How To Talk To An Examiner (If You Must)
Something I think all bankers are struggling with at all levels. I was researching the topic when I ran across this great advice from Greg Webb, an attorney with Gerrish McCreary Smith, PC. Mr. Webb was kind enough to allow me to share his thoughts on my blog. I would also like to thank the Western Independent Bankers for allowing us the opportunity to participate in this discussion.
How to Talk to an Examiner about Loans (If You Must)
By Greg Webb, Gerrish McCreary Smith, PC, Attorneys
Now, more than ever, bankers must take the lead in making sure that examiners understand the board’s risk management strategies and executive management’s efforts to collect problem loans. The government, through its examiners, no longer presumes that bank directors and executive management know how to properly identify, monitor, manage, and control credit risk. Rather, the government presumes that bank directors and executive management do not understand credit risk or how to properly manage it; thereby shifting the burden to bank directors and executive management to prove otherwise. And, in this economic and regulatory environment, the failure by the board and executive management to affirmatively prove their credit risk management skills may lead to incorrect findings and conclusions by the examiners and the possible issuance of regulatory enforcement actions, including the assessment of civil money penalties.
Missed Opportunities
Exit meetings with the examiners and loan discussion meetings are wonderful opportunities for bank directors and executive management to showcase their talent and their understanding of proper credit risk management. Yet, many bankers view these meetings as bothersome and often let the examiners draw their own conclusions based upon their review of unorganized and incomplete loan files. Then, these same bankers make emotion-based arguments that are inconsistent with regulatory classification guidelines, and consequently, diminish their credibility with the examiners. Instead, we advise our clients to use these opportunities to build credibility with the examiners by admitting mistakes, correctly discussing risk rating and nonaccrual accounting requirements, and explaining actions taken and to be taken to correctly assess borrowers’ financial condition and repayment capacity, minimize loss potential, and collect problem loans.
The More, The Merrier
Normally, bank directors do not say anything during exit meetings with examiners nor do they attend loan discussion meetings with the examiners. But, they should. Our firm’s experience has been that bank directors know much more about the bank’s borrowers and their businesses than the examiners realize. I once watched one particularly knowledgeable bank director change the whole tone of the loan discussion, specifically regarding one large loan, with his knowledge of, and expertise in, the local commercial real estate markets. This was reflected in the Report of Examination, which concluded that the bank’s directors were particularly knowledgeable and active in managing the bank’s credit risk.
Require Structure
During the onsite portion of the examination, the examiners normally are all over the bank asking questions, requesting files, and interrupting the bank’s officers and staff in the performance of their duties and responsibilities. We believe that a better practice is to require structure and organization of the examination process. The goal is not to control the flow of information. Rather, the goal is to organize the chaos that is the normal examination process. Therefore, executive management should require that the examiners provide a list (or lists) of the files requested and schedule appointments with lending officers to obtain additional information about the loans reviewed. In addition, examiners should be required to schedule times for loan discussion so that executive management can make sure that all appropriate personnel, including bank directors on the loan committee, are able to attend.
No Personal Attacks
We never recommend that our clients make personal attacks on the examiners, even if they are justified. It is easy to fall into this trap, however, because the examiners will undoubtedly be critical of the board and executive management, and unfairly pile on with technical issues once asset quality problems are identified. It is our experience that personal attacks on the examiners never work and merely undermine the credibility that the board and executive management may have with the examiners’ supervisors.
Be Informed
Good communication is key to avoiding unwarranted criticism by the examiners. But, good communication is impossible if bankers do not understand loan classification standards and the terminology of credit risk management. Consequently, bankers should read appropriate sections of examination manuals including the Uniform Loan Classification Standards, nonaccrual accounting requirements, troubled debt restructuring guidance, and other credit-risk related sections. This is a corollary to the sage advice to first seek to understand before seeking to be understood. And, stay tuned to this column because we will address loan classification standards at a future date.
Appearances Count
Many bankers adopt either a confrontational approach or an appeasement approach in discussing loan risk ratings with examiners. We do not believe that either approach works well. Our experience is that bankers that have a strong knowledge of their borrowers’ financial condition, admit mistakes rather than react emotionally, timely and correctly identify and risk rate problem loans, proactively manage and collect problem loans, and develop a strong knowledge of regulatory guidance have the most success when dealing with examiners and minimizing the regulatory impact on the bank, including the severity of any proposed enforcement action. Credibility is the key. And, once your credibility with the examiners is lost, it is difficult to get it back and particularly difficult in getting the examiners to believe you even when you are right about a borrower’s financial condition.
Conclusion
The banking industry is one of the most regulated industries in the United States and is likely to remain so because of the importance of money and the creation of money through the banking system to the national economy and the federal government. Following an economic crisis as severe as the last one, the federal government will closely scrutinize credit risk management by bank directors and executive management. And, in this regulatory environment, the burden has shifted to bank directors and executive management to affirmatively prove that they are competent credit risk managers – or there may be consequences!
<back to April 2011 Lending & Credit Digest>
Greg Webb is an attorney and the managing director of Gerrish McCreary Smith, PC, Attorneys in Memphis, Tenn. His practice involves the representation of community banks in a variety of regulatory matters. He can be reached at 901-767-0900 or [email protected].