UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
[ü] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2012
or
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to
Commission file number:
1-6523
Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter:
Bank of America Corporation
State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization:
Delaware
IRS Employer Identification Number:
56-0906609
Address of Principal Executive Offices:
Bank of America Corporate Center
100 N. Tryon Street
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(704) 386-5681
Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report:
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes ü No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).
Yes ü No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (check one).
|
| | | | | | |
Large accelerated filer ü | | Accelerated filer | | Non-accelerated filer (do not check if a smaller reporting company) | | Smaller reporting company |
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2).
Yes No ü
On April 30, 2012, there were 10,776,690,824 shares of Bank of America Corporation Common Stock outstanding.
|
| | |
Bank of America Corporation | |
March 31, 2012 | |
Form 10-Q | |
| |
INDEX | Page |
| |
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
|
Item 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS |
This report on Form 10-Q, the documents that it incorporates by reference and the documents into which it may be incorporated by reference may contain, and from time to time Bank of America Corporation (collectively with its subsidiaries, the Corporation) and its management may make certain statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements can be identified by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements often use words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “targets,” “intends,” “plans,” “goal” and other similar expressions or future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “may,” “might,” “should,” “would” and “could.” The forward-looking statements made represent the current expectations, plans or forecasts of the Corporation regarding the Corporation’s future results and revenues, and future business and economic conditions more generally, including statements concerning: the potential impacts of the European Union sovereign debt crisis; completion of tender offers for the repurchase of certain of our outstanding subordinated debt and trust preferred securities; the charge to income for each one percent reduction in the U.K. corporate income tax rate; the programs expected to be developed pursuant to the settlement agreements with the state attorneys general and U.S. Department of Justice; that the financial impact of the settlements is not expected to cause any additional provision or reserves as of March 31, 2012 based on the expected impact of the borrower assistance program and operating costs; that certain amounts may be reduced by credits earned for principal reductions; that our payment obligations under the settlement agreements with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency would be deemed satisfied by payments and provisions of relief under the settlement agreements; the planned schedule and details for implementation and completion of, and the expected impact from, Phase 1 and Phase 2 of Project New BAC, including estimated cost savings, including declines in certain noninterest expense categories; the impact of and costs associated with each of the agreements with the Bank of New York Mellon (as trustee for certain legacy Countrywide Financial Corporation (Countrywide) private-label securitization trusts), and each of the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (collectively, the GSEs), to resolve bulk representations and warranties claims; our expectation that the $1.7 billion in claims from private-label securitization investors in the covered trusts under the private-label securitization settlement with the Bank of New York Mellon (the BNY Mellon Settlement) would be extinguished upon final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement; the belief that the provisions recorded in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement and the additional non-GSE representations and warranties provisions recorded in 2011 have provided for a substantial portion of the Corporation’s non-GSE repurchase claims; the estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of March 31, 2012 of up to $5 billion over existing accruals and the effect of adverse developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the liability for non-GSE representations and warranties and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss; the continually evolving behavior of the GSEs, and the Corporation’s intention to monitor and repurchase loans to the extent required under the contracts and standards that govern our relationships with the GSEs and update its processes related to these changing GSE behaviors; our expressed intention not to pay compensatory fees under the new GSE servicing guides; the adequacy of the liability for the remaining representations and warranties exposure to the GSEs and the future impact to earnings, including the impact on such estimated liability arising from the announcement by FNMA regarding mortgage rescissions, cancellations and claim denials; our beliefs regarding our ability to resolve rescissions before the expiration of the appeal period allowed by FNMA; our expectation that mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs will remain elevated as additional loans are delayed in the foreclosure process; our expectation that higher costs related to resources necessary to implement new servicing standards mandated for the industry and to implement other operational changes, will continue; the expected repurchase claims on the 2004-2008 loan vintages, including the belief regarding reduced exposure related to loans originated after 2008; the Corporation’s intention to vigorously contest any requests for repurchase for which it concludes that a valid basis does not exist; future impact of complying with the terms of the consent orders with federal bank regulators regarding the foreclosure process; the impact of delays in foreclosure sales in connection with the Corporation’s continued process enhancements and any issues that may arise out of alleged irregularities in the Corporation's foreclosure process; continued cooperation with investigations; the potential materiality of liability with respect to potential servicing-related claims; net interest income continuing to be muted in 2012; our estimates regarding the percentages of loans expected to prepay, default or reset in 2012 and thereafter; the net recovery projections for credit default swaps with monoline financial guarantors; the impact on economic conditions and on the Corporation arising from any further changes to the credit rating or perceived creditworthiness of instruments issued, insured or guaranteed by the U.S. government, or of institutions, agencies or instrumentalities directly linked to the U.S. government; the realizability of deferred tax assets prior to expiration of any carryforward periods; credit trends and conditions, including credit losses, credit reserves, the allowance for credit losses, the allowance for loan and lease losses, charge-offs, delinquency, collection and bankruptcy trends, and nonperforming asset levels, including continued expected reductions in the allowance for loan and lease losses in 2012; the role of non-core asset sales in our capital strategy; investment banking fees; consumer and commercial service charges, including the impact of changes in the Corporation’s overdraft policy and the Corporation’s ability to mitigate a decline in revenues; the effects of new accounting pronouncements; capital levels determined by or established in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and with the requirements of various regulatory agencies, including our estimates of and ability to comply with any Basel capital and liquidity requirements endorsed by U.S. regulators within any applicable regulatory timelines; the revenue impact and the impact on the value of our assets and liabilities resulting from, and any mitigation actions taken in response to, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Financial Reform Act), including, but not limited to, the Durbin Amendment; our expectations regarding the December 2011 amendment to the notice of proposed rulemaking on the Risk-based Capital Guidelines for Market Risk initially issued in December 2010; CRES’s ceasing to deliver purchase money first mortgage products into FNMA mortgage-backed
securities pools and our expectation that this cessation will not have a material impact on CRES’s business; our expectations regarding losses in the event of legitimate mortgage insurance rescissions related to loans held for investment; our expressed intended actions in the response to repurchase requests with which we do not agree; the continued reduction of our long-term debt as appropriate through 2013; our expressed intention to consider additional repurchases and exchanges of our debt depending on prevailing market conditions, liquidity and other factors; the estimated range of possible loss from and the impact of various legal proceedings discussed in “Litigation and Regulatory Matters” in Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements; our management processes; credit protection maintained and the effects of certain events on those positions; our estimates of contributions to be made to pension plans; our expectations regarding probable losses related to unfunded lending commitments; our funding strategies including contingency plans; our trading risk management processes; our interest rate and mortgage banking risk management strategies and models; our expressed intention to build capital through retaining earnings, actively reducing legacy asset portfolios and implementing other capital-related initiatives, including focusing on reducing both higher risk-weighted assets and assets currently deducted or expected to be deducted under Basel III, from capital; and other matters relating to the Corporation and the securities that it may offer from time to time. The foregoing is not an exclusive list of all forward-looking statements the Corporation makes. These statements are not guarantees of future results or performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict and are often beyond Bank of America’s control. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, any of these forward-looking statements.
You should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement and should consider the following uncertainties and risks, as well as the risks and uncertainties more fully discussed elsewhere in this report, under Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K, and in any of the Corporation’s subsequent Securities and Exchange Commission filings: the accuracy and variability of estimates and assumptions in determining the expected value of the loss-sharing reinsurance arrangement relating to the agreement with Assured Guaranty and the total cost of the agreement to the Corporation; the Corporation’s resolution of certain representations and warranties obligations with the GSEs and our ability to resolve the GSEs’ remaining claims; the Corporation’s ability to resolve its representations and warranties obligations, and any related servicing, securities, fraud, indemnity or other claims with monolines, and private-label investors and other investors, including those monolines and investors from whom the Corporation has not yet received claims or with whom it has not yet reached any resolutions; the Corporation’s mortgage modification policies and related results; the timing and amount of any potential dividend increase, including any necessary approvals; adverse changes to the Corporation's credit ratings from the three major credit rating agencies; estimates of the fair value of certain of the Corporation’s assets and liabilities; the identification and effectiveness of any initiatives to mitigate the negative impact of the Financial Reform Act; the Corporation’s ability to limit liabilities acquired as a result of the Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and Countrywide acquisitions; and decisions to downsize, sell or close units or otherwise change the business mix of the Corporation.
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made, and the Corporation undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect the impact of circumstances or events that arise after the date the forward-looking statement was made.
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements referred to in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) are incorporated by reference into the MD&A. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation. Throughout the MD&A, the Corporation uses certain acronyms and abbreviations which are defined in the Glossary.
|
|
Executive Summary |
|
Business Overview |
The Corporation is a Delaware corporation, a bank holding company and a financial holding company. When used in this report, “the Corporation” may refer to the Corporation individually, the Corporation and its subsidiaries, or certain of the Corporation’s subsidiaries or affiliates. Our principal executive offices are located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Through our banking and various nonbanking subsidiaries throughout the U.S. and in international markets, we provide a diversified range of banking and nonbanking financial services and products through five business segments: Consumer & Business Banking (CBB), Consumer Real Estate Services (CRES), Global Banking, Global Markets and Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM), with the remaining operations recorded in All Other. Effective January 1, 2012, the Corporation changed its basis of presentation from six to the above five segments. For more information on this realignment, see Business Segment Operations on page 26. At March 31, 2012, the Corporation had $2.2 trillion in assets and approximately 279,000 full-time equivalent employees.
As of March 31, 2012, we operated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and more than 40 countries. Our retail banking footprint covers approximately 80 percent of the U.S. population and in the U.S., we serve 57 million consumer and small business relationships with approximately 5,700 banking centers, 17,250 ATMs, nationwide call centers, and leading online and mobile banking platforms. We offer industry-leading support to approximately four million small business owners. We are a global leader in corporate and investment banking and trading across a broad range of asset classes serving corporations, governments, institutions and individuals around the world.
Table 1 provides selected consolidated financial data for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 1 |
Selected Financial Data |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions, except per share information) | 2012 | | 2011 |
Income statement | | | |
Revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) (1) | $ | 22,485 |
| | $ | 27,095 |
|
Net income | 653 |
| | 2,049 |
|
Diluted earnings per common share | 0.03 |
| | 0.17 |
|
Dividends paid per common share | 0.01 |
| | 0.01 |
|
Performance ratios | |
| | |
Return on average assets | 0.12 | % | | 0.36 | % |
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (1) | 1.67 |
| | 5.54 |
|
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) (1) | 85.13 |
| | 74.86 |
|
Asset quality | |
| | |
Allowance for loan and lease losses at period end | $ | 32,211 |
| | $ | 39,843 |
|
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding at period end (2) | 3.61 | % | | 4.29 | % |
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties at period end (2) | $ | 27,790 |
| | $ | 31,643 |
|
Net charge-offs | 4,056 |
| | 6,028 |
|
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (2) | 1.80 | % | | 2.61 | % |
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding excluding purchased credit-impaired loans (2) | 1.87 |
| | 2.71 |
|
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs | 1.97 |
| | 1.63 |
|
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs excluding purchased credit-impaired loans | 1.43 |
| | 1.31 |
|
| | | |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Balance sheet | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 902,294 |
| | $ | 926,200 |
|
Total assets | 2,181,449 |
| | 2,129,046 |
|
Total deposits | 1,041,311 |
| | 1,033,041 |
|
Total common shareholders’ equity | 213,711 |
| | 211,704 |
|
Total shareholders’ equity | 232,499 |
| | 230,101 |
|
Capital ratios | | | |
Tier 1 common capital | 10.78 | % | | 9.86 | % |
Tier 1 capital | 13.37 |
| | 12.40 |
|
Total capital | 17.49 |
| | 16.75 |
|
Tier 1 leverage | 7.79 |
| | 7.53 |
|
| |
(1) | Fully taxable-equivalent (FTE) basis, return on average tangible shareholders’ equity and the efficiency ratio are non-GAAP financial measures. Other companies may define or calculate these measures differently. For additional information on these measures and ratios, and for a corresponding reconciliation to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16. |
| |
(2) | Balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. For additional exclusions from nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 81 and corresponding Table 39, and Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 91 and corresponding Table 48. |
|
|
First Quarter 2012 Economic and Business Environment |
The economic and financial environment for banking showed signs of improvement in the first quarter, as labor market recovery and rising equity values combined to raise consumer and business confidence. However, many key indicators of sustainable economic growth remain under pressure. While still elevated, the unemployment rate continued its recent decline ending the quarter at 8.2 percent compared to 8.5 percent at December 31, 2011. The solid equity market performance, supported by less volatile European financial conditions, provided a boost to consumer confidence. Consumer spending categories rose modestly. Retail spending was soft at the beginning of the year but gathered momentum as the quarter progressed. Despite the improvements, economic growth remained moderate as households continued to reduce debt and spend cautiously, businesses held cash and state and local government purchases continued to decline. Export activity was solid. Real estate activity showed some encouraging signs of stability although home prices continued to decline in many parts of the U.S. during the quarter. Business spending gains were moderate, largely related to the expiration of tax incentives for equipment and software purchases at the end of 2011. Rising gasoline prices were a concern during the quarter but oil price gains remained relatively stable. Despite the overall improvements in U.S. economic performance in the past two quarters, anxiety that the economy will lose momentum near mid-year persists.
During the quarter, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) extended its guidance for the exceptionally low level of the federal funds rate at least through late 2014. It also continued its program of extending the maturity of its portfolio by buying longer term Treasury securities and selling short-term holdings, which is scheduled to be complete by mid-year. Market speculation about extending the maturity extension program or initiating further outright security purchases after the completion of the current program increased during the quarter, as the Federal Reserve acknowledged economic and labor market improvement while stressing that conditions have not normalized.
An agreement on a Greek debt restructuring and a large European Central Bank program establishing long-term lending to European banks helped stabilize European sovereign debt markets and improve worldwide financial conditions during the quarter. Nevertheless, a mild, but uneven economic recession continued in most European Union nations especially nations undertaking substantial fiscal and market reforms. Late in the first quarter, concern about Spain's contracting economy and large budget deficit, and renewed anxiety over Italy's economic reforms pushed European sovereign yields higher, offsetting a portion of earlier yield declines. This trend continued early in the second quarter, as concern about Europe continued, stemming from the negative impacts of the economic recession, resistance to implementing economic reforms and fiscal measures, as well as rising government debt-to-gross domestic product ratios. In response to rising bond yields, an enhanced financial support package was established by the International Monetary Fund in March 2012 to slow further deterioration in Europe.
Japan continued to recover moderately from the earthquake in early 2011. China's economic growth slowed during the quarter. Other Asian nations continued to expand during the quarter. For more information on our exposure in Europe, Asia, Latin America and Japan, see Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 96.
U.S. Department of Justice / Attorney General Matters
On March 12, 2012, the Corporation and certain of its affiliates and subsidiaries, together with the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other federal agencies (together, the Federal Agencies) and 49 state attorneys general (the State AGs), caused a consent judgment (the Consent Judgment) concerning the terms of a global settlement resolving investigations into certain origination, servicing and foreclosure practices (the Global Settlement Agreement) to be filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Global Settlement Agreement embodies the agreements related to the previously announced agreements in principle reached on February 9, 2012 with (1) the Federal Agencies and State AGs to resolve federal and state investigations into certain origination, servicing and foreclosure practices, and (2) the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to resolve certain claims relating to the origination of FHA-insured mortgage loans, primarily by legacy Countrywide prior to and for a period following the Corporation's acquisition of that company. The Consent Judgment was entered by the court on April 5, 2012, and separate settlement agreements with the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) relating to servicing and foreclosure practices also became effective. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes on page 51 and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Stress Test Results
On March 13, 2012, the Federal Reserve announced the results of its 2012 Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review project (CCAR). The Federal Reserve's stress scenario projections for the Corporation estimated a minimum Tier 1 common capital ratio of 5.9 percent under severe adverse economic conditions with all proposed capital actions through the end of 2013, exceeding the 5 percent reference rate for all institutions involved in the CCAR. The capital plan submitted by the Corporation to the Federal Reserve did not include a request to return capital to stockholders for 2012 above the current dividend rate. The Federal Reserve did not object to our planned capital actions. For additional information, see Capital Management – Regulatory Capital Changes on page 55.
Capital and Liquidity Related Matters
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we entered into a series of transactions involving repurchases of our subordinated debt, and exchanges of preferred stock and trust preferred securities. In a tender offer and certain open market transactions, we repurchased subordinated debt with a carrying value of $4.8 billion for $3.8 billion in cash, and recorded gains of $1.0 billion. Also, we exchanged various series of our outstanding non-convertible perpetual preferred stock with a carrying value of $296 million and trust preferred securities issued by various unconsolidated trusts for approximately 50 million shares of the Corporation's common stock, with a fair value of $412 million, and $398 million in cash. The trust preferred securities were then exchanged with the unconsolidated trusts for an equal principal amount of junior subordinated debt that had a carrying value of $760 million, effectively retiring the debt. In connection with these exchanges, we recorded gains of $202 million and a $44 million reduction to preferred stock dividends. These transactions in the aggregate increased Tier 1 common capital by $1.7 billion or 13 basis points (bps) under Basel I.
As credit spreads for many financial institutions, including the Corporation, remain at wide levels, the market value of debt previously issued by financial institutions has decreased making it economically advantageous to repurchase and retire certain of our outstanding debt. On April 25, 2012, we commenced tender offers for the repurchase of certain of our outstanding subordinated debt and trust preferred securities for aggregate consideration payable in these transactions of up to $1.75 billion in cash (such aggregate consideration is subject to increase). The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, in consultation with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, has informed us that it has approved this capital action. We will consider additional repurchases and exchanges in the future depending on prevailing market conditions, liquidity and other factors. If the purchase of any debt instruments is at an amount less than the carrying value, such purchases would be accretive to earnings and capital.
Credit Ratings
On February 15, 2012, Moody's Investors Service, Inc. (Moody's) placed the Corporation's long-term debt rating and Bank of America, N.A.'s (BANA's) long-term and short-term debt ratings on review for possible downgrade as part of its review of 17 financial institutions with global capital markets operations. On April 13, 2012, Moody's indicated that the review is expected to conclude between early May and the end of June 2012. Any adjustment to our ratings will be determined based on Moody's review; however, the agency offered guidance that downgrades to our ratings, if any, would likely be limited to one notch.
The major rating agencies (Moody's, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services (S&P) and Fitch Ratings (Fitch)) have each indicated that, as a systemically important financial institution, our credit ratings currently reflect their expectation that, if necessary, we would receive significant support from the U.S. government, and that they will continue to assess such support in the context of sovereign financial strength and regulatory and legislative developments. For information regarding the risks associated with adverse changes in our credit ratings, see Liquidity Risk – Credit Ratings on page 65, Note 3 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Net income was $653 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $2.0 billion for the same period in 2011. After preferred stock dividends of $325 million and $310 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, net income applicable to common shareholders was $328 million, or $0.03 per diluted common share, compared to $1.7 billion, or $0.17 per diluted common share. Certain items that affected pre-tax income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 were the following: provision for credit losses of $2.4 billion which included a reserve reduction of $1.6 billion, gains of $1.2 billion on debt repurchases and exchanges of trust preferred securities, equity investment income of $765 million and $752 million of gains on sales of debt securities. These items were more than offset by negative fair value adjustments of $3.3 billion on structured liabilities related to tightening of our own credit spreads, DVA losses on derivatives of $1.5 billion, net of hedges, annual retirement-eligible incentive compensation costs of $892 million and litigation expense of $793 million.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 2 |
Summary Income Statement |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Net interest income (FTE basis) (1) | | | | | $ | 11,053 |
| | $ | 12,397 |
|
Noninterest income | | | | | 11,432 |
| | 14,698 |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) (1) | | | | | 22,485 |
| | 27,095 |
|
Provision for credit losses | | | | | 2,418 |
| | 3,814 |
|
All other noninterest expense | | | | | 19,141 |
| | 20,283 |
|
Income before income taxes | | | | | 926 |
| | 2,998 |
|
Income tax expense (FTE basis) (1) | | | | | 273 |
| | 949 |
|
Net income | | | | | 653 |
| | 2,049 |
|
Preferred stock dividends | | | | | 325 |
| | 310 |
|
Net income applicable to common shareholders | | | | | $ | 328 |
| | $ | 1,739 |
|
| | | | | | | |
Per common share information | | | | | | | |
Earnings | | | | | $ | 0.03 |
| | $ | 0.17 |
|
Diluted earnings | | | | | 0.03 |
| | 0.17 |
|
| |
(1) | FTE basis is a non-GAAP financial measure. For additional information on this measure and for a corresponding reconciliation to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16. |
Net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent (FTE) basis decreased $1.3 billion to $11.1 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The decrease was primarily driven by lower consumer loan balances and yields. Lower trading-related net interest income also negatively impacted the results. These decreases were partially offset by ongoing reductions in long-term debt balances. The net interest yield on a FTE basis was 2.51 percent and 2.67 percent for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
Noninterest income decreased $3.3 billion to $11.4 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The most significant contributors to the decline were the negative fair value adjustments on structured liabilities, net DVA losses and a $710 million decrease in equity investment income. These declines were partially offset by gains on debt repurchases and exchanges of trust preferred securities and a $731 million decrease in representations and warranties provision. For additional information on the repurchases and exchanges, see Liquidity Risk on page 60.
The provision for credit losses decreased $1.4 billion to $2.4 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The provision for credit losses was $1.6 billion lower than net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012, resulting in a reduction in the allowance for credit losses primarily driven by improvement in bankruptcies and delinquencies across the U.S. credit card and unsecured consumer lending portfolios, reductions in the home equity portfolio and improvement in economic conditions impacting the core commercial portfolio partially offset by additions to the consumer purchased credit-impaired (PCI) loan portfolio reserves. This compared to a $2.2 billion reduction in the allowance for credit losses for the three months ended March 31, 2011.
Noninterest expense decreased $1.1 billion to $19.1 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The decline was driven by a decrease of $1.1 billion in other general operating expense which included declines of $464 million in mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs related to delayed foreclosures, and $147 million in litigation expense. The decline in litigation expense was primarily due to lower mortgage-related litigation expense.
Income tax expense on a FTE basis was $273 million on pre-tax income of $926 million for three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $949 million on pre-tax income of $3.0 billion for same period in 2011. For more information, see Financial Highlights – Income Tax Expense on page 12.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Segment Results | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
Table 3 | | | | | | | |
Business Segment Results | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Total Revenue (1) | | Net Income (Loss) |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Consumer & Business Banking (CBB) | $ | 7,420 |
| | $ | 8,464 |
| | $ | 1,454 |
| | $ | 2,041 |
|
Consumer Real Estate Services (CRES) | 2,674 |
| | 2,063 |
| | (1,145 | ) | | (2,400 | ) |
Global Banking | 4,451 |
| | 4,702 |
| | 1,590 |
| | 1,584 |
|
Global Markets | 4,193 |
| | 5,272 |
| | 798 |
| | 1,394 |
|
Global Wealth & Investment Management (GWIM) | 4,360 |
| | 4,496 |
| | 547 |
| | 542 |
|
All Other | (613 | ) | | 2,098 |
| | (2,591 | ) | | (1,112 | ) |
Total FTE basis | 22,485 |
| | 27,095 |
| | 653 |
| | 2,049 |
|
FTE adjustment | (207 | ) | | (218 | ) | | — |
| | — |
|
Total Consolidated | $ | 22,278 |
| | $ | 26,877 |
| | $ | 653 |
| | $ | 2,049 |
|
| |
(1) | Total revenue is net of interest expense and is on a FTE basis which for consolidated revenue is a non-GAAP financial measure. For more information on this measure and for a corresponding reconciliation to a GAAP financial measure, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16. |
The following discussion provides an overview of the results of our business segments and All Other for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. For additional information on these results, see Business Segment Operations on page 26.
CBB net income decreased due to a decline in revenue and an increase in the provision for credit losses, partially offset by lower noninterest expense. Revenue decreased driven by a decline in net interest income from lower average loans and yields and lower noninterest income from the impact of the Durbin Amendment. The provision for credit losses increased, primarily within the Card Services business, which included lower reserve reductions during the three months ended March 31, 2012. Noninterest expense declined due to lower Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), marketing and operating expenses.
CRES net loss, which was primarily driven by continued high costs of managing delinquent and defaulted loans in the servicing portfolio, decreased due to an increase in revenue and decreases in noninterest expense and provision for credit losses. Revenue rose due to increased mortgage banking income driven by a decrease in representations and warranties provision and higher core production income, partially offset by lower insurance income. Noninterest expense decreased due to a decline in litigation expense, lower mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs related to delayed foreclosures, lower production and insurance expenses. The decrease in insurance income and expense was driven by the sale of Balboa Insurance Company's lender-placed insurance business (Balboa) in June 2011.
Global Banking net income remained relatively unchanged as lower noninterest expense and provision for credit losses offset a decline in revenue. Revenue decreased driven by lower investment banking fees mainly from a decline in advisory and equity underwriting fees and lower accretion on acquired portfolios. Provision for credit losses improved due to improving asset quality in the commercial real estate portfolio. Noninterest expense decreased primarily due to lower personnel expenses.
Global Markets net income decreased driven by net DVA losses partially offset by an improved market environment. Net DVA losses increased due to significant tightening of our credit spreads. Sales and trading revenue, excluding net DVA losses, increased resulting from higher fixed income, currencies and commodities (FICC) sales and trading revenue partially offset by a decrease in equity sales and trading revenue.
GWIM net income remained relatively unchanged as lower noninterest expense was offset by lower revenue. Revenue decreased primarily driven by lower transactional activity. Noninterest expense decreased driven by lower FDIC expense and volume-driven expenses, lower litigation expense and other reductions related to expense discipline, partially offset by expenses related to the continued investment in the business.
All Other net loss increased primarily due to an increase in negative fair value adjustments on structured liabilities and lower equity investment income, partially offset by gains on subordinated debt repurchases and exchanges of trust preferred securities. Equity investment income decreased as the year-ago quarter included a gain on an equity investment in connection with an initial public offering (IPO). Provision for credit losses decreased primarily driven by lower reserve additions to the PCI discontinued real estate and residential mortgage portfolios, as well as improvement in delinquencies and bankruptcies in the non-U.S. credit card portfolio. Noninterest expense increased due to higher litigation expense.
|
|
Financial Highlights |
|
Net Interest Income |
Net interest income on a FTE basis decreased $1.3 billion to $11.1 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The decrease was primarily driven by lower consumer loan balances and yields. Lower trading-related net interest income also negatively impacted the results. These decreases were partially offset by ongoing reductions in long-term debt balances. The net interest yield on a FTE basis decreased 16 bps to 2.51 percent for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 as the yield continues to be under pressure due to the aforementioned items and the low rate environment. We expect net interest income to continue to be muted in 2012 based on the current forward yield curve.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noninterest Income |
|
Table 4 |
Noninterest Income |
| | | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Card income | | | | | | $ | 1,457 |
| | $ | 1,828 |
|
Service charges | | | | | | 1,912 |
| | 2,032 |
|
Investment and brokerage services | | | | | | 2,876 |
| | 3,101 |
|
Investment banking income | | | | | | 1,217 |
| | 1,578 |
|
Equity investment income | | | | | | 765 |
| | 1,475 |
|
Trading account profits | | | | | | 2,075 |
| | 2,722 |
|
Mortgage banking income | | | | | | 1,612 |
| | 630 |
|
Insurance income (loss) | | | | | | (60 | ) | | 613 |
|
Gains on sales of debt securities | | | | | | 752 |
| | 546 |
|
Other income (loss) | | | | | | (1,134 | ) | | 261 |
|
Net impairment losses recognized in earnings on AFS debt securities | | | | | | (40 | ) | | (88 | ) |
Total noninterest income | | | | | | $ | 11,432 |
| | $ | 14,698 |
|
Noninterest income decreased $3.3 billion to $11.4 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The following highlights the significant changes.
| |
• | Card income decreased $371 million primarily driven by the implementation of interchange fee rules under the Durbin Amendment, which became effective on October 1, 2011. |
| |
• | Equity investment income decreased $710 million as the year-ago quarter included a $1.1 billion gain related to an IPO of an equity investment. |
| |
• | Trading account profits decreased $647 million primarily driven by net DVA losses on derivatives of $1.5 billion compared to net DVA losses of $357 million for the same period in 2011 as a result of significant tightening of our credit spreads. The impact of the net DVA losses was partially offset by increased sales and trading results, particularly within our FICC businesses reflecting some stabilization of the European debt crisis and improved market sentiment during the quarter. |
| |
• | Mortgage banking income increased $982 million primarily driven by a $731 million decrease in the representations and warranties provision and higher margins on production volume. |
| |
• | Insurance income decreased $673 million primarily driven by the sale of Balboa in June 2011 and a $200 million provision related to payment protection insurance (PPI) claims in the U.K. |
| |
• | Other income decreased $1.4 billion primarily driven by negative fair value adjustments on our structured liabilities of $3.3 billion compared to $586 million for the same period in 2011, partially offset by $1.2 billion of gains related to subordinated debt repurchases and exchanges of trust preferred securities during this quarter. |
|
|
Provision for Credit Losses |
The provision for credit losses decreased $1.4 billion to $2.4 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The provision for credit losses was $1.6 billion lower than net charge-offs for three months ended March 31, 2012 resulting in a reduction in the allowance for credit losses. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, the reduction in the allowance for credit losses was primarily driven by improvement in delinquencies and bankruptcies across the U.S. credit card and unsecured consumer lending portfolios, reductions in the home equity portfolio and improvement in economic conditions impacting the core commercial portfolio, as evidenced by continued declines in reservable criticized and commercial nonperforming balances. The reduction in the allowance for credit losses was partially offset by additions to the consumer PCI loan portfolio reserves. This compared to a $2.2 billion reduction in the allowance for credit losses for the three months ended March 31, 2011.
The provision for credit losses related to our consumer portfolio decreased $1.3 billion to $2.6 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The provision for credit losses related to our commercial portfolio including the provision for unfunded lending commitments decreased $113 million to a benefit of $226 million.
Net charge-offs totaled $4.1 billion, or 1.80 percent of average loans and leases for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $6.0 billion, or 2.61 percent for the same period in 2011. The decrease in net charge-offs was primarily driven by fewer delinquent loans, improved collection rates and lower bankruptcy filings across the U.S. credit card and unsecured consumer lending portfolios, as well as lower net charge-offs in the home equity and core commercial portfolios. For more information on the provision for credit losses, see Provision for Credit Losses on page 100.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noninterest Expense |
|
Table 5 |
Noninterest Expense |
| | | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Personnel | | | | | | $ | 10,188 |
| | $ | 10,168 |
|
Occupancy | | | | | | 1,142 |
| | 1,189 |
|
Equipment | | | | | | 611 |
| | 606 |
|
Marketing | | | | | | 465 |
| | 564 |
|
Professional fees | | | | | | 783 |
| | 646 |
|
Amortization of intangibles | | | | | | 319 |
| | 385 |
|
Data processing | | | | | | 856 |
| | 695 |
|
Telecommunications | | | | | | 400 |
| | 371 |
|
Other general operating | | | | | | 4,377 |
| | 5,457 |
|
Merger and restructuring charges | | | | | | — |
| | 202 |
|
Total noninterest expense | | | | | | $ | 19,141 |
| | $ | 20,283 |
|
Noninterest expense decreased $1.1 billion to $19.1 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The decrease was driven by a $1.1 billion decrease in other general operating expenses primarily as a result of a $464 million decrease in mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs related to delayed foreclosures, and a decrease of $147 million in litigation expense. The decline in litigation expense was primarily due to lower mortgage-related litigation expense. Professional fees and data processing expenses both increased due to the build-out and continuing default management activities in Legacy Assets & Servicing within CRES.
We expect to achieve cost savings in certain noninterest expense categories as we continue to streamline workflows, simplify processes and align expenses with our overall strategic plan and operating principles as part of Project New BAC. Phase 1 implementation continued during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and we are nearing completion of Phase 2 evaluations. We anticipate that more than 20 percent of the $5 billion per year in Phase 1 cost savings could be achieved by the end of 2012 and that all aspects of Project New BAC will be fully implemented by the end of 2014. For additional information, see Recent Events – Project New BAC on page 30 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Income tax expense was $66 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $731 million for the same period in 2011 and resulted in an effective tax rate of 9.2 percent compared to 26.3 percent in the prior year.
The effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2012 was primarily driven by $128 million of discrete tax benefits and by our recurring tax preference items. The percentage impact of the discrete benefits and tax preference items on the effective tax rate was due to the low level of pre-tax earnings. The effective tax rate for the three months ended March 31, 2011 was primarily driven by the impact of our recurring tax preference items.
The proposal to reduce the U.K. corporate income tax rate by two percent to 23 percent is expected to be enacted in July 2012. The first proposed one percent reduction would be effective on April 1, 2012 and the second on April 1, 2013. These reductions would favorably affect income tax expense on future U.K. earnings but also would require us to remeasure our U.K. net deferred tax assets using the lower tax rates. Upon enactment, we would record a charge to income tax expense of approximately $800 million for these reductions. If the corporate income tax rate were reduced to 22 percent by 2014 as suggested in U.K. Treasury announcements and assuming no change in the deferred tax asset balance, we would record a charge to income tax expense of approximately $400 million in the period of enactment.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Balance Sheet Overview |
|
Table 6 |
Selected Balance Sheet Data |
| | | | | Average Balance |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Assets | | | | | | | |
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell | $ | 225,784 |
| | $ | 211,183 |
| | $ | 233,061 |
| | $ | 227,379 |
|
Trading account assets | 209,775 |
| | 169,319 |
| | 175,778 |
| | 221,041 |
|
Debt securities | 331,245 |
| | 311,416 |
| | 327,758 |
| | 335,847 |
|
Loans and leases | 902,294 |
| | 926,200 |
| | 913,722 |
| | 938,966 |
|
Allowance for loan and lease losses | (32,211 | ) | | (33,783 | ) | | (33,210 | ) | | (40,760 | ) |
All other assets | 544,562 |
| | 544,711 |
| | 570,065 |
| | 656,065 |
|
Total assets | $ | 2,181,449 |
| | $ | 2,129,046 |
| | $ | 2,187,174 |
| | $ | 2,338,538 |
|
Liabilities | | | | | | | |
Deposits | $ | 1,041,311 |
| | $ | 1,033,041 |
| | $ | 1,030,112 |
| | $ | 1,023,140 |
|
Federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase | 258,491 |
| | 214,864 |
| | 256,405 |
| | 306,415 |
|
Trading account liabilities | 70,414 |
| | 60,508 |
| | 71,872 |
| | 83,914 |
|
Commercial paper and other short-term borrowings | 39,254 |
| | 35,698 |
| | 36,651 |
| | 65,158 |
|
Long-term debt | 354,912 |
| | 372,265 |
| | 363,518 |
| | 440,511 |
|
All other liabilities | 184,568 |
| | 182,569 |
| | 196,050 |
| | 188,631 |
|
Total liabilities | 1,948,950 |
| | 1,898,945 |
| | 1,954,608 |
| | 2,107,769 |
|
Shareholders’ equity | 232,499 |
| | 230,101 |
| | 232,566 |
| | 230,769 |
|
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 2,181,449 |
| | $ | 2,129,046 |
| | $ | 2,187,174 |
| | $ | 2,338,538 |
|
Period-end balance sheet amounts may vary from average balance sheet amounts due to liquidity and balance sheet management activities, primarily involving our portfolios of highly liquid assets, that are designed to ensure the adequacy of capital while enhancing our ability to manage liquidity requirements for the Corporation and our customers, and to position the balance sheet in accordance with the Corporation’s risk appetite. The execution of these activities requires the use of balance sheet and capital-related limits including spot, average and risk-weighted asset limits, particularly within the market-making activities of our trading businesses. One of our key metrics, Tier 1 leverage ratio, is calculated based on adjusted quarterly average total assets.
At March 31, 2012, total assets were $2.2 trillion, an increase of $52.4 billion, or two percent, from December 31, 2011. This increase was driven by trading account assets due to increases in U.S. Treasuries and EMEA sovereign debt and hedges in leveraged credit trading; debt securities primarily driven by net purchases of agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS); federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell to cover increases in client short positions; and customer financing activity through the match book and collateral requirements. These increases were partially offset by lower consumer loan balances primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations.
Average total assets decreased $151.4 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 driven by lower consumer loan balances primarily due to a reduction in the home equity portfolio, run-off of non-core portfolios and divestitures; sales of strategic investments; lower cash balances held at the Federal Reserve and a decrease in our mortgage servicing rights (MSR) asset.
|
|
Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity |
At March 31, 2012, total liabilities were $1.9 trillion, an increase of $50.0 billion, or three percent, from December 31, 2011 primarily driven by securities sold under agreement to repurchase due to funding trading inventory resulting from customer demand. Partially offsetting this increase were reductions in long-term debt primarily driven by maturities and buybacks outpacing issuances as part of the Corporation's strategy to reduce our long-term debt levels.
Average total liabilities decreased $153.2 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. The decreases were primarily driven by planned reductions in long-term debt due to the Corporation's strategy to reduce our long-term debt levels, reductions in our use of federal funds purchased and securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase, and a decrease in short-term borrowings due to the Corporation's reduced use of commercial paper and master notes.
At March 31, 2012, shareholders’ equity was $232.5 billion, an increase of $2.4 billion, or one percent, from December 31, 2011 due to positive earnings, common stock issued under employee plans and in connection with exchanges of preferred and trust preferred securities, and adjustments to employee benefit plans driven by a curtailment of the Corporation's Qualified Pension Plans, offset by a decrease in unrealized gains on available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities in other comprehensive income (OCI).
Average shareholders' equity increased $1.8 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 primarily driven by the same factors as noted above, offset by a decrease in unrealized gains on AFS marketable equity securities in OCI.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 7 | | | | |
Selected Quarterly Financial Data | | | | |
| 2012 Quarter | | 2011 Quarters |
(In millions, except per share information) | First | | Fourth | | Third | | Second | | First |
Income statement | | | | | | | | | |
Net interest income | $ | 10,846 |
| | $ | 10,701 |
| | $ | 10,490 |
| | $ | 11,246 |
| | $ | 12,179 |
|
Noninterest income | 11,432 |
| | 14,187 |
| | 17,963 |
| | 1,990 |
| | 14,698 |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense | 22,278 |
| | 24,888 |
| | 28,453 |
| | 13,236 |
| | 26,877 |
|
Provision for credit losses | 2,418 |
| | 2,934 |
| | 3,407 |
| | 3,255 |
| | 3,814 |
|
Goodwill impairment | — |
| | 581 |
| | — |
| | 2,603 |
| | — |
|
Merger and restructuring charges | — |
| | 101 |
| | 176 |
| | 159 |
| | 202 |
|
All other noninterest expense (1) | 19,141 |
| | 18,840 |
| | 17,437 |
| | 20,094 |
| | 20,081 |
|
Income (loss) before income taxes | 719 |
| | 2,432 |
| | 7,433 |
| | (12,875 | ) | | 2,780 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) | 66 |
| | 441 |
| | 1,201 |
| | (4,049 | ) | | 731 |
|
Net income (loss) | 653 |
| | 1,991 |
| | 6,232 |
| | (8,826 | ) | | 2,049 |
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders | 328 |
| | 1,584 |
| | 5,889 |
| | (9,127 | ) | | 1,739 |
|
Average common shares issued and outstanding | 10,651 |
| | 10,281 |
| | 10,116 |
| | 10,095 |
| | 10,076 |
|
Average diluted common shares issued and outstanding (2) | 10,762 |
| | 11,125 |
| | 10,464 |
| | 10,095 |
| | 10,181 |
|
Performance ratios | | | | | | | | | |
Return on average assets | 0.12 | % | | 0.36 | % | | 1.07 | % | | n/m |
| | 0.36 | % |
Four quarter trailing return on average assets (3) | n/m |
| | 0.06 |
| | n/m |
| | n/m |
| | n/m |
|
Return on average common shareholders’ equity | 0.62 |
| | 3.00 |
| | 11.40 |
| | n/m |
| | 3.29 |
|
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity (4) | 0.95 |
| | 4.72 |
| | 18.30 |
| | n/m |
| | 5.28 |
|
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (4) | 1.67 |
| | 5.20 |
| | 17.03 |
| | n/m |
| | 5.54 |
|
Total ending equity to total ending assets | 10.66 |
| | 10.81 |
| | 10.37 |
| | 9.83 | % | | 10.15 |
|
Total average equity to total average assets | 10.63 |
| | 10.34 |
| | 9.66 |
| | 10.05 |
| | 9.87 |
|
Dividend payout | 34.97 |
| | 6.60 |
| | 1.73 |
| | n/m |
| | 6.06 |
|
Per common share data | | | | | | | | | |
Earnings (loss) | $ | 0.03 |
| | $ | 0.15 |
| | $ | 0.58 |
| | $ | (0.90 | ) | | $ | 0.17 |
|
Diluted earnings (loss) (2) | 0.03 |
| | 0.15 |
| | 0.56 |
| | (0.90 | ) | | 0.17 |
|
Dividends paid | 0.01 |
| | 0.01 |
| | 0.01 |
| | 0.01 |
| | 0.01 |
|
Book value | 19.83 |
| | 20.09 |
| | 20.80 |
| | 20.29 |
| | 21.15 |
|
Tangible book value (4) | 12.87 |
| | 12.95 |
| | 13.22 |
| | 12.65 |
| | 13.21 |
|
Market price per share of common stock | | | | | | | | | |
Closing | $ | 9.57 |
| | $ | 5.56 |
| | $ | 6.12 |
| | $ | 10.96 |
| | $ | 13.33 |
|
High closing | 9.93 |
| | 7.35 |
| | 11.09 |
| | 13.72 |
| | 15.25 |
|
Low closing | 5.80 |
| | 4.99 |
| | 6.06 |
| | 10.50 |
| | 13.33 |
|
Market capitalization | $ | 103,123 |
| | $ | 58,580 |
| | $ | 62,023 |
| | $ | 111,060 |
| | $ | 135,057 |
|
Average balance sheet | | | | | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 913,722 |
| | $ | 932,898 |
| | $ | 942,032 |
| | $ | 938,513 |
| | $ | 938,966 |
|
Total assets | 2,187,174 |
| | 2,207,567 |
| | 2,301,454 |
| | 2,339,110 |
| | 2,338,538 |
|
Total deposits | 1,030,112 |
| | 1,032,531 |
| | 1,051,320 |
| | 1,035,944 |
| | 1,023,140 |
|
Long-term debt | 363,518 |
| | 389,557 |
| | 420,273 |
| | 435,144 |
| | 440,511 |
|
Common shareholders’ equity | 214,150 |
| | 209,324 |
| | 204,928 |
| | 218,505 |
| | 214,206 |
|
Total shareholders’ equity | 232,566 |
| | 228,235 |
| | 222,410 |
| | 235,067 |
| | 230,769 |
|
Asset quality(5) | | | | | | | | | |
Allowance for credit losses (6) | $ | 32,862 |
| | $ | 34,497 |
| | $ | 35,872 |
| | $ | 38,209 |
| | $ | 40,804 |
|
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties (7) | 27,790 |
| | 27,708 |
| | 29,059 |
| | 30,058 |
| | 31,643 |
|
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding (7) | 3.61 | % | | 3.68 | % | | 3.81 | % | | 4.00 | % | | 4.29 | % |
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases (7) | 126 |
| | 135 |
| | 133 |
| | 135 |
| | 135 |
|
Allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the PCI loan portfolio (6) | 91 |
| | 101 |
| | 101 |
| | 105 |
| | 108 |
|
Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (8) | $ | 17,006 |
| | $ | 17,490 |
| | $ | 18,317 |
| | $ | 19,935 |
| | $ | 22,110 |
|
Allowance as a percentage of total nonperforming loans and leases excluding the amounts included in the allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans (8) | 60 | % | | 65 | % | | 63 | % | | 63 | % | | 60 | % |
Net charge-offs | $ | 4,056 |
| | $ | 4,054 |
| | $ | 5,086 |
| | $ | 5,665 |
| | $ | 6,028 |
|
Annualized net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases outstanding (7) | 1.80 | % | | 1.74 | % | | 2.17 | % | | 2.44 | % | | 2.61 | % |
Nonperforming loans and leases as a percentage of total loans and leases outstanding (7) | 2.85 |
| | 2.74 |
| | 2.87 |
| | 2.96 |
| | 3.19 |
|
Nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties as a percentage of total loans, leases and foreclosed properties (7) | 3.10 |
| | 3.01 |
| | 3.15 |
| | 3.22 |
| | 3.40 |
|
Ratio of the allowance for loan and lease losses at period end to annualized net charge-offs | 1.97 |
| | 2.10 |
| | 1.74 |
| | 1.64 |
| | 1.63 |
|
Capital ratios (period end) | | | | | | | | | |
Risk-based capital: | | | | | | | | | |
Tier 1 common | 10.78 | % | | 9.86 | % | | 8.65 | % | | 8.23 | % | | 8.64 | % |
Tier 1 | 13.37 |
| | 12.40 |
| | 11.48 |
| | 11.00 |
| | 11.32 |
|
Total | 17.49 |
| | 16.75 |
| | 15.86 |
| | 15.65 |
| | 15.98 |
|
Tier 1 leverage | 7.79 |
| | 7.53 |
| | 7.11 |
| | 6.86 |
| | 7.25 |
|
Tangible equity (4) | 7.48 |
| | 7.54 |
| | 7.16 |
| | 6.63 |
| | 6.85 |
|
Tangible common equity (4) | 6.58 |
| | 6.64 |
| | 6.25 |
| | 5.87 |
| | 6.10 |
|
| |
(1) | Excludes merger and restructuring charges and goodwill impairment charges. |
| |
(2) | Due to a net loss applicable to common shareholders for the second quarter of 2011, the impact of antidilutive equity instruments was excluded from diluted earnings (loss) per share and average diluted common shares. |
| |
(3) | Calculated as total net income for four consecutive quarters divided by annualized average assets for four consecutive quarters. |
| |
(4) | Tangible equity ratios and tangible book value per share of common stock are non-GAAP financial measures. Other companies may define or calculate these measures differently. For additional information on these ratios and corresponding reconciliations to GAAP financial measures, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16 and Table 8 on pages 17 through 20. |
| |
(5) | For more information on the impact of the PCI loan portfolio on asset quality, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 67. |
| |
(6) | Includes the allowance for loan and lease losses and the reserve for unfunded lending commitments. |
| |
(7) | Balances and ratios do not include loans accounted for under the fair value option. For additional exclusions from nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 81 and corresponding Table 39, and Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 91 and corresponding Table 48. |
| |
(8) | Amounts included in allowance that are excluded from nonperforming loans primarily include amounts allocated to the U.S. credit card and unsecured consumer lending portfolios in CBB, PCI loans and the non-U.S. credit card portfolio in All Other. |
n/m = not meaningful
|
|
Supplemental Financial Data |
We view net interest income and related ratios and analyses on a FTE basis, which are non-GAAP financial measures. We believe managing the business with net interest income on a FTE basis provides a more accurate picture of the interest margin for comparative purposes. To derive the FTE basis, net interest income is adjusted to reflect tax-exempt income on an equivalent before-tax basis with a corresponding increase in income tax expense. For purposes of this calculation, we use the federal statutory tax rate of 35 percent. This measure ensures comparability of net interest income arising from taxable and tax-exempt sources.
As mentioned above, certain performance measures including the efficiency ratio and net interest yield utilize net interest income (and thus total revenue) on a FTE basis. The efficiency ratio measures the costs expended to generate a dollar of revenue, and net interest yield measures the bps we earn over the cost of funds.
We also evaluate our business based on certain ratios that utilize tangible equity, a non-GAAP financial measure. Tangible equity represents an adjusted shareholders’ equity or common shareholders’ equity amount which has been reduced by goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. These measures are used to evaluate our use of equity. In addition, profitability, relationship and investment models all use return on average tangible shareholders’ equity (ROTE) as key measures to support our overall growth goals.
| |
•
| Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity measures our earnings contribution as a percentage of adjusted common shareholders’ equity. The tangible common equity ratio represents adjusted common shareholders’ equity divided by total assets less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. |
| |
•
| ROTE measures our earnings contribution as a percentage of adjusted average total shareholders’ equity. The tangible equity ratio represents adjusted total shareholders’ equity divided by total assets less goodwill and intangible assets (excluding MSRs), net of related deferred tax liabilities. |
| |
•
| Tangible book value per common share represents adjusted ending common shareholders’ equity divided by ending common shares outstanding. |
In addition, we evaluate our business segment results based on measures that utilize return on economic capital, a non-GAAP financial measure, including the following:
| |
•
| Return on average economic capital for the segments is calculated as net income, adjusted for cost of funds and earnings credits and certain expenses related to intangibles, divided by average economic capital. |
| |
•
| Economic capital represents allocated equity less goodwill and a percentage of intangible assets (excluding MSRs). |
The aforementioned supplemental data and performance measures are presented in Tables 7 and 8. In addition, in Table 8 we have excluded the impact of goodwill impairment charges of $581 million and $2.6 billion recorded in the fourth and second quarters of 2011 when presenting certain of these metrics. Accordingly, these are non-GAAP financial measures. Table 8 provides reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures with financial measures defined by GAAP. We believe the use of these non-GAAP financial measures provides additional clarity in assessing the results of the Corporation and our segments. Other companies may define or calculate these measures and ratios differently.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 8 |
Quarterly Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures |
| 2012 Quarter | | 2011 Quarters |
(Dollars in millions, except per share information) | First | | Fourth | | Third | | Second | | First |
Fully taxable-equivalent basis data | | | | | | | | | |
Net interest income | $ | 11,053 |
| | $ | 10,959 |
| | $ | 10,739 |
| | $ | 11,493 |
| | $ | 12,397 |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense | 22,485 |
| | 25,146 |
| | 28,702 |
| | 13,483 |
| | 27,095 |
|
Net interest yield | 2.51 | % | | 2.45 | % | | 2.32 | % | | 2.50 | % | | 2.67 | % |
Efficiency ratio | 85.13 |
| | 77.64 |
| | 61.37 |
| | n/m |
| | 74.86 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Performance ratios, excluding goodwill impairment charges (1) | | | | | | | | | |
Per common share information | | | | | | | | | |
Earnings (loss) | | | $ | 0.21 |
| | | | $ | (0.65 | ) | | |
Diluted earnings (loss) | | | 0.20 |
| | | | (0.65 | ) | | |
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) | | | 75.33 | % | | | | n/m |
| | |
Return on average assets | | | 0.46 |
| | | | n/m |
| | |
Four quarter trailing return on average assets (2) | | | 0.20 |
| | | | n/m |
| | |
Return on average common shareholders’ equity | | | 4.10 |
| | | | n/m |
| | |
Return on average tangible common shareholders’ equity | | | 6.46 |
| | | | n/m |
| | |
Return on average tangible shareholders’ equity | | | 6.72 |
| | | | n/m |
| | |
| |
(1)
| Performance ratios are calculated excluding the impact of the goodwill impairment charges of $581 million and $2.6 billion recorded during the fourth and second quarters of 2011. |
| |
(2)
| Calculated as total net income for four consecutive quarters divided by average assets for the period. |
n/m = not meaningful
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 8 |
Quarterly Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures (continued) |
| 2012 Quarter | | 2011 Quarters |
(Dollars in millions) | First | | Fourth | | Third | | Second | | First |
Reconciliation of net interest income to net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis | | | | | | | | | |
Net interest income | $ | 10,846 |
| | $ | 10,701 |
| | $ | 10,490 |
| | $ | 11,246 |
| | $ | 12,179 |
|
Fully taxable-equivalent adjustment | 207 |
| | 258 |
| | 249 |
| | 247 |
| | 218 |
|
Net interest income on a fully taxable-equivalent basis | $ | 11,053 |
| | $ | 10,959 |
| | $ | 10,739 |
| | $ | 11,493 |
| | $ | 12,397 |
|
Reconciliation of total revenue, net of interest expense to total revenue, net of interest expense on a fully taxable-equivalent basis | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenue, net of interest expense | $ | 22,278 |
| | $ | 24,888 |
| | $ | 28,453 |
| | $ | 13,236 |
| | $ | 26,877 |
|
Fully taxable-equivalent adjustment | 207 |
| | 258 |
| | 249 |
| | 247 |
| | 218 |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense on a fully taxable-equivalent basis | $ | 22,485 |
| | $ | 25,146 |
| | $ | 28,702 |
| | $ | 13,483 |
| | $ | 27,095 |
|
Reconciliation of total noninterest expense to total noninterest expense, excluding goodwill impairment charges | | | | | | | | | |
Total noninterest expense | $ | 19,141 |
| | $ | 19,522 |
| | $ | 17,613 |
| | $ | 22,856 |
| | $ | 20,283 |
|
Goodwill impairment charges | — |
| | (581 | ) | | — |
| | (2,603 | ) | | — |
|
Total noninterest expense, excluding goodwill impairment charges | $ | 19,141 |
| | $ | 18,941 |
| | $ | 17,613 |
| | $ | 20,253 |
| | $ | 20,283 |
|
Reconciliation of income tax expense (benefit) to income tax expense (benefit) on a fully taxable-equivalent basis | | | | | | | | | |
Income tax expense (benefit) | $ | 66 |
| | $ | 441 |
| | $ | 1,201 |
| | $ | (4,049 | ) | | $ | 731 |
|
Fully taxable-equivalent adjustment | 207 |
| | 258 |
| | 249 |
| | 247 |
| | 218 |
|
Income tax expense (benefit) on a fully taxable-equivalent basis | $ | 273 |
| | $ | 699 |
| | $ | 1,450 |
| | $ | (3,802 | ) | | $ | 949 |
|
Reconciliation of net income (loss) to net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charges | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) | $ | 653 |
| | $ | 1,991 |
| | $ | 6,232 |
| | $ | (8,826 | ) | | $ | 2,049 |
|
Goodwill impairment charges | — |
| | 581 |
| | — |
| | 2,603 |
| | — |
|
Net income (loss), excluding goodwill impairment charges | $ | 653 |
| | $ | 2,572 |
| | $ | 6,232 |
| | $ | (6,223 | ) | | $ | 2,049 |
|
Reconciliation of net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders to net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders, excluding goodwill impairment charges | | | | | | | | | |
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders | $ | 328 |
| | $ | 1,584 |
| | $ | 5,889 |
| | $ | (9,127 | ) | | $ | 1,739 |
|
Goodwill impairment charges | — |
| | 581 |
| | — |
| | 2,603 |
| | — |
|
Net income (loss) applicable to common shareholders, excluding goodwill impairment charges | $ | 328 |
| | $ | 2,165 |
| | $ | 5,889 |
| | $ | (6,524 | ) | | $ | 1,739 |
|
Reconciliation of average common shareholders’ equity to average tangible common shareholders’ equity | | | | | | | | | |
Common shareholders’ equity | $ | 214,150 |
| | $ | 209,324 |
| | $ | 204,928 |
| | $ | 218,505 |
| | $ | 214,206 |
|
Goodwill | (69,967 | ) | | (70,647 | ) | | (71,070 | ) | | (73,748 | ) | | (73,922 | ) |
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs) | (7,869 | ) | | (8,566 | ) | | (9,005 | ) | | (9,394 | ) | | (9,769 | ) |
Related deferred tax liabilities | 2,700 |
| | 2,775 |
| | 2,852 |
| | 2,932 |
| | 3,035 |
|
Tangible common shareholders’ equity | $ | 139,014 |
| | $ | 132,886 |
| | $ | 127,705 |
| | $ | 138,295 |
| | $ | 133,550 |
|
Reconciliation of average shareholders’ equity to average tangible shareholders’ equity | | | | | | | | | |
Shareholders’ equity | $ | 232,566 |
| | $ | 228,235 |
| | $ | 222,410 |
| | $ | 235,067 |
| | $ | 230,769 |
|
Goodwill | (69,967 | ) | | (70,647 | ) | | (71,070 | ) | | (73,748 | ) | | (73,922 | ) |
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs) | (7,869 | ) | | (8,566 | ) | | (9,005 | ) | | (9,394 | ) | | (9,769 | ) |
Related deferred tax liabilities | 2,700 |
| | 2,775 |
| | 2,852 |
| | 2,932 |
| | 3,035 |
|
Tangible shareholders’ equity | $ | 157,430 |
| | $ | 151,797 |
| | $ | 145,187 |
| | $ | 154,857 |
| | $ | 150,113 |
|
Reconciliation of period-end common shareholders’ equity to period-end tangible common shareholders’ equity | | | | | | | | | |
Common shareholders’ equity | $ | 213,711 |
| | $ | 211,704 |
| | $ | 210,772 |
| | $ | 205,614 |
| | $ | 214,314 |
|
Goodwill | (69,976 | ) | | (69,967 | ) | | (70,832 | ) | | (71,074 | ) | | (73,869 | ) |
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs) | (7,696 | ) | | (8,021 | ) | | (8,764 | ) | | (9,176 | ) | | (9,560 | ) |
Related deferred tax liabilities | 2,628 |
| | 2,702 |
| | 2,777 |
| | 2,853 |
| | 2,933 |
|
Tangible common shareholders’ equity | $ | 138,667 |
| | $ | 136,418 |
| | $ | 133,953 |
| | $ | 128,217 |
| | $ | 133,818 |
|
Reconciliation of period-end shareholders’ equity to period-end tangible shareholders’ equity | | | | | | | | | |
Shareholders’ equity | $ | 232,499 |
| | $ | 230,101 |
| | $ | 230,252 |
| | $ | 222,176 |
| | $ | 230,876 |
|
Goodwill | (69,976 | ) | | (69,967 | ) | | (70,832 | ) | | (71,074 | ) | | (73,869 | ) |
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs) | (7,696 | ) | | (8,021 | ) | | (8,764 | ) | | (9,176 | ) | | (9,560 | ) |
Related deferred tax liabilities | 2,628 |
| | 2,702 |
| | 2,777 |
| | 2,853 |
| | 2,933 |
|
Tangible shareholders’ equity | $ | 157,455 |
| | $ | 154,815 |
| | $ | 153,433 |
| | $ | 144,779 |
| | $ | 150,380 |
|
Reconciliation of period-end assets to period-end tangible assets | | | | | | | | | |
Assets | $ | 2,181,449 |
| | $ | 2,129,046 |
| | $ | 2,219,628 |
| | $ | 2,261,319 |
| | $ | 2,274,532 |
|
Goodwill | (69,976 | ) | | (69,967 | ) | | (70,832 | ) | | (71,074 | ) | | (73,869 | ) |
Intangible assets (excluding MSRs) | (7,696 | ) | | (8,021 | ) | | (8,764 | ) | | (9,176 | ) | | (9,560 | ) |
Related deferred tax liabilities | 2,628 |
| | 2,702 |
| | 2,777 |
| | 2,853 |
| | 2,933 |
|
Tangible assets | $ | 2,106,405 |
| | $ | 2,053,760 |
| | $ | 2,142,809 |
| | $ | 2,183,922 |
| | $ | 2,194,036 |
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 8 |
Quarterly Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures (continued) |
| 2012 Quarter | | 2011 Quarters |
(Dollars in millions) | First | | Fourth | | Third | | Second | | First |
| | | | | | | | | |
Consumer & Business Banking | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income | $ | 1,454 |
| | $ | 1,243 |
| | $ | 1,666 |
| | $ | 2,502 |
| | $ | 2,041 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | 3 |
| | 5 |
| | 6 |
| | 2 |
| | 7 |
|
Adjusted net income | $ | 1,457 |
| | $ | 1,248 |
| | $ | 1,672 |
| | $ | 2,504 |
| | $ | 2,048 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 52,947 |
| | $ | 53,005 |
| | $ | 52,382 |
| | $ | 52,559 |
| | $ | 53,700 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (30,523 | ) | | (30,587 | ) | | (30,601 | ) | | (30,655 | ) | | (30,698 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 22,424 |
| | $ | 22,418 |
| | $ | 21,781 |
| | $ | 21,904 |
| | $ | 23,002 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Consumer Real Estate Services | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net loss | $ | (1,145 | ) | | $ | (1,444 | ) | | $ | (1,123 | ) | | $ | (14,506 | ) | | $ | (2,400 | ) |
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
Goodwill impairment charge | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 2,603 |
| | — |
|
Adjusted net loss | $ | (1,145 | ) | | $ | (1,444 | ) | | $ | (1,123 | ) | | $ | (11,903 | ) | | $ | (2,400 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 14,791 |
| | $ | 14,757 |
| | $ | 14,240 |
| | $ | 17,139 |
| | $ | 18,736 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles (excluding MSRs) | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | (2,702 | ) | | (2,742 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 14,791 |
| | $ | 14,757 |
| | $ | 14,240 |
| | $ | 14,437 |
| | $ | 15,994 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Global Banking | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income | $ | 1,590 |
| | $ | 1,337 |
| | $ | 1,205 |
| | $ | 1,921 |
| | $ | 1,584 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | 2 |
| | 1 |
| | 2 |
|
Adjusted net income | $ | 1,591 |
| | $ | 1,338 |
| | $ | 1,207 |
| | $ | 1,922 |
| | $ | 1,586 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 46,393 |
| | $ | 46,087 |
| | $ | 47,681 |
| | $ | 47,060 |
| | $ | 48,732 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (25,536 | ) | | (24,900 | ) | | (24,724 | ) | | (24,429 | ) | | (24,433 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 20,857 |
| | $ | 21,187 |
| | $ | 22,957 |
| | $ | 22,631 |
| | $ | 24,299 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Global Markets | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income (loss) | $ | 798 |
| | $ | (768 | ) | | $ | (552 | ) | | $ | 911 |
| | $ | 1,394 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | 2 |
| | 3 |
| | 3 |
| | 3 |
| | 3 |
|
Adjusted net income (loss) | $ | 800 |
| | $ | (765 | ) | | $ | (549 | ) | | $ | 914 |
| | $ | 1,397 |
|
|
Average allocated equity | $ | 17,642 |
| | $ | 19,805 |
| | $ | 21,609 |
| | $ | 22,990 |
| | $ | 26,362 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (3,973 | ) | | (4,651 | ) | | (4,655 | ) | | (4,645 | ) | | (4,548 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 13,669 |
| | $ | 15,154 |
| | $ | 16,954 |
| | $ | 18,345 |
| | $ | 21,814 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Global Wealth & Investment Management | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income | $ | 547 |
| | $ | 259 |
| | $ | 358 |
| | $ | 513 |
| | $ | 542 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | 6 |
| | 7 |
| | 7 |
| | 7 |
| | 9 |
|
Adjusted net income | $ | 553 |
| | $ | 266 |
| | $ | 365 |
| | $ | 520 |
| | $ | 551 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 17,228 |
| | $ | 17,845 |
| | $ | 17,826 |
| | $ | 17,560 |
| | $ | 17,932 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (10,641 | ) | | (10,663 | ) | | (10,691 | ) | | (10,706 | ) | | (10,728 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 6,587 |
| | $ | 7,182 |
| | $ | 7,135 |
| | $ | 6,854 |
| | $ | 7,204 |
|
| |
(1)
| Represents cost of funds, earnings credit and certain expenses related to intangibles. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 8 |
Quarterly Supplemental Financial Data and Reconciliations to GAAP Financial Measures (continued) |
| 2012 Quarter | | 2011 Quarters |
(Dollars in millions) | First | | Fourth | | Third | | Second | | First |
| | | | | | | | | |
Consumer & Business Banking | | | | | | | | | |
Deposits | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income | $ | 310 |
| | $ | 149 |
| | $ | 285 |
| | $ | 432 |
| | $ | 361 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | — |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | — |
| | 1 |
|
Adjusted net income | $ | 310 |
| | $ | 150 |
| | $ | 286 |
| | $ | 432 |
| | $ | 362 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 23,194 |
| | $ | 23,862 |
| | $ | 23,820 |
| | $ | 23,612 |
| | $ | 23,641 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (17,932 | ) | | (17,939 | ) | | (17,947 | ) | | (17,950 | ) | | (17,958 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 5,262 |
| | $ | 5,923 |
| | $ | 5,873 |
| | $ | 5,662 |
| | $ | 5,683 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Card Services | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income | $ | 1,038 |
| | $ | 1,029 |
| | $ | 1,267 |
| | $ | 1,944 |
| | $ | 1,571 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | 3 |
| | 4 |
| | 5 |
| | 2 |
| | 6 |
|
Adjusted net income | $ | 1,041 |
| | $ | 1,033 |
| | $ | 1,272 |
| | $ | 1,946 |
| | $ | 1,577 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 20,671 |
| | $ | 20,610 |
| | $ | 20,755 |
| | $ | 21,016 |
| | $ | 22,149 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (10,492 | ) | | (10,549 | ) | | (10,561 | ) | | (10,607 | ) | | (10,640 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 10,179 |
| | $ | 10,061 |
| | $ | 10,194 |
| | $ | 10,409 |
| | $ | 11,509 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Business Banking | | | | | | | | | |
Reported net income | $ | 106 |
| | $ | 65 |
| | $ | 114 |
| | $ | 126 |
| | $ | 109 |
|
Adjustment related to intangibles (1) | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
| | — |
|
Adjusted net income | $ | 106 |
| | $ | 65 |
| | $ | 114 |
| | $ | 126 |
| | $ | 109 |
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Average allocated equity | $ | 9,082 |
| | $ | 8,533 |
| | $ | 7,807 |
| | $ | 7,931 |
| | $ | 7,910 |
|
Adjustment related to goodwill and a percentage of intangibles | (2,099 | ) | | (2,099 | ) | | (2,093 | ) | | (2,098 | ) | | (2,100 | ) |
Average economic capital | $ | 6,983 |
| | $ | 6,434 |
| | $ | 5,714 |
| | $ | 5,833 |
| | $ | 5,810 |
|
| |
(1)
| Represents cost of funds, earnings credit and certain expenses related to intangibles. |
We manage core net interest income which is reported net interest income on a FTE basis adjusted for the impact of market-based activities. As discussed in the Global Markets business segment section on page 38, we evaluate our market-based results and strategies on a total market-based revenue approach by combining net interest income and noninterest income for Global Markets. An analysis of core net interest income, core average earning assets and core net interest yield on earning assets, all of which adjust for the impact of market-based activities from reported net interest income on a FTE basis, is shown below. We believe the use of this non-GAAP presentation in Table 9 provides additional clarity in assessing our results.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 9 |
Core Net Interest Income |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 |
Net interest income (FTE basis) | | | |
As reported (1) | $ | 11,053 |
| | $ | 12,397 |
|
Impact of market-based net interest income (2) | (796 | ) | | (1,020 | ) |
Core net interest income | $ | 10,257 |
| | $ | 11,377 |
|
Average earning assets | | | |
As reported | $ | 1,768,105 |
| | $ | 1,869,863 |
|
Impact of market-based earning assets (2) | (424,336 | ) | | (465,255 | ) |
Core average earning assets | $ | 1,343,769 |
| | $ | 1,404,608 |
|
Net interest yield contribution (FTE basis) (3) | | | |
As reported (1) | 2.51 | % | | 2.67 | % |
Impact of market-based activities (2) | 0.55 |
| | 0.59 |
|
Core net interest yield on earning assets | 3.06 | % | | 3.26 | % |
| |
(1)
| Net interest income and net interest yield include fees earned on overnight deposits placed with the Federal Reserve of $47 million and $63 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. |
| |
(2)
| Represents the impact of market-based amounts included in Global Markets. |
| |
(3)
| Calculated on an annualized basis. |
For the three months ended March 31, 2012, core net interest income decreased $1.1 billion to $10.3 billion compared to the same period in the prior year. The decline was primarily driven by lower consumer loan balances and yields, lower yields on commercial loans and a decrease in loans held-for-sale (LHFS). These decreases were partially offset by reductions in long-term debt balances.
Core average earning assets for the three months ended March 31, 2012 decreased $60.8 billion to $1,343.8 billion compared to the same period in the prior year. The decrease was due to declines in consumer loans and LHFS, partially offset by increases in commercial loans.
For the three months ended March 31, 2012, core net interest yield decreased 20 bps to 3.06 percent compared to the same period in the prior year primarily due to the factors noted above. These impacts include a significant flattening of the yield curve driven by lower long-term rates throughout the quarter compared to the same period in the prior year.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 10 |
Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – FTE Basis |
| First Quarter 2012 | | Fourth Quarter 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate | | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate |
Earning assets | | | | | | | | | | | |
Time deposits placed and other short-term investments (1) | $ | 31,404 |
| | $ | 65 |
| | 0.83 | % | | $ | 27,688 |
| | $ | 85 |
| | 1.19 | % |
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell | 233,061 |
| | 460 |
| | 0.79 |
| | 237,453 |
| | 449 |
| | 0.75 |
|
Trading account assets | 175,778 |
| | 1,399 |
| | 3.19 |
| | 161,848 |
| | 1,354 |
| | 3.33 |
|
Debt securities (2) | 327,758 |
| | 2,732 |
| | 3.33 |
| | 332,990 |
| | 2,245 |
| | 2.69 |
|
Loans and leases (3): | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential mortgage (4) | 260,573 |
| | 2,489 |
| | 3.82 |
| | 266,144 |
| | 2,596 |
| | 3.90 |
|
Home equity | 122,933 |
| | 1,164 |
| | 3.80 |
| | 126,251 |
| | 1,207 |
| | 3.80 |
|
Discontinued real estate | 12,082 |
| | 103 |
| | 3.42 |
| | 14,073 |
| | 128 |
| | 3.65 |
|
U.S. credit card | 98,334 |
| | 2,459 |
| | 10.06 |
| | 102,241 |
| | 2,603 |
| | 10.10 |
|
Non-U.S. credit card | 14,151 |
| | 408 |
| | 11.60 |
| | 15,981 |
| | 420 |
| | 10.41 |
|
Direct/Indirect consumer (5) | 88,321 |
| | 801 |
| | 3.65 |
| | 90,861 |
| | 863 |
| | 3.77 |
|
Other consumer (6) | 2,617 |
| | 40 |
| | 6.24 |
| | 2,751 |
| | 41 |
| | 6.14 |
|
Total consumer | 599,011 |
| | 7,464 |
| | 5.00 |
| | 618,302 |
| | 7,858 |
| | 5.06 |
|
U.S. commercial | 195,111 |
| | 1,756 |
| | 3.62 |
| | 196,778 |
| | 1,798 |
| | 3.63 |
|
Commercial real estate (7) | 39,190 |
| | 339 |
| | 3.48 |
| | 40,673 |
| | 343 |
| | 3.34 |
|
Commercial lease financing | 21,679 |
| | 272 |
| | 5.01 |
| | 21,278 |
| | 204 |
| | 3.84 |
|
Non-U.S. commercial | 58,731 |
| | 391 |
| | 2.68 |
| | 55,867 |
| | 395 |
| | 2.80 |
|
Total commercial | 314,711 |
| | 2,758 |
| | 3.52 |
| | 314,596 |
| | 2,740 |
| | 3.46 |
|
Total loans and leases | 913,722 |
| | 10,222 |
| | 4.49 |
| | 932,898 |
| | 10,598 |
| | 4.52 |
|
Other earning assets | 86,382 |
| | 743 |
| | 3.46 |
| | 91,109 |
| | 904 |
| | 3.95 |
|
Total earning assets (8) | 1,768,105 |
| | 15,621 |
| | 3.55 |
| | 1,783,986 |
| | 15,635 |
| | 3.49 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents (1) | 112,512 |
| | 47 |
| | | | 94,287 |
| | 36 |
| | |
Other assets, less allowance for loan and lease losses | 306,557 |
| | | | | | 329,294 |
| | | | |
Total assets | $ | 2,187,174 |
| | | | | | $ | 2,207,567 |
| | | | |
| |
(1)
| For this presentation, fees earned on overnight deposits placed with the Federal Reserve are included in the cash and cash equivalents line, consistent with the Corporation’s Consolidated Balance Sheet presentation of these deposits. Net interest income and net interest yield are calculated excluding these fees. |
| |
(2)
| Yields on AFS debt securities are calculated based on fair value rather than the cost basis. The use of fair value does not have a material impact on net interest yield. |
| |
(3)
| Nonperforming loans are included in the respective average loan balances. Income on these nonperforming loans is recognized on a cost recovery basis. PCI loans were recorded at fair value upon acquisition and accrete interest income over the remaining life of the loan. |
| |
(4)
| Includes non-U.S. residential mortgage loans of $86 million in the first quarter of 2012, and $88 million, $91 million, $94 million and $92 million in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively. |
| |
(5)
| Includes non-U.S. consumer loans of $7.5 billion in the first quarter of 2012, and $8.4 billion, $8.6 billion, $8.7 billion and $8.2 billion in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively. |
| |
(6)
| Includes consumer finance loans of $1.6 billion in the first quarter of 2012, and $1.7 billion, $1.8 billion, $1.8 billion and $1.9 billion in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively; other non-U.S. consumer loans of $903 million in the first quarter of 2012, and $959 million, $932 million, $840 million and $777 million in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively; and consumer overdrafts of $90 million in the first quarter of 2012, and $107 million, $107 million, $79 million and $76 million in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively. |
| |
(7)
| Includes U.S. commercial real estate loans of $37.4 billion in the first quarter of 2012, and $38.7 billion, $40.7 billion, $43.4 billion and $45.7 billion in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively; and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $1.8 billion in the first quarter of 2012, and $1.9 billion, $2.2 billion, $2.3 billion and $2.7 billion in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively. |
| |
(8)
| Interest income includes the impact of interest rate risk management contracts, which decreased interest income on the underlying assets by $106 million in the first quarter of 2012, and $427 million, $1.0 billion, $739 million and $388 million in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively. Interest expense includes the impact of interest rate risk management contracts, which decreased interest expense on the underlying liabilities by $658 million in the first quarter of 2012, and $763 million, $631 million, $625 million and $621 million in the fourth, third, second and first quarters of 2011, respectively. For further information on interest rate contracts, see Interest Rate Risk Management for Nontrading Activities on page 108. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 10 | | | | | | |
Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – FTE Basis (continued) |
| Third Quarter 2011 | | Second Quarter 2011 | | First Quarter 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate | | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate | | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate |
Earning assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Time deposits placed and other short-term investments (1) | $ | 26,743 |
| | $ | 87 |
| | 1.31 | % | | $ | 27,298 |
| | $ | 106 |
| | 1.56 | % | | $ | 31,294 |
| | $ | 88 |
| | 1.14 | % |
Federal funds sold and securities borrowed or purchased under agreements to resell | 256,143 |
| | 584 |
| | 0.90 |
| | 259,069 |
| | 597 |
| | 0.92 |
| | 227,379 |
| | 517 |
| | 0.92 |
|
Trading account assets | 180,438 |
| | 1,543 |
| | 3.40 |
| | 186,760 |
| | 1,576 |
| | 3.38 |
| | 221,041 |
| | 1,669 |
| | 3.05 |
|
Debt securities (2) | 344,327 |
| | 1,744 |
| | 2.02 |
| | 335,269 |
| | 2,696 |
| | 3.22 |
| | 335,847 |
| | 2,917 |
| | 3.49 |
|
Loans and leases (3): | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential mortgage (4) | 268,494 |
| | 2,856 |
| | 4.25 |
| | 265,420 |
| | 2,763 |
| | 4.16 |
| | 262,049 |
| | 2,881 |
| | 4.40 |
|
Home equity | 129,125 |
| | 1,238 |
| | 3.81 |
| | 131,786 |
| | 1,261 |
| | 3.83 |
| | 136,089 |
| | 1,335 |
| | 3.96 |
|
Discontinued real estate | 15,923 |
| | 134 |
| | 3.36 |
| | 15,997 |
| | 129 |
| | 3.22 |
| | 12,899 |
| | 110 |
| | 3.42 |
|
U.S. credit card | 103,671 |
| | 2,650 |
| | 10.14 |
| | 106,164 |
| | 2,718 |
| | 10.27 |
| | 109,941 |
| | 2,837 |
| | 10.47 |
|
Non-U.S. credit card | 25,434 |
| | 697 |
| | 10.88 |
| | 27,259 |
| | 760 |
| | 11.18 |
| | 27,633 |
| | 779 |
| | 11.43 |
|
Direct/Indirect consumer (5) | 90,280 |
| | 915 |
| | 4.02 |
| | 89,403 |
| | 945 |
| | 4.24 |
| | 90,097 |
| | 993 |
| | 4.47 |
|
Other consumer (6) | 2,795 |
| | 43 |
| | 6.07 |
| | 2,745 |
| | 47 |
| | 6.76 |
| | 2,753 |
| | 45 |
| | 6.58 |
|
Total consumer | 635,722 |
| | 8,533 |
| | 5.34 |
| | 638,774 |
| | 8,623 |
| | 5.41 |
| | 641,461 |
| | 8,980 |
| | 5.65 |
|
U.S. commercial | 191,439 |
| | 1,809 |
| | 3.75 |
| | 190,479 |
| | 1,827 |
| | 3.85 |
| | 191,353 |
| | 1,926 |
| | 4.08 |
|
Commercial real estate (7) | 42,931 |
| | 360 |
| | 3.33 |
| | 45,762 |
| | 382 |
| | 3.35 |
| | 48,359 |
| | 437 |
| | 3.66 |
|
Commercial lease financing | 21,342 |
| | 240 |
| | 4.51 |
| | 21,284 |
| | 235 |
| | 4.41 |
| | 21,634 |
| | 322 |
| | 5.95 |
|
Non-U.S. commercial | 50,598 |
| | 349 |
| | 2.73 |
| | 42,214 |
| | 339 |
| | 3.22 |
| | 36,159 |
| | 299 |
| | 3.35 |
|
Total commercial | 306,310 |
| | 2,758 |
| | 3.58 |
| | 299,739 |
| | 2,783 |
| | 3.72 |
| | 297,505 |
| | 2,984 |
| | 4.06 |
|
Total loans and leases | 942,032 |
| | 11,291 |
| | 4.77 |
| | 938,513 |
| | 11,406 |
| | 4.87 |
| | 938,966 |
| | 11,964 |
| | 5.14 |
|
Other earning assets | 91,452 |
| | 814 |
| | 3.54 |
| | 97,616 |
| | 866 |
| | 3.56 |
| | 115,336 |
| | 922 |
| | 3.24 |
|
Total earning assets (8) | 1,841,135 |
| | 16,063 |
| | 3.47 |
| | 1,844,525 |
| | 17,247 |
| | 3.75 |
| | 1,869,863 |
| | 18,077 |
| | 3.92 |
|
Cash and cash equivalents (1) | 102,573 |
| | 38 |
| | | | 115,956 |
| | 49 |
| | | | 138,241 |
| | 63 |
| | |
Other assets, less allowance for loan and lease losses | 357,746 |
| | | | | | 378,629 |
| | | | | | 330,434 |
| | | | |
Total assets | $ | 2,301,454 |
| | | | | | $ | 2,339,110 |
| | |
| | | | $ | 2,338,538 |
| | | | |
For footnotes see page 22.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 10 |
Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – FTE Basis (continued) |
| First Quarter 2012 | | Fourth Quarter 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate | | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate |
Interest-bearing liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | |
U.S. interest-bearing deposits: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Savings | $ | 40,543 |
| | $ | 14 |
| | 0.14 | % | | $ | 39,609 |
| | $ | 16 |
| | 0.16 | % |
NOW and money market deposit accounts | 458,649 |
| | 186 |
| | 0.16 |
| | 454,249 |
| | 192 |
| | 0.17 |
|
Consumer CDs and IRAs | 100,044 |
| | 194 |
| | 0.78 |
| | 103,488 |
| | 220 |
| | 0.84 |
|
Negotiable CDs, public funds and other time deposits | 22,586 |
| | 36 |
| | 0.64 |
| | 22,413 |
| | 34 |
| | 0.60 |
|
Total U.S. interest-bearing deposits | 621,822 |
| | 430 |
| | 0.28 |
| | 619,759 |
| | 462 |
| | 0.30 |
|
Non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Banks located in non-U.S. countries | 18,170 |
| | 28 |
| | 0.62 |
| | 20,454 |
| | 29 |
| | 0.55 |
|
Governments and official institutions | 1,286 |
| | 1 |
| | 0.41 |
| | 1,466 |
| | 1 |
| | 0.36 |
|
Time, savings and other | 55,241 |
| | 90 |
| | 0.66 |
| | 57,814 |
| | 124 |
| | 0.85 |
|
Total non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits | 74,697 |
| | 119 |
| | 0.64 |
| | 79,734 |
| | 154 |
| | 0.77 |
|
Total interest-bearing deposits | 696,519 |
| | 549 |
| | 0.32 |
| | 699,493 |
| | 616 |
| | 0.35 |
|
Federal funds purchased, securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase and other short-term borrowings | 293,056 |
| | 881 |
| | 1.21 |
| | 284,766 |
| | 921 |
| | 1.28 |
|
Trading account liabilities | 71,872 |
| | 477 |
| | 2.67 |
| | 70,999 |
| | 411 |
| | 2.29 |
|
Long-term debt | 363,518 |
| | 2,708 |
| | 2.99 |
| | 389,557 |
| | 2,764 |
| | 2.80 |
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities (8) | 1,424,965 |
| | 4,615 |
| | 1.30 |
| | 1,444,815 |
| | 4,712 |
| | 1.29 |
|
Noninterest-bearing sources: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noninterest-bearing deposits | 333,593 |
| | | | | | 333,038 |
| | | | |
Other liabilities | 196,050 |
| | | | | | 201,479 |
| | | | |
Shareholders’ equity | 232,566 |
| | | | | | 228,235 |
| | | | |
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 2,187,174 |
| | | | | | $ | 2,207,567 |
| | | | |
Net interest spread | | | | | 2.25 | % | | | | | | 2.20 | % |
Impact of noninterest-bearing sources | | | | | 0.25 |
| | | | | | 0.24 |
|
Net interest income/yield on earning assets (1) | | | $ | 11,006 |
| | 2.50 | % | | | | $ | 10,923 |
| | 2.44 | % |
For footnotes see page 22.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 10 | | | | | | |
Quarterly Average Balances and Interest Rates – FTE Basis (continued) |
| Third Quarter 2011 | | Second Quarter 2011 | | First Quarter 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate | | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate | | Average Balance | | Interest Income/ Expense | | Yield/ Rate |
Interest-bearing liabilities | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
U.S. interest-bearing deposits: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Savings | $ | 41,256 |
| | $ | 21 |
| | 0.19 | % | | $ | 41,668 |
| | $ | 31 |
| | 0.30 | % | | $ | 38,905 |
| | $ | 32 |
| | 0.34 | % |
NOW and money market deposit accounts | 473,391 |
| | 248 |
| | 0.21 |
| | 478,690 |
| | 304 |
| | 0.25 |
| | 475,954 |
| | 316 |
| | 0.27 |
|
Consumer CDs and IRAs | 108,359 |
| | 244 |
| | 0.89 |
| | 113,728 |
| | 281 |
| | 0.99 |
| | 118,306 |
| | 300 |
| | 1.03 |
|
Negotiable CDs, public funds and other time deposits | 18,547 |
| | 5 |
| | 0.12 |
| | 13,842 |
| | 42 |
| | 1.22 |
| | 13,995 |
| | 39 |
| | 1.11 |
|
Total U.S. interest-bearing deposits | 641,553 |
| | 518 |
| | 0.32 |
| | 647,928 |
| | 658 |
| | 0.41 |
| | 647,160 |
| | 687 |
| | 0.43 |
|
Non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Banks located in non-U.S. countries | 21,037 |
| | 34 |
| | 0.65 |
| | 19,234 |
| | 37 |
| | 0.77 |
| | 21,534 |
| | 38 |
| | 0.72 |
|
Governments and official institutions | 2,043 |
| | 2 |
| | 0.32 |
| | 2,131 |
| | 2 |
| | 0.38 |
| | 2,307 |
| | 2 |
| | 0.35 |
|
Time, savings and other | 64,271 |
| | 150 |
| | 0.93 |
| | 64,889 |
| | 146 |
| | 0.90 |
| | 60,432 |
| | 112 |
| | 0.76 |
|
Total non-U.S. interest-bearing deposits | 87,351 |
| | 186 |
| | 0.85 |
| | 86,254 |
| | 185 |
| | 0.86 |
| | 84,273 |
| | 152 |
| | 0.73 |
|
Total interest-bearing deposits | 728,904 |
| | 704 |
| | 0.38 |
| | 734,182 |
| | 843 |
| | 0.46 |
| | 731,433 |
| | 839 |
| | 0.46 |
|
Federal funds purchased, securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase and other short-term borrowings | 303,234 |
| | 1,152 |
| | 1.51 |
| | 338,692 |
| | 1,342 |
| | 1.59 |
| | 371,573 |
| | 1,184 |
| | 1.29 |
|
Trading account liabilities | 87,841 |
| | 547 |
| | 2.47 |
| | 96,108 |
| | 627 |
| | 2.62 |
| | 83,914 |
| | 627 |
| | 3.03 |
|
Long-term debt | 420,273 |
| | 2,959 |
| | 2.82 |
| | 435,144 |
| | 2,991 |
| | 2.75 |
| | 440,511 |
| | 3,093 |
| | 2.84 |
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities (8) | 1,540,252 |
| | 5,362 |
| | 1.39 |
| | 1,604,126 |
| | 5,803 |
| | 1.45 |
| | 1,627,431 |
| | 5,743 |
| | 1.43 |
|
Noninterest-bearing sources: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noninterest-bearing deposits | 322,416 |
| | | | | | 301,762 |
| | |
| | | | 291,707 |
| | | | |
Other liabilities | 216,376 |
| | | | | | 198,155 |
| | |
| | | | 188,631 |
| | | | |
Shareholders’ equity | 222,410 |
| | | | | | 235,067 |
| | |
| | | | 230,769 |
| | | | |
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity | $ | 2,301,454 |
| | | | | | $ | 2,339,110 |
| | | | | | $ | 2,338,538 |
| | | | |
Net interest spread | | | | | 2.08 | % | | | | | | 2.30 | % | | | | | | 2.49 | % |
Impact of noninterest-bearing sources | | | | | 0.23 |
| | | | | | 0.19 |
| | | | | | 0.17 |
|
Net interest income/yield on earning assets (1) | | | $ | 10,701 |
| | 2.31 | % | | | | $ | 11,444 |
| | 2.49 | % | | | | $ | 12,334 |
| | 2.66 | % |
For footnotes see page 22.
|
|
Business Segment Operations |
|
Segment Description and Basis of Presentation |
We report the results of our operations through five business segments: CBB, CRES, Global Banking, Global Markets and GWIM, with the remaining operations recorded in All Other. Effective January 1, 2012, we changed the basis of presentation from six to the above five segments. The former Deposits and Card Services segments, as well as Business Banking, which was included in the former Global Commercial Banking segment, are now reflected in CBB. The former Global Commercial Banking segment was combined with the Global Corporate and Investment Banking business, which was included in the former Global Banking & Markets (GBAM) segment, to form Global Banking. The remaining global markets business of GBAM is now reported as a separate Global Markets segment. In addition, certain management accounting methodologies and related allocations were refined. Prior period results have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation.
We prepare and evaluate segment results using certain non-GAAP financial measures. For additional information, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16.
The management accounting and reporting process derives segment and business results by utilizing allocation methodologies for revenue and expense. The net income derived for the businesses is dependent upon revenue and cost allocations using an activity-based costing model, funds transfer pricing, and other methodologies and assumptions management believes are appropriate to reflect the results of the business.
Total revenue, net of interest expense, includes net interest income on a FTE basis and noninterest income. The adjustment of net interest income to a FTE basis results in a corresponding increase in income tax expense. The segment results also reflect certain revenue and expense methodologies that are utilized to determine net income. The net interest income of the businesses includes the results of a funds transfer pricing process that matches assets and liabilities with similar interest rate sensitivity and maturity characteristics. For presentation purposes, in segments where the total of liabilities and equity exceeds assets, which are generally deposit-taking segments, we allocate assets to match liabilities. Net interest income of the business segments also includes an allocation of net interest income generated by certain of our asset and liability management (ALM) activities.
Our ALM activities include an overall interest rate risk management strategy that incorporates the use of various derivatives and cash instruments to manage fluctuations in earnings and capital that are caused by interest rate volatility. Our goal is to manage interest rate sensitivity so that movements in interest rates do not significantly adversely affect earnings and capital. The majority of our ALM activities are allocated to the business segments and fluctuate based on performance. ALM activities include external product pricing decisions including deposit pricing strategies, the effects of our internal funds transfer pricing process and the net effects of other ALM activities.
Certain expenses not directly attributable to a specific business segment are allocated to the segments. The most significant of these expenses include data and item processing costs and certain centralized or shared functions. Data processing costs are allocated to the segments based on equipment usage. Item processing costs are allocated to the segments based on the volume of items processed for each segment. The costs of certain centralized or shared functions are allocated based on methodologies that reflect utilization.
The Corporation allocates economic capital to the business segments and related businesses using a risk-adjusted methodology incorporating each segment’s credit, market, interest rate, strategic and operational risk components. The nature of these risks is discussed further on page 53. A business segment's allocated equity includes this economic capital allocation and also includes the portion of goodwill and intangibles specifically assigned to the business segment. We benefit from the diversification of risk across these components which is reflected as a reduction to allocated equity for each segment. The risk-adjusted methodology is periodically refined as such refinements are reflected as changes to allocated equity in each segment.
For more information on selected financial information for the business segments and reconciliations to consolidated total revenue, net income (loss) and period-end total assets, see Note 19 – Business Segment Information to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
|
Consumer & Business Banking |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended March 31 | | |
| Deposits | | Card Services | | Business Banking | | Total Consumer & Business Banking | | |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | % Change |
|
Net interest income (FTE basis) | $ | 2,119 |
| | $ | 2,205 |
| | $ | 2,616 |
| | $ | 3,013 |
| | $ | 344 |
| | $ | 382 |
| | $ | 5,079 |
| | $ | 5,600 |
| | (9 | )% |
Noninterest income: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Card income | — |
| | — |
| | 1,278 |
| | 1,577 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1,278 |
| | 1,577 |
| | (19 | ) |
Service charges | 968 |
| | 923 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 95 |
| | 155 |
| | 1,063 |
| | 1,078 |
| | (1 | ) |
All other income (loss) | 60 |
| | 61 |
| | (85 | ) | | 125 |
| | 25 |
| | 23 |
| | — |
| | 209 |
| | n/m |
|
Total noninterest income | 1,028 |
| | 984 |
| | 1,193 |
| | 1,702 |
| | 120 |
| | 178 |
| | 2,341 |
| | 2,864 |
| | (18 | ) |
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) | 3,147 |
| | 3,189 |
| | 3,809 |
| | 4,715 |
| | 464 |
| | 560 |
| | 7,420 |
| | 8,464 |
| | (12 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Provision for credit losses | 51 |
| | 33 |
| | 790 |
| | 595 |
| | 36 |
| | 33 |
| | 877 |
| | 661 |
| | 33 |
|
Noninterest expense | 2,606 |
| | 2,583 |
| | 1,380 |
| | 1,624 |
| | 260 |
| | 354 |
| | 4,246 |
| | 4,561 |
| | (7 | ) |
Income before income taxes | 490 |
| | 573 |
| | 1,639 |
| | 2,496 |
| | 168 |
| | 173 |
| | 2,297 |
| | 3,242 |
| | (29 | ) |
Income tax expense (FTE basis) | 180 |
| | 212 |
| | 601 |
| | 925 |
| | 62 |
| | 64 |
| | 843 |
| | 1,201 |
| | (30 | ) |
Net income | $ | 310 |
| | $ | 361 |
| | $ | 1,038 |
| | $ | 1,571 |
| | $ | 106 |
| | $ | 109 |
| | $ | 1,454 |
| | $ | 2,041 |
| | (29 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net interest yield (FTE basis) | 2.02 | % | | 2.14 | % | | 8.95 | % | | 9.15 | % | | 2.93 | % | | 3.81 | % | | 4.22 | % | | 4.75 | % | | |
Return on average allocated equity | 5.37 |
| | 6.19 |
| | 20.19 |
| | 28.77 |
| | 4.73 |
| | 5.58 |
| | 11.05 |
| | 15.41 |
| | |
Return on average economic capital | 23.71 |
| | 25.87 |
| | 41.14 |
| | 55.54 |
| | 6.14 |
| | 7.60 |
| | 26.15 |
| | 36.10 |
| | |
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) | 82.83 |
| | 80.98 |
| | 36.22 |
| | 34.44 |
| | 56.04 |
| | 63.34 |
| | 57.23 |
| | 53.89 |
| | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Balance Sheet | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Average | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | n/m |
| | n/m |
| | $ | 116,267 |
| | $ | 132,472 |
| | $ | 24,603 |
| | $ | 27,864 |
| | $ | 141,578 |
| | $ | 160,976 |
| | (12 | ) |
Total earning assets (1) | $ | 421,551 |
| | $ | 417,218 |
| | 117,580 |
| | 133,538 |
| | 47,145 |
| | 40,690 |
| | 483,983 |
| | 478,468 |
| | 1 |
|
Total assets (1) | 447,917 |
| | 443,461 |
| | 123,179 |
| | 134,043 |
| | 54,272 |
| | 49,103 |
| | 523,074 |
| | 513,629 |
| | 2 |
|
Total deposits | 424,023 |
| | 418,298 |
| | n/m |
| | n/m |
| | 41,908 |
| | 38,462 |
| | 466,239 |
| | 457,037 |
| | 2 |
|
Allocated equity | 23,194 |
| | 23,641 |
| | 20,671 |
| | 22,149 |
| | 9,082 |
| | 7,910 |
| | 52,947 |
| | 53,700 |
| | (1 | ) |
Economic capital | 5,262 |
| | 5,683 |
| | 10,179 |
| | 11,509 |
| | 6,983 |
| | 5,810 |
| | 22,424 |
| | 23,002 |
| | (3 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Period end | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | |
Total loans and leases | n/m |
| | n/m |
| | $ | 113,861 |
| | $ | 120,668 |
| | $ | 24,376 |
| | $ | 25,006 |
| | $ | 138,909 |
| | $ | 146,378 |
| | (5 | ) |
Total earning assets (1) | $ | 440,491 |
| | $ | 418,622 |
| | 115,177 |
| | 121,991 |
| | 47,325 |
| | 46,515 |
| | 502,124 |
| | 480,378 |
| | 5 |
|
Total assets (1) | 467,058 |
| | 445,680 |
| | 121,425 |
| | 127,623 |
| | 55,575 |
| | 53,949 |
| | 543,189 |
| | 520,503 |
| | 4 |
|
Total deposits | 443,129 |
| | 421,871 |
| | n/m |
| | n/m |
| | 42,221 |
| | 41,518 |
| | 486,160 |
| | 464,263 |
| | 5 |
|
| |
(1) | For presentation purposes, in segments where the total of liabilities and equity exceeds assets, we allocate assets to match liabilities. As a result, total earning assets and total assets of the businesses may not equal total CBB. |
n/m = not meaningful
CBB, which is comprised of our Deposits, Card Services and Business Banking businesses, offers a diversified range of credit, banking and investment products and services to consumers and businesses. Our customers and clients have access to a franchise network that stretches coast to coast through 32 states and the District of Columbia. The franchise network includes approximately 5,700 banking centers, 17,250 ATMs, nationwide call centers, and online and mobile platforms.
CBB recorded net income of $1.5 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $2.0 billion for the same period in 2011. The decrease was due to a decline in revenue and an increase in the provision for credit losses, partially offset by lower noninterest expense. Net interest income decreased $521 million to $5.1 billion with the decline primarily in Card Services driven by lower average loan balances and yields. Noninterest income decreased $523 million to $2.3 billion primarily due to a decline of $509 million in Card Services. The provision for credit losses increased $216 million to $877 million reflecting a reduced pace of improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies as evidenced by lower reserve reductions in the first quarter of 2012. Noninterest expense declined $315 million to $4.2 billion primarily due to lower FDIC, marketing and operating expenses.
The return on average economic capital decreased due to lower net income, partially offset by a decrease in average economic capital primarily within Card Services. The decline in average economic capital was largely due to lower levels of credit risk from a decline in loan balances as well as an improvement in credit quality. For more information regarding economic capital, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16.
Deposits
Deposits includes the results of consumer deposit activities which consist of a comprehensive range of products provided to consumers and small businesses. Our deposit products include traditional savings accounts, money market savings accounts, CDs and IRAs, noninterest- and interest-bearing checking accounts, as well as investment accounts and products. Deposit products provide a relatively stable source of funding and liquidity for the Corporation. We earn net interest spread revenue from investing this liquidity in earning assets through client-facing lending and ALM activities. The revenue is allocated to the deposit products using our funds transfer pricing process which takes into account the interest rates and implied maturity of the deposits.
Deposits also generates fees such as account service fees, non-sufficient funds fees, overdraft charges and ATM fees, as well as investment and brokerage fees from Merrill Edge accounts. Merrill Edge is an integrated investing and banking service targeted at clients with less than $250,000 in total assets. Merrill Edge provides team-based investment advice and guidance, brokerage services, a self-directed online investing platform and key banking capabilities including access to the Corporation’s network of banking centers and ATMs. Deposits includes the net impact of migrating customers and their related deposit balances between Deposits and other client-managed businesses.
Net income for Deposits decreased $51 million, or 14 percent, to $310 million primarily driven by lower net interest income, partially offset by higher noninterest income. Net interest income declined $86 million driven by compressed deposits spreads due to the lower rate environment, partially offset by a customer shift to higher-yielding liquid products, continued pricing discipline and ALM activities. Noninterest income increased $44 million, or four percent, to $1.0 billion primarily due to an increase in service charges. Noninterest expense of $2.6 billion remained relatively unchanged as lower FDIC expense was offset by higher operating expense.
Average deposits increased $5.7 billion driven by a customer shift to more liquid products in a low interest rate environment as checking, traditional savings and money market savings grew $18.4 billion. Growth in liquid products was partially offset by a decline in average time deposits of $12.7 billion. As a result of the shift in the mix of deposits and our continued pricing discipline, rates paid on average deposits declined by 11 bps to 21 bps.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Key Statistics | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended March 31 |
| | 2012 | | 2011 |
Total deposit spreads (excludes noninterest costs) | | 1.96 | % | | 2.20 | % |
| | | | |
Client brokerage assets (in millions) | | $ | 73,422 |
| | $ | 66,703 |
|
| | | | |
At period end | | | | |
Online banking active accounts (units in thousands) | | 30,439 |
| | 30,065 |
|
Mobile banking active accounts (units in thousands) | | 9,702 |
| | 6,970 |
|
Banking centers | | 5,651 |
| | 5,805 |
|
ATMs | | 17,255 |
| | 17,886 |
|
Our online banking customers increased 374,000 and mobile banking customers increased 2.7 million compared to the same period in 2011 reflecting our customers' change in their banking preference. The number of banking centers declined 154 and ATMs declined 631 as we continue to improve our cost-to-serve and optimize our consumer banking network.
Card Services
Card Services is one of the leading issuers of credit and debit cards in the U.S. to consumers and small businesses. In addition to earning net interest spread revenue on its lending activities, Card Services generates interchange revenue from credit and debit card transactions as well as annual credit card fees and other miscellaneous fees.
Effective October 1, 2011, the Federal Reserve adopted a final rule with respect to the Durbin Amendment that established the maximum allowable interchange fees a bank can receive for a debit card transaction. For more information on the final interchange rules, see Regulatory Matters on page 66 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, the Federal Reserve approved rules governing routing and exclusivity, requiring issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product, which became effective on April 1, 2012. The interchange fee rules are expected to result in a reduction of debit card revenue by approximately $400 million to $450 million for each of the quarters in 2012, or a full-year impact of approximately $1.8 billion.
Net income for Card Services decreased $533 million, or 34 percent, to $1.0 billion primarily due to a decrease in revenue and an increase in the provision for credit losses, partially offset by lower noninterest expense.
Net interest income decreased $397 million, or 13 percent, to $2.6 billion driven by lower average loan balances and yields. The net interest yield decreased 20 bps to 8.95 percent due to charge-offs and paydowns of higher interest rate products. Noninterest income decreased $509 million, or 30 percent, to $1.2 billion primarily due to lower interchange fees as a result of the Durbin Amendment, coupled with lower revenue from our customer protection products.
The provision for credit losses increased $195 million, or 33 percent, to $790 million reflecting a reduced pace of improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies as evidenced by lower reserve reductions in the first quarter of 2012. For more information on the provision for credit losses, see Provision for Credit Losses on page 100.
Average loans decreased $16.2 billion, or 12 percent, driven by higher payments, charge-offs, continued run-off of non-core portfolios and the impact of portfolio divestitures during 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Key Statistics | | | | |
| | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | 2012 | | 2011 |
U.S. credit card | | | | |
Gross interest yield | | 10.06 | % | | 10.47 | % |
Risk-adjusted margin | | 6.55 |
| | 4.25 |
|
New accounts (in thousands) | | 782 |
| | 657 |
|
Purchase volumes | | $ | 44,797 |
| | $ | 43,936 |
|
| | | | |
Debit card purchase volumes | | $ | 62,941 |
| | $ | 59,996 |
|
The U.S. credit card risk-adjusted margin increased 230 bps compared to the same period in 2011, reflecting improvement in credit quality in the portfolio. U.S. credit card new accounts grew by 125,000 accounts, or 19 percent, to 782,000 and purchase volumes increased $861 million, or two percent, to $44.8 billion. Debit card purchase volume increased $2.9 billion, or five percent, to $62.9 billion reflecting higher consumer spending.
Business Banking
Business Banking provides a wide range of lending-related products and services, integrated working capital management and treasury solutions to clients through our network of offices and client relationship teams along with various product partners. Our clients include U.S. based companies generally with annual sales of $1 million to $50 million. Our lending products and services include commercial loans, lines of credit and real estate lending. Our capital management and treasury solutions include treasury management, foreign exchange and short-term investing options. Business Banking also includes the results of our merchant processing joint venture.
Net income for Business Banking of $106 million was relatively unchanged. Revenue decreased $96 million, or 17 percent, to $464 million offset by a decrease in noninterest expense. Net interest income decreased $38 million, or 10 percent, to $344 million driven by lower average loan balances. Noninterest income decreased $58 million, or 33 percent, to $120 million primarily due to the transfer of certain processing activities to our merchant services joint venture. Noninterest expense decreased $94 million, or 27 percent, to $260 million driven by lower merchant processing expenses and a reduction in operating expenses.
Average loans decreased $3.3 billion, or 12 percent, primarily driven by higher prepayments and portfolio run-off. Average deposits increased $3.4 billion, or nine percent, due to the net transfer of certain deposits from other businesses and the current client preference for liquidity.
|
|
Consumer Real Estate Services |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 | | |
| Home Loans | | Legacy Assets & Servicing | | Total Consumer Real Estate Services | | |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | 2011 | | 2012 | 2011 | | 2012 | 2011 | | % Change |
Net interest income (FTE basis) | $ | 347 |
| $ | 548 |
| | $ | 428 |
| $ | 348 |
| | $ | 775 |
| $ | 896 |
| | (14 | )% |
Noninterest income: | | | | | | | | | | |
Mortgage banking income | 736 |
| 567 |
| | 1,095 |
| 128 |
| | 1,831 |
| 695 |
| | 163 |
|
Insurance income | 6 |
| 431 |
| | — |
| — |
| | 6 |
| 431 |
| | (99 | ) |
All other income | 22 |
| 31 |
| | 40 |
| 10 |
| | 62 |
| 41 |
| | 51 |
|
Total noninterest income | 764 |
| 1,029 |
| | 1,135 |
| 138 |
| | 1,899 |
| 1,167 |
| | 63 |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) | 1,111 |
| 1,577 |
| | 1,563 |
| 486 |
| | 2,674 |
| 2,063 |
| | 30 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Provision for credit losses | 53 |
| — |
| | 454 |
| 1,098 |
| | 507 |
| 1,098 |
| | (54 | ) |
Noninterest expense | 877 |
| 1,479 |
| | 3,028 |
| 3,298 |
| | 3,905 |
| 4,777 |
| | (18 | ) |
Income (loss) before income taxes | 181 |
| 98 |
| | (1,919 | ) | (3,910 | ) | | (1,738 | ) | (3,812 | ) | | (54 | ) |
Income tax expense (benefit) (FTE basis) | 66 |
| 36 |
| | (659 | ) | (1,448 | ) | | (593 | ) | (1,412 | ) | | (58 | ) |
Net income (loss) | $ | 115 |
| $ | 62 |
| | $ | (1,260 | ) | $ | (2,462 | ) | | $ | (1,145 | ) | $ | (2,400 | ) | | (52 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Net interest yield (FTE basis) | 2.43 | % | 2.84 | % | | 2.37 | % | 1.50 | % | | 2.39 | % | 2.11 | % | | |
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) | 78.94 |
| 93.79 |
| | n/m |
| n/m |
| | n/m |
| n/m |
| | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Balance Sheet | | | | | | |
| | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Average | | | | | | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 51,663 |
| $ | 54,763 |
| | $ | 59,092 |
| $ | 65,797 |
| | $ | 110,755 |
| $ | 120,560 |
| | (8 | ) |
Total earning assets | 57,479 |
| 78,250 |
| | 72,722 |
| 94,089 |
| | 130,201 |
| 172,339 |
| | (24 | ) |
Total assets | 58,362 |
| 78,256 |
| | 100,743 |
| 131,072 |
| | 159,105 |
| 209,328 |
| | (24 | ) |
Allocated equity | n/a |
| n/a |
| | n/a |
| n/a |
| | 14,791 |
| 18,736 |
| | (21 | ) |
Economic capital | n/a |
| n/a |
| | n/a |
| n/a |
| | 14,791 |
| 15,994 |
| | (8 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Period end | March 31
2012 | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | December 31
2011 | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 51,002 |
| $ | 52,371 |
| | $ | 58,262 |
| $ | 59,988 |
| | $ | 109,264 |
| $ | 112,359 |
| | (3 | ) |
Total earning assets | 57,728 |
| 58,823 |
| | 72,692 |
| 73,558 |
| | 130,420 |
| 132,381 |
| | (1 | ) |
Total assets | 58,694 |
| 59,660 |
| | 99,513 |
| 104,052 |
| | 158,207 |
| 163,712 |
| | (3 | ) |
n/m = not meaningful
n/a = not applicable
CRES operations include Home Loans and Legacy Assets & Servicing. This alignment allows CRES management to lead the ongoing home loan business while also providing greater focus on legacy mortgage issues and servicing activities. Effective January 1, 2012, servicing activities previously recorded in Home Loans were moved to Legacy Assets & Servicing, and results of MSR activities, including net hedge results, and goodwill were moved from what was formerly referred to as Other within CRES to Legacy Assets & Servicing. Prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.
CRES generates revenue by providing an extensive line of consumer real estate products and services to customers nationwide. CRES products offered by Home Loans include fixed- and adjustable-rate first-lien mortgage loans for home purchase and refinancing needs, home equity lines of credit (HELOC) and home equity loans. First mortgage products are either sold into the secondary mortgage market to investors, while we retain MSRs and the Bank of America customer relationships, or are held on our balance sheet in All Other for ALM purposes. HELOC and home equity loans are retained on the CRES balance sheet in Home Loans and Legacy Assets & Servicing. CRES, through Legacy Assets & Servicing, services mortgage loans, including those loans it owns, loans owned by other business segments and All Other, and loans owned by outside investors.
The financial results of the on-balance sheet loans are reported in the business segment that owns the loans or All Other. CRES is not impacted by the Corporation’s first mortgage production retention decisions as CRES is compensated for loans held for ALM purposes on a management accounting basis, with a corresponding offset recorded in All Other, and is also compensated for servicing loans owned by other business segments and All Other.
CRES includes the impact of transferring customers and their related loan balances between GWIM and CRES based on client segmentation thresholds. For more information on the migration of customer balances, see GWIM on page 40.
Home Loans
Home Loans products are available to our customers through our retail network of approximately 5,700 banking centers, mortgage loan officers in 444 locations and a sales force offering our customers direct telephone and online access to our products. These products were also offered through our correspondent lending channel; however, we exited this channel and the reverse mortgage origination business in 2011. These strategic changes were made to allow greater focus on our direct-to-consumer channels, deepen relationships with existing customers and use mortgage products to acquire new relationships.
Home Loans includes ongoing loan production activities and the CRES home equity portfolio not originally selected for inclusion in the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio. Home Loans also included insurance operations through June 30, 2011, when the ongoing insurance business was transferred to CBB following the sale of Balboa.
The composition of the Home Loans loan portfolio, which excludes the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio established as of January 1, 2011, does not currently reflect a normalized level of credit losses which we expect will develop over time.
Home Loans net income increased $53 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year. Net interest income decreased $201 million primarily driven by lower warehouse loan volumes. Noninterest income decreased $265 million primarily due to a decrease in insurance income as a result of the sale of Balboa in June 2011, partially offset by an increase in mortgage banking income. Noninterest expense decreased $602 million primarily due to lower production expense driven by lower retail production and our exit from the correspondent channel in 2011, and decreased insurance expenses.
Legacy Assets & Servicing
Legacy Assets & Servicing is responsible for servicing the residential, home equity and discontinued real estate loan portfolios, including owned loans and loans serviced for others. Legacy Assets & Servicing is also responsible for managing mortgage-related legacy exposures, including exposures related to selected owned residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate loan portfolios (collectively, the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio). For additional information, see Legacy Assets & Servicing Portfolio below.
Legacy Assets & Servicing results reflect the net cost of legacy exposures that are included in the results of CRES, including representations and warranties provision, litigation costs, financial results of the CRES home equity portfolio selected as part of the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio, the financial results of the servicing operations and the results of MSR activities, including net hedge results, together with any related assets or liabilities used as economic hedges. The financial results of the servicing operations reflect certain revenues and expenses on loans serviced for others, including owned loans serviced for Home Loans and All Other. Legacy Assets & Servicing is compensated for servicing such loans on a management accounting basis with a corresponding offset recorded in Home Loans and All Other.
Servicing activities include collecting cash for principal, interest and escrow payments from borrowers, and disbursing customer draws for lines of credit and accounting for and remitting principal and interest payments to investors and escrow payments to third parties along with responding to customer inquiries. Our home retention efforts, including single point of contact resources, are also part of our servicing activities, along with supervising foreclosures and property dispositions. In an effort to help our customers avoid foreclosure, Legacy Assets & Servicing evaluates various workout options prior to foreclosure sales which, combined with our temporary halt of foreclosures announced in October 2010, has resulted in elongated default timelines. Although we have resumed foreclosure proceedings in nearly all states, there continues to be a backlog of foreclosure inventory. For additional information on our servicing activities, including the impact of foreclosure delays, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes on page 51 and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Other Mortgage-related Matters on page 63 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Goodwill that was assigned to CRES totaling $2.6 billion was included in Legacy Assets & Servicing and was written off in its entirety in 2011.
Legacy Assets & Servicing net loss decreased $1.2 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year due to a decrease of $731 million in representations and warranties provision, a $496 million decline in litigation expense and $464 million lower mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs related to delayed foreclosures.
Legacy Assets & Servicing Portfolio
The Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio includes owned residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and discontinued real estate loans that would not have been originated under our underwriting standards at December 31, 2010. The Countrywide PCI portfolio as well as certain loans that met a pre-defined delinquency status or probability of default threshold as of January 1, 2011 are also included in the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio. The residential mortgage and discontinued real estate loans are held primarily on the balance sheet of All Other and the home equity loans are held in Legacy Assets & Servicing. Since determining the pool of owned loans to be included in the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio as of January 1, 2011, the criteria have not changed for this portfolio. However, the criteria for inclusion of certain assets and liabilities in the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio will continue to be evaluated over time.
The total owned loans in the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio decreased $5.1 billion from paydowns and charge-offs to $149.8 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011, of which $58.3 billion are reflected on the balance sheet of Legacy Assets & Servicing within CRES and the remainder are held on the balance sheet of All Other.
CRES Results
The CRES net loss decreased $1.3 billion to $1.1 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year primarily due to higher mortgage banking income, lower provision for credit losses and a decline in expenses, partially offset by lower insurance revenue due to the sale of Balboa. The net loss is driven by the continued high costs of managing delinquent and defaulted loans in the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio combined with litigation expense and provision for representations and warranties.
Net interest income declined $121 million, or 14 percent, primarily due to a decrease in LHFS reflecting lower production volumes.
Noninterest income increased $732 million to $1.9 billion primarily due to an increase of $1.1 billion in mortgage banking income driven by a decrease of $731 million in representations and warranties provision, a $261 million increase in core production revenue and a $144 million increase in net servicing income. These improvements were partially offset by a decrease of $425 million in insurance income due to the sale of Balboa.
Provision for credit losses decreased $591 million to $507 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year driven by lower reserve additions related to the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio and improved portfolio trends.
Noninterest expense decreased $872 million to $3.9 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 primarily due to a $472 million decline in litigation expense, $464 million lower mortgage-related assessments and waivers costs, lower direct production expense due to lower retail production and our exit from correspondent lending, and lower insurance expense, partially offset by higher default-related servicing expenses. We recorded $410 million of mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs related to delayed foreclosures for the three months ended March 31, 2012. We expect higher costs will continue related to resources necessary to implement new servicing standards mandated for the industry, to implement other operational changes and delayed foreclosures.
Average total earning assets for the three months ended March 31, 2012 declined $42.1 billion compared to the same period in the prior year primarily due to a decrease in LHFS reflecting lower production volumes, as well as a decline in MSR hedge portfolio assets due to hedge positions.
Average economic capital decreased eight percent for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year due to a reduction in credit risk driven by lower loan balances. For more information regarding economic capital, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16.
CRES mortgage banking income is categorized into production and servicing income. Core production income is comprised of revenue from the fair value gains and losses recognized on our interest rate lock commitments (IRLCs) and LHFS, the related secondary market execution, and costs related to representations and warranties in the sales transactions along with other obligations incurred in the sales of mortgage loans. Ongoing costs related to representations and warranties and other obligations that were incurred in the sales of mortgage loans in prior periods are also included in production income.
Servicing income includes income earned in connection with servicing activities and MSR valuation adjustments, net of economic hedge activities. The costs associated with our servicing activities are included in noninterest expense.
The table below summarizes the components of mortgage banking income.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Mortgage Banking Income |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Production income (loss): | | | | | | | |
Core production revenue | | | | | $ | 929 |
| | $ | 668 |
|
Representations and warranties provision | | | | | (282 | ) | | (1,013 | ) |
Total production income (loss) | | | | | 647 |
| | (345 | ) |
Servicing income: | | | | | | | |
Servicing fees | | | | | 1,332 |
| | 1,606 |
|
Impact of customer payments (1) | | | | | (521 | ) | | (706 | ) |
Fair value changes of MSRs, net of economic hedge results (2) | | | | | 194 |
| | 3 |
|
Other servicing-related revenue | | | | | 179 |
| | 137 |
|
Total net servicing income | | | | | 1,184 |
| | 1,040 |
|
Total CRES mortgage banking income | | | | | 1,831 |
| | 695 |
|
Eliminations (3) | | | | | (219 | ) | | (65 | ) |
Total consolidated mortgage banking income | | | | | $ | 1,612 |
| | $ | 630 |
|
| |
(1) | Represents the change in the market value of the MSR asset due to the impact of customer payments received during the period. |
| |
(2) | Includes sale of MSRs. |
| |
(3) | Includes the effect of transfers of mortgage loans from CRES to the ALM portfolio in All Other. |
Core production revenue of $929 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 increased $261 million compared to the same period in the prior year primarily due to higher margins on direct originations. New first mortgage loan originations declined $41.5 billion, or 73 percent, primarily due to our exit from the correspondent channel and from a loss in retail market share. The decrease in retail market share and higher margins reflect decisions to price loan products in order to manage demand. In addition, our exit from the low margin correspondent channel contributed to higher margins.
The representations and warranties provision decreased $731 million to $282 million primarily due to a higher provision in the prior-year period attributable to the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and a monoline.
Net servicing income increased $144 million primarily due to improved MSR results, net of hedges, partially offset by the impact of lower servicing revenues driven primarily by a decline in the servicing portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Key Statistics |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions, except as noted) | | | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Loan production | | | | | | | | | | | |
CRES: | | | | | | | | | | | |
First mortgage | | | | | | | $ | 12,185 |
| | | $ | 52,519 |
| |
Home equity | | | | | | | 597 |
| | | 1,575 |
| |
Total Corporation (1): | | | | | | | | | | | |
First mortgage | | | | | | | $ | 15,238 |
| | | $ | 56,734 |
| |
Home equity | | | | | | | 760 |
| | | 1,728 |
| |
| | | | | | | | | |
Period end | | | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Mortgage servicing portfolio (in billions) (2) | | | | | | | $ | 1,687 |
| | | $ | 1,763 |
| |
Mortgage loans serviced for investors (in billions) | | | | | | | 1,313 |
| | | 1,379 |
| |
Mortgage servicing rights: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Balance | | | | | | | 7,589 |
| | | 7,378 |
| |
Capitalized mortgage servicing rights (% of loans serviced for investors) | | | | | | | 58 |
| bps | | 54 |
| bps |
| |
(1) | In addition to loan production in CRES, the remaining first mortgage and home equity loan production is primarily in GWIM. |
| |
(2) | Servicing of residential mortgage loans, home equity lines of credit, home equity loans and discontinued real estate mortgage loans. |
First mortgage production was $15.2 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $56.7 billion for the same period in the prior year. The decrease of $41.5 billion was primarily due to a $27.1 billion decline caused by our exit from the correspondent channel in 2011 and a $14.4 billion reduction in retail originations as discussed on page 33.
Home equity production was $760 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $1.7 billion for the same period in the prior year primarily due to our decision to exit the reverse mortgage originations business in February 2011.
At March 31, 2012, the consumer MSR balance was $7.6 billion, which represented 58 bps of the related unpaid principal balance compared to $7.4 billion, or 54 bps, of the related unpaid principal balance at December 31, 2011. The increase in the consumer MSR balance was primarily driven by higher forecasted mortgage rates, which resulted in lower forecasted prepayment speeds. The increase was also due to the addition of new MSRs recorded in connection with sales of loans partially offset by the change in the market value of the MSR asset due to the impact of customer payments received during the period combined with the impact of elevated expected costs to service delinquent loans. For additional information on our servicing activities, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes on page 51.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 | | |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | % Change |
Net interest income (FTE basis) | $ | 2,399 |
| | $ | 2,482 |
| | (3 | )% |
Noninterest income: | | | | | |
Service charges | 809 |
| | 915 |
| | (12 | ) |
Investment banking fees | 652 |
| | 868 |
| | (25 | ) |
All other income | 591 |
| | 437 |
| | 35 |
|
Total noninterest income | 2,052 |
| | 2,220 |
| | (8 | ) |
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) | 4,451 |
| | 4,702 |
| | (5 | ) |
| | | | | |
Provision for credit losses | (238 | ) | | (123 | ) | | 93 |
|
Noninterest expense | 2,178 |
| | 2,309 |
| | (6 | ) |
Income before income taxes | 2,511 |
| | 2,516 |
| | — |
|
Income tax expense (FTE basis) | 921 |
| | 932 |
| | (1 | ) |
Net income | $ | 1,590 |
| | $ | 1,584 |
| | — |
|
| | | | | |
Net interest yield (FTE basis) | 3.17 | % | | 3.66 | % | | |
Return on average allocated equity | 13.79 |
| | 13.18 |
| | |
Return on average economic capital | 30.68 |
| | 26.46 |
| | |
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) | 48.93 |
| | 49.11 |
| | |
| | | | | |
Balance Sheet | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Average | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 277,096 |
| | $ | 256,846 |
| | 8 |
|
Total earning assets | 304,522 |
| | 275,424 |
| | 11 |
|
Total assets | 350,526 |
| | 322,682 |
| | 9 |
|
Total deposits | 237,532 |
| | 225,785 |
| | 5 |
|
Allocated equity | 46,393 |
| | 48,732 |
| | (5 | ) |
Economic capital | 20,857 |
| | 24,299 |
| | (14 | ) |
| | | | | |
Period end | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 272,224 |
| | $ | 278,177 |
| | (2 | ) |
Total earning assets | 294,752 |
| | 302,353 |
| | (3 | ) |
Total assets | 341,984 |
| | 349,473 |
| | (2 | ) |
Total deposits | 237,608 |
| | 246,466 |
| | (4 | ) |
Global Banking, which includes Global Corporate and Commercial Banking, and Investment Banking, provides a wide range of lending-related products and services, integrated working capital management and treasury solutions to clients through our network of offices and client relationship teams along with various product partners. Our lending products and services include commercial loans, leases, commitment facilities, trade finance, real estate lending, asset-based lending and indirect consumer loans. Our treasury solutions business includes treasury management, foreign exchange and short-term investing options. We also work with our clients to provide investment banking products such as debt and equity underwriting and distribution, merger-related and other advisory services. Underwriting debt and equity issuances, fixed-income and equity research, and certain market-based activities are executed through our global broker/dealer affiliates which are our primary dealers in several countries. Within Global Banking, Global Commercial Banking clients are generally defined as companies with annual sales up to $2 billion, which include middle-market companies, commercial real estate firms, federal and state governments and municipalities, and Global Corporate Banking clients include large corporations, generally defined as companies with annual sales greater than $2 billion.
Global Banking net income of $1.6 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 was relatively unchanged compared to the same period in 2011. Revenue decreased $251 million, or five percent, primarily driven by lower investment banking fees, lower accretion on acquired portfolios due to the impact of prepayments in prior periods and a decline in net interest income related to ALM activities partially offset by the impact of higher average loan and deposit balances.
The provision for credit losses was a benefit of $238 million compared to a benefit of $123 million in the same period in 2011 with the increased benefit primarily due to continued improvement in asset quality in the commercial real estate portfolio.
Noninterest expense decreased $131 million to $2.2 billion primarily due to lower personnel expenses.
The return on average economic capital increased due to a 14 percent decrease in average economic capital from reductions in credit risk. For more information regarding economic capital, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16.
|
|
Global Corporate and Commercial Banking |
Global Corporate and Commercial Banking includes Global Treasury Services and Business Lending activities. Global Treasury Services includes the corporate deposit and transaction services portfolio and provides treasury management and solutions including foreign exchange and short-term investing options to our clients. Business Lending provides various loan-related products and services including commercial loans, leases, commitment facilities, trade financing, real estate lending, asset-based lending and indirect consumer loans. The table below presents total net revenue, total average and ending deposits, and total average and ending loans and leases for Global Corporate and Commercial Banking.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Global Corporate and Commercial Banking | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Global Corporate Banking | | Global Commercial Banking | | Total |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Global Treasury Services | $ | 645 |
| | $ | 621 |
| | $ | 943 |
| | $ | 855 |
| | $ | 1,588 |
| | $ | 1,476 |
|
Business Lending | 881 |
| | 987 |
| | 1,148 |
| | 1,238 |
| | 2,029 |
| | 2,225 |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense | $ | 1,526 |
| | $ | 1,608 |
| | $ | 2,091 |
| | $ | 2,093 |
| | $ | 3,617 |
| | $ | 3,701 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Average | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 112,931 |
| | $ | 90,972 |
| | $ | 163,245 |
| | $ | 164,573 |
| | $ | 276,176 |
| | $ | 255,545 |
|
Total deposits | 105,693 |
| | 103,983 |
| | 131,809 |
| | 121,756 |
| | 237,502 |
| | 225,739 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Period end | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 109,261 |
| | $ | 93,112 |
| | $ | 162,059 |
| | $ | 163,258 |
| | $ | 271,320 |
| | $ | 256,370 |
|
Total deposits | 108,118 |
| | 107,258 |
| | 129,458 |
| | 121,891 |
| | 237,576 |
| | 229,149 |
|
Global Corporate and Commercial Banking revenue decreased $84 million to $3.6 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011. Global Treasury Services revenue increased $24 million in Global Corporate Banking and $88 million in Global Commercial Banking as growth in U.S. and non-U.S. deposit volumes was partially offset by a challenging interest rate environment. Business Lending revenue in Global Corporate Banking declined $106 million as growth in loans was offset by a low interest rate environment and lower accretion on acquired portfolios due to the impact of prepayments in prior periods. Business Lending revenue declined $90 million in Global Commercial Banking primarily from a reduction in the size of the commercial real estate portfolio and lower accretion on acquired portfolios.
Average loans and leases in Global Corporate and Commercial Banking increased eight percent for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 as growth in Global Corporate Banking balances from increases in commercial and non-U.S. trade finance portfolios driven by continued international demand and improved domestic momentum was partially offset by declines in Global Commercial Banking primarily due to a decrease in the commercial real estate portfolio due to pay downs which outpaced new originations and renewals. Average deposits in Global Corporate and Commercial Banking increased five percent as balances continued to grow due to excess market liquidity and limited alternative investment options.
Client teams and product specialists underwrite and distribute debt, equity and other loan products, provide advisory services and tailored risk management solutions. The economics of certain investment banking and underwriting activities are shared primarily between Global Banking and Global Markets based on the activities performed by each segment. To provide a complete discussion of our consolidated investment banking income, the table below presents total Corporation investment banking income as well as the portion attributable to Global Banking.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Investment Banking Fees | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Global Banking | | Total Corporation |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 |
| 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Products | | | | | | | |
Advisory (1) | $ | 190 |
| | $ | 301 |
| | $ | 204 |
| | $ | 320 |
|
Debt issuance | 347 |
| | 389 |
| | 777 |
| | 845 |
|
Equity issuance | 115 |
| | 178 |
| | 305 |
| | 448 |
|
Gross investment banking fees | 652 |
| | 868 |
| | 1,286 |
| | 1,613 |
|
Self-led | (23 | ) | | (6 | ) | | (69 | ) | | (35 | ) |
Total investment banking fees | $ | 629 |
| | $ | 862 |
| | $ | 1,217 |
| | $ | 1,578 |
|
(1) Advisory includes fees on debt and equity advisory services and mergers and acquisitions.
Total Corporation investment banking fees, excluding self-led deals, decreased $361 million, or 23 percent, in the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 primarily driven by lower advisory and equity underwriting fees due to a decrease in our market share and an overall decline in equity capital markets and merger and acquisition fee pools. Investment banking fees may be adversely affected in 2012 by lower client activity and challenging market conditions as a result of, among other things, the European sovereign debt crisis and continued market volatility.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 | | |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | % Change |
Net interest income (FTE basis) | $ | 798 |
| | $ | 1,020 |
| | (22 | )% |
Noninterest income: | | | | | |
Investment and brokerage services | 510 |
| | 647 |
| | (21 | ) |
Investment banking fees | 556 |
| | 651 |
| | (15 | ) |
Trading account profits | 2,038 |
| | 2,616 |
| | (22 | ) |
All other income | 291 |
| | 338 |
| | (14 | ) |
Total noninterest income | 3,395 |
| | 4,252 |
| | (20 | ) |
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) | 4,193 |
| | 5,272 |
| | (20 | ) |
| | | | | |
Provision for credit losses | (20 | ) | | (33 | ) | | (39 | ) |
Noninterest expense | 3,076 |
| | 3,114 |
| | (1 | ) |
Income before income taxes | 1,137 |
| | 2,191 |
| | (48 | ) |
Income tax expense (FTE basis) | 339 |
| | 797 |
| | (57 | ) |
Net income | $ | 798 |
| | $ | 1,394 |
| | (43 | ) |
| | | | | |
Return on average allocated equity | 18.19 | % | | 21.45 | % | | |
Return on average economic capital | 23.54 |
| | 25.99 |
| | |
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) | 73.36 |
| | 59.06 |
| | |
| | | | | |
Balance Sheet | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Average | | | | | |
Total trading-related assets (1) | $ | 448,731 |
| | $ | 456,966 |
| | (2 | ) |
Total earning assets (1) | 424,336 |
| | 465,255 |
| | (9 | ) |
Total assets | 557,911 |
| | 581,749 |
| | (4 | ) |
Allocated equity | 17,642 |
| | 26,362 |
| | (33 | ) |
Economic capital | 13,669 |
| | 21,814 |
| | (37 | ) |
| | | | | |
Period end | March 31
2012 |
| December 31
2011 | | |
Total trading-related assets (1) | $ | 440,091 |
| | $ | 397,876 |
| | 11 |
|
Total earning assets (1) | 417,634 |
| | 372,852 |
| | 12 |
|
Total assets | 548,612 |
| | 501,825 |
| | 9 |
|
| |
(1) | Trading-related assets include assets which are not considered earning assets (i.e., derivative assets). |
Global Markets offers sales and trading services, including research, to institutional clients across fixed-income, credit, currency, commodity and equity businesses. Global Markets product coverage includes securities and derivative products in both the primary and secondary markets. Global Markets provides market-making, financing, securities clearing, settlement and custody services globally to our institutional investor clients in support of their investing and trading activities. We also work with our commercial and corporate clients to provide risk management products using interest rate, equity, credit, currency and commodity derivatives, foreign exchange, fixed-income and mortgage-related products. As a result of our market-making activities in these products, we may be required to manage risk in government securities, equity and equity-linked securities, high-grade and high-yield corporate debt securities, commercial paper, MBS, commodities and asset-backed securities (ABS). In addition, the economics of certain investment banking and underwriting activities are shared primarily between Global Markets and Global Banking based on the activities performed by each segment. Global Banking originates certain deal-related transactions with our corporate and commercial clients that are executed and distributed by Global Markets. For additional information on investment banking fees on a consolidated basis, see page 37.
Net income decreased $596 million to $798 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 primarily driven by net DVA losses, partially offset by an improved market environment. Net DVA losses were $1.4 billion compared to $357 million due to significant tightening of our credit spreads. Investment banking fees decreased $95 million primarily driven by lower
equity underwriting fees and an overall decline in the available pool of equity capital markets fees.
The return on average economic capital decreased due to lower net income partially offset by a 37 percent decrease in average economic capital due to lower counterparty credit risk and a decline in market risk-related trading exposures. For more information regarding economic capital, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16.
Average earning assets decreased $40.9 billion to $424.3 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 primarily driven by balance sheet management activities and the movement of certain equity securities to non-earning trading-related assets. At March 31, 2012, period-end earning assets were $417.6 billion, an increase of $44.8 billion from December 31, 2011 primarily due to client activity resulting in increases in trading-related assets and securities borrowed transactions.
Sales and trading revenue includes unrealized and realized gains and losses on trading and other assets, net interest income, and fees primarily from commissions on equity securities. The following table and related discussion present total sales and trading revenue, substantially all of which is in Global Markets with the remainder in Global Banking. Sales and trading revenue is segregated into fixed income (investment and non-investment grade corporate debt obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities, residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)), currencies (interest rate and foreign exchange contracts), commodities (primarily futures, forwards, swaps and options) and equity income from equity-linked derivatives and cash equity activity.
|
| | | | | | | |
Sales and Trading Revenue (1, 2) | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 |
Sales and trading revenue | | | |
Fixed income, currencies and commodities | $ | 2,844 |
| | $ | 3,390 |
|
Equity income | 907 |
| | 1,239 |
|
Total sales and trading revenue | $ | 3,751 |
| | $ | 4,629 |
|
| | | |
Sales and trading revenue, excluding DVA | | | |
Fixed income, currencies and commodities | $ | 4,131 |
| | $ | 3,699 |
|
Equity income | 1,054 |
| | 1,287 |
|
Total sales and trading revenue, excluding DVA | $ | 5,185 |
| | $ | 4,986 |
|
| |
(1) | Includes a FTE adjustment of $49 million and $55 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. For additional information on sales and trading revenue, see Note 3 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements. |
| |
(2) | Includes Global Banking sales and trading revenue of $205 million and $104 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. |
FICC revenue decreased $546 million, or 16 percent, to $2.8 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 primarily due to net DVA losses. Excluding net DVA losses, FICC revenue increased $432 million, or 12 percent, to $4.1 billion, primarily driven by our rates and currencies, and commodities businesses as a result of increased new deal activity and stronger client flows which reflect the improved market sentiment in the current quarter. A second long-term ECB financing program and the Greek debt restructuring and bailout package eased concerns over the health of the financial system and solvency of systemically important banks. However, the lack of a clear resolution to the crisis and fears of contagion continue to contribute to volatility in credit spreads. Equity income decreased $332 million, or 27 percent, to $907 million primarily due to lower market volumes and commissions. Sales and trading revenue included total commissions and brokerage fee revenue of $510 million ($496 million from equities and $14 million from FICC) for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $647 million ($618 million from equities and $29 million from FICC) for the same period in 2011. The $137 million decrease in commissions and brokerage fee revenue was primarily due to lower market volumes.
Sales and trading revenue may be adversely affected in 2012 by lower client activity and challenging market conditions as a result of, among other things, the European sovereign debt crisis, uncertainty regarding the outcome of the evolving domestic regulatory landscape, our credit ratings and market volatility.
In conjunction with regulatory reform measures and our initiative to optimize our balance sheet, we exited our stand-alone proprietary trading business as of June 30, 2011, which involved trading activities in a variety of products, including stocks, bonds, currencies and commodities. There was no proprietary trading revenue for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $203 million for the same period in 2011. For additional information on restrictions on proprietary trading, see Regulatory Matters – Limitations on Proprietary Trading on page 66 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
|
Global Wealth & Investment Management |
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Three Months Ended March 31 | | |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | % Change |
Net interest income (FTE basis) | $ | 1,578 |
| | $ | 1,571 |
| | — | % |
Noninterest income: | | | | | |
Investment and brokerage services | 2,296 |
| | 2,378 |
| | (3 | ) |
All other income | 486 |
| | 547 |
| | (11 | ) |
Total noninterest income | 2,782 |
| | 2,925 |
| | (5 | ) |
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) | 4,360 |
| | 4,496 |
| | (3 | ) |
| | | | | |
Provision for credit losses | 46 |
| | 46 |
| | — |
|
Noninterest expense | 3,450 |
| | 3,589 |
| | (4 | ) |
Income before income taxes | 864 |
| | 861 |
| | — |
|
Income tax expense (FTE basis) | 317 |
| | 319 |
| | (1 | ) |
Net income | $ | 547 |
| | $ | 542 |
| | 1 |
|
| | | | | |
Net interest yield (FTE basis) | 2.39 | % | | 2.30 | % | | |
Return on average allocated equity | 12.78 |
| | 12.26 |
| | |
Return on average economic capital | 33.81 |
| | 30.98 |
| | |
Efficiency ratio (FTE basis) | 79.11 |
| | 79.83 |
| | |
| | | | | |
Balance Sheet | | | | | |
| | | | | |
Average | | | | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 103,036 |
| | $ | 100,852 |
| | 2 |
|
Total earning assets | 265,362 |
| | 277,222 |
| | (4 | ) |
Total assets | 284,926 |
| | 297,531 |
| | (4 | ) |
Total deposits | 252,705 |
| | 258,719 |
| | (2 | ) |
Allocated equity | 17,228 |
| | 17,932 |
| | (4 | ) |
Economic capital | 6,587 |
| | 7,204 |
| | (9 | ) |
| | | | | |
Period end | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | |
Total loans and leases | $ | 102,903 |
| | $ | 103,460 |
| | (1 | ) |
Total earning assets | 258,733 |
| | 263,586 |
| | (2 | ) |
Total assets | 278,185 |
| | 284,062 |
| | (2 | ) |
Total deposits | 252,755 |
| | 253,264 |
| | — |
|
GWIM consists of two primary businesses: Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management (MLGWM) and U.S. Trust, Bank of America Private Wealth Management (U.S. Trust).
MLGWM’s advisory business provides a high-touch client experience through a network of financial advisors focused on clients with over $250,000 in total investable assets. MLGWM provides tailored solutions to meet our clients’ needs through a full set of brokerage, banking and retirement products in both domestic and international locations. MLGWM also includes our Retirement Services business, which previously had been classified as a separate business within GWIM.
U.S. Trust, together with MLGWM’s Private Banking & Investments Group, provides comprehensive wealth management solutions targeted to wealthy and ultra-wealthy clients with investable assets of more than $5 million, as well as customized solutions to meet clients’ wealth structuring, investment management, trust and banking needs, including specialty asset management services.
GWIM net income increased $5 million, or one percent, to $547 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 driven by lower noninterest expense, partially offset by lower revenue. Revenue decreased $136 million, or three percent, to $4.4 billion primarily due to lower transactional activity. Noninterest expense decreased $139 million, or four percent, to $3.5 billion driven by lower FDIC expense and volume-driven expenses, lower litigation expense and other reductions related to expense discipline, partially offset by expenses related to the continued investment in the business.
The return on average economic capital increased due to the nine percent decrease in average economic capital and higher net income. Average economic capital decreased due to reductions in operational and certain other risk-related model parameters, while credit risk remained relatively unchanged. For more information regarding economic capital, see Supplemental Financial Data on page 16.
For the three months ended March 31, 2012, revenue from MLGWM was $3.7 billion, down three percent compared to the same period in 2011 driven by lower transactional activity. Revenue from U.S. Trust was $653 million, down four percent, primarily driven by lower net interest income.
GWIM results are impacted by the migration of clients and their related deposit and loan balances to or from CBB, CRES and the ALM portfolio, as presented in the table below. Migration in 2011 included the movement of balances to Merrill Edge, which is in CBB. Subsequent to the date of the migration, the associated net interest income, noninterest income and noninterest expense are recorded in the business to which the clients migrated.
|
| | | | | | | |
Migration Summary |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 |
Average | | | |
Total deposits — GWIM from / (to) CBB | $ | (89 | ) | | $ | (1,317 | ) |
Total loans — GWIM to CRES and the ALM portfolio | (95 | ) | | — |
|
Period end | | | |
Total deposits — GWIM from / (to) CBB | $ | (87 | ) | | $ | (3,887 | ) |
Total loans — GWIM to CRES and the ALM portfolio | (144 | ) | | — |
|
The table below presents client balances which consist of assets under management (AUM), client brokerage assets, assets in custody, client deposits, and loans and leases.
|
| | | | | | | |
Client Balances by Type |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Assets under management | $ | 692,959 |
| | $ | 647,126 |
|
Brokerage assets | 1,074,454 |
| | 1,024,193 |
|
Assets in custody | 114,938 |
| | 107,989 |
|
Deposits | 252,755 |
| | 253,264 |
|
Loans and leases (1) | 106,185 |
| | 106,672 |
|
Total client balances | $ | 2,241,291 |
| | $ | 2,139,244 |
|
| |
(1) | Includes margin receivables which are classified in other assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheet. |
The increase in client balances of $102.0 billion, or five percent, was largely in AUM and brokerage assets. These increases were driven by higher broad-based market levels and inflows into long-term AUM.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | Three Months Ended March 31 | | |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 | | % Change |
Net interest income (FTE basis) | | | | | | | $ | 424 |
| | $ | 828 |
| | (49 | )% |
Noninterest income: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Card income | | | | | | | 87 |
| | 154 |
| | (44 | ) |
Equity investment income | | | | | | | 417 |
| | 1,415 |
| | (71 | ) |
Gains on sales of debt securities | | | | | | | 712 |
| | 468 |
| | 52 |
|
All other loss | | | | | | | (2,253 | ) | | (767 | ) | | n/m |
|
Total noninterest income | | | | | | | (1,037 | ) | | 1,270 |
| | n/m |
|
Total revenue, net of interest expense (FTE basis) | | | | | | (613 | ) | | 2,098 |
| | n/m |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Provision for credit losses | | | | | | | 1,246 |
| | 2,165 |
| | (42 | ) |
Merger and restructuring charges | | | | | | | — |
| | 202 |
| | n/m |
|
All other noninterest expense | | | | | | | 2,286 |
| | 1,731 |
| | 32 |
|
Loss before income taxes | | | | | | | (4,145 | ) | | (2,000 | ) | | n/m |
|
Income tax benefit (FTE basis) | | | | | | | (1,554 | ) | | (888 | ) | | 75 |
|
Net loss | | | | | | | $ | (2,591 | ) | | $ | (1,112 | ) | | n/m |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Balance Sheet | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Average | | | | | | | | | | | |
Loans and leases: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential Mortgage | | | | | | | $ | 222,027 |
| | $ | 225,746 |
| | (2 | ) |
Non-U.S. credit card | | | | | | | 14,151 |
| | 27,633 |
| | (49 | ) |
Discontinued real estate | | | | | | | 10,778 |
| | 12,899 |
| | (16 | ) |
Other | | | | | | | 17,157 |
| | 22,023 |
| | (22 | ) |
Total loans and leases | | | | | | | 264,113 |
| | 288,301 |
| | (8 | ) |
Total assets (1) | | | | | | | 311,632 |
| | 413,619 |
| | (25 | ) |
Total deposits | | | | | | | 39,774 |
| | 50,107 |
| | (21 | ) |
Allocated equity (2) | | | | | | | 83,565 |
| | 65,307 |
| | 28 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Period end | | | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | |
Loans and leases: | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential Mortgage | | | | | | | $ | 218,589 |
| | $ | 224,654 |
| | (3 | ) |
Non-U.S. credit card | | | | | | | 13,914 |
| | 14,418 |
| | (3 | ) |
Discontinued real estate | | | | | | | 10,453 |
| | 11,095 |
| | (6 | ) |
Other | | | | | | | 17,050 |
| | 17,454 |
| | (2 | ) |
Total loans and leases | | | | | | | 260,006 |
| | 267,621 |
| | (3 | ) |
Total assets (1) | | | | | | | 311,272 |
| | 309,471 |
| | 1 |
|
Total deposits | | | | | | | 30,146 |
| | 32,729 |
| | (8 | ) |
| |
(1) | For presentation purposes, in segments where the total of liabilities and equity exceeds assets, which are generally deposit-taking segments, we allocate assets to those segments to match liabilities (i.e., deposits) and allocated equity. Such allocated assets were $512.6 billion and $486.0 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, and $519.9 billion and $495.4 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(2) | Represents the economic capital assigned to All Other as well as the remaining portion of equity not specifically allocated to the business segments. Allocated equity increased due to the disposition of certain assets previously disclosed. |
n/m = not meaningful
All Other consists of two broad groupings, Equity Investments and Other. Equity Investments includes Global Principal Investments (GPI) which is comprised of a diversified portfolio of investments in private equity, real estate and other alternative investments. These investments are made either directly in a company or held through a fund with related income recorded in equity investment income. Equity Investments also includes Strategic investments which include our investment in China Construction Bank (CCB) in which we currently hold approximately one percent of the outstanding common shares, and certain other investments. For additional information on our investment in CCB, see Note 4 – Securities to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Other includes liquidating businesses, ALM activities such as the residential mortgage portfolio and investment securities, and activities including economic hedges, gains/losses on structured liabilities, the impact of certain allocation methodologies and accounting hedge ineffectiveness. Other also includes certain residential mortgage and discontinued real estate loans that are managed by Legacy Assets & Servicing within CRES.
All Other reported a loss of $2.6 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to a loss of $1.1 billion for the same period in 2011 primarily due to negative fair value adjustments related to tightening of our credit spreads of $3.3 billion on structured liabilities compared to $586 million of negative fair value adjustments for the same period in 2011, partially offset by $1.2 billion of gains resulting from subordinated debt repurchases and exchanges of trust preferred securities. Equity investment income decreased $998 million primarily due to a $1.1 billion gain related to an IPO of an equity investment in the prior year period. All other income (loss) for the current quarter included a $200 million provision related to PPI claims in the U.K.
Noninterest expense increased $555 million due to higher litigation expense. There were no merger and restructuring expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $202 million for the same period in 2011.
Provision for credit losses decreased $919 million to $1.2 billion primarily driven by lower reserve additions to the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate and residential mortgage portfolios, as well as improvement in delinquencies and bankruptcies in the non-U.S. credit card portfolio.
The income tax benefit was $1.6 billion for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to a benefit of $888 million for the same period in 2011. The increase was primarily attributable to the larger pre-tax loss in All Other.
|
|
Equity Investment Activity |
The tables below present the components of equity investments in All Other at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and also a reconciliation to the total consolidated equity investment income for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Equity Investments | | | | | |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Global Principal Investments | | | | | $ | 4,723 |
| | $ | 5,659 |
|
Strategic and other investments | | | | | 1,357 |
| | 1,343 |
|
Total equity investments included in All Other | | | | | $ | 6,080 |
| | $ | 7,002 |
|
| | | | | | | |
Equity Investment Income | | | |
| | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Global Principal Investments | | | | | $ | 403 |
| | $ | 1,367 |
|
Strategic and other investments | | | | | 14 |
| | 48 |
|
Total equity investment income included in All Other | | | | | 417 |
| | 1,415 |
|
Total equity investment income included in the business segments (1) | | | | | 348 |
| | 60 |
|
Total consolidated equity investment income | | | | | $ | 765 |
| | $ | 1,475 |
|
| |
(1) | In the three months ended March 31, 2012, primarily includes $264 million of gains in Global Markets. |
Equity investments included in All Other decreased $922 million at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011, with substantially all of the decrease due to sales in the GPI portfolio. GPI had unfunded equity commitments of $431 million and $710 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 related to certain investments. In connection with the Corporation's strategy to reduce risk-weighted assets, we sold certain investments, including related commitments.
|
|
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations |
We have contractual obligations to make future payments on debt and lease agreements. Additionally, in the normal course of business, we enter into contractual arrangements whereby we commit to future purchases of products or services from unaffiliated parties. For additional information on our obligations and commitments, see Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations on page 56 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as Note 13 – Long-term Debt and Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
|
Representations and Warranties |
We securitize first-lien residential mortgage loans generally in the form of MBS guaranteed by the GSEs or by Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) in the case of the FHA-insured, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)-guaranteed and Rural Housing Service-guaranteed mortgage loans. In addition, in prior years, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold pools of first-lien residential mortgage loans and home equity loans as private-label securitizations (in certain of these securitizations, monolines or financial guarantee providers insured all or some of the securities), or in the form of whole loans. In connection with these transactions, we or our subsidiaries or legacy companies make or have made various representations and warranties. Breaches of these representations and warranties may result in the requirement to repurchase mortgage loans or to otherwise make whole or provide other remedies to the GSEs, HUD with respect to FHA-insured loans, VA, whole-loan buyers, securitization trusts, monoline insurers or other financial guarantors (collectively, repurchases). In such cases, we would be exposed to any credit loss on the repurchased mortgage loans after accounting for any mortgage insurance or mortgage guaranty payments that we may receive.
Subject to the requirements and limitations of the applicable sales and securitization agreements, these representations and warranties can be enforced by the GSEs, HUD, VA, the whole-loan buyer, the securitization trustee or others as governed by the applicable agreement or, in certain first-lien and home equity securitizations where monoline insurers or other financial guarantee providers have insured all or some of the securities issued, by the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor at any time. In the case of loans sold to parties other than the GSEs or GNMA, the contractual liability to repurchase typically arises only if there is a breach of the representations and warranties that materially and adversely affects the interest of the investor, or investors, in the loan, or of the monoline insurer or other financial guarantor (as applicable). Contracts with the GSEs do not contain equivalent language, while GNMA generally limits repurchases to loans that are not insured or guaranteed, as required.
For additional information about accounting for representations and warranties and our representations and warranties claims and exposures, see Complex Accounting Estimates – Representations and Warranties, Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees and Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Representations and Warranties Bulk Settlement Actions
We have settled, or entered into agreements to settle, certain bulk representations and warranties claims with a trustee (the Trustee) for certain legacy Countrywide private-label securitization trusts (the BNY Mellon Settlement), a monoline insurer (the Assured Guaranty Settlement) and with each of the GSEs (the GSE Agreements). We have vigorously contested any request for repurchase when we conclude that a valid basis for repurchase does not exist and will continue to do so in the future. However, in an effort to resolve these legacy mortgage-related issues, we have reached bulk settlements, or agreements for bulk settlements, including settlement amounts which are material, with the above-referenced counterparties in lieu of a loan-by-loan review process. We may reach other settlements in the future if opportunities arise on terms we believe to be advantageous. For a summary of the larger bulk settlement actions we have taken in 2010 and 2011 and the related impact on the representations and warranties provision and liability, see Note 9 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees and Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. These bulk settlements generally did not cover all transactions with the relevant counterparties or all potential claims that may arise, including in some instances securities law, fraud and servicing claims, and our liability in connection with the transactions and claims not covered by these settlements could be material.
Recent Developments Related to the BNY Mellon Settlement
The BNY Mellon Settlement is subject to final court approval and certain other conditions. Under an order entered by the state court in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, potentially interested persons had the opportunity to give notice of intent to object to the settlement (including on the basis that more information was needed) until August 30, 2011. Approximately 44 groups or entities appeared prior to the deadline; three of those groups or entities have subsequently withdrawn from the proceeding and one motion to intervene was denied. Certain of these groups or entities filed notices of intent to object, made motions to intervene, or both filed notices of intent
to object and made motions to intervene. The parties filing motions to intervene include the Attorneys General of the states of New York and Delaware.
Certain of the motions to intervene and/or notices of intent to object allege various purported bases for opposition to the settlement. These include challenges to the nature of the court proceeding and the lack of an opt-out mechanism, alleged conflicts of interest on the part of the institutional investor group and/or the Trustee, the inadequacy of the settlement amount and the method of allocating the settlement amount among the 525 legacy Countrywide first-lien and five second-lien non-GSE residential mortgage-backed securitization trusts (the Covered Trusts), while other motions do not make substantive objections but state that they need more information about the settlement. Parties who filed notices stating that they wished to obtain more information about the settlement include the FDIC and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
An investor opposed to the settlement removed the proceeding to federal district court, and the federal district court denied the Trustee's motion to remand the proceeding to state court. On February 27, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing the district court denial of the Trustee's motion to remand the proceeding to state court and ordering that the proceeding be remanded to state court. On April 24, 2012, a hearing was held on threshold issues, at which the court denied the objectors' motion to convert the proceeding to a plenary proceeding. A hearing on discovery matters was set for May 8, 2012. We are not a party to the proceeding.
It is not currently possible to predict how many of the parties who have appeared in the court proceeding will ultimately object to the BNY Mellon Settlement, whether the objections will prevent receipt of final court approval or the ultimate outcome of the court approval process, which can include appeals and could take a substantial period of time. In particular, conduct of discovery and the resolution of the objections to the settlement and any appeals could take a substantial period of time and these factors could materially delay the timing of final court approval. Accordingly, it is not possible to predict when the court approval process will be completed.
If final court approval is not obtained by December 31, 2015, we and legacy Countrywide may withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement, if the Trustee consents. The BNY Mellon Settlement also provides that if Covered Trusts representing unpaid principal balance exceeding a specified amount are excluded from the final BNY Mellon Settlement, based on investor objections or otherwise, we and legacy Countrywide have the option to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement pursuant to the terms of the BNY Mellon Settlement agreement.
There can be no assurance that final court approval of the BNY Mellon Settlement will be obtained, that all conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement will be satisfied or, if certain conditions to the BNY Mellon Settlement permitting withdrawal are met, that we and legacy Countrywide will not determine to withdraw from the settlement. If final court approval is not obtained or if we and legacy Countrywide determine to withdraw from the BNY Mellon Settlement in accordance with its terms, our future representations and warranties losses could be substantially different than existing accruals and the estimated range of possible loss over existing accruals described under Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Experience with Investors Other than Government-sponsored Enterprises on page 49. For more information about the risks associated with the BNY Mellon Settlement, see Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Unresolved Claims Status
Unresolved Repurchase Claims
At March 31, 2012, our total unresolved repurchase claims were approximately $16.1 billion compared to $12.6 billion at December 31, 2011. These repurchase claims do not include any repurchase claims related to the Covered Trusts. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we received $4.7 billion in new repurchase claims, including $3.0 billion in new repurchase claims submitted by the GSEs for both legacy Countrywide originations not covered by the GSE Agreements and legacy Bank of America originations, and $1.7 billion in repurchase claims related to non-GSE transactions. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, $1.3 billion in claims were resolved primarily with the GSEs. Of the claims resolved, $773 million were resolved through rescissions and $480 million were resolved through mortgage repurchase and make-whole payments. Generally the volume of unresolved repurchase claims from the FHA and VA for loans in GNMA-guaranteed securities is not significant because the requests are limited in number and are typically resolved quickly. For additional information concerning FHA-insured loans, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes on page 51. For information regarding GSEs' repurchase requests and outstanding claims, see Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
In addition and not included in total unresolved repurchase claims in the paragraph above, we have received repurchase demands from private-label securitization investors and a master servicer where we believe the claimant has not satisfied the contractual thresholds to direct the securitization trustee to take action and/or that these demands are otherwise procedurally or substantively invalid. The total amounts outstanding of such demands were $3.1 billion and $1.7 billion as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 we received an additional $1.4 billion in such demands. We do not believe that the $1.4 billion in additional demands received are valid claims, and therefore it is not possible to predict the resolution with respect to such demands. Of the demands
outstanding at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $1.7 billion relate to loans underlying securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement and a claimant has filed litigation against us relating to $1.4 billion of these demands. If the BNY Mellon Settlement is approved by the court, demands related to loans underlying securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement will be resolved by the settlement.
Open Mortgage Insurance Rescission Notices
In addition to repurchase claims, we receive notices from mortgage insurance companies of claim denials, cancellations or coverage rescission (collectively, MI rescission notices) and the amount of such notices have remained elevated. At March 31, 2012, we had approximately 99,000 open MI rescission notices compared to 90,000 at December 31, 2011. Through March 31, 2012, 27 percent of the MI rescission notices received have been resolved. Of those resolved, 22 percent were resolved through our acceptance of the MI rescission, 46 percent were resolved through reinstatement of coverage or payment of the claim by the mortgage insurance company, and 32 percent were resolved on an aggregate basis through settlement, policy commutation or similar arrangement. As of March 31, 2012, 73 percent of the MI rescission notices we have received have not yet been resolved. Of those not yet resolved, 45 percent are implicated by ongoing litigation where no loan-level review is currently contemplated (nor required to preserve our legal rights). In this litigation, the litigating mortgage insurance companies are also seeking bulk rescission of certain policies, separate and apart from loan-by-loan denials or rescissions. We are in the process of reviewing 34 percent of the remaining open MI rescission notices, and we have reviewed and are contesting the MI rescission with respect to 66 percent of these MI rescission notices. Of the remaining open MI rescission notices, 25 percent are also the subject of ongoing litigation; although, at present, these MI rescissions are being processed in a manner generally consistent with those not affected by litigation. For additional information, see Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Representations and Warranties Liability
The liability for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees is included in accrued expenses and other liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and the related provision is included in mortgage banking income. The estimate of the liability for representations and warranties is based on currently available information, significant judgment and a number of other factors that are subject to change. Changes to any one of these factors could significantly impact the estimate of the liability and could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations for any particular period. For additional information, see Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The liability for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to GSE and non-GSE exposures and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties exposures does not consider any losses related to litigation matters disclosed in Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements or Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K, nor do they include any separate foreclosure costs and related costs, assessments and compensatory fees or any possible losses related to potential claims for breaches of performance of servicing obligations except as such losses are included as potential costs of the BNY Mellon Settlement, potential securities law or fraud claims or potential indemnity or other claims against us, including claims related to loans insured by the FHA. We are not able to reasonably estimate the amount of any possible loss with respect to any such servicing, securities law, fraud or other claims against us, except to the extent reflected in the aggregate range of possible loss for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed in Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements, however, such loss could be material.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the liability was $15.7 billion and $15.9 billion. For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the provision for representations and warranties and corporate guarantees was $282 million and $1.0 billion. The representations and warranties provision of $282 million related primarily to the GSEs. The decrease in the provision from the prior-year period was primarily due to a higher provision in the prior-year period attributable to the GSEs and a monoline. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties Liability on page 58 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Estimated Range of Possible Loss
Government-sponsored Enterprises
Our estimated liability as of March 31, 2012 for obligations under representations and warranties with respect to GSE exposures is necessarily dependent on, and limited by, our historical claims experience with the GSEs. It includes our understanding of our agreements with the GSEs and projections of future defaults as well as certain other assumptions, and judgmental factors. Accordingly, future provisions associated with obligations under representations and warranties made to the GSEs may be materially impacted if actual experiences are different from historical experience or our understandings, interpretations or assumptions. The GSEs' repurchase requests, standards for rescission of repurchase requests and resolution processes have become inconsistent with the GSEs' own past conduct and the Corporation's interpretation of its contractual obligations. While we are seeking to resolve our differences with the GSEs concerning each party's interpretation of the requirements of the governing contracts, whether we will be able to achieve a resolution of these differences on
acceptable terms, and the timing and cost thereof, is subject to significant uncertainty.
It is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses with respect to GSE exposures may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for the GSE exposures, and the amount of any such additional liability could be material. Due to the significant uncertainty related to our continued differences with the GSEs concerning each party's interpretation of the requirements of the governing contracts, it is not possible to reasonably estimate what the outcome or range of such additional possible loss may be. See Complex Accounting Estimates – Representations and Warranties on page 115 for information related to the sensitivity of the assumptions used to estimate our liability for obligations under representations and warranties.
Non-Government-sponsored Enterprises
The population of private-label securitizations included in the BNY Mellon Settlement encompasses almost all legacy Countrywide first-lien private-label securitizations including loans originated between 2004 and 2008. For the remainder of the population of private-label securitizations, we believe it is probable that other claimants in certain types of securitizations may come forward with claims that meet the requirements of the terms of the securitizations. We have also seen and continue to see an increased trend for both requests for loan files and repurchase claims from private-label securitization trustees. We believe that the provisions recorded in connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement and the additional non-GSE representations and warranties provisions recorded in 2011 have provided for a substantial portion of our non-GSE representations and warranties exposure. However, it is reasonably possible that future representations and warranties losses may occur in excess of the amounts recorded for these exposures. In addition, we have not recorded any representations and warranties liability for certain potential monoline exposures and certain potential whole loan and other private-label securitization exposures. We currently estimate that the range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of March 31, 2012 could be up to $5 billion over existing accruals. The estimated range of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties does not represent a probable loss, and is based on currently available information, significant judgment and a number of assumptions that are subject to change. For additional information about the methodology used to estimate the non-GSE representations and warranties liability and the corresponding range of possible loss, see Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Future provisions and/or ranges of possible loss for non-GSE representations and warranties may be significantly impacted if actual experiences are different from our assumptions in our predictive models, including, without limitation, those regarding ultimate resolution of the BNY Mellon Settlement, estimated repurchase rates, economic conditions, estimated home prices, consumer and counterparty behavior, and a variety of other judgmental factors. Adverse developments with respect to one or more of the assumptions underlying the liability for representations and warranties and the corresponding estimated range of possible loss could result in significant increases to future provisions and this estimated range of possible loss. For example, if courts were to disagree with our interpretation that the underlying agreements require a claimant to prove that the representations and warranties breach was the cause of the loss, it could significantly impact this estimated range of possible loss. Additionally, if recent court rulings related to monoline litigation, including one related to us, that have allowed sampling of loan files instead of requiring a loan-by-loan review to determine if a representations and warranties breach has occurred are followed generally by the courts, private-label securitization investors may view litigation as a more attractive alternative compared to a loan-by-loan review. For additional information regarding these issues, see MBIA litigation in Litigation and Regulatory Matters in Note 14 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Finally, although we believe that the representations and warranties typically given in non-GSE transactions are less rigorous and actionable than those given in GSE transactions, we do not have significant loan-level experience in non-GSE transactions to measure the impact of these differences on the probability that a loan will be required to be repurchased.
Government-sponsored Enterprises Experience
Our current repurchase claims experience with the GSEs is concentrated in the 2004 through 2008 vintages where we believe that our exposure to representations and warranties liability is most significant. Our repurchase claims experience related to loans originated prior to 2004 has not been significant and we believe that the changes made to our operations and underwriting policies have reduced our exposure related to loans originated after 2008.
Bank of America and legacy Countrywide sold approximately $1.1 trillion of loans originated from 2004 through 2008 to the GSEs. As of March 31, 2012, 12 percent of the loans in these vintages have defaulted or are 180 days or more past due (severely delinquent). At least 25 payments have been made on approximately 65 percent of severely delinquent or defaulted loans. Through March 31, 2012, we have received $35.6 billion in repurchase claims associated with these vintages, representing approximately three percent of the loans sold to the GSEs in these vintages. We have resolved $27.1 billion of these claims with a net loss experience of approximately 31 percent, after considering the effect of collateral. Our collateral loss severity rate on approved repurchases has averaged approximately 45 to 55 percent.
Table 11 highlights our experience with the GSEs related to loans originated from 2004 through 2008.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 11 |
Overview of GSE Balances - 2004-2008 Originations |
| Legacy Originator |
(Dollars in billions) | Countrywide | | Other | | Total | | Percent of
Total |
Original funded balance | $ | 846 |
| | $ | 272 |
| | $ | 1,118 |
| | |
Principal payments | (463 | ) | | (158 | ) | | (621 | ) | | |
Defaults | (61 | ) | | (10 | ) | | (71 | ) | | |
Total outstanding balance at March 31, 2012 | $ | 322 |
| | $ | 104 |
| | $ | 426 |
| | |
Outstanding principal balance 180 days or more past due (severely delinquent) | $ | 47 |
| | $ | 11 |
| | $ | 58 |
| | |
Defaults plus severely delinquent | 108 |
| | 21 |
| | 129 |
| | |
Payments made by borrower: | | | | | | | |
Less than 13 | | | | | $ | 15 |
| | 12 | % |
13-24 | | | | | 30 |
| | 23 |
|
25-36 | | | | | 33 |
| | 26 |
|
More than 36 | | | | | 51 |
| | 39 |
|
Total payments made by borrower | | | | | $ | 129 |
| | 100 | % |
| | | | | | | |
Outstanding GSE representations and warranties claims (all vintages) | | | | | | | |
As of December 31, 2011 | | | | | $ | 6.3 |
| | |
As of March 31, 2012 | | | | | 8.1 |
| | |
Cumulative GSE representations and warranties losses (2004-2008 vintages) | | | | | $ | 9.5 |
| | |
We continue to experience elevated levels of new claims from the GSEs, including claims on loans on which borrowers have made a significant number of payments (e.g., at least 25 payments) or on loans which had defaulted more than 18 months prior to the repurchase request, in each case, in numbers that were not expected based on past practices. Also, the criteria and the processes by which the GSEs are ultimately willing to resolve claims have changed in ways that are unfavorable to us. These developments have resulted in an increase in claims outstanding from the GSEs to $8.1 billion at March 31, 2012. We intend to repurchase loans to the extent required under the contracts and standards that govern our relationships with the GSEs. While we are seeking to resolve our differences with the GSEs concerning each party’s interpretation of the requirements of the governing contracts, whether we will be able to achieve a resolution of these differences on acceptable terms, and the timing and cost thereof, is subject to significant uncertainty.
Beginning in February 2012, we are no longer delivering purchase money and non-making home affordable (MHA) refinance first-lien residential mortgage products into Fannie Mae (FNMA) MBS pools because of the expiration and mutual non-renewal of certain contractual delivery commitments and variances that permit efficient delivery of such loans to FNMA. While we continue to have a valid agreement with FNMA permitting the delivery of purchase money and non-MHA refinance first-lien residential mortgage products without such contractual variances, the delivery of such products without contractual delivery commitments and variances would involve time and expense to implement the necessary operational and systems changes and otherwise presents practical operational issues. The non-renewal of these variances was influenced, in part, by our ongoing differences with FNMA in other contexts, including repurchase claims, as discussed above. We do not expect this change to have a material impact on our CRES business, as we expect to rely on other sources of liquidity to actively extend mortgage credit to our customers including continuing to deliver such products into Freddie Mac (FHLMC) MBS pools. Additionally, we continue to deliver MHA refinancing products into FNMA MBS pools and continue to engage in dialogue to attempt to address our ongoing differences with FNMA.
In 2011, FNMA issued an announcement requiring servicers to report all MI rescission notices with respect to loans sold to FNMA and confirmed FNMA's view of its position that a mortgage insurance company's issuance of a MI rescission notice constitutes a breach of the lender's representations and warranties and permits FNMA to require the lender to repurchase the mortgage loan or promptly remit a make-whole payment covering FNMA's loss even if the lender is contesting the MI rescission notice. According to FNMA's announcement, through June 30, 2012, lenders have 90 days to appeal FNMA's repurchase request and 30 days (or such other time frame specified by FNMA) to appeal after that date. This announcement could result in more repurchase requests from FNMA than the assumptions in our estimated liability contemplate. We also expect that in many cases, particularly in the context of individual or bulk rescissions being contested through litigation, we will not be able to resolve MI rescission notices with the mortgage insurance companies before the expiration of the appeal period prescribed by the FNMA announcement. We have informed FNMA that we do not believe that the new policy is valid under our contracts with FNMA, and that we do not intend to repurchase loans under the terms set forth in the
new policy. Our pipeline of outstanding repurchase claims from the GSEs resulting solely on MI rescission notices has increased to $1.4 billion at March 31, 2012 from $1.2 billion at December 31, 2011. If we are required to abide by the terms of the new FNMA policy, our representations and warranties liability will likely increase. For additional information on the FNMA announcement, see Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Government-sponsored Enterprises Experience on page 60 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Experience with Investors Other than Government-sponsored Enterprises
As detailed in Table 12, legacy companies and certain subsidiaries sold pools of first-lien mortgage loans and home equity loans as private-label securitizations or in the form of whole loans originated from 2004 through 2008 with an original principal balance of $963 billion to investors other than GSEs (although the GSEs are investors in certain private-label securitizations), of which approximately $512 billion in principal has been paid and $241 billion has defaulted or are severely delinquent at March 31, 2012. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Experience with Investors Other than Government-sponsored Enterprises on page 61 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Table 12 details the population of loans originated between 2004 and 2008 and the population of loans sold as whole loans or in non-agency securitizations by entity and product together with the defaulted and severely delinquent loans stratified by the number of payments the borrower made prior to default or becoming severely delinquent as of March 31, 2012. As shown in Table 12, at least 25 payments have been made on approximately 63 percent of the defaulted and severely delinquent loans. We believe many of the defaults observed in these securitizations have been, and continue to be, driven by external factors like the substantial depreciation in home prices, persistently high unemployment and other negative economic trends, diminishing the likelihood that any loan defect (assuming one exists at all) was the cause of a loan’s default. As of March 31, 2012, approximately 25 percent of the loans sold to non-GSEs that were originated between 2004 and 2008 have defaulted or are severely delinquent. Of the original principal balance for Countrywide, $409 billion is included in the BNY Mellon Settlement and $111 billion is defaulted or severely delinquent at March 31, 2012.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 12 |
Overview of Non-Agency Securitization and Whole Loan Balances |
(Dollars in billions) | Principal Balance | | Defaulted or Severely Delinquent |
By Entity | Original
Principal Balance | | Outstanding Principal Balance March 31, 2012 | | Outstanding
Principal
Balance 180 Days
or More Past Due | | Defaulted
Principal Balance | | Defaulted
or Severely
Delinquent | | Borrower Made
Less than 13
Payments | | Borrower Made
13 to 24
Payments | | Borrower Made
25 to 36
Payments | | Borrower Made
More than 36
Payments |
Bank of America | $ | 100 |
| | $ | 27 |
| | $ | 4 |
| | $ | 5 |
| | $ | 9 |
| | $ | 1 |
| | $ | 2 |
| | $ | 2 |
| | $ | 4 |
|
Countrywide | 716 |
| | 238 |
| | 77 |
| | 110 |
| | 187 |
| | 24 |
| | 44 |
| | 46 |
| | 73 |
|
Merrill Lynch | 65 |
| | 18 |
| | 5 |
| | 12 |
| | 17 |
| | 3 |
| | 4 |
| | 3 |
| | 7 |
|
First Franklin | 82 |
| | 20 |
| | 7 |
| | 21 |
| | 28 |
| | 5 |
| | 6 |
| | 5 |
| | 12 |
|
Total (1, 2) | $ | 963 |
| | $ | 303 |
| | $ | 93 |
| | $ | 148 |
| | $ | 241 |
| | $ | 33 |
| | $ | 56 |
| | $ | 56 |
| | $ | 96 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
By Product | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Prime | $ | 302 |
| | $ | 97 |
| | $ | 16 |
| | $ | 17 |
| | $ | 33 |
| | $ | 2 |
| | $ | 6 |
| | $ | 7 |
| | $ | 18 |
|
Alt-A | 172 |
| | 67 |
| | 18 |
| | 31 |
| | 49 |
| | 7 |
| | 12 |
| | 12 |
| | 18 |
|
Pay option | 150 |
| | 52 |
| | 26 |
| | 31 |
| | 57 |
| | 5 |
| | 14 |
| | 16 |
| | 22 |
|
Subprime | 245 |
| | 71 |
| | 31 |
| | 52 |
| | 83 |
| | 16 |
| | 19 |
| | 17 |
| | 31 |
|
Home equity | 88 |
| | 14 |
| | 1 |
| | 16 |
| | 17 |
| | 2 |
| | 5 |
| | 4 |
| | 6 |
|
Other | 6 |
| | 2 |
| | 1 |
| | 1 |
| | 2 |
| | 1 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1 |
|
Total | $ | 963 |
| | $ | 303 |
| | $ | 93 |
| | $ | 148 |
| | $ | 241 |
| | $ | 33 |
| | $ | 56 |
| | $ | 56 |
| | $ | 96 |
|
| |
(1) | Excludes transactions sponsored by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch where no representations or warranties were made. |
| |
(2) | Includes exposures on third-party sponsored transactions related to legacy entity originations. |
Monoline Insurers
Legacy companies sold $184.5 billion of loans originated between 2004 and 2008 into monoline-insured securitizations, which are included in Table 12, including $103.9 billion of first-lien mortgages and $80.6 billion of second-lien mortgages. Of these balances, $47.2 billion of the first-lien mortgages and $50.7 billion of the second-lien mortgages have been paid in full and $34.8 billion of the first-lien mortgages and $17.0 billion of the second-lien mortgages have defaulted or are severely delinquent at March 31, 2012. At least 25 payments have been made on approximately 59 percent of the defaulted and severely delinquent loans. Of the first-lien mortgages sold, $39.1 billion, or 38 percent, were sold as whole loans to other institutions which subsequently included these loans with those of other originators in private-label securitization transactions in which the monolines typically insured one or more securities. Through March 31, 2012, we have received $6.1 billion of representations and warranties claims related to the monoline-insured transactions. Of these repurchase claims, $2.0 billion were resolved through the Assured Guaranty Settlement, $813 million were resolved through repurchase or indemnification with losses of $704 million, and $140 million were rescinded by the investor or paid in full. The majority of these resolved claims related to second-lien mortgages. Our limited experience with most of the monoline insurers has varied in terms of process, and experience with these counterparties has not been predictable. Our limited experience with the monoline insurers, other than Assured Guaranty, in the repurchase process is a result of these monoline insurers having instituted litigation against legacy Countrywide and/or Bank of America, which limits our ability to enter into constructive dialogue with these monolines to resolve the open claims. For additional information, see Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
At March 31, 2012, for loans originated between 2004 and 2008, the unpaid principal balance of loans related to unresolved monoline repurchase claims was $3.1 billion, substantially all of which we have reviewed and declined to repurchase based on an assessment of whether a material breach exists. At March 31, 2012, the unpaid principal balance of loans in these vintages for which the monolines had requested loan files for review but for which no repurchase claim had been received was $6.1 billion, excluding loans that had been paid in full and file requests for loans included in the trusts settled with Assured Guaranty. There will likely be additional requests for loan files in the future leading to repurchase claims.
It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate probable future repurchase obligations with respect to those monolines with whom we have limited repurchase experience and, therefore, no representations and warranties liability has been recorded in connection with these monolines, other than a liability for repurchase claims where we have determined that there are valid loan defects. Our estimated range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of March 31, 2012 included possible losses related to these monoline insurers.
Whole Loans and Private-label Securitizations
Legacy entities, and to a lesser extent Bank of America, sold loans to investors as whole loans or via private-label securitizations. The majority of the loans sold were included in private-label securitizations, including third-party sponsored transactions. The loans sold with total principal balance of $778.2 billion, included in Table 12, were originated between 2004 and 2008, of which $413.9 billion have been paid in full and $189.2 billion are defaulted or severely delinquent at March 31, 2012. In connection with these transactions, we provided representations and warranties, and the whole-loan investors may retain those rights even when the whole loans were aggregated with other collateral into private-label securitizations sponsored by the whole-loan investors. At least 25 payments have been made on approximately 64 percent of the defaulted and severely delinquent loans. We have received approximately $10.8 billion of representations and warranties claims from whole-loan investors and private-label securitization investors and trustees related to these vintages, including $6.2 billion from whole-loan investors, $3.8 billion from private-label securitization trustees and $819 million from one private-label securitization counterparty which were submitted prior to 2008. In private-label securitizations, certain presentation thresholds need to be met in order for investors to direct a trustee to assert repurchase claims. Historically, the majority of the claims that we have received outside of those from the GSEs and monolines are from third-party whole-loan investors. However, the amount of claims received from private-label securitization trustees has been increasing. There have been and continue to be an increase in requests for loan files from private-label securitization trustees, as well as requests for tolling agreements to toll the applicable statutes of limitation relating to representations and warranties claims, and we believe it is likely that these requests will lead to an increase in repurchase claims from private-label securitization trustees with standing to bring such claims.
We have resolved $6.1 billion of the claims received from whole-loan investors and private-label securitization investors and trustees with losses of $1.4 billion. Approximately $2.8 billion of these claims were resolved through repurchase or indemnification and $3.3 billion were rescinded by the investor. Claims outstanding related to these vintages totaled $4.7 billion, including $1.5 billion that have been reviewed where it is believed a valid defect has not been identified which would constitute an actionable breach of representations and warranties and $3.2 billion that are in the process of review.
Certain whole-loan investors have engaged with us in a consistent repurchase process and we have used that experience to record a liability related to existing and future claims from such counterparties. The BNY Mellon Settlement led to the determination that we had sufficient experience to record a liability related to our exposure on certain other private-label securitizations. However, the BNY Mellon Settlement did not provide sufficient experience related to certain private-label securitizations sponsored by third-party whole-loan
investors. As it relates to certain private-label securitizations sponsored by third-party whole-loan investors and certain other whole loan sales, it is not possible to determine whether a loss has occurred or is probable and, therefore, no representations and warranties liability has been recorded in connection with these transactions. Our estimated range of possible loss related to non-GSE representations and warranties exposure as of March 31, 2012 included possible losses related to these whole loan sales and private-label securitizations sponsored by third-party whole-loan investors.
Private-label securitization investors generally do not have the contractual right to demand repurchase of loans directly or the right to access loan files. Prior to 2011, we received demands totaling $1.7 billion from private-label securitization investors in the Covered Trusts. For additional information, see Unresolved Claim Status on page 45.
|
|
Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes |
We service a large portion of the loans we or our subsidiaries have securitized and also service loans on behalf of third-party securitization vehicles and other investors. Servicing agreements with the GSEs generally provide the GSEs with broader rights relative to the servicer than are found in servicing agreements with private investors. For example, each GSE typically claims the right to demand that the servicer repurchase loans that breach the seller's representations and warranties made in connection with the initial sale of the loans even if the servicer was not the seller. The GSEs also claim that they have the contractual right to demand indemnification or loan repurchase for certain servicing breaches. In addition, the GSEs' first mortgage seller/servicer guides provide for timelines to resolve delinquent loans through workout efforts or liquidation, if necessary, and purport to require the imposition of compensatory fees if those deadlines are not satisfied except for reasons beyond the control of the servicer, although we believe that the governing contracts, our course of dealing, and collective past practices and understandings should inform resolution of these matters. In addition, many non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities and whole-loan servicing agreements require the servicer to indemnify the trustee or other investor for or against failures by the servicer to perform its servicing obligations or acts or omissions that involve willful malfeasance, bad faith or gross negligence in the performance of, or reckless disregard of, the servicer's duties. It is not possible to reasonably estimate our liability with respect to certain potential servicing-related claims. While we have recorded certain accruals for servicing-related claims, the amount of potential liability in excess of existing accruals could be material. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes on page 63 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
We continue to be subject to additional borrower and non-borrower litigation and governmental and regulatory scrutiny related to our past and current servicing and foreclosure activities, including those claims not covered by the Global Settlement Agreement. This scrutiny may extend beyond our pending foreclosure matters to issues arising out of alleged irregularities with respect to previously completed foreclosure activities. The current environment of heightened regulatory scrutiny may subject us to inquiries or investigations that could significantly adversely affect our reputation and result in material costs to us.
Servicing Resolution Agreements
The Global Settlement Agreement reached on March 12, 2012 between the Corporation, the State AGs and the Federal Agencies was entered by the court on April 5, 2012. The Global Settlement Agreement provides for the establishment of certain uniform servicing standards, upfront cash payments of approximately $1.9 billion to the state and federal governments and for borrower restitution, approximately $7.6 billion in borrower assistance in the form of, among other things, credits earned for principal reduction, short sales, deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure, and approximately $1.0 billion of credits earned for interest rate reduction modifications. We will also be obligated to provide additional cash payments of up to $850 million if we fail to earn an additional $850 million of credits stemming from incremental principal reductions over a three-year period. In addition, the settlement with the FHA provides for an upfront cash payment of $500 million to settle certain claims related to FHA-insured loans. The liability for upfront payments totaling $2.4 billion was included in our litigation reserves at March 31, 2012 and these upfront payments were subsequently paid in April 2012.
The borrower assistance program is not expected to result in any incremental credit provision, as the existing allowance for credit losses is adequate to absorb any costs that have not already been recorded as charge-offs. The modification program will consist of interest rate reductions on first-lien loans originated prior to January 1, 2009 that have a current loan-to-value (LTV) ratio greater than 100 percent and that meet certain eligibility criteria, including the requirement that all payments due for the last twelve months have been made in a timely manner. This program commits us to forego future interest payments that we may not otherwise have agreed to forego, and no loss has been recognized in the financial statements related to such forgone interest. The interest rate modification program is expected to include approximately 20,000 to 25,000 loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $5.4 billion to $6.8 billion. Assuming an average interest rate reduction of approximately two percent, the modifications are expected to result in a reduction of annual interest income of approximately $100 million to $130 million when the program is complete. Assuming a weighted-average loan life of approximately eight years, the fair value of loans in the program is expected to decrease by approximately $700 million to $900 million as a result of the interest rate reductions. The financial impact will vary depending on final terms of modifications offered and the rate of borrower acceptance. We do not expect loans modified under the program to be accounted for as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs).
If the program is expanded to include loans that do not meet specified underwriting criteria, such as verification of income or minimum FICO scores, the modifications of such loans will be accounted for as TDRs.
We could be required to make additional payments if we fail to meet our borrower assistance and rate reduction modification commitments over a three-year period, in an amount equal to 125 percent to 140 percent of the shortfall, dependent on the two- and three-year commitment target. We also entered into agreements with several states under which we committed to perform certain minimum levels of principal reduction and related activities within those states as part of the Global Settlement Agreement, and under which we could be required to make additional payments if we fail to meet such minimum levels.
We believe it is unlikely that we will fail to meet all borrower assistance, rate reduction modification and principal reduction commitments and, therefore, do not expect to be required to make additional cash payments. Although it is reasonably possible that the cost of fulfilling the commitments could increase, leading to an incremental credit provision, the amount of any such incremental provision is not reasonably estimable. Although we may incur additional operating costs (e.g., servicing costs) to implement parts of the Global Settlement Agreement in future periods, we do not expect that those costs will be material.
Under the terms of the Global Settlement Agreement, the federal and participating state governments agreed to release us from further liability for certain alleged residential mortgage origination, servicing and foreclosure deficiencies. In settling origination issues related to FHA guaranteed loans originated on or before April 30, 2009, the FHA provides us and our affiliates with a release from further liability for all claims with respect to such loans if an insurance claim had been submitted to the FHA prior to January 1, 2012 and a release of multiple damages and penalties, but not single damages, if no such claim had been submitted.
The Global Settlement Agreement does not cover claims arising out of securitization (including representations made to investors with respect to MBS), criminal claims, private claims by borrowers, claims by certain states for injunctive relief or actual economic damages to borrowers related to the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), and claims by the GSEs (including repurchase demands), among other items. For additional information on MERS, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. on page 65 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Impact of Foreclosure Delays
In the three months ended March 31, 2012, we recorded $410 million of mortgage-related assessments, waivers and similar costs related to delayed foreclosures. We expect higher costs will continue related to resources necessary to implement new servicing standards mandated for the industry, to implement other operational changes and delayed foreclosures. This will likely result in continued higher noninterest expense, including higher default servicing costs and legal expenses in CRES, and has impacted and may continue to impact the value of our MSRs related to these serviced loans. It is also possible that the delays in foreclosure sales may result in additional costs and expenses, including costs associated with the maintenance of properties or possible home price declines while foreclosures are delayed. In addition, required process changes, including those required under the consent orders with federal bank regulators and the Consent Judgment with the Federal Agencies, are likely to result in further increases in our default servicing costs over the longer term. Finally, the time to complete foreclosure sales may continue to be protracted, which may result in a greater number of nonperforming loans and increased servicing advances and may impact the collectability of such advances and the value of our MSR asset, MBS and real estate owned properties. Accordingly, delays in foreclosure sales, including any delays beyond those currently anticipated, our continued process enhancements, including those required under the OCC and Federal Reserve consent orders and the Consent Judgment, and any issues that may arise out of alleged irregularities in our foreclosure process could significantly increase the costs associated with our mortgage operations.
Mortgage-related Settlements – Servicing Matters
In connection with the BNY Mellon Settlement, BANA has agreed to implement certain servicing changes. The Trustee and BANA have agreed to clarify and conform certain servicing standards related to loss mitigation. In particular, the BNY Mellon Settlement clarifies that it is permissible to apply the same loss-mitigation strategies to the Covered Trusts as are applied to BANA affiliates' held-for investment (HFI) portfolios. This portion of the agreement was effective in the second quarter of 2011 and is not conditioned on final court approval. In connection with the Global Settlement Agreement, BANA has agreed to implement certain additional servicing changes. The uniform servicing standards established under the Global Settlement Agreement are broadly consistent with the residential mortgage servicing practices imposed by the OCC consent order; however, they are more prescriptive and cover a broader range of our residential mortgage servicing activities. Implementation of these uniform servicing standards is expected to incrementally increase costs associated with the servicing process, but is not expected to result in material delays or dislocation in the performance of our mortgage servicing obligations, including the completion of foreclosures. For additional information, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Mortgage-related Settlements – Servicing Matters on page 65 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
For information regarding significant regulatory matters, see Item 1A. Risk Factors, Note 10 – Commitments and Contingencies to the Consolidated Financial Statements herein and Regulatory Matters on page 66 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Risk is inherent in every material business activity that we undertake. Our business exposes us to strategic, credit, market, liquidity, compliance, operational and reputational risk. We must manage these risks to maximize our long-term results by ensuring the integrity of our assets and the quality of our earnings.
We take a comprehensive approach to risk management. We have a defined risk framework and clearly articulated risk appetite which is approved annually by the Corporation's Board of Directors (the Board). Risk management planning is integrated with strategic, financial and customer/client planning so that goals and responsibilities are aligned across the organization. Risk is managed in a systematic manner by focusing on the Corporation as a whole as well as managing risk across the enterprise and within individual business units, products, services and transactions, and across all geographic locations. We maintain a governance structure that delineates the responsibilities for risk management activities, as well as governance and oversight of those activities. For a more detailed discussion of our risk management activities, see pages 68 through 120 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
|
Strategic Risk Management |
Strategic risk is embedded in every business and is one of the major risk categories along with credit, market, liquidity, compliance, operational and reputational risks. It is the risk that results from adverse business decisions, ineffective or inappropriate business plans, or failure to respond to changes in the competitive environment, business cycles, customer preferences, product obsolescence, regulatory environment, business strategy execution and/or other inherent risks of the business including reputational and operational risk. In the financial services industry, strategic risk is elevated due to changing customer, competitive and regulatory environments. Our appetite for strategic risk is assessed within the context of the strategic plan, with strategic risks selectively and carefully considered in the context of the evolving marketplace. Strategic risk is managed in the context of our overall financial condition and assessed, managed and acted on by the Chief Executive Officer and executive management team. Significant strategic actions, such as material acquisitions or capital actions, require review and approval of the Board.
For more information on our Strategic Risk Management activities, see page 71 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Bank of America manages its capital position to ensure capital is sufficient to support our business activities and that capital, risk and risk appetite are commensurate with one another, ensure safety and soundness under adverse scenarios, take advantage of growth and strategic opportunities, maintain ready access to financial markets, remain a source of strength for its subsidiaries, and satisfy current and future regulatory capital requirements.
To determine the appropriate level of capital, we assess the results of our Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process (ICAAP), the current economic and market environment, and feedback from investors, rating agencies and regulators. Based upon this analysis, we set capital guidelines for Tier 1 common capital and Tier 1 capital to ensure we can maintain an adequate capital position in a severe adverse economic scenario. We also target to maintain capital in excess of the capital required per our economic capital measurement process. For additional information, see Economic Capital on page 58. Management and the Board annually approve a comprehensive Capital Plan which documents the ICAAP and related results, analysis and support for the capital guidelines, and planned capital actions and capital adequacy assessment.
Capital management is integrated into the risk and governance processes, as capital is a key consideration in the development of the strategic plan, risk appetite and risk limits. Economic capital is allocated to each business unit and used to perform risk-adjusted return analysis at the business unit, client relationship and transaction levels.
As a financial services holding company, we are subject to the risk-based capital guidelines (Basel I) issued by federal banking regulators. At March 31, 2012, we operated banking activities primarily under two charters: BANA and FIA Card Services, N.A. (FIA). Under these guidelines, the Corporation and its affiliated banking entities measure capital adequacy based on Tier 1 common capital, Tier 1 capital and Total capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2 capital). Capital ratios are calculated by dividing each capital amount by risk-weighted assets. Additionally, Tier 1 capital is divided by adjusted quarterly average total assets to derive the Tier 1 leverage ratio.
The Corporation has issued notes to certain unconsolidated corporate-sponsored trust companies which issued qualifying trust preferred securities (Trust Securities) and hybrid securities. In accordance with Federal Reserve guidance, Trust Securities continue to qualify as Tier 1 capital with revised quantitative limits. As a result, at March 31, 2012, the Corporation included qualifying Trust Securities in the aggregate amount of $15.4 billion (approximately 126 bps of Tier 1 capital) in Tier 1 capital. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Financial Reform Act) includes a provision under which outstanding Trust Securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital, with the exclusion to be phased in incrementally over a three-year period beginning January 1, 2013. The treatment of Trust Securities during the phase-in period is subject to future rulemaking. For additional information on trust preferred exchanges, see Recent Events – Capital and Liquidity Related Matters on page 7.
For additional information on these and other regulatory requirements, see Capital Management – Regulatory Capital on page 72 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 18 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Capital Composition and Ratios
Tier 1 common capital was $131.6 billion at March 31, 2012, an increase of $4.9 billion from December 31, 2011. The increase was primarily driven by earnings and other items eligible to be included in capital, which positively impacted the Tier 1 common capital ratio by approximately 20 bps, as well as 13 bps related to subordinated debt repurchases and exchanges of preferred stock and trust preferred securities. The Tier 1 common capital ratio also benefited seven bps from the issuance of common stock in lieu of cash for a portion of employee incentive compensation. Total capital decreased $1.6 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 primarily due to a reduction in subordinated debt from repurchases.
Risk-weighted assets decreased $63.6 billion to $1,221 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. The decrease was primarily driven by lower loan levels and a strategic reduction in off-balance sheet assets which in the aggregate increased the Tier 1 common, Tier 1 and Total capital ratios 52 bps, 65 bps and 87 bps, respectively. The Tier 1 leverage ratio increased 26 bps at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 reflecting a reduction in adjusted quarterly average total assets.
Table 13 presents Bank of America Corporation’s capital ratios and related information at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 13 |
Bank of America Corporation Regulatory Capital |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| Actual | | | | Actual | | |
(Dollars in millions) | Ratio | | Amount | | Minimum Required (1) | | Ratio | | Amount | | Minimum Required (1) |
Tier 1 common capital ratio | 10.78 | % | | $ | 131,602 |
| | n/a |
| | 9.86 | % | | $ | 126,690 |
| | n/a |
|
Tier 1 capital ratio | 13.37 |
| | 163,199 |
| | $ | 48,833 |
| | 12.40 |
| | 159,232 |
| | $ | 51,379 |
|
Total capital ratio | 17.49 |
| | 213,480 |
| | 97,666 |
| | 16.75 |
| | 215,101 |
| | 102,757 |
|
Tier 1 leverage ratio | 7.79 |
| | 163,199 |
| | 83,842 |
| | 7.53 |
| | 159,232 |
| | 84,557 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Risk-weighted assets (in billions) | | | | | | | | | $ | 1,221 |
| | $ | 1,284 |
|
Adjusted quarterly average total assets (in billions) (2) | | | | | | | | | 2,096 |
| | 2,114 |
|
| |
(1) | Dollar amount required to meet guidelines for adequately capitalized institutions. |
| |
(2) | Reflects adjusted average total assets for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
n/a = not applicable
Table 14 presents the capital composition at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 14 |
Capital Composition |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Total common shareholders’ equity | $ | 213,711 |
| | $ | 211,704 |
|
Goodwill | (69,976 | ) | | (69,967 | ) |
Nonqualifying intangible assets (includes core deposit intangibles, affinity relationships, customer relationships and other intangibles) | (5,644 | ) | | (5,848 | ) |
Net unrealized gains on AFS debt and marketable equity securities and net losses on derivatives recorded in accumulated OCI, net-of-tax | 1,224 |
| | 682 |
|
Unamortized net periodic benefit costs recorded in accumulated OCI, net-of-tax | 3,439 |
| | 4,391 |
|
Fair value adjustment related to structured liabilities (1) | 3,031 |
| | 944 |
|
Disallowed deferred tax asset | (15,703 | ) | | (16,799 | ) |
Other | 1,520 |
| | 1,583 |
|
Total Tier 1 common capital | 131,602 |
| | 126,690 |
|
Qualifying preferred stock | 15,871 |
| | 15,479 |
|
Trust preferred securities | 15,400 |
| | 16,737 |
|
Noncontrolling interests | 326 |
| | 326 |
|
Total Tier 1 capital | 163,199 |
| | 159,232 |
|
Long-term debt qualifying as Tier 2 capital | 33,381 |
| | 38,165 |
|
Allowance for loan and lease losses | 32,211 |
| | 33,783 |
|
Reserve for unfunded lending commitments | 651 |
| | 714 |
|
Allowance for loan and lease losses exceeding 1.25 percent of risk-weighted assets | (17,346 | ) | | (18,159 | ) |
Other | 1,384 |
| | 1,366 |
|
Total capital | $ | 213,480 |
| | $ | 215,101 |
|
| |
(1) | Represents loss on structured liabilities, net-of-tax, that is excluded from Tier 1 common capital, Tier 1 capital and Total capital for regulatory capital purposes. |
Regulatory Capital Changes
We manage regulatory capital to adhere to regulatory standards of capital adequacy based on our current understanding of the rules and the application of such rules to our business as currently conducted. The regulatory capital rules as written by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee) continue to evolve.
We currently measure and report our capital ratios and related information in accordance with Basel I. See Capital Management on page 53 for additional information. Basel I has been subject to revisions, which include final Basel II rules (Basel II) published in December 2007 by U.S banking regulators and proposed Basel III rules (Basel III) published by the Basel Committee in December 2010, and further amended in July 2011. We are currently in the Basel II parallel period. Additionally, on December 29, 2011, U.S. regulators issued an amended notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) on the Market Risk Rules. This NPR is expected to increase the capital requirements for our trading assets and liabilities. We continue to evaluate the capital impact of the proposed rules and currently anticipate that we will be in compliance with any final rules by the projected implementation date in late 2012.
If implemented by U.S. banking regulators as proposed, Basel III could significantly increase our capital requirements. Basel III and the Financial Reform Act propose the disqualification of Trust Securities from Tier 1 capital, with the Financial Reform Act proposing that the disqualification be phased in from 2013 to 2015. Basel III also proposes the deduction of certain assets from capital in 20 percent increments from 2014 through 2018 (deferred tax assets, MSRs, investments in financial firms and pension assets, among others, within prescribed limitations), the inclusion of additional accumulated OCI in capital, increased capital for counterparty credit risk, and new minimum capital and buffer requirements. For additional information on MSRs and deferred tax assets, see Note 18 – Mortgage Servicing Rights to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Note 21 – Income Taxes to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. An increase in capital requirements for counterparty credit risk is proposed to be effective January 2013. The phase-in period for the new minimum capital requirements and related buffers is proposed to occur between 2013 and 2019. U.S. banking regulators have not yet issued proposed regulations that will implement these requirements.
Additionally, measures for global, systemically important financial institutions including the methodology for measuring systemic importance, the additional capital required (the SIFI buffer), and the arrangements by which they will be phased in were proposed by the Basel Committee in 2011. As proposed, the SIFI buffer would be met with additional Tier 1 common equity ranging from one percent to 2.5 percent, and in certain circumstances, 3.5 percent. This will be phased in from 2016 through 2018. U.S. banking regulators have not yet provided similar rules for U.S. implementation of a SIFI buffer.
Given that the U.S. regulatory agencies have issued neither proposed rulemaking nor supervisory guidance on Basel III, significant uncertainty exists regarding the eventual impacts of Basel III on U.S. financial institutions, including us. These regulatory changes also require approval by the U.S. regulatory agencies of analytical models used as part of capital measurement and assessment, especially in the case of more complex models. If these more complex models are not approved, it could require financial institutions to hold additional capital, which in some cases could be significant.
Based on the assumed approval of these models and our current assessment of Basel III, continued focus on capital management, expectations of future performance and continued efforts to build a fortress balance sheet, we currently anticipate that our Tier 1 common equity ratio will be above 7.50 percent by the end of 2012. This also assumes the phase-in per the regulations at that time, of all deductions scheduled to occur between 2013 and 2019.
Preparing for the implementation of the new capital rules is a top strategic priority, and we expect to comply with the final rules when issued and effective. We intend to continue to build capital through retaining earnings, actively reducing legacy asset portfolios and implementing other capital related initiatives, including focusing on reducing both higher risk-weighted assets and assets currently deducted, or expected to be deducted under Basel III, from capital. We expect non-core asset sales to play a less prominent role in our capital strategy in future periods.
On December 20, 2011, the Federal Reserve issued proposed rules to implement enhanced supervisory and prudential requirements and the early remediation requirements established under the Financial Reform Act. The enhanced standards include risk-based capital and leverage requirements, liquidity standards, requirements for overall risk management, single-counterparty credit limits, stress test requirements and a debt-to-equity limit for certain companies determined to pose a threat to financial stability. The final rules are likely to influence our regulatory capital and liquidity planning process, and may impose additional operational and compliance costs on us.
On January 5, 2012, we submitted a capital plan to the Federal Reserve consistent with the CCAR rules and received results on March 13, 2012. The CCAR is the central element to the Federal Reserve's approach to ensuring large bank holding companies have thorough and robust processes for managing their capital. The submitted capital plan included the ICAAP and related results, analysis and support for the capital guidelines and planned capital actions. The Federal Reserve's stress scenario projections for the Corporation estimated a minimum Tier 1 common capital ratio of 5.9 percent under severe adverse economic conditions with all proposed capital actions through the end of 2013, exceeding the 5 percent reference rate for all institutions involved in the CCAR. The capital plan submitted by the Corporation to the Federal Reserve did not include a request to return capital to stockholders for 2012 above the current dividend rate. The Federal Reserve did not object to our planned capital actions.
For additional information regarding Basel II, Basel III, Market Risk Rules and other proposed regulatory capital changes, see Note 18 – Regulatory Requirements and Restrictions to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Bank of America, N.A. and FIA Card Services, N.A. Regulatory Capital
Table 15 presents regulatory capital information for BANA and FIA at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 15 |
Bank of America, N.A. and FIA Card Services, N.A. Regulatory Capital |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| Actual | | | | Actual | | |
(Dollars in millions) | Ratio | | Amount | | Minimum Required (1) | | Ratio | | Amount | | Minimum Required (1) |
Tier 1 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bank of America, N.A. | 12.28 | % | | $ | 118,694 |
| | $ | 38,662 |
| | 11.74 | % | | $ | 119,881 |
| | $ | 40,830 |
|
FIA Card Services, N.A. | 17.00 |
| | 22,724 |
| | 5,346 |
| | 17.63 |
| | 24,660 |
| | 5,596 |
|
Total | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bank of America, N.A. | 15.78 |
| | 152,556 |
| | 77,324 |
| | 15.17 |
| | 154,885 |
| | 81,661 |
|
FIA Card Services, N.A. | 18.38 |
| | 24,570 |
| | 10,693 |
| | 19.01 |
| | 26,594 |
| | 11,191 |
|
Tier 1 leverage | | | | | | | | | | | |
Bank of America, N.A. | 8.57 |
| | 118,694 |
| | 55,373 |
| | 8.65 |
| | 119,881 |
| | 55,454 |
|
FIA Card Services, N.A. | 13.87 |
| | 22,724 |
| | 6,552 |
| | 14.22 |
| | 24,660 |
| | 6,935 |
|
| |
(1) | Dollar amount required to meet guidelines for adequately capitalized institutions. |
BANA's Tier 1 capital ratio increased 54 bps to 12.28 percent and the Total capital ratio increased 61 bps to 15.78 percent at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. The increase in the ratios was driven by a decrease in risk-weighted assets of $54.2 billion compared to December 31, 2011 and earnings eligible to be included in capital of $3.2 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2012, partially offset by dividends paid to Bank of America Corporation of $4.5 billion during the quarter.
FIA's Tier 1 capital and Total capital ratios decreased 63 bps to 17.00 percent and 18.38 percent at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. The Tier 1 leverage ratio decreased 35 bps to 13.87 percent at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. The decrease in the Tier 1 capital and Total capital ratios was driven by a return of capital of $3.0 billion to Bank of America Corporation during the three months ended March 31, 2012, partially offset by $1.0 billion of earnings eligible to be included in capital. The decrease in the Tier 1 leverage ratio was driven by the decrease in Tier 1 capital, partially offset by a decrease in adjusted quarterly average total assets of $9.6 billion.
Broker/Dealer Regulatory Capital
The Corporation’s principal U.S. broker/dealer subsidiaries are Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith (MLPF&S) and Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp (MLPCC). MLPCC is a fully-guaranteed subsidiary of MLPF&S that provides clearing and settlement services. Both entities are subject to the net capital requirements of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c3-1. Both entities are also registered as futures commission merchants and are subject to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Regulation 1.17.
MLPF&S has elected to compute the minimum capital requirement in accordance with the Alternative Net Capital Requirement as permitted by SEC Rule 15c3-1. At March 31, 2012, MLPF&S’s regulatory net capital as defined by Rule 15c3-1 was $10.8 billion and exceeded the minimum requirement of $704 million by $10.1 billion. MLPCC’s net capital of $1.8 billion exceeded the minimum requirement of $206 million by approximately $1.6 billion.
In accordance with the Alternative Net Capital Requirements, MLPF&S is required to maintain tentative net capital in excess of $1.0 billion, net capital in excess of $500 million and notify the SEC in the event its tentative net capital is less than $5.0 billion. At March 31, 2012, MLPF&S had tentative net capital and net capital in excess of the minimum and notification requirements.
Our economic capital measurement process provides a risk-based measurement of the capital required for unexpected credit, market and operational losses over a one-year time horizon at a 99.97 percent confidence level. Economic capital is allocated to each business unit based upon its risk positions and contribution to enterprise risk, and is used for capital adequacy, performance measurement and risk management purposes. The strategic planning process utilizes economic capital with the goal of allocating risk appropriately and measuring returns consistently across all businesses and activities. Economic capital allocation plans are incorporated into the Corporation’s financial plan which is approved by the Board on an annual basis. For additional information regarding economic capital, credit risk capital, market risk capital and operational risk capital, see page 75 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Table 16 is a summary of our declared quarterly cash dividends on common stock during 2012 and through May 3, 2012.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 16 | | |
Common Stock Cash Dividend Summary | | |
Declaration Date | Record Date | Payment Date | Dividend Per Share |
April 11, 2012 | June 1, 2012 | June 22, 2012 | | $ | 0.01 |
| |
January 11, 2012 | March 2, 2012 | March 23, 2012 | | 0.01 |
| |
|
|
Preferred Stock Dividends |
Table 17 is a summary of our cash dividend declarations on preferred stock during 2012 and through May 3, 2012. For additional information on preferred stock, see Note 15 – Shareholders' Equity to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 17 | | | | | | | | | | | |
Preferred Stock Cash Dividend Summary |
Preferred Stock | Outstanding Notional Amount (in millions) | | Declaration Date | | Record Date | | Payment Date | | Per Annum Dividend Rate | | Dividend Per Share |
Series B (1) | $ | 1 |
| | January 11, 2012 | | April 11, 2012 | | April 25, 2012 | | 7.00 | % | | $ | 1.75 |
|
| | | April 11, 2012 | | July 11, 2012 | | July 25, 2012 | | 7.00 |
| | 1.75 |
|
Series D (2) | $ | 654 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 29, 2012 | | March 14, 2012 | | 6.204 | % | | $ | 0.38775 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | May 31, 2012 | | June 14, 2012 | | 6.204 |
| | 0.38775 |
|
Series E (2) | $ | 340 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | January 31, 2012 | | February 15, 2012 | | Floating |
| | $ | 0.25556 |
|
| 317 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | April 30, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | Floating |
| | 0.25000 |
|
Series F | $ | 141 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | May 31, 2012 | | June 15, 2012 | | Floating |
| | $ | 1,022.22 |
|
Series G | $ | 493 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | May 31, 2012 | | June 15, 2012 | | Adjustable |
| | $ | 1,022.22 |
|
Series H (2) | $ | 2,862 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | January 15, 2012 | | February 1, 2012 | | 8.20 | % | | $ | 0.51250 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | April 15, 2012 | | May 1, 2012 | | 8.20 |
| | 0.51250 |
|
Series I (2) | $ | 365 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | March 15, 2012 | | April 2, 2012 | | 6.625 | % | | $ | 0.41406 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | June 15, 2012 | | July 2, 2012 | | 6.625 |
| | 0.41406 |
|
Series J (2) | $ | 951 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | January 15, 2012 | | February 1, 2012 | | 7.25 | % | | $ | 0.45312 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | April 15, 2012 | | May 1, 2012 | | 7.25 |
| | 0.45312 |
|
Series K (3, 4) | $ | 1,544 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | January 15, 2012 | | January 30, 2012 | | Fixed-to-floating |
| | $ | 40.00 |
|
Series L | $ | 3,080 |
| | March 16, 2012 | | April 1, 2012 | | April 30, 2012 | | 7.25 | % | | $ | 18.125 |
|
Series M (3, 4) | $ | 1,310 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | April 30, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | Fixed-to-floating |
| | $ | 40.625 |
|
Series T (1) | $ | 5,000 |
| | March 16, 2012 | | March 26, 2012 | | April 10, 2012 | | 6.00 | % | | $ | 1,500.00 |
|
Series 1 (5) | $ | 109 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 15, 2012 | | February 28, 2012 | | Floating |
| | $ | 0.19167 |
|
| 98 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | May 29, 2012 | | Floating |
| | 0.18750 |
|
Series 2 (5) | $ | 363 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 15, 2012 | | February 28, 2012 | | Floating |
| | $ | 0.19167 |
|
| 299 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | May 29, 2012 | | Floating |
| | 0.18750 |
|
Series 3 (5) | $ | 653 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 15, 2012 | | February 28, 2012 | | 6.375 | % | | $ | 0.39843 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | May 29, 2012 | | 6.375 |
| | 0.39843 |
|
Series 4 (5) | $ | 323 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 15, 2012 | | February 28, 2012 | | Floating |
| | $ | 0.25556 |
|
| 210 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | May 29, 2012 | | Floating |
| | 0.25000 |
|
Series 5 (5) | $ | 507 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 1, 2012 | | February 21, 2012 | | Floating |
| | $ | 0.25556 |
|
| 422 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | May 1, 2012 | | May 21, 2012 | | Floating |
| | 0.25000 |
|
Series 6 (6) | $ | 60 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | March 15, 2012 | | March 30, 2012 | | 6.70 | % | | $ | 0.41875 |
|
| 59 |
| | April 3, 2012 | | June 15, 2012 | | June 29, 2012 | | 6.70 |
| | 0.41875 |
|
Series 7 (6) | $ | 17 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | March 15, 2012 | | March 30, 2012 | | 6.25 | % | | $ | 0.39062 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | June 15, 2012 | | June 29, 2012 | | 6.25 |
| | 0.39062 |
|
Series 8 (5) | $ | 2,673 |
| | January 4, 2012 | | February 15, 2012 | | February 28, 2012 | | 8.625 | % | | $ | 0.53906 |
|
| | | April 3, 2012 | | May 15, 2012 | | May 29, 2012 | | 8.625 |
| | 0.53906 |
|
| |
(1) | Dividends are cumulative. |
| |
(2) | Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/1,000th interest in a share of preferred stock. |
| |
(3) | Initially pays dividends semi-annually. |
| |
(4) | Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/25th interest in a share of preferred stock. |
| |
(5) | Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/1,200th interest in a share of preferred stock. |
| |
(6) | Dividends per depositary share, each representing a 1/40th interest in a share of preferred stock. |
|
|
Enterprise-wide Stress Testing |
As a part of our core risk management practices, we conduct enterprise-wide stress tests on a periodic basis to better understand balance sheet, earnings, capital and liquidity sensitivities to certain economic and business scenarios, including economic and market conditions that are more severe than anticipated. These enterprise-wide stress tests provide an understanding of the potential impacts from our risk profile on our balance sheet, earnings, capital and liquidity and serve as a key component of our capital and risk management practices. Scenarios are selected by a group comprised of senior business, risk and finance executives. Impacts to each business from each scenario are then determined and analyzed, primarily by leveraging the models and processes utilized in everyday management routines. Impacts are assessed along with potential mitigating actions that may be taken. Analysis from such stress scenarios is compiled for and reviewed through our Chief Financial Officer Risk Committee (CFORC), Asset Liability and Market Risk Committee (ALMRC) and the Board’s Enterprise Risk Committee (ERC) and serves to inform decision making by management and the Board. We have made substantial investments to establish stress testing capabilities as a core business process.
|
|
Liquidity Risk |
|
Funding and Liquidity Risk Management |
We define liquidity risk as the potential inability to meet our contractual and contingent financial obligations, on- or off-balance sheet, as they come due. Our primary liquidity objective is to ensure adequate funding for our businesses throughout market cycles, including periods of financial stress. To achieve that objective, we analyze and monitor our liquidity risk, maintain excess liquidity and access diverse funding sources including our stable deposit base. We define excess liquidity as readily available assets, limited to cash and high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities that we can use to meet our funding requirements as those obligations arise.
Global funding and liquidity risk management activities are centralized within Corporate Treasury. We believe that a centralized approach to funding and liquidity risk management enhances our ability to monitor liquidity requirements, maximizes access to funding sources, minimizes borrowing costs and facilitates timely responses to liquidity events. For additional information regarding global funding and liquidity risk management, see Funding and Liquidity Risk Management on page 76 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Global Excess Liquidity Sources and Other Unencumbered Assets
We maintain excess liquidity available to Bank of America Corporation, or the parent company, and selected subsidiaries in the form of cash and high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities. These assets, which we call our Global Excess Liquidity Sources, serve as our primary means of liquidity risk mitigation. Our cash is primarily on deposit with central banks, such as the Federal Reserve. We limit the composition of high-quality, liquid, unencumbered securities to U.S. government securities, U.S. agency securities, U.S. agency MBS and a select group of non-U.S. government and supranational securities. We believe we can quickly obtain cash for these securities, even in stressed market conditions, through repurchase agreements or outright sales. We hold our Global Excess Liquidity Sources in entities that allow us to meet the liquidity requirements of our global businesses, and we consider the impact of potential regulatory, tax, legal and other restrictions that could limit the transferability of funds among entities.
Our Global Excess Liquidity Sources increased $28 billion to $406 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 and were maintained as presented in Table 18. This increase was primarily due to liquidity generated by our bank subsidiaries through deposit growth, reduced loan balances and other factors. Partially offsetting the increase were the results of our ongoing reductions of our long-term debt.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 18 |
Global Excess Liquidity Sources |
(Dollars in billions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Average for Three Months Ended March 31, 2012 |
Parent company | $ | 129 |
| | $ | 125 |
| | $ | 122 |
|
Bank subsidiaries | 250 |
| | 222 |
| | 235 |
|
Broker/dealers | 27 |
| | 31 |
| | 31 |
|
Total global excess liquidity sources | $ | 406 |
| | $ | 378 |
| | $ | 388 |
|
As shown in Table 18, parent company Global Excess Liquidity Sources totaled $129 billion and $125 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. This increase in parent company liquidity was primarily due to unsecured debt issuance and dividends from subsidiaries, partially offset by debt maturities and repurchases. Typically, parent company cash is deposited overnight with BANA.
Global Excess Liquidity Sources available to our bank subsidiaries totaled $250 billion and $222 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. These amounts are distinct from the cash deposited by the parent company presented in Table 18. In addition to their Global Excess Liquidity Sources, our bank subsidiaries hold significant amounts of other unencumbered securities that we believe could also be used to generate liquidity, primarily investment-grade MBS. Our bank subsidiaries can also generate incremental liquidity by pledging a range of other unencumbered loans and securities to certain Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) and the Federal Reserve Discount Window. The cash we could have obtained by borrowing against this pool of specifically-identified eligible assets was approximately $193 billion and $189 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. We have established operational procedures to enable us to borrow against these assets, including regularly monitoring our total pool of eligible loans and securities collateral. Due to regulatory restrictions, liquidity generated by the bank subsidiaries can be used to fund obligations within the bank subsidiaries and can only be transferred to the parent company or nonbank subsidiaries with prior regulatory approval.
Global Excess Liquidity Sources available to our broker/dealer subsidiaries at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 totaled $27 billion and $31 billion. Our broker/dealers also held significant amounts of other unencumbered securities that we believe could also be used to generate additional liquidity, including investment-grade securities and equities. Liquidity held in a broker/dealer subsidiary is available to meet the obligations of that entity and can only be transferred to the parent company or to any other subsidiary with prior regulatory approval due to regulatory restrictions and minimum requirements.
Table 19 presents the composition of Global Excess Liquidity Sources at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 19 |
Global Excess Liquidity Sources Composition |
(Dollars in billions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Cash on deposit | $ | 88 |
| | $ | 79 |
|
U.S. treasuries | 41 |
| | 48 |
|
U.S. agency securities and mortgage-backed securities | 254 |
| | 228 |
|
Non-U.S. government and supranational securities | 23 |
| | 23 |
|
Total global excess liquidity sources | $ | 406 |
| | $ | 378 |
|
Time to Required Funding and Stress Modeling
We use a variety of metrics to determine the appropriate amounts of excess liquidity to maintain at the parent company and our bank and broker/dealer subsidiaries. One metric we use to evaluate the appropriate level of excess liquidity at the parent company is “Time to Required Funding.” This debt coverage measure indicates the number of months that the parent company can continue to meet its unsecured contractual obligations as they come due using only its Global Excess Liquidity Sources without issuing any new debt or accessing any additional liquidity sources. We define unsecured contractual obligations for purposes of this metric as maturities of senior or subordinated debt issued or guaranteed by Bank of America Corporation or Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (Merrill Lynch). These include certain unsecured debt instruments, primarily structured liabilities, which we may be required to settle for cash prior to maturity and issuances under the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), all of which will mature by June 30, 2012. The Corporation has established a target minimum for Time to Required Funding of 21 months. Our Time to Required Funding was 31 months at March 31, 2012. For purposes of calculating Time to Required Funding at March 31, 2012, we have also included in the amount of unsecured contractual obligations the $8.6 billion liability related to the BNY Mellon Settlement and payments related to the Global Settlement Agreement made during April 2012. The BNY Mellon Settlement is subject to final court approval and certain other conditions, and the timing of payment is not certain.
We utilize liquidity stress models to assist us in determining the appropriate amounts of excess liquidity to maintain at the parent company and our bank and broker/dealer subsidiaries. These models are risk sensitive and have become increasingly important in analyzing our potential contractual and contingent cash outflows beyond those outflows considered in the Time to Required Funding analysis. We evaluate the liquidity requirements under a range of scenarios with varying levels of severity and time horizons. These scenarios incorporate market-wide and Corporation-specific events, including potential credit ratings downgrades for the parent company and our subsidiaries. We consider and utilize scenarios, including potential credit rating downgrades based on historical experience, regulatory guidance, and both expected and unexpected future events.
The types of potential contractual and contingent cash outflows we consider in our scenarios may include, but are not limited to, upcoming contractual maturities of unsecured debt and reductions in new debt issuance; diminished access to secured financing markets; potential deposit withdrawals and reduced rollover of maturing term deposits by customers; increased draws on loan commitments, liquidity facilities and letters of credit, including Variable Rate Demand Notes; additional collateral that counterparties could call if our credit ratings were further downgraded; collateral, margin and subsidiary capital requirements arising from losses; and potential liquidity required to maintain businesses and finance customer activities. Changes in certain market factors, including but not limited to credit rating downgrades, could negatively impact potential contractual and contingent outflows and the related financial instruments, and in some cases these impacts could be material to our financial results.
For additional information on Time to Required Funding and liquidity stress modeling, see page 77 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Basel III Liquidity Standards
In December 2010, the Basel Committee proposed two measures of liquidity risk which are considered part of Basel III. The first proposed liquidity measure is the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR), which is calculated as the amount of a financial institution’s unencumbered, high-quality, liquid assets relative to the net cash outflows the institution could encounter under an acute 30-day stress scenario. The second proposed liquidity measure is the Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR), which measures the amount of longer-term, stable sources of funding employed by a financial institution relative to the liquidity profiles of the assets funded and the potential for contingent calls on funding liquidity arising from off-balance sheet commitments and obligations over a one-year period. The Basel Committee expects the LCR requirement to be implemented in January 2015 and the NSFR requirement to be implemented in January 2018, following an observation period that began in 2011. We continue to monitor the development and the potential impact of these proposals, and assuming adoption by U.S. banking regulators, we expect to meet the final standards within the regulatory timelines.
Diversified Funding Sources
We fund our assets primarily with a mix of deposits and secured and unsecured liabilities through a globally coordinated funding strategy. We diversify our funding globally across products, programs, markets, currencies and investor groups.
We fund a substantial portion of our lending activities through our deposits, which were $1.04 trillion and $1.03 trillion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Deposits are primarily generated by our CBB, GWIM and Global Banking segments. These deposits are diversified by clients, product type and geography and the majority of our U.S. deposits are insured by the FDIC. We consider a substantial portion of our deposits to be a stable, low-cost and consistent source of funding. We believe this deposit funding is generally less sensitive to interest rate changes, market volatility or changes in our credit ratings than wholesale funding sources. Our lending activities may also be financed through secured borrowings, including securitizations with GSEs, the FHA and private-label investors, as well as FHLB loans.
Our trading activities in broker/dealer subsidiaries are primarily funded on a secured basis through securities lending and repurchase agreements and these amounts will vary based on customer activity and market conditions. We believe funding these activities in the secured financing markets is more cost efficient and less sensitive to changes in our credit ratings than unsecured financing. Repurchase agreements are generally short-term and often overnight. Disruptions in secured financing markets for financial institutions have occurred in prior market cycles which resulted in adverse changes in terms or significant reductions in the availability of such financing. We manage the liquidity risks arising from secured funding by sourcing funding globally from a diverse group of counterparties, providing a range of securities collateral and pursuing longer durations, when appropriate.
We reduced unsecured short-term borrowings at the parent company and broker/dealer subsidiaries, including commercial paper and master notes, to relatively insignificant amounts in 2011. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase increased due to an increase in trading account assets as a result of customer demand. For average and period-end balance discussions, see Balance Sheet Overview on page 13. For more information, see Note 12 – Federal Funds Sold, Securities Borrowed or Purchased Under Agreements to Resell and Short-term Borrowings to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Table 20 presents information on short-term borrowings.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 20 |
Short-term borrowings |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Amount | | Rate |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Average during period | | | | | | | |
Federal funds purchased | $ | 261 |
| | $ | 2,940 |
| | 0.05 | % | | 0.11 | % |
Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase | 256,144 |
| | 303,475 |
| | 1.10 |
| | 1.17 |
|
Commercial paper | 12 |
| | 18,467 |
| | 2.13 |
| | 0.73 |
|
Other short-term borrowings | 36,639 |
| | 46,691 |
| | 1.99 |
| | 2.39 |
|
Total | $ | 293,056 |
| | $ | 371,573 |
| | 1.21 |
| | 1.29 |
|
| | | | | | | |
Maximum month-end balance during period | | | | | | | |
Federal funds purchased | $ | 331 |
| | $ | 4,133 |
| | | | |
Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase | 276,403 |
| | 293,519 |
| | | | |
Commercial paper | 172 |
| | 21,212 |
| | | | |
Other short-term borrowings | 39,327 |
| | 46,267 |
| | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
| Amount | | Rate | | Amount | | Rate |
Period-end balance | | | | | | | |
Federal funds purchased | $ | 223 |
| | 0.05 | % | | $ | 243 |
| | 0.06 | % |
Securities loaned or sold under agreements to repurchase | 258,268 |
| | 1.06 |
| | 214,621 |
| | 1.08 |
|
Commercial paper | 12 |
| | 2.36 |
| | 23 |
| | 1.70 |
|
Other short-term borrowings | 39,242 |
| | 2.11 |
| | 35,675 |
| | 2.35 |
|
Total | $ | 297,745 |
| | 1.22 |
| | $ | 250,562 |
| | 1.36 |
|
We issue the majority of our long-term unsecured debt at the parent company. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, the parent company issued $8.3 billion of long-term unsecured debt, including structured liabilities of $2.4 billion. We may also issue long-term unsecured debt at BANA, although there were no new issuances during the three months ended March 31, 2012. We issue long-term unsecured debt in a variety of maturities and currencies to achieve cost-efficient funding and to maintain an appropriate maturity profile. While the cost and availability of unsecured funding may be negatively impacted by general market conditions or by matters specific to the financial services industry or the Corporation, we seek to mitigate refinancing risk by actively managing the amount of our borrowings that we anticipate will mature within any month or quarter.
The primary benefits of our centralized funding strategy include greater control, reduced funding costs, wider name recognition by investors and greater flexibility to meet the variable funding requirements of subsidiaries. Where regulations, time zone differences or other business considerations make parent company funding impractical, certain other subsidiaries may issue their own debt.
We use derivative transactions to manage the duration, interest rate and currency risks of our borrowings, considering the characteristics of the assets they are funding. For further details on our ALM activities, see Interest Rate Risk Management for Nontrading Activities on page 108.
We also diversify our unsecured funding sources by issuing various types of debt instruments including structured liabilities, which are debt obligations that pay investors returns linked to other debt or equity securities, indices, currencies or commodities. We typically hedge the returns we are obligated to pay on these liabilities with derivative positions and/or investments in the underlying instruments, so that from a funding perspective, the cost is similar to our other unsecured long-term debt. We could be required to settle certain structured liability obligations for cash or other securities prior to maturity under certain circumstances, which we consider for liquidity planning purposes. We believe, however, that a portion of such borrowings will remain outstanding beyond the earliest put or redemption date. We had outstanding structured liabilities with a book value of $54.5 billion and $50.9 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
Substantially all of our senior and subordinated debt obligations contain no provisions that could trigger a requirement for an early repayment, require additional collateral support, result in changes to terms, accelerate maturity or create additional financial obligations upon an adverse change in our credit ratings, financial ratios, earnings, cash flows or stock price.
Prior to 2010, we participated in the TLGP, which allowed us to issue senior unsecured debt guaranteed by the FDIC in return for a fee based on the amount and maturity of the debt. At March 31, 2012, we had $23.9 billion outstanding under the program. We no longer issue debt under this program and all of our debt issued under TLGP will mature by June 30, 2012. TLGP issuances are included in the unsecured contractual obligations for the Time to Required Funding metric. Under this program, our debt received the highest long-term ratings from the major credit rating agencies which resulted in a lower total cost of issuance than if we had issued non-FDIC guaranteed long-term debt.
Table 21 represents the carrying value of aggregate annual maturities of long-term debt at March 31, 2012.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 21 |
Long-term Debt By Maturity |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2013 | | 2014 | | 2015 | | 2016 | | Thereafter | | Total |
Bank of America Corporation | $ | 39,573 |
| | $ | 10,599 |
| | $ | 19,945 |
| | $ | 14,326 |
| | $ | 20,504 |
| | $ | 77,365 |
| | $ | 182,312 |
|
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. and subsidiaries | 16,079 |
| | 17,199 |
| | 18,466 |
| | 4,756 |
| | 3,483 |
| | 38,676 |
| | 98,659 |
|
Bank of America, N.A. and subsidiaries | 5,347 |
| | — |
| | 23 |
| | — |
| | 1,050 |
| | 7,237 |
| | 13,657 |
|
Other debt | 6,675 |
| | 4,877 |
| | 1,777 |
| | 496 |
| | 25 |
| | 2,167 |
| | 16,017 |
|
Total long-term debt excluding consolidated VIEs | 67,674 |
| | 32,675 |
| | 40,211 |
| | 19,578 |
| | 25,062 |
| | 125,445 |
| | 310,645 |
|
Long-term debt of consolidated VIEs | 7,170 |
| | 13,935 |
| | 8,720 |
| | 1,341 |
| | 2,943 |
| | 10,158 |
| | 44,267 |
|
Total long-term debt | $ | 74,844 |
| | $ | 46,610 |
| | $ | 48,931 |
| | $ | 20,919 |
| | $ | 28,005 |
| | $ | 135,603 |
| | $ | 354,912 |
|
Table 22 presents our long-term debt in the following currencies at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 22 |
Long-term Debt By Major Currency |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
U.S. Dollar | $ | 246,821 |
| | $ | 255,262 |
|
Euro | 64,755 |
| | 68,799 |
|
Japanese Yen | 18,223 |
| | 19,568 |
|
British Pound | 12,251 |
| | 12,554 |
|
Canadian Dollar | 3,536 |
| | 4,621 |
|
Australian Dollar | 3,079 |
| | 4,900 |
|
Swiss Franc | 2,077 |
| | 2,268 |
|
Other | 4,170 |
| | 4,293 |
|
Total long-term debt | $ | 354,912 |
| | $ | 372,265 |
|
Total long-term debt decreased $17.4 billion or five percent at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. This decrease reflects our ongoing initiative to reduce our debt balances over time, and we anticipate that debt levels will continue to decline, as appropriate, through 2013. We may, from time to time, purchase outstanding debt securities in various transactions, depending on prevailing market conditions, liquidity and other factors. In addition, our broker/dealer subsidiaries may make markets in our debt instruments to provide liquidity for investors. For additional information on long-term debt funding, see Note 13 – Long-term Debt to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. For additional information regarding funding and liquidity risk management, see pages 76 through 80 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we repurchased $4.2 billion of subordinated debt and $730 million of trust preferred securities, using both cash and common stock, that in total resulted in a gain of $1.2 billion.
Contingency Planning
We maintain contingency funding plans that outline our potential responses to liquidity stress events at various levels of severity. These policies and plans are based on stress scenarios and include potential funding strategies and communication and notification procedures that we would implement in the event we experienced stressed liquidity conditions. We periodically review and test the contingency funding plans to validate efficacy and assess readiness.
Our U.S. bank subsidiaries can access contingency funding through the Federal Reserve Discount Window. Certain non-U.S. subsidiaries have access to central bank facilities in the jurisdictions in which they operate. While we do not rely on these sources in our liquidity modeling, we maintain the policies, procedures and governance processes that would enable us to access these sources if necessary.
Credit Ratings
Our borrowing costs and ability to raise funds are directly impacted by our credit ratings. In addition, credit ratings may be important to customers or counterparties when we compete in certain markets and when we seek to engage in certain transactions, including over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives. Thus, it is our objective to maintain high-quality credit ratings.
Credit ratings and outlooks are opinions on our creditworthiness and that of our obligations or securities, including long-term debt, short-term borrowings, preferred stock and other securities, including asset securitizations. Our credit ratings are subject to ongoing review by the rating agencies which consider a number of factors, including our own financial strength, performance, prospects and operations as well as factors not under our control. The rating agencies could make adjustments to our ratings at any time and they provide no assurances that they will maintain our ratings at current levels.
Other factors that influence our credit ratings include changes to the rating agencies’ methodologies for our industry or certain security types, the rating agencies’ assessment of the general operating environment for financial services companies, our mortgage exposures, our relative positions in the markets in which we compete, reputation, liquidity position, diversity of funding sources, funding costs, the level and volatility of earnings, corporate governance and risk management policies, capital position, capital management practices, and current or future regulatory and legislative initiatives.
Each of the three major rating agencies, Moody's, S&P and Fitch, downgraded the ratings of the Corporation and its subsidiaries in late 2011. On February 15, 2012, Moody's placed the Corporation's long-term debt rating and BANA's long-term and short-term debt ratings on review for possible downgrade as part of its review of 17 financial institutions with global capital markets operations. On April 13, 2012, Moody's indicated that the review is expected to conclude between early May and the end of June 2012. Any adjustment to our ratings will be determined based on Moody's review; however, Moody's offered guidance that downgrades to our ratings, if any, would likely be limited to one notch.
The major rating agencies have each indicated that, as a systemically important financial institution, our credit ratings currently reflect their expectation that, if necessary, we would receive significant support from the U.S. government, and that they will continue to assess such support in the context of sovereign financial strength and regulatory and legislative developments. For additional information, see Liquidity Risk – Credit Ratings on page 79 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Currently, the Corporation’s long-term/short-term senior debt ratings and outlooks expressed by the rating agencies are as follows: Baa1/P-2 (review for downgrade) by Moody’s; A-/A-2 (negative) by S&P; and A/F1 (stable) by Fitch. BANA’s long-term/short-term senior debt ratings and outlooks currently are as follows: A2/P-1 (review for downgrade) by Moody’s; A/A-1 (negative) by S&P; and A/F1 (stable) by Fitch. The credit ratings of Merrill Lynch from the three major credit rating agencies are the same as those of Bank of America Corporation. The major credit rating agencies have indicated that the primary drivers of Merrill Lynch’s credit ratings are Bank of America Corporation’s credit ratings. MLPF&S’s long-term/short-term senior debt ratings and outlooks are A/A-1 (negative) by S&P and A/F1 (stable) by Fitch. Merrill Lynch International’s long-term/short-term senior debt ratings are A/A-1 (negative) by S&P. The rating agencies could make further adjustments to our ratings at any time and they provide no assurances that they will maintain our ratings at current levels.
A further reduction in certain of our credit ratings or the ratings of certain asset-backed securitizations may have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, potential loss of access to credit markets, the related cost of funds, our businesses and on certain trading revenues, particularly in those businesses where counterparty creditworthiness is critical. In addition, under the terms of certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements, the counterparties to those agreements may require us to provide additional collateral, or to terminate these contracts or agreements, which could cause us to sustain losses and/or adversely impact our liquidity. If the short-term credit ratings of our parent company, bank or broker/dealer subsidiaries were downgraded by one or more levels, the potential loss of access to short-term funding sources such as repo financing, and the effect on our incremental cost of funds could be material.
At March 31, 2012, if the rating agencies had downgraded their long-term senior debt ratings for the Corporation or certain subsidiaries by one incremental notch, the amount of additional collateral contractually required by derivative contracts and other trading agreements would have been approximately $2.7 billion comprised of $2.1 billion for BANA and approximately $539 million for Merrill Lynch and certain of its subsidiaries. If the agencies had downgraded their long-term senior debt ratings for these entities by a second incremental notch, an incremental $2.4 billion in additional collateral comprised of $1.8 billion for BANA and $646 million for Merrill Lynch and certain of its subsidiaries, would have been required.
Also, if the rating agencies had downgraded their long-term senior debt ratings for the Corporation or certain subsidiaries by one incremental notch, the derivative liability that would be subject to unilateral termination by counterparties as of March 31, 2012 was $3.3 billion, against which $2.5 billion of collateral had been posted. If the rating agencies had downgraded their long-term senior debt ratings for the Corporation or certain subsidiaries a second incremental notch, the derivative liability that would be subject to unilateral termination by counterparties as of March 31, 2012 was an incremental $5.0 billion, against which $4.7 billion of collateral had been posted.
While certain potential impacts are contractual and quantifiable, the full scope of consequences of a credit ratings downgrade to a financial institution are inherently uncertain, as they depend upon numerous dynamic, complex and inter-related factors and assumptions, including whether any downgrade of a firm’s long-term credit ratings precipitates downgrades to its short-term credit ratings, and assumptions about the potential behaviors of various customers, investors and counterparties. For additional information on potential impacts of credit ratings downgrades, see Time to Required Funding and Stress Modeling on page 61.
For information regarding the additional collateral and termination payments that could be required in connection with certain OTC derivative contracts and other trading agreements as a result of such a credit ratings downgrade, see Note 3 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
All three rating agencies have indicated that they will continue to assess fiscal projections and consolidation measures, as well as the medium-term economic outlook for the U.S. For additional information, see Liquidity Risk – Credit Ratings on page 79 of the MD&A of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Credit quality continued to show improvement during the first quarter of 2012. Continued economic stability and our proactive credit risk management initiatives positively impacted the credit portfolio as charge-offs and delinquencies continued to improve across most portfolios and risk ratings improved in the commercial portfolios. However, global and national economic uncertainty, home price declines and regulatory reform continued to weigh on the credit portfolios through March 31, 2012. For more information, see Executive Summary – First Quarter 2012 Economic and Business Environment on page 6.
We proactively refine our underwriting and credit management practices as well as credit standards to meet the changing economic environment. To actively mitigate losses and enhance customer support in our consumer businesses, we have in place collection programs and loan modification and customer assistance infrastructures. We utilize a number of actions to mitigate losses in the commercial businesses including increasing the frequency and intensity of portfolio monitoring, hedging activity and our practice of transferring management of deteriorating commercial exposures to independent special asset officers as credits enter criticized categories.
Since January 2008, and through the first quarter of 2012, Bank of America and Countrywide have completed over one million loan modifications with customers. During the first quarter of 2012, we completed nearly 37,000 customer loan modifications with a total unpaid principal balance of approximately $8 billion, including approximately 14,000 permanent modifications under the government’s Making Home Affordable Program. Of the loan modifications completed in the three months ended March 31, 2012, in terms of both the volume of modifications and the unpaid principal balance associated with the underlying loans, most were in the portfolio serviced for investors and were not on our balance sheet. The most common types of modifications include a combination of rate reduction and capitalization of past due amounts which represent 55 percent of the volume of modifications completed during the three months ended March 31, 2012, while principal forbearance represented 26 percent, capitalization of past due amounts represented seven percent and principal reductions and forgiveness represented four percent. For modified loans on our balance sheet, these modification types are generally considered TDRs. For more information on TDRs and portfolio impacts, see Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity on page 81 and Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Certain European countries, including Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, continue to experience varying degrees of financial stress. During the first quarter of 2012, S&P, Fitch and Moody’s downgraded the credit ratings of several European countries, and S&P downgraded the credit rating of the European Financial Stability Facility, adding to concerns about investor appetite for continued support in stabilizing the affected countries. Market sentiment improved during the three months ended March 31, 2012 driven by a second long-term ECB financing program and the successful Greek debt restructuring and bailout package that reinforced confidence in the financial system and solvency of systemically important banks. However, the lack of a clear resolution to the crisis and fears of contagion continue to contribute to volatility in credit spreads. For additional information on our direct sovereign and non-sovereign exposures in non-U.S. countries, see Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 96 and Item 1A. Risk Factors of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
|
Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management |
Credit risk management for the consumer portfolio begins with initial underwriting and continues throughout a borrower’s credit cycle. Statistical techniques in conjunction with experiential judgment are used in all aspects of portfolio management including underwriting, product pricing, risk appetite, setting credit limits, and establishing operating processes and metrics to quantify and balance risks and returns. Statistical models are built using detailed behavioral information from external sources such as credit bureaus and/or internal historical experience. These models are a component of our consumer credit risk management process and are used in part to help make both new and existing credit decisions, as well as portfolio management strategies, including authorizations and line management, collection practices and strategies, determination of the allowance for loan and lease losses, and economic capital allocations for credit risk.
During the first quarter of 2012, the bank regulatory agencies jointly issued interagency supervisory guidance on nonaccrual status for junior-lien consumer real estate loans. In accordance with this regulatory interagency guidance, we classify junior-lien home equity loans as nonperforming when the first-lien loan becomes 90 days past due even if the junior-lien loan is performing, and as a result, we reclassified $1.9 billion of performing home equity loans to nonperforming. The regulatory interagency guidance had no impact on our allowance for loan and lease losses or provision expense as the delinquency status of the underlying first-lien was already considered in our reserving process.
For further information on our accounting policies regarding delinquencies, nonperforming status, charge-offs and TDRs for the consumer portfolio, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
|
Consumer Credit Portfolio |
Improvement in the U.S. economy and labor markets throughout most of 2011 and into the first quarter of 2012 resulted in lower credit losses in most consumer portfolios compared to the first quarter of 2011. However, continued stress in the housing market, including declines in home prices, continued to adversely impact the home loans portfolio.
Table 23 presents our outstanding consumer loans and the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. Loans that were acquired from Countrywide and considered credit-impaired were recorded at fair value upon acquisition. In addition to being included in the “Outstandings” columns in Table 23, these loans are also shown separately, net of purchase accounting adjustments, in the “Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio” column. For additional information, see Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements. The impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio on certain credit statistics is reported where appropriate. See Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio on page 77 for more information. Under certain circumstances, loans that were originally classified as discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition have been subsequently modified from pay option or subprime loans into loans with more conventional terms and are now included in the residential mortgage portfolio, but continue to be classified as PCI loans as shown in Table 23.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 23 |
Consumer Loans |
| Outstandings | | Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Residential mortgage (1) | $ | 256,431 |
| | $ | 262,290 |
| | $ | 9,748 |
| | $ | 9,966 |
|
Home equity | 121,246 |
| | 124,699 |
| | 11,818 |
| | 11,978 |
|
Discontinued real estate (2) | 10,453 |
| | 11,095 |
| | 9,281 |
| | 9,857 |
|
U.S. credit card | 96,433 |
| | 102,291 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Non-U.S. credit card | 13,914 |
| | 14,418 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Direct/Indirect consumer (3) | 86,128 |
| | 89,713 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Other consumer (4) | 2,607 |
| | 2,688 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Consumer loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option | 587,212 |
| | 607,194 |
| | 30,847 |
| | 31,801 |
|
Loans accounted for under the fair value option (5) | 2,204 |
| | 2,190 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Total consumer loans | $ | 589,416 |
| | $ | 609,384 |
| | $ | 30,847 |
| | $ | 31,801 |
|
| |
(1) | Outstandings includes non-U.S. residential mortgages of $87 million and $85 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(2) | Outstandings includes $9.3 billion and $9.9 billion of pay option loans and $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion of subprime loans at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. We no longer originate these products. |
| |
(3) | Outstandings includes dealer financial services loans of $40.2 billion and $43.0 billion, consumer lending loans of $7.1 billion and $8.0 billion, U.S. securities-based lending margin loans of $24.0 billion and $23.6 billion, student loans of $5.7 billion and $6.0 billion, non-U.S. consumer loans of $7.6 billion and $7.6 billion and other consumer loans of $1.5 billion and $1.5 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(4) | Outstandings includes consumer finance loans of $1.6 billion and $1.7 billion, other non-U.S. consumer loans of $951 million and $929 million and consumer overdrafts of $58 million and $103 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(5) | Consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option include residential mortgage loans of $881 million and $906 million and discontinued real estate loans of $1.3 billion and $1.3 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. See Consumer Credit Risk – Consumer Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option on page 81 and Note 16 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option. |
n/a = not applicable
Table 24 presents accruing consumer loans past due 90 days or more and consumer nonperforming loans. Nonperforming loans do not include past due consumer credit card loans, consumer non-real estate-secured loans or unsecured consumer loans as these loans are generally charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due. Real estate-secured past due consumer loans, which include loans insured by the FHA and individually insured under long-term stand-by agreements with FNMA and FHLMC (fully-insured loan portfolio), are reported as accruing as opposed to nonperforming since the principal repayment is insured. Fully-insured loans included in accruing past due 90 days or more are primarily related to our purchases of delinquent FHA loans pursuant to our servicing agreements. Additionally, nonperforming loans and accruing balances past due 90 days or more do not include the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio or loans accounted for under the fair value option even though the customer may be contractually past due. For additional information on FHA loans, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Unresolved Claims Status on page 45.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 24 |
Consumer Credit Quality |
| Accruing Past Due 90 Days or More | | Nonperforming (1) |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Residential mortgage (2) | $ | 21,176 |
| | $ | 21,164 |
| | $ | 15,049 |
| | $ | 15,970 |
|
Home equity | — |
| | — |
| | 4,360 |
| | 2,453 |
|
Discontinued real estate | — |
| | — |
| | 269 |
| | 290 |
|
U.S. credit card | 1,866 |
| | 2,070 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Non-U.S. credit card | 294 |
| | 342 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Direct/Indirect consumer | 697 |
| | 746 |
| | 41 |
| | 40 |
|
Other consumer | 2 |
| | 2 |
| | 5 |
| | 15 |
|
Total (3) | $ | 24,035 |
| | $ | 24,324 |
| | $ | 19,724 |
| | $ | 18,768 |
|
Consumer loans as a percentage of outstanding consumer loans (3) | 4.09 | % | | 4.01 | % | | 3.36 | % | | 3.09 | % |
Consumer loans as a percentage of outstanding loans excluding Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios (3) | 0.62 |
| | 0.66 |
| | 4.27 |
| | 3.90 |
|
| |
(1) | At March 31, 2012, nonperforming home equity loans include $1.9 billion of loans that were reclassified to nonperforming loans in accordance with regulatory interagency guidance. For more information, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 67. |
| |
(2) | Balances accruing past due 90 days or more are fully-insured loans. These balances include $17.0 billion of loans on which interest has been curtailed by the FHA, and therefore are no longer accruing interest, although principal is still insured and $4.2 billion of loans on which interest was still accruing at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(3) | Balances exclude consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $718 million and $713 million of loans accounted for under the fair value option were past due 90 days or more and not accruing interest. |
n/a = not applicable
Table 25 presents net charge-offs and related ratios for consumer loans and leases for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 25 |
Consumer Net Charge-offs and Related Ratios |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Net Charge-offs | | Net Charge-off Ratios (1) |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Residential mortgage | $ | 898 |
| | $ | 905 |
| | 1.39 | % | | 1.40 | % |
Home equity | 957 |
| | 1,179 |
| | 3.13 |
| | 3.51 |
|
Discontinued real estate | 16 |
| | 20 |
| | 0.59 |
| | 0.61 |
|
U.S. credit card | 1,331 |
| | 2,274 |
| | 5.44 |
| | 8.39 |
|
Non-U.S. credit card | 203 |
| | 402 |
| | 5.78 |
| | 5.91 |
|
Direct/Indirect consumer | 226 |
| | 525 |
| | 1.03 |
| | 2.36 |
|
Other consumer | 56 |
| | 40 |
| | 8.59 |
| | 5.93 |
|
Total | $ | 3,687 |
| | $ | 5,345 |
| | 2.48 |
| | 3.38 |
|
| |
(1) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
Net charge-off ratios excluding the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios were 2.31 percent and 2.08 percent for residential mortgage, 3.47 percent and 3.87 percent for home equity, 5.24 percent and 5.57 percent for discontinued real estate and 3.14 percent and 4.08 percent for the total consumer portfolio for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. These are the only product classifications materially impacted by the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
Legacy Assets & Servicing within CRES manages our exposures to certain residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate products. Legacy Assets & Servicing manages both our owned loans, as well as loans serviced for others, that meet certain criteria. The criteria generally represent home lending standards which we do not consider as part of our continuing core business. The Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio includes the following:
| |
• | Discontinued real estate loans including subprime and pay option |
| |
• | Residential mortgage loans and home equity loans for products we no longer originate including reduced document loans and interest-only loans not underwritten to fully amortizing payment |
| |
• | Loans that would not have been originated under our underwriting standards at December 31, 2010 including conventional loans with an original LTV greater than 95 percent and government-insured loans for which the borrower has a FICO score less than 620 |
| |
• | Countrywide PCI loan portfolios |
| |
• | Certain loans that met a pre-defined delinquency and probability of default threshold as of January 1, 2011 |
For more information on Legacy Assets & Servicing within CRES, see page 30.
Table 26 presents outstandings, nonperforming balances and net charge-offs for the Core portfolio and the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio within the home loans portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 26 |
Home Loans Portfolio |
| Outstandings | | Nonperforming (1) | | Net Charge-offs |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Core portfolio | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential mortgage | $ | 175,322 |
| | $ | 178,337 |
| | $ | 2,433 |
| | $ | 2,414 |
| | $ | 143 |
| | $ | 23 |
|
Home equity | 65,261 |
| | 67,055 |
| | 1,042 |
| | 439 |
| | 184 |
| | 48 |
|
Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential mortgage (2) | 81,109 |
| | 83,953 |
| | 12,616 |
| | 13,556 |
| | 755 |
| | 882 |
|
Home equity | 55,985 |
| | 57,644 |
| | 3,318 |
| | 2,014 |
| | 773 |
| | 1,131 |
|
Discontinued real estate (2) | 10,453 |
| | 11,095 |
| | 269 |
| | 290 |
| | 16 |
| | 20 |
|
Home loans portfolio | | | | | | | | | | | |
Residential mortgage | 256,431 |
| | 262,290 |
| | 15,049 |
| | 15,970 |
| | 898 |
| | 905 |
|
Home equity | 121,246 |
| | 124,699 |
| | 4,360 |
| | 2,453 |
| | 957 |
| | 1,179 |
|
Discontinued real estate | 10,453 |
| | 11,095 |
| | 269 |
| | 290 |
| | 16 |
| | 20 |
|
Total home loans portfolio | $ | 388,130 |
| | $ | 398,084 |
| | $ | 19,678 |
| | $ | 18,713 |
| | $ | 1,871 |
| | $ | 2,104 |
|
| |
(1) | At March 31, 2012, nonperforming home equity loans in the Core portfolio and the Legacy Assets & Servicing portfolio include $547 million and $1.3 billion of loans that were reclassified to nonperforming loans in accordance with regulatory interagency guidance. For more information, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 67. |
| |
(2) | Balances exclude consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option of $881 million and $906 million of residential mortgage loans and $1.3 billion and $1.3 billion of discontinued real estate loans at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. See Note 16 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option. |
We believe that the presentation of information adjusted to exclude the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option is more representative of the ongoing operations and credit quality of the business. As a result, in the following discussions of the residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate portfolios, we provide information that excludes the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option in certain credit quality statistics. We separately disclose information on the Countrywide PCI loan portfolios on page 77.
Residential Mortgage
The residential mortgage portfolio, which for purposes of the consumer credit portfolio discussion and related tables excludes the discontinued real estate portfolio acquired from Countrywide, makes up the largest percentage of our consumer loan portfolio at 44 percent of consumer loans at March 31, 2012. Approximately 15 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio is in GWIM and represents residential mortgages that are originated for the home purchase and refinancing needs of our wealth management clients. The remaining portion of the portfolio is primarily in All Other and is comprised of both originated loans as well as purchased loans used in our overall ALM activities.
Outstanding balances in the residential mortgage portfolio, excluding $881 million of loans accounted for under the fair value option, decreased $5.9 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 as paydowns, charge-offs and transfers to foreclosed properties more than offset new origination volume.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the residential mortgage portfolio included $94.0 billion and $93.9 billion of outstanding fully-insured loans. On this portion of the residential mortgage portfolio, we are protected against principal loss as a result of either FHA insurance or long-term stand-by agreements with FNMA and FHLMC. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $68.0 billion and $69.5 billion had FHA insurance and $26.0 billion and $24.4 billion were protected by long-term stand-by agreements. All of these loans are individually insured and therefore the Corporation does not record an allowance for credit losses.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $23.4 billion and $24.0 billion of the FHA-insured loan population were related to repurchases of delinquent FHA loans pursuant to our servicing agreements with GNMA.
In addition to the abovementioned purchased long-term stand-by agreements with FNMA and FHLMC, we have mitigated a portion of our credit risk on the residential mortgage portfolio through the use of synthetic securitization vehicles as described in Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the synthetic securitization vehicles referenced principal balances of $22.3 billion and $23.9 billion of residential mortgage loans and provided loss protection up to $697 million and $783 million. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Corporation had a receivable of $368 million and $359 million from these vehicles for reimbursement of losses. The Corporation records an allowance for credit losses on loans referenced by the synthetic securitization vehicles. The reported net charge-offs for the residential mortgage portfolio do not include the benefit of amounts reimbursable from these vehicles. Adjusting for the benefit of the credit protection from the synthetic securitizations, the residential mortgage net charge-off ratio, excluding the Countrywide PCI and fully-insured loan portfolios, for the three months ended March 31, 2012 would have been reduced by seven bps compared to 15 bps for the same period in 2011.
Synthetic securitizations and the long-term stand-by agreements with FNMA and FHLMC together reduce our regulatory risk-weighted assets due to the transfer of a portion of our credit risk to unaffiliated parties. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, these programs had the cumulative effect of reducing our risk-weighted assets by $8.3 billion and $7.9 billion, and increasing our Tier 1 capital ratio by nine bps and eight bps, and our Tier 1 common capital ratio by seven bps and six bps.
Table 27 presents certain residential mortgage key credit statistics on both a reported basis, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, and excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option. We believe the presentation of information adjusted to exclude these loan portfolios is more representative of the credit risk in the residential mortgage loan portfolio. As such, the following discussion presents the residential mortgage portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, the fully-insured loan portfolio and loans accounted for under the fair value option. For more information on the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, see page 77.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 27 |
Residential Mortgage – Key Credit Statistics |
| | | Reported Basis (1) | | Excluding Countrywide
Purchased Credit-impaired and Fully-insured Loans |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Outstandings | | | | | | | | | $ | 256,431 |
| | $ | 262,290 |
| | $ | 152,645 |
| | $ | 158,470 |
|
Accruing past due 30 days or more | | | | | | | | 27,390 |
| | 28,688 |
| | 3,296 |
| | 3,950 |
|
Accruing past due 90 days or more | | | | | | | | 21,176 |
| | 21,164 |
| | n/a |
| | n/a |
|
Nonperforming loans | | | | | | | | | 15,049 |
| | 15,970 |
| | 15,049 |
| | 15,970 |
|
Percent of portfolio | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Refreshed LTV greater than 90 but less than 100 | | | | | | 14 | % | | 15 | % | | 11 | % | | 11 | % |
Refreshed LTV greater than 100 | | | | | | | | 34 |
| | 33 |
| | 25 |
| | 26 |
|
Refreshed FICO below 620 | | | | | | | | 21 |
| | 21 |
| | 15 |
| | 15 |
|
2006 and 2007 vintages (2) | | | | | | | | 26 |
| | 27 |
| | 37 |
| | 37 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
| | | | | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Net charge-off ratio (3) | | | | | | | | | 1.39 | % | | 1.40 | % | | 2.31 | % | | 2.08 | % |
| |
(1) | Outstandings, accruing past due, nonperforming loans and percentages of portfolio exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option. There were $881 million and $906 million of residential mortgage loans accounted for under the fair value option at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. See Note 16 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option. |
| |
(2) | These vintages of loans account for 62 percent and 63 percent of nonperforming residential mortgage loans at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and 73 percent and 74 percent of residential mortgage net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. |
| |
(3) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
n/a = not applicable
Nonperforming residential mortgage loans decreased $921 million compared to December 31, 2011 as outflows outpaced new inflows, which continued to slow in the three months ended March 31, 2012 due to favorable delinquency trends and lower repurchases of delinquent loans. Accruing loans past due 30 days or more decreased $654 million compared to December 31, 2011. At March 31, 2012, $10.4 billion, or 69 percent, of the nonperforming residential mortgage loans were 180 days or more past due and had been written down to the estimated fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell. Net charge-offs were $898 million in the first quarter of 2012, relatively unchanged compared to the same period in the prior year, or 2.31 percent of total average residential mortgage loans compared to 2.08 percent for the same period in 2011. Favorable delinquency trends were offset by further deterioration in home prices on loans greater than 180 days past due. Net charge-off ratios were further impacted by lower loan balances primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations.
Loans in the residential mortgage portfolio with certain characteristics have greater risk of loss than others. These characteristics include loans with a high refreshed LTV, loans originated at the peak of home prices in 2006 and 2007, interest-only loans and loans to borrowers located in California and Florida where we have concentrations and where significant declines in home prices have been experienced. Although the following disclosures address each of these risk characteristics separately, there is significant overlap in loans with these characteristics, which contributed to a disproportionate share of the losses in the portfolio. The residential mortgage loans with all of these higher risk characteristics comprised six percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and accounted for 22 percent and 23 percent of the residential mortgage net charge-offs during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
Residential mortgage loans with a greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent refreshed LTV represented 11 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent represented 25 percent and 26 percent of the residential mortgage loan portfolio at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Of the loans
with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent, 93 percent and 92 percent were performing at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent reflect loans where the outstanding carrying value of the loan is greater than the most recent valuation of the property securing the loan. The majority of these loans have a refreshed LTV greater than 100 percent primarily due to home price deterioration over the past several years. Loans to borrowers with refreshed FICO scores below 620 represented 15 percent of the residential mortgage portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
Of the $152.6 billion and $158.5 billion in total residential mortgage loans outstanding at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, as shown in Table 27, 40 percent were originated as interest-only loans for both periods. The outstanding balance of interest-only residential mortgage loans that have entered the amortization period was $13.8 billion, or 22 percent, at March 31, 2012. Residential mortgage loans that have entered the amortization period have experienced a higher rate of early stage delinquencies and nonperforming status compared to the residential mortgage portfolio as a whole. As of March 31, 2012, $402 million, or three percent, of outstanding interest-only residential mortgages that had entered the amortization period were accruing past due 30 days or more compared to $3.3 billion, or two percent, of accruing past due 30 days or more for the entire residential mortgage portfolio. In addition, at March 31, 2012, $2.1 billion, or 16 percent, of outstanding interest-only residential mortgages that had entered the amortization period were nonperforming compared to $15.0 billion, or 10 percent, of nonperforming loans for the entire residential mortgage portfolio. Loans in our interest-only residential mortgage portfolio have an interest-only period of three to 10 years and more than 80 percent of these loans will not be required to make a fully-amortizing payment until 2015 or later.
Table 28 presents outstandings, nonperforming loans and net charge-offs by certain state concentrations for the residential mortgage portfolio. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) within California represented 12 percent of outstandings at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Loans within this MSA comprised only nine percent and six percent of net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 28 |
Residential Mortgage State Concentrations |
| Outstandings (1) | | Nonperforming (1) | | Net Charge-offs |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
California | $ | 52,024 |
| | $ | 54,203 |
| | $ | 5,207 |
| | $ | 5,606 |
| | $ | 332 |
| | $ | 308 |
|
Florida | 11,837 |
| | 12,338 |
| | 1,752 |
| | 1,900 |
| | 86 |
| | 156 |
|
New York | 11,302 |
| | 11,539 |
| | 825 |
| | 838 |
| | 20 |
| | 19 |
|
Texas | 7,251 |
| | 7,525 |
| | 406 |
| | 425 |
| | 18 |
| | 12 |
|
Virginia | 5,498 |
| | 5,709 |
| | 389 |
| | 399 |
| | 16 |
| | 14 |
|
Other U.S./Non-U.S. | 64,733 |
| | 67,156 |
| | 6,470 |
| | 6,802 |
| | 426 |
| | 396 |
|
Residential mortgage loans (2) | $ | 152,645 |
| | $ | 158,470 |
| | $ | 15,049 |
| | $ | 15,970 |
| | $ | 898 |
| | $ | 905 |
|
Fully-insured loan portfolio | 94,038 |
| | 93,854 |
| | | | | | | | |
Countrywide purchased credit-impaired residential mortgage loan portfolio | 9,748 |
| | 9,966 |
| | | | | | | | |
Total residential mortgage loan portfolio | $ | 256,431 |
| | $ | 262,290 |
| | | | | | | | |
| |
(1) | Outstandings and nonperforming amounts exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option. There were $881 million and $906 million of residential mortgage loans accounted for under the fair value option at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. See Note 16 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option. |
| |
(2) | Amount excludes the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage and fully-insured loan portfolios. |
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) encourages banks to meet the credit needs of their communities for housing and other purposes, particularly in neighborhoods with low or moderate incomes. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, our CRA portfolio was $11.8 billion and $12.5 billion, or eight percent, of the residential mortgage loan balances for both periods. The CRA portfolio included $2.3 billion and $2.5 billion of nonperforming loans at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 representing 15 percent of total nonperforming residential mortgage loans for both periods. Net charge-offs related to the CRA portfolio were $187 million and $208 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, or 21 percent and 23 percent, of total net charge-offs for the residential mortgage portfolio.
For information on representations and warranties related to our residential mortgage portfolio, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 44 and Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Home Equity
The home equity portfolio makes up 21 percent of the consumer portfolio and is comprised of HELOCs, home equity loans and reverse mortgages. As of March 31, 2012, our HELOC portfolio had an outstanding balance of $100.7 billion, or 83 percent, of the home equity portfolio. HELOCs generally have an initial draw period of 10 years with approximately 12 percent of the portfolio having a draw period of five years with a five-year renewal option. During the initial draw period, the borrowers are only required to pay the interest due on the loans on a monthly basis. After the initial draw period ends, the loans generally convert to 15-year amortizing loans.
As of March 31, 2012, our home equity loan portfolio had an outstanding balance of $19.3 billion, or 16 percent of the total home equity portfolio. Home equity loans are almost all fixed-rate loans with amortizing payment terms of 10 to 30 years and approximately 52 percent of these loans have 25- to 30-year terms.
As of March 31, 2012, our reverse mortgage portfolio had an outstanding balance of $1.2 billion, or one percent of the total home equity portfolio. In 2011, we exited the reverse mortgage origination business.
At March 31, 2012, approximately 88 percent of the home equity portfolio was included in CRES while the remainder of the portfolio was primarily in GWIM. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio decreased $3.5 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 primarily due to paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations and draws on existing lines. Of the total home equity portfolio at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, $23.6 billion, or 19 percent, and $24.5 billion, or 20 percent, were in first-lien positions (21 percent and 22 percent excluding the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011). As of March 31, 2012, outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio that were in a second-lien or more junior-lien position and where we also held the first-lien loan totaled $35.6 billion, or 33 percent of our total home equity portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
Unused HELOCs totaled $66.1 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $67.5 billion at December 31, 2011. This decrease was primarily due to customers choosing to close accounts as well as line management initiatives on deteriorating accounts, which more than offset new production. The HELOC utilization rate was 60 percent at March 31, 2012 compared to 61 percent at December 31, 2011.
Table 29 presents certain home equity portfolio key credit statistics on both a reported basis as well as excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio. We believe the presentation of information adjusted to exclude the impact of the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio is more representative of the credit risk in this portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 29 |
Home Equity – Key Credit Statistics |
| | | | | | | | | Reported Basis | | Excluding Countrywide
Purchased Credit-impaired Loans |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Outstandings | | | | | | | | | $ | 121,246 |
| | $ | 124,699 |
| | $ | 109,428 |
| | $ | 112,721 |
|
Accruing past due 30 days or more (1) | | | | | | | | 1,294 |
| | 1,658 |
| | 1,294 |
| | 1,658 |
|
Nonperforming loans (1) | | | | | | | | | 4,360 |
| | 2,453 |
| | 4,360 |
| | 2,453 |
|
Percent of portfolio | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|
Refreshed combined LTV greater than 90 but less than 100 | | 10 | % | | 10 | % | | 11 | % | | 11 | % |
Refreshed combined LTV greater than 100 | | | | 37 |
| | 36 |
| | 33 |
| | 32 |
|
Refreshed FICO below 620 (2) | | | | | | 10 |
| | 10 |
| | 9 |
| | 9 |
|
2006 and 2007 vintages (3) | | | | | | | | | 50 |
| | 50 |
| | 46 |
| | 46 |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
| | | | | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Net charge-off ratio (4) | | | | | | | | | 3.13 | % | | 3.51 | % | | 3.47 | % | | 3.87 | % |
| |
(1) | Accruing past due 30 days or more includes $439 million and $609 million and nonperforming loans includes $1.3 billion and $703 million of loans where we serviced the underlying first-lien at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(2) | As of March 31, 2012, home equity FICO metrics reflect an updated scoring model. Prior periods were adjusted to reflect these updates. |
| |
(3) | These vintages of loans have higher refreshed combined LTV ratios and accounted for 55 percent and 54 percent of nonperforming home equity loans at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and accounted for 65 percent and 67 percent of net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. |
| |
(4) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans. |
The following discussion presents the home equity portfolio excluding the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio.
Nonperforming outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio increased $1.9 billion compared to December 31, 2011 driven by the reclassification to nonperforming of junior-lien loans in accordance with regulatory interagency guidance. Excluding the impact of this change, nonperforming loans increased $55 million, or two percent, compared to December 31, 2011 as delinquency inflows, which continued to slow during the three months ended March 31, 2012 due to favorable early stage delinquency trends, outpaced charge-offs and paydowns. Outstanding balances accruing past due 30 days or more decreased $364 million at March 31, 2012 primarily driven by the reclassification of junior-lien home equity loans to nonperforming in accordance with regulatory interagency guidance. Excluding the impact of this change, accruing outstanding balances past due 30 days or more decreased $100 million. At March 31, 2012, $1.1 billion, or 25 percent, of the nonperforming home equity portfolio was 180 days or more past due and had been written down to their respective fair values. For more information on the change as a result of the regulatory interagency guidance, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 67.
In some cases, the junior-lien home equity outstanding balance that we hold is performing, but the underlying first-lien is not. For outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio in which we service the first-lien loan, we are able to track whether the first-lien loan is in default. For loans in which the first-lien is serviced by a third party, we utilize credit bureau data to estimate the delinquency status of the first-lien. Given that the credit bureau database we use does not include a property address for the mortgages, we are unable to identify with certainty whether a reported delinquent first mortgage pertains to the same property for which we hold a junior-lien loan. At March 31, 2012, we estimate that $3.1 billion of current and $756 million of 30 to 89 days past due junior-lien loans were behind a delinquent first-lien loan. We service the first-lien loans on $1.6 billion of these combined amounts, with the remaining $2.3 billion serviced by third parties. Of the $3.9 billion current to 89 days past due junior-lien loans, based on available credit bureau data, we estimate that approximately $1.9 billion had first-lien loans that were 90 days or more past due.
Net charge-offs decreased $222 million to $957 million, or 3.47 percent of the total average home equity portfolio, for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $1.2 billion, or 3.87 percent, for the same period in the prior year primarily driven by favorable portfolio trends due in part to improvement in the U.S. economy. Net charge-off ratios were further impacted by lower outstanding balances primarily as a result of paydowns and charge-offs outpacing new originations and draws on existing lines.
There are certain characteristics of the outstanding loan balances in the home equity portfolio that have contributed to higher losses including those loans with a high refreshed combined loan-to-value (CLTV), loans that were originated at the peak of home prices in 2006 and 2007 and loans in geographic areas that have experienced the most significant declines in home prices. Home price declines coupled with the fact that most home equity outstandings are secured by second-lien positions have significantly reduced and, in some cases, eliminated all collateral value after consideration of the first-lien position. Although the disclosures below address each of these risk characteristics separately, there is significant overlap in outstanding balances with these characteristics, which has contributed to a disproportionate share of losses in the portfolio. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with all of these higher risk characteristics comprised 10 percent of the total home equity portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, and accounted for 26 percent and 27 percent of the home equity net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with greater than 90 percent but less than 100 percent refreshed CLTVs comprised 11 percent of the home equity portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Outstanding balances with refreshed CLTVs greater than 100 percent comprised 33 percent and 32 percent of the home equity portfolio at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio with a refreshed CLTV greater than 100 percent reflect loans where the carrying value and available line of credit of the combined loans are equal to or greater than the most recent valuation of the property securing the loan. Depending on the value of the property, there may be collateral in excess of the first-lien that is available to reduce the severity of loss on the second-lien. Home price deterioration over the past several years has contributed to an increase in CLTV ratios. Of those outstanding balances with a refreshed CLTV greater than 100 percent, 94 percent of the customers were current at March 31, 2012. For second-lien loans with a refreshed CLTV greater than 100 percent that are current, 92 percent were also current on the underlying first-lien loans at March 31, 2012. Outstanding balances in the home equity portfolio to borrowers with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented nine percent of the home equity portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
Of the $109.4 billion and $112.7 billion in total home equity portfolio outstandings at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, 78 percent at both periods were originated as interest-only loans, almost all of which were HELOCs. The outstanding balance of these HELOCs that have entered the amortization period was $1.8 billion, or two percent of total HELOCs, at March 31, 2012. The HELOCs that have entered the amortization period have experienced a higher percentage of early stage delinquencies and nonperforming status when compared to the HELOC portfolio as a whole. As of March 31, 2012, $50 million, or three percent, of outstanding HELOCs that had entered the amortization period were accruing past due 30 days or more compared to $1.1 billion, or one percent, of outstanding accruing past due 30 days or more for the entire HELOC portfolio. In addition, at March 31, 2012, $94 million, or five percent, of outstanding HELOCs that had entered the amortization period were nonperforming compared to $3.8 billion, or four percent, of outstandings that were nonperforming for the entire HELOC portfolio. Loans in our HELOC portfolio generally have an initial draw period of 10 years and more than 85 percent of these loans will not be required to make a fully-amortizing payment until 2015 or later.
Although we do not actively track how many of our home equity customers pay only the minimum amount due on their home equity loans and lines, we can infer some of this information through a review of our HELOC portfolio that we service and that is still in its revolving period (i.e., customers may draw on and repay their line of credit, but are generally only required to pay interest on a monthly basis). During the three months ended March 31, 2012, approximately 63 percent of these customers did not pay any principal on their HELOCs.
Table 30 presents outstandings, nonperforming balances and net charge-offs by certain state concentrations for the home equity portfolio. In the New York area, the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island MSA made up 11 percent of the outstanding home equity portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. This MSA comprised eight percent and seven percent of net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA within California made up 12 percent of the outstanding home equity portfolio at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. This MSA comprised 12 percent and 10 percent of net charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
For information on representations and warranties related to our home equity portfolio, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 44 and Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 30 |
Home Equity State Concentrations |
| Outstandings | | Nonperforming | | Net Charge-offs |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Three Months Ended March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
California | $ | 31,516 |
| | $ | 32,398 |
| | $ | 1,193 |
| | $ | 627 |
| | $ | 316 |
| | $ | 368 |
|
Florida | 13,082 |
| | 13,450 |
| | 784 |
| | 411 |
| | 164 |
| | 239 |
|
New Jersey | 7,297 |
| | 7,483 |
| | 306 |
| | 175 |
| | 43 |
| | 42 |
|
New York | 7,244 |
| | 7,423 |
| | 405 |
| | 242 |
| | 48 |
| | 53 |
|
Massachusetts | 4,755 |
| | 4,919 |
| | 127 |
| | 67 |
| | 14 |
| | 20 |
|
Other U.S./Non-U.S. | 45,534 |
| | 47,048 |
| | 1,545 |
| | 931 |
| | 372 |
| | 457 |
|
Home equity loans (1) | $ | 109,428 |
| | $ | 112,721 |
| | $ | 4,360 |
| | $ | 2,453 |
| | $ | 957 |
| | $ | 1,179 |
|
Countrywide purchased credit-impaired home equity portfolio | 11,818 |
| | 11,978 |
| | | | | | | | |
Total home equity loan portfolio | $ | 121,246 |
| | $ | 124,699 |
| | | | | | | | |
| |
(1) | Amount excludes the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio. |
Discontinued Real Estate
The discontinued real estate portfolio, excluding $1.3 billion of loans accounted for under the fair value option, totaled $10.5 billion at March 31, 2012 and consists of pay option and subprime loans acquired in the Countrywide acquisition. Upon acquisition, the majority of the discontinued real estate portfolio was considered credit-impaired and written down to fair value. At March 31, 2012, the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio was $9.3 billion, or 89 percent, of the total discontinued real estate portfolio. This portfolio is included in All Other and is managed as part of our overall ALM activities. See Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio on page 77 for more information on the discontinued real estate portfolio.
At March 31, 2012, the purchased discontinued real estate portfolio that was not credit-impaired was $1.2 billion. Loans with greater than 90 percent refreshed LTVs and CLTVs comprised 29 percent of the portfolio and those with refreshed FICO scores below 620 represented 43 percent of the portfolio. The Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA within California made up 16 percent of outstanding discontinued real estate loans at March 31, 2012.
Pay option adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), which are included in the discontinued real estate portfolio, have interest rates that adjust monthly and minimum required payments that adjust annually, subject to resetting if minimum payments are made and deferred interest limits are reached. Annual payment adjustments are subject to a 7.5 percent maximum change. To ensure that contractual loan payments are adequate to repay a loan, the fully-amortizing loan payment amount is re-established after the initial five- or 10-year period and again every five years thereafter. These payment adjustments are not subject to the 7.5 percent limit and may be substantial due to changes in interest rates and the addition of unpaid interest to the loan balance. Payment advantage ARMs have interest rates that are fixed for an initial period of five years. Payments are subject to reset if the minimum payments are made and deferred interest limits are reached. If interest deferrals cause a loan’s principal balance to reach a certain level within the first 10 years of the life of the loan, the payment is reset to the interest-only payment; then at the 10-year point, the fully-amortizing payment is required.
The difference between the frequency of changes in a loan’s interest rates and payments along with a limitation on changes in the minimum monthly payments of 7.5 percent per year can result in payments that are not sufficient to pay all of the monthly interest charges (i.e., negative amortization). Unpaid interest is added to the loan balance until the loan balance increases to a specified limit, which can be no more than 115 percent of the original loan amount, at which time a new monthly payment amount adequate to repay the loan over its remaining contractual life is established.
At March 31, 2012, the unpaid principal balance of pay option loans was $10.8 billion, with a carrying amount of $9.3 billion, including $8.5 billion of loans that were credit-impaired upon acquisition, and accordingly, the reserve is based on a life-of-loan loss estimate. The total unpaid principal balance of pay option loans with accumulated negative amortization was $8.4 billion including $609 million of negative amortization. For those borrowers who are making payments in accordance with their contractual terms, 19 percent and 22 percent at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 elected to make only the minimum payment on option ARMs. We believe the majority of borrowers are now making scheduled payments primarily because the low interest rate environment has caused the fully indexed rates to be affordable to more borrowers. We continue to evaluate our exposure to payment resets on the acquired negative-amortizing loans including the Countrywide PCI pay option loan portfolio and have taken into consideration several assumptions regarding this evaluation including prepayment and default rates. Of the loans in the pay option portfolio at March 31, 2012 that have not already experienced a payment reset, five percent are expected to reset during the remainder of 2012 and approximately 20 percent thereafter. In addition, approximately seven percent are expected to prepay and approximately 68 percent are expected to default prior to being reset, most of which are severely delinquent as of March 31, 2012.
Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio
Loans acquired with evidence of credit quality deterioration since origination and for which it is probable at purchase that we will be unable to collect all contractually required payments are accounted for under the accounting guidance for PCI loans, which addresses accounting for differences between contractual and expected cash flows to be collected from the purchaser’s initial investment in loans if those differences are attributable, at least in part, to credit quality. Evidence of credit quality deterioration as of the acquisition date may include statistics such as past due status, refreshed FICO scores and refreshed LTVs. PCI loans are recorded at fair value upon acquisition and the applicable accounting guidance prohibits carrying over or recording a valuation allowance in the initial accounting.
Table 31 presents the unpaid principal balance, carrying value, related valuation allowance and the net carrying value as a percentage of the unpaid principal balance for the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 31 |
Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio |
| March 31, 2012 |
(Dollars in millions) | Unpaid
Principal Balance | | Carrying Value | | Related
Valuation Allowance | | Carrying
Value Net of
Valuation Allowance | | Percent of Unpaid
Principal Balance |
Residential mortgage | $ | 9,944 |
| | $ | 9,748 |
| | $ | 1,627 |
| | $ | 8,121 |
| | 81.67 | % |
Home equity | 11,971 |
| | 11,818 |
| | 5,235 |
| | 6,583 |
| | 54.99 |
|
Discontinued real estate | 10,986 |
| | 9,281 |
| | 2,084 |
| | 7,197 |
| | 65.51 |
|
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired loan portfolio | $ | 32,901 |
| | $ | 30,847 |
| | $ | 8,946 |
| | $ | 21,901 |
| | 66.57 |
|
| December 31, 2011 |
Residential mortgage | $ | 10,426 |
| | $ | 9,966 |
| | $ | 1,331 |
| | $ | 8,635 |
| | 82.82 | % |
Home equity | 12,516 |
| | 11,978 |
| | 5,129 |
| | 6,849 |
| | 54.72 |
|
Discontinued real estate | 11,891 |
| | 9,857 |
| | 1,999 |
| | 7,858 |
| | 66.08 |
|
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired loan portfolio | $ | 34,833 |
| | $ | 31,801 |
| | $ | 8,459 |
| | $ | 23,342 |
| | 67.01 |
|
Of the unpaid principal balance at March 31, 2012, $11.7 billion was 180 days or more past due, including $8.2 billion of first-lien and $3.5 billion of home equity loans. Of the $21.2 billion that was less than 180 days past due, $18.7 billion, or 88 percent, of the total unpaid principal balance was current based on the contractual terms while $1.4 billion, or seven percent, was in early stage delinquency. During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we recorded $487 million of provision for credit losses for the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio including $133 million for residential mortgage, $84 million for home equity loans and $270 million for discontinued real estate. This compared to a total provision of $1.5 billion during the three months ended March 31, 2011. Provision expense for the three months ended March 31, 2012 was primarily driven by a more negative home price outlook versus previous expectations. For further information on the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, see Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Additional information is provided in the following sections on the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage, home equity and discontinued real estate loan portfolios.
Purchased Credit-impaired Residential Mortgage Loan Portfolio
The Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio comprised 32 percent of the total Countrywide PCI loan portfolio at March 31, 2012. Those loans to borrowers with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 36 percent of the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio at March 31, 2012. Loans with a refreshed LTV greater than 90 percent represented 61 percent of the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio after consideration of purchase accounting adjustments and the related valuation allowance, and 85 percent based on the unpaid principal balance at March 31, 2012. Those loans that were originally classified as Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition and have been subsequently modified are now included in Countrywide PCI residential mortgage outstandings. Table 32 presents outstandings net of purchase accounting adjustments and before the related valuation allowance, by certain state concentrations.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 32 |
Outstanding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio – Residential Mortgage State Concentrations |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
California | $ | 5,408 |
| | $ | 5,535 |
|
Florida | 739 |
| | 757 |
|
Virginia | 526 |
| | 532 |
|
Maryland | 254 |
| | 258 |
|
Texas | 125 |
| | 130 |
|
Other U.S./Non-U.S. | 2,696 |
| | 2,754 |
|
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired residential mortgage loan portfolio | $ | 9,748 |
| | $ | 9,966 |
|
Purchased Credit-impaired Home Equity Portfolio
The Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio comprised 38 percent of the total Countrywide PCI loan portfolio at March 31, 2012. Those loans with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 15 percent of the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio at March 31, 2012. Loans with a refreshed CLTV greater than 90 percent represented 79 percent of the Countrywide PCI home equity portfolio after consideration of purchase accounting adjustments and the related valuation allowance, and 84 percent based on the unpaid principal balance at March 31, 2012. Table 33 presents outstandings net of purchase accounting adjustments and before the related valuation allowance, by certain state concentrations.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 33 |
Outstanding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio – Home Equity State Concentrations |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
California | $ | 3,933 |
| | $ | 3,999 |
|
Florida | 721 |
| | 734 |
|
Arizona | 492 |
| | 501 |
|
Virginia | 491 |
| | 496 |
|
Colorado | 333 |
| | 337 |
|
Other U.S./Non-U.S. | 5,848 |
| | 5,911 |
|
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired home equity portfolio | $ | 11,818 |
| | $ | 11,978 |
|
Purchased Credit-impaired Discontinued Real Estate Loan Portfolio
The Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loan portfolio comprised 30 percent of the total Countrywide PCI loan portfolio at March 31, 2012. Those loans to borrowers with a refreshed FICO score below 620 represented 59 percent of the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loan portfolio at March 31, 2012. Loans with a refreshed LTV, or CLTV in the case of second-liens, greater than 90 percent represented 40 percent of the Countrywide PCI discontinued real estate loan portfolio after consideration of purchase accounting adjustments and the related valuation allowance, and 85 percent based on the unpaid principal balance at March 31, 2012. Those loans that were originally classified as discontinued real estate loans upon acquisition and have been subsequently modified are now excluded from this portfolio and included in the Countrywide PCI residential mortgage loan portfolio, but remain in the PCI loan pool. Table 34 presents outstandings net of purchase accounting adjustments and before the related valuation adjustment, by certain state concentrations.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 34 |
Outstanding Countrywide Purchased Credit-impaired Loan Portfolio – Discontinued Real Estate State Concentrations |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
California | $ | 4,875 |
| | $ | 5,262 |
|
Florida | 906 |
| | 958 |
|
Washington | 325 |
| | 331 |
|
Virginia | 264 |
| | 277 |
|
Arizona | 228 |
| | 251 |
|
Other U.S./Non-U.S. | 2,683 |
| | 2,778 |
|
Total Countrywide purchased credit-impaired discontinued real estate loan portfolio | $ | 9,281 |
| | $ | 9,857 |
|
U.S. Credit Card
The U.S. credit card portfolio is managed in CBB. Outstandings in the U.S. credit card portfolio decreased $5.9 billion compared to December 31, 2011 due to a seasonal decline in retail transaction volume. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, net charge-offs decreased $943 million to $1.3 billion compared to the same period in the prior year due to improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies as a result of an improved economic environment and the impact of higher credit quality originations. U.S. credit card loans 30 days or more past due and still accruing interest decreased $439 million while loans 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest decreased $204 million compared to December 31, 2011 due to improvement in the U.S. economy. Table 35 presents certain key credit statistics for the consumer U.S. credit card portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 35 |
U.S. Credit Card – Key Credit Statistics |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Outstandings | | | | | $ | 96,433 |
| | $ | 102,291 |
|
Accruing past due 30 days or more | | | | | 3,384 |
| | 3,823 |
|
Accruing past due 90 days or more | | | | | 1,866 |
| | 2,070 |
|
| | | Three Months Ended
March 31 |
| | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Net charge-offs | | | | | $ | 1,331 |
| | $ | 2,274 |
|
Net charge-off ratios (1) | | | | | 5.44 | % | | 8.39 | % |
| |
(1) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases. |
Unused lines of credit for U.S. credit card totaled $360.5 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $368.1 billion at December 31, 2011. The $7.6 billion decrease was driven by the closure of inactive accounts and account management initiatives on higher risk accounts.
Table 36 presents certain state concentrations for the U.S. credit card portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 36 |
U.S. Credit Card State Concentrations |
| Outstandings | | Accruing Past Due 90 Days or More | | Net Charge-offs |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Three Months Ended
March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
California | $ | 14,375 |
| | $ | 15,246 |
| | $ | 315 |
| | $ | 352 |
| | $ | 243 |
| | $ | 450 |
|
Florida | 7,579 |
| | 7,999 |
| | 196 |
| | 221 |
| | 151 |
| | 271 |
|
Texas | 6,533 |
| | 6,885 |
| | 119 |
| | 131 |
| | 82 |
| | 136 |
|
New York | 5,791 |
| | 6,156 |
| | 112 |
| | 126 |
| | 77 |
| | 124 |
|
New Jersey | 3,933 |
| | 4,183 |
| | 78 |
| | 86 |
| | 53 |
| | 85 |
|
Other U.S. | 58,222 |
| | 61,822 |
| | 1,046 |
| | 1,154 |
| | 725 |
| | 1,208 |
|
Total U.S. credit card portfolio | $ | 96,433 |
| | $ | 102,291 |
| | $ | 1,866 |
| | $ | 2,070 |
| | $ | 1,331 |
| | $ | 2,274 |
|
Non-U.S. Credit Card
Outstandings in the non-U.S. credit card portfolio, which are recorded in All Other, decreased $504 million compared to December 31, 2011 due to lower origination volume and charge-offs. Net charge-offs decreased $199 million to $203 million primarily driven by the sale of the Canadian consumer credit card portfolio.
Unused lines of credit for non-U.S. credit card totaled $37.5 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $36.8 billion at December 31, 2011. The $623 million increase was primarily driven by strengthening of the British pound against the U.S. dollar.
Table 37 presents certain key credit statistics for the non-U.S. credit card portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 37 |
Non-U.S. Credit Card – Key Credit Statistics |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Outstandings | | | | | $ | 13,914 |
| | $ | 14,418 |
|
Accruing past due 30 days or more | | | | | 537 |
| | 610 |
|
Accruing past due 90 days or more | | | | | 294 |
| | 342 |
|
| | | Three Months Ended
March 31 |
| | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
Net charge-offs | | | | | $ | 203 |
| | $ | 402 |
|
Net charge-off ratios (1) | | | | | 5.78 | % | | 5.91 | % |
| |
(1) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases. |
Direct/Indirect Consumer
At March 31, 2012, approximately 47 percent of the direct/indirect portfolio was included in Global Banking (dealer financial services - automotive, marine, aircraft and recreational vehicle loans), 38 percent was included in GWIM (principally other non-real estate-secured, unsecured personal loans and securities-based lending margin loans), eight percent was included in CBB (consumer personal loans) and the remainder was in All Other (student loans).
Outstanding loans and leases decreased $3.6 billion compared to December 31, 2011 due to lower outstandings in the dealer financial services and unsecured consumer lending portfolios partially offset by growth in securities-based lending. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, net charge-offs decreased $299 million to $226 million, or 1.03 percent of total average direct/indirect loans compared to 2.36 percent for the same period in the prior year. This decrease was primarily driven by improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies in the unsecured consumer lending portfolio as a result of an improved economic environment as well as reduced outstandings. An additional driver was lower net charge-offs in the dealer financial services portfolio due to the impact of higher credit quality originations.
For the three months ended March 31, 2012, net charge-offs in the unsecured consumer lending portfolio decreased $241 million to $157 million, or 8.31 percent of total average unsecured consumer lending loans compared to 13.71 percent for the same period in the prior year. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, net charge-offs in the dealer financial services portfolio decreased $45 million to $58 million, or 0.55 percent of total average dealer financial services loans compared to 0.98 percent for the same period in the prior year. Direct/indirect loans that were past due 30 days or more and still accruing interest declined $330 million to $1.6 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $1.9 billion at December 31, 2011 due to improvements in both the unsecured consumer lending and dealer financial services portfolios.
Table 38 presents certain state concentrations for the direct/indirect consumer loan portfolio.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 38 |
Direct/Indirect State Concentrations |
| Outstandings | | Accruing Past Due 90 Days or More | | Net Charge-offs |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | Three Months Ended
March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | | | | | 2012 | | 2011 |
California | $ | 10,708 |
| | $ | 11,152 |
| | $ | 72 |
| | $ | 81 |
| | $ | 31 |
| | $ | 82 |
|
Texas | 7,521 |
| | 7,882 |
| | 52 |
| | 54 |
| | 18 |
| | 45 |
|
Florida | 7,232 |
| | 7,456 |
| | 43 |
| | 55 |
| | 25 |
| | 54 |
|
New York | 4,938 |
| | 5,160 |
| | 40 |
| | 40 |
| | 12 |
| | 27 |
|
Georgia | 2,687 |
| | 2,828 |
| | 37 |
| | 38 |
| | 9 |
| | 21 |
|
Other U.S./Non-U.S. | 53,042 |
| | 55,235 |
| | 453 |
| | 478 |
| | 131 |
| | 296 |
|
Total direct/indirect loan portfolio | $ | 86,128 |
| | $ | 89,713 |
| | $ | 697 |
| | $ | 746 |
| | $ | 226 |
| | $ | 525 |
|
Other Consumer
At March 31, 2012, approximately 98 percent of the $2.6 billion other consumer portfolio was associated with certain consumer finance businesses that we previously exited and non-U.S. consumer loan portfolios that are included in All Other. The remainder is primarily deposit overdrafts included in CBB.
Consumer Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option
Outstanding consumer loans accounted for under the fair value option were $2.2 billion at March 31, 2012 and include $1.3 billion of discontinued real estate loans and $881 million of residential mortgage loans in consolidated variable interest entities (VIEs). During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we recorded gains of $14 million resulting from changes in the fair value of the loan portfolio. These gains were offset by losses recorded on the related long-term debt.
Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity
Table 39 presents nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties activity for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. Nonperforming LHFS are excluded from nonperforming loans as they are recorded at either fair value or the lower of cost or fair value. Nonperforming loans do not include past due consumer credit card loans and in general, past due consumer loans not secured by real estate as these loans are generally charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due. The fully-insured loan portfolio is not reported as nonperforming as principal repayment is insured. Additionally, nonperforming loans do not include the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio or loans that we account for under the fair value option. For further information on nonperforming loans, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Nonperforming loans increased $956 million to $19.7 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $18.8 billion at December 31, 2011 driven by the $1.9 billion reclassification to nonperforming of junior-lien loans that are less than 90 days past due but have a first-lien loan that is more than 90 days past due, in accordance with regulatory interagency guidance. Excluding the impact of this change, nonperforming loans decreased $897 million compared to December 31, 2011 as delinquency inflows to nonperforming loans slowed compared to the same period in 2011 due to favorable portfolio trends, and were more than offset by charge-offs, paydowns and payoffs, and nonperforming loans returning to performing status. For more information on the regulatory interagency guidance, see Consumer Portfolio Credit Risk Management on page 67.
The outstanding balance of a real estate-secured loan that is in excess of the estimated property value, after reducing the estimated property value for estimated costs to sell, is charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due unless repayment of the loan is fully insured. At March 31, 2012, $13.5 billion, or 63 percent, of nonperforming consumer real estate loans and foreclosed properties had been written down to their estimated property value less estimated costs to sell, including $11.7 billion of nonperforming loans 180 days or more past due and $1.8 billion of foreclosed properties.
Foreclosed properties decreased $186 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 as liquidations outpaced additions. PCI loans are excluded from nonperforming loans as these loans were written down to fair value at the acquisition date; however, once the underlying real estate is acquired by the Corporation upon foreclosure of the delinquent PCI loan, it is included in foreclosed properties. PCI related foreclosed properties decreased $37 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012. Not included in foreclosed properties at March 31, 2012 was $1.1 billion of real estate that was acquired upon foreclosure of delinquent FHA-insured loans. We hold this real estate on our balance sheet until we convey these properties to the FHA. We exclude these amounts from our nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties activity as we will be reimbursed once the property is conveyed to the FHA for principal and, up to certain limits, costs incurred during the foreclosure process and interest incurred during the holding period. For additional information on the review of our foreclosure processes, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Servicing Matters and Foreclosure Processes on page 51.
Restructured Loans
Nonperforming loans also include certain loans that have been modified in TDRs where economic concessions have been granted to borrowers experiencing financial difficulties. These concessions typically result from the Corporation’s loss mitigation activities and could include reductions in the interest rate, payment extensions, forgiveness of principal, forbearance or other actions. Certain TDRs are classified as nonperforming at the time of restructuring and may only be returned to performing status after considering the borrower’s sustained repayment performance for a reasonable period, generally six months. Nonperforming TDRs, excluding those modified loans in the Countrywide PCI loan portfolio, are included in Table 39.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 39 |
Nonperforming Consumer Loans and Foreclosed Properties Activity (1) |
| Three Months Ended
March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 |
Nonperforming loans, January 1 | $ | 18,768 |
| | $ | 20,854 |
|
Additions to nonperforming loans: | | | |
New nonperforming loans | 3,308 |
| | 4,127 |
|
Impact of regulatory interagency guidance (2) | 1,853 |
| | n/a |
|
Reductions to nonperforming loans: | | | |
Paydowns and payoffs | (1,153 | ) | | (779 | ) |
Returns to performing status (3) | (913 | ) | | (1,340 | ) |
Charge-offs (4) | (1,737 | ) | | (2,020 | ) |
Transfers to foreclosed properties | (402 | ) | | (386 | ) |
Total net additions (reductions) to nonperforming loans | 956 |
| | (398 | ) |
Total nonperforming loans, March 31 (5) | 19,724 |
| | 20,456 |
|
Foreclosed properties, January 1 | 1,991 |
| | 1,249 |
|
Additions to foreclosed properties: | | | |
New foreclosed properties | 547 |
| | 606 |
|
Reductions to foreclosed properties: | | | |
Sales | (649 | ) | | (459 | ) |
Write-downs | (84 | ) | | (65 | ) |
Total net additions (reductions) to foreclosed properties | (186 | ) | | 82 |
|
Total foreclosed properties, March 31 | 1,805 |
| | 1,331 |
|
Nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties, March 31 | $ | 21,529 |
| | $ | 21,787 |
|
Nonperforming consumer loans as a percentage of outstanding consumer loans (6) | 3.36 | % | | 3.22 | % |
Nonperforming consumer loans and foreclosed properties as a percentage of outstanding consumer loans and foreclosed properties (6) | 3.65 |
| | 3.42 |
|
| |
(1) | Balances do not include nonperforming LHFS of $645 million and $941 million and nonaccruing TDRs removed from the PCI portfolio prior to January 1, 2010 of $459 million and $456 million at March 31, 2012 and 2011 as well as loans accruing past due 90 days or more as presented in Table 24 and Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements. |
| |
(2) | As a result of the regulatory interagency guidance, we reclassified $1.9 billion of performing home equity loans to nonperforming during the three months ended March 31, 2012. |
| |
(3) | Consumer loans may be returned to performing status when all principal and interest is current and full repayment of the remaining contractual principal and interest is expected, or when the loan otherwise becomes well-secured and is in the process of collection. |
| |
(4) | Our policy is not to classify consumer credit card and consumer loans not secured by real estate as nonperforming; therefore, the charge-offs on these loans have no impact on nonperforming activity and accordingly are excluded from this table. |
| |
(5) | At March 31, 2012, 59 percent of nonperforming loans were 180 days or more past due and were written down through charge-offs to 63 percent of their unpaid principal balance. |
| |
(6) | Outstanding consumer loans exclude loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
n/a = not applicable
Our policy is to record any losses in the value of foreclosed properties as a reduction in the allowance for loan and lease losses during the first 90 days after transfer of a loan to foreclosed properties. Thereafter, all gains and losses in value are recorded in noninterest expense. New foreclosed properties in Table 39 are net of $141 million and $61 million of charge-offs for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, recorded during the first 90 days after transfer.
We work with customers that are experiencing financial difficulty by modifying credit card and other consumer loans, while complying with Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) guidelines. Substantially all of our credit card and other consumer loan modifications involve a reduction in the cardholder’s interest rate on the account and placing the customer on a fixed payment plan not exceeding 60 months, both of which are considered to be TDRs (the renegotiated TDR portfolio). We make modifications primarily through internal renegotiation programs utilizing direct customer contact, but may also utilize external renegotiation programs. The renegotiated TDR portfolio is excluded from Table 39 as substantially all of these loans remain on accrual status until either charged off or paid in full. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, our renegotiated TDR portfolio was $6.2 billion and $7.1 billion, of which $4.8 billion and $5.5 billion was current or less than 30 days past due under the modified terms. The decline in the renegotiated TDR portfolio was primarily driven by attrition in the first quarter of 2012 as well as lower new program enrollments. For more information on the renegotiated TDR portfolio, see Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Table 40 presents TDRs for the home loans portfolio. Performing TDR balances are excluded from nonperforming loans in Table 39.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 40 |
Home Loans Troubled Debt Restructurings |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Total | | Nonperforming | | Performing | | Total | | Nonperforming | | Performing |
Residential mortgage (1, 2) | $ | 19,673 |
| | $ | 5,175 |
| | $ | 14,498 |
| | $ | 19,287 |
| | $ | 5,034 |
| | $ | 14,253 |
|
Home equity (3) | 1,728 |
| | 667 |
| | 1,061 |
| | 1,776 |
| | 543 |
| | 1,233 |
|
Discontinued real estate (4) | 376 |
| | 205 |
| | 171 |
| | 399 |
| | 214 |
| | 185 |
|
Total home loans troubled debt restructurings | $ | 21,777 |
| | $ | 6,047 |
| | $ | 15,730 |
| | $ | 21,462 |
| | $ | 5,791 |
| | $ | 15,671 |
|
| |
(1) | Residential mortgage TDRs deemed collateral dependent totaled $5.7 billion and $5.3 billion, and included $2.5 billion and $2.2 billion of loans classified as nonperforming and $3.2 billion and $3.1 billion of loans classified as performing at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(2) | Residential mortgage performing TDRs included $7.3 billion and $7.0 billion of loans that were fully-insured at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(3) | Home equity TDRs deemed collateral dependent totaled $811 million and $824 million, and included $321 million and $282 million of loans classified as nonperforming and $490 million and $542 million of loans classified as performing at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(4) | Discontinued real estate TDRs deemed collateral dependent totaled $223 million and $230 million, and included $118 million and $118 million of loans classified as nonperforming and $105 million and $112 million as performing at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
|
|
Commercial Portfolio Credit Risk Management |
Commercial credit risk is evaluated and managed with the goal that concentrations of credit exposure do not result in undesirable levels of risk. We review, measure and manage concentrations of credit exposure by industry, product, geography, customer relationship and loan size. We also review, measure and manage commercial real estate loans by geographic location and property type. In addition, within our international portfolio, we evaluate exposures by region and by country. Tables 45, 50, 54 and 55 summarize our concentrations. We also utilize syndications of exposure to third parties, loan sales, hedging and other risk mitigation techniques to manage the size and risk profile of the commercial credit portfolio.
For information on our accounting policies regarding delinquencies, nonperforming status and net charge-offs for the commercial portfolio, see Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Principles to the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Corporation's 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K.
|
|
Commercial Credit Portfolio |
Table 41 presents our commercial loans and leases, and related credit quality information at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 41 |
Commercial Loans and Leases |
| Outstandings | | Nonperforming | | Accruing Past Due 90
Days or More |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
U.S. commercial | $ | 180,728 |
| | $ | 179,948 |
| | $ | 2,048 |
| | $ | 2,174 |
| | $ | 59 |
| | $ | 75 |
|
Commercial real estate (1) | 38,049 |
| | 39,596 |
| | 3,404 |
| | 3,880 |
| | 8 |
| | 7 |
|
Commercial lease financing | 21,556 |
| | 21,989 |
| | 38 |
| | 26 |
| | 28 |
| | 14 |
|
Non-U.S. commercial | 52,601 |
| | 55,418 |
| | 140 |
| | 143 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
| 292,934 |
| | 296,951 |
| | 5,630 |
| | 6,223 |
| | 95 |
| | 96 |
|
U.S. small business commercial (2) | 12,956 |
| | 13,251 |
| | 121 |
| | 114 |
| | 190 |
| | 216 |
|
Commercial loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option | 305,890 |
| | 310,202 |
| | 5,751 |
| | 6,337 |
| | 285 |
| | 312 |
|
Loans accounted for under the fair value option (3) | 6,988 |
| | 6,614 |
| | 80 |
| | 73 |
| | — |
| | — |
|
Total commercial loans and leases | $ | 312,878 |
| | $ | 316,816 |
| | $ | 5,831 |
| | $ | 6,410 |
| | $ | 285 |
| | $ | 312 |
|
| |
(1) | Includes U.S. commercial real estate loans of $36.3 billion and $37.8 billion and non-U.S. commercial real estate loans of $1.7 billion and $1.8 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(2) | Includes card-related products. |
| |
(3) | Commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option include U.S. commercial loans of $2.2 billion at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 and non-U.S. commercial loans of $4.8 billion and $4.4 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. See Note 16 – Fair Value Option to the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information on the fair value option. |
Outstanding commercial loans and leases decreased $3.9 billion ($4.3 billion excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option) at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. Non-U.S. commercial loans decreased from December 31, 2011 primarily due to a reduction in corporate loans, as well as trade finance exposures. Commercial real estate loans decreased as net paydowns outpaced new originations and renewals. U.S. commercial loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, increased due to higher utilization in Global Banking, partially offset by declines across most other businesses.
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, credit quality in the commercial loan portfolio showed improvement relative to prior quarters. Reservable criticized balances and nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed property balances in the commercial credit portfolio declined during the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011. The reductions in reservable criticized and nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed property were primarily in the commercial real estate and U.S. commercial portfolios. Commercial real estate continued to show improvement in both the residential and non-residential portfolios, however, levels of stressed commercial real estate loans remained elevated. The reduction in reservable criticized U.S. commercial loans was driven by broad-based improvements in terms of clients, industries and businesses. Most other credit indicators across the remaining commercial portfolios also improved.
Nonperforming commercial loans and leases as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans and leases were 1.86 percent and 2.02 percent (1.88 percent and 2.04 percent excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option) at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Accruing commercial loans and leases past due 90 days or more as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans and leases were 0.09 percent and 0.10 percent at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
Table 42 presents net charge-offs and related ratios for our commercial loans and leases for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. Improving portfolio trends drove lower charge-offs across most of the portfolio. Commercial real estate net charge-offs declined during the three months ended March 31, 2012 in both the residential and non-residential portfolios. U.S. small business commercial net charge-offs declined primarily due to improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies. U.S. commercial net charge-offs increased due to lower recoveries during the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 42 |
Commercial Net Charge-offs and Related Ratios |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Net Charge-offs | | Net Charge-off Ratios (1) |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 | | 2012 | | 2011 |
U.S. commercial | $ | 66 |
| | $ | (21 | ) | | 0.15 | % | | (0.05 | )% |
Commercial real estate | 132 |
| | 288 |
| | 1.36 |
| | 2.42 |
|
Commercial lease financing | (9 | ) | | 1 |
| | (0.16 | ) | | 0.02 |
|
Non-U.S. commercial | (5 | ) | | 103 |
| | (0.04 | ) | | 1.22 |
|
| 184 |
| | 371 |
| | 0.25 |
| | 0.54 |
|
U.S. small business commercial | 185 |
| | 312 |
| | 5.63 |
| | 8.68 |
|
Total commercial | $ | 369 |
| | $ | 683 |
| | 0.48 |
| | 0.94 |
|
| |
(1) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans and leases excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
Table 43 presents commercial credit exposure by type for utilized, unfunded and total binding committed credit exposure. Commercial utilized credit exposure includes standby letters of credit (SBLCs), financial guarantees, bankers’ acceptances and commercial letters of credit for which we are legally bound to advance funds under prescribed conditions, during a specified period. Although funds have not yet been advanced, these exposure types are considered utilized for credit risk management purposes. Total commercial committed credit exposure decreased $19.8 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 driven primarily by decreases in derivative assets, loans and leases, SBLCs and debt securities.
Total commercial utilized credit exposure decreased $22.3 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 driven primarily by decreases in derivatives, loans and leases, and debt securities. The decrease in derivatives relates primarily to a lower valuation of existing trades due to interest rate increases. The utilization rate for loans and leases, SBLCs and financial guarantees, and bankers’ acceptances was 57 percent at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 43 |
Commercial Credit Exposure by Type |
| Commercial Utilized (1) | | Commercial Unfunded (2, 3) | | Total Commercial Committed |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Loans and leases | $ | 312,878 |
| | $ | 316,816 |
| | $ | 276,963 |
| | $ | 276,195 |
| | $ | 589,841 |
| | $ | 593,011 |
|
Derivative assets (4) | 59,051 |
| | 73,023 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 59,051 |
| | 73,023 |
|
Standby letters of credit and financial guarantees | 53,633 |
| | 55,384 |
| | 1,851 |
| | 1,592 |
| | 55,484 |
| | 56,976 |
|
Debt securities and other investments | 8,400 |
| | 11,108 |
| | 6,717 |
| | 5,147 |
| | 15,117 |
| | 16,255 |
|
Loans held-for-sale | 5,712 |
| | 5,006 |
| | 124 |
| | 229 |
| | 5,836 |
| | 5,235 |
|
Commercial letters of credit | 2,449 |
| | 2,411 |
| | 787 |
| | 832 |
| | 3,236 |
| | 3,243 |
|
Bankers’ acceptances | 281 |
| | 797 |
| | 34 |
| | 28 |
| | 315 |
| | 825 |
|
Foreclosed properties and other (5) | 1,824 |
| | 1,964 |
| | — |
| | — |
| | 1,824 |
| | 1,964 |
|
Total | $ | 444,228 |
| | $ | 466,509 |
| | $ | 286,476 |
| | $ | 284,023 |
| | $ | 730,704 |
| | $ | 750,532 |
|
| |
(1) | Total commercial utilized exposure at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 includes loans outstanding of $7.0 billion and $6.6 billion and letters of credit with a notional value of $1.0 billion and $1.3 billion accounted for under the fair value option. |
| |
(2) | Total commercial unfunded exposure at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 includes loan commitments with a notional value of $23.0 billion and $24.4 billion accounted for under the fair value option. |
| |
(3) | Excludes unused business card lines which are not legally binding. |
| |
(4) | Derivative assets are carried at fair value, reflect the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements and have been reduced by cash collateral of $60.6 billion and $58.9 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. Not reflected in utilized and committed exposure is additional derivative collateral held of $16.7 billion and $16.1 billion which consists primarily of other marketable securities. |
| |
(5) | Includes $1.3 billion of net monoline exposure at both March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, as discussed in Monoline and Related Exposure on page 93. |
Table 44 presents commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure by product type. Criticized exposure corresponds to the Special Mention, Substandard and Doubtful asset categories as defined by regulatory authorities. Total commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure decreased $2.8 billion, or 10 percent, compared to December 31, 2011, primarily in commercial real estate and U.S. commercial property types driven largely by continued paydowns and ratings upgrades outpacing downgrades. Despite the improvements, utilized reservable criticized levels remain elevated, particularly in the commercial real estate and U.S. small business commercial portfolios. At March 31, 2012, approximately 86 percent of commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure was secured compared to 85 percent at December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 44 |
Commercial Utilized Reservable Criticized Exposure |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Amount (1) | | Percent (2) | | Amount (1) | | Percent (2) |
U.S. commercial | $ | 10,851 |
| | 4.78 | % | | $ | 11,731 |
| | 5.16 | % |
Commercial real estate | 9,656 |
| | 23.67 |
| | 11,525 |
| | 27.13 |
|
Commercial lease financing | 1,185 |
| | 5.50 |
| | 1,140 |
| | 5.18 |
|
Non-U.S. commercial | 1,580 |
| | 2.68 |
| | 1,524 |
| | 2.44 |
|
| 23,272 |
| | 6.68 |
| | 25,920 |
| | 7.32 |
|
U.S. small business commercial | 1,185 |
| | 9.14 |
| | 1,327 |
| | 10.01 |
|
Total commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure | $ | 24,457 |
| | 6.77 |
| | $ | 27,247 |
| | 7.41 |
|
| |
(1) | Total commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 includes loans and leases of $22.7 billion and $25.3 billion and commercial letters of credit of $1.7 billion and $1.9 billion. |
| |
(2) | Percentages are calculated as commercial utilized reservable criticized exposure divided by total commercial utilized reservable exposure for each exposure category. |
U.S. Commercial
At March 31, 2012, 71 percent of the U.S. commercial loan portfolio, excluding small business, was managed in Global Banking, 11 percent in CBB, 10 percent in GWIM (business-purpose loans for wealthy clients) and the remainder primarily in Global Markets. U.S. commercial loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, increased $780 million due to higher utilization in Global Banking. Most other lines of business experienced declines due to paydowns outpacing new originations and renewals. Reservable criticized balances and nonperforming loans and leases declined $880 million and $126 million compared to December 31, 2011. The declines were broad-based in terms of clients and industries and were driven by improved client credit profiles and liquidity. Net charge-offs increased $87 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 due to lower recoveries.
Commercial Real Estate
The commercial real estate portfolio is predominantly managed in Global Banking and consists of loans made primarily to public and private developers, homebuilders and commercial real estate firms. Outstanding loans decreased $1.5 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 due to paydowns outpacing new originations and renewals.
The portfolio remained diversified across property types and geographic regions. California represented the largest state concentration at 21 percent and 20 percent of commercial real estate loans and leases at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. For more information on geographic and property concentrations, see Table 45.
Credit quality for commercial real estate continued to show signs of improvement; however, we expect that elevated unemployment and ongoing pressure on vacancy and rental rates will continue to affect primarily the non-residential portfolio. Nonperforming commercial real estate loans and foreclosed properties decreased 13 percent compared to December 31, 2011, primarily in the non-residential portfolio. Reservable criticized balances decreased $1.9 billion primarily due to declines in the non-residential portfolio. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, net charge-offs decreased $156 million compared to the same period in 2011 due to improvement in both the residential and non-residential portfolios.
Table 45 presents outstanding commercial real estate loans by geographic region, based on the geographic location of the collateral, and by property type. Commercial real estate primarily includes commercial loans and leases secured by non-owner-occupied real estate which is dependent on the sale or lease of the real estate as the primary source of repayment.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 45 |
Outstanding Commercial Real Estate Loans |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
By Geographic Region | | | |
California | $ | 7,830 |
| | $ | 7,957 |
|
Northeast | 6,510 |
| | 6,554 |
|
Southwest | 5,152 |
| | 5,243 |
|
Southeast | 4,560 |
| | 4,844 |
|
Midwest | 3,802 |
| | 4,051 |
|
Florida | 2,336 |
| | 2,502 |
|
Midsouth | 1,790 |
| | 1,751 |
|
Illinois | 1,690 |
| | 1,871 |
|
Northwest | 1,600 |
| | 1,574 |
|
Non-U.S. | 1,688 |
| | 1,824 |
|
Other (1) | 1,091 |
| | 1,425 |
|
Total outstanding commercial real estate loans | $ | 38,049 |
| | $ | 39,596 |
|
By Property Type | | | |
Non-residential | | | |
Office | $ | 7,366 |
| | $ | 7,571 |
|
Multi-family rental | 5,806 |
| | 6,105 |
|
Shopping centers/retail | 5,521 |
| | 5,985 |
|
Industrial/warehouse | 3,879 |
| | 3,988 |
|
Multi-use | 2,938 |
| | 3,218 |
|
Hotels/motels | 2,796 |
| | 2,653 |
|
Land and land development | 1,486 |
| | 1,599 |
|
Other | 6,048 |
| | 6,050 |
|
Total non-residential | 35,840 |
| | 37,169 |
|
Residential | 2,209 |
| | 2,427 |
|
Total outstanding commercial real estate loans | $ | 38,049 |
| | $ | 39,596 |
|
| |
(1) | Other states primarily represents properties in Colorado, Utah, Hawaii, Wyoming and Montana. |
For the three months ended March 31, 2012, we continued to see improvements in both the residential and non-residential portfolios, however, certain portions of the non-residential portfolio remain at risk as occupancy rates, rental rates and commercial property prices remain under pressure. We use a number of proactive risk mitigation initiatives to reduce utilized and potential exposure in the commercial real estate portfolios including refinement of our credit standards, additional transfers of deteriorating exposures to management by independent special asset officers and the pursuit of alternative resolution methods to achieve the best results for our customers and the Corporation.
Tables 46 and 47 present commercial real estate credit quality data by non-residential and residential property types. The residential portfolio presented in Tables 45, 46 and 47 includes condominiums and other residential real estate. Other property types in Tables 45, 46 and 47 primarily include special purpose, nursing/retirement homes, medical facilities and restaurants, as well as unsecured loans to borrowers whose primary business is commercial real estate.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 46 |
Commercial Real Estate Credit Quality Data |
| Nonperforming Loans and Foreclosed Properties (1) | | Utilized Reservable Criticized Exposure (2) |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Non-residential | | | | | | | |
Office | $ | 642 |
| | $ | 807 |
| | $ | 2,048 |
| | $ | 2,375 |
|
Multi-family rental | 286 |
| | 339 |
| | 1,233 |
| | 1,604 |
|
Shopping centers/retail | 518 |
| | 561 |
| | 1,234 |
| | 1,378 |
|
Industrial/warehouse | 446 |
| | 521 |
| | 1,074 |
| | 1,317 |
|
Multi-use | 322 |
| | 345 |
| | 871 |
| | 971 |
|
Hotels/motels | 159 |
| | 173 |
| | 561 |
| | 716 |
|
Land and land development | 471 |
| | 530 |
| | 629 |
| | 749 |
|
Other | 195 |
| | 223 |
| | 777 |
| | 997 |
|
Total non-residential | 3,039 |
| | 3,499 |
| | 8,427 |
| | 10,107 |
|
Residential | 875 |
| | 993 |
| | 1,229 |
| | 1,418 |
|
Total commercial real estate | $ | 3,914 |
| | $ | 4,492 |
| | $ | 9,656 |
| | $ | 11,525 |
|
| |
(1) | Includes commercial foreclosed properties of $510 million and $612 million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. |
| |
(2) | Includes loans, SBLCs and bankers’ acceptances and excludes loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 47 |
Commercial Real Estate Net Charge-offs and Related Ratios |
| Three Months Ended March 31 |
| Net Charge-offs | | Net Charge-off Ratios (1) |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | 2011 | | 2012 | 2011 |
Non-residential | | | | | |
Office | $ | 60 |
| $ | 34 |
| | 3.23 | % | 1.50 | % |
Multi-family rental | 4 |
| 9 |
| | 0.28 |
| 0.48 |
|
Shopping centers/retail | 8 |
| 89 |
| | 0.56 |
| 4.84 |
|
Industrial/warehouse | 15 |
| 21 |
| | 1.56 |
| 1.69 |
|
Multi-use | 10 |
| 9 |
| | 1.37 |
| 0.91 |
|
Hotels/motels | 1 |
| 8 |
| | 0.15 |
| 1.24 |
|
Land and land development | 6 |
| 50 |
| | 1.47 |
| 8.82 |
|
Other | 8 |
| — |
| | 0.48 |
| — |
|
Total non-residential | 112 |
| 220 |
| | 1.22 |
| 2.01 |
|
Residential | 20 |
| 68 |
| | 3.52 |
| 6.94 |
|
Total commercial real estate | $ | 132 |
| $ | 288 |
| | 1.36 |
| 2.42 |
|
| |
(1) | Net charge-off ratios are calculated as annualized net charge-offs divided by average outstanding loans excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
At March 31, 2012, total committed non-residential exposure was $52.9 billion compared to $53.1 billion at December 31, 2011, of which $35.9 billion and $37.2 billion were funded secured loans. Non-residential nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties were $3.0 billion and $3.5 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, which represented 8.39 percent and 9.29 percent of total non-residential loans and foreclosed properties. The decline in nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties in the non-residential portfolio was driven by decreases in the office, industrial/warehouse, and land and land development property types. Non-residential utilized reservable criticized exposure decreased to $8.4 billion, or 21.93 percent of non-residential utilized reservable exposure, at March 31, 2012 compared to $10.1 billion, or 25.34 percent, at December 31, 2011. The decrease in reservable criticized exposure was driven primarily by multi-family rental, office and industrial/warehouse property types. For the non-residential portfolio, net charge-offs
decreased $108 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011, due primarily to improving appraisal values and improved borrower credit profiles.
At March 31, 2012, we had committed residential exposure of $3.5 billion compared to $3.9 billion at December 31, 2011, of which $2.2 billion and $2.4 billion were funded secured loans. The decline in residential committed exposure was due to repayments, net charge-offs, reductions in new home construction and continued risk mitigation initiatives with market conditions providing fewer origination opportunities to offset the reductions. At March 31, 2012, residential nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties decreased $118 million compared to December 31, 2011 due to repayments, a decline in the volume of loans being downgraded to nonaccrual status and net charge-offs. Residential utilized reservable criticized exposure decreased $189 million to $1.2 billion due to repayments and net charge-offs. The nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties and the utilized reservable criticized ratios for the residential portfolio were 37.33 percent and 52.06 percent at March 31, 2012 compared to 38.89 percent and 54.65 percent at December 31, 2011. Net charge-offs for the residential portfolio decreased $48 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the commercial real estate loan portfolio included $9.9 billion and $10.9 billion of funded construction and land development loans that were originated to fund the construction and/or rehabilitation of commercial properties. The decline in construction and land development loans was driven by repayments, net charge-offs and continued risk mitigation initiatives which outpaced new originations. This portfolio is mostly secured and diversified across property types and geographic regions but faces continuing challenges in the housing and rental markets. Weak rental demand and cash flows, along with depressed property valuations of land, have contributed to elevated levels of reservable criticized exposure, nonperforming loans and foreclosed properties, and net charge-offs. Reservable criticized construction and land development loans totaled $4.1 billion and $4.9 billion, and nonperforming construction and land development loans and foreclosed properties totaled $1.7 billion and $2.1 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. During a property’s construction phase, interest income is typically paid from interest reserves that are established at the inception of the loan. As construction is completed and the property is put into service, these interest reserves are depleted and interest payments from operating cash flows begin. Loans generally continue to be classified as construction loans until they are refinanced. We do not recognize interest income on nonperforming loans regardless of the existence of an interest reserve.
Non-U.S. Commercial
The non-U.S. commercial loan portfolio is managed primarily in Global Banking. Outstanding loans, excluding loans accounted for under the fair value option, decreased $2.8 billion from December 31, 2011 primarily due to a reduction in corporate loans, as well as trade finance exposures. Net charge-offs decreased $108 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to 2011. For additional information on the non-U.S. commercial portfolio, see Non-U.S. Portfolio on page 96.
U.S. Small Business Commercial
The U.S. small business commercial loan portfolio is comprised of small business card and small business loans managed in CBB. U.S. small business commercial net charge-offs decreased $127 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011 driven by improvements in delinquencies, collections and bankruptcies resulting from an improved economic environment as well as the reduction of higher risk vintages and the impact of higher credit quality originations. Of the U.S. small business commercial net charge-offs, 66 percent were credit card-related products for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to 75 percent for the same period in 2011.
Commercial Loans Accounted for Under the Fair Value Option
The portfolio of commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option is managed primarily in Global Banking. Outstanding commercial loans accounted for under the fair value option increased $374 million to an aggregate fair value of $7.0 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to December 31, 2011 due primarily to increased corporate borrowings under bank credit facilities. We recorded net gains of $128 million and $95 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 resulting from changes in the fair value of the loan portfolio. These amounts were primarily attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit risk, were recorded in other income and do not reflect the results of hedging activities.
In addition, unfunded lending commitments and letters of credit accounted for under the fair value option had an aggregate fair value of $844 million and $1.2 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 which was recorded in accrued expenses and other liabilities. The associated aggregate notional amount of unfunded lending commitments and letters of credit accounted for under the fair value option was $24.0 billion and $25.7 billion at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, we recorded net gains of $404 million and $132 million from changes in the fair value of commitments and letters of credit. These amounts were primarily attributable to changes in instrument-specific credit risk, were recorded in other income and do not reflect the results of hedging activities.
Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity
Table 48 presents the nonperforming commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties activity during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. Nonperforming commercial loans and leases decreased $586 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 to $5.8 billion compared to $6.3 billion at December 31, 2011 driven by paydowns, charge-offs, returns to performing status and sales outpacing new nonperforming loans. Approximately 95 percent of commercial nonperforming loans, leases and foreclosed properties are secured and approximately 50 percent are contractually current. Commercial nonperforming loans are carried at approximately 67 percent of their unpaid principal balance before consideration of the allowance for loan and lease losses as the carrying value of these loans has been reduced to the estimated property value less estimated costs to sell.
|
| | | | | | | |
Table 48 |
Nonperforming Commercial Loans, Leases and Foreclosed Properties Activity (1, 2) |
| Three Months Ended
March 31 |
(Dollars in millions) | 2012 | | 2011 |
Nonperforming loans and leases, January 1 | $ | 6,337 |
| | $ | 9,836 |
|
Additions to nonperforming loans and leases: | | | |
New nonaccrual loans and leases | 599 |
| | 1,299 |
|
Advances | 24 |
| | 67 |
|
Reductions in nonperforming loans and leases: | | | |
Paydowns and payoffs | (573 | ) | | (764 | ) |
Sales | (137 | ) | | (247 | ) |
Returns to performing status (3) | (145 | ) | | (320 | ) |
Charge-offs (4) | (291 | ) | | (488 | ) |
Transfers to foreclosed properties | (63 | ) | | (200 | ) |
Transfers to loans held-for-sale | — |
| | (52 | ) |
Total net reductions to nonperforming loans and leases | (586 | ) | | (705 | ) |
Total nonperforming loans and leases, March 31 | 5,751 |
| | 9,131 |
|
Foreclosed properties, January 1 | 612 |
| | 725 |
|
Additions to foreclosed properties: | | | |
New foreclosed properties | 44 |
| | 131 |
|
Reductions in foreclosed properties: | | | |
Sales | (123 | ) | | (120 | ) |
Write-downs | (23 | ) | | (11 | ) |
Total net reductions to foreclosed properties | (102 | ) | | — |
|
Total foreclosed properties, March 31 | 510 |
| | 725 |
|
Nonperforming commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties, March 31 | $ | 6,261 |
| | $ | 9,856 |
|
Nonperforming commercial loans and leases as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans and leases (5) | 1.88 | % | | 3.11 | % |
Nonperforming commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties as a percentage of outstanding commercial loans, leases and foreclosed properties (5) | 2.04 |
| | 3.34 |
|
| |
(1) | Balances do not include nonperforming LHFS of $847 million and $1.5 billion at March 31, 2012 and 2011. |
| |
(2) | Includes U.S. small business commercial activity. |
| |
(3) | Commercial loans and leases may be returned to performing status when all principal and interest is current and full repayment of the remaining contractual principal and interest is expected or when the loan otherwise becomes well-secured and is in the process of collection. TDRs are generally classified as performing after a sustained period of demonstrated payment performance. |
| |
(4) | Small business card loans are not classified as nonperforming; therefore, the charge-offs on these loans have no impact on nonperforming activity and accordingly are excluded from this table. |
| |
(5) | Excludes loans accounted for under the fair value option. |
Table 49 presents our commercial TDRs by product type and performing status. U.S. small business commercial TDRs are comprised of renegotiated small business card loans and are not classified as nonperforming as they are charged off no later than the end of the month in which the loan becomes 180 days past due. For additional information on TDRs, see Note 5 – Outstanding Loans and Leases to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 49 |
Commercial Troubled Debt Restructurings |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Total | | Non-performing | | Performing | | Total | | Non-performing | | Performing |
U.S. commercial | $ | 1,500 |
| | $ | 585 |
| | $ | 915 |
| | $ | 1,329 |
| | $ | 531 |
| | $ | 798 |
|
Commercial real estate | 1,621 |
| | 1,049 |
| | 572 |
| | 1,675 |
| | 1,076 |
| | 599 |
|
Non-U.S. commercial | 51 |
| | 35 |
| | 16 |
| | 54 |
| | 38 |
| | 16 |
|
U.S. small business commercial | 336 |
| | — |
| | 336 |
| | 389 |
| | — |
| | 389 |
|
Total commercial troubled debt restructurings | $ | 3,508 |
| | $ | 1,669 |
| | $ | 1,839 |
| | $ | 3,447 |
| | $ | 1,645 |
| | $ | 1,802 |
|
Table 50 presents commercial committed and utilized credit exposure by industry and the total net credit default protection purchased to cover the funded and unfunded portions of certain credit exposures. Our commercial credit exposure is diversified across a broad range of industries. The decrease in commercial committed exposure of $19.8 billion from December 31, 2011 to March 31, 2012 was concentrated in diversified financials and banks, partially offset by an increase in the capital goods industry category.
Industry limits are used internally to manage industry concentrations and are based on committed exposures and capital usage that are allocated on an industry-by-industry basis. A risk management framework is in place to set and approve industry limits as well as to provide ongoing monitoring. Management’s Credit Risk Committee (CRC) oversees industry limit governance.
Diversified financials, our largest industry concentration, experienced a decline in committed exposure of $7.8 billion, or eight percent, primarily driven by decreases in derivative exposure throughout the quarter.
Real estate, our second largest industry concentration, experienced a decline in committed exposure of $1.8 billion, or three percent, compared to December 31, 2011 primarily due to paydowns and sales outpacing new originations and renewals. Real estate construction and land development exposure represented 19 percent of the total real estate industry committed exposure at March 31, 2012, down from 20 percent at December 31, 2011. For more information on the commercial real estate and related portfolios, see Commercial Real Estate on page 87.
Committed exposure in the banking industry decreased $4.3 billion, or 11 percent, compared to December 31, 2011 primarily due to decreases in trade finance and derivative exposure.
Committed exposure in government and public education decreased $1.9 billion, or three percent, compared to December 31, 2011 primarily due to decreases in derivatives and loan exposure. Capital goods committed exposure increased $1.7 billion, or four percent, compared to December 31, 2011 primarily due to a bridge loan to finance an acquisition.
Our committed state and municipal exposure of $44.0 billion at March 31, 2012 consisted of $33.2 billion of commercial utilized exposure (including $17.8 billion of funded loans, $11.3 billion of SBLCs and $3.8 billion of derivative assets) and unfunded commercial exposure of $10.8 billion (primarily unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit) and is reported in the government and public education industry in Table 50. Economic conditions continue to impact debt issued by state and local municipalities and certain exposures to these municipalities. While historical default rates have been low, as part of our overall and ongoing risk management processes, we continually monitor these exposures through a rigorous review process. Additionally, internal communications surrounding certain at-risk counterparties and/or sectors are regularly circulated ensuring exposure levels are in compliance with established concentration guidelines.
Monoline and Related Exposure
Monoline exposure is reported in the insurance industry and managed under insurance portfolio industry limits. We have indirect exposure to monolines primarily in the form of guarantees supporting our loans, investment portfolios, securitizations and credit-enhanced securities as part of our public finance business and other selected products. Such indirect exposure exists when we purchase credit protection from monolines to hedge all or a portion of the credit risk on certain credit exposures including loans and CDOs. We underwrite our public finance exposure by evaluating the underlying securities.
We also have indirect exposure to monolines in the form of guarantees supporting our mortgage and other loan sales. Indirect exposure may exist when credit protection was purchased from monolines to hedge all or a portion of the credit risk on certain mortgage and other loan exposures. A loss may occur when we are required to repurchase a loan and the market value of the loan has declined, or we are required to indemnify or provide recourse for a guarantor’s loss. For additional information regarding our exposure to representations and warranties, see Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Contractual Obligations – Representations and Warranties on page 44 and Note 8 – Representations and Warranties Obligations and Corporate Guarantees to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
Monoline derivative credit exposure at March 31, 2012 had a notional value of $14.7 billion compared to $21.1 billion at December 31, 2011. Mark-to-market monoline derivative credit exposure was $1.5 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $1.8 billion at December 31, 2011 with the decrease driven by terminated monoline contracts. The counterparty credit valuation adjustment related to monoline derivative exposure was $248 million at March 31, 2012 compared to $417 million at December 31, 2011. This adjustment reduced our net mark-to-market exposure to $1.2 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $1.3 billion at December 31, 2011 and covered 17 percent of the mark-to-market exposure at March 31, 2012, down from 24 percent at December 31, 2011 primarily due to a significant tightening in credit spreads of our monoline counterparties during the quarter. Gains (losses) during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 were $104 million and $(407) million, resulting from changes in credit valuation adjustments and hedge results and the reclassification of certain net monoline exposure from derivative assets to other assets during 2011. We do not hold collateral against these derivative exposures.
We also have indirect exposure to monolines as we invest in securities where the issuers have purchased wraps. For example, municipalities and corporations purchase insurance in order to reduce their cost of borrowing. If the rating agencies downgrade the monolines, the credit rating of the bond may fall and may have an adverse impact on the market value of the security. In the case of default, we first look to the underlying securities and then to the purchased insurance for recovery. Investments in securities with purchased wraps issued by municipalities and corporations had a notional value of $74 million at March 31, 2012 compared to $150 million at December 31, 2011. The market value of the investment exposure was $20 million at March 31, 2012 compared to $89 million at December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 50 |
Commercial Credit Exposure by Industry (1) |
| Commercial Utilized | | Total Commercial Committed |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 | | March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Diversified financials | $ | 56,119 |
| | $ | 64,957 |
| | $ | 87,171 |
| | $ | 94,969 |
|
Real estate (2) | 45,779 |
| | 48,138 |
| | 60,770 |
| | 62,566 |
|
Government and public education | 41,981 |
| | 43,090 |
| | 55,126 |
| | 57,021 |
|
Capital goods | 23,127 |
| | 24,025 |
| | 49,730 |
| | 48,013 |
|
Healthcare equipment and services | 30,636 |
| | 31,298 |
| | 47,590 |
| | 48,141 |
|
Retailing | 25,663 |
| | 25,478 |
| | 45,088 |
| | 46,290 |
|
Materials | 19,875 |
| | 19,384 |
| | 37,863 |
| | 38,070 |
|
Consumer services | 24,111 |
| | 24,445 |
| | 37,799 |
| | 38,498 |
|
Banks | 30,562 |
| | 35,231 |
| | 34,433 |
| | 38,735 |
|
Energy | 15,569 |
| | 15,151 |
| | 32,476 |
| | 32,074 |
|
Food, beverage and tobacco | 14,817 |
| | 15,904 |
| | 29,296 |
| | 30,501 |
|
Commercial services and supplies | 18,431 |
| | 20,089 |
| | 29,290 |
| | 30,831 |
|
Utilities | 7,938 |
| | 8,102 |
| | 24,229 |
| | 24,552 |
|
Media | 11,037 |
| | 11,447 |
| | 21,091 |
| | 21,158 |
|
Transportation | 12,625 |
| | 12,683 |
| | 19,503 |
| | 19,036 |
|
Individuals and trusts | 14,483 |
| | 14,993 |
| | 18,239 |
| | 19,001 |
|
Insurance, including monolines | 8,998 |
| | 10,090 |
| | 15,344 |
| | 16,157 |
|
Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology | 4,463 |
| | 4,141 |
| | 11,678 |
| | 11,328 |
|
Technology hardware and equipment | 4,680 |
| | 5,247 |
| | 10,954 |
| | 12,173 |
|
Religious and social organizations | 7,989 |
| | 8,536 |
| | 10,868 |
| | 11,160 |
|
Software and services | 4,517 |
| | 4,304 |
| | 10,676 |
| | 9,579 |
|
Telecommunication services | 3,936 |
| | 4,297 |
| | 9,977 |
| | 10,424 |
|
Consumer durables and apparel | 4,370 |
| | 4,505 |
| | 8,726 |
| | 8,965 |
|
Automobiles and components | 2,951 |
| | 2,813 |
| | 7,363 |
| | 7,178 |
|
Food and staples retailing | 3,226 |
| | 3,273 |
| | 6,470 |
| | 6,476 |
|
Other | 6,345 |
| | 4,888 |
| | 8,954 |
| | 7,636 |
|
Total commercial credit exposure by industry | $ | 444,228 |
| | $ | 466,509 |
| | $ | 730,704 |
| | $ | 750,532 |
|
Net credit default protection purchased on total commitments (3) | | | | | $ | (19,880 | ) | | $ | (19,356 | ) |
| |
(1) | Includes U.S. small business commercial exposure. |
| |
(2) | Industries are viewed from a variety of perspectives to best isolate the perceived risks. For purposes of this table, the real estate industry is defined based on the borrowers’ or counterparties’ primary business activity using operating cash flows and primary source of repayment as key factors. |
| |
(3) | Represents net notional credit protection purchased. See Risk Mitigation below for additional information. |
We purchase credit protection to cover the funded portion as well as the unfunded portion of certain credit exposures. To lower the cost of obtaining our desired credit protection levels, credit exposure may be added within an industry, borrower or counterparty group by selling protection.
At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, net notional credit default protection purchased in our credit derivatives portfolio to hedge our funded and unfunded exposures for which we elected the fair value option, as well as certain other credit exposures, was $19.9 billion and $19.4 billion. The mark-to-market effects resulted in net losses of $493 million and $197 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011.
The average Value-at-Risk (VaR) for these credit derivative hedges was $67 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $57 million for the same period in 2011. The average VaR for the related credit exposure was $92 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $52 million for the same period in 2011. There is a diversification effect between the net credit default protection hedging our credit exposure and the related credit exposure such that the combined average VaR was $26 million for the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared to $38 million for the same period in 2011. See Trading Risk Management on page 105 for a description of our VaR calculation for the market-based trading portfolio.
Tables 51 and 52 present the maturity profiles and the credit exposure debt ratings of the net credit default protection portfolio at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The distribution of debt ratings for net notional credit default protection purchased is shown as a negative amount in Table 52 to reflect our decreased credit risk to these exposures.
|
| | | | | |
Table 51 |
Net Credit Default Protection by Maturity Profile |
| March 31
2012 | | December 31
2011 |
Less than or equal to one year | 16 | % | | 16 | % |
Greater than one year and less than or equal to five years | 78 |
| | 77 |
|
Greater than five years | 6 |
| | 7 |
|
Total net credit default protection | 100 | % | | 100 | % |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 52 |
Net Credit Default Protection by Credit Exposure Debt Rating |
(Dollars in millions) | March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
Ratings (1, 2) | Net Notional | | Percent of Total | | Net Notional | | Percent of Total |
AAA | $ | (201 | ) | | 1.0 | % | | $ | (32 | ) | | 0.2 | % |
AA | (583 | ) | | 2.9 |
| | (779 | ) | | 4.0 |
|
A | (8,667 | ) | | 43.6 |
| | (7,184 | ) | | 37.1 |
|
BBB | (7,387 | ) | | 37.2 |
| | (7,436 | ) | | 38.4 |
|
BB | (965 | ) | | 4.9 |
| | (1,527 | ) | | 7.9 |
|
B | (1,386 | ) | | 7.0 |
| | (1,534 | ) | | 7.9 |
|
CCC and below | (543 | ) | | 2.7 |
| | (661 | ) | | 3.4 |
|
NR (3) | (148 | ) | | 0.7 |
| | (203 | ) | | 1.1 |
|
Total net credit default protection | $ | (19,880 | ) | | 100.0 | % | | $ | (19,356 | ) | | 100.0 | % |
| |
(1) | Ratings are refreshed on a quarterly basis. |
| |
(2) | Ratings of BBB- or higher are considered to meet the definition of investment-grade. |
| |
(3) | In addition to names that have not been rated, “NR” includes $9 million and $(15) million in net credit default swap index positions at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. While index positions are principally investment grade, credit default swap indices include names in and across each of the ratings categories. |
In addition to our net notional credit default protection purchased to cover the funded and unfunded portion of certain credit exposures, credit derivatives are used for market-making activities for clients and establishing positions intended to profit from directional or relative value changes. We execute the majority of our credit derivative trades in the OTC market with large, multinational financial institutions, including broker/dealers and, to a lesser degree, with a variety of other investors. Because these transactions are executed in the OTC market, we are subject to settlement risk. We are also subject to credit risk in the event that these counterparties fail to perform under the terms of these contracts. In most cases, credit derivative transactions are executed on a daily margin basis. Therefore, events such as a credit downgrade, depending on the ultimate rating level, or a breach of credit covenants would typically require an increase in the amount of collateral required of the counterparty, where applicable, and/or allow us to take additional protective measures such as early termination of all trades.
Table 53 presents the total contract/notional amount of credit derivatives outstanding and includes both purchased and written credit derivatives. The credit risk amounts are measured as net asset exposure by counterparty, taking into consideration all contracts and collateral with that counterparty. For information on our written credit derivatives, see Note 3 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
The credit risk amounts discussed above and presented in Table 53 take into consideration the effects of legally enforceable master netting agreements while amounts disclosed in Note 3 – Derivatives to the Consolidated Financial Statements are shown on a gross basis. Credit risk reflects the potential benefit from offsetting exposure to non-credit derivative products with the same counterparties that may be netted upon the occurrence of certain events, thereby reducing our overall exposure.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 53 |
Credit Derivatives |
| March 31, 2012 | | December 31, 2011 |
(Dollars in millions) | Contract/ Notional | | Credit Risk | | Contract/ Notional | | Credit Risk |
Purchased credit derivatives: | | | | | | | |
Credit default swaps | $ | 1,747,653 |
| | $ | 10,946 |
| | $ | 1,944,764 |
| | $ | 14,163 |
|
Total return swaps/other | 22,205 |
| | 715 |
| | 17,519 |
| | 776 |
|
Total purchased credit derivatives | 1,769,858 |
| | 11,661 |
| | 1,962,283 |
| | 14,939 |
|
Written credit derivatives: | | | |
| | | | |
Credit default swaps | 1,685,373 |
| | n/a |
| | 1,885,944 |
| | n/a |
|
Total return swaps/other | 39,076 |
| | n/a |
| | 17,838 |
| | n/a |
|
Total written credit derivatives | 1,724,449 |
| | n/a |
| | 1,903,782 |
| | n/a |
|
Total credit derivatives | $ | 3,494,307 |
| | $ | 11,661 |
| | $ | 3,866,065 |
| | $ | 14,939 |
|
n/a = not applicable
|
|
Counterparty Credit Risk Valuation Adjustments |
We record a counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment on certain derivative assets, including our credit default protection purchased, in order to properly reflect the credit quality of the counterparty. These adjustments are necessary as the market quotes on derivatives do not fully reflect the credit risk of the counterparties to the derivative assets. We consider collateral and legally enforceable master netting agreements that mitigate our credit exposure to each counterparty in determining the counterparty credit risk valuation adjustment. All or a portion of these counterparty credit risk valuation adjustments are subsequently adjusted due to changes in the value of the derivative contract, collateral and creditworthiness of the counterparty.
During the three months ended March 31, 2012, credit valuation gains (losses) of $513 million ($149 million, net of hedges) compared to $148 million ($(466) million, net of hedges) for the same period in 2011 were recognized in trading account profits for counterparty credit risk related to derivative assets. For information on our monoline counterparty credit risk, see Monoline and Related Exposure on page 93.
Our non-U.S. credit and trading portfolios are subject to country risk. We define country risk as the risk of loss from unfavorable economic and political conditions, currency fluctuations, social instability and changes in government policies. A risk management framework is in place to measure, monitor and manage non-U.S. risk and exposures. Management oversight of country risk, including cross-border risk, is provided by the Regional Risk Committee, a subcommittee of the CRC.
Non-U.S. exposure includes credit exposure, securities and other investments issued by or domiciled in countries other than the U.S. Total non-U.S. exposure can be adjusted for externally guaranteed loans outstanding and certain collateral types. Exposures which are subject to external guarantees are reported under the country of the guarantor. Exposures with tangible collateral are reflected in the country where the collateral is held. For securities received, other than cross-border resale agreements, outstandings are assigned to the domicile of the issuer of the securities. Resale agreements are generally presented based on the domicile of the counterparty.
As presented in Table 54, non-U.S. exposure to borrowers or counterparties in emerging markets decreased $636 million to $58.8 billion at March 31, 2012 compared to $59.5 billion at December 31, 2011 primarily due to a decrease in Latin America, partially offset by an increase in Middle East and Africa, and Central and Eastern Europe. Non-U.S. exposure to borrowers or counterparties in emerging markets represented 32 percent and 31 percent of total non-U.S. exposure at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Table 54 |
Selected Emerging Markets (1) |
(Dollars in millions) | Loans and
Leases, and
Loan Commitments | | Other Financing (2) | | Net Counterparty Exposure (3) | | Securities/
Other Investments (4) | | Total Cross-
border Exposure (5) | | Local Country
Exposure Net
of Local Liabilities (6) | | Total Selected
Emerging
Market
Exposure at
March 31, 2012 | | Increase
(Decrease)
from
December 31, 2011 |
Region/Country | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Asia Pacific | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
India | $ | 4,090 |
| | $ | 1,411 |
| | $ | 509 |
| | $ | 3,067 |
| | $ | 9,077 |
| | $ | — |
| | $ | 9,077 |
| | $ | (1,405 | ) |
South Korea | 1,633 |
| | 1,181 |
| | 399 |
| | 2,504 |
| | 5,717 |
| | 2,118 |
| | 7,835 |
| | 512 |
|
China | 3,583 |
| | 276 |
| | 763 |
| | 2,332 |
| | 6,954 |
| | 217 |
| | 7,171 |
| | 17 |
|
Hong Kong | 288 |
| | 539 |
| | 190 |
| | 1,074 |
| | 2,091 |
| | 1,671 |
| | 3,762 |
| | 601 |
|
Singapore | 510 |
| | 134 |
| | 446 |
| | 1,779 |
| | 2,869 |
| | — |
| | 2,869 |
| | (78 | ) |
Taiwan | 564 |
| | 39 |
| | 147 |
| | 711 |
| | 1,461 |
| | 892 |
| | 2,353 |
| | (34 | ) |
Thailand | 37 |
| | 9 |
| | 27 |
| | 1,118 |
| | 1,191 |
| | — |
| | 1,191 |
| | 496 |
|
Other Asia Pacific (7) |