Community Based, Nationally Recognized (sm)

Tag Archives: Viability

Treasury Expands TARP Program for CDFI’s; Contemplates Private Matching Investments

On February 3, 2010, the Treasury Department announced enhancements to the TARP Capital Purchase Program for Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs).  In addition to significant improvements for CDFIs, for the first time the Treasury Department has formally announced that it will consider private matching investments to determine bank viability – which could be a significant signal of how the Treasury might treat community banks under the proposed $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund.

Basic Program Terms

  • CDFI’s can apply for capital equal to up to 5 percent of their total risk weighted assets.
  • The dividend rate on the preferred stock will be 2% for eight years (as opposed to 5% for five years under the original Capital Purchase Program) before increasing to 9%.
  • CDFI’s with existing TARP Capital Purchase Program investments will be eligible to transfer those investments into this program (effectively lowering the carrying costs of the capital and potentially providing additional capital, if desired).
  • Consistent with the previous terms for CDFI’s, CDFI’s will not be required to issue any warrants or other additional equity kickers to the Treasury Department under the program.

Matching Capital

As noted above, for the first time the Treasury Department has formally recognized the possibility of institutions raising matching private capital to become eligible for TARP capital.  Specifically, the new plan contemplates that if a CDFI might not otherwise be approved by its regulator, it will be eligible to participate “so long as it can raise enough private capital that – when matched with the Treasury capital up to 5 percent of risk-weighted assets – it can reach viability.”  The new private capital will have to be junior to the TARP investment (i.e. common stock or preferred stock with lower preferences – although potentially higher dividend rates – than the TARP preferred stock).

(more…)

Acceptable Performance Ratios Under TARP CPP Standards

On August 27, 2009, the Treasury’s Inspector General released its audit report on the approval of City National Corp.’s receipt of $400 million in TARP Capital Purchase Program funds.  The report concludes that City National met the required criteria to receive funding, and that the OCC and Treasury followed the policies and procedures in place at that time for approving City National.

Unlike prior reports, the Appendix to the Treasury’s Inspector General report explicitly provides that acceptable performance ratios for TARP CPP recipients:

  • Classified Assets/Net Tier 1 Capital plus Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL) ratio of less than 100 percent;
  • Non-Performing Loans plus Other Real Estate Owned/Net Tier 1 Capital plus ALLL ratio of less than 40 percent; and
  • Construction and Development Loans/Total Risk-Based Capital ratio less than 300 percent.

Additional Clarity on TARP Approval Process & Standards

On August 6, 2009, the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP) published its report on whether external parties (i.e. politicians) unduly influenced TARP Capital Purchase Program decisions.  We will write more about that subject shortly, but the Report also provided the most detailed summary that we’ve seen of the factors considered by Treasury and the federal banking regulators in determining whether to approve a TARP application.

First, composite CAMELS ratings clearly played a significant role in determining the likelihood of success for any given institution.

  • 1-rated institutions were generally sent directly to Treasury for approval, and seemingly regularly approved for Capital Purchase Program funds.
  • 2-rated institutions with “acceptable performance ratios” were also sent directly to Treasury for approval, and again appear to have been regularly approved for funds.  2-rated institutions with “unacceptable performance ratios” were subject to further review by the interagency council, where at least three of the four federal banking regulators had to approve the application.  The Report states that the interagency council then analyzed “the viability of the institution based on the quantitative and qualitative  factors of the case” in determining whether to recommend approval to Treasury.
  • 3-rated institutions were originally treated like 2-rated institutions, but “relatively early in the CPP application review process,” Treasury decided that all 3-rated institutions needed to be reviewed by the interagency council.
  • 4- or 5-rated institutions were generally asked to withdraw, without the application being forwarded to the interagency council.

The Treasury would then make an independent evaluation of each application before making recommendations to the three-member Treasury Investment Committee.  The Treasury Investment Committee would then make a recommendation for final approval to the Assistant Secretary.  While only the Assistant Secretary can actually approve a TARP CPP application (all other actions are merely recommendations to approve), according to the Report, the Assistant Secretary had not rejected any recommendation forwarded by the Investment Committee for approval.

Performance Ratios

The Report also includes, as an Appendix, a copy of a “Case Decision Memo Template” that appears to have been the form used by the region/district level office of each federal banking regulator that reviewed TARP CPP applications.  The Memo provides further guidance on the specific performance ratios considered by the agencies.  In addition to CAMELS and CRA ratings, the  Memo called for an evaluation of the following performance ratios, both before and after a TARP infusion and both for the holding company and the largest bank subsidiary:

  • Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital
  • Total Risk-Based Capital
  • Tier 1 Leverage Ratio
  • Classified Assets/(Net Tier 1 Capital + ALLL)
  • (NPLs + OREO)/(Net Tier 1 Capital + ALLL)
  • Construction & Development Loans/Total Risk-Based Capital

While the first three performance ratios are consistent with the three historical measures of bank capitalization, the last three performance factors highlight the focus of the banking regulators on these ratios.

(more…)

An Update on the Application Backlog

Even as five of the eight initial Capital Purchase Program recipients have redeemed their TARP investments with the Treasury, hundreds of applications are still being processed, as reported by the American Banker on June 26, 2009 (subscription required).

The Government Accountability Office said in a June 17 report that the Treasury had received more than 1,300 applications from federal regulators as of June 12, and that fewer than 100 were still awaiting a decision. The GAO also said bank regulators are reviewing another 220 applications that have not yet been forwarded to the Treasury.

Of the banking agencies, only the Office of Thrift Supervision details the Tarp application process. Of the roughly 800 companies it oversees, the OTS said 302 have applied for capital injections. Forty-nine have gotten the money and 140 have withdrawn their applications. Another 71 are in some state of review while 42 have yet to be considered.

The Treasury may emphasize that “fewer than 100 are still awaiting a decision,” but that excludes over 200 applications that are haven’t even made it to the Treasury yet.  All told, there are probably 300 applicants that haven’t been told whether they are eligible to receive a TARP investment.

(more…)

Further Movement on “Viability”

While the Treasury and federal banking regulators have uniformly and consistently stated that the TARP Capital Purchase Program was only intended for “viable” banks, what constitutes viability has steadily become a higher standard.  (As we’ve previously noted, many of the original TARP Capital Purchase Program recipients would not qualify as the Treasury tightened its standards on viability.)

We are now hearing from multiple sources that for a bank to be deemed viable and eligible to receive TARP Capital Purchase Program funds the maximum acceptable level of non-performing assets is 40% of Tier 1 Capital plus Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (down from 75% or more previously).  While the Treasury still appears to be concerned with commercial real estate concentrations, this non-performing asset test appears to have taken center stage.

(more…)