Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies	Note 1.Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Nature of Operations Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Royal Bancshares”, the “Company”, “We” or “Our”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary Royal Bank America (“Royal Bank”) offers a full range of banking services to individual and corporate customers primarily located in the Mid-Atlantic states. Royal Bank competes with other banking and financial institutions in certain markets, including financial institutions with resources substantially greater than its own. Commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and brokerage firms actively compete for savings and time deposits and for various types of loans. Such institutions, as well as consumer finance and insurance companies, may be considered competitors of Royal Bank with respect to one or more of the services it renders. Basis of Financial Presentation The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Royal Investments of Delaware, Inc., including Royal Investments of Delaware, Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary, Royal Preferred, LLC, and Royal Bank, including Royal Bank’s subsidiaries, Royal Real Estate of Pennsylvania, Inc., Royal Investments America, LLC, RBA Property LLC, Narberth Property Acquisition LLC, Rio Marina LLC, and Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC (“RTL”). Royal Bank also has an 80% and 60% ownership interest in Crusader Servicing Corporation (“CSC”) and Royal Bank America Leasing, LP, respectively. The two Delaware trusts, Royal Bancshares Capital Trust I and Royal Bancshares Capital Trust II are not consolidated per requirements under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 810, “Consolidation” (“ASC Topic 810”). These consolidated financial statements reflect the historical information of the Company. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information. Applications of the principles in our preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. These estimates and assumptions are based on information available as of the date of the consolidated financial statements; therefore, actual results could differ from those estimates. The interim financial information included herein is unaudited; however, such information reflects all adjustments (consisting solely of normal recurring adjustments) that are, in the opinion of management, necessary to present a fair statement of the results for the interim periods. These interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The results of operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. Reclassifications Certain items in the 2015 consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes have been reclassified to conform to the current year’s presentation format. There was no effect on net income for the periods presented herein as a result of the reclassification. Accounting Policies Recently Adopted and Pending Accounting Pronouncements In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 14-09”), which establishes a comprehensive revenue recognition standard for virtually all industries under U.S. GAAP, including those that previously followed industry-specific guidance such as the real estate, construction and software industries. The revenue standard’s core principle is built on the contract between a vendor and a customer for the provision of goods and services. It attempts to depict the exchange of rights and obligations between the parties in the pattern of revenue recognition based on the consideration to which the vendor is entitled. To accomplish this objective, the standard requires five basic steps: i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. The ASU is effective for public entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods therein. Three basic transition methods are available – full retrospective, retrospective with certain practical expedients, and a cumulative effect approach. Under the third alternative, an entity would apply the new revenue standard only to contracts that are incomplete under legacy U.S. GAAP at the date of initial application (e.g. January 1, 2017) and recognize the cumulative effect of the new standard as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings. That is, prior years would not be restated and additional disclosures would be required to enable users of the financial statements to understand the impact of adopting the new standard in the current year compared to prior years that are presented under legacy U.S. GAAP. Early adoption is prohibited under U.S. GAAP. In August 2015, the FASB Issued ASU 2015-14 which deferred the effective date to December 31, 2017 and the initial application date (e.g. January 1, 2018.) We do not believe ASU 2014-09 will have a material effect on its financial statements. In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718) - Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period (“ASU 2014-12”). The amendments in ASU 2014-12 require that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a performance condition. A reporting entity should apply existing guidance in Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, as it relates to awards with performance conditions that affect vesting to account for such awards. The performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant-date fair value of the award. Compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. If the performance target becomes probable of being achieved before the end of the requisite service period, the remaining unrecognized compensation cost should be recognized prospectively over the remaining requisite service period. The total amount of compensation cost recognized during and after the requisite service period should reflect the number of awards that are expected to vest and should be adjusted to reflect those awards that ultimately vest. The requisite service period ends when the employee can cease rendering service and still be eligible to vest in the award if the performance target is achieved. The amendments in ASU 2014-12 are effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption was permitted. Entities may apply the amendments in this ASU either: (a) prospectively to all awards granted or modified after the effective date; or (b) retrospectively to all awards with performance targets that are outstanding as of the beginning of the earliest annual period presented in the financial statements and to all new or modified awards thereafter. The adoption of ASU 2014-12 did not have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements. In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, “Financial Instruments – Overall (Topic 825-10): “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” ASU 2016-01 amends the guidance on the classification and measurement of financial instruments. Some of the amendments in ASU 2016-01 include the following: 1) requires equity investments (except those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee) to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income; 2) simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment; 3) requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; and 4) requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value; among others. ASU 2016-01 also clarifies that an entity should assess the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to unrealized losses of investments in debt instruments recognized in OCI in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. Prior to this guidance, the alternative approach used in practice evaluated the need for a valuation allowance for a deferred tax asset related to unrealized losses on debt instruments recognized in other comprehensive income separately from other deferred tax assets. This alternative approach will no longer be acceptable. For public business entities, the amendments of ASU 2016-01 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We do not believe ASU 2016-01 will have a material effect on our financial statements. In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, “Leases” (“ASU 2016-02”). From the lessee's perspective, the new standard establishes a right-of-use (ROU) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement for a lessees. From the lessor's perspective, the new standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, finance or operating. A lease will be treated as a sale if it transfers all of the risks and rewards, as well as control of the underlying asset, to the lessee. If risks and rewards are conveyed without the transfer of control, the lease is treated as a financing lease. If the lessor doesn’t convey risks and rewards or control, an operating lease results. The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessees for capital and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessors for sales-type, direct financing, and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. We are currently evaluating the impact of the pending adoption of the new standard on its consolidated financial statements. In March 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-05, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships” (“ASU 2016-05”). The term novation refers to replacing one counterparty to a derivative instrument with a new counterparty. That change occurs for a variety of reasons, including financial institution mergers, intercompany transactions, an entity exiting a particular derivatives business or relationship, an entity managing against internal credit limits, or in response to laws or regulatory requirements. The amendments in ASU 2016-05 clarify that a change in the counterparty to a derivative instrument that has been designated as the hedging instrument under Topic 815, does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of that hedging relationship provided that all other hedge accounting criteria continue to be met. For public business entities, the amendments in this ASU 2016-05 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity has an option to apply the amendments in ASU 2016-05 on either a prospective basis or a modified retrospective basis. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. We do not believe ASU 2016-05 will have a material effect on our financial statements. In March 2016, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-09, ”Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting” (“ASU 2016-09”). FASB is issuing ASU 2016-09 as part of its initiative to reduce complexity in accounting standards. The areas for simplification in this ASU 2016-09 involve several aspects of the accounting for employee share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. Some of the areas for simplification apply only to nonpublic entities. For public business entities, the amendments in ASU 2016-09 are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for any entity in any interim or annual period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. An entity that elects early adoption must adopt all of the amendments in the same period. We do not believe ASU 2016-09 will have a material effect on our financial statements. In June 2016, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, ”Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326) Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (“ASU 2016-13”). The main objective of ASU 2016-13 is to provide financial statement users with more decision-useful information about the expected credit losses on financial instruments and other commitments to extend credit held by a reporting entity at each reporting date. To achieve this objective, the amendments in ASU 2016-13 replace the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. The amendments affect entities holding financial assets and net investment in leases that are not accounted for at fair value through net income. The amendments affect loans, debt securities, trade receivables, net investments in leases, off-balance-sheet credit exposures, reinsurance receivables, and any other financial assets not excluded from the scope that have the contractual right to receive cash. The amendments in ASU 2016-13 affect an entity to varying degrees depending on the credit quality of the assets held by the entity, their duration, and how the entity applies current GAAP. There is diversity in practice in applying the incurred loss methodology, which means that before transition some entities may be more aligned, under current GAAP, than others to the new measure of expected credit losses. The amendments in ASU 2016-13 require a financial asset (or a group of financial assets) measured at amortized cost basis to be presented at the net amount expected to be collected. The allowance for credit losses is a valuation account that is deducted from the amortized cost basis of the financial asset(s) to present the net carrying value at the amount expected to be collected on the financial asset. The income statement reflects the measurement of credit losses for newly recognized financial assets, as well as the expected increases or decreases of expected credit losses that have taken place during the period. The measurement of expected credit losses is based on relevant information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectibility of the reported amount. An entity must use judgment in determining the relevant information and estimation methods that are appropriate in its circumstances. The allowance for credit losses for purchased financial assets with a more-than insignificant amount of credit deterioration since origination (PCD assets) that are measured at amortized cost basis is determined in a similar manner to other financial assets measured at amortized cost basis; however, the initial allowance for credit losses is added to the purchase price rather than being reported as a credit loss expense. Only subsequent changes in the allowance for credit losses are recorded as a credit loss expense for these assets. Interest income for PCD assets should be recognized based on the effective interest rate, excluding the discount embedded in the purchase price that is attributable to the acquirer’s assessment of credit losses at acquisition. Credit losses relating to available-for-sale debt securities should be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. Available-for-sale accounting recognizes that value may be realized either through collection of contractual cash flows or through sale of the security. Therefore, the amendments limit the amount of the allowance for credit losses to the amount by which fair value is below amortized cost because the classification as available for sale is premised on an investment strategy that recognizes that the investment could be sold at fair value, if cash collection would result in the realization of an amount less than fair value. The amendments in ASU 2016-13 require that credit losses be presented as an allowance rather than as a writedown. This approach is an improvement to current GAAP because an entity will be able to record reversals of credit losses (in situations in which the estimate of credit losses declines) in current period net income, which in turn should align the income statement recognition of credit losses with the reporting period in which changes occur. Current GAAP prohibits reflecting those improvements in current period earnings. For public business entities that are SEC filers, the amendments in ASU 2016-13 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years. All entities may adopt the amendments in ASU 2016-13 earlier as of the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity will apply the amendments in ASU 2016-13 through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (that is, modified-retrospective approach). A prospective transition approach is required for debt securities for which an other-than-temporary impairment had been recognized before the effective date. The effect of a prospective transition approach is to maintain the same amortized cost basis before and after the effective date of ASU 2016-13. Amounts previously recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income as of the date of adoption that relate to improvements in cash flows expected to be collected should continue to be accreted into income over the remaining life of the asset. Recoveries of amounts previously written off relating to improvements in cash flows after the date of adoption should be recorded in earnings when received. We are currently evaluating the impact of the amendments in ASU 2016-13 on our consolidated financial statements.

Note 1.Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Nature of Operations

Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Royal Bancshares”, the “Company”, “We” or “Our”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary Royal Bank America (“Royal Bank”) offers a full range of banking services to individual and corporate customers primarily located in the Mid-Atlantic states. Royal Bank competes with other banking and financial institutions in certain markets, including financial institutions with resources substantially greater than its own. Commercial banks, savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions and brokerage firms actively compete for savings and time deposits and for various types of loans. Such institutions, as well as consumer finance and insurance companies, may be considered competitors of Royal Bank with respect to one or more of the services it renders.

Basis of Financial Presentation

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Royal Bancshares of Pennsylvania, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Royal Investments of Delaware, Inc., including Royal Investments of Delaware, Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary, Royal Preferred, LLC, and Royal Bank, including Royal Bank’s subsidiaries, Royal Real Estate of Pennsylvania, Inc., Royal Investments America, LLC, RBA Property LLC, Narberth Property Acquisition LLC, Rio Marina LLC, and Royal Tax Lien Services, LLC (“RTL”). Royal Bank also has an 80% and 60% ownership interest in Crusader Servicing Corporation (“CSC”) and Royal Bank America Leasing, LP, respectively. The two Delaware trusts, Royal Bancshares Capital Trust I and Royal Bancshares Capital Trust II are not consolidated per requirements under Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Topic 810, “Consolidation” (“ASC Topic 810”). These consolidated financial statements reflect the historical information of the Company. All significant intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation.

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) for interim financial information. Applications of the principles in our preparation of the consolidated financial statements in conformity with U.S. GAAP require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes. These estimates and assumptions are based on information available as of the date of the consolidated financial statements; therefore, actual results could differ from those estimates. The interim financial information included herein is unaudited; however, such information reflects all adjustments (consisting solely of normal recurring adjustments) that are, in the opinion of management, necessary to present a fair statement of the results for the interim periods. These interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and footnotes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015. The results of operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2016 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

Reclassifications

Certain items in the 2015 consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes have been reclassified to conform to the current year’s presentation format. There was no effect on net income for the periods presented herein as a result of the reclassification.

Accounting Policies Recently Adopted and Pending Accounting Pronouncements

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASU 14-09”), which establishes a comprehensive revenue recognition standard for virtually all industries under U.S. GAAP, including those that previously followed industry-specific guidance such as the real estate, construction and software industries. The revenue standard’s core principle is built on the contract between a vendor and a customer for the provision of goods and services. It attempts to depict the exchange of rights and obligations between the parties in the pattern of revenue recognition based on the consideration to which the vendor is entitled. To accomplish this objective, the standard requires five basic steps: i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. The ASU is effective for public entities for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods therein. Three basic transition methods are available – full retrospective, retrospective with certain practical expedients, and a cumulative effect approach. Under the third alternative, an entity would apply the new revenue standard only to contracts that are incomplete under legacy U.S. GAAP at the date of initial application (e.g. January 1, 2017) and recognize the cumulative effect of the new standard as an adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings. That is, prior years would not be restated and additional disclosures would be required to enable users of the financial statements to understand the impact of adopting the new standard in the current year compared to prior years that are presented under legacy U.S. GAAP. Early adoption is prohibited under U.S. GAAP. In August 2015, the FASB Issued ASU 2015-14 which deferred the effective date to December 31, 2017 and the initial application date (e.g. January 1, 2018.) We do not believe ASU 2014-09 will have a material effect on its financial statements.

In June 2014, the FASB issued ASU No. 2014-12, Compensation – Stock Compensation (Topic 718) - Accounting for Share-Based Payments When the Terms of an Award Provide That a Performance Target Could Be Achieved after the Requisite Service Period (“ASU 2014-12”). The amendments in ASU 2014-12 require that a performance target that affects vesting and that could be achieved after the requisite service period be treated as a performance condition. A reporting entity should apply existing guidance in Topic 718, Compensation – Stock Compensation, as it relates to awards with performance conditions that affect vesting to account for such awards. The performance target should not be reflected in estimating the grant-date fair value of the award. Compensation cost should be recognized in the period in which it becomes probable that the performance target will be achieved and should represent the compensation cost attributable to the period(s) for which the requisite service has already been rendered. If the performance target becomes probable of being achieved before the end of the requisite service period, the remaining unrecognized compensation cost should be recognized prospectively over the remaining requisite service period. The total amount of compensation cost recognized during and after the requisite service period should reflect the number of awards that are expected to vest and should be adjusted to reflect those awards that ultimately vest. The requisite service period ends when the employee can cease rendering service and still be eligible to vest in the award if the performance target is achieved. The amendments in ASU 2014-12 are effective for annual periods, and interim periods within those annual periods, beginning after December 15, 2015. Early adoption was permitted. Entities may apply the amendments in this ASU either: (a) prospectively to all awards granted or modified after the effective date; or (b) retrospectively to all awards with performance targets that are outstanding as of the beginning of the earliest annual period presented in the financial statements and to all new or modified awards thereafter. The adoption of ASU 2014-12 did not have a significant impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, “Financial Instruments – Overall (Topic 825-10): “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” ASU 2016-01 amends the guidance on the classification and measurement of financial instruments. Some of the amendments in ASU 2016-01 include the following: 1) requires equity investments (except those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee) to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income; 2) simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment; 3) requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; and 4) requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value; among others. ASU 2016-01 also clarifies that an entity should assess the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to unrealized losses of investments in debt instruments recognized in OCI in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. Prior to this guidance, the alternative approach used in practice evaluated the need for a valuation allowance for a deferred tax asset related to unrealized losses on debt instruments recognized in other comprehensive income separately from other deferred tax assets. This alternative approach will no longer be acceptable. For public business entities, the amendments of ASU 2016-01 are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We do not believe ASU 2016-01 will have a material effect on our financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, “Leases” (“ASU 2016-02”). From the lessee's perspective, the new standard establishes a right-of-use (ROU) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement for a lessees. From the lessor's perspective, the new standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, finance or operating. A lease will be treated as a sale if it transfers all of the risks and rewards, as well as control of the underlying asset, to the lessee. If risks and rewards are conveyed without the transfer of control, the lease is treated as a financing lease. If the lessor doesn’t convey risks and rewards or control, an operating lease results. The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessees for capital and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessors for sales-type, direct financing, and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. We are currently evaluating the impact of the pending adoption of the new standard on its consolidated financial statements.

In March 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-05, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships” (“ASU 2016-05”). The term novation refers to replacing one counterparty to a derivative instrument with a new counterparty. That change occurs for a variety of reasons, including financial institution mergers, intercompany transactions, an entity exiting a particular derivatives business or relationship, an entity managing against internal credit limits, or in response to laws or regulatory requirements. The amendments in ASU 2016-05 clarify that a change in the counterparty to a derivative instrument that has been designated as the hedging instrument under Topic 815, does not, in and of itself, require dedesignation of that hedging relationship provided that all other hedge accounting criteria continue to be met. For public business entities, the amendments in this ASU 2016-05 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity has an option to apply the amendments in ASU 2016-05 on either a prospective basis or a modified retrospective basis. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. We do not believe ASU 2016-05 will have a material effect on our financial statements.

In March 2016, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-09, ”Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting” (“ASU 2016-09”). FASB is issuing ASU 2016-09 as part of its initiative to reduce complexity in accounting standards. The areas for simplification in this ASU 2016-09 involve several aspects of the accounting for employee share-based payment transactions, including the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities, and classification on the statement of cash flows. Some of the areas for simplification apply only to nonpublic entities. For public business entities, the amendments in ASU 2016-09 are effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2016, and interim periods within those annual periods. Early adoption is permitted for any entity in any interim or annual period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. An entity that elects early adoption must adopt all of the amendments in the same period. We do not believe ASU 2016-09 will have a material effect on our financial statements.

In June 2016, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, ”Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326) Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (“ASU 2016-13”). The main objective of ASU 2016-13 is to provide financial statement users with more decision-useful information about the expected credit losses on financial instruments and other commitments to extend credit held by a reporting entity at each reporting date. To achieve this objective, the amendments in ASU 2016-13 replace the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. The amendments affect entities holding financial assets and net investment in leases that are not accounted for at fair value through net income. The amendments affect loans, debt securities, trade receivables, net investments in leases, off-balance-sheet credit exposures, reinsurance receivables, and any other financial assets not excluded from the scope that have the contractual right to receive cash.

The amendments in ASU 2016-13 affect an entity to varying degrees depending on the credit quality of the assets held by the entity, their duration, and how the entity applies current GAAP. There is diversity in practice in applying the incurred loss methodology, which means that before transition some entities may be more aligned, under current GAAP, than others to the new measure of expected credit losses.

The amendments in ASU 2016-13 require a financial asset (or a group of financial assets) measured at amortized cost basis to be presented at the net amount expected to be collected. The allowance for credit losses is a valuation account that is deducted from the amortized cost basis of the financial asset(s) to present the net carrying value at the amount expected to be collected on the financial asset. The income statement reflects the measurement of credit losses for newly recognized financial assets, as well as the expected increases or decreases of expected credit losses that have taken place during the period. The measurement of expected credit losses is based on relevant information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectibility of the reported amount. An entity must use judgment in determining the relevant information and estimation methods that are appropriate in its circumstances. The allowance for credit losses for purchased financial assets with a more-than insignificant amount of credit deterioration since origination (PCD assets) that are measured at amortized cost basis is determined in a similar manner to other financial assets measured at amortized cost basis; however, the initial allowance for credit losses is added to the purchase price rather than being reported as a credit loss expense. Only subsequent changes in the allowance for credit losses are recorded as a credit loss expense for these assets. Interest income for PCD assets should be recognized based on the effective interest rate, excluding the discount embedded in the purchase price that is attributable to the acquirer’s assessment of credit losses at acquisition.

Credit losses relating to available-for-sale debt securities should be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. Available-for-sale accounting recognizes that value may be realized either through collection of contractual cash flows or through sale of the security. Therefore, the amendments limit the amount of the allowance for credit losses to the amount by which fair value is below amortized cost because the classification as available for sale is premised on an investment strategy that recognizes that the investment could be sold at fair value, if cash collection would result in the realization of an amount less than fair value. The amendments in ASU 2016-13 require that credit losses be presented as an allowance rather than as a writedown. This approach is an improvement to current GAAP because an entity will be able to record reversals of credit losses (in situations in which the estimate of credit losses declines) in current period net income, which in turn should align the income statement recognition of credit losses with the reporting period in which changes occur. Current GAAP prohibits reflecting those improvements in current period earnings.

For public business entities that are SEC filers, the amendments in ASU 2016-13 are effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, and interim periods within those fiscal years. All entities may adopt the amendments in ASU 2016-13 earlier as of the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity will apply the amendments in ASU 2016-13 through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (that is, modified-retrospective approach). A prospective transition approach is required for debt securities for which an other-than-temporary impairment had been recognized before the effective date. The effect of a prospective transition approach is to maintain the same amortized cost basis before and after the effective date of ASU 2016-13. Amounts previously recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income as of the date of adoption that relate to improvements in cash flows expected to be collected should continue to be accreted into income over the remaining life of the asset. Recoveries of amounts previously written off relating to improvements in cash flows after the date of adoption should be recorded in earnings when received. We are currently evaluating the impact of the amendments in ASU 2016-13 on our consolidated financial statements.