-
Lenders grudgingly embraced some changes in FASB's new loan-loss accounting requirements, and they get more than three years to comply, but a number of implementation pitfalls still lie ahead.
June 17 -
The Financial Accounting Standards Board gave final approval Wednesday to its controversial Current Expected Credit Loss standard, but agreed to delay its implementation deadlines by a year in response to protests from banks and credit unions.
April 27 -
The latest version of a new accounting standard for calculating loan-loss reserves would ease the burden on small banks, ICBA officials say. However, the ABA says it still fails to eliminate the biggest problem asking lenders to predict the future.
April 11
On June 16, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued its long-awaited Current Expected Credit Loss impairment standard, or CECL. The
Should bankers believe the regulatory assertions?
One way to predict what mayhappen under a new standard is to analyze the extent to which regulators tailored implementation of existing accounting standards for smaller institutions, and then to extrapolate from there. With this in mind, economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis conducted empirical tests to determine how, under generally accepted accounting principles, regulators have evaluated the methodologies used by banks to manage their allowances for loan losses.
Using data from thousands of commercial banks in varying size categories over the last 20 years, the St. Louis Fed economists applied the regulatory expectation that changes in the level of the reserve for loan and lease losses should "be directionally consistent with" concurrent changes in credit quality. This was based on the 2006 Interagency Policy Statement on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses. That guidance stated that changes in the level of the allowance should be "directionally consistent" with changes in factors that, taken as a whole, evidence credit losses while also keeping in mind the characteristics of an institution's loan portfolio. For example, if declining credit quality trends relevant to the types of loans in an institution's portfolio are evident, the allowance as a percentage of the portfolio should generally increase.
The
In addition to this empirical test, qualitative evidence exists that regulators currently scale their expectations regarding the sophistication and complexity of methodologies utilized at banks of different sizes. Larger more complex banks routinely use methods such as probability of default and loss given default, while smaller community banks utilize much simpler methods such as loss rate multiplied by principal balance. Regulators have not in the past required smaller community banks to switch methodologies to these more sophisticated and complex methods, and we do not expect to in the future.
To be sure, assuming that past approaches will be carried into the future is a speculative exercise. And the methodology used by St. Louis Fed economists to make the empirical connection is subject to potentially important caveats. Nonetheless, the main conclusion of the study is encouraging. Quantifiable and qualitative evidence of historical scaling in approach may offer some encouragement to bankers as we begin this important transition.
Julie Stackhouse is the executive vice president and managing officer of Banking Supervision, Credit, Community Development and Learning Innovation for the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.