) |
|
|
4,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,259 |
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Non-recurring
basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights |
|
|
9,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
Impaired loans |
|
|
48,262 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
48,262 |
|
Other real estate |
|
|
30,821 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30,821 |
|
December 31, 2008: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities |
|
$ |
1,929 |
|
|
$ |
1,929 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
215,412 |
|
|
|
5,275 |
|
|
$ |
210,137 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loans held for sale |
|
|
27,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,603 |
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(1) |
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,043 |
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives(2) |
|
|
6,536 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,536 |
|
|
|
|
|
Measured at Fair Value on a Non-recurring
basis: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights |
|
|
9,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,636 |
|
|
|
|
|
Impaired loans |
|
|
60,172 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
60,172 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Included in accrued income and other assets |
|
(2) |
|
Included in accrued expenses and other liabilities |
F-84
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Changes in fair values for financial assets which we have elected the fair
value option for the periods presented were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changes in Fair Values for the Years |
|
|
Ended December 31 for Items Measured at |
|
|
Fair Value Pursuant to Election of the Fair Value Option |
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Change in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Values |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in |
|
|
Net Gains (Losses) |
|
Current |
|
Net Gains (Losses) |
|
Current |
|
|
on Assets |
|
Period |
|
on Assets |
|
Period |
|
|
Securities |
|
Loans |
|
Earnings |
|
Securities |
|
Loans |
|
Earnings |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Trading securities |
|
$ |
954 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
954 |
|
|
$ |
(10,386 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(10,386 |
) |
Loans held for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
(404 |
) |
|
|
(404 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
682 |
|
|
|
682 |
|
For those items measured at fair value pursuant to our election of the fair
value option, interest income is recorded within the consolidated statements of
operations based on the contractual amount of interest income earned on these financial
assets and dividend income is recorded based on cash dividends.
The following represent impairment charges recognized during the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008 relating to assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring
basis:
|
|
|
Capitalized mortgage loan servicing rights, whose individual strata
are measured at fair value had a carrying amount of $9.6 million which
is net of a valuation allowance of $2.3 million at December 31, 2009
and had a carrying amount of $9.6 million which is net of a valuation
allowance of $4.7 million at December 31, 2008. A recovery (charge) of
$2.3 million and $(4.3) million was included in our results of
operations for the years ending December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. |
|
|
|
|
Loans which are measured for impairment using the fair value of
collateral for collateral dependent loans had a carrying amount of
$69.5 million, with a valuation allowance of $21.3 million at December
31, 2009 and had a carrying amount of $77.0 million, with a valuation
allowance of $16.8 million at December 31, 2008. An additional
provision for loan losses relating to impaired loans of $56.7 million
and $47.9 million was included in our results of operations for the
years ending December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. |
|
|
|
|
Other real estate, which is measured using the fair value of the
property, had a carrying amount of $30.8 million which is net of a
valuation allowance of $6.5 million at December 31, 2009. An
additional charge of $8.6 million was included in our results of
operations during the year ended December 31, 2009. |
F-85
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
A reconciliation for all assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a
recurring basis using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) for the year ended
December 31, follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Securities Available for Sale |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
Beginning balance |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
21,497 |
|
Total gains (losses) realized and unrealized: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in results of operations |
|
|
(52 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Included in other comprehensive income |
|
|
(325 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Purchases, issuances, settlements, maturities and calls |
|
|
(10,524 |
) |
|
|
(11,469 |
) |
Transfers in and/or out of Level 3 |
|
|
47,381 |
|
|
|
(10,028 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending balance |
|
$ |
36,480 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of total gains (losses) for the period
included in earnings attributable to the change in
unrealized gains (losses) relating to assets still held
at December 31 |
|
$ |
(65 |
) |
|
$ |
0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As discussed above, the $47.4 million of securities available for sale
transferred to a Level 3 valuation technique during the first quarter of 2009 consisted
entirely of certain private label mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. We
believe that the market dislocation for these securities began in the last four months
of 2008, particularly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. Since
the disruption was very recent and historically there exists seasonally poor liquidity
conditions at year end, we decided that it was appropriate to retain Level 2 pricing in
2008 and continue to monitor and review market conditions as we moved into 2009. During
the first quarter of 2009 market conditions did not improve, in fact we believe market
conditions worsened due to continued declines in residential home prices, increased
consumer credit delinquencies, high levels of foreclosures, continuing losses at many
financial institutions, and further weakness in the U.S. and global economies. This
resulted in the market for these securities being extremely dislocated, level 2 pricing
not being based on orderly transactions and such pricing possibly being described as
based on distressed sales. As a result, we determined that it was appropriate to
modify the discount rate in the valuation model described above which resulted in these
securities being reclassified to Level 3 pricing in the first quarter of 2009.
The following table reflects the difference between the aggregate fair value
and the aggregate remaining contractual principal balance outstanding for loans held
for sale for which the fair value option has been elected at December 31.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
|
|
Contractual |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Difference |
|
Principal |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Loans held for sale |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
$ |
34,234 |
|
|
$ |
278 |
|
|
$ |
33,956 |
|
2008 |
|
|
27,603 |
|
|
|
682 |
|
|
|
26,921 |
|
NOTE 23 FAIR VALUES OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS
Most of our assets and liabilities are considered financial instruments. Many of
these financial instruments lack an available trading market and it is our general
practice and intent to hold the majority of our financial instruments to maturity.
Significant estimates and assumptions were used to determine the fair value of
financial instruments. These estimates are
subjective in nature, involving uncertainties and matters of judgment, and
therefore, fair values cannot be determined with precision. Changes in assumptions
could significantly affect the estimates.
Estimated fair values have been determined using available data and
methodologies that are considered suitable for each category of financial instrument.
For instruments with adjustable-interest rates which reprice
F-86
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
frequently and without significant credit risk, it is presumed that estimated fair
values approximate the recorded book balances.
Financial instrument assets actively traded in a secondary market, such as
securities, have been valued using quoted market prices while recorded book balances
have been used for cash and due from banks and accrued interest.
It is not practicable to determine the fair value of Federal Home Loan Bank
and Federal Reserve Bank Stock due to restrictions placed on transferability.
The fair value of loans is calculated by discounting estimated future cash
flows using estimated market discount rates that reflect credit and interest-rate risk
inherent in the loans.
Financial instrument liabilities with a stated maturity, such as certificates
of deposit and other borrowings, have been valued based on the discounted value of
contractual cash flows using a discount rate approximating current market rates for
liabilities with a similar maturity.
Subordinated debentures have generally been valued based on a quoted market
price of the specific or similar instruments.
Derivative financial instruments have principally been valued based on
discounted value of contractual cash flows using a discount rate approximating current
market rates.
Financial instrument liabilities without a stated maturity, such as demand
deposits, savings, NOW and money market accounts, have a fair value equal to the amount
payable on demand.
The estimated fair values and recorded book balances at December 31 follow:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
|
|
|
|
|
Recorded |
|
|
Estimated |
|
Book |
|
Estimated |
|
Book |
|
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance |
|
Fair Value |
|
Balance |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
Assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
$ |
65,200 |
|
|
$ |
65,200 |
|
|
$ |
57,500 |
|
|
$ |
57,500 |
|
Interest bearing deposits |
|
|
223,500 |
|
|
|
223,500 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
|
|
200 |
|
Trading securities |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
1,900 |
|
|
|
1,900 |
|
Securities available for sale |
|
|
164,200 |
|
|
|
164,200 |
|
|
|
215,400 |
|
|
|
215,400 |
|
Federal Home Loan Bank and
Federal Reserve Bank Stock |
|
NA |
|
|
|
27,900 |
|
|
NA |
|
|
|
28,100 |
|
Net loans and loans held for sale |
|
|
2,178,000 |
|
|
|
2,251,900 |
|
|
|
2,280,000 |
|
|
|
2,429,200 |
|
Accrued interest receivable |
|
|
8,900 |
|
|
|
8,900 |
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
|
|
11,300 |
|
Derivative financial instruments |
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
900 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits with no stated maturity |
|
$ |
1,394,400 |
|
|
$ |
1,394,400 |
|
|
$ |
1,215,200 |
|
|
$ |
1,215,200 |
|
Deposits with stated maturity |
|
|
1,183,200 |
|
|
|
1,171,300 |
|
|
|
865,000 |
|
|
|
851,300 |
|
Other borrowings |
|
|
136,300 |
|
|
|
131,200 |
|
|
|
547,500 |
|
|
|
542,700 |
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
|
46,500 |
|
|
|
92,900 |
|
|
|
67,300 |
|
|
|
92,900 |
|
Accrued interest payable |
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
|
4,500 |
|
|
|
4,425 |
|
|
|
4,425 |
|
Derivative financial instruments |
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
4,300 |
|
|
|
6,500 |
|
|
|
6,500 |
|
The fair values for commitments to extend credit and standby letters of
credit are estimated to approximate their aggregate book balance, which is nominal.
Fair value estimates are made at a specific point in time, based on relevant
market information and information about the financial instrument. These estimates do
not reflect any premium or discount that could result from offering for sale the entire
holdings of a particular financial instrument.
F-87
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Fair value estimates are based on existing on- and off-balance sheet
financial instruments without attempting to estimate the value of anticipated future
business, the value of future earnings attributable to off-balance sheet activities and
the value of assets and liabilities that are not considered financial instruments.
Fair value estimates for deposit accounts do not include the value of the
core deposit intangible asset resulting from the low-cost funding provided by the
deposit liabilities compared to the cost of borrowing funds in the market.
NOTE 24 OPERATING SEGMENTS
Our reportable segments are based upon legal entities. We have two reportable
segments: Independent Bank (IB) and Mepco. The accounting policies of the segments
are the same as those described in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements. We
evaluate performance based principally on net income of the respective reportable
segments. During 2007, we consolidated our four former bank charters into one. Prior to
this consolidation we reported each of the four banks as separate segments.
In the normal course of business, our IB segment provides funding to our
Mepco segment through an intercompany line of credit priced principally based on
Brokered CD rates. Our IB segment also provides certain administrative services to our
Mepco segment which reimburses at an agreed upon rate. These intercompany transactions
are eliminated upon consolidation. The only other material intersegment balances and
transactions are investments in subsidiaries at the parent entities and cash balances
on deposit at our IB segment.
A summary of selected financial information for our reportable segments
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IB |
|
Mepco(1) |
|
Other(2) |
|
Elimination(3) |
|
Total |
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,539,315 |
|
|
$ |
424,094 |
|
|
$ |
210,634 |
|
|
$ |
(208,679 |
) |
|
$ |
2,965,364 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
136,051 |
|
|
|
53,005 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
189,056 |
|
Net interest income |
|
|
95,190 |
|
|
|
49,953 |
|
|
|
(6,620 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
138,523 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
102,721 |
|
|
|
311 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
103,032 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income tax |
|
|
(76,888 |
) |
|
|
(9,106 |
) |
|
|
(7,349 |
) |
|
|
(94 |
) |
|
|
(93,437 |
) |
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(71,095 |
) |
|
|
(11,689 |
) |
|
|
(7,636 |
) |
|
|
193 |
|
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
2008 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
2,638,092 |
|
|
$ |
312,710 |
|
|
$ |
290,993 |
|
|
$ |
(285,550 |
) |
|
$ |
2,956,245 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
170,588 |
|
|
|
33,148 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
203,736 |
|
Net interest income |
|
|
110,788 |
|
|
|
26,503 |
|
|
|
(7,142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
130,149 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
71,285 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
71,321 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income tax |
|
|
(96,824 |
) |
|
|
17,274 |
|
|
|
(8,956 |
) |
|
|
(95 |
) |
|
|
(88,601 |
) |
Net income (loss) |
|
|
(92,551 |
) |
|
|
10,729 |
|
|
|
(9,780 |
) |
|
|
(62 |
) |
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
2007 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
3,002,899 |
|
|
$ |
235,813 |
|
|
$ |
342,664 |
|
|
$ |
(333,860 |
) |
|
$ |
3,247,516 |
|
Interest income |
|
|
199,386 |
|
|
|
23,868 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
223,254 |
|
Net interest income |
|
|
111,884 |
|
|
|
15,603 |
|
|
|
(6,896 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
120,591 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
42,765 |
|
|
|
395 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43,160 |
|
Income (loss) from continuing
operations before income tax |
|
|
8,469 |
|
|
|
8,118 |
|
|
|
(8,650 |
) |
|
|
915 |
|
|
|
8,852 |
|
Discontinued operations, net of tax |
|
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
9,729 |
|
|
|
5,472 |
|
|
|
(5,439 |
) |
|
|
595 |
|
|
|
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total assets include gross payment plan receivables of $1.6
million at December 31, 2009 from customers domiciled in Canada.
This amount represents less than 1% of total payment plan
receivables outstanding. We anticipate this balance to decline in
future periods. There were no payment plan receivables for
customers domiciled in Canada in 2008 or 2007. |
F-88
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Includes amounts relating to our parent company and certain insignificant operations. |
|
(3) |
|
Includes parent companys investment in subsidiaries and cash balances maintained at subsidiary. |
|
|
|
NOTE 25 |
|
INDEPENDENT BANK CORPORATION (PARENT COMPANY ONLY) FINANCIAL
INFORMATION |
Presented below are condensed financial statements for our parent company.
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
ASSETS
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
$ |
9,488 |
|
|
$ |
27,534 |
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
199,207 |
|
|
|
261,930 |
|
Other assets |
|
|
1,939 |
|
|
|
1,529 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Assets |
|
$ |
210,634 |
|
|
$ |
290,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS EQUITY
|
Subordinated debentures |
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
|
$ |
92,888 |
|
Other liabilities |
|
|
8,611 |
|
|
|
3,762 |
|
Shareholders equity |
|
|
109,135 |
|
|
|
194,343 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Liabilities and Shareholders Equity |
|
$ |
210,634 |
|
|
$ |
290,993 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-89
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
OPERATING INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends from subsidiaries |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
6,000 |
|
|
$ |
20,750 |
|
Management fees from subsidiaries and other income |
|
$ |
175 |
|
|
|
199 |
|
|
|
17,730 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Income |
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
6,199 |
|
|
|
38,480 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING EXPENSES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest expense |
|
|
6,620 |
|
|
|
7,142 |
|
|
|
6,896 |
|
Administrative and other expenses |
|
|
904 |
|
|
|
2,013 |
|
|
|
19,484 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Operating Expenses |
|
|
7,524 |
|
|
|
9,155 |
|
|
|
26,380 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) Before Income Tax and Equity in Undistributed
Net Income (Loss) of Subsidiaries Continuing Operations |
|
|
(7,349 |
) |
|
|
(2,956 |
) |
|
|
12,100 |
|
Income tax (expense) benefit |
|
|
(287 |
) |
|
|
(824 |
) |
|
|
3,211 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) Before Equity in Undistributed Net Income
(Loss) of Subsidiaries Continuing Operations |
|
|
(7,636 |
) |
|
|
(3,780 |
) |
|
|
15,311 |
|
Equity in undistributed net loss of subsidiaries continuing operations |
|
|
(82,591 |
) |
|
|
(87,884 |
) |
|
|
(5,356 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (Loss) from Continuing Operations |
|
|
(90,227 |
) |
|
|
(91,664 |
) |
|
|
9,955 |
|
Discontinued operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
402 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-90
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31, |
|
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2008 |
|
|
2007 |
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands) |
|
Net Income (Loss) |
|
$ |
(90,227 |
) |
|
$ |
(91,664 |
) |
|
$ |
10,357 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ADJUSTMENTS TO RECONCILE NET INCOME (LOSS) TO NET |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FROM (USED IN) OPERATING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation, amortization of intangible assets and premiums, and
accretion of discounts on securities and loans |
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
1,347 |
|
Goodwill impairment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
343 |
|
|
|
|
|
Loss on sale of property and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
947 |
|
(Increase) decrease in other assets |
|
|
(411 |
) |
|
|
3,220 |
|
|
|
883 |
|
Increase (decrease) in other liabilities |
|
|
4,531 |
|
|
|
(391 |
) |
|
|
(1,889 |
) |
Equity in undistributed net loss of subsidiaries continuing operations |
|
|
82,591 |
|
|
|
87,884 |
|
|
|
5,356 |
|
Equity in undistributed net income of subsidiaries discontinued
operations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(402 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Adjustments |
|
|
86,713 |
|
|
|
91,060 |
|
|
|
6,242 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash From (Used in) Operating Activities |
|
|
(3,514 |
) |
|
|
(604 |
) |
|
|
16,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOW USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in subsidiaries |
|
|
(13,000 |
) |
|
|
(53,600 |
) |
|
|
(9,500 |
) |
Proceeds from the sale of property and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,276 |
|
Capital expenditures |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,823 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash Used in Investing Activities |
|
|
(13,000 |
) |
|
|
(53,600 |
) |
|
|
(6,047 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CASH FLOW FROM (USED IN) FINANCING ACTIVITIES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dividends paid |
|
|
(3,384 |
) |
|
|
(7,769 |
) |
|
|
(18,874 |
) |
Proceeds from issuance of common stock |
|
|
1,852 |
|
|
|
1,892 |
|
|
|
354 |
|
Repayment of long-term debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,000 |
) |
|
|
(2,000 |
) |
Repayment of other borrowings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,500 |
) |
Proceeds from issuance of preferred stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
68,421 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from issuance of common stock warrants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,579 |
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from short-term borrowings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,000 |
|
Proceeds from issuance of subordinated debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32,991 |
|
Redemption of subordinated debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,050 |
) |
Repurchase of common stock |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,989 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Cash From (Used in) Financing Activities |
|
|
(1,532 |
) |
|
|
63,123 |
|
|
|
(6,068 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents |
|
|
(18,046 |
) |
|
|
8,919 |
|
|
|
4,484 |
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Year |
|
|
27,534 |
|
|
|
18,615 |
|
|
|
14,131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and Cash Equivalents at End of Year |
|
$ |
9,488 |
|
|
$ |
27,534 |
|
|
$ |
18,615 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-91
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
NOTE 26 DISCONTINUED OPERATIONS
On January 15, 2007 we sold substantially all of the assets of Mepcos insurance
premium finance business to Premium Financing Specialists, Inc. (PFS). Revenues and
expenses associated with Mepcos insurance premium finance business have been presented
as discontinued operations in the consolidated statements of operations. We have
elected to not make any reclassifications in the consolidated statements of cash flows.
Funding for Mepcos insurance premium and vehicle service contract payment
plan businesses is accomplished by loans from its parent company, Independent Bank.
Those loans are primarily funded with Brokered CDs. Mepco is charged interest by its
parent company based upon the amount borrowed at an interest rate that approximates the
parent companys borrowing rate. Interest expense recorded by Mepco was allocated to
discontinued operations based primarily upon the ratio of insurance premium finance
receivables to Mepcos total payment plan receivables.
The results of discontinued operations are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended |
|
|
|
December 31, |
|
|
|
2007 |
|
Interest income interest and fees on loans |
|
$ |
976 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income |
|
|
648 |
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Income After Provision for Loan Losses |
|
|
640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NON-INTEREST EXPENSE |
|
|
|
|
Compensation and employee benefits |
|
|
229 |
|
Other expenses |
|
|
(124 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Non-interest Expense |
|
|
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income Before Income Taxes |
|
|
535 |
|
Income tax expense |
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from discontinued operations |
|
$ |
402 |
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE 27 MANAGEMENT PLANS
Our operating results since 2007 have been negatively impacted by the difficult
economic conditions in Michigans Lower Peninsula. Substantial increases in our
provision for loan losses and other credit and collection costs, and in 2009, losses
related to vehicle service contract counterparty contingencies, have resulted in net
operating losses in 2008 and 2009 and reduced our capital. As discussed in note 21, we
have adopted a Capital Restoration Plan, which includes a series of actions designed to
increase our common equity capital, decrease our expenses and enable us to withstand
and better respond to current market conditions and the potential for worsening market
conditions. These actions include: (i) an offer to our trust preferred securities
holders to convert the securities they hold into our common stock; (ii) an offer to the
UST to convert the preferred stock it holds into our common stock, and (iii) a public
offering of our common stock for cash. We cannot be sure that we will be able to
successfully execute on these identified initiatives in a timely manner or at all.
F-92
PART II
INFORMATION NOT REQUIRED IN PROSPECTUS
Item 13. Other Expenses of Issuance and Distribution.
The following table sets forth the costs and expenses, other than underwriting commissions, to be
paid in connection with the sale of shares of our common stock being registered, all of which will
be paid by us. All of the amounts shown are estimates, except the SEC Registration Fee and the
FINRA Filing Fee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount |
|
SEC Registration Fee |
|
$ |
9,019.45 |
(1) |
Registrants Legal Fees and Expenses |
|
|
220,000.00 |
|
Registrants Accounting Fees and Expenses |
|
|
75,000.00 |
|
Printing and EDGAR Expenses |
|
|
70,000.00 |
|
FINRA Filing Fee |
|
|
13,150.00 |
|
Blue Sky Legal Fees |
|
|
5,000.00 |
|
Other |
|
|
15,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
407,169.45 |
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The registrant previously paid a registration fee of $4,682.29 in
connection with a registration statement on Form S-4, File No. 333-164546,
initially filed on January 27, 2010. Pursuant to Rule 457(p) of the Securities
Act, $3,154.45 of the previously paid registration fee is offset against the
registration fee otherwise due for this registration statement. The balance of
$5,865 has been paid in connection with the initial filing hereof. |
Item 14. Indemnification of Directors and Officers.
Michigan Business Corporation Act
IBC is organized under the Michigan Business Corporation Act (the MBCA) which, in general,
empowers Michigan corporations to indemnify a person who was or is a party or is threatened to be
made a party to a threatened, pending or completed action, suit or proceeding, whether civil,
criminal, administrative or investigative and whether formal or informal, other than an action by
or in the right of the corporation, by reason of the fact that such person is or was a director,
officer, employee or agent of the corporation, or is or was serving at the request of the
corporation as a director, officer, partner, trustee, employee or agent of another enterprise,
against expenses, including attorneys fees, judgments, penalties, fines and amounts paid in
settlement actually and reasonably incurred in connection therewith if the person acted in good
faith and in a manner reasonably believed to be in or not opposed to the best interests of the
corporation or its shareholders and, with respect to a criminal action or proceeding, if the person
had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful.
The MBCA also empowers Michigan corporations to provide similar indemnity to such a person for
expenses, including attorneys fees, and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably
incurred by the person in connection with actions or suits by or in the right of the corporation if
the person acted in good faith and in a manner the person reasonably believed to be in or not
opposed to the interests of the corporation or its shareholders, except in respect of any claim,
issue or matter in which the person has been found liable to the corporation, unless the court
determines that the person is fairly and reasonably entitled to indemnification in view of all
relevant circumstances, in which case indemnification is limited to reasonable expenses incurred.
If a person is successful in defending against a derivative action or third-party action, the MBCA
requires that a Michigan corporation indemnify the person against expenses incurred in the action.
The MBCA also permits a Michigan corporation to purchase and maintain on behalf of such a
person insurance against liabilities incurred in such capacities. IBC has obtained a policy of
directors and officers liability insurance.
The MBCA further permits Michigan corporations to limit the personal liability of directors
for a breach of their fiduciary duty. However, the MBCA does not eliminate or limit the liability
of a director for any of the following: (i) the amount of a financial benefit received by a
director to which he or she is not entitled; (ii) intentional infliction of harm on the corporation
or the shareholders; (iii) a violation of Section 551 of the MBCA; or (iv) an intentional criminal
act. If a Michigan corporation adopts such a provision, then the Michigan corporation may indemnify
its directors without a determination that they have met the applicable standards for
indemnification set forth above, except, in the case of an action or suit by or in the right of the
corporation, only against expenses reasonably incurred in the action. The foregoing does not apply
if the directors actions fall into one of the exceptions to the limitation on personal liability
discussed above, unless a court determines that the person is fairly and reasonably entitled to
indemnification in view of all relevant circumstances.
IBCs Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws
The Companys Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended, provide, among other things, for the
indemnification of directors and officers and authorize the Board of Directors to indemnify other
persons in addition to the officers and directors. Directors and officers are indemnified against
any actual or threatened civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative action, suit, or
proceeding in which the director or officer is a witness or which is brought against such officer
or director while serving at the request of the Company.
Insurance
The Companys Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended, authorize the purchase of insurance
for indemnification purposes and that the right of indemnity in the Restated Articles of
Incorporation, as amended, is not the exclusive means of indemnification.
Indemnification Agreements
The Company has entered into Indemnification Agreements with each of its directors that provides
for additional indemnity protection for the directors, consistent with the provisions of the MBCA.
For the undertaking with respect to indemnification, see Item 17 below.
Item 15. Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities.
On December 12, 2008, we entered into a Letter Agreement and Securities Purchase Agreement
Standard Terms with the Treasury under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) of the Troubled Asset
Relief Program (TARP), pursuant to which we sold, and the Treasury purchased, for an aggregate
purchase price of $72 million in cash, 72,000 shares of our Series A Preferred Stock and a warrant
to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $3.12 per share, subject
to anti-dilution adjustments.
On April 16, 2010, we closed the Exchange Agreement with the Treasury, pursuant to which the
Treasury accepted our newly issued shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock in exchange for
the entire $72 million in aggregate liquidation value of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock we
issued to the Treasury under the Capital Purchase Program (CPP) of the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (TARP), plus the value of all accrued and unpaid dividends on such shares of Series A
Preferred Stock (approximately $2.4 million). The shares of Series B Convertible Preferred Stock
are convertible into shares of our common stock. Subject to the receipt of any applicable
approvals, the Treasury has the right to convert the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock into our
common stock at any time. We have the right to compel a conversion of the Series B Convertible
Preferred Stock into our common stock if the following conditions are met:
|
(i) |
|
we receive appropriate approvals from the Federal Reserve; |
|
|
(ii) |
|
at least $40 million aggregate Liquidation Amount of trust preferred
securities are exchanged for our common stock under the exchange
offers described in the Exchange Offer Prospectus we filed with the
SEC on April 15, 2010 as part of a registration statement on Form
S-4; |
|
|
(iii) |
|
we complete a new cash equity raise of not less than $100 million on
terms acceptable to the Treasury in its sole discretion (other than
with respect to the price offered per share); and |
|
|
(iv) |
|
we make any required anti-dilution adjustments to the rate at which
the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock is converted into our
common stock. |
The Series B Convertible Preferred Stock issued to the Treasury will convert into shares of our
common stock at a 25% discount from the $1,000 liquidation value, subject to certain anti-dilution
adjustments.
Unless earlier converted, the Series B Convertible Preferred Stock will convert into shares of our
common stock on the seventh anniversary of the issuance of the Series B Convertible Preferred
Stock, subject to the prior receipt of any required regulatory and shareholder approvals.
As part of the terms of the Exchange Agreement, we also amended and restated the terms of the
Warrant, dated December 12, 2008, issued to the Treasury to purchase 3,461,538 shares of our common
stock. The amended and restated Warrant issued upon the closing of the Exchange Agreement adjusted
the exercise price of the Warrant to be consistent with the conversion price applicable to the
Series B Convertible Preferred Stock described above.
All of these securities were sold in one or more private placements exempt from registration
pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act. We did not engage in a general solicitation or
advertising with regard to the issuance and sale of such securities and did not offer securities to
the public in connection with this issuance and sale.
Item 16. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement.* |
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation,
conformed through May 12, 2009 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our Form
S-4 Registration Statement dated January 27,
2010, filed under registration No. 333-164546). |
|
|
|
3.1(a)
|
|
Amendment to Article III of the Articles of
Incorporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 99.1 to our current report on Form
8-K dated February 1, 2010 and filed February
3, 2010). |
|
|
|
3.1(b)
|
|
Amendment to Article III of the Articles of
Incorporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 99.1 to our current report on Form
8-K dated April 9, 2010 and filed April 9,
2010). |
|
|
|
3.1(c)
|
|
Certificate of Designations for Fixed Rate
Cumulative Mandatorily Convertible Preferred
Stock, Series B, filed as an amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our current
report on Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010 and
filed April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws, conformed through
December 8, 2008 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to our current report
on Form 8-K dated December 8, 2008 and filed on
December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Certificate of Trust of IBC Capital Finance II
dated February 26, 2003 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.1 to our report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Trust Agreement of IBC
Capital Finance II dated March 19, 2003
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.2 to our report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Preferred Securities Certificate of IBC Capital
Finance II dated March 19, 2003 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to our
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Preferred Securities Guarantee Agreement dated
March 19, 2003 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.4 to our report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Agreement as to Expenses and Liabilities dated
March 19, 2003 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.5 to our report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
Indenture dated March 19, 2003 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.6 to our
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture of Independent
Bank Corporation issued to IBC Capital Finance
II dated as of April 1, 2010 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.4 to our Form
S-4/A Registration Statement dated April 5,
2010, filed under registration No. 333-164546). |
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
8.25% Junior Subordinated Debenture of
Independent Bank Corporation dated March 19,
2003 (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 4.6 to our report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
Cancellation Direction and Release between
Independent Bank Corporation, IBC Capital
Finance II and U.S. Bank National Association
dated as of June 23, 2010 and related
Irrevocable Stock Power. |
|
|
|
4.10
|
|
Form of Certificate for the Fixed Rate
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated
December 8, 2008 and filed on December 12,
2008). |
|
|
|
4.11
|
|
Warrant dated December 12, 2008 to purchase
shares of Common Stock of Independent Bank
Corporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 4.2 to our current report on Form
8-K dated December 8, 2008 and filed on
December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
4.12
|
|
Certificate for the Fixed Rate Cumulative
Mandatorily Convertible Preferred Stock, Series
B (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated
April 16, 2010 and filed April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
4.13
|
|
Amended and Restated Warrant dated April 16,
2010 to purchase shares of Common Stock of
Independent Bank Corporation (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to our
current report on Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010
and filed April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
Opinion of Varnum LLP.* |
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Deferred Benefit Plan for Directors
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
10(C) to our report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1984). |
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
The form of Indemnity Agreement approved by our shareholders at its April 19,
1988 Annual Meeting, as executed with all of the Directors of the Registrant
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10(F) to our report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1988). |
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, as amended, approved by our
shareholders at its April 15, 1997 Annual Meeting (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4 to our Form S-8 Registration Statement dated July 28,
1997, filed under registration No. 333-32269). |
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
Employee Stock Option Plan, as amended, approved by our shareholders at its
April 17, 2000 Annual Meeting (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4 to
our Form S-8 Registration Statement dated October 8, 2000, filed under
registration No. 333-47352). |
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
The form of Management Continuity Agreement as executed with executive officers
and certain senior managers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10 to
our report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998). |
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
Independent Bank Corporation Long-term Incentive Plan, as amended through April
26, 2005, (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10 to our report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005). |
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated as of December 12, 2008, between Independent Bank
Corporation and the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Securities
Purchase AgreementStandard Terms attached thereto (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated December 8,
2008 and filed on December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
Form of Letter Agreement executed by each of Michael M. Magee, Jr., Robert N.
Shuster, William B. Kessel, Stefanie M. Kimball, and David C. Reglin
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to our current report on Form
8-K dated December 8, 2008 and filed on December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
Form of waiver executed by each of Michael M. Magee, Jr., Robert N. Shuster,
William B. Kessel, Stefanie M. Kimball, and David C. Reglin (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to our current report on Form 8-K dated December 8,
2008 and filed on December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
10.10
|
|
Exchange Agreement, dated April 2, 2010, between Independent Bank Corporation
and the United States Department of the Treasury (incorporated herein by
referenced to Exhibit 10.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated April 2, 2010
and filed on April 2, 2010). |
|
|
|
10.11
|
|
Form of waiver agreement executed by, among other employees, Michael M. Magee
(President and Chief Executive Officer), William B. Kessel (Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer), Robert N. Shuster (Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer), David C. Reglin (Executive Vice
President for Retail Banking), and Stefanie M. Kimball (Executive Vice President
and Chief Lending Officer) (incorporated herein by referenced to Exhibit 10.1 to
our current report on Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010 and filed on April 16,
2010). |
|
|
|
21.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 21
to our report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009). |
|
|
|
23.1
|
|
Consent of Crowe Horwath LLP. |
|
|
|
23.2
|
|
Consent of Varnum LLP (as contained in Exhibit 5.1).* |
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (included with signature pages to this Registration Statement). |
|
|
|
99.1
|
|
Investment Agreement, dated July 7, 2010, between Independent Bank Corporation
and Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP. |
|
|
|
99.2
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated July 7, 2010, between Independent Bank
Corporation and Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP. |
|
|
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |
Item 17. Undertakings.
Insofar as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (the
Securities Act) may be permitted to directors, officers and controlling persons of the registrant
pursuant to the indemnification provisions described herein, or otherwise, the registrant has been
advised that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission such indemnification is
against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is, therefore, unenforceable. In the
event that a claim for indemnification against such liabilities (other than the payment by the
registrant of expenses incurred or paid by a director, officer or controlling person of the
registrant in the successful defense of any action, suit or proceeding) is asserted by such
director, officer or controlling person in connection with the securities being registered, the
registrant will, unless in the opinion of its counsel the matter has been settled by controlling
precedent, submit to a court of appropriate jurisdiction the question whether such indemnification
by it is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act of 1933 and will be governed by
the final adjudication of such issue.
The undersigned registrant hereby undertakes:
(1) For purposes of determining any liability under the Securities Act, the information
omitted from the form of prospectus filed as part of this registration statement in reliance upon
Rule 430A and contained in a form of prospectus filed by the registrant pursuant to Rule 424(b) (1)
or (4) or 497(h) under the Securities Act shall be deemed to be part of this registration statement
as of the time it was declared effective.
(2) For the purpose of determining any liability under the Securities Act, each post-effective
amendment that contains a form of prospectus shall be deemed to be a new registration statement
relating to the securities offered therein, and the offering of such securities at that time shall
be deemed to be the initial bona fide offering thereof.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the registrant has duly
caused this Registration Statement on Form S-1 to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned,
thereunto duly authorized, in the City of Ionia, state of Michigan, on July 8, 2010.
Independent Bank Corporation
(Registrant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Robert N. Shuster
|
|
|
|
Date: July 8, 2010 |
|
|
Robert N. Shuster
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |
|
|
|
|
POWER OF ATTORNEY
KNOW BY ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes
and appoints Robert N. Shuster, Michael M. Magee, Jr., and James J. Twarozynski, and each of them,
as attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and re-substitution, for and in the
name, place and stead of the undersigned, in any and all capacities, to sign any and all amendments
(including post-effective amendments) to this registration statement, and to sign any registration
statement for the same offering covered by this registration statement that is to be effective upon
filing pursuant to Rule 462(b) promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, and all post-effective
amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto and all documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and
agents full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as the
undersigned might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each said
attorney-in-fact and agent, or any such substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be
done by virtue hereof.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933, this Registration
Statement on Form S-1 has been signed by the following persons in the capacities and on the dates
indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Capacity |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert N. Shuster
Robert N. Shuster
|
|
Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer (Principal
Financial Officer)
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Michael M. Magee, Jr.
Michael M. Magee, Jr.
|
|
Director, President and Chief Executive
Officer (Principal
Executive Officer)
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James J. Twarozynski
James J. Twarozynski
|
|
Senior Vice President and Controller (Principal
Accounting Officer)
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Donna J. Banks
Donna J. Banks
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Jeffrey A. Bratsburg
Jeffrey A. Bratsburg
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Stephen L. Gulis, Jr.
Stephen L. Gulis, Jr.
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Terry L. Haske
Terry L. Haske
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Robert L. Hetzler
Robert L. Hetzler
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Signature |
|
Capacity |
|
Date |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ James E. McCarty
James E. McCarty
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Charles A. Palmer
Charles A. Palmer
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Charles C. Van Loan
Charles C. Van Loan
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Clarke B. Maxson
Clarke B. Maxson
|
|
Director
|
|
July 8, 2010 |
EXHIBIT INDEX
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
Form of Underwriting Agreement.* |
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation,
conformed through May 12, 2009 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our Form
S-4 Registration Statement dated January 27,
2010, filed under registration No. 333-164546). |
|
|
|
3.1(a)
|
|
Amendment to Article III of the Articles of
Incorporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 99.1 to our current report on Form
8-K dated February 1, 2010 and filed February
3, 2010). |
|
|
|
3.1(b)
|
|
Amendment to Article III of the Articles of
Incorporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 99.1 to our current report on Form
8-K dated April 9, 2010 and filed April 9,
2010). |
|
|
|
3.1(c)
|
|
Certificate of Designations for Fixed Rate
Cumulative Mandatorily Convertible Preferred
Stock, Series B, filed as an amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to our current
report on Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010 and
filed April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Bylaws, conformed through
December 8, 2008 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 3.2 to our current report
on Form 8-K dated December 8, 2008 and filed on
December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
Certificate of Trust of IBC Capital Finance II
dated February 26, 2003 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.1 to our report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Amended and Restated Trust Agreement of IBC
Capital Finance II dated March 19, 2003
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.2 to our report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Preferred Securities Certificate of IBC Capital
Finance II dated March 19, 2003 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to our
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
Preferred Securities Guarantee Agreement dated
March 19, 2003 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.4 to our report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
Agreement as to Expenses and Liabilities dated
March 19, 2003 (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4.5 to our report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
Indenture dated March 19, 2003 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.6 to our
report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
First Supplemental Indenture of Independent
Bank Corporation issued to IBC Capital Finance
II dated as of April 1, 2010 (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.4 to our Form
S-4/A Registration Statement dated April 5,
2010, filed under registration No. 333-164546). |
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
8.25% Junior Subordinated Debenture of
Independent Bank Corporation dated March 19,
2003 (incorporated herein by reference to
Exhibit 4.6 to our report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2003). |
|
|
|
4.9
|
|
Cancellation Direction and Release between
Independent Bank Corporation, IBC Capital
Finance II and U.S. Bank National Association
dated as of June 23, 2010 and related
Irrevocable Stock Power. |
|
|
|
4.10
|
|
Form of Certificate for the Fixed Rate
Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated
December 8, 2008 and filed on December 12,
2008). |
|
|
|
4.11
|
|
Warrant dated December 12, 2008 to purchase
shares of Common Stock of Independent Bank
Corporation (incorporated herein by reference
to Exhibit 4.2 to our current report on Form
8-K dated December 8, 2008 and filed on
December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
4.12
|
|
Certificate for the Fixed Rate Cumulative
Mandatorily Convertible Preferred Stock, Series
B (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
4.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated
April 16, 2010 and filed April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
4.13
|
|
Amended and Restated Warrant dated April 16,
2010 to purchase shares of Common Stock of
Independent Bank Corporation (incorporated
herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to our
current report on Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010
and filed April 16, 2010). |
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
Opinion of Varnum LLP.* |
|
|
|
10.1
|
|
Deferred Benefit Plan for Directors
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit
10(C) to our report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 1984). |
|
|
|
Exhibit |
|
|
Number |
|
Description |
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
The form of Indemnity Agreement approved by our shareholders at its April 19,
1988 Annual Meeting, as executed with all of the Directors of the Registrant
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10(F) to our report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1988). |
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, as amended, approved by our
shareholders at its April 15, 1997 Annual Meeting (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 4 to our Form S-8 Registration Statement dated July 28,
1997, filed under registration No. 333-32269). |
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
Employee Stock Option Plan, as amended, approved by our shareholders at its
April 17, 2000 Annual Meeting (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4 to
our Form S-8 Registration Statement dated October 8, 2000, filed under
registration No. 333-47352). |
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
The form of Management Continuity Agreement as executed with executive officers
and certain senior managers (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10 to
our report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998). |
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
Independent Bank Corporation Long-term Incentive Plan, as amended through April
26, 2005, (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10 to our report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005). |
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
Letter Agreement, dated as of December 12, 2008, between Independent Bank
Corporation and the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Securities
Purchase AgreementStandard Terms attached thereto (incorporated herein by
reference to Exhibit 10.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated December 8,
2008 and filed on December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
Form of Letter Agreement executed by each of Michael M. Magee, Jr., Robert N.
Shuster, William B. Kessel, Stefanie M. Kimball, and David C. Reglin
(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to our current report on Form
8-K dated December 8, 2008 and filed on December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
Form of waiver executed by each of Michael M. Magee, Jr., Robert N. Shuster,
William B. Kessel, Stefanie M. Kimball, and David C. Reglin (incorporated herein
by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to our current report on Form 8-K dated December 8,
2008 and filed on December 12, 2008). |
|
|
|
10.10
|
|
Exchange Agreement, dated April 2, 2010, between Independent Bank Corporation
and the United States Department of the Treasury (incorporated herein by
referenced to Exhibit 10.1 to our current report on Form 8-K dated April 2, 2010
and filed on April 2, 2010). |
|
|
|
10.11
|
|
Form of waiver agreement executed by, among other employees, Michael M. Magee
(President and Chief Executive Officer), William B. Kessel (Executive Vice
President and Chief Operating Officer), Robert N. Shuster (Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer), David C. Reglin (Executive Vice
President for Retail Banking), and Stefanie M. Kimball (Executive Vice President
and Chief Lending Officer) (incorporated herein by referenced to Exhibit 10.1 to
our current report on Form 8-K dated April 16, 2010 and filed on April 16,
2010). |
|
|
|
21.1
|
|
Subsidiaries of the Registrant (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 21
to our report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009). |
|
|
|
23.1
|
|
Consent of Crowe Horwath LLP. |
|
|
|
23.2
|
|
Consent of Varnum LLP (as contained in Exhibit 5.1).* |
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
Power of Attorney (included with signature pages to this Registration Statement). |
|
|
|
99.1
|
|
Investment Agreement, dated July 7, 2010, between Independent Bank Corporation
and Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP. |
|
|
|
99.2
|
|
Registration Rights Agreement, dated July 7, 2010, between Independent Bank
Corporation and Dutchess Opportunity Fund, II, LP. |
|
|
|
* |
|
To be filed by amendment. |