Plansmith Blog

For the past ten years or so, surge deposits have been a material issue in asset/liability management. At the time of, and following the 2007-2009 Great Recession, the banking industry saw a substantial influx of deposits as real estate and equity investors liquidated positions and sought safe places to store their money and ride out the storm. The impact of this flight to safety was compounded by Government sponsored initiatives such as the Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) Program and increases in Federal deposit insurance levels.

As a result, banks experienced significant deposit growth, and while these surge deposits would have normally been seen as a good thing, the near evaporation of loan demand left many banks with far more deposit dollars than they could effectively put to use. In turn, market liquidity levels skyrocketed, but margins were compressed. For the purpose of this article, we’ll refer to these funds moving from real estate, equities, or any other investments into the banking system as Type I Surge Deposits.

Everyone probably has their budgets in place for 2020 by now. And now comes along the Coronavirus and messes everything up. The Fed has already lowered rates by half a point. So, now you’re scrambling to figure out how this will impact your 2020 plans?

Seems like you have a few choices:

As we move into a new year, you may still be working on a few of those items you didn’t quite get to in 2019. And for a lot of our clients, one of those items is often backtesting. Given all the confusion surrounding backtesting, it can be pretty easy to keep pushing it to the bottom of the “to-do” list.

So, we thought it might be a good idea to dust off a blog I wrote back in 2015 to jump start your 2020 so you can get one more thing crossed off your list. In that blog, we looked at a few of the most common questions we get on backtesting. Specifically, we discussed who should do it; how often it should be done; what period should be covered; and if you need to backtest just model results, or also key model assumptions.

Knowing and understanding your organization's risk position is important. Regulators expect you to keep a close eye on your IRR exposure and be ready for a rising rate environment.

Regulatory compliance costs are skyrocketing!

The focus of safety and soundness examinations continues to move towards asset/liability management and ensuring financial institutions are complying with the guidance issued in the last several years.

As you may have seen, in February we did a webinar on recent changes in the way Regulators are evaluating funding risk and the new measurements they are using to assign the “L”-Liquidity rating. As we noted, their focus has been on brokered deposits, “potentially volatile funding sources,” and “high rate deposits.” We pointed out numerous weaknesses in the way these funding sources are being assessed and limited.

The purchase of an asset liability management (ALM) system presents a problem to many bankers. Often the process begins with the creation of a checklist of features and functions then progresses to comparing vendors. The vendor with the highest "score" wins. While this may be a good start, there are dimensions to the problem that this ignores, specifically the quality and significance of the features identified.

Another great year has gone by, the stock market notwithstanding. With the number of banks and credit unions continuing to shrink, the cream is rising to the top. The quality of the remaining institutions is getting better.

So why do we keep hearing about “surge” deposits and how important it is to know if you’re holding any? Well, it might be because in the past 10 years, CD balances in FDIC insured institutions have fallen by $880 Billion; yes, that’s Billion with a capital “B.” And while that may be the bad news, the good news is that over the same time period, non-maturity deposits (DDAs, NOWs, Savings, and MMDAs) have grown by $5.9 Trillion (with a capital “T”).