|
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
|
6 Months Ended | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Jun. 30, 2011
|
|||||||
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies [Abstract] | |||||||
| Summary of Significant Accounting Policies |
NOTE 1 – SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Principles of Consolidation: The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Macatawa Bank Corporation ("the Company", "our", "we") and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Macatawa Bank ("the Bank"). All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.
Macatawa Bank is a Michigan chartered bank with depository accounts insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The Bank operates 26 full service branch offices providing a full range of commercial and consumer banking and trust services in Kent County, Ottawa County, and northern Allegan County, Michigan.
The Company owns all of the common stock of Macatawa Statutory Trust I and Macatawa Statutory Trust II. These are grantor trusts that issued trust preferred securities and are not consolidated with the Company under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis of Presentation: The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring accruals) believed necessary for a fair presentation have been included.
Operating results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2011 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2011. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and related notes included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.
Reclassifications: Some items in the prior period financial statements were reclassified to conform to the current presentation.
Allowance for Loan Losses: The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance for probable incurred credit losses inherent in our loan portfolio, increased by the provision for loan losses and recoveries, and decreased by charge-offs of loans. Management believes the allowance for loan losses balance to be adequate based on known and inherent risks in the portfolio, past loan loss experience, information about specific borrower situations and estimated collateral values, economic conditions and other relevant factors. Allocations of the allowance may be made for specific loans, but the entire allowance is available for any loan that, in management's judgment, should be charged-off. Loan losses are charged against the allowance when management believes the uncollectibility of a loan balance is confirmed.
The allowance consists of specific and general components. The specific component relates to loans that are individually classified as impaired. The general component covers non-classified loans and is based on historical loss experience adjusted for current qualitative environmental factors. The Company maintains a loss migration analysis that tracks loan losses and recoveries based on loan class and the loan risk grade assignment for commercial loans. At June 30, 2011, an 18 month annualized historical loss experience was used for commercial loans and a 12 month historical loss experience period was applied to residential mortgage and consumer loan portfolios. These historical loss percentages are adjusted (both upwards and downwards) for certain qualitative environmental factors, including economic trends, credit quality trends, valuation trends, concentration risk, quality of loan review, changes in personnel, external factors and other considerations.
A loan is impaired when, based on current information and events, it is believed to be probable that the Company will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Loans for which the terms have been modified and a concession has been made, and for which the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties, are considered troubled debt restructurings and classified as impaired.
Commercial and commercial real estate loans with relationship balances exceeding $500,000 and an internal risk grading of 6 or worse are evaluated for impairment. If a loan is impaired, a portion of the allowance is allocated and the loan is reported at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan's existing interest rate or at the fair value of collateral, less estimated costs to sell, if repayment is expected solely from the collateral. Large groups of smaller balance homogeneous loans, such as consumer and residential real estate loans are collectively evaluated for impairment and they are not separately identified for impairment disclosures. Troubled debt restructurings are also considered impaired with impairment generally measured at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan's effective rate at inception or using the fair value of collateral, less estimated costs to sell, if repayment is expected solely from the collateral.
Foreclosed Assets: Assets acquired through or instead of loan foreclosure, primarily other real estate owned, are initially recorded at fair value less costs to sell when acquired, establishing a new cost basis. If fair value declines, a valuation allowance is recorded through expense. Costs after acquisition are expensed unless they add value to the property.
Income Taxes: Income tax expense is the sum of the current year income tax due or refundable and the change in deferred tax assets and liabilities. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are the expected future tax consequences of temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax bases of assets and liabilities, computed using enacted tax rates. A valuation allowance, if needed, reduces deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized.
We recognize a tax position as a benefit only if it is "more likely than not" that the tax position would be sustained in a tax examination, with a tax examination being presumed to occur. The amount recognized is the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely of being realized on examination. For tax positions not meeting the "more likely than not" test, no tax benefit is recorded. We recognize interest and penalties related to income tax matters in income tax expense.
The realization of deferred tax assets (net of a recorded valuation allowance) is largely dependent upon future taxable income, future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences and the ability to carryback losses to available tax years. In assessing the need for a valuation allowance, we consider all relevant positive and negative evidence, including taxable income in carry-back years, scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, expected future taxable income and available tax planning strategies.
As of January 1, 2010, we no longer have the ability to carryback losses to prior years. The realization of our deferred tax assets is largely dependent on generating income in future years. At June 30, 2011, the need to maintain a full valuation allowance was based primarily on our net operating losses for recent years and the continuing weak economic conditions that could impact our ability to generate future earnings. The valuation allowance may be reversed to income in future periods to the extent that the related deferred tax assets are realized or the valuation allowance is no longer required.
Adoption of New Accounting Standards: In July 2010, FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses. The ASU amends FASB Accounting Standards Codification(TM) Topic 310, Receivables, to improve the disclosures that an entity provides about the credit quality of its financing receivables and the related allowance for credit losses. As a result of these amendments, an entity is required to disaggregate, by portfolio segment or class of financing receivable, certain existing disclosures and provide certain new disclosures about its financing receivables and related allowance for credit losses. Disclosures as of the end of a reporting period were effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending on or after December 15, 2010 and are included in Note 3. Disclosures about activity that occurs during a reporting period were effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after December 15, 2010 and are also included in Note 3.
In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-06, Improving Disclosure about Fair Value Measurements. This standard requires new disclosures on the amount and reason for transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 recurring fair value measurements. The standard also requires disclosure of activities (i.e., on a gross basis), including purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements, in the reconciliation of Level 3 fair value recurring measurements. The standard clarifies existing disclosure requirements on levels of disaggregation and disclosures about inputs and valuation techniques. The new disclosures regarding Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements and clarification of existing disclosures were effective for periods beginning after December 15, 2009. The disclosures about the reconciliation of information in Level 3 recurring fair value measurements were required for periods beginning after December 15, 2010. Adoption of this standard did not have a significant impact on our disclosures.
Newly Issued Not Yet Effective Accounting Standards: The FASB has issued ASU 2011-02, A Creditor's Determination of Whether a Restructuring Is a Troubled Debt Restructuring. This ASU provides guidance for companies when determining whether a loan modification is a troubled debt restructuring. The ASU also provides additional disclosure requirements. It is effective for public companies for interim and annual periods beginning on or after June 15, 2011. The guidance is to be applied retrospectively to restructurings occurring on or after the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption. This guidance is not expected to have a material effect on our identification of troubled debt restructurings or disclosures.
The FASB has issued ASU 2011-03, Transfers and Servicing (Topic 860): Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements. The ASU is intended to improve financial reporting of repurchase agreements (“repos”) and other agreements that both entitle and obligate a transferor to repurchase or redeem financial assets before their maturity. In a typical repo transaction, an entity transfers financial assets to a counterparty in exchange for cash with an agreement for the counterparty to return the same or equivalent financial assets for a fixed price in the future. Codification Topic 860, Transfers and Servicing, prescribes when an entity may or may not recognize a sale upon the transfer of financial assets subject to repo agreements. That determination is based, in part, on whether the entity has maintained effective control over the transferred financial assets. The amendments to the Codification in this ASU are intended to improve the accounting for these transactions by removing from the assessment of effective control the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets. The guidance in the ASU is effective for the first interim or annual period beginning on or after December 15, 2011. The guidance should be applied prospectively to transactions or modifications of existing transactions that occur on or after the effective date. Adoption of this ASU is not expected to have any effect as the Company does not currently hold any such repurchase agreements.
The FASB has issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs. This ASU represents the converged guidance of the FASB and the IASB (the Boards) on fair value measurement. The collective efforts of the Boards and their staffs, reflected in ASU 2011-04, have resulted in common requirements for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements, including a consistent meaning of the term “fair value.” The Boards have concluded the common requirements will result in greater comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRSs. The amendments to the Codification in this ASU are to be applied prospectively. For public entities, the amendments are effective during interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. Early application by public entities is not permitted. The impact of adoption of this ASU is not expected to be material.
The FASB has issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income. This ASU amends accounting standards to allow an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. The amendments in the ASU do not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income. ASU 2011-05 should be applied retrospectively effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. We anticipate early adopting this standard with our 2011 annual financial statements by adding a statement of comprehensive income.
Regulatory Developments:
Consent Order with Macatawa Bank and its Regulators
As discussed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (our "2010 Form 10-K"), on February 22, 2010, Macatawa Bank entered into a Consent Order (the "Consent Order") with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") and the Michigan Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation ("OFIR"), the primary banking regulators of the Bank. The Bank agreed to the terms of the negotiated Consent Order without admitting or denying any charges of unsafe or unsound banking practices. The Consent Order imposes no fines or penalties on the Bank. The Consent Order will remain in effect and enforceable until it is modified, terminated, suspended, or set aside by the FDIC and the OFIR.
The Consent Order covers various aspects of the Bank's financial condition and performance; loan administration; and capital planning. The requirements of the Consent Order are summarized in Part I, Item 1 of our 2010 Form 10-K under the heading “Regulatory Development”, which summary is here incorporated by reference.
The Consent Order requires the Bank to have and maintain a Tier 1 Leverage Capital Ratio of at least 8% and a Total Risk Based Capital Ratio of at least 11%. At June 30, 2011, these levels were achieved through the Bank's continued efforts to improve profitability and reduce risk weighted assets and the Company's successful capital raise that closed in June 2011. At June 30, 2011, the Bank's Tier 1 Leverage Capital Ratio was 8.2% and the Total Risk Based Capital Ratio was 11.9%, which would ordinarily categorize the Bank as “well capitalized” under the regulatory capital standards absent the Consent Order. However, as long as the Bank remains under the Consent Order, the highest it can be categorized is “adequately capitalized”, regardless of actual capital levels. At June 30, 2011, the Bank was categorized as “adequately capitalized”.
We believe that, as of June 30, 2011, the Bank was in compliance in all material respects with all of the provisions of the Consent Order.
Written Agreement with Macatawa Bank Corporation and its Regulator
As discussed in our 2010 Form 10-K, the Company formally entered into a Written Agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago ("FRB") effective July 23, 2010. Among other things, the Written Agreement provides that: (i) the Company must take appropriate steps to fully utilize its financial and managerial resources to serve as a source of strength to Macatawa Bank; (ii) the Company may not declare or pay any dividends without prior FRB approval; (iii) the Company may not take dividends or any other payment representing a reduction in capital from Macatawa Bank without prior FRB approval; (iv) the Company may not make any distributions of interest, principal or other sums on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities without prior FRB approval; (v) the Company may not incur, increase or guarantee any debt without prior FRB approval; (vi) the Company may not purchase or redeem any shares of its stock without prior FRB approval; (vii) the Company must submit to the FRB an acceptable written plan to maintain sufficient capital on a consolidated basis; (viii) the Company must submit to the FRB a written statement of the Company's planned sources and uses of cash for debt service, operating expenses, and other purposes for 2010 and subsequent years; and (ix) the Company may not appoint any new director or senior executive officer, or change the responsibilities of any senior executive officer so that the officer would assume a different senior executive officer position, without prior regulatory approval.
The Company requested and received approval from the FRB to make its first and second quarter 2011 interest payments on its $1.65 million in outstanding subordinated debt. Each quarter, the Company requests approval from the FRB to make the next quarter's interest payment on its subordinated debt and is continuing to accrue the amounts due.
Since the effective date of the Written Agreement, we have submitted our capital plan, cash flow projections and other reports in accordance with the timelines specified in the Written Agreement or agreed upon extensions. In addition, our senior management has met with and spoken to FRB representatives several times since the Written Agreement became effective. On November 15, 2010, we submitted a plan to maintain sufficient capital and have had several conversations with the FRB regarding the plan since that time. At the FRB's request, we submitted an updated draft of the capital plan on March 31, 2011, with the final plan submitted on April 30, 2011. On February 11, 2011, we submitted to the FRB a written statement of the Company's planned sources and uses of cash for 2011. At the FRB's request, we submitted a plan for how the Company will meet its cash flow obligations for 2011 on March 31, 2011.
We believe that, as of June 30, 2011, the Company was in compliance in all material respects with all of the provisions of the Written Agreement.
Deposit Gathering Activities
Because the Bank is subject to the Consent Order and cannot be categorized as "well-capitalized," regardless of actual capital levels, it is subject to the following restrictions regarding its deposit gathering activities:
|