Corporate Valuation, Financial Services

July 15, 2013

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.”3

The 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 Help

Having 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.

Continue Reading

January 2026 | Some “Slop” About 2025 Bank Stock Performance
Bank Watch: January 2026

Some “Slop” About 2025 Bank Stock Performance

Small-cap bank stocks delivered a so so 2025. Despite solid earnings growth, small-cap bank valuation multiples remain below long-term averages, reflecting a gap between bank performance metrics and investor sentiment. Large-cap banks continued to outperform small-caps, as well as the broader market, due to strong capital markets activity.
Bank Impairment Testing
Bank Impairment Testing
Bank stocks have underperformed in the broad market since the beginning of the year and many currently trade below book value, which begs the question, is goodwill impaired?
Net Interest Margin Trends for Banks Versus Credit Unions
Net Interest Margin Trends for Banks Versus Credit Unions
The change in the median NIM from 1Q22-1Q23 is greater for banks versus credit unions (31 basis point expansion vs. 25 basis point expansion).Yields on earning assets expanded to a greater degree for banks versus credit unions from 1Q22-1Q23, which likely reflects a greater proportion of fixed rate loans for credit unions versus banks.The median yield on loans increased 87 bps for banks from 1Q22-1Q23 in comparison to 61 bps for credit unions.Credit unions appear to be less sensitive (at least so far) to funding cost pressure.The median cost of earning assets for banks increased by 91 bps from 1Q22- 1Q23 in comparison to 70 bps for credit unions.The 1Q22-1Q23 change in the NIM components varies by asset size (that is larger banks/CUs generally have experienced larger upward adjustments to both asset yields and the cost of funds, relative to smaller banks/CUs).Over the course of 2022, the median NIM for banks expanded from 3.06% in 1Q22 to 3.59% in 4Q22, while the median NIM for credit unions expanded from 3.04% to 3.40%.The NIM advantage reported by banks began to dissipate in 1Q23 as banks faced more cost of funds pressure than CUs.Bank NIMs widened by 17 bps more than CU NIMs between 1Q22 and 4Q22. However, funding cost pressures in 1Q23 caused bank NIMs to tighten by 22 bps in 1Q23, while CU NIMs compressed by only 11 bps.The change in NIMs between 1Q22 and 1Q23 can be decomposed as follows:Source of data for tables: S&P Capital IQ Pro, Mercer Capital research. Includes credit unions and banks with assets > $500 Million as of 12/31/21Originally appeared in the June 2023 issue of Bank Watch.

Cart

Your cart is empty