Note 17 - New Authoritative Accounting Pronouncements	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Notes to Financial Statements
New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles [Text Block]	17. New Authoritative Accounting Pronouncements Accounting Standards Adopted in 2019: In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) established Topic 842, Leases, by issuing Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases, which requires lessees to recognize leases on the balance sheet, makes targeted changes to lessor accounting, and enhances disclosures to include key information about leasing arrangements. An entity may adopt the new guidance by either restating prior periods and recording a cumulative effect adjustment at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented (the modified retrospective transition approach) or by recording a cumulative adjustment at the beginning of the period of adoption (the additional transition method). The Company adopted this standard using the additional transition method approach and elected to use the effective date, January 1, 2019, as the date of initial application. As part of the Company’s adoption of ASC 842, the Company undertook a detailed scoping exercise to identify all leasing arrangements subject to the new leasing guidance and believes that all arrangements that meet the definition of a lease under historic US GAAP will continue to meet the definition of a lease under ASC 842. Upon adoption, the Company recorded right of use assets totaling $45.4 million and operating lease liabilities totaling $54.0 million. Additionally, a deferred gain from the sale of buildings totaling $2.7 million, net of tax, was reclassified to retained earnings. As the rate implicit in each of the Company’s leases is not readily determinable, the Company is required to apply the Company’s incremental borrowing rate (“IBR”) to calculate the lease liability and right-of-use (“ROU”) asset for its leasing arrangements. The Company has used its unsecured Kroll rating as a starting point for calculation of the IBR and will adjust for considerations of collateral (i.e., notch the Company’s Kroll rating from an unsecured to a secured rating). The Company will also consider lease renewal options reasonably certain of exercise for purposes of determining the term of the underlying borrowing. The Company has considered various other factors, including, economic environment and determined that these factors do not currently impact the Company’s IBR calculation. The Company will continue to assess the appropriateness of the conclusions reached herein with respect to each of the factors discussed above and will determine the appropriate IBR for each new lease arrangement or modification, as required. The new leasing standard provides a number of optional practical expedients in transition. The Company has elected the “package of practical expedients”, which permits the Company not to reassess prior conclusions about lease identification, lease classification and initial direct costs. The Company did not elect the use-of-hindsight or the practical expedient pertaining to land easements; the latter not being applicable to the Company. ASC 842 also provides certain accounting policy elections for an entity’s ongoing accounting. For operating leases wherein the Company is the lessee, the Company has elected the practical expedient to not separate lease and non-lease components. See Note 8 (“Leases”) for additional information. In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815)” providing targeted improvements to the accounting for hedging activities, which is effective January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted in any interim period or fiscal year before the effective date. The guidance introduces a number of amendments, several of which are optional, that are designed to simplify the application of hedge accounting, improve financial statement transparency and more closely align hedge accounting with an entity’s risk management strategies. This ASU eliminates the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and changes the presentation so that all items that affect earnings are in the same income statement line as the hedged item. The Company adopted this standard January 1, 2019, as the date of initial application. As a result of adoption, fair value adjustments on qualifying fair value hedges were recorded in interest income during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019. These adjustments were recorded in non-interest income in prior periods. See Note 12 (“Derivative Financial Instruments”) for additional information. Accounting Standards Pending Adoption: In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-14, “Compensation – Retirement Benefits – Defined Benefit Plans – General (Subtopic 715-20)” providing targeted improvements to the disclosures required for Defined Benefit Plans. The amendments in in this Update are effective for fiscal years ended after December 15, 2020. Early adoption is permitted. The amendments are to be applied on a retrospective basis to all periods presented. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this new guidance on our disclosures. In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820)”. The amendments in this Update modify the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements in Topic 820. The amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted. The amendments are to be applied on a retrospective basis to all periods presented. The guidance is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures. In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment.” The ASU simplifies the subsequent measurement of goodwill and eliminates Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. Under this ASU, the Company should perform its goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An impairment charge should be recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value. The impairment charge is limited to the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. The amendments in this update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The guidance is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326)” which replaces the current U.S. GAAP “incurred loss” approach to “expected credit losses” approach, which is referred as Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) of measuring the financial assets measure at amortize cost, including loan receivables, held-to-maturity debt securities, off balance sheet credit exposures and certain leases recognized by a lessor. CECL introduced the concept of purchased credit-deteriorated (PCD) financial assets, in which it requires the estimate of expected credit losses embedded in the purchase price of PCD assets to be estimated and separately recognized as an allowance as of the date of acquisition. It also modifies the accounting of impairment on available-for-sale debt securities by recognizing a credit loss through an allowance for credit losses as compared to a direct write down in the current U.S. GAAP. CECL requires consideration of broader range of information in order to update expected credit losses which includes historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecast that affect the collectability of the reported amount. The allowance of credit losses is an estimated account that is deducted from the amortized cost basis of the financial asset to present the net carrying value at the amount expected to be collected on the financial assets. This is intended to provide the financial statement users a better understanding of the expected loss on financial instruments and other commitments held by an entity at each reporting date. For public business entities that are U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Filers, this ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The company plans to adopt this ASU beginning January 1, 2020 and will apply changes resulting from the application of the new standard, which will be reported in March 31, 2020 interim financial statements. There is no specific method disclosed by FASB for measuring expected credit losses. CECL allows institutions to apply judgment in developing estimation methods that are appropriate and practical for their circumstances. Our CECL efforts through September 30, 2019 have involved the implementation and testing of a model including data collection and validation for use in the model and disclosures. Additionally, we have enhanced and supplemented Company policies and controls related to CECL. Certain key assumptions in our estimation of CECL are the reasonable and supportable forecast period, the historical loss period and the reversion period. We are still in the process of determining the most reasonable periods for these assumptions. The Company has in place a steering committee to oversee the CECL implementation. The Company will be running parallel testing incorporating the functionality of the models, internal control for estimation and all other governance activities through the remainder of 2019. CECL requires a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as the beginning of the reporting period of adoption. This adoption could have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition. The extent of the impact is still being calculated and will depend on many factors, such as the composition of the Company’s loan portfolio, the portfolio’s credit quality and economic condition as well as our estimation of credit losses at adoption.

Note 17 - New Authoritative Accounting Pronouncements

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2019

New Accounting Pronouncements and Changes in Accounting Principles [Text Block]

17. New Authoritative Accounting Pronouncements

Accounting Standards Adopted in 2019:

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) established Topic 842, Leases, by issuing Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases, which requires lessees to recognize leases on the balance sheet, makes targeted changes to lessor accounting, and enhances disclosures to include key information about leasing arrangements. An entity may adopt the new guidance by either restating prior periods and recording a cumulative effect adjustment at the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented (the modified retrospective transition approach) or by recording a cumulative adjustment at the beginning of the period of adoption (the additional transition method). The Company adopted this standard using the additional transition method approach and elected to use the effective date, January 1, 2019, as the date of initial application. As part of the Company’s adoption of ASC 842, the Company undertook a detailed scoping exercise to identify all leasing arrangements subject to the new leasing guidance and believes that all arrangements that meet the definition of a lease under historic US GAAP will continue to meet the definition of a lease under ASC 842. Upon adoption, the Company recorded right of use assets totaling $45.4 million and operating lease liabilities totaling $54.0 million. Additionally, a deferred gain from the sale of buildings totaling $2.7 million, net of tax, was reclassified to retained earnings.

As the rate implicit in each of the Company’s leases is not readily determinable, the Company is required to apply the Company’s incremental borrowing rate (“IBR”) to calculate the lease liability and right-of-use (“ROU”) asset for its leasing arrangements. The Company has used its unsecured Kroll rating as a starting point for calculation of the IBR and will adjust for considerations of collateral (i.e., notch the Company’s Kroll rating from an unsecured to a secured rating). The Company will also consider lease renewal options reasonably certain of exercise for purposes of determining the term of the underlying borrowing. The Company has considered various other factors, including, economic environment and determined that these factors do not currently impact the Company’s IBR calculation. The Company will continue to assess the appropriateness of the conclusions reached herein with respect to each of the factors discussed above and will determine the appropriate IBR for each new lease arrangement or modification, as required.

The new leasing standard provides a number of optional practical expedients in transition. The Company has elected the “package of practical expedients”, which permits the Company not to reassess prior conclusions about lease identification, lease classification and initial direct costs. The Company did not elect the use-of-hindsight or the practical expedient pertaining to land easements; the latter not being applicable to the Company. ASC 842 also provides certain accounting policy elections for an entity’s ongoing accounting. For operating leases wherein the Company is the lessee, the Company has elected the practical expedient to not separate lease and non-lease components. See Note 8 (“Leases”) for additional information.

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815)” providing targeted improvements to the accounting for hedging activities, which is effective January 1, 2019, with early adoption permitted in any interim period or fiscal year before the effective date. The guidance introduces a number of amendments, several of which are optional, that are designed to simplify the application of hedge accounting, improve financial statement transparency and more closely align hedge accounting with an entity’s risk management strategies. This ASU eliminates the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and changes the presentation so that all items that affect earnings are in the same income statement line as the hedged item. The Company adopted this standard January 1, 2019, as the date of initial application. As a result of adoption, fair value adjustments on qualifying fair value hedges were recorded in interest income during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019. These adjustments were recorded in non-interest income in prior periods. See Note 12 (“Derivative Financial Instruments”) for additional information.

Accounting Standards Pending Adoption:

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-14, “Compensation – Retirement Benefits – Defined Benefit Plans – General (Subtopic 715-20)” providing targeted improvements to the disclosures required for Defined Benefit Plans. The amendments in in this Update are effective for fiscal years ended after December 15, 2020. Early adoption is permitted. The amendments are to be applied on a retrospective basis to all periods presented. We are currently evaluating the impact of adopting this new guidance on our disclosures.

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820)”. The amendments in this Update modify the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements in Topic 820. The amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted. The amendments are to be applied on a retrospective basis to all periods presented. The guidance is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment.” The ASU simplifies the subsequent measurement of goodwill and eliminates Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. Under this ASU, the Company should perform its goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An impairment charge should be recognized for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value. The impairment charge is limited to the amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. The amendments in this update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017. The guidance is not expected to have a significant impact on the Company's financial positions, results of operations or disclosures.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326)” which replaces the current U.S. GAAP “incurred loss” approach to “expected credit losses” approach, which is referred as Current Expected Credit Losses (CECL) of measuring the financial assets measure at amortize cost, including loan receivables, held-to-maturity debt securities, off balance sheet credit exposures and certain leases recognized by a lessor. CECL introduced the concept of purchased credit-deteriorated (PCD) financial assets, in which it requires the estimate of expected credit losses embedded in the purchase price of PCD assets to be estimated and separately recognized as an allowance as of the date of acquisition. It also modifies the accounting of impairment on available-for-sale debt securities by recognizing a credit loss through an allowance for credit losses as compared to a direct write down in the current U.S. GAAP.

CECL requires consideration of broader range of information in order to update expected credit losses which includes historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecast that affect the collectability of the reported amount. The allowance of credit losses is an estimated account that is deducted from the amortized cost basis of the financial asset to present the net carrying value at the amount expected to be collected on the financial assets. This is intended to provide the financial statement users a better understanding of the expected loss on financial instruments and other commitments held by an entity at each reporting date.

For public business entities that are U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Filers, this ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The company plans to adopt this ASU beginning January 1, 2020 and will apply changes resulting from the application of the new standard, which will be reported in March 31, 2020 interim financial statements. There is no specific method disclosed by FASB for measuring expected credit losses. CECL allows institutions to apply judgment in developing estimation methods that are appropriate and practical for their circumstances.

Our CECL efforts through September 30, 2019 have involved the implementation and testing of a model including data collection and validation for use in the model and disclosures. Additionally, we have enhanced and supplemented Company policies and controls related to CECL. Certain key assumptions in our estimation of CECL are the reasonable and supportable forecast period, the historical loss period and the reversion period. We are still in the process of determining the most reasonable periods for these assumptions. The Company has in place a steering committee to oversee the CECL implementation. The Company will be running parallel testing incorporating the functionality of the models, internal control for estimation and all other governance activities through the remainder of 2019.

CECL requires a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as the beginning of the reporting period of adoption. This adoption could have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations and financial condition. The extent of the impact is still being calculated and will depend on many factors, such as the composition of the Company’s loan portfolio, the portfolio’s credit quality and economic condition as well as our estimation of credit losses at adoption.