Effect of New Accounting Pronouncements (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2013

Effect of New Accounting Pronouncements [Abstract]

Troubled Debt Restructuring

On a periodic basis, the Bank may modify the terms of certain loans. In evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a troubled debt restructuring (TDR), Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued Accounting Standards Update 310 (ASU 310), A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring. In evaluating whether a restructuring constitutes a TDR, the Bank must separately conclude that both of the following exist:

• The restructuring constitutes a concession

• The debtor is experiencing financial difficulties

ASU 310 provides the following guidance for the Bank’s evaluation of whether it has granted a concession as follows:

• If a debtor does not otherwise have access to funds at a market interest rate for debt with similar risk characteristics as the restructured debt, the restructured debt would be considered a below market rate, which may indicate that the Bank may have granted a concession. In that circumstance, the Bank should consider all aspects of the restructuring in determining whether it has granted a concession, the creditor must make a separate assessment about whether the debtor is experiencing financial difficulties to determine whether the restructuring constitutes a TDR.

• A temporary or permanent increase in the interest rate on a loan as a result of a restructuring does not eliminate the possibility of the restructuring from being considered a concession if the new interest rate on the loan is below the market interest rate for loans of similar risk characteristics.

• A restructuring that results in a delay in payment that is insignificant is not a concession. However, the Bank must consider a variety of factors in assessing whether a restructuring resulting in a delay in payment is insignificant.

Fair Value Measurements

In September 2006, the FASB issued ASC 820-10, Fair Value Measurements. This Statement defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure about fair value. The statement establishes a fair value hierarchy which requires an entity to maximize the use of observable input 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 is for assets and liabilities that management has obtained quoted prices (unadjusted for transaction cost) or identical assets or liabilities in active markets that the Company has the ability to access as of the measurement date.

• Level 2 is for assets and liabilities in which significant unobservable inputs other than Level 1 prices such as quoted prices for similar assets and liabilities; quoted prices in markets that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data.

• Level 3 is for assets and liabilities in which significant unobservable inputs that reflect a reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing an asset or liability.

The fair values of securities available for sale are determined by a matrix pricing, which is a mathematical technique that is widely used in the industry to value debt securities without exclusively using quoted prices for the individual securities in the Company’s portfolio but rather by relying on the securities relationship to other benchmark quoted securities. Impaired loans are valued at the net present value of expected payments using the fair value of any assigned collateral. The values for bank owned life insurance are obtained from stated values from the respective insurance companies. The liability associated with the Company’s derivative is obtained from a quoted value supplied by our correspondent banker. The value of real estate owned is obtained from appraisals completed on properties at the time of acquisition and annually thereafter.

Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities

Under guidelines of Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) ASC 815, Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, as amended, all derivative instruments are required to be carried at fair value on the consolidated statement of financial position. ASC 815 provides special hedge accounting provisions, which permit the change in fair value of the hedge item related to the risk being hedged to be recognized in earnings in the same period and in the same income statement line as the change in the fair value of the derivative.

A derivative instrument designated in a hedge relationship to mitigate exposure to changes in the fair value of an asset, liability or firm commitment attributable to a particular risk, such as interest rate risk, are considered fair value hedges under ASC 815. Derivative instruments designated in a hedge relationship to mitigate exposure to variability in expected future cash flows, or other types of forecasted transactions, are considered cash flow hedges. Cash value hedges are accounted for by recording the fair value of the derivative instrument and the fair value related to the risk being hedged of the hedged asset or liability on the consolidated statement of financial position with corresponding offsets recorded in the consolidated statement of financial position.

The adjustment to the hedged asset or liability is included in the basis of the hedged item, while the fair value of the derivative is recorded as a freestanding asset or liability. Actual cash receipts or payments and related amounts accrued during the period on derivatives included in a fair value hedge relationship are recorded as adjustments to the income or expense recorded on the hedged asset or liability.

Under both the fair value and cash flow hedge methods, derivative gains and losses not effective in hedging the change in fair value or expected cash flows of the hedged item are recognized immediately in the income statement. At the hedge’s inception and at least quarterly thereafter, a formal assessment is performed to determine whether changes in the fair values or cash flows of the derivative instrument has been highly effective in offsetting changes in the fair values or cash flows of the hedged items and whether they are expected to be highly effective in the future. If it is determined a derivative instrument has not been, or will not continue to be highly effective as a hedge, hedged accounting is discontinued. ASC 815 basis adjustments recorded on hedged assets and liabilities are amortized over the remaining life of the hedged item beginning no later than when hedge accounting ceases. There were no fair value hedging gains or losses, as a result of hedge ineffectiveness, recognized for the three month period ended March 31, 2013, or the year ended December 31, 2012.

Intangibles - Goodwill and other

ASU 2012-02, “Intangibles—Goodwill and Other (Topic 350)—Testing Indefinite-Lived Intangible Assets for Impairment.” ASU 2012-02 give entities the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired. If, after assessing the totality of events or circumstances, an entity determines it is more likely than not that an indefinite-lived intangible asset is impaired, then the entity must perform the quantitative impairment test. If, under the quantitative impairment test, the carrying amount of the intangible asset exceeds its fair value, an entity should recognize an impairment loss in the amount of that excess.

Permitting an entity to assess qualitative factors when testing indefinite-lived intangible assets for impairment results in guidance that is similar to the goodwill impairment testing guidance in ASU 2011-08. ASU 2012-02 is effective for the Company’s beginning January 1, 2013 (early adoption permitted) and is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements.

Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities

ASU 2011-11, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210)—“Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities.” ASU 2011-11 amends Topic 210, “Balance Sheet,” to require an entity to disclose both gross and net information about financial instruments, such as sales and repurchase agreements and reverse sale and repurchase agreements and securities borrowing/lending arrangements, and derivative instruments that are eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and/or subject to a master netting arrangement or similar agreement. ASU No. 2013-01, “Balance Sheet (Topic 210)—Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities,” clarifies that ordinary trade receivables are not within the scope of ASU 2011-11. ASU 2011-11 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning on January 1, 2013, and did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements.

Comprehensive Income

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards update No. 2011-05. This update to Comprehensive Income (Topic 220) defers the requirement to present items that are reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to net income separately with their respective components of net income and other comprehensive income. The deferral supersedes only the paragraphs pertaining to how and where reclassification adjustments are presented. The amendments in this update were effective for public entities for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The implementation of ASU 2011-12 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated statement of comprehensive income.

ASU 2013-02, “Comprehensive Income (Topic 220)—Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income.” ASU 2013-02 amends recent guidance related to the reporting of comprehensive income to enhance the reporting of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. ASU 2013-02 became effective for the Company on January 1, 2013, and did not have a significant impact on the Company’s financial statements.

Other accounting standards that have been issued or proposed by the FASB or other standards-setting bodies are not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Business Combinations

ASU 2012-06, “Business Combinations (Topic 805)—Subsequent Accounting for an Indemnification Asset Recognized at the Acquisition Date as a Result of a Government-Assisted Acquisition of a Financial Institution (a consensus of the FASB Emerging Issues Task Force).” ASU 2012-06 clarifies the applicable guidance for subsequently measuring an indemnification asset recognized as a result of a government-assisted acquisition of a financial institution. Under ASU 2012-06, when a reporting entity recognizes an indemnification asset as a result of a government-assisted acquisition of a financial institution and, subsequently, a change in the cash flows expected to be collected on the indemnification asset occurs (as a result of a change in cash flows expected to be collected on the assets subject to indemnification), the reporting entity should subsequently account for the change in the measurement of the indemnification asset on the same basis as the change in the assets subject to indemnification. Any amortization of changes in value should be limited to the contractual term of the indemnification agreement (that is, the lesser of the term of the indemnification agreement and the remaining life of the indemnified assets). ASU 2012-06 became effective for the Company on January 1, 2013 and did not have a significant impact on the Corporation’s financial statements.