XML 25 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.3.0.814
Loans (Policies)
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Accounting Changes and Error Corrections [Abstract]  
Troubled Debt Restructuring

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 Measurement

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 Company’s $1.8 million book value trust preferred is the only investment security classified as a Level 3 asset. The Company determines the value of the security by computing the present value of all scheduled future cash flows and discount accretion to determine an estimated market value for the security.

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 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 nine month period ended September 30, 2015, or the year ended December 31, 2014.

In October of 2008, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement for a term of seven years and an amount of $10.0 million. The Company pays a fixed rate of 7.27% for seven years and receive an amount equal to the three-month London Interbank Lending Rate (LIBOR) plus 3.10%. The interest rate swap is classified as a cash flow hedge by the Company. At September 30, 2015, and December 31, 2014, the cost of the Company to terminate the cash flow hedge was approximately $99,000 and $390,000, respectively. The interest rate swap agreement expires October 8, 2015.
Income Statement - Extraordinary and Unusual Items

ASU 2015-01, “Income Statement - Extraordinary and Unusual Items (Subtopic 225-20) – Simplifying Income Statement Presentation by Eliminating the Concept of Extraordinary Items.” ASU 2015-01 eliminates from U.S. GAAP the concept of extraordinary items, which, among other things, required an entity to segregate extraordinary items considered to be unusual and infrequent from the results of ordinary operations and show the item separately in the income statement, net of tax, after income from continuing operations. ASU 2015-01 is effective for the Corporation beginning January 1, 2016, though early adoption is permitted. ASU 2015-01 is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis

ASU No. 2015-02, “Amendments to the Consolidation Analysis.” This ASU affects reporting entities that are required to evaluate whether they should consolidate certain legal entities. Specifically, the amendments: (1) Modify the evaluation of whether limited partnerships and similar legal entities are variable interest entities (“VIEs”) or voting interest entities; (2) Eliminate the presumption that a general partner should consolidate a limited partnership; (3)

 

Affect the consolidation analysis of reporting entities that are involved with VIEs, particularly those that have fee arrangements and related party relationships; and (4) Provide a scope exception from consolidation guidance for reporting entities with interests in legal entities that are required to comply with or operate in accordance with requirements that are similar to those in Rule 2a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 for registered money market funds. ASU No. 2015-02 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2015. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of ASU No. 2015-02 to determine the potential impact the new standard will have on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements.
Simplifying Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments

In September 2015, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2015-16, Simplifying the Accounting for Measurement-Period Adjustments. The guidance in this update eliminates the requirement to restate prior period financial statements for measurement period adjustments. The new guidance requires that the cumulative impact of a measurement period adjustment (including the impact on prior periods) be recognized in the reporting period in which the adjustment is identified. The new guidance is intended to reduce complexity in financial reporting. The elimination of the restatement requirement should simplify financial reporting for many entities. However, recognizing the entire impact of a measurement period adjustment in a single reporting period may introduce earnings volatility and reduce comparability between periods when the adjustments are material. The accounting changes in this update are effective for public companies for annual periods, and the interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early application is permitted for financial statements that have not been issued. The Company is currently evaluating this guidance to determine the impact on its consolidated financial statements.