Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

Note 2 — Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2010-06, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (Topic 820):  Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements.  ASU 2010-06 revised two disclosure requirements concerning fair value measurements and clarifies two others.  It requires separate presentation of significant transfers into and out of Levels 1 and 2 of the fair value hierarchy and disclosure of the reasons for such transfers.  It will also require the presentation of purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements within Level 3 on a gross basis rather than a net basis.  The amendments also clarify that disclosures should be disaggregated by class of asset or liability and that disclosures about inputs and valuation techniques should be provided for both recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements.  The Company’s disclosures about fair value measurements are presented in Note 9 — Fair Value Disclosures.  These new disclosure requirements were effective for the period ended June 30, 2011, except for the requirement concerning gross presentation of Level 3 activity, which is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2010.  There was no significant effect to the Company’s financial statement disclosure upon adoption of this ASU.

In January 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-01, “Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about Troubled Debt Restructurings in Update No. 2010-20.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2010-20, “Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses” include the required disclosure of qualitative information about how financing receivables were modified and quantitative information about the extent and financial effects of modifications made during the period.  The Company is also required to disclose qualitative information about how such modifications are factored into the determination of the allowance for loan and lease losses.  Furthermore, the Company is also required to disclose information about troubled debt restructurings that meet the definition of a troubled debt restructuring within the previous 12 months for which there was a payment default in the current period.  The provisions of ASU No. 2010-20 were originally to be effective for the Company’s reporting period ended March 31, 2011.  However, the amendments in ASU No. 2011-01 deferred the effective date related to these disclosures, enabling creditors to provide such disclosures after the FASB completed their project clarifying the guidance for determining what constitutes a troubled debt restructuring.

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, “A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-02 provide additional guidance related to determining whether a creditor has granted a concession, include factors and examples for creditors to consider in evaluating whether a restructuring results in a delay in payment that is insignificant, prohibit creditors from using the borrower’s effective rate test to evaluate whether a concession has been granted to the borrower, and adds factors for creditors to use in determining whether a borrower is experiencing financial difficulties.  A provision in ASU No. 2011-02 also ends the FASB’s deferral of the additional disclosures related to troubled debt restructurings as required by ASU No. 2010-20.  There was no significant effect to the Company’s financial statement disclosure upon adoption of this ASU.

Future Application of Accounting Pronouncements

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements.”  ASU No. 2011-03 modifies the criteria for determining when repurchase agreements would be accounted for as a secured borrowing rather than as a sale.  Currently, an entity that maintains effective control over transferred financial assets must account for the transfer as a secured borrowing rather than as a sale.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee.  The FASB believes that contractual rights and obligations determine effective control and that there does not need to be a requirement to assess the ability to exercise those rights.  ASU No. 2011-03 does not change the other existing criteria used in the assessment of effective control.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 are effective prospectively for transactions, or modifications of existing transactions, that occur on or after January 1, 2012.  As the Company accounts for all of its repurchase agreements as collateralized financing arrangements, the adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.”  ASU No. 2011-04 results in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”).  The changes to U.S. GAAP as a result of ASU No. 2011-04 are as follows:  (1) The concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise are only relevant when measuring the fair value of nonfinancial assets (that is, it does not apply to financial assets or any liabilities); (2) U.S. GAAP currently prohibits application of a blockage factor in valuing financial instruments with quoted prices in active markets.  ASU No. 2011-04 extends that prohibition to all fair value measurements; (3) An exception is provided to the basic fair value measurement principles for an entity that holds a group of financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk that are managed on the basis of the entity’s net exposure to either of those risks.  This exception allows the entity, if certain criteria are met, to measure the fair value of the net asset or liability position in a manner consistent with how market participants would price the net risk position; (4) Aligns the fair value measurement of instruments classified within an entity’s shareholders’ equity with the guidance for liabilities; and (5) Disclosure requirements have been enhanced for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements to disclose quantitative information about unobservable inputs and assumptions used, to describe the valuation processes used by the entity, and to describe the sensitivity of fair value measurements to changes in unobservable inputs and interrelationships between those inputs.  In addition, entities must report the level in the fair value hierarchy of items that are not measured at fair value in the statement of condition but whose fair value must be disclosed.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-04 are effective for the Company’s interim reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2011.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-04 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-05 allow an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements.  In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income.  The statement(s) are required to be presented with equal prominence as the other primary financial statements.  ASU No. 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity but does not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-05 are effective for the Company’s interim reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2011, with retrospective application required.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-05 is expected to result in presentation changes to the Company’s statements of income and the addition of a statement of comprehensive income.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-05 will have no impact on the Company’s statements of condition.

In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-08 permits an entity an option to first perform a qualitative assessment to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount.  If an entity believes, as a result of its qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, the quantitative impairment test is required.  Otherwise, no further impairment testing is required.  ASU No. 2011-08 includes examples of events and circumstances that may indicate that a reporting unit’s fair value is less than its carrying amount.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-08 are effective for annual and interim goodwill impairment tests performed for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2011.  Early adoption is permitted provided that the entity has not yet performed its annual impairment test for goodwill.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-08 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.