Fair Value Accounting and Measurement: Fair Value of Financial Instruments Policy (Policies)	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Fair Value of Financial Instruments Policy:
Fair Value of Financial Instruments Policy	Banner Bank has elected to record certain assets and liabilities at fair value. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (that is, not a forced liquidation or distressed sale). The GAAP standard (ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements) establishes a consistent framework for measuring fair value and disclosure requirements about fair value measurements. Among other things, the standard requires us to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s estimates for market assumptions. These two types of inputs create the following fair value hierarchy: · Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical instruments. An active market is a market in which transactions occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and shall be used to measure fair value whenever available. · Level 2 – Observable inputs other than Level 1 including quoted prices in active markets for similar instruments, quoted prices in less active markets for identical or similar instruments, or other observable inputs that can be corroborated by observable market data. · Level 3 – Unobservable inputs supported by little or no market activity for financial instruments whose value is determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, as well as instruments for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation; also includes observable inputs from non-binding single dealer quotes not corroborated by observable market data. The estimated fair value amounts of financial instruments have been determined by the Company using available market information and appropriate valuation methodologies. However, considerable judgment is required to interpret data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Company could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts. In addition, reasonable comparability between financial institutions may not be likely due to the wide range of permitted valuation techniques and numerous estimates that must be made given the absence of active secondary markets for many of the financial instruments. This lack of uniform valuation methodologies also introduces a greater degree of subjectivity to these estimated fair values. Transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy are deemed to occur at the end of the reporting period. Items Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis: Banner records trading account securities, securities available-for-sale, FHLB debt and junior subordinated debentures at fair value on a recurring basis. · The securities assets primarily consist of U.S. Government and agency obligations, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, single issue trust preferred securities (TPS), pooled trust preferred collateralized debt obligation securities (TRUP CDO), mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, equity securities and certain other financial instruments. Level 1 measurements are based upon quoted prices in active markets. Level 2 measurements are generally based upon a matrix pricing model from an investment reporting and valuation service. Matrix pricing is a mathematical technique used principally to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the specific securities, but rather by relying on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities. Level 3 measurements are based primarily on unobservable inputs. In developing Level 3 measurements, management incorporates whatever market data might be available and uses discounted cash flow models where appropriate. These calculations include projections of future cash flows, including appropriate default and loss assumptions, and market based discount rates. From mid-2008 through the current quarter, the lack of active markets and market participants for certain securities resulted in an increase in Level 3 measurements. This has been particularly true for our TRUP CDO securities. As of June 30, 2012, we owned $32 million$32,000,000 in current par value of these securities, exclusive of those securities the Company elected to write-off completely. The market for TRUP CDO securities is inactive, which was evidenced first by a significant widening of the bid-ask spread in the brokered markets in which TRUP CDOs trade and then by a significant decrease in the volume of trades relative to historical levels. The new issue market is also inactive as almost no new TRUP CDOs have been issued since 2007. There are still very few market participants who are willing and/or able to transact for these securities. Thus, a low market price for a particular bond may only provide evidence of stress in the credit markets in general rather than being an indicator of credit problems with a particular issuer or of the fair value of the security. Given these conditions in the debt markets and the absence of observable transactions in the secondary and new issue markets, management determined that for the TRUP CDOs at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011: · The few observable transactions and market quotations that were available were not reliable for purposes of determining fair value, · An income valuation approach technique (present value technique) that maximizes the use of relevant observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs was equally or more representative of fair value than the market approach valuation technique, and · The Company’s TRUP CDOs should be classified exclusively within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy because of the significant assumptions required to determine fair value at the measurement date. The TRUP CDO valuations were derived using input from independent third parties who used proprietary cash flow models for analyzing collateralized debt obligations. Their approaches to determining fair value involve considering the credit quality of the collateral, assuming a level of defaults based on the probability of default of each underlying trust preferred security, creating expected cash flows for each TRUP CDO security and discounting that cash flow at an appropriate risk-adjusted rate plus a liquidity premium. Where appropriate, management reviewed the valuation methodologies and assumptions used by the independent third party providers and for certain securities determined that the fair value estimates were reasonable and utilized those estimates in the Company’s reported financial statements, while for other securities management adjusted the third party providers’ modeling to be more reflective of the characteristics of the Company’s remaining TRUP CDOs. At June 30, 2012, Banner Bank also directly owned approximately $19 million$19,000,000 in current book value of TPS securities issued by three individual financial institutions for which no direct market data or independent valuation source is available. Similar to the TRUP CDOs above, there were too few, if any, issuances of new TPS securities or sales of existing TPS securities to provide Level 1 or even Level 2 fair value measurements for these securities. Management, therefore, utilized a discounted cash-flow model to calculate the present value of each security’s expected future cash flows to determine their respective fair values. Management took into consideration the limited market data that was available regarding similar securities, assessed the performance of the three individual issuers of TPS securities owned by the Company and concluded that each has demonstrated sufficient improvement in asset quality, capital position and general performance measures to warrant a reduction in the discount rate used in fair value modeling from the level used in prior periods. The Company again sought input from independent third parties to help it establish an appropriate set of parameters to identify a reasonable range of discount rates for use in its fair value model. These factors were then incorporated into the model at June 30, 2012, and discount rates equal to three-month LIBOR plus 550 basis points were used to calculate the respective fair values of these securities, compared to a range of LIBOR plus 600-800 basis points in the previous quarter. The result of this change in the discount rates from this Level 3 fair value measurement was a fair value gain of $2.0 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2012. At June 30, 2012, Banner Bank also had one TPS security issued by a large national bank with a par value of $5.0 million that was not actively traded, but for which more market data is available, permitting a Level 2 fair value measurement. Subsequent to June 30, 2012, the issuer redeemed this security at a price of 101.92%. The Company has and will continue to assess the appropriate fair value hierarchy for determination of these fair values on a quarterly basis. · Fair valuations for FHLB advances are estimated using fair market values provided by the lender, the FHLB of Seattle. The FHLB of Seattle prices advances by discounting the future contractual cash flows for individual advances using its current cost of funds curve to provide the discount rate. Management considers this to be a Level 2 input method. · The fair valuations of junior subordinated debentures (TPS-related debt that the Company has issued) were also valued using discounted cash flows. As of June 30, 2012, all of these debentures carry interest rates that reset quarterly, using the three-month LIBOR index plus spreads of 1.38% to 3.35%. While the quarterly reset of the index on this debt would seemingly keep its fair value reasonably close to book value, the disparity in the fixed spreads above the index and the inability to determine realistic current market spreads, due to lack of new issuances and trades, resulted in having to rely more heavily on assumptions about what spread would be appropriate if market transactions were to take place. In periods prior to the third quarter of 2008, the discount rate used was based on recent issuances or quotes from brokers on the date of valuation for comparable bank holding companies and was considered to be a Level 2 input method. However, as noted above in the discussions of TPS securities and TRUP CDOs, due to the unprecedented disruption of certain financial markets, management concluded that there were insufficient transactions or other indicators to continue to reflect these measurements as Level 2 inputs. Due to this reliance on assumptions and not on directly observable transactions, management believes fair value for this instrument should follow a Level 3 input methodology. From March 2009 to March 2012, the Company used a discount rate of LIBOR plus 800 basis points to value its junior subordinated debentures. However, similar to the discussion above about the TPS securities, management assessed the performance of Banner Corporation and concluded that it has demonstrated sufficient improvement in asset quality, capital position and other performance measures to project sustainable profitability for the foreseeable future sufficient to warrant a reduction in the discount rate used in its fair value modeling. Since the discount rate used in the fair value modeling is the most sensitive unobservable estimate in the calculation, the Company again utilized input from the same independent third party noted above to help it establish an appropriate set of parameters to identify a reasonable range of discount rates for use in its fair value model. In valuing the debentures at June 30, 2012, management evaluated discounted cash flows to maturity and for the discount rate used the period-ending three-month LIBOR plus 550 basis points, resulting in a fair value loss on these instruments of $21.2 million in the current quarter ended June 30, 2012. Derivative instruments include interest rate commitments related to one- to four family loans and residential mortgage backed securities and interest rate swaps. The fair value of interest rate lock commitments and forward sales commitments are estimated using quoted or published market prices for similar instruments, adjusted for factors such as pull-through rate assumptions based on historical trends, where appropriate. The fair value of interest rate swaps is determined by using current market quotes on similar instruments provided by active broker/dealers in the swap market. The changes in the fair value of all of these deirviative instruments is primarily attributable to changes in the level of market interest rates. The Company has elected to record the fair value of these derivative instruments on a net basis.

Fair Value Accounting and Measurement: Fair Value of Financial Instruments Policy (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2012

Fair Value of Financial Instruments Policy:

Fair Value of Financial Instruments Policy

Banner Bank has elected to record certain assets and liabilities at fair value. Fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date (that is, not a forced liquidation or distressed sale). The GAAP standard (ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements) establishes a consistent framework for measuring fair value and disclosure requirements about fair value measurements. Among other things, the standard requires us to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring fair value. Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Company’s estimates for market assumptions. These two types of inputs create the following fair value hierarchy:

· Level 1 – Quoted prices in active markets for identical instruments. An active market is a market in which transactions occur with sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information on an ongoing basis. A quoted price in an active market provides the most reliable evidence of fair value and shall be used to measure fair value whenever available.

· Level 2 – Observable inputs other than Level 1 including quoted prices in active markets for similar instruments, quoted prices in less active markets for identical or similar instruments, or other observable inputs that can be corroborated by observable market data.

· Level 3 – Unobservable inputs supported by little or no market activity for financial instruments whose value is determined using pricing models, discounted cash flow methodologies, or similar techniques, as well as instruments for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation; also includes observable inputs from non-binding single dealer quotes not corroborated by observable market data.

The estimated fair value amounts of financial instruments have been determined by the Company using available market information and appropriate valuation methodologies. However, considerable judgment is required to interpret data to develop the estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts the Company could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts. In addition, reasonable comparability between financial institutions may not be likely due to the wide range of permitted valuation techniques and numerous estimates that must be made given the absence of active secondary markets for many of the financial instruments. This lack of uniform valuation methodologies also introduces a greater degree of subjectivity to these estimated fair values. Transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy are deemed to occur at the end of the reporting period.

Items Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis:

Banner records trading account securities, securities available-for-sale, FHLB debt and junior subordinated debentures at fair value on a recurring basis.

· The securities assets primarily consist of U.S. Government and agency obligations, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, single issue trust preferred securities (TPS), pooled trust preferred collateralized debt obligation securities (TRUP CDO), mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securities, equity securities and certain other financial instruments. Level 1 measurements are based upon quoted prices in active markets. Level 2 measurements are generally based upon a matrix pricing model from an investment reporting and valuation service. Matrix pricing is a mathematical technique used principally to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the specific securities, but rather by relying on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities. Level 3 measurements are based primarily on unobservable inputs. In developing Level 3 measurements, management incorporates whatever market data might be available and uses discounted cash flow models where appropriate. These calculations include projections of future cash flows, including appropriate default and loss assumptions, and market based discount rates.

From mid-2008 through the current quarter, the lack of active markets and market participants for certain securities resulted in an increase in Level 3 measurements. This has been particularly true for our TRUP CDO securities. As of June 30, 2012, we owned $32 million$32,000,000 in current par value of these securities, exclusive of those securities the Company elected to write-off completely. The market for TRUP CDO securities is inactive, which was evidenced first by a significant widening of the bid-ask spread in the brokered markets in which TRUP CDOs trade and then by a significant decrease in the volume of trades relative to historical levels. The new issue market is also inactive as almost no new TRUP CDOs have been issued since 2007. There are still very few market participants who are willing and/or able to transact for these securities. Thus, a low market price for a particular bond may only provide evidence of stress in the credit markets in general rather than being an indicator of credit problems with a particular issuer or of the fair value of the security.

Given these conditions in the debt markets and the absence of observable transactions in the secondary and new issue markets, management determined that for the TRUP CDOs at June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011:

· The few observable transactions and market quotations that were available were not reliable for purposes of determining fair value,

· An income valuation approach technique (present value technique) that maximizes the use of relevant observable inputs and minimizes the use of unobservable inputs was equally or more representative of fair value than the market approach valuation technique, and

· The Company’s TRUP CDOs should be classified exclusively within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy because of the significant assumptions required to determine fair value at the measurement date.

The TRUP CDO valuations were derived using input from independent third parties who used proprietary cash flow models for analyzing collateralized debt obligations. Their approaches to determining fair value involve considering the credit quality of the collateral, assuming a level of defaults based on the probability of default of each underlying trust preferred security, creating expected cash flows for each TRUP CDO security and discounting that cash flow at an appropriate risk-adjusted rate plus a liquidity premium.

Where appropriate, management reviewed the valuation methodologies and assumptions used by the independent third party providers and for certain securities determined that the fair value estimates were reasonable and utilized those estimates in the Company’s reported financial statements, while for other securities management adjusted the third party providers’ modeling to be more reflective of the characteristics of the Company’s remaining TRUP CDOs.

At June 30, 2012, Banner Bank also directly owned approximately $19 million$19,000,000 in current book value of TPS securities issued by three individual financial institutions for which no direct market data or independent valuation source is available. Similar to the TRUP CDOs above, there were too few, if any, issuances of new TPS securities or sales of existing TPS securities to provide Level 1 or even Level 2 fair value measurements for these securities. Management, therefore, utilized a discounted cash-flow model to calculate the present value of each security’s expected future cash flows to determine their respective fair values. Management took into consideration the limited market data that was available regarding similar securities, assessed the performance of the three individual issuers of TPS securities owned by the Company and concluded that each has demonstrated sufficient improvement in asset quality, capital position and general performance measures to warrant a reduction in the discount rate used in fair value modeling from the level used in prior periods. The Company again sought input from independent third parties to help it establish an appropriate set of parameters to identify a reasonable range of discount rates for use in its fair value model. These factors were then incorporated into the model at June 30, 2012, and discount rates equal to three-month LIBOR plus 550 basis points were used to calculate the respective fair values of these securities, compared to a range of LIBOR plus 600-800 basis points in the previous quarter. The result of this change in the discount rates from this Level 3 fair value measurement was a fair value gain of $2.0 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2012. At June 30, 2012, Banner Bank also had one TPS security issued by a large national bank with a par value of $5.0 million that was not actively traded, but for which more market data is available, permitting a Level 2 fair value measurement. Subsequent to June 30, 2012, the issuer redeemed this security at a price of 101.92%. The Company has and will continue to assess the appropriate fair value hierarchy for determination of these fair values on a quarterly basis.

· Fair valuations for FHLB advances are estimated using fair market values provided by the lender, the FHLB of Seattle. The FHLB of Seattle prices advances by discounting the future contractual cash flows for individual advances using its current cost of funds curve to provide the discount rate. Management considers this to be a Level 2 input method.

· The fair valuations of junior subordinated debentures (TPS-related debt that the Company has issued) were also valued using discounted cash flows. As of June 30, 2012, all of these debentures carry interest rates that reset quarterly, using the three-month LIBOR index plus spreads of 1.38% to 3.35%. While the quarterly reset of the index on this debt would seemingly keep its fair value reasonably close to book value, the disparity in the fixed spreads above the index and the inability to determine realistic current market spreads, due to lack of new issuances and trades, resulted in having to rely more heavily on assumptions about what spread would be appropriate if market transactions were to take place. In periods prior to the third quarter of 2008, the discount rate used was based on recent issuances or quotes from brokers on the date of valuation for comparable bank holding companies and was considered to be a Level 2 input method. However, as noted above in the discussions of TPS securities and TRUP CDOs, due to the unprecedented disruption of certain financial markets, management concluded that there were insufficient transactions or other indicators to continue to reflect these measurements as Level 2 inputs. Due to this reliance on assumptions and not on directly observable transactions, management believes fair value for this instrument should follow a Level 3 input methodology. From March 2009 to March 2012, the Company used a discount rate of LIBOR plus 800 basis points to value its junior subordinated debentures. However, similar to the discussion above about the TPS securities, management assessed the performance of Banner Corporation and concluded that it has demonstrated sufficient improvement in asset quality, capital position and other performance measures to project sustainable profitability for the foreseeable future sufficient to warrant a reduction in the discount rate used in its fair value modeling. Since the discount rate used in the fair value modeling is the most sensitive unobservable estimate in the calculation, the Company again utilized input from the same independent third party noted above to help it establish an appropriate set of parameters to identify a reasonable range of discount rates for use in its fair value model. In valuing the debentures at June 30, 2012, management evaluated discounted cash flows to maturity and for the discount rate used the period-ending three-month LIBOR plus 550 basis points, resulting in a fair value loss on these instruments of $21.2 million in the current quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Derivative instruments include interest rate commitments related to one- to four family loans and residential mortgage backed securities and interest rate swaps. The fair value of interest rate lock commitments and forward sales commitments are estimated using quoted or published market prices for similar instruments, adjusted for factors such as pull-through rate assumptions based on historical trends, where appropriate. The fair value of interest rate swaps is determined by using current market quotes on similar instruments provided by active broker/dealers in the swap market. The changes in the fair value of all of these deirviative instruments is primarily attributable to changes in the level of market interest rates. The Company has elected to record the fair value of these derivative instruments on a net basis.