Jay D. Wilson, Jr.

CFA, ASA, CBA

Senior Vice President

Jay D. Wilson is a senior vice president with Mercer Capital and a senior member of the firm’s Financial Institutions and FinTech practice industry teams.

Jay regularly works with financial institutions (Banks & CUs) in valuation and M&A engagements. He assists banks and CUs in evaluating the attractiveness of acquisition candidates (whole banks, branches, or merger partners), determining a valuation for the target, structuring/modeling the transaction, and estimating fair value marks for financial assets (loans, core deposit intangibles) and liabilities (CD portfolio) acquired for financial statement reporting purposes.

Jay also values financial institutions and fintech companies for a variety of other purposes including estate and gift tax planning, profit sharing or option plans such as ESOPs, corporate/strategic planning, and compliance matters.

In addition, he publishes articles on the community bank, credit union, and fintech industries and is the author of Creating Strategic Value Through Financial Technology (John Wiley & Sons, 2017).

Professional Activities

The CFA Institute
The American Society of Appraisers
The Institute of Business Appraisers

Professional Designations

Chartered Financial Analyst (The CFA Institute)
Accredited Senior Appraiser (The American Society of Appraisers)
Certified Business Appraiser (The Institute of Business Appraisers)

Education

Rhodes College, Memphis, Tennessee (B.A., 2003)

Authored Content

Now Could Be a Great Time for Bank Investors to Consider Estate Planning

It may be an opportune time for bank investors to consider estate planning opportunities. Rising inflation has been top of mind for business owners and bankers (and everyone for that matter) over the last few years.While inflation has decelerated from its peak, business owners, bankers, and investors are adjusting to the new higher for longer interest rate environment.Higher inflation and interest rates have affected every business with few exceptions. All else equal, higher interest rates will negatively affect business value as higher discount rates are used to bring future cash flows to the present. In some industries though, inflation-driven increases in earnings or revenue growth expectations have offset (or even outweighed) the negative impact of higher interest rates.However, not all industries have been immune to pressure from higher interest rates and inflation on the value of their shares. Banking is one of several industries that have underperformed broader market indices as investors remain skeptical of the “new normal” and impact of the rate environment on banks’ cost of funds and net interest margins.As shown in the following tables, small and mid cap public bank stocks have underperformed broad market indices, and valuation multiples (as measured by P/E and P/TBV) remain below long-term historical averages.While it remains uncertain when the interest rate easing cycle will begin, the easing cycle will likely also have divergent outcomes for different industries. At this point between cycles and with bank valuation multiples below long-term averages, it is important to consider the potential opportunity to favorably transfer business value to future generations.A second reason to consider estate planning transactions in the current environment is issues on the tax and policy front.The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act enacted in December 2017 doubled the basic exclusion amounts individuals could give away without paying estate taxes. The sunsetting of this provision on December 31, 2025 and the potential for lower exclusion amounts thereafter and higher estate taxes, makes considering transfers all the more important.The combination of lower bank stock valuations combined with sunsetting favorable estate tax provisions make 2024 a worthwhile year for bank investors to consider estate planning strategies.Many strategies will require a current valuation of your bank, and our professionals are here to help.Originally appeared in the April 2024 issue of Bank Watch.

Themes From the 2024 Acquire or Be Acquired Conference

For those who haven’t been to Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired conference (AOBA) before, it is a two-and-a-half-day conference in the desert (Phoenix) that typically includes great weather, golf at the end, and has broadened over the years to focus on a combination of M&A, growth, and FinTech strategies.Cautious OptimismWhile the 2024 version of AOBA included a number of discussions around headwinds facing the sector, there was optimism for 2024 when compared to 2023.For example, the banking audience was asked during the conference: How do you feel about 2024 compared to your experience in 2023?~90% responded that they felt more optimistic about 2024 when compared to 2023. Additionally, several sessions noted that optimism exists for an uptick in deal activity in the second half of 2024.Traditional Bank M&A Tailwinds and HeadwindsWhile the turbulence and potential headwinds for bank M&A that slowed deal activity in 2023 continue to persist at the outset of 2024, traditional bank M&A remained a much discussed topic at the 2024 AOBA conference. Discussions focused on the nuts and bolts of M&A from valuation to due diligence to structuring and ultimately to integration. While certain themes change and evolve, the strategy to achieve greater scale and growth through M&A and to enhance efficiency and profitability that create value over the long run, persist. The challenging M&A landscape could present an opportunity for acquirers with the balance sheet and capacity to engage in a transaction, and the silver lining for those acquirers may be less competition for sellers as some buyers focus internally during the challenging operating environment.Balance Sheets in FocusThere were definitely more sessions this year discussing balance sheets. A number of sessions noted that one key to dealmaking in the current environment was managing the balance sheet, and several discussed the impact of fair value marks on sellers and pro forma combined balance sheets and the impact on deal activity. For acquirers, a strong balance sheet and capital level can position their institution to be able to take advantage of the current deal environment. For sellers, having a balance sheet that is less impacted from the fair value marks to loans and bonds and with more valuable deposits enhances their attractiveness to potential acquirers.In one session, my colleagues Jeff Davis and Andy Gibbs discussed the impact of taking a loss today on low-coupon bonds that are worth less than the current market price versus holding the bonds to maturity on the value of a bank’s equity. They also reviewed an intermediate strategy referred to as the installment method.Deposits, Deposits, DepositsConsistent with discussions around the balance sheet, the interest rate environment, and impact on the banking industry & M&A, discussions about deposits came up often.These discussions covered strategies to retain business or consumer deposits, the attractiveness of core deposits for acquirers in the current environment, how to grow deposits organically (some of the largest banks are even turning back the clock and building branches again), trends in core deposit intangible valuations, and how to provide your customers with the technology and digital banking solutions to onboard and retain deposits more efficiently. One question discussed in several sessions that will be interesting to see the answer to in 2024 was: Has the cost of funds peaked?Technology Brings OpportunitiesOver the last few years, technology has been an increasing topic discussed during sessions of AOBA. Technology topics discussed included leveraging payments to enhance retail and small business banking, using software and/or digital banking to more efficiently make loans and/or open deposit accounts and best practice for developing and managing risk of FinTech partnerships. Even AI, the market’s favorite topic of 2024, was discussed. A consensus on how best to leverage AI in banking has not yet emerged in my view but topics discussed included leveraging AI to enhance loan growth or efficiency of common tasks in the back office. Traditional M&A has historically focused on the potential diversification benefits of combining loan portfolios, deposit portfolios, and geographic footprints but increasingly the tech stacks of buyers and sellers are being compared to see what diversification benefits exist and what the cost may be to combine the tech stack after closing.Technology Also Brings Potential RisksOne challenging aspect of technology for banks was how best to balance the potential benefits of technology with the risks inherent in them, particularly new technologies and FinTech partnerships. Tech-forward banks and their valuations were also discussed. As we have noted in the past, this tech-forward bank group has seen increased volatility in market performance than their peers as the market digests some of the tech-oriented business models (such as banking-as-a-service) and weighs the potential for higher growth and profitability against the potential risk of these business models and regulatory scrutiny.Non-Traditional DealsSimilar to traditional bank deals, bank acquisitions in non-traditional areas like specialty finance, insurance, and asset management have been modest and challenging given the difficult operating environment, higher cost of debt, and opportunity cost of excess liquidity. However, there were some discussions around best practices and lessons learned from specialty finance transactions and that additional opportunities may emerge as non-bank lenders also deal with the challenging funding and interest rate environment. Additionally, Truist recently announced the sale of its insurance business to book a gain, focus on core banking, and enhance capital. The announced bank acquisitions by credit unions and private investors also illustrate that non-traditional deals remain a part of a bank’s strategic playbook.ConclusionWe look forward to discussing these issues with clients in 2024 and monitoring how they evolve within the banking industry over the next year. As always, Mercer Capital is available to discuss these trends as they relate to your financial institution, so feel free to call or email.Originally appeared in the February 2024 issue of Bank Watch.

The Importance of Purchase Price Allocations to Acquirers

This is the final article in a series on buy-side considerations. In this series, we will cover buy-side topics from the perspective of middle-market companies looking to enter the acquisition market. If you wish to read the rest of the series, click here. Growing up an avid sports fan, I always enjoyed picking up the paper and flipping to the sports section to see the box scores from the prior day’s games. While the headline score told you who won or lost, the box score gave more information and insights into who played well and the narrative of the game. For example, the box score might tell you that even though your favorite team won, they were dominated by the other team in all the categories except turnovers, or that the team that lost actually “won” each quarter except the fourth and their star player had a bad game. In my view, a purchase price allocation is similar to a box score in that it provides greater detail from which to derive insights on a particular transaction. While a purchase price allocation (PPA) analysis is primarily an accounting (and compliance driven) exercise, it is also a window into the objectives and motivations behind the transaction. When used proactively and/or during the M&A process, the disciplines of PPA analysis can provide buyers with important perspective concerning the unique value attributes of the target’s intangible asset base, which can help rationalize strategic acquisition consideration or forewarn of potentially unstable or short-lived intangible asset value. Below we explore PPAs further with a broad overview and then a deeper look into the pitfalls and best practices related to them.Introduction to PPAsAcquirers conduct PPAs to measure the fair value of various tangible and intangible assets of the acquired business. Any excess of the total asset value implied by the transaction over the fair values of identified assets is ascribed to the residual asset, goodwill.Intangible assets commonly identified and measured as part of PPA analyses include:Trade name - Trade name intangibles may be valuable if they enhance the expected future cash flows of the firm, either through higher revenue or superior margins. The relief from royalty method, which seeks to simulate cost savings due to the ownership of the name, is frequently used to measure the value of trade names.Customer relationships - Customer relationships can be valuable because of the expectation of recurring revenue.Technology - Technologies developed by the target business are valuable because the acquirer avoids associated development or acquisition costs. Patents and other forms of intellectual property may provide legal protection from competition and help secure uniqueness and/or differentiation.IPR&D - Ongoing R&D projects can give rise to in-process research and development intangible assets, whose values are predicated on expected future cash flows.Contractual assets - Contracts that lock in pricing advantages – above market sales prices or below market costs – create value by enhancing cash flow.Employment / Non-competition agreements - Employment and non-competition agreements with key executives ensure a smooth transition following an M&A transaction, which can be vital in reducing the likelihood of employee or customer defection. The value of an enterprise is often greater than the sum of its identified parts (both tangible and intangible), and the excess is usually reflected in the residual asset, goodwill. GAAP goodwill also captures facets of the target that may be value-accretive, but do not meet certain criteria to be identified as an intangible asset. Notably, fair value measurement presumes a market participant perspective. Goodwill may also include acquirer-specific synergistic or strategic considerations that are not available to other market participants. Consequently, goodwill has tended to account for a significant portion of allocated value in truly strategic business combinations.Pitfalls and Best Practices of PPAsBelow we highlight some pitfalls and best practices gleaned from providing purchase price allocations to acquirers since the advent of fair value accounting.What are some of the pitfalls in purchase price allocations?Sometimes differences arise between expectations or estimates prior to the transaction and fair value measurements performed after the transaction. An example is contingent consideration arrangements – estimates from the deal team’s calculations could vary from the fair value of the corresponding liability measured and reported for GAAP purposes. To the extent amortization estimates are prepared prior to the transaction, any variance in the allocation of total transaction value to amortizable intangible assets and non-amortized, indefinite lived assets – be they identifiable intangible assets or goodwill – could also lead to different future EPS estimates for the acquirer.What are the benefits of looking at the allocation process early?The opportunity to think through and talk about some of the unusual elements of the more involved transactions can be enormously helpful. Similar to a coach who may look at the box score from the first half of a game during the halftime break, we view the dialogue we have with clients when we prepare a preliminary PPA estimate prior to closing as a particularly important part of the M&A project. This deliberative process results in a more robust – well-reasoned analysis that is easier for the external auditors to review, and better stands the test of time requiring fewer true-ups or other adjustments in the future. Surprises are difficult to eliminate, but as they say, forewarned is forearmed.Can goodwill be broken into different components?If so, what are the different components and how are they delineated?In the world of FASB, goodwill is not delineated into personal goodwill and corporate or enterprise goodwill. However, in the tax world, this distinction can be of critical importance and can create significant savings to the sellers of a C corporation business.Many sellers prefer that a transaction be structured as a stock sale, rather than an asset sale, thereby avoiding a built in gains issue and its related tax liability. Buyers want to do the opposite for a variety of reasons. When a C corporation’s assets are sold, the shareholders must realize the gain and face the issue of double taxation whereby the gain is taxed at both the corporate level, and again at the individual level when proceeds are distributed to the shareholders. Proceeds that can be allocated to the sale of a personal asset, such as personal goodwill, may mitigate the double taxation issue.The Internal Revenue Service defines goodwill as “the value of a trade or business based on expected continued customer patronage due to its name, reputation, or any other factor.”1 Recent Tax Court decisions have recognized a distinction between the goodwill of a business itself and the goodwill attributable to the owners/professionals of that business. This second type is typically referred to as personal (or professional) goodwill (a term used interchangeably in tax cases).Personal goodwill differs from enterprise goodwill in that personal goodwill represents the value stemming from an individual’s personal service to that business, and is an asset owned by the individual, not the business itself. This value would encompass an individual’s professional reputation, personal relationships with customers or suppliers, technical expertise, or other distinctly personal abilities which provide economic benefit to a business. This economic benefit is in excess of any normal return earned on other tangible or intangible assets of the company.What other problems/issues beyond a PPA can you help acquirers navigate?As part of our full suite of services for acquirers, we can handle a number of different kinds of special projects that corporate finance departments may be looking to outsource, completely or partially. For example, our firm helps clients think through certain financial or strategic questions – what level of cash flow reinvestment will best balance competing shareholder interests? Or, what is the appropriate hurdle rate when evaluating internal projects vs. acquisitions for capital budgeting exercises? In other instances, we perform financial due diligence and quality of earnings analyses for transactions.ConclusionAs the “box score” of transactions, PPAs can be an important tool for acquirers and provide greater insight into the motivations and narrative behind a transaction by illustrating the value of various intangible components of a business beyond the collection of tangible assets and how those compare to the purchase price being paid. Our purchase price allocations can be more robust with fewer surprises when we have also worked with the clients before the close of the transaction on elements such as financial due diligence or contingent consideration estimates, or even broader corporate finance and PPA studies.Mercer Capital has extensive experience valuing intangible assets for purchase price allocations (ASC 805), impairment testing (ASC 350), and fresh-start accounting (ASC 852) and assisting buyers during financial due diligence. Call us – we would like to help.1 IRS Publication 535: Business Expenses, Ch. 9, Cat. No. 15065Z

The Importance of Purchase Price Allocations to Acquirers

In this article we provide a broad overview of PPAs and then a deeper look into the pitfalls and best practices related to them.

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

This week, we welcome Jay D. Wilson, Jr., CFA, ASA, CBA to the Energy Valuation Insights blog. Jay is a Senior Vice President at Mercer Capital and a member of the firm’s Financial Institutions and Transaction Advisory teams. The post below originally appeared as part of an ongoing series from Mercer Capital’s Transaction Advisory team regarding the importance of quality of earnings studies in transactions for middle market companies.Acquirers of companies can learn a valuable lesson from the same approach that pro sports teams take in evaluating players. Prior to draft night, teams have events called combines where they put prospective players through tests to more accurately assess their potential. In this scenario, the team is akin to the acquirer or investor and the player is the seller. While a player may have strong statistics in college, this may not translate to their future performance at the next level. So it’s important for the team to dig deeper and analyze thoroughly to reduce the potential for a draft bust and increase the potential for drafting a future all-star.A similar process should take place when acquirers examine acquisition targets. Historical financial statements may provide little insight into the future growth and earnings potential for the underlying company. One way that acquirers can better assess potential targets is through a process similar to a sports combine called a quality of earnings study (QoE).What Is a Quality of Earnings Study?A QoE study typically focuses on the economic earning power of the target. A QoE combines a number of due diligence processes and findings into a single document that can be vitally helpful to a potential acquirer. The QoE can help the acquirer assess the key elements of a target’s valuation: core earning power, growth potential, and risk factors.Ongoing earning power is a key component of valuationOngoing earning power is a key component of valuation as it represents an estimate of sustainable earnings and a base from which long-term growth can be expected. This estimate of earning power typically considers an assessment of the quality of the company’s historical and projected future earnings. In addition to assessing the quality of the earnings, buyers should also consider the relative riskiness, growth potential, and potential volatility of those earnings as well as potential pro-forma synergies that the target may bring in an acquisition.Analysis performed in a QoE study can include the following:Profitability Procedures. Investigating historical performance for impact on prospective cash flows. Historical EBITDA analysis can include certain types of adjustments such as: (1) Management compensation add-backs; (2) Non-recurring items; (3) Pro-forma adjustments/synergies.Customer Analysis. Investigating revenue relationships and agreements to understand the impact on prospective cash flows. Procedures include: (1) Identifying significant customer relationships; (2) Gross margin analysis; and (3) Lifing analysis.Business and Pricing Analysis. Investigating the target entities positioning in the market and understanding the competitive advantages from a product and operations perspective. This involves: (1) Interviews with key members of management; (2) Financial analysis and benchmarking; (3) Industry analysis; (4) Fair market value assessments; and (5) Structuring. The prior areas noted are broad and may include a wide array of sub-areas to investigate as part of the QoE study. Sub-areas can include:Workforce / employee analysisA/R and A/P analysisCustomer AnalysisIntangible asset analysisA/R aging and inventory analysisLocation analysisBilling and collection policiesSegment analysisProof of cash and revenue analysisMargin and expense analysisCapital structure analysisWorking capital analysis For high growth companies in certain industries such as technology, where valuation is highly dependent upon forecast projections, it may also be necessary to analyze other specific areas such as:The unit economics of the target. For example, a buyer may want a more detailed estimate or analysis of the target’s key performance indicators such as cost of acquiring customers (CAC), lifetime value of new customers (LTV), churn rates, magic number, and annual recurring revenue/profit. These unit economics provide a foundation from which to forecast and/or test the reasonableness of projections.A commercial analysis that examines the competitive environment, go-to-market strategy, and existing customers' perception of the company and its products.The QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situationsThe QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situations. It is also paramount for the buyer’s team to utilize the QoE study to keep the due diligence process focused, efficient, and pertinent to their concerns. For sellers, a primary benefit of a QoE can be to help them illustrate their future potential and garner more interest from potential acquirers.Leveraging our valuation and advisory experience, our quality of earnings analyses identify and assess the cash flow, growth, and risk factors that impact value. By providing our clients with a fresh and independent perspective on the quality, stability, and predictability of future cash flows of a potential target, we help them to increase the likelihood of a successful transaction, similar to those teams and players that are prepared for draft night success.Mercer Capital’s focused approach to traditional quality of earnings analysis generates insights that matter to potential buyers and sellers and reach out to us to discuss your needs in confidence.

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

This week, we welcome Jay D. Wilson, Jr., CFA, ASA, CBA to the Family Business Director blog. Jay is a Senior Vice President at Mercer Capital and a member of the firm’s Financial Institutions and Transaction Advisory teams. The post below originally appeared as part of an ongoing series from Mercer Capital’s Transaction Advisory team regarding the importance of quality of earnings studies in transactions for middle market companies.Acquirers of companies can learn a valuable lesson from the same approach that pro sports teams take in evaluating players. Prior to draft night, teams have events called combines where they put prospective players through tests to more accurately assess their potential. In this scenario, the team is akin to the acquirer or investor and the player is the seller. While a player may have strong statistics in college, this may not translate to their future performance at the next level. So it’s important for the team to dig deeper and analyze thoroughly to reduce the potential for a draft bust and increase the potential for drafting a future all-star.A similar process should take place when acquirers examine acquisition targets. Historical financial statements may provide little insight into the future growth and earnings potential for the underlying company. One way that acquirers can better assess potential targets is through a process similar to a sports combine called a quality of earnings study (QoE).What Is a Quality of Earnings Study?A QoE study typically focuses on the economic earning power of the target. A QoE combines a number of due diligence processes and findings into a single document that can be vitally helpful to a potential acquirer. The QoE can help the acquirer assess the key elements of a target’s valuation: core earning power, growth potential, and risk factors.Ongoing earning power is a key component of valuationOngoing earning power is a key component of valuation as it represents an estimate of sustainable earnings and a base from which long-term growth can be expected. This estimate of earning power typically considers an assessment of the quality of the company’s historical and projected future earnings. In addition to assessing the quality of the earnings, buyers should also consider the relative riskiness, growth potential, and potential volatility of those earnings as well as potential pro-forma synergies that the target may bring in an acquisition.Analysis performed in a QoE study can include the following:Profitability Procedures. Investigating historical performance for impact on prospective cash flows. Historical EBITDA analysis can include certain types of adjustments such as: (1) Management compensation add-backs; (2) Non-recurring items; (3) Pro-forma adjustments/synergies.Customer Analysis. Investigating revenue relationships and agreements to understand the impact on prospective cash flows. Procedures include: (1) Identifying significant customer relationships; (2) Gross margin analysis; and (3) Lifing analysis.Business and Pricing Analysis. Investigating the target entities positioning in the market and understanding the competitive advantages from a product and operations perspective. This involves: (1) Interviews with key members of management; (2) Financial analysis and benchmarking; (3) Industry analysis; (4) Fair market value assessments; and (5) Structuring. The prior areas noted are broad and may include a wide array of sub-areas to investigate as part of the QoE study. Sub-areas can include:Workforce / employee analysisA/R and A/P analysisCustomer AnalysisIntangible asset analysisA/R aging and inventory analysisLocation analysisBilling and collection policiesSegment analysisProof of cash and revenue analysisMargin and expense analysisCapital structure analysisWorking capital analysis For high growth companies in certain industries such as technology, where valuation is highly dependent upon forecast projections, it may also be necessary to analyze other specific areas such as:The unit economics of the target. For example, a buyer may want a more detailed estimate or analysis of the target’s key performance indicators such as cost of acquiring customers (CAC), lifetime value of new customers (LTV), churn rates, magic number, and annual recurring revenue/profit. These unit economics provide a foundation from which to forecast and/or test the reasonableness of projections.A commercial analysis that examines the competitive environment, go-to-market strategy, and existing customers' perception of the company and its products.The QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situationsThe QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situations. It is also paramount for the buyer’s team to utilize the QoE study to keep the due diligence process focused, efficient, and pertinent to their concerns. For sellers, a primary benefit of a QoE can be to help them illustrate their future potential and garner more interest from potential acquirers.Leveraging our valuation and advisory experience, our quality of earnings analyses identify and assess the cash flow, growth, and risk factors that impact value. By providing our clients with a fresh and independent perspective on the quality, stability, and predictability of future cash flows of a potential target, we help them to increase the likelihood of a successful transaction, similar to those teams and players that are prepared for draft night success.Mercer Capital’s focused approach to traditional quality of earnings analysis generates insights that matter to potential buyers and sellers and reach out to us to discuss your needs in confidence.

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

As we’ve been writing in recent blog posts, consolidation efforts in the RIA space are facing multiple headwinds. Among them, market conditions and inflation are motivating buyers to scrutinize profit estimates more than ever. In that light, we thought our readers would appreciate this guest post by our colleague, Jay D. Wilson, Jr., CFA, ASA, CBA, who works with banks and FinTechs. We’re getting more requests for QoE assessments from both the buy-side and sell-side (the latter wanting to buttress their CIMs).Acquirers of companies can learn a valuable lesson from the same approach that pro sports teams take in evaluating players. Prior to draft night, teams have events called combines where they put prospective players through tests to more accurately assess their potential. In this scenario, the team is akin to the acquirer or investor and the player is the seller. While a player may have strong statistics in college, this may not translate to their future performance at the next level. So it’s important for the team to dig deeper and analyze thoroughly to reduce the potential for a draft bust and increase the potential for drafting a future all-star.A similar process should take place when acquirers examine acquisition targets. Historical financial statements may provide little insight into the future growth and earnings potential for the underlying company. One way that acquirers can better assess potential targets is through a process similar to a sports combine called a quality of earnings study (QoE).What Is a Quality of Earnings Study?A QoE study typically focuses on the economic earning power of the target. A QoE combines a number of due diligence processes and findings into a single document that can be vitally helpful to a potential acquirer. The QoE can help the acquirer assess the key elements of a target’s valuation: core earning power, growth potential, and risk factors.Ongoing earning power is a key component of valuationOngoing earning power is a key component of valuation as it represents an estimate of sustainable earnings and a base from which long-term growth can be expected. This estimate of earning power typically considers an assessment of the quality of the company’s historical and projected future earnings. In addition to assessing the quality of the earnings, buyers should also consider the relative riskiness, growth potential, and potential volatility of those earnings as well as potential pro-forma synergies that the target may bring in an acquisition.Analysis performed in a QoE study can include the following:Profitability Procedures. Investigating historical performance for impact on prospective cash flows. Historical EBITDA analysis can include certain types of adjustments such as: (1) Management compensation add-backs; (2) Non-recurring items; (3) Pro-forma adjustments/synergies.Customer Analysis. Investigating revenue relationships and agreements to understand the impact on prospective cash flows. Procedures include: (1) Identifying significant customer relationships; (2) Gross margin analysis; and (3) Lifing analysis.Business and Pricing Analysis. Investigating the target entities positioning in the market and understanding the competitive advantages from a product and operations perspective. This involves: (1) Interviews with key members of management; (2) Financial analysis and benchmarking; (3) Industry analysis; (4) Fair market value assessments; and (5) Structuring. The prior areas noted are broad and may include a wide array of sub-areas to investigate as part of the QoE study. Sub-areas can include:Workforce / employee analysisA/R and A/P analysisCustomer AnalysisIntangible asset analysisA/R aging and inventory analysisLocation analysisBilling and collection policiesSegment analysisProof of cash and revenue analysisMargin and expense analysisCapital structure analysisWorking capital analysis For high growth companies in certain industries such as technology, where valuation is highly dependent upon forecast projections, it may also be necessary to analyze other specific areas such as:The unit economics of the target. For example, a buyer may want a more detailed estimate or analysis of the target’s key performance indicators such as cost of acquiring customers (CAC), lifetime value of new customers (LTV), churn rates, magic number, and annual recurring revenue/profit. These unit economics provide a foundation from which to forecast and/or test the reasonableness of projections.A commercial analysis that examines the competitive environment, go-to-market strategy, and existing customers' perception of the company and its products.The QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situationsThe QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situations. It is also paramount for the buyer’s team to utilize the QoE study to keep the due diligence process focused, efficient, and pertinent to their concerns. For sellers, a primary benefit of a QoE can be to help them illustrate their future potential and garner more interest from potential acquirers.Leveraging our valuation and advisory experience, our quality of earnings analyses identify and assess the cash flow, growth, and risk factors that impact value. By providing our clients with a fresh and independent perspective on the quality, stability, and predictability of future cash flows of a potential target, we help them to increase the likelihood of a successful transaction, similar to those teams and players that are prepared for draft night success.Mercer Capital’s focused approach to traditional quality of earnings analysis generates insights that matter to potential buyers and sellers and reach out to us to discuss your needs in confidence.

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

This is the fifth article in a series on buy-side considerations. In this series, we will cover buy-side topics from the perspective of middle-market companies looking to enter the acquisition market. Our focus in this article is on how the quality of earnings (QoE) analysis can help acquirers better analyze possible acquisition targets.

A Primer on a Growing Breed of Bank Acquirers

Credit Unions & FinTech CompaniesWhile still making up a small proportion of overall deal activity (<10% of total deal volume in 2021), acquisitions of banks by both Credit Unions and FinTechs have been increasing in recent years.The first credit union to acquire a bank occurred in 2011/12.Since then, approximately ~55 whole bank transactions have been announced with the peaks occurring in 2019 (14 transactions) and 2021 (13 transactions announced).The first announced FinTech acquisition of a bank was Green Dot’s purchase of a small bank back in 2010 for $15 million. There were also several online brokers that acquired banks from the late 90s to mid-2000s. In 2021, there was a marked increase with six announced transactions whereby FinTechs announced acquisitions of banks.This emerging breed of bank acquirers (CUs and FinTechs) provides bank sellers with an additional pool of potential buyers to consider when evaluating strategic options and liquidity events.Mercer Capital's Jay D. Wilson and Honigman's Michael M. Bell presented this session at the 2022 Acquire or Be Acquired Conference sponsored by Bank Director.

WHITEPAPER | Understand the Value of Your Payment Company

When it comes to emerging sectors of the economy, FinTech companies remain in the spotlight. FinTech companies seek to improve inefficiencies in the financial services industry. COVID-19 accelerated these efforts as legacy problems became impossible to circumvent in the environment that the pandemic created.Valuing FinTech companies can be a complex exercise as their market opportunities can be evolving, and their cap tables are often complex.This complexity can be a result of venture capital, corporate, and private equity investors being cobbled together across a number of funding rounds.Throughout this whitepaper, we look into the payment industry’s place in the larger FinTech ecosystem, macroeconomic factors driving the industry, microeconomic factors pertaining to specific companies, and what valuation methods are most prudent when determining the fair market value of a payments company.

Top Considerations for Acquirers When Evaluating a Potential Bank Acquisition

With year-end approaching, we are starting our annual process of recapping 2021 and considering the outlook for 2022. In doing so, we turned our attention to the bank M&A data to see what trends were emerging. While the number of bank and thrift deals is on pace to roughly double from 2020 levels (117 deals in 2020 vs 199 deals through 11/22/21), the number of deals still remains well below pre-pandemic levels. Valuations at exit illustrate a similar trend with the median price/earnings nationally for announced deals at ~15.0x earnings and the average price/tangible multiple at ~1.54x for the YTD period through mid-November 2021. These valuation multiples implied by YTD 2021 deals are up relative to 2020, roughly in line with 2019 levels, but are still down relative to 2017 and 2018 levels.A bank acquisition could present an opportunity for growth to acquirers that are facing a challenging rate and market environment. Some recent data confirmed this as almost half of survey respondents in Bank Director’s 2022 Bank M&A Survey say their institution is likely to purchase another bank by the end of 2022 — a significant increase compared to the previous year, and more in line with the pre-pandemic environment.For those banks considering strategic options, like a sale, 2022 could also be a favorable year, should the improving trends experienced in 2021 continue. These trends include a continued increase in buyer’s interests in acquisitions, a continued expansion of the pool of buyers to include both traditional banks and non-traditional acquirers like credit unions and FinTechs, and the tax environment for sellers and their shareholders remaining favorable relative to historical levels.Against this backdrop of the potential for an active bank M&A environment in 2022, we consider the top three factors that, in our view, should be considered by bank acquirers to help make a successful bank acquisition.1. Developing a Reasonable Valuation Range for the Bank TargetDeveloping a reasonable valuation for a bank target is essential in any economic environment, but particularly in the current environment. We have noted previously that value drivers remain in flux as investors and acquirers assess how strong loan demand and the rate environment will be. In addition to those factors, evaluating earnings, earning power, multiples, and other key value drivers remain important. Bank Director’s 2022 Bank M&A Survey also noted the importance of valuation in bank acquisitions as pricing expectations of potential targets were cited as the top barrier to making a bank acquisition (with 73% of respondents citing this as a barrier).Determining an appropriate valuation for a bank requires assessing a variety of factors related to the bank (such as core earning power, growth/market potential, and risk factors). Then applying the appropriate valuation methodologies – such as a market approach that looks at comparably priced transactions and/or an income approach focused on future earnings potential and developed in a discounted cash flow or internal rate of return analysis. While deal values are often reported and compared based upon multiples of tangible book value, value to specific buyers is a function of projected cash flow estimates that they believe the bank target can produce in the future.Price and valuation can also vary from buyer to buyer as specific buyers may have differing viewpoints on the future earnings and the strategic benefits that the seller may provide. For example, 2021 has seen an emerging trend of non-traditional acquirers such as credit unions and FinTech companies entering the mix. They often have different strategic considerations/viewpoints on a potential bank transaction.2. Appropriately Consider the Strategic Fit of the Bank TargetAs someone who grew up as an avid junior and college tennis player, I have always admired the top pros and found lessons from sports to apply in my personal and business life. With fifteen grand slam titles and fifteen years as the top doubles team globally, the Bryan brothers – Bob and Mike – are often held out as the most successful doubles teams of all time and offer some lessons that we can learn from, in my view. Their team featured a unique combination of a left-handed and right-handed player, which provided variety to challenge their opponents and expand their offensive playbook. It also had many similar intangibles, such as how they approached practicing and playing since they were twins and taught by their father (Wayne) from a young age.Their success illustrates the importance of identifying both the key similarities and differences of a potential partnership to strengthen the chances for success once combined. Key questions to consider regarding strategic fit and identifying the right partner/opportunity for a bank acquisition include: Does the Target expand our geographic footprint into stronger or weaker markets? What types of customers will be acquired (retail/consumer, business, etc.) and at what cost (both initially and over time)? Is there a significant branch/market overlap that could lead to substantial cost savings? Is the seller’s business culture (particularly credit underwriting/client service approach) similar to ours? Will the acquisition diversify or enhance our loan/deposit mix? Will the acquisition provide scale to expand our business lines, balance sheet, and/or technology offerings? What potential cost savings and/or revenue enhancements does the potential acquisition provide?3. Evaluating Key Deal Metrics Implied by the Bank AcquisitionA transaction that looks favorable in terms of valuation and strategic fit may flounder if other key deal metrics are weak. Traditional deal metrics to assess bank targets include capital/book value dilution and the earnback period, earnings accretion/dilution, and an internal rate of return (IRR) analysis. Below we focus a bit more on some fundamental elements to consider when estimating the pro forma balance sheet impact and internal rate of return:Pro Forma Balance Sheet Impact and Earnback PeriodTo consider the pro forma impact of the bank target on the acquirer’s balance sheet, it is important to develop reasonable and accurate fair value estimates as these estimates will impact the pro forma balance sheet at closing as well as future earnings and capital/net worth after closing. In the initial accounting for a bank acquisition, acquired assets and liabilities are marked to their fair values. The most significant marks are typically for the loan portfolio, followed by intangible assets for depositor customer relationship (core deposit). Below are some key factors for acquirers to consider for those fair value estimates:Loan Valuation. The loan valuation process can be complex, with a variety of economic, company, or loan-specific factors impacting interest rate and credit loss assumptions. Our loan valuation process begins with due diligence discussions with the management team of the target to understand their underwriting strategy as well as specific areas of concern in the portfolio. We also typically factor in the acquirer’s loan review personnel to obtain their perspective. The actual valuation often relies upon a) monthly cash flow forecasts considering both the contractual loan terms, as well as the outlook for future interest rates; b) prepayment speeds; c) credit loss estimates based upon qualitative and quantitative assumptions; and d) appropriate discount rates. Problem credits above a certain threshold are typically evaluated on an individual basis.Core Deposit Intangible Valuation. Core deposit intangible asset values are driven by market factors (interest rates) and bank-specific factors such as customer retention, deposit base characteristics, and a bank’s expense and fee structure.Internal Rate of ReturnThe last deal metric that often gets a lot of focus from bank acquirers is the estimated internal rate of return (“IRR”) for the transaction. It is based upon the following key items: the price for the acquisition, the opportunity cost of the cash, and the forecast cash flows/valuation for the target, inclusive of any expense savings and growth/attrition over time in lines of business. This IRR estimate can then be compared to the acquirer’s historical and/or projected return on equity or net worth to assess whether the transaction offers the potential to enhance pro forma cash flow and provide a reasonable return to the acquirer.Mercer Capital Can HelpMercer Capital has significant experience providing valuation, due diligence, and advisory services to bank acquirers across each phase of a potential transaction. Our services for acquirers include providing initial valuation ranges for bank targets, performing due diligence on targets during the negotiation phase, providing fairness opinions and presentations related to the acquisition to the buyer’s management and/or board, and providing valuations for fair value estimates of loans and core deposit before or at closing.We also provide valuation and advisory services to community banks considering strategic options and can assist with developing a process to maximize valuation upon exit. Feel free to reach out to us to discuss your community bank or credit union’s unique situation and strategic objectives in confidence.

Valuation Lessons from Credit Union & Bank Transactions

In recent years, credit unions have been increasingly active as acquirers in whole bank and branch transactions. This session focuses on the top considerations for credit unions when assessing and valuing bank and branch franchises in the current environment.For bankers, this session should enhance your knowledge regarding how credit unions identify potential targets, assess potential opportunities and risks of a bank or branch acquisition, and ultimately determine a valuation range for target banks and branches.This session, presented as part of the 2021 Acquire or Be Acquired Conference sponsored by Bank Director, addresses these issues.Click here to watch the video!

Four Reasons to Consider a Stock Repurchase Program

Bank stocks rallied in the first few weeks of November 2020 as the market’s Thanksgiving dinner came early, and it digested several issues including positive news on the COVID-19 vaccine candidates.While significant uncertainty still exists on credit conditions, COVID-19, and the economic outlook, bank valuations and earnings expectations also benefitted from the yield curve steepening as evidenced by the 10-year Treasury moving up from ~50 bps in early August to ~85 bps in mid-November. Despite the recent rise in bank stock pricing, bank stock valuations are still depressed relative to pre-COVID levels as a result of the recession that developed from the pandemic and ensuing policy responses.A primary headwind for banks is the potential compression in net interest margins (“NIMs”) following a return to a zero interest rate policy (“ZIRP”) that is now known as the effective lower bound (“ELB”).Additionally, credit risk remains heightened for the sector compared to pre-pandemic levels as the extent of credit losses resulting from the pandemic and economic slowdown will not be known until 2021 or perhaps even 2022. Amidst this backdrop, many banks and their directors are evaluating strategic options and ways to create value for shareholders.While the Federal Reserve has prohibited the largest U.S. banks from share repurchases, the current environment has prompted many community banks to announce share buyback plans. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, more than forty U.S. community banks announced buyback plans in the third quarter and the trend has continued in the fourth quarter with another 36 buyback announcements, including new plans, extensions of existing plans, and reinstatements of previously suspended plans, in October.In our view, there are four primary reasons that many community and regional banks are announcing or expanding share repurchase programs in the current environment.1) Valuations are Lower Relative to Historical LevelsSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the banking sector has underperformed the broader market due to concerns on credit quality and a prolonged low-interest rate environment.Despite the November rally, bank stocks are still trading at lower multiples than observed in recent years.Furthermore, many banks are finding themselves with excess liquidity in light of weaker loan demand and growing deposits. In a depressed price environment, share repurchases can be a favorable use of capital, particularly when pricing is at a discount to book value and is accretive to book value per share.As shown in the chart below, the average P/TBV multiple has declined for all of the SNL market capitalization bank indices since the beginning of 2020.The decline has been most pronounced for the Micro Cap index, with the average P/TBV multiple for banks with a total market capitalization of less than $250 million falling from 133% to 102%. 2) Favorable Tax Environment for Shareholders Seeking LiquidityCapital gains tax rates are low relative to historical levels and the potential for higher capital gains tax rates has risen under President-elect Biden. As part of his tax plan, Biden has proposed increasing the top tax rate for capital gains for the highest earners from 23.8% to 39.6% (akin to ordinary income levels), which would be the largest increase in capital gains rates in history.While the ability for Biden’s tax plan to become reality is uncertain, many community banks have an aging shareholder base with long-term capital gains and it is an issue worth watching and planning for as poor planning can leave significant tax consequences for the shareholder or his or her heirs.A share repurchase program can provide liquidity to shareholders who may be apt to take advantage of the current capital gains rates that are low by historical standards and lower than the rates proposed by President-elect Biden.3) Relatively Low Borrowing Costs and Sufficient Capital for Many Community BanksDespite the unique issues brought about by the pandemic and the uncertain economic outlook, many community banks are well capitalized and have “excess” capital at the bank level and perhaps even an unleveraged holding company.We have written previously about the idea of robust stress testing and capital planning given the economic environment but note that a recent survey indicated that most bankers believe capital levels are sufficient to weather the economic downturn.Our research also indicates that rates on subordinated debt issuances issued in September of 2020 averaged ~5% compared to ~6% average for 2018 and 2019.These lower borrowing costs and ample capital for many banks in combination with lower share prices enhance the potential internal rate of return for share repurchases when compared to other strategic alternative uses of capital.4) Enhancing Shareholder Value and Liquidity Board members and management teams face the strategic decision of allocating capital in a way that creates value for shareholders.Potential options include growing the balance sheet organically or through acquisition (perhaps a whole bank or branch), payment of dividends, or a stock repurchase program.While M&A has been a constant theme, activity has slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic and Bank Director’s 2021 Bank M&A Survey noted that only ~33% say their institution is likely to purchase a bank by the end of 2021, which was down from the prior year’s survey (at ~44%).Key challenges to M&A in the current environment include conducting due diligence and evaluating a seller’s loan portfolio in light of COVID-19 impacts and economic uncertainty. Organic loan growth expectations have also been muted for many banks in light of the economic slowdown resulting from COVID-19.With organic and acquisitive balance sheet growth appearing less attractive for many banks in the current environment, dividends and share repurchases have climbed up the strategic option list for many banks.A share repurchase program can have the added benefit of enhancing liquidity and marketability of illiquid shares, which potentially enhances the valuation of a minority interest in the bank’s stock.ConclusionIf your bank’s board does implement a share repurchase program, it is critical for the board to set the purchase price based upon a reasonable valuation of the shares.While ~5,000 banks exist, the industry is very diverse and differences exist in financial performance, risk appetite, growth trajectory, and future performance/outlook in light of the shifting landscape.Valuations should understand the common issues faced by all banks – such as the interest rate environment, credit risk, or technological trends – but also the entity-specific factors bearing on financial performance, risk, and growth that lead to the differentiation in value observed in both the public and M&A markets.At Mercer Capital, valuations are more than a mere quantitative exercise. Integrating a bank’s growth prospects and risk characteristics into a valuation analysis requires understanding the bank’s history, business plans, market opportunities, response to emerging technological issues, staff experience, and the like. For those banks considering a share repurchase program, Mercer Capital has the experience to provide an independent valuation of the stock that can serve to assist the Board in setting the purchase price for the share repurchase program. Originally appeared in Mercer Capital’s Bank Watch, November 2020.

Stress Testing and Capital Planning for Banks and Credit Unions During the COVID-19 Pandemic

A stress test is defined as a risk management tool that consists of estimating the bank’s financial position over a time horizon – approximately two years – under different scenarios (typically a baseline, adverse, and severe scenario).The concept of stress testing for banks and credit unions is akin to the human experience of going in for a check up and running on a treadmill so your cardiologist can measure how your heart performs under stress. Similar to stress tests performed by doctors, stress tests for financial institutions can ultimately improve the health of the bank or credit union (“CU”). The benefits of stress testing for financial institutions include: Enhancing strategic/capital planningImproving risk managementEnhancing the value and earning power of the bank or credit unionAs many public companies in other industries have pulled earnings guidance due to the uncertainty surrounding the economic outlook amid the coronavirus pandemic, community banks and CUs do not have that luxury.Key stakeholders, boards, and regulators will desire a better understanding of the ability of the bank or CU to withstand the severe economic shock of the pandemic. Fortunately, stress testing has been a part of the banking lexicon since the last global financial crisis began in 2008. We can leverage many lessons learned from the last decade or so of this annual exercise.Conducting a Stress Test It can be easy to get overwhelmed when faced with scenario and capital planning amidst the backdrop of a global pandemic with a virus whose path and duration is ultimately uncertain.However, it is important to stay grounded in established stress testing steps and techniques. Below we discuss the four primary steps that we take to help clients conduct a stress test in light of the current economic environment.Step 1: Determine the Economic Scenarios to ConsiderIt is important to determine the appropriate stress event to consider.Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve’s original 2020 scenarios published in 1Q2020 seem less relevant today since they forecast peak unemployment at 10%, versus the recent peak national unemployment rate of 14.7% (April 2020).However, the Federal Reserve supplemented the original scenario with a sensitivity analysis for the 2020 stress testing round related to coronavirus scenarios in late 2Q20, which provides helpful insights. The Federal Reserve’s sensitivity analysis had three alternative downside scenarios: A rapid V-shaped recovery that regains much of the output and employment lost by year-end 2020A slower, more U-shaped recovery in which only a small share of lost output and employment is regained in 2020A W-shaped double dip recession with a short-lived recovery followed by a severe drop in late 2020 due to a second wave of COVIDSome of the key macroeconomic variables in these scenarios are found in Table 1.In our view, these scenarios provide community banks and credit unions with economic scenarios from which to begin a sound stress testing and capital planning framework.Step 2: Segment the Loan Portfolio and Estimate Loan Portfolio Stress LossesWhile determining potential loan losses due to the uncertainty from a pandemic can be particularly daunting, we can take clues from the Federal Reserve’s release of results in late 2Q20 from some of the largest banks.While the specific loss rates for specific banks weren’t disclosed, the Fed’s U, V, and W sensitivity analysis noted that aggregate loss rates were higher than both the Global Financial Crisis (“GFC”) and the Supervisory Capital Assessment Program (“SCAP”) assumptions from the prior downturn. We note that many community banks and CUs may feel that their portfolios in aggregate will weather the COVID storm better than their larger counterparts (data provided in Table 2).We have previously notedthat community bank loan portfolios are more diverse now than during the prior downturn and cumulative charge-offs were lower for community banks as a whole than the larger banks during the GFC.For example, cumulative charge-offs for community banks over a longer distressed time period during the GFC (four years, or sixteen quarters, from June 2008 - June 2012) were 5.1%, implying an annual charge-off rate during a stressed period of 1.28% (which is ~42% of what larger banks experienced during the GFC).However, we also note that this community bank loss history is likely understated by the survivorship bias arising from community banks that failed during the GFC.Each community bank or CU’s loan portfolio is unique, and it will be important for community banks and CUs to document the composition of their portfolio and segment the portfolio appropriately. Segmentation of the loan portfolio will be particularly important.The Fed noted that certain sectors will behave differently during the COVID downturn. The leisure, hospitality, tourism, retail, and food sectors are likely to have higher credit risk during the pandemic. Proper loan segmentation should include segmentation for higher risk industry sectors during the current pandemic as well as COVID-modified/restructured loans.Once the portfolio is segmented, loss history over an extended period and a full business cycle (likely 10-12 years of history) will be important to assess. While the current pandemic is a different event, this historical loss experience can be leveraged to provide insights into future prospects and underwriting strength during a downturn and relative to peer loss experience. In certain situations, it may also be relevant to consider the correlation between those historical losses and certain economic factors such as the unemployment rate in the institution’s market areas. For example, a regression analysis can determine which variables were most significant statistically in driving historical losses during prior downturns and help determine which variables may be most relevant in the current pandemic. For those variables deemed statistically significant, the regression analysis can also provide a forecasting tool to estimate and/or test the reasonableness of future loss rates based on assumed changes in those variables that may be above and beyond historical experience. Lastly, higher risk loan portfolio segments (such as those in more economically exposed sectors) and larger loans that were modified during the pandemic may need to be supplemented by some “bottom-up” analysis of certain loans to determine how these credits may fare in the different economic scenarios previously described.To the extent losses can be modeled for each individual loan, these losses can be used to estimate losses for those particular loans and also leveraged to support assumptions for other loan portfolio segments.Step 3: Estimate the Impact of Stress on EarningsStep 3 expands the focus beyond just the loan portfolio and potential credit losses from the pandemic modeled in Step 2 and focuses on the institution’s “core” earning power and sensitivity of that over the economic scenarios modeled in Step 1. When assessing “core” earning power, it is important to consider the potential impact of the economic scenarios on the interest rate outlook and net interest margins (“NIM”). While the outlook is uncertain, Federal Reserve rate cuts have already started to crimp margins. Beyond the headwinds brought about by the pandemic, it is also important to consider any potential tailwinds in certain countercyclical areas like mortgage banking, PPP loan income, and/or efficiency brought about by greater adoption of digital technology and cost savings from branch closures.Ultimately, the earnings model over the stressed period relies on key assumptions that need to be researched, explained, and supported related to NIM, earning assets, non-interest income, expenses/efficiency, and provision expense in light of the credit losses modeled in Step 2.Step 4: Estimate the Impact of Stress on CapitalStep 4 combines all the work done in Steps 1, 2, and 3 and ultimately models capital levels and ratios over the entirety of the forecast periods (which is normally nine quarters) in the different economic scenarios. Capital at the end of the forecast period is ultimately a function of capital and reserve levels immediately prior to the stressed period plus earnings or losses generated over the stressed period (inclusive of credit losses and provisions estimated).When assessing capital ratios during the pandemic period, it is important to also consider the impact of any strategic decisions that may help to alleviate stress on capital during this period, such as raising sub-debt, eliminating distributions or share repurchases, and slowing balance sheet growth.For perspective, the results released from the Federal Reserve suggested that under the V, U, and W shaped alternative downside scenarios, the aggregate CET1 capital ratios were 9.5%, 8.1%, and 7.7%, respectively.What Should Your Bank or Credit Union Do with the Results?What your bank or credit union should do with the results depends on the institution’s specific situation.For example, assume that your stress test reveals a lower exposure to certain economically exposed sectors during the pandemic and some countercyclical strengths such as mortgage banking/asset management/ PPP revenues.This helps your bank or CU maintain relatively strong and healthy performance over the stressed period in terms of capital, asset quality, and earnings performance. This performance could allow for and support a strategic/capital plan involving the continuation of dividends and/or share repurchases, accessing capital and/or sub-debt for growth opportunities, and proactively looking at ways to grow market share both organically and through potential acquisitions during and after the pandemic-induced downturn.For those banks and CUs that include M&A in the strategic/capital plan over the next two years, improved stress testing capabilities at your institution should assist with stress testing the target’s loan portfolio during the due diligence process. Alternatively, consider a bank that is in a relatively weaker position.In this case, the results may provide key insight that leads to quantifying the potential capital shortfall, if any, relative to either regulatory minimums or internal targets.After estimating the shortfall, management can develop an action plan, which could entail seeking additional common equity,accessing sub-debt, selling branches or higher-risk loan portfolios to shrink the balance sheet, or considering potential merger partners.Integrating the stress test results with identifiable action plans to remediate any capital shortfall can demonstrate that the bank’s existing capital, including any capital enhancement actions taken, is adequate in stressed economic scenarios. How Mercer Capital Can Help A well-reasoned and documented stress test can provide regulators, directors, and management the comfort of knowing that capital levels are adequate, at a minimum, to withstand the pandemic and maintain the dividend.A stress test can also support other strategies to enhance shareholder value, such as a share buyback plan, higher dividends, a strategic acquisition, or other actions to take advantage of the disruption caused by the pandemic.The results of the stress test should also enhance your bank or credit union’s decision-making process and be incorporated into strategic planning and the management of credit risk, interest rate risk, and capital.Having successfully completed thousands of engagements for financial institutions over the last 35 years, Mercer Capital has the experience to solve complex financial issues impacting community banks and credit unions during the ups and downs of economic cycles. Mercer Capital can help scale and improve your institution’s stress testing in a variety of ways. We can provide advice and support for assumptions within your bank or credit union’s pre-existing stress test. We can also develop a unique, custom stress test that incorporates your institution’s desired level of complexity and adequately captures the unique risks you face. Regardless of the approach, the desired outcome is a stress test and capital plan that can be used by managers, directors, and regulators to monitor capital adequacy, manage risk, enhance the bank’s performance, and improve strategic decisions. For more information on Mercer Capital’s Stress Testing and Capital Planning solutions, contact Jay Wilson at wilsonj@mercercapital.com. Originally appeared in Mercer Capital's Bank Watch, July 2020.

Does Your Bank Need an Interim Impairment Test Due to the Economic Impact of COVID-19?

Analysts and pundits are debating whether the economic recovery will be shaped like a U, V, W, swoosh, or check mark and how long it may take to fully recover. To find clues, many are following the lead of the healthcare professionals and looking to Asia for economic and market data since these economies experienced the earliest hits and recoveries from the COVID-19 pandemic.Taking a similar approach led me to take a closer look at the Japanese megabanks for clues about how U.S. banks may navigate the COVID-19 crisis. In Japan, the banking industry is grappling with similar issues as U.S. banks, including the need to further cut costs; expanding branch closures; enhancing digital efforts; bracing for a tough year as bankruptcies rise; and looking for acquisitions in faster growing markets.Another similarity is impairment charges. Two of the three Japanese megabanks recently reported impairment charges. Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group (MUFG) reported a ¥343 billion impairment charge related to two Indonesian and Thai lenders that MUFG owned controlling interests in and whose share price had dropped ~50% since acquisition. Mizuho Financial Group incurred a ¥39 billion impairment charge.In the years since the Global Financial Crisis, there have not been many goodwill impairment charges recognized by U.S. banks. A handful of banks including PacWest (NASDAQ-PACW) and Great Western Bancorp (NYSE-GWB) announced impairment charges with the release of 1Q20 results. Both announced dividend reductions, too.Absent a rebound in bank stocks, more goodwill impairment charges likely will be recognized this year. Bank stocks remain depressed relative to year-end pricing levels despite some improvements in May and early June. For perspective, the S&P 500 Index was down ~5% from year-end 2019 through May 31, 2020 compared to a decline of ~32% for the SNL Small Cap Bank Index and ~34% for the SNL Bank Index.This sharper decline for banks reflects concerns around net interest margin compression, future credit losses, and loan growth potential. The declines in the public markets mirrored similar declines in M&A activity and several bank transactions that had previously been announced were terminated before closing with COVID-19 impacts often cited as a key factor.Price discovery from the public markets tends to be a leading indicator that impairment charges and/or more robust impairment testing is warranted. The declines in the markets led to multiple compression for most public banks and the majority have been priced at discounts to book value since late March. At May 31, 2020, ~77% of publicly traded community banks (i.e., having assets below $5B) were trading at a discount to their book value with a median of ~83%. Within the cohort of banks trading below book value at May 31, 2020, ~74% were trading below tangible book value.Do I Need an Impairment Test?Goodwill impairment testing is typically performed annually. But the unprecedented events precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic now raise questions whether an interim goodwill impairment test is warranted.The accounting guidance in ASC 350 prescribes that interim goodwill impairment tests may be necessary in the case of certain “triggering” events. For public companies, perhaps the most easily observable triggering event is a decline in stock price, but other factors may constitute a triggering event. Further, these factors apply to both public and private companies, even those private companies that have previously elected to amortize goodwill under ASU 2017-04.For interim goodwill impairment tests, ASC 350 notes that management should assess relevant events and circumstances that might make it more likely than not that an impairment condition exists. The guidance provides several examples, several of which are relevant for the bank industry including the following:Industry and market considerations such as a deterioration in the environment in which an entity operates or an increased competitive environmentDeclines in market-dependent multiples or metrics (consider in both absolute terms and relative to peers)Overall financial performance such as negative or declining cash flows or a decline in actual or planned revenue or earnings compared with actual and projected results of relevant prior periodsChanges in the carrying amount of assets at the reporting unit including the expectation of selling or disposing certain assetsIf applicable, a sustained decrease in share price (considered both in absolute terms and relative to peers) The guidance notes that an entity should also consider positive and mitigating events and circumstances that may affect its conclusion. If a recent impairment test has been performed, the headroom between the recent fair value measurement and carrying amount could also be a factor to consider.How Does an Impairment Test Work?Once an entity determines that an interim impairment test is appropriate, a quantitative “Step 1” impairment test is required. Under Step 1, the entity must measure the fair value of the relevant reporting units (or the entire company if the business is defined as a single reporting unit). The fair value of a reporting unit refers to “the price that would be received to sell the unit as a whole in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.”For companies that have already adopted ASU 2017-04, the legacy “Step 2” analysis has been eliminated, and the impairment charge is calculated as simply the difference between fair value and carrying amount.ASC 820 provides a framework for measuring fair value which recognizes the three traditional valuation approaches: the income approach, the market approach, and the cost approach. As with most valuation assignments, judgment is required to determine which approach or approaches are most appropriate given the facts and circumstances. In our experience, the income and market approaches are most used in goodwill impairment testing. However, the market approach is somewhat limited in the current environment given the lack of transaction activity in the banking sector post-COVID-19.In the current environment, we offer the following thoughts on some areas that are likely to draw additional scrutiny from auditors and regulators.Are the financial projections used in a discounted cash flow analysis reflective of recent market conditions? What are the model’s sensitivities to changes in key inputs?Given developments in the market, do measures of risk (discount rates) need to be updated?If market multiples from comparable companies are used to support the valuation, are those multiples still applicable and meaningful in the current environment?If precedent M&A transactions are used to support the valuation, are those multiples still relevant in the current environment?If the subject company is public, how does its current market capitalization compare to the indicated fair value of the entity (or sum of the reporting units)? What is the implied control premium and is it reasonable in light of current market conditions? At a minimum, we anticipate that additional analyses and support will be necessary to address these questions. The documentation from an impairment test at December 31, 2019 might provide a starting point, but the reality is that the economic and market landscape has changed significantly in the first half of 2020.Concluding ThoughtsWhile not all industries have been impacted in the same way from the COVID-19 pandemic and economic shutdown, the banking industry will not escape unscathed given the depressed valuations observed in the public markets. For public and private banks, it can be difficult to ignore the sustained and significant drop in publicly traded bank stock prices and the implications that this might have on fair value and the potential for goodwill impairment.At Mercer Capital, we have experience in implementing both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of interim goodwill impairment testing. To discuss the implications and timing of triggering events, please contact a professional in Mercer Capital’s Financial Institutions Group.Originally published in Bank Watch, June 2020.Request for ProposalMercer Capital is pleased to prepare a proposal for impairment testing services for your bank or bank holding company. Follow the link below to complete a submission.Bank Impairment Testing Proposal Request »

Top Three Valuation Considerations for Credit Unions When Contemplating a Bank Acquisition

After five or six years of strong bank M&A activity, 2020 slowed drastically following the onset of COVID-19.Eventually, we expect M&A activity will rebound once buyers have more confidence in the economy and the COVID-19 medical outlook. In that case, there will be greater certainty around seller’s earnings outlook and credit quality, particularly for those loan segments more exposed in the post-COVID-19 economic environment. The factors that drive consolidation such as buyers’ needs to obtain scale, improve profitability, and support growth will remain as will seller desires to exit due to shareholder needs for liquidity and management succession among others. Credit Unions as Bank AcquirersOne emerging trend prior to the bank M&A slowdown in March 2020 was credit unions (“CUs”) acquiring small community banks.Since January 1, 2015, there have been 36 acquisitions of banks by CUs of which 15 were announced in 2019. In addition to the factors favoring consolidation noted above, credit unions can benefit from diversifying their loan portfolio away from a heavy reliance on consumers and into new geographic markets.In addition to diversification benefits, bank acquisitions can also enhance the growth profile of the acquiring CU. From the first quarter of 2015 through the second quarter of 2019, CU bank buyers grew their membership by ~23% compared to ~15% for other CUs according to S&P Global Market Intelligence.A positive for community bank sellers is that CUs pay cash and often acquire small community banks located in small communities or even rural areas, that do not interest most large community and regional bank acquirers.Valuation Issues to Consider When a Credit Union Acquires a Commercial BankThere are, of course, unique valuation issues to consider when a credit union buys (or is bidding for) a commercial bank.Transaction Form and Consideration. Transactions are often structured as an asset purchase whereby the CU pays cash consideration to acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of the underlying bank.Taxes (CU Perspective). CUs do not pay corporate income taxes, and this precludes them from acquiring certain tax-related assets and liabilities on the bank’s balance sheet, such as a deferred tax asset.Taxes (Bank Perspective). If a holding company owns a bank that is sold to a CU, then any gain will likely be subject to taxation prior to the holding company satisfying any liabilities and paying a liquidating distribution to shareholders.Expense Synergies. CUs often extract less cost savings than a bank buyer because bank acquisitions are often viewed as part of their membership growth strategy whereby the transaction expands their geographic/membership footprint and there will be no or fewer branch closures.Capital Considerations. CUs must maintain a net worth ratio of at least 7.0% to be deemed “well capitalized” by regulators. The net worth ratio is akin to a bank’s leverage ratio and the pro-forma impact from the acquisition on the net worth ratio should be estimated as the increase in assets from the acquisition can reduce the post-close net worth ratio of the CU. Some CUs may be able to issue sub debt and count it as capital but CUs often rely primarily upon retained earnings to increase capital.Other. CU acquisitions can often take longer to close than traditional bank acquisitions and, thus, an interim forecast of earnings/distributions may need to be considered for both the bank and CU to better estimate the pro forma balance sheet at closing.Valuation Considerations for Credit Unions When Contemplating Acquiring a BankBased upon our experience of working as the financial advisor to credit unions that are contemplating an acquisition of a bank, we see three broad factors CUs should consider.Developing a Reasonable Valuation Range for the Bank TargetDeveloping a reasonable valuation for a bank target is important in any economic environment but particularly so in the post-COVID-19 environment.Generally, the guideline M&A comparable transactions and discounted cash flow (“DCF”) valuation methods are relied upon.In the pre-COVID-19 environment, transaction data was more readily available so that one could tailor one or more M&A comp groups that closely reflected the target’s geographic location, asset size, financial performance, and the like.Until sufficient M&A activity resumes, timely and relevant market data is limited.Even when M&A activity resumes, inferences from historical data for CU deals should be made with caution because it is a small sample set of ~35 pre-COVID-19 deals where only 75% of announced deals since 2015 included pricing data with a wide P/TBV range of ~0.5x to ~1.7x (with a median of ~1.3x).While deal values are often reported and compared based upon multiples of tangible book value, CU acquirers are like most bank acquirers in which value is a function of projected cash flow estimates that they believe the bank target can produce in the future once merged with their CU. A key question to consider is: What factors drive the cash flow forecast and ultimately value?No two valuations or cash flow estimates are alike and determining the value for a bank or its branches requires evaluating both qualitative and quantitative factors bearing on the target bank’s current performance, outlook, growth potential, and risk attributes. The primary factors driving value in our experience include considering both qualitative and quantitative factors. In a post-COVID-19 valuation, a CU may have a high degree of confidence in expense savings, but less so in other aspects of the forecast—especially related to growth potential, credit losses, and the net interest margin (“NIM”). Developing Accurate Fair Value Estimates of the Loan Portfolio and Core Deposit Intangible It is important for CUs to develop reasonable and accurate fair value estimates as these estimates will impact the pro forma net worth of the CU at closing as well as their future earnings and net worth.In the initial accounting for a bank acquisition by a CU, acquired assets and liabilities are marked to their fair values, with the most significant marks typically for the loan portfolio followed by depositor customer relationship (core deposit) intangible assets. Loan Valuation.The loan valuation process can be complex before factoring in the COVID-19 effect on interest rates and credit loss assumptions.Our loan valuation process begins with due diligence discussions with management of the target to understand their underwriting strategy as well as specific areas of concern in the portfolio.We also typically factor in the CU acquirer’s loan review personnel to obtain their perspective.The actual valuation often relies upon a) monthly cash flow forecasts considering both the contractual loan terms, as well as the outlook for future interest rates; b) prepayment speeds; c) credit loss estimates based upon qualitative and quantitative assumptions; and d) appropriate discount rates.Problem credits above a certain threshold are typically evaluated on an individual basis.Core Deposit Intangible Valuation.Core deposit intangible asset values are driven by both market factors (interest rates) and bank-specific factors such as customer retention, deposit base characteristics, and a bank’s expense and fee structure.We also assess market data regarding the costs of alternative funding sources, the forward rate curves, and the sensitivity of the acquired deposit base to changes in market interest rates.Simultaneously, we analyze the cost of the acquired deposits relative to the market environment, looking at current interest rates paid on the deposits as well as other expenses required to service the accounts and fee income that may be generated by the accounts.We analyze historical retention characteristics of the acquired deposits and the outlook for future account retention to develop a detailed forecast of the future cost of the acquired deposits relative to an alternative cost of funds.Evaluating Key Deal Metrics to Model Strength or Weakness of TransactionOnce a valuation range is determined and the pro forma balance sheet is prepared, the CU can then begin to model certain deal metrics to assess the strength and weaknesses of the transaction.Many of the traditional metrics that banks utilize when assessing bank targets are also commonplace for CUs to evaluate and consider, including net worth (or book value) dilution and the earnback period, earnings accretion/dilution, and an IRR analysis. These and other measures usually are meaningfully impacted by the opportunity cost of cash allocated to the purchase and retention estimates for accounts and lines of business that may have an uncertain future as part of a CU.One deal metric that often gets a lot of focus from CUs is the estimated internal rate of return (“IRR”) for the transaction based upon the following key items: the cash price for the acquisitions, the opportunity cost of the cash, and the forecast cash flows/valuation for the target inclusive of any expense savings and growth/attrition over time in lines of business.This IRR estimate can then be compared to the CU’s historical and/or projected return on equity or net worth to assess whether the transaction offers the potential to enhance pro forma cash flow and provide a reasonable return to the CU and its members.In our experience, an IRR estimate 200-500 basis points (2-5%) above the CUs historical return on equity (net worth) implies an attractive acquisition candidate. ConclusionMercer Capital has significant experience providing valuation, due diligence, and advisory services to credit unions and community banks across each phase of a potential transaction.Our services for CUs include providing initial valuation ranges to CUs for bank targets, performing due diligence on targets during the negotiation phase, providing fairness opinions and presentations related to the acquisition to the CU’s management and/or Board, and providing valuations for fair value estimates of loans and core deposit prior to or at closing. We also provide valuation and advisory services to community banks considering strategic options and can assist with developing a process to maximize valuation upon exit by including a credit union in the transaction process.Feel free to reach out to us to discuss your community bank or credit union’s unique situation in confidence. Originally published in Bank Watch, May 2020.

Quality Of Earnings Study: The “Combine” to Help Harvest Top FinTech Acquisition Targets

As we find ourselves at the end of the decade, many pundits are considering what sector will be most heavily influenced by the disruptive impact of technology in the 2020s. Financial services and the potential impact of FinTech is often top of mind in those discussions. As I consider the potential impact of FinTech in the coming decade, I am reminded of the Mark Twain quote that “History doesn’t repeat itself but it often rhymes.”A historical example of technological progress that comes to mind for me is the combine, a machine designed to efficiently harvest a variety of grain crops. The combine derived its name from being able to combine a number of steps in the harvesting process. Combines were one of the most economically important innovations as they saved a tremendous amount of time and significantly reduced the amount of the population that was engaged in agriculture while still allowing a growing population to be fed adequately. For perspective, the impact on American society from the combine’s invention was tremendous as roughly half of the U.S. population was involved in agriculture in the 1850s and today that number stands at less than 1%.As I ponder the parallels between the combine’s historical impact and FinTech’s potential, I consider that our now service based economy is dependent upon financial services, and FinTech offers the potential to radically change the landscape. From my perspective, the coming “combine” for financial services will be not from one source or solution, but from a wide range of FinTech companies and traditional financial institutions that are enhancing efficiency and lowering costs across a wide range of financial services (payments, lending, deposit gathering, wealth management, and insurance). While this can be viewed as a negative by some traditional incumbents in the space, it may be a saving grace as we start the decade with the lingering effects of a prolonged historically low and difficult interest rate environment, and many traditional players are still laden with their margin dependent revenue streams and higher cost, inefficient legacy systems. Similar to the farmers adopting higher tech planting and harvesting methods through innovations like the combine, traditional incumbents like bankers, RIAs, and insurance companies will have to determine how to selectively build, partner, or acquire FinTech talent and companies to enhance their profitability and efficiency. Private equity and venture capital investors will also continue to be attracted to the FinTech sector given its potential.As the years in the 2020s march on, FinTech acquirers and traditional incumbents face a daunting task to evaluate the FinTech sector. Reports vary but generally indicate that over 10,000 FinTechs have sprouted up across the globe in the last decade and separating the highly valued, high potential business models (i.e, the wheat) from the lower valued, low potential ones (i.e., the chaff) will be challenging. Factor in the complicated nature of the regulatory/compliance overlay and investors, acquirers, and traditional incumbents face the daunting task of analyzing the FinTech sector and the companies within it.As a solution to this potential problem, the efficient operations and historical lessons learned in the agricultural sector from the combine may again provide insights for buyers of FinTech companies to learn from. For example, the major professional sports leagues in the U.S. all have events called combines where they put prospective players through drills and tests to more accurately assess their potential. In these situations, the team is ultimately the buyer or investor and the player is the seller. Pro scouts are most interested in trying to project how that player might perform in the future for their team. While a player may have strong statistics in college, this may not translate to their future performance at the next level so it’s important to dig deeper and analyze more thoroughly. For the casual fan and the players themselves, it can be frustrating to see a productive college player go undrafted while less productive players go highly drafted because of their stronger performance at the combine.While not quite as highly covered by the fans and media, a similar due diligence and analysis process should take place when acquirers examine a FinTech acquisition target. This due diligence process can be particularly important in a sector like FinTech where the historical financial statements may provide little insight into future growth and earnings potential for the underlying company. One way that acquirers are able to better assess potential targets is through a process similar to a sports combine called a quality of earnings study (QoE). In this article, we give a general overview of what a QoE is as well as some important factors to consider.What is a Quality of Earnings Study? A QoE study typically focuses on the economic earning power of the target. A QoE combines a number of due diligence processes and findings into a single document that can be vitally helpful to a potential acquirer in order to assess the key elements of a target’s valuation: core earning power, growth potential, and risk factors. Ongoing earning power is a key component of valuation as it represents an estimate of sustainable earnings and a base from which long term growth can be expected. This estimate of earning power typically considers trying to assess the quality of the company’s historical and projected future earnings. In addition to assessing the quality of the earnings, buyers should also consider the relative riskiness of those earnings as well as potential pro-forma synergies that the target may bring in an acquisition.Analysis performed in a QoE study can include the following:Profitability Procedures. Investigating historical performance for impact on prospective cash flows. EBITDA analysis can include certain types of adjustments such as: (1) Management compensation add-back; (2) Non-recurring items; (3) Pro-forma adjustments/synergiesCustomer Analysis. Investigating revenue relationships and agreements to understand the impact on prospective cash flows. Procedures include: (1) Identifying significant customer relationships; (2) Gross margin analysis; and (3) Lifing analysisBusiness and Pricing Analysis. Investigating the target entities positioning in the market and understanding the competitive advantages from a product and operations perspective. This involves: (1) Interviews with key members of management; (2) Financial analysis and benchmarking; (3) Industry analysis; (4) Fair market value assessments; and (5) Structuring These areas are broad and may include a wide array of sub-areas to investigate as part of the QoE study. Sub-areas can include:Workforce / employee analysisA/R and A/P analysisIntangible asset analysisA/R aging and inventory analysisLocation analysisBilling and collection policiesSegment analysisProof of cash and revenue analysisMargin and expense analysisCapital structure analysisWorking capital analysis For high growth technology companies where the analysis and valuation is highly dependent upon forecast projections, it may also be necessary to analyze other specific areas such as:The unit economics of the target. For example, a buyer may want a more detailed estimate or analysis of the some of the target’s key performance indicators such as cost of acquiring customers (CAC), lifetime value of new customers (LTV), churn rates, magic number, and annual recurring revenue/profit.A commercial analysis that examines the competitive environment, go-to-market strategy, and existing customers perception for the company and its products. This article discusses a number of considerations that buyers may want to assess when performing due diligence on a potential FinTech target. While the ultimate goal is to derive a sound analysis of the target’s earning power and potential, there can be a number of different avenues to focus on, and the QoE study should be customized and tailored to the buyer’s specific concerns as well as the target’s unique situations. It is also paramount for the buyer’s team to keep the due diligence process focused, efficient, and pertinent to their concerns. For sellers, a primary benefit of a QoE can be to help them illustrate their future potential and garner more interest from potential acquirers. Mercer Capital’s focused approach to traditional quality of earnings analysis generates insights that matter to potential buyers and sellers. Leveraging our valuation and advisory experience, our quality of earnings analyses identify and focus on the cash flow, growth, and risk factors that impact value. Collaborating with clients, our senior staff identifies the most important areas for analysis, allowing us to provide cost-effective support and deliver qualified, objective, and supportable findings. Our goal is to understand the drivers of historical performance, unit economics of the target, and the key risk and growth factors supporting future expectations. Our methods and experience provide our clients with a fresh and independent perspective on the quality, stability, and predictability of future cash flows. Our methodologies and procedures are standard practices executed by some of the most experienced analysts in the FinTech industry. Our desire is to provide clients with timely and actionable information to assist in capital budgeting decisions. Combined with our industry expertise, risk assessment, and balanced return focus, our due diligence and deal advisory services are uniquely positioned to provide focused and valued information on potential targets. Originally published in Mercer Capital's Value Focus: FinTech Industry Newsletter, Year-End 2019.

Key Valuation Considerations for FinTech Purchase Price Allocations

FinTech M&A continues to be top of mind for the sector as larger players seek to grow and expand while founders and early investors look to monetize their investments.This theme was evident in several larger deals already announced in 2019 including Global Payments/Total System Services (TSYS), Fidelity National Information Services, Inc./Worldpay, Inc., and Fiserv, Inc./First Data Corporation.One important aspect of FinTech M&A is the purchase price allocation and the valuation estimates for goodwill and intangible assets as many FinTech companies have minimal physical assets and a high proportion of the purchase price is accounted for via goodwill and intangible assets.The majority of value creation for the acquirer and their shareholders will come from their investment in and future utilization of the intangibles of the FinTech target.To illustrate this point, consider that the median amount of goodwill and intangible assets was ~98% of the transaction price for FinTech transactions announced in 2018.Since such a large proportion of the transaction price paid for FinTech companies typically gets carried in the form of goodwill or intangibles on the acquirer’s balance sheet, the acquirer’s future earnings, tax expenses, and capitalization will often be impacted significantly from the depreciation and amortization expenses.When preparing valuation estimates for a purchase price allocation for a FinTech company, one key step for acquirers is identifying the intangible assets that will need to be valued.In our experience, the identifiable intangible assets for FinTech acquisitions often include the tradename, technology (both developed and in-development), noncompete agreements, and customer relationships.Additionally, there may be a need to consider the value of an earn-out arrangement if a portion of transaction consideration is contingent on future performance as this may need to be recorded as a contingent liability.Since the customer relationship intangible is often one of the more significant intangible assets to be recorded in FinTech acquisitions (both in $ amounts and as a % of the purchase price), we discuss how to value FinTech customer relationships in greater detail in the remainder of the article.Valuing Customer-Related AssetsFirms devote significant human and financial resources in developing, maintaining and upgrading customer relationships. In some instances, customer contracts give rise to identifiable intangible assets. More broadly, however, customer-related intangible assets consist of the information gleaned from repeat transactions, with or without underlying contracts. Firms can and do lease, sell, buy or otherwise trade such information, which are generally organized as customer lists.Since FinTech has some relatively varied niches including payments, digital lending, WealthTech, or InsurTech, the valuation of FinTech customer relationships can vary depending on the type of company and the niche that it operates in.While we do not delve into the key attributes to consider for each FinTech niche, we provide one illustration from the Payments niche.In the Payments industry, one key aspect to understand when evaluating customer relationships is where the company is in the payment loop and whether the company operates in a B2B (business-to-business) or B2C (business-to-consumer) model.This will drive who the customer is and the economics related to valuing the cash flows from the customer relationships.For example, merchant acquirers typically have contracts with the merchants themselves and the valuable customer relationship lies with the merchant and the dollar volume of transactions processed by the merchant over time, whereas the valuable relationship with other payments companies such as a prepaid or gift card company may lie with the end-user or consumer and their spending/card usage habits over time.Valuation ApproachesValuation involves three approaches: 1) the cost approach, 2) the market approach, and 3) the income approach. Customer relationships are typically valued based upon an income approach (i.e., a discounted cash flow method) where the cash flows that the customer relationships are expected to generate in the future are forecast and then discounted to the present at a market rate of return.Cost ApproachValuation under the cost approach requires estimation of the cost to replace the subject asset, as well as opportunity costs in the form of cash flows foregone as the replacement is sought or recreated. The cost approach may not be feasible when replacement or recreation periods are long. Therefore, the cost approach is used infrequently in valuing customer-related assets.Market ApproachUse of the market approach in valuing customer-related assets is generally untenable for FinTech companies because transactional data on sufficiently comparable assets are not likely to be available.Income ApproachUnder the income approach, customer-related assets are valued most commonly using the income approach. One method within the income approach that is often used to value FinTech customer relationships is the Multi-Period Excess Earnings Method (MPEEM).MPEEM involves the estimation of the cash flow stream attributable to a particular asset. The cash flow stream is discounted to the present to obtain an indication of fair value. The most common starting point in estimating future cash flows is the prospective financial information prepared by (or in close consultation with) the management of the subject business.The key valuation inputs are often estimates of the economic benefit of the customer relationship (i.e., the cash flow stream attributable to the relationships), customer attrition rate, and the discount rate.Three key attributes that are important when using these inputs to valuing customer relationships include:Repeat Patronage. The expectation of repeat patronage creates value for customer-related intangible assets. Contractual customer relationships formally codify the expectation of future transactions. Even in the absence of contracts, firms look to build on past interactions with customers to sell products and services in the future. Two aspects of repeat patronage are important in evaluating customer relationships. First, not all customer contact leads to an expectation of repeat patronage. The quality of interaction with walk-up retail customers, for instance, is generally considered inadequate to reliably lead to expectations of recurring business. Second, even in the presence of adequate information, not all expected repeat business may be attributable to customer-related intangible assets. Some firms operate in monopolistic or near-monopolistic industries where repeat patronage is directly attributable to a dearth of acceptable alternatives available to customers. In other cases, it may be more appropriate to attribute recurring business to the strength of the trade names, software platform, or brands.Attrition. Customer-related intangible assets create value over a finite period. Without efforts geared towards continual reinforcement, customer lists dwindle over time due to customer mortality, the ravages of competition, or the emergence of alternate products and services. The mechanics of present value mathematics further erode the economic benefits of sales to current customers in the distant future. Customer relationships are wasting assets whose economic value attrite with the passage of time.Other Assets.Customer-related intangible assets depend on the existence of other assets to provide value to the firm. Most assets, including fixed assets and intellectual property, are essential in creating products or providing services. The act of selling these products and services enable firms to develop relationships and collect information from customers. In turn, the value of these relationships depends on the firms’ ability to sell additional products and services in the future. Consequently, for firms to extract value from customer-related assets, a number of other assets need to be in place.ConclusionMercer Capital has experience providing valuation and advisory services to FinTech companies and their acquirers.We have valued customer-related and other intangible assets to the satisfaction of clients and their auditors within the FinTech industry across a multitude of niches (payments, wealth management, insurance, lending, and software).Most recently, we completed a purchase price allocation for a private equity firm that acquired a FinTech company in the Payments niche.Please contact us to explore how we can help you. Originally published in the Value Focus: FinTech Industry Newsletter, Mid Year 2019.

Takeaways from AOBA 2019: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

I ventured into the Arizona desert again this year to Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired Conference (“AOBA”) in Phoenix in late January. This year I was struck by the dichotomous outlook for the banking sector that reminded me of Dicken’s famous line: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”The Best of TimesThe weather was lovely. Phoenix/Scottsdale is the place to be in late January, and this year did not disappoint with sunny weather and a high of around 70 each day. At the same time, much of the country was feeling the effects of a severe polar vortex that caused temperatures to plunge well below zero in the Upper Midwest and Great Plains. Many of the attendees from that area were forced to stay a day or two longer due to airline cancellations.The operating environment for banks reflected a similar analogous dichotomy. Take the market for example. Most banks produced very good earnings in 2018, and many produced record earnings due to a good economy, the reduction in corporate tax rates, and margin relief as the Fed raised short-term interest rates four times further distancing itself from the zero interest rate policy (“ZIRP”) implemented in late 2008.The Worst of TimesNonetheless, bank stocks, along with most industry sectors, were crushed in the fourth quarter. The SNL Small Cap US and Large Cap US Bank Indices declined 16% and 17% respectively. Several AOBA sessions opined that valuations based on price-to-forward earnings multiples were at “financial crisis” levels as investors debated how much the economy could slow in 2019 and 2020 and thereby produce much lower earnings than Wall Street’s consensus estimates.Within the industry the best of times vs. worst of times (or not as good of times) theme extended to size. Unlike past eras when small (to a point) was viewed as an advantage relative to large banks, the consensus has flipped. Large banks today are seen as having a net advantage in creating operating leverage, technology spending, better mobile products for the all-important millennials, and greater success in driving deposit growth.Additionally, one presenter noted that larger publicly traded banks that are acquisitive have been able to acquire smaller targets at lower price/tangible book multiples than the multiple at which the shares issued for the target trade in the public market and thereby incur no or minimal dilution to tangible BVPS.TechnologyThe most thought provoking sessions dealt with the intensifying impact of technology. Technology is not a new subject matter for AOBA, but the increasingly larger crowds that attended technology-focused sessions demonstrated this issue is on the minds of many bankers and directors. While technology is a tool to be used to deliver banking services, I think the unasked question most were thinking was: “What are implications of technology on the value of my bank?”Several sessions noted big banks that once hemorrhaged market share are proving to be adept at deposit gathering in larger metro markets while community banks still perform relatively well in second-tier and small markets. Technology is helping drive this trend, especially among millennials who do not care much about brick-and-mortar but demand top-notch digital access. The efficiency and technology gap between large and small banks is widening according to the data, while both small and large banks are battling new FinTech entrants as well as each other.Not all technology-related discussions were negative, however. Digital payment network Zelle (owned indirectly by Bank of America, BB&T, Capital One, JPMorgan Chase, PNC, US Bank, and Wells Fargo) has grown rapidly since it launched in 2017. Payment volume in dollar terms now exceeds millennial-favorite Venmo, which is owned by PayPal. Also, JPMorgan Chase rolled-out a new online brokerage offering that offers free trades for clients in an effort to add new brokerage and banking clients while also protecting its existing customer franchise.Steps to Create ValueIn addition to the best of times/worst of times theme, I picked up several ideas about what actions banks large and small can take to create value.Create a Digital/FinTech Roadmap for Your BankThere was a standing room only crowd for the day one FinXTech session: “The Next Wave of Innovation.” This stood in stark contrast to the first AOBA conference I attended which was during the financial crisis. Technology was hardly mentioned then and most sessions focused on failed bank acquisitions. Clearly, this year’s crowd proved that technology is top of mind for many bankers even if the roadmap is hazy. A key takeaway is that a digital technology roadmap must be weaved into the strategic plan so that an institution will be positioned to take advantage of the opportunity that technology creates to enhance customer service and lower costs. Further, emerging trends suggest that technology may help in assessing credit risk beyond credit scores. To assist banks in creating a FinTech roadmap, Bank Director recently unveiled a new project called FinXTech Connect that provides a tool bankers can use to consider and analyze potential FinTech partners.Become a “Triple Threat” BankDuring our (Mercer Capital) session, Andy Gibbs and I argued for becoming a “triple threat” bank, noting that banks with higher fee income, superior efficiency ratios, and greater technology spending were being rewarded in the public market with better valuations all else equal (see table below). While we do not advocate for heavy tech spending as a means to an ill-defined objective, the evidence points to a superior valuation when technology is used to drive higher levels of fee income and greater operating leverage. For more information, view our slide deck.Plan for the Good and Bad Times, Especially for the Bad TimesWhile there was a lot of discussion about an eventual slowdown in the economy and an inflection in the credit cycle, several sessions highlighted that a downturn will represent the best opportunity for those who are well prepared to grow. The key takeaway is to have a plan for both the good and the bad economic times to seize opportunity. Technology can play a role in a downturn by helping add customers at very low incremental costs.Best Practices around Traditional M&AOn the M&A front, two M&A nuggets from attorneys stood out as well as a note about MOEs (mergers of equals):Sullivan & Cromwell’s Rodgin Cohen suggested that buyers should determine what the counterparty wants and structure the transaction to achieve the counterparty’s objectives. Also, buyers need to “ride the circuit” to meet with potential acquisition candidates well before a decision to sell is made, while sellers need to know what they want to achieve before launching a sales process.Howard & Howard’s Michael Bell, a leading attorney to credit unions, had an interesting session where he noted commercial bankers should actively court credit unions as potential acquirers in a marketing process because credit unions’ lower operating cost structures and tax-exempt status can produce a better cash price for the seller.A few sessions discussed the potential for MOEs to create value for both banks’ shareholders through creating scale and by combining banks with different areas of strength. In addition, MOEs create an opportunity to upgrade technology while addressing costly legacy systems, including extensive branch networks. All three themes were addressed in two large MOEs announced in 2019 by TCF/Chemical and BB&T/SunTrust.ConclusionWe will likely be back at AOBA next year and hope to see you there. In the meantime, if you have questions or wish to discuss a valuation or transaction need in confidence, don’t hesitate to contact us.

Leveraging FinTech to Survive & Thrive in the Digital Age

Developing a fintech strategy for your bank to enhance profitability, efficiency, shareholder value and customer satisfaction can be challenging.

How to Value an InsurTech Company

FinTech companies are the emerging and hyped sector of the financial services industry. Looking at FinTech’s recent activity, people can see that many of these companies begin as start-ups and a few exciting years later, are able to raise millions of dollars in hopes of becoming the next “unicorn” – an industry term describing a tech company valued at a billion dollars or more. While this business trajectory may seem simple and attractive, FinTech companies usually have a highly complex structure made up of many investors of different origins, including venture, corporate, and/or private equity, all with different preferences and capital structures.Valuing a FinTech company can be very complicated and difficult, but carries important significance for employees, investors, and stakeholders for the company. While all FinTech companies have large differences, including what niche (payments, solutions, technologies, etc.) they operate in or what stage of development the company is in, understanding the value of a FinTech company is critically important. More specifically, within the FinTech industry, an exciting niche termed InsurTech is emerging and threatening to change the traditional state of the insurance industry.InsurTech NicheInsurTech is a fast growing niche that operates in a massive global insurance industry with premium revenues of about $5 trillion annually. InsurTech is the term applied to many companies that are using technology to disrupt the traditional insurance industry landscape. InsurTech has high growth prospects and the potential for InsurTech to innovate and disrupt remains large. Funding for InsurTech companies in recent years has spiked, especially for early-stage companies. Incumbents in the insurance industry have been slow to adopt disruptive, high-growth InsurTech, partly because insurance is so massive and has been around for such a long time. Additionally, many traditional insurance companies can benefit from InsurTech solutions that serve to enhance customer satisfaction and improve the efficiency of operations by leveraging technology and enhancing the delivery of certain insurance offerings and solutions through digital channels.Technology and innovation have disrupted many other long-established industries, such as the impact of medical technology in the healthcare industry. Insurance players, who maintain legacy systems believe that established customer connections will reduce the threat of InsurTech. However, this may not be the best strategy because insurance is often purchased begrudgingly. The historically strained relationship between customers and carriers is a rather vulnerable point along the insurance value chain. InsurTech companies can offer innovative technology that creates more touchpoints for customers and reduces many customer pain points.Market ConsiderationsUnderstanding how well a given InsurTech company is doing within this FinTech niche is one of the most important factors in determining its value. Market dynamics such as market size, potential market available, and growth prospects are important to understand. A valuation will consider absolute market value, existing competitors, and existing incumbents. The regulatory environment is another important consideration when valuing an InsurTech company. Financial services, such as banks and insurance companies, are heavily regulated, so understanding the rules and regulations is necessary for developing an accurate valuation.Like other FinTech niches, certain solutions within InsurTech are relatively new and have the potential to disrupt the entire insurance industry. Since many industry incumbents have been slow to adopt this new technology, the range of this innovation has yet to be fully felt and rules/regulations have yet to change. While regulatory stability may seem favorable now, concrete rules and regulations are complex and can be hard to predict as regulators react to rising InsurTech involvement. Understanding these complexities is important to valuing InsurTech companies, as these regulations could help or hinder an InsurTech’s growth potential.Company ConsiderationsWhen valuing a startup, quantitative information (financial and operating history) is limited; therefore, qualitative information can be extremely important in determining a company’s value. The quality and experience of the management team can be important. Knowledge of the insurance industry including understanding customer preferences, technology integration, the competitive and regulatory environments can enhance an InsurTech’s company value.An InsurTech company’s ownership of intellectual property and other intangible assets, like strategic partnerships, all else equal, should be considered and could increase a company’s value, assuming they are in place and well documented. When in place and demonstrated, intangibles are an important qualitative consideration.The stage of development of a FinTech company can also impact its value. Companies typically set milestones and track their own progress, and meeting these milestones might affect their valuation. Milestones usually include initial round financing, proof of concept, regulatory approval, obtaining a significant partner, and more.Milestones are important to set and track as the more milestones a startup meets, the less uncertainty exists and the more value is created. For example, an InsurTech company with established technology, increased customer touchpoints, and the potential to increase revenues will be more valuable to a potential acquirer than a newer startup. In addition, meeting later stage milestones often provide greater value than meeting early stage milestones. When the valuation considers future funding rounds and the potential dilution from additional capital raises, a staged financing model is often prepared and the valuation will vary at different stages as shown below.Valuation ApproachesAs InsurTech companies enhance business operations and reduce costs, valuations for these companies will become more important. There are three common approaches to determining business value: asset approach, income approach, and market approach. Each valuation approach is typically considered and then weighted accordingly to provide an indicated value or a range of value for the company, and ultimately, the specific interest or share class of the company.The Asset ApproachThe asset approach determines the value of a business by examining the cost that would be incurred by the relevant party to reassemble the company’s assets and liabilities. This approach is generally inappropriate for technology startups as they are generally not capital intensive businesses until the company has completed funding rounds. However, it can be instructive to consider the potential costs and time that the company has undertaken in order to develop proprietary technology and other intangibles.The Market ApproachThe market approach determines the value of a company by utilizing valuation metrics from transactions in comparable companies or historical transactions in the company. Consideration of valuation metrics can provide meaningful indications for startups that have completed multiple funding rounds, but can be complicated by different preferences and rights with different share classes.Regardless of complications, share prices can provide helpful valuation anchors to test the valuation range. Market data of publicly traded companies and acquisitions can be helpful in determining key valuation inputs for InsurTech companies. For early-stage companies, market metrics can provide valuable insight into potential valuations and financial performance once the InsurTech company matures. For already mature enterprises, recent financial performance can be compiled to serve as a valuable benchmarking tool.Investors can discern how the market might value an InsurTech company based on pricing information from comparable InsurTech companies or recent acquisitions of comparable InsurTech companies.The Income ApproachThe income approach can also provide a meaningful indication of value for a FinTech company. This relies on considerations for the business’ expected cash flows, risk, and growth prospects.The most common income approach method is the discount cash flow (DCF) method, which determines value based upon the present value of the expected cash flows for the enterprise. The DCF method projects the expected profitability of a company over a discrete period and prices the profitability using an expected rate of return, or a discount rate. The combination of present values of forecasted cash flows provides the indication of value for a specific set of assumptions.For startup InsurTech companies, cash flow forecasts are often characterized by a period of operating losses, capital needs, and expected payoffs as profitability improves or some exit event, like an acquisition, occurs. Additionally, investors and analysts often consider multiple scenarios for early-stage companies both in terms of cash flows and exit outcomes (IPO, sale to a strategic or financial buyer, etc.), which can lead to the use of a probability weighted expected return model (PWERM) for valuation.Putting it TogetherGiven their complexity, multiple valuation approaches and methods are often considered to provide lenses through which to assess value of InsurTech and FinTech companies and generate tests of reasonableness against which different indications of value can be evaluated.It is important to note that these different methods are not expected to align perfectly. Value indicators from the market approach can be rather volatile and investors often think longer-term. More enduring indicators from value can often come from income approaches, such as DCF models.Valuation of an InsurTech company can be vital to measure realistic growth, to plan progression, and to secure employee and investor interest. Given the complexities in valuing private FinTech and InsurTech companies and the ability for the market/regulatory environment to shift quickly, it is important to have a valuation expert who can adequately assess the value of the company and understand the prevalent market trends.

Views from the Road: What Do Community Banks, FinTech, and Buffalo Have in Common?

In the last few weeks, I presented at two events geared towards helping community banks achieve better performance: the Moss Adams Community Banking Conference in Huntington Beach, California and the FI FinTech Unconference in Fredericksburg, Texas. The FI FinTech Unconference had a recurring visual theme of the buffalo, which struck me as an insightful image for a FinTech conference.Much of the discussions at both conferences focused on the ability of community banks to adapt, survive, and thrive rather than thin out like the once massive North American buffalo herd. Both events had several presentations and discussions around FinTech and the need for community banks to evolve to meet customer expectations for improved digital interactions. Beyond thinking that I will miss the great views and weather I had for both trips, I came away with a few questions bankers should consider.How Can Community Banks Compete with Larger Banks?Larger banks are taking market share from smaller banks and have been gathering assets and deposits at a faster pace than community banks (defined as banks with less than $10 billion of assets) the last few decades. For example, banks with assets greater than $10 billion controlled around 85% of assets in mid-2018 compared to 50% in 1994. This is a significant trend illustrating how much market share community banks have ceded. Further, larger banks are producing higher ROEs, largely driven by higher levels of non-interest income (~0.90% of assets vs ~0.55%) and better operating leverage as measured by the efficiency ratio (~59% vs ~66%). The larger banks may widen their lead, too, given vast sums that are being spent on digital enhancements and other technology ventures to improve the client experience.Can FinTech Serve as a Value Enhancer and Help Community Banks Close the Performance Gap with Larger Banks?Most community banks are producing an ROE below 10%—an inadequate return for shareholders despite low credit costs. As a result, the critical role that a community bank fills as a lender to small business and agriculture is at risk if the board and/or shareholders decide to sell due to inadequate returns. Confronting this challenge requires the right team executing the right strategy to produce competitive returns for shareholders. FinTech solutions, rather than geographic expansion through branching and acquisitions, may be an option if FinTech products and processes can address areas where a bank falls short (e.g., wealth management).Can Community Banks Hold Ground and Even Win the Fight for Retail Deposits?Many community bank cost structures are wed to physical branches while customers— especially younger ones—are increasingly interacting with institutions first digitally and secondarily via a physical location. This transition is occurring at a time when core deposits are increasing in value to the industry as interest rates rise. In response, several larger banks, such as Citizens Financial, have increased their emphasis on digital delivery to drive incremental deposit growth. Additionally, as funding costs increase, some FinTech companies are being forced to consider partnerships with banks. Thus far, the digital banking push and the formal partnering of FinTech companies and banks are incremental in nature rather than reflective of a wholesale change in business models. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see whether community banks can adapt and effectively use technology and FinTech partnerships to compete and win retail deposit relationships in a meaningful way.How Can Community Banks Develop a FinTech Framework?Against this backdrop, I see four primary steps to developing a FinTech framework:Identify attractive FinTech niches such as deposits, payments, digital lending, wealth management, insurance, or efficiency (i.e., tech initiatives designed to reduce costs)Identify attractive FinTech companies in those nichesDevelop a business case for different strategies (estimate the Internal Rates of Returns and IRRs)Compare the different strategies and execute the optimal strategyWhat Are Some Immediate Steps that Banks Can Take Regarding FinTech?The things that banks can do right now to explore FinTech opportunities are:Get educated. There are an increasing number of events for community bankers incorporating FinTech into their agenda and we have a number of resources on the topic as wellBegin or continue to integrate FinTech into your strategic planDetermine what your customers want/need/expect in terms of digital offeringsSeek out FinTech partners that provide solutions and begin due diligence discussionsHow Mercer Capital Can HelpMercer Capital can help your bank craft a comprehensive value creation strategy that properly aligns your business, financial, and investor strategies. Given the growing importance of FinTech solutions to the banking sector, a sound value creation strategy needs to incorporate FinTech.We provide board/management retreats to educate you about the opportunities and challenges of FinTech for your institution. We can:Help your bank identify which FinTech niches may be most appropriate for your bank given your existing market opportunitiesHelp your bank identify which FinTech companies may offer the greatest potential as partners for your bankHelp provide assistance with valuations should your bank elect to consider investments or acquisitions of FinTech companiesWe are happy to help. Contact us at 901.685.2120 to discuss your needs. Originally published in Bank Watch, October 2018.

WHITEPAPER | How to Value an Early-Stage FinTech Company

Valuing a FinTech company can be a very complicated and difficult task; however, it carries significance for employees, investors, and stakeholders of the company. While FinTech companies have large differences, including niche (payments, solutions, technologies, etc.) and stage of development, understanding the value of a FinTech company is crucial to everyone with an interest in the company.

Takeaways from FinXTech 2018: The Rise of Bank and FinTech Partnerships

I recently attended FinXTech, an industry event where the hosts at Bank Director bring together FinTech founders and bank directors and executives for productive conversations about the road ahead as partners (and competitors).Those discussions occurred against a backdrop in which FinTech, as a concept to enhance the customer experience and to drive operating efficiencies, is widely accepted by bank management, shareholders, and regulators. How “FinTech” is implemented varies depending upon resources. As shown in the Table 1, there has been no surge of M&A in which banks buy FinTech companies. Only nine of 276 transactions announced since year-end 2016 entailed a bank or bank holding company acquirer. KeyCorp, which has been one of the nine active FinTech acquirers, announced in June 2018 that it would acquire digital lending technology for small businesses built by Chicago based FinTech company Bolstr. At best, activity can be described as episodic as it relates to bank acquisitions, which appears to be designed to supplement internal development.The very largest banks such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. are spending billions of dollars annually to upgrade technology—a level of spending that even super regional banks cannot match. In contrast, community and regional banks have been left scratching their heads about how to address FinTech-related issues when money is a constraining factor.During the FinXTech 2018, the focus shifted from the potential disruption of a bank’s franchise by FinTech to the potential to partner with FinTech companies, which stood out to me as a marked change from prior years.Both banks and FinTech companies realize that they need each other to some degree. For banks, FinTech offers the potential to leverage innovation and new technologies to meet customer expectations, enhance efficiency, and compete more effectively against the biggest banks. For FinTech companies, the benefits from bank partnerships can include the potential to leverage the bank’s customer relationships to scale more quickly, access to funding, and regulatory/compliance expertise. Several examples of successful partnerships between banks and FinTech companies were highlighted at the FinXTech event. (You can read more about some of them here.)The FinTech/Bank partnership theme also was evident in GreenSky’s recent IPO, a FinTech company based in Atlanta. GreenSky arranges loans primarily for home improvement projects. Bank partners pay GreenSky to generate and service the loans while the bank funds and holds the loans on their balance sheet. As more partnerships emerge, it will be interesting to see if FinTech impacts the valuation of banks that effectively leverage technology to achieve strategic objectives such as growing low-cost core deposits, opening new lending venues, and improving efficiency. One would think the answer will be “yes” if the impact can be measured and is meaningful.Another trend to look for will be whether smaller banks become more active as investors in FinTech companies. For the most part, investments by community and regional banks in FinTech companies remains sporadic at best even though FinTech companies raised nearly $16 billion of equity capital between year-end 2016 and June 2018 in both private and public offerings. An interesting transaction we observed was a $16 million Series A financing by Greenlight Financial Technology, Inc., a creator of smart debit cards, in which the investors included SunTrust Bank, Amazon Alexa Fund, and $619 million asset NBKC Bank, among others.FinXTech 2018 included several sessions related to due diligence for FinTech partnerships; however, with limited M&A and investing activity by banks there was little discussion about valuation issues, which can be challenging for FinTech companies and differs markedly from methods employed to value a bank.Not surprisingly, we have lots of thoughts on the subject.With the emerging partnership theme from FinXTech 2018 in mind, view our complimentary webinar “How to Value an Early-Stage FinTech Company.” Additionally, if you have questions, reach out to one of our professionals to discuss your needs in confidence.Originally published in Bank Watch, June 2018.

2018 Trends to Watch in the Banking Industry: Acquire or Be Acquired Conference Recap

For those readers unable to escape the cold to attend Bank Director’s Acquire or Be Acquired (AOBA) conference in Scottsdale, AZ, we reflect on the major themes: bank M&A and scarcity, tax reform and valuation, and FinTech. For those unfamiliar with the three-day event, over 1,000 bankers, directors, and advisors gather to discuss pertinent industry issues.Bank M&A and ScarcityThere are fewer than 5,500 banks today, which is roughly half from only 10 years ago when we first attended AOBA. This scarcity was top-of-mind for several panelists who noted variations on the same theme: Scarcity matters to both buyers and sellers as the number of banks dwindles at a rate of 3-4% per annum.Unlike the 1990s and even the pre-crisis years when a seller could expect multiple offers, banks that sell today often have just one or two legitimate suitors. In our view, this means that sellers need to think more strategically about their valuation today and prospectively if their most logical suitor(s) is acquired. Even if the logical acquirer is unlikely to be acquired, board planning for some institutions should consider the potential to strike a (cash) deal with a credit union. For buyers, scarcity may translate into less desirable banks in targeted markets. If so, scarcity may mean greater emphasis on expansion through lift-outs from other banks, or even a push into non-traditional bank acquisitions/investments such as wealth management that could serve as a nucleus around which traditional banking services are bolted. One key question to watch: Will scarcity impact the pace of consolidation and the valuation of transactions? The short answer is seemingly “yes,” but rising acquisition valuations over the past couple of years correspond to the rising value of acquirers’ publicly traded shares.Tax Reform and ValuationThe banking sector was revalued higher in the public markets following the November 2016 elections, reflecting four attributes that would favor banks: regulatory reform, tax reform, faster GDP growth, and therefore, higher interest rates. While the impact (thus far) of regulatory reform and higher interest rates is limited, passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 is a highly tangible benefit for banks and customers. With the stroke of a pen, ROE for many banks will rise to or above the institution’s cost of capital, returning to pre-financial crisis levels. However, tax reform is not a cure for strategic issues such as whether FinTech may radically disrupt the “core” in the deposit relationship between customers and their banks.One panelist summed up the debate by noting that management teams who achieve a 10-15% increase in earnings and ROE in 2018 from tax reform are not geniuses; rather, they are around to cash the check. The real winners, as it relates to tax reform, will be banks that leverage the enhanced cash flows to make optimal capital budgeting and strategic decisions. Bankers will have to allocate the additional earnings before some of it is competed away among investments in staff, technology and/or higher dividends, share repurchases and acquisitions. Perhaps in the ideal world, the incremental capital to be created would be used to support faster loan growth, but few at the conference indicated their institution had seen an increase in loan growth as a result of tax reform.A related theme that emerged in several sessions was the dichotomy in valuations between the “haves” and “have-nots” along key metrics such as size, profitability, core deposits, location, management team, and operating strategy/niche. This divergence could widen further following tax reform as the “haves” effectively take their higher cash flows and reinvest/deploy them more profitably than the “have-nots.” Ultimately, these strategic decisions and the trajectory of the bank’s performance will drive whether tax reform leads to sustainably higher bank valuations, likely varying case-by-case. For those interested, we discuss implications of tax reform for banks in greater detail here.FinTechWhile FinTech wasn’t even on the agenda when we first made the trip to Scottsdale for AOBA in the mid-2000s, it was all over this year’s schedule. One panelist humorously compared bankers’ reactions to FinTech with the “Seven Stages of Grief” noting that bankers seemed to have finally progressed beyond the early-stages of anger and denial toward the latter-stage of acceptance. Bankers are considering practical solutions to incorporate FinTech into their strategic plans. Sessions included panel discussions on the nuts and bolts of structuring FinTech partnerships and creating value through leveraging FinTech to enhance profitability. (For those interested in FinTech, learn more about our book on the topic.) Niches of FinTech that garnered particular attention included digital lending, payments (both consumer and business), blockchain, and artificial intelligence. AI in particular was top-of-mind, and one panel noted it as an area of FinTech offering strong potential for banks in the next few years.We look forward to discussing these three themes with clients in 2018 and monitoring how they evolve within the banking industry over the next few years. As always, Mercer Capital is available to discuss these trends as they relate to your bank – feel free to call or email.Originally published in Bank Watch, February 2018.

Emerging Community Bank M&A Trends in 2017

As summer came to an end, the U.S. was treated with a historic event as the first total solar eclipse crossed the country since 1918. The timing of the event had social media and news outlets buzzing in a traditionally sleepy news month. For many, the event exceeded all expectations; for others, it was a dud that didn’t live up to the hype. My personal experience was a bit of both. The minutes of darkened skies were definitely memorable, but things returned to normal quickly as the sun shone brightly only minutes after.Traditional M&A TrendsCommunity bank M&A trends also seem mixed. Rising regulatory burdens, weak margins from a historically low interest rate environment and heightened competition have crimped ROEs for years. Many pundits have predicted a rapid wave of consolidation and the demise of community banks in the years since the financial crisis. However, the pace of consolidation the last few years is consistent with the past three decades in which roughly 3-4% of the industry’s banks are absorbed through M&A yearly. The result is many fewer banks—5,787 at June 30 compared to about 15,000 in the mid-1980s when meaningful industry consolidation got underway.Somewhat surprisingly, the spike in bank stock prices following the November 2016 national elections did not cause M&A to accelerate. As would be expected, acquisition multiples increased in 2017 because publicly traded acquirers could “pay-up” with appreciated shares. As seen in the table on the next page, the median P/E and P/TBV multiples and the median core deposit premium increased for the latest twelve months (LTM) ended July 31, 2017 compared to the year ago LTM period. The ability of buyers—at least the publicly traded ones—to more easily meet sellers’ price expectations seemingly would lead more banks to sell. However, that has not happened as the pace of consolidation declined slightly to 132 transactions in the most recent LTM period compared to 140 in the year ago LTM time frame.FinTech’s Impact on M&AAnother emerging M&A trend is the presence of non-traditional bank acquirers, which include private investor groups, non-bank specialty lenders, and credit unions. While a FinTech company has not yet announced an acquisition of a U.S. bank this year, several FinTechs have announced they are applying for a bank charter (SoFi, VaroMoney), and in the U.K., Tandem has agreed to acquire Harrods Bank.So far, FinTech acquisitions of banks have been limited to a few acquisitions by online brokers and Green Dot Corporation’s acquisition of a bank in 2011. While FinTech companies have yet to emerge as active buyers, there have been some predictions that could change if regulatory hurdles can be navigated. Some FinTech companies are well-funded or have access to additional funding that could be tapped for a bank acquisition. In addition, an overlay of enhancing financial inclusion for the under-banked could mean bank transactions may not be as far-fetched as some may think.Beyond serving as potential acquirers, FinTech continues to emerge as an important piece of the community banking puzzle of how to engage customers through digital channels as the costly branch banking model sees usage decline year-after-year. Many FinTechs are eager to partner with banks to scale their operations for greater profitability, thereby better positioning themselves for a successful exit down the road.Consistent with this trend, we have also seen some acquirers (and analysts) comment on FinTech as a benefit of a transaction, as opposed to (or at least in addition to) the historical focus on geographic location, credit quality, asset size, and profitability. We will be watching to see if FinTech initiatives, whether internally developed or acquired, become a bigger driving force in bank M&A. If so, acquisitions of FinTech companies by traditional banks may increase (as discussed more fully in this article).As these trends grow in importance, buyers and sellers will have to grapple with unique valuation and transaction issues that require each to fully understand the value of the seller and the buyer, assuming a portion of the consideration consists of the buyer’s shares. Whether that buyer includes a traditional bank whose stock is private or a non-bank buyer, such as a specialty lender or FinTech company, we have significant valuation and transaction expertise to help your bank understand the deal landscape and the strategic options available to it.If we can be of assistance, give us a call to discuss your needs in confidence.This article originally appeared in Mercer Capital's Bank Watch, August 2017.

Webinar: How to Value an Early-Stage FinTech Company

Do you have a clear picture of your company’s value and do you know if you are creating value in your early-stage FinTech company? Hidden behind the veil of the private market, an early-stage FinTech company’s value can seem complex and obscure. In valuing a FinTech company, attention need be given to external factors such as unique industry dynamics and the regulatory environment as well as internal company factors such as risk exposure and shareholder preferences. Comparing to high-profile competitors is difficult, as reported values can be skewed if calculated from investors’ stock prices that omit layers of investment preferences. While a rule-of-thumb may be appealing, its simplicity does not adequately capture the company’s risk profile and growth potential. A clear picture of a company’s value offers notable opportunities for both entrepreneurs and investors. Measuring value creation over time is vital for planning purposes, and an awareness of valuation drivers can propel the company to higher growth. In addition, the knowledge gleaned from the valuation process provides insights and identifies key risk and growth opportunities that can improve the company’s strategic planning process–a process that might build to a successful liquidity event (sale or IPO) or the development of a stable company that can operate independently for a long time. Hosted by Jay D. Wilson Jr., CFA, ASA, CBA, this webinar identifies the key value drivers for an early-stage FinTech company for investors, entrepreneurs, and potential partners. A complimentary copy of Jay’s new book, Creating Strategic Value Through Financial Technology (MSRP $65), will be included with the registration fee of $79. TO REGISTER for this webinar, click here. About the Speaker:Jay D. Wilson Jr. heads Mercer Capital’s Financial Technology industry team and publishes research related to the FinTech industry in the bi-annual newsletter Value Focus: FinTech. Jay is also the author ofCreating Strategic Value Through Financial Technology(John Wiley & Sons, 2017).Mercer Capital's Financial Reporting BlogMercer Capital monitors the latest financial reporting news relevant to CFOs and financial managers. The Financial Reporting Blog is updated weekly. Follow us on Twitter at @MercerFairValue.

Creating Value at Your Community Bank Through Developing a FinTech Framework

This discussion is adapted from Section III of the new book Creating Strategic Value Through Financial Technology byJay D. Wilson, Jr., CFA, ASA, CBA. I enjoyed some interesting discussions between bankers, FinTech executives, and consultants at the FinXTech event in NYC in late April. One dominant theme at the event was a growing desire of both banks and FinTech companies to find ways to work together. Whether through partnerships or potential investments and acquisitions, both banks and FinTech companies are coming to the conclusion that they need each other. Banks control the majority of customer relationships, have a stark funding advantage and know how to navigate the maze of regulations, while FinTechs represent a means to achieve low-cost scaling of new and traditional bank services. So one key question emerging from these discussions is: Who will survive and thrive in the digital age? As one recent Tearsheet article that I was quoted in asked: Should fintech startups buy banks? Or as another article discussed: Will banks be able to compete against an army of Fintech startups?Build, Partner, or AcquireBanks face a conundrum of whether they should build their own FinTech applications, partner, or acquire. FinTech companies face similar questions, though the questions are viewed through the prism of customer acquisition rather than applications. Non-control investments of FinTech companies by banks represent a hybrid strategy. Regulatory hurdles limit the ability of FinTech companies to make anything more than a modest investment in banks absent bypassing voting common stock for non-voting common and/or convertible preferred.While these strategic decisions will vary from company to company, the stakes are incredibly high for all. We can help both sides navigate the decision process.As I noted in my recently published book, community banks collectively remain the largest lenders to both small business and agricultural businesses, and individually, they are often the lifeblood for economic development within their local communities. Yet the number of community banks declines each year through M&A, while some risk loosened deposit relationships as children who no longer reside in a community where the bank is located inherit the financial assets of deceased parents. FinTech can loosen those bonds further, or it can be used to strengthen relationships while providing a means to deliver services at a lower cost.Where to StartIn my view, it is increasingly important for bankers to develop a FinTech framework and be able to adequately assess potential returns from FinTech partnerships. Similar to other business endeavors, the difference between success and failure in the FinTech realm is often not found in the ideas themselves, but rather, in the execution.Banks face a conundrum of whether they should build their own FinTech applications, partner, or acquire.While a bank’s FinTech framework may evolve over time, it will be important to provide a strategic roadmap for the bank to optimize chances of success. Within this framework, there are a number of important steps:Determining which FinTech niche to pursue;Identifying potential FinTech companies/partners;Developing a business case for those potential partners and their solutions; andExecuting the chosen strategy. For a number of banks, the use of FinTech and other enhanced digital offerings represents a potential investment that uses capital but may be deemed to have more attractive returns than other traditional bank growth strategies. Community banks typically underperform their larger brethren (as measured by ROE and ROA) because fee income is lower and expenses are higher as measured by efficiency ratios. Both areas can be enhanced through deployment of a number of FinTech offerings/solutions.The Importance of a Detailed IRR AnalysisThe decision process for whether to build, partner, or acquire requires the bank to establish a rate of return threshold, which arguably may be higher than the institution’s base cost of capital given the risk that can be associated with FinTech investments. The range of returns for each strategy (build, partner, or acquire) for a targeted niche (such as payments or wealth management) provides a framework to help answer the question how to proceed just as is the case with the question of how to deploy capital for organic growth, acquisitions, and shareholder distributions. The same applies for FinTech companies, though often the decision is in the context of whether to accept dilutive equity capital.A detailed analysis, including an IRR analysis, helps a bank determine the financial impact of each strategic decision and informs the optimal course.While each option presents a unique set of considerations and execution issues/risks, a detailed analysis, including an IRR analysis, helps a bank determine the financial impact of each strategic decision and informs the optimal course. A detailed analysis also allows the bank to compare its FinTech strategy to the bank’s more traditional growth strategies, strategic plan, and cost of capital. See the table to the right for an example of a traditional community bank compared to a bank who has partnered with a FinTech company.Questions Regarding PartneringBeyond the strategic decisions and return analyses, some additional questions remain for community banks that consider FinTech partners, including:Is the bank comfortable with the FinTech company’s risk profile?What will the regulatory reaction be?Who will maintain the primary relationship with the customer?Is the FinTech partnership consistent with the bank’s long-term strategic plan (a key topic noted in the OCC’s whitepaper on supporting innovation)?Questions Regarding AcquiringShould the community bank ultimately decide to invest in a FinTech partner a number of other key questions emerge, such as:What is the valuation of the FinTech company?How should the investment be structured?What preferences or terms should be included in the shares purchased from the FinTech company?Should the bank obtain board seats or some control over the direction of the FinTech Company’s operations?How Mercer Capital Can HelpTo help both banks and FinTech companies execute their optimal strategies and create maximum value for their shareholders, we have a number of solutions here at Mercer Capital. We have a book that provides greater detail on the history and outlook for the FinTech industry, as well as containing targeted information to help bankers answer some of the key questions discussed here.Mercer Capital has a long history of working with banks. We are aware of the challenges facing community banks. With ROEs for the majority below 10% and their cost of capital, it has become increasingly difficult for many banks to deliver adequate returns to shareholders even though credit costs today, are low. Being both a great company that delivers benefits to your local community, as well as one that delivers strong returns to shareholders is a difficult challenge. Confronting the challenge requires a solid mix of the right strategy as well as the right team to execute that strategy.No one understands community banks and FinTech as well as Mercer Capital.Mercer Capital can help your bank craft a comprehensive value creation strategy that properly aligns your business, financial, and investor strategy. Given the growing importance of FinTech solutions to the banking sector, a sound value creation strategy needs to incorporate FinTech into it and Mercer Capital can help.We provide board/management retreats to educate you about the opportunities and challenges of FinTech for your institution.We can identify which FinTech niches may be most appropriate for your bank given your existing market opportunities.We can identify which FinTech companies may offer the greatest potential as partners for your bank.We can provide assistance with valuations should your bank elect to consider investments or acquisitions of FinTech companies. No one understands community banks and FinTech as well as Mercer Capital. We are happy to help. Contact me to discuss your needs. This article first appeared in Mercer Capital's Bank Watch, June 2017.

Strategic Benefits of Stress Testing

“Every decade or so, dark clouds will fill the economic skies, and they will briefly rain gold. When downpours of that sort occur, it’s imperative that we rush outdoors carrying washtubs, not teaspoons. And that we will do.”– Warren Buffett, Berkshire 2017 Annual Shareholder Letter While the potential regulatory benefits are notable, stress testing should be viewed as more than just a regulatory check-the-box exercise. The process of stress testing can help bankers find silver (or gold in Warren’s case) linings during the next downturn.What Stress Testing Can Do For Your BankAs we have noted before, a bank stress test can be seen as analogous to stress tests performed by cardiologists to determine the health of a patient’s heart. Bank stress tests provide a variety of benefits that could serve to ultimately improve the health of the bank and avoid fatal consequences. Strategic benefits of a robust stress test are not confined merely to the results and structure of the test. A robust stress test can help bank management make better decisions in order to enhance performance during downturns. A bank that has a sound understanding of its potential risks in different market environments can improve its decision making, manage risk appropriately, and have a plan of action ready for when economic winds shift from tailwinds to headwinds.By improving risk management and capital planning through more robust stress testing, management can enhance performance of the bank, improve valuation, and provide better returns to shareholders. For example, a stronger bank may determine that it has sufficient capital to withstand extremely stressed scenarios and thus can have a game plan for taking market share and pursuing acquisitions or buybacks during dips in the economic, valuation, and credit cycle. Alternatively, a weaker bank may determine that considering a sale or capital raise during a peak in the cycle is the optimal path forward. If the weaker bank elects to raise capital, a stress test will help to assess how much capital may be needed to survive and thrive during a severe economic environment. Beyond the strategic benefits, estimating loan losses embedded within a sound stress test can also provide a bank with a head start on the pending shift in loan loss reserve accounting from the current “incurred loss” model to the more forward-looking approach proposed in FASB’s CECL (Current Expected Credit Loss) model.Top Down Stress TestingIn order to have a better understanding of the stress testing process, consider a hypothetical “top-down” portfolio-level stress test. While not prescriptive in regards to the particular stress testing methods, OCC Supervisory Guidance noted, “For most community banks, a simple, stressed loss-rate analysis based on call report categories may provide an acceptable foundation to determine if additional analysis is necessary.” The basic steps of a top-down stress test include determining the appropriate economic scenarios, segmenting the loan portfolio and estimating losses, estimating the impact of stress on earnings, and estimating the stress on capital.While the first step of determining a stressed scenario to consider varies depending upon a variety of factors, one way to determine your bank’s stressed economic scenario could be to consider the supervisory scenarios announced by the Federal Reserve in February 2017. While the more global economic conditions detailed in the supervisory scenarios may not be applicable to community banks, certain detail related to domestic variables within the scenarios could be useful when determining the economic scenarios to model at your bank. The domestic variables include six measures of real economic activity and inflation, six measures of interest rates, and four measures of asset prices.The 2017 severely adverse scenario includes a severe global recession, accompanied by heightened corporate financial stress (real GDP contraction, rising unemployment, and declining asset values). Some have characterized the 2017 “severe” scenario as less severe than the 2016 scenario (given a relatively higher disposable income growth forecast and a lack of negative short-term yields, which were included in the 2016 economic scenarios). However, CRE prices were forecast to decline more in the 2017 scenario, and those banks more focused on CRE or corporate lending may find the 2017 scenarios more negatively impact their capital and earnings forecasts.For community banks facing more unique risks that are under greater regulatory scrutiny, such as those with significant concentrations in commercial real estate lending or a business model concentrated in particular niche segments, a top-down stress test can serve as a starting point to build their stress testing process. The current environment may be an opportune time for these banks to plan ahead.While credit concerns in recent quarters have been minimal and provisions and non-performing asset levels have trended lower for the banking sector as a whole, certain loan segments have shown some signs that the credit pendulum may have reached its apex and reversed course by swinging back in the other direction. REITs were net sellers of property in 2016 for the first time since 2009, and a rising rate environment could pressure capitalization rates higher and underlying commercial real estate asset values lower. Furthermore, banks with longer duration fixed rate loans could face a combination of margin pressure and credit quality concerns as rates rise.ConclusionRegulatory guidance suggests a wide range of effective stress testing methods depending on the bank’s complexity and portfolio risk–ranging from “top-down” to “bottom-up” stress testing. The guidance also notes that stress testing can be applied at various levels of the organization including transactional level stress testing, portfolio level stress testing, enterprise-wide level stress testing, and reverse stress testing.We acknowledge that community bank stress testing can be a complex exercise as it requires the bank to essentially perform the role of both doctor and patient. For example, the bank must administer the test, determine and analyze the outputs of its performance, and provide support for key assumptions/results. There is also a variety of potential stress testing methods and economic scenarios for a bank to consider when setting up their test. In addition, the qualitative, written support for the test and its results is often as important as the results themselves. For all of these reasons, it is important that bank management begin building their stress testing expertise sooner rather than later.In order to assist community bankers with this complex and often time-consuming exercise, we offer several solutions, including preparing custom stress tests or reviewing ones prepared by banks internally, to make the process as efficient and valuable for the bank as possible.To discuss your stress testing needs in confidence, please do not hesitate to contact us. For more information about stress testing, click here.This article originally appeared in Mercer Capital's Bank Watch, March 2017.

Are Robo-Advisors on Any Banker’s Wish List?

Christmas appears to have come early for some bankers and their investors with the SNL Bank index up over 30% from the November 8, 2016 election to mid-December. While optimism abounds, one inconvenient truth remains for the time being: ROEs for the banking industry as a whole remain below pre-financial crisis levels despite credit costs that are below most historical standards. The factors challenging ROEs for the sector are numerous but include: compressed net interest margins from a historically low rate environment, enhanced competition from non-banks, a challenging regulatory and compliance environment, and evolving consumer preferences regarding the delivery of financial services.These factors are particularly acute for most community banks that depend heavily on spread income and do not have the scale to absorb expense pressures as easily as their larger brethren. Further, many community banks are at a crossroad because their ROE consistently has fallen below the cost of capital, which in turn is forcing boards to consider strategic options like outright sales or potentially risky acquisition strategies to obtain scale.In an ideal world, community banks could easily add fee businesses that are capital-light, such as wealth management and trust operations, to boost returns. By pairing traditional banking services with other financial services like wealth management, banks can obtain more touch points for customer relationships, enhance revenue, and potentially improve the bank’s valuation. While we have previously spoken about the potential benefits to community banks of acquiring or building out a traditional wealth management operation, we have not addressed emerging FinTech companies, like robo-advisors, that are focused on the wealth management space.While there has been a race to partner and/or acquire robo-advisors by many of the larger asset managers and banks, there have also been some interesting partnerships with community banks. One such partnership struck is among Cambridge Savings Bank, a $3.5 billion bank located near Boston, and SigFig, a robo-advisor founded in 2007. While SigFig has relationships with UBS and Wells Fargo, its partnership with Cambridge Savings is notable because the two built a service called “ConnectInvest.“ When announced in the spring of 2016, the partnership was described as the “first automated investment service integrated and bundled directly into a retail bank’s product offerings in the U.S.” ConnectInvest, which is available to Cambridge’s customers digitally (mobile and website), “allows customers to easily open, fund, and manage an automated investment account tailored to their goals.” Cambridge’s customers are interested in the offering and have started using it. The goal is get up to 10% of its customer base using ConnectInvest.With this example in mind, the remainder of this article offers an overview of the robo-advisory space for our community bank readers so that they may gain a better understanding of the key players and their service offerings and assess whether their bank could benefit from leveraging opportunities in this area.An Overview of Robo-AdvisorsRobo-advisors were noted by the CFA Institute as the FinTech innovation most likely to have the greatest impact on the financial services industry in the short-term (one year) and medium-term (five years). Robo-advisory has gained traction in the past several years as a niche within the FinTech industry by offering online wealth management tools powered by sophisticated algorithms that can help investors manage their portfolios at very low costs and with minimal need for human contact or advice. Technological advances that make the business model possible, coupled with a loss of consumer trust in the wealth management industry in the wake of the financial crisis, have created a favorable environment for robo-advisory startups to disrupt financial advisories, RIAs, and wealth managers. This growth is forcing traditional incumbents to confront the new entrants by adding the service via acquisition or partnership rather than dismiss it as a passing fad.Robo-advisors have been successful for a number of reasons, though like many digital products low-cost, convenience, and transparency are common attributes.Low Cost. Automated, algorithm-driven decision-making greatly lowers the cost of financial advice and portfolio management.Accessible. As a result of the lowered cost of financial advice, advanced investment strategies are more accessible to a wider customer base.Personalized Strategies. Sophisticated algorithms and computer systems create personalized investment strategies that are highly tailored to the specific needs of individual investors.Transparent. Through online platforms and mobile apps, clients are able to view information about their portfolios and enjoy visibility in regard to the way their money is being managed.Convenient. Portfolio information and management becomes available on-demand through online platforms and mobile apps. Consistent with the rise in consumer demand for robo-advisory, investor interest has grown steadily. While robo-advisory has not drawn the levels of investment seen in other niches (such as online lending platforms), venture capital funding of robo-advisories has skyrocketed from almost non-existent levels ten years ago to hundreds of millions of dollars invested annually the last few years. 2016 saw several notable rounds of investment into not only some of the industry’s largest and most mature players (including rounds of $100 million for Betterment and $75 million for Personal Capital), but also for innovative startups just getting off the ground (such as SigFig and Vestmark). The table below provides an overview of the fee schedules, assets under management and account opening minimums for several of the larger robo-advisors. The robo-advisors are separated into three tiers. Tier I consists of early robo-advisory firms who have positioned themselves at the top of the industry. Tier II consists of more recent robo-advisory startups that are experiencing rapid growth and are ripe for partnership. Tier III consists of robo-advisory services of traditional players who have decided to build and run their own technology in-house. As shown, account opening sizes and fee schedules are lower than many traditional wealth management firms. The strategic challenge for a number of the FinTech startups in Tiers I and II is generating enough AUM and scale to produce revenue sufficient to maintain the significantly lower fee schedules. This can be challenging since the cost to acquire a new customer can be significant and each of these startups has required significant venture capital funding to develop. For example, each of these companies has raised over $100 million of venture capital funding since inception. Key Potential Effects of Robo-AdvisoryWe see five potential effects of robo-advisors entering the financial services landscape.Fee pressure. Robo-advisors may be a niche area for the time being, but the emergence and success of a technology-driven solution that challenges an age-old business (wealth management) epitomizes what has long been associated with internet (and digital) delivery of services: faster, better, and cheaper.The Democratization of Wealth Management. As a result of the low costs of robo-advisory services, new investors have been able to gain access to sophisticated investment strategies that, in the past, have only been available to high net worth, accredited investors.Holistic Financial Life Management. As more people have access to financial advice through robo-advisors, traditional financial advisors are being forced to move away from return-driven goals for clients and pivot towards offering a more complete picture of a client’s financial well-being as clients save for milestones such as retirement, a child’s education, and a new house. This phenomenon has increased the differentiation pressure on traditional financial advisors and RIAs, as robo-advisors can offer a holistic snapshot in a manner that is comprehensive and easy to understandDrivers of the Changing Role of the Traditional Financial Advisor. The potential shift away from return-driven goals could leave the role of the traditional financial advisor in limbo. This raises the question of what traditional wealth managers will look like going forward. One potential answer is traditional financial advisors will tackle more complex issues, such as tax and estate planning, and leave the more programmed decision-making to robo-advisors.Build, Buy, Partner, or Wait and See. As the role of the financial advisor changes, traditional incumbents like community banks are faced with determining what they want their relationship with robo-advisory to look like. In short, incumbents are left with four options: build their own robo-advisory in-house, buy a startup and adopt its technology, create a strategic partnership with a startup, or stay in a holding pattern in regard to robo-advisory and continue business as usual. Robo-advisory is an exciting development for wealth managers and offers opportunities potentially for bankers to expand or develop their offerings in this area. Similar to any other growth strategy, the goal will ultimately be for the bank to enhance profitability and shareholder value by adding desired customer services. For those bankers who may want to add a robo-advisor to their wish list, the key question of whether to build, buy, or partner is a challenging one. We will be speaking at the annual Acquire or Be Acquired (AOBA) conference in January on the topic of how to develop a framework to better assess this question. Additionally, for those who may go the investment route via a minority investment or outright acquisition, we offer some perspective on how to value and structure investments in FinTech companies like robo-advisors. Given the vast array of FinTech companies emerging in different areas of financial services, it will be important for bankers to develop a framework for both assessing potential opportunities and focusing in on those that provide the greatest potential to enhance profitability and shareholder value. We will post our slide deck from our AOBA session and make it accessible to BankWatch readers in the first quarter of 2017, so stay tuned. Additionally, we have a new book coming in the spring of 2017 – Creating Strategic Value Through Financial Technology. In this book, we illustrate the potential benefits of FinTech to banks, both large and small, so that they can gain a better understanding of FinTech and how it can create value for their shareholders and enhance the health and profitability of their institutions. As always, please do not hesitate to contact us if we can help in any way. This article originally appeared in Mercer Capital's Bank Watch, January 2017.

The Rise of Robo-Advisors

Part 2

As the second part to last week’s blogpost, the following section from Jay Wilson’s forthcoming book on FinTech describes ways to think about the valuation of robo-advisors, including some real world examples of technology based investment management platforms that transacted.Build, Buy, Partner, or Wait and SeePerhaps even more so than other FinTech industry niches, robo-advisory is well positioned for mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships. As mentioned earlier, traditional incumbents are being forced to determine what they want their future relationship with robo-advisors to look like as the role of the financial advisor changes. This quandary leaves incumbents with four options: attempt to build their own robo-advisory platform in-house; buy out a startup and incorporate its technology into their investment strategies; create a business-to-business partnership with a startup; or sit out the robo-advisory wave and continue to operate as usual.Of these options, we are seeing a rise in incumbents acquiring robo-advisory expertise. Large firms that have followed this strategy include Invesco’s acquisition of Jemstep, Goldman Sachs’ acquisition of Honest Dollar, BlackRock’s Acquisition of Future Advisor, and Ally’s acquisition of TradeKing.Other incumbents have elected to be more direct and build their own robo-advisory services in-house. Schwab’s Intelligent Portfolio service launched in March 2015 and was on the leading edge of traditional players building and offering their own robo-advisory services. Two months later, Vanguard launched its internally built robo-advisor, named Personal Advisor, which has already become quite large and manages $31 billion in assets. Furthermore, Morgan Stanley, TD Ameritrade, and Fidelity have all announced plans to release their own homegrown robo-advisories in the future.The partnership strategy has also popped up among traditional incumbents. Partnerships allow traditional incumbents to gain access to a broader array of products to offer their customers without acquiring a robo-advisor. In May 2016, UBS’ Wealth Management Americas group announced a major partnership with startup SigFig in which SigFig will design and customize digital tools for UBS advisors to offer their clients. In exchange, UBS made an equity investment in SigFig, showing the confidence UBS has in SigFig’s ability to create an innovative platform. Also, FutureAdvisor, operating under the auspices of Blackrock, announced partnerships with RBC, BBVA Compass, and LPL in 2016 to offer these institutions’ clients more affordable and automated investment advice, as the institutions continue to explore the idea of building their own robo-advisory service. Personal Capital, a robo-advisor started in 2009, announced a partnership with AlliancePartners to offer its digital wealth management platform to approximately 200 community banks. As seen in the actions of these incumbents, partnering with a startup is becoming an increasingly attractive option, as it allows the incumbent to give robo-advisory a test drive without wholly committing to the idea yet.Lastly, we have also seen traditional incumbents elect to ignore the robo-advisory trend altogether. Raymond James indicated that they would not be offering or launching a robo-advisory platform to compete with its advisors. Raymond James noted that their core business is serving financial advisors and a robo-advisory solution that offers wealth management solutions directly to consumers does not fit their business model. They did indicate that they are looking to expand technology and other services to help their investment advisors but noted that robo-advisory is not a solution that they plan to launch presently.Thus, there are a number of strategic options with varying degrees of commitment by which traditional incumbents can either enter the robo-advisory field, or elect to stay on the sideline near-term. The question of whether to build, buy, partner, or wait and see will become increasingly asked and may extend from large incumbents to smaller RIAs, banks, and wealth managers as robo-advisories continue to pop up across the financial landscape and consumers increasingly desire these products.For those financial institutions considering strategic options as it relates to robo-advisory, we take a closer look at two of the announced robo-advisory transactions–BlackRock/Future Advisor and Ally/TradeKing–in greater detail.BlackRock’s Acquisition of Future Advisor1Blackrock’s acquisition of robo-advisory startup FutureAdvisor for an undisclosed amount in August 2015 is perhaps the most notable example of a robo-advisor acquisition strategy. The acquisition showed the increased staying power of robo-advisors, as Blackrock is the world’s largest asset manager. FutureAdvisor provides investors with a low cost index investing service that diversifies their portfolio in a personalized and holistic manner based on the individual investor’s age, needs, and risk tolerance. A series of algorithms automatically rebalance investors’ accounts, constantly look for tax savings and manage multiple accounts for investors. Assets are held by Fidelity or TD Ameritrade in the investor’s name, to assuage investors’ fears concerning safety and accessibility of funds.FutureAdvisor was founded by Jon Xu and Bo Lu, former Microsoft employees, in early 2010. Significant funding rounds included a first round of seed funding ($1M in early 2010), another seed funding round and a $5 million Series A issue in 2012 and a Series B issue of $15.5 million in 2014. As previously noted, following Blackrock’s acquisition announcement in August 2015, FutureAdvisor announced several significant partnerships (BBVA Compass, RBC, and LPL) to offer low cost investment advice to each entities clients.Bo-Lu, a co-founder of Future Advisor, referred to the acquisition as a “watershed moment, not just as an entity but for the broader financial services industry as a whole.” To better understand the mindset of Blackrock, consider two quotes from members of Blackrock.“Over the next several years, no matter what you think about digital advice, you would be pressed to argue that it won’t be more popular versus less popular five to ten years from now” – Rob Goldstein, Head of Blackrock’s Tech Division2 “More Americans are responsible for investing for the important life goals, whether that is retirement, education, etc. We think that a broad cross section of that market may be slightly under-served. We believe that is the mass-affluent or those who don’t want to seek out a traditional advice model.” - Frank Porcelli, head of BlackRock’s U.S. Wealth Advisory business3The acquisition confirmed the increased staying power of automated investment advice. Blackrock is the world’s largest asset manager and the acquisition of FutureAdvisor signaled Blackrock’s intent to stay ahead of the robo-advisory curve. In addition, FutureAdvisor’s partnership with LPL, BBVA Compass, and RBC prompted other banks to follow suit, including UBS’ partnership with FinTech startup SigFig and Morgan Stanley’s effort to build its own robo-advisor.After the acquisition, FutureAdvisor was able to evolve into a “startup within a huge company,” according to founder Jon Xu. The company still held on to the creative culture and environment of a tech startup, but now has the resources and tools of asset management giant Blackrock at its disposal.The acquisition also reinforced the trend towards a model based on convenience for the consumer rooted in the automated processes. The evolution of financial advising and wealth management will hinge on whether or not the knowledge and personal attention of a human can add enough value to outweigh the benefits of convenience fostered by automation.Ally’s Acquisition of TradeKing4In April 2016, Ally Financial Inc., a bank holding company that provides a variety of financial services including auto financing, corporate financing, and insurance, announced an acquisition of TradeKing for a total purchase price of $275 million. TradeKing is a discount online brokerage firm that provides trading tools to self-directed investors. TradeKing initially offered some of the lowest cost stock trade commissions (at ~$5 share on equity trades) and was also one of the earlier online brokers to integrate social networking and an online community where customers could discuss trading analysis and strategies. Interestingly, Ally noted that it was not interested in offering traditional advisor led investment services but it was interested in digital offerings such as robo-advisors and robo-advisory was cited as a primary consideration for Ally’s interest in TradeKing. In 2014, TradeKing formed TradeKing Advisors, which offers robo-advisory services for a minimum investment of $500.The acquisition reflected creative thinking in the banking industry as bank M&A is typically primarily about cost savings and secondarily about expansion into new markets. Revenue synergies are touted periodically in bank acquisitions but they tend to be secondary considerations for investors and bank managers/directors. The TradeKing acquisition represents a shift in this mindset as the potential benefits from the transaction will largely be in the form of revenue synergies as Ally leverages TradeKing’s brokerage platform and attempts to achieve greater revenues by offering trading and wealth management services to its existing customer base. Convenience for Ally’s customers was clearly top of mind as evidenced by the following quotes from the CEO of both TradeKing and Ally around the time of announcement:“Banking and brokerage should be together so you can save and invest—and easily move money between the two.” Don Montonaro, CEO TradeKing5 “We have a good composition of customers across all demographic segments, from affluent boomers to millennials… Our customers have been happy with our deposit products, but are asking for more from the online bank.”– Diane Morais, Ally Bank, CEO6End Notes1Sources: Financialadvising.com, “Jon Xu Interview”; Forbes.com, “BlackRock To Buy FutureAdvisor, Signaling Robo-Advice Is Here To Stay.”; Financial-planning.com, “FutureAdvisor co-founder: Risk, robos and 'hyperpersonalization.” 2Samantha Sharf, “BlackRock To Buy FutureAdvisor, Signaling Robo-Advice Is Here To Stay,” Forbes, August 26 2015. 3Ibid. 4Sources for Case Study: Techcrunch; S&P Global Market Intelligence; Various articles including: “Ally, Fidelity to Launch Robo-Advisory Services by Theresa W. Carey on Digital Investor; TradeKing Website; and Bloomberg Business. 5Theresa W. Carey, “Ally, Fidelity to Launch Robo-Advisory Services,” Barron’s, April 23, 2016. 6Ibid.

The Rise of Robo-Advisors

Part 1

Despite the potential for FinTech innovation within wealth management, significant uncertainty still exists regarding whether these innovations will displace traditional wealth management business models. In this two part blogpost, excerpted from colleague, Jay Wilson's, new book on FinTech forthcoming from Wiley in early 2017, we look at the potential of Robo-Advisors and offer some thoughts on valuation. Robo-advisory has the potential to significantly impact traditional wealth management. It represents a FinTech niche that is similar to the transition from full-service traditional brokers to discount online brokers. Robo-advisors were noted by the CFA Institute as the FinTech innovation most likely to have the greatest impact on the financial services industry in the short-term (one year) and medium-term (five years). Robo-advisory has gained traction in the past several years as a niche within the FinTech industry offering online wealth management tools powered by sophisticated algorithms that can help investors manage their portfolios at low costs and with minimal need for human contact or advice. Technological advances making this business model possible, coupled with a loss of consumer trust in the wealth management industry in the wake of the financial crisis, have created a favorable environment for the growth of robo-advisory startups meant to disrupt financial advisories, RIAs, and wealth managers. This growth is forcing traditional incumbents to explore their treatment of the robo-advisory model in an effort to determine their response to the disruption of the industry. While there are a number of reasons for the success of robo-advisors attracting and retaining clients thus far, we highlight a few primary reasons.Low Cost. Automated, algorithm-driven decision-making greatly lowers the cost of financial advice and portfolio management.Accessible. As a result of the lowered cost of financial advice, advanced investment strategies are more accessible to a wider customer base.Personalized Strategies. Sophisticated algorithms and computer systems create personalized investment strategies that are highly tailored to the specific needs of individual investors.Transparent. Through online platforms and mobile apps, clients are able to view information about their portfolios and enjoy visibility in regard to the way their money in being managed.Convenient. Portfolio information and management becomes available on-demand through online platforms and mobile apps. Consistent with the rise in consumer demand for robo-advisory, investor interest has grown steadily. While robo-advisory has not drawn the levels of investment seen in other niches (such as online lending platforms), venture capital funding of robo-advisories has skyrocketed from almost non-existent levels ten years ago to hundreds of millions of dollars invested annually the last few years. 2016 saw several notable rounds of investment into not only some of the industry’s largest and most mature players (including rounds of $100 million for Betterment and $75 million for Personal Capital), but also for innovative startups just getting off the ground (such as SigFig and Vestmark). The exhibit below provides an overview of the fee schedules, assets under management and account opening minimums for several of the larger robo-advisors. The robo-advisors are separated into three tiers. Tier I consists of early robo-advisory firms who have positioned themselves at the top of the industry. Tier II consists of more recent robo-advisory startups that are experiencing rapid growth and are ripe for partnership. Tier III consists of robo-advisory services of traditional players who have decided to build and run their own technology in-house. As shown, account opening sizes and fee schedules are lower than many traditional wealth management firms. The strategic challenge for a number of the FinTech startups in Tiers 1 and II is generating enough AUM and scale to produce revenue sufficient to maintain the significantly lower fee schedules. This can be challenging since the cost to acquire a new customer can be significant and each of these startups has required significant venture capital funding to develop. For example, each of these companies has raised over $100 million of venture capital funding since inception. Key Potential Effects of Robo-AdvisoryWe see four potential effects of robo-advisors entering the financial services landscape.The Democratization of Wealth Management. As a result of the low costs of robo-advisory services, new investors have been able to gain access to sophisticated investment strategies that, in the past, have only been available to high net worth, accredited investors.Holistic Financial Life Management. As more people have access to financial advice through robo-advisors, traditional financial advisors are being forced to move away from return-driven goals for clients and pivot towards offering a more complete picture of a client’s financial well-being as clients save for milestones such as retirement, a child’s education, and a new house. This phenomenon has increased the differentiation pressure on traditional financial advisors and RIAs, as robo-advisors can offer a holistic snapshot in a manner that is comprehensive and easy to understandDrivers of the Changing Role of the Traditional Financial Advisor. The potential shift away from return-driven goals could leave the role of the traditional financial advisor in limbo. This raises the question of what traditional wealth managers will look like going forward. One potential answer is traditional financial advisors will tackle more complex issues, such as tax and estate planning, and leave the more programmed decision-making to robo-advisors.Build, Buy, Partner, or Wait and See. As the role of the financial advisor changes, traditional incumbents are faced with determining what they want their relationship with robo-advisory to look like. In short, incumbents are left with four options: build their own robo-advisory in-house, buy a startup and adopt its technology, create a strategic partnership with a startup, or stay in a holding pattern in regard to robo-advisory and continue business as usual. We discuss each option in more depth in the following section. The debate about the impact of technology on wealth management has moved on to considerations about how best to respond. In the second part of this post, we pick up on this last thought about strategies to capitalize on FinTech in the investment management industry, and include a couple of case studies for how it has been done.

Three Reasons to Consider a Valuation of Your FinTech Company

“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”– Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray The above quote seems especially apt in the FinTech industry because the implied values of high-profile, private FinTech companies are often mistakenly reported by the media based on the share price paid by investors in a recently completed funding round. The problem with applying the pricing of the most recent raise to all shares is that the media rarely knows about investor preferences attributable to each funding. As a result, the value of the company is most likely overstated. Capital structures and shareholder preferences matter. Pari passu is not a given although it is often implicitly implied in media reports. Consider the following example. Investors in a late-stage funding invest $100 million in return for 100,000 convertible preferred shares that represent 10% of the company’s post-raise fully diluted shares. The investors also get certain economic, control rights and other preferences with their preferred shares that earlier investors did not obtain. The headline notes that a new FinTech Unicorn has arrived because the implied value is $1 billion based upon the $100 million investment for the 10% interest; however, this simple calculation typically will overstate the Company’s value because the majority of the shares do not have the same rights and preferences as those purchased in the most recent financing round. Valuing companies with limited if any operating history that involves a new technology is inherently difficult. The challenge increases when the subject has a complex capital structure. Nevertheless, valuations—whether reasonable or unreasonable—have very real economic consequences for investors, employees and other stakeholders, especially when new capital is injected into the equation. We are biased, but we believe private FinTech companies will be well served over the long-run to obtain periodic valuations from independent third parties. Reasons to do so include the following.1. To Measure Value Creation Over TimeOne of the best performance scorecard metrics to measure is value creation over extended time periods. For public companies, it is a simple process. Measure a company’s total return (percentage change in share price plus the return from reinvested dividends) and compare it to other benchmark measures such as the broader market, industry, and/or peers. For example, a publicly traded payments company whose shareholders have achieved a one-year total return of 10.0% can note on their scorecard that their performance has outpaced the returns from the S&P 500 and Mercer Capital’s FinTech Payments Index, which rose 4.0% and 4.6%, respectively, in the twelve months ended June 30, 2016.For private companies, annual or more frequent valuations have to be obtained to create a realistic scorecard. Rules-of-thumb exist in every industry, but they are at best approximations and often haphazard guesses that do not take into account the key value drivers of earning power (or cash flow generation), growth, and risk. Some privately held financial services companies like banks may be able to proxy value creation without annual valuations by tracking growth in book value, ROE, and dividend payments, but even for homogenous entities such as banks these metrics say nothing about an institution’s risk profile. FinTech companies with little homogeneity among business models are poorly suited to measure value based upon rules-of-thumbs that are applied to revenues or even EBITDA. Every company is unique, and markets in which companies are valued are not static.Also, there may be a tendency to overlook balance sheets beyond cash because FinTech balance sheets typically do not “drive” earning power as intangible assets, such as customer databases, intellectual property, patents, and the like, are not recorded unless there has been an acquisition. While understandable, ignoring the balance sheet can be a mistake because sometimes there are aspects to it that will impact value.Additionally, dividends (the other element of shareholder return) and dividend paying capacity should be an important value consideration, even though FinTech companies often do not or cannot pay dividends in order to reinvest internally generated capital to fund future growth. Another benefit of the valuation process might be insight that suggests the board should shift to distributions from reinvestment because incremental returns are too low to justify.It is advisable for private FinTech companies to measure value creation by having annual or more frequent valuations performed by an outside third-party. For example, consider Table 1 for Private FinTech Company that tracks returns to shareholders based upon changes in the appraised value of the shares and dividends paid over a three-year period. While the hypothetical 45% total return outwardly appears attractive, there is no context. Comparisons with publicly traded FinTech companies, broad industry indexes and realized returns following an acquisition for public and private companies will provide further relevance to the scorecard (Chart 1).2. For Planning PurposesProjections for an early-stage FinTech company are a given. In theory so too are rising valuations as important milestones, such as targeted market penetration, users, revenues, and EBITDA, are met. Unless the company does not require significant capital and/or internal capital generation is sufficient, the projections should incorporate additional capital raises and expected dilution based upon implicit valuations. On a go forward basis periodic valuations can be overlaid with the initial and any refreshed forecasts to measure how the company is progressing in terms of value creation relative to plan and to alternatives (e.g., a strategy pivot to a collaborative partnership from disruptor). The key is to measure and compare in order to have a contextual perspective to facilitate decision making.3. For Employee Ownership PlansFinTech companies usually attract talent by offering stock ownership so that employees share in the upside should the company’s valuation improve over time. Plus, stock-based compensation lessens a company’s cash needs all else equal. Complex capital structures with private equity investors that have preferences vis-a-vie employees create another potential valuation wrinkle. Returns to the two groups usually will differ. Well documented, periodic valuations are critical. There have been examples where employees have lost money by paying taxes based upon valuations higher than the company realized in a sale. While downside exposure to a company’s faltering performance and/or market conditions is the risk that comes with the potential upside of equity ownership, it is important to have a formalized valuation process to demonstrate compliance with tax and financial reporting regulations. Certainly, scrutiny from auditors, the SEC, and/or the IRS are likely at some point, but very real tax issues also can result from poorly structured or administered equity compensation plans for employees.ConclusionIf you are interested in discussing the valuation needs for your FinTech company, please contact us. Depending upon how it is defined FinTech is a relatively new industry “vertical.” Mercer Capital has been providing valuation and transaction advisory services to a wide swath of financial services companies for over 30 years that runs the gamut from banks to FinTech. Financials are our largest practice vertical. We have a deep bench and would be delighted to assist.This article originally appeared in the Second Quarter 2016 issue of Mercer Capital's Value Focus: FinTech newsletter.Learn More

WHITEPAPER | Community Bank Stress Testing

Despite the lack of legal requirements for community banks to perform stress tests, recent regulatory commentary suggests that community banks should develop and implement some form of stress testing on at least an annual basis.While not prescriptive in regards to the particular stress testing methods, the guidance suggests a wide range of effective methods depending on the bank’s complexity and portfolio risk. The guidance also notes that stress testing can be applied at various levels of the organization including transactional level stress testing, portfolio level stress testing, enterprise-wide level stress testing, and reverse stress testing.In order to have a better understanding of the stress testing process, this whitepaper walks through an illustrative example of the primary steps to construct a “top-down” portfolio-level stress test. These steps include determining appropriate the economic scenarios, segmenting the loan portfolio and estimating losses, estimating the impact of stress on earnings, and estimating the stress on capital.

Are Market Conditions Driving More FinTech Partnerships and M&A?

It has been an interesting few weeks for FinTech.Coming off recent years where both public and private FinTech markets were trending positively, the tail end of 2015 and the start to 2016 have been unique as performance has started to diverge.The performance of public FinTech companies has been relatively flat through the first quarter of 2016 (see Public Market Indicators on page 3 of the First Quarter 2016 FinTech newsletter), and signs of weakness have been observed in alternative/marketplace lending, as well as some of the more high profile FinTech companies that have gone public recently.The median return of the FinTech companies that IPO’d in 2015 was a decline of 16% since IPO (through 3/31/16). For perspective, Square, OnDeck, and Lending Club are each down significantly in 2016 (down 28%, 53%, and 64%, respectively from 1/1/2016 to 5/18/2016).Also, the broader technology IPO slowdown in late 2015 has continued into 2016 and no FinTech IPOs have occurred thus far in 2016.However, optimism for FinTech still abounds, and the private markets continue to reflect that with robust investor interest and funding levels.In 2016, 334 FinTech companies raised a total of $6.7 billion in funding in the first quarter (compared to 171 companies raising $3.2 billion in the first quarter of 2015), and Ant Financial (Alibaba’s finance affiliate) completed an eye-popping $4.5 billion capital raise in April.While the factors driving this divergence in performance between public and private markets are debatable, the divergence is unlikely to continue indefinitely.A less favorable public market and less attractive IPO market creates a more challenging exit environment for those “unicorns” and other private companies.Headwinds for the private markets could develop from more technology companies seeking IPOs and less cash flow from successful exits to fund the next round of private companies.Consequently, other strategic and exit options beyond an IPO should be considered such as partnering with, acquiring, or selling to traditional incumbents (banks, insurers, and money managers).The potential for M&A and partnerships is even more likely in FinTech, particularly here in the US, due to the unique dynamics of the financial services industry including the resiliency of traditional incumbents and the regulatory landscape.For example, consider a few of the inherent advantages that traditional banks have over non-bank FinTech lenders:Better Access to Funding. Prior to 2016, the interest rate/funding environment was very favorable and limited the funding advantage that financial institutions have historicallyhad relative to less regulated non-financial companies.However, the winds appear to be shifting somewhat as rates rose in late 2015, and funding availability for certain FinTech companies has tightened. For example, alternative lenders are dependent, to some extent, on institutional investors to provide funding and/or purchase loans generated on their platform, and a number have cited some decline in institutional investor interest.Banks Still Have Strong Customer Relationships. While certain niches of FinTech are enhanced by demand from consumers and businesses for new and innovative products and technology, presently, the traditional institutions still maintain the majority of customer relationships.As an example, the 2015 Small Business Credit Survey from the Federal Reserve noted that traditional banks are still the primary source for small business loans with only 20% of employer firms applying at an online lender.The satisfaction rate for online lenders was low (15% compared to 75% for small banks and 51% for large banks).The main reasons reported for dissatisfaction with online lenders was high interest rates and unfavorable repayment terms.Regulatory Scrutiny and Uncertainty related to FinTech.Both the Federal Reserve and the OCC have made recent announcements and comments about ways to regulate financial technology.In the online lending area specifically, regulatory scrutiny appears to be on the rise with the Treasury releasing a white paperdiscussing the potential oversight of marketplace lending and the CFPB signaling the potential to increase scrutiny in the area.The lack of a banking charter has also been cited as a potential weakness and has exposed certain alternative lenders to lawsuits in different states.At the same time that FinTech companies are increasingly considering, or being forced to consider, strategic options beyond an IPO, traditional incumbents are starting to realize that they must develop a strategic plan that considers how to evolve, survive, and thrive as technology and financial services increasingly intersect.For example, a number of banks are looking to engage in discussions with FinTech companies.A recent survey from BankDirector noted that boards are focusing more on technology with 75% of respondents wanting to understand how technology can make the bank more efficient and 72% wanting to know how technology can improve the customer experience.FinTech presents traditional financial institutions with a number of strategic options, but the most notable options include focusing on one or some combination of the following: building their own technology solutions, acquiring a FinTech company, or partnering with a FinTech company.One area where we have started to see more FinTech partnerships and M&A already start to play out is wealth management and the industry’s response to robo-advisory.Robo-advisers were noted by the CFA Institute as the FinTech innovation most likely to have the greatest impact on the financial services industry in the short-term (one year) and medium-term (five years).Consider the following announcements in this area over the last few years; on the acquisition front, BlackRock’s acquisition of FutureAdvisor in August 2015, Invesco’s acquisition of Jemstep, and Ally Financial’s acquisition of TradeKing in April 2016.On the partnering front, Motif and J.P. Morgan announced a partnership in October 2015, UBS announced a major partnership with SigFig in May 2016, and Betterment and Fidelity announced a partnership in October 2014. Community banks will also have an opportunity to enter the robo-advisory fray as Personal Capital announced a partnership with Alliance Partners that will allow over 200 community banks offer digital wealth advisory tools.While we do not yet know which strategy will be most successful, discussions of whether to build, partner, or buy will increasingly be on the agenda of boards and executives of both financial institutions and FinTech companies for the next few years.The right combination of technology and financial services through either partnerships or M&A has significant potential to create value for both FinTech companies and traditional financial institutions.Any partnership or merger should be examined thoroughly to ensure that the right metrics are utilized to examine value creation and returns on investment.Transactions and significant partnerships also have significant risks and potential issues will need to be discussed.For example, significant issues with M&A and potential partnerships can include: execution and cultural issues, shareholder dilution, whether the partnership is significant enough to create shareholder value and provide a return on investment, contingent liabilities, and regulatory pressures/issues.These issues must be balanced with the potential rewards, such as customer satisfaction/retention, shareholder value creation, and return on investment.If you are interested in considering strategic options and potential partnerships for your financial institution or FinTech company, contact Mercer Capital. Financial institutions represent our largest industry focus for over thirty years. We have a deep bench with experience with both FinTech companies and traditional financial institutions (banks, asset managers, and insurance companies).This uniquely suits us to assist both as they explore partnerships and potential transactions.

Preferences and FinTech Valuations

2015 was a strong year for FinTech. For those still skeptical, consider the following:All three publicly traded FinTech niches that we track (Payments, Solutions, and Technology) beat the broader market, rising 11 to 14% compared to a 1% return for the S&P 500;FinTech M&A volume and pricing rose sharply over recent historical periods with 195 announced deals and a median deal value of $74 million in 2015 (Figure 1);A number of notable fundings for private FinTech companies occurred with roughly $9.0 billion raised among approximately 130 U.S. FinTech companies in larger funding rounds (only includes raises over $10 million). One of the more notable FinTech events in 2015 was Square's IPO, which occurred in the fourth quarter. Square is a financial services and mobile payments company that is one of the more prominent FinTech companies with its high profile founder (Jack Dorsey, the Twitter co-founder and CEO) and early investors (Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia Capital). Its technology is recognizable with most of us having swiped a card through one of their readers attached to a phone after getting a haircut, sandwich, or cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, Square was among the first FinTech Unicorns, reaching that mark in June 2011. Its valuation based on private funding rounds sat at the top of U.S.-based FinTech companies in mid-2015. So all eyes in the FinTech community were on Square as it went public in late 2015. Market conditions were challenging then (compared to even more challenging in early 2016 for an IPO), but Square had a well-deserved A-list designation among investors. Unfortunately, the results were mixed. Although the IPO was successful in that the shares priced, Square went public at a price of $9 per share, which was below the targeted range of $11 to $13 per share. Also, the IPO valuation of about $3 billion was sharply below the most recent fundraising round that valued the company in excess of $5 billion. In the category its great pay if you can get it, most Series E investors in the last funding round had a ratchet provision that provided for a 20% return on their investment, even if the offering price fell below the $18.56 per share price required to produce that return. The ratchet locked in through the issuance of additional shares to the Series E investors. The resulting dilution was borne by other investors not protected by the ratchet. On the flip side the IPO was not so bad for new investors. Square shares rose more than 45% over the course of the opening day of trading and then traded in the vicinity of $12 to $13 per share through year-end. With the decline in equity markets in early 2016, the shares traded near the $9 IPO price in mid-February. IPO pricing is always tricky—especially in the tech space—given the competing demands between a company floating shares, the underwriter, and prospective shareholders. The challenge for the underwriter is to establish the right price to build a sizable order book that may produce a first day pop, but not one that is so large that existing investors are diluted. According to MarketWatch, less than 2% of 2,236 IPOs that priced below the low end of their filing range since 1980 saw a first day pop of more than 40%. By that measure, Square really is a unique company. One notable takeaway from Square's experience is that the pricing of the IPO as much as any transaction may have marked the end of the era of astronomical private market valuations for Unicorn technology companies. The degree of astronomical depends on what is being measured, however. We have often noted that the headline valuation number in a private, fundraising round is often not the real value for the company. Rather, the price in the most recent private round reflects all of the rights and economic attributes of the share class, which usually are not the same for all shareholders, particularly investors in earlier fundraising rounds. As Travis Harms, my colleague at Mercer Capital noted: "It's like applying the pound price for filet mignon to the entire cow – you can't do that because the cow includes a lot of other stuff that is not in the filet." While a full discussion of investor preferences and ratchets is beyond the scope of this article, they are fairly common in venture-backed companies. Recent studies by Fenwick & West of Unicorn fundraisings noted that the vast majority offered investors some kind of liquidation preference. The combination of investor preferences and a decline in pricing relative to prior funding rounds can result in asymmetrical price declines across the capital structure and result in a misalignment of incentives. John McFarlane, Sonos CEO, noted this when he stated: "If you're all aligned then no matter what happens, you're in the same boat… The really high valuation companies right now are giving out preferences – that's not alignment." A real-world example of this misalignment was reported in a New York Times story in late 2015 regarding Good Technology, a Unicorn that ended up selling to BlackBerry for approximately $425 million in September 2015. While a $425 million exit might be considered a success for a number of founders and investors, the transaction price was less than half of Good's purported $1.1 billion valuation in a private round. The article noted that while a number of investors had preferences associated with their shares that softened the extent of the pricing decline, many employees did not. "For some employees, it meant that their shares were practically worthless. Even worse, they had paid taxes on the stock based on the higher value." As the Good story illustrates, the valuation process can be challenging for venture-backed technology companies, particularly those with several different share classes and preferences across the capital structure, but these valuations can have very real consequence for stakeholders, particularly employees. Thus, it is important to have a valuation process with formalized procedures to demonstrate compliance with tax and financial reporting regulations when having valuations performed. Certainly, the prospects for scrutiny from auditors, SEC, and/or IRS are possible but very real tax issues can also result around equity compensation for employees. Given the complexities in valuing venture-backed technology companies and the ability for market/investor sentiment to shift quickly, it is important to have a valuation professional that can assess the value of the company as well as the market trends prevalent in the industry. At Mercer Capital, we attempt to gain a thorough understanding of the economics of the most recent funding round to provide a market-based "anchor" for valuation at a subsequent date. Once the model is calibrated, we can then assess what changes have occurred (both in the market and at the subject company) since the last funding round to determine what impact if any that may have on valuation. Call us if you have any questions. For those interested in additional FinTech trends, check out our latest FinTech industry newsletter and sign up for future issues here. Related LinksFinTech Newsletter 4Q15 | Venture Capital Case Study: StripeIs a Bubble Forming in FinTechMercer Capital's Financial Reporting BlogMercer Capital monitors the latest financial reporting news relevant to CFOs and financial managers. The Financial Reporting Blog is updated weekly. Follow us on Twitter at @MercerFairValue.

Strategic Planning for Community Banks on the Mend

Despite much commentary about the significant economic and regulatory headwinds impacting community banks, profitability is on the mend. Community bank earnings improved in the trailing twelve months ended June 30, 2015 with net income up 14% to $17.6 billion compared to $15.5 billion in the twelve months ended June 30, 2014.1 Nearly 60% of community banks reported higher profitability based upon annualized first half 2015 net income compared to 2014 levels. The number of unprofitable banks also declined to 41 in the second quarter of 2015, compared to 109 in 2014 and 167 in 2013. The median return on assets (ROA) for community banks was up to 0.96% (annualized based upon the first half of 2015), which was the highest level since 2008.As detailed in Figure 1, key contributors to improving earnings were higher net interest income and lower loan loss provisions. Loan growth drove the improvement in net interest income as 84% of community banks reported loan growth in the trailing twelve month period, with the median community bank’s loan growth rate reported at 7.2%. Loan growth offset net interest margin (“NIM”) compression as NIMs were at their lowest level over the 10-year historical period. As the Federal Reserve’s zero-interest rate policy (“ZIRP”) grinds on, asset yields continue to compress while funding costs have essentially reached a floor. One interesting item to gauge in future quarters is how much interest rate and credit risk is being taken by community banks to grow loans and earnings. Another sign of improving community bank health is that deal activity is up from recent prior periods as shown in Figure 2. Price/earnings multiples have also improved in recent periods (Figure 3) and appear to be relatively in line with long-term trends at approximately 20x. Price/tangible book multiples are still below longer-term trends, largely reflecting that although improved from the Great Recession returns on assets and equity remain below pre-financial crisis levels. While it is difficult to tell whether community bank earnings have peaked and how long this cycle may last, improving profitability expands the strategic options available to community banks. A recent article by SNL Financial noted that a number of community banks are looking to sell as earnings may have plateaued. While selling is one option available to community banks in this environment, the range of strategic options available is much broader than that. A well-rounded strategic planning session should include an assessment of the bank’s unique strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities as well as a review of the bank’s performance and outlook relative to both its history and peers. Then, a broader discussion of a range of options that can deliver growth and enhance shareholder value should be discussed. Those other options could include organic and/or acquisitive growth and other ways to provide liquidity and enhance returns to shareholders such as special dividends, share repurchases, management buy-outs, and employee stock ownership plans. Founded in 1982, in the midst of and in response to a previous crisis affecting the financial services industry, Mercer Capital has witnessed the industry’s cycles. Despite industry cycles, Mercer Capital’s approach has remained the same – understanding key factors driving the industry, identifying the impact of industry trends on our clients, and delivering a reasoned and supported analysis in light of industry and client specific trends. Mercer Capital has experience facilitating strategic planning sessions for community banks and providing a broad range of specialized advisory services to the sector. Contact us to discuss scheduling a strategic planning session or your institution’s specific needs in confidence.

How to Combat the Margin Blues?

Following the Great Recession, significant attention has been focused on bank earnings and earning power. While community bank returns on equity (ROE) have improved since the depths of the recession, they are still below pre-recession levels. One factor squeezing revenue is falling net interest margins (i.e., the difference between rates earned on loans and securities, and rates paid to depositors). Community banks are more margin dependent than their larger brethren and have been impacted to a greater extent from this declining NIM trend. As detailed in Figure 1 below, NIMs for community banks (defined to be those with assets between $100 million and $5 billion) have steadily declined and were at their lowest point in the last ten years in early 2015. While there are a number of factors that impact NIMs, the primary culprit for the declining trend is the interest rate environment. As the Federal Reserve's zero-interest rate policy ("ZIRP") grinds on, earning asset yields continue to reprice lower while deposit costs reached a floor several quarters ago. Loan growth has also been challenging for many banks for a variety of reasons, which has stoked competitive pressures and negatively impacted lending margins. While competitive pressures can come in many forms, several data-points indicate intense loan competition giving way to easing terms. For example, the April 2015 Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey on Bank Lending Practices noted continued easing on terms in a number of loan segments. This appears to be supported further by reported community bank loan yields, which have slid close to 200 basis points (in all loan segments analyzed) since 2008 as shown in Figure 2. Aside from paying tribute to the late B.B. King and playing "Everyday, everyday I have the blues," what can community bankers do in order to combat the margin blues? While not all-encompassing, below we have listed a few strategic options to consider: Increase Leverage. One strategic consideration to maintain ROE in light of declining NIMs may be to increase leverage subject to regulatory limits. Some potential ways to deploy available capital include growing loans organically, M&A, stock buybacks, and/or shareholder dividends. For those below $1 billion in assets, recent legislation has relaxed holding company capital requirements by exempting them from the consolidated regulatory capital ratios. For those that are capable, small bank holding companies may choose to upstream excess capital to the holding company from bank dividends or lever the holding company to fund special dividends and/or buybacks. This higher leverage strategy may be viewed as too aggressive by some shareholders and investors though.Consider M&A. An investor at a recent community bank conference noted that he would rather see banks sell than head down lending's slippery slope. This is not surprising to hear because competitive lending pressures usually seed tomorrow's problem assets. M&A represents a classic solution to revenue headwinds in a mature industry whereby less profitable smaller companies sell to the larger ones creating economies of scale and enhanced profitability. Some signs of this can be seen in recent periods as deal activity has picked up. Beyond expense synergies, acquirers may see temporary NIM relief resulting from accretion income on the acquired assets, which are marked to fair value at acquisition. For those community banks below $1 billion in assets, the combination of the relaxed capital requirements for their holding companies and more options for holding company debt may attract some to consider M&A as a strategic option.Acquire/Partner with Non-Financials. Another strategic option may be to expand into non-traditional bank business lines that are less capital intensive and offer prospects for non-interest income growth such as acquisitions or partnerships with insurance, wealth management, specialty finance, and/or financial technology companies. We have spoken on acquiring non-financials in different venues and there is some evidence of increased activity in the sector. For example, a recent article noted a growing trend in acquisitions of insurance brokers or agencies by banks and thrifts, with deal volume on pace to significantly exceed 2014. Another interesting example of this strategy being deployed includes the recent partnership announced between Lending Club and BancAlliance that allows over 200 community banks to access the peer-to-peer lending space.Improve Efficiency by Leveraging Financial Technology. While compliance and regulatory costs continue to rise as NIMs decline, the industry faces intense pressure to improve efficiency. Technology is an opportunity to do so as both commercial and consumer customers become more comfortable with mobile and online banking. Thus, many banks may view the margin blues as a catalyst to consolidate and/or modernize their branch network and/or invest in improved technology offerings to reduce longer-term operating costs and still meet or exceed customer expectations.Maintain Status Quo. Experience may lead bankers to wait on the Fed to act and usher a return to "normal" yields and "normal" NIMs. Banks with a healthy amount of variable rate loans and non-interest bearing deposits will see an immediate bump in revenue if short-term rates rise, while most traditional banks eventually will see a reversal in NIM trends. But as has been enumerated in past Bank Watch articles, rates have been expected to rise for a "considerable time," and yet continue to remain at historic lows.Further, the potential negative impact of rising rates on credit quality is difficult to foretell. Yet, even this status quo strategy may present some opportunities for those bankers to employ certain of the other strategies mentioned previously in small doses. Mercer Capital has a long history of working with banks and helping to solve complex problems ranging from valuation issues to considering different strategic options. If you would like to discuss your bank's unique situation in confidence and ways that your bank may consider addressing the margin blues, feel free to give us a call or email.

Using Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Helping Community Banks with Strategic Issues

In our view, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are an important omission in the current financial environment as a number of companies and banks lack a broader, strategic understanding of the possible roles of ESOPs as a tool to manage a variety of strategic issues facing community banks. Given the strategic challenges facing community banks, we strive to help our clients, as well as the broader industry, fill this gap, and discuss some common questions related to ESOPs in the following article.We will be glad to discuss your bank’s current situation as well as the role an ESOP can play in detail. If you are interested in learning more about ESOPs, read our book,The ESOP Handbook for Banks: Exploring an Alternative for Liquidity and Capital While Maintaining Independence (you can find it in the Products section of our website). In addition, if you would like to speak to a Mercer Capital professional, contact Jay Wilson at 901.685.2120 or wilsonj@mercercapital.com.For those less familiar with ESOPs, we answer a few basic questions related to ESOPs. For those more familiar with ESOPs, skip to the question entitled “How can an ESOP help the bank deal with strategic issues?”.What Is an ESOP and How Does It Work?ESOPs are a written, defined contribution retirement plan, designed to qualify for some tax-favored treatments under IRC Section 401(a). While similar to a more typical profit-sharing plan, the fundamental difference is that the ESOP must be primarily invested in the stock of the sponsoring company (only S or C corporations). ESOPs can acquire shares through employer contributions (either in cash or existing/newly issued shares) or by borrowing money to purchase stock (existing or newly issued) of the sponsoring company. Once holding shares, the ESOP obtains cash via sponsor contributions, borrowing money, or dividends/distributions on shares held by the ESOP. When an employee exits the plan, the sponsoring company must facilitate the repurchase of the shares, and the ESOP may use cash to purchase shares from the participant. Following repurchase, those shares are then reallocated among the remaining participants.What Are Some Tax Benefits Related to ESOPs?Similar to other profit-sharing plans, contributions (subject to certain limitations) to the ESOP are tax-deductible to the sponsoring company. The ESOP is treated as a single tax-exempt shareholder. This can be of particular benefit to S corporations, as the earnings attributable to the ESOP’s interest in the sponsoring company are untaxed. The tax liability related to ESOP planholder’s accounts is at the participant level and generally deferred similar to a 401(k) until employees take distributions from the plan.Who Can Sponsor an ESOP?Both publicly traded and private banks/holding companies (C or S-Corps.) can sponsor ESOPs, but the benefits are often more profound for private institutions that are not as actively traded, as the ESOP can promote a more active market and enhance liquidity more for the privately-held shares.How Can an ESOP Help The Bank Deal With Strategic Issues?While not suitable in all circumstances, an Employee Stock Ownership Plan may provide assistance in resolving a number of strategic issues facing community banks and can offer benefits to plan participants, existing shareholders, and the sponsor company, including:Augmenting capital, particularly for profitable institutions facing limited access to external capital. Though an ESOP strategy generally builds capital more slowly than a private placement alternative or a public offering, it provides certain tax advantages and may result in less dilution to existing shareholders. For additional perspective, consider the following example. Let us assume that the holding company has $5 million of debt or preferred stock (this example could also include TARP or SBLF funding) with a five year term and an interest rate of 5%. Assuming that the subsidiary bank is the holding company’s primary source of cash (which is often the case for most community banks), the typical option to service this holding company obligation would be dividends from the bank to the holding company. However, an ESOP is another option that might be worth considering as ESOP contributions are tax-deductible expenses and this allows the bank’s capital position to benefit. In the ESOP strategy, cash contributions received by the ESOP are used to purchase newly issued shares of the sponsor’s common stock (in this case, the holding company), providing liquidity that the bank holding company then uses to service holding company’s debt. As detailed in the table below, the ESOP strategy provides the necessary cash flow to the holding company for its obligations but results in approximately $2 million of added bank capital (approximately 35% of the cash needed to service the holding company obligation) at the end of the five-year period. This higher capital could be used in a variety of ways by the underlying bank, either to fund future earning asset growth organically or through acquisitions, pay additional distributions to the holding company for shareholder dividends, or as a cushion against adverse events such as credit losses. However, there is a trade-off to augmenting the bank’s capital using the ESOP strategy, as the holding company’s shares outstanding will increase thereby causing dilution to existing shareholders.Facilitating stock purchases and providing liquidity absent a sale of the bank to outsiders by creating an "internal" stock market whose transaction activity can promote confidence in stock pricing. The ESOP offers the further advantage of providing a vehicle to own shares that is “friendly” to the existing board of directors. For example, the ESOP can offer an alternative exit strategy beyond selling the bank to outside investors through an IPO or acquisition by providing a liquidity avenue that allows for ownership transition while maintaining independence. For C-corporations, the shareholder may even have the ability to sell his or her shares in a tax-free manner subject to certain limitations related to a Section 1042 rollover, including the ESOP owning 30% or more of each class of outstanding stock after the transaction and the seller reinvesting the proceeds into qualified replacement property from 3 to 12 months after the sale; and,Providing employee benefits and increasing long-term shareholder value. ESOPs provide a beneficial tool in rewarding employees at no direct cost to themselves by providing common stock and tying their reward to the long-term stock performance of the bank/company, which can serve to increase employee morale and shareholder value over time. For example, a recent study by Ernst & Young1 found that the total return for S Corporation ESOPs from 2002 to 2012 was a compound annual growth rate of 11.5% compared to the total return of the S&P 500 over the same period of 7.1%. The measure of S ESOP returns considers cumulative distributions as well as growth in value of net assets, net of those distributions (i.e., growth in underlying value per share).What Is the First Step for Those Considering an ESOP?For those considering implementing ESOPs, the first step is generally a feasibility study of what the ESOP would actually look like once implemented at your bank. Parts of the study would include determining the value of the company’s shares, the pro-forma implications from the potential transaction/installation, as well as what after-tax proceeds the seller might expect. This will help determine whether the bank should proceed, wait a few years to implement, or move to another strategic option. There are typically a number of parties involved in implementations including among others an appraiser/valuation provider, trustee, attorney or plan designer, and administrative committee.What Are Some Potential Drawbacks to ESOPs?ESOPs are subject to both tax and benefit law provisions (such as the ERISA act of 1974). Certain negatives associated with them can include:The costs of setting up and maintaining the plansThe repurchase obligation for the sponsoring company as employees retire or exit the planRegulatory issues with the Deportment of Labor serving as primary regulator and the IRS being able to review plan activitiesFiduciary roles associated with ESOP trusteesPotential complexities related to shareholder dilution from issuing new sharesAre There Any New Developments for ESOP Trustees to Consider?For existing ESOPs, two recent legal and regulatory developments have brought up important issues for trustees to consider as well.DudenhoefferIn 2014, the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which involved a public company that matched employee contributions to a 401(k) plan by contributing employer stock to an ESOP that was part of the plan. The ruling states that the standard of prudence applicable to all ERISA fiduciaries also applies to ESOPs, though ESOP fiduciaries are not required to diversify the ESOP’s holdings. The Court ruling was focused on public company ESOPs, but its implications for private company ESOPs are unclear. However, trustees should consider ensuring an investment policy statement is in place for the ESOP, stating that the policy is to invest primarily in employer stock in accordance with the purpose of the Plan; and, if applicable, the policy statement could potentially clarify that employees have diversification options through other benefit plans such as a 401(k) plan.GreatBanc TrustScrutiny related to ESOPs, particularly as it relates to certain valuation issues, has increased in recent years, with the DOL bringing a number of cases against trustees and other parties. In the case of Perez, Secretary of the DOL v. GreatBanc Trust Company, there is a process agreement that we encourage ESOP companies and their trustees to review. While the process requirements are only specific to GreatBanc, the case has received a lot of attention in the ESOP community.In October 2012, The U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against GreatBanc Trust Co. and Sierra Aluminum Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Among other issues identified in the suit, the DOL alleged that GreatBanc violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by breaching its fiduciary duties to the Sierra Aluminum Employee Stock Ownership Plan when it allowed the plan to pay more than fair market value for employer stock in June 2006. The suit also named the ESOP’s sponsor, Sierra Aluminum, as a defendant. The sponsor’s indemnification agreement with GreatBanc allegedly violated ERISA regulations. The suit focuses on the quality of the appraisal on which the trustee relied, particularly on the supportability of the assumptions used in the cash flow projection.As part of the settlement negotiations, the DOL and GreatBanc have agreed upon a specific set of policies and procedures as trustee of an ESOP. While specific to GreatBanc, the transaction procedures are presumed to be applicable to all Trustees and related appraiser relationships. The process requirements cover the following areas:Selection and Use of Valuation AdvisorOversight of Valuation AdvisorFinancial StatementsFiduciary Review ProcessPreservation of DocumentsFair Market ValueConsideration of Claw-BackOther ProfessionalsIn general, the process agreement makes clear that trustees must ensure that ESOP valuations are well documented with thoroughly supported assumptions.How Can Mercer Capital Help?Mercer Capital has been providing ESOP appraisal services for over 25 years and has extensive ESOP experience through providing annual valuations, installation advisory, feasibility studies, financial expert services related to legal disputes, and fairness opinions. Our appraisals are prepared in accordance with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), the Department of Labor, and the Internal Revenue Service guidelines, as well as Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”). We are active members of The ESOP Association and the National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO). Our professionals have been frequent speakers on topics related to ESOP valuation throughout our 32-year history. Mercer Capital professionals also co-authored the publication, The ESOP Handbook for Banks (2011), which provides insight into key ESOP-related issues affecting banking organizations.For additional ESOP resources, view our whitepapers Insights on ESOPs and Choosing a New ESOP Appraiser.Endnote1 Contribution of S ESOPs to participants’ retirement security: Prepared for Employee-Owned S Corporations of America March 2015) Report can be accessed at: http://www.efesonline.org/LIBRARY/2015/EY_ESCA_S_ESOP_retirement_ security_analysis_2015.pdf.

Recent Trends in the Fair Value of Community Bank Loan Portfolios

Although successful bank acquisitions largely hinge on deal execution and realizing expense synergies, properly assessing and pricing credit represents a primary deal risk. Additionally, the acquirer’s pro forma capital ratios are always important, but even more so in a heightened regulatory environment and merger approval process. Against this backdrop, merger-related accounting issues for bank acquirers have become increasingly important in recent years and the most significant fair value mark typically relates to the determination of the fair value of the loan portfolio.Fair value is guided by ASC 820 and defines value as the price received/paid by market participants in orderly transactions. It is a process that involves a number of assumptions about market conditions, loan portfolio segment cash flows inclusive of assumptions related to expected credit losses, appropriate discount rates, and the like. To properly evaluate a target’s loan portfolio, the portfolio should be evaluated on its own merits, but markets do provide perspective on where the cycle is and how this compares to historical levels.We reviewed fair values of recently announced community bank deals to determine if any trends emerged. As detailed in Figure 1, the fair value mark (i.e., the discount based on the estimated fair value compared to the reported gross loan balance) in recent deals appears to increase as the level of problem assets increases. However, the range remains quite wide and rarely hits the trendline, which could partially reflect the unique nature of isolated community bank loan portfolios. Overall, the median fair value mark observed was 3.30% while the median level of adjusted non-performing loans (as a percentage of loans) was 2.22%.Sources: Mercer Capital research, company SEC filings, company investor presentations The recent fair value marks were generally below those reported in deals during (2008-2010) and immediately after the financial crisis (2010-2012). This trend reflects a number of factors including:Stable to improving macro-economic trends. While contracting during the financial crisis, real GDP growth was relatively stable in 2013 and 2014 at approximately 2.20%. Real disposable income also increased 1.70% in 2014 after remaining relatively flat in 2013. Additionally, employment considerations have continued to improve in recent periods with the unemployment rate down to 5.7% in January of 2015 compared to 7.9% and 6.6% in January of 2013 and 2014, respectively.Higher real estate collateral values. While the 20-city S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index remains about 15% below its peak in mid-2006, it has increased about 25% since year-end 2011. Additionally, economic data from the Federal Reserve of St. Louis indicated that commercial real estate prices have been increasing year-over-year since year-end 2010 and were up 7.3% over the 12 months ended September 30, 2014.Reduced levels of noncurrent loans. As detailed in Figure 2, credit migration continued to be positive and levels have declined to almost pre-financial crisis levels (third quarter 2014 levels approximated early 2008 levels). Source: FDIC Reduced Credit Spreads. Credit spreads provide perspective on a number of factors, including where the credit cycle has been and where it is headed, as well as potential portfolio issues at a target when there are no apparent issues. While credit spreads did increase in mid-2014, they have generally declined since the financial crisis as economic conditions as well as investor sentiment have improved. For example, BB credit spreads have declined from 5.0% in January of 2012 to 3.5% in January of 2015. All else equal, reduced credit spreads serve to lower the discount rate applied to the expected cash flows for a target’s loan portfolio, thereby increasing the fair value of the loan portfolio. Mercer Capital has provided a number of valuations for potential acquirers to assist with ascertaining the fair value of acquired loan portfolio. In addition to loan portfolio valuation services, we also provide acquirers with valuations of other financial assets and liabilities acquired in a bank transaction, including depositor intangible assets, time deposits, and trust preferred securities. Feel free to give us a call or email to discuss any valuation issues in confidence as you plan for a potential acquisition. Reprinted from Bank Watch February 2015.

Community Bank Stress Testing: A Hypothetical Example

The following provides an illustrative example of the primary steps to construct a “top-down” portfolio-level stress test.

Community Bank Stress Testing

For a hypothetical example to accompany this article, please see "Community Bank Stress Testing: A Hypothetical Example."While community banks may be insulated from certain more onerous stress testing and capital expectations placed upon larger financial institutions, recent regulatory guidance suggests that community banks should be developing and implementing some form of stress testing and/or scenario analyses. The OCC’s supervisory guidance in October 2012 stated “community banks, regardless of size, should have the capacity to analyze the potential impact of adverse outcomes on their financial conditions.”1 Further, the OCC’s guidance considers “some form of stress testing or sensitivity analysis of loan portfolios on at least an annual basis to be a key part of sound risk management for community banks.”2 A stress test can be defined as “the evaluation of a bank’s financial position under a severe but plausible scenario to assist in decision making with the bank.”3The hallmark of community banking has historically been the diversity across institutions and the guidance from the OCC suggests that community banks should keep this in mind when adopting appropriate stress testing methods by taking into account each bank’s attributes, including the unique business strategy, size, products, sophistication, and overall risk profile. While not prescriptive in regards to the particular stress testing methods, the guidance suggests a wide range of effective methods depending on the Bank’s complexity and portfolio risk. However, the guidance does note that stress testing can be applied at various levels of the organization including:Transaction Level Stress Testing: This method is a “bottom up” analysis that looks at key loan relationships individually, assesses the potential impact of adverse economic conditions on those borrowers, and estimates loan losses for each loan.Portfolio Level Stress Testing: This method involves the determination of the potential financial impact on earnings and capital following the identification of key portfolio concentration issues and assessment of the impact of adverse events or economic conditions on credit quality. This method can be applied either “bottom up,” by assessing the results of individual transaction level stress tests and then aggregating the results, or “top down,” by estimating stress loss rates under different adverse scenarios on pools of loans with common characteristics.Enterprise-Wide Level Stress Testing: This method attempts to take risk management out of the silo and consider the enterprise-wide impact of a stress scenario by analyzing “multiple types of risk and their interrelated effects on the overall financial impact.”4 The risks might include credit risk, counter-party credit risk, interest rate risk, and liquidity risk. In its simplest form, enterprise-wide stress testing can entail aggregating the transaction and/or portfolio level stress testing results to consider related impacts across the firm from the stressed scenario previously considered.Further, stress tests can be applied in “reverse” whereby a specific adverse outcome is assumed that is sufficient to breach the bank’s capital ratios (often referred to as a “break the bank” scenario). Management then considers what types of events could lead to such outcomes. Once identified, management can then consider how likely those conditions are and what contingency plans or additional steps should be made to mitigate this risk.Regardless of the stress testing method, determining the appropriate stress event to consider is an important element of the process. Little guidance was provided although the OCC’s guidance did note that the scenarios should include a base case and a more adverse scenario based on macro and local economic data. Examples of adverse economic scenarios that might be considered include a severe recession, downturn in the local economy, loss of a major client, or economic weakness across a particular industry for which the bank has a concentration issue.The simplest method described in the OCC guidance as a starting point for stress testing was the “top-down” portfolio level stress test. The “Hypothetical Stress Testing Example” that follows provides an illustrative example of a portfolio level stress test based largely on the guidance and the example provided from the OCC.What Should We Do with the Stress Test Results?The answer to this question will likely depend on the bank’s specific situation. For example, let’s assume that your bank is relatively strong in terms of capital, asset quality, and recent earnings performance and has taken a proactive approach to stress testing. A well-reasoned and documented stress test could serve to provide regulators, directors, and management with the knowledge to consider the bank’s capital levels more than adequate and develop and approve the deployment of that excess capital through a shareholder buyback plan, elevated dividend, capital raise, merger, or strategic acquisition. Alternatively, let’s consider the situation of a distressed bank, which is in a relatively weaker position and facing heightened regulatory scrutiny in the form of elevated capital requirements. In this case, the stress test may be more reactive as regulators and directors are requesting a more robust stress test be performed. In this case, the results may provide key insight that leads to developing an action plan around filling the capital shortfall (if one is determined) or demonstrating to regulators and directors that the distressed bank’s existing capital is adequate. The results of the stress test should enhance the bank’s decision-making process and be incorporated into other areas of the bank’s management of risk, asset/liability strategies, capital and strategic planning.How Mercer Capital Can HelpHaving successfully completed thousands of community bank engagements over the last 30 years, Mercer Capital has the experience to solve complex financial issues impacting community banks. Mercer Capital can help scale and improve your bank’s stress testing by assisting your bank in a variety of ways, ranging from providing advice and support for assumptions within your Bank’s pre-existing stress test to developing a unique, custom stress test that incorporates your bank’s desired level of complexity and adequately captures the unique risks facing your bank. Regardless of the approach, the desired outcome is a stress test that can be utilized by managers, directors, and regulators to monitor capital adequacy, manage risk, enhance the bank’s performance, and improve strategic decisions. Feel free to call Mercer Capital to discuss your bank’s unique situation in confidence.Endnotes1OCC 2012-33 “Supervisory Guidance” on Community Bank Stress Testing dated October 18, 2012 and accessed at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2012/bulletin-2012-33.html. 2Ibid. 3“Stress Testing for Community Banks” presentation by Robert C. Aaron, Arnold & Porter LLP, November 11, 2011. 4OCC 2012-33 “Supervisory Guidance” on Community Bank Stress Testing dated October 18, 2012 and accessed at www.occ.gov/news-issuances/bulletins/2012/bulletin-2012-33.html.

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters^® 2009-02

S Corporation Banks Beware

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters^® 2008-08

Sub-Chapter S Conversions for Banks

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters^® 2007-08

Empirical Evidence Confirming the Importance of a Transaction Advisor

Services

Industries

About

Insights

Jay D. Wilson, Jr.

CFA, ASA, CBA

Senior Vice President

Authored Content

Now Could Be a Great Time for Bank Investors to Consider Estate Planning

Themes From the 2024 Acquire or Be Acquired Conference

The Importance of Purchase Price Allocations to Acquirers

The Importance of Purchase Price Allocations to Acquirers

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

The Importance of a Quality of Earnings Study

A Primer on a Growing Breed of Bank Acquirers

WHITEPAPER | Understand the Value of Your Payment Company

Top Considerations for Acquirers When Evaluating a Potential Bank Acquisition

Valuation Lessons from Credit Union & Bank Transactions

Four Reasons to Consider a Stock Repurchase Program

Stress Testing and Capital Planning for Banks and Credit Unions During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Does Your Bank Need an Interim Impairment Test Due to the Economic Impact of COVID-19?

Top Three Valuation Considerations for Credit Unions When Contemplating a Bank Acquisition

Quality Of Earnings Study: The “Combine” to Help Harvest Top FinTech Acquisition Targets

Key Valuation Considerations for FinTech Purchase Price Allocations

Takeaways from AOBA 2019: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”

Leveraging FinTech to Survive & Thrive in the Digital Age

How to Value an InsurTech Company

Views from the Road: What Do Community Banks, FinTech, and Buffalo Have in Common?

WHITEPAPER | How to Value an Early-Stage FinTech Company

Takeaways from FinXTech 2018: The Rise of Bank and FinTech Partnerships

2018 Trends to Watch in the Banking Industry: Acquire or Be Acquired Conference Recap

Emerging Community Bank M&A Trends in 2017

Webinar: How to Value an Early-Stage FinTech Company

Creating Value at Your Community Bank Through Developing a FinTech Framework

Strategic Benefits of Stress Testing

Are Robo-Advisors on Any Banker’s Wish List?

The Rise of Robo-Advisors

The Rise of Robo-Advisors

Three Reasons to Consider a Valuation of Your FinTech Company

WHITEPAPER | Community Bank Stress Testing

Are Market Conditions Driving More FinTech Partnerships and M&A?

Preferences and FinTech Valuations

Strategic Planning for Community Banks on the Mend

How to Combat the Margin Blues?

Using Employee Stock Ownership Plans: Helping Community Banks with Strategic Issues

Recent Trends in the Fair Value of Community Bank Loan Portfolios

Community Bank Stress Testing: A Hypothetical Example

Community Bank Stress Testing

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters® 2009-02

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters® 2008-08

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters® 2007-08

Cart

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters^® 2009-02

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters^® 2008-08

Mercer Capital’s Value Matters^® 2007-08