Average Balances, Net Interest Income, Yields Earned and Rates Paid
The following table sets forth certain information for the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the three months ended September 30,
|
|
|
|
2012
(1)
|
|
|
2011
(1)
|
|
|
|
Average
Balance
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Average
Yield/
Cost
|
|
|
Average
Balance
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Average
Yield/
Cost
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
INTEREST-EARNING ASSETS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans receivable
(2)
|
|
$
|
762,251
|
|
|
$
|
9,718
|
|
|
|
5.10
|
%
|
|
$
|
698,247
|
|
|
$
|
10,028
|
|
|
|
5.74
|
%
|
Securities
(3)
|
|
|
52,165
|
|
|
|
81
|
|
|
|
0.62
|
|
|
|
27,266
|
|
|
|
156
|
|
|
|
2.29
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
|
57,838
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
0.22
|
|
|
|
108,049
|
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
0.26
|
|
Federal Home Loan Bank stock
|
|
|
8,305
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
0.48
|
|
|
|
10,104
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
0.28
|
|
Interest-earning deposits in other financial institutions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,762
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
0.70
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets
|
|
|
880,559
|
|
|
|
9,841
|
|
|
|
4.47
|
|
|
|
853,428
|
|
|
|
10,277
|
|
|
|
4.82
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noninterest earning assets
|
|
|
38,019
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38,689
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
918,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
892,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INTEREST-BEARING LIABILITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-bearing checking
|
|
$
|
9,050
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
|
0.09
|
%
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
%
|
Money market
|
|
|
160,170
|
|
|
|
128
|
|
|
|
0.32
|
|
|
|
135,060
|
|
|
|
222
|
|
|
|
0.66
|
|
Savings deposits
|
|
|
139,998
|
|
|
|
49
|
|
|
|
0.14
|
|
|
|
136,452
|
|
|
|
113
|
|
|
|
0.33
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
305,622
|
|
|
|
1,569
|
|
|
|
2.05
|
|
|
|
311,896
|
|
|
|
1,738
|
|
|
|
2.23
|
|
Borrowings
|
|
|
80,000
|
|
|
|
469
|
|
|
|
2.35
|
|
|
|
82,500
|
|
|
|
794
|
|
|
|
3.85
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
|
694,840
|
|
|
|
2,217
|
|
|
|
1.28
|
|
|
|
665,908
|
|
|
|
2,867
|
|
|
|
1.72
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noninterest bearing liabilities
|
|
|
70,123
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
67,942
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
764,963
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
733,850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity
|
|
|
153,615
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
158,267
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and equity
|
|
$
|
918,578
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
892,117
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest/spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,624
|
|
|
|
3.19
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,410
|
|
|
|
3.09
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Margin
(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.46
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.47
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratio of interest-earning assets to interest bearing liabilities
|
|
|
126.73
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
128.16
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Yields earned and rates paid have been annualized.
|
(2)
|
Calculated net of deferred fees, loss reserves and includes non-accrual loans.
|
(3)
|
Calculated based on amortized cost of held-to-maturity securities and fair value of available-for-sale securities.
|
(4)
|
Net interest income divided by interest-earning assets.
|
28
Comparison of Results of Operations for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2012 and
September 30, 2011.
General.
Net income for the three months ended September 30, 2012 was $1.4 million, a decrease of
$660,000 as compared to net income of $2.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011. Earnings per basic and diluted common share were $0.16 for the three months ended September 30, 2012, compared to $0.22 for the three months
ended September 30, 2011. The decrease in net income was due primarily to an increase in noninterest expense and provision for loan losses partially offset by an increase in noninterest income and improvement in net interest income.
Interest Income.
Interest income decreased $436,000, or 4.2%, to $9.8 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from $10.3
million for the three months ended September 30, 2011. The decline in interest income was primarily due to decreases in interest and fees on loans and decreases in interest income on securities.
Interest and fees on loans decreased $310,000 to $9.7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from $10.0 million for the three months
ended September 30, 2011. The primary reason for the decrease was a decline of 64 basis points in the average yield on loans from 5.74% for the three months ended September 30, 2011 to 5.10% for the three months ended September 30,
2012, partially offset by an increase of $64.1 million in the average balance of loans receivable to $762.3 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from $698.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011. The
decrease in the average yield on loans was primarily caused by lower yields earned on loan originations during the period as a result of the low interest rate environment. The increase in the average loan receivable balance was attributable to new
loan originations as well as loans purchased.
Interest income on securities decreased $75,000, or 48.1%, to $81,000 for the three months
ended September 30, 2012 from $156,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2011. The decrease in interest income on securities was primarily due to a decrease of 167 basis points in average yield on securities from 2.29% to 0.62% for
the three months ended September 30, 2012. The decline in yield was partially offset by an increase of $24.9 million in the average balance of securities to $52.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from $27.3 million for
the three months ended September 30, 2011 due to new purchases of lower yielding securities as well as increased amortization of investment premium as a result of accelerated principal paydown.
Interest Expense
. Interest expense decreased $650,000, or 22.7% to $2.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from $2.9
million for the three months ended September 30, 2011. The decrease was primarily attributable to a 44 basis points decline in the average cost of interest bearing liabilities to 1.28% for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from
1.72% for the three months ended September 30, 2011, partially offset by an increase of $28.9 million to $694.8 million in average total interest bearing liabilities for the three months ended September 30, 2012 from $665.9 million for the
three months ended September 30, 2011. The decrease in the average cost of interest bearing liabilities reflected a reduction in the cost of funds such as interest on deposits and borrowings as a result of the low interest rate environment and
repayment of higher costing FHLB advances in fiscal 2012 which were replaced by lower costing advances. The increase in the average balance of total interest-bearing liabilities was due primarily to the increase in the average balance of money
market and interest-bearing checking deposits resulting from continued growth of new money market and interest-bearing checking products introduced during fiscal 2012.
Provision for Loan Losses
. Provision for loan losses increased to $850,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as compared to no provision for the same period last year.
Non-performing loans increased slightly to $25.6 million, or 3.40% of total loans at September 30, 2012 as compared to $25.4 million, or 3.29% of total loans at June 30, 2012. Delinquent loans 60 days or more totaled $9.0 million, or 1.19%
of total loans at September 30, 2012 as compared to $9.4 million, or 1.22% of total loans at June 30, 2012.
The provision for loan
losses of $850,000 during the three months ended September 30, 2012 was comprised of a $964,000 provision on one-to-four family loans, a $238,000 reduction in provision on multi-family loans, a $68,000 provision on commercial real estate loans,
a $40,000 provision on automobile loans, a $19,000 provision on home equity loans and a $3,000 reduction in provision on other loans. The increase in provision on one-to-four family loans was primarily due to short sale losses and charge-offs on
impaired loans. Short sale activity increased during the first fiscal quarter primarily as a result of the transfer of servicing from a third party servicer to us. The reduction in provision on multi-family loans was primarily due to a decline in
the overall historical loss factors on loans collectively evaluated for impairment and a reduction in the balance of multi-family loans collectively evaluated for impairment.
29
There was also a charge-off of approximately $253,000 on a commercial real estate loan that exhibited weakness during the first fiscal quarter but remained current on its loan payments. The
provision reflects managements continuing assessment of the credit quality of the Companys loan portfolio, which is affected by various trends, including current economic conditions.
Noninterest Income.
Our noninterest income increased $437,000, or 40.5%, to $1.5 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as
compared to $1.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011 due primarily to $424,000 in pre-tax gains on $10.9 million of fixed rate conforming one-to-four family loans sold.
Noninterest Expense.
Our noninterest expense increased $903,000, or 17.4% to $6.1 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as compared to $5.2 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2011 primarily due to an increase in salaries and benefits expense, other operating expenses, and advertising and promotional expenses.
Salaries and benefits expense increased $560,000, or 21.0% to $3.2 million for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as compared to $2.7 million for the three months ended September 30, 2011
due primarily to employees hired in the areas of eCommerce, marketing and lending. Employees hired in eCommerce and marketing will focus on aligning marketing efforts under the Banks new name and brand. eCommerce employees will also continue
to focus on expanding customer relationships through enhanced delivery channels such as online and mobile banking. Over the past year we also hired seasoned loan officers, underwriters and support staff in the income property and one-to-four family
loan origination departments to accommodate for increased loan origination and sale activity.
Other operating expenses increased $138,000, or
31.4%, to $578,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as compared to $440,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2011. The increase was primarily due to increases in expenditures on supplies, subscriptions and web-based
electronic services.
Advertising and promotional expenses increased $58,000, or 78.4%, to $132,000 for the three months ended
September 30, 2012 as compared to $74,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2011. The increase was primarily due to expenses incurred related to new branding initiatives. We also expect an increase in advertising and promotional
expense in fiscal 2013 in the amount of $650,000 and an increase in other categories of noninterest expense of $300,000 related to these efforts.
Income Tax Expense.
Income tax expense decreased $442,000, or 35.4% to $806,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2012 compared to $1.2 million for the three months ended
September 30, 2011. This decrease was primarily the result of lower pretax income for the three months ended September 30, 2012 compared to the three months ended September 30, 2011. The effective tax rates were 36.7% and 37.8% for
the three months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.
Asset Quality
General.
We continue our disciplined lending practices including our strict adherence to a long standing regimented credit culture that emphasizes
the consistent application of underwriting standards to all loans. In this regard, we fully underwrite all loans based on an applicants employment history, credit history and an appraised value of the subject property. With respect to loans we
purchase, we underwrite each loan based upon our own underwriting standards prior to making the purchase except for loans purchased with a credit guarantee. The credit guarantee requires the seller to substitute or repurchase any loans sold to the
Bank that become 60 days or more delinquent at the Banks option. The purchased loans with a credit guarantee are seasoned loans with stable employment base and reasonable collateral value. We reviewed the credit quality of a sample of the
purchased loans with a credit guarantee prior to purchasing the loans and we plan to complete our review within the contractual review period in November 2012 which allows us to substitute loans with credit or collateral quality not to our
satisfaction.
30
The following underwriting guidelines, among other things, have been used by us as underwriting tools to
further limit our potential loss exposure:
|
|
|
All variable rate one-to-four family residential loans are underwritten using the fully indexed rate.
|
|
|
|
We only lend up to 80% of the lesser of the appraised value or purchase price for one-to-four family residential loans without private mortgage
insurance (PMI), and up to 95% with PMI.
|
|
|
|
We only lend up to 75% of the lesser of the appraised value or purchase price for multi-family residential loans.
|
|
|
|
We only lend up to 65% of the lesser of the appraised value or purchase price for commercial real estate loans.
|
Additionally, our portfolio has remained strongly anchored in traditional mortgage products. We do not originate or purchase construction and development
loans, teaser option-ARM loans, negatively amortizing loans or high loan-to-value loans.
All of our real estate loans are secured by
properties located in California. The following tables set forth our real estate loans and non-accrual real estate loans by county (dollars in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Estate Loans by County as of
September 30, 2012
|
|
County
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
Multi-family
residential
|
|
|
Commercial real
estate
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
$
|
147,236
|
|
|
$
|
216,111
|
|
|
$
|
38,593
|
|
|
$
|
401,940
|
|
|
|
55.42
|
%
|
Orange
|
|
|
59,829
|
|
|
|
18,403
|
|
|
|
24,868
|
|
|
|
103,100
|
|
|
|
14.22
|
|
San Diego
|
|
|
27,655
|
|
|
|
14,286
|
|
|
|
2,626
|
|
|
|
44,567
|
|
|
|
6.15
|
|
San Bernardino
|
|
|
22,157
|
|
|
|
12,763
|
|
|
|
3,388
|
|
|
|
38,308
|
|
|
|
5.28
|
|
Riverside
|
|
|
15,434
|
|
|
|
3,447
|
|
|
|
8,913
|
|
|
|
27,794
|
|
|
|
3.83
|
|
Santa Clara
|
|
|
23,254
|
|
|
|
512
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,766
|
|
|
|
3.28
|
|
Alameda
|
|
|
16,110
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
452
|
|
|
|
16,593
|
|
|
|
2.29
|
|
Other
|
|
|
61,334
|
|
|
|
5,195
|
|
|
|
2,574
|
|
|
|
69,103
|
|
|
|
9.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
373,009
|
|
|
$
|
270,748
|
|
|
$
|
81,414
|
|
|
$
|
725,171
|
|
|
|
100.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real Estate Loans by County as of June
30, 2012
|
|
County
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
Multi-family
residential
|
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
$
|
144,739
|
|
|
$
|
223,768
|
|
|
$
|
41,848
|
|
|
$
|
410,355
|
|
|
|
55.32
|
%
|
Orange
|
|
|
63,681
|
|
|
|
22,140
|
|
|
|
27,067
|
|
|
|
112,888
|
|
|
|
15.22
|
|
San Diego
|
|
|
29,556
|
|
|
|
15,437
|
|
|
|
2,636
|
|
|
|
47,629
|
|
|
|
6.42
|
|
San Bernardino
|
|
|
17,601
|
|
|
|
12,849
|
|
|
|
3,406
|
|
|
|
33,856
|
|
|
|
4.57
|
|
Riverside
|
|
|
16,037
|
|
|
|
3,544
|
|
|
|
8,968
|
|
|
|
28,549
|
|
|
|
3.85
|
|
Santa Clara
|
|
|
22,481
|
|
|
|
530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23,011
|
|
|
|
3.10
|
|
Alameda
|
|
|
16,652
|
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
|
453
|
|
|
|
17,137
|
|
|
|
2.31
|
|
Other
|
|
|
60,504
|
|
|
|
5,253
|
|
|
|
2,586
|
|
|
|
68,343
|
|
|
|
9.21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
371,251
|
|
|
$
|
283,553
|
|
|
$
|
86,964
|
|
|
$
|
741,768
|
|
|
|
100.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accrual Real Estate Loans by County
as of September 30, 2012
|
|
County
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
Multi-family
residential
|
|
|
Commercial real
estate
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Percent of Non-
accrual to Loans
in Each Category
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
$
|
5,815
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,295
|
|
|
$
|
7,110
|
|
|
|
1.77
|
%
|
Orange
|
|
|
2,062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,104
|
|
|
|
3,166
|
|
|
|
3.07
|
|
San Diego
|
|
|
1,692
|
|
|
|
548
|
|
|
|
2,627
|
|
|
|
4,867
|
|
|
|
10.92
|
|
San Bernardino
|
|
|
2,446
|
|
|
|
1,511
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,957
|
|
|
|
10.33
|
|
Riverside
|
|
|
1,346
|
|
|
|
138
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,484
|
|
|
|
5.34
|
|
Santa Clara
|
|
|
1,850
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,850
|
|
|
|
7.78
|
|
Alameda
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
418
|
|
|
|
2.52
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,729
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,729
|
|
|
|
3.95
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
18,358
|
|
|
$
|
2,197
|
|
|
$
|
5,026
|
|
|
$
|
25,581
|
|
|
|
3.53
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accrual Real Estate Loans by County
as of June 30, 2012
|
|
County
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
Multi-family
residential
|
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Percent of Non-
accrual to Loans
in Each Category
|
|
Los Angeles
|
|
$
|
5,863
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,578
|
|
|
$
|
7,441
|
|
|
|
1.81
|
%
|
Orange
|
|
|
1,914
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,914
|
|
|
|
1.70
|
|
San Diego
|
|
|
2,081
|
|
|
|
647
|
|
|
|
2,636
|
|
|
|
5,364
|
|
|
|
11.26
|
|
San Bernardino
|
|
|
2,438
|
|
|
|
1,555
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,993
|
|
|
|
11.79
|
|
Riverside
|
|
|
1,259
|
|
|
|
224
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,483
|
|
|
|
5.19
|
|
Santa Clara
|
|
|
1,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,855
|
|
|
|
8.06
|
|
Alameda
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
421
|
|
|
|
2.46
|
|
Other
|
|
|
2,889
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,889
|
|
|
|
4.23
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
18,720
|
|
|
$
|
2,426
|
|
|
$
|
4,214
|
|
|
$
|
25,360
|
|
|
|
3.42
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At September 30, 2012, $137.0 million, or 36.7% of our one-to-four family residential mortgage portfolio was
serviced by others. As a result of a higher level of delinquent loans nationwide, certain third party servicers have been unable to service and in certain circumstances foreclose on properties in a timely manner. Currently, we track the servicing of
these loans on our core mortgage servicing system. We have hired additional experienced mortgage loan workout staff and reallocated existing staff to monitor the collection activity of the servicers and perform direct customer outreach when a loan
falls 30 days past due. In many instances, our role has been to provide direction to the third party servicers regarding loan modification requests and to develop collection plans for individual loans, while maintaining contact with the borrower.
Due to a number of factors, including the high rate of loan delinquencies, we believe our servicers have not vigorously pursued collection efforts on our behalf. We had previously filed legal suit against two servicers seeking to obtain the transfer
of servicing rights. During the year ended June 30, 2012, we settled with one of the servicers and obtained the servicing of $54.6 million in one-to-four family loans previously serviced by this servicer. During the three months ended
September 30, 2012, we also reached a servicing release agreement with the other servicer to obtain the servicing of $75.0 million in one-to-four family residential loans in November 2012. Included in the $75.0 million in loans were $3.6
million in delinquent loans 60 days or more at September 30, 2012.
32
The following table presents information concerning the composition of the one-to-four family residential
loan portfolio by servicer at September 30, 2012:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Non-accrual
|
|
|
Percent of Non-
accrual
to Loans
in Each Category
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchased and serviced by others
|
|
$
|
136,974
|
|
|
|
36.72
|
%
|
|
$
|
6,106
|
|
|
|
4.46
|
%
|
Purchased and servicing transferred to us
|
|
|
68,209
|
|
|
|
18.29
|
|
|
|
9,875
|
|
|
|
14.48
|
|
Originated and serviced by us
|
|
|
167,826
|
|
|
|
44.99
|
|
|
|
2,377
|
|
|
|
1.42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
373,009
|
|
|
|
100.00
|
%
|
|
$
|
18,358
|
|
|
|
4.92
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delinquent Loans.
The following table sets forth certain information with respect to our loan portfolio
delinquencies at the dates indicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans Delinquent:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60-89 Days
|
|
|
90 Days or More
|
|
|
Total Delinquent Loans
|
|
|
|
Number of
Loans
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Number of
Loans
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Number of
Loans
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
At September 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
$
|
1,494
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
$
|
6,736
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
8,230
|
|
Multi-family
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
744
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
744
|
|
Other loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Other
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loans
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
1,498
|
|
|
|
23
|
|
|
$
|
7,494
|
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
$
|
8,992
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At June 30, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
1,787
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
$
|
6,815
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
$
|
8,602
|
|
Multi-family
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
744
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
744
|
|
Other loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automobile
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
21
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total loans
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
$
|
1,809
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
$
|
7,562
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
$
|
9,371
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Delinquent loans 60 days or more past due totaled $9.0 million or 1.19% of total loans at September 30, 2012 as
compared to $9.4 million or 1.22% of total loans at June 30, 2012. Delinquent one-to-four family residential loans decreased to $8.2 million at September 30, 2012 from $8.6 million at June 30, 2012. The decrease in delinquent loans 60
days or more was primarily related to short sales and charge-offs of previously identified specific valuation allowances. As a result of the transfer of servicing from a third party servicer, short sale and charge-offs activities increased during
the first fiscal quarter. We are able to actively manage these delinquent loans, directly work with the borrowers, conduct loan modifications, short sales or initiate foreclosure proceedings to further improve credit quality. Delinquent multi-family
loans remained unchanged at $744,000 at September 30, 2012 and June 30, 2012. There were no delinquent commercial loans at September 30, 2012 and June 30, 2012. In addition, there were eight one-to-four family loans totaling $2.9
million that were over 90 days delinquent at September 30, 2012 and in the process of foreclosure.
33
Non-Performing Assets.
Non-performing assets consist of non-accrual loans and foreclosed assets.
Loans to a customer whose financial condition has deteriorated are considered for non-accrual status whether or not the loan is 90 days and over past due. All loans past due 90 days and over are classified as non-accrual. At the time the loan is
placed on non-accrual status, interest previously accrued but not collected is reversed and charged against current income. Payments received on non-accrued loans are recorded as a reduction of principal or as interest income depending on
managements assessment of the ultimate collectibility of the loan principal. Generally, interest income on a non-accrual loan is recorded on a cash basis when the outstanding principal is brought current. Non-accrual loans also include
troubled debt restructurings that are on non-accrual status. At September 30, 2012 and June 30, 2012, there were no loans past due more than 90 days and still accruing interest. Included in non-accrual loans were troubled debt
restructuring of $13.3 million and $12.9 million as of September 30, 2012 and June 30, 2012, with specific valuation allowances of $1.6 million for both periods.
Non-accrual loans continue to remain at historically elevated levels as a result of the decline in the housing market as well as the prolonged levels of high unemployment in our market area. We have
worked with responsible borrowers to keep their properties and as a result we have restructured $14.1 million in mortgage loans of which $12.5 million were performing in accordance with their revised contractual terms at September 30, 2012.
This compares to $13.7 million in restructured loans at June 30, 2012. Of the $14.1 million in restructured loans, $13.3 million were reported as non-accrual at September 30, 2012. Troubled debt restructured loans are included in
non-accrual loans until there is a sustained period of payment performance (usually six months or longer and determined on a case by case basis) and there is a reasonable assurance that timely payment will continue. During the three months ended
September 30, 2012, no troubled debt restructurings were returned to accrual status. This compares to two troubled debt restructurings with an aggregate outstanding balance of $807,000 that were returned to accrual status as a result of the
borrowers paying the modified terms as agreed for a sustained period of more than six months during the year ended June 30, 2012. There were no further commitments to customers whose loans were troubled debt restructurings at September 30,
2012 and June 30, 2012.
Any changes or modifications made to loans are carefully reviewed to determine whether they are troubled debt
restructurings. The modification of the terms of loans that are reported as troubled debt restructurings included one or a combination of the following: a reduction of the stated interest rate of the loan; an extension of the maturity date at a
stated rate of interest lower than the current market rate for new debt with similar risk; or a permanent reduction of the recorded investment in the loan. There are other changes or modifications made for borrowers who are not experiencing
financial difficulties. During the three months ended September 30, 2012, there were twenty-two loans in the amount of $11.3 million which were modified and not accounted for as troubled debt restructurings. The modifications were made to
refinance the credits to maintain the borrowing relationships and generally consisted of term or rate modifications. The borrowers were not experiencing financial difficulty and the modifications were made at market terms.
34
The following table sets forth the amounts and categories of our non-performing assets at the dates
indicated (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At September 30,
|
|
|
At June 30,
|
|
|
At June 30,
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accrual loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
$
|
8,345
|
|
|
$
|
9,332
|
|
|
$
|
9,513
|
|
Multi-family
|
|
|
1,511
|
|
|
|
1,555
|
|
|
|
1,757
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
2,399
|
|
|
|
1,578
|
|
|
|
2,252
|
|
Other loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automobile
|
|
|
27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
5
|
|
Troubled debt restructurings:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
|
10,013
|
|
|
|
9,388
|
|
|
|
8,872
|
|
Multi-family
|
|
|
686
|
|
|
|
871
|
|
|
|
1,332
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
2,627
|
|
|
|
2,636
|
|
|
|
2,665
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-accrual loans
|
|
$
|
25,611
|
|
|
$
|
25,400
|
|
|
$
|
26,396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other real estate owned and repossessed assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
669
|
|
|
$
|
828
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
610
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automobile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other real estate owned and repossessed assets
|
|
$
|
610
|
|
|
$
|
1,279
|
|
|
$
|
838
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total non-performing assets
|
|
$
|
26,221
|
|
|
$
|
26,679
|
|
|
$
|
27,234
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ratios:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-performing loans to total loans
(1)
|
|
|
3.40
|
%
|
|
|
3.29
|
%
|
|
|
3.73
|
%
|
Non-performing assets to total assets
|
|
|
2.86
|
%
|
|
|
2.89
|
%
|
|
|
3.18
|
%
|
Non-accrued interest
(2)
|
|
$
|
474
|
|
|
$
|
456
|
|
|
$
|
364
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1)
|
Total loans are net of deferred fees and costs.
|
(2)
|
If interest on the loans classified as non-accrual had been accrued, interest income in these amounts would have been recorded.
|
At September 30, 2012, there were $18.4 million of one-to-four family residential mortgage loans on non-accrual for which valuation allowances
individually evaluated totaling $2.1 million have been applied. Of the $18.4 million in one-to-four family residential mortgage loans on non-accrual status, the terms or rates of $10.0 million in loans were modified as troubled debt restructurings.
At September 30, 2012, there were $7.2 million of multi-family residential and commercial real estate loans (income
property) on non-accrual for which no valuation allowances individually evaluated have been applied. Included in the $7.2 million of income property loans on non-accrual status were four multi-family residential loans totaling $2.2 million and
three commercial real estate loans totaling $5.0 million.
The first multi-family residential loan was made to one borrower with a principal
balance of $744,000, net of charge-off, at September 30, 2012, located in Adelanto, California. This loan was over 90 days delinquent and had a court appointed receiver in place to manage the property and collect the rents during the judicial
foreclosure process. There was no valuation allowance recorded for this loan during the three months ended September 30, 2012 as $1.0 million of previously identified specific valuation allowances on this loan was already charged-off in the
prior fiscal year.
35
The second multi-family residential loan was made to one borrower with a principal balance of $767,000 at September 30, 2012 located in San Bernardino, California, which was current at
September 30, 2012 but was previously delinquent. The property value has been slightly lower than the current loan balance for more than six months and accordingly, $40,000 of previously identified specific valuation allowances on this loan was
charged-off during the three months ended September 30, 2012. The remaining two multi-family residential loans on non-accrual status in the aggregate amount of $686,000 at September 30, 2012 were troubled debt restructurings and $184,000
of previously identified specific valuation allowances on these loans were charged-off during the three months ended September 30, 2012 because they were collateral dependent and the fair value of the collateral was determined to be deficient.
At September 30, 2012, we had three non-accruing commercial real estate loans with an aggregate balance of $5.0 million. The first
commercial real estate loan had a principal balance of $2.6 million secured by a strip mall in San Diego, California. This loan was current and was a troubled debt restructuring at September 30, 2012. The second commercial real estate loan had
a principal balance of $1.6 million secured by an office building in Los Angeles County, California, which was current at September 30, 2012 but has experienced cash flow problems. Accordingly, $274,000 of previously identified specific
valuation allowances on this loan was charged-off during the three months ended September 30, 2012. The third commercial real estate loan had a principal balance of $1.4 million secured by an office building in Orange County, California, which
was current at September 30, 2012. However, the property is 100% vacant with a lack of verifiable outside financial support. In addition, the property value is lower than the current loan balance and accordingly, $253,000 was charged-off on
this loan during the three months ended September 30, 2012. The level of non-accrual loans is taken into consideration in our determination of the allowance for loan losses at September 30, 2012. Non-accrual loans are assessed to determine
impairment. Loans that are found to be impaired are individually evaluated and a valuation allowance is applied or charged-off if warranted.
Real Estate Owned.
Real estate owned and repossessed assets consist of real estate and other assets which have been acquired through foreclosure
on loans. At the time of foreclosure, assets are recorded at fair value less estimated selling costs, with any write-down charged against the allowance for loan losses. The fair value of real estate owned is determined by a third party appraisal of
the property.
Classified Assets.
We regularly review potential problem assets in our portfolio to determine whether any assets require
classification in accordance with applicable regulations. The total amount of classified and special mention assets represented 37.0% of our equity capital and 6.1% of our total assets at September 30, 2012, as compared to 38.9% of our equity
capital and 6.5% of our total assets at June 30, 2012. At September 30, 2012 and June 30, 2012, there were $25.6 million and $25.4 million in non-accrual loans included in classified assets, respectively.
The aggregate amount of our classified and special mention assets at the dates indicated were as follows (in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
2012
|
|
|
June 30,
2012
|
|
|
|
|
Classified and Special Mention Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
$
|
29
|
|
|
$
|
3
|
|
Doubtful
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
Substandard
|
|
|
36,713
|
|
|
|
37,468
|
|
Special Mention
|
|
|
19,534
|
|
|
|
22,452
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
56,291
|
|
|
$
|
59,951
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36
Allowance for Loan Losses.
We maintain an allowance for loan losses to absorb probable incurred
losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The allowance is based on ongoing, quarterly assessments of the probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles the allowance is comprised of general
valuation allowances and valuation allowances on loans individually evaluated for impairment.
The general component covers non-impaired loans
and is based both on our historical loss experience as well as significant factors that, in managements judgment, affect the collectability of the portfolio as of the evaluation date. Loans that are classified as impaired are individually
evaluated. We consider a loan impaired when it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the terms of the loan agreement and determine impairment by computing a fair value either based on discounted cash flows using
the loans initial interest rate or the fair value of the collateral, less estimated selling costs, if the loan is collateral dependent.
The general valuation allowance is calculated by applying loss factors to outstanding loans based on the internal risk evaluation of the loans or pools
of loans. Changes in risk evaluations of both performing and non-performing loans affect the amount of the allowance. The appropriateness of the allowance is reviewed and established by management based upon its evaluation of then-existing economic
and business conditions affecting key lending areas and other conditions, such as credit quality trends (including trends in non-performing loans expected to result from existing conditions), collateral values, loan volumes and concentrations,
specific industry conditions and peer data within portfolio segments, and recent loss experience in particular segments of the portfolio that existed as of the balance sheet date and the impact that such conditions were believed to have had on the
collectability of the loan. Significant factors reviewed in determining the allowance for loan losses included loss ratio trends by loan product; levels of and trends in delinquencies and impaired loans; levels of and trends in classified assets;
levels of and trends in charge-offs and recoveries; trends in volume of loans by loan product; effects of changes in lending policies and practices; industry conditions and effects of concentrations in geographic regions and by third party
servicers.
Valuation allowances on real estate loans that are individually evaluated for impairment are charged-off when management believes
a loan or part of a loan is deemed uncollectible. Subsequent recoveries, if any, are credited to the allowance when received. A loan is generally considered uncollectible when the borrowers payment is six months or more delinquent.
Our multi-family residential loan portfolio had been a significant growth area in our loan portfolio beginning in fiscal 2009 and as a result this
portfolio was considered unseasoned in prior fiscal years. As of September 30, 2012, we re-evaluated the historical loss history for the multi-family residential loan portfolio and concluded that we have accumulated sufficient history to
capture a full loss cycle for the historical loss migration analysis. For the multi-family residential loans, we review the loan portfolios historical loss history, debt service coverage ratios, and seasoning. Due to a decline in the overall
historical loss factors and a reduction in the balance on multi-family loans collectively evaluated for impairment, the general valuation portion of our multi-family portfolio declined by $236,000 at September 30, 2012 compared to June 30,
2012.
Our commercial real estate portfolio grew significantly beginning in fiscal 2008. Due to the economic downturn, in order to proactively
limit commercial real estate loan credit losses, we currently consider the origination of commercial real estate loans on a case by case basis based on the borrowers credit qualification and the property offered for collateral. As a result, we
did not originate any commercial real estate loans since 2009 and therefore, this portfolio is considered unseasoned. For the commercial real estate loan portfolio, we review the loan portfolios historical loss history, debt service coverage
ratios, seasoning and peer group data. In fiscal 2010, we also expanded our migration analysis to include the credit loss migration from published sources, including the FDIC, in order to determine the allowance for loan losses on commercial real
estate loans, given the characteristics of the peer group as compared to our portfolio. Due to improved loss experience of our peer group and a decline in the balance of commercial real estate loans collectively evaluated for impairment, the general
valuation portion of our commercial real estate portfolio declined by $180,000 at September 30, 2012 compared to June 30, 2012.
37
Senior management reviews these conditions quarterly in discussions with our senior credit officers. To the
extent that any of these conditions is evidenced by a specifically identifiable problem credit or portfolio segment as of the evaluation date, managements estimate of the effect of such conditions may be reflected as an allowance specifically
applicable to such credit or portfolio segment. Where any of these conditions is not evidenced by a specifically identifiable problem credit or portfolio segment as of the evaluation date, managements evaluation of the loss related to this
condition is reflected in the general allowance. The evaluation of the inherent loss with respect to these conditions is subject to a higher degree of uncertainty because they are not identified with specific problem credits or portfolio segments.
Given that management evaluates the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses based on a review of individual loans, historical loan loss
experience, the value and adequacy of collateral and economic conditions in our market area, this evaluation is inherently subjective as it requires material estimates, including the amounts and timing of future cash flows expected to be received on
impaired loans that may be susceptible to significant change. Large groups of smaller balance homogeneous loans that are collectively evaluated for impairment and are excluded from loans individually evaluated for impairment; their allowance for
loan losses is calculated in accordance with the allowance for loan losses policy described above.
Because the allowance for loan losses is
based on estimates of losses inherent in the loan portfolio, actual losses can vary significantly from the estimated amounts. Our methodology as described above permits adjustments to any loss factor used in the computation of the formula allowance
in the event that, in managements judgment, significant factors which affect the collectability of the portfolio as of the evaluation date are not reflected in the loss factors. By assessing the estimated losses inherent in the loan portfolio
on a quarterly basis, we are able to adjust individual and inherent loss estimates based upon any more recent information that has become available. We continue to review our allowance for loan losses methodology for appropriateness to keep pace
with the size and composition of the loans and the changing economic conditions and credit environment. We believe that our methodologies continue to be appropriate given our size and level of complexity. In addition, managements determination
as to the amount of our allowance for loan losses is subject to review by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the FDIC, which may require the establishment of additional general allowances or allowances on loans
individually evaluated for impairment based upon their judgment of the information available to them at the time of their examination of our Bank.
Provision for loan losses increased to $850,000 for the three months ended September 30, 2012 as compared to no provision for the same period last year. The increase in the overall provision was
primarily due to short sale losses and charge-offs on impaired loans. As a result of the transfer of servicing from a third party servicer, short sale activity increased during the quarter. There was also a charge-off of approximately $253,000 on a
commercial real estate loan that exhibited weakness during the quarter but remains current on its loan payments. Delinquent loans 60 days or more totaled $9.0 million, or 1.19% of total loans at September 30, 2012 as compared to $9.4 million,
or 1.22% of total loans at June 30, 2012. Non-performing loans increased slightly to $25.6 million, or 3.40% of total loans at September 30, 2012 as compared to $25.4 million, or 3.29% of total loans at June 30, 2012. The allowance
for loan losses to non-performing loans was 24.96% at September 30, 2012 as compared to 29.54% at June 30, 2012. The decline in the allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans was a result of $1.1 million in charge-offs of previously
identified specific valuation allowances on loans generally six months or more delinquent during the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The provision reflected managements continuing assessment of the credit quality of the Companys
loan portfolio, which is affected by various trends, including current economic conditions.
38
The distribution of the allowance for losses on loans at the dates indicated is summarized as follows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
September 30,
2012
|
|
|
June 30,
2012
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent of
Loans in Each
Category to
Total Loans
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent of
Loans in Each
Category to
Total Loans
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Real estate loans
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four family
|
|
$
|
4,521
|
|
|
|
49.46
|
%
|
|
$
|
4,692
|
|
|
|
48.17
|
%
|
Multi-family
|
|
|
1,057
|
|
|
|
35.90
|
|
|
|
1,519
|
|
|
|
36.79
|
|
Commercial
|
|
|
672
|
|
|
|
10.80
|
|
|
|
1,131
|
|
|
|
11.28
|
|
Other loans
:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Automobile
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
|
2.45
|
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
|
2.25
|
|
Home equity
|
|
|
26
|
|
|
|
0.09
|
|
|
|
63
|
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
Other
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
|
1.31
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
|
1.39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total allowance for loan losses
|
|
$
|
6,392
|
|
|
|
100.00
|
%
|
|
$
|
7,502
|
|
|
|
100.00
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39
Liquidity, Capital Resources and Commitments
Liquidity may increase or decrease depending upon the availability of funds and comparative yields on investments in relation to the return on loans. Historically, we have maintained liquid assets at
levels above the minimum requirements previously imposed by our regulator and above levels believed to be adequate to meet the requirements of normal operations, including potential deposit outflows. Cash flow projections are regularly reviewed and
updated to assure that adequate liquidity is maintained.
Our liquidity, represented by cash and cash equivalents, interest earning accounts
and mortgage-backed and related securities, is a product of our operating, investing and financing activities. Our primary sources of funds are deposits, amortization, prepayments and maturities of outstanding loans and mortgage-backed and related
securities, and other short-term investments and funds provided from operations. While scheduled payments from the amortization of loans and mortgage-backed related securities and maturing investment securities and short-term investments are
relatively predictable sources of funds, deposit flows and loan prepayments are greatly influenced by general interest rates, economic conditions, and competition. In addition, we invest excess funds in short-term interest earning assets, which
provide liquidity to meet lending requirements. We also generate cash through borrowings. We utilize FHLB advances to leverage our capital base and provide funds for our lending and investment activities as well as enhance our interest rate risk
management.
Liquidity management is both a daily and long-term function of business management. Excess liquidity is generally invested in
short-term investments such as overnight deposits. On a longer-term basis, we maintain a strategy of investing in various investment securities and lending products. We use our sources of funds primarily to meet ongoing commitments, to pay maturing
certificates of deposit and savings withdrawals, to fund loan commitments and to maintain our portfolio of mortgage-backed and related securities. At September 30, 2012, total approved loan commitments amounted to $3.5 million and the
unadvanced portion of loans was $2.2 million.
Certificates of deposit and advances from the FHLB of San Francisco scheduled to mature in one
year or less at September 30, 2012, totaled $125.5 million and $20.0 million, respectively. Based on historical experience, management believes that a significant portion of maturing deposits will remain with the Bank and we anticipate that we
will continue to have sufficient funds, through deposits and borrowings, to meet our current commitments.
At September 30, 2012, we had
available additional advances from the FHLB of San Francisco in the amount of $289.2 million. We also had a short-term line of credit with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco of $59.3 million at September 30, 2012, which has not been
drawn upon.
40
Contractual Obligations
In the normal course of business, we enter into contractual obligations that meet various business needs. These contractual obligations include certificates of deposit to customers, borrowings from the
FHLB, lease obligations for facilities, and commitments to purchase, sale and/or originate loans.
The following table summarizes our
long-term contractual obligations at September 30, 2012 (in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Less than
1 year
|
|
|
1 3
Years
|
|
|
Over 3 5
Years
|
|
|
More than 5
years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FHLB advances
|
|
$
|
80,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
Operating lease obligations
|
|
|
5,897
|
|
|
|
1,026
|
|
|
|
2,026
|
|
|
|
1,170
|
|
|
|
1,675
|
|
Loan commitments to originate
|
|
|
3,497
|
|
|
|
3,497
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loan sale commitments
|
|
|
3,529
|
|
|
|
3,529
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available home equity and unadvanced lines of credit
|
|
|
2,173
|
|
|
|
2,173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
304,830
|
|
|
|
125,463
|
|
|
|
88,048
|
|
|
|
91,179
|
|
|
|
140
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total commitments and contractual obligations
|
|
$
|
399,926
|
|
|
$
|
155,688
|
|
|
$
|
110,074
|
|
|
$
|
112,349
|
|
|
$
|
21,815
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
As a financial service provider, we routinely are a party to various financial instruments with off-balance sheet risks, such as commitments to extend credit and unused lines of credit. While these
contractual obligations represent our future cash requirements, a significant portion of commitments to extend credit may expire without being drawn upon. Such commitments are subject to the same credit policies and approval process accorded to
loans we make.
41
Capital
The table below sets forth Kaiser Federal Banks capital position relative to its regulatory capital requirements at September 30, 2012 and June 30, 2012. The definitions of the terms used
in the table are those provided in the capital regulations issued by the OCC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Minimum Capital
Requirements
|
|
|
Minimum required
to be
Well
Capitalized Under
Prompt Corrective
Actions Provisions
|
|
September 30, 2012
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Ratio
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Ratio
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Ratio
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Total capital (to risk-weighted assets)
|
|
$
|
132,808
|
|
|
|
21.95
|
%
|
|
$
|
48,403
|
|
|
|
8.00
|
%
|
|
$
|
60,503
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets)
|
|
|
126,416
|
|
|
|
20.89
|
|
|
|
24,201
|
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
|
36,302
|
|
|
|
6.00
|
|
Tier 1 (core) capital (to adjusted tangible assets)
|
|
|
126,416
|
|
|
|
13.86
|
|
|
|
36,482
|
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
|
45,602
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Minimum Capital
Requirements
|
|
|
Minimum required
to be
Well
Capitalized Under
Prompt Corrective
Actions Provisions
|
|
June 30, 2012
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Ratio
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Ratio
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Ratio
|
|
|
|
(Dollars in thousands)
|
|
Total capital (to risk-weighted assets)
|
|
$
|
131,832
|
|
|
|
21.10
|
%
|
|
$
|
49,993
|
|
|
|
8.00
|
%
|
|
$
|
62,491
|
|
|
|
10.00
|
%
|
Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets)
|
|
|
124,330
|
|
|
|
19.90
|
|
|
|
24,996
|
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
|
37,494
|
|
|
|
6.00
|
|
Tier 1 (core) capital (to adjusted tangible assets)
|
|
|
124,330
|
|
|
|
13.52
|
|
|
|
36,781
|
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
|
45,976
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
Consistent with our goal to operate a sound and profitable financial organization, we actively seek to continue as a
well capitalized institution in accordance with regulatory standards. At September 30, 2012, Kaiser Federal Bank was a well-capitalized institution under regulatory standards.
Impact of Inflation
The unaudited
consolidated financial statements presented herein have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. These principles require the measurement of financial position and operating results in terms of historical dollars, without considering changes in the
relative purchasing power of money over time due to inflation.
Our primary assets and liabilities are monetary in nature. As a result,
interest rates have a more significant impact on our performance than the effects of general levels of inflation. Interest rates, however, do not necessarily move in the same direction or with the same magnitude as the price of goods and services,
since such prices are affected by inflation. In a period of rapidly rising interest rates, the liquidity and maturity structure of our assets and liabilities are critical to the maintenance of acceptable performance levels.
The principal effect of inflation, as distinct from levels of interest rates, on earnings is in the area of noninterest expense. Such expense items as
employee compensation, employee benefits and occupancy and equipment costs may be subject to increases as a result of inflation.
42