ITEM 1. BUSINESS
General
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. (the “Company”) is a publicly traded bank holding company headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. The Company’s common stock trades on the Nasdaq Global Select Stock Market (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol, “NRIM.” The Company is regulated by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. We began banking operations in Anchorage in December 1990, and formed the Company as an Alaska corporation in connection with our reorganization into a holding company structure; that reorganization was completed effective December 31, 2001. The Company has grown to be the fourth largest commercial bank in Alaska and the third largest in Anchorage in terms of deposits, with $911.2 million in total deposits and $1.1 billion in total assets at December 31, 2011. Through our ten branches, we are accessible to approximately 70% of the Alaska population.
The Company has four wholly-owned subsidiaries:
-
Northrim Bank (the “Bank”), a state chartered, full-service commercial bank headquartered in Anchorage, Alaska. The Bank is regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the State of Alaska Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations. The Bank has ten branch locations in Alaska; seven in Anchorage, one in Fairbanks, and one each in Eagle River and Wasilla. We also operate in the Washington and Oregon market areas through Northrim Funding Services (“NFS”), a division of the Bank that was formed in 2004. We offer a wide array of commercial and consumer loan and deposit products, investment products, and electronic banking services over the Internet;
-
Northrim Investment Services Company (“NISC”) was formed in November 2002 to hold the Company’s 41% equity interest in Elliott Cove Capital Management, LLC, (“ECCM”), an investment advisory services company. In the first quarter of 2006, through NISC, we purchased an interest in Pacific Wealth Advisors, LLC (“PWA”), an investment advisory, trust, and wealth management business located in Seattle, Washington, which we now hold a 23% interest in;
-
Northrim Capital Trust I (“NCTI”), an entity that we formed in May of 2003 to facilitate a trust preferred securities offering by the Company; and
-
Northrim Statutory Trust 2 (“NST2”), an entity that we formed in December of 2005 to facilitate a trust preferred securities offering by the Company.
The Bank has two wholly-owned subsidiaries:
-
Northrim Capital Investments Co. (“NCIC”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank, which holds a 24% interest in the profits and losses of a residential mortgage holding company, Residential Mortgage Holding Company, LLC (“RML”). The predecessor of RML, Residential Mortgage, LLC, was formed in 1998 and has offices throughout Alaska. RML also
operates in real estate markets in the state of Washington through a joint venture. In March and December of 2005, NCIC purchased ownership interests totaling 50.1% in Northrim Benefits Group, LLC (“NBG”), an insurance brokerage company that focuses on the sale and servicing of employee benefit plans. In the fourth quarter of 2011, NCIC purchased a 41% interest in Elliott Cove Insurance Agency, LLC (“ECIA”); an insurance agency that offers annuity and other insurance products; and
-
Northrim Building, LLC (“NBL”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank that owns and operates the Company’s main office facility at 3111 C Street in Anchorage.
Segments
The Company’s major line of business is commercial banking. Management has determined that the Company operates as a single operating segment based on accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”). Measures of the Company’s revenues, profit or loss, and total assets are included in this report in Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, and incorporated herein by reference.
Business Strategy
The Company’s strategy is one of value-added growth. Management believes that calculated, sustainable market share growth coupled with good loan credit quality, operational efficiency, and improved profitability is the most appropriate means of increasing shareholder value.
Our business strategy emphasizes commercial lending products and services through relationship banking with businesses and professional individuals. Additionally, we are a significant land development and residential construction lender and an active lender in the commercial real estate market in our Alaskan markets. Because of our relatively small size, our experienced senior management team can be more involved with serving customers and making credit decisions, allowing us to compete more favorably with larger competitors for lending relationships. We believe that there is a significant opportunity to increase the Company’s loan portfolio, particularly in the commercial portion of the portfolio, in the Company’s current market areas through existing and new customers. In many cases, these types of customers also require multiple deposit and affiliate services that add franchise value to the Company. Additionally, management believes that our real estate construction and term real estate loan departments have developed a strong level of expertise and are well positioned to add quality loan volume in the current business environment. Lastly, we have dedicated additional resources to our small business lending operations and have targeted the acquisition of new customers in professional fields including physicians, dentists, accountants, and attorneys. The Company benefits from solid capital and liquidity positions, and management believes that this provides a competitive advantage in the current business environment for growth opportunities. (See “Liquidity and Capital Resources” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”.)
The Company’s business strategy also stresses the importance of customer deposit relationships to support its lending activities. Our guiding principle is to serve our market areas by operating with a “Customer First Service” philosophy, affording our customers the highest priority in all aspects of our operations. We believe that our successful execution of this philosophy has created a very strong core deposit franchise that provides a stable, low cost funding source for expanded growth in all of our lending areas. We have devoted significant resources to future deposit product development, expansion of electronic services for both personal and business customers, and enhancement of information security related to these services.
The Company’s geographical expansion has historically been limited to the Anchorage, Fairbanks and Matanuska-Susitna Valley regions of Alaska and, to a lesser extent, the Washington and Oregon areas through the operations of NFS. While the Company continues to consider potential expansion of its branch network in these locations, additional geographic regions will be considered if appropriate opportunities are presented.
In addition to market share growth, a significant aspect of the Company’s business strategy is focused on managing the credit quality of our loan portfolio. Over the last five years, the Company has allocated substantial resources to the credit management function of the Bank to provide enhanced financial analysis of our largest, most complex loan relationships to further develop our processes for analyzing and managing various concentrations of credit within the overall loan portfolio, and to develop strategies to improve or collect our existing loans. As a result of these efforts, the Company’s ratio of nonperforming assets to total assets has decreased to 1.16% at December 31, 2011 as compared to 2.07% and 3.10% at December 31, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Improvements in the overall credit quality of the loan portfolio have had a direct and positive impact on net income through a reduction of loan and other real estate owned (“OREO”) related costs, as well as decreased FDIC insurance costs. Continued success in maintaining or further improving the credit quality of our loan portfolio is a significant aspect of the Company’s strategy for attaining sustainable, long-term market share growth to affect increased shareholder value.
Employees
We believe that we provide a high level of customer service. To achieve our objective of providing “Customer First Service”, management emphasizes the hiring and retention of competent and highly motivated employees at all levels of the organization. Management believes that a well-trained and highly motivated core of employees allows maximum personal contact with customers in order to understand and fulfill customer needs and preferences. This “Customer First Service” philosophy is combined with our emphasis on personalized, local decision making. In keeping with this philosophy and with our strategy to increase our market share, the Company hired several new loan officers in 2011 who have valuable expertise in our niche markets.
We consider our relations with our employees to be satisfactory. We had 260 full-time equivalent employees at December 31, 2011. None of our employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Products and Services
Lending Services: We have an emphasis on commercial and real estate lending. We also believe we have a significant niche in construction and land development lending in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. (See “Loans” In Item 7 of this report.)
Asset-based lending: We provide short-term working capital to customers in the states of Washington and Oregon by purchasing their accounts receivable through NFS, a division of the Bank. In 2012, we expect NFS to continue to penetrate these markets and to continue to contribute to the Company’s net income.
Deposit Services: Our deposit services include noninterest-bearing checking accounts and interest-bearing time deposits, checking accounts, and savings accounts. Our interest-bearing accounts generally earn interest at rates established by management based on competitive market factors and management’s desire to increase or decrease certain types or maturities of deposits. We have two deposit products that are indexed to specific U.S. Treasury rates.
Several of our deposit services and products are:
-
An indexed money market deposit account;
-
A “Jump-Up” certificate of deposit (“CD”) that allows additional deposits with the opportunity to increase the rate to the current market rate for a similar term CD;
-
An indexed CD that allows additional deposits, quarterly withdrawals without penalty, and tailored maturity dates; and
-
Arrangements to courier noncash deposits from our customers to their local Northrim bank branch.
Other Services: In addition to our deposit and lending services, we offer our customers several 24-hour services: Consumer Online Banking, Mobile Web and Text Banking, Business Online Banking, FinanceWorks™ powered by Quicken®, Online Statements, Visa Check Cards, Business Visa Check Cards, Cash Back Rewards, telebanking, faxed account statements, and automated teller services. Other special services include personalized checks at account opening, overdraft protection from a savings account, extended banking hours (Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. for the lobby, and 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. for the drive-up, and Saturday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.), commercial drive-up banking with coin service, automatic transfers and payments, wire transfers, direct payroll deposit, electronic tax payments, Automated Clearing House origination and receipt, cash management programs to meet the specialized needs of business customers, and courier agents who pick up noncash deposits from business customers.
Other Services Provided through Affiliates: The Company provides residential mortgages throughout Alaska, and to a lesser extent in the state of Washington via the Company’s ownership interest in RML. We also sell and service employee benefit plans for small and medium sized businesses in Alaska through NBG, an insurance brokerage company. The Company also offers annuity and other insurance products through ECIA, an insurance agency, and long term investment portfolios through ECCM, an investment advisory services company. As of March 13, 2012, there are four Northrim Bank employees who are licensed as Investment Advisor Representatives and are actively selling the Elliott Cove investment products. Finally, our affiliate PWA provides investment advisory, trust, and wealth management services for customers who are primarily located in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. We plan to continue to leverage our affiliate relationships to strengthen our existing customer base and bring new customers into the Bank.
Significant Business Concentrations: No individual or single group of related accounts is considered material in relation to our total assets or total revenues, or to the total assets, deposits or revenues of the Bank, or in relation to our overall business. However, approximately 38% of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2011 is attributable to sixteen large borrowing relationships. Moreover, our business activities are currently focused primarily in the state of Alaska. Consequently, our results of
operations and financial condition are dependent upon the general trends in the Alaska economy and, in particular, the residential and commercial real estate markets in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Matanuska-Susitna Valley.
Alaska Economy
Our growth and operations depend upon the economic conditions of Alaska and the specific markets we serve. Alaska is strategically located on the Pacific Rim, within nine hours by air from 95% of the industrialized world, and Anchorage has become a worldwide cargo and transportation link between the United States and international business in Asia and Europe. The economy of Alaska is dependent upon the natural resources industries. Key sectors of the Alaska economy are the oil industry, government and military spending, and the construction, fishing, forest products, tourism, mining, air cargo, and transportation industries, as well as medical services.
The petroleum industry plays a significant role in the economy of Alaska. According to the State of Alaska Department of Revenue, approximately 92% of the unrestricted revenues that fund the Alaska state government are generated through various taxes and royalties on the oil industry. Any significant changes in the Alaska economy and the markets we serve eventually could have a positive or negative impact on the Company. State revenues are sensitive to volatile oil prices and production levels have been in decline for 20 years; however, high oil prices have been sustained for several years now, despite the global recession. This has allowed the Alaska state government to continue to increase operating and capital budgets and add to its reserves. The long-run growth of the Alaska economy will most likely be determined by large scale natural resource development projects. Several multi-billion dollar projects are progressing or can potentially advance in the near term. Some of these projects include: a large diameter natural gas pipeline; related gas exploration at Point Thomson by Exxon and partners; exploration for new wells offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf by Shell and Conoco Phillips; potential oil and gas activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; copper, gold and molybdenum production at the Pebble and Donlon Creek mines; and energy development in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. Because of their size, each of these projects faces tremendous challenges. Contentious political decisions need to be made by government regulators, issues need to be resolved in the court system, and multi-billion dollar financial commitments need to be made by the private sector if they are to advance. If none of these projects moves forward in the next ten years, then state revenues will decline with falling oil production from older fields on the North Slope of Alaska. The decline in state revenues will likely have a negative effect on Alaska’s economy.
Tourism is another major employment sector of the Alaska economy. In 2011, according to the State of Alaska’s Department of Commerce, revenue collected from bed taxes in Anchorage increased 7.5% in the twelve month period ended June 30, 2011 to $20.3 million from $18.9 million in the twelve month period ended June 30, 2010. Additionally, the Department of Commerce reported a 3% increase in people visiting the State of Alaska in the fall and winter seasons (the period between October 2010 and April 2011) as compared to the prior year.
Alaska has weathered the “Great Recession” better than many other states in the nation, due largely to a natural resources based economy which continues to benefit from high commodities and energy prices. According to the Legislative Finance Division of the State of Alaska, as of September 13, 2011, Alaska has more than $14 billion in liquid reserves. As of December 31, 2011 the Permanent Fund has a balance of $40 billion, which pays an annual dividend to every Alaskan citizen. In 2011, unemployment in Alaska decreased to 7.7% according to the Alaska Department of Labor as compared to 8.3% for the United States. This marks the 37th consecutive month that Alaska’s unemployment rate has been lower than the national average.
A material portion of our loans at December 31, 2011, were secured by real estate located in greater Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks, Alaska. Moreover, 10% of our revenue was derived from the residential housing market in the form of loan fees and interest on residential construction and land development loans and income from RML, our mortgage real estate affiliate. Real estate values generally are affected by economic and other conditions in the area where the real estate is located, fluctuations in interest rates, changes in tax and other laws, and other matters outside of our control. Since 2007, the Anchorage area and Fairbanks real estate markets have experienced a significant slowdown. Any further decline in real estate values in the greater Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks areas could significantly reduce the value of the real estate collateral securing our real estate loans and could increase the likelihood of defaults under these loans. In addition, at December 31, 2011, $253 million, or 38%, of our loan portfolio was represented by commercial loans in Alaska. Commercial loans generally have greater risk than real estate loans.
Alaska’s residents are not subject to any state income or state sales taxes. For the past 28 years, Alaska residents have received annual distributions payable in October of each year from the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, which is supported by royalties from oil production. The distribution was $1,174 per eligible resident in 2011 for an aggregate distribution of approximately $813 million. The Anchorage Economic Development Corporation estimates that, for most Anchorage households, distributions from the Alaska Permanent Fund exceed other Alaska taxes to which those households are subject (primarily real estate taxes).
Competition
We operate in a highly competitive and concentrated banking environment. We compete not only with other commercial banks, but also with many other financial competitors, including credit unions (including Alaska USA Federal Credit Union, one of the nation’s largest credit unions), finance companies, mortgage banks and brokers, securities firms, insurance companies, private lenders, and other financial intermediaries, many of which have a state-wide or regional presence, and in some cases, a national presence. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources and capital than we do and offer products and services that are not offered by us. Our non-bank competitors also generally operate under fewer regulatory constraints, and in the case of credit unions, are not subject to income taxes. According to information published by the State of Alaska Department of Commerce, credit unions in Alaska have a 38% share of total statewide deposits held in banks and credit unions as of December 31, 2010. Recent changes in credit union regulations have eliminated the “common bond” of membership requirement and liberalized their lending authority to include business and real estate loans on a par with commercial banks. The differences in resources and regulation may make it harder for us to compete profitably, to reduce the rates that we can earn on loans and investments, to increase the rates we must offer on deposits and other funds, and adversely affect our financial condition and earnings.
As our industry becomes increasingly dependent on and oriented toward technology-driven delivery systems, permitting transactions to be conducted by telephone, computer and the internet, non-bank institutions are able to attract funds and provide lending and other financial services even without offices located in our primary service area. Some insurance companies and brokerage firms compete for deposits by offering rates that are higher than may be appropriate for the Company in relation to its asset and liability management objectives. However, we offer a wide array of deposit products and services and believe we can compete effectively through relationship based pricing and effective delivery of “Customer First Service”. We also compete with full service investment firms for non-bank financial products and services offered by ECCM, ECIA and PWA.
In the late 1980s, eight of the thirteen commercial banks and savings and loan associations in Alaska failed, resulting in the largest commercial banks gaining significant market share. Currently, there are eight commercial banks operating in Alaska. At June 30, 2011, the date of the most recently available information, we had approximately a 10% share of the Alaska commercial bank deposits, 16% in the Anchorage area, and 7% in Fairbanks.
The following table sets forth market share data for the commercial banks having a presence in the greater Anchorage area as of June 30, 2011, the most recent date for which comparative deposit information is available.
Supervision and Regulation
The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHC Act”) registered with and subject to examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”). The Company’s bank subsidiary is an Alaska-state chartered commercial bank and is subject to examination, supervision, and regulation by the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, Division of Banking, Securities and Corporations (the “Division”). The FDIC insures Northrim Bank’s deposits and in that capacity also regulates Northrim Bank. The Company’s affiliated investment companies, ECCM and ECIA, and its affiliated investment advisory and wealth management company, Pacific Portfolio Consulting LLC, are subject to and regulated under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 and applicable state investment advisor rules and regulations. The Company’s affiliated trust company, Pacific Portfolio Trust Company, is regulated as a non-depository trust company under the banking laws of the State of Washington.
The Company’s earnings and activities are affected by legislation, by actions of the FRB, the Division, the FDIC and other regulators, and by local legislative and administrative bodies and decisions of courts. For example, these include limitations on the ability of Northrim Bank to pay dividends to the Company, numerous federal and state consumer protection laws imposing requirements on the making, enforcement, and collection of consumer loans, and restrictions on and regulation of the sale of mutual funds and other uninsured investment products to customers.
Congress enacted major federal financial institution legislation in 1999. Title I of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLB Act”), which became effective March 11, 2000, allows bank holding companies to elect to become financial holding companies. In addition to the activities previously permitted bank holding companies, financial holding companies may engage in non-banking activities that are financial in nature, such as securities, insurance, and merchant banking activities, subject to certain limitations. The Company may utilize the new structure to accommodate an expansion of its products and services.
The activities of bank holding companies, such as the Company, that are not financial holding companies, are generally limited to managing or controlling banks. A bank holding company is required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB for the acquisition of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of any class of voting securities or substantially all of the assets of any bank or bank holding company. Nonbank activities of a bank holding company are also generally limited to the acquisition of up to 5% of the voting shares of a company and activities previously determined by the FRB by regulation or order to be closely related to banking, unless prior approval is obtained from the FRB.
The GLB Act also included the most extensive consumer privacy provisions ever enacted by Congress. These provisions, among other things, require full disclosure of the Company’s privacy policy to consumers and mandate offering the consumer the ability to “opt out” of having non-public personal information disclosed to third parties. Pursuant to these provisions, the federal banking regulators have adopted privacy regulations. In addition, the states are permitted to adopt more extensive privacy protections through legislation or regulation.
There are various legal restrictions on the extent to which a bank holding company and certain of its nonbank subsidiaries can borrow or otherwise obtain credit from banking subsidiaries or engage in certain other transactions with or involving those banking subsidiaries. With certain exceptions, federal law imposes limitations on, and requires collateral for, extensions of credit by insured depository institutions, such as Northrim Bank, to their non-bank affiliates, such as the Company.
Subject to certain limitations and restrictions, a bank holding company, with prior approval of the FRB, may acquire an out-of-state bank. Banks in states that do not prohibit out-of-state mergers may merge with the approval of the appropriate federal banking agency. A state bank may establish a de novo branch out of state if such branching is expressly permitted by the other state.
Among other things, applicable federal and state statutes and regulations which govern a bank’s activities relate to minimum capital requirements, required reserves against deposits, investments, loans, legal lending limits, mergers and consolidations, borrowings, issuance of securities, payment of dividends, establishment of branches and other aspects of its operations. The Division and the FDIC also have authority to prohibit banks under their supervision from engaging in what they consider to be unsafe and unsound practices.
Specifically with regard to the payment of dividends, there are certain limitations on the ability of the Company to pay dividends to its shareholders. It is the policy of the FRB that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines a bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.
Various federal and state statutory provisions also limit the amount of dividends that subsidiary banks can pay to their holding companies without regulatory approval. Additionally, depending upon the circumstances, the FDIC or the Division could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.
Under longstanding FRB policy, a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength for its subsidiary banks and to commit resources to support such banks. The Company could be required to commit resources to its subsidiary banks in circumstances where it might not do so, absent such policy.
The Company and Northrim Bank are subject to risk-based capital and leverage guidelines issued by federal banking agencies for banks and bank holding companies. These agencies are required by law to take specific prompt corrective actions with respect to institutions that do not meet minimum capital standards and have defined five capital tiers, the highest of which is “well-capitalized.” Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the Company and Northrim Bank must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of the Company’s and the Bank’s assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory practices. The Company’s and the Bank’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgment by the regulators about components, risk weightings, and other factors.
Federal banking agencies have established minimum amounts and ratios of total and Tier I capital to risk-weighted assets, and of Tier I capital to average assets. The regulations set forth the definitions of capital, risk-weighted and average assets. As of December 15, 2011, the most recent notification from the FDIC categorized the Bank as “well-capitalized” under the
regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. Management believes, as of December 31, 2011, that the Company and Northrim Bank met all capital adequacy requirements for a “well-capitalized” institution.
Under the regulations adopted by the federal regulatory authorities, a bank will be: (i) ”well-capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, and is not subject to any order or written directive by any such regulatory authority to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; (ii) “adequately capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and is not “well-capitalized”; (iii) “undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%; (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%; and (v) “critically undercapitalized” if the institution’s tangible equity is equal or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters.
Banks that are downgraded from “well-capitalized” to “adequately capitalized” face significant additional restrictions. For example, an “adequately capitalized” status affects a bank’s ability to accept brokered deposits and enter into reciprocal Certificate of Deposit Account Registry System (“CDARS”) contracts without the prior approval of the FDIC, and may cause greater difficulty obtaining retail deposits. CDARS is a network of over 3,000 banks throughout the United States. The CDARS system was founded in 2003 and allows participating banks to exchange FDIC insurance coverage so that 100% of the balance of their customers’ certificates of deposit are fully subject to FDIC insurance. The system also allows for investment of banks’ own investment dollars in the form of domestic certificates of deposit. Banks in the “adequately capitalized” classification may have to pay higher interest rates to continue to attract those deposits, and higher deposit insurance rates for those deposits. This status also affects a bank’s eligibility for a streamlined review process for acquisition proposals.
Management intends to maintain a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio for the Bank in excess of 10% in 2012, exceeding the FDIC’s “well-capitalized” capital requirement classification. The dividends that the Bank pays to the Company are limited to the extent necessary for the Bank to meet the regulatory requirements of a “well-capitalized” bank.
The capital ratios for the Company exceed those for the Bank primarily because the $18 million trust preferred securities offerings that the Company completed in the second quarter of 2003 and in the fourth quarter of 2005 are included in the Company’s capital for regulatory purposes, although they are accounted for as a liability in its consolidated financial statements. The trust preferred securities are not accounted for on the Bank’s financial statements nor are they included in its capital (although the Company did contribute to the Bank a portion of the cash proceeds from the sale of those securities). As a result, the Company has $18 million more in regulatory capital than the Bank at December 31, 2011 and 2010, which explains most of the difference in the capital ratios for the two entities.
Northrim Bank is required to file periodic reports with the FDIC and the Division and is subject to periodic examinations and evaluations by those regulatory authorities. These examinations must be conducted every 12 months, except that certain “well-capitalized” banks may be examined every 18 months. The FDIC and the Division may each accept the results of an examination by the other in lieu of conducting an independent examination.
In the liquidation or other resolution of a failed insured depository institution, deposits in offices and certain claims for administrative expenses and employee compensation are afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims, including non-deposit claims, and claims of a parent company such as the Company. Such priority creditors would include the FDIC, which succeeds to the position of insured depositors.
The Company is also subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading restrictions and other requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Securities Exchange Act of 1934”), including certain requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
The Bank is subject to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”). The CRA requires that the Bank help meet the credit needs of the communities it serves, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the institution. The FDIC assigns one of four possible ratings to the Bank’s CRA performance and makes the rating and the examination reports publicly available. The four possible ratings are outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve and substantial noncompliance. A financial institution’s CRA rating can affect an institution’s future business. For example, a federal banking agency will take CRA performance into consideration when acting on an institution’s application to establish or move a branch, to merge or to acquire assets or assume liabilities of another institution. In its most recent CRA examination, Northrim Bank received a “Satisfactory” rating from the FDIC.
The Company is also subject to the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”). Among other things, the USA Patriot Act requires financial institutions, such as the Company and Northrim Bank, to adopt and implement specific policies and procedures designed
to prevent and defeat money laundering. Management believes the Company is in compliance with the USA Patriot Act as in effect on December 31, 2011.
On October 3, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “Stabilization Act”). Among other things, the Stabilization Act temporarily increased the amount of insurance coverage of deposit accounts held at FDIC-insured depository institutions, including the Bank, from $100,000 to $250,000. This coverage was permanently increased effective in July 2010.
On October 14, 2008, using the systemic risk exception to the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991, the U.S. Treasury authorized the FDIC to provide a 100% guarantee of newly-issued senior unsecured debt and deposits in non-interest bearing transaction accounts at FDIC insured institutions. The Company elected to participate in this program as it pertains to the 100% guarantee of non-interest bearing transaction accounts by the FDIC. Banks participating in the transaction account guarantee program are required to pay an additional 10 basis points in insurance fees on the amounts guaranteed by the program. This transaction account guarantee program is scheduled to expire on January 1, 2013. The Company elected not to participate in the part of the program that guarantees newly-issued senior unsecured debt.
Under the Troubled Asset Auction Program, another initiative based on the authority granted by the Stabilization Act, the U.S. Treasury, through a newly-created Office of Financial Stability, has purchased certain troubled mortgage-related assets from financial institutions in a reverse-auction format. Troubled assets eligible for purchase by the Office of Financial Stability include residential and commercial mortgages originated on or before March 14, 2008, securities or obligations that are based on such mortgages, and any other financial instrument that the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury determines, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, is necessary to promote financial market stability.
In July 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law which, among other things, limits the ability of certain bank holding companies to treat trust preferred security debt issuances as Tier 1 capital. This law may require many banks to raise new Tier 1 capital and will effectively close the trust-preferred securities markets from offering new issuances in the future. Since the Company had less than $15 billion in assets at December 31, 2009, under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company will be able to continue to include its existing trust preferred securities in Tier 1 capital.
Available Information
The Company’s annual report on Form 10-K and quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, as well as its Form 8-K filings, which are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), are accessible free of charge at our website at http://www.northrim.com as soon as reasonably practicable after filing with the SEC. By making this reference to our website, the Company does not intend to incorporate into this report any information contained in the website. The website should not be considered part of this report.
The SEC maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers including the Company that file electronically with the SEC.
ITEM 1A.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
An investment in the Company’s common stock is subject to risks inherent to the Company’s business. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect the Company are described below. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this report. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing the Company. Additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or focused on or that management currently deems immaterial may also impair the Company’s business operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.
If any of the following risks actually occur, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of the Company’s common stock could decline significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.
We operate in a highly regulated environment and changes of or increases in banking or other laws and regulations or governmental fiscal or monetary policies could adversely affect us.
We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and examination by federal and state banking authorities. In addition, as a publicly-traded company, we are subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any change in applicable regulations or federal or state legislation or in policies or interpretations or regulatory approaches to compliance and enforcement, income tax laws and accounting principles could have a substantial impact on us and our operations. Changes in laws and regulations may also increase our expenses by imposing additional fees or taxes or restrictions on our operations. Additional legislation and regulations that could significantly affect our authority and operations may be enacted or adopted in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Failure to appropriately
comply with any such laws, regulations or principles could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, or damage to our reputation, all of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.
In that regard, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted in July 2010. Among other provisions, the new legislation creates a new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to regulate consumer financial products such as credit cards and mortgages, creates a Financial Stability Oversight Council comprised of the heads of other regulatory agencies, will lead to new capital requirements from federal banking agencies, places new limits on electronic debt card interchange fees, and will require the Securities and Exchange Commission and national stock exchanges to adopt significant new corporate governance and executive compensation reforms. The new legislation and regulations are expected to increase the overall costs of regulatory compliance and limit certain sources of revenue.
Further, regulators have significant discretion and authority to prevent or remedy practices that they deem to be unsafe or unsound, or violations of laws or regulations by financial institutions and holding companies in the performance of their supervisory and enforcement duties. Recently, these powers have been utilized more frequently due to the serious national economic conditions we are facing. The exercise of regulatory authority may have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations. Additionally, our business is affected significantly by the fiscal and monetary policies of the U.S. federal government and its agencies, including the Federal Reserve Board.
We cannot accurately predict the full effects of recent legislation or the various other governmental, regulatory, monetary, and fiscal initiatives which have been and may be enacted on the financial markets and on the Company. The terms and costs of these activities, or the failure of these actions to help stabilize the financial markets, asset prices, market liquidity, and a continuation or worsening of current financial market and economic conditions could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, and the trading price of our common stock.
We may be adversely impacted by recent volatility in the European financial markets
In 2010, a financial crisis emerged in Europe, triggered by high budget deficits and rising direct and contingent sovereign debt in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain, which created concerns about the ability of these EU “peripheral nations” to continue to service their sovereign debt obligations. These conditions impacted financial markets and resulted in high and volatile bond yields on the sovereign debt of many EU nations. Certain European nations continue to experience varying degrees of financial stress, and yields on government-issued bonds in Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain have risen and remain volatile. Despite assistance packages to Greece, Ireland and Portugal, the creation of a joint EU-IMF European Financial Stability Facility in May 2010, and a recently announced plan to expand financial assistance to Greece, uncertainty over the outcome of the EU governments’ financial support programs and worries about sovereign finances persist. Market concerns over the direct and indirect exposure of European banks and insurers to the EU peripheral nations has resulted in a widening of credit spreads and increased costs of funding for some European financial institutions.
Risks and ongoing concerns about the debt crisis in Europe could have a detrimental impact on the global economic recovery, sovereign and non-sovereign debt in these countries and the financial condition of European financial institutions. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may continue to affect, consumer confidence levels and spending, personal bankruptcy rates, levels of incurrence and default on consumer debt and home prices, among other factors. There can be no assurance that the market disruptions in Europe, including the increased cost of funding for certain governments and financial institutions, will not spread, nor can there be any assurance that future assistance packages will be available or, even if provided, will be sufficient to stabilize the affected countries and markets in Europe or elsewhere. While we have no direct exposure to European financial institutions or sovereign debt, to the extent uncertainty regarding the economic recovery continues to negatively impact consumer confidence and consumer credit factors, our business and results of operations could be significantly and adversely affected.
We may be adversely impacted by the unprecedented volatility in the financial markets.
Dramatic declines in the national housing market in 2008 and 2009, with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures, unemployment and under-employment have negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage loans and resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities as well as major commercial and investment banks. These write-downs, initially of mortgage-backed securities but spreading to credit default swaps and other derivative and cash securities, in turn, have caused many financial institutions to seek additional capital, to merge with larger and stronger institutions and, in some cases, to fail. Reflecting concern about the stability of the financial markets generally and the strength of counterparties, many lenders and institutional investors have reduced or ceased providing funding to borrowers, including to other financial institutions. This market turmoil and tightening of credit have led to an increased level of commercial and consumer delinquencies, lack of consumer confidence, increased market volatility, and widespread reduction of business activity generally. Our financial performance generally, and in particular the ability of borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the markets where we operate. Similarly, declining real estate values can adversely
impact the carrying value of real estate secured loans. The downturn in the economy, the slowdown in the real estate market, and declines in some real estate values had a direct and adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations in 2008 and 2009. While we experienced some stabilization in the economy in 2010 and 2011, we do not expect that the difficult conditions in the financial markets are likely to improve significantly in the near future. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us and others in the financial institutions industry. In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with these events:
-
We expect to face continued increased regulation of our industry, including as a result of the Stabilization Act and Dodd Frank legislation. Compliance with such regulation may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities.
-
Competition in our industry could intensify as a result of the increasing consolidation of financial services companies in connection with current market conditions.
-
We have been required to pay significantly higher FDIC premiums because market developments have significantly depleted the insurance fund of the FDIC and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits.
The operations of our business, including our interaction with customers, are increasingly done via electronic means, and this has increased our risks related to cybersecurity.
The Company is exposed to cyber-attacks in the normal course of business. In general, cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events. We have observed an increased level of attention focused on cyber-attacks that include, but are not limited to, gaining unauthorized access to digital systems for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information, corrupting data, or causing operational disruption. Cyber-attacks may also be carried out in a manner that does not require gaining unauthorized access, such as by causing denial-of-service attacks on websites. Cyber-attacks may be carried out by third parties or insiders using techniques that range from highly sophisticated efforts to electronically circumvent network security or overwhelm websites to more traditional intelligence gathering and social engineering aimed at obtaining information necessary to gain access. The objectives of cyber-attacks vary widely and may include theft of financial assets, intellectual property, or other sensitive information belonging to the Company or our customers. Cyber-attacks may also be directed at disrupting the operations of the Company’s business.
While the Company has not incurred any material losses related to cyber-attacks, nor are we aware of any specific or threatened cyber-incidents as of the date of this report, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences if we fall victim to successful cyber-attacks. Such negative consequences could include remediation costs that may include liability for stolen assets or information and repairing system damage that may have been caused; increased cybersecurity protection costs that may include organizational changes, deploying additional personnel and protection technologies, training employees, and engaging third party experts and consultants; lost revenues resulting from unauthorized use of proprietary information or the failure to retain or attract customers following an attack; litigation; and reputational damage adversely affecting customer or investor confidence.
Declines in the residential housing market would have a negative impact on our residential housing market income.
The Company earns revenue from the residential housing market in the form of interest income and fees on loans and earnings from RML. A slowdown in the residential sales cycle in our major markets and a constriction in the availability of mortgage financing have negatively impacted real estate sales, which has resulted in customers’ inability to repay loans. In 2012, the Company expects that its revenues from the residential housing market in the form of interest income and fees on loans and earnings from RML will be higher than 2011 because of an increase in residential construction loans through the Company’s efforts to increase market share in this area, offset in part by a decline in refinance activity at RML. However, further declines in these areas may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition through a decline in interest income and fees.
Our loan loss allowance may not be adequate to cover future loan losses, which may adversely affect our earnings.
We have established a reserve for probable losses we expect to incur in connection with loans in our credit portfolio. This allowance reflects our estimate of the collectability of certain identified loans, as well as an overall risk assessment of total loans outstanding. Our determination of the amount of loan loss allowance is highly subjective; although management personnel apply criteria such as risk ratings and historical loss rates, these factors may not be adequate predictors of future loan performance. Accordingly, we cannot offer assurances that these estimates ultimately will prove correct or that the loan loss allowance will be sufficient to protect against losses that ultimately may occur. If our loan loss allowance proves to be inadequate, we may suffer unexpected charges to income, which would adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition. Moreover, bank regulators frequently monitor banks' loan loss allowances, and if regulators were to determine that the allowance is inadequate, they may require us to increase the allowance, which also would adversely impact our net income and financial condition.
We have a significant concentration in real estate lending. The sustained downturn in real estate within our markets has had and is expected to continue to have a negative impact on our results of operations.
Approximately 68% of the Bank’s loan portfolio at December 31, 2011 consisted of loans secured by commercial and residential real estate located in Alaska. In recent years the slowdown in the residential sales cycle in our major markets and a constriction in the availability of mortgage financing have negatively impacted residential real estate sales, which has resulted in customers’ inability to repay loans. During 2008, we experienced a significant increase in non-performing assets relating to our real estate lending, primarily in our residential real estate portfolio. Although non-performing assets decreased from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2011, we will see a further increase in non-performing assets if more borrowers fail to perform according to loan terms and if we take possession of real estate properties. Additionally, if real estate values decline, the value of real estate collateral securing our loans could be significantly reduced. If any of these effects continue or become more pronounced, loan losses will increase more than we expect and our financial condition and results of operations would be adversely impacted.
Further, approximately 49% of the Bank’s loan portfolio at December 31, 2011 consisted of commercial real estate loans. Nationally, delinquencies in these types of portfolios have increased significantly in recent years. While our investments in these types of loans have not been as adversely impacted as residential construction and land development loans, there can be no assurance that the credit quality in these portfolios will remain stable. Commercial construction and commercial real estate loans typically involve larger loan balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers. Consequently, an adverse development with respect to one commercial loan or one credit relationship exposes us to significantly greater risk of loss compared to an adverse development with respect to a consumer loan. These trends may continue and may result in losses that exceed the estimates that are currently included in our loan loss allowance, which could adversely affect our financial conditions and results of operations.
Real estate values may continue to decrease leading to additional and greater than anticipated loan charge-offs and valuation write downs on our other real estate owned (“OREO”) properties.
Real estate owned by the Bank and not used in the ordinary course of its operations is referred to as “other real estate owned” or “OREO” property. We foreclose on and take title to the real estate serving as collateral for defaulted loans as part of our business. At December 31, 2011, the Bank held $5.2 million of OREO properties, many of which relate to residential construction and land development loans. Increased OREO balances lead to greater expenses as we incur costs to manage and dispose of the properties. Our ability to sell OREO properties is affected by public perception that banks are inclined to accept large discounts from market value in order to quickly liquidate properties. Any decrease in market prices may lead to OREO write downs, with a corresponding expense in our income statement. We evaluate OREO property values periodically and write down the carrying value of the properties if the results of our evaluations require it. Further write-downs on OREO or an inability to sell OREO properties could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.
Changes in market interest rates could adversely impact the Company.
Our earnings are impacted by changing interest rates. Changes in interest rates affect the demand for new loans, the credit profile of existing loans, the rates received on loans and securities, and rates paid on deposits and borrowings. The relationship between the rates received on loans and securities and the rates paid on deposits and borrowings is known as the net interest margin. Exposure to interest rate risk is managed by monitoring the repricing frequency of our rate-sensitive assets and rate-sensitive liabilities over any given period. Although we believe the current level of interest rate sensitivity is reasonable, significant fluctuations in interest rates could potentially have an adverse affect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Our financial performance depends on our ability to manage recent and possible future growth.
Our financial performance and profitability will depend on our ability to manage recent and possible future growth. Although we believe that we have substantially integrated the business and operations of past acquisitions, there can be no assurance that unforeseen issues relating to the acquisitions will not adversely affect us. Any future acquisitions and continued growth may present operating and other problems that could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that we will be able to execute our growth strategy or maintain the level of profitability that we have experienced in the past.
Our concentration of operations in the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks, areas of Alaska makes us more sensitive to downturns in those areas.
Substantially all of our business is derived from the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks, areas of Alaska. The majority of our lending has been with Alaska businesses and individuals. At December 31, 2011, approximately 68% of the Bank’s loans are secured by real estate and 32% are for general commercial uses, including professional, retail, and small businesses, respectively. Substantially all of these loans are collateralized and repayment is expected from the borrowers’ cash flow or, secondarily, the collateral. Our exposure to credit loss, if any, is the outstanding amount of the loan if the collateral is proved to be of no value. These areas rely primarily upon the natural resources industries, particularly oil production, as well as tourism, government and U.S. military spending for their economic success. Our business is and will remain sensitive to economic factors that relate to these industries and local and regional business conditions. As a result, local or regional economic downturns, or downturns that disproportionately affect one or more of the key industries in regions served by the Company, may have a more pronounced effect upon its business than they might on an institution that is less geographically concentrated. The extent of the future impact of these events on economic and business conditions cannot be predicted; however, prolonged or acute fluctuations could have a material and adverse impact upon our results of operation and financial condition.
We conduct substantially all of our operations through Northrim Bank, our banking subsidiary; our ability to pay dividends, repurchase our shares or to repay our indebtedness depends upon liquid assets held by the holding company and the results of operations of our subsidiaries.
The Company is a separate and distinct legal entity from our subsidiaries and it receives substantially all of its revenue from dividends paid from the Bank. There are legal limitations on the extent to which the Bank may extend credit, pay dividends or otherwise supply funds to, or engage in transactions with, us. Our inability to receive dividends from the Bank could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.
Our net income depends primarily upon the Bank’s net interest income, which is the income that remains after deducting from total income generated by earning assets the expense attributable to the acquisition of the funds required to support earning assets (primarily interest paid on deposits). The amount of interest income is dependent on many factors including the volume of earning assets, the general level of interest rates, the dynamics of changes in interest rates and the levels of nonperforming loans. All of those factors affect the Bank’s ability to pay dividends to the Company.
Various statutory provisions restrict the amount of dividends the Bank can pay to us without regulatory approval. The Bank may not pay cash dividends if that payment could reduce the amount of its capital below that necessary to meet the “adequately capitalized” level in accordance with regulatory capital requirements. It is also possible that, depending upon the financial condition of the Bank and other factors, regulatory authorities could conclude that payment of dividends or other payments, including payments to us, is an unsafe or unsound practice and impose restrictions or prohibit such payments. It is the policy of the FRB that bank holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. The policy provides that bank holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines a bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.
The financial services business is intensely competitive and our success will depend on our ability to compete effectively.
The financial services business in our market areas is highly competitive. It is becoming increasingly competitive due to changes in regulation, technological advances, and the accelerating pace of consolidation among financial services providers. We face competition both in attracting deposits and in originating loans. We compete for loans principally through the pricing of interest rates and loan fees and the efficiency and quality of services. Increasing levels of competition in the banking and financial services industries may reduce our market share or cause the prices charged for our services to fall. Improvements in technology, communications, and the internet have intensified competition. As a result, our competitive position could be weakened, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
We may be unable to attract and retain key employees and personnel.
We will be dependent for the foreseeable future on the services of R. Marc Langland, our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company; Joseph M. Beedle, our President and Chief Executive Officer of Northrim Bank; Christopher N. Knudson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer; Joseph M. Schierhorn, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Steven L. Hartung, our Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer. While we maintain keyman life insurance on the lives of Messrs. Langland, Beedle, Knudson, and Schierhorn in the amounts of $2.5 million, $2 million, $2.1 million, and $1 million, respectively, we may not be able to timely replace Mr. Langland, Mr. Beedle, Mr. Knudson, or Mr. Schierhorn with a person of comparable ability and experience should the need to do so arise,
causing losses in excess of the insurance proceeds. Currently, we do not maintain keyman life insurance on the life of Mr. Hartung. The unexpected loss of key employees could have a material adverse effect on our business and possibly result in reduced revenues and earnings.
A failure of a significant number of our borrowers, guarantors and related parties to perform in accordance with the terms of their loans would have an adverse impact on our results of operations.
A source of risk arises from the possibility that losses will be sustained if a significant number of our borrowers, guarantors and related parties fail to perform in accordance with the terms of their loans. We have adopted underwriting and credit monitoring procedures and credit policies, including the establishment and review of the Allowance, which we believe are appropriate to minimize this risk by assessing the likelihood of nonperformance, tracking loan performance, and diversifying our credit portfolio. These policies and procedures, however, may not prevent unexpected losses that could materially affect our results of operations.
ITEM 1B.
ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS
None.
ITEM 2.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES
The following sets forth information about our branch locations:
ITEM 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
The Company from time to time may be involved with disputes, claims, and litigation related to the conduct of its banking business. Management does not expect that the resolution of these matters will have a material effect on the Company’s business, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
PART II
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. MINING SAFETY DISCLOSURES
Not applicable.
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES
Our common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the symbol, “NRIM.” We are aware that large blocks of our stock are held in street name by brokerage firms. At March 13, 2012, the number of shareholders of record of our common stock was 144.
The following are high and low closing prices as reported by NASDAQ. Prices do not include retail markups, markdowns or commissions.
In 2011 we paid cash dividends of $0.12 per share in the first and second quarters and $0.13 per share in the third and fourth quarters. In 2010 we paid cash dividends of $0.10 per share in the first and second quarters and $0.12 per share in the third and fourth quarters. Cash dividends totaled $3.3 million, $2.8 million, and $2.6 million in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. On February 16, 2012, the Board of Directors approved payment of a $0.13 per share dividend on March 16, 2012, to shareholders of record on March 8, 2012. The Company and the Bank are subject to restrictions on the payment of dividends pursuant to applicable federal and state banking regulations. The dividends that the Bank pays to the Company are limited to the extent necessary for the Bank to meet the regulatory requirements of a “well-capitalized” bank. Given the fact that the Bank remains “well-capitalized”, the Company expects to receive dividends from the Bank.
Repurchase of Securities
The Company did not repurchase any of its common stock during the fourth quarter of 2011.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
The following table sets forth information regarding securities authorized for issuance under the Company’s equity plans as of December 31, 2011. Additional information regarding the Company’s equity plans is presented in Note 18 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report.
(1) Includes 248,628 options and restricted stock units awarded under previous stock option plans.
Stock Performance Graph
The graph shown below depicts the total return to shareholders during the period beginning after December 31, 2006, and ending December 31, 2011. The definition of total return includes appreciation in market value of the stock, as well as the actual cash and stock dividends paid to shareholders. The comparable indices utilized are the Russell 3000 Index, representing approximately 98% of the U.S. equity market, and the SNL Financial Bank Stock Index, comprised of publicly traded banks with assets of $1 billion to $5 billion, which are located in the United States. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in the Company’s common stock and each of the three indices was $100 on December 31, 2006, and that all dividends were reinvested.
Total Return Performance
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA (1)
(1) These unaudited schedules provide selected financial information concerning the Company that should be read in conjunction with "Item 7.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
This discussion highlights key information as determined by management but may not contain all of the information that is important to you. For a more complete understanding, the following should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto as of December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009 included elsewhere in this report.
Executive Overview
-
The Company’s net income increased 26% to $11.4 million, or $1.74 per diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2011 from $9.1 million, or $1.40 per diluted share, for the year ended December 31, 2010, reflecting continuing improvement in credit quality, increased other operating income, and lower other operating expenses.
-
Our provision for loan losses in 2011 decreased by $3.6 million, or 64%, to $2 million from $5.6 million in 2010 as we experienced net recoveries of $98,000 in 2011 as compared to net charge-offs of $4.3 million in 2010. In addition, our nonperforming loans at December 31, 2011 decreased by $4 million, or 36%, from $11.4 million at December 31, 2010 to $7.4 million at December 31, 2011.
-
Other operating income, which includes revenues from financial services affiliates, service charges, and electronic banking contributed 23.6% to annual 2011 revenues, compared to contributions of 21.9% to annual 2010 revenues.
-
Other operating expenses decreased $869,000, or 2% in 2011 to $36.8 million from $37.6 million in 2010 primarily due to decreased salaries and benefits costs and decreased FDIC insurance expense. These decreases were partially offset by decreased gains on sale and rental income from OREO. The gains on sale and rental income generated from OREO are included as negative expense items in the other operating expense section of the Consolidated Statement of Income.
-
The Company’s total assets grew 3% to $1.085 billion at December 31, 2011 as compared to $1.055 billion at December 31, 2010, with increases in cash and investments, loans held for sale and purchased receivables offsetting reductions in OREO and portfolio loans. While loans decreased 4% at December 31, 2011 as compared to the prior year, year-to-date average loans were up 1% year over year at $653.8 million for 2011 as compared to $646.7 million in 2010.
-
The allowance for loan losses (“Allowance”) totaled 2.56% of total portfolio loans at December 31, 2011, compared to 2.14% at December 31, 2010. The Allowance to nonperforming loans also increased to 224% at December 31, 2011 from 126% at December 31, 2010.
-
Nonperforming assets were reduced 43% year-over-year to $12.5 million at December 31, 2011 or 1.16% of total assets, compared to $21.8 million or 2.07% of total assets at December 31, 2010.
-
The Company continued to maintain strong capital ratios with Tier 1 Capital/risk adjusted assets of 15.20% at December 31, 2011 as compared to 14.08% a year ago. The Company’s tangible common equity to tangible assets at year end 2011 was 10.86%, up from 10.36% at year-end 2010. Tangible common equity to tangible assets is a non-GAAP ratio that represents total equity less goodwill and intangible assets divided by total assets less goodwill and intangible assets. The GAAP measure of equity to assets is total equity divided by total assets. Total equity to total assets was 11.56% at December 31, 2011 as compared to 11.11% at December 31, 2010.
-
The cash dividend paid on December 16, 2011, rose 8% to $0.13 per diluted share from $0.12 per diluted share paid in the fourth quarter of 2010.
Critical Accounting Estimates
The preparation of the consolidated financial statements requires us to make a number of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and assumptions based upon historical experience and various other factors and circumstances. We believe that our estimates and assumptions are reasonable; however, actual results may differ significantly from these estimates and assumptions which could have a material impact on the carrying value of assets and liabilities at the balance sheet dates and on our results of operations for the reporting periods.
The accounting policies that involve significant estimates and assumptions by management, which have a material impact on the carrying value of certain assets and liabilities, are considered critical accounting policies. We believe that our most
critical accounting policies upon which our financial condition depends, and which involve the most complex or subjective decisions or assessments are as follows:
Allowance for loan losses: The Company maintains an Allowance to reflect inherent losses in its loan portfolio as of the balance sheet date. In determining its total Allowance, the Company first estimates a specific allocated allowance for impaired loans. This analysis is based upon a specific analysis for each impaired loan that is collateral dependent, including appraisals on loans secured by real property, management’s assessment of the current market, recent payment history, and an evaluation of other sources of repayment. The Company obtains appraisals on real and personal property that secure its loans during the loan origination process in accordance with regulatory guidance and its loan policy. The Company obtains updated appraisals on loans secured by real or personal property based upon its assessment of changes in the current market or particular projects or properties, information from other current appraisals, and other sources of information. The Company uses the information provided in these updated appraisals along with its evaluation of all other information available on a particular property as it assesses the collateral coverage on its performing and nonperforming loans and the impact that may have on the adequacy of its Allowance.
The Company then estimates a general allocated allowance for all other loans that were not impaired as of the balance sheet date using a formula-based approach that includes average historical loss factors that are adjusted for qualitative factors applied to segments and classes of loans not considered impaired for purposes of establishing the allocated portion of the general reserve of the Allowance. The Company first disaggregates the overall loan portfolio into the following segments: commercial, real estate construction, real estate term, and home equity lines and other consumer loans. Then the Company further disaggregates each segment into the following classes, which are also known as risk classifications: excellent, good, satisfactory, watch, special mention, substandard, doubtful and loss. After the portfolio has been disaggregated into these segments and classes, the Company calculates a general reserve for each segment and class based on the average four year loss history for each segment and class. This general reserve is then adjusted for qualitative factors, by segment and class. Qualitative factors are based on management’s assessment of current trends that may cause losses inherent in the current loan portfolio to differ significantly from historical losses. Some factors that management considers in determining the qualitative adjustment to the general reserve include national and local economic trends, business conditions, underwriting policies and standards, trends in local real estate markets, effects of various political activities, peer group data, and internal factors such as underwriting policies and expertise of the Company’s employees.
Finally, the Company assesses the overall adequacy of the Allowance based on several factors including the level of the Allowance as compared to total loans and nonperforming loans in light of current economic conditions. This portion of the Allowance is deemed “unallocated” because it is not allocated to any segment or class of the loan portfolio. This portion of the Allowance provides for coverage of credit losses inherent in the loan portfolio but not captured in the credit loss factors that are utilized in the risk rating-based component or in the specific impairment component of the Allowance and acknowledges the inherent imprecision of all loss prediction models.
The unallocated portion of the Allowance is based upon management’s evaluation of various factors that are not directly measured in the determination of the allocated portions of the Allowance. Such factors include uncertainties in identifying triggering events that directly correlate to subsequent loss rates, uncertainties in economic conditions, risk factors that have not yet manifested themselves in loss allocation factors, and historical loss experience data that may not precisely correspond to the current portfolio. In addition, the unallocated reserve may be further adjusted based upon the direction of various risk indicators. Examples of such factors include the risk as to current and prospective economic conditions, the level and trend of charge offs or recoveries, and the risk of heightened imprecision or inconsistency of appraisals used in estimating real estate values. Although this allocation process may not accurately predict credit losses by loan type or in aggregate, the total allowance for credit losses is available to absorb losses that may arise from any loan type or category. Due to the subjectivity involved in the determination of the unallocated portion of the Allowance, the relationship of the unallocated component to the total Allowance may fluctuate from period to period.
Based on our methodology and its components, management believes the resulting Allowance is adequate and appropriate for the risk identified in the Company's loan portfolio. Given current processes employed by the Company, management believes the risk ratings and inherent loss rates currently assigned are appropriate. It is possible that others, given the same information, may at any point in time reach different reasonable conclusions that could be material to the Company's financial statements. In addition, current risk ratings and fair value estimates of collateral are subject to change as we continue to review loans within our portfolio and as our borrowers are impacted by economic trends within their market areas. Although we have established an Allowance that we consider adequate, there can be no assurance that the established Allowance will be sufficient to offset losses on loans in the future.
Goodwill and other intangibles: Net assets of entities acquired in purchase transactions are recorded at fair value at the date of acquisition. Identified intangibles are amortized over the period benefited either on a straight-line basis or on an
accelerated basis depending on the nature of the intangible. Goodwill is not amortized, although it is reviewed for impairment on an annual basis or at an interim date if events or circumstances indicate a potential impairment. Goodwill impairment testing is performed at the reporting unit level.
In 2011, the Company early implemented Accounting Standards Update 2011-08, “Testing for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU 2011-08”). Under this new guidance, the Company implemented the option to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether the existence of certain events or circumstances leads to a determination that it is more likely than not that the fair value of each reporting unit of the Company is less than the carrying amount. We have determined that the Company has only one reporting unit. If it is determined that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the Company exceeds the carrying amount, the Company need not move on to step one of the impairment test, and goodwill is not impaired.
If, using the qualitative assessment described above, it is determined that it is more likely than not that the carrying value exceeds the fair value of the Company, then we must move on to a more comprehensive goodwill impairment analysis. The first step, used to identify potential impairment, involves comparing each reporting unit’s fair value to its carrying value including goodwill. If the fair value of a reporting unit exceeds its carrying value, applicable goodwill is considered not to be impaired. If the carrying value exceeds fair value, there is an indication of impairment and the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment.
The second step involves calculating an implied fair value of goodwill for each reporting unit when the first step indicated impairment. The implied fair value of goodwill is determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill recognized in a business combination, which is the excess of the fair value of the reporting unit, as determined in the first step, over the aggregate fair values of the individual assets, liabilities and identifiable intangibles as if the reporting unit was being acquired in a business combination. If the implied fair value of goodwill in the “pro forma” business combination accounting as described above exceeds the goodwill assigned to the reporting unit, there is no impairment. If the goodwill assigned to a reporting unit exceeds the implied fair value of the goodwill, an impairment charge is recorded for the excess. An impairment loss recognized cannot exceed the amount of goodwill, and the loss establishes a new basis in the goodwill. Subsequent reversal of goodwill impairment losses is not permitted under applicable accounting standards.
The Company performed its annual goodwill impairment testing at December 31, 2011 and 2010 in accordance with the policy described in Note 1. At December 31, 2011, the Company performed its annual impairment test by applying the qualitative assessment described in ASU 2011-08. Significant positive inputs to the qualitative assessment included the Company’s capital position; the Company’s increasing historical trends and budget-to-actual results of operations; the Company’s decreasing trends in, and current level of nonperforming assets; results of regulatory examinations; trends and peer comparisons of net interest margin; and trends in the Company’s cash flows. Significant negative inputs to the qualitative assessment included general local, national, and international economic conditions and how they may negatively affect our business as well as the current volatility and uncertainty related to market capitalization of financial institutions in general. We believe that the positive inputs to the qualitative assessment noted above outweigh the negative inputs, and we therefore concluded that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the Company exceeds the carry value at December 31, 2011 and that no potential impairment existed at that time.
The Company continues to monitor the Company’s goodwill for potential impairment on an ongoing basis. No assurance can be given that we will not charge earnings during 2012 for goodwill impairment, if, for example, our stock price declines significantly, although there are many factors that we analyze in determining the impairment of goodwill.
Valuation of OREO: OREO represents properties acquired through foreclosure or its equivalent. Prior to foreclosure, the carrying value is adjusted to the fair value, less cost to sell, of the real estate to be acquired by an adjustment to the allowance for loan loss. The amount by which the fair value less cost to sell is greater than the carrying amount of the loan plus amounts previously charged off is recognized in earnings. Any subsequent reduction in the carrying value is charged against earnings.
Reductions in the carrying value of other real estate owned subsequent to acquisition are determined based on management’s estimate of the fair value of individual properties. Significant inputs into this estimate include estimated costs to complete projects as well as our assessment of current market conditions.
Results of Operations
Net Income
Our results of operations are dependent to a large degree on our net interest income. We also generate other income primarily through purchased receivables products, service charges and fees, sales of employee benefit plans, electronic banking income, earnings from our mortgage affiliate, and rental income. Our operating expenses consist in large part of compensation, employee benefits expense, occupancy, marketing, professional and outside services, insurance expense, and expenses related to OREO. Interest income and cost of funds are affected significantly by general economic conditions, particularly changes in market interest rates, and by government policies and the actions of regulatory authorities.
We earned net income of $11.4 million in 2011, compared to net income of $9.1 million in 2010, and $7.7 million in 2009. During these periods, net income per diluted share was $1.74, $1.40, and $1.20, respectively. The increase in 2011 was due to decreases in the provision for loan losses and other operating expenses of $3.6 million and 869,000, respectively and an increase in other operating income of $713,000. These changes were partially offset by a decrease in net interest income of $1.8 million in 2011 as compared to 2010, as well as an increase in the provision for income taxes of $955,000 over the same period.
Net Interest Income
Net interest income is the difference between interest income from loan and investment securities portfolios and interest expense on customer deposits and borrowings. Net interest income in 2011 was $42.4 million, compared to $44.2 million in 2010 and $46.4 million in 2009. The decrease in 2011 was primarily due to the lower yield on loans and investments in 2011 as compared to 2010 which was only partially offset by decreased interest expense from lower average interest rates on deposits. The decrease in 2010 was primarily due to lower average loan balances, coupled with a slightly lower yield on loans in 2010 as compared to 2009 which was only partially offset by decreased interest expense from lower average interest rates on both deposits and borrowings.
Changes in net interest income result from changes in volume and spread, which in turn affect our margin. For this purpose, volume refers to the average dollar level of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, spread refers to the difference between the average yield on interest-earning assets and the average cost of interest-bearing liabilities, and margin refers to net interest income divided by average interest-earning assets. Changes in net interest income are influenced by the level and relative mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. During the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, average interest-earning assets were $934.7 million, $904.2 million, and $876.1 million, respectively. During these same periods, net interest margins were 4.53%, 4.89%, and 5.30%, respectively, which reflects the changes in our balance sheet mix. Our average yield on interest-earning assets was 4.91% in 2011, 5.50% in 2010, and 6.11% in 2009, while the average cost of interest-bearing liabilities was 0.57% in 2011, 0.88% in 2010, and 1.14% in 2009.
Our net interest margin decreased in 2011 from 2010 mainly due to the fact that in 2011, interest rates on both loans and investment securities declined as compared to 2010. These decreases were only partially offset by increases in net interest income due to higher average balances in interest-bearing assets. The net interest margin decreased in 2010 from 2009 mainly due to the fact that in 2010, the mix of average interest-earning assets included lower average loan balances and higher average balances in securities and short term investments as compared to 2009. Loans have a significantly higher yield than securities and short term investments, so the shift in average balances in these asset categories significantly impacts the overall yield on interest-earnings assets.
The following table sets forth for the periods indicated information with regard to average balances of assets and liabilities, as well as the total dollar amounts of interest income from interest-earning assets and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities. Resultant yields or costs, net interest income, and net interest margin are also presented:
(1) Interest income includes loan fees. Loan fees recognized during the period and included in the yield calculation totalled $2.6 million, $2.6 million and $2.7 million for 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
(2) Nonaccrual loans are included with a zero effective yield. Average nonaccrual loans included in the computation of the average loans were $9.6 million, $13.8 million, and $19.1 million in 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
(3) The net interest margin on a tax equivalent basis was 4.59%, 4.92%, and 5.33%, respectively, for 2011, 2010, and 2009.
The following table sets forth the changes in consolidated net interest income attributable to changes in volume and to changes in interest rates. Changes attributable to the combined effect of volume and interest rate have been allocated proportionately to the changes due to volume and the changes due to interest rate.
Provision for Loan Losses
The provision for loan losses in 2011 was $2 million, compared to $5.6 million in 2010 and $7.1 million in 2009. We decreased the provision for loan losses in 2011 primarily because there were net recoveries of $98,000 in 2011 as compared to net charge offs of $4.3 million in 2010. Additionally, impaired loans decreased to $9.5 million at December 31, 2011 from $18.3 million at December 31, 2010. We decreased the provision for loan losses in 2010 primarily because net charge offs decreased from $6.9 million in 2009 to $4.3 million in 2010. Additionally, impaired loans decreased to $18.3 million at December 31, 2010 from $46.3 million at December 31, 2009. These decreases were partially offset in the provision for loans losses by an increase in gross loans, which grew to $671.8 million at December 31, 2010 from $655 million at December 31, 2009. See the “Allowance for Loan Loss” section under “Financial Condition” for further discussion of these decreases. Net loan recoveries were 0.01% in 2011 and net loan charge-offs were 0.66% and 1% of average loans in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. See Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report for further discussion of the change in the Allowance.
Other Operating Income
Total other operating income increased $713,000, or 6%, in 2011 as compared to 2010, after decreasing $707,000, or 5%, in 2010, as compared to 2009. The following table separates the more routine (operating) sources of other income from those that can fluctuate significantly from period to period:
2011 Compared to 2010
Other operating income increased in 2011 primarily due to the increases in purchased receivable income, employee benefit plan services income, and electronic banking fees. Income from the Company’s purchased receivable products increased in 2011 due to increased average purchased receivable balances outstanding during the year. The Company expects the income level from this product to continue to increase as the Company adds new customers in this line of business. Employee benefit plan services income represents income generated by the Company’s 50.1% owned affiliate, NBG. The Company consolidates the balance sheet and income statement of NBG into its financial statements. The increase in income from employee benefit plan income from NBG in 2011 is a reflection of NBG’s ability to continue to provide additional products and services to an increasing client base. We expect employee benefit plan income from NBG to continue to increase as NBG’s business continues to grow. The increase in the Company’s electronic banking fees in 2011 resulted from additional fees collected from increased point-of-sale transactions and additional fees collected related to ATM services. Point-of-sale fees have increased as overall usage of this type of transaction has increased. ATM fees increased due to increases in the fees the Company charges for these services. In addition to these increases, the Company’s net income from its affiliate PWA, which is included in the other income line above, increased $107,000 in 2011 as compared to 2010 as PWA’s assets under management increased.
The increases in other operating income noted above were partially offset by decreases in deposit service charges, earnings from RML, and net gains on the sale of securities available for sale. Deposit service charges decreased in 2011 because of decreases in fees collected on nonsufficient funds transactions due to a decrease in the number of overdraft transactions processed in 2011 as compared to 2010. This decrease resulted from changes in regulations that were effective starting in the third quarter of 2010 that restrict the Company’s ability to assess service charges on point-of-sale transactions unless its customers request this service. Earnings from RML have fluctuated with activity in the housing market, which has been affected by local economic conditions and changes in mortgage interest rates. Earnings from RML decreased in 2011 as refinance activity, which reached nearly record highs in 2009, continued to slow. The Company expects that its income from RML will decrease in 2012 as compared to 2011 as the refinance activity continues to decrease.
2010 Compared to 2009
Other operating income decreased in 2010 primarily due to the decreases in earnings from RML, deposit service charges, and purchased receivable income. Earnings from RML decreased in 2010 as refinance activity, which reached nearly record highs in 2009, began to slow. Similar to 2011, deposit service charges decreased in 2010 because of decreases in fees collected on nonsufficient funds transactions due to a decrease in the number of overdraft transactions processed in 2010 as compared to 2009 as result of the changes in regulations noted above. Lastly, although year-end purchased receivable balances in 2010 exceed those of 2009, income from the Company’s purchased receivable products decreased in 2010 due to decreases in the average purchased receivable balances outstanding during the year.
The decreases in other operating income noted above were partially offset by increases in net gains on the sale of securities available for sale, electronic banking fees, and employee benefit plan income. The increase in the Company’s electronic banking fees in 2010 resulted from additional fees collected from increased point-of-sale transactions. The increase in income from employee benefit plan income from NBG in 2010 is a reflection of NBG’s ability to continue to provide additional products and services to an increasing client base.
Other Operating Expense
Other operating expense decreased $869,000, or 2%, in 2011 as compared to 2010, and decreased $3.7 million, or 9%, in 2010 as compared to 2009. The following table breaks out the other operating expense categories:
2011 Compared to 2010
Other operating expense decreased in 2011 primarily due to decreased salaries and other personnel expenses, insurance expenses, and impairment on purchased receivables net of recoveries. Salaries and other personnel expense decreased in 2011 due to decreased group health costs through decreased medical claims and a decrease in the Company’s workforce. Insurance expense decreased in 2011 mainly due to decreased FDIC insurance premiums as a the result of a decrease in the rate assessed on the Company in 2011. Lastly, the Company’s impairment on purchased receivables decreased in 2011. The Company recognizes impairment on purchased receivables when there is significant doubt as to the collectability of the receivable.
These decreases in operating expenses were partially offset by increases in net costs related to OREO properties. Gains on the sale of OREO decreased significantly in 2011 due to a decrease in overall sales activity. Rental income on OREO also decreased significantly in 2011 as the result of the sale of a large condominium development in the second quarter of 2011. These decreases in income items were partially offset set by lower operating expenses associated with OREO properties as the overall inventory of OREO has continued to decrease. The Company expects net costs related to OREO properties to increase in 2012 due to the fact that we do not expect to have significant rental income or gains on the sale of OREO properties in the future.
2010 Compared to 2009
Other operating expense decreased in 2010 primarily due to decreased net costs related to OREO properties, and decreased insurance expense, prepayment penalties for long term debt, salaries and other personnel expenses, and professional and outside services. Gains on the sale of OREO increased significantly in 2010 due to an increase in overall sales activity and $422,000 in previously deferred gain that was recognized in 2010 related to one commercial property that was sold in 2007. Rental income on OREO also increased significantly in 2010 as the result of the transfer of a large condominium development into OREO in December 2009. Impairment expense on OREO decreased significantly in 2010. Impairment charges arise from adjustments to the Company’s estimate of the fair value of certain properties based on changes in estimated costs to complete the projects and overall market conditions in the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks markets. Insurance expense decreased in 2010 mainly due to decreased FDIC insurance premiums that was primarily the result of the one-time special assessment that the Company incurred in the second quarter of 2009, as well as a decrease in the rate assessed on the Company in 2010. Prepayment penalties on long term debt decreased in 2010 because the Company did not prepay any debt in 2010. Salaries and other personnel expense decreased in 2010 primarily due to a decrease in the Company’s workforce. Additionally, stock-based compensation expense decreased in 2010 due to decreases in the number of stock options vested in 2010 as compared to 2009. Lastly, professional and outside services decreased in 2010 due to decreases in audit and accounting consulting fees.
The decreases in operating expenses were partially offset by increases in marketing expense and in other expenses. Marketing costs increased in 2010 due to increases in advertising expenses and charitable contributions. Other expenses increased due to increased hardware costs related to the Company’s telephone system, the reserve for unfunded commitments, impairment on purchased receivables, and losses on the sale of repossessed assets.
Income Taxes
The provision for income taxes increased $955,000, or 24%, to $4.9 million in 2011. The provision for income taxes increased $951,000, or 32%, to $3.9 million in 2010. These increases are due primarily to the 25% and 21% increases in income before income taxes in 2011 and 2010, respectively. Additionally, the effective tax rate increased to 29% in 2011 and 2010 from 27% in 2009. The increase in the effective tax rate in 2010 as compared to 2009 is the result of a decrease in tax exempt income on investments and tax credits relative to the level of taxable income in 2010.
Financial Condition
Investment Securities Portfolio
Our investment portfolio consists primarily of government sponsored entity securities, corporate bonds, and municipal securities. Investment securities totaled $225.9 million at December 31, 2011, reflecting an increase of $5.8 million, or 3%, from year-end 2010 as our deposits have continued to increase while loan demand remains relatively flat. The average maturity of the investment portfolio was approximately two years at December 31, 2011.
The composition our investment securities portfolio reflects management’s investment strategy of maintaining an appropriate level of liquidity while providing a relatively stable source of interest income. The investment securities portfolio also mitigates interest rate and credit risk inherent in the loan portfolio, while providing a vehicle for the investment of available funds, a source of liquidity (by pledging as collateral or through repurchase agreements), and collateral for certain public funds deposits.
Our investment portfolio is divided into two classes: securities available for sale and securities held to maturity. Available for sale securities are carried at fair value with any unrealized gains or losses reflected as an adjustment to other comprehensive income included in shareholders’ equity. Securities held to maturity are carried at amortized cost. Investment securities designated as available for sale comprised 98% of the portfolio and are available to meet liquidity requirements.
Both available for sale and held to maturity securities may be pledged as collateral to secure public deposits. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, $32.1 million and $26.2 million in securities were pledged for deposits and borrowings, respectively. Pledged securities increased at December 31, 2011 as compared to December 31, 2010 because the Company had higher balances in securities sold under repurchase agreements, which are secured by pledged securities, at December 31, 2011.
The following tables set forth the composition of our investment portfolio at the dates indicated:
For the periods ending December 31, 2011 and 2010, we held Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) stock with a book value approximately equal to its market value in the amounts of $2.0 million for each year. The Company evaluated its investment in FHLB stock for other-than-temporary impairment as of December 31, 2011, consistent with its accounting policy. Based on the Company’s evaluation of the underlying investment, including the long-term nature of the investment, the liquidity position of the FHLB of Seattle, the actions being taken by the FHLB of Seattle to address its regulatory capital situation, and the Company’s intent and ability to hold the investment for a period of time sufficient to recover the par value, the Company did not recognize an other-than-temporary impairment loss. Even though the Company did not recognize an other-than-temporary impairment loss during the twelve-month period ending December 31, 2011, continued deterioration in the FHLB of Seattle’s financial position may result in future impairment losses.
The following table sets forth the market value, maturities and weighted average pretax yields of our investment portfolio for the periods indicated as of December 31, 2011:
In addition to the above investments, the Company also holds $999,000 in preferred stock at December 31, 2011. This type of investment does not have a maturity date, but it does earn dividends quarterly. The weighted average yield on preferred stock at December 31, 2011 is 5%. At December 31, 2011, we held no securities of any single issuer (other than government sponsored entities) that exceeded 10% of our shareholders’ equity.
Loans
Our loan products include short and medium-term commercial loans, commercial credit lines, construction and real estate loans, and consumer loans. We emphasize providing financial services to small and medium-sized businesses and to individuals. From our inception, we have emphasized commercial, land development and home construction, and commercial real estate lending. These types of lending have provided us with needed market opportunities and higher net interest margins than other types of lending. However, they also involve greater risks, including greater exposure to changes in local economic conditions, than certain other types of lending.
All of our loans and credit lines are subject to approval procedures and amount limitations. These limitations apply to the borrower’s total outstanding indebtedness and commitments to us, including the indebtedness of any guarantor. Generally, we are permitted to make loans to one borrower of up to 15% of the unimpaired capital and surplus of the Bank. The loan-to-one-borrower limitation for the Bank was $22 million at December 31, 2011. At December 31, 2011, the Company had four relationships whose total direct and indirect commitments exceeded $22 million; however, no individual direct relationship exceeded the limit. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Provision for Loan Losses.”
Our lending operations are guided by loan policies, which outline the basic policies and procedures by which lending operations are conducted. Generally, the policies address our desired loan types, target markets, underwriting and collateral requirements, terms, interest rate and yield considerations, and compliance with laws and regulations. The policies are reviewed and approved annually by the Board of Directors. We supplement our own supervision of the loan underwriting and approval process with periodic loan reviews by experienced officers in our internal audit department who examine quality, loan documentation, and compliance with laws and regulations. Our Quality Assurance department also provides independent, detailed financial analysis of our largest, most complex loans. In addition, the department, along with the Chief Lending Officer and others in the Loan Administration department, has developed processes to analyze and manage various concentrations of credit within the overall loan portfolio. The Loan Administration department has also enhanced the procedures and processes for the analysis and reporting of problem loans along with the development of strategies to resolve them. Finally, our Internal Audit Department also performs an independent review of each loan portfolio for compliance with loan policy as well as a review of credit quality. The Internal Audit review follows the FDIC sampling guidelines, and a review of each portfolio is performed on an annual basis.
Loans decreased to $645.6 million at December 31, 2011, compared to $671.8 million at December 31, 2010, and $655 million December 31, 2009. Total loans represented 59% and 64% of total assets at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The following table sets forth at the dates indicated our loan portfolio composition by type of loan, excluding loans held for sale:
Commercial Loans: Our commercial loan portfolio includes both secured and unsecured loans for working capital and expansion. Short-term working capital loans generally are secured by accounts receivable, inventory, or equipment. We also make longer-term commercial loans secured by equipment and real estate. We also make commercial loans that are guaranteed in large part by the Small Business Administration or the Bureau of Indian Affairs and commercial real estate loans that are participated with the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (“AIDEA”). Commercial loans represented 39% of our total loans outstanding as of December 31, 2011 and reprice more frequently than other types of loans, such as real estate loans. More frequent repricing means that interest cash flows from commercial loans are more sensitive to changes in interest rates. In a rising interest rate environment, our philosophy is to emphasize the pricing of loans on a floating rate basis, which allows these loans to reprice more frequently and to contribute positively to our net interest margin. The majority of these loans reprice to an index based upon the prime rate of interest. The Company also uses floors in its commercial loan pricing as loans are originated or renewed during the year.
Commercial Real Estate: We are an active lender in the commercial real estate market. At December 31, 2011, our commercial real estate loans were $315.9 million, or 49% of our loan portfolio. These loans are typically secured by office buildings, apartment complexes or warehouses. Loan maturities range from 10 to 25 years, ordinarily subject to our right to call the loan within 10 to 15 years of its origination. The interest rate for approximately 74% of these loans originated by Northrim resets every one to five years based on the spread over an index rate, and 7% reset on either a daily or monthly basis. The indices for these loans include prime or the respective Treasury or Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle rate. The Company also uses floors in its commercial real estate loan pricing as loans are originated or renewed during the year.
We may sell all or a portion of our commercial real estate loans to two State of Alaska entities that were established to provide long-term financing in the State, AIDEA, and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (“AHFC”). We may sell up to a 90% loan participation to AIDEA. AIDEA’s portion of the participated loan typically features a maturity twice that of the portion retained by us and bears a lower interest rate. The blend of our and AIDEA’s loan terms allows us to provide competitive long-term financing to our customers, while reducing the risk inherent in this type of lending. We also originate and sell to AHFC loans secured by multifamily residential units. Typically, 100% of these loans are sold to AHFC and we provide ongoing servicing of the loans for a fee. AIDEA and AHFC make it possible for us to originate these commercial real estate loans and enhance fee income while reducing our exposure to risk.
Construction Loans: We provide construction lending for commercial real estate projects. Such loans generally are made only when there is a firm take-out commitment upon completion of the project by a third party lender. Additionally, we provide land development and residential subdivision construction loans. We originate one-to-four-family residential and condominium construction loans to builders for construction of homes.
The Company’s construction loans decreased in 2011 to $40.2 million, down from $62.6 million in 2010 due to the continued decrease in new construction activity. The Company expects that the residential construction market will be relatively flat in 2012. However, due to its efforts to increase market share, the Company expects its construction loan totals to increase in 2012.
Home Equity Lines and Other Consumer Loans: We provide personal loans for automobiles, recreational vehicles, boats, and other larger consumer purchases. We provide both secured and unsecured consumer credit lines to accommodate the needs of our individual customers, with home equity lines of credit serving as the major product in this area.
Maturities and Sensitivities of Loans to Change in Interest Rates: The following table presents the aggregate maturity data of our loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, at December 31, 2011:
At December 31, 2011, 59% of the portfolio was scheduled to mature or reprice in 2012 with 37% scheduled to mature or reprice between 2013 and 2016.
Loans Held for Sale: During 2009, the Company entered into an agreement to purchase residential loans from our mortgage affiliate, RML, in anticipation of higher than normal refinance activity in the Anchorage market. The Company then sold these loans in the secondary market. All loans purchased and sold in 2011 and 2010 were newly originated loans that did not affect nonperforming loans. The Company purchased $82.9 million and sold $60.7 million in residential loans during 2011 and recognized $11,000 in gains related to these transactions in the 2011. The Company purchased $70.4 million and sold $64.9 million in residential loans during 2010 and recognized $23,000 in gains related to these transactions in the 2010. There were $27.8 million and $5.6 million in loans held for sale as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Credit Quality and Nonperforming Assets
Nonperforming assets consist of nonaccrual loans, accruing loans that are 90 days or more past due, and other real estate owned. The following table sets forth information regarding our nonperforming loans and total nonperforming assets:
Nonaccrual, Accruing Loans 90 Days or More Past Due, and Troubled Debt Restructuring (“TDR”): The Company’s financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis of accounting, including recognition of interest income on its loan portfolio, unless a loan is placed on a nonaccrual basis. Loans are placed on a nonaccrual basis when management believes serious doubt exists about the collectability of principal or interest. Our policy generally is to discontinue the accrual of interest on all loans 90 days or more past due unless they are well secured and in the process of collection. Cash payments on nonaccrual loans are directly applied to the principal balance. The amount of unrecognized interest on nonaccrual loans was $464,000, $1.2 million, and $1.4 million, in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. There was interest income of $175,000 included in net income for 2011 related to nonaccrual loans whose principal has been paid down to zero. There was no interest income included in net income for the years ended 2010 or 2009 related to nonaccrual loans. The Company had two relationships that represented more than 10% of nonaccrual loans as of December 31, 2011.
TDRs are those loans for which concessions, including the reduction of interest rates below a rate otherwise available to that borrower, have been granted due to the borrower’s weakened financial condition. Interest on TDRs will be accrued at the restructured rates when it is anticipated that no loss of original principal will occur, and the interest can be collected, which is generally after a period of six months. The Company had $2.3 million in loans classified as TDRs that were performing as of December 31, 2011. Additionally, there were $2.2 million in TDRs included in nonaccrual loans at December 31, 2011 for a total of $4.5 million. There were no TDRs, either performing or included in nonaccrual loans, as of December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2009 the Company had $3.8 million in performing TDRs and no TDRs included in nonaccrual loans. See Note 5 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report for further discussion of TDRs.
Loans Measured for Impairment, OREO and Repossessed Assets, and Potential Problem Loans: At December 31, 2011, the Company had $9.5 million in loans measured for impairment and $5.2 million in OREO, as compared to $18.3 million in loans measured for impairment and $10.4 million in OREO at December 31, 2010.
At December 31, 2011, management had identified potential problem loans of $4.6 million as compared to potential problem loans of $8.8 million at December 31, 2010. Potential problem loans are loans which are currently performing and are not included in nonaccrual, accruing loans 90 days or more past due, or restructured loans that have developed negative indications that the borrower may not be able to comply with present payment terms and which may later be included in nonaccrual, past due, or restructured loans. The $4.2 million decrease in potential problem loans at December 31, 2011 from December 31, 2010 is primarily due to the transfer of several loans to nonaccrual status in 2011 as well as pay downs on one potential problem loan. Charge offs, pay downs, and upgrades, which were only partially offset by $1.1 million in additions in 2011, also contributed to the decrease in 2011.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010 the Company held $5.2 million and $10.4 million, respectively, of OREO assets. At December 31, 2011, OREO consists of $3 million in residential lots in various stages of development, a $1 million commercial lot, a $650,000 single family residence, and a $529,000 commercial property. All OREO property is located in Alaska. The Bank
initiates foreclosure proceedings to recover and sell collateral pledged by a debtor to secure a loan based on various events of default and circumstances related to loans that are secured by either commercial or residential real property. These events and circumstances include delinquencies, the Company’s relationship with the borrower, and the borrower’s ability to repay the loan via a source other than the collateral. If the loan has not yet matured, the debtors may cure the events of default up to the time of sale to retain their interest in the collateral. Failure to cure the defaults will result in the debtor losing ownership interest in the property, which is taken by the creditor, or high bidder at a foreclosure sale.
During 2011, additions to OREO totaled $2.3 million and included a $1 million commercial lot, $350,000 in residential lots, a $31,000 single family residence, and $874,000 in commercial buildings. During 2011, the Company received approximately $8.4 million in proceeds from the sale of OREO which included $5.5 million from the sale of condominiums, $1.7 million from the sale of residential lots, $564,000 from the sale of single family residences, and $707,000 from the sale of commercial buildings.
The Company recognized $953,000 in gains and $90,000 in losses on the sale of eighty two individual OREO properties in 2011. The Company also recognized $26,000 in gains on sales previously deferred, for a net gain of $889,000 for the year ended December 31, 2011. The Company had accumulated deferred $397,000 in gains on the sale of OREO properties at December 31, 2011. The Company recognized $1.3 million in gains and $120,000 in losses on the sale of seventy nine individual OREO properties in 2010. The Company also recognized $522,000 in gains on sales previously deferred, for a net gain of $1.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010. The Company had deferred $153,000 in gains on the sale of OREO properties at December 31, 2010.
The Company made loans to facilitate the sale of OREO of $1.8 million, $6.1 million, and $2.6 million in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Our underwriting policies and procedures for loans to facilitate the sale of other real estate owned are no different than our standard loan policies and procedures.
The Company recognized impairments of $192,000, $246,000 and $825,000 in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively, due to adjustments to the Company’s estimate of the fair value of certain properties based on changes in estimated costs to complete the projects and changes in the Anchorage and Fairbanks real estate markets.
The following summarizes OREO activity for the periods indicated:
Allowance for Loan Losses
The Company maintains an Allowance to reflect losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The Allowance is increased by provisions for loan losses and loan recoveries and decreased by loan charge-offs. The size of the Allowance is determined through quarterly assessments of probable estimated losses in the loan portfolio. Our methodology for making such assessments and determining the adequacy of the Allowance includes the following key elements:
-
A specific allocation for impaired loans. Management determined the fair value of the majority of these loans based on the underlying collateral values. This analysis is based upon a specific analysis for each impaired loan, including external appraisals on loans secured by real property, management’s assessment of the current market, recent payment history, and an evaluation of other sources of repayment. In-house evaluations of fair value are used in the impairment analysis in some situations. Inputs to the in-house evaluation process include information about sales of comparable properties in the appropriate markets and changes in tax assessed values. The Company obtains appraisals on real and personal property that secure its loans during the loan origination process in accordance with regulatory guidance and its loan policy. The Company obtains updated appraisals on loans secured by real or personal property based upon its assessment of changes in the current market or particular projects or properties, information from other current appraisals, and other
sources of information. Appraisals may be adjusted downward by the Company based on its evaluation of the facts and circumstances on a case by case basis. External appraisals may be discounted when management believes that the absorption period used in the appraisal is unrealistic, when expected liquidation costs exceed those included in the appraisal, or when management’s evaluation of deteriorating market conditions warrants an adjustment. Additionally, the Company may also adjust appraisals in the above circumstances between appraisal dates. The Company uses the information provided in these updated appraisals along with its evaluation of all other information available on a particular property as it assesses the collateral coverage on its performing and nonperforming loans and the impact that may have on the adequacy of its Allowance. The specific allowance for impaired loans, as well as the overall Allowance, may increase based on the Company’s assessment of updated appraisals. See Note 21 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this report for further discussion of the Company’s estimation of the fair value of impaired loans.
When the Company determines that a loss has occurred on an impaired loan, a charge-off equal to the difference between carrying value and fair value is recorded. If a specific allowance is deemed necessary for a loan, and then that loan is partially charged off, the loan remains classified as a nonperforming loan after the charge-off is recognized. Loans measured for impairment based on collateral value and all other loans measured for impairment are accounted for in the same way. The total annualized charge-off rate for nonperforming loans as of December 31, 2011 and 2010 was 28% and 24%, respectively.
-
A general allocation. The Company has identified segments and classes of loans not considered impaired for purposes of establishing the general allocation allowance. The Company determined the disaggregation of the loan portfolio into segments and classes based on its assessment of how different pools of loans with like characteristics in the portfolio behave over time. This determination is based on historical experience and management’s assessment of how current facts and circumstances are expected to affect the loan portfolio.
The Company first disaggregates the loan portfolio into the following segments: commercial, real estate construction, real estate term, and home equity lines and other consumer loans. Then the Company further disaggregates each of these segments into the following classes, which are also known as risk classifications: excellent, good, satisfactory, watch, special mention, substandard, doubtful, and loss.
After the portfolio has been disaggregated into segments and classes, the Company calculates a general reserve for each segment and class based on the average year loss history for each segment and class. The Company’s loan portfolio continues to include a concentration in a small number of large borrowers. In 2011, the Company increased the look-back period used in the calculation of average historical loss rates from three years to four years. Management made this change because we believe that including the elevated loss experience from 2007 that occurred as a result of the economic downturn from that time is appropriate. Management believes that including the loss experience from 2007 in the current Allowance calculation appropriately captures the inherent risk this concentration brings to our loan portfolio.
After the Company calculates a general allocation using our loss history, the general reserve is then adjusted for qualitative factors by segment and class. Qualitative factors are based on management’s assessment of current trends that may cause losses inherent in the current loan portfolio to differ significantly from historical losses. Some factors that management considers in determining the qualitative adjustment to the general reserve include national and local economic trends, business conditions, underwriting policies and standards, trends in local real estate markets, effects of various political activities, peer group data, and internal factors such as underwriting policies and expertise of the Company’s employees.
-
An unallocated reserve. The unallocated portion of the Allowance provides for other credit losses inherent in our loan portfolio that may not have been contemplated in the specific and general components of the Allowance, and it acknowledges the inherent imprecision of all loss prediction models. The unallocated component is reviewed periodically based on trends in credit losses and overall economic conditions.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the unallocated allowance as a percentage of the total Allowance was 14%, respectively. The unallocated allowance as a percentage of the total Allowance was 55% at December 31, 2009 as reported in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease in the unallocated allowance as a percentage of the total Allowance at December 31, 2011 and 2010 is due in part to an enhancement to the Company’s methodology. The Company refined its method of estimating the Allowance in the third quarter of 2010. The Company elected this enhanced method of estimating the Allowance because we believe that it more accurately allocates expected losses by loan segment and class. The Company performed a retrospective review of the Allowance as of December 31, 2009, March 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010 and determined that this refinement does not have an effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or earnings per share for any period; rather, the refined method of estimating the Allowance changes how the total Allowance is allocated among the Company’s loan types and the unallocated portion of the Allowance.
The following table shows the allocation of the Allowance for the periods indicated and includes allocations calculated under the enhanced methodology for 2011 and 2010. Allocations shown for 2009, 2008, and 2007 were calculated using the legacy methodology and were reported as such in prior years:
(1) Represents percentage of this category of loans to total loans.
The following table sets forth information regarding changes in our Allowance for the periods indicated:
The decrease in commercial charge-offs in 2011 as compared to 2010 is related to three borrowers, and the decrease in construction charge-offs in 2011 as compared to 2010 is related to one borrower. The decrease in real estate charge-offs in 2010 as compared to 2009 and the increase in 2009 as compared to 2008 is related to one borrower. The increase in real estate charge-offs in 2008 as compared to 2007 related to two borrowers. The decrease in the provision for loan losses in 2011 as compared to 2010 is due primarily to the decrease in net charge offs for the year.
While management believes that it uses the best information available to determine the Allowance, unforeseen market conditions and other events could result in adjustment to the Allowance, and net income could be significantly affected if circumstances differed substantially from the assumptions used in making the final determination of the Allowance.
Purchased Receivables
We purchase accounts receivable from our business customers and provide them with short-term working capital. We provide this service to our customers in Alaska and in Washington and Oregon through NFS. Our purchased receivable activity is guided by policies that outline risk management, documentation, and approval limits. The policies are reviewed and approved annually by the Board of Directors.
Our purchased receivable balances increased in 2011 to $30.2 million, as compared to $16.5 million in 2010. This increase is due to the addition of new customers as well as additional fundings for existing customers. The Company expects that purchased receivable balances will increase in the future as NFS continues to expand its customer base.
Deposits
Deposits are our primary source of funds. Total deposits increased 2% to $911.2 million at December 31, 2011 from $892.1 million at December 31, 2010. Our deposits generally are expected to fluctuate according to the level of our market share, economic conditions, and normal seasonal trends.
The following table sets forth the average balances outstanding and average interest rates for each major category of our deposits, for the periods indicated:
Certificates of Deposit: The only deposit category with stated maturity dates is certificates of deposit. At December 31, 2011, we had $108.7 million in certificates of deposit, of which $75.1 million, or 69%, are scheduled to mature in 2012. At December 31, 2011, the Company’s certificates of deposit decreased to $108.7 million as compared to $138.2 million at December 31, 2010 as customers moved from certificates of deposit to other interest-bearing accounts. The aggregate amount of certificates of deposit in amounts of $100,000 or more at December 31, 2011, and 2010, was $63.2 million and $84.3 million, respectively. The following table sets forth the amount outstanding of certificates of deposits in amounts of $100,000 or more by time remaining until maturity and percentage of total deposits as of December 31, 2011:
The Company is also a member of the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry System (“CDARS”) which is a network of over 3,000 banks throughout the United States. The CDARS system was founded in 2003 and allows participating banks to exchange FDIC insurance coverage so that 100% of the balance of their customers’ certificates of deposit is fully subject to FDIC insurance. At December 31, 2011, the Company had $250,000 in CDARS certificates of deposit as compared to none at December 31, 2010.
Alaska Certificates of Deposit: The Alaska Certificate of Deposit (“Alaska CD”) is a savings deposit product with an open-ended maturity, interest rate that adjusts to an index that is tied to the two-year United States Treasury Note, and limited withdrawals. The total balance in the Alaska CD at December 31, 2011, was $102.4 million, an increase of $2.1 million as compared to the balance of $100.3 million at December 31, 2010.
Alaska Permanent Fund: The Alaska Permanent Fund may invest in certificates of deposit at Alaska banks in an aggregate amount with respect to each bank not to exceed its capital and at specified rates and terms. The depository bank must collateralize the deposit. We did not hold any certificates of deposit for the Alaska Permanent Fund at December 31, 2011 or 2010.
Borrowings
FHLB: At December 31, 2011, our maximum borrowing line from the FHLB was $117.3 million, approximately 11% of the Company’s assets, subject to the FHLB’s collateral requirements. FHLB advances are dependent on the availability of acceptable collateral such as marketable securities or real estate loans, although all FHLB advances are secured by a blanket pledge of the Company’s assets. There was no outstanding balance on this line at December 31, 2011 or 2010.
Federal Reserve Bank: The Company entered into a note agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank on December 27, 1996 for the payment of tax deposits. See “Other Short-term Borrowings” below for additional detail regarding this agreement.
The Federal Reserve Bank is holding $91.4 million of loans as collateral to secure advances made through the discount window on December 31, 2011. There were no discount window advances outstanding at December 31, 2011 or 2010.
Other Long-term Borrowings: The Company purchased its main office facility for $12.9 million on July 1, 2008. In this transaction, the Company, through NBL, assumed an existing loan secured by the building in an amount of approximately $5.1 million. At December 31, 2011, the outstanding balance on this loan was $4.6 million. This loan has a maturity date of April 1, 2014.
Other Short-term Borrowings: The Company entered into a note agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank on December 27, 1996 for the payment of tax deposits. Under this agreement, the Company takes in tax payments from customers and reports these payments to the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve has the option to call the tax deposits at any time. The balance at December 31, 2011, and 2010, was zero and $620,000, respectively, which was secured by investment securities.
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase were $16.3 million and $12.9 million, respectively, for December 31, 2011 and 2010. The average balance outstanding of securities sold under agreements to repurchase during 2011 and 2010 was $13.8 million and $10.2 million, respectively, and the maximum outstanding at any month-end was $17.2 million and $14.2 million, respectively, during the same time periods. The securities sold under agreements to repurchase are held by the Federal Home Loan Bank under the Company’s control.
The Company did not have any other short-term borrowings at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010. There were no short-term (original maturity of one year or less) borrowings for which the average balance outstanding during 2011, 2010 and 2009 exceeded 30% of shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2011, December 31, 2010, and December 31, 2009.
Contractual Obligations
The following table references contractual obligations of the Company for the periods indicated:
Long-term debt obligations consist of (a) $4.6 million amortizing note that was assumed by NBL on July 1, 2008, when the Company’s main office facility was purchased that matures on April 1, 2014 and bears interest at 5.95%, (b) $8.2 million junior subordinated debentures that were originated on May 8, 2003, mature on May 15, 2033, and bear interest at a rate of 90-day LIBOR plus 3.15%, adjusted quarterly, and (c) $10.3 million junior subordinated debentures that were originated on December 16, 2005, mature on March 15, 2036, and bear interest at a rate of 90-day LIBOR plus 1.37%, adjusted quarterly. The operating lease obligations are more fully described in Note 20 of the Company’s Financial Statements attached to this report. Other long-term liabilities consist of amounts that the Company owes for its investments in Delaware limited partnerships that develop low-income housing projects throughout the United States. The Company purchased a $3 million interest in U.S.A. Institutional Tax Credit Fund LVII L.P. (“USA 57”) in December 2006. The investment in USA 57 is expected to be fully funded in 2012.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities
The Company is a party to financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk. Among the off-balance sheet items entered into in the ordinary course of business are commitments to extend credit and the issuance of letters of credit. These instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amounts recognized on the balance sheet. Certain commitments are collateralized. We apply the same credit standards to these commitments as in all of our lending activities and include these commitments in our lending risk evaluations.
As of December 31, 2011 we had commitments to extend credit of $173.8 million which were not reflected on our balance sheet. Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers. These commitments have specified interest rates and generally have fixed expiration dates but may be terminated by the Company if certain conditions of the contract are violated. Collateral held relating to these commitments varies, but generally includes real estate, inventory, accounts receivable, and equipment. Our exposure to credit loss under commitments to extend credit is represented by the amount of these commitments. Since many of the commitments are expected to expire without being drawn upon, these total commitment amounts do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. For additional information regarding the Company’s off-balance sheet arrangement, see Note 19 and “Liquidity and Capital Resources” below.
As of December 31, 2011 we had standby letters of credit of $16.2 million which were not reflected on our balance sheet. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee the performance of a customer
to a third party. Credit risk arises in these transactions from the possibility that a customer may not be able to repay the Company upon default of performance. Collateral held for standby letters of credit is based on an individual evaluation of each customer’s creditworthiness.
Our total unfunded lending commitments at December 31, 2011, which includes commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit, were $190 million. We do not expect that all of these loans are likely to be fully drawn upon at any one time. The Company has established reserves of $94,000 and $98,000 at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for losses related to these commitments that is recorded in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Company is a single bank holding company and its primary ongoing source of liquidity is from dividends received from the Bank. Such dividends arise from the cash flow and earnings of the Bank. Banking regulations and regulatory authorities may limit the amount of, or require the Bank to obtain certain approvals before paying, dividends to the Company. Given that the Bank is currently “well-capitalized”, the Company expects to continue to receive dividends from the Bank.
The Bank manages its liquidity through its Asset and Liability Committee. Our primary sources of funds are customer deposits and advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. These funds, together with loan repayments, loan sales, other borrowed funds, retained earnings, and equity are used to make loans, to acquire securities and other assets, and to fund deposit flows and continuing operations. The primary sources of demands on our liquidity are customer demands for withdrawal of deposits and borrowers’ demands that we advance funds against unfunded lending commitments. Our total unfunded commitments to fund loans and letters of credit at December 31, 2011, were $190 million. We do not expect that all of these loans are likely to be fully drawn upon at any one time. Additionally, as noted above, our total deposits at December 31, 2011, were $911.2 million.
As shown in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, net cash used by operating activities was $5.0 million in 2011, and net cash provided by operating activities was $18.1 million and $9.9 million for 2010 and 2009, respectively. The primary reason that net cash from operating activities was negative in 2011 was the fact that we purchased $82.9 million in loans held for sale and only sold $60.7 million of those loans as of December 31, 2011. This is a timing difference in cash flows that we expect to reverse for the most part in the first quarter of 2012. The primary source of cash provided by operating activities for all periods presented was positive net income in each of these periods. Net cash of $216,000 and $30.5 million was provided in investing activities in 2011 and 2009 as the Company collected funds from loan pay offs that exceeded net cash outlays related to portfolio investments. Net cash of $60.7 million was used in investing activities in 2010 as the Company invested available cash primarily in available for sale securities. The $18.3 million and $41.9 million of cash provided by financing activities in 2011 and 2010, respectively, primarily consisted of the $19.1 million and $39 million increases in deposits during 2011 and 2010. Net cash used in financing activities in 2009 of $11.5 million was the result of the pay down of borrowings taken on in 2008, which was partially offset by increased deposit balances.
The sources by which we meet the liquidity needs of our customers are current assets and borrowings available through our correspondent banking relationships and our credit lines with the Federal Reserve Bank and the FHLB. At December 31, 2011, our current assets were $368.4 million and our funds available for borrowing under our existing lines of credit were $211.7 million. Given these sources of liquidity and our expectations for customer demands for cash and for our operating cash needs, we believe our sources of liquidity to be sufficient in the foreseeable future. However, continued deterioration in the FHLB of Seattle’s financial position may result in impairment in the value of our FHLB stock, the requirement that the Company contribute additional funds to recapitalize the FHLB of Seattle, or a reduction in the Company’s ability to borrow funds from the FHLB of Seattle, impairing the Company’s ability to meet liquidity demands.
On February 16, 2012, the Board of Directors approved payment of a $0.13 per share dividend on March 16, 2012, to shareholders of record on March 8, 2012. This dividend is consistent with the Company’s dividends that were declared and paid in 2011.
In September 2002, our Board of Directors approved a plan whereby we would periodically repurchase for cash up to approximately 5% of our shares of common stock in the open market. We purchased as aggregate of 688,442 shares of our stock under this program through December 31, 2009 at a total cost of $14.2 million at an average price of $20.65, which left a balance of 227,242 shares available under the stock repurchase program. We intend to continue to repurchase our stock from time to time depending upon market conditions, but we can make no assurances that we will continue this program or that we will repurchase all of the authorized shares. No repurchases occurred during 2010 and 2011.
The stock repurchase program had a positive effect on earnings per share because it decreased the total number of shares outstanding in 2007 by 137,500 shares. The Company did not repurchase any of its shares in 2011, 2010, 2009 or 2008. The table below shows this effect on diluted earnings per share.
On May 8, 2003, the Company’s newly formed subsidiary, NCT1, issued trust preferred securities in the principal amount of $8 million. These securities carry an interest rate of 90-day LIBOR plus 3.15% per annum that was initially set at 4.45% adjusted quarterly. The securities have a maturity date of May 15, 2033, and are callable by the Company on or after May 15, 2008. These securities are treated as Tier 1 capital by the Company’s regulators for capital adequacy calculations. The interest cost to the Company of the trust preferred securities was $281,000 in 2011. At December 31, 2011, the securities had an interest rate of 3.61%.
On December 16, 2005, the Company’s newly formed subsidiary, NST2, issued trust preferred securities in the principal amount of $10 million. These securities carry an interest rate of 90-day LIBOR plus 1.37% per annum that was initially set at 5.86% adjusted quarterly. The securities have a maturity date of March 15, 2036, and are callable by the Company on or after March 15, 2011. These securities are treated as Tier 1 capital by the Company’s regulators for capital adequacy calculations. The interest cost to the Company of these securities was $171,000 in 2011. At December 31, 2011, the securities had an interest rate of 1.92%.
Our shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2011, was $125.4 million, as compared to $117.1 million at December 31, 2010. The Company earned net income of $11.4 million during 2011 and issued 39,526 shares through the exercise of stock options. The Company did not repurchase any shares of its common stock in 2011. At December 31, 2011, the Company had 6.4 million shares of its common stock outstanding.
We are subject to minimum capital requirements. Federal banking agencies have adopted regulations establishing minimum requirements for the capital adequacy of banks and bank holding companies. The requirements address both risk-based capital and leverage capital. We believe as of December 31, 2011, that the Company and Northrim Bank met all applicable capital adequacy requirements for a “well-capitalized” institution by regulatory standards.
The FDIC has in place qualifications for banks to be classified as “well-capitalized.” As of December 15, 2011, the most recent notification from the FDIC categorized Northrim Bank as “well-capitalized.” There were no conditions or events since the FDIC notification that we believe have changed Northrim Bank’s classification.
The table below illustrates the capital requirements for the Company and the Bank and the actual capital ratios for each entity that exceed these requirements. Based on recent turmoil in the financial markets, management intends to maintain a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio for the Bank in excess of 10% in 2012, exceeding the FDIC’s “well-capitalized” capital requirement classification. The capital ratios for the Company exceed those for the Bank primarily because the $8 million trust preferred securities offering that the Company completed in the second quarter of 2003 and another offering of $10 million completed in the fourth quarter of 2006 are included in the Company’s capital for regulatory purposes although they are accounted for as a long-term debt in our financial statements. The trust preferred securities are not accounted for on the Bank’s financial statements nor are they included in its capital. As a result, the Company has $18 million more in regulatory capital than the Bank, which explains most of the difference in the capital ratios for the two entities.
(See Note 20 of the Consolidated Financial Statements for a detailed discussion of the capital ratios.)
Effects of Inflation and Changing Prices: The primary impact of inflation on our operations is increased operating costs. Unlike most industrial companies, virtually all the assets and liabilities of a financial institution are monetary in nature. As a result, interest rates generally have a more significant impact on a financial institution’s performance than the effects of general levels of inflation. Although interest rates do not necessarily move in the same direction or to the same extent as the prices of goods and services, increases in inflation generally have resulted in increased interest rates, which could affect the degree and timing of the repricing of our assets and liabilities. In addition, inflation has an impact on our customers’ ability to repay their loans.
ITEM 7A.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK
The disclosures in this item are qualified by the Risk Factors set forth in Item 1A and the Section entitled “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” included in Part I in this report and any other cautionary statements contained herein.
The Company’s results of operations depend substantially on our net interest income and are largely dependent upon our ability to manage market risks. The Company does not presently use derivatives such as forward and futures contracts, options, or interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk. Other types of market risk such as foreign currency exchange rate risk and commodity price risk do not arise in the normal course of the Company’s business. Like most financial institutions, our interest income and cost of funds are affected by general economic conditions, by competition, by changes in interest rates, and in addition, our community banking focus makes our results of operations particularly dependent on the Alaska economy.
Interest Rate Risk: The Company is exposed to interest rate risk. Interest rate risk is the risk that financial performance will decline over time due to changes in prevailing interest rates and resulting yields on interest-earning assets and costs of interest-bearing liabilities. Generally, there are three sources of interest rate risk as described below:
-
Re-pricing Risk: Generally, re-pricing risk is the risk of adverse consequences from a change in interest rates that arises because of differences in the timing of when those interest rate changes affect an institution’s assets and liabilities.
-
Basis Risk: Basis risk is the risk of adverse consequences resulting from unequal changes in the spread between two or more rates for different instruments with the same maturity.
-
Option Risk: In banking, option risks are known as borrower options to prepay loans and depositor options to make deposits, withdrawals, and early redemptions. Option risk arises whenever bank products give customers the right, but not the obligation, to alter the quantity of the timing of cash flows.
Asset/Liability and Interest Rate Risk Management: The purpose of asset/liability management is to provide stable net interest income growth by protecting our earnings from undue interest rate risk, which arises from changes in interest rates and changes in the balance sheet mix, and by managing the risk/return relationships between liquidity, interest rate risk, market risk, and capital adequacy. We maintain an asset/liability management policy that provides guidelines for controlling exposure to interest rate risk by setting a target range and minimum for the net interest margin and running simulation models under different interest rate scenarios to measure the risk to earnings over the next 12-month period.
A number of measures are used to monitor and manage interest rate risk, including interest sensitivity (gap) analyses and income simulations. An income simulation model is the primary tool used to assess the direction and magnitude of changes in net
interest income resulting from changes in interest rates. Key assumptions in the model include loan and deposit volumes and pricing, prepayment speeds on fixed rate assets, and cash flows and maturities of other investment securities. These assumptions are inherently uncertain and, as a result, the model cannot precisely estimate net interest income or precisely predict the impact of higher or lower interest rates on net interest income. Actual results will differ from simulated results due to timing, magnitude and frequency of interest rate changes, changes in market conditions and management strategies, among other factors.
Interest Rate Sensitivity: Although analysis of interest rate gap (the difference between the repricing of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities during a given period of time) is one standard tool for the measurement of exposure to interest rate risk, we believe that because interest rate gap analysis does not address all factors that can affect earnings performance it should not be used as the primary indicator of exposure to interest rate risk and the related volatility of net interest income in a changing interest rate environment. Interest rate gap analysis is primarily a measure of liquidity based upon the amount of change in principal amounts of assets and liabilities outstanding, as opposed to a measure of changes in the overall net interest margin.
The following table sets forth the estimated maturity or repricing, and the resulting interest rate gap, of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities at December 31, 2011. The amounts in the table are derived from internal data based upon regulatory reporting formats and, therefore, may not be wholly consistent with financial information appearing elsewhere in the audited financial statements that have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The amounts shown below could also be significantly affected by external factors such as changes in prepayment assumptions, early withdrawals of deposits, and competition.
As stated previously, certain shortcomings, including those described below, are inherent in the method of analysis presented in the foregoing table. For example, although certain assets and liabilities may have similar maturities or periods of repricing, they may react in different degrees to changes in market interest rates. Also, the interest rates on certain types of assets and liabilities may fluctuate in advance of changes in market interest rates, while interest rates on other types may lag behind changes in market interest rates. Additionally, certain assets have features that restrict changes in their interest rates, both on a short-term basis and over the lives of the assets. Further, in the event of a change in market interest rates, prepayment and early withdrawal levels could deviate significantly from those assumed in calculating the tables as can the relationship of rates between different loan and deposit categories. Moreover, the ability of many borrowers to service their adjustable-rate debt may decrease in the event of an increase in market interest rates.
As indicated in the table above, at December 31, 2011, the Company’s interest-earning assets reprice or mature faster than the Company’s interest-bearing liabilities by a margin of $25.9 million over the next 12 months. As of December 31, 2010, the Company’s interest-bearing liabilities repriced or matured faster than the Company’s earning assets by a margin of $90.3 million over the next 12 months.
The following table sets forth the results of the estimated impact on our net interest income over a time horizon of one year based on the results of our interest rate simulation model as of December 31, 2011 and 2010. For the scenarios shown below, the interest rate simulation assumes an immediate parallel shift in market interest rates at the beginning of a twelve-month period and no changes in the composition or size of the balance sheet.
The increase in the change in net interest income from the up 100 and up 200 basis point scenarios above is a result of the shift to an asset sensitive position at December 31, 2011 as compared to the liability sensitive position at December 31, 2010. The results of the down 100 basis point scenario at December 31, 2011 are not measurable since interest rates were already at a low point and a further decrease resulted in some indexes being nonexistent.
Impact of Inflation and Changing Prices: The primary impact of inflation on the Company’s operations is increased operating costs. Unlike most industrial companies, virtually all the assets and liabilities of a financial institution are monetary in nature and as a result, interest rates generally have a more significant impact on a financial institution’s performance than the effects of general levels of inflation. Although interest rates do not necessarily move in the same direction or to the same extent as the prices of goods and services, increases in inflation generally have resulted in increased interest rates.
ITEM 8.
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
The following reports, audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto are set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K on the pages indicated:
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors of
Northrim BanCorp, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Northrim BanCorp, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows for the years then ended. We also have audited the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for these consolidated financial statements, for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements and an opinion on the Company's internal control over financial reporting based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement and whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audits of the consolidated financial statements included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial consolidated statement presentation. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risks. Our audits also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions.
A company's internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company's internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company's assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Northrim BanCorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Also in our opinion, Northrim BanCorp, Inc. and subsidiaries maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.
/s/ Moss Adams LLP
Bellingham, Washington
March 13, 2012
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
The Board of Directors
Northrim BanCorp, Inc.:
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows of Northrim BanCorp, Inc. and subsidiaries (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2009. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the results of operations and cash flows of Northrim BanCorp, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2009, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
/s/ KPMG LLP
Anchorage, Alaska
March 15, 2010
Consolidated Financial Statements
NORTHRIM BANCORP, INC.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
December 31, 2011 and 2010
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
NORTHRIM BANCORP, INC.
Consolidated Statements of Income
Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
NORTHRIM BANCORP, INC.
Consolidated Statements of Changes in
Shareholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income
Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
NORTHRIM BANCORP, INC.
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows
Years Ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009
See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements.
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
NOTE 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. (the “Company”), is a publicly traded bank holding company and is the parent company of Northrim Bank (the “Bank”), a commercial bank that provides personal and business banking services through locations in Anchorage, Eagle River, Wasilla, and Fairbanks, Alaska, and a factoring division in Bellevue, Washington. The Bank differentiates itself with a “Customer First Service” philosophy. Affiliated companies include Northrim Benefits Group, LLC (“NBG”), Residential Mortgage Holding Company, LLC (“RML”), Elliott Cove Capital Management, LLC (“ECCM”), Elliott Cove Insurance Agency, LLC (“ECIA”), and Pacific Wealth Advisors, LLC (“PWA”).
Method of accounting: The Company prepares its consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and prevailing practices within the banking industry. The Company utilizes the accrual method of accounting which recognizes income and gains when earned and expenses and losses when incurred. The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements, and the reported amounts of income, gains, expenses, and losses during the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Significant estimates include the allowance for loan losses (“Allowance”), valuation of goodwill and other intangibles, and valuation of other real estate owned (“OREO”). The consolidated financial statements include the financial information for Northrim BanCorp, Inc. and its majority-owned subsidiaries that include Northrim Bank, Northrim Building LLC (“NBL”), and Northrim Investment Services Company (“NISC”). All intercompany balances have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company accounts for its investments in RML, ECCM, ECIA, and PWA using the equity method. Noncontrolling interest relates to the minority ownership in NBG.
Reclassifications: Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year amounts to maintain consistency with the current year with no impact on net income or total shareholders’ equity.
Segments: Management has determined that the Company operates as a single operating segment. This determination is based on the fact that management and the board reviews financial information and assesses resource allocation on a consolidated basis. Additionally, the aggregate revenue earned through, and total assets of, the insurance brokerage, mortgage lending, and wealth management activities are less than 10% of the Company’s consolidated total revenue and total assets.
Cash and Cash Equivalents: For purposes of reporting cash flows, cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, amounts due from banks, interest-bearing deposits with other banks, banker’s acceptances, commercial paper, securities purchased under agreement to resell, federal funds sold, and securities with maturities of less than 90 days at acquisition.
Investment Securities: Securities available for sale are stated at fair value with unrealized holding gains and losses, net of tax, excluded from earnings and reported as a separate component of other comprehensive income, unless an unrealized loss is deemed other than temporary. Gains and losses on available for sale securities sold are determined on a specific identification basis.
Held to maturity securities are stated at cost, adjusted for amortization of premium and accretion of discount on a level-yield basis. The Company has the ability and intent to hold these securities to maturity.
A decline in the market value of any available for sale or held to maturity security below cost that is deemed other than temporary results in a charge to earnings and the establishment of a new cost basis for the security. Unrealized investment securities losses are evaluated at least quarterly on a specific identification basis to determine whether such declines in value should be considered “other than temporary” and therefore be subject to immediate loss recognition in income. Although these evaluations involve significant judgment, an unrealized loss in the fair value of a debt security is generally deemed to be temporary when the fair value of the security is below the carrying value primarily due to changes in interest rates and there has not been significant deterioration in the financial condition of the issuer. The Company does not intend to sell, nor is it more likely than not that it will be required to sell, securities whose market value is less than carrying value. Because it is more likely than not that the Company will hold these investments until a market price recovery or maturity, these investments are not considered other than temporarily impaired. Other factors that may be considered in determining whether a decline in the value is “other than temporary” include ratings by recognized rating agencies; actions of commercial banks or other lenders relative to the continued extension of credit facilities to the issuer of the security; the financial condition, capital strength, and near-term prospects of the issuer, and recommendations of investment advisors or market analysts.
Federal Home Loan Bank Stock: The Company’s investment in Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) stock is carried at par value because the shares can only be redeemed with the FHLB at par. The Company is required to maintain a minimum level of investment in FHLB stock based on the Company’s capital stock and lending activity. Stock redemptions are at the discretion of the FHLB or of the Company, upon five years’ prior notice for FHLB Class B stock. However, the FHLB is currently prohibited from paying dividends or redeeming stock by an agreement that it entered into with the Federal Housing Finance Agency in October 2010 as part of its capital plan. FHLB stock is carried at cost and is subject to recoverability testing at least annually.
Loans held for sale: Loans held for sale include mortgage loans and are reported at the lower of cost or market value. Cost generally approximates market value, given the short duration of these assets. Gains or losses on the sale of loans that are held for sale are recognized at the time of sale and determined by the difference between net sale proceeds and the net book value of the loans.
Loans: Loans are carried at their principal amount outstanding, net of unamortized fees and direct loan origination costs. Interest income on loans is accrued and recognized on the principal amount outstanding except for loans in a nonaccrual status. All classes of loans are placed on nonaccrual when management believes doubt exists as to the collectability of the interest or principal. Cash payments received on nonaccrual loans are directly applied to the principal balance. Generally, a loan may be returned to accrual status when the delinquent principal and interest are brought current in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement and certain ongoing performance criteria have been met.
The Company considers a loan to be impaired when it is probable that it will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Once a loan is determined to be impaired, the impairment is measured based on the present value of the expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, except that if the loan is collateral dependent, the impairment is measured by using the fair value of the loan’s collateral. Nonperforming loans greater than $50,000 are individually evaluated for impairment based upon the borrower’s overall financial condition, resources, and payment record, and the prospects for support from any financially responsible guarantors.
The Company uses either in-house evaluations or external appraisals to estimate the fair value of collateral-dependent impaired loans as of each reporting date. The Company’s determination of which method to use is based upon several factors. The Company takes into account compliance with legal and regulatory guidelines, the amount of the loan, the estimated value of the collateral, the location and type of collateral to be valued, and how critical the timing of completion of the analysis is to the assessment of value. Those factors are balanced with the level of internal expertise, internal experience, and market information available, versus external expertise available such as qualified appraisers, brokers, auctioneers, and equipment specialists.
The Company uses external appraisals to estimate fair value for projects that are not fully constructed as of the date of valuation. These projects are generally valued as if complete, with an appropriate allowance for cost of completion, including contingencies developed from external sources such as vendors, engineers, and contractors.
The Company classifies fair value measurements using observable inputs, such as external appraisals, as level 2 valuations in the fair value hierarchy, and fair value measurements with unobservable inputs, such as in-house evaluations, as level 3 valuations in the fair value hierarchy.
When the fair value measurement of the impaired loan is less than the recorded amount of the loan, an impairment is recognized by recording a charge-off to the Allowance or by designating a specific reserve in accordance with GAAP. The Company’s policy is to record cash payments received on impaired loans that are not also nonaccrual loans in the same manner that cash payments are applied to performing loans.
Loan origination fees received in excess of direct origination costs are deferred and accreted to interest income using a method approximating the level-yield method over the life of the loan.
Allowance for Loan Losses: The Company maintains an Allowance to reflect inherent losses from its loan portfolio. The Allowance is decreased by loan charge-offs and increased by loan recoveries and provisions for loan losses. The Company has identified the following segments and classes of loans for purposes of establishing the Allowance. The Company first disaggregates the overall loan portfolio into the following segments: commercial, real estate construction, real estate term, and home equity lines and other consumer loans. Then the Company further disaggregates each segment into the following classes, which are also known as risk classifications: excellent, good, satisfactory, watch, special mention, substandard, doubtful, and loss.
In determining its total Allowance, the Company first estimates a specific allocated allowance for impaired loans. This analysis is based upon a specific analysis for each impaired loan, including appraisals on loans secured by real property, management’s assessment of the current market, recent payment history, and an evaluation of other sources of repayment.
The Company then estimates a general allocated allowance for all other loans that were not impaired as of the balance sheet date using a formula-based approach that includes average historical loss factors that are adjusted for quantitative and qualitative factors. Qualitative factors are based on management’s assessment of current trends that may cause losses inherent in the current loan portfolio to differ significantly from historical losses.
Finally, the Company assesses the overall adequacy of the Allowance based on several factors including the level of the Allowance as compared to total loans and nonperforming loans in light of current economic conditions. This portion of the Allowance is deemed “unallocated” because it is not allocated to any segment or class of the loan portfolio. This portion of the Allowance provides for coverage of credit losses inherent in the loan portfolio but not captured in the credit loss factors that are utilized in the risk rating-based component, or in the specific impairment component of the Allowance, and it acknowledges the inherent imprecision of all loss prediction models. Due to the subjectivity involved in the determination of the unallocated portion of the Allowance, the relationship of the unallocated component to the total Allowance may fluctuate from period to period.
Based on our methodology and its components, management believes the resulting Allowance is adequate and appropriate for the risk identified in the Company's loan portfolio. While management believes that it uses the best information available to determine the Allowance, unforeseen market conditions and other events could result in adjustment to the Allowance, and net income could be significantly affected if circumstances differed substantially from the assumptions used in making the final determination. Our banking regulators, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the Company's Allowance. Our regulators may require the Company to recognize additions to the Allowance based on their judgments related to information available to them at the time of their examinations.
Reserve for unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit: The Company maintains a separate reserve for losses related to unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit. The determination of the adequacy of the reserve is based on periodic evaluations of the unfunded credit facilities including assessment of historical losses and current economic conditions. The allowance for unfunded loan commitments and letters of credit is included in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets, with changes to the balance charged against noninterest expense.
Purchased Receivables: The Bank purchases accounts receivable at a discount from its customers. The purchased receivables are carried at cost. The discount and fees charged to the customer are earned while the balances of the purchases are outstanding. In the event an impairment or write-down is evident and warranted, the charge is taken against the asset balance and not from the Allowance.
Premises and Equipment: Premises and equipment, including leasehold improvements, are stated at cost, less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization expense for financial reporting purposes is computed using the straight-line method based upon the shorter of the lease term or the estimated useful lives of the assets that vary according to the asset type and include; vehicles at 5 years, furniture and equipment ranging between 3 and 7 years, leasehold improvements ranging between 2 and 15 years, and buildings over 39 years. Maintenance and repairs are charged to current operations, while renewals and betterments are capitalized. Long-lived assets such as premises and equipment are reviewed for impairment at least annually or whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the remaining useful life may warrant revision, or that the carrying amount of the long-lived asset may not be fully recoverable. If impairment is determined to exist, any related impairment loss is calculated based on fair value. Impairment losses on assets to be disposed of, if any, are based on the estimated proceeds to be received, less costs of disposal.
Intangible Assets: As part of an acquisition of branches from Bank of America in 1999, the Company recorded $6.9 million of goodwill and $2.9 million of core deposit intangible (“CDI”). The Bank of America CDI is fully amortized as of December 31, 2008. In 2007, the Company recorded $2.1 million of goodwill and $1.3 million of CDI as part of the acquisition of Alaska First Bank & Trust, N.A. (“Alaska First”) stock. The Company amortizes the Alaska First CDI over its estimated useful life of ten years using an accelerated method. Accumulated amortization related to the Alaska First CDI is $846,000 at December 31, 2011. Management reviews goodwill at least annually for impairment by reviewing a number of key market indicators. Finally, the Company recorded $1.1 million in intangible assets related to customer relationships purchased in the acquisition of an additional 40.1% of NBG in December 2005. The Company amortizes this intangible over its estimated life of ten years.
Other Real Estate Owned: Other real estate owned represents properties acquired through foreclosure or its equivalent. Prior to foreclosure, the carrying value is adjusted to the fair value, less cost to sell, of the real estate to be acquired by an adjustment to the Allowance. Management’s evaluation of fair value is based on appraisals or discounted cash flows of anticipated sales. The amount by which the fair value less cost to sell is greater than the carrying amount of the loan plus amounts previously charged off is recognized in earnings. Any subsequent reduction in the carrying value is charged against earnings. Operating expenses associated with other real estate owned are charged to earnings in the period they are incurred.
Other Short Term Assets: Other assets include purchased software and prepaid expenses. Purchased software is carried at amortized cost and is amortized using the straight-line method over their estimated useful life or the term of the agreement. Also included in other assets is the net deferred tax asset and the Company’s investments in NBG, RML, ECCM, ECIA, and PWA. All of these entities are affiliates of the Company. The Company includes the income and loss from its affiliates in its financial statements on a one month lagged basis.
Also included in other assets are the Company’s investments in three low-income housing partnerships. These partnerships are all Delaware limited partnerships and include Centerline Corporate Partners XXII, L.P. (“Centerline XXII”) Centerline Corporate Partners XXXIII, L.P. (“Centerline XXXIII”), and U.S.A. Institutional Tax Credit Fund LVII L.P. (“USA 57”). These entities are variable interest entities (“VIEs”). A variable interest entity is an entity whose equity investors lack the ability to make decisions about the entity’s activity through voting rights and do not have the obligation to absorb the entity’s expected losses or receive residual returns if they occur. The Company made commitments to purchase a $3 million interest in each of these partnerships in January 2003, September 2006 and December 2006, respectively.
Advertising: Advertising, promotion and marketing costs are expensed as incurred. The Company reported total expenses in these areas of $1.8 million, $1.8 million and $1.3 million for each of the periods ending December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009.
Income Taxes: The Company uses the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes. Under the asset and liability method, deferred income taxes are recognized for the future consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect on deferred taxes of a change in tax rates is recognized in income in the period that includes the enactment date.
Earnings Per Share: Earnings per share is calculated using the weighted average number of shares and dilutive common stock equivalents outstanding during the period. Stock options, as described in Note 18, are considered to be common stock equivalents. Incremental shares resulting from stock options were 24,782, 19,289 and 13,478 at December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. Average incremental shares resulting from stock options were 116,136, 82,576, and 71,110, for 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
Information used to calculate earnings per share was as follows:
Potential dilutive shares are excluded from the computation of earnings per share if their effect is anti-dilutive. There were no anti-dilutive shares outstanding related to options to acquire common stock in 2011, 2010 or 2009.
Stock Option Plans: The Company accounts for its stock option plans using a fair-value-based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation plans. The Company has elected the modified prospective method for recognition of compensation cost associated with stock-based employee compensation awards. The Company amortizes stock-based compensation expense over the vesting period of each award.
Comprehensive Income: Comprehensive income consists of net income and net unrealized gains (losses) on securities available for sale after tax effect and is presented in the consolidated statements of shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income.
Concentrations: Substantially all of the Company’s business is derived from the Anchorage, Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks areas of Alaska. As such, the Company’s growth and operations depend upon the economic conditions of Alaska and these specific markets. These areas rely primarily upon the natural resources industries, particularly oil production, as well as tourism, government and U.S. military spending for their economic success. Approximately 92% of the unrestricted revenues of the Alaska state government were funded through various taxes and royalties on the oil industry in 2011. The Company’s business is and will remain sensitive to economic factors that relate to these industries and local and regional business conditions. As a result, local or regional economic downturns, or downturns that disproportionately affect one or more of the key industries in regions served by the Company, may have a more pronounced effect upon its business than they might on an institution that is less geographically concentrated. The extent of the future impact of these events on economic and business conditions cannot be predicted; however, prolonged or acute fluctuations could have a material and adverse impact upon the Company’s results of operation and financial condition.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company had $292.9 million and $319.6 million, respectively, in commercial and construction loans in Alaska. Additionally, the Company continues to have a concentration in large borrowing relationships. At
December 31, 2011, 38% of the Company’s loan portfolio is attributable to sixteen large borrowing relationships. Additionally, the Company has additional unfunded commitments to these borrowers of $100.8 million at December 31, 2011.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-02, A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring (“ASU 2011-02”). ASU 2011-02 provides guidance on a creditor’s evaluation of whether it has granted a concession and whether a debtor is experiencing financial difficulties in order to determine when a restructured loan is a troubled debt restructuring. This ASU was effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual and interim periods beginning on or after June 15, 2011, and has been applied retrospectively to the beginning of the period of adoption. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In September 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-08, “Testing Goodwill for Impairment” (“ASU 2011-08”). ASU 2011-08 amends Topic 350, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other”, to simplify how entities, both public and nonpublic, test goodwill for impairment. The amendments in ASU 2011-08 permit an entity to first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount as a basis for determining whether it is necessary to perform the two-step goodwill impairment test described in Topic 350. The more-likely-than-not threshold is defined as having a likelihood of more than 50 percent. Previous guidance under Topic 350 required an entity to test goodwill for impairment, on at least an annual basis, by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount, including goodwill (step one). If the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then the second step of the test must be performed to measure the amount of the impairment loss, if any. Under the amendments in this update, an entity is not required to calculate the fair value of a reporting unit unless the entity determines that it is more likely than not that its fair value is less than its carrying amount. This ASU is effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011, and must be applied prospectively and can be early adopted. The Company early adopted the provision of ASU 2011-08 effective December 31, 2011. The adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs (“ASU 2011-04”). Some of the amendments contained in ASU 2011-04 clarify FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements, and other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. This ASU is effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011, and must be applied prospectively. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income (“ASU 2011-05”). ASU 2011-05 amends Topic 220, “Comprehensive Income”, 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. ASU 2011-05 does 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, nor does it change the option for an entity to present components of other comprehensive income either net of related tax effects or before related tax effects. This ASU is effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual and interim periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011, and must be applied prospectively. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-10, Derecognition of in Substance Real Estate - a Scope Clarification (“ASU 2011-10”), which amends Topic 360, “Property, Plant and Equipment”. The objective of this ASU is to resolve diversity in practice about whether the guidance in Topic 360 applies to a parent that ceases to have a controlling financial interest (as described in Topic 810, Consolidations) in a subsidiary that is in substance real estate as a result of default on the subsidiary's nonrecourse debt. Under ASU 2011-10, when a parent ceases to have a controlling financial interest in a subsidiary that is in substance real estate as a result of default on the subsidiary's nonrecourse debt, the reporting entity should apply the guidance in Subtopic 360-20 to determine whether it should derecognize the in substance real estate. Generally, a reporting entity would not satisfy the requirements to derecognize the in substance real estate before the legal transfer of the real estate to the lender and the extinguishment of the related nonrecourse indebtedness. That is, even if the reporting entity ceases to have a controlling financial interest under Subtopic 810-10, the reporting entity would continue to include the real estate, debt, and the results of the subsidiary's operations in its consolidated financial statements until legal title to the real estate is transferred to legally satisfy the debt. This ASU is effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual and interim periods beginning on or after
June 15, 2012, and must be applied prospectively. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (“ASU 2011-11”), which amends Topic 210, “Balance Sheet”. This ASU requires an entity to disclose information about offsetting and related arrangements to enable users of its financial statements to understand the effect of those arrangements on its financial position. Offsetting (netting) assets and liabilities is an important aspect of presentation in financial statements, and differences in the offsetting requirements in GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) account for a significant difference in the amounts presented in statements of financial position prepared in accordance with GAAP and in the amounts presented in those statements prepared in accordance with IFRS for certain institutions. This difference reduces the comparability of statements of financial position. As a result, users of financial statements requested that the differences should be addressed expeditiously. In response to those requests, the FASB and the IASB are issuing joint requirements that will enhance current disclosures. Entities are required to disclose both gross information and net information about both instruments and transactions eligible for offset in the statement of financial position and instruments and transactions subject to an agreement similar to a master netting arrangement. This scope would include derivatives, sale and repurchase agreements and reverse sale and repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and securities lending arrangements. The objective of this disclosure is to facilitate comparison between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. This ASU is effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and must be applied retrospectively. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update 2011-05 (“ASU 2011-12”). This ASU defers only those changes in ASU 2011-05 that relate to the presentation of reclassification adjustments. ASU 2011-12 was issued in order to allow the FASB time to redeliberate whether to present on the face of the financial statements the effects of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income on the components of net income and other comprehensive income for all periods presented. While the FASB is considering the operational concerns about the presentation requirements for reclassification adjustments and the needs of financial statement users for additional information about reclassification adjustments, the Company will continue to report reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income consistent with the presentation requirements in effect before the issuance of ASU 2011-05. ASU 2011-12 is effective for the Company’s financial statements for annual and interim periods beginning after December 31, 2011, and must be applied prospectively. The adoption of this standard is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.
NOTE 2 - Cash and Due from Banks
The Company is required to maintain a $500,000 minimum average daily balance with the Federal Reserve Bank for purposes of settling financial transactions and charges for Federal Reserve Bank services. The Company is also required to maintain cash balances or deposits with the Federal Reserve Bank sufficient to meet its statutory reserve requirements. The average reserve requirement for the maintenance period, which included December 31, 2011, was $0.
NOTE 3 - Interest Bearing Deposits in Other Banks
All interest bearing deposits in other banks have a maturity of one year or less. Year end balances are as follows:
NOTE 4 - Investment Securities
The carrying values and approximate fair values of investment securities are presented below:
Gross unrealized losses on investment securities and the fair value of the related securities, aggregated by investment category and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position, at December 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
The unrealized losses on investments in government sponsored entities, corporate bonds and municipal securities were caused by interest rate increases. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, there were twelve and thirteen available-for-sale securities in an unrealized loss position of $1,169,000 and $409,000, respectively. The contractual terms of these investments do not permit the issuer to settle the securities at a price less than the amortized cost of the investment. Because it is more likely than not that the Company will hold these investments until a market price recovery or maturity, these investments are not considered other-than-temporarily impaired.
The amortized cost and fair values of debt securities at December 31, 2011, are distributed by contractual maturity as shown below. Expected maturities may differ from contractual maturities because borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties. Although preferred stock has no stated maturity, it is aggregated in the calculation of weighted average yields presented below in the category of investments that mature in ten years or more.
The proceeds and resulting gains and losses, computed using specific identification, from sales of investment securities are as follows:
A summary of interest income on available for sale investment securities is as follows:
NOTE 5 - Loans
The composition of the total loan portfolio, excluding loans held for resale, is presented below:
The Company’s primary market areas are Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, and Fairbanks, Alaska, where the majority of its lending has been with Alaska businesses and individuals. At December 31, 2011, approximately 68% and 32% of the Company’s loans are secured by real estate, or for general commercial uses, including professional, retail, and small businesses, respectively. Substantially all of these loans are collateralized and repayment is expected from the borrowers’ cash flow or, secondarily, the collateral. The Company’s exposure to credit loss, if any, is the outstanding amount of the loan if the collateral is proved to be of no value.
Maturities of fixed and floating rate accrual loans, excluding loans held for resale, as of December 31, 2011 are as follows:
As part of the on-going monitoring of the credit quality of the Company’s loan portfolio, management tracks certain credit quality indicators including trends in past due and nonaccrual loans, gross and net charge offs, and movement in loan balances within the risk classifications. The Company utilizes a risk grading matrix to assign a risk classification to each of its loans. Loans are graded on a scale of 1 to 8. A description of the general characteristics of the 8 risk classifications are as follows:

Risk Code 1 - Excellent: Loans in this grade are those where the borrower has substantial financial capacity, above average profit margins, and excellent liquidity. Cash flow has been consistent and is well in excess of debt servicing requirements. Loans in this grade may be secured by cash and/or negotiable securities having a readily ascertainable market value and may also be fully guaranteed by the U.S. Government, and other approved government and financial institutions. Loans in this grade have borrowers with exceptional credit ratings and would compare to AA ratings as established by Standard & Poor's.

Risk Code 2 - Good: Loans in this grade are those to borrowers who have demonstrated satisfactory asset quality, earnings history, liquidity and other adequate margins of creditor protection. Borrowers exhibit positive fundamentals in terms of working capital, cash flow sufficient to service the debt, and debt to worth ratios. Borrowers for loans in this grade are capable of absorbing normal economic or other setbacks without difficulty. The borrower may exhibit some weaknesses or varying historical profitability. Management is considered adequate in all cases. Borrowing facilities may be unsecured or secured by customary acceptable collateral with well-defined market values. Additional support for the loan is available from secondary repayment sources and/or adequate guarantors.

Risk Code 3 - Satisfactory: Loans in this grade represent moderate credit risk due to some instability in borrower capacity and financial condition. These loans generally require average loan officer attention. Characteristics of assets in this classification may include: marginal debt service coverage, newly established ventures, limited or unstable earnings history, some difficulty in absorbing normal setbacks, and atypical maturities, collateral or other exceptions to established loan policies. In all cases, such weaknesses are offset by well secured collateral positions and/or acceptable guarantors.

Risk Code 4 - Watch List: Loans in this grade are acceptable, but additional attention is needed. This is an interim classification reserved for loans that are intrinsically creditworthy but which require specific attention. Loans may have documentation deficiencies that are deemed correctable, may be contrary to current lending policies, or may have insufficient credit or financial information. Loans in this grade may also be characterized by borrower failure to comply with loan covenants or to provide other required information. If such conditions are not resolved within 90 days from the date of the assignment of Risk Code 4, the loan may warrant further downgrade.

Risk Code 5 - Special Mention: Loans in this grade have had a deterioration of financial condition or collateral value, but are still reasonably secured by collateral or net worth of the borrower. Although the Company is presently protected from loss, potential weaknesses are apparent which, if not corrected, could cause future problems. Loans in this classification warrant more than the ordinary amount of attention but have not yet reached the point of concern for loss. Loans in this category have deteriorated sufficiently that they would have difficulty in refinancing. Loans in this classification may show one or more of the following characteristics: inadequate loan documentation, deteriorating financial condition or control over collateral, economic or market conditions which may adversely impact the borrower in the future, unreliable or insufficient credit or collateral information, adverse trends in operations that are not yet jeopardizing repayment, or adverse trends in secondary repayment sources.

Risk Code 6 - Substandard: Loans in this grade are no longer adequately protected due to declining net worth of the borrower, lack of earning capacity, or insufficient collateral. The possibility for loss of some portion of the loan principal cannot be ruled out. Loans in this grade exhibit well-defined weaknesses that bring normal repayment into doubt. Some of these weaknesses may include: unprofitable or poor earnings trends of the borrower or property, declining liquidity, excessive debt, significant unfavorable industry comparisons, secondary repayment sources are not available, or there is a possibility of a protracted work-out.

Risk Code 7 - Doubtful: Loans in this grade exhibit the same weaknesses as those classified Substandard, but the traits are more pronounced. Collection in full is improbable, however the extent of the loss may be indeterminable due to pending factors which may yet occur that could salvage the loan, such as possible pledge of additional collateral, sale of assets, merger, acquisition or refinancing. Borrowers in this grade may be on the verge of insolvency or bankruptcy, and stringent action is required on the part of the loan officer.

Risk Code 8 - Loss: Loans in this grade are those that are largely non-collectible or those in which ultimate recovery is too distant in the future to warrant continuance as a bankable asset. This classification does not mean that the asset has absolutely no recovery or salvage value, but rather it is not practical or desirable to defer charging the loan off even though recovery may be affected in the future.
A risk rating is assigned for each loan at origination. The risk ratings for commercial, real estate construction, and real estate term loans may change throughout the life of the loan as a multitude of risk factors change. The risk rating for consumer loans may change as loans become delinquent. Delinquent loans are those that are thirty days or more past due.
The loan portfolio segmented by risk class at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, are shown below:
Loans are carried at their principal amount outstanding, net of charge-offs, unamortized fees and direct loan origination costs. Loan balances are charged to the Allowance when management believes that collection of principal is unlikely. Interest income on loans is accrued and recognized on the principal amount outstanding except for loans in a nonaccrual status. All classes of loans are placed on nonaccrual and considered impaired when management believes doubt exists as to the collectability of the interest or principal. Cash payments received on nonaccrual loans are directly applied to the principal balance. Generally, a loan may be returned to accrual status when the delinquent principal and interest are brought current in accordance with the terms of the loan agreement and certain ongoing performance criteria have been met. Loans are reported as past due when installment payments, interest payments, or maturity payments are past due based on contractual terms.
Nonaccrual loans totaled $7.4 million and $11.4 million at December 31, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Interest income which would have been earned on nonaccrual loans for 2011, 2010, and 2009 amounted to $464,000, $1.2 million, and $1.4 million, respectively. Nonaccrual loans, by major loan type, are presented below:
There were no past due loans greater than 90 days and still accruing at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Past due loans at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, are presented below:
The Company considers a loan to be impaired when it is probable that it will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Once a loan is determined to be impaired, the impairment is measured based on the present value of the expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, except that if the loan is collateral dependent, the impairment is measured by using the fair value of the loan’s collateral. Nonperforming loans greater than $50,000 are individually evaluated for impairment based upon the borrower’s overall financial condition, resources, and payment record, and the prospects for support from any financially responsible guarantors.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the recorded investment in loans that are evaluated for impairment and are considered to be impaired was $9.5 million and $18.3 million, respectively, (of which $7.1 million and $10.5 million, respectively, were on a nonaccrual basis). The following table presents information about impaired loans as of the dates indicated:
The unpaid principle balances included in the table above represent the recorded investment at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, plus amounts charged off for book purposes.
Loans classified as troubled debt restructurings totaled $4.5 million at December 31, 2011. There were no loans classified as troubled debt restructurings at December 31, 2010. A troubled debt restructuring is a loan to a borrower that is experiencing financial difficulty that has been modified from its original terms and conditions in such a way that the Company is granting the borrower a concession of some kind. The Company has granted a variety of concessions to borrowers in the form of loan modifications. The modifications granted can generally be described in the following categories:
Rate Modification: A modification in which the interest rate is changed.
Term Modification: A modification in which the maturity date, timing of payments, or frequency of payments is changed.
Payment Modification: A modification in which the dollar amount of the payment is changed, or in which a loan is converted to interest only payments for a period of time are included in this category.
Combination Modification: Any other type of modification, including the use of multiple categories above.
The following table presents newly restructured loans that occurred during, 2011:
The following table presents newly restructured loans that occurred during 2011 by concession (terms modified):
As of December 31, 2011, there were no troubled debt restructurings that have defaulted since the time of their modification. All troubled debt restructurings are performing according to their modified terms. The Company had no commitments to extend additional credit to borrowers owing receivables whose terms have been modified in troubled debt restructurings. All troubled debt restructurings are also classified as impaired loans and are included in the loans individually evaluated for impairment in the calculation of the Allowance for Loan Losses. There was one $90,000 charge off in 2011 on one real estate term loan that is now classified as a troubled debt restructuring. Four commercial troubled debt restructurings with a total recorded investment of $854,000 had a specific impairment amount totaling $595,000, respectively, at December 31, 2011.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, there were no loans pledged as collateral to secure public deposits.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company serviced $83.7 million and $79.1 million of loans, respectively, which had been sold to various investors without recourse. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company held $662,000 and $611,000, respectively, in trust for these loans for the payment of such items as taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs.
Loans held for sale: The Company has purchased residential loans from its mortgage affiliate, Residential Mortgage Holding Company LLC (“RML”), from time to time since 1998. The Company then sells these loans in the secondary market. During 2009, the Company renewed its agreement with RML in anticipation of higher than normal refinance activity in the Anchorage market. All loans purchased and sold in 2011 and 2010 were newly originated loans that did not affect nonperforming loans. The Company purchased $82.9 million and sold $60.7 million in residential loans during 2011 and recognized $11,000 in gains related to these transactions in 2011. The Company purchased $70.4 million and sold $64.9 million in residential loans during 2010 and recognized $23,000 in gains related to these transactions in 2010. There were $27.8 million and $5.6 million in loans held for sale as of December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Certain directors, and companies of which directors are principal owners, have loans and other transactions such as architectural fees with the Company. Such transactions are made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral required, as those prevailing for similar transactions of unrelated parties. An analysis of the loan transactions follows:
The Company’s unfunded loan commitments to these directors or their related interests on December 31, 2011 and 2010, were $198,000 and $194,000, respectively.
NOTE 6 - Allowance for Loan Losses
The Allowance for Loan Losses (“the Allowance”) is management’s best estimate of probable losses inherent in its loan portfolio. Accordingly, the methodology is based on historical loss experience by loan type and internal risk grade with adjustments for current events and conditions. The Company’s process for determining the appropriate level of the Allowance for probable loan losses is designed to account for credit deterioration as it occurs. The provision for loan losses reflects loan quality trends, including levels of and trends related to past due and nonaccrual loans, net charge-offs or recoveries, and other factors.
The level of the Allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of industry concentrations, specific credit risks, loan loss experience, current loan portfolio quality, present economic, political and regulatory conditions and unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio. Portions of the allowance may be allocated for specific credits; however, the entire allowance is available for any credit that, in management’s judgment, should be charged off. While management utilizes its best judgment and information available, the ultimate adequacy of the Allowance is dependent upon a variety of factors beyond the Company’s control including, among other things, the performance of the Company’s loan portfolio, the economy, changes in interest rates, and the view of the regulatory authorities toward loan classification.
The Company’s Allowance consists of three elements: (1) specific valuation allowances based on probable losses on specific loans, (2) general valuation allowances based on historical loan loss experience for similar loans with similar characteristics and trends, adjusted as necessary to reflect the impact of current conditions, and (3) unallocated general valuation allowances based on general economic conditions and other qualitative risk factors both internal and external to the Company.
The specific valuation allowance is an allocated allowance for impaired loans. This analysis is based upon a specific analysis for each impaired loan that is collateral dependent, including appraisals on loans secured by real property, management’s
assessment of the current market, recent payment history, and an evaluation of other sources of repayment. The Company obtains appraisals on real and personal property that secure its loans during the loan origination process in accordance with regulatory guidance and its loan policy.
The general valuation allowance is a general allocated allowance for all other loans that were not impaired as of the balance sheet date. The Company uses a formula-based approach that includes average historical loss factors that are adjusted for qualitative factors to establish this portion of the Allowance. The Company first disaggregates the overall loan portfolio into the following segments: commercial, real estate construction, real estate term, and home equity lines and other consumer loans. Then the Company further disaggregates each segment into the following classes, which are also known as risk classifications: excellent, good, satisfactory, watch, special mention, substandard, doubtful and loss. After the portfolio has been disaggregated into these segments and classes, the Company calculates a general reserve for each segment and class based on the average four year loss history for each segment and class. This general reserve is then adjusted for qualitative factors, by segment and class. Qualitative factors are based on management’s assessment of current trends that may cause losses inherent in the current loan portfolio to differ significantly from historical losses. Some factors that management considers in determining the qualitative adjustment to the general reserve include, national and local economic trends, business conditions, underwriting policies and standards, trends in local real estate markets, effects of various political activities, peer group data, and internal factors such as underwriting policies and expertise of the Company’s employees.
The unallocated general valuation portion of the Allowance is based on several factors including the level of the Allowance as compared to total loans and nonperforming loans in light of current economic conditions. This portion of the Allowance is deemed “unallocated” because it is not allocated to any segment or class of the loan portfolio. This portion of the Allowance provides for coverage of credit losses inherent in the loan portfolio but not captured in the credit loss factors that are utilized in the risk rating-based component or in the specific impairment component of the Allowance and acknowledges the inherent imprecision of all loss prediction models. This portion of the Allowance is based upon management’s evaluation of various factors that are not directly measured in the determination of the allocated portions of the Allowance. Such factors include uncertainties in identifying triggering events that directly correlate to subsequent loss rates, uncertainties in economic conditions, risk factors that have not yet manifested themselves in loss allocation factors, and historical loss experience data that may not precisely correspond to the current portfolio. In addition, the unallocated reserve may be further adjusted based upon the direction of various risk indicators. Examples of such factors include the risk as to current and prospective economic conditions, the level and trend of charge offs or recoveries, and the risk of heightened imprecision or inconsistency of appraisals used in estimating real estate values. Although this allocation process may not accurately predict credit losses by loan type or in aggregate, the total allowance for credit losses is available to absorb losses that may arise from any loan type or category.
Loans identified as losses by management, internal loan review and/or bank examiners are charged-off.
The following is a detail of the activity in the Allowance for 2011 and 2010, respectively:
The following is a detail of the recorded investment in the loan portfolio, segregated by amounts evaluated individually or collectively in the Allowance at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively:
The following represents the balance of the Allowance as December, 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, segregated by segment and class:
At December 31, 2011, the Allowance was $16.5 million as compared to $14.4 million at December 31, 2010. The increase in the allowance for the loan losses at December 31, 2011 as compared to December 31, 2010 was the result of a $2 million provision and $98,000 in net charge-offs. The Company’s ratio of nonperforming loans compared to portfolio loans at December 31, 2011 was 1.14% as compared to 1.70% as of December 31, 2010. The Company’s ratio of the Allowance compared to portfolio loans at December 31, 2011 was 2.56% as compared to 2.14% at December 31, 2010.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the unallocated allowance as a percentage of the total Allowance was 14%. The unallocated allowance as a percentage of the total Allowance was 55% at December 31, 2009. The decrease in the unallocated allowance as a percentage of the total Allowance at December 31, 2010 is due primarily to an enhancement to the Company’s methodology. The Company refined its method of estimating the Allowance in the third quarter of 2010. The Company elected this enhanced method of estimating the Allowance because we believe that it more accurately allocates expected losses by loan segment and class. The Company performed a retrospective review of the Allowance as of December 31, 2009, March 31, 2010 and June 30, 2010 and determined that this refinement does not have an effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, or earnings per share for any period; rather, the refined method of estimating the Allowance changes how the total Allowance is allocated among the Company’s loan types and the unallocated portion of the Allowance.
NOTE 7 - Premises and Equipment
The following summarizes the components of premises and equipment:
Depreciation expense and amortization of leasehold improvements was $1.7 million, $1.6 million, and $1.6 million in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
NOTE 8 - Other Real Estate Owned
At December 31, 2011 and 2010 the Company held $5.2 million and $10.4 million, respectively, as OREO. The Company recognized net revenue of $710,000 and $1.1 million and net operating expenses of $1.1 million related to OREO properties in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The following table details net operating expense related to OREO for the periods indicated:
NOTE 9 - Goodwill, Intangibles and Other Assets
A summary of intangible assets and other assets is as follows:
Prepaid expenses were $5.0 million and $5.6 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Prepaid expenses included $4.3 million and $4.9 million in prepaid FDIC assessments at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. In accordance with new FDIC regulations, the Company prepaid its FDIC insurance premiums for the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2009 and the fiscal years ending Decembers 31, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
As part of the stock acquisition of Alaska First in October 2007, the Company recorded $1.8 million of goodwill and $1.3 million of CDI for the acquisition of Alaska First stock. The Company is amortizing the CDI related to the Alaska First acquisition using the sum of years’ digits method over the estimated useful life of 10 years.
The company performed goodwill impairment testing at December 31, 2011 and 2010 in accordance with the policy described in Note 1. There was no indication of impairment in the first step of the impairment test at December 31, 2010, and accordingly the Company did not perform the second step. At December 31, 2011, the Company performed its annual impairment test by applying the qualitative assessment described in ASU 2011-08 and concluded that it is more likely than not that the fair value of the Company exceeds the carry value and that no potential impairment existed at that time. Accordingly, the Company did not perform step one of the impairment test. Significant positive inputs to the qualitative assessment included the Company’s capital position; the Company’s increasing historical trends and budget-to-actual results of operations; the Company’s decreasing trends in, and current level of nonperforming assets; results of regulatory examinations; trends and peer comparisons of net interest margin; and trends in the Company’s cash flows. Significant negative inputs to the qualitative assessment included general local, national, and international economic conditions and how they may negatively affect our business as well as the current volatility and uncertainty related to marker capitalization of financial institutions in general.
The Company recorded amortization expense of its intangible assets of $275,000, $299,000, and $323,000 in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Accumulated amortization for intangible assets was $5.7 million and $5.4 million at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
The future amortization expense required on these assets is as follows:
Affiliates
The Company applies the equity method of accounting for the following affiliates:
-
The Company owns a 41% equity interest in ECCM, an investment advisory services company. ECCM began active operations in the fourth quarter of 2002 and has had start-up losses since that time as it continues to build its assets under management. In addition to its ownership interest, the Company provides ECCM with a line of credit that has a committed amount of $750,000 and an outstanding balance of $445,000 as of December 31, 2011.
-
The Company owns a 23% interest in Pacific Wealth Advisors, LLC (“PWA”), an investment advisory, trust, and wealth management business located in Seattle, Washington.
-
In the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company purchased a 41% ECIA, an insurance agency that offers annuity and other insurance products.
-
The Company owns a 24% interest in the profits of RML, a residential mortgage holding company. In addition to its ownership interest, the Company provides RML with two lines of credit that have committed amounts of $18 million and outstanding balances of $17.6 million as of December 31, 2011. Additionally, the Company purchased $82.9 million and $70.4 million in loans from RML in 2011 and 2010.
Below is summary balance sheet and income statement information for RML.
The Company has analyzed all of its affiliate relationships in accordance with GAAP and determined that PWA, RML, and ECIA are not variable interest entities (“VIEs”). The Company has determined that ECCM is a VIE. However, the Company does not have a controlling interest in ECCM. The Company determined that ECCM is a VIE based on the fact that the Company provides ECCM with a line of credit for which the majority owner of ECCM provides additional subordinated financial support in the form of a 50% guarantee. This line of credit has a committed amount of $750,000 and an outstanding balance of $445,000 as of December 31, 2011. Furthermore, ECCM does not have access to any other financial support through other institutions, nor is it likely that it would be able to obtain additional lines of credit based on its operational losses to date and its resulting lack of equity. As such, it appears that ECCM cannot finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support and is therefore considered a VIE under GAAP. However, the Company has determined that it does not have a controlling interest in ECCM based on the following facts and circumstances:
a. Neither the Company nor any members of the Company’s management have control over the budgeting or operational processes of ECCM.
b. While the President, CEO and Chairman of the Company is a member of ECCM’s board, he does not exert influence on decisions beyond Northrim Investment Services Company’s ownership percentage in ECCM.
c. The Company has no veto rights with respect to decisions affecting the operations of ECCM.
The Company has the obligation to absorb losses of ECCM up to its ownership percentage of 41%. There are no caps or guarantees on returns, and there are no protections to limit any investor’s share of losses. Additionally, the Company provides ECCM with a $750,000 line of credit. This line includes a 50% personal guarantee by the majority owner of ECCM. Therefore, the Company does have the obligation to absorb losses and the right to receive benefits that could be significant to ECCM and which, as a result of its exposure to 50% of any losses incurred on the line of credit that the Company has extended to ECCM, may be greater than the Company’s 41% ownership therein.
However, the applicable accounting guidance requires that the Company have both the power to control the activities of ECCM that most significantly impact its economic performance and the obligation to absorb losses or the right to receive benefits from Elliott Cove that could potentially be significant to ECCM. The Company has determined that the facts and circumstances of its relationship with ECCM including its overall involvement in the operations, decision-making capabilities, and proportionate share in earnings and losses do not satisfy the criteria for a controlling interest because it does not have the power to direct the activities of ECCM according to GAAP.
While the Company also provides a line of credit to RML, which is also guaranteed by the other owners of RML, RML has other available lines of credit with unrelated financial institutions which have been in place for many years. Additionally, RML has a history of profitability and has sufficient capital to support its operations. RML had $21.3 million in equity, $102.8 million in assets and net income of $5.7 million as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011. As such, the total equity investment in the entity, which is provided by the Company and the other owners, is adequate to finance the activities of RML. Therefore, the Company has concluded that RML is not a VIE.
Low Income Housing Partnerships
In December of 2006, September of 2006, and January of 2003, the Company made commitments to invest $3 million each in USA 57, Centerline XXXIII, and Centerline XXII, respectively. The Company earns a return on its investments in the form of tax credits and deductions that flow through to it as a limited partner in these partnerships over a fifteen, eighteen, and eighteen-year period, respectively. The Company recognized amortization expense of $902,000, $861,000, and $782,000 in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. The Company expects to fund its remaining $52,000 in commitments on these investments in 2012.
NOTE 10 - Deposits
At December 31, 2011, the scheduled maturities of certificates of deposit (excluding Alaska CD’s, which do not have scheduled maturities) are as follows:
The Company is a member of the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry System (“CDARS”) which is a network of over 3,000 banks throughout the United States. The CDARS system was founded in 2003 and allows participating banks to exchange FDIC insurance coverage so that 100% of the balance of their customers’ certificates of deposit are fully subject to FDIC insurance. The system also allows for investment of banks’ own investment dollars in the form of domestic certificates of deposit. The Company had $250,000 in CDARS certificates of deposits at December 31, 2011. The Company did not have any CDARS certificates of deposits at December 31, 2010.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company did not hold any certificates of deposit from a public entity collateralized by letters of credit issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company did not have any securities pledged to collateralize certificates of deposit from a public entity.
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company held $5.1 million and $4.9 million, respectively, in deposits for related parties.
NOTE 11 - Borrowings
The Company has a line of credit with the FHLB of Seattle approximating 11% of eligible assets, or $117.3 million at December 31, 2011. FHLB advances are subject to collateral criteria that require the Company to pledge assets under a blanket pledge arrangement as collateral for its borrowings from the FHLB. Additional advances are dependent on the availability of acceptable collateral such as marketable securities or real estate loans, although all FHLB advances are secured by a blanket pledge of the Company’s assets. The Company had no outstanding balances on this line at December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2010.
The Company purchased its main office facility for $12.9 million on July 1, 2008. In this transaction, the Company, through NBL, assumed an existing loan secured by the building in an amount of $5.1 million. At December 31, 2011, the outstanding balance on this loan is $4.6 million. This is an amortizing loan and has a maturity date of April 1, 2014 and an interest rate of 5.95% as of December 31, 2011.
The Company entered into a note agreement with the Federal Reserve Bank on December 27, 1996 on the payment of tax deposits. Under this agreement, the Company takes in tax payments from customers and reports these payments to the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve has the option to call the tax deposits at any time. The balance at December 31, 2011, and 2010, was zero and $620,000, respectively, which was secured by investment securities.
The Federal Reserve Bank is holding $91.4 million of loans as collateral to secure available borrowing lines through the discount window of $63.7 million at December 31, 2011. There were no discount window advances outstanding at December 31, 2011 and 2010. The Company paid less than $1,000 in 2011 and 2010 in interest on this agreement.
Securities sold under agreements to repurchase were $16.3 million and $12.9 million, respectively, for December 31, 2011 and 2010. The Company was paying 0.49% on these agreements at December 31, 2011 and 2010. The average balance outstanding of securities sold under agreement to repurchase during 2011 and 2010 was $13.8 million and $10.2 million, respectively, and the maximum outstanding at any month-end was $17.2 million and $14.2 million, respectively, during the same time periods. The securities sold under agreement to repurchase are held by the Federal Home Loan Bank under the Company’s control.
The Company had no other borrowings at December 31, 2011 and 2010.
The future principal payments that are required on the Company’s borrowings as of December 31, 2011, are as follows:
NOTE 12 - Junior Subordinated Debentures
In May of 2003, the Company formed a wholly-owned Delaware statutory business trust subsidiary, Northrim Capital Trust 1 (the “Trust”), which issued $8 million of guaranteed undivided beneficial interests in the Company’s Junior Subordinated
Deferrable Interest Debentures (“Trust Preferred Securities”). These debentures qualify as Tier 1 capital under Federal Reserve Board guidelines. All of the common securities of the Trust are owned by the Company. The proceeds from the issuance of the common securities and the Trust Preferred Securities were used by the Trust to purchase $8.2 million of junior subordinated debentures of the Company. The Trust is not consolidated in the Company’s financial statements in accordance with GAAP; therefore, the Company has recorded its investment in the Trust as an other asset and the subordinated debentures as a liability. The debentures which represent the sole asset of the Trust, accrue and pay distributions quarterly at a variable rate of 90-day LIBOR plus 3.15% per annum, adjusted quarterly, of the stated liquidation value of $1,000 per capital security. The interest rate on these debentures was 3.61% at December 31, 2011. The interest cost to the Company on these debentures was $281,000 in 2011 and $283,000 in 2010. The Company has entered into contractual arrangements which, taken collectively, fully and unconditionally guarantee payment of: (i) accrued and unpaid distributions required to be paid on the Trust Preferred Securities; (ii) the redemption price with respect to any Trust Preferred Securities called for redemption by the Trust; and (iii) payments due upon a voluntary or involuntary dissolution, winding up or liquidation of the Trust. The Trust Preferred Securities are mandatorily redeemable upon maturity of the debentures on May 15, 2033, or upon earlier redemption as provided in the indenture. The Company has the right to redeem the debentures purchased by the Trust in whole or in part, on or after May 15, 2008. As specified in the indenture, if the debentures are redeemed prior to maturity, the redemption price will be the principal amount and any accrued but unpaid interest.
In December of 2005, the Company formed a wholly-owned Connecticut statutory business trust subsidiary, Northrim Statutory Trust 2 (the “Trust 2”), which issued $10 million of guaranteed undivided beneficial interests in the Company’s Junior Subordinated Deferrable Interest Debentures (“Trust Preferred Securities 2”). These debentures qualify as Tier 1 capital under Federal Reserve Board guidelines. All of the common securities of Trust 2 are owned by the Company. The proceeds from the issuance of the common securities and the Trust Preferred Securities 2 were used by Trust 2 to purchase $10.3 million of junior subordinated debentures of the Company. Trust 2 is not consolidated in the Company’s financial statements in accordance with GAAP; therefore, the Company has recorded its investment in Trust 2 as an other asset and the subordinated debentures as a liability. The debentures which represent the sole asset of Trust 2, accrue and pay distributions quarterly at a variable rate of 90-day LIBOR plus 1.37% per annum, adjusted quarterly, of the stated liquidation value of $1,000 per capital security. The interest rate on these debentures was 1.92% at December 31, 2011. The interest cost to the Company on these debentures was $171,000 in 2011 and $173,000 in 2010. The Company has entered into contractual arrangements which, taken collectively, fully and unconditionally guarantee payment of: (i) accrued and unpaid distributions required to be paid on the Trust Preferred Securities 2; (ii) the redemption price with respect to any Trust Preferred Securities 2 called for redemption by Trust 2; and (iii) payments due upon a voluntary or involuntary dissolution, winding up or liquidation of Trust 2. The Trust Preferred Securities 2 are mandatorily redeemable upon maturity of the debentures on March 15, 2036, or upon earlier redemption as provided in the indenture. The Company has the right to redeem the debentures purchased by Trust 2 in whole or in part, on or after March 15, 2011. As specified in the indenture, if the debentures are redeemed prior to maturity, the redemption price will be the principal amount and any accrued but unpaid interest.
NOTE 13 - Interest Expense
Interest expense on deposits, borrowings, and junior subordinated debt is presented below:
NOTE 14 - Income Taxes
At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company had $1.4 million and $2.5 million in total taxes receivable. The Company realized $879,000 and $841,000 in tax credits related to its investments in low income housing tax credit partnerships for 2011
and 2010, respectively. Additionally, in 2011, the Company purchased and utilized $500,000 in Alaska film tax credits from the State of Alaska.
Components of the provision for income taxes are as follows:
The actual expense for 2011, 2010, and 2009, differs from the “expected” tax expense (computed by applying the U.S. Federal Statutory Tax Rate of 35% for the year ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009) as follows:
The components of the net deferred tax asset are as follows:
A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. The primary source of recovery of the deferred tax asset will be future taxable income. Management believes it is more likely than not that the results of future operations will generate sufficient taxable income to realize the deferred tax asset. The deferred tax asset is included in other assets.
As of December 31, 2011, the Company had no unrecognized tax benefits. Our policy is to recognize interest and penalties on unrecognized tax benefits in “Provision for income taxes” in the Consolidated Statements of Income. There were no amounts related to interest and penalties recognized for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009. The tax years subject to examination by federal and state taxing authorities are the years ending December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008.
NOTE 15 - Comprehensive Income
At December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009, the related tax effects allocated to each component of other comprehensive income are as follows:
NOTE 16 - Employee Benefit Plans
On July 1, 1992, the Company implemented a profit sharing plan, including a provision designed to qualify the plan under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Employees may participate in the plan if they work more than 1,000 hours per year. Under the plan, each eligible participant may contribute a percentage of their eligible salary to a maximum established by the IRS, and the Company provides for a mandatory $0.25 match for each $1.00 contributed by an employee up to 6% of the employee’s salary. The Company may increase the matching contribution at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The plan also allows the Company to make a discretionary contribution on behalf of eligible employees based on their length of service to the Company.
To be eligible for 401(k) contributions, participants must be employed at the end of the plan year, except in the case of death, disability or retirement. The Company expensed $721,000, $732,000, and $735,000, in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively, for 401(k) contributions and included these expenses in salaries and other personal expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income.
On July 1, 1994, the Company implemented a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan for executive officers of the Company whose retirement benefits under the 401(k) plan have been limited under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Contributions to this plan totaled $335,000, $328,000, and $328,000, in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. These expenses are included in salaries and other personnel expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the balance of the accrued liability for this plan was included in other liabilities and totaled $2.9 million and $2.6 million, respectively.
In February of 2002, the Company implemented a non-qualified deferred compensation plan in which certain of the executive officers participate. The Company’s net liability under this plan is dependent upon market gains and losses on assets held in the plan. In 2011, 2010 and 2009, the Company recognized increases in its liability of $132,000, $59,000 and $156,000, respectively. These expenses are included in salaries and other personnel expense in the Consolidated Statements of Income. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, the balance of the accrued liability for this plan was included in other liabilities and totaled $1.6 million and $1.5 million, respectively.
In November of 2011, the Company implemented a Profit Sharing Plan. Executive officers, in addition to all employees of the Company and Bank who commenced employment prior to the January 1 that precedes or coincides with a performance period, are eligible to participate in payments made from a profit sharing pool calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Profit Sharing Plan. The aggregate amount to be paid to employees under the Profit Sharing Plan is determined using performance goals that are established by the Compensation Committee of the Board. If the performance goals are met for the year, the profit sharing pool for the period is calculated based on a formula that is also approved by the Compensation Committee each year. The Compensation Committee approved management’s recommendation based upon the calculated payout under the Profit Sharing Plan’s methodology resulting in an aggregate payout of $786,000 for 2011. Information concerning the calculation employee payments under the Profit Sharing Plan is set forth under the heading “Performance Based Annual Payment” in the Company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and is incorporated into this report by reference.
NOTE 17 - Common Stock
Quarterly cash dividends were paid aggregating to $3.3 million, $2.8 million, and $2.6 million, or $0.50 per share, $0.44 per share, and $0.40 per share, in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. On February 16, 2012, the Board of Directors declared a $0.13 per share cash dividend payable on March 16, 2012, to shareholders of record on March 8, 2012. Federal and State regulations place certain limitations on the payment of dividends by the Company.
In September 2002, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a plan whereby it would periodically repurchase for cash up to approximately 5% of its shares of common stock in the open market. The Company purchased 688,442 shares of its stock under this program through December 31, 2009 at a total cost of $14.2 million at an average price of $20.65, which left a balance of 227,242 shares available under the stock repurchase program. The Company intends to continue to repurchase its stock from time to time depending upon market conditions, the Company can make no assurances that it will continue this program or that it will repurchase all of the authorized shares. No repurchases occurred during 2010 and 2011.
NOTE 18 - Stock-Based Compensation
The Company adopted the 2010 Stock Option Plan (“2010 Plan”) following shareholder’s approval at the 2010 Annual Meeting. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2010 Plan, no additional grants may be issued under the prior plans. The 2010 Plan provides for grants of up to 348,232 shares, which includes any shares subject to stock awards under the previous stock option plans.
Stock Options: Under the 2010 Plan and previous plans, certain key employees have been granted the option to purchase set amounts of common stock at the market price on the day the option was granted. Optionees, at their own discretion, may cover the cost of exercise through the exchange at the then fair value of already owned shares of the Company’s stock. Options are granted for a 10-year period and vest on a pro rata basis over the initial three years from grant.
The Company measures the fair value of each stock option at the date of grant using the Black-Scholes option pricing model using assumptions noted in the following table. Expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of the price of the Company’s common stock. The Company uses historical data to estimate option exercise and stock option forfeiture rates within the valuation model. The expected term of options granted is determined based on historical experience with similar options and represents the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding. The expected dividend yield is based on dividend trends and the market value of the Company’s common stock at the time of grant. The risk-free rate for periods within the expected life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant.
The following assumptions were used to determine the fair value of stock options as of the grant date to determine compensation expense for the years ended December 2011, 2010 and 2009:
The following table summarizes stock options activity during 2011:
The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pretax intrinsic value (i.e., the difference between the Company’s closing stock price on December 31, 2011 and the exercise price, times the number of shares) that would have been received by the option holders had all the option holders exercised their options on December 31, 2011. This amount changes based on the fair value of the Company’s stock. The total intrinsic value of options exercised for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $332,000, $781,000 and $351,000, respectively.
Proceeds from the exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock in 2011, 2010, and 2009 were $496,000, $968,000, and $376,000 respectively. The Company withheld $515,000, $986,000, and $329,000 to pay for stock option exercises or income taxes that resulted from the exercise of stock options in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively.
For the year ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, the Company recognized $82,000, $112,000 and $260,000, respectively, in stock option compensation expense as a component of salaries and other personnel expense. As of December 31, 2011 there was approximately $112,000 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested options which is expected to be recognized over the weighted-average period of 2.3 years.
Restricted Stock Units: The Company grants restricted stock units to certain key employees periodically. Recipients of restricted stock units do not pay any cash consideration to the Company for the shares and receive all dividends with respect to such shares when the shares vest. Restricted stock units cliff vest at the end of a three-year time period.
The following table summarizes restricted stock unit activity during 2011:
The total fair value of restricted stock units vested for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 was $567,000, $258,000, and $207,000, respectively.
For the year ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, the Company recognized $437,000, $354,000 and $388,000, respectively, in restricted stock unit compensation expense as a component of salaries and other personnel expense. As of December 31, 2011 these was approximately $768,000 of total unrecognized compensation expense related to non-vested options which is expected to be recognized over the weighted-average period of 2.1 years.
NOTE 19 - Commitments and Contingent Liabilities
Rental expense under leases for equipment and premises was $953,000, $1.1 million, and $1.2 million in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Required minimum rentals on non-cancelable leases as of December 31, 2011, are as follows:
Rental income under leases was $776,000, $810,000 and $850,000 in 2011, 2010, and 2009, respectively. Required minimum rentals on non-cancelable leases as of December 31, 2011, are as follows:
The Company is self-insured for medical, dental, and vision plan benefits provided to employees. The Company has obtained stop-loss insurance to limit total medical claims in any one year to $100,000 per covered individual and $1 million for all medical claims incurred by an individual. The Company has established a liability for outstanding incurred but unreported claims. While management uses what it believes are pertinent factors in estimating the liability, it is subject to change due to claim experience, type of claims, and rising medical costs.
Off-Balance Sheet Financial Instruments: In the ordinary course of business, the Company enters into various types of transactions that involve financial instruments with off-balance sheet risk. These instruments include commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit and are not reflected in the accompanying balance sheets. These transactions may involve to varying degrees credit and interest rate risk in excess of the amount, if any, recognized in the balance sheets. Management does not anticipate any loss as a result of these commitments.
The Company’s off-balance sheet credit risk exposure is the contractual amount of commitments to extend credit and standby letters of credit. The Company applies the same credit standards to these contracts as it uses in its lending process.
Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers. These commitments have specified interest rates and generally have fixed expiration dates but may be terminated by the Company if certain conditions of the contract are violated. Although currently subject to draw down, many of the commitments do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. Collateral held relating to these commitments varies, but generally includes real estate, inventory, accounts receivable, and equipment.
Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by the Company to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. Credit risk arises in these transactions from the possibility that a customer may not be able to repay the Company upon default of performance. Collateral held for standby letters of credit is based on an individual evaluation of each customer’s creditworthiness.
The Company has established a reserve for losses related to these commitments and letters of credit that is recorded in other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
NOTE 20 - Regulatory Matters
The Company and Northrim Bank are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the Company and Northrim Bank must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of the Company’s and Northrim Bank’s assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory practices. The Company’s and Northrim Bank’s capital amounts and classification are also subject to qualitative judgment by the regulators about components, risk weightings, and other factors.
Federal banking agencies have established minimum amounts and ratios of total and Tier I capital to risk-weighted assets, and of Tier I capital to average assets. The regulations set forth the definitions of capital, risk-weighted and average assets. As of December 15, 2011, the most recent notification from the FDIC categorized the Bank as “well-capitalized” under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. Management believes, as of December 31, 2011, that the Company and Northrim Bank met all capital adequacy requirements.
The tables below illustrate the capital requirements for the Company and the Bank and the actual capital ratios for each entity that exceed these requirements. Management intends to maintain a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio for the Bank in excess of 10% in 2011, exceeding the FDIC’s “well-capitalized” capital requirement classification. The dividends that the Bank pays to the Company are limited to the extent necessary for the Bank to meet the regulatory requirements of a “well-capitalized” bank. The capital ratios for the Company exceed those for the Bank primarily because the $18 million trust preferred securities offerings that the Company completed in the second quarter of 2003 and in the fourth quarter of 2005 are
included in the Company’s capital for regulatory purposes although they are accounted for as a liability in its financial statements. The trust preferred securities are not accounted for on the Bank’s financial statements nor are they included in its capital. As a result, the Company has $18 million more in regulatory capital than the Bank at December 31, 2011 and 2010, which explains most of the difference in the capital ratios for the two entities.
NOTE 21 - Fair Value Measurements
The Company groups its assets and liabilities measured at fair value into three levels, based on the markets in which the assets and liabilities are traded and the reliability of the assumptions used to determine fair value. These levels are:
Level 1: Valuation is based upon quoted prices for identical instruments traded in active exchange markets, such as the New York Stock Exchange. Level 1 also includes U.S. Treasury and federal agency securities, which are traded by dealers or brokers in active markets. Valuations are obtained from readily available pricing sources for market transactions involving identical assets or liabilities.
Level 2: Valuation is based upon quoted market prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market.
Level 3: Valuation is generated from model-based techniques that use significant assumptions not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect the Company’s estimation of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include use of option pricing models, discounted cash flow models and similar techniques.
The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate fair value disclosures. All financial instruments are held for other than trading purposes.
Cash and Cash Equivalents: Due to the short term nature of these instruments, the carrying amounts reported in the balance sheet represent their fair values.
Investment Securities: Fair values for investment securities are based on quoted market prices, where available. If quoted market prices are not available, fair values are based on quoted market prices of comparable instruments. Investments in Federal Home Loan Bank stock are recorded at cost, which also represents fair value.
Loans Held for Sale: Due to the short term nature of these instruments, the carrying amounts reported in the balance sheet represent their fair values.
Loans: Fair value adjustments for loans are mainly related to credit risk, interest rate risk, required equity return, and liquidity risk. Credit risk is primarily addressed in the financial statements through the Allowance (see Note 6). Loans are valued using a discounted cash flow methodology and are pooled based on type of interest rate (fixed or adjustable) and maturity. A discount rate was developed based on the relative risk of the cash flows, taking into account the maturity of the loans and liquidity risk. Impaired loans are carried at fair value. Specific valuation allowances are included in the Allowance. The carrying amount of accrued interest receivable approximates its fair value.
Purchased Receivables: Fair values for purchased receivables are based on their carrying amounts due to their short duration and repricing frequency.
Accrued Interest Receivable: Due to the short term nature of these instruments, the carrying amounts reported in the balance sheet represent their fair values.
Deposits: The fair values of demand and savings deposits are equal to the carrying amount at the reporting date. The carrying amounts for variable-rate time deposits approximate their fair value. Fair values for fixed-rate time deposits are estimated using a discounted cash flow calculation that applies currently offered interest rates to a schedule of aggregate expected monthly maturities of time deposits.
Accrued Interest Payable: Due to the short term nature of these instruments, the carrying amounts reported in the balance sheet represent their fair values.
Securities sold under repurchase agreements: Fair values for securities sold under repurchase agreements are based on their carrying amounts due to their short duration and repricing frequency.
Borrowings: Due to the short term nature of these instruments, the carrying amounts of short-term borrowings reported in the balance sheet approximate the fair value. Fair values for fixed-rate long-term borrowings are estimated using a discounted cash flow calculation that applies currently offered interest rates to a schedule of aggregate expected monthly payments.
Junior Subordinated Debentures: Fair value adjustments for junior subordinated debentures are based on discounted cash flows to maturity using current interest rates for similar financial instruments. Management utilized a market approach to determine the appropriate discount rate for junior subordinated debentures.
Assets subject to nonrecurring adjustment to fair value: The Company is also required to measure certain assets such as equity method investments, goodwill, intangible assets or OREO at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in accordance with GAAP. Any nonrecurring adjustments to fair value usually result from the write down of individual assets.
The Company uses either in-house evaluations or external appraisals to estimate the fair value of OREO and impaired loans as of each reporting date. In-house appraisals are considered Level 3 inputs and external appraisals are considered Level 2 inputs. The Company’s determination of which method to use is based upon several factors. The Company takes into account compliance with legal and regulatory guidelines, the amount of the loan, the size of the assets, the location and type of property to be valued and how critical the timing of completion of the analysis is to the assessment of value. Those factors are balanced with the level of internal expertise, internal experience and market information available, versus external expertise available such as qualified appraisers, brokers, auctioneers and equipment specialists.
The Company uses external sources to estimate fair value for projects that are not fully constructed as of the date of valuation. These projects are generally valued as if complete, with an appropriate allowance for cost of completion, including contingencies developed from external sources such as vendors, engineers and contractors. The Company believes that recording other real estate owned that is not fully constructed based on as if complete values is more appropriate than recording other real estate owned that is not fully constructed using as is values. We concluded that as if complete values are appropriate for these types of projects based on the accounting guidance for capitalization of project costs and subsequent measurement of the value of real estate. GAAP specifically states that estimates and cost allocations must be reviewed at the end of each reporting period and reallocated based on revised estimates. The Company adjusts the carry value of other real estate owned in accordance with this guidance for increases in estimated cost to complete that exceed the fair value of the real estate at the end of each reporting period.
Commitments to Extend Credit and Standby Letters of Credit: The fair value of commitments is estimated using the fees currently charged to enter into similar agreements, taking into account the remaining terms of the agreements and the present creditworthiness of the counterparties. For fixed-rate loan commitments, fair value also considers the difference between current levels of interest rates and the committed rates. The fair value of letters of credit is based on fees currently charged for similar agreements or on the estimated cost to terminate them or otherwise settle the obligation with the counterparties at the reporting date.
Limitations: Fair value estimates are made at a specific point in time, based on relevant market information and information about the financial instrument. These estimates do not reflect any premium or discount that could result from offering for sale at one time the Company’s entire holdings of a particular financial instrument. Because no market exists for a significant portion of the Company’s financial instruments, fair value estimates are based on judgments regarding future expected loss experience, current economic conditions, risk characteristics of various financial instruments, and other factors. These estimates are subjective in nature and involve uncertainties and matters of significant judgment and therefore cannot be determined with precision. Changes in assumptions could significantly affect the estimates.
(a) Carrying amounts reflect the notional amount of credit exposure under these financial instruments.
The following table sets forth the balances of assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis:
As of and for the year ending December 31, 2011, no impairment or valuation adjustment was recognized for assets recorded at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, except for certain assets as shown in the following table:
(1) Relates to certain impaired collateral dependant loans. The impairment was measured based on the fair value of collateral, in accordance with GAAP.
(2) Relates to certain impaired other real estate owned. This impairment arose from an adjustment to the Company’s estimate of the fair market value of these properties based on changes in estimated costs to complete the projects.
NOTE 22 - Quarterly Results of Operations (Unaudited)
NOTE 23 - Disputes and Claims
The Company from time to time may be involved with disputes, claims, and litigation related to the conduct of its banking business. In the opinion of management, the resolution of these matters will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
NOTE 24 - Parent Company Financial Information
Condensed financial information for Northrim BanCorp, Inc. (unconsolidated parent company only) is as follows:
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
None.
ITEM 9A.
ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
Conclusion Regarding the Effectiveness of Disclosure Controls and Procedures
As of the end of the period covered by this report, we evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures. Our principal executive and financial officers supervised and participated in this evaluation. Based on this evaluation, our principal executive and financial officers each concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective in timely alerting them to material information required to be included in our periodic reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The design of any system of controls is based in part upon various assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any of our plans, products, services or procedures will succeed in achieving their intended goals under future conditions.
Changes in Internal Controls
There were no changes in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by this report that have materially affected, or are likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Management of the Company is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15(d)-15(f) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting is designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements and can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate.
Management assessed the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2011. In making this assessment management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control - Integrated Framework.
Based on our assessment and the criteria discussed above, management believes that, as of December 31, 2011, the Company maintained effective internal control over financial reporting.
The Company’s registered public accounting firm has issued an attestation report on the Company’s effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. This report follows below.
ITEM 9B.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
The following table presents the names and occupations of our directors and executive officers.
*Indicates individual serving as both director and executive officer.
In addition to the information provided above, information concerning the officers and directors of the Company required to be included in this item is set forth under the headings “Proposal 1: Election of Directors” and “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in the Company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting which is incorporated herein by reference.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Information concerning executive compensation and director compensation and certain matters regarding participation in the Company’s compensation committee required by this item is set forth under the heading “Compensation Discussion & Analysis” in the Company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and is incorporated into this report by reference.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS
Information concerning the security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management required by this item is set forth under the heading “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management” in the Company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and is incorporated into this report by reference.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE
Information concerning certain relationships and related transactions required by this item is set forth under the heading “Interest of Management in Certain Transactions” and the information concerning director independence is set forth under the heading of “Information Regarding the Board of Directors and its Committees” each in the Company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and is incorporated into this report by reference.
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING FEES AND SERVICES
Information concerning fees paid to our independent auditors required by this item is included under the heading “Fees Billed By Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms During Fiscal Years 2011 and 2010” in the Company’s definitive proxy statement for the 2012 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting and is incorporated into this report by reference.
PART IV
ITEM 15.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES
Financial Statements
(a) The following documents are filed as part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K:
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2011 and 2010
Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity and Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010, and 2009
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Exhibits
Annual Report on Form 10-K
Annual Report Under Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011.
Commission File Number 0-33501
Northrim BanCorp, Inc.
State of Incorporation: Alaska
Employer ID Number: 92-0175752
3111 C Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone Number: (907) 562-0062
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: Common Stock, $1.00 Par Value
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months and has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. is an accelerated filer within the meaning of Rule 12b-2 promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act.
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. is not a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. is required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act.
Northrim BanCorp, Inc. is not a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act).
Disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (17 C.F.R. 229.405) is in our definitive proxy statement, which is incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.
The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of Northrim BanCorp, Inc. at June 30, 2011, was $116,478,456.
The number of shares of Northrim BanCorp’s common stock outstanding at March 13, 2012, was 6,467,166.
This Annual Report on Form 10-K incorporates into a single document the requirements of the accounting profession and the SEC. Only those sections of the Annual Report required in the following cross reference index and the information under the caption “Forward Looking Statements” are incorporated into this Form 10-K.
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on the 13th day of March, 2012.
Northrim BanCorp, Inc.
By
/s/ R. Marc Langland
R. Marc Langland
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities indicated, on the 13th day of March, 2012.
Principal Executive Officer:
/s/ R. Marc Langland
R. Marc Langland
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer:
/s/ Joseph M. Schierhorn
Joseph M. Schierhorn
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
R. Marc Langland, pursuant to powers of attorney signed by the following directors and substantially identical to the power of attorney which is being filed with this Annual Report on Form 10-K as Exhibit 24.1, has signed this report on March 13, 2012, as attorney-in-fact for the following directors who constitute a majority of the Board of Directors.
Larry S. Cash
R. Marc Langland
Mark G. Copeland
Richard L. Lowell
Ronald A. Davis
David J. McCambridge
Anthony Drabek
Irene Sparks Rowan
Christopher N. Knudson
John C. Swalling
David G. Wight
By
/s/ R. Marc Langland
R. Marc Langland,
as Attorney-in-fact
March 13, 2012
Investor Information
Annual Meeting
Stock Symbol
Northrim BanCorp, Inc.’s stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Stock Market under the symbol, NRIM.
Auditor
For the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010: Moss Adams LLP
For the year ended December 31, 2009: KPMG LLP
Transfer Agent and Registrar
American Stock Transfer & Trust Company: 1-800-937-5449 info@amstock.com
Legal Counsel
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Information Requests
Below are options for obtaining Northrim’s investor information:
•
Visit our home page, www.northrim.com, and click on the “For Investors” section for stock information and copies of earnings and dividend releases.
•
If you would like to have investor information mailed to you, please call our Corporate Secretary at (907) 562-0062.
Written requests should be mailed to the following address:
Corporate Secretary
Northrim Bank
P.O. Box 241489
Anchorage, Alaska 99524-1489
Telephone: (907) 562-0062
Fax: (907) 562-1758
Web site: http://www.northrim.com