ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN AND LEASE LOSSES—Methodologies and Documentation for Banks and Savings Institutions; Interagency Policy Statement

Boards of directors of banks and savings institutions are responsible for ensuring that their institutions have controls in place to consistently determine the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) in accordance with the institutions’ stated policies and procedures, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and ALLL supervisory guidance.¹ To fulfill this responsibility, boards of directors instruct management to develop and maintain an appropriate, systematic, and consistently applied process to determine the amounts of the ALLL and provisions for loan losses. Management should create and implement suitable policies and procedures to communicate the ALLL process internally to all applicable personnel. Regardless of who develops and implements these policies, procedures, and underlying controls, the board of directors should assure themselves that the policies specifically address the institution’s unique goals, systems, risk profile, personnel, and other resources before approving them. Additionally, by creating an environment that encourages personnel to follow these policies and procedures, management improves procedural discipline and compliance.

The determination of the amounts of the ALLL and provisions for loan and lease losses should be based on management’s current judgments about the credit quality of the loan portfolio, and should consider all known relevant internal and external factors that affect loan collectibility as of the reporting date. The amounts reported each period for the provision for loan and lease losses and the ALLL should be reviewed and approved by the board of directors. To ensure the methodology remains appropriate for the institution, the board of directors should have the methodology periodically validated and, if appropriate, revised. Further, the audit committee² should oversee and monitor the internal controls over the ALLL determination process.³

The banking agencies⁴ have long-standing examination policies that call for examiners to review an institution’s lending and loan-review functions and recommend improvements, if needed. Additionally, in 1995 and 1996, the banking agencies adopted Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness, pursuant to section 39 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act).⁵ The interagency asset quality guidelines and the guidance in this paper assist an institution in estimating and establishing a sufficient ALLL supported by adequate documentation, as required under the FDI Act. Additionally, the guidelines require operational and managerial standards that are appropriate for an institution’s size and the nature and scope of its activities.

For financial-reporting purposes, including regulatory reporting, the provision for loan and lease losses and the ALLL must be determined in accordance with GAAP. GAAP requires that allowances be well documented, with clear explanations of the supporting analyses and rationale.⁶ This policy statement describes but does not increase the documentation requirements already existing within GAAP. Failure to maintain, analyze, or support an adequate ALLL in accordance with GAAP and supervisory guidance is generally an unsafe and unsound banking practice.⁷

This guidance applies equally to all institutions, regardless of the size. However, institutions with less complex lending activities and products may find it more efficient to combine a number of procedures (e.g., information gathering, documentation, and internal approval processes) while continuing to ensure the institution has a consistent and appropriate methodology. Thus, much of the supporting documentation required for an institution with more complex products or portfolios may be combined into fewer supporting documents in an institution with less complex products or portfolios. For example, simplified documentation can include spreadsheets, check lists, and other summary documents that many institutions currently use. Illustrations A and C provide specific examples of how less-complex institutions may determine and document portions of their loan loss allowance.

Appropriate written supporting documentation for the loan-loss provision and allowance facilitates review of the ALLL process and reported amounts, builds discipline and consistency into the ALLL-determination process, and improves the process for estimating loan and lease losses by helping to ensure that all relevant factors are appropriately considered in the ALLL analysis. An institution should document the relationship between the findings of its detailed review of the loan portfolio and the amount of the ALLL and the provision for loan and lease losses reported in each period.⁸

At a minimum, institutions should maintain written supporting documentation for the following decisions, strategies, and processes:

The following sections of this policy statement provide guidance on significant aspects of ALLL methodologies and documentation practices. Specifically, the paper provides documentation guidance on—

Financial institutions utilize a wide range of policies, procedures, and control systems in their ALLL process. Sound policies should be appropriately tailored to the size and complexity of the institution and its loan portfolio.

In order for an institution’s ALLL methodology to be effective, the institution’s written policies and procedures for the systems and controls that maintain an appropriate ALLL should address but not be limited to—

An internal-control system for the ALLL-estimation process should—

An ALLL methodology is a system that an institution designs and implements to reasonably estimate loan and lease losses as of the financial statement date. It is critical that ALLL methodologies incorporate management’s current judgments about the credit quality of the loan portfolio through a disciplined and consistently applied process.

An institution’s ALLL methodology is influenced by institution-specific factors, such as an institution’s size, organizational structure, business environment and strategy, management style, loan-portfolio characteristics, loan-administration procedures, and management information systems. However, there are certain common elements an institution should incorporate in its ALLL methodology. A summary of common elements is provided in appendix B.¹¹

An institution’s written policies and procedures should describe the primary elements of the institution’s ALLL methodology, including portfolio segmentation and impairment measurement. In order for an institution’s ALLL methodology to be effective, the institution’s written policies and procedures should describe the methodology—

The supporting documents for the ALLL may be integrated in an institution’s credit files, loan-review reports or worksheets, board of directors’ and committee meeting minutes, computer reports, or other appropriate documents and files.

An institution’s ALLL methodology related to FAS 114 loans begins with the use of its normal loan-review procedures to identify whether a loan is impaired as defined by the accounting standard. Institutions should document—

Once an institution has determined which of the three available measurement methods to use for an impaired loan under FAS 114, it should maintain supporting documentation as follows:

Illustration A describes a practice used by a small financial institution to document its FAS 114 measurement of impairment using a comprehensive worksheet.¹² Q&A 1 and 2 in appendix A provide examples of applying and documenting impairment-measurement methods under FAS 114.

Some loans that are evaluated individually for impairment under FAS 114 may be fully collateralized and therefore require no ALLL. Q&A 3 in appendix A presents an example of an institution whose loan portfolio includes fully collateralized loans and describes the documentation maintained by that institution to support its conclusion that no ALLL was needed for those loans.

For loans evaluated on a group basis under FAS 5, management should segment the loan portfolio by identifying risk characteristics that are common to groups of loans. Institutions typically decide how to segment their loan portfolios based on many factors, which vary with their business strategies as well as their information system capabilities. Smaller institutions that are involved in less complex activities often segment the portfolio into broad loan categories. This method of segmenting the portfolio is likely to be appropriate in only small institutions offering a narrow range of loan products. Larger institutions typically offer a more diverse and complex mix of loan products. Such institutions may start by segmenting the portfolio into major loan types but typically have more detailed information available that allows them to further segregate the portfolio into product-line segments based on the risk characteristics of each portfolio segment. Regardless of the segmentation method used, an institution should maintain documentation to support its conclusion that the loans in each segment have similar attributes or characteristics.

As economic and other business conditions change, institutions often modify their business strategies, which may result in adjustments to the way in which they segment their loan portfolio for purposes of estimating loan losses. Illustration B presents an example in which an institution refined its segmentation method to more effectively consider risk factors and maintains documentation to support this change.

Institutions use a variety of documents to support the segmentation of their portfolios. Some of these documents include—

Reports generated to assess the profitability of a loan-product line may be useful in identifying areas in which to further segment the portfolio.

Based on the segmentation of the loan portfolio, an institution should estimate the FAS 5 portion of its ALLL. For those segments that require an ALLL,¹³ the institution should estimate the loan and lease losses, on at least a quarterly basis, based upon its ongoing loan-review process and analysis of loan performance. The institution should follow a systematic and consistently applied approach to select the most appropriate loss-measurement methods and support its conclusions and rationale with written documentation. Regardless of the methods used to measure losses, an institution should demonstrate and document that the loss-measurement methods used to estimate the ALLL for each segment are determined in accordance with GAAP as of the financial-statement date.¹⁴

One method of estimating loan losses for groups of loans is through the application of loss rates to the groups’ aggregate loan balances. Such loss rates typically reflect the institution’s historical loan-loss experience for each group of loans, adjusted for relevant environmental factors (e.g., industry, geographical, economic, and political factors) over a defined period of time. If an institution does not have loss experience of its own, it may be appropriate to reference the loss experience of other institutions, provided that the institution demonstrates that the attributes of the loans in its portfolio segment are similar to those of the loans included in the portfolio of the institution providing the loss experience.¹⁵ Institutions should maintain supporting documentation for the technique used to develop their loss rates, including the period of time over which the losses were incurred. If a range of loss is determined, institutions should maintain documentation to support the identified range and the rationale used for determining which estimate is the best estimate within the range of loan losses. An example of how a small institution performs a comprehensive historical loss analysis is provided as the first item in illustration C.

Before employing a loss-estimation model, an institution should evaluate and modify, as needed, the model’s assumptions to ensure that the resulting loss estimate is consistent with GAAP. In order to demonstrate consistency with GAAP, institutions that use loss-estimation models typically document the evaluation, the conclusions regarding the appropriateness of estimating loan losses with a model or other loss-estimation tool, and the support for adjustments to the model or its results.

In developing loss measurements, institutions should consider the impact of current environmental factors and then document which factors were used in the analysis and how those factors affected the loss measurements. Factors that should be considered in developing loss measurements include the following:¹⁶

For any adjustment of loss measurements for environmental factors, the institution should maintain sufficient, objective evidence to support the amount of the adjustment and to explain why the adjustment is necessary to reflect current information, events, circumstances, and conditions in the loss measurements.

The second item in illustration C provides an example of how an institution adjusts its commercial real estate historical loss rates for changes in local economic conditions. Q&A 4 in appendix A provides an example of maintaining supporting documentation for adjustments to portfolio-segment loss rates for an environmental factor related to an economic downturn in the borrower’s primary industry. Q&A 5 in appendix A describes one institution’s process for determining and documenting an ALLL for loans that are not individually impaired but have characteristics indicating there are loan losses on a group basis.

To verify that ALLL balances are presented fairly in accordance with GAAP and are auditable, management should prepare a document that summarizes the amount to be reported in the financial statements for the ALLL. The board of directors should review and approve this summary.

Common elements in such summaries include—

Illustration D describes how an institution documents its estimated ALLL by adding comprehensive explanations to its summary schedule.

Generally, an institution’s review and approval process for the ALLL relies upon the data provided in these consolidated summaries. There may be instances in which individuals or committees that review the ALLL methodology and resulting allowance balance identify adjustments that need to be made to the loss estimates to provide a better estimate of loan losses. These changes may be due to information not known at the time of the initial loss estimate (e.g., information that surfaces after determining and adjusting, as necessary, historical loss rates, or a recent decline in the marketability of property after conducting a FAS 114 valuation based upon the fair value of collateral). It is important that these adjustments are consistent with GAAP and are reviewed and approved by appropriate personnel. Additionally, the summary should provide each subsequent reviewer with an understanding of the support behind these adjustments. Therefore, management should document the nature of any adjustments and the underlying rationale for making the changes. This documentation should be provided to those making the final determination of the ALLL amount. Q&A 6 in appendix A addresses the documentation of the final amount of the ALLL.

An institution’s ALLL methodology is considered valid when it accurately estimates the amount of loss contained in the portfolio. Thus, the institution’s methodology should include procedures that adjust loss-estimation methods to reduce differences between estimated losses and actual subsequent charge-offs, as necessary.

To verify that the ALLL methodology is valid and conforms to GAAP and supervisory guidance, an institution’s directors should establish internal-control policies, appropriate for the size of the institution and the type and complexity of its loan products. These policies should include procedures for a review, by a party who is independent of the ALLL-estimation process, of the ALLL methodology and its application in order to confirm its effectiveness.

In practice, financial institutions employ numerous procedures when validating the reasonableness of their ALLL methodology and determining whether there may be deficiencies in their overall methodology or loan-grading process. Examples are:

Management usually supports the validation process with the work papers from the ALLL-review function. Additional documentation often includes the summary findings of the independent reviewer. The institution’s board of directors, or its designee, reviews the findings and acknowledges its review in its meeting minutes. If the methodology is changed based upon the findings of the validation process, documentation that describes and supports the changes should be maintained.

The questions and answers (Q&A’s) presented in this appendix serve several purposes, including (1) to illustrate the banking agencies’ views, as set forth in this policy statement, about the types of decisions, determinations, and processes an institution should document with respect to its ALLL methodology and amounts and (2) to illustrate the types of ALLL documentation and processes an institution might prepare, retain, or use in a particular set of circumstances. The level and types of documentation described in the Q&A’s should be considered neither the minimum acceptable level of documentation nor an all-inclusive list. Institutions are expected to apply the guidance in this policy statement to their individual facts, circumstances, and situations. If an institution’s fact pattern differs from the fact patterns incorporated in the following Q&A’s, the institution may decide to prepare and maintain different types of documentation than did the institutions depicted in these Q&A’s.

Facts. Approximately one-third of Institution A’s commercial loan portfolio consists of large balance, nonhomogeneous loans. Due to their large individual balances, these loans meet the criteria under Institution A’s policies and procedures for individual review for impairment under FAS 114. Upon review of the large-balance loans, Institution A determines that certain of the loans are impaired as defined by FAS 114.

Question. For the commercial loans reviewed under FAS 114 that are individually impaired, how should Institution A measure and document the impairment on those loans? Can it use an impairment-measurement method other than the methods allowed by FAS 114?

Interpretive response. For those loans that are reviewed individually under FAS 114 and considered individually impaired, Institution A must use one of the methods for measuring impairment that is specified by FAS 114 (that is, the present value of expected future cash flows, the loan’s observable market price, or the fair value of collateral). Accordingly, in the circumstances described above, for the loans considered individually impaired under FAS 114, it would not be appropriate for Institution A to choose a measurement method not prescribed by FAS 114. For example, it would not be appropriate to measure loan impairment by applying a loss rate to each loan based on the average historical loss percentage for all of its commercial loans for the past five years.

Institution A should maintain, as sufficient, objective evidence, written documentation to support its measurement of loan impairment under FAS 114. If Institution A uses the present value of expected future cash flows to measure impairment of a loan, it should document the amount and timing of cash flows, the effective interest rate used to discount the cash flows, and the basis for the determination of cash flows, including consideration of current environmental factors¹ and other information reflecting past events and current conditions. If Institution A uses the fair value of collateral to measure impairment, it should document how it determined the fair value, including the use of appraisals, valuation assumptions and calculations, the supporting rationale for adjustments to appraised values, if any, and the determination of costs to sell, if applicable, appraisal quality, and the expertise and independence of the appraiser. Similarly, Institution A should document the amount, source, and date of the observable market price of a loan, if that method of measuring loan impairment is used.

Facts. Institution B has a $10 million loan outstanding to Company X that is secured by real estate, which Institution B individually evaluates under FAS 114 due to the loan’s size. Company X is delinquent in its loan payments under the terms of the loan agreement. Accordingly, Institution B determines that its loan to Company X is impaired, as defined by FAS 114. Because the loan is collateral-dependent, Institution B measures impairment of the loan based on the fair value of the collateral. Institution B determines that the most recent valuation of the collateral was performed by an appraiser 18 months ago and, at that time, the estimated value of the collateral (fair value less costs to sell) was $12 million. Institution B believes that certain of the assumptions that were used to value the collateral 18 months ago do not reflect current market conditions and, therefore, the appraiser’s valuation does not approximate current fair value of the collateral. Several buildings, which are comparable to the real estate collateral, were recently completed in the area, increasing vacancy rates, decreasing lease rates, and attracting several tenants away from the borrower. Accordingly, credit-review personnel at Institution B adjust certain of the valuation assumptions to better reflect the current market conditions as they relate to the loan’s collateral.² After adjusting the collateral-valuation assumptions, the credit-review department determines that the current estimated fair value of the collateral, less costs to sell, is $8 million. Given that the recorded investment in the loan is $10 million, Institution B concludes that the loan is impaired by $2 million and records an allowance for loan losses of $2 million.

Question. What type of documentation should Institution B maintain to support its determination of the allowance for loan losses of $2 million for the loan to Company X?

Interpretive response. Institution B should document that it measured impairment of the loan to Company X by using the fair value of the loan’s collateral, less costs to sell, which it estimated to be $8 million. This documentation should include the institution’s rationale and basis for the $8 million valuation, including the revised valuation assumptions it used, the valuation calculation, and the determination of costs to sell, if applicable. Because Institution B arrived at the valuation of $8 million by modifying an earlier appraisal, it should document its rationale and basis for the changes it made to the valuation assumptions that resulted in the collateral value declining from $12 million 18 months ago to $8 million in the current period.³

Facts. Institution C has $10 million in loans that are fully collateralized by highly rated debt securities with readily determinable market values. The loan agreement for each of these loans requires the borrower to provide qualifying collateral sufficient to maintain a loan-to-value ratio with sufficient margin to absorb volatility in the securities’ market prices. Institution C’s collateral department has physical control of the debt securities through safekeeping arrangements. In addition, Institution C perfected its security interest in the collateral when the funds were originally distributed. On a quarterly basis, Institution C’s credit administration function determines the market value of the collateral for each loan using two independent market quotes and compares the collateral value to the loan carrying value. If there are any collateral deficiencies, Institution C notifies the borrower and requests that the borrower immediately remedy the deficiency. Due in part to its efficient operation, Institution C has historically not incurred any material losses on these loans. Institution C believes these loans are fully collateralized and therefore does not maintain any ALLL balance for these loans.

Question. What documentation does Institution C maintain to adequately support its determination that no allowance is needed for this group of loans?

Interpretive response. Institution C’s management summary of the ALLL includes documentation indicating that, in accordance with the institution’s ALLL policy, the collateral protection on these loans has been verified by the institution, no probable loss has been incurred, and no ALLL is necessary. Documentation in Institution C’s loan files includes the two independent market quotes obtained each quarter for each loan’s collateral amount, the documents evidencing the perfection of the security interest in the collateral, and other relevant supporting documents. Additionally, Institution C’s ALLL policy includes a discussion of how to determine when a loan is considered “fully collateralized” and does not require an ALLL. Institution C’s policy requires the following factors to be considered and the institution’s findings concerning these factors to be fully documented:

Facts. Institution D’s lending area includes a metropolitan area that is financially dependent upon the profitability of a number of manufacturing businesses. These businesses use highly specialized equipment and significant quantities of rare metals in the manufacturing process. Due to increased low-cost foreign competition, several of the parts suppliers servicing these manufacturing firms declared bankruptcy. The foreign suppliers have subsequently increased prices and the manufacturing firms have suffered from increased equipment maintenance costs and smaller profit margins. Additionally, the cost of the rare metals used in the manufacturing process increased and has now stabilized at double last year’s price. Due to these events, the manufacturing businesses are experiencing financial difficulties and have recently announced downsizing plans.

Although Institution D has yet to confirm an increase in its loss experience as a result of these events, management knows that it lends to a significant number of businesses and individuals whose repayment ability depends upon the long-term viability of the manufacturing businesses. Institution D’s management has identified particular segments of its commercial and consumer customer bases that include borrowers highly dependent upon sales or salary from the manufacturing businesses. Institution D’s management performs an analysis of the affected portfolio segments to adjust its historical loss rates used to determine the ALLL. In this particular case, Institution D has experienced similar business and lending conditions in the past that it can compare to current conditions.

Question. How should Institution D document its support for the loss rate adjustments that result from considering these manufacturing firms’ financial downturns?

Interpretive response. Institution D should document its identification of the particular segments of its commercial and consumer loan portfolio for which it is probable that the manufacturing businesses’ financial downturn has resulted in loan losses. In addition, Institution D should document its analysis that resulted in the adjustments to the loss rates for the affected portfolio segments. As part of its documentation, Institution D maintains copies of the documents supporting the analysis, including relevant newspaper articles, economic reports, economic data, and notes from discussions with individual borrowers.

Because in this case Institution D has had similar situations in the past, its supporting documentation also includes an analysis of how the current conditions compare to its previous loss experiences in similar circumstances. As part of its effective ALLL methodology, Institution D creates a summary of the amount and rationale for the adjustment factor, which management presents to the audit committee and board for their review and approval prior to the issuance of the financial statements.

Facts. Institution E has outstanding loans of $2 million to Company Y and $1 million to Company Z, both of which are paying as agreed upon in the loan documents. The institution’s ALLL policy specifies that all loans greater than $750,000 must be individually re viewed for impairment under FAS 114. Company Y’s financial statements reflect a strong net worth, good profits, and ongoing ability to meet debt service requirements. In contrast, recent information indicates Company Z’s profitability is declining and its cash flow is tight. Accordingly, this loan is rated substandard under the institution’s loan grading system. Despite its concern, management believes Company Z will resolve its problems and determines that neither loan is individually impaired as defined by FAS 114.

Institution E segments its loan portfolio to estimate loan losses under FAS 5. Two of its loan portfolio segments are Segment 1 and Segment 2. The loan to Company Y has risk characteristics similar to the loans included in Segment 1 and the loan to Company Z has risk characteristics similar to the loans included in Segment 2.⁴

In its determination of the ALLL under FAS 5, Institution E includes its loans to Company Y and Company Z in the groups of loans with similar characteristics (i.e., Segment 1 for Company Y’s loan and Segment 2 for Company Z’s loan). Management’s analyses of Segment 1 and Segment 2 indicate that it is probable that each segment includes some losses, even though the losses cannot be identified to one or more specific loans. Management estimates that the use of its historical loss rates for these two segments, with adjustments for changes in environmental factors provides a reasonable estimate of the institution’s probable loan losses in these segments.

Question. How does Institution E adequately document an ALLL under FAS 5 for these loans that were individually reviewed for impairment but are not considered individually impaired?

Interpretive response. As part of Institution E’s effective ALLL methodology, it documents the decision to include its loans to Company Y and Company Z in its determination of its ALLL under FAS 5. It also documents the specific characteristics of the loans that were the basis for grouping these loans with other loans in Segment 1 and Segment 2, respectively. Institution E maintains documentation to support its method of estimating loan losses for Segment 1 and Segment 2, including the average loss rate used, the analysis of historical losses by loan type and by internal risk rating, and support for any adjustments to its historical loss rates. The institution also maintains copies of the economic and other reports that provided source data.

Facts. Institution F determines its ALLL using an established systematic process. At the end of each period, the accounting department prepares a summary schedule that includes the amount of each of the components of the ALLL, as well as the total ALLL amount, for review by senior management, the Credit Committee, and, ultimately, the board of directors. Members of senior management and the Credit Committee meet to discuss the ALLL. During these discussions, they identify changes that are required by GAAP to be made to certain of the ALLL estimates. As a result of the adjustments made by senior management, the total amount of the ALLL changes. However, senior management (or its designee) does not update the ALLL summary schedule to reflect the adjustments or reasons for the adjustments. When performing their audit of the financial statements, the independent accountants are provided with the original ALLL summary schedule that was reviewed by senior management and the Credit Committee, as well as a verbal explanation of the changes made by senior management and the Credit Committee when they met to discuss the loan loss allowance.

Question. Are Institution F’s documentation practices related to the balance of its loan loss allowance in compliance with existing documentation guidance in this area?

Interpretive response. No. An institution must maintain supporting documentation for the loan loss allowance amount reported in its financial statements. As illustrated above, there may be instances in which ALLL reviewers identify adjustments that need to be made to the loan loss estimates. The nature of the adjustments, how they were measured or determined, and the underlying rationale for making the changes to the ALLL balance should be documented. Appropriate documentation of the adjustments should be provided to the board of directors (or its designee) for review of the final ALLL amount to be reported in the financial statements. For institutions subject to external audit, this documentation should also be made available to the independent accountants. If changes frequently occur during management or credit committee reviews of the ALLL, management may find it appropriate to analyze the reasons for the frequent changes and to reassess the methodology the institution uses.

An ALLL recorded pursuant to GAAP is an institution’s best estimate of the probable amount of loans and lease-financing receivables that it will be unable to collect based on current information and events.¹ A creditor should record an ALLL when the criteria for accrual of a loss contingency as set forth in GAAP have been met. Estimating the amount of an ALLL involves a high degree of management judgment and is inevitably imprecise. Accordingly, an institution may determine that the amount of loss falls within a range. An institution should record its best estimate within the range of loan losses.²

Under GAAP, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (FAS 5), provides the basic guidance for recognition of a loss contingency, such as the collectibility of loans (receivables), when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan (FAS 114) provides more specific guidance about the measurement and disclosure of impairment for certain types of loans.³ Specifically, FAS 114 applies to loans that are identified for evaluation on an individual basis. Loans are considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the creditor will be unable to collect all interest and principal payments due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement.

For individually impaired loans, FAS 114 provides guidance on the acceptable methods to measure impairment. Specifically, FAS 114 states that when a loan is impaired, a creditor should measure impairment based on the present value of expected future principal and interest cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, except that as a practical expedient, a creditor may measure impairment based on a loan’s observable market price or the fair value of collateral, if the loan is collateral dependent. When developing the estimate of expected future cash flows for a loan, an institution should consider all available information reflecting past events and current conditions, including the effect of existing environmental factors. The following illustration provides an example of an institution estimating a loan’s impairment when the loan has been partially charged off.

Large groups of smaller-balance homogeneous loans that are collectively evaluated for impairment are not included in the scope of FAS 114.⁴ Such groups of loans may include, but are not limited to, credit card, residential mortgage, and consumer installment loans. FAS 5 addresses the accounting for impairment of these loans. Also, FAS 5 provides the accounting guidance for impairment of loans that are not identified for evaluation on an individual basis and loans that are individually evaluated but are not individually considered impaired.

Institutions should ensure that they do not layer their loan loss allowances. Layering is the inappropriate practice of recording in the ALLL more than one amount for the same probable loan loss. Layering can happen when an institution includes a loan in one segment, determines its best estimate of loss for that loan either individually or on a group basis (after taking into account all appropriate environmental factors, conditions, and events), and then includes the loan in another group, which receives an additional ALLL amount.⁵

While different institutions may use different methods, there are certain common elements that should be included in any loan loss allowance methodology. Generally, an institution’s methodology should—

A systematic methodology that is properly designed and implemented should result in an institution’s best estimate of the ALLL. Accordingly, institutions should adjust their ALLL balance, either upward or downward, in each period for differences between the results of the systematic determination process and the unadjusted ALLL balance in the general ledger.⁷

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants’ Audit and Accounting Guide, Banks and Savings Institutions, 2000 edition

Auditing Standards Board Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, “Communication With Audit Committees” (AICPA, Professional Standards, vol. 1, AU sec. 380)

Emerging Issues Task Force Topic No. D-80, “Application of FASB Statements No. 5 and No. 114 to a Loan Portfolio” (EITF Topic D-80 and attachments), discussed on May 19-20, 1999

Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 14, “Reasonable Estimation of the Amount of a Loss” (an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 5)

Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies”

Federal Deposit Insurance Act, section 39, Standards for Safety and Soundness (12 USC 1831p-1) (at 1-401)

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s Instructions for Preparation of Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income

Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan” (an amendment of FASB Statements No. 5 and 15)

Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 118, “Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan—Income Recognition and Disclosures” (an amendment of FASB Statement No. 114)

Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 140, “Accounting for Transfers and Servicing of Financial Assets and Extinguishments of Liabilities” (a replacement of FASB Statement No. 125)

Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness, established in 1995 and 1996, as amended on October 15, 1998 (at 3-1579.3)

Interagency Policy Statement on the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL), December 21, 1993 (at 3-1480)

Joint interagency statement (regarding the ALLL), November 24, 1998 (at 3-1481)

Joint interagency letter to financial institutions (regarding the ALLL), March 10, 1999

Joint interagency letter to financial institutions (regarding the ALLL), July 12, 1999

Securities and Exchange Commission Financial Reporting Release No. 28, Accounting for Loan Losses by Registrants Engaged in Lending Activities, December 1, 1986

Securities and Exchange Commission Securities Act Industry Guide 3, Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies

Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99, Materiality, August 1999

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, section 13(b)(2)-(7) (15 USC 78m(b)(2)-(7)) (at 5-090)

United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Committees, Depository Institutions: Divergent Loan Loss Methods Undermine Usefulness of Financial Reports, (GAO/AIMD-95-8), October 1994