Search the web
Welcome, Guest
[Sign Out, My Account]

Quotes & Info
Enter Symbol(s):
e.g. YHOO, ^DJI
Symbol Lookup | Financial Search
LSBI > SEC Filings for LSBI > Form 10-Q on 14-Nov-2013All Recent SEC Filings

Show all filings for LSB FINANCIAL CORP



Quarterly Report

Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Executive Summary

LSB Financial Corp., an Indiana corporation ("LSB Financial" or the "Company"), is the holding company of Lafayette Savings Bank, FSB ("Lafayette Savings" or the "Bank"). LSB Financial has no separate operations and its business consists only of the business of Lafayette Savings.

References in this Form 10-Q to "we," "us" and "our" refer to LSB Financial and/or Lafayette Savings as the context requires.

Lafayette Savings is, and intends to continue to be, an independent, community-oriented financial institution. The Bank has been in business for 144 years and differs from many of our competitors by having a local board and local decision-making in all areas of business. In general, our business consists of attracting or acquiring deposits and lending that money out primarily as real estate loans to construct and purchase single-family residential properties, multi-family and commercial properties and to fund land development projects. We also make a limited number of commercial business and consumer loans.

We have an experienced and committed staff and enjoy a good reputation for serving the people of the community, for understanding their financial needs and for finding a way to meet those needs. We contribute time and money to improve the quality of life in our market area, and many of our employees volunteer for local non-profit agencies. We believe this sets us apart from the other 22 banks and credit unions that compete with us. We also believe that operating independently under the same name for over 144 years is a benefit to us - especially as local offices of large banks often have less local authority as their companies strive to consolidate. Focusing time and resources on acquiring customers who may be feeling disenfranchised by their very large or no-longer-local bank has proved to be a successful strategy.

Tippecanoe County and the eight surrounding counties comprise Lafayette Savings' primary market area. Lafayette is the county seat of Tippecanoe County and West Lafayette is the home of Purdue University. There are three things that set Greater Lafayette apart from other urban areas of the country: the presence of a world class university, Purdue University; a government sector due to the presence of the county seat; and the mix of heavy industry and high-tech innovative start-up companies tied to Purdue University. In addition, Greater Lafayette is a regional health care center serving nine counties and has a large campus of Ivy Tech Community College.

Tippecanoe County typically shows better growth and lower unemployment rates than Indiana or the national economy because of the diverse employment base. The Tippecanoe County unemployment rate has dropped from 7.9% at August 2011 to 6.8% at August 2013. Unemployment in Indiana in August was 8.1% and was 7.3% nationally. Activity in the local housing market is improving. According to Greater Lafayette Commerce, 1,099 homes were sold through mid-year 2013, compared to 1,627 for all of 2012. There were 221 new single-family building permits through mid-year 2013, compared to 462 in all of 2012.

Current signs of recovery, based on a report from Greater Lafayette Commerce, include increasing manufacturing employment, a continuing commitment to new facilities and renovations at Purdue University, and signs of renewed activity in residential development projects. Capital investments announced and/or made through mid-year 2013 totaled $768 million, compared to $646 million in all 2012. Purdue, the area's largest employer, had enrollment of just under 39,000 on its West Lafayette campus for the 2013-2014 school year. Purdue employs about 15,000 people.

Subaru, the area's largest industrial employer with 3,600 employees, produces the Subaru Legacy, Outback and Tribeca, and recently announced the addition of more production capacity for a new model to be built there. It announced a $450 million expansion and intends to hire 900 new employees by the end of 2016. Wabash National, the area's second largest industrial employer with 3,323 employees, continues to hire for a new line for production of bulk liquid storage containers.

Nanshan America began operating its new aluminum extrusion plant in Lafayette in 2012 which will employ 200 people by year-end. Alcoa will be adding a 115,000 square foot aluminum lithium plant to begin production in 2014. Overall, about 470 new jobs were created in 2012. While the developments noted above lead us to believe the most serious problems are behind us as increased hiring and new industry moving to town have continued, we expect the recovery to be long term. Manufacturing companies that rely on exports, including Caterpillar and Fairfield Drive Systems, have cut employment.

We continue to make good progress with our problem loans as more borrowers who had fallen behind on their loans have resumed payments or are qualifying for troubled debt restructures. Our percentage of loans delinquent over 30 days was at 0.65% of total loans at September 30, 2013, the lowest it has been in over ten years. The majority of our delinquent loans are secured by real estate, and we believe we have sufficient reserves to cover incurred losses. In 2012, we acquired 5 properties through deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure and 5 properties through foreclosure and sold 36 OREO properties. Through September 30, 2013, we have acquired only one property through a sheriff's sale and sold the one property we had in OREO at December 31, 2012.

The funds we use to make loans come primarily from deposits from customers in our market area, and to a lesser extent from brokered deposits and from Federal Home Loan Bank ("FHLB") advances. In addition, we maintain an investment portfolio of available-for-sale securities to provide liquidity as needed. Our preference is to rely on local deposits unless the cost is not competitive, but if the need is immediate, we will acquire pre-payable FHLB advances which are immediately available for member banks within their borrowing tolerance and can then be replaced with local or brokered deposits as they become available. We will also consider purchasing fixed term FHLB advances or brokered deposits as needed. We generally prefer brokered deposits over FHLB advances when the cost of raising money locally is not competitive. The deposits are available with a range of terms, there is no collateral requirement and the money is predictable as it cannot be withdrawn early except in the case of the death of a depositor and there is no option to have the money rollover at maturity. Base deposits in 2013 have remained fairly flat. Our reliance on brokered funds remained unchanged in the first three quarters of 2013, with the balance remaining at $13.7 million as we wait for maturities which give us the opportunity to repay these funds. While we always welcome local deposits, the cost and convenience of brokered funds make them a useful alternative. We will also continue to rely on FHLB advances to provide immediate liquidity and help manage interest rate risk.

Our primary source of income is net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income earned on our loan and investment portfolio and the interest expense incurred on deposits and borrowings. Our net interest income depends on the balance of our loan and investment portfolios and the size of our net interest margin - the difference between the income generated from loans and the cost of funding. Our net interest income also depends on the shape of the yield curve. The Federal Reserve has held short-term rates at almost zero for the last several years while long-term rates have fallen to the 3.0% range. Because deposits are generally tied to shorter-term market rates and loans are generally tied to longer-term rates this would typically be viewed as a positive step, and in fact our net interest margin initially increased to a record high of 4.12% in the first quarter of 2012 before falling to 3.40% at September 30, 2013. The decrease was generally due to the continued decline in loan rates while deposit rates have started to level out. Despite the fact that loan rates have increased slightly in anticipation of the Federal Reserve cutting back on Treasury purchases, our expectation for the rest of 2013 is that rates will remain at these low levels and the Federal Reserve will continue to focus on strengthening the economy. Overall loan rates are expected to stay flat or rise slightly through the end of the year.

Because the Federal Reserve has stated it intends to keep rates low, we expect to see little change in the money supply or market rates until mid to late 2014. Low rates generally increase borrower preference for fixed rate products which we typically sell on the secondary market. Some existing adjustable rate loans which have repriced to lower rates have reached their rate floor and could be expected to have a negative impact on our interest income when rates begin to rise in cases where the market index is now lower than the loan's floor rate. While we would expect to sell the majority of our fixed rate loans on the secondary market, we intend to keep some higher quality loans to replace runoff in the portfolio. Although new loans put on the books in 2013 will be at comparatively low rates, we expect they will provide a return above any other opportunities for investment.

Our primary expense is interest on deposits and FHLB advances which are used to fund loan growth. We offer customers in our market area time deposits for terms ranging from three months to 66 months, checking accounts and savings accounts. We also purchase brokered deposits and FHLB advances as needed to provide funding or improve our interest rate risk position. Generally when interest rates are low, depositors will choose shorter-term products and conversely when rates are high, depositors will choose longer-term products.

We consider expected changes in interest rates when structuring our interest-earning assets and our interest-bearing liabilities. When rates are expected to increase, we try to book shorter-term assets that will reprice relatively quickly to higher rates over time, and book longer-term liabilities that will remain for a longer time at lower rates. Conversely, when rates are expected to fall, we would like our balance sheet to be structured such that loans will reprice more slowly to lower rates and deposits will reprice more quickly. We currently offer a three-year and a five-year certificate of deposit that allows depositors one opportunity to have their rate adjusted to the market rate at a future date to encourage them to choose longer-term deposit products. However, since we are not able to predict market interest rate fluctuations, our asset/liability management strategy may not prevent interest rate changes from having an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our results of operations may also be affected by general and local competitive conditions, particularly those with respect to changes in market rates, government policies and actions of regulatory authorities.

Effect of Current Events

The level of turmoil in the financial services industry does present unusual risks and challenges for the Company, as described in "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Possible Implications of Current Events" in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012.

As noted in the Annual Report, on July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act, which significantly changes the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions affecting large and small financial institutions alike, including several provisions that will profoundly affect how community banks, thrifts, and small bank and thrift holding companies, such as LSB Financial, will be regulated in the future. Among other things, these provisions abolished the OTS effective July 21, 2011 and transferred its functions to the other federal banking agencies. The Dodd-Frank Act also relaxes rules regarding interstate branching, allows financial institutions to pay interest on business checking accounts, changes the scope of federal deposit insurance coverage, imposes new capital requirements on bank and thrift holding companies, and imposes limits on debit card interchange fees charged by large banks (commonly known as the Durbin Amendment).

The Dodd-Frank Act also established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the "CFPB") within the Federal Reserve, which has broad authority to regulate consumer financial products and services and entities offering such products and services, including banks. Many of the consumer financial protection functions formerly assigned to the federal banking and other designated agencies are now performed by the CFPB. The CFPB has a large budget and staff, and has broad rulemaking authority over providers of credit, savings, and payment services and products. In this regard, the CFPB has the authority to implement regulations under federal consumer protection laws and enforce those laws against, and examine, financial institutions. State officials also will be authorized to enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. This bureau also is authorized to collect fines and provide consumer restitution in the event of violations, engage in consumer financial education, track consumer complaints, request data, and promote the availability of financial services to underserved consumers and communities. The CFPB also is directed to prevent "unfair, deceptive or abusive practices" and ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services, and that such markets are fair, transparent, and competitive. Although the CFPB has begun to implement its regulatory, supervisory, examination and enforcement authority, there continues to be significant uncertainty as to how the agency's strategies and priorities will impact the Bank and LSB Financial.

The CFPB has indicated that mortgage lending is an area of supervisory focus and that it will concentrate its examination and rulemaking efforts on the variety of mortgage-related topics required under the Dodd-Frank Act, including steering consumers to less-favorable products, discrimination, abusive or unfair lending practices, predatory lending, origination disclosures, minimum mortgage underwriting standards, mortgage loan originator compensation, and servicing practices. The CFPB recently published several final regulations impacting the mortgage industry, including rules related to ability-to-repay, mortgage servicing, escrow accounts, and mortgage loan originator compensation. The ability-to-repay rule makes lenders liable if they fail to assess ability to repay under a prescribed test, but also creates a safe harbor for so-called "qualified mortgages." The "qualified mortgages" standards include a tiered cap structure that places limits on the total amount of certain fees that can be charged on a loan, a 43% cap on debt-to-income (i.e., total monthly payments on debt to monthly gross income), exclusion of interest-only products, and other requirements. The 43% debt-to-income cap does not apply for the first seven years the rule is in effect for loans that are eligible for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or eligible for government guarantee through the FHA or the Veterans Administration. Failure to comply with the ability-to-repay rule may result in possible CFPB enforcement action and special statutory damages plus actual, class action, and attorneys fees damages, all of which a borrower may claim in defense of a foreclosure action at any time. LSB Financial's management is continuing to assess the impact of these requirements on its mortgage lending business.

In addition, the Federal Reserve and other federal bank regulatory agencies have issued a proposed rule under the Dodd-Frank Act that would exempt "qualified residential mortgages" from the securitization risk retention requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. The final definition of what constitutes a "qualified residential mortgage" may impact the pricing and depth of the secondary market into which we may sell mortgages we originate. At this time, we cannot predict the content of final CFPB and other federal agency regulations or the impact they might have on the Company's financial results. The CFPB's authority over mortgage lending, and its authority to change regulations adopted in the past by other regulators (i.e., regulations issued under the Truth in Lending Act, for example), or to rescind or ignore past regulatory guidance, could increase the Company's compliance costs and litigation exposure.

The January 25, 2013 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidating recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, calls into question the recess appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the CFPB. What impact this potentially invalid appointment will have on the CFPB regulations promulgated in January, 2013 or actions taken prior to that time is undetermined at this time. The decision may also play a part in determining whether new legislation will be passed respecting the structure and funding of the CFPB, and whether Director Cordray will be appointed when his current term expires. Though it is not possible to predict the outcome of the recess appointment controversy, the decision will have implications for the Company and the Bank with respect to regulations that apply to them and to competition from other entities that may or may not be subject to regulations promulgated by the CFPB.

In addition to the CFPB's authority over mortgage lending, the Dodd-Frank Act includes a series of provisions covering mortgage loan origination standards affecting, among other things, originator compensation, minimum repayment standards, and pre-payments. Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act requires public companies like the Company to hold shareholder advisory "say-on-pay" votes on executive compensation at least once every three years and submit related proposals to a vote of shareholders. LSB Financial held its first such "say-on-pay" vote at its 2013 annual meeting. At the annual meeting, shareholders cast over 76% of votes in favor of holding future say-on-pay votes on an annual basis. The Company's Board of Directors had recommended a vote for annual frequency of say-on-pay votes. In light of this result and other factors it considered, the Board has determined that the Company will hold future say-on-pay votes on an annual basis until the next advisory vote on the frequency of say-on-pay votes occurs. The next advisory vote regarding the frequency of say-on-pay votes is required to occur no later than the Company's 2019 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains numerous other provisions affecting financial institutions of all types, many of which may have an impact on the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. Consequently, the Dodd-Frank Act is expected to increase our cost of doing business, it may limit or expand our permissible activities, and it may affect the competitive balance within our industry and market areas. The nature and extent of future legislative and regulatory changes affecting financial institutions, including as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, is very unpredictable at this time. The Company's management continues to actively monitor the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder and assess its probable impact on the business, financial condition, and results of operations of the Company. However, the ultimate effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on the financial services industry in general, and the Company in particular, remains uncertain.

On July 2, 2013, the Federal Reserve approved final rules that substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to the Bank. The FDIC and the OCC have subsequently approved these rules. The final rules were adopted following the issuance of proposed rules by the Federal Reserve in June 2012, and implement the "Basel III" regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. "Basel III" refers to two consultative documents released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2009, the rules text released in December 2010, and loss absorbency rules issued in January 2011, which include significant changes to bank capital, leverage and liquidity requirements.

The rules include new risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which would be phased in from 2015 to 2019, and would refine the definition of what constitutes "capital" for purposes of calculating those ratios. The new minimum capital level requirements applicable to the Bank under the final rules would be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The final rules also establish a "capital conservation buffer" above the new regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of common equity Tier 1 capital. The capital conservation buffer will be phased in over four years beginning on January 1, 2016, as follows: the maximum buffer will be 0.625% of risk-weighted assets for 2016, 1.25% for 2017, 1.875% for 2018, and 2.5% for 2019 and thereafter. This will result in the following minimum ratios beginning in 2019: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under the final rules, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions.

Basel III provided discretion for regulators to impose an additional buffer, the "countercyclical buffer," of up to 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to take into account the macro-financial environment and periods of excessive credit growth. However, the final rules permit the countercyclical buffer to be applied only to "advanced approach banks" ( i.e. , banks with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures), which currently excludes the Bank. The final rules also implement revisions and clarifications consistent with Basel III regarding the various components of Tier 1 capital, including common equity, unrealized gains and losses, as well as certain instruments that will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, some of which will be phased out over time. However, the final rules provide that small depository institution holding companies with less than $15 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2009 (which includes the Company) will be able to permanently include non-qualifying instruments that were issued and included in Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital prior to May 19, 2010 in additional Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital until they redeem such instruments or until the instruments mature.

The final rules also contain revisions to the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including the Bank, if their capital levels begin to show signs of weakness. These revisions take effect January 1, 2015. Under the prompt corrective action requirements, which are designed to complement the capital conservation buffer, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following increased capital level requirements in order to qualify as "well capitalized:" (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (increased from 4%).

The final rules set forth certain changes for the calculation of risk-weighted assets, which we will be required to utilize beginning January 1, 2015. The standardized approach final rule utilizes an increased number of credit risk exposure categories and risk weights, and also addresses: (i) an alternative standard of creditworthiness consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act;
(ii) revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation; (iii) rules for risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans; (iv) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo-style transactions; and (v) disclosure requirements for top-tier banking organizations with $50 billion or more in total assets that are not subject to the "advance approach rules" that apply to banks with greater than $250 billion in consolidated assets.

Based on our current capital composition and levels, we believe that we would be in compliance with the requirements as set forth in the final rules if they were presently in effect.

Critical Accounting Policies

Generally accepted accounting principles are complex and require management to apply significant judgments to various accounting, reporting and disclosure matters. Management of LSB Financial must use assumptions and estimates to apply these principles where actual measurement is not possible or practical. For a complete discussion of LSB Financial's significant accounting policies, see Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2012 included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012. Certain policies are considered critical because they are highly dependent upon subjective or complex judgments, assumptions and estimates. Changes in such estimates may have a significant impact on the financial statements. Management has reviewed the application of these policies with the Audit Committee of LSB Financial's Board of Directors. These policies include the following:

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses represents management's estimate of probable losses inherent in Lafayette Savings' loan portfolios. In determining the appropriate amount of the allowance for loan losses, management makes numerous assumptions, estimates and assessments.

The strategy also emphasizes diversification on an industry and customer level, regular credit quality reviews and quarterly management reviews of large credit exposures and loans experiencing deterioration of credit quality.

Lafayette Savings' allowance consists of three components: probable losses estimated from individual reviews of specific loans, probable losses estimated from historical loss rates, and probable losses resulting from economic or other deterioration above and beyond what is reflected in the first two components of the allowance.

Larger commercial loans that exhibit probable or observed credit weaknesses and all loans that are rated substandard or lower are subject to individual review. Where appropriate, reserves are allocated to individual loans based on management's estimate of the borrower's ability to repay the loan given the availability of collateral, other sources of cash flow and legal options available to the Bank. Included in the review of individual loans are those that are impaired as provided in FASB ASC 310-10. Any allowances for impaired loans are determined by the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan's effective interest rate or fair value of the underlying collateral based on the discounted appraised value. Historical loss rates are applied to . . .

  Add LSBI to Portfolio     Set Alert         Email to a Friend  
Get SEC Filings for Another Symbol: Symbol Lookup
Quotes & Info for LSBI - All Recent SEC Filings
Copyright © 2014 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service
SEC Filing data and information provided by EDGAR Online, Inc. (1-800-416-6651). All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither Yahoo! nor any of independent providers is liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. By accessing the Yahoo! site, you agree not to redistribute the information found therein.