The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) did not prescribe a specific approach when it required the Current Expect Credit Loss (CECL) standard, leaving it up to financial institutions to determine the best path forward. Since Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL) is no longer an apples-to-apples comparison, how will this impact a financial institution’s ability to compare itself to its peers?
If you have followed the news about MoviePass and its recent financial downfall, you may have read about declining stock prices and angry customers, and made a mental note about what not to do in business. However, there is one critical but less obvious lesson to learn from the MoviePass pandemonium – and it is one that just might keep your financial institution from going down the wrong CECL road.
Yes, we all know cyber security is the top risk facing banks and companies across all industries. However, as financial industry leaders scramble to address cyber risk and security, other banking risk could easily fall under the radar. When assessing business risk in the coming quarter and heading into 2019, keep these sneaky culprits in mind:
If credit unions want to stay on track for implementing the Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) standard, they need to have already completed several milestone tasks and to complete several more by the end of the year. Credit unions also need to be sure they have allocated sufficient time to complete the tasks that need to be finished between 2019 and 2022.
After many quiet years, merger and acquisition (M&A) activity at banks has been on the rise in 2018, and several favorable trends will likely sustain the momentum through the remainder of the year. By the middle of 2019, as banks evaluate acquisition opportunities, they likely will add a new component to their customary due diligence: an exploration and understanding of the target company’s Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) methodology.
With the Fed raising rates and long-term rates stabilizing, the yield curve is flattening, leaving financial institutions in a more vulnerable position. To offset the cost of funds and increase profit margins, many banks and credit unions are looking for ways to grab more market share, increase returns and appeal to a wider audience. Some lenders are taking on more risk by expanding credit boxes (appealing to under-served or complex borrowers) and loosening underwriting standards. With the ongoing rush to create and implement CECL models, how would expanding credit boxes impact your credit loss estimates?
It’s common for a bank of any size to have both commercial real estate (CRE) loans and construction and industrial (C&I) loans on its balance sheet. Another commonality: most small, midsize and large banks currently don’t have sufficient data to conduct an estimated loss analysis on these assets for the new Current Expected Credit Loss (CECL) standard, which goes into effect for publicly owned institutions in 2020.
Newswatch recently talked with Atul Nepal, a Quantitative Analyst at MountainView Financial Solutions, a Situs company, about the impact of the current expected credit losses (CECL) standard, which was issued in 2016 and will begin to go into effect in 2020.
(1) What is the best model to use for small financial institutions? What about larger institutions?
As community banks continue to evaluate their data and develop and test methodologies for CECL modeling, some might not have enough data within their existing loan portfolios. To more effectively estimate forward-looking losses, community institutions should apply external key data elements (KDE) to help obtain the results required to satisfy their need for “reasonable and supportable forecasts.”
What is your strategy for implementing CECL? That’s a question an increasing number of financial institutions are being forced to ask and answer. No longer just impacting accounting and finance, the tentacles of FASB’s CECL standard have made their way to organizations’ model risk, credit risk and information technology (IT) groups. If CECL is touching various aspects of an organization, is it feasible for financial institutions to view it myopically, as an accounting issue alone?