UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
20549
FORM 10-K
[ü]
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009
or
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13
OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the
transition period from
to
Commission File Number:
000-51395
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK OF
PITTSBURGH
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Federally Chartered Corporation
|
|
25-6001324
|
(State or other jurisdiction of
incorporation or organization)
|
|
(IRS Employer Identification No.)
|
|
|
|
601 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
15219
(Zip Code)
|
(412) 288-3400
(Registrants
telephone number, including area code)
|
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
|
None
|
Title of Each Class: None
|
|
|
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
|
|
Name of Each Exchange on
|
Capital Stock, putable, par value $100
|
|
Which Registered: None
|
(Title of Class)
|
|
|
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known
seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities
Act.
oYes
xNo
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file
reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the
Act. oYes
xNo
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed
all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding
12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant
was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past
90 days. xYes
oNo
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted
electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any,
every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of
Regulation S-T
during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files). o
Yes
o
No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers
pursuant to Item 405 of
Regulation S-K
is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best
of registrants knowledge, in definitive proxy or
information statements incorporated by reference in
Part III of this
Form 10-K
or any amendment to this
Form 10-K. x
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large
accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated
filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of
large accelerated filer, accelerated
filer and smaller reporting company in Rule
12b-2 of the
Exchange Act. (Check one):
|
|
|
o
Large accelerated filer
|
|
o
Accelerated filer
|
x
Non-accelerated filer
|
|
o
Smaller reporting company
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company
(as defined in
Rule 12b-2
of the Exchange
Act). o
Yes
x
No
Registrants stock is not publicly traded and is only
issued to members of the registrant. Such stock is issued and
redeemed at par value, $100 per share, subject to certain
regulatory and statutory limits. At June 30, 2009, the
aggregate par value of the stock held by members of the
registrant was approximately $4,007 million. There were
40,200,379 shares of common stock outstanding at
February 28, 2010.
FEDERAL
HOME LOAN BANK OF PITTSBURGH
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
PART I
Business
and Market Overview
The Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburghs (the Bank)
mission is to provide a readily available, low-cost source of
funds for housing and community lenders. The Bank strives to
enhance the availability of credit for residential mortgages and
targeted community development. The Bank manages its own
liquidity so that funds are available to meet members
demand. By providing needed liquidity and enhancing competition
in the mortgage market, the Banks lending programs benefit
homebuyers and communities.
Financial and housing markets have been in turmoil for the last
two years, both here in the U.S. and worldwide. As a result
of the extensive efforts of the U.S. government and other
governments around the world to stimulate economic activity and
provide liquidity to the capital markets, the economic
environment seemed to have started to stabilize towards the end
of 2009. Home sales showed signs of beginning to stabilize in
the last half of 2009. However, unemployment and underemployment
remained at higher levels. In addition, many government programs
that support the financial and housing markets were still in
place at year-end 2009 but will begin to wind down in 2010.
There may be risks to the economy as these programs wind down
and the government withdraws its support.
The housing market continues to be weak. Housing prices are low
and still falling in some areas, although there are signs of
increasing stability in others. Delinquency and foreclosure
rates have continued to rise. While the agency mortgage-backed
securities (MBS) market is active in funding new mortgage
originations, the private label MBS market has not recovered. In
addition, the commercial real estate market continues to trend
downward.
These conditions, combined with ongoing concern about when the
financial crisis and the recession may eventually level off,
continued to affect the Banks business, results of
operations and financial condition in 2009, as well as that of
the Banks members, and may continue to exert a significant
negative effect in the immediate future.
General
History. The Bank is one of twelve
Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBanks). The FHLBanks operate as
separate entities with their own managements, employees and
boards of directors. The twelve FHLBanks, along with the Office
of Finance (OF - the FHLBanks fiscal agent) and the
Federal Housing Finance Agency (Finance Agency - the
FHLBanks regulator) make up the Federal Home Loan Bank
System (FHLBank System). The FHLBanks were organized under the
authority of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932, as amended
(Act). The FHLBanks are commonly referred to as
government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which generally means
they are a combination of private capital and public
sponsorship. The public sponsorship attributes include:
(1) being exempt from federal, state and local taxation,
except real estate taxes; (2) being exempt from
registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act)
(although the FHLBanks are required by Finance Agency regulation
and the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (the Housing
Act) to register a class of their equity securities under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act)) and
(3) having a line of credit with the U.S. Treasury.
This line represents the U.S. Treasurys authority to
purchase consolidated obligations in an amount up to
$4 billion.
Cooperative. The Bank is a cooperative
institution, owned by financial institutions that are also its
primary customers. Any building and loan association, savings
and loan association, commercial bank, homestead association,
insurance company, savings bank, credit union or insured
depository institution that maintains its principal place of
business in Delaware, Pennsylvania or West Virginia and that
meets varying requirements can apply for membership in the Bank.
The Housing Act expanded membership to include Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). Pursuant to the
Housing Act, the Finance Agency has amended its membership
regulations to authorize non-federally insured CDFIs to become
members of an FHLBank. The newly eligible CDFIs would include
community development loan funds, venture capital funds and
state-chartered credit unions without federal insurance. The
regulation was effective February 4, 2010 and sets out the
eligibility and procedural requirements for CDFIs that wish to
become members of an FHLBank. All members are required to
purchase capital stock in the Bank as a condition of membership.
The capital stock of the Bank can be purchased only by members.
1
Mission. The Banks primary
mission is to intermediate between the capital markets and the
housing market through member financial institutions. The Bank
provides credit for housing and community development through
two primary programs. First, it provides members with loans
against the security of residential mortgages and other types of
high-quality collateral. Second, the Bank purchases residential
mortgage loans originated by or through member institutions. The
Bank also offers other types of credit and noncredit products
and services to member institutions. These include letters of
credit, interest rate exchange agreements (interest rate swaps,
caps, collars, floors, swaptions and similar transactions),
affordable housing grants, securities safekeeping, and deposit
products and services. The Bank issues debt to the public
(consolidated obligation bonds and discount notes) in the
capital markets through the OF and uses these funds to provide
its member financial institutions with a reliable source of
credit for these programs. The U.S. government does not
guarantee the debt securities or other obligations of the Bank
or the FHLBank System.
Overview. The Bank is a GSE, chartered
by Congress to assure the flow of liquidity through its member
financial institutions into the American housing market. As a
GSE, the Banks principal strategic position has
historically been derived from its ability to raise funds in the
capital markets at narrow spreads to the U.S. Treasury
yield curve. Typically, this fundamental competitive advantage,
coupled with the joint and several cross-guarantee on FHLBank
System debt, has distinguished the Bank in the capital markets
and has enabled it to provide attractively priced funding to
members. However, as the financial crisis worsened in 2008, the
spread between FHLBank System debt and U.S. Treasury debt
widened, making it more difficult for the Bank to provide term
funding to members at attractive rates in the beginning of 2009.
However, during the last part of the second quarter of 2009
spreads narrowed, allowing the Bank to offer more attractive
pricing through the end of the year.
Though chartered by Congress, the Bank is privately capitalized
by its member institutions, which are voluntary participants in
its cooperative structure. The characterization of the Bank as a
voluntary cooperative with the status of a federal
instrumentality differentiates the Bank from a traditional
banking institution in three principal ways.
First, members voluntarily commit capital required for
membership principally in order to gain access to the funding
and other services provided by the Bank. The value in membership
may be derived from the access to liquidity and the availability
of favorably priced liquidity, as well as the potential for a
dividend on the capital investment. Management recognizes that
financial institutions choose membership in the Bank principally
for access to attractively priced liquidity, dividends, and the
value of the products offered within this cooperative.
Second, because the Banks customers and shareholders are
predominantly the same group of 316, normally there is a need to
balance the pricing expectations of customers with the dividend
expectations of shareholders, although both are the same
institutions. This is a challenge in the current economic
environment. By charging wider spreads on loans to customers,
the Bank could potentially generate higher earnings and
potentially dividends for shareholders. Yet these same
shareholders viewed as customers would generally prefer narrower
loan spreads. In normal market conditions, the Bank strives to
achieve a balance between the goals of providing liquidity and
other services to members at advantageous prices and potentially
generating a market-based dividend. The Bank typically does not
strive to maximize the dividend yield on the stock, but to
produce an earned dividend that compares favorably to short-term
interest rates, compensating members for the cost of the capital
they have invested in the Bank. As previously announced on
December 23, 2008 the Bank has voluntarily suspended
dividend payments until the Bank believes it is prudent to
restore them, in an effort to build retained earnings.
Third, the Bank is different from a traditional banking
institution because its GSE charter is based on a public policy
purpose to assure liquidity for housing and to enhance the
availability of affordable housing for lower-income households.
In upholding its public policy mission, the Bank offers a number
of programs that consume a portion of earnings that might
otherwise become available to its shareholders. The cooperative
GSE character of this voluntary membership organization leads
management to strive to optimize the primary purpose of
membership, access to funding, as well as the overall value of
Bank membership.
In November 2008, the Bank experienced a significant increase in
its risk-based capital (RBC) requirements due to deterioration
in the market values of the Banks private label MBS. The
Bank was narrowly in compliance with its RBC requirement. As a
result, the Bank submitted a Capital Stabilization Plan (CSP) to
the Finance Agency on February 27, 2009.
2
During 2009, many changes occurred in the environment affecting
the Bank. The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB)
changed the guidance for how to account for
other-than-temporary
impairment (OTTI). There have been multiple and significant
downgrades of the Banks private label MBS securities,
especially those private label MBS of 2007 or 2006 vintage,
which have impacted the credit RBC requirement for the Bank.
Macroeconomic conditions have not improved at the rate
originally expected. The Bank has implemented significant
elements of action plans, including completing its initial
analysis on modifying the funding and hedging of the Banks
balance sheet, simplifying the menu of advance products, and
completing its analysis of the Banks capital structure. In
addition, advances balances have decreased more than expected.
Collectively, these developments merited an update of the CSP.
On September 28, 2009, management submitted a revised CSP
to the Banks regulator. The CSP submitted to the Finance
Agency requests that the Bank not be required to increase member
capital requirements unless it becomes significantly
undercapitalized, which by definition would mean the Bank meets
less than 75% of its risk-based, total or leverage capital
requirements. As part of that effort, the Bank has reviewed its
risk governance structure, risk management practices and
expertise and has begun to make certain enhancements.
The Bank was in compliance with its risk-based, total and
leverage capital requirements at December 31, 2009. On
January 12, 2010, the Bank received final notification from
the Finance Agency that it was considered adequately capitalized
for the quarter ended September 30, 2009. In its
determination, the Finance Agency expressed concerns regarding
the Banks level of retained earnings, the quality of the
Banks private label MBS portfolio and related accumulated
other comprehensive income (AOCI), and the Banks ability
to maintain permanent capital above RBC requirements. As of the
date of this filing, the Bank has not received notice from the
Finance Agency regarding its capital classification for the
quarter ended December 31, 2009.
On August 4, 2009, the Finance Agency issued its final
Prompt Corrective Action Regulation (PCA Regulation)
incorporating the terms of the Interim Final Regulation issued
on January 30, 2009. See also the Legislative and
Regulatory Developments discussion in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations (Managements Discussion and
Analysis) in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information regarding the terms of the Interim
Final Regulation.
Nonmember Borrowers. In addition to
member institutions, the Bank is permitted under the Act to make
loans to nonmember housing associates that are approved
mortgagees under Title II of the National Housing Act.
These eligible housing associates must be chartered under law,
be subject to inspection and supervision by a governmental
agency, and lend their own funds as their principal activity in
the mortgage field. The Bank must approve each applicant.
Housing associates are not subject to certain provisions of the
Act that are applicable to members, such as the capital stock
purchase requirements. However, they are generally subject to
more restrictive lending and collateral requirements than those
applicable to members. Housing associates that are not state
housing finance agencies are limited to pledging to the Bank as
security for loans their Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
mortgage loans and securities backed by FHA mortgage loans.
Housing associates that are state housing finance agencies (that
is, they are also instrumentalities of state or local
governments) may, in addition to pledging FHA mortgages and
securities backed by FHA mortgages, also pledge the following as
collateral for Bank loans: (1) U.S. Treasury and
agency securities; (2) single and multifamily mortgages;
(3) AAA-rated securities backed by single and multifamily
mortgages; and (4) deposits with the Bank. As of
December 31, 2009, the Bank had approved three state
housing finance agencies as housing associate borrowers. One of
the housing associates has borrowed from the Bank from time to
time, but had no balance as of December 31, 2009.
Supervision and Regulation. The Bank is
supervised and regulated by the Finance Agency, which is an
independent agency in the executive branch of the United States
government. The Finance Agency ensures that the Bank carries out
its housing finance mission, remains adequately capitalized and
able to raise funds in the capital markets, and operates in a
safe and sound manner. The Finance Agency establishes
regulations and otherwise supervises the operations of the Bank,
primarily via periodic examinations. The Bank is also subject to
regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
3
Regulatory
Oversight, Audits and Examinations
Regulation. The Finance Agency
supervises and regulates the FHLBanks and the OF. The Finance
Agency establishes policies and regulations covering the
operations of the FHLBanks. The Government Corporation Control
Act provides that, before a government corporation issues and
offers obligations to the public, the Secretary of the
U.S. Treasury has the authority to prescribe the form,
denomination, maturity, interest rate, and conditions of the
obligations; the way and time issued; and the selling price. The
U.S. Treasury receives the Finance Agencys annual
report to Congress, weekly reports reflecting consolidated
obligations transactions of the FHLBanks, and other reports
reflecting the operations of the FHLBanks. In addition, during
2009, the U.S. Treasury received weekly reports (through
its agent, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY)) listing
eligible collateral in support of the Government-Sponsored
Enterprise Credit Facility (GSECF) Lending Agreement. This
agreement, and the related reporting requirement, expired
December 31, 2009. The Bank never drew on this line of
credit.
Examination. At a minimum, the Finance
Agency conducts annual onsite examinations of the operations of
the Bank. In addition, the Comptroller General has authority
under the Act to audit or examine the Finance Agency and the
Bank and to decide the extent to which they fairly and
effectively fulfill the purposes of the Act. Furthermore, the
Government Corporation Control Act provides that the Comptroller
General may review any audit of the financial statements
conducted by an independent registered public accounting firm.
If the Comptroller General conducts such a review, then he or
she must report the results and provide his or her
recommendations to Congress, the Office of Management and
Budget, and the FHLBank in question. The Comptroller General may
also conduct his or her own audit of any financial statements of
the Bank.
Audit. The Bank has an internal audit
department that conducts routine internal audits and reports
directly to the Audit Committee of the Banks Board of
Directors (Board). In addition, an independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm (RPAF) audits the annual financial statements of
the Bank. The independent RPAF conducts these audits following
the Standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(PCAOB) of the United States of America and Government
Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General. The
Bank, the Finance Agency, and Congress all receive the RPAF
audit reports.
Advances
Advance
Products
The Bank makes advances (loans to members and eligible nonmember
housing associates) on the security of pledged mortgage loans
and other eligible types of collateral.
4
The following table presents a summary and brief description of
the advance products offered by the Bank as of December 31,
2009. Information presented below relates to advances and
excludes mortgage loans purchased by the Bank and held for
portfolio and loans relating to the Banking on Business (BOB)
program, which are discussed in detail below.
Advance
Portfolio as of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pct. of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Product
|
|
Description
|
|
Pricing(1)
|
|
Maturity
|
|
Portfolio
|
|
|
|
|
RepoPlus
|
|
Short-term fixed-rate advances; principal and interest paid at
maturity.
|
|
8-35
|
|
1 day to 3 months
|
|
|
9.6
|
%
|
|
|
Mid-Term RepoPlus
|
|
Mid-term fixed-rate and adjustable-rate advances; principal paid
at maturity; interest paid monthly or quarterly.
|
|
8-35
|
|
3 months to 3 years
|
|
|
41.0
|
%
|
|
|
Term Advances
|
|
Long-term fixed-rate and adjustable-rate advances; principal
paid at maturity; interest paid monthly or quarterly (includes
amortizing loans with principal and interest paid monthly);
Affordable Housing loans and Community Investment loans
|
|
10-35
|
|
3 years to 30 years
|
|
|
31.9
|
%
|
|
|
Convertible Select
|
|
Long-term fixed-rate and adjustable-rate advances with
conversion options sold by member; principal paid at maturity;
interest paid quarterly.
|
|
18-40
|
|
1 year to 15 years
|
|
|
17.4
|
%
|
|
|
Hedge
Select(2)
|
|
Long-term fixed-rate and adjustable-rate advances with embedded
options bought by member; principal paid at maturity; interest
paid quarterly.
|
|
13-35
|
|
1 year to 10 years
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
|
|
Returnable
|
|
Advances in which the member has the right to prepay the loan
without a fee after a specified period; interest paid quarterly.
|
|
10-35
|
|
1 year to 10 years
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m not meaningful
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Pricing spread over the Banks
cost of funds at origination, quoted in basis points (bps). One
basis point equals 0.01%. Premium pricing tier receives five
basis points over standard pricing. The premium pricing tier
relates to those members in collateral delivery status to cover
administrative expenses.
|
|
(2) |
|
Beginning August 3, 2009, the
Bank simplified its menu of advance products and eliminated the
Hedge Select product; legacy balances, however, remained at
December 31, 2009 as reflected above.
|
5
RepoPlus. The Bank serves as a major
source of liquidity for its members. Access to the Bank for
liquidity purposes can reduce the amount of low-yielding liquid
assets a member would otherwise need to hold for liquidity
purposes. The Banks RepoPlus advance products serve member
short-term liquidity needs. These products are typically a
short-term (1-89 day) fixed-rate product. As of
December 31, 2009, the total par value of these products
was $3.8 billion. These short-term balances tend to be
extremely volatile as members borrow and repay frequently.
Mid-Term RepoPlus. The Banks
advance products also help members in asset/liability management
by offering loans to minimize the risks associated with the
maturity, amortization and prepayment characteristics of
mortgage loans. Such advances from the Bank can reduce a
members interest rate risk associated with holding
long-term fixed-rate mortgage loans. The Mid-Term RepoPlus
product assists members with managing intermediate-term interest
rate risk. To assist members with managing the basis risk, or
the risk of a change in the spread relationship between two
indices, the Bank offers adjustable-rate Mid-Term RepoPlus
advances with maturity terms between 3 months and
3 years. Adjustable-rate, Mid-Term RepoPlus advances can be
priced based on
1-month
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) or
3-month
LIBOR indices. As of December 31, 2009, the par value of
Mid-Term RepoPlus advances totaled $16.3 billion. These
balances tend to be somewhat unpredictable as these advances are
not always replaced as they mature; the Banks
members liquidity needs drive these fluctuations.
Term Advances. For managing longer-term
interest rate risk and to assist with asset/liability
management, the Bank primarily offers long-term fixed-rate
advances for terms from 3 to 30 years. Amortizing long-term
fixed-rate advances can be fully amortized on a monthly basis
over the term of the loan or amortized balloon-style, based on
an amortization term longer than the maturity of the loan. As of
December 31, 2009, the par value of term advances totaled
$12.7 billion.
Convertible Select, Hedge Select and
Returnable. Some of the Banks advances
contain embedded options. The member can either sell an embedded
option to the Bank or it can purchase an embedded option from
the Bank. As of December 31, 2009, the par value of
advances for which the Bank had the right to convert the
advance, called Convertible Select, constituted
$6.8 billion of the total advance portfolio. Advances in
which the members purchased an option from the Bank are referred
to as Hedge Select. In August 2009, the Bank eliminated the
Hedge Select product; however, legacy balances with a total par
balance of $50.0 million remained in the portfolio at
December 31, 2009. Advances in which members have the right
to prepay the advance without a fee, called Returnable,
accounted for $12.0 million of the total par value of the
advance portfolio at December 31, 2009.
Collateral
The Bank makes advances to members and eligible nonmember
housing associates based upon the security of pledged mortgage
loans and other eligible types of collateral. In addition, the
Bank has established lending policies and procedures to limit
risk of loss while balancing the members needs for
funding; the Bank also protects against credit risk by fully
collateralizing all member and nonmember housing
associates advances. The Act requires the Bank to obtain
and maintain a security interest in eligible collateral at the
time it originates or renews an advance.
Collateral Agreements. The Bank
provides members with two options regarding collateral
agreements; a blanket collateral pledge agreement and a specific
collateral pledge agreement. Under a blanket agreement, the Bank
obtains a lien against all of the members unencumbered
eligible collateral assets and most ineligible collateral
assets, to secure the members obligations with the Bank.
Under a specific agreement, the Bank obtains a lien against the
specific eligible collateral assets of a member, to secure the
members obligations with the Bank. The member provides a
detailed listing, as an addendum to the agreement, identifying
those assets pledged as collateral. The specific agreement
covers only those assets identified; the Bank is therefore
relying on a specific subset of the members total eligible
collateral as security for the members loans. In both
cases (for members borrowing under either blanket or specific
agreement), the Bank perfects its security interest under
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) by filing a
financing statement. The Bank requires housing finance agencies
(HFAs) and insurance companies to sign specific agreements.
Collateral Status. These agreements
require one of three types of collateral status: undelivered,
detailed listing or delivered status. A member is assigned a
collateral status based on the Banks determination of the
members current financial condition and credit product
usage, as well as other information that may have been obtained.
6
The least restrictive collateral status, and the most widely
used by the Banks members, is the undelivered collateral
status. This status is generally assigned to lower risk
institutions pledging collateral. Under undelivered collateral
status, a member borrower is not required to deliver detailed
reporting on pledged assets; rather, the Bank monitors the
eligible collateral using regulatory financial reports, which
are typically submitted quarterly,
and/or
periodic collateral certification reports, which are submitted
to the Bank by the member. Origination of new advances or
renewal of advances must only be supported by certain eligible
collateral categories. Approximately 85.7% of the collateral
pledged to the Bank was under a blanket lien agreement and in
undelivered status at December 31, 2009. The remaining
14.3% of the collateral pledged to the Bank is in either listing
or delivery status, which is discussed below. At
December 31, 2009, nine of the Banks top ten
borrowers were in undelivered collateral status and one was in
specific-pledge, listing or delivery collateral status.
Under the Banks policy, the Bank may require members to
provide a detailed listing of eligible advance collateral being
pledged to the Bank due to their high usage of Bank credit
products, the type of assets being pledged or the credit
condition of the member. This is referred to as detail listing
collateral status. In this case, the member typically retains
physical possession of collateral pledged to the Bank but
provides a listing of assets pledged. In some cases, the member
may benefit by listing collateral, in lieu of undelivered
status, since it may result in a higher collateral weighting
being applied to the collateral (discussed below). The Bank
benefits from listing collateral status because it provides more
loan information to calculate a more precise valuation on the
collateral. Typically, those members with large, frequent
borrowings are covered under listing status with a blanket
agreement.
The third collateral status used by the Banks members is
delivered, or possession, collateral status. In this case, the
Bank requires the member to deliver physical possession, or
grant control of, eligible collateral to the Bank, including
through a third party custodian for the Bank to sufficiently
secure all outstanding obligations. Typically, the Bank would
take physical possession/control of collateral if the financial
condition of the member was deteriorating or if the member
exceeded certain credit product usage triggers. Delivery of
collateral may also be required if there is a regulatory action
taken against the member by its regulator that would indicate
inadequate controls or other conditions that would be of concern
to the Bank. Delivery collateral status may apply to both
blanket lien and specific agreements. The Bank requires delivery
to a restricted account of all securities pledged as collateral.
The Bank also requires delivery of collateral from de novo
institution members at least during their first two years of
operation.
With respect to specific collateral agreement borrowers
(typically HFAs and insurance companies, as noted above), the
Bank takes control of all collateral pledged at the time the
loan is made through the delivery of securities or mortgage
loans to the Bank or its custodian.
All eligible collateral securing advances is discounted to
protect the Bank from default in adverse conditions. These
discounts, also referred to as collateral weighting, vary by
collateral type and whether the calculation is based on book
value or fair value of the collateral and are presented in
detail in the table entitled Lending Value Assigned to the
Collateral as a Percentage of Value below. The discounts
typically include margins for estimated costs to sell or
liquidate and the risk of a decline in the collateral value due
to market or credit volatility. The Bank reviews the collateral
weightings periodically and may adjust them for individual
borrowers on a
case-by-case
basis as well as the members reporting requirements to the
Bank.
The Bank determines the type and amount of collateral each
member has available to pledge as security for Bank advances by
reviewing, on a quarterly basis, call reports the members file
with their primary banking regulators. Depending on a
members credit product usage and current financial
condition, that member may also be required to file a Qualifying
Collateral Report (QCR) on a quarterly or monthly basis. The
resulting total value of collateral available to be pledged to
the Bank after any collateral weighting is referred to as a
members maximum borrowing capacity (MBC).
The Bank also performs periodic
on-site
collateral reviews of its borrowing members to confirm the
amounts and quality of the eligible collateral pledged for the
members loans. For certain pledged residential and
commercial mortgage loan collateral, as well as delivered and
third-party held securities, the Bank employs outside service
providers to assist in determining values. In addition, the Bank
has developed and maintains an Internal Credit Rating (ICR)
system that assigns each member a numerical rating on a scale of
one to ten. The combination of the members ICR, borrowing
levels, assigned collateral values and
on-site
collateral review results determine
7
collateral weightings and collateral status. The Bank reserves
the right, at its discretion, to refuse certain collateral or to
adjust collateral weightings that are applied. In addition, the
Bank can require additional or substitute collateral during the
life of a loan to protect its security interest.
At December 31, 2009, the principal form of eligible
collateral to secure loans made by the Bank was single-family
residential mortgage loans, which included a very low amount of
manufactured housing loans. High-quality securities, including
U.S. Treasuries, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC)-guaranteed Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP)
investments, U.S. agency securities, GSE MBS, and select
private label MBS, were also accepted as collateral. FHLBank
deposits and multi-family residential mortgages, as well as
other real estate related collateral (ORERC), comprised the
remaining portion of qualifying collateral. See the Credit
and Counterparty Risk discussion in Risk Management in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further information on collateral policies and practices and
details regarding eligible collateral, including amounts and
percentages of eligible collateral securing loans as of
December 31, 2009.
Priority. As additional security for
each members indebtedness, the Bank has a statutory lien
on the members capital stock in the Bank. In the event of
a deterioration in the financial condition of a member, the Bank
will take control of sufficient eligible collateral to further
perfect its security interest in collateral pledged to secure
the members indebtedness to the Bank. Members with
deteriorating creditworthiness or those exceeding certain
product usage levels are required to deliver collateral to
secure their obligations with the Bank. Furthermore, the Bank
requires separate approval of such members new or
additional advances.
The Act affords any security interest granted to the Bank by any
member, or any affiliate of a member, priority over the claims
and rights of any third party, including any receiver,
conservator, trustee or similar party having rights of a lien
creditor. The only two exceptions are: (1) claims and
rights that would be entitled to priority under otherwise
applicable law and are held by actual bona fide purchasers for
value; and (2) parties that are secured by actual perfected
security interests ahead of the Banks security interest.
The Bank has detailed liquidation plans in place to expedite the
sale of securities and advance collateral upon the failure of a
member. At December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively, on a
borrower-by-borrower
basis, the Bank had secured a perfected interest in eligible
collateral with an eligible collateral value (after collateral
weightings) in excess of the book value of all advances.
Management believes that adequate policies and procedures are in
place to effectively manage the Banks credit risk
associated with lending to members and nonmember housing
associates.
Nationally, during 2009, 140 FDIC insured
institutions have failed. None of the FHLBanks have incurred any
losses on advances outstanding to these institutions. Although
the majority of these institutions were members of the System,
only one was a member of the Bank. The Bank had no advances or
other credit products outstanding to this member at the time of
the closure.
Types of Collateral. At
December 31, 2009, approximately 49.1% of the total member
eligible collateral available to secure advances made by the
Bank was single-family, residential mortgage loans. Generally,
the Bank uses a discounted cash flow model to value its
traditional listed or delivered mortgage loan collateral. Since
2006, the Bank has contracted with a leading provider of
comprehensive mortgage analytical pricing to provide more
precise valuations of some listed and delivered residential
mortgage loan collateral. The Bank assigns book value to
non-listed and non-delivered collateral.
Another category of collateral is high quality securities. This
typically includes U.S. Treasuries, U.S. agency
securities, TLGP investments, GSE MBS, and private label MBS
with a credit rating of AAA. This category accounted for
approximately 2.9% of the total amount of eligible collateral
(after collateral weighting) held by members at
December 31, 2009. In 2009, the Bank began requiring
delivery of such securities to be counted within a members
collateral base. The Bank also began accepting limited amounts
of private label MBS rated AA for certain members. As of
December 31, 2009, no such AA rated collateral was pledged
or counted within member borrowing capacity.
The Bank will also accept FHLBank deposits and multi-family
residential mortgage loans as eligible collateral. These
comprised 7.0% of the collateral (after collateral weighting)
used to secure loans at December 31, 2009.
The Bank also may accept other real estate related collateral
(ORERC) as qualifying collateral as long as it has a readily
ascertainable value and the Bank is able to secure a perfected
interest in it. Types of acceptable ORERC
8
include commercial mortgage loans and second-mortgage
installment loans. Previously, the overall amount of eligible
ORERC was subject to a limit of 50% of a members maximum
borrowing capacity; however, this limit was removed in 2009.
Since 2007, the Bank has contracted with a leading provider of
multi-family and commercial mortgage analytical pricing to
provide more precise valuations of listed and delivered
multi-family and commercial mortgage loan collateral.
ORERC accounts for approximately 41.0% of the total amount of
eligible collateral (after collateral weighting) held by members
as of December 31, 2009. The Bank does not have a member
advance secured by a members pledge of any form of
non-residential mortgage assets other than ORERC, eligible
securities
and/or
Community Financial Institutions (CFI) collateral.
In addition, member CFIs may pledge a broader array of
collateral to the Bank, including secured small business, small
farm and small agri-business loans and securities representing a
whole interest in such secured loans. During 2008, the Housing
Act redefined member CFIs as FDIC-insured institutions with no
more than $1.0 billion in average assets over the past
three years. The Bank implemented this expanded authority during
2009. This limit may be adjusted by the Finance Agency based on
changes in the Consumer Price Index; for 2010, to date the limit
has not been adjusted. The determination to accept such
collateral is at the discretion of the Bank and is made on a
case-by-case
basis. If delivery of collateral is required, the Bank will
accept such ORERC and CFI collateral only after determining the
member has exhausted all other available collateral of the types
enumerated above. Advances to members holding CFI collateral
within their total collateral base totaled approximately
$5.6 billion as of December 31, 2009. However, these
loans were collateralized by sufficient levels of non-CFI
collateral.
The subprime segment of the mortgage market primarily serves
borrowers with poorer credit payment histories; such loans
typically have a mix of credit characteristics that indicate a
higher likelihood of default and higher loss severities than
prime loans. Nontraditional residential mortgage loans are
defined as mortgage loans that allow borrowers to defer payment
of principal or interest. These loans, which also may be
referred to as alternative or exotic
mortgage loans, may be interest-only loans, payment-option
loans,
negative-amortization
loans or collateral-dependent loans. They may have other
features, such as variable interest rates with below-market
introductory rates, simultaneous second-lien loans and reduced
documentation to support the repayment capacity of the borrower.
Nontraditional residential mortgage loans exhibit
characteristics that may result in increased risk relative to
traditional residential mortgage loans. They may pose even
greater risk when granted to borrowers with undocumented or
undemonstrated repayment capacity, such as low or no
documentation loans or those with credit characteristics that
would be characterized as subprime. The potential for increased
risk is particularly true if the nontraditional residential
mortgage loans are not underwritten to determine a
borrowers capacity to repay the loan at the full payment
amount once a temporarily reduced payment period expires.
Although subprime mortgages are no longer considered an eligible
collateral asset class by the Bank, it is possible that the Bank
may have subprime mortgages pledged as collateral through the
blanket-lien pledge. The Bank requires members to identify the
amount of subprime and nontraditional mortgage collateral in its
compilation of mortgage data each quarter. This amount is
deducted from the calculation of the members maximum
borrowing capacity. Members may request that nontraditional
mortgage loan collateral be added to the members eligible
collateral pool with the understanding that they will be subject
to a rigorous
on-site
review of such collateral, processes and procedures for
originating and servicing the loans, an analysis of the quality
of the loan level data and a review of the loan underwriting.
These mortgage loans will receive weightings based on a
case-by-case
review by the Bank. Management believes that the Bank has
limited exposure to subprime and nontraditional loans due to its
business model, conservative policies pertaining to collateral
and low credit risk due to the design of its mortgage loan
programs.
9
The various types of eligible collateral and related lending
values as of December 31, 2009 are summarized in the table
and accompanying footnotes listed below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lending Value Assigned to the Collateral as a Percentage of
Fair
Value(1)
All Members
|
|
|
|
|
Blanket Lien-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specific
|
|
|
|
|
Physical Delivery or
|
|
|
Blanket Lien-
|
|
|
Pledge
|
|
Qualifying Collateral
|
|
|
Detailed Listing
|
|
|
Undelivered
|
|
|
Agreement
|
|
FHLBank deposit pledged to the FHLBank and under the sole
control of the FHLBank
|
|
|
100%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. government securities
|
|
|
97%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency securities, including securities of the FFCB, TLGP
and FHLBank consolidated obligations
|
|
|
97%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBS, including collateralized mortgage obligations issued or
guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae
|
|
|
95%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
90
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-agency AAA MBS, including collateralized mortgage
obligations, representing a whole interest in such
mortgages(2)
|
|
|
75%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
65
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-agency AA MBS, including collateralized mortgage
obligations, representing a whole interest in such
mortgages(3)
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
40
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obligations of state or local government units or agencies,
rated at least AA by a nationally recognized rating agency for
standby letters of credit that assist members in facilitating
residential housing finance or community lending; these
securities must be delivered
|
|
|
65%
|
|
|
65%
|
|
|
|
60
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a not available
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Book value is assumed to equal fair
value for non-delivered, non-securities collateral where fair
value is not readily available.
|
|
(2) |
|
High risk securities, including
without limitation, Interest-Only (IOs), Principal-Only (POs)
residuals and other support-type bonds are not qualifying
collateral. The securities must also have a readily
ascertainable market value (as defined and determined by the
Bank) and in which the Bank is able to secure a perfected
interest. The Bank considers these investments to be high
quality securities.
|
|
(3) |
|
Non-agency AA MBS are only accepted
from certain members with a qualifying internal credit rating.
|
10
During 2009, loan collateral weightings for certain types of
collateral were changed to differentiate between members that
file a QCR and those that do not. Details related to filing a
QCR are included in the Credit and Counterparty
Risk Total Credit Products and Collateral
discussion in Risk Management in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lending Value Assigned to the Collateral as a
|
|
|
|
Percentage of Fair
Value(1)
QCR Filers
|
|
|
|
Blanket Lien-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specific
|
|
|
|
Physical Delivery or
|
|
|
Blanket Lien-
|
|
|
Pledge
|
Qualifying Collateral
|
|
|
Detailed Listing
|
|
|
Undelivered
|
|
|
Agreement
|
FHA, Veterans Affairs (VA) or conventional whole, fully
disbursed, owner-occupied first-mortgage loans secured by 1- to
4-family residences which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(3)
|
|
|
75%
|
|
|
77% standard credit
quality(5)
78% high credit quality
79% highest credit quality
|
|
|
Up to 69%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional whole, fully disbursed, non owner-occupied
first-mortgage loans secured by 1- to 4-family residences which
are not more than 30 days
delinquent(3)
|
|
|
66%
|
|
|
71% standard credit quality
73% high credit quality
74% highest credit quality
|
|
|
Up to 64%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nontraditional mortgage loans weightings based on a
case-by-case
review
|
|
|
Accepted on a case-by-
case basis at members
request at no greater than 60%.
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
Up to 60%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subprime mortgage loans weightings based on a
case-by-case
review
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional whole, fully disbursed first-mortgage loans secured
by multi-family properties which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
55%
|
|
|
56% standard credit quality
58% high credit quality
60% highest credit quality
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional whole, fully disbursed first-mortgage loans secured
by Farmland properties which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
60%
|
|
|
60% standard credit quality
63% high credit quality
65% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolving Open-End Home Equity Lines of Credit (HELOCs) secured
by 1- to 4-family residential properties, which are not more
than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
52%
|
|
|
55% standard credit quality
58% high credit quality
60% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Closed - End 1 - 4 Family Junior Lien Loans secured by
1- to 4-family residential properties, which are not more than
30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
55%
|
|
|
55% standard credit quality
58% high credit quality
60% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction first-mortgage loans secured by 1- to 4- family
residential properties to individual borrowers or owner
builders, which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
50% standard credit quality
53% high credit quality
55% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whole, fully disbursed first-mortgage loans secured by
owner-occupied non-farm non-residential properties (commercial
real estate), which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
50% standard credit quality
53% high credit quality
55% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whole, fully disbursed first-mortgage loans secured by other
non-farm non-residential properties (commercial real estate),
which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
50%
|
|
|
50% standard credit quality
53% high credit quality
55% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CFI-eligible collateral (including small-business, small
agri-business and small farm loans), which are not more than
30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
40% standard credit quality
43% high credit quality
45% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction first-mortgage loans secured by multi-family
properties, which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
40% standard credit quality
43% high credit quality
45% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lending Value Assigned to the Collateral as a
|
|
|
|
Percentage of Fair
Value(1)
QCR Filers
|
|
|
|
Blanket Lien-
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specific
|
|
|
|
Physical Delivery or
|
|
|
Blanket Lien-
|
|
|
Pledge
|
Qualifying Collateral
|
|
|
Detailed Listing
|
|
|
Undelivered
|
|
|
Agreement
|
Construction first-mortgage loans secured by 1- to 4-family
residential properties to developers, which are not more than
30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
43% standard credit quality
45% high credit quality
47% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction first-mortgage loans secured by other
(non-residential) properties, which are not more than
30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
40% standard credit quality
43% high credit quality
45% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whole, fully disbursed first-mortgage loans secured by raw or
developed land, which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
40% standard credit quality
43% high credit quality
45% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FHA, VA or Conventional whole, fully disbursed, owner-occupied
and non owner-occupied first-mortgage loans secured by 1-to
4-family residences which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(4)
|
|
|
75% (owner-occupied)/
66% (non owner-occupied)
|
|
|
70% standard credit quality(6)
73% high credit quality
75% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nontraditional mortgage loans-weightings based on a
case-by-case
review
|
|
|
Accepted on a case-by-
case basis at members
request at no greater than 60%.
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
Up to 60%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subprime mortgage loans-weightings based on a
case-by-case
review
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional and whole, fully disbursed first-mortgage loans
secured by multi-family properties which are not more than
30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
55%
|
|
|
51% standard credit quality
53% high credit quality
56% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real estate mortgage loans, which are not more than 30 days
delinquent(5)and
that include the following types:
|
|
|
60% (Farmland)/
52% (HELOCs)/
55% (Jr. Liens)/
|
|
|
50% standard credit quality
53% high credit quality
55% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
- Farmland Loans
|
|
|
50% (CRE)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- HELOCs and junior lien residential loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Commercial Real Estate (CRE) loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction and land first-mortgage loans, which are not more
than 30 days
delinquent(5)
and that include the following types:
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
40% standard credit quality
43% high credit quality
45% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
- 1 - 4 Family Residential
Construction Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Multi Family Residential
Construction Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Other Construction Loans
(Nonresidential)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Land Development and Other Land Loans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CFI-eligible collateral (including small-business, small
agri-business and small farm loans), which are not more than
30 days
delinquent(5)
|
|
|
40%
|
|
|
40% standard credit quality
43% high credit quality
45% highest credit quality
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a not available
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Book value is assumed to equal fair
value for non-delivered, non-securities collateral where fair
value is not readily available.
|
|
(4) |
|
No home mortgage loan otherwise
eligible to be accepted as collateral for a loan shall be
accepted as collateral if any director, officer, employee,
attorney, or agent of the Bank or of the borrowing member is
personally liable thereon unless the Board has approved such
acceptance by resolution and the Finance Agency has endorsed
such resolution.
|
|
(5) |
|
Mutual funds, invested 100% in
underlying securities, including cash and cash equivalents, that
otherwise are any of the types of qualifying collateral listed
above qualify as collateral and may be accepted on a specific
listing and/or delivered basis. Acceptability of such funds will
be determined at the discretion of the Bank, based on its
ability to perfect a security interest in, and readily ascertain
a market value for, such collateral. Collateral weighting will
be set at moderately lower levels than those the Bank applies
directly to the qualifying collateral category in which the fund
is invested.
|
|
(6) |
|
Credit Quality relates
to the members ICR as described previously in the
Collateral Status discussion.
|
12
Specialized
Programs
The Bank helps members meet their Community Reinvestment Act
responsibilities. Through community investment cash advance
programs such as the Affordable Housing Program (AHP) and the
Community Lending Program (CLP), members have access to
subsidized and other low-cost funding. Members use the funds
from these programs to create affordable rental and
homeownership opportunities, and for commercial and economic
development activities that benefit low- and moderate-income
neighborhoods, thus contributing to the revitalization of their
communities.
Banking
on Business (BOB) Loans
The Banks BOB loan program for members is targeted to
small businesses in the Banks district of Delaware,
Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The programs objective is
to assist in the growth and development of small businesses,
including both the
start-up and
expansion of these businesses. The Bank makes funds available to
members to extend credit to an approved small business borrower,
thereby enabling small businesses to qualify for credit that
would otherwise not be available. The original intent of the BOB
program was a grant program through members to help facilitate
community economic development; however, repayment provisions
within the program require that the BOB program be accounted for
as an unsecured loan program. As the members collect directly
from the borrowers, the members remit to the Bank repayment of
the loans. If the business is unable to repay the loan, it may
be forgiven at the members request, subject to the
Banks approval. In 2009 and 2010, the Bank has made
$3.5 million available each year to assist small businesses
through the BOB loan program.
Investments
Overview. The Bank maintains a
portfolio of investments for three main purposes: liquidity,
collateral for derivative counterparties and additional
earnings. For liquidity purposes, the Bank invests in
shorter-term instruments, including overnight Federal funds, to
ensure the availability of funds to meet member requests. In
addition, the Bank invests in other short-term instruments,
including term Federal funds, interest-earning certificates of
deposit and commercial paper. The Bank also maintains a
secondary liquidity portfolio, which includes FDIC-guaranteed
TLGP investments, U.S. Treasury and agency securities that
can be financed under normal market conditions in securities
repurchase agreement transactions to raise additional funds.
U.S. Treasury securities are the primary source for
derivative counterparty collateral.
The Bank further enhances interest income by maintaining a
long-term investment portfolio, including securities issued by
GSEs and state and local government agencies as well as agency
and private label MBS. Securities currently in the portfolio
were required to carry the top two ratings from Moodys
Investors Service, Inc. (Moodys), Standard &
Poors (S&P) or Fitch Ratings (Fitch) at the time of
purchase. The long-term investment portfolio is intended to
provide the Bank with higher returns than those available in the
short-term money markets. Investment income also bolsters the
Banks capacity to meet its commitment to affordable
housing and community investment, to cover operating expenses,
and to satisfy its statutory Resolution Funding Corporation
(REFCORP) assessment. See the Credit and Counterparty
Risk Investments discussion in Risk Management
in Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for discussion of the credit risk of the investment portfolio,
including OTTI charges, and further information on these
securities current ratings.
Prohibitions. Under Finance Agency
regulations, the Bank is prohibited from purchasing certain
types of securities, including:
|
|
|
|
|
instruments, such as common stock, that represent an ownership
interest in an entity, other than stock in small business
investment companies or certain investments targeted to
low-income persons or communities;
|
|
|
instruments issued by
non-U.S. entities,
other than those issued by United States branches and agency
offices of foreign commercial banks;
|
|
|
non-investment-grade debt instruments, other than certain
investments targeted to low-income persons or communities and
instruments that were downgraded after purchase by the Bank;
|
13
|
|
|
|
|
whole mortgages or other whole loans, other than: (1) those
acquired under the Banks mortgage purchase program;
(2) certain investments targeted to low-income persons or
communities; (3) certain marketable direct obligations of
state, local or tribal government units or agencies, having at
least the second highest credit rating from a Nationally
Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO); (4) MBS
or asset-backed securities (ABS) backed by manufactured housing
loans or home equity loans; and (5) certain foreign housing
loans authorized under Section 12(b) of the Act; and
|
|
|
non-U.S. dollar
denominated securities.
|
The provisions of the Finance Agency regulatory policy, the
FHLBank System Financial Management Policy, further limit the
Banks investment in MBS and ABS. These provisions require
that the total book value of MBS owned by the Bank not exceed
300 percent of the Banks previous month-end
regulatory capital on the day it purchases additional MBS. In
addition, the Bank is prohibited from purchasing:
|
|
|
|
|
interest-only or principal-only strips of MBS;
|
|
|
residual-interest or interest-accrual classes of collateralized
mortgage obligations and real estate mortgage investment
conduits; and
|
|
|
fixed-rate or floating-rate MBS that on the trade date are at
rates equal to their contractual cap and that have average lives
that vary by more than six years under an assumed instantaneous
interest rate change of 300 basis points.
|
In March 2008, an increase in the investment level of MBS was
authorized for the FHLBanks by the Finance Agency for two years.
Subject to approval by the Board and filing of required
documentation, the Bank may invest up to 600 percent of
regulatory capital in MBS. The Bank has not sought approval to
exceed the original 300 percent limit. The FHLBanks are
also prohibited from purchasing a consolidated obligation as
part of the consolidated obligations initial issuance. The
Banks Investment Policy prohibits it from investing in
another FHLBank consolidated obligation at any time. The Federal
Reserve Board (Federal Reserve) requires Federal Reserve Banks
(FRBs) to release interest and principal payments on the FHLBank
System consolidated obligations only when there are sufficient
funds in the FHLBanks account to cover these payments. The
prohibitions on purchasing FHLBank consolidated obligations
noted above will be temporarily waived if the Bank is obligated
to accept the direct placement of consolidated obligation
discount notes to assist in the management of any daily funding
shortfall of another FHLBank.
The Bank does not consolidate any off-balance sheet
special-purpose entities or other conduits.
Mortgage
Partnership
Finance®
(MPF®)
Program
In 1999, the Bank began participating in the Mortgage
Partnership Finance (MPF) Program under which the Bank invests
in qualifying 5- to
30-year
conventional conforming and government-insured fixed-rate
mortgage loans secured by
one-to-four
family residential properties. The MPF Program was developed by
the FHLBank of Chicago in 1997 to provide participating members,
including housing associates, a secondary market alternative
that allows for increased balance sheet liquidity for members as
well as removes assets that carry interest rate and prepayment
risks from their balance sheets. In addition, the MPF Program
provides a greater degree of competition among mortgage
purchasers and allows small and mid-sized community-based
financial institutions to participate more effectively in the
secondary mortgage market.
The Bank currently offers three products under the MPF Program
to Participating Financial Institutions (PFIs): Original MPF,
MPF Government and MPF Xtra. Further details regarding the
credit risk structure for each of the products, as well as
additional information regarding the MPF Program and the
products offered by the Bank is provided in the Mortgage
Partnership Finance Program section in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis as well as the Risk
Factor entitled The MPF Program has different risks
than those related to the Banks traditional loan business,
which could adversely impact the Banks
profitability. in the Item 1A. Risk Factors, both
in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Under the MPF Program, participating members generally market,
originate and service qualifying residential mortgages for sale
to the Bank. Member banks have direct knowledge of their
mortgage markets and have developed expertise in underwriting
and servicing residential mortgage loans. By allowing
participating members to originate mortgage loans, whether
through retail or wholesale operations, and to retain or sell
servicing of
14
mortgage loans, the MPF Program gives control of the functions
that relate to credit risk to participating members.
Participating members may also receive a servicing fee if they
choose to retain loan servicing rather than transfer servicing
rights to a third-party servicer.
Participating members are paid a credit enhancement fee for
retaining and managing a portion of the credit risk in the
conventional mortgage loan portfolios sold to the Bank under the
traditional MPF Program. The credit enhancement structure
motivates participating members to minimize loan losses on
mortgage loans sold to the Bank. The Bank is responsible for
managing the interest rate risk, prepayment risk, liquidity risk
and a portion of the credit risk associated with the mortgage
loans.
In 2009, the Bank began offering MPF Xtra to members. MPF Xtra
allows PFIs to sell residential, conforming fixed-rate mortgages
to FHLBank of Chicago, which concurrently sells them to Fannie
Mae on a nonrecourse basis. MPF Xtra does not have the credit
enhancement structure of the traditional MPF Program and these
loans are not reported on the Banks balance sheet. In the
MPF Xtra product, there is no credit obligation assumed by the
PFI or the Bank and no credit enhancement fees are paid. PFIs
which have completed all required documentation and training are
eligible to participate in the program. As of December 31,
2009, 34 PFIs were eligible to participate in the program. Of
these, 14 have sold $25.0 million of mortgage loans through
the MPF Xtra program.
Effective July 15, 2009, the Bank introduced a temporary
loan payment modification plan (loan modification plan) for
participating PFIs, which will be available until
December 31, 2011 unless further extended by the MPF
Program. Borrowers with conventional loans secured by their
primary residence, which were closed prior to January 1,
2009 are eligible for the loan modification plan. This plan
pertains to borrowers currently in default or in imminent danger
of default. In addition, there are specific eligibility
requirements that must be met and procedures that the PFIs must
follow to participate in the loan modification plan. As of
December 31, 2009, there has been no activity under this
loan modification plan.
The FHLBank of Chicago, in its role as MPF Provider, provides
the programmatic and operational support for the MPF Program and
is responsible for the development and maintenance of the
origination, underwriting and servicing guides.
The Bank held approximately $5.1 billion and
$6.1 billion in mortgage loans at par under the MPF Program
at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008
respectively. These balances represented approximately 7.8% and
6.7% of total assets at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Mortgage loans contributed approximately 19.4% and
9.4% of total interest income for full year 2009 and 2008,
respectively. While interest income on mortgage loans dropped
11.1% in the
year-over-year
comparison, the Banks total interest income decreased
56.8%. This sharp decline in total interest income resulted in
the increase in the ratio of mortgage loan interest income to
total interest income.
The Finance Agency requires that all pools of MPF Program loans
purchased by the Bank have the credit risk exposure equivalent
of an AA rated mortgage instrument. The Bank maintains an
allowance for credit losses on its mortgage loans that
management believes is adequate to absorb any probable losses
incurred beyond the credit enhancements provided by
participating members. The Bank had approximately
$2.7 million and $4.3 million in allowance for credit
losses on this portfolio at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Mortgage Partnership Finance, MPF and
MPF Xtra are registered trademarks of the FHLBank of
Chicago.
Deposits
The Act allows the Bank to accept deposits from its members,
from any institution for which it is providing correspondent
services, from other FHLBanks, or from other Federal
instrumentalities. Deposit programs are low-cost funding
resources for the Bank, which also give members a low-risk
earning asset that satisfies their regulatory liquidity
requirements. The Bank offers several types of deposit programs
to its members including demand, overnight and term deposits.
15
Debt
Financing Consolidated Obligations
The primary source of funds for the Bank is the sale of debt
securities, known as consolidated obligations. These
consolidated obligations are issued as both bonds and discount
notes, depending on maturity. Consolidated obligations are the
joint and several obligations of the FHLBanks, backed by the
financial resources of the twelve FHLBanks. Consolidated
obligations are not obligations of the United States government,
and the United States government does not guarantee them.
Moodys has rated consolidated obligations
Aaa/P-1, and
S&P has rated them
AAA/A-1+.
The following table presents the total par value of the
consolidated obligations of the Bank and the FHLBank System at
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
$
|
48,808.8
|
|
|
$
|
62,066.6
|
|
Consolidated obligation discount notes
|
|
|
10,210.0
|
|
|
|
22,883.8
|
|
|
|
Total Bank consolidated obligations
|
|
$
|
59,018.8
|
|
|
$
|
84,950.4
|
|
|
|
Total FHLBank System combined consolidated obligations
|
|
$
|
930,616.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,251,541.7
|
|
|
|
Office of Finance. The OF has
responsibility for issuing and servicing consolidated
obligations on behalf of the FHLBanks. The OF also serves as a
source of information for the Bank on capital market
developments, markets the FHLBank Systems debt on behalf
of the Bank, selects and evaluates underwriters, prepares
combined financial statements, administers REFCORP and the
Financing Corporation, and manages the Banks relationship
with the rating agencies and the U.S. Treasury with respect
to the consolidated obligations.
Consolidated Obligation Bonds. On
behalf of the Bank, the OF issues bonds that the Bank uses
primarily to fund advances. The Bank also uses bonds to fund the
MPF Program and its investment portfolio. Typically, the
maturity of these bonds ranges from one year to ten years, but
the maturity is not subject to any statutory or regulatory
limit. Bonds can be issued and distributed through negotiated or
competitively bid transactions with approved underwriters or
selling group members. In some instances, particularly with
complex structures, the Bank swaps its term debt issuance to
floating rates through the use of interest rate swaps.
Bonds can be issued in several ways. The first way is through a
daily auction for both bullet (non-callable and
non-amortizing)
and American-style (callable daily after lock out period
expires) callable bonds. Bonds can also be issued through a
selling group, which typically has multiple lead investment
banks on each issue. The third way bonds can be issued is
through a negotiated transaction with one or more dealers. The
process for issuing bonds under the three general methods above
can vary depending on whether the bonds are non-callable or
callable.
For example, the Bank can request funding through the TAP
auction program (quarterly debt issuances that reopen or
tap into the same CUSIP number) for fixed-rate
non-callable (bullet) bonds. This program uses specific
maturities that may be reopened daily during a three-month
period through competitive auctions. The goal of the TAP program
is to aggregate frequent smaller issues into a larger bond issue
that may have greater market liquidity.
Consolidated Obligation Discount
Notes. The OF also sells discount notes to
provide short-term funds for advances for seasonal and cyclical
fluctuations in deposit flows, mortgage financing, short-term
investments and other funding needs. Discount notes are sold at
a discount and mature at par. These securities have maturities
of up to 365 days.
There are three methods for issuing discount notes. First, the
OF auctions one-, two-, three- and six-month discount notes
twice per week and any FHLBank can request an amount to be
issued. The market sets the price for these securities. The
second method of issuance is via the OFs window program
through which any FHLBank can offer a specified amount of
discount notes at a maximum rate and a specified term up to
365 days. These securities are offered daily through a
consolidated discount note selling group of broker-dealers. The
third method is via reverse inquiry, wherein a dealer requests a
specified amount of discount notes be issued for a specific date
and price. The OF shows reverse inquiries to the FHLBanks, which
may or may not choose to issue those particular discount notes.
16
See the Current Financial and Mortgage Market Events and
Trends discussion in the Earnings Performance section and
Liquidity and Funding Risk discussion in the Risk
Management section, both in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further information regarding consolidated obligations and
related liquidity risk.
Capital
Resources
Capital Plan. From its enactment in
1932, the Act provided for a subscription-based capital
structure for the FHLBanks. The amount of capital stock that
each FHLBank issued was determined by a statutory formula
establishing how much FHLBank stock each member was required to
purchase. With the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB
Act), the statutory subscription-based member stock purchase
formula was replaced with requirements for total capital,
leverage capital, and RBC for the FHLBanks. The FHLBanks were
also required to develop new capital plans to replace the
previous statutory structure.
The Bank implemented its capital plan on December 16, 2002.
In general, the capital plan requires each member to own stock
in an amount equal to the aggregate of a membership stock
requirement and an activity-based stock requirement. The Bank
may adjust these requirements from time to time within limits
established in the capital plan.
Bank capital stock may not be publicly traded; it may be issued,
exchanged, redeemed and repurchased at its stated par value of
$100 per share. Under the capital plan, capital stock may be
redeemed upon five years notice, subject to certain
conditions. In addition, the Bank has the discretion to
repurchase excess stock from members. Ranges have been built
into the capital plan to allow the Bank to adjust the stock
purchase requirement to meet its regulatory capital
requirements, if necessary. Please refer to the detailed
description of the capital plan attached as Exhibit 4.1 to
the Banks registration statement on Form 10, as
amended, filed July 19, 2006. On December 23, 2008,
the Bank announced its decision to voluntarily suspend excess
capital stock repurchases until further notice. This action was
taken after careful analysis and consideration of certain
negative market trends and the impact on the Banks
profitability and financial condition. The Bank has submitted a
CSP to the Finance Agency. See further details in the General
discussion in this Item 1: Business section.
The Bank has initiated the process of amending its capital plan.
The goal of this capital plan amendment is to provide members
with a stable membership capital stock calculation that would
replace the Unused Borrowing Capacity calculation. Additionally,
the proposed amendment would expand the AMA stock purchase
requirement range and prospectively establish a capital stock
purchase requirement for letters of credit. As required by
Finance Agency regulation and the terms of the capital plan, any
amendment must be approved by the Finance Agency prior to
becoming effective.
Dividends and Retained Earnings. The
Bank may pay dividends from current net earnings or previously
retained earnings, subject to certain limitations and
conditions. The Banks Board may declare and pay dividends
in either cash or capital stock. The Banks practice has
been to pay only a cash dividend. Effective September 26,
2008, the Bank revised its previous retained earnings policy and
established a new capital adequacy metric, referred to as the
Projected Capital Stock Price (PCSP) The PCSP metric retains the
overall risk components approach of the previous policy but
expands and refines the risk components to calculate an estimate
of
capital-at-risk,
or the projected variability of capital stock. As of
December 31, 2009, the balance in retained earnings was
$389.0 million. Under the policy, the amount of dividends
the Board determines to pay out, if any, is affected by, among
other factors, the level of retained earnings recommended under
this new retained earnings policy. On December 23, 2008,
the Bank announced its decision to voluntarily suspend payment
of dividends until further notice. Bank management and the
Board, as well as the Finance Agency, believe that the level of
retained earnings with respect to the total balance of AOCI
should be considered in assessing the Banks ability to
resume paying a dividend.
Please see the Capital Resources section and the Risk
Governance discussion in Risk Management, both in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional discussion of the Banks capital-related
metrics, retained earnings, dividend payments, capital levels
and regulatory capital requirements.
17
Derivatives
and Hedging Activities
The Bank enters into interest rate swaps, swaptions, interest
rate cap and floor agreements and forward contracts
(collectively, derivatives) to manage its exposure to changes in
interest rates. The Bank uses these derivatives to adjust the
effective maturity, repricing frequency, or option
characteristics of financial instruments to achieve its risk
management objectives. The Bank uses derivative financial
instruments in several ways: (1) by designating them as a
fair value or cash flow hedge of an underlying financial
instrument, a firm commitment or a forecasted transaction;
(2) by acting as an intermediary between members and the
capital markets; or (3) in asset/liability management
(i.e., an economic hedge). See Note 12 to the audited
financial statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data for additional information.
For example, the Bank uses derivatives in its overall interest
rate risk management to adjust the interest rate sensitivity of
assets and liabilities. The Bank also uses derivatives to manage
embedded options in assets and liabilities; to hedge the
benchmark fair value of existing assets, liabilities and
anticipated transactions; to hedge the duration risk of
prepayable instruments; and to reduce funding costs. To reduce
funding costs, the Bank may enter into derivatives concurrently
with the issuance of consolidated obligations. This strategy of
issuing bonds while simultaneously entering into derivatives
provides the Bank the flexibility to offer a wider range of
attractively priced loans to its members. The continued
attractiveness of such debt depends on price relationships in
both the bond market and derivative markets. If conditions in
these markets change, the Bank may alter the types or terms of
the bonds issued. In acting as an intermediary between members
and the capital markets, the Bank enables its smaller members to
access the capital markets in a cost-efficient manner.
The Finance Agency regulates the Banks use of derivatives.
The regulations prohibit the trading in or speculative use of
these instruments and limit credit risk arising from these
instruments. The Bank typically uses derivatives to manage its
interest rate risk positions and mortgage prepayment risk
positions. All derivatives are recorded in the Statement of
Condition at fair value.
18
The following tables summarize the derivative instruments, along
with the specific hedge transaction utilized to manage various
interest rate and other risks. The Bank periodically engages in
derivative transactions classified as cash flow hedges primarily
through a forward starting interest rate swap that hedges an
anticipated issuance of a consolidated obligation. The Bank had
no outstanding cash flow hedges as of December 31, 2009.
Derivative
Transactions Classified as Fair Value Hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional Amount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at
|
|
Derivative Hedging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
Instrument
|
|
|
Hedged Item
|
|
|
Purpose of Hedge Transaction
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Pay fixed, receive floating interest rate swap
|
|
|
Mid-term and long-term fixed-rate advances
|
|
|
To protect against an increase in interest rates by converting
the advances fixed-rate to a floating-rate
|
|
|
$
|
18,419.4
|
|
|
Receive fixed, pay floating interest rate swap
|
|
|
Noncallable fixed-rate consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
|
To protect against a decline in interest rates by converting the
fixed-rate to a floating-rate
|
|
|
|
24,370.0
|
|
|
Receive fixed, pay floating interest rate swap, with a call
option
|
|
|
Callable fixed-rate consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
|
To protect against a decline in interest rates by converting the
fixed-rate to a floating-rate
|
|
|
|
2,640.0
|
|
|
Returnable pay fixed receive floating interest rate swap
|
|
|
Returnable fixed-rate advances
|
|
|
To protect against an increase in interest rates by converting
the advances fixed-rate to a floating rate and to
eliminate option risk
|
|
|
|
1,119.0
|
|
|
Pay fixed, receive floating interest rate swap, with a put option
|
|
|
Convertible select fixed-rate loans with put options
|
|
|
To protect against an increase in interest rates by converting
the advances fixed-rate to a floating-rate
|
|
|
|
3,334.9
|
|
|
Pay floating with embedded features, receive floating interest
rate swap
|
|
|
Convertible select floating-rate loans with embedded features
|
|
|
To eliminate option risk
|
|
|
|
1,310.0
|
|
|
Callable receive floating with embedded features, pay floating
interest rate swap
|
|
|
Callable floating-rate consolidated obligation bond with
embedded features
|
|
|
To eliminate option risk
|
|
|
|
80.0
|
|
|
Index amortizing receive fixed, pay floating interest rate swap
|
|
|
Index amortizing consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
|
To convert an amortizing prepayment linked debt instrument to a
floating-rate
|
|
|
|
62.6
|
|
|
19
Derivative
Transactions Classified as Economic Hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional Amount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding at
|
|
Derivative Hedging
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
Instrument
|
|
|
Hedged Item
|
|
|
Purpose of Hedge Transaction
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Interest rate floors
|
|
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
To protect the MPF portfolio against a decrease in interest rates
|
|
|
$
|
225.0
|
|
|
Interest rate caps
|
|
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
To protect the MBS portfolio against an increase in interest
rates
|
|
|
|
1,428.8
|
|
|
Pay fixed, receive floating interest rate swap
|
|
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
To protect against an increase in interest rates by converting
the assets fixed-rate to a floating-rate
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
|
Mortgage delivery commitments
|
|
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
Commitments to purchase a pool of mortgages
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
Pay fixed, receive floating interest rate swap, with a put option
|
|
|
Not applicable
|
|
|
To protect against an increase in interest rates by converting
the advances fixed-rate to a floating-rate
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
|
|
Competition
Advances. The Bank competes with other
suppliers of wholesale funding, both secured and unsecured,
including the FRBs, commercial banks, investment banking
divisions of commercial banks, and brokered deposits, largely on
the basis of cost as well as types and weightings of collateral.
Competition may be greater in regard to larger members, which
have greater access to the capital markets. During 2008 and into
2009, the Federal Reserve took a series of unprecedented actions
that made it more attractive for eligible financial institutions
to borrow directly from the FRBs, creating increased competition
for the Bank with a larger number of members, including smaller
institutions. As a result of disruptions in the credit and
mortgage markets in the second half of 2007, the Bank had
experienced unprecedented loan growth. This growth has since
reversed, with advances declining 33.8% from December 31,
2008 to December 31, 2009. This decline was due to the
following: (1) members access to additional liquidity
from government programs; (2) members reactions to
the Banks pricing of the short-term advance products;
(3) the impact of members raising core deposits;
(4) members reducing the size of their balance sheets;
(5) members reacting to the Banks temporary actions
of not paying dividends and not repurchasing excess capital
stock by limiting their use of the Banks advance products;
and (6) the recent economic recession, which decreased the
Banks members need for funding from the Bank.
Competition within the FHLBank System is somewhat limited;
however, there may be some members of the Bank that have
affiliates that are members of other FHLBanks. The Bank does not
monitor in detail for these types of affiliate relationships,
and therefore, does not know the extent to which there may be
competition with the other FHLBanks for loans to affiliates
under a common holding company structure. The Banks
ability to compete successfully with other FHLBanks for business
depends primarily on pricing, dividends, capital stock
requirements, credit and collateral terms, and products offered.
Purchase of Mortgage Loans. Members
have several alternative outlets for their mortgage loan
production including Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other
secondary market conduits. The MPF Program competes with these
alternatives on the basis of price and product attributes.
Additionally, a member may elect to hold all or a portion of its
mortgage loan production in portfolio, potentially funded by a
loan from the Bank. The Banks volume of conventional,
conforming fixed-rate mortgages has declined as a result of a
stagnant housing market and the weak employment and economic
conditions. In addition, the lack of an off-balance sheet
solution for the MPF program credit structure had previously
affected program pricing and caused the Bank to strategically
position the MPF Program for community and regional institutions
thereby excluding larger PFIs from participation. As previously
discussed, in 2009 the Bank began offering the MPF Xtra product
to members. MPF Xtra does not have the credit enhancement
structure of the traditional MPF Program. These loans are sold
through the FHLBank of Chicago to
20
Fannie Mae and, therefore, not reported on the Banks
balance sheet. Also in 2009, as mentioned previously, the Bank
introduced a loan modification plan for participating PFIs,
which will be available until December 31, 2011 unless
further extended by the MPF Program.
Issuance of Consolidated
Obligations. The Bank competes with the
U.S. Treasury, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other
government-sponsored enterprises as well as corporate, sovereign
and supranational entities for funds raised through the issuance
of unsecured debt in the national and global debt markets.
Increases in the supply of competing debt products may, in the
absence of increases in demand, result in higher debt cost. The
Banks status as a GSE affords certain preferential
treatment for its debt obligations under the current regulatory
scheme for depository institutions operating in the United
States as well as preferential tax treatment in a number of
state and municipal jurisdictions. Any change in these
regulatory conditions as they affect the holders of Bank debt
obligations would likely alter the relative competitive position
of such debt issuance resulting in potentially higher cost to
the Bank. The Federal banking agencies have proposed a lower RBC
requirement applicable to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debt. If
this proposal becomes final and a similar change is not applied
to FHLBank debt, the Systems competitive position will
erode. In addition, the FDICs unsecured debt guarantee
program and the extension of the program through
October 31, 2009 created additional competition for the
Banks debt issuances.
The issuance of callable debt and the simultaneous execution of
callable interest rate derivatives that mirror the debt have
been an important source of funding for the Bank. There is
considerable competition among high-credit-quality issuers in
the markets for callable debt and for derivative agreements,
which can raise the cost of issuing this form of debt.
Major
Customers
Sovereign Bank, Ally Bank and PNC Bank each had advance balances
in excess of ten percent of the Banks total portfolio as
of December 31, 2009. See details in the Item 1A. Risk
Factor entitled The loss of significant Bank members or
borrowers may have a negative impact on the Banks loans
and capital stock outstanding and could result in lower demand
for its products and services, lower dividends paid to members
and higher borrowing costs for remaining members, all which may
affect the Banks profitability and financial
condition. and Credit and Counterparty
Risk in the Risk Management section in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis, both in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Personnel
As of December 31, 2009, the Bank had 231 full-time
employee positions and five part-time employee positions, for a
total of 233.5 full-time equivalents, and an additional 26
contractors. The employees are not represented by a collective
bargaining unit and the Bank considers its relationship with its
employees to be good.
Taxation
The Bank is exempt from all Federal, state and local taxation
with the exception of real estate property taxes.
Resolution
Funding Corporation (REFCORP) and Affordable Housing Program
(AHP) Assessments
The Bank is obligated to make payments to REFCORP in an amount
of 20% of net earnings after operating expenses and AHP
expenses. The Bank must make these payments to REFCORP until the
total amount of payments actually made by all twelve FHLBanks is
equivalent to a $300 million annual annuity whose final
maturity date is April 15, 2030. The Finance Agency will
shorten or lengthen the period during which the FHLBanks must
make payments to REFCORP depending on actual payments relative
to the referenced annuity. In addition, the Finance Agency, in
consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury,
selects the appropriate discounting factors used in this
calculation. See Note 18 to the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data for additional information.
21
In addition, the FHLBanks must set aside for the AHP annually on
a combined basis, the greater of an aggregate of
$100 million or 10 percent of current years net
earnings (income before interest expense related to mandatorily
redeemable capital stock but after the assessment for REFCORP).
If the Bank experienced a net loss, as defined in Note 17
to the audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K,
for a full year, the Bank would have no obligation to the AHP
for the year except in the following circumstance: if the result
of the aggregate ten percent calculation described above is less
than $100 million for all twelve FHLBanks, then the Act
requires that each FHLBank contribute such prorated sums as may
be required to assure that the aggregate contributions of the
FHLBanks equal $100 million. The proration would be made on
the basis of an FHLBanks net earnings in relation to the
income of all FHLBanks for the previous year. Each
FHLBanks required annual AHP contribution is limited to
its annual net earnings. If an FHLBank finds that its required
contributions are contributing to the financial instability of
that FHLBank, it may apply to the Finance Agency for a temporary
suspension of its contributions. As allowed by AHP regulations,
an FHLBank can elect to allot fundings based on future
periods required AHP contributions to be awarded during a
year (referred to as Accelerated AHP). The Accelerated AHP
allows an FHLBank to commit and disburse AHP funds to meet the
FHLBanks mission when it would otherwise be unable to do
so, based on its normal funding mechanism. See the Risk Factor
entitled The Banks Affordable Housing Program and
other related community investment programs may be severely
affected if the Banks annual net income is reduced or
eliminated. in Item 1A. Risk Factors and
Note 17 to the audited financial statements in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial Data, both in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information.
Currently, combined assessments for REFCORP and AHP are the
equivalent of approximately a 26.5% effective rate for the Bank.
Because the Bank was in a net loss position for the year ended
December 31, 2009, it recorded no combined assessment
expense. The combined REFCORP and AHP assessments for the Bank
were $7.0 million and $85.6 million for the years
ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. In 2008,
the Bank overpaid its 2008 REFCORP assessment as a result of the
loss recognized in fourth quarter 2008. The Bank will use its
overpayment as a credit against future REFCORP assessments (to
the extent the Bank has positive net income in the future) over
an indefinite period of time. This overpayment was recorded as a
prepaid asset by the Bank and reported as prepaid REFCORP
assessment on the Statement of Condition at
December 31, 2008 and 2009. Over time, as the Bank uses
this credit against its future REFCORP assessments, this prepaid
asset will be reduced until the prepaid asset has been
exhausted. If any amount of the prepaid asset still remains at
the time that the REFCORP obligation for the FHLBank System as a
whole is fully satisfied, REFCORP, in consultation with the
U.S. Treasury, will implement a procedure so that the Bank
would be able to collect on its remaining prepaid asset.
SEC
Reports and Corporate Governance Information
The Bank is subject to the informational requirements of the
1934 Act and, in accordance with the 1934 Act, files
annual, quarterly and current reports, as well as other
information with the SEC. The Banks SEC File Number is
000-51395.
Any document filed with the SEC may be read and copied at the
SECs Public Reference Room at 100 F Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549. Information on the operation of the
Public Reference Room can be obtained by calling the SEC at
1-800-SEC-0330.
The SEC also maintains an internet site that contains reports,
information statements and other information regarding
registrants that file electronically with the SEC, including the
Banks filings. The SECs website address is
www.sec.gov. Copies of such materials can also be
obtained at prescribed rates from the public reference section
of the SEC at 100 F Street NE, Washington, D.C.
20549.
The Bank also makes the Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
quarterly reports filed on
Form 10-Q,
current reports filed on
Form 8-K,
and amendments to those reports filed or furnished to the SEC
pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 1934 Act
available free of charge on or through its internet website as
soon as reasonably practicable after such material is filed
with, or furnished to, the SEC. The Banks internet website
address is www.fhlb-pgh.com. The Bank filed the
certifications of the President and Chief Executive Officer and
the Chief Financial Officer required pursuant to
Sections 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 with
respect to this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
as exhibits to this Report.
Information about the Banks Board and its committees and
corporate governance, as well as the Banks Code of
Conduct, is available in the governance section of the
Investor Relations link on the Banks website
at
22
www.fhlb-pgh.com. Printed copies of this
information may be requested without charge upon written request
to the Legal Department at the Bank.
There are many factors-several beyond the Banks
control-that could cause results to differ significantly from
the Banks expectations. The following discussion
summarizes some of the more important factors that should be
considered carefully in evaluating the Banks business.
This discussion is not exhaustive and there may be other factors
not described or factors, such as credit, market, operations,
business, liquidity, interest rate and other risks, changes in
regulations, and changes in accounting requirements, which are
described elsewhere in this report (see the Risk Management
discussion in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K),
which could cause results to differ materially from the
Banks expectations. However, management believes that
these risks represent the material risks relevant to the Bank,
its business and industry. Any factor described in this report
could by itself, or together with one or more other factors,
adversely affect the Banks business operations, future
results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, and,
among other outcomes, could result in the Bank continuing to not
pay dividends on its common stock or repurchase excess capital
stock.
Continued global financial market disruptions during 2009
and the long recession has sustained the uncertainty and
unpredictability the Bank faces in managing its business.
Geopolitical conditions or a natural disaster, especially one
affecting the Banks district, customers or counterparties,
could also adversely affect the Banks business, results of
operations or financial condition.
The Banks business and earnings are affected by
international, domestic and district-specific business and
economic conditions. These economic forces, which may also
affect counterparty and members business and results of
operations, include real estate values, residential mortgage
originations, short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation
and inflation expectations, unemployment levels, money supply,
fluctuations in both debt and equity markets, and the strength
of the foreign, domestic and local economies in which the Bank
operates. During the financial crisis which began in mid-2007,
global financial markets suffered significant illiquidity,
increased mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, falling real
estate values, the collapse of the secondary market for MBS,
loss of investor confidence, a highly volatile stock market and
interest rate fluctuations. These disruptions resulted in the
bankruptcy or acquisition of numerous major financial
institutions and diminished overall confidence in the financial
markets, financial institutions in particular. During 2008 and
into 2009, there were world-wide disruptions in the credit and
mortgage markets and an overall downturn in the
U.S. economy. The ongoing weakening of the
U.S. housing market and the commercial real estate market,
decline in home prices, and loss of jobs contributed to the
recent national recession, resulted in increased delinquencies
and defaults on mortgage assets and reduced the value of the
collateral securing these assets. In combination, these
circumstances could increase the possibility of
under-collateralization of the advance portfolio and the risk of
loss. Continued deterioration in the mortgage markets negatively
impacted the value of the MBS, resulting in additional OTTI to
the MBS portfolio and possible additional realized losses should
the Bank be forced to liquidate MBS. See additional discussion
in the Risk Factors entitled The Bank invests in MBS,
including significant legacy positions in private label MBS. The
MBS portfolio shares risks similar to MPF as well as risks
unique to MBS investments. The increased risks inherent with
these investments have adversely impacted the Banks
profitability and capital position and are likely to continue to
do so during 2010.
All of the factors described above have contributed to a
material increase in the risks faced by the Bank. Some of these
increased risks are reflected in the various internal risk
measurements currently used by the Bank. For example, the
Banks capital adequacy and market risk metrics of
Projected Capital Stock Price (PCSP) and actual duration of
equity have exceeded Board-approved limits due in large part to
significantly higher credit spreads on the Banks private
label MBS portfolio. In order to more effectively manage the
risk positions which are affected by these spreads, management
developed and the Board approved the usage of an Alternative
Risk Profile. Please refer to the Risk Management section for
further information regarding market risk metrics and the
Alternative Risk Profile. For additional information regarding
the Alternative Risk Profile assumptions and approach, see the
Risk Governance discussion in Risk Management in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
23
The Bank is affected by the global economy through member
ownership and investor appetite. Changes in perception regarding
the stability of the U.S. economy, the degree of government
support of financial institutions or the depletion of funds
available for investment by overseas investors could lead to
changes in foreign interest in investing in, or supporting,
U.S. financial institutions or holding FHLBank debt.
Geopolitical conditions can also affect earnings. Acts or
threats of terrorism, actions taken by the U.S. or other
governments in response to acts or threats of terrorism
and/or
military conflicts, could affect business and economic
conditions in the U.S., including both debt and equity markets.
Damage caused by acts of terrorism or natural disasters could
adversely impact the Bank or its members, leading to impairment
of assets
and/or
potential loss exposure. Real property that could be damaged in
these events may serve as collateral for loans, or security for
the mortgage loans the Bank purchases from its members and the
MBS held as investments. If this real property is not
sufficiently insured to cover the damages that may occur, there
may be insufficient collateral to secure the Banks loans
or investment securities and the Bank may be severely impaired
with respect to the value of these assets.
The Bank is also exposed to risk related to a changing interest
rate environment, especially in difficult economic times such as
the recent recession. If this risk is not properly monitored and
managed, it could affect the Banks results of operations
and financial condition. For additional details, please see the
Risk Factor entitled Fluctuating interest rates or the
Banks inability to successfully manage its interest rate
risk may adversely affect the Banks net interest income,
overall profitability and the market value of its
equity.
The Bank may fail to meet its minimum regulatory capital
requirements, or be otherwise designated by the Finance Agency
as undercapitalized, which would impact the Banks ability
to conduct business as usual, result in prohibitions
on dividends, excess capital stock repurchases and capital stock
redemptions and potentially impact the value of Bank
membership.
The Bank is required to maintain sufficient permanent capital,
defined as capital stock plus retained earnings, to meet its
combined risk-based capital (RBC) requirements. These
requirements include components for credit risk, market risk and
operational risk. Only permanent capital, defined as retained
earnings plus Class B stock, can satisfy the RBC
requirement. Each of the Banks investments carries a
credit RBC requirement that is based on the rating of the
investment. As a result, ratings downgrades on individual
investments cause an increase in the total credit RBC
requirement. Additionally, the market values on private label
MBS have a significant impact on the market RBC requirement. In
addition, the Bank is required to maintain certain regulatory
capital and leverage ratios, which it has done. Any violation of
these requirements will result in prohibitions on stock
redemptions and repurchases and dividend payments.
On August 4, 2009, the Finance Agency issued its final
Prompt Correct Action Regulation (PCA Regulation) incorporating
the terms of the Interim Final Regulation. If the Bank becomes
undercapitalized either by failing to meet its regulatory
capital requirements or by the Finance Agency exercising its
discretion to categorize an FHLBank as undercapitalized, then,
in addition to the capital stock redemption, excess capital
stock repurchase and dividend prohibitions noted above, it will
also be subject to asset growth limits. If it becomes
significantly undercapitalized, it could be subject to
additional actions such as replacement of its Board and
management, required capital stock purchase increases and
required asset divestiture. The regulatory actions applicable to
an FHLBank in a significantly undercapitalized status may also
be imposed on an FHLBank by the Finance Agency at its discretion
on an undercapitalized FHLBank. Violations could also result in
changes in the Banks member lending, investment or MPF
Program purchase activities, a change in permissible business
activities, as well as the restrictions on dividend payments and
restrictions on capital stock redemptions and repurchases. See
the Capital Resources discussion in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further information.
Continued declines in market conditions could also result in a
possible violation of regulatory
and/or
statutory capital requirements and may impact the Banks
ability to redeem capital stock at par value. This could occur
if: (1) a member were to withdraw from membership (or seek
to have its excess capital stock redeemed) at a time when the
Bank is not in compliance with its minimum capital requirements
or is deemed to be undercapitalized despite being in compliance
with its minimum capital requirements; or (2) it is
determined the Banks capital stock is or is
24
likely to be impaired as a result of losses in, or the
depreciation of, assets which may not be recoverable in future
periods. The Banks primary business is making loans to its
members, which in turn creates capital for the Bank. As members
increase borrowings, the Banks capital grows. As loan
demand declines, so does the amount of capital required to
support those balances. Ultimately, this capital would be
returned to the member. Without new borrowing activity to offset
the run-off of existing borrowings, capital levels could
eventually decline. The Bank has the ability to increase the
capital requirements on existing borrowings to boost capital
levels; however, this may deter new borrowings and reduce the
value of membership as the return on that investment may not be
as profitable to the member as other investment opportunities.
Under Finance Agency regulation, the Bank may pay dividends on
its capital stock only out of previously retained earnings or
current net income. The payment of dividends is subject to
certain statutory and regulatory restrictions (including that
the Bank is in compliance with all minimum capital requirements
and has not been designated undercapitalized by the Finance
Agency) and is highly dependent on the Banks ability to
continue to generate future net income and maintain adequate
retained earnings and capital levels. In December 2008, the Bank
announced the voluntary suspensions of dividend payments and
repurchases of excess capital stock, until further notice. In
this unprecedented environment, the Board and Bank management
are confident this was the necessary course of action as they
work to maintain sufficient levels of retained earnings.
Dividend payments are expected to be restored when the Bank
determines it is prudent to do so. Even at that point, the Bank
may decide to pay dividends significantly lower than historical
rates as the Bank builds retained earnings. Separately, payment
of dividends could also be suspended if the principal and
interest due on any consolidated obligation has not been paid in
full or if the Bank becomes unable to comply with regulatory
capital or liquidity requirements or satisfy its current
obligations. See additional discussion regarding the Banks
initiative to build retained earnings in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
As a result of the significant decline in excess permanent
capital over required RBC capital in 2008, as well as the
decline in retained earnings due to OTTI charges recorded in
fourth quarter 2008, the Bank submitted a capital stabilization
plan (CSP) to the Finance Agency for review and approval; the
Finance Agencys review is pending. As a result of the
suspension of excess capital stock repurchases, the amount of
excess permanent capital increased during 2009. The Bank was in
compliance with all of its capital requirements at
December 31, 2009.
The Bank may be limited in its ability to access the
capital markets, which could adversely affect the Banks
liquidity. In addition, if the Banks ability to access the
long-term debt markets would be limited, this may have a
material adverse effect on its liquidity, results of operations
and financial condition, as well as its ability to fund
operations, including advances.
The Banks ability to operate its business, meet its
obligations and generate net interest income depends primarily
on the ability to issue large amounts of debt frequently, with a
variety of maturities and call features and at attractive rates.
The Bank actively manages its liquidity position to maintain
stable, reliable, and cost-effective sources of funds, while
taking into account market conditions, member credit demand for
short-and long-term loans, investment opportunities and the
maturity profile of the Banks assets and liabilities. The
Bank recognizes that managing liquidity is critical to achieving
its statutory mission of providing low-cost funding to its
members. In managing liquidity risk, the Bank is required to
maintain a level of liquidity in accordance with policies
established by management and the Board and Finance Agency
guidance to target as many as 15 days of liquidity,
depending on the scenario. See the Liquidity and Funding
Risk discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information on the Finance Agency guidance.
In early July 2008, market concerns about the outlook for the
net supply of GSE debt over the short-term, as well as concerns
regarding any investments linked to the U.S. housing
market, adversely affected the Banks access to the
unsecured debt markets, particularly for long-term or callable
debt. These concerns abated somewhat during 2009, resulting in
an increase in availability of term FHLBank debt during the
year. The ability to obtain funds through the sale of
consolidated obligations depends in part on prevailing
conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are beyond
the Banks control. Accordingly, the Bank cannot make any
assurance that it will be able to obtain funding on acceptable
terms, if at all. If the Bank cannot access funding when needed,
its ability to support
25
and continue its operations, including providing term funding to
members, would be adversely affected, which would negatively
affect its financial condition and results of operations.
The U.S. Treasury has the authority to prescribe the form,
denomination, maturity, interest rate and conditions of
consolidated obligations issued by the FHLBanks. The
U.S. Treasury can, at any time, impose either limits or
changes in the manner in which the FHLBanks may access the
capital markets. Certain of these changes could require the Bank
to hold additional liquidity, which could adversely impact the
type, amount and profitability of various loan products the Bank
could make available to its members.
During 2008 and into 2009, there were several actions taken by
the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC that
were intended to stimulate the economy and reverse the
illiquidity in the credit and housing markets. These included
establishment of the Government-Sponsored Enterprise Credit
Facility (GSECF), the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the
Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP), and the Term
Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). The TLGP had
initially been set to expire on June 30, 2009; however, the
guarantee under the program was extended until October 31,
2009 in exchange for an additional premium for the guarantee.
The Bank did not borrow under the lending agreement established
under the GSECF. TARP funds were not available to the Bank. In
addition, the Bank, as well as the other FHLBanks, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, have all experienced a deterioration in debt
pricing as investor capital and dealer focus has been redirected
towards those securities offered under the TLGP, which carry an
explicit guarantee of the U.S. government.
As a result of these government actions, the Bank initially
experienced an increase in funding costs relative to long-term
debt, reflecting both investor reluctance to purchase
longer-term obligations and investor demand for high-quality,
shorter-term assets. The Banks composition of its
consolidated obligations portfolio was heavily concentrated in
discount notes and shorter-term bonds, which meant a large
portion of the Banks debt matured within one year. As
investor reluctance regarding purchasing longer-term obligations
of GSEs, as well as concerns regarding any mortgage
market-related investments, continued, the debt issuance and
related pricing of the Bank debt was adversely affected.
Beginning in August 2009, conditions improved and the Bank began
to regain some access to the term debt markets. However, the
Banks consolidated obligations portfolio is still
primarily comprised of discount notes and shorter-term bonds.
This short-funding strategy could expose the Bank to interest
rate risk as the Bank may need to replace the shorter-maturity
debt at a potentially higher price.
An inability to issue both short- and long-term debt at
attractive rates and in amounts sufficient to operate its
business and meet its obligations would have a material adverse
effect on the Banks liquidity, results of operations and
financial condition.
The Bank invests in MBS. The MBS portfolio shares risks
similar to the MPF Program as well as risks unique to MBS
investments. The increased risks inherent with these investments
have adversely impacted the Banks profitability and
capital position and are likely to continue to do so during
2010.
The Bank invests in MBS, including Agency and private label MBS.
The private label category of these investments carries a
significant amount of risk, relative to other investments within
the Banks portfolio. The MBS portfolio accounted for 13.8%
of the Banks total assets and 27.9% of the Banks
total interest income at December 31, 2009.
MBS are backed by residential mortgage loans, the properties of
which are geographically diverse, but may include exposure in
some areas that have experienced rapidly declining property
values. The MBS portfolio is also subject to interest rate risk,
prepayment risk, operational risk, servicer risk and originator
risk, all of which can have a negative impact on the underlying
collateral of the MBS investments. The rate and timing of
unscheduled payments and collections of principal on mortgage
loans serving as collateral for these securities are difficult
to predict and can be affected by a variety of factors,
including the level of prevailing interest rates, restrictions
on voluntary prepayments contained in the mortgage loans, the
availability of lender credit, loan modifications and other
economic, demographic, geographic, tax and legal factors.
The Bank holds investments in private label MBS which, at the
time of purchase, were in senior tranches with the highest
long-term debt rating. However, many of those securities have
subsequently been downgraded, in some cases below investment
grade. See details of this activity in the Credit and
Counterparty Risk-Investments section of Risk Management
in Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
26
Form 10-K.
Throughout 2008 and into 2009, all types of private label MBS
experienced increased delinquencies and loss severities. This
trend accelerated during the third quarter of 2009; however,
loss severities stabilized somewhat in the fourth quarter. If
delinquencies
and/or
default rates on mortgages increase,
and/or there
is an additional decline in residential real estate values, the
Bank could experience reduced yields or additional OTTI credit
and noncredit losses on its private label MBS portfolio. During
2009, the U.S. housing market continued to experience
significant adverse trends, including accelerating price
depreciation in some markets and rising delinquency and default
rates. If delinquency
and/or loss
rates on mortgages
and/or home
equity loans continue to increase in 2010,
and/or a
rapid decline or a continuing decline in residential real estate
values continues, the Bank could experience additional material
credit-related OTTI losses on its investment securities, which
would negatively affect the Banks financial condition,
results of operations and its capital position.
Through December 31, 2009, the Bank recognized
$228.5 million in full year credit-related OTTI charges in
earnings related to private label MBS, after the Bank determined
that it was likely that it would not recover the entire
amortized cost of each of these securities. The credit loss
realized on the Banks private label MBS is equal to the
difference between the amortized cost basis (pre-OTTI charge)
and the present value of the estimated cash flows the Bank
expects to realize on the private label MBS over their life. As
of December 31, 2009, the Bank did not intend to sell and
it is not more likely than not that the Bank will be required to
sell any OTTI securities before anticipated recovery of their
amortized cost basis. The Bank has not recorded significant OTTI
on any other type of security (i.e., U.S. agency MBS or
non-MBS securities). See the Credit and Counterparty
Risk
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis and Note 8 to the
audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for discussion regarding OTTI analysis and conclusions.
The Bank has insurance on its home equity lines of credit
(HELOC) investments. However, the current weakened financial
condition of these insurers increases the risk that these
counterparties will fail. Therefore, they may be unable to
reimburse the Bank for claims under insurance policies on
certain securities within the Banks private label MBS
portfolio. As of year-end 2009, a trustee had to make claims on
one of the insured HELOC bonds and the payments were made by the
insurer. As delinquencies increase and credit enhancement
provided by a securitys subordination structure is eroded,
the likelihood that claims on these insurance policies will be
made increases. The Bank has estimated that not all insurance
providers on the HELOCs will make their contractual payments, so
the Bank has recorded OTTI on these securities.
As discussed below, legislation allowing for bankruptcy
modifications (referred to as cramdown legislation) on mortgages
of owner-occupied homes had been passed by the House but was
defeated in the Senate; however, similar legislation may be
re-introduced during 2010. With this potential change in the
law, the risk of losses on mortgages due to borrower bankruptcy
filings could become material. The previously proposed
legislation permitted a bankruptcy judge, in specified
circumstances, to reduce the mortgage amount to todays
market value of the property, reduce the interest paid by the
debtor,
and/or
extend the repayment period. In the event this legislation would
again be proposed, passed and applied to existing mortgage debt
(including residential MBS), the Bank could face increased risk
of credit losses on its private label MBS that include
bankruptcy carve-out provisions and allocation of bankruptcy
losses over a specified dollar amount on a pro-rata basis across
all classes of a security. The effect on the Bank will depend on
the actual version of the legislation that is passed, related
rating agency actions, and whether mortgages held by the Bank,
either within the MPF Program or as collateral for MBS held by
the Bank, are subject to bankruptcy proceedings under the new
legislation. As of December 31, 2009, the Bank had 69
private label MBS with a par value of $3.8 billion that
include bankruptcy carve-out language which could be affected by
cramdown legislation.
On May 20, 2009, Congress enacted loan modification
legislation. The legislation provides that if a servicer of
residential mortgages agrees to enter into a residential loan
modification, workout, or other loss mitigation plan with
respect to a residential mortgage originated before the date of
enactment of the legislation, including mortgages held in a
securitization or other investment vehicle, to the extent that
the servicer owes a duty to investors or other parties to
maximize the net present value of such mortgages, the servicer
is deemed to have satisfied that duty, and will not be liable to
those investors or other parties, if certain criteria are met.
Those criteria include the following: (1) default on the
mortgage has occurred, is imminent, or is reasonably
foreseeable; (2) the mortgagor occupies the property
securing the mortgage as his or her principal residence; and
(3) the servicer reasonably
27
determined that the application of the loss mitigation plan to
the mortgage will likely provide an anticipated recovery on the
outstanding principal mortgage debt that will exceed the
anticipated recovery through foreclosure. There are other
ongoing discussions of legislative and regulatory changes to
increase mortgage loan modifications to help borrowers avoid
foreclosure and some of these proposals include principal
writedowns. At this time, the Bank is unable to predict what
impact this legislation may have on the ultimate recoverability
of the private label MBS investment portfolio; however,
modifications may result in reductions in the value of the
Banks private label MBS portfolio and increases in credit
and noncredit losses the Bank incurs on such securities.
In February 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac announced that they
intend to purchase seriously delinquent loans, defined as loans
120 days or more delinquent, out of collateral pools
backing the MBS they have issued. While details of the purchase
programs are not fully known, loans purchased by Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac at par value from the collateral pools supporting
the MBS that were purchased by the Bank at a premium would
result in an acceleration of premium amortization on the MBS.
Accordingly, the principal of these securities would be paid
down more quickly than anticipated, and the Banks net
interest income from these investments would be reduced.
In addition, the purchase of seriously delinquent loans by
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would result in significant levels of
principal received by investors in a short period of time,
resulting in an increase in market liquidity. This may, in turn,
serve to limit the Banks opportunities to reinvest these
prepayments profitably as other investors would be seeking to
re-deploy these prepayments simultaneously. This could elevate
purchase prices and reduce effective yields on the new
investments.
Additionally, if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac access the capital
markets to fund these prepayments, the Banks own funding
costs may be adversely impacted. The funding costs for Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBanks traditionally track each other
closely. Therefore, any material increase in access to the
capital markets could result in higher funding costs realized by
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBanks as well.
The Banks financial condition or results of
operations may be adversely affected if MBS servicers fail to
perform their obligations to service mortgage loans as
collateral for MBS.
MBS servicers have a significant role in servicing the mortgage
loans that serve as collateral for the Banks MBS
portfolio, including playing an active role in loss mitigation
efforts and making servicer advances. The Banks credit
risk exposure to the servicer counterparties includes the risk
that they will not perform their obligation to service these
mortgage loans, which could adversely affect the Banks
financial condition or results of operations. The risk of such a
failure has increased as deteriorating market conditions have
affected the liquidity and financial condition of some of the
larger servicers. These risks could result in losses
significantly higher than currently anticipated. In addition,
the Bank is also exposed to the risk that a bank used by the
servicer could be seized by the FDIC, which may result in
additional complications with respect to the Bank collecting
payments on its securities. The Bank is the owner of an MBS bond
issued and serviced by Taylor Bean & Whitaker (TBW),
which had a par balance of $52.3 million as of
December 31, 2009. TBW filed for bankruptcy on
August 24, 2009. TBW utilized Colonial Bank as its primary
bank. Colonial Bank went into FDIC receivership on
August 13, 2009. See further discussion regarding these
bonds in the Investment Securities discussion in the
Financial Condition section in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Bank is subject to credit risk due to default,
including failure or ongoing instability of any of the
Banks member, derivative, money market or other
counterparties, which could adversely affect its profitability
or financial condition.
Due to recent market events, some of the Banks members (or
their affiliates), as well as derivative, money market and other
counterparties, have experienced various degrees of financial
distress, including liquidity constraints, credit downgrades or
bankruptcy. The instability of the financial markets during 2009
resulted in many financial institutions becoming significantly
less creditworthy, exposing the Bank to increased member and
counterparty risk and risk of default. Changes in market
perception of the financial strength of various financial
institutions can occur very rapidly and can be difficult to
predict. Over the past year, in a departure from historical
experience, the pace at which financial institutions (including
FDIC-insured institutions) have moved from having some financial
difficulties to failure has increased dramatically.
Consequently, the Bank faces an increased risk that a
counterparty or member failure will result in a financial loss
to the Bank.
28
The Bank faces credit risk on advances, mortgage loans,
investment securities, derivatives, certificates of deposit,
commercial paper and other financial instruments. The Bank
protects against credit risk on advances through credit
underwriting standards and collateralization. In addition, under
certain circumstances the Bank has the right to obtain
additional or substitute collateral during the life of a loan to
protect its security interest. The Act defines eligible
collateral as certain investment securities, residential
mortgage loans, deposits with the Bank, and other real estate
related assets. All capital stock of the Bank owned by the
borrower is also available as supplemental collateral. Effective
February 2010, the Bank was also authorized to approve CDFIs for
membership and lend to CDFI members. In addition, members that
qualify as CFIs may pledge secured small-business, small-farm,
and small-agribusiness loans as collateral for loans. The Bank
is also allowed to make loans to nonmember housing associates
and requires them to deliver adequate collateral.
The types of collateral pledged by members are evaluated and
assigned a borrowing capacity, generally based on a percentage
of its value. This value can either be based on book value or
market value, depending on the nature and form of the collateral
being pledged. The volatility of market prices and interest
rates could affect the value of the collateral held by the Bank
as security for the obligations of Bank members as well as the
ability of the Bank to liquidate the collateral in the event of
a default by the obligor. Volatility within collateral indices
may affect the method used in determining collateral weightings,
which would ultimately affect the eventual collateral value. On
advances, the Banks policies require the Bank to be
over-collateralized. In addition, all advances are current and
no loss has ever been incurred in the portfolio. Based on these
factors, no allowance for credit losses on advances is required.
The Bank has policies and procedures in place to manage the
collateral positions; these are subject to ongoing review,
evaluation and enhancements as necessary.
In 2009, 140 FDIC-insured institutions have failed across the
country. The financial services industry has experienced an
increase in both the number of financial institution failures
and the number of mergers and consolidations. If member
institution failures and mergers or consolidations occur
affecting the Banks district, particularly
out-of-district
acquirers, this activity may reduce the number of current and
potential members in the Banks district. The resulting
loss of business could negatively impact the Banks
financial condition and results of operations, as well as the
Banks operations in general. Additionally, if Bank members
fail and the FDIC or the member (or another applicable entity)
does not either (1) promptly repay all of the failed
institutions obligations to the Bank or (2) assume
the outstanding advances, the Bank may be required to liquidate
the collateral pledged by the failed institution in order to
satisfy its obligations to the Bank. If that were the case, the
proceeds realized from the liquidation of pledged collateral may
not be sufficient to fully satisfy the amount of the failed
institutions obligations and the operational cost of
liquidating the collateral.
The Bank follows guidelines established by its Board on
unsecured extensions of credit which limit the amounts and terms
of unsecured credit exposure to highly rated counterparties, the
U.S. Government and other FHLBanks. The Banks primary
unsecured credit exposure includes Federal funds and money
market exposure as well as the unsecured portion of any
derivative transaction. Unsecured credit exposure to any
counterparty is limited by the credit quality and capital level
of the counterparty and by the capital level of the Bank.
Nevertheless, the insolvency or other inability of a significant
counterparty to perform its obligations under such transactions
or other agreement could cause the Bank to incur losses and have
an adverse effect on the Banks financial condition and
results of operations.
In addition, the Banks ability to engage in routine
derivatives, funding and other transactions could be adversely
affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other
financial institutions. Financial institutions are interrelated
as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other
relationships. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or
questions about, one or more financial services institutions, or
the financial services industry generally, could lead to
market-wide disruptions in which it may be difficult for the
Bank to find counterparties for such transactions.
Due to the ongoing financial market stress, to the extent the
number of high quality counterparties available for hedging
transactions decreases, the Bank may face reduced, or limited,
ability to enter into hedging transactions. As a result, the
Bank may not be able to effectively manage interest rate risk,
which could negatively affect its results of operations and
financial condition. In addition, the Bank may be limited in the
number of counterparties available
29
with which it can conduct business with respect to money market
investments, liquidity positions and other business
transactions. It may also affect the Banks credit risk
position and the loan products the Bank can offer to members.
For additional discussion regarding the Banks credit and
counterparty risk, see the Credit and Counterparty
Risk discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
See discussion in Current Financial and Mortgage Market
Events and Trends in the Earnings Performance section of
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis regarding
the impact of the Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc. (Lehman)
bankruptcy filing.
The Bank is subject to legislative and regulatory actions,
including a complex body of regulations, including Finance
Agency regulations, which may be amended in a manner that may
affect the Banks business, operations and/or financial
condition and members investment in the Bank.
On December 11, 2009, the House passed the Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Reform Act), which, if
passed by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by the
president, would, among other things: (1) create a consumer
financial protection agency; (2) create an inter-agency
oversight council that will identify and regulate systemically
important financial institutions; (3) regulate the
over-the-counter
derivatives market; (4) reform the credit rating agencies;
(5) provide shareholders with an advisory vote on the
compensation practices of the entity in which they invest
including for executive compensation and golden parachutes; and
(6) create a Federal insurance office that will monitor the
insurance industry. Depending on whether the Reform Act, or
similar legislation, is signed into law and on the final content
of any such legislation, the Banks business, operations,
funding costs, rights, obligations,
and/or the
manner in which the Bank carries out its housing-finance mission
may be impacted. For example, regulations on the
over-the-counter
derivatives market that may be issued under the Reform Act could
adversely impact the Banks ability to hedge its
interest-rate risk exposure from advances, achieve the
Banks risk management objectives, and act as an
intermediary between its members and counterparties. However,
the Bank cannot predict whether any such legislation will be
enacted and what the content of any such legislation or
regulations issued under any such legislation would be and so
cannot predict what impact the Reform Act or similar legislation
may have on the Bank.
Since enactment in 1932, the Act has been amended many times in
ways that have significantly affected the rights and obligations
of the FHLBanks and the manner in which they fulfill their
housing finance mission. Future legislative changes to the Act
may significantly affect the Banks business, results of
operations and financial condition.
In July 2008, the Housing Act was enacted. One significant
provision of the Housing Act was to create a newly established
Federal agency regulator, the Finance Agency, to become the
regulator of the FHLBanks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The
Housing Act was intended to, among other things, address the
housing finance crisis, expand the Federal Housing
Administrations financing authority and address GSE reform
issues.
In addition to legislation described above, the FHLBanks are
also governed by Federal laws and regulations as adopted by
Congress and applied by the Finance Agency, an independent
agency in the executive branch of the Federal government. The
Finance Agencys extensive statutory and regulatory
authority over the FHLBanks includes, without limitation, the
authority to liquidate, merge or consolidate FHLBanks,
redistrict
and/or
adjust equities among the FHLBanks. The Bank cannot predict if
or how the Finance Agency could exercise such authority in
regard to any FHLBank or the potential impact of such action on
members investment in the Bank. The Finance Agency also
has authority over the scope of permissible FHLBank products and
activities, including the authority to impose limits on those
products and activities. The Finance Agency supervises the Bank
and establishes the regulations governing the Bank. On
February 8, 2010, the Finance Agency issued a proposed
regulation to establish the terms under which it could impose
additional temporary minimum capital requirements on an FHLBank.
See Legislative and Regulatory Developments in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis for additional
information. In August 2009, the Finance Agency issued the PCA
Regulation, which incorporated the Interim Final Regulation
regarding Capital Levels for FHLBanks previously issued in
January 2009. For additional discussion, see the Risk Factor
entitled The Bank may fail to meet its minimum
regulatory capital requirements, or be otherwise designated by
the Finance Agency as undercapitalized, which would impact the
Banks ability to conduct business as usual,
result in prohibitions on dividends, excess capital stock
repurchases and capital stock redemptions and potentially impact
the value of Bank membership.
30
In September 2008, the Federal Reserve announced it would begin
purchasing short-term debt obligations issued by Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac and the FHLBanks. In November 2008, the Federal
Reserve announced it would begin purchasing term debt
obligations of FHLBanks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as
MBS guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae. This
total program, initiated to drive mortgage rates lower, make
housing more affordable, and help stabilize home prices, may
lead to continued artificially low agency-mortgage pricing.
Comparative MPF Program price execution, which is a function of
the FHLBank debt issuance costs, may not be competitive as a
result. This trend could continue and member demand for MPF
Program products could diminish.
The TARP was established in October 2008, providing the
U.S. Treasury the authority to purchase up to
$700 billion of assets, including mortgage-related assets,
from financial institutions. The U.S. Treasury, through its
TARP capital purchase program, has made and continues to make
capital stock investments in U.S. financial institutions.
On February 27, 2009, the FDIC approved a final regulation
imposing an increased deposit insurance premium assessment on
FDIC-insured institutions that have outstanding advances and
other secured liabilities greater than 25 percent of their
domestic deposits. At that time, the FDIC also approved
revisions to the TLGP program to provide an FDIC guarantee for
convertible term debt. The Bank continues to monitor the
FDICs actions and the impact on investor demand for Bank
funding, as well as the impact on the Banks members.
The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 substantially eliminated the
risk of bankruptcy mortgage modifications, also known as
cramdowns, on mortgages secured solely by the debtors
principal residence. While this legislation is still in effect,
there has been new legislation allowing for bankruptcy
modifications (referred to as cramdown legislation) on mortgages
of owner-occupied homes.
On May 20, 2009, the Helping Families Save Their Home Act
of 2009 was enacted to encourage loan modifications in order to
prevent mortgage foreclosures and to support the Federal deposit
insurance system.
The Bank cannot predict whether new regulations will be
promulgated or the effect of any new regulations on the
Banks operations. Changes in Finance Agency regulations
and Finance Agency regulatory actions could result in, among
other things, changes in the Banks capital requirements,
an increase in the Banks cost of funding, a change in
permissible business activities, a decrease in the size, scope,
or nature of the Banks lending, investment or mortgage
purchase program activities, or a decrease in demand for the
Banks products and services, which could negatively affect
its financial condition and results of operations and
members investment in the Bank.
See additional discussion regarding cramdown legislation and
loan modifications in the Risk Factor entitled The Bank
invests in MBS, including significant legacy positions in
private label MBS. The MBS portfolio shares risks similar to the
MPF Program as well as risks unique to MBS investments. The
increased risks inherent with these investments have adversely
impacted the Banks profitability and capital position and
are likely to continue to do so during 2010.
The Bank is jointly and severally liable for the
consolidated obligations of other FHLBanks. Additionally, the
Bank may receive from or provide financial assistance to the
other FHLBanks.
Each of the FHLBanks relies upon the issuance of consolidated
obligations as a primary source of funds. Consolidated
obligations are the joint and several obligations of all of the
FHLBanks, backed only by the financial resources of the
FHLBanks. Accordingly, the Bank is jointly and severally liable
with the other FHLBanks for all consolidated obligations issued,
regardless of whether the Bank receives all or any portion of
the proceeds from any particular issuance of consolidated
obligations. As of December 31, 2009, out of a total of
$930.6 billion in par value of consolidated obligations
outstanding, the Bank was the primary obligor on
$59.0 billion, or approximately 6.3% of the total.
In addition to its extensive and broad authority in regard to
the FHLBanks as noted above, the Finance Agency in its
discretion may also require any FHLBank to make principal or
interest payments due on any consolidated obligation, whether or
not the primary obligor FHLBank has defaulted on the payment of
that obligation. Accordingly, the Bank could incur significant
liability beyond its primary obligation under consolidated
obligations which could negatively affect the Banks
financial condition and results of operations. The Bank
31
records a liability for consolidated obligations on its
Statement of Condition equal to the proceeds it receives from
the issuance of those consolidated obligations. The Bank does
not recognize a liability for its joint and several obligations
related to consolidated obligations issued by other FHLBanks
because the Bank considers the obligation a related party
guarantee. See Risk Management in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Note 16 to the audited financial statements
in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further information. See the Risk Factor entitled
Changes in the Banks, other FHLBanks or
other GSEs credit ratings may adversely affect the
Banks ability to issue consolidated obligations and enter
into derivative transactions on acceptable terms. for
details regarding the most recent Moodys and S&P
ratings for the FHLBank System and each of the FHLBanks within
the System.
The Bank or any other FHLBank may be required to, or may
voluntarily decide to, provide financial assistance to one or
more other FHLBanks. The Bank could be in the position of either
receiving or providing such financial assistance, which could
have a material effect on the Banks financial condition
and the members investment in the Bank.
Changes in the Banks, other FHLBanks or other
GSEs credit ratings may adversely affect the Banks
ability to issue consolidated obligations and enter into
derivative transactions on acceptable terms.
FHLBank System consolidated obligations have been assigned
Aaa/P-1 and
AAA/A-1+
ratings by Moodys and S&P. These are the highest
ratings available for such debt from an NRSRO. These ratings
indicate that the FHLBanks have an extremely strong capacity to
meet their commitments to pay principal of and interest on
consolidated obligations and that the consolidated obligations
are judged to be of the highest quality with minimal credit
risk. The ratings also reflect the FHLBanks status as
GSEs. The Banks latest stand-alone ratings by Moodys
and S&P are
Aaa/P-1/Stable
and AAA/Stable
/A-1+
respectively. Items such as future OTTI charges or reserves on
advances the Bank may be required to record could result in a
lowering of the Banks stand-alone ratings. This could
adversely affect the Banks ability to issue debt, enter
into derivative contracts on acceptable terms and issue standby
letters of credit. This could have a negative impact on the
Banks financial condition and results of operations.
It is possible that the credit rating of an FHLBank or another
GSE could be lowered at some point in the future, which might
adversely affect the Banks costs of doing business,
including the cost of issuing debt and entering into derivative
transactions. The Banks costs of doing business and
ability to attract and retain members could also be adversely
affected if the credit ratings of one or more other FHLBanks are
lowered, or if other FHLBanks incur significant losses.
Although the credit ratings of the consolidated obligations of
the FHLBanks have not been affected by actions taken in prior
years, similar ratings actions or negative guidance may
adversely affect the Banks cost of funds and ability to
issue consolidated obligations and enter into derivative
transactions on acceptable terms, which could negatively affect
financial condition and results of operations. The Banks
costs of doing business and ability to attract and retain
members could also be adversely affected if the credit ratings
assigned to the consolidated obligations were lowered from AAA.
32
The following table presents the Moodys and S&P
ratings for the FHLBank System and each of the FHLBanks within
the System as of March 15, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moodys Investor Service
|
|
Standard & Poors
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation discount notes
|
|
|
P-1
|
|
|
|
A-1+
|
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
|
Aaa
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S&P Senior Unsecured
|
|
|
|
Moodys Senior Unsecured Long-
|
|
|
Long-Term Debt
|
|
FHLBank
|
|
Term Debt Rating/Outlook
|
|
|
Rating/Outlook
|
|
|
|
Atlanta
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Boston
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AA+/Stable
|
|
Cincinnati
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Dallas
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Des Moines
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Indianapolis
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
New York
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Pittsburgh
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
San Francisco
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
Seattle
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AA+/Stable
|
|
Topeka
|
|
|
Aaa/Stable
|
|
|
|
AAA/Stable
|
|
|
|
Fluctuating interest rates or the Banks inability to
successfully manage its interest rate risk may adversely affect
the Banks net interest income, overall profitability and
the market value of its equity.
Like many financial institutions, the Bank realizes income
primarily from the spread between interest earned on loans and
investment securities and interest paid on debt and other
liabilities, as measured by net interest income. The Banks
financial performance is affected by fiscal and monetary
policies of the Federal government and its agencies and in
particular by the policies of the Federal Reserve. The Federal
Reserves policies, which are difficult to predict,
directly and indirectly influence the yield on the Banks
interest-earning assets and the cost of interest-bearing
liabilities. Although the Bank uses various methods and
procedures to monitor and manage exposures due to changes in
interest rates, the Bank may experience instances when its
interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes
in interest rates than its interest-earning assets, when the
timing of the re-pricing of interest-bearing liabilities does
not coincide with the timing of re-pricing of interest-earning
assets, or when the timing of the maturity or paydown of
interest-bearing liabilities does not coincide with the timing
of the maturity or paydown of the interest-earning assets.
Fluctuations in interest rates affect profitability in several
ways, including but not limited to the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Increases in interest rates may reduce overall demand for loans
and mortgages, thereby reducing the ability to originate new
loans, the availability of mortgage loans to purchase and the
volume of MBS acquired by the Bank, which could have a material
adverse effect on the Banks business, financial condition
and profitability, and may increase the cost of funds;
|
|
|
Decreases in interest rates may cause mortgage prepayments to
increase and may result in increased premium amortization
expense and substandard performance in the Banks mortgage
portfolio as the Bank experiences a return of principal that it
must re-invest in a lower rate environment, adversely affecting
net interest income over time. While these prepayments would
reduce the asset balance, the associated debt may remain
outstanding (i.e., debt overhang);
|
|
|
Decreases (increases) in short-term interest rates reduce
(increase) the return the Bank receives on its interest-free
funds. This liquidity is invested in short-term or overnight
investments, such as Federal funds sold, resulting in lower
profitability for the Bank in a low rate environment;
|
|
|
As a consequence of the recent economic recession, decreases in
interest rates also reflect a significant decline in economic
activity. This results in a weakening of the underlying credit
of the collateral
|
33
|
|
|
|
|
supporting the Banks advances portfolio and its private
label MBS portfolio, increasing the potential for the Bank to
experience a credit loss; and
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increases or decreases in spreads on advances, mortgage loans
and both short- and long-term debt issuances may have an effect
on the Banks interest rate risk profile.
|
The Banks ability to anticipate changes regarding the
direction and speed of interest rate changes, or to hedge the
related exposures, significantly affect the success of the asset
and liability management activities and the level of net
interest income.
The Bank uses derivative instruments to attempt to reduce
interest rate risk. In prior years, some of the Banks
derivatives and hedging strategies were deemed ineligible for
hedge accounting treatment under derivative accounting guidance
and resulted in significant one-sided fair value adjustments
which were reflected in the Statement of Operations in those
periods. More recently, the Bank has implemented strategies
which have reduced the amount of one-sided fair value
adjustments and the resulting impact to the Statement of
Operations. However, market movements and volatility affecting
the valuation of instruments in hedging relationships can cause
income volatility in the form of hedge ineffectiveness. Should
the use of derivatives be further limited, with that activity
being replaced with a higher volume of debt funding, the Bank
may still experience income volatility driven by the market and
interest rate sensitivities.
In addition, the Banks profitability and the market value
of its equity, as well as its liquidity and financial condition,
are significantly affected by its ability to manage interest
rate risks. The Bank uses a number of measures and analyses to
monitor and manage interest rate risk. Given the
unpredictability of the financial markets, capturing all
potential outcomes in these analyses is not practical. Key
assumptions include, but are not limited to, loan volumes and
pricing, market conditions for the Banks consolidated
obligations, interest rate spreads and prepayment speeds and
cash flows on mortgage-related assets. These assumptions are
inherently uncertain and, as a result, the measures cannot
precisely estimate net interest income or the market value of
equity nor can they precisely predict the impact of higher or
lower interest rates on net interest income or the market value
of equity. Actual results will differ from simulated results due
to the timing, magnitude, and frequency of interest rate changes
and changes in market conditions and management strategies,
among other factors. See additional discussion in Risk
Management in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
In December 2008, the Bank implemented changes to its dividend
and retained earnings practices, including suspension of excess
capital stock repurchases and dividend payments until further
notice. These voluntary actions are discussed in more detail in
Capital Resources in Item 7. Managements Discussion
and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
as well as in the Banks report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on December 23, 2008. The Bank continues
to monitor its position and evaluate its policies.
The loss of significant Bank members or borrowers may have
a negative impact on the Banks loans and capital stock
outstanding and could result in lower demand for its products
and services, lower dividends paid to members and higher
borrowing costs for remaining members, all which may affect the
Banks profitability and financial condition.
One or more significant Bank members or borrowers could be
merged into nonmembers, withdraw their membership or decrease
their business levels with the Bank, which could lead to a
significant decrease in the Banks total assets. Membership
withdrawal may be due to a move to another FHLBank district or
concern regarding a credit loss on the investment in the Bank.
Additionally, there are instances when acquired banks are merged
into banks chartered outside the Banks district or when a
member is consolidated with an institution within the
Banks district that is not one of the Banks members.
Under the Act and the Finance Agencys current rules, the
Bank can generally do business only with member institutions
that have charters in its district. If member institutions are
acquired by institutions outside the Banks district and
the acquiring institution decides not to maintain membership by
dissolving charters, the Bank may be adversely affected,
resulting in lower demand for products and services and
ultimately requiring the redemption of related capital stock. At
December 31, 2009, the Banks five largest customers,
Sovereign Bank, Ally Bank, PNC Bank, ING Bank and Citizens Bank
of Pennsylvania accounted for 63.9% of its total advances
outstanding and owned 54.7% of its outstanding capital stock. Of
these members, Sovereign Bank, Ally Bank and PNC Bank each had
outstanding loan balances in excess of ten percent of the total
portfolio. If any of these members paid off their outstanding
loans or withdrew from membership, the Bank could
34
experience a material adverse effect on its outstanding loan
levels and a decrease in demand for its products and services,
all of which would impact the Banks financial condition
and results of operations.
In the event the Bank would lose one or more large borrowers
that represent a significant proportion of its business, the
Bank could, depending on the magnitude of the impact, compensate
for the loss by continuing to suspend, or otherwise restrict,
dividend payments and repurchases of excess capital stock,
raising loan rates, attempting to reduce operating expenses
(which could cause a reduction in service levels or products
offered) or by undertaking some combination of these actions.
The magnitude of the impact would depend, in part, on the
Banks size and profitability at the time the financial
institution ceases to be a borrower.
See further discussion in the Credit and Counterparty
Risk Loan Concentration Risk section of Risk
Management in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis and Note 9 to the audited financial statements in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Bank faces competition for loans, mortgage loan
purchases and access to funding, which could negatively impact
earnings.
The Banks primary business is making loans to its members.
The Bank competes with other suppliers of wholesale funding,
both secured and unsecured, including commercial banks and their
investment banking divisions, the FRBs, the FDIC, and, in some
circumstances, other FHLBanks. Members have access to
alternative funding sources, which may offer more favorable
terms than the Bank offers on its loans, including more flexible
credit or collateral standards. In addition, many of the
Banks competitors are not subject to the same body of
regulations applicable to the Bank, which enables those
competitors to offer products and terms that the Bank is not
able to offer. In 2009, the Bank experienced a decline in its
advances portfolio. This decline was driven by: (1) the
impact of members access to additional liquidity from
government programs; (2) an increase in members core
deposits and reduction in the size of their balance sheets;
(3) members reactions to the Banks pricing of
short-term advances products; (4) members limiting use of
Bank products in reaction to the Banks temporary actions
of not paying dividends and not repurchasing excess capital
stock; and (5) a decrease in members need for funding
from the Bank due to the recession.
The availability of alternative funding sources that are more
attractive than those funding products offered by the Bank may
significantly decrease the demand for loans. Any changes made by
the Bank in the pricing of its loans in an effort to compete
effectively with these competitive funding sources may decrease
loan profitability. A decrease in loan demand or a decrease in
the Banks profitability on loans could negatively affect
its financial condition and results of operations.
In connection with the MPF Program, the Bank is subject to
competition regarding the purchase of conventional, conforming
fixed-rate mortgage loans. In this regard, the Bank faces
competition in the areas of customer service, purchase prices
for the MPF loans and ancillary services such as automated
underwriting. The Banks strongest competitors are large
mortgage companies and the other housing GSEs, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac. The Bank may also compete with other FHLBanks with
which members have a relationship through affiliates. Most of
the FHLBanks participate in the MPF Program or a similar program
known as the Mortgage Purchase Program. Competition among
FHLBanks for MPF business may be affected by the requirement
that a member and its affiliates can sell loans into the MPF
Program through only one FHLBank relationship at a time, as well
as each FHLBanks capital stock requirement for MPF
exposure. Some of these mortgage loan competitors have greater
resources, larger volumes of business, longer operating
histories and more product offerings. In addition, because the
volume of conventional, conforming fixed-rate mortgages
fluctuates depending on the level of interest rates, the demand
for MPF Program products could diminish. Increased competition
can result in a reduction in the amount of mortgage loans the
Bank is able to purchase and consequently lower net income.
The Finance Agency does not currently permit multidistrict
membership; however, a decision by the Finance Agency to permit
such membership could significantly affect the Banks
ability to make loans and purchase mortgage loans.
The FHLBanks also compete with the U.S. Treasury, Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, and other GSEs, as well as corporate,
sovereign and supranational entities for funds raised through
the issuance of unsecured debt in the national and global debt
markets. Increases in the supply of competing debt products may,
in the absence of
35
increases in demand, result in higher debt costs or lower
amounts of debt issued at the same cost than otherwise would be
the case. Increased competition could adversely affect the
Banks ability to have access to funding, reduce the amount
of funding available or increase the cost of funding. Any of
these effects could adversely affect the Banks financial
condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends to
members. During 2009, the FHLBanks continued to experience a
decline in the demand for longer-term debt issuance due in part
to legislative and regulatory actions taken by the
U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve to stimulate the housing
and credit markets. These actions are discussed in more detail
in the Risk Factors entitled The Bank is subject to
legislative and regulatory actions, including a complex body of
regulations, including Finance Agency regulations, which may be
amended in a manner that may affect the Banks business,
operations
and/or
financial condition and members investment in the
Bank. and The Bank may be limited in its
ability to access the capital markets, which could adversely
affect the Banks liquidity. In addition, if the
Banks ability to access the long-term debt markets would
be limited, this may have a material adverse effect on its
liquidity, results of operations and financial condition, as
well as its ability to fund operations, including
advances.
The MPF Program has different risks than those related to
the Banks traditional loan business, which could adversely
impact the Banks profitability.
The Bank participates in the MPF Program with the FHLBank of
Chicago as MPF provider. Net mortgage loans held for portfolio
accounted for 7.9% of the Banks total assets as of
December 31, 2009 and approximately 19.4% of the
Banks total interest income for the full year 2009. In
contrast to the Banks traditional member loan business,
the MPF Program is highly subject to competitive pressures, more
susceptible to loan losses, and also carries more interest rate
risk, prepayment risk and operational complexity. The
residential mortgage loan origination business historically has
been a cyclical industry, enjoying periods of strong growth and
profitability followed by periods of shrinking volumes and
industry-wide losses. General changes in market conditions could
have a negative effect on the mortgage loan market. These would
include, but are not limited to, the following: rising interest
rates slowing mortgage loan originations; an economic downturn
creating increased defaults and lowered housing prices; and
increased innovation resulting in products that do not currently
meet the criteria of the MPF Program. Any of these changes could
have a negative impact on the profitability of the MPF Program.
The rate and timing of unscheduled payments and collections of
principal on mortgage loans are difficult to predict and can be
affected by a variety of factors, including the level of
prevailing interest rates, the availability of lender credit,
and other economic, demographic, geographic, tax and legal
factors. The Bank manages prepayment risk through a combination
of consolidated obligation issuance and, to a lesser extent,
derivatives. If the level of actual prepayments is higher or
lower than expected, the Bank may experience a mismatch with a
related consolidated obligation issuance, resulting in a gain or
loss to the Bank. Also, increased prepayment levels will cause
premium amortization to increase, reducing net interest income,
and increase the potential for debt overhang. To the extent one
or more of the geographic areas in which the Banks MPF
loan portfolio is concentrated experiences considerable declines
in the local housing market, declining economic conditions or a
natural disaster, the Bank could experience an increase in the
required allowance for loan losses on this portfolio.
Delinquencies and losses with respect to residential mortgage
loans continued to increase in the first half of 2009, but
stabilized somewhat in the last six months of the year. In
addition, residential property values in many states continued
to decline or, at best, remained stable. However, the
Banks MPF loan portfolio has continued to perform better
than many residential loan portfolios. The geographic span of
the Banks portfolio is limited in those high-risk states
and regions of the country which are experiencing significant
property devaluations. The residential mortgage loans in the
Banks portfolio are of a higher credit quality overall.
The MPF portfolio is analyzed for risk of loss through the
allowance for loan losses process. If delinquency and loss rates
on mortgage loans increase,
and/or there
is rapid decline in residential real estate values, the Bank
could experience an increase in the allowance for loan losses,
and potentially realized losses, on its MPF portfolio. In the
event the Bank was forced to liquidate the entire portfolio,
additional losses could be incurred which would adversely impact
the Banks profitability and financial condition.
If FHLBank of Chicago changes the MPF Program or ceases to
operate the Program, this would have a negative impact on the
Banks mortgage purchase business, and, consequently, a
related decrease in the Banks net interest
36
margin, financial condition and profitability. Additionally, if
FHLBank of Chicago, or its third party vendors, experiences
operational difficulties, such difficulties could have a
negative impact on the Banks financial condition and
profitability.
For the MPF Plus product, Supplemental Mortgage Insurance (SMI)
coverage has typically been available for PFIs to purchase. As
of December 31, 2009, Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. and
Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Company provided 83.8% and 5.9%,
respectively, of SMI coverage for MPF Plus product loans.
However, due to a lack of insurers writing new SMI policies, the
MPF Plus product is not currently being offered to members. For
the MPF Original product, the ratings model currently requires
additional credit enhancement from the PFI to compensate for the
lower mortgage insurer rating for loans subject to private
mortgage insurance requirements (i.e., LTV greater than 80%).
Historically, there have been no losses claimed against an SMI
insurer. However, a default on the insurance obligations by one
or both of these SMI insurers and an increase in losses on MPF
loans would adversely affect the Banks profitability.
For a description of the MPF Program, the obligations of the
Bank with respect to loan losses and a PFIs obligation to
provide credit enhancement, see the sections entitled Mortgage
Partnership Finance Program in Item 1. Business, and
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
See additional details regarding SMI insurers in the
Credit and Counterparty Risk Mortgage Loans,
BOB Loans and Derivatives discussion in Risk Management in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Banks Affordable Housing Program and other
related community investment programs may be severely affected
if the Banks annual net income is reduced or
eliminated.
The Bank is required to establish an Affordable Housing Program
(AHP). The Bank provides subsidies in the form of direct grants
and/or
below-market interest rate advances to members who use the funds
to assist in the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of
housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
If the Bank experienced a net loss, as defined in Note 17
to the audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K,
for a full year, the Bank would have no obligation to the AHP
for the year except in the following circumstance: if the result
of the aggregate ten percent calculation described above is less
than $100 million for all twelve FHLBanks, then the Act
requires that each FHLBank contribute such prorated sums as may
be required to assure that the aggregate contributions of the
FHLBanks equal $100 million. The proration would be made on
the basis of an FHLBanks income in relation to the net
earnings of all FHLBanks for the previous year. Each
FHLBanks required annual AHP contribution is limited to
its annual net earnings. If an FHLBank finds that its required
contributions are contributing to the financial instability of
that FHLBank, it may apply to the Finance Agency for a temporary
suspension of its contributions.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Bank did
experience a net loss and did not set aside any AHP funding to
be awarded during 2010. However, as allowed by AHP regulations,
the Bank has elected to allot up to $2 million of future
periods required AHP contributions to be awarded during
2010 (referred to as Accelerated AHP). The Accelerated AHP
allows the Bank to commit and disburse AHP funds to meet the
Banks mission when it would otherwise be unable to do so,
based on its normal funding mechanism. The Bank will credit the
Accelerated AHP contribution against required AHP contributions
over the next five years.
The Bank relies on externally developed models to manage
market and other risks, to make business decisions and for
financial accounting and reporting purposes. These models are
run and maintained by the Bank. In addition, the Bank relies on
externally developed models to perform cash flow analysis on MBS
to evaluate for OTTI. These models are run and maintained
outside of the Bank. In both cases, the Banks business
could be adversely affected if these models fail to produce
reliable and useful results.
The Bank makes significant use of business and financial models
for managing risk. For example, the Bank uses models to measure
and monitor exposures to interest rate and other market risks
and credit risk, including prepayment risk. The Bank also uses
models in determining the fair value of financial instruments
for which independent price quotations are not available or
reliable. The information provided by these models is also used
in
37
making business decisions relating to strategies, initiatives,
transactions and products and in financial statement reporting.
Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual results
because they are based on assumptions about future performance.
The Banks models could produce unreliable results for a
number of reasons, including invalid or incorrect assumptions
underlying the models or incorrect data being used by the
models. The risk metrics, valuations and loan loss reserve
estimations produced by the Banks models may be different
from actual results, which could adversely affect the
Banks business results, cash flows, fair value of net
assets, business prospects and future earnings. Changes in any
models or in any of the assumptions, judgments or estimates used
in the models may cause the results generated by the model to be
materially different. If the models are not reliable or the Bank
does not use them appropriately, the Bank could make poor
business decisions, including asset and liability management
decisions, or other decisions, which could result in an adverse
financial impact. Further, any strategies that the Bank employs
to attempt to manage the risks associated with the use of models
may not be effective. See Quantitative Disclosures
Regarding Market Risk The Banks Market Risk
Model discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis for more information.
In performing the cash flow analysis on the Banks private
label MBS to determine OTTI, the Bank uses two third party
models. The first model considers borrower characteristics and
the particular attributes of the loans underlying the
Banks securities, in conjunction with assumptions about
future changes in home prices and interest rates, to project
prepayments, defaults and loss severities. The
month-by-month
projections of future loan performance derived from the first
model, which reflect the projected prepayments, defaults and
loss severities, were then input into a second model that
allocated the projected loan level cash flows and losses to the
various security classes in the securitization structure in
accordance with its prescribed cash flow and loss allocation
rules. A table of the significant inputs (including default
rates, prepayment rates and loss severities) used on those
securities on which an OTTI was determined to have occurred
during the quarter ended December 31, 2009 is included in
Note 8 to the audited financial statements in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial Data included
in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
These models and assumptions have a significant effect on
determining whether any of the investment securities are
other-than-temporarily
impaired. The use of different assumptions, as well as changes
in market conditions, could result in materially different net
income, retained earnings and total capital for the Bank. Based
on the structure of the Banks private label MBS and the
interaction of assumptions to estimate cash flows, the Bank is
unable to isolate the impact of the assumption changes or
performance deterioration on estimated credit losses recorded by
the Bank. See the OTTI discussion in the Credit and
Counterparty Risk Investments section in Risk
Management in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis for additional details regarding these models.
The Banks business is dependent upon its computer
information systems. An inability to process information or
implement technological changes, or an interruption in the
Banks systems, may result in lost business.
The Banks business is dependent upon its ability to
effectively exchange and process information using its computer
information systems. The Banks products and services
require a complex and sophisticated computing environment, which
includes purchased and custom-developed software. Maintaining
the effectiveness and efficiency of the Banks operations
is dependent upon the continued timely implementation of
technology solutions and systems, which may require ongoing
capital expenditures. If the Bank were unable to sustain its
technological capabilities, it may not be able to remain
competitive, and its business, financial condition and
profitability may be significantly compromised.
In addition to internal computer systems, the Bank relies on
third party vendors and service providers for many of its
communications and information systems needs. Any failure,
interruption or breach in security of these systems, or any
disruption of service, could result in failures or interruptions
in the Banks ability to conduct and manage its business
effectively, including, and without limitation, its hedging and
advances activities. While the Bank has implemented a Business
Continuity Plan, there is no assurance that such failures or
interruptions will not occur or, if they do occur, that they
will be adequately addressed by the Bank or the third parties on
which the Bank relies. Any failure or interruption could
significantly harm the Banks customer relations and
business operations, which could negatively affect its financial
condition, profitability and cash flows.
38
The Banks accounting policies and methods are
fundamental to how the Bank reports its market value of equity,
financial condition and results of operations, and they require
management to make estimates about matters that are inherently
uncertain.
The Bank has identified several accounting policies as being
critical to the presentation of its financial condition and
results of operations because they require management to make
particularly subjective or complex judgments about matters that
are inherently uncertain and because of the likelihood that
materially different amounts would be recorded under different
conditions or using different assumptions. These critical
accounting policies relate to the Banks accounting for
OTTI for investment securities, determination of fair values and
accounting for derivatives, among others.
Bank management applies significant judgment in assigning fair
value to all of its assets and liabilities. These fair values
are reported in Note 22 to the audited financial statements
in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The fair values assigned to all assets and liabilities have a
considerable impact on the Banks market value of equity.
Management monitors market conditions and takes what it deems to
be appropriate action to preserve the value of equity and
earnings. The ability for management to appropriately manage the
market value of equity is dependent on the market conditions in
which the Bank is operating. During the recent market disruption
and ongoing decline in the housing and financial markets, the
Banks market value of equity has been adversely impacted.
For additional discussion regarding market value of equity and
OTTI, see Risk Management in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis and Note 8 to the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data, both in this 2009 Annual Report
filed on
Form 10-K.
Because of the inherent uncertainty of the estimates associated
with these critical accounting policies, the Bank cannot provide
absolute assurance that there will not be any adjustments to the
related amounts recorded at December 31, 2009. For more
information, please refer to the Critical Accounting Policies
section in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Bank may be adversely affected by litigation.
From time to time, the Banks customers or counterparties
may make claims or take legal action relating to performance of
contractual responsibilities. The Bank may also face other legal
claims, regulatory or governmental inquiries or investigations.
In any such claims or actions, demands for substantial monetary
damages may be asserted against the Bank and may result in
financial liability or an adverse effect on the Banks
reputation. In regulatory enforcement matters, claims for
disgorgement, the imposition of penalties and the imposition of
other remedial sanctions are possible.
For details regarding the Banks legal action with respect
to the Lehman bankruptcy and related collateral receivable, and
the Banks legal actions filed against various defendants
regarding private label MBS purchases, see discussion in
Item 3. Legal Proceedings in this 2009 Annual Report filed
on
Form 10-K.
The Banks controls and procedures may fail or be
circumvented, risk management policies and procedures may be
inadequate and circumstances beyond the Banks control
could cause unexpected operating losses. In addition, the loss
of key employees may have an adverse effect on the Banks
business and operations.
The Bank may fail to identify and manage risks related to a
variety of aspects of its business, including, but not limited
to, operational risk, interest rate risk, legal and compliance
risk, people risk, liquidity risk, market risk and credit risk.
The Bank has adopted many controls, procedures, policies and
systems to monitor and manage risk. Management cannot provide
complete assurance that those controls, procedures, policies and
systems are adequate to identify and manage the risks inherent
in the Banks various businesses. In addition, these
businesses are continuously evolving. The Bank may fail to fully
understand the implications of changes in the businesses and
fail to enhance the risk governance framework in a timely or
adequate fashion to address those changes. If the risk
governance framework is ineffective, the Bank could incur losses.
The Bank relies heavily upon its employees in order to
successfully execute its business and strategies. Certain key
employees are important to the continued successful operation of
the Bank. Failure to attract
and/or
retain such key individuals may adversely affect the Banks
business operations.
39
Operating risk is the risk of unexpected operating losses
attributable to human error, systems failures, fraud,
noncompliance with laws, regulations and the Banks
internal Code of Conduct, unenforceability of contracts,
and/or
inadequate internal controls and procedures. Although management
has systems and procedures in place to address each of these
risks, some operational risks are beyond the Banks
control, and the failure of other parties to adequately address
their operational risks could adversely affect the Bank as well.
|
|
Item 1B:
|
Unresolved
Staff Comments
|
None
The Bank leases 96,240 square feet of office space at 601
Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15219 and additional
office space at 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20004;
2300 Computer Avenue, Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, 19090;
435 N. DuPont Highway, Dover, Delaware 19904; 140
Maffett Street, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, 18705; and 580 and
768 Vista Park Drive, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15205. The
Washington, DC office space is shared with the FHLBank of
Atlanta. The Vista Park Drive space is the Banks offsite
backup facility. Essentially all of the Banks operations
are housed at the Banks headquarters at the Grant Street
location.
|
|
Item 3:
|
Legal
Proceedings
|
As discussed in Current Financial and Mortgage Market
Events and Trends in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis section of this 2009 Annual Report filed
on
Form 10-K,
the Bank terminated multiple interest rate swap transactions
with Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (LBSF) effective
September 19, 2008. On October 7, 2008, the Bank filed
an adversary proceeding against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank,
N.A. (J.P. Morgan) and LBSF in the United States Bankruptcy
Court in the Southern District of New York alleging constructive
trust, conversion, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
injunction claims (Complaint) relating to the right of the Bank
to the return of the $41.5 million in Bank posted cash
collateral held by J.P. Morgan in a custodial account
established by LBSF as a fiduciary for the benefit of the Bank.
Chase Bank USA, N.A. (Chase Bank), an affiliate of
J.P. Morgan, is a Bank member and was a greater than 5%
shareholder as of October 6, 2008 and at December 31,
2009.
During discovery in the Banks adversary proceeding against
LBSF, the Bank learned that LBSF had failed to keep the
Banks posted collateral in a segregated account in
violation of the Master Agreement between the Bank and LBSF. In
fact, the posted collateral was held in a general operating
account of LBSF, the balances of which were routinely swept to
other Lehman Brother entities, including Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. among others. After discovering that the
Banks posted collateral was transferred to other Lehman
entities and not held by J.P. Morgan, the Bank agreed to
discontinue the LBSF adversary proceeding against
J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan was dismissed from the
Banks proceeding on June 26, 2009. In addition, the
Bank discontinued its LBSF adversary proceeding and pursued that
claim in the LBSF bankruptcy through the proof of claim process,
which made pursuing the adversary proceeding against LBSF
unnecessary. The Bank has filed proofs of claim against Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Brothers Commercial Corp. as
well.
The Bank has filed a new complaint against Lehman Brothers
Holding Inc., Lehman Brothers, Inc., Lehman Brothers Commercial
Corporation, Woodlands Commercial Bank, formerly known as Lehman
Brothers Commercial Bank, and Aurora Bank FSB (Aurora), formerly
known as Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, alleging unjust enrichment,
constructive trust, and conversion claims. Aurora is a member of
the Bank. Aurora did not hold more than 5% of the Banks
capital stock as of December 31, 2009. The Bank filed this
complaint on July 29, 2009 in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York.
On September 23, 2009, the Bank filed two complaints in
state court, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania relating to nine PLMBS bonds purchased from
J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (J.P. Morgan) in an aggregate
original principal amount of approximately $1.68 billion.
In addition to J.P. Morgan, the parties include:
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp.; J.P. Morgan
Mortgage Acceptance Corporation I; Chase Home Finance L.L.C.;
Chase Mortgage Finance Corporation; J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co.; Moodys Corporation; Moodys
Investors Service Inc.; The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; and
Fitch, Inc. The Banks complaints assert claims for fraud,
40
negligent misrepresentation and violations of state and Federal
securities laws. Chase Bank USA, N.A. (Chase Bank), which is
affiliated with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., is a
member of the Bank but is not a defendant in these actions.
Chase Bank held 6.0% of the Banks capital stock as of
December 31, 2009.
On October 2, 2009, the Bank also filed a complaint in the
Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania against:
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; Fitch Inc., Moodys
Corporation; and Moodys Investors Service, Inc., the
rating agencies for certain PLMBS bonds purchased by the Bank in
the aggregate original principal amount of approximately
$640.0 million. The Banks complaint asserts claims
for fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violations of Federal
securities laws.
On October 13, 2009, the Bank filed an additional complaint
in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
against: Countrywide Securities Corporation, Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., various other Countrywide related entities;
Moodys Corporation; Moodys Investors Service, Inc.;
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; and Fitch, Inc. in regard to
five Countrywide PLMBS bonds in the aggregate original principal
amount of approximately $366.0 million purchased by the
Bank. The Banks complaint asserts claims for fraud,
negligent misrepresentation and violations of state and Federal
securities laws.
The Bank may also be subject to various legal proceedings
arising in the normal course of business. After consultation
with legal counsel, management is not aware of any other
proceedings that might have a material effect on the Banks
financial condition or results of operations.
|
|
Item 4:
|
(Removed
and Reserved)
|
41
PART II
The capital stock of the Bank can be purchased only by members.
There is no established marketplace for the Banks stock;
the Banks stock is not publicly traded and may be
repurchased or redeemed by the Bank at par value. The members
may request that the Bank redeem all or part of the common stock
they hold in the Bank five years after the Bank receives a
written request by a member. In addition, the Bank, at its
discretion, may repurchase shares held by members in excess of
their required stock holdings upon one business days
notice. Excess stock is Bank capital stock not required to be
held by the member to meet its minimum stock purchase
requirement under the Banks capital plan. On
December 23, 2008 in its notice to members, the Bank
announced its decision to suspend excess capital stock
repurchases until further notice. The members minimum
stock purchase requirement is subject to change from time to
time at the discretion of the Board of the Bank in accordance
with the capital plan. Par value of each share of capital stock
is $100. As of December 31, 2009, 316 members owned Bank
capital stock and four nonmembers owned Bank capital stock.
These four nonmembers consisted of one former member of the Bank
who merged with a nonmember, one member who voluntarily
dissolved its charter with the Office of Thrift Supervision
(OTS) and two former members placed in receivership by the FDIC,
resulting in cancellation of the members charters. The
total number of shares of capital stock outstanding as of
December 31, 2009 was 40,263,207, of which members held
40,219,939 shares and nonmembers held 43,268 shares.
Member stock includes 38,992 shares held by one institution
which has given notice of withdrawal, with 32,493 due April 2010
and 6,499 due in April 2014, as well as 100 shares of one
additional institution which is in receivership and has also
given notice of withdrawal. Member stock also includes
196 shares received by a member through its acquisition of
a former member. Lastly, 663 shares were transferred from
mandatorily redeemable capital stock back to capital stock due
to a merger of a member into a nonmember and the application of
such shares against the required minimum stock purchase
requirement when the nonmember institution subsequently applied
for membership and was approved as a Bank member.
The Banks cash dividends declared in each quarter are
reflected in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
48.0
|
|
Second
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38.4
|
|
Third
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.2
|
|
Fourth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.6
|
|
On December 23, 2008, the Bank announced its decision to
voluntarily suspend dividend payments until further notice. See
the Dividends section in Capital Resources in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for information concerning restrictions on the Banks
ability to pay dividends and the Banks current dividend
policy.
See Note 19 to the audited financial statements in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further information regarding statutory and regulatory
restrictions on capital stock redemption.
42
|
|
Item 6:
|
Selected
Financial Data
|
The following tables should be read in conjunction with the
financial statements and related notes and Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis, each included in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Statement of Operations data for the three years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, and the Statement of
Condition data as of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007 are
derived from the audited financial statements included in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Condensed Statement of Condition data as of
December 31, 2006 is derived from the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data included in the Banks 2007
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Statement of Operations data for the year ended
December 31, 2005, and the Condensed Statement of Condition
data as of December 31, 2005, are derived from the restated
financial statements included within the Banks
registration statement on Form 10, as amended.
Statement
of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
(in millions, except per share data)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income before provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
$
|
264.0
|
|
|
$
|
281.9
|
|
|
$
|
367.0
|
|
|
$
|
344.3
|
|
|
$
|
309.5
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
Other income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net OTTI losses
|
|
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized losses on OTTI securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(266.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
66.3
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
Net realized gains (losses) on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net realized gains on
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contingency reserve
|
|
|
(35.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other income
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
5.6
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
Total other income (loss)
|
|
|
(239.7
|
)
|
|
|
(192.2
|
)
|
|
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
7.4
|
|
Other expense
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
61.1
|
|
|
|
60.9
|
|
|
|
53.7
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before assessments
|
|
|
(37.4
|
)
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
322.4
|
|
|
|
294.8
|
|
|
|
261.1
|
|
Assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
85.6
|
|
|
|
78.3
|
|
|
|
69.3
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(37.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
19.4
|
|
|
$
|
236.8
|
|
|
$
|
216.5
|
|
|
$
|
191.8
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per
share(1)
|
|
$
|
(0.93
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
6.98
|
|
|
$
|
6.76
|
|
|
$
|
6.72
|
|
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
145.2
|
|
|
$
|
195.3
|
|
|
$
|
150.2
|
|
|
$
|
80.5
|
|
Weighted average dividend
rate(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.64
|
%
|
|
|
5.96
|
%
|
|
|
4.69
|
%
|
|
|
2.82
|
%
|
Dividend payout
ratio(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
748.5
|
%
|
|
|
82.5
|
%
|
|
|
69.4
|
%
|
|
|
42.0
|
%
|
Return on average equity
|
|
|
(0.98
|
)%
|
|
|
0.45
|
%
|
|
|
6.47
|
%
|
|
|
6.29
|
%
|
|
|
6.41
|
%
|
Return on average assets
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)%
|
|
|
0.02
|
%
|
|
|
0.29
|
%
|
|
|
0.29
|
%
|
|
|
0.29
|
%
|
Net interest
margin(4)
|
|
|
0.36
|
%
|
|
|
0.29
|
%
|
|
|
0.45
|
%
|
|
|
0.46
|
%
|
|
|
0.47
|
%
|
Regulatory capital
ratio(5)
|
|
|
6.76
|
%
|
|
|
4.59
|
%
|
|
|
4.26
|
%
|
|
|
4.74
|
%
|
|
|
4.52
|
%
|
Total capital ratio (at
period-end)(6)
|
|
|
5.69
|
%
|
|
|
4.55
|
%
|
|
|
4.24
|
%
|
|
|
4.72
|
%
|
|
|
4.48
|
%
|
Total average equity to average assets
|
|
|
5.03
|
%
|
|
|
4.40
|
%
|
|
|
4.44
|
%
|
|
|
4.58
|
%
|
|
|
4.52
|
%
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Earnings (loss) per share
calculated based on net income (loss).
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Weighted average dividend rates are
calculated as annualized dividends paid in the period divided by
the average capital stock balance outstanding during the period
on which the dividend is based.
|
(3) |
|
Dividend payout ratio is dividends
declared in the period as a percentage of net income (loss) in
the period.
|
(4) |
|
Net interest margin is net interest
income before provision (benefit) for credit losses as a
percentage of average interest-earning assets.
|
(5) |
|
Regulatory capital ratio is the
total of year-end capital stock, mandatorily redeemable capital
stock, retained earnings and allowance for loan losses as a
percentage of total assets at year-end.
|
(6) |
|
Total capital ratio is capital
stock plus retained earnings and accumulated other comprehensive
income (loss) as a percentage of total assets at year-end.
|
43
Condensed
Statement of Condition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007(1)
|
|
|
2006(1)
|
|
|
2005(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Investments(2)
|
|
$
|
17,173.5
|
|
|
$
|
21,798.1
|
|
|
$
|
24,691.3
|
|
|
$
|
19,995.0
|
|
|
$
|
16,944.4
|
|
Advances
|
|
|
41,177.3
|
|
|
|
62,153.4
|
|
|
|
68,797.5
|
|
|
|
49,335.4
|
|
|
|
47,493.0
|
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio,
net(3)
|
|
|
5,162.8
|
|
|
|
6,165.3
|
|
|
|
6,219.7
|
|
|
|
6,966.3
|
|
|
|
7,651.9
|
|
Prepaid REFCORP assessment
|
|
|
39.6
|
|
|
|
39.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
65,290.9
|
|
|
|
90,805.9
|
|
|
|
100,935.8
|
|
|
|
77,023.0
|
|
|
|
72,727.3
|
|
Consolidated obligations, net:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount notes
|
|
|
10,208.9
|
|
|
|
22,864.3
|
|
|
|
34,685.1
|
|
|
|
17,845.2
|
|
|
|
14,580.4
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
49,103.9
|
|
|
|
61,398.7
|
|
|
|
58,613.4
|
|
|
|
53,627.4
|
|
|
|
53,142.9
|
|
|
|
Total consolidated obligations,
net(4)
|
|
|
59,312.8
|
|
|
|
84,263.0
|
|
|
|
93,298.5
|
|
|
|
71,472.6
|
|
|
|
67,723.3
|
|
Deposits and other borrowings
|
|
|
1,284.3
|
|
|
|
1,486.4
|
|
|
|
2,255.7
|
|
|
|
1,074.1
|
|
|
|
914.9
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable capital stock
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
7.9
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
AHP payable
|
|
|
24.5
|
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
59.9
|
|
|
|
49.4
|
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
REFCORP payable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.7
|
|
|
|
14.5
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
Capital stock putable
|
|
|
4,018.0
|
|
|
|
3,981.7
|
|
|
|
3,994.7
|
|
|
|
3,384.4
|
|
|
|
3,078.6
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
389.0
|
|
|
|
170.5
|
|
|
|
296.3
|
|
|
|
254.8
|
|
|
|
188.5
|
|
AOCI
|
|
|
(693.9
|
)
|
|
|
(17.3
|
)
|
|
|
(6.3
|
)
|
|
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
|
(7.5
|
)
|
Total capital
|
|
|
3,713.1
|
|
|
|
4,134.9
|
|
|
|
4,284.7
|
|
|
|
3,634.0
|
|
|
|
3,259.6
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Balances reflect the impact of
reclassifications of cash collateral under derivative accounting.
|
|
|
|
(2) |
|
Includes trading,
available-for-sale
and
held-to-maturity
investment securities, Federal funds sold, and interest-earning
deposits. None of these securities were purchased under
agreements to resell.
|
|
(3) |
|
Includes allowance for loan losses
of $2.7 million, $4.3 million, $1.1 million,
$0.9 million and $0.7 million at December 31,
2009 through 2005, respectively.
|
|
(4) |
|
Aggregate FHLBank System-wide
consolidated obligations (at par) were $930.6 billion, $1.3
trillion, $1.2 trillion, $952.0 billion and
$937.5 billion at December 31, 2009 through 2005,
respectively.
|
44
Because of the nature of (1) the derivatives and hedging
gains and contingency reserve resulting from the Lehman-related
transactions and (2) the OTTI charges recorded during the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank believes
that the presentation of adjusted non-GAAP financial measures
below provides a greater understanding of ongoing operations and
enhances comparability of results with prior periods.
Statement
of Operations
Reconciliation of GAAP Earnings to Adjusted Earnings to
Exclude Impact of
Lehman-Related Transactions, Net OTTI Charges and Related
Assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
GAAP
|
|
|
Lehman
|
|
|
OTTI
|
|
|
Adjusted
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Impact
|
|
|
Charges
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income before provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
$
|
264.0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
264.0
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.6
|
)
|
Other income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net OTTI losses
|
|
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
228.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
Net realized losses on
available-
for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
Net realized gains on
held-to-
maturity securities
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
Contingency reserve
|
|
|
(35.3
|
)
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other income
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
Total other income
|
|
|
(239.7
|
)
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
228.5
|
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
Other expense
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before assessments
|
|
|
(37.4
|
)
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
|
|
228.5
|
|
|
|
226.4
|
|
Assessments(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
52.1
|
|
|
|
60.1
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(37.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
27.3
|
|
|
$
|
176.4
|
|
|
$
|
166.3
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
(0.93
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.68
|
|
|
$
|
4.40
|
|
|
$
|
4.15
|
|
|
|
Return on average equity
|
|
|
(0.98
|
)%
|
|
|
0.71
|
%
|
|
|
4.61
|
%
|
|
|
4.34
|
%
|
Return on average assets
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)%
|
|
|
0.04
|
%
|
|
|
0.23
|
%
|
|
|
0.22
|
%
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Assessments on the Lehman impact
and OTTI charges were prorated based on the required adjusted
earnings assessment expense to take into account the impact of
the full year 2009 GAAP net loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
GAAP
|
|
|
Lehman
|
|
|
OTTI
|
|
|
Adjusted
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Impact
|
|
|
Charges
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest income before provision for credit losses
|
|
$
|
281.9
|
|
|
$
|
1.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
283.5
|
|
Provision for credit losses
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
Other income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized losses on OTTI securities
|
|
|
(266.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains (losses) on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
|
66.3
|
|
|
|
(70.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
All other income
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
Total other income
|
|
|
(192.2
|
)
|
|
|
(70.1
|
)
|
|
|
266.0
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
Other expense
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56.2
|
|
|
|
Income before assessments
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
(68.5
|
)
|
|
|
266.0
|
|
|
|
223.9
|
|
Assessments
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
(18.2
|
)
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
19.4
|
|
|
$
|
(50.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
195.5
|
|
|
$
|
164.6
|
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
(1.25
|
)
|
|
$
|
4.85
|
|
|
$
|
4.08
|
|
|
|
Return on average equity
|
|
|
0.45
|
%
|
|
|
(1.16
|
)%
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
3.79
|
%
|
Return on average assets
|
|
|
0.02
|
%
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)%
|
|
|
0.20
|
%
|
|
|
0.17
|
%
|
45
For further information regarding the Lehman-related
transactions, see the Current Financial and Mortgage
Market Events and Trends discussion in Earnings
Performance in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
For additional information on OTTI, see Critical Accounting
Policies and Risk Management, both in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis, and Note 8 to
the audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data, all in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Forward-Looking
Information
Statements contained in or incorporated by reference in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
including statements describing the objectives, projections,
estimates, or predictions of the future of the Bank, may be
forward-looking statements. These statements may use
forward-looking terms, such as anticipates,
believes, could, estimates,
may, should, will, or their
negatives or other variations on these terms. The Bank cautions
that by their nature, forward-looking statements involve risk or
uncertainty and that actual results could differ materially from
those expressed or implied in these forward-looking statements
or could affect the extent to which a particular objective,
projection, estimate, or prediction is realized. These
forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties
including, but not limited to, the following: economic and
market conditions, including, but not limited to, real estate,
credit and mortgage markets; volatility of market prices, rates,
and indices; political, legislative, regulatory, litigation, or
judicial events or actions; changes in the Banks capital
structure; changes in the Banks capital requirements;
membership changes; changes in the demand by Bank members for
Bank advances; an increase in advances prepayments; competitive
forces, including the availability of other sources of funding
for Bank members; changes in investor demand for consolidated
obligations
and/or the
terms of interest rate exchange agreements and similar
agreements; the ability of the Bank to introduce new products
and services to meet market demand and to manage successfully
the risks associated with new products and services; the ability
of each of the other FHLBanks to repay the principal and
interest on consolidated obligations for which it is the primary
obligor and with respect to which the Bank has joint and several
liability; and timing and volume of market activity.
This Managements Discussion and Analysis should be read
in conjunction with the Banks audited financial statements
in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data and footnotes and Risk Factors included herein.
Earnings
Performance
The following is Managements Discussion and Analysis of
the Banks earnings performance for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, which should be read in
conjunction with the Banks audited financial statements
and notes included in in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Summary
of Financial Results
Net Income and Return on Average
Equity. The Bank recorded a net loss of
$37.4 million for full year 2009, compared to net income of
$19.4 million for full year 2008. The
year-over-year
variance was driven primarily by lower net interest income,
higher operating expenses, lower derivatives and hedging
activities and a $35.3 million contingency reserve recorded
in first quarter 2009, partially offset by lower net OTTI
charges. Decreases in interest income on investments and
advances were partially offset by lower interest expense on
consolidated obligations. Net OTTI charges for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008 were $228.5 million and
$266.0 million, respectively. Full year 2008 results also
included the benefit of the one-time gains on derivatives and
hedging activities related to the termination and replacement of
Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (LBSF) derivatives as
discussed in the Banks Third Quarter 2008 quarterly report
filed on
Form 10-Q
on November 12, 2008. The Banks return on average
equity was (0.98)% for full year 2009, compared to 0.45% in the
same year-ago period.
46
2008 vs. 2007. The Banks net
income totaled $19.4 million for full year 2008, compared
to $236.8 million for full year 2007. The
$217.4 million decrease was driven primarily by net OTTI
charges of $266.0 million and lower net interest income in
2008. Decreases in interest income on investments and advances
were partially offset by lower interest expense on consolidated
obligations. Full year 2008 results also reflected significant
net gains on derivatives and hedging activities related to the
termination and replacement of LBSF derivatives mentioned above.
The Banks return on average equity was 6.47% for full year
2007.
Dividend Rate. Management regards
quarterly dividend payments as an important vehicle through
which a direct investment return is provided to the Banks
members. On December 23, 2008, the Bank announced its
decision to voluntarily suspend payment of dividends for the
foreseeable future. Therefore, there were no dividends declared
or paid in 2009. The Banks weighted average dividend rate
was 3.64% for 2008 and 5.96% for 2007. See additional discussion
regarding dividends and retained earnings levels in the
Financial Condition discussion in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Adjusted Earnings Comparison. Adjusted
earnings for full year 2009 reflect net income of
$166.3 million, compared to net income of
$164.6 million for full year 2008. As noted above, adjusted
earnings exclude the impact of (1) the derivatives and
hedging gains and contingency reserve resulting from the
Lehman-related transactions and (2) the OTTI charges
recorded during the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The $1.7 million increase in net income
year-over-year
was driven by higher gains on derivatives and hedging
activities, higher other income and a benefit for credit losses,
partially offset by lower net interest income and higher
operating expenses. The Banks return on average equity on
an adjusted basis was 4.34%, for full year 2009 compared to
3.79% on an adjusted basis for the prior year.
Current
Financial and Mortgage Market Events and Trends
Conditions in the Financial
Markets. Housing and financial markets have
been in tremendous turmoil since the middle of 2007, with
repercussions throughout the U.S. and global economies.
Continued global financial market disruptions during 2009,
coupled with the recession, have sustained market uncertainty
and unpredictability. Limited liquidity in the credit markets,
increasing mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures, falling real
estate values, the collapse of the secondary market for MBS,
loss of investor confidence, a highly volatile stock market,
interest rate fluctuations, and the failure of a number of large
and small financial institutions are all indicators of the
severe economic crisis faced by the U.S. and the rest of
the world. These economic conditions, particularly in the
housing and financial markets, combined with ongoing uncertainty
about the depth and duration of the financial crisis and the
recession, continued to affect the Banks business and
results of operations, along with that of its members,
throughout 2009. Specifically, the weakness in the
U.S. economy continues to affect the credit quality of the
collateral underlying all types of private label MBS in the
Banks investment portfolio, resulting in OTTI charges on
more securities. To build retained earnings and preserve the
Banks capital, the Bank maintained its suspension of
dividend payments and excess capital stock repurchases
throughout 2009 and has no expectation that this will change in
the near term.
While the significant deterioration in economic conditions that
followed the disruptive financial market events of September
2008 has not reversed, and the economy has remained weak since
that time, there is indication that the pace of economic decline
may have started to slow and that the economy may begin to
emerge from the recession. Government programs that were put in
place in 2008 have worked to create more confidence in the
credit markets and get capital flowing once again.
However, despite early signs of improvement, the prospects for,
and potential timing of, renewed economic growth (employment
growth in particular) remain uncertain. The ongoing weak
economic outlook, along with continued uncertainty regarding
those conditions, will extend future losses at many financial
institutions to a wider range of asset classes, and the nature
and extent of the ongoing need for the government to support the
banking industry, have combined to maintain market
participants somewhat cautious approach to the credit
markets.
First Quarter 2009. Several government
programs that were either introduced or expanded during the
fourth quarter of 2008 helped to support a greater degree of
stability in the capital markets. Those programs include the
implementation of TARP authorized by Congress in October 2008
and the FRBs purchases of commercial paper, agency debt
securities (including FHLBank debt) and MBS. In addition, the
FRBs discount window lending and
47
Term Auction Facility (TAF) for auctions of short-term liquidity
and the expansion of insured deposit limits and the TLGP
provided by the FDIC have provided additional liquidity support
for depository institutions. The effect of these government
initiatives, in combination with other positive developments,
resulted in improved investor demand for GSE bonds.
On January 16, 2009, the FDIC announced that it would
expand the TLGP to insure some assets for ten years, up from
three years, in order to accommodate the longer maturities
associated with covered bonds. On February 10, 2009, in a
joint statement, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve,
the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency and the OTS announced
the Capital Assistance Program, the Public-Private Investment
Fund (PPIF), a dramatic expansion of the TALF and
the extension of the TLGP by four months to October 31,
2009. In order to gradually phase out the program, the FDIC
announced that it would assess a surcharge on TLGP debt that is
issued in the second quarter of 2009 with a maturity date of one
year or longer. On March 19, 2009, the Federal Reserve
announced that the range of eligible collateral for TALF funding
commencing in April 2009 would be expanded to include
asset-backed securities backed by mortgage servicing advances,
loans or leases relating to business equipment, leases of
vehicle fleets and floor-plan loans
On March 18, 2009, the Federal Reserve announced that
economic conditions had continued to deteriorate in the first
quarter of 2009 as indicated by job losses, declining equity and
housing wealth, tight credit conditions and slumping
U.S. exports. On the same day, to provide greater support
to mortgage lending and the housing market, the Federal Reserve
announced that it would purchase up to an additional
$750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities,
increasing its total purchase authority to $1.25 trillion.
Furthermore, the Federal Reserve announced that it would
purchase up to an additional $100 billion in agency debt
issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHLBanks, increasing
its total purchase authority up $200 billion. Additionally,
to help improve conditions in private credit markets, the
Federal Reserve announced that it would purchase up to
$300 billion of longer-term U.S. Treasury securities
over the following six months.
On March 23, 2009, the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve
and FDIC announced a framework for the Public-Private Investment
Program (PPIP). This two-part program was designed to remove
toxic assets from bank balance sheets and improve
credit availability to households and businesses. The first part
of the program, known as the legacy loan program, was designed
to attract private capital to purchase troubled loans from
banks. These transactions would be facilitated by FDIC
guarantees and equity provided by the U.S. Treasury using
TARP funds. The second part of the program was known as the
legacy securities program and included (1) an expansion of
the TALF to include legacy securitization assets and
(2) PPIF whereby pre-qualified fund managers would purchase
legacy securities with a combination of private capital and
U.S. Treasury funds.
Second Quarter 2009. As the
U.S. government continued multiple programs designed to
improve the credit markets, financial market conditions appeared
to reflect greater strength during the second quarter of 2009.
Financial services companies turned toward the equity markets in
order to pay off TARP borrowings and raise additional capital
required by the results of bank stress testing. During May 2009,
the U.S. Treasury announced plans to inject TARP funds into
several insurance companies. Furthermore, financial market
participants and regulators turned their attention toward the
safety and security of money market funds resulting in
industry-wide recommendations and SEC-proposed rule changes.
While economic data remained mixed during the second quarter of
2009, funding was both accessible and attractively priced for
the FHLBanks.
Third Quarter 2009. The FHLBanks
continued to maintain access to debt funding at desirable levels
during the third quarter of 2009. The FHLBanks had ready access
to term debt-funding, pricing slightly fewer consolidated bonds
than in the second quarter of 2009. However, the increase in TAP
volume during the third quarter of 2009 demonstrated an
increased willingness by dealers to assume risk positions in the
sector. Meanwhile, agency discount note spreads deteriorated
considerably during the quarter, making discount notes a less
desirable funding option for the FHLBanks.
During the third quarter of 2009, the mix of consolidated bonds
priced by the FHLBanks changed slightly, with the FHLBanks
relying less on negotiated bullet bonds and floating-rate
securities and relying more on negotiated callable bonds and
step-up
bonds. In addition, TAP issuance rose in the third quarter of
2009.
48
Fourth Quarter 2009. Building on the
third quarter of 2009, the credit markets remained stable in the
fourth quarter of 2009 and the FHLBanks had improved access to
the capital markets. Providing further confidence to the credit
markets, at the end of October 2009 the U.S. Department of
Commerce estimated that the U.S. gross domestic product
(GDP) grew at an annual rate of 3.5% during the third quarter of
2009 and later revised this number to a 2.2% annual growth rate,
making the third quarter of 2009 the first report of positive
quarterly GDP in over a year.
On December 24, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced
modifications to the Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including an increased capacity to
absorb losses from the housing GSEs beyond the original
$200 billion per agency and a portfolio cap of
$900 billion for each institution which will shrink by
10 percent each year. These modifications were implemented
in place of reducing the actual portfolio amounts by
10 percent each year starting in 2010.
Specific Program Activity
Federal Reserve Bank of New York
(FRBNY). Throughout 2009, the FRBNY continued
to support the capital markets through the purchase of GSE term
debt, agency MBS, and U.S. Treasuries. Since inception in
2008 and throughout 2009, the FRBNY purchased a total of
$160 billion in GSE debt securities, almost 91% of the
$175 billion allocated to this program, including
$34.4 billion in FHLBank mandated Global bullet bonds.
In addition to purchasing agency securities, the FRBNY purchased
a total of $1.1 trillion in gross agency MBS, approximately 89%
of the $1.25 trillion committed to this program. The agency MBS
purchases included approximately $389 billion in dollar
rolls. Dollar rolls, similar to repurchase agreements, provide
holders of MBS with a form of short-term financing. This
program, initiated to drive mortgage rates lower, makes housing
more affordable, and helps stabilize home prices, which may lead
to continued artificially low agency-mortgage pricing.
Comparative MPF Program price execution, which is a function of
the FHLBank debt issuance costs, may not be competitive as a
result. MPF price execution, which is a function of the FHLBank
debt issuance costs, has been less competitive and resulted in
weakened member demand for MPF products throughout 2009 and into
2010.
FRBNY purchased a total of $292 billion of
U.S. Treasuries in 2009, approximately 97% of the
$300 billion committed to this program. As noted in a
statement by the FRBNY on August 12, 2009, the Federal
Reserve anticipated that the full amount of U.S. Treasury
securities would be purchased by the end of October 2009 and the
program ended with total purchases just shy of the
$300 billion commitment level.
Consolidated Obligations of the
FHLBanks. During the second half of 2008, the
credit markets tightened and, by November 2008, the FHLBanks
were only able to price an unusually low $8.8 billion in
consolidated bonds. However, following the turn of the year, the
effect of government initiatives, in combination with other
positive developments, resulted in improved investor demand for
GSE bonds. Improved access to consolidated bond funding, plus
falling demand for FHLBank advances, provided the FHLBanks with
greater flexibility to access term funding. The volume of
FHLBank consolidated bonds priced in the first quarter of 2009
was more than double the dollar volume priced during the fourth
quarter of 2008. Volume increased in negotiated bullet bonds,
auctioned callable bonds and floating-rate bonds.
Despite the initial increase in volume in first quarter 2009,
the FHLBanks consolidated obligations outstanding
continued to shrink considerably throughout the remainder of
2009, as redemptions from both scheduled maturities and
exercised calls outpaced FHLBank debt issuance. Consolidated
obligations outstanding declined $320.9 billion during the
year, with consolidated discount notes decreasing proportionally
more than consolidated bonds. Total FHLBank consolidated
obligations outstanding closed the third quarter of 2009 at
levels last seen in late July 2007. This trend continued through
fourth quarter 2009, ending 2009 with a total of
$930.6 billion FHLBank consolidated obligations
outstanding, a decrease of more than 25 percent compared to
year-end 2008. Meanwhile, agency discount note spreads
deteriorated considerably during the 2009, making discount notes
a less desirable funding option for the FHLBanks. A continued
decline in money market fund assets could further weaken the
agency discount note market in the near term.
On a stand-alone basis, discount notes accounted for 17.2% and
27.1% of total Bank consolidated obligations at
December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
Total bonds decreased $12.3 billion, or 20.0%, in the same
comparison, but comprised a greater percentage of the total debt
portfolio, increasing from 72.9% at December 31, 2008 to
82.8% at December 31, 2009.
49
During 2009, the mix of bonds priced by the FHLBanks changed
slightly, with the FHLBanks relying less on negotiated bullet
bonds and floating-rate securities and relying more on
negotiated callable bonds and
step-up
bonds. Furthermore, TAP issuance rose since third quarter 2009,
indicating dealers willingness to commit balance sheet
resources to the agency sector. The FHLBanks priced
$9.5 billion in TAPs during the fourth quarter of 2009,
compared to $4.1 billion during the third quarter of 2009,
and only $30 million during the second quarter of 2009. In
terms of FHLBank bond funding costs, while weighted-average
consolidated bond funding costs during the third quarter of 2009
deteriorated slightly compared to those of the second quarter of
2009, they were still above the average for the previous twelve
months. In 2009, the FHLBanks implemented a calendar for its
mandated Global bullet bond program, issuing a total of
$39 billion in mandated Global bullet bonds during the year.
Foreign Official Holdings and Money
Fund Assets. While foreign investor
holdings of agency debt and agency MBS, increased slightly
during the fourth quarter of 2009, the total still closed 2009
down almost $56 billion from prior year levels. Meanwhile,
after stabilizing in the first quarter of 2009, taxable money
market fund assets began to decline during the second quarter of
2009, falling $404 billion, over the course of the year,
with assets allocated to other U.S. agency securities
dropping $216 billion. On February 23, 2010, the SEC
published a final rule on money market fund reform, which
includes the imposition of new liquidity requirements on money
market funds. Under this final rule, FHLBank debt obligations
with remaining maturities of 60 days or less are considered
liquid assets for purposes of meeting the new liquidity
requirement. The final rule also contains new provisions that
may impact short bullet and floater issuance and the demand for
money market funds. The OF and the FHLBanks are currently
assessing the impact of these additional provisions.
Interest Rate Trends. The primary
external factors that affect net interest income include market
interest rates and volatility, as well as credit spreads.
Interest rates prevailing during any reporting period affect the
Banks profitability for that reporting period, due
primarily to the short-term structure of earning assets and the
effect of interest rates on invested capital. A portion of the
Banks advances has been hedged with interest-rate exchange
agreements in which a short-term, variable rate is received.
Generally, due to the Banks cooperative structure, the
Bank earns relatively narrow net spreads between the yield on
assets and the cost of corresponding liabilities.
The following table presents key market interest rates for the
periods indicated (obtained from Bloomberg L.P.).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Ending
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Ending
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Ending
|
|
|
|
|
Target overnight Federal funds rate
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
2.08
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
5.05
|
%
|
|
|
4.25
|
%
|
3-month LIBOR
|
|
|
0.69
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
2.93
|
%
|
|
|
1.43
|
%
|
|
|
5.30
|
%
|
|
|
4.70
|
%
|
2-year U.S.
Treasury
|
|
|
0.95
|
%
|
|
|
1.14
|
%
|
|
|
2.00
|
%
|
|
|
0.77
|
%
|
|
|
4.36
|
%
|
|
|
3.06
|
%
|
5-year U.S.
Treasury
|
|
|
2.18
|
%
|
|
|
2.68
|
%
|
|
|
2.79
|
%
|
|
|
1.55
|
%
|
|
|
4.43
|
%
|
|
|
3.44
|
%
|
10-year U.S.
Treasury
|
|
|
3.24
|
%
|
|
|
3.84
|
%
|
|
|
3.64
|
%
|
|
|
2.22
|
%
|
|
|
4.63
|
%
|
|
|
4.03
|
%
|
15-year
mortgage current
coupon(1)
|
|
|
3.73
|
%
|
|
|
3.78
|
%
|
|
|
4.97
|
%
|
|
|
3.64
|
%
|
|
|
5.54
|
%
|
|
|
4.95
|
%
|
30-year
mortgage current
coupon(1)
|
|
|
4.31
|
%
|
|
|
4.57
|
%
|
|
|
5.47
|
%
|
|
|
3.93
|
%
|
|
|
5.92
|
%
|
|
|
5.54
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 by Quarter Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quarter 4
|
|
|
Quarter 3
|
|
|
Quarter 2
|
|
|
Quarter 1
|
|
|
|
|
Target overnight Federal funds rate
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
|
|
0.25
|
%
|
3-month LIBOR
|
|
|
0.27
|
%
|
|
|
0.41
|
%
|
|
|
0.84
|
%
|
|
|
1.24
|
%
|
2-year U.S.
Treasury
|
|
|
0.87
|
%
|
|
|
1.02
|
%
|
|
|
1.00
|
%
|
|
|
0.89
|
%
|
5-year U.S.
Treasury
|
|
|
2.29
|
%
|
|
|
2.45
|
%
|
|
|
2.23
|
%
|
|
|
1.75
|
%
|
10-year U.S.
Treasury
|
|
|
3.45
|
%
|
|
|
3.50
|
%
|
|
|
3.30
|
%
|
|
|
2.70
|
%
|
15-year
mortgage current
coupon(1)
|
|
|
3.52
|
%
|
|
|
3.82
|
%
|
|
|
3.84
|
%
|
|
|
3.74
|
%
|
30-year
mortgage current
coupon(1)
|
|
|
4.28
|
%
|
|
|
4.50
|
%
|
|
|
4.31
|
%
|
|
|
4.13
|
%
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Simple average of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac MBS current coupon rates.
|
The Bank is also heavily affected by the residential mortgage
market through the collateral securing member loans and holdings
of mortgage-related assets. As of December 31, 2009, 49.1%
of the Banks eligible collateral value, after collateral
weightings, was concentrated in 1-4 single family residential
mortgage loans or multi-family residential mortgage loans,
compared with 42.0% at December 31, 2008. The remaining
50.9% at December 31, 2009 was concentrated in other real
estate-related collateral and high quality investment
securities, compared to
50
58.0% at December 31, 2008. For the top ten borrowers, 1-4
single family residential mortgage loans or multi-family
residential mortgage loans accounted for 48.9% of total eligible
collateral, after collateral weightings, at December 31,
2009, compared to 43.5% at December 31, 2008. The remaining
51.1% at December 31, 2009 was concentrated in other real
estate-related collateral and high quality investment
securities, compared to 56.5% at December 31, 2008. Due to
collateral policy changes implemented in third quarter 2009, the
mix of collateral types within the total portfolio shifted. The
new requirement to deliver all securities pledged as collateral,
as well as refinements in collateral reporting and tracking made
through the Qualifying Collateral Report (QCR) process, impacted
the concentration of collateral types by category. As of
December 31, 2009, the Banks private label MBS
portfolio represented 9.1% of total assets, while net mortgage
loans held for portfolio represented 7.9% of total assets. At
December 31, 2008, the comparable percentages were 9.4% and
6.8%, respectively.
The Bank continues to have high concentrations of its advance
portfolio outstanding to its top ten borrowers. The Banks
advance portfolio declined from December 31, 2008 to
December 31, 2009, decreasing $21.0 billion, or 33.8%,
due to a slowing of new loan growth and increased access by
members to other government funding sources. Also, many of the
Banks members have reacted to the Banks temporary
actions of not paying dividends and not repurchasing excess
capital stock by limiting their use of the Banks advance
products. In addition, members increased liquidity positions and
the recession has decreased the members need for funding
from the Bank.
In addition, see the Credit and Counterparty Risk
and Qualitative/Quantitative Disclosures Regarding Market
Risk discussions, both in Risk Management in this
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for information related to derivative counterparty risk and
overall market risk of the Bank.
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman) and Lehman
Brothers Special Financing, Inc. On
September 15, 2008, Lehman filed for bankruptcy. At that
time, Lehmans subsidiary, Lehman Brothers Special
Financing, Inc. (LBSF) was the Banks largest derivatives
counterparty, with a total of 595 outstanding derivative trades
having a total notional value of $16.3 billion. Lehman was
a guarantor under the Banks agreement with LBSF such that
Lehmans bankruptcy filing triggered an event of default.
The Bank posted cash collateral to secure its exposure to Lehman
on its derivative transactions. As a result of the bankruptcy
filing, the Bank evaluated the outstanding trades it had with
LBSF to assess which individual derivatives were most important
to the Banks overall risk position. Of the 595 trades, 63
represented approximately half of the total LBSF notional value
and almost 100% of the base case duration impact of the LBSF
portfolio. Therefore, the Bank elected to enter into 63
identical new trades with different counterparties on
September 18, 2008.
Management determined that it was in the Banks best
interest to declare an event of default and designate
September 19, 2008 as the early termination date of the
Banks agreement with LBSF, as provided for in the
agreement. Accordingly, all LBSF derivatives were legally
terminated at that time and the Bank began the process of
obtaining third party quotes for all of the derivatives in order
to settle its position with LBSF in accordance with the
International Swaps Dealers Association, Inc. (ISDA) Master
Agreement (Master Agreement). The Bank sent a final settlement
notice to LBSF and demanded return of the balance of posted Bank
collateral, which, including dealer quotes for all trades, the
collateral position, and the applicable accrued interest netted
to an approximate $41.5 million receivable from LBSF.
The Bank filed an adversary proceeding against LBSF and
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (J.P. Morgan) to return the
cash collateral posted by the Bank associated with the
derivative contracts. In its 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
the Bank disclosed that it was probable that a loss has been
incurred with respect to this receivable. However, the Bank had
not recorded a reserve with respect to the receivable from LBSF
because the Bank was unable to reasonably estimate the amount of
loss that had been incurred. Continuing developments in the
adversary proceeding have occurred during 2009. The discovery
phase of the adversary proceeding began, which has provided
management information related to its claim. Based on this
information, managements most probable estimated loss is
$35.3 million and a reserve was recorded in the first
quarter of 2009. As of December 31, 2009, the Bank
maintained a $35.3 million reserve on this receivable as
this remains the most probable estimated loss.
During discovery in the Banks adversary proceeding against
LBSF, the Bank learned that LBSF had failed to keep the
Banks posted collateral in a segregated account in
violation of the Master Agreement between the Bank and LBSF. In
fact, the posted collateral was held in a general operating
account of LBSF the balances of which were
51
routinely swept to other Lehman Brother entities, including
Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. among others. After discovering
that the Banks posted collateral was transferred to other
Lehman entities and not held by J.P. Morgan, the Bank
agreed to discontinue the LBSF adversary proceeding against
J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan was dismissed from the
Banks proceeding on June 26, 2009. In addition, the
Bank discontinued its LBSF adversary proceeding and pursued its
claim in the LBSF bankruptcy through the proof of claim process,
which made continuing the adversary proceeding against LBSF
unnecessary. The Bank has filed proofs of claim against Lehman
Brothers Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Brothers Commercial Corp. as
well.
The Bank has filed a new complaint against Lehman Brothers
Holding Inc., Lehman Brothers, Inc., Lehman Brothers Commercial
Corporation, Woodlands Commercial Bank, formerly known as Lehman
Brothers Commercial Bank, and Aurora Bank FSB (Aurora), formerly
known as Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, alleging unjust enrichment,
constructive trust, and conversion claims. Aurora is a member of
the Bank. Aurora did not hold more than five percent of the
Banks capital stock as of December 31, 2009.
See Item 3. Legal Proceedings for additional information
concerning the adversary proceedings discussed above.
Key
Determinants of Financial Performance
Many variables influence the financial performance of the Bank.
Key among those variables are the following: (1) Net
Interest Margin; (2) OTTI losses; (3) Leverage;
(4) Duration of Equity, Return Volatility and Projected
Capital Stock Price (PCSP); (5) Interest Rates and Yield
Curve Shifts; (6) Credit Spreads; and (7) Liquidity
Requirements. Any discussion of the financial condition and
performance of the Bank must necessarily focus on the
interrelationship of these seven factors. Key statistics
regarding five of these seven factors are presented in the table
below; in addition, each is discussed in detail in the narrative
following the table. The remaining factors are also discussed in
the narrative following the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Net Interest Margin
|
|
|
0.36
|
%
|
|
|
0.29
|
%
|
|
|
0.45
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI-related
losses(1)
|
|
|
$228.5
|
|
|
|
$266.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leverage
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assets to capital ratio at December 31
|
|
|
17.6 times
|
|
|
|
22.0 times
|
|
|
|
23.6 times
|
|
|
|
Duration of Equity, Return Volatility and PCSP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duration of equity at December 31 in the base case
|
|
|
11.6 years
|
|
|
|
26.8 years
|
|
|
|
4.2 years
|
|
Duration of equity at December 31 in the base case
Alternative Risk Profile calculation
|
|
|
1.1 years
|
|
|
|
(0.1) year
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Return volatility Year 1 forward rates
|
|
|
2.48
|
%
|
|
|
2.21
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Return volatility Year 2 forward rates
|
|
|
2.13
|
%
|
|
|
1.87
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Projected capital stock price
|
|
|
34.1
|
%
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
Projected capital stock price Alternative Risk
Profile calculation
|
|
|
68.4
|
%
|
|
|
74.2
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Rates and Yield Curve Shifts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average ten-year U.S. Treasury note yield
|
|
|
3.24
|
%
|
|
|
3.64
|
%
|
|
|
4.63
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a not applicable
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
2009 OTTI-related losses are credit
only. In 2008, GAAP required with credit and noncredit amounts
to be reported.
|
Net Interest Margin. Net interest
margin is the dollar difference between interest income and
interest expense expressed as a percentage of total
interest-earning assets. This performance metric measures the
return on the Banks investments relative to its cost of
funds. As a result of the Banks GSE status and the joint
and several obligation of the twelve FHLBanks for consolidated
obligations, the Bank has historically been able to issue debt
at spreads to the U.S. Treasury yield curve which are
typically narrower than non-GSE issuers. This spread advantage
is considered a strategic competitive advantage for the Bank.
Due in part to the markets wariness regarding any
investments linked to the
52
U.S. housing market, spreads widened compared to the
U.S. Treasury yield curve and LIBOR and term debt costs
increased. This increase began in fourth quarter 2008 and
continued through the first six months of 2009.
The Bank funds three broad categories of assets. The first asset
category is advances, which totaled $41.2 billion at
December 31, 2009, and represented 63.1% of total assets.
In order to maximize the value of membership, the Bank strives
to price its advances at levels that members will find not only
competitive, but advantageous relative to their other sources of
wholesale funding. Historically, the aggregate spread on the
Banks advance portfolio ranged from 15 to 28 basis
points over the Banks marginal cost of funds. In effect,
members have typically been able to borrow from the Bank at
levels comparable to those levels at which a AA-rated financial
institution could borrow in the capital markets. However, during
2009, the Bank lost some of the competitive advantage it had
experienced in the past due to increased competition from the
FRBs and other new government-supported lending programs. For
additional discussion regarding these government programs, see
Legislative and Regulatory Developments in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
A second category of the Banks assets are in
mortgage-related investments. Mortgage-related investments are
deemed to be consistent with the Banks housing mission and
typically produce wider spreads against consolidated obligation
funding. At December 31, 2009, the Bank held
$9.0 billion in MBS, representing 13.8% of the Banks
total assets. A second category of mortgage-related assets held
by the Bank are loans generated through the MPF Program. At
December 31, 2009, net MPF loans totaled $5.2 billion
and represented 7.9% of the Banks assets. In terms of
financial performance and impact on spread, MPF is similar to
MBS in that the Bank typically expects to earn a wider spread on
MPF loans, which enhances the weighted average net interest
spread on total assets. Additional information regarding the
Banks MBS and MPF loan portfolios is available in
Item 1. Business and in the Mortgage Partnership Finance
Program discussion in Item 7. Managements Discussion
and Analysis, both in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Third, the Bank maintains an investment portfolio, which
includes TLGP investments, U.S. Treasury and agency
securities, securities issued by GSEs and state and local
government agencies. U.S. Treasury securities are the
primary source for derivative counterparty collateral. The
longer-term investment portfolio serves to further enhance
interest income and the Banks profitability, providing the
Bank with higher returns than those available in the short-term
money markets.
Net interest margin also includes the impact from earnings on
capital. Member institutions held $4.0 billion in capital
stock in the Bank at December 31, 2009 and on average
throughout the year. The Bank typically invests its
interest-free funds (i.e., capital) in shorter-term assets. As a
result, the yield on the investment of the Banks
interest-free funds reflects short-term interest rates and will
rise or fall with prevailing short-term interest rates, assuming
constant capital levels. The Bank monitors this impact as a part
of the net interest margin evaluation.
The Banks spread between asset yields and the cost of
associated funds is an area of keen focus for management. While
the impact from earnings on capital is driven by market interest
rates, the spread that the Bank earns between interest-earning
assets and the related interest-bearing liabilities is driven by
several different factors. These factors include, but are not
limited to, the amount, timing, structure and hedging of its
debt issuance and the use of funds for advances or for
attractive investment opportunities as they arise. With respect
to investments, 2009 was again a difficult year, as ongoing
market disruptions led to widening spreads on agencies and a
reduction in liquidity in the mortgage issuance sector. The Bank
must maintain balance sheet liquidity for which the cost is
holding a portfolio of lower-yielding assets. Management is also
challenged to find and position investment assets that conform
to standards of AAA- or AA-rated credit quality while respecting
limits on interest rate risk exposure.
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment. During the financial crisis,
which began in mid-2007, global financial markets suffered
significant illiquidity, increased mortgage delinquencies and
foreclosures, falling real estate values and the collapse of the
secondary market for MBS. During 2008 and into 2009, there were
disruptions in the credit and mortgage markets and an overall
downturn in the U.S. economy. The ongoing weakening of the
U.S. housing and commercial real estate markets, decline in
home prices, and loss of jobs contributed to the recent national
recession. These factors also resulted in increased
delinquencies and defaults on mortgage assets and reduced the
value of the collateral securing these assets. In combination,
these circumstances negatively impacted the value of the
Banks private label MBS portfolio and ultimately resulted
in the Bank recording OTTI on its portfolio.
53
For full year 2009, the Bank recognized $228.5 million in
credit-related OTTI losses related to the private label MBS
portfolio, after the Bank determined that it was likely that it
would not recover the entire amortized cost of these securities.
By comparison, the Bank recognized $266.0 million of OTTI
losses in 2008, prior to the $255.9 million cumulative
effect adjustment for amended OTTI guidance recorded on
January 1, 2009.
As of December 31, 2009, the Bank has $5.9 billion
(book value) in private label MBS in its investment portfolio.
To the extent delinquency
and/or loss
rates on mortgages
and/or home
equity loans continue to increase,
and/or a
rapid decline or a continuing decline in residential real estate
values continues, the Bank may experience additional material
credit-related OTTI losses on these investment securities. Until
economic conditions improve, OTTI losses will continue to impact
the Banks profitability and overall performance.
For additional information regarding OTTI, see Critical
Accounting Policies and the Credit and Counterparty
Risk Investments discussion in Risk
Management, both in this Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Leverage. Under the GLB Act, the Bank
is required at all times to maintain a ratio of regulatory
capital-to-assets
at a level of four percent or higher. The reciprocal of this
ratio, known as leverage, is the ratio of assets to capital and
cannot exceed 25 times. The degree of leverage that the Bank
maintains directly affects the Banks resulting return on
capital and, therefore, its dividend-earning capacity. The
higher the degree of leverage, the higher the potential return
on capital that the Bank can achieve; this higher level of
leverage also results in additional risk to the Bank. The size
of the Banks balance sheet is heavily impacted by the
volume of the advances portfolio. Management strives to maintain
leverage generally in a range of 21 times to 24 times capital.
This is intended to maintain an acceptable return on capital
within the Banks applicable regulatory limits. The
Banks leverage decreased from 22.0 times for 2008 to 17.6
times for 2009. The Banks leverage fell from 2008 to 2009
as the crisis in the credit markets led the Bank to voluntarily
reduce its money market portfolio and to not re-enter the
private label MBS market. The Bank voluntarily suspended excess
capital stock repurchases and dividends until further notice in
December 2008, in an attempt to preserve capital.
Duration of Equity, Return Volatility and
PCSP. The Bank uses various metrics to
measure, monitor and control its market risk exposure. Policies
established by the Board have focused on duration of equity and
PCSP as key measurements and controls for managing and reporting
on the Banks exposure to changing market environments.
Under the original Board policy, the Bank was required to
maintain a base case duration of equity within
+/-4.5 years, and in shock cases of +/-200 basis
points, within +/-7 years. In early 2008, the Bank
developed an Alternative Risk Profile approach which excludes
the effect of certain mortgage-related asset credit spreads.
During the third quarter of 2009, the Alternative Risk Profile
calculation was refined to revalue private label MBS using
market-implied discount spreads from the period of acquisition.
Under this alternative approach, the acceptable ranges remain
the same as in the actual calculation.
The return volatility metric is utilized to manage the impact of
interest rate risk on the Banks return on average capital
stock compared to a dividend benchmark interest rate. This
metric excludes future OTTI charges that may occur. This metric
is calculated on multiple interest rate shock scenarios over
rolling forward one to 12 month and 13 to 24 month
time periods. The metric is presented above as a spread over
3-month
LIBOR.
With respect to PCSP, the Board established a PCSP floor of 85%
and a target of 95%. The Bank strives to manage its overall risk
profile in a manner that attempts to preserve the PCSP at or
near the target ratio of 95%. The difference between the actual
PCSP and the floor or target, if any, represents a range of
additional retained earnings that will need to be accumulated
over time to restore the PCSP and retained earnings to an
adequate level. The PCSP is also calculated under the
Alternative Risk Profile approach. In both calculations, the
floor and target are the same.
For additional information regarding the Alternative Risk
Profile assumptions and approach, see the Risk
Governance discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report on
Form 10-K.
It is the intent of the Board and management to maintain a
market risk profile within Board limits. The Banks liquid
asset portfolios, because of their short-term maturity, do not
expose the Bank to meaningful market risk. The Banks
member loan portfolio has a modest amount of interest rate risk.
The majority of the market risk in the Banks balance sheet
is driven by the MBS and MPF portfolios and the associated
funding. The extension and
54
prepayment risk inherent in mortgage assets is the major source
of negative convexity risk in the Bank. The Banks mortgage
assets are funded primarily with consolidated obligations. As a
result, the mortgage portfolios are also subject to basis risk,
that is, the risk that mortgage spreads and agency spreads do
not move correspondingly. This basis risk had a significant
impact on the Banks market risk measures in 2008 and 2009.
Declines in the market value of equity due to further private
label MBS spread widening in the fourth quarter of 2008
significantly increased the differential between the actual and
Alternative Risk Profile calculations of PCSP and duration of
equity. This differential decreased significantly in 2009 as
private label MBS credit spreads reverted to levels below
year-end 2008. The Bank is also exposed to interest rate risk
with respect to the rollover of existing debt and the ability to
replace maturing debt at comparable cost, as well as the risk of
funding mismatch due to rate resets on both assets and
liabilities.
The flow of assets, funding and capital causes the Banks
duration of equity, market value of equity volatility, and PCSP
positions to fluctuate on a daily basis. As a result of the
extension risk within the MBS and MPF portfolios, rising
interest rates typically exert upward pressure on the
Banks duration of equity, while falling rates tend to have
the opposite effect. In a rising interest rate environment,
generally associated with a strong economy, the Banks
financial performance may improve due to higher earnings on
capital, widening net interest spreads and growing loan demand.
Yet these positive influences are offset to some degree because
the same economic circumstances increase the Banks
duration of equity and create a need to reduce this exposure. In
a falling rate environment, typical of a weakening economy,
duration of equity typically declines. This reduces the
Banks duration and the costs of policy compliance, but
this benefit may be offset by declining earnings on capital.
Longer-term U.S. Treasury yields trended higher in 2009,
with the five- and ten-year U.S. Treasuries increasing by
113 basis points and 162 basis points, respectively.
Longer-term mortgage rates were more stable for the period, as
primary and secondary mortgage spreads narrowed to offset a
significant portion of the long-term yield increases and
mitigate the upward pressure on duration from higher rates.
Lower expected mortgage prepayments, driven by the weak housing
market and availability of credit, extended the Banks
duration of equity. The incremental costs of hedging duration,
convexity and market value volatility, and to a lesser extent,
basis risk, by issuing fixed-rate debt or purchasing option
contracts reduce the Banks earnings.
See the Quantitative Disclosures Regarding Market
Risk discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further discussion of Duration of Equity and PCSP
calculations and results.
Interest Rates and Yield Curve
Shifts. Another important determinant in the
financial performance of the Bank involves interest rates and
shifts in the yield curve. The Banks earnings are affected
not only by rising or falling interest rates, but also by the
particular path and volatility of changes in market interest
rates and the prevailing shape of the yield curve.
Theoretically, flattening of the yield curve tends to compress
the Banks net interest margin, while steepening of the
curve offers better opportunities to purchase assets with wider
net interest spread. In 2009, the U.S. Treasury curve steepened
significantly with short-term yields remaining low and long-term
yields rising, as long-term economic outlook improved during the
year. The result of this activity pushed the spread between
2-year and
10-year
Treasuries to an all-time high during the second half of the
year. Unfortunately, the Bank was not able to fully capitalize
on the steepening of the yield curve as credit concerns and
tightening spreads negatively impacted the Banks ability
to accumulate MBS assets.
The performance of the Banks portfolios of mortgage assets
is particularly affected by shifts in the ten-year maturity
range of the yield curve, which is the point that heavily
influences mortgage pricing and refinancing trends. Changes in
the shape of the yield curve, particularly the portion that
drives fixed-rate residential mortgage yields, can also have a
pronounced effect on the pace at which borrowers refinance to
prepay their existing loans. Since the Banks mortgage loan
portfolio is composed of fixed-rate mortgages, changes in the
yield curve can have a significant effect on earnings. Under
normal circumstances, when rates decline, prepayments increase,
resulting in accelerated accretion/amortization of any
associated premiums/discounts. In addition, when higher coupon
mortgage loans prepay, the unscheduled return of principal
cannot be invested in assets with a comparable yield resulting
in a decline in the aggregate yield on the remaining loan
portfolio and a possible decrease in the net interest margin.
55
The volatility of yield curve shifts may also have an effect on
the Banks duration of equity and the cost of duration
policy compliance. Volatility in interest rates may force
management to spend resources on duration hedges to maintain
compliance, even though a subsequent, sudden reversal in rates
may make such hedges unnecessary. Volatility in interest rate
levels and in the shape and slope of the yield curve increases
the cost of compliance with the Banks duration limit.
In summary, volatility in interest rates, the shifting slope of
the yield curve, and movements in the ten-year maturity range of
the curve challenge management as it seeks to maintain an
acceptable net interest margin, maintain duration of equity
compliance at the least cost and hedge mortgage-related
convexity.
Credit Spreads. During 2008, mortgage
delinquencies increased, credit spreads widened and the universe
of mortgage lenders contracted due to bankruptcies and brokers
exiting the business. Banks remained reluctant to lend to one
another, the liquidity of the asset-backed commercial paper
market dried up, and there was little, if any, securitization of
MBS.
This widening of mortgage spreads significantly lengthened the
Banks duration of equity and drove the decline in the
Banks market value of equity. This was due to the
magnitude of the change in mortgage spreads, which far exceeded
the movement in the Banks funding spread. As the economic
and housing market outlooks improved in 2009, mortgage spreads
narrowed and the duration of equity declined significantly.
In 2009, debt spreads began to narrow by the beginning of the
second quarter and continued throughout the remainder of the
year. Although investors have continued to be somewhat cautious
of any investments linked to the U.S. housing market,
including GSE debt, funding costs have improved and the
availability of long-term FHLBank debt has increased as well.
For additional information regarding the impact of credit
spreads on the Banks risk metrics and financials, see the
Risk Management section in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Liquidity Requirements. The Bank
maintains contingency liquidity sufficient to meet its estimated
needs for a minimum of five business days without access to the
consolidated obligation debt markets and to adhere to Finance
Agency guidance to target as much as 15 days of liquidity
under certain scenarios. To meet this additional requirement,
the Bank has had to maintain significantly higher balances in
shorter-term investments, earning a much lower interest rate
than would have been possible in alternate investment options.
These larger balances in lower-earning assets have had a
negative impact on the Banks profitability. For additional
information regarding the Finance Agencys liquidity
guidance, see the Liquidity and Funding Risk
discussion in Risk Management in Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
2010
Outlook
The Bank developed a 2010 operating plan focused on adding value
to our membership and the communities they serve, while
continuing to address the challenges that the Bank faced in 2009.
The Bank recognizes the importance of its members, both as
customers and stockholders. It is focused on effectively
managing the advance portfolio and portfolio-related activity,
including identifying new opportunities to improve the overall
lending process. It is expected that the advance portfolio will
continue to experience runoff through the first six months of
2010, due to a decline in members liquidity needs,
competition from various governmental programs initiated in late
2008 and early 2009, and a change in how members have been
managing their business and liquidity needs. In an attempt to
offset this runoff and create a platform for advance growth, the
Bank is focused on recruiting new institutions for membership,
providing pricing on advances to create value for the member and
identifying and implementing new products, programs and services
for the members as appropriate for both the members and the
Bank. Management is also focused on identifying ways to improve
customer service and product delivery efficiency to enhance the
members overall experience with the Bank. While working
toward these goals to improve the products and services offered
to members, management will remain focused on its most important
mission ensuring that the Bank is poised and
prepared to ensure a reliable flow of liquidity to its members
and the communities they serve in all market cycles.
56
Given the current economic environment, the financial
performance of the Bank has been challenged due to OTTI charges
on the private label MBS portfolio. The Bank recognizes that
this will continue to be a challenge in 2010 and material
credit-related OTTI charges are expected in the coming year. The
specific amount of credit-related OTTI charges will depend on
several factors, including economic, financial market and
housing market conditions and the actual and projected
performance of the loan collateral underlying the Banks
MBS. If delinquency
and/or loss
rates on mortgages
and/or home
equity loans continue to increase,
and/or there
is a further rapid decline in residential real estate values,
the Bank could experience reduced yields or further losses on
these investment securities.
Because Bank members are both customers and stockholders,
management views member value as access to liquidity,
competitively priced products, and a suitable return on
investment. The Bank must deliver all of these components, while
protecting the stockholders investment, prudently managing
the Banks capital position and supporting community
development. In the current environment, the Bank is focused on
protecting the members investments and building adequate
retained earnings. Therefore, as previously discussed, on
December 23, 2008, the Bank suspended dividend payments
until further notice. In addition, management continues to
address ways to manage expense growth while safeguarding
members capital stock investment and providing desired
products and pricing.
The Banks mission includes focus on providing programs for
affordable housing and community development. In addition, Bank
management provides leadership and opportunities for members to
bring about sustainable economic development within their
communities. Imperatives within this area include expanding
member participation in the FHLBank programs, marketing the
community investment products and services to emerging
communities and focusing on priority housing needs, supporting
the member services initiative to increase letter of credit
volume for tax-exempt bond issuances, and enhancing member
opportunities for CRA-qualified lending and investing.
In order to safeguard members capital stock, the Bank is
also focused on enhancing its risk management practices and
infrastructure. This includes addressing the following:
(1) risk governance; (2) risk appetite; (3) risk
measurement and assessment; (4) risk reporting and
communication; and (5) top risks and emerging risks. First,
improvements to the Banks policies and committee
structures will provide better governance over the risk
management process. Second, the Bank is revising its risk
appetite, integrating it with the strategic plan and reinforcing
it through establishment of organizational goals. Third, all
existing and potential risk measures are being reviewed to
enhance market, credit, operating and business risk metrics and
identify key risk indicators in each risk area. Fourth, the Bank
is developing an enhanced risk reporting system which will
strengthen management and Board oversight of risk and provide a
clear understanding of risk issues facing the Bank. Lastly,
management and the Board are actively engaged in surveying and
assessing top risks and emerging risks. Top risks are existing,
material risks the Bank faces; these are periodically reviewed
and reconsidered to determine appropriate management attention
and focus. Emerging risks are those risks that are new or
evolving forms of existing risks; once identified, potential
action plans are considered based on probability and severity. A
strong risk management process serves as a base for building
member value in the cooperative.
In addition to the items discussed above, infrastructure is a
necessary foundation for continued success in the current
business environment. Management is committed to providing the
necessary technology resources to address changing business and
regulatory needs to support the framework needed to achieve
these goals and still prudently manage costs. These resources
will be focused on areas such as enhancement of risk modeling,
collateral management and analysis, business and information
analysis and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements
and business continuation plan enhancements.
57
Net
Interest Income
The following table summarizes the interest income or interest
expense, related yields and rates paid and the average balance
for each of the primary balance sheet classifications as well as
the net interest margin for each of three years ended
December 31.
Average
Balances and Interest Yields/Rates
Paid(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Yield
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest
|
|
|
Yield
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
Income/
|
|
|
Yield/Rate
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
Income/
|
|
|
/Rate
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
Income/
|
|
|
/Rate
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Balance(1)
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Balance(1)
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Balance(1)
|
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal funds
sold(2)
|
|
$
|
2,666.5
|
|
|
$
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
0.11
|
|
|
$
|
4,234.7
|
|
|
$
|
77.1
|
|
|
|
1.82
|
|
|
$
|
3,873.0
|
|
|
$
|
195.1
|
|
|
|
5.04
|
|
Interest-earning Deposits
|
|
|
4,705.4
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
0.24
|
|
|
|
652.7
|
|
|
|
9.6
|
|
|
|
1.47
|
|
|
|
14.6
|
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
4.89
|
|
Investment
securities(3)
|
|
|
15,685.2
|
|
|
|
540.4
|
|
|
|
3.45
|
|
|
|
17,853.6
|
|
|
|
798.7
|
|
|
|
4.47
|
|
|
|
17,348.3
|
|
|
|
878.9
|
|
|
|
5.07
|
|
Advances(4)
|
|
|
45,376.2
|
|
|
|
612.1
|
|
|
|
1.35
|
|
|
|
67,403.6
|
|
|
|
2,150.4
|
|
|
|
3.19
|
|
|
|
53,295.6
|
|
|
|
2,865.7
|
|
|
|
5.38
|
|
Mortgage loans held for
Portfolio(5)
|
|
|
5,650.9
|
|
|
|
281.0
|
|
|
|
4.97
|
|
|
|
6,115.1
|
|
|
|
316.0
|
|
|
|
5.17
|
|
|
|
6,558.6
|
|
|
|
337.9
|
|
|
|
5.15
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning Assets
|
|
|
74,084.2
|
|
|
|
1,447.8
|
|
|
|
1.96
|
|
|
|
96,259.7
|
|
|
|
3,351.8
|
|
|
|
3.48
|
|
|
|
81,090.1
|
|
|
|
4,278.3
|
|
|
|
5.27
|
|
Allowance for credit Losses
|
|
|
(15.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
assets(4)(5)(6)
|
|
|
2,065.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,343.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,397.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
76,134.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
98,592.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
82,479.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-bearing deposits
|
|
$
|
1,677.0
|
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
0.08
|
|
|
$
|
1,822.5
|
|
|
$
|
34.9
|
|
|
|
1.91
|
|
|
$
|
1,526.2
|
|
|
$
|
75.2
|
|
|
|
4.93
|
|
Consolidated obligation discount notes
|
|
|
14,127.3
|
|
|
|
42.1
|
|
|
|
0.30
|
|
|
|
26,933.6
|
|
|
|
686.0
|
|
|
|
2.55
|
|
|
|
22,118.3
|
|
|
|
1,106.1
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
Consolidated obligation
Bonds(4)
|
|
|
53,953.9
|
|
|
|
1,140.3
|
|
|
|
2.11
|
|
|
|
63,567.2
|
|
|
|
2,348.6
|
|
|
|
3.69
|
|
|
|
54,250.5
|
|
|
|
2,728.1
|
|
|
|
5.03
|
|
Other borrowings
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.84
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
3.33
|
|
|
|
31.3
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
6.03
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
|
69,766.0
|
|
|
|
1,183.8
|
|
|
|
1.70
|
|
|
|
92,335.0
|
|
|
|
3,069.9
|
|
|
|
3.32
|
|
|
|
77,926.3
|
|
|
|
3,911.3
|
|
|
|
5.02
|
|
Other
liabilities(4)
|
|
|
2,535.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,917.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
889.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total capital
|
|
|
3,832.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,340.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,663.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and capital
|
|
$
|
76,134.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
98,592.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
82,479.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.26
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
Impact of net noninterest-bearing funds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.20
|
|
|
|
Net interest income/net interest margin
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
264.0
|
|
|
|
0.36
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
281.9
|
|
|
|
0.29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
367.0
|
|
|
|
0.45
|
|
|
|
Average interest-earning assets to interest-bearing
liabilities
|
|
|
106.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104.2
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Average balances of deposits
(assets and liabilities) include cash collateral received
from/paid to counterparties which are reflected in the Statement
of Condition as derivative assets/liabilities.
|
|
(2) |
|
The average balance of Federal
funds sold, related interest income and average yield
calculations may include loans to other FHLBanks.
|
|
(3) |
|
Investment securities include
trading,
held-to-maturity
and
available-for-sale
securities. The average balances of
held-to-maturity
and
available-for-sale
investment securities are reflected at amortized cost;
therefore, the resulting yields do not give effect to changes in
fair value or the noncredit component of a previously recognized
OTTI reflected in AOCI.
|
|
(4) |
|
Average balances reflect
reclassification of noninterest-earning/noninterest-bearing
hedge accounting adjustments to other assets or other
liabilities.
|
|
(5) |
|
Nonaccrual mortgage loans are
included in average balances in determining the average rate.
BOB loans are reflected in other assets.
|
|
(6) |
|
The noncredit portion of OTTI
losses on investment securities is reflected in other assets for
purposes of the average balance sheet presentation.
|
Net interest income declined $17.9 million, or 6.4%, to
$264.0 million for full year 2009, compared with the prior
year. Lower volumes drove the decline, as average
interest-earning assets declined 23.0% to $74.1 billion for
full year 2009 compared to $96.3 billion a year ago. The
majority of the decline in interest-earning assets was
attributed to lower demand for advances, which declined
$22.0 billion, or 32.6%, as members reduced risk,
de-levered, increased deposits and utilized government programs
aimed at improving liquidity. In addition, in response to the
Banks suspension of dividends and repurchase of excess
capital stock, many of the Banks members have
58
reacted by limiting the use of the Banks advance products.
The current economic recession also decreased the Banks
members need for funding from the Bank. Average
investments in short-term assets, generally Federal funds sold
and interest-earning deposits, increased primarily in response
to regulatory demands, and largely offset the reductions in the
MBS mortgage loan portfolios.
The net interest margin improved 7 basis points to
36 basis points, compared to 29 basis points a year
ago. Favorable funding costs, partially offset by the lower
yields on interest-free funds (capital), contributed to the
improvement. Rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities fell
162 basis points while yields on interest-earning assets
fell 152 basis points in the
year-over-year
comparison. The impact of favorable funding was evident within
the advance and investment securities portfolios as the
improvement in cost of funds combined with the increased use of
short-term debt greatly improved spreads. Offsetting this
improvement was the lower yield on interest-free funds (capital)
typically invested in short-term assets, as evidenced by the
171 basis point and 123 basis point decline in yields
on Federal funds sold and interest-earning deposits,
respectively. Over the past year, as the yields on Federal funds
sold declined, the Bank shifted its investments to higher-yield
interest-earning FRB accounts. Beginning in July 2009, the FRBs
stopped paying interest on these excess balances that it holds
on the Banks behalf and the Bank shifted its investments
back to Federal funds sold. Additional details and analysis
regarding the shift in the mix of these categories is included
in the Rate/Volume Analysis discussion below.
Rate/Volume Analysis. Changes in both
volume and interest rates influence changes in net interest
income and net interest margin. The following table summarizes
changes in interest income and interest expense between 2009 and
2008 and between 2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase (Decrease) in Interest Income/Expense Due to
Changes
|
|
|
|
in Rate/Volume
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 Compared to 2008
|
|
|
|
2008 Compared to 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Volume
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
$
|
(17.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(56.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(74.1
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
30.6
|
|
|
$
|
(148.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(118.0
|
)
|
Interest-earning deposits
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
(0.9
|
)
|
|
|
8.9
|
|
Investment securities
|
|
|
(146.1
|
)
|
|
|
(112.2
|
)
|
|
|
(258.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
75.4
|
|
|
|
(155.6
|
)
|
|
|
(80.2
|
)
|
Advances
|
|
|
(525.3
|
)
|
|
|
(1,013.0
|
)
|
|
|
(1,538.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
623.5
|
|
|
|
(1,338.8
|
)
|
|
|
(715.3
|
)
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio
|
|
|
(31.1
|
)
|
|
|
(3.9
|
)
|
|
|
(35.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
(21.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(21.9
|
)
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
(52.3
|
)
|
|
|
52.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
82.6
|
|
|
|
(82.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets
|
|
|
(772.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1,131.8
|
)
|
|
|
(1,904.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
800.4
|
|
|
|
(1,726.9
|
)
|
|
|
(926.5
|
)
|
|
|
Interest-bearing deposits
|
|
|
(8.5
|
)
|
|
|
(25.1
|
)
|
|
|
(33.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
(54.4
|
)
|
|
|
(40.3
|
)
|
Consolidated obligation discount notes
|
|
|
(172.6
|
)
|
|
|
(471.3
|
)
|
|
|
(643.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
217.5
|
|
|
|
(637.6
|
)
|
|
|
(420.1
|
)
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
|
(520.2
|
)
|
|
|
(688.1
|
)
|
|
|
(1,208.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
487.6
|
|
|
|
(867.1
|
)
|
|
|
(379.5
|
)
|
Other borrowings
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
(1.5
|
)
|
Other(1)
|
|
|
(49.0
|
)
|
|
|
49.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
|
(750.4
|
)
|
|
|
(1,135.7
|
)
|
|
|
(1,886.1
|
)
|
|
|
|
723.2
|
|
|
|
(1,564.6
|
)
|
|
|
(841.4
|
)
|
|
|
Total increase (decrease) in net interest income
|
|
$
|
(21.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.9
|
|
|
$
|
(17.9
|
)
|
|
|
$
|
77.2
|
|
|
$
|
(162.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(85.1
|
)
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Total interest income/expense rate
and volume amounts are calculated values. The difference between
the weighted average total amounts and the individual balance
sheet components is reported in Other above.
|
Net interest income decreased $17.9 million for full year
2009 from full year 2008, driven by changes in the volume of
interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. This
decline was somewhat offset by a rate benefit in the
year-over-year
comparison. Total interest income decreased $1.9 billion
from 2008. This decline included a decrease of $1.1 billion
due to rate and $772.2 million due to volume, driven
primarily by the advances portfolio and, to a lesser extent, the
investment securities portfolio, as discussed below. Total
interest expense decreased $1.9 billion in the same
comparison, including a rate impact of $1.1 billion and a
volume impact of $750.4 million, both due to the
consolidated obligation bonds and discount notes portfolios,
discussed in more detail below.
59
For full year 2009, Federal funds sold decreased
$1.6 billion from the same prior year period, reflecting a
shift in the first part of 2009 to interest-earning deposits due
to favorable rates paid on FRB balances, as previously
discussed. Related interest income declined $74.1 million,
driven in large part by a 171 basis point decline in yield
on the portfolio. For full year 2009, interest-earning deposits
increased $4.1 billion, although related interest income
only increased $1.7 million due to the relatively low
yields on short-term investments.
The decrease in yields on both Federal funds sold and
interest-earning deposits
year-over-year
reflects the significant downward change in overall short-term
rates. These decreases are evidenced in the interest rate trend
presentation in the Current Financial and Mortgage Market
Events and Trends discussion earlier in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis. The net
$2.5 billion combined increase in the balances of these two
categories reflects the Banks continued strategy in part
to maintain a strong liquidity position in short-term
investments in order to meet members loan demand under
conditions of market stress and to maintain adequate liquidity
in accordance with Finance Agency guidance and Bank policies.
The average investment securities portfolio balance for full
year 2009 decreased $2.2 billion, or 12.1%, from full year
2008. Correspondingly, the interest income on this portfolio
decreased $258.3 million, driven by the volume decrease and
also by rate, as yields on the portfolio fell 102 basis
points.
The investment securities portfolio includes trading,
available-for-sale
and
held-to-maturity
securities. The decrease in investments from full year 2008 to
full year 2009 was due to declining certificates of deposit
balances and run-off of the
held-to-maturity
MBS portfolio as well as credit-related OTTI recorded on certain
private label MBS. The Bank has been cautious toward investments
linked to the U.S. housing market, including MBS. The Bank
purchased $1.8 billion of U.S. agency and GSE MBS in
2009.
The average advances portfolio decreased significantly from 2008
to 2009, declining $22.0 billion, or 32.6%. This decline in
volume, coupled with a 184 basis point decrease in the
yield, resulted in a $1.5 billion decline in interest
income
year-over-year.
During the second half of 2007 and continuing into the first
half of 2008, the Bank experienced unprecedented growth in the
advance portfolio due to instability in the credit market, which
resulted in increased demand from members for liquidity. This
demand leveled off in the second and third quarters of 2008.
Advance demand began to decline in the fourth quarter of 2008
and continued through the first nine months of 2009, before
stabilizing in the fourth quarter, as members grew core deposits
and gained access to additional liquidity from the Federal
Reserve and other government programs that only became available
in the second half of 2008. The interest income on this
portfolio was significantly impacted by the decline in
short-term rates, the decrease of which is presented in the
interest rate trend presentation in the Current Financial
and Mortgage Market Events and Trends discussion earlier
in this Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis
in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Specific mix changes within the portfolio are discussed more
fully below under Average Advances Portfolio Detail.
The mortgage loans held for portfolio balance declined
$464.2 million, or 7.6%, from 2008 to 2009. The related
interest income on this portfolio declined $35.0 million in
the same period. The volume of mortgages purchased from members
was steady from
quarter-to-quarter
and
year-over-year,
but was outpaced by acceleration in the run-off of the existing
portfolio. The decline in interest income was due primarily to
lower average portfolio balances although yields on the
portfolio also declined 20 basis points.
Interest-bearing deposits decreased $145.5 million, or
8.0%, from 2008 to 2009. Interest expense on interest-bearing
deposits decreased $33.6 million
year-over-year,
driven by a 183 basis point decline in rates paid. Average
interest-bearing deposit balances fluctuate periodically and are
driven by member activity.
The consolidated obligations portfolio balance decreased
$22.4 billion from 2008 to 2009. Discount notes accounted
for $12.8 billion of the decline, while average bonds fell
by $9.6 billion for the year. The decline in discount notes
was consistent with the decline in short-term advance demand
from members as noted above. Interest expense on discount notes
decreased $643.9 million from 2008. The decrease was
partially attributable to the volume decline and partially due
to the 225 basis point declines in rates paid
year-over-year.
The decline in rates paid was consistent with the general
decline in short-term rates as previously mentioned. Interest
expense on bonds
60
decreased $1.2 billion from 2008 to 2009. This was due in
part to the volume decline as well as decreases in rates paid on
bonds of 158 basis points.
A portion of the bond portfolio is swapped to
3-month
LIBOR; therefore, as the LIBOR rate (decreases) increases,
interest expense on swapped bonds, including the impact of
swaps, (decreases) increases. Market conditions continued to
impact spreads on the Banks consolidated obligations. Bond
spreads were volatile in the beginning of 2009 and the Bank had
experienced some obstacles in attempting to issue longer-term
debt as investors had been reluctant to buy longer-term GSE
obligations. However, investor demand for shorter-term GSE debt
has been strong during 2009 and the Bank continued to be able to
issue discount notes at attractive rates as needed. The Bank has
also experienced an increase in demand for debt with maturities
ranging from one to three years from the second quarter through
the end of 2009. See details regarding the impact of swaps on
the quarterly rates paid in the Net Interest Income
Derivatives Effects discussion below.
For additional information, see the Liquidity and Funding
Risk discussion in Risk Management in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
2008 vs. 2007. Net interest income was
$281.9 million for full year 2008, a decline of
$85.1 million, or 23.2%, from full year 2007, as the impact
of falling interest rates more than offset the benefit of higher
volumes. Total average interest-earning assets were
$96.3 billion for full year 2008, an increase of
$15.2 billion, or 18.7%, over the full year 2007 average,
driven by the higher demand for advances. However, the overall
yield on interest-earning assets declined 179 bps to 3.48%
while the overall rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities
declined only 170 bps to 3.32%, resulting in a 9 bps
compression in the net interest spread. The net interest margin
decreased 16 bps, to 29 bps, from 2007 to 2008.
The increase in average interest-earning assets from 2007 to
2008 was driven primarily by the advance portfolio, and to a
lesser degree increases in Federal funds sold, interest-earning
deposits and investment securities. These increases were
slightly offset by the continuing decrease in the average
mortgage loans held for portfolio balance. The
year-over-year
increase in advances was primarily due to instability in the
credit market, which resulted in increased demand from members
for liquidity. The decline in total interest income
year-over-year
was primarily rate driven for all interest-earning asset
categories, as the lower interest rate environment more than
offset higher volumes.
The decrease in interest income was partially offset by a
decrease in interest expense, primarily due to the consolidated
obligations portfolio. During 2008, both the discount notes and
bonds within the portfolio increased from the prior year.
However, this increase in volume was more than offset by the
decrease in rates paid on consolidated obligations during 2008.
In addition, a substantial portion of the bond portfolio was
swapped to
3-month
LIBOR; therefore, as the LIBOR rate decreased, the interest
expense on the swapped bonds also decreased.
Average
Advances Portfolio Detail
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average Balances
|
|
|
Change 2009
|
|
|
Change 2008
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
vs. 2008
|
|
|
vs. 2007
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
|
|
Product
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
Repo
|
|
$
|
22,750.6
|
|
|
$
|
41,721.6
|
|
|
$
|
30,834.9
|
|
|
|
(45.5
|
)
|
|
|
35.3
|
|
Term Loans
|
|
|
13,625.8
|
|
|
|
12,703.9
|
|
|
|
10,511.9
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
20.9
|
|
Convertible Select
|
|
|
7,081.1
|
|
|
|
9,268.2
|
|
|
|
8,802.9
|
|
|
|
(23.6
|
)
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
Hedge Select
|
|
|
118.0
|
|
|
|
159.4
|
|
|
|
70.4
|
|
|
|
(26.0
|
)
|
|
|
126.4
|
|
Returnable
|
|
|
1,762.3
|
|
|
|
3,535.6
|
|
|
|
3,077.0
|
|
|
|
(50.2
|
)
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
45,337.8
|
|
|
$
|
67,388.7
|
|
|
$
|
53,297.1
|
|
|
|
(32.7
|
)
|
|
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
The par value of the Banks average advance portfolio
decreased 32.6% from full year 2008 to full year 2009. The most
significant percentage decrease in the comparison was in the
Returnable product, which declined $1.8 billion, or 50.2%.
The most significant dollar decrease was in the Repo product,
which declined $18.9 billion, or 45.5%
year-over-year.
61
Average balances for the Repo product decreased in 2009
reflecting the impact of members access to additional
liquidity from government programs as well as members
reactions to the Banks pricing of short-term advance
products. Members have also taken other actions during the
credit crisis, such as raising core deposits and reducing the
size of their balance sheets. In addition, many of the
Banks members have reacted to the Banks temporary
actions of not paying dividends and not repurchasing excess
capital stock by limiting their use of the Banks advance
products. The current economic recession has reduced the
Banks members need for funding from the Bank as
well. The majority of the decline was driven by decreases in
average advances of the Banks larger borrowers, with five
banks reducing their total average advances outstanding by
$14.0 billion. The decline in Returnable product balances
was due to significant paydowns by one of the Banks
largest borrowers. To a much lesser extent, the decrease in
interest rates also contributed to the decline in these balances.
The slight
year-over-year
increase in the average balance of Term Loans was driven
primarily by a decline in interest rates; members elected to
lock in lower rates on longer-term funding when possible. In
addition, certain members had funding needs for term liquidity.
As of December 31, 2009, 47.7% of the par value of advances
in the portfolio had a remaining maturity of one year or less,
compared to 37.0% at December 31, 2008. Details of the
portfolio components are included in Note 9 to the audited
financial statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The ability to grow the advances portfolio may be affected by,
among other things, the following: (1) the liquidity
demands of the Banks borrowers; (2) the composition
of the Banks membership itself; (3) the Banks
liquidity position and how management chooses to fund the Bank;
(4) current, as well as future, credit market conditions
and the Banks pricing levels on advances; (5) member
reaction to the Banks voluntary decision to suspend
dividend payments and excess capital stock repurchases until
further notice; (6) actions of the U.S. government
which have created additional competition; (7) housing
market trends; and (8) the shape of the yield curve.
During 2008, the Federal Reserve took a series of unprecedented
actions that have made it more attractive for eligible financial
institutions to borrow directly from the FRBs. First, it
significantly lowered the interest rate on funding from FRBs and
reduced the discount they are requiring on collateral that
eligible institutions use to support their borrowings. Second,
it announced the creation of the Commercial Paper Funding
Facility (CPFF), which provides a liquidity backstop to
U.S. issuers of commercial paper rated at least
A-1/P-1/F1
by an NRSRO. As the Banks customers use these sources of
funding, there is the potential of a reduction in the level of
advances made by the Bank to its members.
In 2009, the FDIC approved a final regulation increasing the
FDIC assessment on those FDIC-insured financial institutions
with outstanding FHLBank loans and other secured liabilities
where the ratio of secured liabilities to domestic deposits is
greater than 25 percent. The FDIC also announced a program
to guarantee new senior unsecured debt issued by FDIC-insured
institutions, where such debt is issued on or before
October 31, 2009. The Bank has experienced an impact from
these government lending and debt guarantee programs in the form
of reduced borrowings
and/or
paydowns by some of its members and expects the trend may
continue. With respect to the FDICs final regulation regarding
an FDIC assessment adjustment as discussed above, the Bank
determined that this would have a material adverse impact on the
Banks advances. Specifically, Bank advances would become
materially more expensive than other competitive funding sources
for the Banks largest borrowing members.
See the Legislative and Regulatory Actions discussion in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information regarding these government actions.
62
The Bank accepts various forms of collateral including, but not
limited to, AAA-rated investment securities and residential
mortgage loans. In light of recent market conditions, the Bank
recognizes that there is the potential for an increase in the
credit risk of the portfolio. However, the Bank continues to
monitor its collateral position and the related policies and
procedures, to help ensure adequate collateral coverage. The
Bank believes it is fully secured as of December 31, 2009.
For more information on collateral, see the Loan Products
discussion in Item 1. Business and the Credit and
Counterparty Risk discussion in Risk Management in
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis, both in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Net Interest Income Derivative
Effects. The following tables separately
quantify the effects of the Banks derivative activities on
its interest income and interest expense for each of the years
ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. Derivative and
hedging activities are discussed below in the other income
(loss) section.
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Inc./
|
|
|
Yield/
|
|
|
Interest Inc./Exp.
|
|
|
Yield/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incr./
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exp. with
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
without
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Impact of
|
|
|
(Decr.)
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Average Balance
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Derivatives(1)
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
45,376.2
|
|
|
$
|
612.1
|
|
|
|
1.35
|
|
|
$
|
1,704.2
|
|
|
|
3.76
|
|
|
$
|
(1,092.1
|
)
|
|
|
(2.41
|
)
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio
|
|
|
5,650.9
|
|
|
|
281.0
|
|
|
|
4.97
|
|
|
|
285.1
|
|
|
|
5.04
|
|
|
|
(4.1
|
)
|
|
|
(0.07
|
)
|
All other interest-earning assets
|
|
|
23,057.1
|
|
|
|
554.7
|
|
|
|
2.41
|
|
|
|
554.7
|
|
|
|
2.41
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets
|
|
$
|
74,084.2
|
|
|
$
|
1,447.8
|
|
|
|
1.96
|
|
|
|
2,544.0
|
|
|
|
3.43
|
|
|
$
|
(1,096.2
|
)
|
|
|
(1.47
|
)
|
|
|
Liabilities and capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
$
|
53,953.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,140.3
|
|
|
|
2.11
|
|
|
$
|
1,581.7
|
|
|
|
2.93
|
|
|
$
|
(441.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.82
|
)
|
All other interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
|
15,812.1
|
|
|
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
0.28
|
|
|
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
0.28
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
$
|
69,766.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,183.8
|
|
|
|
1.70
|
|
|
$
|
1,625.2
|
|
|
|
2.33
|
|
|
$
|
(441.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.63
|
)
|
|
|
Net interest income/net interest spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
264.0
|
|
|
|
0.26
|
|
|
$
|
918.8
|
|
|
|
1.10
|
|
|
$
|
(654.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.84
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Impact of Derivatives includes net
interest settlements and amortization of basis adjustments
resulting from previously terminated hedging relationships.
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Inc./
|
|
|
Yield/
|
|
|
Interest Inc./Exp.
|
|
|
Yield/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incr./
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
Exp. with
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
without
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Impact of
|
|
|
(Decr.)
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Derivatives(1)
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
67,403.6
|
|
|
$
|
2,150.4
|
|
|
|
3.19
|
|
|
$
|
2,731.2
|
|
|
|
4.05
|
|
|
$
|
(580.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.86
|
)
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio
|
|
|
6,115.1
|
|
|
|
316.0
|
|
|
|
5.17
|
|
|
|
318.9
|
|
|
|
5.22
|
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
All other interest-earning assets
|
|
|
22,741.0
|
|
|
|
885.4
|
|
|
|
3.89
|
|
|
|
885.4
|
|
|
|
3.89
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets
|
|
$
|
96,259.7
|
|
|
$
|
3,351.8
|
|
|
|
3.48
|
|
|
$
|
3,935.5
|
|
|
|
4.09
|
|
|
$
|
(583.7
|
)
|
|
|
(0.61
|
)
|
|
|
Liabilities and capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
$
|
63,567.2
|
|
|
$
|
2,348.6
|
|
|
|
3.69
|
|
|
$
|
2,622.4
|
|
|
|
4.13
|
|
|
$
|
(273.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.44
|
)
|
All other interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
|
28,767.8
|
|
|
|
721.3
|
|
|
|
2.51
|
|
|
|
721.3
|
|
|
|
2.51
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
$
|
92,335.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,069.9
|
|
|
|
3.32
|
|
|
$
|
3,343.7
|
|
|
|
3.62
|
|
|
$
|
(273.8
|
)
|
|
|
(0.30
|
)
|
|
|
Net interest income/net interest spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
281.9
|
|
|
|
0.16
|
|
|
$
|
591.8
|
|
|
|
0.47
|
|
|
$
|
(309.9
|
)
|
|
|
(0.31
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Impact of Derivatives includes net
interest settlements and amortization of basis adjustments
resulting from previously terminated hedging relationships.
|
63
2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest Inc.
|
|
|
Yield/
|
|
|
Interest Inc./
|
|
|
Yield/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incr./
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
/ Exp. with
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Exp. without
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Impact of
|
|
|
(Decr.)
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
Derivatives(1)
|
|
|
(%)
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
53,295.6
|
|
|
$
|
2,865.7
|
|
|
|
5.38
|
|
|
$
|
2,652.1
|
|
|
|
4.98
|
|
|
$
|
213.6
|
|
|
|
0.40
|
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio
|
|
|
6,558.6
|
|
|
|
337.9
|
|
|
|
5.15
|
|
|
|
341.2
|
|
|
|
5.20
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)
|
|
|
(0.05
|
)
|
All other interest-earning assets
|
|
|
21,235.9
|
|
|
|
1,074.7
|
|
|
|
5.06
|
|
|
|
1,074.7
|
|
|
|
5.06
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-earning assets
|
|
$
|
81,090.1
|
|
|
$
|
4,278.3
|
|
|
|
5.27
|
|
|
$
|
4,068.0
|
|
|
|
5.01
|
|
|
$
|
210.3
|
|
|
|
0.26
|
|
|
|
Liabilities and capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
$
|
54,250.5
|
|
|
$
|
2,728.1
|
|
|
|
5.03
|
|
|
$
|
2,592.2
|
|
|
|
4.78
|
|
|
$
|
135.9
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
All other interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
|
23,675.8
|
|
|
|
1,183.2
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
1,183.2
|
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing liabilities
|
|
$
|
77,926.3
|
|
|
$
|
3,911.3
|
|
|
|
5.02
|
|
|
$
|
3,775.4
|
|
|
|
4.84
|
|
|
$
|
135.9
|
|
|
|
0.18
|
|
|
|
Net interest income/net interest spread
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
367.0
|
|
|
|
0.25
|
|
|
$
|
292.6
|
|
|
|
0.17
|
|
|
$
|
74.4
|
|
|
|
0.08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Impact of Derivatives includes net
interest settlements and amortization of basis adjustments
resulting from previously terminated hedging relationships.
|
The Bank uses derivatives to hedge the fair market value changes
attributable to the change in the LIBOR benchmark interest rate.
The hedge strategy generally uses interest rate swaps to hedge a
portion of advances and consolidated obligations which convert
the interest rates on those instruments from a fixed rate to a
LIBOR-based variable rate. The purpose of this strategy is to
protect the interest rate spread. Using derivatives to convert
interest rates from fixed to variable can increase or decrease
net interest income. The variances in the advances and
consolidated obligation derivative impacts from period to period
are driven by the change in the average LIBOR-based variable
rate, the timing of interest rate resets and the average hedged
portfolio balances outstanding during any given period.
For full year 2009, the impact of derivatives decreased net
interest income by $654.8 million and reduced the net
interest spread 84 basis points The decline was driven by a
224 basis point decrease in average
3-month
LIBOR. For much of 2009 the Bank hedged more advances than
consolidated obligations, thus causing a negative impact to net
interest income from derivatives in the falling interest rate
environment. This unfavorable impact was partially offset by
interest rate changes to variable-rate debt. For full year 2008
the impact of derivatives decreased net interest income and
reduced net interest spread by $309.9 million and
31 basis points, respectively, and for full year 2007
increased net interest income and net interest spread by
$74.4 million and 8 basis points, respectively.
The mortgage loans held for portfolio derivative impact for all
periods presented was affected by the amortization of basis
adjustments resulting from hedges of commitments to purchase
mortgage loans through the MPF program.
64
Other
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009 vs.
|
|
|
2008 vs.
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Services fees
|
|
$
|
2.5
|
|
|
$
|
3.2
|
|
|
$
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
(21.9
|
)
|
|
|
(23.8
|
)
|
Net gains (losses) on trading securities
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
285.7
|
|
|
|
(600.0
|
)
|
Net gains on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
66.3
|
|
|
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
(81.9
|
)
|
|
|
513.9
|
|
Total OTTI losses
|
|
|
(1,043.7
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
Portion of OTTI losses recognized in other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
815.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net OTTI credit losses
|
|
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
Realized losses on OTTI securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(266.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
Net realized gains (losses) on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
(100.0
|
)
|
Net realized gains on
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
Contingency reserve
|
|
|
(35.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
Other income, net
|
|
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
74.0
|
|
|
|
233.3
|
|
|
|
Total other income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(239.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(192.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
18.0
|
|
|
|
(24.7
|
)
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
n/m not meaningful
The Bank recorded total other losses of $239.7 million for
full year 2009 compared to total other losses of
$192.2 million for full year 2008. The net gains (losses)
on trading securities for 2009 and 2008 reflect the changes in
the value of the Rabbi trust investments held in trading
securities, which offset the market risk of certain deferred
compensation agreements. This activity also reflects gains of
$1.0 million on Treasury bills, which were partially offset
by losses of $0.6 million on certificates of deposit. Gains
on derivative and hedging activities were $12.0 million for
full year 2009 compared to $66.3 million for full year
2008. Full year 2008 gains on derivatives and hedging activities
included the benefit of the one-time gains on derivatives and
hedging activities related to the termination and replacement of
LBSF derivatives. Net OTTI credit losses reflect credit loss
portion of OTTI charges taken on the private label MBS
portfolio. Net realized losses on
available-for-sale
securities and net realized gains on
held-to-maturity
securities represent activity related to sales within these
portfolios. In fourth quarter 2009, the Bank sold certain
held-to-maturity
securities which had less than 15 percent of the acquired
principal outstanding remaining at the time of sale. Such sales
are considered maturities for the purposes of security
classification. The $35.3 million contingency reserve
represents the establishment of a contingency reserve for the
Banks LBSF receivable in first quarter 2009. Other income,
net increased
year-over-year
due to higher letter of credit fees.
See additional discussion on OTTI charges in Critical Accounting
Policies and the Credit and Counterparty Risk
Investments discussion in Risk Management, both in this
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The activity related to net gains on derivatives and hedging
activities is discussed in more detail below.
2008 vs. 2007. The Bank recorded total
other losses of $192.2 million for full year 2008 compared
to total other income of $18.0 million in 2007. Full year
2008 results included $266.0 million of OTTI charges. Net
gains on derivatives and hedging activities were
$66.3 million for 2008, compared to $10.8 million in
2007. This increase reflects one-time gains related to the
termination and replacement of LBSF derivatives.
Derivatives and Hedging Activities. The
Bank enters into interest rate swaps, caps, floors, swaption
agreements and TBA securities, referred to collectively as
interest rate exchange agreements and more broadly as derivative
transactions. The Bank enters into derivatives transactions to
offset all or portions of the financial risk exposures inherent
in its member lending, investment and funding activities. All
derivatives are recorded on the
65
balance sheet at fair value. Changes in derivatives fair values
are either recorded in the Statement of Operations or
accumulated other comprehensive income within the capital
section of the Statement of Condition depending on the hedge
strategy.
The Banks hedging strategies consist of fair value and
cash flow accounting hedges as well as economic hedges. Fair
value and other hedges are discussed in more detail below.
Economic hedges address specific risks inherent in the
Banks balance sheet, but they do not qualify for hedge
accounting. As a result, income recognition on the derivatives
in economic hedges may vary considerably compared to the timing
of income recognition on the underlying asset or liability. The
Bank does not enter into derivatives for speculative purposes to
generate profits.
Regardless of the hedge strategy employed, the Banks
predominant hedging instrument is an interest rate swap. At the
time of inception, the fair market value of an interest rate
swap generally equals or is close to zero. Notwithstanding the
exchange of interest payments made during the life of the swap,
which are recorded as either interest income / expense
or as a gain (loss) on derivative, depending upon the accounting
classification of the hedging instrument, the fair value of an
interest rate swap returns to zero at the end of its contractual
term. Therefore, although the fair value of an interest rate
swap is likely to change over the course of its full term, upon
maturity any unrealized gains and losses generally net to zero.
The following table details the net gains and losses on
derivatives and hedging activities, including hedge
ineffectiveness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives and hedged items in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
(14.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
8.2
|
|
Consolidated obligations
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
|
|
(4.7
|
)
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
Total net gain (loss) related to fair value hedge ineffectiveness
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
(9.9
|
)
|
|
|
13.7
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments under hedge
accounting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic hedges
|
|
|
(5.3
|
)
|
|
|
63.3
|
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
Mortgage delivery commitments
|
|
|
5.0
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
Intermediary transactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
Total net gain (loss) related to derivatives not designated as
hedging instruments under hedge accounting
|
|
|
0.5
|
|
|
|
76.2
|
|
|
|
(2.9
|
)
|
|
|
Net gains (losses) on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
$
|
12.0
|
|
|
$
|
66.3
|
|
|
$
|
10.8
|
|
|
|
Fair Value Hedges. The Bank uses fair
value hedge accounting treatment for most of its fixed-rate
advances and consolidated obligations using interest rate swaps.
The interest rate swaps convert these fixed-rate instruments to
a variable-rate (i.e. LIBOR). For the full year 2009, total
ineffectiveness related to these fair value hedges resulted in a
gain of $11.5 million compared to a loss of
$9.9 million in 2008. During the same period, the overall
notional amount decreased from $57.8 billion in 2008 to
$51.3 billion in 2009. Fair value hedge ineffectiveness
represents the difference between the change in the fair value
of the derivative compared to the change in the fair value of
the underlying asset/liability hedged. Fair value hedge
ineffectiveness is generated by movement in the benchmark
interest rate being hedged and by other structural
characteristics of the transaction involved. For example, the
presence of an upfront fee associated with a structured debt
hedge will introduce valuation differences between the hedge and
hedged item that will fluctuate through time. In addition,
advance fair value hedge ineffectiveness for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2008 included a loss of
$10.9 million resulting from the replacement of 63 LBSF
derivatives that were in fair value hedging relationships. See
discussion of the Lehman bankruptcy and the resulting effects on
the Banks financial statements in the Current
Financial and Mortgage Market Events and Trends discussion
earlier in this Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis.
Economic Hedges. For economic hedges,
the Bank includes the net interest income and the changes in the
fair value of the hedges in net gains (losses) on derivatives
and hedging activities. Total amounts recorded for economic
hedges were a loss of $5.3 million in 2009 compared to a
gain of $63.3 million in 2008. The overall
66
notional amount of economic hedges increased from
$0.8 billion at December 31, 2008 to $1.7 billion
at December 31, 2009. For the year ended December 31,
2008, gains associated with economic hedges include a
$69.0 million gain associated with the replaced LBSF
derivatives that remained as economic hedges for a one day
period after they were replaced in the fair value hedges of
certain advances as described above. The gains (losses)
associated with economic hedges for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2008 also included a gain of $0.2 million
associated with 40 additional replacement derivatives. See the
discussion of the Lehman bankruptcy and the resulting effects on
the Banks financial statements in the Current
Financial and Mortgage Market Events and Trends discussion
in Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Mortgage Delivery Commitments. Certain
mortgage purchase commitments are considered derivatives. When
the mortgage purchase commitment derivative settles, the current
market value of the commitment is included with the basis of the
mortgage loan and amortized accordingly. Total gains relating to
mortgage delivery commitments were $5.0 million in 2009
compared to total gains of $0.6 million in 2008 largely due
to changing market rates. Total notional of the Banks
mortgage delivery commitments decreased from $31.2 million
at December 31, 2008 to $3.4 million at
December 31, 2009.
Intermediary Transactions. Derivatives
in which the Bank is an intermediary may arise when the Bank
enters into derivatives with members and offsetting derivatives
with other counterparties to meet the needs of members. Net
gains on intermediary activities were not significant for the
twelve months ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Other Derivative Activities. Other net
gains (losses) on derivatives and hedging activities for the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 were
$0.8 million and $12.3 million, respectively. For the
twelve months ended December 31, 2008, other gains (losses)
on derivatives and hedging activities also includes a gain of
$11.8 million associated with the termination of certain
LBSF derivatives. These derivatives and the respective fair
value hedge relationships were legally terminated on
September 19, 2008. See the discussion of the Lehman
bankruptcy and the resulting effects on the Banks
financial statements in the Current Financial and Mortgage
Market Events and Trends discussion in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Other
Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009 vs.
|
|
|
2008 vs.
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Operating salaries and benefits
|
|
$
|
33.3
|
|
|
$
|
30.5
|
|
|
$
|
35.9
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
(15.0
|
)
|
Operating occupancy
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
(13.3
|
)
|
|
|
(11.8
|
)
|
Operating other
|
|
|
22.7
|
|
|
|
17.1
|
|
|
|
16.6
|
|
|
|
32.7
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
Finance Agency
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
|
Office of Finance
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total other expenses
|
|
$
|
64.3
|
|
|
$
|
56.2
|
|
|
$
|
61.1
|
|
|
|
14.4
|
|
|
|
(8.0
|
)
|
|
|
For full year 2009, other expense totaled $64.3 million
compared to $56.2 million for the same prior year period,
an increase of $8.1 million, or 14.4%, driven entirely by
other operating expenses. The increase in operating expenses was
due to increases of $5.6 million and $2.8 million,
respectively, in other expenses and salaries and benefits
expense, partially offset by a decrease of $0.4 million in
occupancy expense. The increase in other operating expenses was
due primarily to higher consulting fees and services related to
the Banks OTTI assessment process, and other Board of
Directors risk management initiatives. The increase in
salaries and benefits expense was driven by an increase in the
market value of the nonqualified thrift obligation as well as
higher incentive compensation expense. Full year 2008 salaries
and benefits expense included severance costs as well as a lump
sum settlement benefit payment.
67
Collectively, the twelve FHLBanks are responsible for the
operating expenses of the Finance Agency and the Office of
Finance. These payments, allocated among the FHLBanks according
to a cost-sharing formula, are reported as other expense on the
Banks Statement of Operations and totaled
$5.7 million in 2009 and $5.6 million in 2008. The
Bank has no control over the operating expenses of the Finance
Agency. The FHLBanks are able to exert a limited degree of
control over the operating expenses of the Office of Finance due
to the fact that two directors of the Office of Finance are also
FHLBank presidents.
2008 vs. 2007. Other expenses totaled
$56.2 million for full year 2008 compared to
$61.1 million for full year 2007. Excluding the operating
expenses of the Finance Agency and OF, other expenses decreased
$5.3 million, or 9.5%, compared to the prior year. This
decrease was primarily due to the market decline in the SERP
Thrift Plan
year-over-year
and no incentive compensation expense in 2008.
As noted above, the twelve FHLBanks are responsible for the
operating expenses of the Finance Agency and the OF. These
payments, reported as other expense on the Banks Statement
of Operations, totaled $5.6 million in 2008 and
$5.2 million in 2007.
Affordable
Housing Program (AHP) and Resolution Funding Corp. (REFCORP)
Assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
% Change
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
2009 vs.
|
|
|
2008 vs.
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2.2
|
|
|
$
|
26.4
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
(91.7
|
)
|
REFCORP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
59.2
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
(91.9
|
)
|
|
|
Total assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.0
|
|
|
$
|
85.6
|
|
|
|
n/m
|
|
|
|
(91.8
|
)
|
|
|
n/m not meaningful
The Banks mission includes the important public policy
goal of making funds available for housing and economic
development in the communities served by the Banks member
financial institutions. In support of this goal, the Bank
administers a number of programs, some mandated and some
voluntary, which make funds available through member financial
institutions. In all of these programs, Bank funds flow through
member financial institutions into areas of need throughout the
region.
The Affordable Housing Program (AHP), mandated by statute, is
the largest and primary public policy program. The AHP funds,
which are offered on a competitive basis, provide grants and
below-market loans for both rental and owner-occupied housing
for households at 80% or less of the area median income. The AHP
program is mandated by the Act, and the Bank is required to
contribute approximately 10% of its net earnings after REFCORP
to AHP and makes these funds available for use in the subsequent
year. Each year, the Banks Board adopts an implementation
plan that defines the structure of the program pursuant to the
AHP regulations.
The Bank held one AHP funding round in 2009 and received 56
eligible applications. Grants totaling more than
$3.4 million were awarded to 17 projects in October. These
projects had total development costs of $50.3 million and
provided 439 units of affordable housing.
In addition to the AHP competitive funding rounds, the AHP
regulation permits the Bank to allocate portions of the AHP
funds for specific programs; this allocation of funds is
referred to as a set-aside. The First Front Door (FFD) program,
which is a set-aside from AHP, provides grants to qualified
low-income first-time homebuyers to assist with closing costs
and down payments. For 2009, more than $1 million was
available. All available funds were committed, and approximately
$1.9 million was funded. FFD was suspended January 29,
2009 when all available funds had been committed.
In November 2008, the Board of Directors approved the creation
of a new set-aside from the Affordable Housing Program called
the Mortgage Relief Fund. The purpose of the fund is to support
loan refinancing for homeowners at risk of foreclosure. In
February 2009, $500 thousand was transferred to the Mortgage
Relief Fund.
68
The Community Lending Program (CLP) offers advances at the
Banks cost of funds, providing the full advantage of a
low-cost funding source. CLP loans help member institutions
finance housing construction and rehabilitation, infrastructure
improvement, and economic and community development projects
that benefit targeted neighborhoods and households. At the close
of business on December 31, 2009, the CLP loan balance
totaled $611.5 million, as compared to $604.0 million
at December 31, 2008, reflecting an increase of
$7.5 million, or 1.2%.
Assessment Calculations. Although the
FHLBanks are not subject to federal or state income taxes, the
combined financial obligations of making payments to REFCORP
(20%) and AHP contributions (10%) equate to a proportion of the
Banks net income comparable to that paid in income tax by
fully taxable entities. Inasmuch as both the REFCORP and AHP
payments are each separately subtracted from earnings prior to
the assessment of each, the combined effective rate is less than
the simple sum of both (i.e., less than 30%). In passing the
Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, Congress
established a fixed 20% annual REFCORP payment rate beginning in
2000 for each FHLBank. The fixed percentage replaced a
fixed-dollar annual payment of $300 million which had
previously been divided among the twelve FHLBanks through a
complex allocation formula. The law also calls for an adjustment
to be made to the total number of REFCORP payments due in future
years so that, on a present value basis, the combined REFCORP
payments of all twelve FHLBanks are equal in amount to what had
been required under the previous calculation method. The
FHLBanks aggregate payments through 2008 exceeded the
scheduled payments, effectively accelerating payment of the
REFCORP obligation and shortening its remaining term to a final
scheduled payment during the second quarter of 2012. This date
assumes that the FHLBanks pay exactly $300 million annually
until 2012. The cumulative amount to be paid to REFCORP by the
FHLBank is not determinable at this time due to the
interrelationships of the future earnings of all FHLBanks and
interest rates.
Application of the REFCORP and AHP assessment percentage rates
as applied to earnings during 2008 and 2007 resulted in annual
assessment expenses for the Bank of $7.0 million and
$85.6 million, respectively. There were no REFCORP and AHP
assessments for the year-ended December 31, 2009, as the
Bank experienced a pre-assessment loss for full-year 2009. The
year-to-year
changes in assessments reflect the changes in pre-assessment
earnings.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Bank did
experience a net loss and did not set aside any AHP funding to
be awarded during 2010. However, as allowed per AHP regulations,
the Bank has elected to allot up to $2 million of future
periods required AHP contributions to be awarded during
2010 (referred to as Accelerated AHP). The Accelerated AHP
allows the Bank to commit and disburse AHP funds to meet the
Banks mission when it would otherwise be unable to do so,
based on regulations. The Bank will credit the Accelerated AHP
contribution against required AHP contributions over the next
five years.
In 2008, the Bank overpaid its 2008 REFCORP assessment as a
result of the loss recognized in fourth quarter 2008. As
instructed by the U.S. Treasury, the Bank will use its
overpayment as a credit against future REFCORP assessments (to
the extent the Bank has positive net income in the future) over
an indefinite period of time. This overpayment was recorded as a
prepaid asset by the Bank and reported in as prepaid
REFCORP assessment on the Statement of Condition at
December 31, 2008. Over time, as the Bank uses this credit
against its future REFCORP assessments, this prepaid asset will
be reduced until the prepaid asset has been exhausted. If any
amount of the prepaid asset still remains at the time that the
REFCORP obligation for the FHLBank System as a whole is fully
satisfied, REFCORP, in consultation with the U.S. Treasury,
will implement a procedure so that the Bank would be able to
collect on its remaining prepaid asset. The Banks prepaid
REFCORP assessment balance at December 31, 2009 was
$39.6 million.
Financial
Condition
The following is Managements Discussion and Analysis of
the Banks financial condition as of December 31,
2009, which should be read in conjunction with the Banks
audited financial statements and notes to financial statements
in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Asset Composition. A continued steady
decline in advance demand throughout 2009 resulted in a decrease
of total assets of $25.5 billion, or 28.1%, to
$65.3 billion at December 31, 2009, down from
$90.8 billion at
69
December 31. 2008. Advances declined $21.0 billion,
mortgage loans held for portfolio declined $1.0 billion and
total investment securities declined $4.6 billion. These
decreases were partially offset by a $1.7 billion increase
in Federal funds sold.
Total housing finance-related assets, which include MPF Program
loans, advances, MBS and other mission- related investments
decreased $23.7 billion, or 29.8%, to $55.9 billion at
December 31, 2009, down from $79.6 billion at
December 31, 2008. Total housing finance-related assets
accounted for 85.7% and 87.7% of assets at December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
Advances. At year-end 2009, total
advances were $41.2 billion, compared to $62.2 billion
at year-end 2008, representing a decrease of 33.8%. The average
advance balance was $45.4 billion for the year ended
December 31, 2009, compared to $67.4 billion for the
year ended December 31, 2008, a decrease of 32.6%. A
significant concentration of the advances continues to be
generated from the Banks five largest borrowers, generally
reflecting the asset concentration mix of the Banks
membership base. Total advances outstanding to the Banks
five largest members were $25.4 billion and
$37.6 billion at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Total membership decreased from 323 members at the end of 2008
to 316 members at the end of 2009. During 2009, the Bank added
one new member, a savings and loan, and no new commercial banks
or credit unions. However, five members merged into existing
members and there was one
out-of-district
merger. In addition, one member was closed by the OTS and the
FDIC was named as its receiver. One institution voluntarily
dissolved its charter with the OTS.
The following table provides a distribution of the number of
members, categorized by individual member asset size, which had
an outstanding loan balance during 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member Asset Size
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Less than $100 million
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
51
|
|
Between $100 and $500 million
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
142
|
|
Between $500 million and $1 billion
|
|
|
39
|
|
|
|
39
|
|
Between $1 and $5 billion
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
26
|
|
Greater than $5 billion
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
|
Total borrowing members during the year
|
|
|
260
|
|
|
|
274
|
|
|
|
Total membership
|
|
|
316
|
|
|
|
323
|
|
Percent of members borrowing during the year
|
|
|
82.3
|
%
|
|
|
84.8
|
%
|
Total borrowing members at year-end
|
|
|
222
|
|
|
|
249
|
|
Percent of members borrowing at year-end
|
|
|
70.3
|
%
|
|
|
77.1
|
%
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, the par value of the combined
mid-term (Mid-Term RepoPlus) and short-term (RepoPlus) products
decreased $13.4 billion, or 40.0%, to $20.1 billion,
compared to $33.5 billion at December 31, 2008. These
products represented 50.6% and 56.3% of the par value of the
Banks total advances portfolio at December 31, 2009
and 2008, respectively. The Banks shorter-term advances
decreased as a result of members having less need for liquidity
from the Bank as they have taken actions during the credit
crisis, such as raising core deposits, reducing their balance
sheets, and identifying alternative sources of funds. Also, many
of the Banks members have reacted to the Banks
temporary actions of not paying dividends and not repurchasing
excess capital stock by limiting their use of the Banks
advance products. The short-term portion of the advances
portfolio is volatile; as market conditions change rapidly, the
short-term nature of these lending products could materially
impact the Banks outstanding loan balance. See
Item 1. Business in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for details regarding the Banks various loan products.
70
The Banks longer-term advances, referred to as Term
Advances, decreased $2.2 billion, or 14.9%, to
$12.7 billion at December 31, 2009 down from
$14.9 billion at December 31, 2008. These balances
represented 31.9% and 25.0% of the Banks advance portfolio
at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. While Term Advance balances have declined, the
decrease has been at a slower rate than the remaining products
and the Term Advances portfolio now represent a larger
percentage of the total advance portfolio. This decline is
partially due to unprecedented competition from Federal
government programs such as the FDICs Temporary Liquidity
Guarantee Program (TLGP) and the Federal Reserves Term
Auction Facility (TAF) program. A number of the Banks
members have a high percentage of long-term mortgage assets on
their balance sheets; these members generally fund these assets
through these longer-term borrowings with the Bank to mitigate
interest rate risk. Certain members also prefer Term Advances
given the current interest rate environment. Meeting the needs
of such members has been, and will continue to be, an important
part of the Banks advances business.
As of December 31, 2009, the Banks longer-term option
embedded advances decreased $4.1 billion to
$6.9 billion, down from $11.1 billion as of
December 31, 2008. These products represented 17.5% and
18.7% of the Banks advances portfolio on December 31,
2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.
Mortgage Loans Held for
Portfolio. Mortgage loan balances were
$5.2 billion at December 31, 2009, compared to
$6.2 billion at December 31, 2008, a decrease of
$1.0 billion. This decline was due to the continued runoff
of the existing portfolio, which more than offset new portfolio
activity. See the MPF Program discussion in Item 1.
Business and the section entitled Mortgage Partnership Finance
Program in this Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis, both in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
for further information regarding the Banks mortgage loan
portfolio.
Loan Portfolio Analysis. The
Banks outstanding loans, nonaccrual loans and loans
90 days or more past due and accruing interest are as
presented in the following table. The amount of forgone interest
income the Bank would have recorded on BOB loans for each of the
periods presented was less than $1 million. The Bank
recorded minimal cash basis interest income on BOB loans during
the years ended December 31, 2009 through 2006, which
totaled $378 thousand for the four-year period. The Bank
recorded no cash basis interest income on BOB loans in 2005. The
amount of forgone interest income the Bank would have recorded
on nonaccrual mortgage loans, if those loans had been current
and paying interest in accordance with contractual terms, was
$3.1 million and $1.7 million for 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and $0.9 million for the years 2007 through
2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
Advances(1)
|
|
$
|
41,177.3
|
|
|
$
|
62,153.4
|
|
|
$
|
68,797.5
|
|
|
$
|
49,335.4
|
|
|
$
|
47,493.0
|
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio,
net(2)
|
|
|
5,162.8
|
|
|
|
6,165.3
|
|
|
|
6,219.7
|
|
|
|
6,966.3
|
|
|
|
7,651.9
|
|
Nonaccrual mortgage loans,
net(3)
|
|
|
71.2
|
|
|
|
38.3
|
|
|
|
20.7
|
|
|
|
18.8
|
|
|
|
19.5
|
|
Mortgage loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing
interest(4)
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
14.1
|
|
|
|
15.7
|
|
|
|
21.0
|
|
Banking on Business (BOB) loans,
net(5)
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
12.8
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
There are no advances which are
past due or on nonaccrual status.
|
|
(2) |
|
All of the real estate mortgages
held in portfolio by the Bank are fixed-rate. Balances are
reflected net of allowance for credit losses.
|
|
(3) |
|
All nonaccrual mortgage loans are
reported net of interest applied to principal.
|
|
(4) |
|
Government-insured or -guaranteed
loans (e.g., FHA, VA, HUD or RHS) continue to accrue
interest after becoming 90 days or more delinquent.
|
|
(5) |
|
Due to the nature of the program,
all BOB loans are considered nonaccrual loans. Balances are
reflected net of allowance for credit losses.
|
The Bank has experienced an increase in its nonaccrual mortgage
loans held for portfolio. Nonaccrual mortgage loans increased
$32.9 million, or 85.9% from December 31, 2008 to
December 31, 2009. Nonaccrual loans represent only 1.4% of
the Banks mortgage loans held for portfolio. This increase
was driven by general economic conditions.
71
Allowance for Credit Losses. The
allowance for credit losses is evaluated on a quarterly basis by
management to identify the losses inherent within the portfolio
and to determine the likelihood of collectability. The allowance
methodology determines an estimated probable loss for the
impairment of the mortgage loan portfolio consistent with the
provisions of contingencies accounting.
The Bank has not incurred any losses on advances since
inception. Due to the collateral held as security and the
repayment history for advances, management believes that an
allowance for credit losses for advances is unnecessary at this
time. See additional discussion regarding collateral policies
and standards on the advances portfolio in the Advance
Products discussion in Item 1. Business in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Bank purchases government-guaranteed/insured and
conventional fixed-rate residential mortgage loans. Because the
credit risk on the government-guaranteed/insured loans is
predominantly assumed by other entities, only conventional
mortgage loans are evaluated for an allowance for credit losses.
The Banks conventional mortgage loan portfolio is
comprised of large groups of smaller-balance homogeneous loans
made to borrowers by PFIs that are secured by residential real
estate. A mortgage loan is considered impaired when it is
probable that all contractual principal and interest payments
will not be collected as scheduled in the loan agreement based
on current information and events. The Bank collectively
evaluates the homogeneous mortgage loan portfolio for
impairment; therefore, it is scoped out of the provisions of
accounting for loan impairments. Conventional mortgage loans
that are 90 days or more delinquent are placed on
nonaccrual status. Government mortgage loans that are
90 days or more delinquent remain in accrual status due to
guarantees or insurance. The Bank records cash payments received
on nonaccrual loans as a reduction of principal.
The following table presents the rollforward of allowance for
credit losses on the mortgage loans held for portfolio for the
years ended December 31, 2005 through 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of period
|
|
$
|
4.3
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
Charge-offs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of period
|
|
$
|
2.7
|
|
|
$
|
4.3
|
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
0.9
|
|
|
$
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
The ratio of net charge-offs to average loans outstanding was
less than 1 basis point for the periods presented.
During the fourth quarter of 2009, the Bank changed the
estimates used to determine the allowance on for credit losses
mortgage loans purchased by the Bank. The Bank changed the loss
severity rates which included the following: updating current
market estimates; incorporating actual loss statistics; and
incorporating amended collateral procedures. The impact of the
change in estimate reduced the allowance for credit losses by
approximately $4.9 million, resulting in an overall benefit
for credit losses of $1.6 million for full year 2009.
The allowance for credit losses for the BOB program provides a
reasonable estimate of losses inherent in the BOB portfolio
based on the portfolios characteristics. Both probability
of default and loss given default are determined and used to
estimate the allowance for credit losses. Loss given default is
considered to be 100% due to the fact that the BOB program has
no collateral or credit enhancement requirements. Probability of
default is based on small business default statistics from the
NRSROs as well as the Small Business Administration (SBA) and
trends in Gross Domestic Product. Based on the nature of the
program, all of the loans in the BOB program are classified as
nonaccrual loans. The following table presents the allowance for
credit losses on the BOB loans for the years ended
December 31, 2005 through 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, at the beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
|
$
|
6.8
|
|
|
$
|
6.7
|
|
|
$
|
4.9
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
Charge-offs
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
(0.3
|
)
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provision for credit losses
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
Balance, at end of the year
|
|
$
|
9.5
|
|
|
$
|
9.7
|
|
|
$
|
6.8
|
|
|
$
|
6.7
|
|
|
$
|
4.9
|
|
|
|
72
Based on the nature of the BOB program, in that its purpose is
to assist small and
start-up
businesses, the Bank expects that some of the loans will
default. The ratio of charge-offs to average loans outstanding,
net, was approximately 3.8% and 2.4% during 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
The following table presents the rollforward of the allowance
for off-balance sheet credit exposure risk for the years ended
December 31, 2005 through 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.6
|
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
|
$
|
0.8
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
0.7
|
|
|
|
(0.4
|
)
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
0.1
|
|
|
$
|
1.3
|
|
|
$
|
0.6
|
|
|
$
|
1.0
|
|
|
$
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
The off-balance sheet credit exposure risk is associated with
BOB loan commitments and standby letters of credit. The balance
decreased as a result of having almost no BOB loan commitments
outstanding at year end. Letters of credit have a low loss
severity assumption based on their product type and collateral
policies, which are the same as the Banks advance
collateral policies.
Cash and Due From Banks. At
December 31, 2009, cash and due from banks totaled
$1.4 billion compared to $67.6 million at
December 31, 2008. Institutions which normally would
purchase the Banks excess liquidity did not have a need
for the cash and, as a result, the Banks cash position was
unusually high at December 31, 2009. Subsequent to year-end
2009, the Banks cash position returned to more normal
levels.
Interest-Earning Deposits and Federal Funds
Sold. At December 31, 2009, these
short-term investments totaled $3.0 billion, a net decrease
of $3.3 billion, or 51.6%, from December 31, 2008. The
Bank maintains these types of balances in order to meet
members loan demand under conditions of market stress and
maintain adequate liquidity in accordance with Finance Agency
guidance and Bank policies.
Investment Securities. The
$1.3 billion, or 8.4%, decrease in investment securities
from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009, was
primarily due to a decrease in MBS. The decrease in MBS was
driven by paydowns
and/or
maturities of principal as well as OTTI losses recorded against
the portfolio. The increase in trading securities was driven
primarily by an increase in Treasury bills and TLGP investments
as the Bank continues to increase its liquidity position. The
Bank also uses these securities to pledge as collateral on
interest rate swap agreements. During 2009, the Bank did offset
some of the MBS portfolio run-off with the purchase of
U.S. agency MBS. During the third quarter of 2009, Taylor,
Bean & Whitaker (TBW), a servicer on one of the
Banks private label MBS filed for bankruptcy. Due to
TBWs bankruptcy filing, normal monthly remittances on the
loans securing the security have been delayed. There is now a
replacement servicer on this security.
Historically, the amount that the Bank can invest in MBS is
limited by regulation to 300 percent of regulatory capital;
however, in March 2008 an increase was authorized for two years
in the amount of MBS the FHLBanks are permitted to purchase.
Subject to approval by the Board and filing of required
documentation, the Bank may invest up to 600 percent of
regulatory capital in MBS. The Bank will continue to monitor its
MBS position and determine the proper portfolio level. At the
current time, the Bank does not expect to seek regulatory
approval to exceed the original 300 percent limit.
73
The following tables summarize key investment securities
portfolio statistics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting deferred compensation
|
|
$
|
6.7
|
|
|
$
|
6.2
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
U.S. Treasury bills
|
|
|
1,029.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TLGP investments
|
|
|
250.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total trading securities
|
|
$
|
1,286.2
|
|
|
$
|
506.8
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting supplemental retirement plan
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
2,395.3
|
|
|
|
19.7
|
|
|
|
42.4
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$
|
2,397.3
|
|
|
$
|
19.7
|
|
|
$
|
42.4
|
|
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial paper
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
83.5
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
3,100.0
|
|
|
|
2,700.0
|
|
|
|
5,675.0
|
|
State or local agency obligations
|
|
|
608.4
|
|
|
|
636.8
|
|
|
|
699.1
|
|
U.S. government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
176.7
|
|
|
|
955.0
|
|
|
|
919.2
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
6,597.3
|
|
|
|
10,626.2
|
|
|
|
12,535.0
|
|
|
|
Total
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
|
10,482.4
|
|
|
$
|
14,918.0
|
|
|
$
|
19,911.8
|
|
|
|
Total investment securities
|
|
$
|
14,165.9
|
|
|
$
|
15,444.5
|
|
|
$
|
19,961.8
|
|
|
|
74
The following table presents the maturity and yield
characteristics for the investment securities portfolio as of
December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Book Value
|
|
|
Yield
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting deferred compensation
|
|
$
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
U.S. Treasury bills
|
|
|
1,029.5
|
|
|
|
0.33
|
|
TLGP investments
|
|
|
250.0
|
|
|
|
0.23
|
|
|
|
Total trading securities
|
|
$
|
1,286.2
|
|
|
|
0.31
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting supplemental retirement plan
|
|
$
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
2,395.3
|
|
|
|
5.39
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$
|
2,397.3
|
|
|
|
5.39
|
|
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
$
|
3,100.0
|
|
|
|
0.28
|
|
|
|
State or local agency obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within one year
|
|
|
55.5
|
|
|
|
5.85
|
|
After one but within five years
|
|
|
77.9
|
|
|
|
5.75
|
|
After five years but within ten years
|
|
|
11.8
|
|
|
|
0.39
|
|
After ten years
|
|
|
463.2
|
|
|
|
2.73
|
|
|
|
Total state or local agency obligations
|
|
|
608.4
|
|
|
|
3.36
|
|
|
|
U.S. government-sponsored enterprises:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Within one year
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
0.22
|
|
After five years
|
|
|
76.7
|
|
|
|
4.05
|
|
|
|
Total U.S. government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
176.7
|
|
|
|
1.89
|
|
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
6,597.3
|
|
|
|
3.33
|
|
|
|
Total
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
$
|
10,482.4
|
|
|
|
2.41
|
|
|
|
n/a
not applicable
As of December 31, 2009, the Bank held securities from the
following issuers with a book value greater than 10% of Bank
total capital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Book Value
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
Government National Mortgage Association
|
|
$
|
1,755.7
|
|
|
$
|
1,753.2
|
|
J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust
|
|
|
1,294.4
|
|
|
|
1,255.0
|
|
U.S. Treasury
|
|
|
1,029.5
|
|
|
|
1,029.5
|
|
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
|
|
|
996.6
|
|
|
|
1,032.5
|
|
Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities Trust
|
|
|
788.9
|
|
|
|
734.2
|
|
Federal National Mortgage Association
|
|
|
492.4
|
|
|
|
503.9
|
|
Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust
|
|
|
457.3
|
|
|
|
435.0
|
|
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
|
|
|
400.9
|
|
|
|
388.5
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
7,215.7
|
|
|
$
|
7,131.8
|
|
|
|
75
For additional information on the credit risk of the investment
portfolio, see Credit and Counterparty Risk
Investments discussion in Risk Management in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Deposits. At December 31, 2009,
time deposits in denominations of $100 thousand or more totaled
$11.0 million. The table below presents the maturities for
time deposits in denominations of $100 thousand or more:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over 3
|
|
|
Over 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
months but
|
|
|
months
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
3 months
|
|
|
within
|
|
|
but within
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By Remaining Maturity at December 31, 2009
|
|
or less
|
|
|
6 months
|
|
|
12 months
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Time certificates of deposit $(100,000 or more)
|
|
$
|
6.0
|
|
|
$
|
4.5
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.5
|
|
|
$
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
Short-term Borrowings. For purposes of
the table below, borrowings with original maturities of one year
or less are classified as short-term. The following is a summary
of key statistics for the Banks short-term borrowings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation discount notes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding balance at year-end
|
|
$
|
10,208.9
|
|
|
$
|
22,864.3
|
|
|
$
|
34,685.1
|
|
Weighted average rate at year-end
|
|
|
0.08
|
%
|
|
|
0.90
|
%
|
|
|
4.27
|
%
|
Daily average outstanding balance for the year
|
|
$
|
14,127.3
|
|
|
$
|
26,933.6
|
|
|
$
|
22,118.2
|
|
Weighted average rate for the year
|
|
|
0.30
|
%
|
|
|
2.55
|
%
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
Highest outstanding balance at any month-end
|
|
$
|
22,864.3
|
|
|
$
|
35,452.2
|
|
|
$
|
34,685.1
|
|
Contractual Obligations. The following
table summarizes the expected payment of significant contractual
obligations by due date or stated maturity date at
December 31, 2009 at par.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than
|
|
|
One to Three
|
|
|
Four to Five
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Total
|
|
|
One Year
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Years
|
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bonds(1)
|
|
$
|
44,991.6
|
|
|
$
|
21,165.0
|
|
|
$
|
13,835.7
|
|
|
$
|
5,380.4
|
|
|
$
|
4,610.5
|
|
Index amortizing
notes(1)
|
|
|
3,817.2
|
|
|
|
800.9
|
|
|
|
1,291.7
|
|
|
|
661.4
|
|
|
|
1,063.2
|
|
Discount notes
|
|
|
10,210.0
|
|
|
|
10,210.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating leases:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premises
|
|
|
29.7
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
20.5
|
|
Equipment
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Specific bonds or notes incorporate
features, such as calls or indices, which could cause redemption
at different times than the stated maturity dates.
|
Commitment and Off-balance Sheet
Items. At December 31, 2009, the Bank is
obligated to fund approximately $14.7 million in additional
advances, $3.4 million of mortgage loans and
$8.7 billion in outstanding standby letters of credit, and
to issue $400 million in consolidated obligations. The Bank
does not consolidate any off-balance sheet special purpose
entities or other off-balance sheet conduits.
Retained Earnings. The Finance Agency
has issued regulatory guidance to the FHLBanks relating to
capital management and retained earnings. The guidance directs
each FHLBank to assess, at least annually, the adequacy of its
retained earnings with consideration given to future possible
financial and economic scenarios. The guidance also outlines the
considerations that each FHLBank should undertake in assessing
the adequacy of its retained earnings. In accordance with the
Finance Agencys RBC regulations, when the Banks
market value of equity to book value of equity falls below 85%,
the Bank is required to provide for additional market RBC.
76
In connection with the previous policy and the Boards
desire to build retained earnings in this volatile credit
environment, the dividend payout ratio was limited in the first
three quarters of 2008. On December 23, 2008, the Bank
announced its decision to voluntarily suspend dividend payments
until further notice in an effort to build retained earnings.
The following table reflects changes in retained earnings for
the years ended December 31, 2009 through 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
170.5
|
|
|
$
|
296.3
|
|
|
$
|
254.8
|
|
Cumulative effect of adoption of the amended OTTI guidance
|
|
|
255.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
(37.4
|
)
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
236.8
|
|
Dividends
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(145.2
|
)
|
|
|
(195.3
|
)
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
389.0
|
|
|
$
|
170.5
|
|
|
$
|
296.3
|
|
|
|
Payout ratio (dividends/net income)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
748.5
|
%
|
|
|
82.5
|
%
|
|
|
At December 31, 2009, retained earnings were
$389.0 million, representing an increase of
$218.5 million, or 128.2%, from December 31, 2008.
This increase was the result of the Banks adoption of the
amended OTTI guidance effective January 1, 2009. This
adoption resulted in a $255.9 million increase in retained
earnings due to the cumulative effect adjustment recorded as of
January 1, 2009. This cumulative effect adjustment did not
impact the Banks REFCORP or AHP assessment expenses or
liabilities, as these assessments are based on GAAP net income.
Excluding the cumulative effect adjustment, retained earnings
fell $37.4 million from prior year-end driven by the
Banks full year 2009 net loss.
Additional information regarding the amended OTTI guidance is
available in Critical Accounting Policies in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis and Note 2 to the
audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data, both in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Further details of the components of required RBC are presented
in the Capital Resources discussion in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
See Note 19 to the audited financial statements in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for further discussion of RBC and the Banks policy on
capital stock requirements.
The Bank considers a number of factors in determining the
appropriate level of dividend. The Bank believes that it is
prudent to exercise continued caution with respect to any
dividend declaration. The Bank is focused on building capital
through increased retained earnings. Any future dividend
payments are subject to the approval of the Board. The amount
the Board may determine to pay out will be affected by the
Banks level of retained earnings, its current retained
earnings policy, as well as other factors including OTTI losses,
AOCI levels and performance relative to capital adequacy metrics.
77
Other
Financial Information
Selected
Quarterly Financial Data
The following tables present the Banks unaudited quarterly
operating results for each quarter for the two years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
$
|
477.8
|
|
|
$
|
388.6
|
|
|
$
|
313.5
|
|
|
$
|
267.9
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
421.4
|
|
|
|
312.7
|
|
|
|
246.0
|
|
|
|
203.7
|
|
|
|
Net interest income before provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
75.9
|
|
|
|
67.5
|
|
|
|
64.2
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
|
Net interest income after provision (benefit for credit losses)
|
|
|
56.0
|
|
|
|
74.8
|
|
|
|
66.1
|
|
|
|
69.7
|
|
Other income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net OTTI losses
|
|
|
(30.5
|
)
|
|
|
(39.3
|
)
|
|
|
(93.3
|
)
|
|
|
(65.4
|
)
|
Net gains (losses) on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
|
|
(4.5
|
)
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
Net realized losses on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
Net realized gains on held-to-maturity securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8
|
|
Contingency reserve
|
|
|
(35.3
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other income
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
2.5
|
|
|
|
4.5
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
Total other income
|
|
|
(64.4
|
)
|
|
|
(24.4
|
)
|
|
|
(93.3
|
)
|
|
|
(57.6
|
)
|
Other expense
|
|
|
15.2
|
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
|
|
17.6
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before assessments
|
|
|
(23.6
|
)
|
|
|
35.1
|
|
|
|
(43.4
|
)
|
|
|
(5.5
|
)
|
Assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.0
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(23.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
32.1
|
|
|
$
|
(40.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5.5
|
)
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
(0.59
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.80
|
|
|
$
|
(1.01
|
)
|
|
$
|
(0.14
|
)
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
First
|
|
|
Second
|
|
|
Third
|
|
|
Fourth
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
Quarter
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
$
|
1,070.4
|
|
|
$
|
799.5
|
|
|
$
|
758.1
|
|
|
$
|
723.8
|
|
Interest expense
|
|
|
980.7
|
|
|
|
710.9
|
|
|
|
684.0
|
|
|
|
694.3
|
|
|
|
Net interest income before provision
|
|
|
89.7
|
|
|
|
88.6
|
|
|
|
74.1
|
|
|
|
29.5
|
|
Provision for credit losses
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
2.1
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
Net interest income after provision
|
|
|
88.4
|
|
|
|
86.5
|
|
|
|
72.0
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
Other income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized losses on OTTI securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(266.0
|
)
|
Net gains (losses) on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
(0.7
|
)
|
|
|
71.4
|
|
|
|
(8.8
|
)
|
Contingency reserve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other income
|
|
|
1.0
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
2.6
|
|
|
|
Total other income
|
|
|
5.4
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
|
|
73.4
|
|
|
|
(272.2
|
)
|
Other expense
|
|
|
15.5
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before assessments
|
|
|
78.3
|
|
|
|
72.1
|
|
|
|
131.8
|
|
|
|
(255.8
|
)
|
Assessments
|
|
|
20.8
|
|
|
|
19.1
|
|
|
|
35.0
|
|
|
|
(67.9
|
)
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
57.5
|
|
|
$
|
53.0
|
|
|
$
|
96.8
|
|
|
$
|
(187.9
|
)
|
|
|
Earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
1.40
|
|
|
$
|
1.31
|
|
|
$
|
2.43
|
|
|
$
|
(4.75
|
)
|
|
|
Mortgage
Partnership Finance (MPF) Program
Mortgage
Loan Portfolio
As of December 31, 2009, the par value of the Banks
mortgage loan portfolio totaled $5.1 billion, a decrease of
$1.0 billion, or 16.4%, from the December 31, 2008
balance of $6.1 billion. These balances were approximately
7.8% and 6.7% of total period-end assets, respectively. The
average mortgage loan portfolio balance for 2009 was
$5.6 billion, a decrease of $468.3 million, or 7.7%,
from 2008. Decreases in both period-end and average balances
were due to the continued runoff of the existing portfolio,
which more than offset new portfolio activity. New portfolio
activity has been negatively impacted by: (1) the current
economic environment, which has resulted in fewer mortgage loan
originations; (2) the Banks newly-instituted 4.0%
capital stock requirement on new MPF loans, which was previously
0.0%; and the Banks business decision to purchase MPF
loans from community banks rather than higher-volume national
banks.
The tables below present additional mortgage loan portfolio
statistics including portfolio balances categorized by product.
The data in the FICO and
Loan-to-Value
(LTV) ratio range tables is based on original FICO scores and
LTV ratios and unpaid principal balance for the loans remaining
in the portfolio at the end of each period. The geographic
breakdown tables are also based on the unpaid principal balance
at the end of each period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
|
Conventional loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original MPF
|
|
$
|
1,218.5
|
|
|
|
23.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,187.3
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
MPF Plus
|
|
|
3,504.9
|
|
|
|
68.4
|
|
|
|
4,480.6
|
|
|
|
73.3
|
|
|
|
Total conventional loans
|
|
|
4,723.4
|
|
|
|
92.2
|
|
|
|
5,667.9
|
|
|
|
92.7
|
|
Government-insured loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MPF Government
|
|
|
398.0
|
|
|
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
449.4
|
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
5,121.4
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
6,117.3
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans interest income
|
|
$
|
281.0
|
|
|
$
|
316.0
|
|
|
$
|
337.9
|
|
Average mortgage loans portfolio balance
|
|
$
|
5,645.0
|
|
|
$
|
6,113.3
|
|
|
$
|
6,557.8
|
|
Average yield
|
|
|
4.98
|
%
|
|
|
5.17
|
%
|
|
|
5.15
|
%
|
Weighted average coupon
|
|
|
5.79
|
%
|
|
|
5.83
|
%
|
|
|
5.83
|
%
|
Weighted average estimated life
|
|
|
4.6 years
|
|
|
|
5.4 years
|
|
|
|
5.9 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Original
FICO®
scores:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greater than 750
|
|
|
48
|
%
|
|
|
50
|
%
|
701 to 750
|
|
|
29
|
%
|
|
|
29
|
%
|
626 to 700
|
|
|
22
|
%
|
|
|
20
|
%
|
Less than 626
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Original LTV ratio range:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50% or below
|
|
|
11
|
%
|
|
|
11
|
%
|
Above 50% to 60%
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
|
|
10
|
%
|
Above 60% to 70%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
|
|
17
|
%
|
Above 70% to 80%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
|
|
52
|
%
|
Above 80% to 90%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Above 90% to 100%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Regional concentrations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Midwest (IA, IL, IN, MI, MN, ND, NE, OH, SD and WI)
|
|
|
19
|
%
|
|
|
21
|
%
|
Northeast (CT, DE, MA, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, PR, RI, VI and VT)
|
|
|
32
|
%
|
|
|
27
|
%
|
Southeast (AL, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA and WV)
|
|
|
24
|
%
|
|
|
25
|
%
|
Southwest (AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MO, NM, OK, TX and UT)
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
|
|
14
|
%
|
West (AK, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA and WY)
|
|
|
12
|
%
|
|
|
13
|
%
|
Total
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
100
|
%
|
|
|
Top state concentrations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
|
|
23
|
%
|
|
|
19
|
%
|
California
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
|
|
8
|
%
|
Texas
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
|
|
7
|
%
|
Maryland
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Ohio
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Virginia
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
|
|
6
|
%
|
Other states
|
|
|
44
|
%
|
|
|
48
|
%
|
|
|
Participating Financial Institution
(PFI). Members must specifically apply to
become a PFI. The Bank reviews the general eligibility of the
member including servicing qualifications and ability to supply
documents, data and reports required to be delivered under the
MPF Program. The Bank added six new PFIs in 2009, and as
of December 31, 2009, 95 members were approved participants
in the MPF Program. Of the Banks 10 largest
80
members, based on asset size, five members have executed PFI
agreements. The Bank did not purchase any volume from these five
members during 2009.
Mortgage Loan Purchases. The Bank and
the PFI enter into a Master Commitment which provides the
general terms under which the PFI will deliver mortgage loans,
including a maximum loan delivery amount, maximum credit
enhancement amount and expiration date. Mortgage loans are
purchased by the Bank directly from a PFI pursuant to a delivery
commitment, which is a binding agreement between the PFI and the
Bank.
Mortgage Loan Participations. The Bank
may sell participation interests in purchased mortgage loans to
other FHLBanks, institutional third party investors approved in
writing by the FHLBank of Chicago, the member that provided the
credit enhancement, and other members of the FHLBank System. The
Bank may also purchase mortgage loans from other FHLBanks. For
the year ended December 31, 2009, there were no
participation interests sold to FHLBank of Chicago or any other
FHLBank, nor any participations purchased from other FHLBanks.
Servicing
Mortgage Loan Servicing. Under the MPF
Program, PFIs may retain or sell servicing to third parties. The
Bank does not service loans or own any servicing rights. The
FHLBank of Chicago acts as the master servicer for the Bank and
has contracted with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to fulfill the master
servicing duties. The Bank pays the PFI or third party servicer
a servicing fee to perform these duties; the fee is generally
25 basis points for conventional loans.
Credit
Exposure
Underwriting Standards. Purchased
mortgage loans must meet certain underwriting standards
established in the MPF Program guidelines. Key standards
and/or
eligibility guidelines include the following loan criteria:
|
|
|
|
|
Conforming loan size, established annually; may not exceed the
loan limits set by the Finance Agency;
|
|
|
Fixed-rate,
fully-amortizing
loans with terms from 5 to 30 years;
|
|
|
Secured by first lien mortgages on owner-occupied residential
properties and second homes;
|
|
|
Generally, 95% maximum LTV; all LTV ratio criteria are generally
based on the loan purpose, occupancy and borrower citizenship
status; all loans with LTV ratios above 80% require primary
mortgage insurance coverage; and
|
|
|
Unseasoned or current production with up to 12 payments made by
the borrowers.
|
The following types of mortgage loans are not eligible for
delivery under the MPF Program: (1) mortgage loans that are
not ratable by S&P; (2) mortgage loans not meeting the
MPF Program eligibility requirements as set forth in the MPF
Guides and agreements; and (3) mortgage loans that are
classified as high cost, high rate, Home Ownership and Equity
Protection Act (HOEPA) loans, or loans in similar categories
defined under predatory lending or abusive lending laws.
Under the MPF Program, the FHLBank of Chicago, the PFI and the
Bank all conduct quality assurance reviews on a sample of the
conventional mortgage loans to ensure compliance with MPF
Program requirements. The PFI may be required to repurchase, at
the greater of book value or market value, individual loans
which fail these reviews. Additionally, MPF Government
residential mortgage loans which are 90 days or more past
due are permitted to be repurchased by the PFI. While the
repurchase of these government mortgage loans is not required,
PFIs have historically exercised their option to repurchase
these loans. For the years 2009 and 2008, the total funded
amount of repurchased mortgage loans was $19.6 million, or
4.6%, and $13.6 million, or 1.9%, respectively, of total
funded loans.
Layers of Loss Protection. The Bank is
required to put a credit enhancement structure in place that
assures that the Banks exposure to credit risk on mortgage
loans is no greater than that of a mortgage asset rated at least
AA. The PFI must bear a specified portion of the direct economic
consequences of actual loan losses on the individual mortgage
loans or pool of loans, which may be provided by a credit
enhancement obligation or SMI.
81
Each MPF product structure has various layers of loss protection
as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Layer
|
|
Original MPF
|
|
MPF Plus
|
|
|
First
|
|
Borrowers equity in the property
|
|
Borrowers equity in the property
|
Second (required for mortgage loans with
loan-to-value
ratios greater than 80)%
|
|
Primary mortgage insurance issued by qualified mortgage
insurance companies (if applicable)
|
|
Primary mortgage insurance issued by qualified mortgage
insurance companies (if applicable)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Third
|
|
Bank first loss account (FLA)* (allocated amount)
|
|
Bank first loss account (FLA)* (upfront amount)
|
Fourth
|
|
PFI credit enhancement amount**
|
|
Supplemental mortgage insurance and/or PFI credit enhancement
amount, if applicable**
|
Final
|
|
Bank loss
|
|
Bank loss
|
|
|
|
* |
|
The FLA either builds over time or is an amount equal to an
agreed-upon
percentage of the aggregate balance of the mortgage loans
purchased. The type of FLA is established by MPF product. The
Bank does not receive fees in connection with the FLA. |
|
** |
|
The PFIs credit enhancement amount for each pool of loans,
together with any primary mortgage insurance or supplemental
mortgage insurance coverage, is sized to equal the amount of
losses in excess of the FLA to the equivalent of an AA rated
mortgage investment. |
By credit enhancing each loan pool, the PFI maintains an
interest in the performance of the mortgage loans it sells to
the Bank and may service for the Bank. For managing this risk,
the PFI is paid a monthly credit enhancement fee by the Bank.
Credit enhancement fees are recorded as an offset to mortgage
loan net interest income in the Statement of Operations. For the
years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the credit
enhancement fees were $6.5 million, $7.1 million and
$7.7 million, respectively. Performance based credit
enhancement fees paid are reduced by losses absorbed through the
FLA, where applicable.
During 2009, the MPF Program instituted an MPF loan modification
plan. The loan modification plan allows borrowers in imminent
danger of default to capitalize delinquent interest,
re-amortize
the mortgage loans over 40 years with the same monthly
payment, write-off interest via the MPF credit structure, or
reduce the mortgage loans interest rate. The loan
modification plan will expire December 31, 2011. The Bank
will account for mortgage loans modified under the loan
modification plan as a troubled debt restructuring after the
completion of a
90-day trial
period. During 2009, there were no loan modifications of the
Banks mortgage loans.
The MPF products are described in more detail below.
Original MPF. Under Original MPF, the
FLA is zero on the day the first loan is purchased and generally
increases steadily over the life of the Master Commitment based
on the month-end outstanding aggregate principal balance. Loan
losses not covered by primary mortgage insurance, but not to
exceed the FLA, are deducted from the FLA and recorded as losses
by the Bank for financial reporting purposes. Losses in excess
of FLA are allocated to the PFI under its credit enhancement
obligation for each pool of loans. The PFI is paid a fixed
credit enhancement fee for providing this credit enhancement
obligation. Loan losses in excess of both the FLA and the credit
enhancement amount are unlikely, but if any such losses should
occur, they would be recorded as losses by the Bank based on the
Banks participation interest in the master commitment.
MPF Plus. Under MPF Plus, the first
layer of losses (following any primary mortgage insurance
coverage) is applied to the FLA equal to a specified percentage
of the loans in the pool as of the sale date. Any losses
allocated to this FLA are the responsibility of the Bank. The
PFI obtains additional credit enhancement in the form of a
supplemental mortgage insurance policy to cover losses in excess
of the deductible of the policy, which is equal to the FLA. Loan
losses not covered by the FLA and supplemental mortgage
insurance are paid by the PFI, up to the amount of the
PFIs credit enhancement obligation, if any, for each pool
of loans. If applicable, the PFI is paid a fixed credit
enhancement fee and a performance-based fee for providing the
credit enhancement obligation. Loan losses applied to the FLA as
well as losses in excess of the combined FLA, the supplemental
mortgage insurance policy amount, and the PFIs credit
enhancement obligation are recorded by the Bank based on the
Banks
82
participation interest. Losses incurred by the Bank up to its
exposure under the FLA can be recaptured through the recovery of
future performance based credit enhancement fees earned by the
PFI. Although unlikely, any loan losses in excess of both the
FLA and the credit enhancement would be treated in the same
manner as Original MPF. The MPF Plus product is currently not
being offered due to a lack of insurers writing new SMI policies.
The following are outstanding balances in the FLAs for the
Original MPF and MPF Plus products:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Original MPF
|
|
MPF Plus
|
|
Total
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
1.6
|
|
|
$
|
41.9
|
|
|
$
|
43.5
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
1.1
|
|
|
$
|
42.9
|
|
|
$
|
44.0
|
|
December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
0.8
|
|
|
$
|
43.6
|
|
|
$
|
44.4
|
|
MPF Government. Government-insured or
government-guaranteed mortgage loans are eligible for sale under
this product. With MPF Government loans, PFIs obtain the
applicable FHA insurance or a VA or RHS guarantee, are
responsible for all unreimbursed servicing expenses and receive
a 44 basis point servicing fee. Since the PFI servicing
these mortgage loans takes the risk with respect to amounts not
reimbursed by either the FHA, VA, or RHS, this product results
in the Bank having mortgage loans that are expected to perform
similar to U.S. agency securities.
MPF Xtra. In January 2009, the Bank
received approval from the Finance Agency to offer MPF Xtra to
its members. This product option allows PFIs to sell residential
conforming fixed-rate mortgages directly to FHLBank of Chicago,
which concurrently sells them to Fannie Mae on a nonrecourse
basis. FHLBank of Chicago will pay the Bank a counterparty fee
for each loan. The Bank is responsible for monitoring the
PFIs credit quality and servicing on FHLBank of
Chicagos behalf. During 2009, the Banks PFIs sold
$25.0 million in mortgage loans to Fannie Mae through the
MPF Xtra program.
Real Estate Owned. When a PFI
forecloses on a delinquent mortgage loan, the Bank reclassifies
the carrying value of the loan to other assets as real estate
owned (REO) at the lower of cost or fair value less estimated
selling expenses. If the value of the REO property is lower than
the carrying value of the loan, then the difference to the
extent such amount is not expected to be recovered through
recapture of performance-based credit enhancement fees is
recorded as a charge-off to the allowance for credit losses. If
a charge-off is required, the fair value less estimated costs to
sell the property becomes the new cost basis for subsequent
accounting. If the fair value of the REO property is higher than
the carrying value of the loan, then the REO property is
recorded in other assets at the carrying value of the loan. A
PFI is charged with the responsibility for disposing of real
estate on defaulted mortgage loans on behalf of the Bank. Once a
property has been sold, the PFI presents a summary of the gain
or loss for the individual mortgage loan to the master servicer
for reimbursement of any loss. Gains on the sale of REO property
are held and offset by future losses in the pool of loans, ahead
of any remaining balances in the first loss account. Losses are
deducted from the first loss account, if it has not been fully
used. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank held
$11.1 million and $5.9 million, respectively, of REO.
See the Credit and Counterparty Risk Mortgage
Loans discussion in the Risk Management section in this
Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis for
additional information regarding the credit risk of the MPF loan
portfolio.
Capital
Resources
The following is Managements Discussion and Analysis of
the Banks capital resources as of December 31, 2009,
which should be read in conjunction with Note 19 to the
audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Liquidity and Funding. Please refer to
the presentation of the Banks liquidity and funding risk
analysis in the Liquidity and Funding Risk section
of Risk Management in Item 7. Managements Discussion
and Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for details.
Capital Plan. Under Finance Agency
implementation of the GLB Act, the Bank adopted and maintains a
plan (capital plan). Since the adoption of the capital plan, two
members have notified the Bank that they wanted to voluntarily
withdraw from membership and redeem their capital stock. One of
those two members is in receivership.
83
None of these redemptions were complete as of December 31,
2009. In addition, two members were placed in receivership by
the FDIC and their charters were dissolved. One member
voluntarily dissolved its charter with the OTS. In total, six
members have been merged out of district; two of these former
members continue to maintain a balance in mandatorily redeemable
capital stock. The total amount of the pending stock redemptions
is $8.3 million. The Bank had no repurchases of capital
stock for 2009. The Bank repurchased $53.7 million of
capital stock related to
out-of-district
mergers in 2008.
Under the capital plan, member institutions are required to
maintain capital stock in an amount equal to no less than the
sum of three amounts: (1) a specified percentage of their
outstanding loans from the Bank; (2) a specified percentage
of their unused borrowing capacity (defined generally as the
remaining collateral value that can be borrowed against) with
the Bank; and (3) a specified percentage of the principal
balance of residential mortgage loans previously sold to the
Bank and still held by the Bank (any increase in this percentage
will be applied on a prospective basis only). These specified
percentages may be adjusted by the Banks Board within
pre-established ranges as contained in the capital plan.
These specified percentage ranges and established rates are as
follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentages in Effect as of
|
|
|
|
Specified
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
Percentage Ranges
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding member loans
|
|
|
4.5 to 6.0
|
%
|
|
|
4.75
|
%
|
Unused borrowing capacity
|
|
|
0.0 to 1.5
|
%
|
|
|
0.75
|
%
|
Outstanding residential mortgages previously sold to and held by
the Bank
|
|
|
0.0 to 4.0
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
The stock purchase requirement for unused borrowing capacity is
referred to as the membership capital stock purchase requirement
because it applies to all members. The other two stock purchase
requirements are referred to as activity-based requirements. The
Bank determines membership capital stock purchase requirements
by considering the aggregate amount of capital necessary to
prudently capitalize the Banks business activities. The
amount of capital is dependent upon the size of the current
balance sheet, expected members borrowing requirements and
other forecasted balance sheet changes. As required by Finance
Agency regulation, the Banks Board is required to evaluate
its capital requirements periodically and to make adjustments as
warranted and as permitted under the Banks capital plan.
The Banks Board utilizes the flexibility designed into the
capital plan to provide what it deems to be the best overall
capitalization profile to enhance stockholder value, consistent
with the safe and sound operation of the Bank.
Effective May 1, 2009, the Board approved a change in the
Acquired Member Asset (AMA) capital stock purchase requirement
under the Capital Plan on MPF loans sold to and held by the
Bank, increasing the requirement to 4.0%. This capital stock
requirement was applied prospectively to loans funded under new
MPF master commitments executed on or after May 1, 2009.
The decision to increase the AMA requirement aligned the Bank
more closely with other FHLBanks offering AMA programs and
ensured that the portfolio is properly capitalized going forward.
The Bank has initiated the process of amending its capital plan.
The goal of this capital plan amendment is to provide members
with a stable membership capital stock calculation that would
replace the Unused Borrowing Capacity calculation. Additionally,
the proposed amendment would expand the AMA stock purchase
requirement range and prospectively establish a capital stock
purchase requirement for letters of credit. As required by
Finance Agency regulation and the terms of the capital plan, any
amendment must be approved by the Finance Agency prior to
becoming effective.
On December 23, 2008, the Bank announced its decision to
voluntarily suspend excess capital stock repurchases until
further notice in an effort to preserve capital. This action
followed the significant increase in the Banks RBC
requirement in November 2008 due to deterioration in the market
values of the Banks private label MBS. The Bank submitted
a Capital Stabilization Plan (CSP) to the Finance Agency on
February 27, 2009. As previously discussed, during 2009,
many changes occurred in the economic environment affecting the
Bank, which required an update of the CSP. On September 28,
2009, management submitted a revised CSP to the Finance Agency.
See the Overview discussion in Item 1. Business in this
2009 Annual Report filed on from
10-K for
further
84
details. The Bank was in compliance with its risk-based, total
and leverage capital requirements at December 31, 2009.
Dividends. The amount of dividends the
Board determines to pay out, if any, is affected by, among other
factors, the level of retained earnings. Dividends may be paid
in either capital stock or cash; the Bank has historically paid
cash dividends only. On December 23, 2008, the Bank
announced its decision to voluntarily suspend payment of
dividends until further notice. Bank management and the Board,
as well as the Finance Agency, believe that the level of
retained earnings with respect to the total balance of AOCI
should be considered in assessing the Banks ability to
resume paying a dividend.
Risk-Based
Capital (RBC)
The Bank became subject to the Finance Agencys RBC
regulations upon implementation of its capital plan on
December 16, 2002. This regulatory framework requires the
Bank to maintain sufficient permanent capital, defined as
retained earnings plus capital stock, to meet its combined
credit risk, market risk and operational risk. Each of these
components is computed as specified in regulations and
directives issued by the Finance Agency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Permanent capital:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
stock(1)
|
|
$
|
4,026.3
|
|
|
$
|
3,986.4
|
|
|
$
|
3,998.6
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
389.0
|
|
|
|
170.5
|
|
|
|
296.3
|
|
|
|
Total permanent capital
|
|
$
|
4,415.3
|
|
|
$
|
4,156.9
|
|
|
$
|
4,294.9
|
|
|
|
RBC requirement:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit risk capital
|
|
$
|
943.7
|
|
|
$
|
278.7
|
|
|
$
|
240.8
|
|
Market risk capital
|
|
|
1,230.8
|
|
|
|
2,739.1
|
|
|
|
256.7
|
|
Operations risk capital
|
|
|
652.4
|
|
|
|
905.3
|
|
|
|
149.3
|
|
|
|
Total RBC requirement
|
|
$
|
2,826.9
|
|
|
$
|
3,923.1
|
|
|
$
|
646.8
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Capital stock includes mandatorily
redeemable capital stock
|
The Bank held excess permanent capital over RBC requirements of
$1.6 billion, $233.8 million and $3.6 billion at
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
On August 4, 2009, the Finance Agency issued its final
Prompt Corrective Action Regulation (PCA Regulation)
incorporating the terms of the Interim Final Regulation issued
on January 30, 2009. See the Legislative and
Regulatory Developments discussion in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information regarding this Interim Final
Regulation. On January 12, 2010, the Bank received final
notification from the Finance Agency that it was considered
adequately capitalized for the quarter ended September 30,
2009. In its determination, the Finance Agency expressed
concerns regarding the Banks level of retained earnings,
the quality of the Banks private label MBS portfolio and
related AOCI and the Banks ability to maintain permanent
capital above RBC requirements. As of the date of this filing,
the Bank has not received notice from the Finance Agency
regarding its capital classification for the quarter ended
December 31, 2009.
Credit Risk Capital. The Banks
credit risk capital requirement is determined by adding together
the credit risk capital charges computed for assets, off-balance
sheet items, and derivative contracts based on the credit risk
percentages assigned to each item as determined by the Finance
Agency. In 2008, the credit risk capital component of the RBC
requirement began to increase due to downgrades of private label
MBS by the credit rating agencies. During 2009, the Banks
portfolio of private label MBS experienced numerous downgrades.
The credit risk capital component assigns materially higher
percentages for private label MBS that are rated CCC
and lower. These downgrades resulted in a significantly higher
credit risk capital requirement as of December 31, 2009.
For information on the credit ratings of the private label MBS,
see the Credit and Counterparty Risk
Investments
85
discussion in the Risk Management section of this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Market Risk Capital. The Banks
market risk capital requirement is determined by adding together
the market value of the Banks portfolio at risk from
movements in interest rates and the amount, if any, by which the
Banks current market value of equity is less than 85% of
the Banks book value of equity as of the measurement
calculation date. The Bank calculates the market value of its
portfolio at risk and the current market value of its total
capital by using an internal market risk model that is subject
to annual independent validation.
The market risk component of the overall RBC framework is
designed around a stress test approach. Simulations
of several hundred historical market interest rate scenarios are
generated and, under each scenario, the hypothetical
beneficial/adverse effects on the Banks current market
value of equity are determined. The hypothetical
beneficial/adverse effect associated with each historical
scenario is calculated by simulating the effect of each set of
market conditions upon the Banks current risk position,
which reflects current assets, liabilities, derivatives and
off-balance-sheet commitment positions as of the measurement
date.
From the resulting simulated scenarios, the most severe
deterioration in market value of capital is identified as that
scenario associated with a probability of occurrence of not more
than 1% (i.e., a 99% confidence interval). The
hypothetical deterioration in market value of equity in this
scenario, derived under the methodology described above,
represents the market value risk component of the Banks
regulatory RBC requirement which, in conjunction with the credit
risk and operations risk components, determines the Banks
overall RBC requirement.
The increase in the market risk component of the risk-based
capital requirement in 2008 was due primarily to widening
mortgage credit spreads causing a significant decline in the
fair value of the Banks private label MBS portfolio and
the Banks market value of equity. The market risk
component decreased significantly in 2009 as private label MBS
credit spreads reverted to levels below year-end 2008 and the
corresponding increase in the Banks market value of equity
far exceeded the additional market value sensitivity to interest
rates associated with lower expected prepayments and extension
of mortgage assets.
Operations Risk Capital. The
Banks operational risk capital requirement is equal to
30 percent of the sum of its credit risk capital
requirement and its market risk capital requirement, unless the
Finance Agency were to approve a request for a percentage
reduction by the Bank. As a result, this RBC requirement
decreased as the decrease in the market risk capital component
more than offset the increase in the credit risk capital
component.
On February 8, 2010, the Finance Agency issued a proposed
regulation authorizing the imposition of an additional temporary
minimum capital requirement on an FHLBank. Factors that the
Finance Agency may consider in imposing such a requirement
include: (1) current or anticipated declines in the value
of assets held by the FHLBank, the amounts of the FHLBanks
outstanding MBS and its ability to access liquidity and funding;
(2) current or projected declines in the capital;
(3) level of reserves or retained earnings; and
(4) ratio of market value of equity to par value of capital
stock. To the extent that the final rule results in an increase
in the Banks capital requirements, the Banks ability
to pay dividends, repurchase or redeem capital stock may be
adversely impacted.
Capital
and Leverage Ratios
In addition to the requirements for RBC, the Finance Agency has
mandated maintenance of certain capital and leverage ratios. The
Bank must maintain total regulatory capital and leverage ratios
of at least 4.0% and 5.0% of total assets, respectively.
Management has an ongoing program to measure and monitor
compliance with the ratio requirements. To enhance overall
returns, it has been the Banks practice to utilize
leverage while maintaining compliance with statutory and
regulatory limits.
86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum capital (4.0% of total assets)
|
|
$
|
2,611.6
|
|
|
$
|
3,632.2
|
|
Actual capital (permanent capital plus loan loss reserves)
|
|
|
4,415.4
|
|
|
|
4,170.9
|
|
Total assets
|
|
|
65,290.9
|
|
|
|
90,805.9
|
|
Capital ratio (actual capital as a percent of total assets)
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
Leverage Ratio
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minimum leverage capital (5.0% of total assets)
|
|
$
|
3,264.5
|
|
|
$
|
4,540.3
|
|
Leverage capital (permanent capital multiplied by a 1.5
weighting factor plus loan loss reserves)
|
|
|
6,623.1
|
|
|
|
6,249.3
|
|
Leverage ratio (leverage capital as a percent of total assets)
|
|
|
10.1
|
%
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
Management reviews, on a routine basis, projections of capital
leverage that incorporate anticipated changes in assets,
liabilities, and capital stock levels as a tool to manage
overall balance sheet leverage within the Boards operating
ranges. In connection with this review, when management believes
that adjustments to the current member stock purchase
requirements within the ranges established in the capital plan
are warranted, a recommendation is presented for Board
consideration. The member stock purchase requirements have been
adjusted several times since the implementation of the capital
plan in December 2002. As previously noted, the current
percentages are 4.75%, 0.75% and 4.0% of member loans
outstanding, unused borrowing capacity and AMA activity,
respectively.
On November 10, 2008, the Bank first changed its excess
capital stock repurchase practice, stating that the Bank would
no longer make excess capital stock repurchases at a
members request and noting that the previous practice of
repurchasing excess capital stock from all members on a periodic
basis was revised. Subsequently, as announced on
December 23, 2008, the Bank suspended excess capital stock
repurchases until further notice. At December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008, excess capital stock totaled
$1.2 billion and $479.7 million, respectively. The
Banks prior practice was to promptly repurchase the excess
capital stock of its members upon their request (except with
respect to directors institutions during standard blackout
periods). As long as it is not repurchasing excess capital
stock, the Banks capital and leverage ratios may continue
to increase outside of normal ranges as evidenced by the
increases from December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009.
This may result in lower earnings per share and return on
capital.
Critical
Accounting Policies
The Banks consolidated financial statements are prepared
in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP). Application of these principles requires
management to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that
affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and
accompanying notes. The use of estimates, assumptions and
judgments is necessary when financial assets and liabilities are
required to be recorded/disclosed at, or adjusted to reflect,
fair value. Assets and liabilities carried at fair value
inherently result in more financial statement volatility. The
fair values and the information used to record valuation
adjustments for certain assets and liabilities are based either
on quoted market prices or are provided by other third-party
sources, when available. When such information is not available,
valuation adjustments are estimated in good faith by management,
primarily through the use of internal cash flow and other
financial modeling techniques. The policies below, along with
the disclosures presented in the other financial statement notes
and in this financial review, provide, among other things,
information on how significant assets and liabilities are valued
in the financial statements and how those values are determined.
The most significant accounting policies followed by the Bank
are presented in Note 2 to the audited financial statements
in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data. Management views critical accounting policies to be those
which are highly dependent on subjective or complex judgments,
estimates or assumptions, and those for which changes in those
estimates or assumptions could have a significant impact on the
financial statements.
87
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment Assessments for Investment
Securities. Effective January 1, 2009,
the Bank adopted the amended OTTI guidance issued by the FASB.
Among other things, the amended OTTI guidance revises the
recognition and reporting requirements for OTTI of debt
securities classified as
available-for-sale
and
held-to-maturity.
For debt securities, the ability and intent to hold
provision was eliminated in this guidance, and impairment is now
considered to be other than temporary if an entity
(1) intends to sell the security, (2) more likely than
not will be required to sell the security before recovering its
amortized cost basis, or (3) does not expect to recover the
securitys entire amortized cost basis (even if the entity
does not intend to sell the security). In addition, the
probability standard relating to the collectibility of cash
flows was eliminated in this guidance, and impairment is now
considered to be other than temporary if the present value of
cash flows expected to be collected from the debt security is
less than the amortized cost basis of the security (any such
shortfall is referred to in the guidance as a credit loss).
The Bank evaluates outstanding
available-for-sale
and
held-to-maturity
securities in an unrealized loss position (i.e., impaired
securities) for OTTI on at least a quarterly basis. In the case
of its private label residential MBS, the Bank also considers
prepayment speeds, the historical and projected performance of
the underlying loans and the credit support provided by the
subordinate securities. These evaluations are inherently
subjective and consider a number of quantitative and qualitative
factors. For its private label residential MBS, the Bank employs
models or alternative procedures to determine the cash flows
that it is likely to collect from all of its securities. These
models consider borrower characteristics and the particular
attributes of the loans underlying the securities, in
conjunction with assumptions about future changes in home prices
and interest rates, to predict the likelihood a loan will
default and the impact on default frequency, loss severity and
remaining credit enhancement. A significant input to these
models is the forecast of future housing price changes for the
relevant states and metropolitan statistical areas, which are
based upon an assessment of the various housing markets. In
general, since the ultimate receipt of contractual payments on
these securities will depend upon the credit and prepayment
performance of the underlying loans and, if needed, the credit
enhancements for the senior securities owned by the Bank, the
Bank uses these models to assess whether the credit enhancement
associated with each security is sufficient to protect against
likely losses of principal and interest on the underlying
mortgage loans. The development of the modeling assumptions
requires significant judgment.
During the first quarter of 2009, the Finance Agency required
the FHLBanks to develop and utilize FHLBank System-wide modeling
assumptions for purposes of producing cash flow analyses used in
the OTTI assessment for private label residential MBS. During
the second quarter of 2009, the FHLBanks, enhanced the overall
OTTI process by creating an OTTI Governance Committee. The OTTI
Governance Committee provides a formal process by which the
FHLBanks can provide input on and approve assumptions. The OTTI
Governance Committee is responsible for reviewing and approving
the key assumptions including interest rate and housing prices
along with related modeling inputs and methodologies to be used
to generate cash flow projections. The OTTI Governance Committee
requires the FHLBanks to generate cash flow projections on a
common platform. The Bank utilized the FHLBank of Indianapolis
to generate cash flow projections on its private label
residential MBS classified as prime and Alt-A (except for common
CUSIPs, which are those held by two or more FHLBanks), the
FHLBank of Chicago to generate cash flow projections on its
private label residential MBS classified as subprime, and the
FHLBank of San Francisco to generate cash flow projections
on its common CUSIPs. The Bank performed its OTTI analysis on
those securities that had monoline insurance in a manner
consistent with other FHLBanks with similar instruments. For
certain private label residential MBS where underlying loan
level collateral data is not available, alternative procedures
are used to assess these securities for OTTI, potentially
including a cash flow test. Additionally, the OTTI Governance
Committee requires the FHLBanks to perform OTTI analysis on
sample securities to ensure that the OTTI analysis produces
consistent results among the Banks. If the Bank determines that
a commonly owned security is
other-than-temporarily
impaired, the FHLBanks that jointly own the common security are
required to consult with each other to arrive at the same
financial results.
In each quarter during 2009, the Bank reviewed the FHLBank
System-wide assumptions used in the OTTI process. Based on the
results of this review, the Bank deemed the FHLBank System-wide
assumptions to be reasonable and adopted them. However,
different assumptions could produce materially different
results, which
88
could impact the Banks conclusions as to whether an
impairment is considered
other-than-temporary
and the magnitude of the credit loss.
If the Bank intends to sell an impaired debt security, or more
likely than not will be required to sell the security before
recovery of its amortized cost basis, the impairment is
other-than-temporary
and is recognized currently in earnings in an amount equal to
the entire difference between fair value and amortized cost. To
date, the Bank has not met either of these conditions.
In instances in which the Bank determines that a credit loss
exists but the Bank does not intend to sell the security and it
is not more likely than not that the Bank will be required to
sell the security before the anticipated recovery of its
remaining amortized cost basis, the OTTI is separated into
(1) the amount of the total impairment related to the
credit loss and (2) the amount of the total impairment
related to all other factors (i.e., the noncredit portion). The
amount of the total OTTI related to the credit loss is
recognized in earnings and the amount of the total OTTI related
to all other factors is recognized in AOCI. The total OTTI is
presented in the Statement of Operations with an offset for the
amount of the total OTTI that is recognized in AOCI. Absent the
intent or requirement to sell a security, if a credit loss does
not exist, any impairment is considered to be temporary.
Regardless of whether an OTTI is recognized in its entirety in
earnings or if the credit portion is recognized in earnings and
the noncredit portion is recognized in other comprehensive
income (loss), the estimation of fair values has a significant
impact on the amount(s) of any impairment that is recorded.
The noncredit portion of any OTTI losses on securities
classified as
available-for-sale
is adjusted to fair value with an offsetting adjustment to the
carrying value of the security. The fair value adjustment could
increase or decrease the carrying value of the security. The
noncredit portion of any OTTI losses recognized in AOCI for debt
securities classified as
held-to-maturity
is accreted over the remaining life of the debt security (using
a level-yield method) as an increase in the carrying value of
the security until the security is sold, the security matures,
or there is an additional OTTI that is recognized in earnings.
In periods subsequent to the recognition of an OTTI loss, the
other-than-temporarily
impaired debt security is accounted for as if it had been
purchased on the measurement date of the OTTI at an amount equal
to the previous amortized cost basis less the credit-related
OTTI recognized in earnings. For debt securities for which
credit-related OTTI is recognized in earnings, the difference
between the new cost basis and the cash flows expected to be
collected is accreted into interest income over the remaining
life of the security in a prospective manner based on the amount
and timing of future estimated cash flows.
The adoption of the amended OTTI guidance required a cumulative
effect adjustment as of January 1, 2009, which increased
the Banks retained earnings by $255.9 million with an
offsetting decrease to AOCI. The Banks adoption of this
guidance had a material impact on the Banks Statement of
Condition, Statement of Operations and Statement of Changes in
Capital. The adoption of this guidance had no material impact on
the Banks Statement of Cash Flows.
Fair Value Calculations and
Methodologies. The Bank carries certain
assets and liabilities, including investments classified as
available-for-sale
and trading, and all derivatives on the Statement of Condition
at fair value. The Bank also provides certain fair value based
disclosures, including the methods and significant assumptions
used to estimate those fair values. Fair value is
the price that would be received to sell an asset or the price
paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between
market participants at the measurement date (December 31,
2009 in this instance). If there is little, if any, market
activity for an asset at the measurement date, the fair value
measurement objective remains the same, that is, the price that
would be received by the holder of the financial asset in an
orderly transaction (an exit price notion) that is not a forced
liquidation or distressed sale at the measurement date. Even in
times of market dislocation, it is not appropriate to conclude
that all market activity represents forced liquidations or
distressed sales. However, it is also not appropriate to
automatically conclude that any transaction price is
determinative of fair value. Determining fair value in a
dislocated market depends on the facts and circumstances and may
require the use of significant judgment about whether individual
transactions are forced liquidations or distressed sales. The
determination of fair value by the Bank is made for the
particular asset or liability and considers that the transaction
occurs in the principal market by market participants.
89
Fair values are based on quoted market prices, if such prices
are available. If quoted market prices are not available, fair
values are determined using a modified matrix pricing approach
or are based on valuation models that use either:
|
|
|
|
|
discounted cash flows, using market estimates of interest rates
and volatility; or
|
|
|
dealer prices or similar instruments.
|
Pricing models and their underlying assumptions are based on the
best estimates of management with respect to:
|
|
|
|
|
discount rates;
|
|
|
prepayments;
|
|
|
market volatility; and
|
|
|
other factors.
|
These assumptions may have a significant effect on the reported
fair values of assets and liabilities, including derivatives,
and the income and expense related thereto. The use of different
assumptions, as well as changes in market conditions, could
result in materially different net income and retained earnings.
With respect to those fair values that are based on valuation
models, the Bank regularly validates the models used to generate
the fair values. Such model validations are performed by
third-party specialists and are supplemented by additional
validation processes performed by the Bank, most notably,
benchmarking model-derived fair values to those provided by
third-party services or alternative internal valuation models.
The Banks methodology for estimating the fair value of MBS
was developed by the MBS Pricing Governance Committee which was
established by the FHLBank System to achieve consistent MBS
prices across the FHLBank System. This methodology was adopted
by the Bank during the quarter-ended September 30, 2009.
The methodology has the Bank request prices for all MBS from
four specific third-party vendors, and, depending on the number
of prices received for each security, selects a median or
average price. The methodology also incorporates variance
thresholds to assist in identifying median or average prices
that may require further review. In certain limited instances
(i.e., prices are outside of variance thresholds or the
third-party services do not provide a price), the Bank will
obtain a price from securities dealers or internally model a
price that is deemed most appropriate after consideration of all
relevant facts and circumstances that would be considered by
market participants. Prices for CUSIPs held in common with other
FHLBanks are reviewed for consistency. In adopting this common
methodology, each FHLBank remains responsible for the selection
and application of its fair value methodology and the
reasonableness of assumptions and inputs used. Prior to the
adoption of the new pricing methodology, the Bank used a similar
process that utilized three third-party vendors and similar
variance thresholds. This change in pricing methodology did not
have a significant impact on the Banks estimated fair
values of its MBS.
The Bank categorizes financial instruments carried at fair value
into a three-level hierarchy. The valuation hierarchy is based
upon the transparency (the observability) of inputs to the
valuation of an asset or liability as of the measurement date.
Observable inputs reflect market data obtained from independent
sources, while unobservable inputs reflect the Banks own
assumptions that it believes market participants would use. In
general, the Bank utilizes valuation techniques that maximize
the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of
unobservable inputs. However, as markets continue to remain
illiquid, the Bank may utilize more unobservable inputs if they
better reflect market value. With respect to the Banks
private label MBS, the Bank concluded that overall, the inputs
used to determine fair value are unobservable (i.e.,
Level 3). As noted above, the Bank uses third-party pricing
services to determine fair value. The Bank does not receive the
actual inputs used by each third-party due to the proprietary
nature of the information, while the Bank has obtained a general
understanding of the process and inputs used by the third
parties. Therefore, the Bank has sufficient information to
conclude Level 3 is appropriate based on its knowledge of
the dislocation of the private label MBS market and the
distribution of prices received from the four third-party
pricing services which is generally wider than would be expected
if observable inputs were used. The Bank has verified that the
third-party pricing services do not use distressed sales to
determine the fair value of its private label MBS.
During 2009, the Bank transferred private label residential MBS
from
held-to-maturity
to
available-for-sale
with an amortized cost of $3.4 billion on the date an OTTI
was recognized, indicating evidence of a decline in
90
creditworthiness at December 31, 2009. As a result, the
Bank carried a significant amount of assets at fair value on its
Statement of Condition for which fair values are based on
unobservable inputs. See Note 22 to the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data for further discussion.
Accounting for Derivatives. The Bank
regularly uses derivative instruments as part of its risk
management activities to protect the value of certain assets,
liabilities and future cash flows against adverse interest rate
movements. The valuation and accounting assumptions related to
derivatives are considered critical because management must make
estimates based on judgments and assumptions that can
significantly affect financial statement presentation.
Derivative instruments are presented on the Statement of
Condition at fair value. Any change in the fair value of a
derivative is required to be reflected in current period
earnings or other comprehensive income, regardless of how fair
value changes in the assets or liabilities being hedged may be
treated. This accounting treatment can cause significant
volatility in reported net income from period to period.
The Bank is subject to credit risk in derivatives transactions
due to potential nonperformance by the derivative
counterparties. The Bank evaluates the potential for the fair
value of the derivative instruments to be impacted by changes in
its own creditworthiness and the creditworthiness of the
derivative counterparties after consideration of legally
enforceable risk mitigation agreements. For example, the Bank
requires collateral agreements on all nonmember derivative
instrument contracts under which collateral must be posted
against exposure over an unsecured threshold amount. In
addition, the Bank has entered into
master-netting
and bilateral security agreements with all active derivative
counterparties that provide for delivery of collateral (cash or
securities) at specified levels tied to individual counterparty
credit ratings as reported by the credit rating agencies. Due in
part to the credit risk mitigation provided by the agreements
noted above and the Banks continued AAA credit rating, the
Bank has determined that the impact of credit risk on the fair
value of derivatives is insignificant and no adjustments are
necessary.
Generally, the Bank strives to use derivatives when doing so is
likely to provide a cost-effective means to mitigate the
interest rate risk inherent in its business. The most common
objectives of hedging with derivatives include:
(1) preserving an interest spread between the yield of an
asset and the cost of a supporting liability of mismatched
maturity; (2) mitigating the adverse earnings effects
resulting from the potential prepayment or extension of certain
assets and liabilities; and (3) protecting the value of
existing asset or liability positions or of anticipated
transactions. Much of the Banks hedging activity is
directed toward reducing interest rate risk and basis risk from
loans and supporting debt. Historically, the Bank has used
structured debt to create low-cost funding, which is used
primarily to provide more attractively priced loans to the
Banks members. Derivatives are also used to create loans
with specialized embedded pricing features, customized to meet
individual member funding needs
and/or to
reduce member borrowing costs.
The Banks policy remains consistent with Finance Agency
regulation, which is to use derivative instruments only to
reduce the market risk exposures inherent in the otherwise
unhedged asset and funding positions of the Bank. When doing so
represents the most cost-efficient strategy and can be achieved
while minimizing adverse earnings effects, management intends to
continue utilizing derivative instruments as a means to reduce
the Banks exposure to changes in market interest rates, as
appropriate. See Notes 2 and 12 to the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data for further discussion.
Advances and Related Allowance for Credit
Losses. Advances represented 63.1% and 68.5%
of total assets as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. The Statement of Condition presents advances, net
of unearned commitment fees and discounts. Amortization of such
fees and discounts is calculated using the interest method and
is reflected as a component of interest income. Since its
establishment in 1932, the Bank has never experienced a loan
loss on advances. Further, management does not anticipate loan
losses on any loans currently outstanding to members. The Bank
is required by statute to obtain sufficient collateral on member
loans to protect against losses and to accept as collateral on
member loans only high quality investment securities,
residential mortgage loans, deposits in the Bank, and other real
estate-related and Community Financial Institution assets. The
Bank continues to have rights to mortgage loans
and/or
securities as collateral on a
member-by-member
basis with an estimated net realizable value in excess of the
outstanding loans of each individual borrower. Accordingly,
there is no allowance for credit losses for advances.
91
Guarantees and Consolidated
Obligations. The Bank is jointly and
severally liable for the payment of all the consolidated
obligations of the entire FHLBank System. Accordingly, if one or
more of the FHLBanks were unable to repay its direct
participation in the consolidated obligations, each of the other
FHLBanks could be called upon to repay all or part of those
obligations, as approved or directed by the Finance Agency. The
Bank does not recognize a liability for its joint and several
obligations related to consolidated obligations issued for other
FHLBanks because the Bank considers the joint and several
liability a related party guarantee that meets the scope
exception under guarantor accounting. On its Statement of
Condition, the Bank records a liability for consolidated
obligations associated only with the proceeds it receives from
the issuance of those consolidated obligations.
Accounting for Premiums and Discounts on Mortgage Loans
and MBS. Typically, the Bank purchases
mortgage loans and MBS at amounts that are different than the
contractual note amount. The difference between the purchase
price and the contractual note amount establishes a premium or
discount. The Bank also receives or incurs various mortgage
related fees. Mortgage loans and MBS are reported on the
Statement of Condition at their principal amount outstanding net
of deferred loan fees and premiums or discounts. Bank policy
requires the amortization or accretion of these purchased
premiums or purchased discounts to interest income using the
contractual method, which produces a constant effective yield
over the contractual life, which represents the stated maturity.
Management prefers the contractual method to maturity because
the income effects of the amortization or accretion are
recognized in a manner that reflects the actual behavior of the
underlying assets during the period in which the behavior
occurs. Also, this method tracks the contractual terms of the
assets without regard to changes in estimates based on
assumptions about future borrower behavior. Premiums and
discounts on MBS that are determined to be OTTI are not
accounted for in accordance with this policy, but with the
Banks accounting for OTTI investments above.
Allowance for Credit Losses on Banking on Business
Loans. The allowance for credit losses for
the Banking on Business (BOB) program is based on the
portfolios characteristics. Both probability of default
and loss given default are determined and used to estimate the
allowance for credit losses. Loss given default is considered to
be 100% due to the fact that the BOB program has no collateral
or credit enhancement requirements. Probability of default is
based on small business default statistics for the NRSROs as
well as the SBA and trends in Gross Domestic Product. Refer to
further discussion regarding the allowance for credit losses in
Notes 2 and 11 to the audited financial statements in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data.
Allowance for Credit Losses on Mortgage Loans Held for
Portfolio. The Bank bases the allowance for
credit losses on managements estimate of loan losses
inherent in the Banks mortgage loan portfolio as of the
balance sheet date taking into consideration, among other
things, the Banks exposure within the first loss account.
The Bank performs periodic reviews of its portfolio to identify
the losses inherent within the portfolio and to determine the
likelihood of collection of the portfolio. The overall allowance
is determined based on historical default rates
and/or loss
percentages for similar loans in the MPF program, loan portfolio
characteristics, collateral valuations, industry data, and
prevailing economic conditions. Refer to further discussion
regarding the allowance for credit losses in Notes 2 and 11
to the audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
During the fourth quarter of 2009, the Bank changed the
estimates used to determine the allowance for credit losses on
mortgage loans purchased by the Bank. The Bank changed the loss
severity rates which included: updated current market estimates,
incorporated actual loss statistics, and incorporated amended
collateral procedures. The impact of the change in estimate
reduced the allowance by approximately $4.9 million.
Future REFCORP Payments. The
Banks financial statements do not include a liability for
the Banks statutorily mandated future REFCORP payments. In
the aggregate, the FHLBanks are required to fund a
$300 million annual annuity whose final maturity date is
April 15, 2030. The ultimate liability of the Bank is
dependent on its own profitability and that of the other
FHLBanks. The Bank pays 20% of its net earnings (after its AHP
obligation) to support the payment of part of the interest on
the bonds issued by REFCORP and, as such, the Bank is unable to
estimate reasonably its future payments as would be required to
recognize this future obligation as a liability on its Statement
of Condition. Accordingly, the Bank discloses the REFCORP
obligation as a long-term statutory payment requirement and
treats it in a manner similar to the typical treatment of income
tax expense for
92
accounting purposes under GAAP, by recording it as an expense in
the period in which the related net earnings are accrued.
The Bank overpaid its 2008 REFCORP assessment as a result of the
loss recognized in the fourth quarter of 2008. The Bank has
recorded the overpayment as a prepaid asset. The Bank has been
instructed by the U.S. Treasury that it can utilize the
overpayment to offset future REFCORP assessments over an
indefinite period of time. If the Bank is unable to exhaust the
overpayment at the time the FHLBank System has fully satisfied
its REFCORP obligation, the U.S. Treasury will implement a
procedure so that the Bank will be able to collect the remaining
prepaid REFCORP assessment. Further discussion is provided in
Note 18 to the audited financial statements in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial Data.
The Bank did not implement any other material changes to its
accounting policies or estimates for the year ended
December 31, 2009.
Recently Issued Accounting Standards and
Interpretations. See Note 3 to the
audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for a discussion of recent accounting pronouncements that are
relevant to the Banks businesses.
Legislative
and Regulatory Developments
Finance Agency Guidance for Determining
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment. On April 28, 2009 and
May 7, 2009, the Finance Agency provided the Bank and the
other 11 FHLBanks with guidance regarding the process for
determining OTTI with respect to non-agency residential MBS. The
goal of the guidance is to promote consistency among all
FHLBanks in making such determinations, based on the Finance
Agencys understanding that investors in the FHLBanks
consolidated obligations can better understand and utilize the
information in the FHLBanks combined financial reports if
it is prepared on a consistent basis. In order to achieve this
goal and move to a common analytical framework, and recognizing
that several FHLBanks (including the Bank) intended to early
adopt the OTTI accounting guidance, the Finance Agency guidance
required all FHLBanks to early adopt the OTTI accounting
guidance effective January 1, 2009 and, for purposes of
making OTTI determinations, to use a consistent set of key
modeling assumptions and specified third party models. For a
discussion of the OTTI accounting guidance, see Critical
Accounting Polices in this Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis and Note 3 to the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data, both in this 2009 Annual Report
filed on
Form 10-K.
For the first quarter of 2009, the Finance Agency guidance
required that the FHLBank of San Francisco develop, in
consultation with the other FHLBanks and the Finance Agency,
FHLBank System-wide modeling assumptions to be used by all
FHLBanks for purposes of producing cash flow analyses used in
the OTTI assessment for non-agency residential MBS other than
securities backed by subprime and home equity loans. The Bank
reviewed these assumptions and agreed with them.
Beginning with the second quarter of 2009, the twelve FHLBanks
formed an OTTI Governance Committee (the OTTI Committee)
consisting of one representative from each FHLBank. The OTTI
Committee has responsibility for reviewing and approving the key
modeling assumptions, inputs and methodologies to be used by all
FHLBanks in their OTTI assessment process. The OTTI Committee
provides a more formal process by which the FHLBanks can provide
input on and approve the assumptions, inputs and methodologies
for the modeling assumptions. Based on its review, the Bank
concurred with and adopted the FHLBank System-wide assumptions,
inputs and methodologies that were approved by the OTTI
Committee for use in the second, third and fourth quarter 2009
OTTI assessments.
In addition to using the FHLBank System-wide modeling
assumptions, the Finance Agency guidance requires that each
FHLBank conduct its OTTI analysis using two specified third
party models, subject to certain limited exceptions.
For the year ended December 31, 2009, the Bank has
completed its OTTI analysis in accordance with the Finance
Agency Guidance and using the key modeling assumptions, inputs
and methodologies approved by the Governance Committee. The Bank
has contracted with the FHLBank of Indianapolis to perform cash
flow projections for its residential private label MBS other
than subprime private label MBS and has contracted with the
93
FHLBank of Chicago to perform cash flow projections for its
subprime private label MBS. The Bank performed its OTTI analysis
on those securities that had monoline insurance in a manner
consistent with other FHLBanks with similar instruments. For
additional information regarding the Banks OTTI analysis
of its private label MBS portfolio, including detail on the key
modeling assumptions, inputs and methodologies, see Critical
Accounting Polices in this Item 7. Managements
Discussion and Analysis and Note 8 to the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data, both in this 2009 Annual Report
filed on
Form 10-K.
Final Regulation on FHLBank Capital Classification and
Critical Capital Level. On August 4,
2009, the Finance Agency issued a final rule on capital
classifications and critical capital levels for the FHLBanks
(the Capital Rule) which became effective on that same day. The
Capital Rule, among other things, establishes criteria for four
capital classifications and corrective action requirements for
FHLBanks that are classified in any classification other than
adequately capitalized. The Capital Rule requires the Director
of the Finance Agency to determine on no less than a quarterly
basis the capital classification of each FHLBank. Each FHLBank
is required to notify the Director of the Finance Agency within
10 calendar days of any event or development that has caused or
is likely to cause its permanent or total capital to fall below
the level necessary to maintain its assigned capital
classification. The following describes each capital
classification and its related corrective action requirements,
if any.
|
|
|
|
|
Adequately capitalized. An FHLBank is
adequately capitalized if it has sufficient permanent and total
capital to meet or exceed its risk-based and minimum capital
requirements. FHLBanks that are adequately capitalized have no
corrective action requirements.
|
|
|
Undercapitalized. An FHLBank is
undercapitalized if it does not have sufficient permanent or
total capital to meet one or more of its risk-based and minimum
capital requirements, but such deficiency is not large enough to
classify the FHLBank as significantly undercapitalized or
critically undercapitalized. An FHLBank classified as
undercapitalized must submit a capital restoration plan that
conforms with regulatory requirements to the Director of the
Finance Agency for approval, execute the approved plan, suspend
dividend payments and excess stock redemptions or repurchases,
and not permit growth of its average total assets in any
calendar quarter beyond the average total assets of the
preceding quarter unless otherwise approved by the Director of
the Finance Agency.
|
|
|
Significantly undercapitalized. An
FHLBank is significantly undercapitalized if either (i) the
amount of permanent or total capital held by the FHLBank is less
than 75 percent of any one of its risk-based or minimum
capital requirements, but such deficiency is not large enough to
classify the FHLBank as critically undercapitalized or
(ii) an undercapitalized FHLBank fails to submit or adhere
to a Director-approved capital restoration plan in conformance
with regulatory requirements. An FHLBank classified as
significantly undercapitalized must submit a capital restoration
plan that conforms with regulatory requirements to the Director
of the Finance Agency for approval, execute the approved plan,
suspend dividend payments and excess stock redemptions or
repurchases, and is prohibited from paying a bonus to or
increasing the compensation of its executive officers without
prior approval of the Director of the Finance Agency.
|
|
|
Critically undercapitalized. An FHLBank
is critically undercapitalized if either (i) the amount of
total capital held by the FHLBank is less than two percent of
the Banks total assets or (ii) a significantly
undercapitalized FHLBank fails to submit or adhere to a
Director-approved capital restoration plan in conformance with
regulatory requirements. The Director of the Finance Agency may
place an FHLBank in conservatorship or receivership. An FHLBank
will be placed in mandatory receivership if (1) the assets
of an FHLBank are less than its obligations during a
60-day
period or (2) the FHLBank is not, and during a
60-day
period has not, been paying its debts on a regular basis. Until
such time the Finance Agency is appointed as conservator or
receiver for a critically undercapitalized FHLBank, the FHLBank
is subject to all mandatory restrictions and obligations
applicable to a significantly undercapitalized FHLBank.
|
Each required capital restoration plan must be submitted within
15 business days following notice from the Director of the
Finance Agency unless an extension is granted and is subject to
the Director of the Finance Agency review and must set forth a
plan to restore permanent and total capital levels to levels
sufficient to fulfill its risk-based and minimum capital
requirements.
94
The Director of the Finance Agency has discretion to add to or
modify the corrective action requirements for each capital
classification other than adequately capitalized if the Director
of the Finance Agency determines that such action is necessary
to ensure the safe and sound operation of the FHLBank and the
FHLBanks compliance with its risk-based and minimum
capital requirements. Further, the Capital Rule provides the
Director of the Finance Agency discretion to reclassify an
FHLBanks capital classification if the Director of the
Finance Agency determines that:
|
|
|
|
|
the FHLBank is engaging in conduct that could result in the
rapid depletion of permanent or total capital;
|
|
|
the value of collateral pledged to the FHLBank has decreased
significantly;
|
|
|
the value of property subject to mortgages owned by the FHLBank
has decreased significantly;
|
|
|
the FHLBank is in an unsafe and unsound condition following
notice to the FHLBank and an informal hearing before the
Director of the Finance Agency; or
|
|
|
the FHLBank is engaging in an unsafe and unsound practice
because the FHLBanks asset quality, management, earnings,
or liquidity were found to be less than satisfactory during the
most recent examination, and such deficiency has not been
corrected.
|
If the Bank becomes classified into a capital classification
other than adequately capitalized, the Bank may be adversely
impacted by the corrective action requirements for that capital
classification.
Final and Proposed Regulations on FHLBank Board of
Director Elections and Director
Eligibility. This
sub-section
sets forth the final and proposed regulations issued by the
Finance Agency during the period covered by this report on
FHLBank director elections and director eligibility, each of
which impacts, or if adopted would impact, the Banks
corporate governance. The Banks corporate governance is
described in Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers, and
Corporate Governance.
Final Regulation on FHLBank Board of Director Elections and
Director Eligibility. On October 7, 2009,
the Finance Agency issued a final regulation on FHLBank director
elections and director eligibility, which became effective on
November 6, 2009. The final regulation generally continues
the prior rules governing elected director nominations,
balloting, voting, and reporting of results but makes certain
changes as well. Such changes include:
|
|
|
|
|
the addition of a requirement that each independent director
nominee receive at least 20 percent of the votes eligible
to be cast in the election, unless the FHLBanks board of
directors nominates more persons than there are independent
directorships to be filled in the election;
|
|
|
provides that the Director of the Finance Agency will annually
determine the size of the board for each FHLBank, with the
designation of member directorships based on the number of
shares of FHLBank stock required to be held by members in each
state using the method of equal proportions;
|
|
|
requires each FHLBanks board of directors to determine
annually how many of its independent directors are to be
designated public interest directors, subject to a minimum of at
least two public interest directors;
|
|
|
provides that when an FHLBanks board of directors fills a
vacancy on the board, the institution at which the candidate
serves as an officer or director must be a member of that
FHLBank at the time the individual is elected by the board;
|
|
|
sets terms for each directorship commencing after
January 1, 2009, at four years; and
|
|
|
modifies related
conflict-of-interest
rules to:
|
|
|
|
|
|
prohibit independent directors from serving as officers,
employees, or directors of any member of the FHLBank on whose
board the director serves, or of any recipient of advances from
that FHLBank, consistent with HERA;
|
|
|
create a safe harbor for serving as an officer, employee, or
director of a holding company that controls a member or a
recipient of advances if the assets of the member or recipient
of advances are less than 35 percent of the holding
companys assets;
|
|
|
attribute to independent directors any officer, employee, or
director positions held by the directors spouse;
|
|
|
remove the safe harbor for gifts of token value and for
reasonable and customary entertainment;
|
|
|
permit officers, attorneys, employees, agents, the board, the
Banks advisory council, and directors to support the
candidacy of the boards nominees for independent
directorships; and
|
|
|
permit directors, officers, employees, attorneys, and agents,
acting in their personal capacity, to support the nomination or
election of candidates for member directorships.
|
95
Proposed Regulation on FHLBank Board of Director Elections
and Director Eligibility. On December 1,
2009, the Finance Agency issued a proposed regulation with a
comment deadline of December 31, 2009 regarding the process
by which successor directors are selected after an FHLBank
directorship is re-designated to a new state prior to the end of
its term as a result of the annual designation of FHLBank
directorships. The current regulations deem the re-designation
to create a vacancy on the board, which is filled by the
remaining directors. The proposed amendment would deem the
re-designation to cause the original directorship to terminate
and a new directorship to be created, which would then be filled
by an election of the members.
Final Regulation on FHLBank Membership for Community
Development Financial Institutions
(CDFIs). On January 5, 2010, the Finance
Agency issued a final regulation establishing the eligibility
and procedural requirements allowing CDFIs to become FHLBank
members, which became effective on February 4, 2010. CDFIs
are private institutions that provide financial services
dedicated to economic development and community revitalization
in underserved markets. The newly eligible CDFIs include
community development loan funds, venture capital funds, and
state-chartered credit unions without federal deposit insurance.
The Bank is unable to predict how many CDFIs eligible for
membership in the Bank under the final regulation are interested
in becoming a member of the Bank and so is unable to predict the
impact of the final regulation on it.
Final Regulation on the Reporting of Fraudulent Financial
Instruments and Loans. On January 27,
2010, the Finance Agency issued a final regulation, which became
effective February 26, 2010, requiring Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, and the FHLBanks to report to the Finance Agency any such
entitys purchase or sale of fraudulent financial
instruments or loans, or financial instruments or loans such
entity suspects is possibly fraudulent. The regulation imposes
requirements on the timeframe, format, document retention, and
nondisclosure obligations for reporting fraud or possible fraud
to the Finance Agency. The Bank is also required to establish
and maintain adequate internal controls, policies and procedure
and an operational training program to discover and report fraud
or possible fraud. The adopting release provides that the
regulation will apply to all of the Banks programs and
products. Given such a scope, it potentially creates significant
investigatory and reporting obligations for the Bank. The
adopting release for the regulation provides that the Finance
Agency will issue certain guidance specifying the investigatory
and reporting obligations under the regulation. The Bank will be
in a position to assess the significance of the reporting
obligations once the Finance Agency has promulgated additional
guidance with respect to specific requirements of the regulation.
Final and Proposed Regulations and Guidance on
Compensation. This
sub-section
sets forth the final and proposed regulations and guidance
regarding compensation at the FHLBanks that the Finance Agency
has issued during the period covered by this report.
Finance Agency Advisory Bulletin on Executive Compensation
Principles. On October 27, 2009, the Finance
Agency issued an advisory bulletin establishing certain
principles for executive compensation at the FHLBanks and the
Office of Finance. These principles include that:
|
|
|
|
|
executive compensation must be reasonable and comparable to that
offered to executives in similar positions at comparable
financial institutions;
|
|
|
executive compensation should be consistent with sound risk
management and preservation of the par value of FHLBank stock;
|
|
|
a significant percentage of executive incentive-based
compensation should be tied to the Banks longer-term
condition and performance and outcome-indicators; a significant
percentage of executive incentive-based compensation that is
linked to the Banks financial performance should be
deferred and made contingent upon performance over several
years; and
|
|
|
the board of directors should promote accountability and
transparency in the process of setting compensation.
|
The Bank has updated its policies accordingly.
96
Proposed Regulation on Executive
Compensation. On June 5, 2009, the Finance
Agency issued a proposed regulation with a comment deadline of
August 4, 2009, regarding executive compensation for Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHLBanks. If implemented as proposed,
each FHLBank will be required to submit proposed compensation
actions to the Finance Agency for prior review for certain
executive positions. The Director of the Finance Agency will be
required to prohibit FHLBanks from providing compensation that
is not reasonable and comparable for the position based upon a
review of relevant factors.
Regulation Regarding Golden Parachute
Payments. On January 29, 2009, the Finance
Agency issued a final regulation regarding golden parachute
payments effective on that same day. The regulation includes a
list of factors the Director of the Finance Agency must consider
in determining whether to prohibit or limit golden parachute
payments. Such factors primarily relate to the relative
culpability of the proposed recipient of the payment in such
FHLBanks becoming insolvent, entering into conservatorship
or receivership, or being in a troubled condition. The Bank
cannot predict what impact this regulation will have on it.
Proposed Regulation Regarding Golden Parachute and
Indemnification Payments. On June 29, 2009,
the Finance Agency promulgated a proposed regulation with
comment deadline of July 29, 2009, setting forth the
standards that the Finance Agency shall take into consideration
when limiting or prohibiting golden parachute and
indemnification payments if adopted as proposed. The primary
effects of this proposed regulation are to better conform
existing Finance Agency regulations on golden parachutes with
FDIC rules and to further refine limitations on golden parachute
payments to further limit such payments made by Fannie Mae,
Freddie Mac, or an FHLBank that are assigned certain less than
satisfactory composite Finance Agency examination ratings. It is
unclear what impact this proposed regulation may have on the
Bank.
Proposed Regulation on FHLBank Director
Compensation. On October 23, 2009, the
Finance Agency issued a proposed regulation on FHLBank
directors compensation and expenses with a comment
deadline of December 7, 2009. The proposed regulation would
subject director compensation to the authority of the Director
of the Finance Agency to object to, and to prohibit
prospectively, compensation
and/or the
payment of expense that the Director of the Finance Agency
determines are not reasonable. The Bank is unable to determine
when a final regulation may be issued and what impact any final
regulation may have on the Bank.
Proposed Regulation Regarding Temporary Increases in
Minimum Capital Requirements. On
February 8, 2010 the Finance Agency issued a proposed
regulation to implement a provision of the Housing Act that
authorizes the Finance Agency to increase the minimum capital
level for the Housing GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and the
FHLBanks. The proposed regulation sets forth: (1) the
standards the Finance Agency would consider in imposing such a
temporary increase in Fannie Maes, Freddie Macs or
an FHLBanks minimum capital requirements; (2) the
standards for rescinding such an increase; and (3) a time
frame for review of such an increase. Under the proposed
regulation the Finance Agency would provide notice to an FHLBank
of any temporary minimum capital increase 30 days in
advance of the increase, unless the Agency determines an urgent
condition exists that does not permit such notice. The factors
the Finance Agency may consider in determining whether to impose
a temporary increase in an FHLBanks minimum capital
requirement are: (1) current or anticipated declines in the
value of assets held by the FHLBank, the amounts of the
FHLBanks outstanding MBS and its ability to access
liquidity and funding; (2) credit, market operational and
other risks, especially where a depreciation on the value of the
FHLBanks capital or assets or decline in liquidity or an
increase in risks is foreseeable and consequential;
(3) current or projected declines in the capital held by an
FHLBank; (4) the FHLBanks status in regard to
compliance with regulations, written orders or agreements;
(5) unsafe and unsound operations, practices or
circumstances; (6) housing market conditions;
(7) level of reserves or retained earnings;
(8) initiatives, operations, products or practices that
entail heightened risk; (9) ratio of market value of equity
to par value of capital stock; and (10) other conditions
determined by the Finance Agency Director and communicated to an
FHLBank in writing. To the extent that the final rule results in
an increase in the Banks capital requirements, the
Banks ability to pay dividends and repurchase or redeem
capital stock may be adversely impacted.
97
Proposed Regulation on Community Development Loans by
Community Financial Institutions (CFIs) and Secured Lending by
FHLBanks to Members and Their Affiliates. On
February 23, 2010, the Finance Agency issued a proposed
regulation with a comment deadline of April 26, 2010 that
would:
|
|
|
|
|
permit CFIs to secure advances from FHLBanks with community
development loans (the Pledge Provision); and
|
|
|
deem all secured extensions of credit by an FHLBank to a member
of any FHLBank to be an advance subject to applicable Finance
Agency regulations on advances (the Deeming Provision).
|
The Bank is unable to predict what impact the Pledge Provision
may have on it if adopted. The Deeming Provision may effectively
eliminate the ability of the Bank to enter into repurchase
agreements since many of the repurchase agreement market
participants (for example, the Primary Government Securities
dealers) have an affiliate that is a member of an FHLBank.
Additionally, if adopted, the Deeming Provision may also limit
the ability of the Bank to engage in derivatives transactions
(which require the posting of collateral) with entities that are
affiliates of any member of any FHLBank. This could result in a
substantial reduction in the number of derivatives
counterparties available to the Bank.
Proposed Regulation Regarding Restructuring the
Office of Finance. On August 4, 2009,
the Finance Agency issued a proposed regulation regarding the
restructuring of the board of directors of the Office of Finance
with a comment deadline of November 4, 2009. The Office of
Finance is governed by a board of directors, the composition and
functions of which are determined by regulations of the Finance
Agency. The proposed regulation would reconstitute the Office of
Finances board of directors by comprising it with the 12
FHLBank presidents and three to five independent directors that
satisfy certain qualifications. Additionally, the Office of
Finances audit committee would be charged with oversight
of greater consistency in accounting policies and procedures
among the FHLBanks which the Finance Agency has stated is
intended to enhance the value of the combined financial reports
of the Office of Finance. The Bank is unable to predict when a
final regulation may be promulgated and what impact any final
regulation may have on the Bank.
Proposed Regulation on Minority and Women
Inclusion. On January 11, 2010, the
Finance Agency issued a proposed regulation that would require
each FHLBank and the OF to:
|
|
|
|
|
establish and maintain an office of minority and women inclusion
or designate an office to perform the responsibilities of the
new regulation;
|
|
|
provide the new office or designated office with sufficient
human, technological and financial resources to comply with the
rule;
|
|
|
publish annually a statement endorsed by the chief executive
officer and approved by the board of directors confirming its
commitment to the principles of equal opportunity in employment
and in contracting regardless of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, disability status or genetic information;
|
|
|
establish and maintain certain policies and procedures to
ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the inclusion and
utilization of minorities, women and individuals with
disabilities in all business and activities at all levels based
on certain minimum requirements that would impact internal
complaints of discrimination, external contracting,
accommodations for individuals, and nominating or soliciting
nominees for directorships;
|
|
|
establish certain outreach programs in contracting, including
the requirement that diversity is considered in
contracting; and
|
|
|
adhere to certain periodic reporting requirements pertaining to
the rule.
|
Federal Reserve Board GSE Debt and MBS Purchase
Initiatives. On November 25, 2008, the
Federal Reserve announced an initiative for FRBNY to purchase up
to $100 billion of the debt of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and
the FHLBanks. On March 18, 2009, the Federal Reserve
committed to purchase up to an additional $100 billion of
such debt. On November 4, 2009, the Federal Reserve
announced that it will cease purchasing such debt when the
aggregated purchases reach $175 billion. Through
December 31, 2009, the FRBNY purchased approximately
$160 billion of such term debt, of which approximately
$34.4 billion was FHLBank term debt. These purchases have
had a positive effect on the Banks funding costs and the
cessation of these purchases may adversely impact the
Banks funding costs, however, the Banks funding
costs are impacted by a variety of factors, including FHLBank
98
demand for funds and investor preferences that vary from time to
time. Accordingly, the Bank cannot predict what impact this
regulation will have on it. On November 25, 2008 the
Federal Reserve also announced a program to purchase up to
$500 billion in MBS backed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and
Ginnie Mae to reduce the cost and increase the availability of
credit for the purchase of homes. On March 18, 2009, the
Federal Reserve committed to purchase up to an additional
$750 billion of such MBS increasing the total purchase
authority to $1.25 trillion since inception of the program.
Through December 31, 2009, the FRBNY purchased
approximately $1.1 trillion in GSE MBS, including approximately
$389 billion in purchases related to dollar rolls which
provide holders of MBS with a form of short-term financing,
similar to repurchase agreements. This program, initiated to
drive mortgage rates lower, make housing more affordable, and
help stabilize home prices, may lead to continued artificially
low agency-mortgage pricing. Comparative MPF Program price
execution, which is a function of the FHLBank debt issuance
costs, may not be competitive as a result. MPF price execution,
which is a function of the FHLBank debt issuance costs, has been
less competitive to date and resulted in weakened member demand
for MPF products throughout 2009 and into 2010.
Federal Reserve Board Amendment to Regulation D
Concerning Interest on Excess Balances. On
May 29, 2009, the Federal Reserve published a final rule
amending Regulation D, effective July 2, 2009. The new
rule amends the interim final rule published by the Federal
Reserve on October 9, 2008, which deemed any excess balance
held by a pass-through correspondent in the correspondents
account, when the correspondent was not itself an eligible
institution, to be held on behalf of the pass-through
correspondents respondents. Further, the interim final
rule permitted, but did not require, pass-through correspondents
to pass back to their respondents the interest paid on balances
held on behalf of respondents. Accordingly, the Bank had been
earning interest at the targeted Federal funds rate on all
excess balances deposited with the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland. Under the new final rule, any excess balance in the
account of a correspondent that is not an eligible institution
will be attributable to the correspondent, and no earnings will
be paid on the excess balance in that account. As a result,
since July 2, 2009, the Bank has reduced its excess
interest-bearing balances held at the Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland. The Bank has since invested its excess balances in
alternative investments providing a lower effective yield.
Federal Reserve Board Proposal to Create a Term Deposit
Program. On December 28, 2009, the
Federal Reserve announced a proposal to offer a term deposit
program for certain eligible FRB member institutions. The
FHLBanks are not eligible to participate in this program. The
program would enable such eligible institutions to:
(1) deposit funds with the FRB outside of the Federal
Reserve program; (2) earn interest on the funds; and
(3) pledge such deposits as collateral for loans from the
FRB.
FDIC Regulation on Deposit Insurance
Assessments. On February 27, 2009, the
FDIC issued a final regulation on increases in deposit insurance
premium assessments to restore the Deposit Insurance Fund. The
final regulation was effective April 1, 2009. The
assessments adopted by the FDIC are higher for institutions that
use secured liabilities in excess of 25 percent of
deposits. Secured liabilities are defined to include FHLBank
advances. The rule may tend to decrease demand for advances from
Bank members affected by the rule due to the increase in the
effective all-in cost from the increased premium assessments.
FDIC Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) and
Other FDIC Actions. On August 26, 2009,
the FDIC approved the extension of its guarantee for noninterest
bearing transaction accounts through June 30, 2010 for
those participating institutions that do not opt-out of the
program. On February 10, 2009, the FDIC extended the
guarantee of eligible debt under the TLGP from June 30,
2009 to October 31, 2009, in exchange for an additional
premium for the guarantee. On May 19, 2009, Congress passed
legislation continuing the FDIC-insured deposit limit of $250
thousand through 2013.
Money Market Fund Reform. On
February 23, 2010, the SEC published a final rule on money
market fund reform. One of the reforms in the rule is the
imposition of new liquidity requirements on money market funds.
FHLBank debt obligations with remaining maturities of
60 days or less are considered liquid assets for purposes
of meeting the new liquidity requirement. The final rule also
contains new provisions that may impact short bullet and floater
issuance and the demand for money market funds. The OF and the
FHLBanks are currently assessing the impact of these additional
provisions.
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 and Other
Mortgage Modification Legislation. On
May 20, 2009, the Helping Families Save Their Home Act of
2009 was enacted to encourage loan modifications in
99
order to prevent mortgage foreclosures and to support the
Federal deposit insurance system. One provision in the act
provides a safe harbor from liability for mortgage servicers who
modify the terms of a mortgage consistent with certain qualified
loan modification plans. At this time it is uncertain what
effect the provisions regarding loan modifications will have on
the value of the Banks mortgage asset portfolio, the
mortgage loan collateral pledged by members to secure their
advances from the Bank or the value of the Banks MBS. As
mortgage servicers modify mortgages under the various government
incentive programs and otherwise, the value of the Banks
MBS and mortgage loans held for investment and mortgage assets
pledged as collateral for member advances may be reduced. At
this point, legislation to allow bankruptcy cramdowns on
mortgages secured by owner-occupied homes (referred to as
cramdown legislation) has been defeated in the U.S. Senate;
however, similar legislation could be re-introduced. With this
potential change in the law, the risk of losses on mortgages due
to borrower bankruptcy filings could become material. The
previously proposed legislation permitted a bankruptcy judge, in
specified circumstances, to reduce the mortgage amount to
todays market value of the property, reduce the interest
rate paid by the debtor,
and/or
extend the repayment period. In the event that this legislation
would again be proposed, passed and applied to existing mortgage
debt (including residential MBS), the Bank could face increased
risk of credit losses on its private label MBS that include
bankruptcy carve-out provisions and allocate bankruptcy losses
over a specified dollar amount on a pro-rata basis across all
classes of a security. As of December 31, 2009, the Bank
has 69 private label MBS with a par value of $3.8 billion
that include bankruptcy carve-out language that could be
affected by cramdown legislation. The effect on the Bank will
depend on the actual version of the legislation that would be
passed (if any) and whether mortgages held by the Bank, either
within the MPF Program or as collateral for MBS held by the
Bank, would be subject to bankruptcy proceedings under the new
legislation. Other Bankruptcy Reform Act Amendments also
continue to be discussed.
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act. On December 11, 2009, the
U.S. House of Representatives passed the Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act (the Reform Act), which, if passed
by the U.S. Senate and signed into law by the president,
would, among other things: (1) create a consumer financial
protection agency; (2) create an inter-agency oversight
council that will identify and regulate systemically important
financial institutions; (3) regulate the
over-the-counter
derivatives market; (4) reform the credit rating agencies;
(5) provide shareholders with an advisory vote on the
compensation practices of the entity in which they invest
including for executive compensation and golden parachutes; and
(6) create a federal insurance office that will monitor the
insurance industry. Depending on whether the Reform Act, or
similar legislation, is signed into law and on the final content
of any such legislation, the Banks business, operations,
funding costs, rights, obligations,
and/or the
manner in which the Bank carries out its housing-finance mission
may be impacted. For example, regulations on the
over-the-counter
derivatives market that may be issued under the Reform Act could
adversely impact the Banks ability to hedge its
interest-rate risk exposure from advances, achieve the
Banks risk management objectives, and act as an
intermediary between its members and counterparties. However,
the Bank cannot predict whether any such legislation will be
enacted and what the content of any such legislation or
regulations issued under any such legislation would be.
Therefore, the Bank cannot predict what impact the Reform Act or
similar legislation may have on the Bank.
Other Financial Regulatory Reform. In
January 2010, the U.S. Treasury and President Obama,
announced two proposals affecting financial institutions,
including banking institutions. The first proposal is the
imposition of a 15 basis point financial responsibility fee
that financial firms with assets of greater than
$50 billion would pay on their covered liabilities. In the
event that covered liabilities are defined to include FHLBank
advances to members the fee could impact member borrowing by
affected firms. The second proposal would require the largest
financial firms to separate their investment banking and
proprietary trading from their commercial banking activities.
Previously, on June 17, 2009, President Obama issued a
proposal to improve the effectiveness of the federal regulatory
structure that would, among other things, cause a restructuring
of the current bank regulatory system. One provision of the plan
would require the U.S. Treasury and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to analyze the future of the
FHLBanks, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a goal of
developing such recommendations in time for the 2011
U.S. fiscal budget. Recent reports in 2010 indicate that
GSE reform, including the FHLBanks may be part of larger
comprehensive legislation regarding the nations housing
finance system. The Bank is unable to predict what versions of
such legislation will ultimately be passed and therefore is
unable to predict the impact of such legislation on the Bank or
its members activity with the Bank.
100
U.S. Treasurys Financial Stability
Plan. On March 23, 2009, in accordance
with the U.S. Treasurys announced Financial Stability
Plans initiative to purchase illiquid assets, the
U.S. Treasury announced the Public-Private Investment
Program (PPIP), which is a program designed to attract private
investors to purchase certain real estate loans and illiquid MBS
(originally AAA-rated) owned by financial institutions using up
to $100 billion in TARP capital funds. These funds could be
levered with debt funding also provided by the
U.S. Treasury to expand the capacity of the program. On
July 8, 2009, the U.S. Treasury announced that it had
selected the initial nine PPIP fund managers to purchase legacy
securities including commercial and residential MBS originally
issued prior to 2009 that were originally rated AAA by two or
more NRSROs. On September 30, 2009, the U.S. Treasury
announced the initial closings of two Public Private Investment
Funds (PPIFs) established under PPIP to purchase legacy
securities. The PPIPs activities in purchasing such
residential MBS could affect the values of residential MBS.
Since its selection of the initial PPIP fund managers in 2009,
as of December 31, 2009 the PPIP funds have drawn-down
approximately $4.3 billion of total capital which has been
invested in eligible assets and cash equivalents pending
investment. The total market value of non-agency residential MBS
and commercial MBS held by all PPIFs was approximately
$3.4 billion. In addition, in 2010 the FDIC is entering the
market with guaranteed structured notes backed by commercial
MBS, residential MBS and other ABS that the banking regulator
has acquired from various failed depository institutions.
Risk
Management
Housing and financial markets have been in tremendous turmoil
since the middle of 2007, with repercussions throughout the
U.S. and global economies, including a recent recession
within the U.S. economy. Limited liquidity in the credit
markets, increasing mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures,
falling real estate values, the collapse of the secondary market
for MBS, loss of investor confidence, a highly volatile stock
market, interest rate fluctuations, and the failure of a number
of large and small financial institutions are all indicators of
the severe economic crisis facing the U.S. and the rest of
the world. These economic conditions, particularly in the
housing and financial markets, combined with ongoing uncertainty
about the depth and duration of the financial crisis and the
recession, continued to affect the Banks business and
results of operations, as well as its members, in 2009 and may
continue to have some adverse effects into 2010.
While the significant deterioration in economic conditions that
followed the disruptive financial market events of September
2008 has not reversed, and the economy has remained weak since
that time, there are some indications that the pace of economic
decline may have started to slow. There have been signs that the
financial condition of large financial institutions has begun to
stabilize. However, despite these early signs of improvement,
the prospects for and potential timing of renewed economic
growth (employment growth in particular) remain very uncertain.
The ongoing weak economic outlook, along with continued
uncertainty regarding the extent that weak economic conditions
will extend future losses at large financial institutions to a
wider range of asset classes, and the nature and extent of the
ongoing need for the government to support the banking industry,
have combined to maintain market participants somewhat
cautious approach to the credit markets.
The Bank is heavily dependent on the residential mortgage market
through the collateral securing member loans and holdings of
mortgage-related assets. The Banks member collateral
policies, practices and secured status are discussed in more
detail below as well as in Item 1. Business in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Additionally, the Bank has outstanding credit exposures related
to the MPF Program and investments in private label MBS, which
are affected by the continuing mortgage market deterioration.
All of these risk exposures are continually monitored and are
discussed in more detail in the following sections.
For further information regarding the financial and residential
markets in 2009, see the Current Financial and Mortgage
Markets and Trends discussion in the Overview section of
this Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Risk
Governance
The Banks lending, investment and funding activities and
use of derivative hedging instruments expose the Bank to a
number of risks that include market and interest rate risk,
credit and counterparty risk, liquidity and
101
funding risk, and operating and business risk, among others,
including those described in Item 1A. Risk Factors in this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Banks Board and its committees have adopted a
comprehensive risk governance framework to oversee the risk
management process and manage the Banks risk exposures
which recognizes primary risk ownership and management by the
Banks business units. The Finance and Risk Management
Committee of the Board has responsibility to focus on balance
sheet management and market and funding risk management issues.
The Finance and Risk Management Committee also has
responsibility for certain credit and collateral risks and is
informed by regular and comprehensive reports covering all
significant risk types. The Audit Committee has responsibility
for monitoring certain operating and business risks and also
receives regular reports on control issues of significance and
the quarterly allowance for credit loss reports. From time to
time, ad hoc committees of the Board may be created to study and
report on key risk issues facing the Bank. All Board committees
also receive reports and training dealing in more depth with
specific risk issues relevant to the Bank. Additionally, the
Bank conducts an annual Bank-wide risk self-assessment which is
reviewed and approved by the full Board.
As a key part of this risk governance framework, the Banks
Board has adopted a Member Products Policy and a Risk Governance
Policy, which are reviewed regularly and re-approved at least
annually. The Member Products Policy, which applies to products
offered to members and housing associates, addresses the credit
risk of secured credit by establishing credit underwriting
criteria, appropriate collateralization levels and collateral
valuation methodologies. The Risk Governance Policy establishes
risk limits for the Bank in accordance with the risk profile
established by the Board, Finance Agency regulations, and other
applicable guidelines in connection with the Banks capital
plan and overall risk management framework. The magnitude of the
risk limits reflects the Banks risk appetite given the
market environment, the business strategy and the financial
resources available to absorb potential losses. In connection
with the completion of various market risk analyses undertaken
by management during 2008, the Risk Governance Policy was
amended effective September 26, 2008, to reflect
adjustments to the Board-approved risk appetite. These
adjustments were focused on emphasizing a greater balance
between enhancing the value of capital stock and generating
earnings. All breaches of any risk limits are reported in a
timely manner to the Board and senior management and the
affected business unit must take appropriate action to reduce
affected positions.
The risk governance framework also includes a body of risk
management policies approved by the Board. These policies
together with supplemental risk management Bank policies and
procedures are reviewed on an ongoing basis to assure that they
provide effective governance of the Banks risk-taking
activities. Further, Internal Audit provides an internal
assessment of the Banks management and internal control
systems. Internal Audit activities are designed to provide
reasonable assurance that resources are adequately protected;
significant financial, managerial and operating information is
materially complete, accurate and reliable; and employees
actions are in compliance with Bank policies, procedures and
applicable laws and regulations. Additionally, the Finance
Agency conducts an annual onsite examination of the Bank, as
well as periodic offsite evaluations, and also requires the Bank
to submit periodic compliance reports.
The Bank is focused on enhancing its risk management practices
and infrastructure. This includes addressing the following:
(1) risk governance; (2) risk appetite; (3) risk
measurement and assessment; (4) risk reporting and
communication; and (5) top risks and emerging risks. First,
improvements to the Banks policies and committee
structures will provide better governance over the risk
management process. Second, the Bank is revising its risk
appetite, integrating it with the strategic plan and reinforcing
it through management incentives. Third, all existing and
potential risk measures are being reviewed to enhance market,
credit, operating and business risk metrics and identify key
risk indicators in each risk area. Fourth, the Bank is
developing an enhanced risk reporting system which will
strengthen management and Board oversight of risk and provide a
clear understanding of risk issues facing the Bank. Lastly,
management and the Board are actively engaged in surveying and
assessing top risks and emerging risks. Top risks are existing,
material risks the Bank faces; these are periodically reviewed
and reconsidered to determine appropriate management attention
and focus. Emerging risks are those risks that are
102
new or evolving forms of existing risks; once identified,
potential action plans are considered based on probability and
severity. A strong risk management process serves as a base for
building member value in the cooperative.
In order to provide effective oversight for risk management
strategies, policies and action plans, the Bank has created a
formal review and reporting structure through three risk
management committees. The Risk Management Committee is
responsible for overall risk management, operating risks,
business risks and the Bank-wide risk self-assessment. The
Asset/Liability Committee (ALCO) focuses on financial management
issues and is responsible for planning, organizing, developing,
directing and executing the market and liquidity risk management
process within Board-approved parameters. The Credit Risk
Committee oversees the Banks credit policies, procedures,
positions and underwriting standards as well as decisions
relating to collateral, the extension or denial of credit, the
recording of OTTI and the adequacy of the allowance for credit
losses. Each of these three committees has established various
subcommittees to address certain key responsibilities. These
risk management committees
and/or their
respective charters may change from time to time based on new
business or regulatory requirements.
Subprime and Nontraditional Loan
Exposure. In October 2009, the Board approved
various policy revisions, which were effective immediately,
pertaining to subprime and nontraditional loan exposure. These
revisions included establishment of a Bank-wide limit on these
types of exposures and affected existing policies related to
collateral, MBS investments and the MPF Program mortgage loan
portfolio.
First, the definitions of subprime and nontraditional
residential mortgage loans and MBS were updated to be consistent
with Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC)
and Finance Agency Guidance. Second, the overall risk limits
were established for exposure to subprime and nontraditional
exposure. Currently, subprime exposure limits are essentially
established at zero. With respect to nontraditional exposure,
the Bank has established overall limits and portfolio sublimits.
The overall risk limit for nontraditional exposure is 25%, that
is, the total overall nontraditional exposure cannot exceed 25%
of the sum of the collateral pool plus MBS investments plus MPF
mortgage loans. The collateral sublimit has been set at 20%, the
MBS investment sublimit at 10% and the MPF mortgage loan
sublimit at 5%. The MBS investment sublimit of 10% excludes
legacy private label MBS and any securities issued, guaranteed
or fully insured by Ginnie Mae. Third, an enhanced reporting
process has been established to aggregate the volume of subprime
and nontraditional loans and MBS investments. Lastly, with
respect to collateral, all members are required to identify
subprime and nontraditional loans and MBS and provide periodic
certification that they comply with the FFIEC guidance.
Capital Adequacy and the Alternative Risk
Profile. The Banks overarching capital
adequacy metric is the Projected Capital Stock Price (PCSP). The
PCSP begins by determining the market value of capital stock as
of the measurement date. The PCSP is calculated using risk
components for interest rates, spread, credit, operating and
accounting risk. The sum of these components represents an
estimate of projected capital stock price variability and is
used in evaluating the adequacy of retained earnings and
developing dividend payout recommendations to the Board. The
Board has established a PCSP floor of 85% and a target of 95%.
Management strives to manage the overall risk profile of the
Bank in a manner that attempts to preserve the PCSP at or near
the target ratio of 95%. The difference between the actual PCSP
and the floor or target, if any, represents a range of
additional retained earnings that, in the absence of a reduction
in the aforementioned risk components, would need to be
accumulated over time to restore the PCSP and retained earnings
to an adequate level. Throughout 2009 and at December 31,
2009, the Bank was out of compliance with the capital adequacy
policy metric. The Bank made no dividend payments during 2009,
which conserved retained earnings.
Mortgage spreads, particularly spreads on private label MBS,
expanded to historically wide levels over the last two years,
reflecting increased credit risk and an illiquid market
environment. Due to these unprecedented market developments, the
Banks market risk metrics began to deteriorate in early
2008, including a decline in the Banks market value of
equity and an increase in the duration of equity. At that time,
management developed an Alternative Risk Profile to exclude the
effects of further increases in certain mortgage-related asset
credit spreads to better reflect the underlying interest rate
risk and accommodate prudent management of the Banks
balance sheet. During the third quarter of 2009, the Alternative
Risk Profile calculation was refined to revalue private label
MBS using market implied discount spreads from the period of
acquisition. This revision had the impact of increasing the PCSP
calculated under the Alternative Risk Profile by 8.2%. This
refinement is also discussed in the Duration of Equity section.
The following table presents the Banks PCSP calculation
under the provisions of the revised Risk
103
Governance Policy. Under both the Actual and Alternative Risk
Profile calculations, the Bank was out of compliance with the
PCSP limits for all periods presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projected Capital Stock Price (PCSP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative Risk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Profile
|
|
|
Floor
|
|
|
Target
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
34.1
|
%
|
|
|
68.4
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
September 30, 2009
|
|
|
25.5
|
%
|
|
|
67.8
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
21.2
|
%
|
|
|
71.6
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
11.6
|
%
|
|
|
73.2
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
9.9
|
%
|
|
|
74.2
|
%
|
|
|
85
|
%
|
|
|
95
|
%
|
|
|
Actual PCSP is impacted by increases in private label MBS
pricing. Conversely, in the Alternative Risk Profile, private
label MBS pricing is converted to acquisition spreads
eliminating some of the price volatility. Declines in the market
value of equity due to private label MBS credit spread widening
in the fourth quarter of 2008 reduced the current capital stock
price from which the PCSP is projected and significantly
increased the differential between the Actual and Alternative
Risk Profile calculations. The current capital stock price
increased during each quarter of 2009 mainly as a result of
narrowing private label MBS spreads while credit rating
downgrades on certain private label MBS significantly increased
the credit risk component of the measure. Actual PCSP levels
improved at each quarter in 2009 as increases in the current
capital stock price were only partially offset by the higher
credit risk component levels. The current capital stock price in
the Alternate Risk Profile increased during each quarter of 2009
but to a lesser degree than the Actual Risk Profile. More than
offsetting these increases, including the impact of the
methodology change noted above, were the credit rating
downgrades on certain private label MBS, which caused the PCSP
in the Alternative Risk Profile to decrease in each of the first
three quarters of 2009. The impact from additional credit rating
downgrades on private label MBS in the fourth quarter was less
than previous quarters, and as a result, the PCSP in the
Alternative Risk Profile improved slightly.
Qualitative
Disclosures Regarding Market Risk
Managing Market and Interest Rate
Risk. The Banks market and interest
rate risk management objective is to protect member/shareholder
and bondholder value consistent with the Banks housing
mission and safe and sound operations in all interest-rate
environments. Management believes that a disciplined approach to
market and interest rate risk management is essential to
maintaining a strong and durable capital base and uninterrupted
access to the capital markets.
Market risk is defined as the risk of loss arising from adverse
changes in market rates and prices and other relevant market
rate or price changes, such as basis changes. Generally, the
Bank manages basis risk through asset selection and pricing.
However, the unprecedented private label mortgage credit spreads
have significantly reduced the Banks net market value and
Actual PCSP.
Interest rate risk is the risk that relative and absolute
changes in prevailing market interest rates may adversely affect
an institutions financial performance or condition.
Interest rate risk arises from a variety of sources, including
repricing risk, yield curve risk and options risk. The Bank
invests in mortgage assets, such as MPF Program mortgage loans
and MBS, which together represent the primary source of option
risk. As of December 31, 2009, mortgage assets totaled
21.7% of the Banks balance sheet. Management reviews the
estimated market risk of the entire portfolio of mortgage assets
and related funding and hedges on a monthly basis to assess the
need for rebalancing strategies. These rebalancing strategies
may include entering into new funding and hedging transactions,
forgoing or modifying certain funding or hedging transactions
normally executed with new mortgage purchases, or terminating
certain funding and hedging transactions for the mortgage asset
portfolio.
Earnings-at-Risk. On
March 27, 2009, the Board approved an
earnings-at-risk
framework for certain
mark-to-market
positions, including economic hedges. This framework established
a forward-looking, scenario-based exposure limit based on
parallel rate shocks that would apply to any existing or
proposed transaction that is marked to market through the income
statement without an offsetting mark arising from a qualifying
hedge
104
relationship. An
earnings-at-risk
policy based on the approved framework was implemented effective
April 1, 2009. In the fourth quarter of 2009, the rate
shocks used to measure
Earnings-at-Risk
were expanded to include a flattening and steepening scenario.
The Board established an initial daily exposure limit of
$2.5 million. The Asset/Liability Committee (ALCO) has
implemented a more restrictive daily exposure operating
guideline of $1.5 million. Throughout the second, third and
fourth quarters of 2009, the daily forward-looking exposure was
below the operating guidelines of $1.5 million and at
December 31, 2009 measured $712 thousand. The Banks
Capital Markets and Corporate Risk Management departments also
monitor actual profit/loss change on a daily, monthly
cumulative, and quarterly cumulative basis.
Derivatives and Hedging Activities. The
Bank functions as a financial intermediary by channeling funds
provided by investors in its consolidated obligations to member
institutions. During the course of a business day, members may
obtain loans through a variety of product types that include
features such as variable- and fixed-rate coupons, overnight to
30-year
maturities, and bullet or amortizing redemption schedules. The
Bank funds loans primarily through the issuance of consolidated
obligation bonds and discount notes. The terms and amounts of
these consolidated obligations and the timing of their issuance
is determined by the Bank and is subject to investor demand as
well as FHLBank System debt issuance policies. The
intermediation of the timing, structure, and amount of Bank
members credit needs with the investment requirements of
the Banks creditors is made possible by the extensive use
of interest rate exchange agreements. The Banks general
practice is to simultaneously execute interest rate exchange
agreements when extending term and option-embedded advances
and/or
issuing liabilities in order to convert the instruments
cash flows to a floating-rate that is indexed to LIBOR. By doing
so, the Bank strives to reduce its interest rate risk exposure
and preserve the value of, and attempts to earn more stable
returns on, its members capital investment.
In the normal course of business, the Bank also acquires assets
with structural characteristics that reduce the Banks
ability to enter into interest rate exchange agreements having
mirror image terms. These assets can include small fixed-rate,
fixed-term loans and small fixed schedule amortizing loans.
These assets may require the Bank to employ risk management
strategies in which the Bank hedges the aggregated risks. The
Bank may use fixed-rate, callable or non-callable debt or
interest rate exchange agreements to manage these aggregated
risks.
The use of interest rate swaps, swaptions,
and/or
interest rate cap and floor agreements (collectively known as
derivatives) is integral to the Banks financial management
strategy, and the impact of these derivatives permeates the
Banks financial statements. Management has put in place a
risk management framework that outlines the permitted uses of
these instruments which adjust the effective maturity, repricing
frequency or option characteristics of various financial
instruments to achieve the Banks risk and earnings
objectives. All derivatives utilized by the Bank hedge
identifiable risks and none are used for speculative purposes.
The Bank uses derivatives in several ways: (1) by
designating them as either a fair value or cash flow hedge of an
underlying financial instrument, a firm commitment or a
forecasted transaction; (2) by acting as an intermediary
between its members and swap counterparties; or (3) in
asset/liability management (i.e., an economic hedge). For
example, the Bank uses derivatives in its overall interest rate
risk management to adjust the interest rate sensitivity of
consolidated obligations to approximate more closely the
interest rate sensitivity of assets (advances, investment
securities, and mortgage loans),
and/or to
adjust the interest rate sensitivity of advances, investment
securities, or mortgage loans to approximate more closely the
interest rate sensitivity of liabilities. In addition to using
derivatives to hedge mismatches of interest rates between assets
and liabilities, the Bank also uses derivatives as follows:
(1) to hedge embedded options in assets and liabilities;
(2) to hedge the market value of existing assets and
liabilities and anticipated transactions; (3) to hedge the
duration risk of prepayable instruments; and (4) to exactly
offset other derivatives executed with members (where the Bank
serves as an intermediary). See Note 12 of the audited
financial statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information regarding the Banks derivative
and hedging activities.
The following table categorizes and summarizes the notional
amounts and estimated fair value gains and losses of the
Banks derivative instruments, excluding accrued interest,
and related hedged items by product and type of accounting
treatment under derivative accounting as of December 31,
2009 and 2008. For those hedge strategies
105
that do not qualify for hedge accounting, the derivative is
still
marked-to-market;
however, there is no symmetrical
mark-to-market
offset available on the hedged item.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Principal
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss)
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
Qualifying for Hedge Accounting:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
24,175.3
|
|
|
$
|
(1,402.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
33,714.0
|
|
|
$
|
(2,533.2
|
)
|
Advance commitments
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligations bonds
|
|
|
27,152.6
|
|
|
|
263.0
|
|
|
|
24,099.3
|
|
|
|
774.5
|
|
|
|
Subtotal qualifying for hedge accounting
|
|
|
51,335.9
|
|
|
|
(1,138.8
|
)
|
|
|
57,813.3
|
|
|
|
(1,758.7
|
)
|
|
|
Not Qualifying for Hedge Accounting:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
|
34.0
|
|
|
|
(1.3
|
)
|
|
|
51.0
|
|
|
|
(3.3
|
)
|
Investments
|
|
|
1,428.8
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans
|
|
|
225.0
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
|
|
|
225.0
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
Consolidated obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500.0
|
|
|
|
(2.0
|
)
|
Intermediary transactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage delivery commitments
|
|
|
3.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31.2
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
Subtotal not qualifying for hedge accounting
|
|
|
1,691.2
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
810.1
|
|
|
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
Total derivatives, excluding accrued interest
|
|
$
|
53,027.1
|
|
|
$
|
(1,131.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
58,623.4
|
|
|
$
|
(1,760.3
|
)
|
|
|
Accrued interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
Cash collateral held by counterparties and related accrued
interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
494.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,432.7
|
|
Cash collateral held from counterparties and related accrued
interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9.8
|
)
|
|
|
Net derivative balances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(615.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(326.1
|
)
|
|
|
Net derivative asset balances
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
28.9
|
|
Net derivative liability balances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(623.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(355.0
|
)
|
|
|
Net derivative value balances
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(615.9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(326.1
|
)
|
|
|
The notional value of the Banks derivative portfolio
decreased by $5.6 billion from December 31, 2008 to
December 31, 2009. Over the same time period, the net
derivative fair market value balance increased
$628.7 million due to the absolute changes in interest
rates and the relative spreads between interest rates. The Bank
uses interest rate swaps extensively to hedge its exposure to
interest rate risk. As a result, the Bank converts a fixed-rate
asset or liability to a floating-rate, which may qualify for
fair value hedge accounting treatment. As interest rates
fluctuate, the fair value of the interest rate swap may
fluctuate accordingly. With fair value hedge accounting, there
are offsetting changes to fair value to the extent the hedge is
determined to be effective. Therefore, changes in the net
derivative asset and liability balances above involved in
hedging relationships that qualify for hedge accounting are
generally offset with fair value gains and losses included in
the basis of the associated hedged asset or liability. See
Notes 2 and 12 of the audited financial statements in
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial
Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information.
The overall goal of the Banks market and interest rate
risk management strategy is not necessarily to eliminate the
risk, but to manage it by setting and operating within
appropriate limits, while preserving the financial strength of
the Bank. The Banks general approach toward managing the
risk is to acquire and maintain a portfolio of assets,
liabilities and hedges, which taken together, limit the
Banks expected risk exposure. ALCO regularly monitors the
Banks market risk and earnings sensitivity to interest
rate changes. Multiple methodologies and analyses are used to
calculate the Banks potential exposure to these changes.
These methodologies may include duration and convexity under
assumed parallel and non-parallel changes in interest rates,
market value of equity volatility, key rate
106
durations and other similar measurement tools. Interest rate
exposure is managed by the use of appropriate funding
instruments and by employing hedging strategies. The Banks
market risk limits and measurement are described more fully
below.
Quantitative
Disclosures Regarding Market Risk
The Banks Market Risk
Model. Significant resources, both in
analytical computer models and staff, are devoted to assuring
that the level of interest rate risk in the balance sheet is
accurately measured, thus allowing management to monitor the
risk against policy and regulatory limits. The Bank uses an
externally developed market risk model to evaluate its financial
position. Management regularly reviews the major assumptions and
methodologies used in the model, as well as available upgrades
to the model. One of the most critical market-based model
assumptions relates to the prepayment of principal on
mortgage-related instruments. During second quarter 2009, the
Bank upgraded the mortgage prepayment models used within the
market risk model to more accurately reflect expected prepayment
behavior.
In recognition of the importance of the accuracy and reliability
of the valuation of financial instruments, management engages in
an ongoing internal review of model valuations for various
instruments. In previous years, this review was limited to
derivatives. In 2008, the review was extended to include
external prices and additional financial instruments. These
valuations are evaluated on a quarterly basis to confirm the
reasonableness of the valuations. The Bank regularly validates
the models used to generate fair values. Such model validations
are performed by third-party specialists and are supplemented by
additional validation processes performed by the Bank, most
notably, benchmarking model-derived fair values to those
provided by third-party services or alternative internal
valuation models. This analysis is performed by a group
independent of the business unit conducting the transactions.
The verification and validation procedures depend on the nature
of the instrument and valuation methodology being reviewed and
may include comparisons with observed trades or other sources
and independent verification of key model inputs. Results of the
quarterly verification process, as well as any changes in
valuation methodologies, are reported to ALCO, which is
responsible for reviewing and approving the approaches used in
the valuation to ensure that they are well controlled and
effective, and result in reasonable fair values.
The duration of equity, return volatility and market value of
equity volatility metrics have historically been the direct
primary metrics used by the Bank to manage its interest rate
risk exposure. As discussed above, in September 2008, the Bank
established a new capital adequacy metric, referred to as the
PCSP. Additionally, the market value of equity volatility
metrics were discontinued as Board-approved metrics effective
October 2008, although ALCO continues to monitor them. The
Banks asset/liability management policies specify
acceptable ranges for duration of equity, return volatility and
the PCSP metrics, and the Banks exposures are measured and
managed against these limits. The duration of equity and return
volatility metrics are described in more detail below.
Duration of Equity. One key risk metric
used by the Bank, and which is commonly used throughout the
financial services industry, is duration. Duration is a measure
of the sensitivity of a financial instruments value, or
the value of a portfolio of instruments, to a parallel shift in
interest rates. Duration (typically measured in months or years)
is commonly used by investors throughout the fixed income
securities market as a measure of financial instrument price
sensitivity. Longer duration instruments generally exhibit
greater price sensitivity to changes in market interest rates
than shorter duration instruments. For example, the value of an
instrument with a duration of five years is expected to change
by approximately 5% in response to a one percentage point change
in interest rates. Duration of equity, an extension of this
conceptual framework, is a measure designed to capture the
potential for the market value of the Banks equity base to
change with movements in market interest rates. Higher duration
numbers, whether positive or negative, indicate a greater
potential exposure of market value of equity in response to
changing interest rates.
The Banks asset/liability management policy approved by
the Board calls for duration of equity to be maintained within a
+ 4.5 year range in the base case. In addition, the
duration of equity exposure limit in an instantaneous parallel
interest rate shock of + 200 basis points is
+ 7 years. Management analyzes the duration of
equity exposure against this policy limit on a daily basis.
Management continually evaluated its market risk management
strategies throughout 2008 and 2009. In March 2008, management
determined that strict compliance with the actual duration of
equity limit under the current severe market conditions would
not be prudent. In November 2008 and in connection with the
Alternative Risk Profile discussed above, management requested
and
107
was approved to use the alternate calculation of duration of
equity for the calculation and monitoring of duration of equity
through December 31, 2009. In connection with the third
quarter changes to the alternative calculation noted above, the
Board subsequently approved the use of the Alternative Risk
Profile calculation to be extended through December 31,
2010. The Board did not adjust actual market risk limits
calculations.
The following table presents the Banks duration of equity
exposure in accordance with the actual and Alternative Risk
Profile duration of equity calculation by quarter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base
|
|
|
Up 100
|
|
|
Up 200
|
|
(in years)
|
|
Case
|
|
|
basis points
|
|
|
basis points
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative duration of equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
2.4
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2009
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
2.8
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
(2.7
|
)
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
(0.1
|
)
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
Actual duration of equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
|
7.5
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
September 30, 2009
|
|
|
15.3
|
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
22.1
|
|
|
|
11.7
|
|
|
|
6.2
|
|
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
13.9
|
|
|
|
2.2
|
|
|
|
(2.2
|
)
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
26.8
|
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
|
|
0.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
Given the low level of interest
rates, an instantaneous parallel interest rate shock of
down 200 basis points and down
100 basis points cannot be meaningfully measured for
these periods and therefore is not presented.
|
Subsequent to the previously discussed adoption of the
alternative duration of equity calculation in November 2008,
private label MBS spreads continued to widen significantly
causing a substantial decline in the market value of equity and
a substantial increase in the actual duration of equity levels
as of December 31, 2008. The Banks low market value
of equity in the fourth quarter 2008 had the effect of
amplifying the volatility of the actual reported duration of
equity metric. Therefore, the Bank was substantially out of
compliance with the actual reported duration of equity as of
December 31, 2008 and through the fourth quarter of 2009.
However, under the Alternative Risk Profile, the Bank was in
compliance with the duration of equity policy metric for all
periods presented.
During the first quarter of 2009, the decrease in the alternate
base case duration of equity of 2.6 years from
December 31, 2008 to March 31, 2009 was primarily due
to narrower agency mortgage spreads and issuance of fixed-rate
debt. Increases in the alternate duration of equity for the
second quarter of 2009 were primarily a result of the prepayment
model changes made during the quarter, which more accurately
reflect actual prepayment activity, as well as higher longer
term rates. These model changes are made periodically to
maintain adequate model performance. The reasons for the
decrease in the alternative duration of equity during the third
quarter of 2009 were primarily a lower, flatter yield curve and
a change to the Alternative Risk Profile calculation to revalue
private label MBS using market implied discount spreads from the
period of acquisition. This change in the Alternative Risk
Profile calculation method alone had an impact of decreasing the
duration of equity by 1.2 years in the base case. This
change is discussed in the Capital Adequacy and Alternative Risk
Profile section. Fixed-rate debt was also issued during the
third quarter to reduce the duration levels. During the fourth
quarter of 2009, increases in the alternative duration of equity
were primarily the result of a higher, steeper yield curve.
108
The Bank continues to monitor the mortgage and related fixed
income markets and the impact that changes in the market may
have on duration of equity and other market risk measures and
may take actions to reduce market risk exposures as needed.
Management believes that the Banks current market risk
profile is reasonable given these market conditions.
Return Volatility. The Banks
asset/liability management policy specifies a return volatility
metric to manage the impact of market risk on the Banks
average return on average capital stock compared to a dividend
benchmark interest rate over multiple interest rate shock
scenarios over a rolling forward one to 12 month time
period. Effective September 2008, the Board approved an
expansion of this metric to include a similar metric over the 13
to 24 month time period. The Board selected the dividend
benchmark of three-month LIBOR and related spread limits for
both time periods which are approved annually. This risk metric
is calculated on a monthly basis and reported to the Board.
The following table presents the Banks return volatility
metric for the periods in which the policy was applicable. The
metric is presented as spreads over
3-month
LIBOR. The steeper and flatter yield curve shift scenarios shown
below are represented by appropriate increases and decreases in
short-term and long-term interest rates using the three-year
point on the yield curve as the pivot point. Given the current
low rate environment, management replaced the down 200 parallel
rate scenario during the fourth quarter with an additional
non-parallel rate scenario that reflects a decline in longer
term rates. The Bank was in compliance with these return
volatility metrics across all selected interest rate shock
scenarios as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yield Curve
Shifts(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Down 100 bps
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Longer Term
|
|
|
100 bps
|
|
|
Forward
|
|
|
100 bps
|
|
|
Up 200 bps
|
|
|
|
Rate Shock
|
|
|
Steeper
|
|
|
Rates
|
|
|
Flatter
|
|
|
Parallel Shock
|
|
|
|
|
Year 1 Return Volatility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1.87
|
%
|
|
|
2.56
|
%
|
|
|
2.48
|
%
|
|
|
2.08
|
%
|
|
|
2.11
|
%
|
|
|
September 30, 2009
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.35
|
%
|
|
|
2.24
|
%
|
|
|
1.60
|
%
|
|
|
1.46
|
%
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.84
|
%
|
|
|
2.03
|
%
|
|
|
1.28
|
%
|
|
|
0.87
|
%
|
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.35
|
%
|
|
|
1.48
|
%
|
|
|
0.63
|
%
|
|
|
0.79
|
%
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.81
|
%
|
|
|
2.21
|
%
|
|
|
0.80
|
%
|
|
|
0.80
|
%
|
|
|
Year 2 Return Volatility
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
1.37
|
%
|
|
|
2.20
|
%
|
|
|
2.13
|
%
|
|
|
1.79
|
%
|
|
|
1.60
|
%
|
|
|
September 30, 2009
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
1.92
|
%
|
|
|
1.83
|
%
|
|
|
1.39
|
%
|
|
|
1.35
|
%
|
|
|
June 30, 2009
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.16
|
%
|
|
|
1.79
|
%
|
|
|
1.21
|
%
|
|
|
1.03
|
%
|
|
|
March 31, 2009
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.35
|
%
|
|
|
1.61
|
%
|
|
|
1.04
|
%
|
|
|
0.99
|
%
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
(2
|
)
|
|
|
2.77
|
%
|
|
|
1.87
|
%
|
|
|
0.73
|
%
|
|
|
0.80
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes future potential OTTI
charges which could be material so that earnings movement
related to interest rate changes can be isolated.
|
|
(2) |
|
As noted above, previously the Bank
utilized the down 200 basis points scenario for
measuring compliance; however, due to the low level of interest
rates, an instantaneous parallel interest rate shock of that
magnitude could not be meaningfully measured for those periods
presented above. Beginning in fourth quarter 2009, the Bank
replaced that scenario with a down 100 basis points
longer term rate shock scenario, as presented above. This
new measure was not calculated for prior periods.
|
Credit
and Counterparty Risk
Credit risk is the risk that the market value of an obligation
will decline as a result of deterioration in the obligors
creditworthiness. Credit risk arises when Bank funds are
extended, committed, invested or otherwise exposed through
actual or implied contractual agreements. The Bank faces credit
risk on member and housing associate loans, letters of credit,
and other credit product exposure; investments; mortgage loans;
Banking On Business loans; and derivatives. The financial
condition of Bank members and all investment, mortgage loan and
derivative counterparties is monitored to ensure that the
Banks financial exposure to each member/counterparty is in
compliance with the Banks credit policies and Finance
Agency regulations. Unsecured credit exposure to any
109
counterparty is generally limited by the credit quality and
capital level of the counterparty and by the capital level of
the Bank. Financial monitoring reports evaluating each
member/counterpartys financial condition are produced and
reviewed by the Banks Credit Risk Committee on an annual
basis or more often if circumstances warrant. In general, credit
risk is measured through consideration of the probability of
default, the exposure at the time of default and the loss-given
default. The expected loss for a given credit is determined by
the product of these three components. The Board has established
appropriate policies and limits regarding counterparty and
investment credit risk, asset classification and the allowance
for credit losses.
Credit
and Counterparty Risk Total Credit Products and
Collateral
Total Credit Products. The Bank manages
the credit risk on a members exposure on Total Credit
Products (TCP), which includes member loans, letters of credit,
loan commitments, MPF credit enhancement obligations and other
credit product exposure by monitoring the financial condition of
borrowers and by requiring all borrowers (and, where applicable
in connection with member affiliate pledge arrangements approved
by the Bank, their affiliates) to pledge sufficient eligible
collateral for all member indebtedness. The Bank establishes a
maximum borrowing capacity for each member based on collateral
weightings applied to qualifying collateral as described in the
Banks Member Products Policy. Details regarding this
Policy are available in the Loan Products discussion
in Item 1. Business in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
According to the Policy, eligible collateral is weighted to help
ensure that the collateral value will exceed the amount that may
be owed to the Bank in the event of a default. The Bank also has
the ability to call for additional or substitute collateral
while any indebtedness is outstanding to protect its security
position.
The financial condition of all members and housing associates is
closely monitored for compliance with financial criteria as set
forth in the Banks credit policies. The Bank has developed
an internal credit scoring system that calculates financial
scores and rates member institutions on a quarterly basis using
a numerical rating scale from one to ten. Scores are objectively
calculated based on financial ratios computed from publicly
available data. For bank and thrift members, the scoring system
gives the highest weighting to the members asset quality
and capitalization. Other key factors include earnings and
funding ratios. The weightings vary slightly for credit union
members. Operating results for the previous four quarters are
used with the most recent quarters results given a higher
weighting. Additionally, a members credit score can be
adjusted for various qualitative factors, such as the financial
condition of the members holding company. While financial
scores and resulting ratings are calculations based only upon
point-in-time
financial data and the resulting ratios, a rating in one of the
lowest categories indicates that a member exhibits defined
financial weaknesses. Members in these categories are reviewed
for potential collateral delivery status. Other uses of the
internal credit scoring system include the scheduling of
on-site
collateral reviews. As noted in the Collateral Policies
and Procedures discussion below, collateral weightings are
also determined based upon the Banks internal credit
scores. The scoring system is not used for insurance company
members; instead, an independent financial analysis is performed
for any insurance company exposure.
During 2009, the Bank had one member failure of an FDIC-insured
institution. The Bank had no loans or other credit products
outstanding to the member at the time of closure. The Bank did
not incur any loan losses as a result of this member failure. As
of March 15, 2010, the Bank has not experienced any member
failures in 2010.
Management believes that it has adequate policies and procedures
in place to effectively manage credit risk related to member
loans and letters of credit and other indebtedness. These credit
and collateral policies balance the Banks dual goals of
meeting members needs as a reliable source of liquidity
and limiting potential credit loss by adjusting the credit and
collateral terms in response to deterioration in
creditworthiness. The Bank has never experienced a credit loss
on a member loan or letter of credit. The Banks collateral
policies and procedures are described below.
110
The following table presents the Banks top ten borrowers
with respect to their TCP at December 31, 2009 and the
corresponding December 31, 2008 balances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Credit
|
|
|
Percent of
|
|
|
Total Credit
|
|
|
Percent of
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Products
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Sovereign Bank, PA
|
|
$
|
11,663.2
|
|
|
|
24.0
|
|
|
$
|
13,815.4
|
|
|
|
19.9
|
|
TD Bank, National Association, DE
|
|
|
6,327.4
|
|
|
|
13.0
|
|
|
|
5,624.4
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
Ally Bank,
UT(1)
|
|
|
5,133.0
|
|
|
|
10.6
|
|
|
|
9,303.0
|
|
|
|
13.4
|
|
PNC Bank, National Association, PA
|
|
|
4,500.9
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
8,800.9
|
|
|
|
12.7
|
|
Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, PA
|
|
|
3,144.4
|
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
2,627.1
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
ING Bank, FSB,
DE(2)
|
|
|
2,563.0
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
2,563.0
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
Northwest Savings Bank, PA
|
|
|
807.8
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
981.8
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
Susquehanna Bank, PA
|
|
|
780.0
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
795.2
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
National Penn Bank, PA
|
|
|
752.8
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
954.8
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
Fulton Bank, PA
|
|
|
683.9
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
814.1
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
36,356.4
|
|
|
|
75.0
|
|
|
|
46,279.7
|
|
|
|
66.5
|
|
Other borrowers
|
|
|
12,141.5
|
|
|
|
25.0
|
|
|
|
23,289.9
|
|
|
|
33.5
|
|
|
|
Total TCP outstanding
|
|
$
|
48,497.9
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
69,569.6
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Formerly known as GMAC Bank. For
Bank membership purposes, principal place of business is
Horsham, PA.
|
|
(2) |
|
This borrower had an officer or
director who served on the Banks Board as of
December 31, 2009.
|
Of the top ten borrowing members in terms of TCP presented
above, the total exposure of the majority of those ten members
was primarily due to outstanding advances balances at
December 31, 2009. At both December 31, 2009 and 2008,
the aggregate top ten borrowing members had a ratio of eligible
collateral to TCP (collateralization ratio) in excess of 190%.
In addition, the collateralization ratio was in excess of 255%
for the aggregate of all borrowing members at both
December 31, 2009 and 2008. As noted in the table above,
the TCP decreased approximately $21.1 billion from
December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009. The majority
of this decline is linked to lower outstanding loans as
described in the table below.
Member Advance Concentration Risk. The
previous table discussed the top ten members exposure on a
TCP basis. The table below displays the top ten members based on
actual advances outstanding at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The Banks advance portfolio is concentrated in commercial
banks and thrift institutions. The following table lists the
Banks top ten advance borrowers as of December 31,
2009, and their respective December 31, 2008 advance
balances and percentage of the total advance portfolio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
(balances at par; dollars in millions)
|
|
Loan Balance
|
|
|
of total
|
|
|
Loan Balance
|
|
|
of total
|
|
|
|
|
Sovereign Bank, PA
|
|
$
|
11,595.0
|
|
|
|
29.2
|
|
|
$
|
12,657.2
|
|
|
|
21.2
|
|
Ally Bank,
UT(1)
|
|
|
5,133.0
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
9,303.0
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
PNC Bank, National Association, PA
|
|
|
4,500.4
|
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
8,800.4
|
|
|
|
14.8
|
|
ING Bank, FSB,
DE(2)
|
|
|
2,563.0
|
|
|
|
6.4
|
|
|
|
2,563.0
|
|
|
|
4.3
|
|
Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania, PA
|
|
|
1,605.0
|
|
|
|
4.1
|
|
|
|
250.0
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
Northwest Savings Bank, PA
|
|
|
782.2
|
|
|
|
2.0
|
|
|
|
971.8
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
Susquehanna Bank, PA
|
|
|
769.3
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
784.4
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
National Penn Bank, PA
|
|
|
752.8
|
|
|
|
1.9
|
|
|
|
949.8
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
Fulton Bank, PA
|
|
|
638.9
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
|
|
814.1
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
Wilmington Savings Fund Society FSB, DE
|
|
|
613.1
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
816.0
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,952.7
|
|
|
|
72.8
|
|
|
|
37,909.7
|
|
|
|
63.6
|
|
Other borrowers
|
|
|
10,803.3
|
|
|
|
27.2
|
|
|
|
21,655.7
|
|
|
|
36.4
|
|
|
|
Total advances
|
|
$
|
39,756.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
59,565.4
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Formerly known as GMAC Bank. For
Bank membership purposes, principal place of business is
Horsham, PA.
|
|
(2) |
|
This borrower had an officer or
director who served on the Banks Board as of
December 31, 2009.
|
111
At December 31, 2009, the Bank had a concentration of
advances outstanding to its ten largest borrowers totaling
$29.0 billion, or 72.8%, of total loans outstanding.
Average par balances to these borrowers for the twelve months
ended December 31, 2009 was $31.7 billion, or 70.0%,
of total average advances outstanding. During 2009, the maximum
outstanding balance to any one borrower was $12.7 billion.
The loans made by the Bank to these borrowers are secured by
collateral with an estimated value, after collateral weightings,
in excess of the book value of the loans. Therefore, the Bank
does not presently expect to incur any losses on these loans.
Because of the Banks loan concentrations, the Bank has
implemented specific credit and collateral review procedures for
these members. In addition, the Bank analyzes the implication
for its financial management and profitability if it were to
lose one or more of these members.
During the last half of 2008, there were several actions taken
by the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC,
that were intended to stimulate the economy and reverse the
illiquidity in the credit and housing markets. These actions
included the establishment of the TARP by the
U.S. Treasury. Additionally, the Federal Reserve took a
series of unprecedented actions that have made it more
attractive for eligible financial institutions to borrow
directly from the FRBs. The Federal Reserve also created the
Commercial Paper Funding Facility to provide a liquidity
backstop for U.S. issuers of commercial paper and the FDIC
created its TLGP supporting unsecured debt. Lastly, the FDIC
recently approved a regulation increasing the FDIC assessment on
FDIC-insured financial institutions with outstanding FHLBank
loans and other secured liabilities above a specified level. The
Bank has experienced an impact from these actions in the form of
reduced borrowings
and/or
paydowns by some of its members, including several of its top
ten borrowers, during 2009. The impact, however, particularly of
the government funding programs, appears to be leveling off.
As shown above, as of December 31, 2009, three of the
Banks top ten borrowers had outstanding balances exceeding
10% of the Banks total advances portfolio. On
January 30, 2009, Banco Santander, S.A.s acquisition
of Sovereign Bancorp, the holding company of the Banks
largest member and borrower, Sovereign Bank, was completed. On
June 1, 2009, General Motors (GM) filed for bankruptcy
under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New
Yorks Southern District. Ally Bank (formerly known as GMAC
Bank) is a member and one of the top ten borrowers of the Bank.
Ally Bank and its parent, GMAC, LLC Bank Holding Company (GMAC,
LLC), were not part of the GM bankruptcy although GM holds a
minority ownership interest in GMAC, LLC. On July 10, 2009,
GM exited from bankruptcy protection. Additionally, during 2009,
GMAC, LLC received capital infusions from the U.S. Treasury
as part of the new Supervisory Capital Assessment Program,
introduced in May 2009. The initial infusion occurred on
May 21, 2009; the final infusion was on December 30,
2009. This final infusion involved various affiliate
transactions, including the sale of delinquent and higher-risk
loans from Ally Bank to GMAC, LLC. The sale resulted in a
pre-tax loss which was covered by an equal amount cash capital
infusion to maintain Ally Banks capital ratios. The Bank
cannot predict the impact on its outstanding loans to Sovereign
Bank and Ally Bank as a result of these acquisitions and
restructuring actions. On November 6, 2009, the assets of
National City Bank, N.A. were transferred to PNC Bank, N.A., the
National City Bank, N.A. charter was terminated and National
City Bank, N.A. was merged into PNC Bank, N.A. Previously, PNC
Financial Services Group, Inc., the holding company for PNC
Bank, N.A. had acquired National City Corporation, the holding
company for National City Bank, N.A. National City Bank, N.A.
had certain fully secured outstanding advances and other credit
obligations with other FHLBanks, and PNC Bank, N.A., the
Banks member, is responsible for these obligations
post-merger. The Bank has entered into an agreement to serve as
the collateral agent for two other FHLBanks and, under the
agreement, the Bank has subordinated its security interest in
PNC Bank, N.A.s collateral to these two FHLBanks. All of
PNCs outstanding loans from and other credit obligations
to the Bank remain fully secured by eligible collateral.
Letters of Credit. The following table
presents the Banks total outstanding letters of credit as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008. As noted below, the majority
of the balance was due to public unit deposit letters of credit,
which collateralize deposits that exceed FDIC insurance
thresholds. The letter of credit product is
112
collateralized under the same procedures and guidelines that
apply to advances. There has never been a draw on these letters
of credit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Letters of credit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Public unit deposit
|
|
$
|
8,220.0
|
|
|
$
|
9,872.3
|
|
Tax exempt bonds
|
|
|
392.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
114.8
|
|
|
|
130.0
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,727.4
|
|
|
$
|
10,002.3
|
|
|
|
The following represent the expiration terms of the letters of
credit:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Expiration terms:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One year or less
|
|
$
|
7,478.8
|
|
|
$
|
9,114.7
|
|
After one year through five years
|
|
|
1,248.6
|
|
|
|
887.6
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,727.4
|
|
|
$
|
10,002.3
|
|
|
|
Collateral Policies and Practices. All
members are required to maintain collateral to secure their TCP.
TCP outstanding includes loans, letters of credit, loan
commitments, MPF credit enhancement obligations and other
obligations to the Bank. Collateral eligible to secure TCP
includes:
(1) one-to-four
family and multifamily mortgage loans and securities
representing an interest in such mortgages; (2) securities
issued, insured or guaranteed by the U.S. government or any
Federal agency; (3) cash or deposits held by the Bank; and
(4) certain other collateral that is real estate-related,
provided that the collateral has a readily ascertainable value
and that the Bank can perfect a security interest in it.
Residential mortgage loans are a significant form of collateral
for TCP. The Bank perfects its security interest in loan
collateral by completing a UCC-1 filing for each member and
affiliate (where applicable) pledging loans and also depending
on circumstances by taking possession directly or through a
third party custodian.
The Bank also requires each borrower and affiliate pledgor,
where applicable, to execute an agreement that establishes the
Banks security interest in all collateral pledged by the
borrower or affiliate pledgor. The Act affords any security
interest granted to the Bank by any member or housing associate
of the Bank, or any affiliate of any such member or housing
associate, priority over the claims and rights of any party,
other than claims and rights that: (1) would be entitled to
priority under otherwise applicable law; and (2) are held
by actual bona fide purchasers for value or by secured parties
that are secured by perfected security interests in priority
ahead of the Bank. Pursuant to its regulations, the FDIC has
recognized the priority of an FHLBanks security interest
under the Act and the right of an FHLBank to require delivery of
collateral held by the FDIC as receiver for a failed depository
institution. Finally, as additional security for a members
indebtedness, the Bank has a statutory and contractual lien on
the members capital stock in the Bank.
The Bank periodically reviews the collateral pledged by members
or affiliates. This review process occurs quarterly, monthly or
daily depending on the form of pledge and type of collateral.
Additionally, the Bank conducts periodic collateral verification
reviews to ensure the eligibility, adequacy and sufficiency of
the collateral pledged. The Bank may, in its discretion, require
the delivery of investment securities or loan collateral at any
time. The Bank reviews and assigns borrowing capacities to this
collateral, taking into account the known credit attributes in
assigning the appropriate secondary market discounts, and has
determined that all member loans are fully collateralized. Other
factors that the Bank may consider in assigning borrowing
capacities to a members collateral include the pledging
method for loans, data reporting frequency, collateral field
review results, the members financial strength and
condition, and the concentration of collateral type by member.
Beginning in 2008 and into 2009, the Bank began and continued
the implementation of a Qualifying Collateral Report (QCR)
designed to provide more timely and detailed collateral
information. Depending on a members credit product usage
and current financial condition, a member may be required to
file the QCR on a quarterly or monthly basis. The QCR is a tool
designed to strengthen the Banks collateral analytical
review procedures. The output of the
113
QCR is a members Maximum Borrowing Capacity (MBC). For a
member not required to file a QCR (Non-QCR filer), MBC is
calculated based on the members regulatory filing data.
In 2009, the Bank revised its policies, no longer accepting
subprime mortgages as qualifying collateral. The Bank also
revised the policy definition of subprime to be consistent with
the definition specified by the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council (FFIEC). The FFIEC definition was more
stringent than the Banks original definition and resulted
in more loans pledged/delivered as collateral being classified
as subprime and, therefore, deemed ineligible. These changes did
not cause any member to become collateral deficient. Under
limited circumstances, the Bank still accepts nontraditional
mortgage loans to be pledged as collateral. As of
December 31, 2009, the Bank did hold security interests in
both subprime and nontraditional residential mortgage loans
pledged as collateral included under blanket-lien agreements.
However, the amount of pledged subprime mortgage loan collateral
was immaterial with respect to total pledged collateral at
quarter-end. At December 31, 2009, less than
9.0 percent of the Banks total pledged collateral was
nontraditional mortgage loans and was primarily attributed to a
few larger borrowers. Given the higher inherent risk related to
nontraditional mortgage loans, the Bank takes additional steps
regarding the review and acceptance of these loans as
collateral. Members are required to identify nontraditional
mortgage loans; these loans are typically excluded as eligible
collateral. However, members may request that nontraditional
mortgage loan collateral be included as eligible collateral,
subject to an
on-site
review of the loans, the members processes and procedures
for originating and servicing the loans, the quality of loan
data and a review of the members loan underwriting. The
Bank requires specific loan level characteristic reporting on
the loans and assigns more conservative collateral weightings to
nontraditional collateral on a
case-by-case
basis. In addition, in October 2009, the Board implemented
Bank-wide limits on subprime and nontraditional exposure,
including collateral, as detailed in the Risk
Governance discussion in this Risk Management section.
The Bank made several other changes to collateral practices and
policies during 2009, including the following:
(1) requiring securities to be delivered in order to be
counted in the MBC calculation; (2) removing the ORERC cap
on collateral weightings; (3) adjusting the total borrowing
limit to be equal to the lower of MBC or 50% of a members
total assets; and (4) making other collateral weighting
changes. Details of the Banks current collateral
weightings are presented in the Advance Products
Collateral discussion in Item 1. Business in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Under implementation of the GLB Act, the Bank is allowed to
expand eligible collateral for many of its members. Members that
qualify as CFIs can pledge small-business, small-farm, and
small-agribusiness loans as collateral for loans from the Bank.
At December 31, 2009, loans to CFIs secured with both
eligible standard and expanded collateral represented
approximately $5.6 billion, or 14.1% of total par value of
loans outstanding. Eligible expanded collateral represented 7.7%
of total eligible collateral for these loans. However, these
loans were collateralized by sufficient levels of non-CFI
collateral. Beginning in July 2009, the Bank implemented the new
CFI definition, as defined in the Housing Act.
Collateral Agreements and
Valuation. The Bank provides members with two
options regarding collateral agreements: a blanket lien
collateral pledge agreement and a specific collateral pledge
agreement. Under a blanket lien agreement, the Bank obtains a
lien against all of the members unencumbered eligible
collateral assets and most ineligible collateral assets to
secure the members obligations with the Bank. Under a
specific collateral agreement, the Bank obtains a lien against a
specific set of a members eligible collateral assets, to
secure the members obligations with the Bank. The member
provides a detailed listing, as an addendum to the agreement,
identifying those assets pledged as collateral.
114
The following tables summarize total eligible collateral values,
after collateral weighting, by type under both blanket lien and
specific collateral pledge agreements as of December 31,
2009 and 2008. The Bank held collateral with an eligible
collateral value in excess of the book value of the advances on
a
borrower-by-borrower
basis at both December 31, 2009 and 2008. The amount of
excess collateral by individual borrowers, however, varies
significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All member borrowers
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four
single family residential mortgage loans
|
|
$
|
60,778.7
|
|
|
|
49.1
|
|
|
$
|
73,455.8
|
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
High quality investment
securities(1)
|
|
|
3,574.4
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
46,004.1
|
|
|
|
26.3
|
|
Other real-estate related collateral/community financial
institution eligible collateral
|
|
|
50,824.6
|
|
|
|
41.0
|
|
|
|
49,450.3
|
|
|
|
28.2
|
|
Multi-family residential mortgage loans
|
|
|
8,689.9
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
6,099.7
|
|
|
|
3.5
|
|
|
|
Total eligible collateral value
|
|
|
123,867.6
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
175,009.9
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
Total TCP outstanding
|
|
$
|
48,497.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
69,569.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateralization ratio (eligible collateral value to TCP
outstanding)
|
|
|
255.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
251.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ten largest member
borrowers
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
|
|
|
One-to-four
single family residential mortgage loans
|
|
$
|
34,410.8
|
|
|
|
48.9
|
|
|
$
|
49,815.8
|
|
|
|
43.5
|
|
High quality investment
securities(1)
|
|
|
1,238.9
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
|
|
32,835.1
|
|
|
|
28.6
|
|
Other real-estate related collateral
|
|
|
27,417.5
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
|
|
|
27,612.4
|
|
|
|
24.1
|
|
Multi-family residential mortgage loans
|
|
|
7,288.8
|
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
4,306.3
|
|
|
|
3.8
|
|
|
|
Total eligible collateral value
|
|
|
70,356.0
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
$
|
114,569.6
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
Total TCP outstanding
|
|
$
|
36,356.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
51,314.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateralization ratio (eligible collateral value to TCP
outstanding)
|
|
|
193.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
223.3
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
High quality investment securities
are defined as U.S. Treasury and U.S. agency securities, TLGP
investments, GSE MBS and private label MBS with a credit rating
of AA or higher. Effective July 20, 2009, the Bank requires
delivery of these securities. Upon delivery, these securities
are valued daily and are subject to weekly ratings reviews.
|
The decrease in the collateralization ratio for the ten largest
member borrowers noted above was due primarily to the overall
reduction in total eligible collateral value due to the
Banks change in collateral weightings and its enhanced
measurement and tracking of member collateral. All member
borrowers experienced a decline in the collateralization ratio
but it was not as dramatic as the impact on the ten largest
member borrowers.
The following table provides information regarding TCP extended
to member and nonmember borrowers with either a blanket lien or
specific collateral pledge agreement, in listing-specific or
full collateral delivery status as of December 31, 2009 and
2008, along with corresponding eligible collateral values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral
|
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Borrowers
|
|
|
TCP
|
|
|
Held
|
|
|
Borrowers
|
|
|
TCP
|
|
|
Held
|
|
|
|
|
Listing-specific pledge-collateral
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
$
|
40.8
|
|
|
$
|
63.7
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
$
|
4,482.0
|
|
|
$
|
5,695.9
|
|
Full collateral delivery status
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
$
|
6,926.3
|
|
|
$
|
9,077.3
|
|
|
|
35
|
|
|
$
|
23,679.6
|
|
|
$
|
26,969.8
|
|
|
|
TCP outstanding for the eight borrowing members noted in the
table above with listing-specific pledge-collateral agreements,
two of which had outstanding borrowings (one of which was a
former member merged out of district with credit products still
outstanding) at December 31, 2009 totaled
$40.8 million, or 0.1%, of total TCP.
115
TCP outstanding for the remaining 226 borrowing members with
blanket lien collateral pledge agreements at December 31,
2009, totaled $48.4 billion, or 99.9%, of total TCP. Of
these 226 borrowing members, 56 members were in full collateral
delivery status, as noted in the table above, and accounted for
$6.9 billion, or 14.3%, of TCP. The remaining 170 members
were in undelivered collateral status and accounted for
$41.6 billion, or 85.7%, of TCP. The decrease in balances
related to listing-specific agreements was primarily due to one
members decline in TCP. The decrease in balances related
to possession-collateral agreements was primarily due to a
member being released from this requirement.
Additional detailed information on the Banks collateral
policies and practices is provided in the Advance
Products discussion in Item 1. Business in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Credit
and Counterparty Risk Investments
The Bank is also subject to credit risk on investments
consisting of money market investments and investment
securities. At December 31, 2009, the Banks carrying
value plus accrued interest of investments issued by entities
other than the U.S. Government, Federal agencies or GSEs
was $9.9 billion. This reflects a decrease of
$2.5 billion from the December 31, 2008 balance of
$12.4 billion of credit exposure to such counterparties.
Investment External Credit Ratings. The
following tables present the Banks investment carrying
values, plus accrued interest, as of December 31, 2009 and
December 31, 2008 based on the lowest rating from the
credit rating agencies. Carrying values for
held-to-maturity
investment securities represent amortized cost after adjustment
for noncredit-related OTTI recognized in AOCI. Carrying values
for
available-for-sale
and trading securities represent fair value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2009(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
AA
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
BB
|
|
|
B
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Money market investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,150.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,850.0
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,000.0
|
|
Investment securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,401.1
|
|
|
|
1,700.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,101.9
|
|
Treasury bills
|
|
|
1,029.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,029.5
|
|
TLGP investments
|
|
|
250.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250.0
|
|
GSE securities
|
|
|
176.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176.8
|
|
State and local agency obligations
|
|
|
7.3
|
|
|
|
477.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
612.4
|
|
MBS issued by Federal agencies
|
|
|
1,756.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,756.3
|
|
MBS issued by GSEs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fannie Mae
|
|
|
316.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
316.3
|
|
Freddie Mac
|
|
|
1,001.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,001.7
|
|
MBS issued by private label issuers
|
|
|
1,684.1
|
|
|
|
591.1
|
|
|
|
587.5
|
|
|
|
358.6
|
|
|
|
218.2
|
|
|
|
346.3
|
|
|
|
2,152.8
|
|
|
|
5,938.6
|
|
|
|
Total investments
|
|
$
|
6,222.0
|
|
|
$
|
3,619.6
|
|
|
$
|
4,138.3
|
|
|
$
|
486.3
|
|
|
$
|
218.2
|
|
|
$
|
346.3
|
|
|
$
|
2,152.8
|
|
|
$
|
17,183.5
|
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
2008(1)(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
AA
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
BB
|
|
|
B
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Money market investments:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-earning deposits
|
|
$
|
5,101.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
5,101.6
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
400.0
|
|
|
|
850.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,250.0
|
|
|
|
Total money market investments
|
|
|
5,101.6
|
|
|
|
400.0
|
|
|
|
850.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,351.6
|
|
Investment securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,059.8
|
|
|
|
1,155.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,215.3
|
|
GSE securities
|
|
|
960.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
960.5
|
|
State and local agency obligations
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
504.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
126.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
641.4
|
|
MBS issued by Federal agencies
|
|
|
269.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
269.2
|
|
MBS issued by GSEs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fannie Mae
|
|
|
427.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
427.6
|
|
Freddie Mac
|
|
|
1,434.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,434.8
|
|
MBS issued by private label issuers
|
|
|
6,646.1
|
|
|
|
481.7
|
|
|
|
294.5
|
|
|
|
189.1
|
|
|
|
603.8
|
|
|
|
209.2
|
|
|
|
134.7
|
|
|
|
8,559.1
|
|
|
|
Total investments
|
|
$
|
14,850.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,445.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,300.0
|
|
|
$
|
315.7
|
|
|
$
|
603.8
|
|
|
$
|
209.2
|
|
|
$
|
134.7
|
|
|
$
|
21,859.5
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Short-term credit ratings are used
when long-term credit ratings are not available. Credit rating
agency changes subsequent to December 31, 2009, are
described in detail below.
|
(2) |
|
Various deposits not held as
investments as well as mutual fund equity investments held by
the Bank through Rabbi trusts which are not generally assigned a
credit rating are excluded from the tables above.
|
As of December 31, 2009, there were credit rating agency
actions affecting a total of 97 private label MBS in the
investment portfolio resulting in downgrades of at least one
credit rating level since December 31, 2008. These
securities had a total par value of $5.0 billion and
$6.0 billion as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, reflected in the tables above.
The Bank also manages credit risk based on an internal credit
rating system. For purposes of determining the internal credit
rating, the Bank measures credit exposure through a process
which includes internal credit review and various external
factors, including the placement on negative watch by one or
more NRSROs. In all cases, the Banks assigned internal
credit rating will never be higher than the lowest external
credit rating. The incorporation of negative credit watch into
the credit rating analysis of an investment typically translates
into a downgrade of one credit rating level from the external
rating.
As of March 15, 2010, there were 12 credit rating agency
actions taken subsequent to year-end 2009 with respect to
$409.4 million of the Banks private label MBS
portfolio. These actions are summarized in the following tables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Downgraded and Stable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Below Investment
|
|
(In millions)
|
|
To AA
|
|
|
To BBB
|
|
|
Grade(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS
|
|
$
|
41.6
|
|
|
$
|
125.5
|
|
|
$
|
242.3
|
|
|
|
Total carrying value
|
|
$
|
41.6
|
|
|
$
|
125.5
|
|
|
$
|
242.3
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Includes downgrades of
$8.2 million from A to BB, $75.9 million from BBB to
B, $34.5 million from BB to CCC, $46.5 million from B
to CCC and $77.2 million from CCC to CC. Below investment
grade is defined as below BBB rated.
|
Money Market Investments, Commercial Paper and
Certificates of Deposit. Under its Risk
Governance Policy, the Bank can place money market investments,
commercial paper and certificates of deposit on an unsecured
117
basis with large, high-quality financial institutions with
long-term credit ratings no lower than A for terms up to
90 days and with long-term credit ratings no lower than BBB
for terms up to 30 days. Management actively monitors the
credit quality of these counterparties. As of December 31,
2009, the Bank had exposure to 20 counterparties totaling
$6.1 billion, or an average of $305.1 million per
counterparty, compared to exposure to 21 counterparties totaling
$4.5 billion, or an average of $212.6 million per
counterparty, as of December 31, 2008. As of
December 31, 2009, the Bank had exposure to two
counterparties exceeding 10 percent of the total exposure.
Specifically, total money market investment exposure was
$3.0 billion as of December 31, 2009, and reflected
Federal funds sold with an overnight maturity. The Bank had
certificate of deposit exposure of $3.1 billion as of
December 31, 2009, with exposure to U.S. branches of
foreign banks amounting to 93.5% of this total. The Bank limits
foreign exposure to those countries rated AA or higher and had
exposure to Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Spain,
Sweden and the United Kingdom as of December 31, 2009. The
Bank held no commercial paper as of December 31, 2009.
Treasury Bills, TLGP Investments, GSE Securities and State
and Local Agency Obligations. In addition to
U.S. Treasury bills and the TLGP investments, which are
part of the FDIC program guaranteeing unsecured bank debt, the
Bank invests in and is subject to credit risk related to GSE
securities and state and local agency obligations. The Bank
maintains a portfolio of U.S. Treasury, U.S. agency
and GSE securities as a secondary liquidity portfolio. Further,
the Bank maintains a portfolio of state and local agency
obligations to invest in mission-related assets and enhance net
interest income. These portfolios totaled $2.1 billion and
$1.6 billion as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). The
Bank invests in and is subject to credit risk related to MBS
issued by Federal agencies, GSEs and private label issuers that
are directly supported by underlying mortgage loans. The
Banks total MBS portfolio decreased $1.7 billion from
December 31, 2008 to December 31, 2009. This decline
was primarily due to repayments, sales and total OTTI losses
(includes both credit and noncredit), offset in part by
purchases of U.S. agency and GSE MBS.
Private Label MBS. Investments in
private label MBS are permitted as long as they are rated AAA at
the time of purchase. In April 2007, the Finance Agency directed
the Bank to adopt practices consistent with the risk management,
underwriting and consumer protection principles of various
regulatory pronouncements regarding Alt-A and subprime mortgages
that the Bank purchases or which back private label MBS
investments. In response, the Board has adopted and implemented
stricter policies and risk management practices that set
appropriate risk sublimits for credit exposure on Alt-A and
subprime MBS.
Although the Bank discontinued the purchase of private label MBS
in late 2007, approximately 66% of the Banks current MBS
portfolio was issued by private label issuers. The Bank
generally focused its private label MBS purchases on
credit-enhanced, senior tranches of securities in which the
subordinate classes of the securities provide credit support for
the senior class of securities. Losses in the underlying loan
pool would generally have to exceed the credit support provided
by the subordinate classes of securities before the senior class
of securities would experience any credit losses.
Participants in the mortgage market often characterize single
family loans based upon their overall credit quality at the time
of origination, generally considering them to be prime, Alt-A or
subprime. There is no universally accepted definition of these
segments or classifications. The subprime segment of the
mortgage market primarily serves borrowers with poorer credit
payment histories and such loans typically have a mix of credit
characteristics that indicate a higher likelihood of default and
higher loss severities than prime loans. Further, many mortgage
participants classify single family loans with credit
characteristics that range between prime and subprime categories
as Alt-A because these loans have a combination of
characteristics of each category or may be underwritten with low
or no documentation compared to a full documentation mortgage
loan. Industry participants often use this classification
principally to describe loans for which the underwriting process
has been streamlined in order to reduce the documentation
requirements of the borrower.
118
The following table presents the par value of the private label
MBS portfolio by various categories of underlying collateral and
by interest rate payment terms. In reporting the Banks
various MBS exposures below and throughout this report, the Bank
classifies private label MBS in accordance with the most
conservative classification provided by the credit rating
agencies at the time of issuance.
Characteristics
of Private Label MBS by Type of Collateral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
Variable
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
|
|
|
Variable
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Rate
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime
|
|
$
|
1,327.2
|
|
|
$
|
3,294.8
|
|
|
$
|
4,622.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,877.2
|
|
|
$
|
4,267.6
|
|
|
$
|
6,144.8
|
|
Alt-A
|
|
|
953.1
|
|
|
|
1,204.1
|
|
|
|
2,157.2
|
|
|
|
1,164.7
|
|
|
|
1,409.7
|
|
|
|
2,574.4
|
|
Subprime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
20.3
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
2,280.3
|
|
|
|
4,508.7
|
|
|
|
6,789.0
|
|
|
|
3,041.9
|
|
|
|
5,697.6
|
|
|
|
8,739.5
|
|
HELOC:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alt-A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72.3
|
|
|
|
72.3
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72.3
|
|
|
|
72.3
|
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
$
|
2,280.3
|
|
|
$
|
4,570.8
|
|
|
$
|
6,851.1
|
|
|
$
|
3,041.9
|
|
|
$
|
5,769.9
|
|
|
$
|
8,811.8
|
|
|
|
Note: The table presented above excludes par
balances of $32.5 million and $46.1 million related to
the restricted certificates pertaining to the Shared Funding
Program at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008,
respectively. These securities were fixed rate prime private
label residential MBS for both periods presented.
Certain MBS securities have a fixed-rate component for a
specified period of time, then have a rate reset on a given
date. When the rate is reset, the security is then considered to
be a variable-rate security. Examples of these types of
instruments would include securities supported by underlying
5/1, 7/1 and 10/1 hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). For
purposes of the table above, these securities are all reported
as variable-rate, regardless of whether the rate reset date has
been hit.
Credit scores are a useful measure for assessing the credit
quality of a borrower. Credit scores are numbers reported by
credit repositories, based on statistical models that summarize
an individuals credit record and predict the likelihood
that a borrower will repay future obligations as expected.
FICO®
scores, developed by Fair, Isaac and Co., Inc. are the most
commonly used credit scores. FICO scores are ranked on a scale
of approximately 300 to 850 points. Based on historic
statistics, borrowers with higher credit scores are more likely
to repay their debts as expected than those with lower scores.
Original credit score data for the underlying borrowers was
available for approximately 87% of the mortgage loans comprising
the private label MBS portfolio as of December 31, 2009 and
2008. Credit score ranges are based on available loan level data
applied to the ending par balances of the loans. The averages
for the private label MBS portfolio are calculated from the
average score for each security weighted by the ending par
balance of the loans.
Credit score characteristics of the Banks total private
label MBS portfolio are presented below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Original
FICO®
score range:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
740 and greater
|
|
|
44
|
%
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
700 to 739
|
|
|
54
|
%
|
|
|
49
|
%
|
660 to 699
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
Less than 660
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
1
|
%
|
|
|
Weighted average original
FICO®
score
|
|
|
734
|
|
|
|
736
|
|
|
|
119
The following table provides the fair value of the private label
MBS portfolio as a percentage of the par balance by collateral
type as well as year of securitization (vintage). The Bank
purchased no private label MBS during 2008 or 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS by
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
September 30,
|
|
|
June 30,
|
|
|
March 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Year of Securitization
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Prime:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
74.9
|
%
|
|
|
72.5
|
%
|
|
|
62.9
|
%
|
|
|
66.5
|
%
|
|
|
73.3
|
%
|
2006
|
|
|
82.7
|
|
|
|
80.3
|
|
|
|
70.5
|
|
|
|
68.9
|
|
|
|
69.0
|
|
2005
|
|
|
86.6
|
|
|
|
86.4
|
|
|
|
80.8
|
|
|
|
75.9
|
|
|
|
75.7
|
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
90.2
|
|
|
|
90.3
|
|
|
|
86.7
|
|
|
|
84.4
|
|
|
|
81.0
|
|
Weighted average of all Prime
|
|
|
83.6
|
|
|
|
82.6
|
|
|
|
76.0
|
|
|
|
75.3
|
|
|
|
76.0
|
|
Alt-A:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
63.5
|
|
|
|
59.8
|
|
|
|
54.5
|
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
2006
|
|
|
67.7
|
|
|
|
63.3
|
|
|
|
60.0
|
|
|
|
58.4
|
|
|
|
62.8
|
|
2005
|
|
|
80.0
|
|
|
|
78.9
|
|
|
|
70.4
|
|
|
|
68.0
|
|
|
|
67.5
|
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
85.6
|
|
|
|
84.2
|
|
|
|
80.3
|
|
|
|
78.4
|
|
|
|
73.9
|
|
Weighted-average of all Alt-A
|
|
|
73.5
|
|
|
|
70.8
|
|
|
|
66.2
|
|
|
|
65.1
|
|
|
|
66.0
|
|
Subprime:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
62.7
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
57.8
|
|
|
|
63.3
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
Weighted average of all Subprime
|
|
|
62.7
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
57.8
|
|
|
|
63.3
|
|
|
|
73.2
|
|
HELOC:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
44.3
|
|
|
|
43.5
|
|
|
|
36.2
|
|
|
|
42.3
|
|
|
|
59.3
|
|
2005
|
|
|
43.2
|
|
|
|
43.2
|
|
|
|
56.4
|
|
|
|
56.8
|
|
|
|
41.2
|
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
42.8
|
|
|
|
38.5
|
|
|
|
36.3
|
|
|
|
38.1
|
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
Weighted average of all HELOC
|
|
|
43.4
|
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
|
41.1
|
|
|
|
44.9
|
|
Weighted-average of total private label MBS
|
|
|
80.0
|
%
|
|
|
78.5
|
%
|
|
|
72.7
|
%
|
|
|
72.0
|
%
|
|
|
72.8
|
%
|
|
|
Note: The 2004 and earlier prime percentages
presented in the table above exclude the impact of the
restricted certificates pertaining to the Shared Funding Program.
Prices on private label MBS that include bankruptcy carve-out
language could be affected by legislation that impacts the
underlying collateral including any cramdown legislation or
mortgage loan modification programs. For further information,
see the discussion in Legislative and Regulatory Developments in
this Item 7. Managements Discussion and Analysis in
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
120
Private Label MBS Collateral
Statistics. The following tables provide
various detailed collateral performance and credit enhancement
information for the Banks private label MBS portfolio by
collateral type as of December 31, 2009. The Bank purchased
no private label MBS in 2008 or 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private Label MBS by Year of Securitization
PRIME(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
earlier
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Par by lowest external long- term rating:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
119.8
|
|
|
$
|
53.2
|
|
|
$
|
996.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,169.0
|
|
AA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
174.2
|
|
|
|
180.6
|
|
|
|
150.6
|
|
|
|
505.4
|
|
A
|
|
|
65.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34.0
|
|
|
|
368.5
|
|
|
|
468.4
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
173.1
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
|
|
|
232.1
|
|
BB(2)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
151.6
|
|
|
|
16.8
|
|
|
|
168.4
|
|
B(2)
|
|
|
72.4
|
|
|
|
146.7
|
|
|
|
161.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
380.6
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
915.4
|
|
|
|
316.6
|
|
|
|
111.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,343.8
|
|
CC
|
|
|
354.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
354.3
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,408.0
|
|
|
$
|
777.3
|
|
|
$
|
865.8
|
|
|
$
|
1,570.9
|
|
|
$
|
4,622.0
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
74.9
|
%
|
|
|
82.7
|
%
|
|
|
86.6
|
%
|
|
|
90.2
|
%
|
|
|
83.6
|
%
|
Fair
value(2)
|
|
$
|
1,054.5
|
|
|
$
|
642.9
|
|
|
$
|
750.3
|
|
|
$
|
1,416.8
|
|
|
$
|
3,864.5
|
|
Amortized
cost(2)(4)
|
|
|
1,321.7
|
|
|
|
765.9
|
|
|
|
857.3
|
|
|
|
1,556.2
|
|
|
|
4,501.1
|
|
Gross unrealized losses
|
|
|
(267.2
|
)
|
|
|
(123.0
|
)
|
|
|
(107.0
|
)
|
|
|
(139.4
|
)
|
|
|
(636.6
|
)
|
Total YTD 2009 OTTI charge
taken(3)
|
|
$
|
(440.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
(107.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(58.1
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(606.1
|
)
|
Original credit enhancement
|
|
|
5.9
|
%
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
3.8
|
%
|
|
|
4.5
|
%
|
|
|
4.9
|
%
|
Weighted-average credit enhancement current
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
8.5
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
Minimum credit enhancement
|
|
|
3.3
|
|
|
|
3.7
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral delinquency 60 or more days
|
|
|
11.3
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
5.9
|
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
Monoline financial guarantee
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The table presented above excludes
the impact related to the restricted certificates pertaining to
the Shared Funding Program, including 2003 vintage par balances
of $30.5 million rated AAA and $2.0 million rated AA.
|
|
(2) |
|
Includes two 2005 vintage
reperforming securities (one rated BB and one rated B) and
one 2004 vintage reperforming security (rated BB), the
underlying mortgage loans of which are government-guaranteed.
The 2005 vintage securities have a par balance of
$25.7 million, a fair value of $17.1 million and an
amortized cost of $25.6 million. The 2004 vintage security
has a par balance of $16.9 million, a fair value of
$10.4 million and an amortized cost of $16.9 million.
|
|
(3) |
|
Represents both the credit and
noncredit components of OTTI recorded in 2009, excluding the
cumulative effect adjustment.
|
|
(4) |
|
Amortized cost represents the
balance after OTTI credit loss has been recorded, the par
balance does not.
|
121
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private Label MBS by Year of Securitization ALT-A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
earlier
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Par by lowest external long- term rating:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
28.3
|
|
|
$
|
42.0
|
|
|
$
|
418.7
|
|
|
$
|
489.0
|
|
AA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.3
|
|
|
|
82.6
|
|
|
|
114.9
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
95.4
|
|
|
|
42.4
|
|
|
|
137.8
|
|
BB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
573.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
573.7
|
|
CC
|
|
|
232.6
|
|
|
|
194.3
|
|
|
|
29.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
456.5
|
|
C
|
|
|
164.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
45.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210.6
|
|
D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52.3
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
397.5
|
|
|
$
|
848.6
|
|
|
$
|
367.4
|
|
|
$
|
543.7
|
|
|
$
|
2,157.2
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
63.5
|
%
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
|
|
80.0
|
%
|
|
|
85.6
|
%
|
|
|
73.5
|
%
|
Fair value
|
|
$
|
252.3
|
|
|
$
|
574.4
|
|
|
$
|
293.9
|
|
|
$
|
465.5
|
|
|
$
|
1,586.1
|
|
Amortized
cost(4)
|
|
|
345.2
|
|
|
|
769.2
|
|
|
|
360.9
|
|
|
|
543.8
|
|
|
|
2,019.1
|
|
Gross unrealized losses
|
|
|
(92.9
|
)
|
|
|
(194.8
|
)
|
|
|
(67.0
|
)
|
|
|
(78.3
|
)
|
|
|
(433.0
|
)
|
Total YTD 2009 OTTI charge
taken(3)
|
|
$
|
(81.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
(278.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(49.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(9.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
(418.8
|
)
|
Original credit enhancement
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
6.6
|
%
|
|
|
5.7
|
%
|
|
|
5.3
|
%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
Weighted-average credit enhancement current
|
|
|
10.4
|
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
8.1
|
|
|
|
10.5
|
|
|
|
9.1
|
|
Minimum credit enhancement
|
|
|
6.7
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
|
|
4.7
|
|
|
|
4.6
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
Collateral delinquency 60 or more days
|
|
|
33.3
|
|
|
|
22.3
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
|
7.2
|
|
|
|
18.5
|
|
Monoline financial guarantee
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Represents both the credit and
noncredit components of OTTI recorded in 2009, excluding the
cumulative effect adjustment.
|
|
(4) |
|
Amortized cost represents the
balance after OTTI credit loss has been recorded, the par
balance does not.
|
122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private Label MBS by Year of Securitization SUBPRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
earlier
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Par by lowest external long- term rating:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
CC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
62.7
|
%
|
|
|
62.7
|
%
|
Fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
6.1
|
|
|
$
|
6.1
|
|
Amortized
cost(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
9.3
|
|
Gross unrealized losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
|
(3.2
|
)
|
Total YTD 2009 OTTI charge
taken(3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.9
|
)
|
Original credit enhancement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
|
|
10.2
|
%
|
Weighted-average credit enhancement current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
|
|
|
39.0
|
|
Minimum credit enhancement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
|
|
16.1
|
|
Collateral delinquency 60 or more days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
35.4
|
|
|
|
35.4
|
|
Monoline financial guarantee
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Represents both the credit and
noncredit components of OTTI recorded in 2009, excluding the
cumulative effect adjustment.
|
|
(4) |
|
Amortized cost represents the
balance after OTTI credit loss has been recorded, the par
balance does not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private Label MBS by Year of Securitization HELOC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2006
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
earlier
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Par by lowest external long- term rating:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AA
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
B
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
5.3
|
|
|
$
|
33.5
|
|
|
$
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
Average price
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
44.3
|
%
|
|
|
43.2
|
%
|
|
|
42.8
|
%
|
|
|
43.4
|
%
|
Fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
10.3
|
|
|
$
|
2.3
|
|
|
$
|
14.3
|
|
|
$
|
26.9
|
|
Amortized
cost(4)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
27.0
|
|
|
|
55.5
|
|
Gross unrealized losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(13.0
|
)
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
(12.6
|
)
|
|
|
(28.6
|
)
|
Total YTD 2009 OTTI charge
taken(3)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(16.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16.9
|
)
|
Original credit
enhancement(5)
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
3.1
|
%
|
|
|
(0.2
|
)%
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
Weighted-average credit enhancement current
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
Minimum credit enhancement
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
10.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Collateral delinquency 60 or more days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
|
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
Monoline financial guarantee
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
5.3
|
|
|
$
|
33.5
|
|
|
$
|
62.1
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(3) |
|
Represents both the credit and
noncredit components of OTTI recorded in 2009, excluding the
cumulative effect adjustment.
|
|
(4) |
|
Amortized cost represents the
balance after OTTI credit loss has been recorded, the par
balance does not.
|
|
(5) |
|
Negative original and average
credit support is related to certain home equity loans that rely
on over-collateralization, excess spread and bond insurance.
Over-collateralization builds up over time and could be negative
at the securitys origination and over a certain period of
time thereafter.
|
123
Private Label MBS Issuers and Master
Servicers. The following tables provide
further detailed information regarding the issuers and master
servicers of the Banks private label MBS portfolio that
exceeded 5 percent of the total as of December 30,
2009. Management actively monitors the credit quality of the
portfolios master servicers. For further information on
the Banks MBS master servicer risks, see additional
discussion in the Item 1A. Risk Factors entitled
The Banks financial condition or results of
operations may be adversely affected if MBS servicers fail to
perform their obligations to service mortgage loans as
collateral for MBS. in this 2009 Annual Report filed
on
Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Issuers
|
|
Total Carrying Value
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions, including accrued interest)
|
|
Plus Accrued Interest
|
|
|
Total Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
|
|
$
|
1,542.1
|
|
|
$
|
1,495.6
|
|
Lehman Brothers Holdings
Inc.(1)
|
|
|
1,057.5
|
|
|
|
960.0
|
|
Wells Fargo & Co.
|
|
|
792.0
|
|
|
|
734.2
|
|
Countrywide Financial
Corp.(2)
|
|
|
650.4
|
|
|
|
619.4
|
|
Citigroup Inc.
|
|
|
414.4
|
|
|
|
385.4
|
|
Other
|
|
|
1,482.2
|
|
|
|
1,322.6
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,938.6
|
|
|
$
|
5,517.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Master Servicers
|
|
Total Carrying Value
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Plus Accrued Interest
|
|
|
Total Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
Wells Fargo Bank, NA
|
|
$
|
2,211.9
|
|
|
$
|
2,029.9
|
|
Aurora Loan Services Inc.
|
|
|
1,042.4
|
|
|
|
946.6
|
|
US Bank
|
|
|
719.3
|
|
|
|
711.4
|
|
Bank of America
Corp.(2)
|
|
|
665.0
|
|
|
|
632.6
|
|
Citimortgage Inc.
|
|
|
358.4
|
|
|
|
329.3
|
|
Other
|
|
|
941.6
|
|
|
|
867.4
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
5,938.6
|
|
|
$
|
5,517.2
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed
for bankruptcy in 2008 following issuance of certain private
label MBS. Aurora Loan Services Inc. is now servicing all but
one of the bonds and six different trustees have assumed
responsibility for these 22 bonds. However, the Bank believes
the original issuer is more relevant with respect to
understanding the bond underwriting criteria.
|
|
(2) |
|
Bank of America acquired
Countrywide Financial Corp and Countrywide Home Loan Servicing
LP following issuance of certain private label MBS. The Bank
believes the original issuer is more relevant with respect to
understanding the bond underwriting criteria. However, Bank of
America is currently servicing the private label MBS.
|
124
Private Label MBS Credit Ratings. The
following table provides the credit ratings by collateral type
as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Wtd-Avg
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Collateral
|
|
Credit Rating as of December 31, 2009
|
|
Par
|
|
|
Cost(1)
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Delinquency
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRIME:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
$
|
1,169.0
|
|
|
$
|
1,154.2
|
|
|
$
|
(65.6
|
)
|
|
|
2.7
|
%
|
AA
|
|
|
505.4
|
|
|
|
500.0
|
|
|
|
(53.6
|
)
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
A
|
|
|
468.4
|
|
|
|
465.7
|
|
|
|
(59.8
|
)
|
|
|
9.4
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
232.1
|
|
|
|
231.5
|
|
|
|
(26.5
|
)
|
|
|
8.0
|
|
BB
|
|
|
168.4
|
|
|
|
168.3
|
|
|
|
(28.0
|
)
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
B
|
|
|
380.6
|
|
|
|
376.9
|
|
|
|
(65.3
|
)
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
1,343.8
|
|
|
|
1,293.1
|
|
|
|
(259.4
|
)
|
|
|
11.7
|
|
CC
|
|
|
354.3
|
|
|
|
311.4
|
|
|
|
(78.4
|
)
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Prime
|
|
$
|
4,622.0
|
|
|
$
|
4,501.1
|
|
|
$
|
(636.6
|
)
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alt-A:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
$
|
489.0
|
|
|
$
|
488.7
|
|
|
$
|
(59.9
|
)
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
AA
|
|
|
64.3
|
|
|
|
63.6
|
|
|
|
(6.9
|
)
|
|
|
5.8
|
|
A
|
|
|
114.9
|
|
|
|
114.7
|
|
|
|
(28.2
|
)
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
137.8
|
|
|
|
136.5
|
|
|
|
(22.2
|
)
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
BB
|
|
|
58.1
|
|
|
|
57.0
|
|
|
|
(16.6
|
)
|
|
|
10.3
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
573.7
|
|
|
|
522.8
|
|
|
|
(139.9
|
)
|
|
|
22.0
|
|
CC
|
|
|
456.5
|
|
|
|
410.9
|
|
|
|
(99.6
|
)
|
|
|
26.2
|
|
C
|
|
|
210.6
|
|
|
|
179.0
|
|
|
|
(49.7
|
)
|
|
|
34.2
|
|
D
|
|
|
52.3
|
|
|
|
45.9
|
|
|
|
(10.0
|
)
|
|
|
29.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Alt-A
|
|
$
|
2,157.2
|
|
|
$
|
2,019.1
|
|
|
$
|
(433.0
|
)
|
|
|
18.5
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBPRIME:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
|
$
|
6.6
|
|
|
$
|
(2.0
|
)
|
|
|
36.6
|
%
|
CC
|
|
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
2.7
|
|
|
|
(1.2
|
)
|
|
|
32.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Subprime
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
|
35.4
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HELOC:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AA
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
(13.0
|
)
|
|
|
2.9
|
%
|
A
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
0.3
|
|
B
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
14.7
|
|
|
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
|
10.9
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
15.8
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
(5.4
|
)
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total HELOC
|
|
$
|
62.1
|
|
|
$
|
55.5
|
|
|
$
|
(28.6
|
)
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The table presented above
excludes par of $32.5 million, amortized cost of
$33.2 million, and gross unrealized gains of
$0.4 million related to the restricted certificates
pertaining to the Shared Funding Program.
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amortized cost includes adjustments
made to the cost basis of an investment for accretion and/or
amortization, collection of cash, and/or previous OTTI
recognized in earnings (less any cumulative effect adjustments
recognized in accordance with the transition provisions of the
amended OTTI guidance).
|
125
The following table provides changes in credit ratings by
collateral type updated through March 15, 2010.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investment Ratings
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
March 15,
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
2010
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS
|
|
AAA
|
|
AA
|
|
$
|
41.6
|
|
|
$
|
37.4
|
|
|
|
AA
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
114.1
|
|
|
|
101.4
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
BBB
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
9.7
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
BB
|
|
|
8.2
|
|
|
|
6.6
|
|
|
|
BBB
|
|
B
|
|
|
75.9
|
|
|
|
70.0
|
|
|
|
BB
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
34.5
|
|
|
|
B
|
|
CCC
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
46.5
|
|
|
|
CCC
|
|
CC
|
|
|
77.2
|
|
|
|
77.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total private label residential MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
409.4
|
|
|
$
|
383.3
|
|
Private Label MBS in Unrealized Loss
Positions. The following table provides
select financial and other statistical information on the
portion of the private label MBS portfolio in an unrealized loss
position at December 31, 2009.
Private
Label MBS in Unrealized Loss
Positions(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 15, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Wtd-Avg
|
|
|
Dec. 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Collateral
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current %
|
|
|
% Below
|
|
|
Current %
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Par
|
|
|
Amortized Cost
|
|
|
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Del Rate %
|
|
|
% AAA
|
|
|
% AAA
|
|
|
Inv
Grade(3)
|
|
|
Inv Grade
|
|
|
Watchlist
|
|
|
Residential MBS backed by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First lien
|
|
$
|
4,622.0
|
|
|
$
|
4,501.1
|
|
|
$
|
(636.6
|
)
|
|
|
8.6
|
%
|
|
|
25.3
|
%
|
|
|
25.3
|
%
|
|
|
24.3
|
%
|
|
|
50.4
|
%
|
|
|
11.4
|
%
|
Alt-A and other:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alt-A other
|
|
$
|
2,157.2
|
|
|
$
|
2,019.1
|
|
|
$
|
(433.0
|
)
|
|
|
18.5
|
%
|
|
|
22.7
|
%
|
|
|
20.7
|
%
|
|
|
16.6
|
%
|
|
|
62.7
|
%
|
|
|
15.5
|
%
|
Subprime loans:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First lien
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
|
35.4
|
%
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
32.3
|
%
|
|
|
67.7
|
%
|
HELOC backed by:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alt-A and other:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alt-A other
|
|
$
|
62.1
|
|
|
$
|
55.5
|
|
|
$
|
(28.6
|
)
|
|
|
7.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
|
|
46.0
|
%
|
|
|
54.0
|
%
|
|
|
|
%
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The table presented above excludes
the impact related to the restricted certificates pertaining to
the Shared Funding Program in the residential MBS-Prime
category, including par balance of $32.5 million, amortized
cost of $33.2 million, and gross unrealized gains of
$0.4 million.
|
|
(2) |
|
Gross unrealized gains/(losses)
represent the difference between estimated fair value and
amortized cost.
|
|
(3) |
|
Excludes AAA-rated investments.
|
Monoline Bond Insurers. The Banks
investment securities portfolio includes a limited number of
investments which are insured by five monoline bond
insurers/guarantors. The bond insurance on these investments
generally guarantees the timely payments of principal and
interest if these payments cannot be satisfied from the cash
flows of the underlying collateral. The Bank closely monitors
the financial condition of these bond insurers.
126
The insured investment securities represent nine securities,
including seven securities backed by HELOC mortgage loans and
two state and local agency obligations. The credit rating of
each of the MBS is closely related to the credit rating of the
applicable bond insurer and most of these securities did not
have stand-alone credit ratings and carry limited or no
additional credit enhancement. The Bank analyzes the
creditworthiness of the bond insurer and typically assigns to
the individual security the higher of the bond insurers
rating or the stand-alone investment rating, if available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private
|
|
|
State and Local
|
|
|
Private
|
|
|
State and Local
|
|
|
|
Label
|
|
|
Agency
|
|
|
Label
|
|
|
Agency
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
Obligations
|
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
AMBAC Assurance Corporation (AMBAC)
|
|
$
|
17.5
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
22.4
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Financial Guaranty Insurance Co. (FGIC)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assured Guaranty Municipal Corp (AGMC)
|
|
|
23.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBIA Insurance Corporation (MBIA)
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20.5
|
|
|
|
127.3
|
|
National Public Finance Guarantee Corp. (NPFG)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
127.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
62.1
|
|
|
$
|
127.3
|
|
|
$
|
72.6
|
|
|
$
|
127.3
|
|
|
|
In February 2009, MBIA announced the restructuring of its
financial guaranty insurance operations. The restructuring
involved the transfer from MBIA of all its U.S. municipal
insurance operations to a former subsidiary named National
Public Finance Guarantee Corp (NPFG). The Bank has confirmed
that two state and local agency obligations are now guaranteed
by NPFG and two HELOC MBS remain guaranteed by MBIA. In 2009,
Financial Security Assurance Inc. (FSA) was acquired by Assured
Guaranty Ltd and subsequently renamed Assured Guaranty Municipal
Corp (AGMC). AGMC will continue to guarantee legacy private
label MBS; however, going forward, it will only underwrite
securities in the municipal market.
The following table further details the par value of the
Banks insured private label MBS by collateral type and
year of securitization (vintage) as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AMBAC
|
|
|
AGMC
|
|
|
MBIA
|
|
|
FGIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoline
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monoline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Coverage
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Coverage
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Coverage
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Coverage
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HELOC:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
(13.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
5.3
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
(3.8
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17.7
|
|
|
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
$
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
17.5
|
|
|
$
|
(6.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
(13.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
17.7
|
|
|
$
|
(7.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
3.6
|
|
|
$
|
(1.6
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following table presents the rating of the Banks
monoline insurers as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moodys
|
|
|
S&P
|
|
|
Fitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rating
|
|
|
Watch
|
|
|
Rating
|
|
|
Watch
|
|
|
Rating
|
|
|
Watch
|
|
|
|
|
AMBAC
|
|
|
Caa2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGMC
|
|
|
Aa3
|
|
|
|
Negative
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AA
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBIA
|
|
|
B3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BB+
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NPFG
|
|
|
Baa1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FGIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of March 15, 2010, AGMC was removed from negative watch
and placed on negative outlook by Moodys.
In addition, the Bank had three prime reperforming MBS, the
underlying mortgage loans of which are government-guaranteed,
with a total par balance of $42.5 million and total fair
value of $27.5 million at December 31, 2009. These
three securities were all rated below investment grade at
December 31, 2009.
127
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment. During 2009, the Bank recognized
$228.5 million of credit-related OTTI charges in earnings
(the credit loss) related to private label MBS, after the Bank
determined that it was likely that it would not recover the
entire amortized cost of each of these securities. The Bank does
not intend to sell and it is not more likely than not that the
Bank will be required to sell any OTTI securities before
anticipated recovery of their amortized cost basis. The Bank has
not recorded OTTI on any other type of security (i.e.,
U.S. agency MBS or non-MBS securities). If delinquency
and/or loss
rates on mortgages
and/or home
equity loans continue to increase,
and/or a
rapid decline or a continuing decline in residential real estate
values continues, the Bank could experience additional material
credit-related OTTI losses on its investment securities.
The credit loss realized on the Banks private label MBS is
equal to the difference between the amortized cost basis
(pre-OTTI charge) and the present value of the estimated cash
flows the Bank expects to realize on the private label MBS over
their life. The Banks estimate of cash flows has a
significant impact on the Banks determination of credit
losses. Cash flows expected to be collected represent the cash
flows that the Bank is likely to collect based on the
performance and type of private label MBS and the Banks
expectations of the economic environment. To ensure consistency
in determination of the OTTI for private label MBS among all
FHLBanks, the FHLBanks used the same key modeling assumptions
for purposes of their cash flow analysis under the guidance of
an FHLBank System OTTI Governance Committee.
In performing the cash flow analysis on the majority of the
Banks private label MBS, the Bank used two third party
models. The first model considered borrower characteristics and
the particular attributes of the loans underlying the majority
of the Banks securities, in conjunction with assumptions
about future changes in home prices and interest rates, to
project prepayments, defaults and loss severities. A significant
input to the first model was the forecast of future housing
price changes for the relevant states and core-based statistical
areas (CBSAs), and were based upon an assessment of the
individual housing markets. The term CBSA refers collectively to
metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas as defined by
the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. As currently
defined, a CBSA must contain at least one urban area of ten
thousand or more people. The Banks housing price forecast
assumed
current-to-trough
home price declines ranging from 0 percent to
15 percent over the next nine to fifteen months.
Thereafter, home prices are projected to remain flat for the
first six months, then increase 0.5 percent in the next six
months, 3 percent in the second year and 4 percent in
each subsequent year. The
month-by-month
projections of future loan performance derived from the first
model, which reflect the projected prepayments, defaults and
loss severities, were then input into a second model that
allocated the projected loan level cash flows and losses to the
various security classes in the securitization structure in
accordance with its prescribed cash flow and loss allocation
rules. A table of the significant assumptions (including default
rates, prepayment rates and loss severities) used on those
securities on which an OTTI was determined to have occurred
during the year ended December 31, 2009 is included in
Note 8 to the audited financial statements in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial Data included
in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The cash flow models assumptions are impacted by the
classification of the CUSIP as Prime, Alt-A, Subprime or HELOC.
The Bank models the CUSIP based on their classification in the
cash flow model. In addition, if a Prime CUSIPs
performance has certain performance criteria, the Bank will
model the CUSIP as Alt-A, which results in higher losses.
The Bank was unable to perform a cash flow analysis for the
Banks HELOCs using the two models above because loan-level
data is not available. Therefore, the Bank performed a
security-level cash flow test based on the following
assumptions: (1) default rates derived from published
curves by vintage and collateral; (2) prepayment speeds
from the Banks market risk modeling; and (3) 100%
loss given default. The result was the Banks best estimate
of cash flows for these bonds. Certain of these HELOCs are
insured by third-party bond insurers (referred to as monoline
insurers). The monoline insurers guarantees the timely payments
of principal and interest. For these HELOCs, the Bank determined
if there was a credit loss without any insurance proceeds from
the monoline insurers. If there were, the Bank considered the
capacity of the monoline insurer to cover the shortfalls.
Certain of the monoline insurers have been subject to adverse
ratings, rating downgrades, and weakening financial performance
measures. Accordingly, the Bank performed analyses to assess the
financial strength of these monoline insurers and established a
burnout period by monoline insurer. The burnout period
represents the date at which the Bank estimates that the
monoline insurer would be unable to meet its obligation of
timely principal and interest. Shortfalls that occur before the
burnout period expires are not considered a loss. The Bank
monitors the insurers and as facts and circumstances change, the
burnout period could significantly change. As of
December 31,
128
2009, the Bank was receiving payments on one HELOC from a
monoline bond insurer in accordance with contractual terms.
Subsequent to year-end 2009, the CE on one additional HELOC was
exhausted. The Bank began receiving payments in accordance with
contractual terms from the monoline bond insurer on this
investment as well. The following table presents the burnout
period by monoline insurer used by the Bank.
|
|
|
Monoline Insurer
|
|
Burnout Period
|
|
|
AGMC
|
|
No expiration
|
AMBAC
|
|
June 30, 2011
|
MBIA
|
|
June 30, 2011
|
FGIC
|
|
n/a
|
n/a not applicable; the New York Insurance
Department recently ordered FGIC to suspend all claim
payments.
In addition, the Bank was unable to perform a cash flow analysis
for a limited number of bonds because information was not
available. For these bonds, the Bank identified a similar bond
(referred to as a proxy bond), based on collateral type,
vintage, and current performance. The Bank used the proxy
bonds
month-by-month
projections from the first model (referred to above) and entered
them into the second model for our bond. The result is the
Banks best estimate of cash flows. This proxy bond
approach is the default approach approved by the OTTI Governance
Committee for securities without loan level information. As
noted previously, the Bank used the proxy bond approach for a
limited number of bonds.
These models and assumptions have a significant effect on
determining whether any of the investment securities are OTTI.
The use of different assumptions, as well as changes in market
conditions, could result in materially different net income,
retained earnings and total capital for the Bank. Based on the
structure of the Banks private label MBS and the
interaction of assumptions to estimate cash flows, the Bank is
unable to isolate the impact of the assumption changes or
performance deterioration on estimated credit losses recorded by
the Bank. However, the Bank believes that the most significant
drivers of the credit loss during 2009 were deterioration of the
collateral supporting the Banks securities, more severe
assumptions for all inputs (housing prices, prepayments,
defaults and loss severities) and modeling Prime CUSIPs as Alt-A
(or similar to Alt-A). The decrease in prepayment speeds extends
the life of the CUSIP, which has a negative impact on senior
tranches (which the Bank owns) as more payments are made to
subordinate tranches. Modeling Prime CUSIPs as Alt-A (or similar
to Alt-A) has a significant impact due to higher loss
projections and a credit structure at origination not designed
to absorb the higher projected losses.
Based on the Banks OTTI evaluation, the Bank has
determined that 44 of its private label MBS, including five
HELOCs, were
other-than-temporarily
impaired at December 31, 2009 (i.e., they are projected to
incur a credit loss during their life). The Bank has recognized
$238.6 million of credit losses on these securities
life-to-date.
These securities included the seven CUSIPs that had previously
been identified as
other-than-temporarily
impaired at December 31, 2008. For the seven CUSIPs
previously identified as
other-than-temporarily
impaired, the Bank recorded an additional credit loss of
$72.1 million during 2009. For the other 37 CUSIPs with
OTTI that were identified during 2009, the Bank recorded a
credit loss of $156.4 million.
As noted previously, OTTI is based on estimates concerning
private label MBS performance and assumptions regarding the
economy. When the Bank updates its estimated cash flow
projections, the Bank may determine that there is an increase in
the estimated cash flows the Bank will receive. This increase in
cash flows is recorded as an increase in the yield on the
Banks investment and is recognized over the life of the
investment. During 2009, the Bank recognized an increase in
yield on certain private label MBS, resulting in
$0.4 million of additional interest income.
The Banks estimated credit loss on securities deemed to be
other-than-temporarily
impaired was $94.4 million at December 31, 2008;
however, the cumulative effect adjustment recorded as a credit
loss as of January 1, 2009 was only $10.0 million.
This difference was due to (1) the change in accounting for
OTTI on January 1, 2009 upon the Banks adoption of
the provisions of the amended OTTI guidance and (2) the use
of a different model by the Bank to calculate the credit loss.
Both of these changes were discussed above.
129
During 2009, the Bank transferred private label MBS from its
held-to-maturity
portfolio to its
available-for-sale
portfolio that had a credit loss recognized. The Bank believes
that the occurrence of a credit loss constitutes evidence of a
significant decline in the issuers creditworthiness and
permits transfers from
held-to-maturity
to
available-for-sale
without calling into question the classification of the
remaining
held-to-maturity
securities. The Bank also believes that the transfer increases
its flexibility to potentially sell private label MBS that have
incurred a credit loss when market conditions improve without
tainting the Banks entire
held-to-maturity
portfolio. During 2009, the Bank transferred certain private
label MBS from
held-to-maturity
to
available-for-sale
with a total amortized cost of $3.4 billion, OTTI
recognized in AOCI of $1.2 billion, fair value of
$2.3 billion and an unrecognized gain of $54.2 million
as of the date of the transfer.
The following tables present the entire private label and HELOC
MBS portfolios and any related OTTI.
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment of
Private Label and HELOC MBS
by Year of Securitization
At and for the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI related
|
|
|
OTTI Related
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
to Credit
|
|
|
to Noncredit
|
|
|
Total OTTI
|
|
Year of Securitization
|
|
Cost(3)
|
|
|
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
1,321.7
|
|
|
$
|
(267.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,054.5
|
|
|
$
|
(85.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(354.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(440.1
|
)
|
2006
|
|
|
765.9
|
|
|
|
(123.0
|
)
|
|
|
642.9
|
|
|
|
(4.2
|
)
|
|
|
(103.7
|
)
|
|
|
(107.9
|
)
|
2005
|
|
|
857.3
|
|
|
|
(107.0
|
)
|
|
|
750.3
|
|
|
|
(5.2
|
)
|
|
|
(52.9
|
)
|
|
|
(58.1
|
)
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
1,556.2
|
|
|
|
(139.4
|
)
|
|
|
1,416.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
4,501.1
|
|
|
$
|
(636.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,864.5
|
|
|
$
|
(95.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(510.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(606.1
|
)
|
|
|
Total private label residential MBS
|
|
$
|
4,501.1
|
|
|
$
|
(636.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,864.5
|
|
|
$
|
(95.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(510.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(606.1
|
)
|
|
|
Note: The Bank had no prime HELOCs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alt-A(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI related
|
|
|
OTTI Related
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
to Credit
|
|
|
to Noncredit
|
|
|
Total OTTI
|
|
Year of Securitization
|
|
Cost(3)
|
|
|
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
$
|
345.2
|
|
|
$
|
(92.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
252.3
|
|
|
$
|
(46.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(34.7
|
)
|
|
$
|
(81.0
|
)
|
2006
|
|
|
769.2
|
|
|
|
(194.8
|
)
|
|
|
574.4
|
|
|
|
(75.5
|
)
|
|
|
(203.3
|
)
|
|
|
(278.8
|
)
|
2005
|
|
|
360.9
|
|
|
|
(67.0
|
)
|
|
|
293.9
|
|
|
|
(4.0
|
)
|
|
|
(45.4
|
)
|
|
|
(49.4
|
)
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
543.8
|
|
|
|
(78.3
|
)
|
|
|
465.5
|
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(9.1
|
)
|
|
|
(9.6
|
)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
2,019.1
|
|
|
$
|
(433.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,586.1
|
|
|
$
|
(126.3
|
)
|
|
$
|
(292.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(418.8
|
)
|
|
|
HELOCs:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006
|
|
$
|
23.3
|
|
|
$
|
(13.0
|
)
|
|
$
|
10.3
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
2005
|
|
|
5.2
|
|
|
|
(3.0
|
)
|
|
|
2.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
|
27.0
|
|
|
|
(12.6
|
)
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
|
|
(6.5
|
)
|
|
|
(10.4
|
)
|
|
|
(16.9
|
)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
55.5
|
|
|
$
|
(28.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
26.9
|
|
|
$
|
(6.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(16.9
|
)
|
|
|
Total private label residential MBS and HELOCs
|
|
$
|
2,074.6
|
|
|
$
|
(461.6
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,613.0
|
|
|
$
|
(132.8
|
)
|
|
$
|
(302.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(435.7
|
)
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subprime(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI related
|
|
|
OTTI Related
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
|
|
|
to Credit
|
|
|
to Noncredit
|
|
|
Total OTTI
|
|
Year of Securitization
|
|
Cost(3)
|
|
|
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and earlier
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.1
|
|
|
$
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.1
|
|
|
$
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
Total private label residential MBS
|
|
$
|
9.3
|
|
|
$
|
(3.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
6.1
|
|
|
$
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1.9
|
)
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The FHLBanks classify private label
MBS as prime, Alt-A and subprime based on the originators
classification at the time of origination or based on
classification by an NRSRO upon issuance of the MBS.
|
|
(2) |
|
Represents total gross unrealized
losses including noncredit related impairment recognized in AOCI.
|
|
(3) |
|
Amortized cost includes adjustments
made to the cost basis of an investment for accretion and/or
amortization, collection of cash, and/or previous OTTI
recognized in earnings (less any cumulative effect adjustments
recognized in accordance with the transition provisions of the
amended OTTI guidance).
|
Summary
of
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments Recorded by Security Type and
Duration of Unrealized Losses Prior to
Impairment(1)
For the Year Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncredit-Related Gross Unrealized
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Credit-Related Gross Unrealized
Losses(3)
|
|
|
|
Less than 12
|
|
|
12 Months
|
|
|
|
|
|
Less than
|
|
|
12 Months
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Months
|
|
|
or Greater
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
12 Months
|
|
|
or Greater
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(510.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
(510.9
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(95.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(95.2
|
)
|
Alt-A:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(292.5
|
)
|
|
|
(292.5
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(126.3
|
)
|
|
|
(126.3
|
)
|
HELOCs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10.4
|
)
|
|
|
(10.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6.5
|
)
|
|
|
(6.5
|
)
|
Subprime:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
(1.4
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
(0.5
|
)
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(815.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(815.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
|
Private label MBS total
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(815.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
(815.2
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
$
|
(228.5
|
)
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The FHLBanks classify private label
MBS as prime, Alt-A and subprime based on the originators
classification at the time of origination or based on
classification by an NRSRO upon issuance of the MBS.
|
|
(2) |
|
Noncredit losses were recognized in
AOCI upon OTTI determination at December 31, 2009.
|
|
(3) |
|
Credit losses were recognized in
earnings upon OTTI determination at December 31, 2009.
|
In its ongoing review, management will continue to evaluate all
impaired securities, including those on which charges for OTTI
have been recorded. If the performance of the Banks
private label MBS portfolio continues to deteriorate, additional
securities in the Banks
held-to-maturity
and
available-for-sale
portfolios could become OTTI, which could lead to additional
material OTTI charges. At the present time, the Bank cannot
estimate the future amount of any additional OTTI charges.
As discussed above, the projection of cash flows expected to be
collected on private label MBS involves significant judgment
with respect to key modeling assumptions. Therefore, for all
private label MBS and HELOC investments evaluated under a base
case (or best estimate) scenario, the Bank also performed a cash
flow analysis for each of these securities under one additional
scenario that represented a meaningful and plausible more
adverse external assumption. This more adverse scenario showed a
larger home price decline and a slower rate of housing
131
price recovery. Specifically, the
current-to-trough
forecast showed a decline of 5 percentage points more than
the base case
current-to-trough
housing price decline, and the housing price recovery path has
housing prices reflecting no increase from the trough level the
first year after the trough is reached, a 1 percent
increase in the second year, a 2 percent increase in the
third and fourth years, and a 3 percent per year increase
thereafter.
As shown in the table below, based on the estimated cash flows
of the Banks private label MBS and home equity loan
investments under the adverse case scenario, the Banks
fourth quarter 2009 credit losses would have increased
$81.5 million. The increase in the credit loss under the
adverse case scenario is the result of the credit loss
increasing on securities currently identified by the Banks as
OTTI and 7 additional securities with an unpaid principal
balance of $418.9 million. The adverse scenario estimated
cash flows were generated using the same model (Prime, Alt-A or
subprime) as the base scenario. Using a model with more severe
assumptions could significantly increase the estimated credit
loss incurred by the Banks. The adverse case housing price
forecast is not managements best estimate forecast and
should not be used as a basis for determining OTTI. The table
below classifies results based on the classification at the time
of issuance and not the model used to estimate the cash flows.
OTTI
Credit Loss Base vs. Stress Scenario
For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Base Case Scenario
|
|
|
Stress Scenario
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
(In Net Loss)
|
|
|
(Disclosure Only)
|
|
|
|
|
Prime
|
|
$
|
34.3
|
|
|
$
|
70.6
|
|
Alt-A
|
|
|
24.4
|
|
|
|
64.0
|
|
Subprime
|
|
|
0.2
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
HELOCs
|
|
|
6.5
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
Total OTTI credit loss
|
|
$
|
65.4
|
|
|
$
|
146.9
|
|
|
|
Credit
and Counterparty Risk Mortgage Loans, BOB Loans and
Derivatives
Mortgage Loans. The Bank offers a
mortgage loan purchase program as a service to members and
housing associates. The Finance Agency has authorized the Bank
to hold mortgage loans under the MPF Program whereby the Bank
acquires mortgage loans from participating members or housing
associates in a shared credit risk structure, including the
necessary credit enhancement. These assets carry credit
enhancements, which give them the approximate equivalent of a AA
credit rating, although the credit enhancement is not actually
rated. The Bank had net mortgage loan balances of
$5.2 billion and $6.2 billion as of December 31,
2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively, after allowance
for credit losses of $2.7 million and $4.3 million,
respectively. The decrease in the allowance for credit losses
related to the MPF portfolio was driven by several factors,
including updated default and loss assumptions. Delinquencies in
the Banks portfolio remain markedly below national
delinquency numbers for prime mortgage loans.
The Banks conventional mortgage loan portfolio is
comprised of large groups of smaller-balance homogeneous loans
made to consumers that are secured by residential real estate. A
mortgage loan is considered impaired when it is probable that
all contractual principal and interest payments will not be
collected as scheduled in the loan agreement based on current
information and events. Mortgage loans are generally placed on
nonaccrual status when they become 90 days or more
delinquent. See Notes 2 and 11 of the audited financial
statements in Item 8. Financial Statements and
Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information.
132
Mortgage loan delinquencies and nonaccrual balances as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
30 59 days delinquent
|
|
$
|
98.3
|
|
|
$
|
105.1
|
|
60 89 days delinquent
|
|
|
31.7
|
|
|
|
31.0
|
|
90 days or more delinquent
|
|
|
86.1
|
|
|
|
47.8
|
|
|
|
Total delinquencies
|
|
$
|
216.1
|
|
|
$
|
183.9
|
|
|
|
Nonaccrual loans
|
|
$
|
71.2
|
|
|
$
|
38.3
|
|
Loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
Delinquencies as a percent of total mortgage loans outstanding
|
|
|
4.2
|
%
|
|
|
3.0
|
%
|
Nonaccrual loans as a percent of total mortgage loans outstanding
|
|
|
1.4
|
%
|
|
|
0.6
|
%
|
The Banks members or housing associates that are approved
as PFIs continue to bear a significant portion of the credit
risk through credit enhancements that they provide to the Bank.
These credit enhancements are required to be sufficient to
protect the Bank from excess credit risk exposure. See
Item 1. Business as well as Financial Condition and the
Mortgage Partnership Finance Program discussion in
Other Financial Information, both in this Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
for additional information regarding the Banks various
mortgage loan programs, the related allowance for credit losses
and the management of various risks, including credit risk.
Mortgage Insurers. The Banks MPF
Program currently has credit exposure to nine mortgage insurance
companies that provide both primary mortgage insurance and
supplemental mortgage insurance under The Banks various
programs. The Bank closely monitors the financial condition of
these mortgage insurers. All providers are required to maintain
a rating of AA- or better by at least one credit rating agency
and are reviewed at least annually by the Banks Credit
Risk Committee or more frequently as circumstances warrant. The
MPF Provider and the various FHLBanks offering the MPF Program
have established a set of financial criteria for further
monitoring the financial condition of the mortgage insurance
companies.
Under the provisions of the MPF Program, when an insurer is no
longer considered a qualified SMI provider for the MPF Program
due to a ratings downgrade, the Bank is required to notify
affected PFIs that they will be required to take one of the
following actions within six months: (1) obtain replacement
SMI coverage with a different provider; or (2) assume a
credit enhancement obligation equivalent to SMI coverage and
provide adequate collateralization of the credit enhancement
obligation. To date, the Banks affected PFIs have pledged
sufficient collateral to secure their credit enhancement
obligations. In the event the PFIs had not taken one of these
actions, the Bank would have withheld the PFIs performance-based
credit enhancement fees.
Within the other category in the table below, only one of the
Banks mortgage insurers currently maintains a rating of A-
or better by at least one credit rating agency. As required by
the MPF Program, for ongoing primary mortgage insurance, the
ratings model currently requires additional credit enhancement
from the PFI to compensate for the lower mortgage insurer
rating. The MPF Plus product, which requires supplemental
mortgage insurance under the MPF Program, is currently not being
offered due to a lack of insurers writing new SMI policies. The
Bank had no open MPF Plus Master Commitments at
December 31, 2009.
133
The following tables present mortgage insurance provider credit
exposure and concentrations with coverage greater than 10% of
total coverage as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Credit Rating (Fitch/
|
|
|
Primary
|
|
|
Supplemental
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moodys/Standard &
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
Percent
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Poors)
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
of Total
|
|
|
|
|
Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. (Genworth)
|
|
|
-/Baa2/BBB-
|
|
|
$
|
6.9
|
|
|
$
|
51.4
|
|
|
$
|
58.3
|
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. (MGIC)
|
|
|
BB-/Ba2/ B+
|
|
|
|
24.2
|
|
|
|
3.6
|
|
|
|
27.8
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
Republic Mortgage Insurance Company (RMIC)
|
|
|
BBB-/Baa2/BBB-
|
|
|
|
15.4
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
20.5
|
|
|
|
14.3
|
|
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. (PMI)
|
|
|
-/Ba3/B+
|
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
14.4
|
|
|
|
10.0
|
|
Other insurance providers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22.0
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
22.4
|
|
|
|
15.6
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
82.1
|
|
|
$
|
61.3
|
|
|
$
|
143.4
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Credit Rating (Fitch/
|
|
|
Primary
|
|
|
Supplemental
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moodys/Standard &
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
Mortgage
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
Percent of
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Poors)
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. (Genworth)
|
|
|
-/Aa3/A+
|
|
|
$
|
7.7
|
|
|
$
|
53.2
|
|
|
$
|
60.9
|
|
|
|
36.4
|
|
Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. (MGIC)
|
|
|
A-/A1/A-
|
|
|
|
27.9
|
|
|
|
5.5
|
|
|
|
33.4
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
Republic Mortgage Insurance Company (RMIC)
|
|
|
A+/A1/A
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
|
|
|
25.1
|
|
|
|
15.0
|
|
PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. (PMI)
|
|
|
BBB+/A3/A-
|
|
|
|
18.6
|
|
|
|
0.8
|
|
|
|
19.4
|
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
Other insurance providers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28.1
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
|
|
|
28.5
|
|
|
|
17.0
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
102.3
|
|
|
$
|
65.0
|
|
|
$
|
167.3
|
|
|
|
100.0
|
|
|
|
As of March 15, 2010, Fitch no longer rated MGIC. In
addition, Moodys downgraded RMIC and PMI to Ba1 and B2,
respectively, as of March 15, 2010.
Banking On Business (BOB) Loans. The
Banks BOB loan program for members is targeted to small
businesses in the Banks district of Delaware, Pennsylvania
and West Virginia. The programs objective is to assist in
the growth and development of small businesses, including both
the start-up
and expansion of these businesses. The Bank makes funds
available to members to extend credit to an approved small
business borrower, thereby enabling small businesses to qualify
for credit that would otherwise not be available. The intent of
the BOB program is as a grant program through members to help
facilitate community economic development; however, repayment
provisions within the program require that the BOB program be
accounted for as an unsecured loan program. As the members
collect directly from the borrowers, the members remit to the
Bank repayment of the loans. If the business is unable to repay
the loan, it may be forgiven at the members request,
subject to the Banks approval. The entire BOB program is
classified as a nonaccrual loan portfolio due to the fact that
the Bank has doubt about the ultimate collection of the
contractual principal and interest of the loans. Therefore,
interest income is not accrued on these loans; income is
recognized on a cash basis after the loan balance has been fully
repaid.
Derivative Counterparties. The Bank is
subject to credit risk arising from the potential
non-performance by derivative counterparties with respect to the
agreements entered into with the Bank, as well as certain
operational risks relating to the management of the derivative
portfolio. In management of this credit risk, the Bank follows
the policies established by the Board regarding unsecured
extensions of credit. For all derivative counterparties, the
Bank selects only highly-rated derivatives dealers and major
banks that meet the Banks eligibility criteria. The Bank
manages derivative counterparty credit risk through the combined
use of credit analysis, collateral management and other risk
mitigation techniques. For example, the Bank requires collateral
agreements on all nonmember derivative financial instrument
contracts under which collateral must be posted against exposure
over an unsecured threshold amount. Additionally, the extent to
which the Bank is exposed to derivative counterparty risk, the
risk is partially mitigated through the use of master netting
agreements and bilateral security agreements with all active
derivative counterparties that provide for delivery of
collateral at specified levels tied to individual counterparty
credit ratings as reported by the credit rating agencies. In
determining maximum credit exposure, the
134
Bank considers accrued interest receivables and payables, and
the legal right to offset assets and liabilities on an
individual counterparty basis. As a result of these risk
mitigation actions, management does not anticipate any credit
losses on its current derivative agreements outstanding.
The Bank regularly monitors the credit exposure of derivative
transactions by determining the market value of positions using
an internal pricing model. The market values generated by this
model are compared to other internal models and dealer prices on
a monthly basis. Collateral transfers required due to changes in
market values are conducted on a daily basis, when necessary.
The notional amount of derivatives does not measure the credit
risk exposure of the Bank, and the maximum credit exposure of
the Bank is substantially less than the notional amount. The
recent deterioration in the credit/financial markets has
heightened the Banks awareness of derivative default risk.
In response, the Bank has created a task force which has worked
toward lessening this risk by (1) verifying that the
derivative counterparties are in full compliance with existing
ISDA requirements through enhanced monitoring efforts;
(2) substituting securities for cash collateral, which
would allow a more detailed identification of the Banks
particular collateral; and (3) attempting to negotiate
revised ISDA Master Agreement terms, when necessary, that should
help to mitigate losses in the event of a counterparty default.
These agreement negotiations include establishing tri-party
collateral agreements where possible to further protect the
Banks collateral. The Banks ISDA Master Agreements
typically require segregation of the Banks collateral
posted with the counterparty and do not permit rehypothecation.
For purposes of the table below, the notional principal
outstanding reflects only those counterparties which have net
credit exposure at December 31, 2009 and 2008. In addition,
the maximum credit exposure represents the estimated fair value
of the derivative contracts that have a net positive market
value to the Bank and the net credit exposure represents maximum
credit exposure less the protection afforded by contractually
required collateral held by the Bank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
Net
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
Collateral
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
Credit
Rating(1)
|
|
Counterparties
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
Held
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
|
|
AA
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
440.0
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.4
|
|
A
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
125.0
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.2
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
$
|
565.0
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
7.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
Maximum
|
|
|
Cash
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in millions)
|
|
Number of
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
|
Credit
|
|
|
Collateral
|
|
|
Net Credit
|
|
Credit
Rating(1)
|
|
Counterparties
|
|
|
Outstanding
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
Held
|
|
|
Exposure
|
|
|
|
|
AAA
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
$
|
20.0
|
|
|
$
|
0.8
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
0.8
|
|
AA
|
|
|
2
|
|
|
|
1,320.0
|
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16.5
|
|
A
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
2,382.3
|
|
|
|
21.4
|
|
|
|
9.8
|
|
|
|
11.6
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
$
|
3,722.3
|
|
|
$
|
38.7
|
|
|
$
|
9.8
|
|
|
$
|
28.9
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Credit ratings reflect the lowest
rating from the credit rating agency. These tables do not
reflect changes in any rating, outlook or watch status after
December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008. The Bank
measures credit exposure through a process which includes
internal credit review and various external factors.
|
At the time of its bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman Brothers, along
with its subsidiary LBSF, was the Banks largest derivative
counterparty. As a result of the bankruptcy filing in September
2008, the Bank terminated 595 derivative trades. A portion of
these trades were replaced. For further information, see the
detailed discussion regarding the Lehman-related transactions in
Current Financial and Mortgage Market Events and
Trends discussion in Earnings Performance in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
135
At December 31, 2009, four counterparties collectively
represented 100% of the Banks total net credit exposure,
two rated AA and two rated A. At December 31, 2008, four
counterparties, all of whom were rated at least A, collectively
represented approximately 91% of the Banks total net
credit exposure. The Banks total net credit exposure to
derivative counterparties, which reflects derivative assets net
of cash collateral, was $7.6 million and $28.9 million
at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Liquidity
and Funding Risk
As a wholesale bank, the Banks financial strategies are
designed to enable it to expand and contract its assets,
liabilities and capital in response to changes in member credit
demand, membership composition and other market factors. The
Banks liquidity resources are designed to support these
financial strategies. The Bank actively manages its liquidity
position to maintain stable, reliable, and cost-effective
sources of funds, while taking into account market conditions,
member credit demand for short-and long-term loans, investment
opportunities and the maturity profile of the Banks assets
and liabilities. The Bank recognizes that managing liquidity is
critical to achieving its statutory mission of providing
low-cost funding to its members. In managing liquidity risk, the
Bank is required to maintain a level of liquidity in accordance
with certain Finance Agency guidance and policies established by
management and the Board. Effective March 6, 2009, the
Finance Agency provided final guidance revising and formalizing
prior guidance regarding additional increases in liquidity
originally provided to the FHLBanks in fourth quarter 2008. This
final guidance requires the Bank to maintain sufficient
liquidity in an amount at least equal to its anticipated cash
outflows under two different scenarios. One scenario assumes
that the Bank can not access the capital markets for a period of
15 days and that, during that time, members do not renew
any maturing, prepaid and called advances. The second scenario
assumes that the Bank cannot access the capital markets for five
days and that during that period it will automatically renew
maturing and called advances for all members except very large,
highly rated members. These additional requirements are more
stringent than the original five calendar day contingency
liquidity requirement discussed below. The new requirement is
designed to enhance the Banks protection against temporary
disruptions in access to the FHLBank System debt markets in
response to a rise in capital markets volatility. Longer term
contingency liquidity is discussed in the contingency liquidity
section which follows.
Consolidated obligation bonds and discount notes, along with
member deposits and capital, represent the primary funding
sources used by the Bank to support its asset base. Consolidated
obligations enjoy GSE status; however, they are not obligations
of the United States, and the United States does not guarantee
them. Consolidated obligation bonds and discount notes are rated
Aaa/P-1 by
Moodys Investor Service, Inc. and
AAA/A-1+ by
Standard & Poors. These ratings measure the
likelihood of timely payment of principal and interest. At
December 31, 2009, the Banks consolidated obligation
bonds outstanding totaled $49.1 billion compared to
$61.4 billion as of December 31, 2008, a decrease of
$12.3 billion, or 20.0%. The Bank also issues discount
notes, which are shorter-term consolidated obligations, to
support its short-term member loan portfolio and other
short-term asset funding needs. Total discount notes outstanding
at December 31, 2009 were $10.2 billion compared to
$22.9 billion at December 31, 2008, a decrease of
$12.7 billion, or 55.5%, largely due to a decrease in
short-term member borrowings. The Bank combines consolidated
obligations with derivatives in order to lower its effective
all-in cost of funds and simultaneously reduce interest rate
risk. The funding strategy of issuing bonds while simultaneously
entering into swap agreements is referred to as the issuance of
structured debt. Discount notes have not generally been combined
with derivatives by the Bank, although this approach may be used
by the Bank in the future.
The Banks ability to operate its business, meet its
obligations and generate net interest income depends primarily
on the ability to issue large amounts of various debt structures
at attractive rates. From July 2008 through August 2009, market
concerns regarding the outlook for the net supply of GSE debt
over the short-term, as well as any investments linked to the
U.S. housing market, adversely affected access to the
unsecured debt markets, particularly for long-term and callable
debt. As a result, the Bank experienced an increase in long-term
debt funding costs relative to the U.S. Treasury and LIBOR
yield curves which reflected both investor reluctance to
purchase longer-term obligations and investor demand for
high-quality, short-term assets. As these long-term debt spreads
widened, the Bank experienced difficulty providing term funding
to its members at attractive levels consistent with historical
practice. Since August 2009, conditions have improved as has the
Banks ability to access the longer-term debt market.
136
The Banks investments also represent a key source of
liquidity. Total investments available for liquidation may
include trading securities,
available-for-sale
securities, Federal funds sold and certificates of deposit.
These amounts were $9.8 billion at December 31, 2009,
compared to $9.6 billion at December 31, 2008. The
Bank also maintains a secondary liquidity portfolio which may
include U.S. Treasuries, TLGP investments, U.S. agency
securities and other GSE securities that can be financed under
normal market conditions in securities repurchase agreement
transactions to raise additional funds. In addition,
U.S. Treasuries may be used as collateral for derivative
counterparty obligations in lieu of cash.
As noted in the Legislative and Regulatory
Developments and Current Financial and Mortgage
Market Events and Trends discussions in Earnings
Performance in Item 7. Managements Discussion and
Analysis in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
the Housing Act provided temporary authority for the
U.S. Treasury to provide liquidity to the FHLBanks in any
amount, as deemed appropriate, in part through the establishment
of the GSECF. In connection with the GSECF, the Bank entered
into a Lending Agreement with the U.S. Treasury. Any
extensions of credit under this agreement would be a
consolidated obligation and would be the joint and several
obligation of all twelve FHLBanks. The Bank never drew on this
source of liquidity and this authorization expired
December 31, 2009.
For further information on the Banks liquidity risks, see
additional discussion in the Item 1A. Risk Factors entitled
The Bank may be limited in its ability to access the
capital markets, which could adversely affect the Banks
liquidity. In addition, if the Banks ability to access the
long-term debt markets would be limited, this may have a
material adverse effect on its liquidity, results of operations
and financial condition, as well as its ability to fund
operations, including advances.
Deposit Reserves. The Bank offers
demand, overnight and term deposits for members and qualifying
nonmembers. Total deposits at December 31, 2009, decreased
to $1.3 billion from $1.5 billion at December 31,
2008. Factors that generally influence deposit levels include
turnover in members investment securities portfolios,
changes in member demand for liquidity primarily due to member
institution deposit growth, the slope of the yield curve and the
Banks deposit pricing as compared to other short-term
money market rates. Fluctuations in this source of the
Banks funding are typically offset by changes in the
issuance of consolidated obligation discount notes. The Act
requires the Bank to have assets, referred to as deposit
reserves, invested in obligations of the United States,
deposits in eligible banks or trust companies, or loans with a
maturity not exceeding five years, totaling at least equal to
the current deposit balance. As of December 31, 2009 and
2008, excess deposit reserves were $32.8 billion and
$48.5 billion, respectively.
Contingency Liquidity. In their
asset/liability management planning, members may look to the
Bank to provide standby liquidity. The Bank seeks to be in a
position to meet its customers credit and liquidity needs
without maintaining excessive holdings of low-yielding liquid
investments or being forced to incur unnecessarily high
borrowing costs. To satisfy these requirements and objectives,
the Banks primary sources of liquidity are short-term
investments, such as Federal funds sold, and the issuance of new
consolidated obligation bonds and discount notes. Member loan
growth may initially be funded by maturing on-balance sheet
liquid investments, but within a short time the growth is
usually funded by new issuances of consolidated obligations. The
capital to support the loan growth is provided by the borrowing
members, through their capital requirements, which are based in
part on outstanding loans.
The Bank maintains contingency liquidity plans designed to
enable it to meet its obligations and the liquidity needs of
members in the event of short-term capital market disruptions;
operational disruptions at other FHLBanks or the OF; or
short-term disruptions of the consolidated obligations markets.
Specifically, the Board has adopted a liquidity and funds
management policy which requires the Bank to maintain at least
90 days of liquidity to enable the Bank to meet its
obligations in the event of a longer-term consolidated
obligations market disruption. If a market or operational
disruption occurred that prevented the issuance of new
consolidated obligation bonds or discount notes through the
capital markets, the Bank could meet its obligations by:
(1) allowing short-term liquid investments to mature;
(2) purchasing Federal funds; (3) using eligible
securities as collateral for repurchase agreement borrowings;
and (4) if necessary, allowing loans to mature without
renewal. The Banks GSE status and the FHLB System
consolidated obligation credit rating, which reflects the fact
that all twelve FHLBanks share a joint and several liability on
the consolidated obligations, have historically provided
excellent capital market access. Due in
137
part to capital markets disruptions in the fourth quarter of
2008, the Bank was in violation of this
90-day
liquidity requirement at times in the first six months of 2009
but was in compliance at each quarter-end in 2009.
Additionally, consistent with regulatory requirements, the
Banks liquidity and funds management policy has
historically required the Bank to hold contingency liquidity
sufficient to meet the Banks estimated needs for a minimum
of five business days without access to the consolidated
obligation debt markets. The Banks liquidity measures are
estimates which are dependent upon certain assumptions which may
or may not prove valid in the event of an actual complete
capital market disruption. Management believes that under normal
operating conditions, routine member borrowing needs and
consolidated obligation maturities could be met under these
requirements; however, under extremely adverse market
conditions, the Banks ability to meet a significant
increase in member loan demand could be impaired without
immediate access to the consolidated obligation debt markets.
The Banks access to the capital markets has never been
interrupted to the extent the Banks ability to meet its
obligations was compromised and the Bank currently has no reason
to believe that its ability to issue consolidated obligations
will be impeded to that extent. Specifically, the Banks
sources of contingency liquidity include maturing overnight and
short-term investments, maturing advances, securities available
for repurchase agreements,
available-for-sale
securities and MBS repayments. Uses of contingency liquidity
include net settlements of consolidated obligations, member loan
commitments, mortgage loan purchase commitments, deposit
outflows and maturing other borrowed funds. Excess contingency
liquidity is calculated as the difference between sources and
uses of contingency liquidity. At December 31, 2009 and
2008, excess contingency liquidity was approximately
$12.9 billion and $16.9 billion, respectively. As
noted above, the Bank also had access to additional liquidity
through the GSECF, if necessary. The GSECF expired
December 31, 2009 and the Bank never drew on this line.
Repurchases of Excess Capital Stock. In
the past, the Bank also retained liquidity to repurchase a
members capital stock, upon request and at the Banks
sole discretion, at par value as long as the repurchase would
not cause the Bank to fail to meet any of its regulatory capital
requirements or violate any other regulatory prohibitions.
Throughout 2008, it had been the Banks practice to
routinely (monthly) repurchase capital stock in excess of a
members minimum investment requirement. As a result,
increases and decreases in capital stock remained generally in
line with changes in the borrowing patterns of members. On
December 23, 2008, the Bank announced its decision to
voluntarily suspend the repurchase of excess capital stock until
further notification in an effort to preserve capital.
Additionally, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank
had outstanding capital redemption requests of $8.3 million
and $4.7 million, respectively. See Note 19 of the
audited financial statements in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information.
Negative Pledge Requirement. Finance
Agency regulations require the Bank to maintain qualifying
assets free from any lien or pledge in an amount at least equal
to its portion of the total consolidated obligations outstanding
issued on its behalf. Qualifying assets are defined as:
(1) cash; (2) obligations of, or fully guaranteed by,
the United States; (3) secured advances; (4) mortgages
which have any guaranty, insurance or commitment from the United
States or a Federal agency; (5) investments described in
Section 16(a) of the Act, which includes securities that a
fiduciary or trust fund may purchase under the laws of any of
the three states in which the Bank operates; and (6) other
securities that are assigned a rating or assessment by a credit
rating agency that is equivalent or higher than the rating or
assessment assigned by the credit rating agency to the
consolidated obligations. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
the Bank held total non-pledge qualifying assets in excess of
total consolidated obligations of $5.6 billion and
$6.3 billion, respectively.
Joint and Several Liability. Although
the Bank is primarily liable for its portion of consolidated
obligations, i.e., those issued on its behalf, the Bank is also
jointly and severally liable with the other eleven FHLBanks for
the payment of principal and interest on consolidated
obligations of all the FHLBanks. If the principal or interest on
any consolidated obligation issued on behalf of the Bank is not
paid in full when due, the Bank may not pay dividends to, or
redeem or repurchase shares of capital stock from, any member of
the Bank. The Finance Agency, in its discretion and
notwithstanding any other provisions, may at any time order any
FHLBank to make principal or interest payments due on any
consolidated obligation, even in the absence of default by the
primary obligor. To the extent that a FHLBank makes any payment
on a consolidated obligation on behalf of another FHLBank, the
paying FHLBank shall be entitled to reimbursement from the
non-paying FHLBank, which has a corresponding obligation to
reimburse the FHLBank to the extent of such assistance and other
associated costs. However, if the Finance
138
Agency determines that the non-paying FHLBank is unable to
satisfy its obligations, then the Finance Agency may allocate
the outstanding liability among the remaining FHLBanks on a pro
rata basis in proportion to each FHLBanks participation in
all consolidated obligations outstanding, or on any other basis
the Finance Agency may determine. Finance Agency regulations
govern the issuance of debt on behalf of the FHLBanks and
authorize the FHLBanks to issue consolidated obligations,
through the OF as its agent. The Bank is not permitted to issue
individual debt without Finance Agency approval. See
Note 16 of the audited financial statements in Item 8.
Financial Statements and Supplementary Financial Data for
additional information.
Bank management also relies on the operation of the Finance
Agencys joint and several liability regulation. The
regulation requires that each FHLBank file with the Finance
Agency a quarterly certification that it will remain capable of
making full and timely payment of all of its current
obligations, including direct obligations, coming due during the
next calendar quarter. In addition, if a FHLBank cannot make
such a certification or if it projects that it may be unable to
meet its current obligations during the next quarter on a timely
basis, it must file a notice with the Finance Agency. As of
December 31, 2009, the Bank has never been required to
assume or pay the consolidated obligations of another FHLBank,
nor has another FHLBank been required to assume or pay the
consolidated obligations on behalf of the Bank.
The Banks total consolidated obligation bonds and discount
notes represented 6.3% and 6.8% of total FHLBank System
consolidated obligations as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. For the FHLBank System, total par value of
consolidated obligations were $930.6 billion and $1.3
trillion as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Consolidated obligation bonds and discount notes outstanding for
each of the FHLBanks acting as primary obligor are presented in
the following table, exclusive of combining adjustments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Obligations
|
|
|
Consolidated Obligations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
Notes
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Atlanta
|
|
$
|
120,172.4
|
|
|
$
|
17,130.4
|
|
|
$
|
137,302.8
|
|
|
$
|
135,738.4
|
|
|
$
|
55,393.5
|
|
|
$
|
191,131.9
|
|
Boston
|
|
|
35,617.3
|
|
|
|
22,281.4
|
|
|
|
57,898.7
|
|
|
|
33,331.3
|
|
|
|
42,567.3
|
|
|
|
75,898.6
|
|
Chicago
|
|
|
58,741.6
|
|
|
|
22,144.3
|
|
|
|
80,885.9
|
|
|
|
55,137.2
|
|
|
|
29,483.8
|
|
|
|
84,621.0
|
|
Cincinnati
|
|
|
41,087.7
|
|
|
|
23,188.8
|
|
|
|
64,276.5
|
|
|
|
42,214.4
|
|
|
|
49,388.8
|
|
|
|
91,603.2
|
|
Dallas
|
|
|
51,171.5
|
|
|
|
8,764.9
|
|
|
|
59,936.4
|
|
|
|
56,006.8
|
|
|
|
16,924.0
|
|
|
|
72,930.8
|
|
DesMoines
|
|
|
50,322.6
|
|
|
|
9,418.9
|
|
|
|
59,741.5
|
|
|
|
42,269.1
|
|
|
|
20,153.4
|
|
|
|
62,422.5
|
|
Indianapolis
|
|
|
35,790.6
|
|
|
|
6,251.7
|
|
|
|
42,042.3
|
|
|
|
28,501.4
|
|
|
|
23,520.5
|
|
|
|
52,021.9
|
|
New York
|
|
|
73,357.9
|
|
|
|
30,838.1
|
|
|
|
104,196.0
|
|
|
|
80,954.2
|
|
|
|
46,431.3
|
|
|
|
127,385.5
|
|
Pittsburgh
|
|
|
48,808.8
|
|
|
|
10,210.0
|
|
|
|
59,018.8
|
|
|
|
62,066.6
|
|
|
|
22,883.8
|
|
|
|
84,950.4
|
|
San Francisco
|
|
|
159,929.1
|
|
|
|
18,257.4
|
|
|
|
178,186.5
|
|
|
|
209,046.5
|
|
|
|
92,155.0
|
|
|
|
301,201.5
|
|
Seattle
|
|
|
29,678.4
|
|
|
|
18,502.9
|
|
|
|
48,181.3
|
|
|
|
38,137.6
|
|
|
|
15,899.0
|
|
|
|
54,036.6
|
|
Topeka
|
|
|
27,361.8
|
|
|
|
11,588.3
|
|
|
|
38,950.1
|
|
|
|
27,020.3
|
|
|
|
26,317.5
|
|
|
|
53,337.8
|
|
|
|
Total FHLBank System
|
|
$
|
732,039.7
|
|
|
$
|
198,577.1
|
|
|
$
|
930,616.8
|
|
|
$
|
810,423.8
|
|
|
$
|
441,117.9
|
|
|
$
|
1,251,541.7
|
|
|
|
Operating
and Business Risks
Operating Risk. Operating risk is
defined as the risk of unexpected loss resulting from human
error, systems malfunctions, man-made or natural disasters,
fraud, or circumvention or failure of internal controls. The
Bank has established operating policies and procedures to manage
each of the specific operating risks, which are categorized as
compliance, fraud, legal, information and personnel. The
Banks Internal Audit department, which reports directly to
the Audit Committee of the Banks Board, regularly monitors
compliance with established policies and procedures. Management
continually monitors the effectiveness of the internal control
environment and takes action as appropriate to enhance the
environment. Some operating risk may also result from external
factors which are beyond the Banks control, such as the
failure of other parties with which the Bank conducts business
to adequately address their own operating risks. Governance over
the management of operating risks takes place
139
through the Banks Risk Management Committee. Business
areas retain primary responsibility for identifying, assessing
and reporting their operational risks. To assist them in
discharging this responsibility and to ensure that operational
risk is managed consistently throughout the organization, the
Bank has developed an operating risk management framework, which
includes key risk indicators.
In addition to the particular risks and challenges that the Bank
faces, the Bank also experiences ongoing operating risks that
are similar to those of other large financial institutions. For
example, the Bank is exposed to the risk that a catastrophic
event, such as a terrorist event or a natural disaster, could
result in significant business disruption and an inability to
process transactions through normal business processes. To
mitigate this risk, the Bank maintains and tests business
continuity plans and has established backup facilities for
critical business processes and systems away from, although in
the same metropolitan area as, the main office. The Bank also
has a reciprocal backup agreement in place with the FHLBank Des
Moines to provide short-term loans and debt servicing in the
event that both of the Pittsburgh facilities are inoperable. The
results of the Banks periodic business continuity tests
are presented annually to the Board. Management can make no
assurances that these measures will be sufficient to respond to
the full range of catastrophic events that might occur.
The Bank maintains insurance coverage for employee
misappropriation, as well as director and officer liability
protection. Additionally, comprehensive insurance coverage is
currently in place for electronic data-processing equipment and
software, personal property, leasehold improvements, property
damage and personal injury. The Bank maintains additional
insurance protection as deemed appropriate, such as cyber
security and travel accident coverages. The Bank regularly
reviews its insurance coverages for adequacy as well as the
financial claims paying ability of its insurance carrier.
Business Risk. Business risk is the
risk of an adverse impact on the Banks profitability or
financial or business strategies resulting from external factors
that may occur in the short-term
and/or
long-term. This risk includes the potential for strategic
business constraints to be imposed through regulatory,
legislative or political changes. Examples of external factors
may include, but are not limited to: continued financial
services industry consolidation, a declining membership base,
concentration of borrowing among members, the introduction of
new competing products and services, increased non-Bank
competition, weakening of the FHLBank Systems GSE status,
changes in the deposit and mortgage markets for the Banks
members, and other factors that may have a significant direct or
indirect impact on the ability of the Bank to achieve its
mission and strategic objectives. The Banks Risk
Management Committee monitors economic indicators and the
external environment in which the Bank operates and attempts to
mitigate this risk through long-term strategic planning.
|
|
Item 7A:
|
Quantitative
and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk
|
See the Risk Management discussion in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in Part II of
this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
140
|
|
Item 8:
|
Financial
Statements and Supplementary Financial Data
|
Managements
Annual Report on Internal Control over Financial
Reporting
The management of the Bank is responsible for establishing and
maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting,
as such term is defined in Exchange Act
Rule 13a-15(f).
The Banks internal control over financial reporting is
designed by and under the supervision of the Banks
management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer. The Banks internal controls over
financial reporting are to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external reporting
purposes in accordance with GAAP in the United States of America.
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.
The Banks management assessed the effectiveness of the
Banks internal control over financial reporting as of
December 31, 2009. In making this assessment, it used the
criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations
of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in the Internal
Control-Integrated Framework. Based on its assessment,
management of the Bank determined that as of December 31,
2009, the Banks internal control over financial reporting
was effective based on those criteria.
The effectiveness of the Banks internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, has been
audited by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Banks
independent registered public accounting firm, as stated in
their report below.
141
Report of
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders
of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh:
In our opinion, the accompanying statements of condition and the
related statements of operations, of changes in capital, and of
cash flows present fairly, in all material respects, the
financial position of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
(the Bank) at December 31, 2009 and 2008, and
the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the
three years in the period ended December 31, 2009 in
conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the
United States of America. Also in our opinion, the Bank
maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2009, based on
criteria established in Internal Control
Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring
Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Banks
management is responsible for these 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
Managements Annual Report on Internal Control over
Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express
opinions on these financial statements and on the Banks
internal control over financial reporting based on our audits
(which was an integrated audit in 2009). 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 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 financial statements included
examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, and evaluating the overall financial 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 risk. 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.
As discussed in Note 3, effective January 1, 2009, the
Bank adopted guidance that revises the recognition and reporting
requirements for
other-than-temporary
impairments of debt securities classified as either
available-for-sale
or
held-to-maturity.
A companys 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 companys
internal control over financial reporting includes those
policies and procedures that (i) pertain to the maintenance
of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly
reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
company; (ii) 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 (iii) provide
reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of
unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the
companys 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.
/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Pittsburgh, PA
March 18, 2010
142
Financial
Statements for the Years Ended 2009, 2008 and 2007
Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
Statement
of Operations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
(in thousands, except per share amounts)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
606,825
|
|
|
$
|
2,141,142
|
|
|
$
|
2,864,237
|
|
Prepayment fees on advances, net
|
|
|
5,245
|
|
|
|
9,314
|
|
|
|
1,535
|
|
Interest-earning deposits
|
|
|
11,232
|
|
|
|
9,570
|
|
|
|
712
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
|
3,036
|
|
|
|
77,102
|
|
|
|
195,104
|
|
Trading securities (Note 5)
|
|
|
13,539
|
|
|
|
474
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
70,586
|
|
|
|
1,304
|
|
|
|
2,855
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
|
456,317
|
|
|
|
796,896
|
|
|
|
875,981
|
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio
|
|
|
281,037
|
|
|
|
316,018
|
|
|
|
337,906
|
|
Loans to other FHLBanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
14
|
|
|
|
Total interest income
|
|
|
1,447,817
|
|
|
|
3,351,834
|
|
|
|
4,278,344
|
|
|
|
Interest expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligation discount notes
|
|
|
42,090
|
|
|
|
686,031
|
|
|
|
1,106,060
|
|
Consolidated obligation bonds
|
|
|
1,140,322
|
|
|
|
2,348,602
|
|
|
|
2,728,159
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
1,331
|
|
|
|
34,887
|
|
|
|
75,218
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable capital stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
148
|
|
|
|
393
|
|
Other borrowings
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
241
|
|
|
|
1,496
|
|
|
|
Total interest expense
|
|
|
1,183,808
|
|
|
|
3,069,909
|
|
|
|
3,911,326
|
|
|
|
Net interest income before provision for credit losses
|
|
|
264,009
|
|
|
|
281,925
|
|
|
|
367,018
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(2,562
|
)
|
|
|
7,115
|
|
|
|
1,497
|
|
|
|
Net interest income after provision (benefit) for credit
losses
|
|
|
266,571
|
|
|
|
274,810
|
|
|
|
365,521
|
|
Other income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total OTTI losses (Note 8)
|
|
|
(1,043,694
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Portion of OTTI losses recognized in other comprehensive loss
(Note 8)
|
|
|
815,174
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net OTTI losses (Note 8)
|
|
|
(228,520
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Realized losses on OTTI securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(266,001
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains (losses) on trading securities (Note 5)
|
|
|
1,261
|
|
|
|
(706
|
)
|
|
|
(79
|
)
|
Net realized gains (losses) on
available-for-sale
securities (Note 6)
|
|
|
(2,178
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,588
|
|
Net realized gains on
held-to-maturity
securities (Note 7)
|
|
|
1,799
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net gains on derivatives and hedging activities (Note 12)
|
|
|
12,020
|
|
|
|
66,274
|
|
|
|
10,813
|
|
Contingency reserve (Note 23)
|
|
|
(35,314
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Services fees
|
|
|
2,491
|
|
|
|
3,193
|
|
|
|
4,196
|
|
Other, net
|
|
|
8,729
|
|
|
|
5,026
|
|
|
|
1,505
|
|
|
|
Total other income (loss)
|
|
|
(239,712
|
)
|
|
|
(192,214
|
)
|
|
|
18,023
|
|
Other expense:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salaries and benefits
|
|
|
33,267
|
|
|
|
30,450
|
|
|
|
35,860
|
|
Other operating
|
|
|
25,352
|
|
|
|
20,089
|
|
|
|
20,044
|
|
Finance Agency/Finance Board
|
|
|
3,157
|
|
|
|
3,045
|
|
|
|
2,582
|
|
Office of Finance
|
|
|
2,540
|
|
|
|
2,587
|
|
|
|
2,632
|
|
|
|
Total other expense
|
|
|
64,316
|
|
|
|
56,171
|
|
|
|
61,118
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) before assessments
|
|
|
(37,457
|
)
|
|
|
26,425
|
|
|
|
322,426
|
|
Affordable Housing Program (Note 17)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,186
|
|
|
|
26,361
|
|
REFCORP (Note 18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,850
|
|
|
|
59,213
|
|
|
|
Total assessments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,036
|
|
|
|
85,574
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(37,457
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,389
|
|
|
$
|
236,852
|
|
|
|
Earnings per share:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average shares outstanding (excludes mandatorily
redeemable stock)
|
|
|
40,049
|
|
|
|
40,274
|
|
|
|
33,947
|
|
|
|
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share
|
|
$
|
(0.93
|
)
|
|
$
|
0.48
|
|
|
$
|
6.98
|
|
|
|
Dividends per share
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3.60
|
|
|
$
|
5.76
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements.
143
Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
Statement of Condition
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands, except par value)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
ASSETS
|
Cash and due from banks (Note 4)
|
|
$
|
1,418,743
|
|
|
$
|
67,577
|
|
Interest-earning deposits
|
|
|
7,571
|
|
|
|
5,103,671
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
|
3,000,000
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
Investment securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities (Note 5)
|
|
|
1,286,205
|
|
|
|
506,807
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities, at fair value (Note 6)
|
|
|
2,397,303
|
|
|
|
19,653
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities; fair value of $10,106,225 and $12,825,341,
respectively (Note 7)
|
|
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
|
14,918,045
|
|
Advances (Note 9)
|
|
|
41,177,310
|
|
|
|
62,153,441
|
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio (Note 10), net of
allowance for credit losses of $2,680 and $4,301, respectively
(Note 11)
|
|
|
5,162,837
|
|
|
|
6,165,266
|
|
Banking on Business loans, net of allowance for credit losses of
$9,481 and $9,725, respectively (Note 11)
|
|
|
11,819
|
|
|
|
11,377
|
|
Accrued interest receivable
|
|
|
229,005
|
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
Prepaid REFCORP assessment (Note 18)
|
|
|
39,641
|
|
|
|
39,641
|
|
Premises, software and equipment, net (Note 13)
|
|
|
21,707
|
|
|
|
22,682
|
|
Derivative assets (Note 12)
|
|
|
7,662
|
|
|
|
28,888
|
|
Other assets
|
|
|
48,672
|
|
|
|
84,858
|
|
|
|
Total assets
|
|
$
|
65,290,862
|
|
|
$
|
90,805,923
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits: (Note 14)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-bearing
|
|
$
|
1,257,717
|
|
|
$
|
1,467,606
|
|
Noninterest-bearing
|
|
|
26,613
|
|
|
|
18,771
|
|
|
|
Total deposits
|
|
|
1,284,330
|
|
|
|
1,486,377
|
|
|
|
Consolidated obligations, net: (Note 16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount notes
|
|
|
10,208,891
|
|
|
|
22,864,284
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
49,103,868
|
|
|
|
61,398,687
|
|
|
|
Total consolidated obligations, net
|
|
|
59,312,759
|
|
|
|
84,262,971
|
|
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable capital stock (Note 19)
|
|
|
8,256
|
|
|
|
4,684
|
|
Accrued interest payable
|
|
|
301,495
|
|
|
|
494,078
|
|
Affordable Housing Program (Note 17)
|
|
|
24,541
|
|
|
|
43,392
|
|
Derivative liabilities (Note 12)
|
|
|
623,524
|
|
|
|
355,014
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
|
22,844
|
|
|
|
24,540
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities
|
|
|
61,577,749
|
|
|
|
86,671,056
|
|
|
|
Commitments and contingencies (Note 23)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital (Note 19)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital stock putable ($100 par value) issued
and outstanding shares:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,181 and 39,817 shares in 2009 and 2008, respectively
|
|
|
4,018,065
|
|
|
|
3,981,688
|
|
Retained earnings
|
|
|
388,988
|
|
|
|
170,484
|
|
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI)
(Note 19):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized loss on
available-for-securities
(Note 6)
|
|
|
(2,020
|
)
|
|
|
(14,543
|
)
|
Net noncredit portion of OTTI losses on
available-for-sale
securities (Note 6)
|
|
|
(691,503
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Net unrealized gain (loss) relating to hedging activities
|
|
|
264
|
|
|
|
(885
|
)
|
Pension and post-retirement benefits (Note 20)
|
|
|
(681
|
)
|
|
|
(1,877
|
)
|
|
|
Total accumulative other comprehensive loss
|
|
|
(693,940
|
)
|
|
|
(17,305
|
)
|
|
|
Total capital
|
|
|
3,713,113
|
|
|
|
4,134,867
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities and capital
|
|
$
|
65,290,862
|
|
|
$
|
90,805,923
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements.
144
Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
Statement of Cash Flows
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
OPERATING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss)
|
|
$
|
(37,457
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,389
|
|
|
$
|
236,852
|
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
(used in) provided by operating activities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
(235,348
|
)
|
|
|
(285,293
|
)
|
|
|
111,321
|
|
Change in net fair value adjustment on derivative and hedging
activities
|
|
|
386,534
|
|
|
|
28,169
|
|
|
|
10,254
|
|
OTTI losses
|
|
|
228,520
|
|
|
|
266,001
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other adjustments
|
|
|
(2,178
|
)
|
|
|
7,126
|
|
|
|
(91
|
)
|
Net change in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities
|
|
|
(779,398
|
)
|
|
|
(499,215
|
)
|
|
|
(7,592
|
)
|
Accrued interest receivable
|
|
|
205,077
|
|
|
|
95,230
|
|
|
|
(112,964
|
)
|
Other assets
|
|
|
37,785
|
|
|
|
(45,880
|
)
|
|
|
3,489
|
|
Accrued interest payable
|
|
|
(192,583
|
)
|
|
|
(63,807
|
)
|
|
|
(8,465
|
)
|
Other
liabilities(1)
|
|
|
(18,572
|
)
|
|
|
(79,023
|
)
|
|
|
15,220
|
|
|
|
Total adjustments
|
|
|
(370,163
|
)
|
|
|
(576,692
|
)
|
|
|
11,172
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities
|
|
$
|
(407,620
|
)
|
|
$
|
(557,303
|
)
|
|
$
|
248,024
|
|
|
|
INVESTING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-earning deposits (including $5,178 and $1,996 from and
$595 to other FHLBanks for mortgage loan programs)
|
|
$
|
6,033,972
|
|
|
$
|
(6,471,170
|
)
|
|
$
|
(60,052
|
)
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
|
(1,750,000
|
)
|
|
|
3,475,000
|
|
|
|
(1,355,000
|
)
|
Loans to other FHLBanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
(500,000
|
)
|
Premises, software and equipment
|
|
|
(4,617
|
)
|
|
|
(3,081
|
)
|
|
|
(7,613
|
)
|
Available-for-sale
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds
|
|
|
215,386
|
|
|
|
7,255
|
|
|
|
21,680
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
(2,300
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease (increase) in short-term
|
|
|
(400,000
|
)
|
|
|
3,058,507
|
|
|
|
(1,804,217
|
)
|
Proceeds from long-term
|
|
|
3,417,038
|
|
|
|
3,059,092
|
|
|
|
2,390,590
|
|
Purchases of long-term
|
|
|
(1,791,609
|
)
|
|
|
(1,372,234
|
)
|
|
|
(3,919,526
|
)
|
Advances:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds
|
|
|
139,136,673
|
|
|
|
1,382,585,116
|
|
|
|
854,663,481
|
|
Made
|
|
|
(119,327,752
|
)
|
|
|
(1,374,295,150
|
)
|
|
|
(873,125,167
|
)
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds
|
|
|
1,413,868
|
|
|
|
772,968
|
|
|
|
867,012
|
|
Purchases
|
|
|
(427,337
|
)
|
|
|
(735,750
|
)
|
|
|
(134,051
|
)
|
|
|
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities
|
|
$
|
26,513,322
|
|
|
$
|
10,580,553
|
|
|
$
|
(22,962,863
|
)
|
|
|
145
Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
Statement of Cash Flows (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year Ended December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
FINANCING ACTIVITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits and pass-through reserves
|
|
$
|
(211,876
|
)
|
|
$
|
(952,337
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,022,547
|
|
Net (payments) proceeds from derivative contacts with financing
elements
|
|
|
(209,043
|
)
|
|
|
277,892
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net proceeds from issuance of consolidated obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount notes
|
|
|
139,008,524
|
|
|
|
746,658,788
|
|
|
|
610,513,392
|
|
Bonds (including $0, $313,928 and $0 from other FHLBanks)
|
|
|
26,224,097
|
|
|
|
32,575,039
|
|
|
|
30,473,757
|
|
Payments for maturing and retiring consolidated
obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount notes
|
|
|
(151,629,431
|
)
|
|
|
(758,393,771
|
)
|
|
|
(593,701,220
|
)
|
Bonds
|
|
|
(37,976,756
|
)
|
|
|
(30,031,218
|
)
|
|
|
(26,015,389
|
)
|
Proceeds from issuance of capital stock
|
|
|
39,949
|
|
|
|
4,547,000
|
|
|
|
6,521,212
|
|
Payments for redemption of mandatorily redeemable capital stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,663
|
)
|
|
|
(3,963
|
)
|
Payments for redemption/repurchase of capital stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,505,626
|
)
|
|
|
(5,910,838
|
)
|
Cash dividends paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(145,165
|
)
|
|
|
(195,369
|
)
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities
|
|
$
|
(24,754,536
|
)
|
|
$
|
(10,023,061
|
)
|
|
$
|
22,704,129
|
|
|
|
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
|
|
$
|
1,351,166
|
|
|
$
|
189
|
|
|
$
|
(10,710
|
)
|
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of the year
|
|
|
67,577
|
|
|
|
67,388
|
|
|
|
78,098
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of the year
|
|
$
|
1,418,743
|
|
|
$
|
67,577
|
|
|
$
|
67,388
|
|
|
|
Supplemental disclosures:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid during the year
|
|
$
|
1,553,665
|
|
|
$
|
2,716,434
|
|
|
$
|
2,752,603
|
|
AHP payments, net
|
|
|
18,851
|
|
|
|
18,706
|
|
|
|
15,835
|
|
REFCORP assessments paid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
61,168
|
|
|
|
57,067
|
|
Transfers of mortgage loans to real estate owned
|
|
|
18,907
|
|
|
|
8,290
|
|
|
|
5,944
|
|
Noncash transfer of OTTI
held-to-maturity
securities to
available-for-sale
|
|
|
2,243,739
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
(1) Other
liabilities includes the net change in the REFCORP
receivable/payable where applicable.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements.
146
Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
Statement
of Changes in Capital
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Stock - Putable
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Par Value
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Total Capital
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2006
|
|
|
33,844
|
|
|
$
|
3,384,358
|
|
|
$
|
254,777
|
|
|
$
|
(5,161
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,633,974
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of capital stock
|
|
|
65,212
|
|
|
$
|
6,521,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
6,521,212
|
|
Redemption/repurchase of capital stock
|
|
|
(59,109
|
)
|
|
|
(5,910,838
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,910,838
|
)
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
236,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236,852
|
|
Net unrealized (loss) on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(1,803
|
)
|
|
|
(1,803
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment for (gains) losses included in net
income relating to:
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,588
|
)
|
|
|
(1,588
|
)
|
Hedging activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,057
|
|
|
|
2,057
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
236,852
|
|
|
|
(1,143
|
)
|
|
|
235,709
|
|
Cash dividends on capital stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(195,369
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(195,369
|
)
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2007
|
|
|
39,947
|
|
|
$
|
3,994,732
|
|
|
$
|
296,260
|
|
|
$
|
(6,304
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,284,688
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of capital stock
|
|
|
45,470
|
|
|
$
|
4,547,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,547,000
|
|
Redemption/repurchase of capital stock
|
|
|
(45,056
|
)
|
|
|
(4,505,626
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,505,626
|
)
|
Net shares reclassified to mandatorily redeemable capital stock
|
|
|
(544
|
)
|
|
|
(54,418
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(54,418
|
)
|
Comprehensive income:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,389
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,389
|
|
Net unrealized (loss) on
available-for-sale
Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(15,464
|
)
|
|
|
(15,464
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment for losses included in net income
relating to:
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,842
|
|
|
|
2,842
|
|
Hedging activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,031
|
|
|
|
2,031
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(410
|
)
|
|
|
(410
|
)
|
|
|
Total comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,389
|
|
|
|
(11,001
|
)
|
|
|
8,388
|
|
Cash dividends on capital stock
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(145,165
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(145,165
|
)
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2008
|
|
|
39,817
|
|
|
$
|
3,981,688
|
|
|
$
|
170,484
|
|
|
$
|
(17,305
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,134,867
|
|
|
|
147
Federal
Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
Statement of Changes in
Capital (Continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accumulated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital Stock - Putable
|
|
|
Retained
|
|
|
Comprehensive
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Shares
|
|
|
Par Value
|
|
|
Earnings
|
|
|
Income (Loss)
|
|
|
Total Capital
|
|
|
|
|
Balance December 31, 2008
|
|
|
39,817
|
|
|
$
|
3,981,688
|
|
|
$
|
170,484
|
|
|
$
|
(17,305
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,134,867
|
|
|
|
Cumulative effect adjustment relating to amended OTTI guidance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
255,961
|
|
|
$
|
(255,961
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from sale of capital stock
|
|
|
399
|
|
|
$
|
39,949
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
39,949
|
|
Net shares reclassified to mandatorily redeemable capital stock
|
|
|
(35
|
)
|
|
|
(3,572
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,572
|
)
|
Comprehensive income (loss):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37,457
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37,457
|
)
|
Net unrealized gains on
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,345
|
|
|
|
10,345
|
|
Net noncredit portion of OTTI losses on
available-
for-sale
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncredit portion of OTTI losses including noncredit OTTI losses
transferred from
held-
to-maturity
securities and subsequent fair value adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(821,123
|
)
|
|
|
(821,123
|
)
|
Reclassification of noncredit portion of impairment losses
included in net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132,462
|
|
|
|
132,462
|
|
Net noncredit portion of OTTI losses on
held-to-
maturity securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncredit portion of OTTI losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(961,443
|
)
|
|
|
(961,443
|
)
|
Reclassification of noncredit portion of OTTI losses included in
net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24,664
|
|
|
|
24,664
|
|
Accretion of noncredit portion of OTTI losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,175
|
|
|
|
31,175
|
|
Reclassification of noncredit portion of OTTI losses to
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,158,723
|
|
|
|
1,158,723
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for losses included in net income
relating to:
Available-for-sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,178
|
|
|
|
2,178
|
|
Hedging activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,149
|
|
|
|
1,149
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,196
|
|
|
|
1,196
|
|
|
|
Total comprehensive loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(37,457
|
)
|
|
|
(420,674
|
)
|
|
|
(458,131
|
)
|
|
|
Balance at December 31, 2009
|
|
|
40,181
|
|
|
$
|
4,018,065
|
|
|
$
|
388,988
|
|
|
$
|
(693,940
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,713,113
|
|
|
|
The accompanying notes are an integral part of these
financial statements.
148
Note 1
Background Information
The Bank, a federally chartered corporation, is one of 12
district FHLBanks. The FHLBanks serve the public by enhancing
the availability of credit for residential mortgages and
targeted community development. The Bank provides a readily
available, low-cost source of funds to its member institutions.
The Bank is a cooperative, which means that current members own
nearly all of the outstanding capital stock of the Bank. All
holders of the Banks capital stock may, to the extent
declared by the Board, receive dividends on their capital stock.
Regulated financial depositories and insurance companies engaged
in residential housing finance that maintain their principal
place of business in Delaware, Pennsylvania or West Virginia may
apply for membership. According to final Finance Agency rule
effective February 4, 2010, Community Development Financial
Institutions (CDFIs) which meet certain standards are also
eligible to become Bank members. State and local housing
associates that meet certain statutory and regulatory criteria
may also borrow from the Bank. While eligible to borrow, state
and local housing associates are not members of the Bank and, as
such, are not required to hold capital stock.
All members must purchase stock in the Bank. The amount of
capital stock members own is based on their outstanding loans,
their unused borrowing capacity and the principal balance of
residential mortgage loans previously sold to the Bank. See
Note 19 for additional information. The Bank considers
those members with capital stock outstanding in excess of ten
percent of total capital stock outstanding to be related
parties. See Note 21 for additional information.
The Finance Board, an independent agency in the executive branch
of the United States government, supervised and regulated the
FHLBanks and the OF through July 29, 2008. With the passage
of the Housing Act, the Finance Agency was established and
became the new independent Federal regulator of the FHLBanks,
effective July 30, 2008. The Finance Agencys
principal purpose with respect to the FHLBanks is to ensure that
the FHLBanks operate in a safe and sound manner including
maintenance of adequate capital and internal controls. In
addition, the Finance Agency ensures that the operations and
activities of each FHLBank foster liquid, efficient,
competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets;
each FHLBank complies with the title and the rules, regulations,
guidelines, and orders issued under the Housing Act and the
authorizing statute; each FHLBank carries out its statutory
mission only through activities that are authorized under and
consistent with the Act and the Housing Act; and the activities
of each FHLBank and the manner in which such regulated entity is
operated are consistent with the public interest. Each FHLBank
operates as a separate entity with its own management, employees
and board of directors. The Bank does not consolidate any
off-balance sheet special-purpose entities (SPEs) or other
conduits.
As provided by the Act, as amended, or Finance Agency
regulation, the Banks debt instruments, referred to as
consolidated obligations, are the joint and several obligations
of all the FHLBanks and are the primary source of funds for the
FHLBanks. See Note 16 for additional information. The OF is
a joint office of the FHLBanks established to facilitate the
issuance and servicing of the consolidated obligations of the
FHLBanks and to prepare the combined quarterly and annual
financial reports of all 12 FHLBanks. Deposits, other
borrowings, and capital stock issued to members provide other
funds. The Bank primarily uses these funds to provide advances
and to purchase mortgages from members through the MPF Program.
See Notes 9 and 10 for additional information. The Bank
also provides member institutions with correspondent services,
such as wire transfer, safekeeping and settlement.
Note 2
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Use of Estimates. The preparation of
financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management
to make assumptions and estimates. These assumptions and
estimates affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities,
the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities, and the
reported amounts of income and expenses. Actual results could
differ from these estimates.
149
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Interest-Earning Deposits, Securities Purchased Under
Agreements to Resell and Federal Funds
Sold. These investments provide short-term
liquidity and are carried at cost. The Bank has the ability to
sell Federal funds to eligible counterparties. These funds are
usually sold for
one-day
periods, but can have longer terms for up to one year. The Bank
treats securities purchased under agreements to resell as
collateralized financings. The Bank may invest in certificates
of deposits (CDs) that are recorded at amortized cost as
interest-earning deposits. The Bank also invests in certain CDs
and bank notes that meet the definition of a security and are
recorded as investment securities.
Investment Securities. The Bank
classifies investments as trading,
available-for-sale
or
held-to-maturity
at the date of acquisition. Purchases and sales are recorded on
a trade date basis.
The Bank may classify certain investment securities acquired for
purposes of liquidity and asset/liability management as trading
and carry them at fair value. The Bank records changes in the
fair value of these investment securities through other income
as net gains (losses) on trading securities.
However, the Bank does not participate in speculative trading
practices.
The Bank classifies certain investment securities for which it
has both the ability and intent to hold to maturity as
held-to-maturity
securities and carries them at amortized cost. These securities
are adjusted for periodic principal repayments and the
amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts which are
calculated using the interest method.
The Bank classifies all other investment securities as
available-for-sale
and carries them at fair value. The change in fair value of the
available-for-sale
securities is recorded in other comprehensive income as
net unrealized gain (loss) on
available-for-sale
securities.
Changes in circumstances may cause the Bank to change its intent
to hold a certain security to maturity without calling into
question its intent to hold other debt securities to maturity in
the future. Thus, the sale or transfer of a
held-to-maturity
security due to certain changes in circumstances, such as
evidence of significant deterioration in the issuers
creditworthiness or changes in regulatory requirements, is not
considered to be inconsistent with its original classification.
Other events that are isolated, nonrecurring, and unusual for
the Bank that could not have been reasonably anticipated may
cause the Bank to sell or transfer a
held-to-maturity
security without necessarily calling into question its intent to
hold other debt securities to maturity. In addition, sales of
debt securities that meet either of the following two conditions
may be considered maturities for purposes of the classification
of securities: (1) the sale occurs near enough (within
three months) to its maturity date (or call date if exercise of
the call is probable) that interest rate risk is substantially
eliminated as a pricing factor and the changes in market
interest rates would not have a significant effect on the
securitys fair value; or (2) the sale of a security
occurs after the Bank has already collected a substantial
portion (at least 85 percent) of the principal outstanding
at acquisition due either to prepayments on the debt security or
to scheduled payments on a debt security payable in equal
installments (both principal and interest) over its term.
The Bank computes the amortization and accretion of premiums and
discounts on investment securities using the interest method to
contractual maturity of the securities. The contractual method
recognizes the income effects of premiums and discounts based on
the actual behavior of the underlying assets and reflects the
contractual terms of the securities without regard to changes in
estimated prepayments based on assumptions about future borrower
behavior. Certain basis adjustments to the carrying value of
investment securities are amortized or accreted to earnings
using the interest method.
The Bank computes gains and losses on sales of investment
securities using the specific identification method and includes
these gains and losses in other income (loss).
Investment Securities
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment. The Bank evaluates its individual
available-for-sale
and
held-to-maturity
securities in unrealized loss positions for
other-than-temporary
150
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
impairment (OTTI) on a quarterly basis. An investment is
considered impaired when its fair value is less than its cost.
The Bank considers an OTTI to have occurred under any of the
following circumstances:
|
|
|
|
|
The Bank has an intent to sell the debt security;
|
|
|
If, based on available evidence, the Bank believes it is more
likely than not that it will be required to sell the debt
security before the recovery of its amortized cost basis; or
|
|
|
The Bank does not expect to recover the entire amortized cost
basis of the debt security.
|
If either of the first two conditions above is met, the Bank
recognizes an OTTI charge in earnings equal to the entire
difference between the securitys amortized cost basis and
its fair value as of the Statement of Condition date.
For securities in an unrealized loss position that meet neither
of the first two conditions, the Bank performs an analysis to
determine if it will recover the entire amortized cost basis of
each of these securities, which may include a cash flow test.
The present value of the cash flows expected to be collected is
compared to the amortized cost basis of the debt security to
determine whether a credit loss exists. If there is a credit
loss (the difference between the present value of the cash flows
expected to be collected and the amortized cost basis of the
debt security), the carrying value of the debt security is
adjusted to its fair value. However, rather than recognizing the
entire difference between the amortized cost basis and fair
value in earnings, only the amount of the impairment
representing the credit loss (the credit component) is
recognized in earnings, while the amount related to all other
factors (the non-credit component) is recognized in accumulated
other comprehensive income (loss) (AOCI), which is a component
of GAAP capital. The total OTTI is presented in the Statement of
Operations with an offset for the amount of the total OTTI that
is recognized in AOCI. Subsequent non-OTTI-related increases and
decreases in the fair value of
available-for-sale
securities are included in AOCI. The OTTI recognized in AOCI for
debt securities classified as
held-to-maturity
is amortized over the remaining life of the debt security as an
increase in the carrying value of the security (with no effect
on earnings unless the security is subsequently sold or there is
additional OTTI related to credit loss recognized).
For subsequent accounting of OTTI securities, if the present
value of cash flows expected to be collected is less than the
amortized cost basis, the Bank would record an additional OTTI.
The amount of total OTTI for an
available-for-sale
or
held-to-maturity
security that was previously impaired is determined as the
difference between its carrying amount prior to the
determination of OTTI and its fair value. For certain OTTI
securities that were previously impaired and have subsequently
incurred additional credit losses during 2009, the additional
credit losses, up to the amount in AOCI, were reclassified out
of noncredit losses in AOCI and charged to earnings.
Upon subsequent evaluation of a debt security where there is no
additional OTTI, the Bank adjusts the accretable yield on a
prospective basis if there is an increase in the securitys
expected cash flows. The estimated cash flows and accretable
yield are re-evaluated on a quarterly basis.
The Bank only acquired private label MBS that were believed to
be of high credit quality at acquisition, and thus these
investments were not initially subject to the incremental
impairment guidance for certain beneficial interests in
securitized financial assets, specifically those that were not
of high credit quality. Authoritative GAAP does not
specifically address whether impairments or credit downgrades
subsequent to acquisition require the application of the
incremental impairment guidance to a beneficial interest that
was not in scope at the time of purchase. The Bank has made a
policy decision to not reassess application of the incremental
accounting guidance after acquisition.
Prior to adoption of current GAAP for OTTI on investment
securities, in all cases, if an impairment was determined to be
other-than-temporary,
an impairment loss was recognized in earnings in an amount equal
to the entire difference between the securitys amortized
cost basis and its fair value at the Statement of Condition date
of the reporting period for which the assessment was made. The
Bank would conclude that a loss was
other-than-temporary
if it was probable that the Bank would not receive all of the
investment securitys contractual cash flows. As part of
this analysis, the Bank had to assess its intent and ability to
hold a security until recovery of any unrealized losses. For
full year 2009, the Bank recorded $228.5 million of net
OTTI charges on its investment portfolio. For full year 2008,
the Bank recorded $266.0 million of OTTI charges on its
investment
151
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
portfolio. The Bank adopted the current GAAP for OTTI as of
January 1, 2009, and recognized the effects of adoption as
a change in accounting principle. The Bank recognized the
$255.9 million cumulative effect of initial application as
an adjustment to its retained earnings at January 1, 2009,
with an offsetting adjustment to AOCI.
Advances. The Bank reports advances
(loans to members and housing associates), net of premiums and
discounts, discounts on AHP loans and hedging adjustments, as
discussed below. The Bank amortizes the net premiums/discounts
on advances to interest income using the interest method over
its contractual term, which produces a constant effective yield
on the net investment in the advance. The Bank credits interest
on advances to income as earned.
Following the requirements of the Act, the Bank obtains
sufficient collateral on advances to protect it from losses. The
Act limits eligible collateral to certain investment securities,
residential mortgage loans, cash or deposits with the Bank, and
other eligible real estate-related assets. As more fully
described in Note 9, community financial institutions
(CFIs) (redefined by the Housing Act to also include community
development activities) are eligible to utilize expanded
statutory collateral rules that include secured small business
and agricultural loans, and securities representing a whole
interest in such secured loans. The Bank has not incurred any
credit losses on advances since its inception. The Bank
evaluates the creditworthiness of its members and nonmember
borrowers on an ongoing basis. The Bank would classify as
impaired any advances when management believes it is probable
that all principal and interest due will not be collected
according to its contractual terms. If the Bank had any impaired
advances, they would be valued using the present value of
expected future cash flows discounted at the advances
effective interest rate, the observable market price or, if
collateral-dependent, the fair value of the advances
underlying collateral. If an advance were ever classified as
impaired, the accrual of interest would be discontinued and
unpaid accrued interest would be reversed. Advances would not
return to accrual status until they were brought current with
respect to both principal and interest and management believed
future principal payments were no longer in doubt. Based upon
the analysis of the credit standing of the Banks members,
collateral held as security and the repayment history of the
Banks advances, management believes that an allowance for
credit losses on advances is unnecessary.
Mortgage Loans Held for Portfolio. The
Bank participates in the MPF Program under which the Bank
invests in government-guaranteed/insured residential mortgage
loans (those insured or guaranteed by the Federal Housing
Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Rural
Housing Service of the Department of Agriculture (RHS)
and/or the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) and
conventional residential mortgage loans, which are purchased
from participating members (PFIs). The Bank manages the
liquidity, interest-rate risk (including prepayment risk) and
optionality of the loans, while the PFI retains the marketing
and servicing activities. The Bank and the PFI share in the
credit risk of the conventional loans with the Bank assuming the
first loss obligation limited by the first loss account (FLA),
while the PFI assumes credit losses in excess of the FLA,
referred to as credit enhancement (CE) obligation, up to the
amount of the CE obligation as specified in the master
agreement. The Bank assumes losses in excess of the CE
obligation.
The CE is a contractually specified obligation on the part of
the PFI, which ensures the retention of a portion of the credit
risk on loans it sells to the Bank. The CE obligation must be at
a sufficient level to ensure that the Banks risk of loss
is limited to losses of an investor in an AA-rated MBS. The PFI
receives a credit enhancement fee from the Bank, based upon the
remaining unpaid principal balance, for managing this portion of
the inherent risk in the loans. Under the MPF Program, the
PFIs CE protection level may take the form of the CE
amount
and/or the
PFI may contract for a contingent performance-based credit
enhancement fee whereby such fees are reduced by losses up to a
certain amount arising under the master commitment. To the
extent that current month losses exceed current month
performance-based CE fees, the remaining losses can be recovered
by recapturing future periods CE fees payable to the PFI.
The required CE obligation amount may vary depending on the
product alternatives selected. Under the Acquired Member Asset
(AMA) regulation, any portion of the CE amount that is a
PFIs direct liability must be collateralized by the PFI in
the same way that advances are collateralized. All of the
PFIs obligations under the PFI agreement are secured under
its regular advances agreement with the Bank. The Bank may
request additional collateral to secure the PFIs
obligation.
152
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
In 2009, the Bank began offering the MPF Xtra product to its
members. MPF Xtra provides PFIs with a new secondary mortgage
market alternative. Loans sold to the FHLBank of Chicago through
the MPF Xtra product are concurrently sold to Fannie Mae, as a
third party investor, and are not held on the Banks
Statement of Condition. Unlike other conventional MPF products,
under the MPF Xtra product PFIs are not required to assume a CE
obligation and do not receive CE fees.
The Bank classifies mortgage loans as held for portfolio and
reports them at their principal amount outstanding net of
deferred loan costs, unamortized premiums and discounts, and
mark-to-market
basis adjustments on loans initially classified as mortgage loan
commitments. The Bank has the intent and ability to hold these
mortgage loans in portfolio for the foreseeable future.
The Bank defers and amortizes mortgage loan premiums paid to and
discounts received from the Banks participating member and
basis adjustments to interest income over the contractual life
of the loan using the interest method.
The Bank records CE fees paid to PFIs as a reduction to mortgage
loan interest income. The Bank may receive certain
non-origination fees, such as delivery commitment extension fees
and pair-off fees. Delivery extension fees are received when a
member requests to extend the period of the delivery commitment
beyond the original stated maturity and are recorded as part of
the
mark-to-market
of the delivery commitment derivatives, and as such, eventually
become basis adjustments to the mortgage loans funded as part of
the delivery commitment. Pair-off fees are received when the
amount of mortgages purchased is less than or greater than the
specified percentage of the delivery commitment. Pair-off fees
attributable to mortgage loans delivered greater than the
specified percentage of the delivery commitment amount represent
purchase price adjustments and become part of the basis of the
purchased mortgage loans. Pair-off fees attributable to mortgage
loans not delivered are reported as other income when received.
Conventional mortgage loans are generally placed on nonaccrual
status when they become 90 days or more delinquent, at
which time accrued but uncollected interest is reversed against
interest income. The Bank records cash payments received on
nonaccrual loans as a reduction of principal. Delinquent loans
that are foreclosed are removed from the loan classification and
the property is initially recorded (and subsequently carried at
the lower of cost or fair value less costs to sell) in other
assets as real estate owned (REO). If the fair value (less costs
to sell) of the REO property is lower than the carrying value of
the loan then the difference, to the extent such amount is not
expected to be recovered through recapture of performance-based
CE fees, is recorded as a charge-off to the allowance for credit
losses. A government-guaranteed/insured loan is not
automatically placed on nonaccrual status when the collection of
the contractual principal or interest is 90 days or more
past due because of the (1) U.S. government guarantee
of the loan and (2) contractual obligation of the loan
servicer.
The Bank, along with several other FHLBanks, participated in a
Shared Funding Program, which is administered by an unrelated
third party. This program allows mortgage loans originated
through the MPF Program and related CEs to be sold to a
third-party-sponsored trust and pooled into securities. The
FHLBank of Chicago purchased the AMA-eligible securities, which
were rated at least AA, and the Bank purchased a portion of the
investments from FHLBank of Chicago at the original transaction
closing. The investments are classified as
held-to-maturity
securities and are reported at amortized cost of
$33.2 million and $47.2 million as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The Bank applied consolidation accounting principles to
investments in variable interest entities, including the Shared
Funding Program. MPF Shared Funding securities were issued by a
special purpose entity (SPE) that was sponsored by One Mortgage
Partners Corp., a subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase. These
securities are not publicly traded or guaranteed by any of the
FHLBanks. The Bank sold no mortgage loans into the third-party
sponsored trust. The Bank does not act as a servicer for the
mortgage loans held by the SPE. The Banks involvement was
as a purchaser of the AMA-eligible securities. The Bank does not
provide any liquidity or credit support to the Shared Funding
Program. The Banks maximum loss exposure to the MPF Shared
Funding securities is limited to the carrying value of the
securities. The Bank does not consolidate the MPF Shared Funding
securities.
153
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Banking on Business (BOB) Loans. The
Banks BOB loan program to members is targeted to small
businesses in the Banks district of Delaware, Pennsylvania
and West Virginia. The programs objective is to assist in
the growth and development of small business, including both the
start-up and
expansion of these businesses. The Bank makes funds available to
members to extend credit to an approved small business borrower,
enabling small businesses to qualify for credit that would
otherwise not be available. The intent of the BOB program is as
a grant program to members to help facilitate community economic
development; however, repayment provisions within the program
require that the BOB program be accounted for as an unsecured
loan program. Therefore, the accounting for the program follows
the provisions of loan accounting whereby an asset (loan
receivable) is recorded for disbursements to members and an
allowance for credit losses is estimated and established through
provision for credit losses. As the members collect directly
from the borrowers, the members remit to the Bank repayment of
the loans as stated in the agreements. If the business is unable
to repay the loan, it may be forgiven at the members
request, subject to the Banks approval, at which time the
BOB loan is written off. Based on the nature of the BOB program
as described above, the Bank has doubt about the ultimate
collection of contractual principal and interest of the BOB
loans. Therefore, for accounting purposes, the BOB program is
classified as a nonperforming loan portfolio and interest income
is not accrued on these loans. Instead, income is recognized on
a cash basis after full collection of principal.
Allowance for Credit Losses. The
allowance for credit losses is a valuation allowance established
by the Bank to provide for probable losses inherent in the
Banks portfolio as of the Statement of Condition date,
including mortgage loans held for portfolio, BOB loans and
off-balance sheet credit exposure. An impairment is considered
to have occurred when it is probable that all contractual
principal and interest payments will not be collected as
scheduled based on current information and events.
The Bank purchases government-guaranteed/insured mortgage loans
and conventional fixed-rate residential mortgage loans. Because
the credit risk on the government-guaranteed/insured loans is
predominately assumed by other entities, only conventional
mortgage loans are evaluated for an allowance for credit loss.
The Banks conventional mortgage loan portfolio is
comprised of large groups of smaller-balance homogeneous loans
made to borrowers that are secured by residential real estate.
The Bank collectively evaluates the homogeneous mortgage loan
portfolio for impairment. The allowance for credit loss
methodology for mortgage loans considers loan pool specific
attribute data, applies loss severities based on market observed
estimates weighted by the historic performance of the mortgage
loans held for portfolio, and incorporates the CEs of the MPF
Program and primary mortgage insurance. The calculated expected
loss is compared to peer data and market trends. Peer data and
market trends are reviewed on a quarterly basis when available.
The allowance for credit losses for the BOB program provides a
reasonable estimate of losses inherent in the BOB portfolio
based on the portfolios characteristics. Both probability
of default and loss given default are determined and used to
estimate the allowance for credit losses. Loss given default is
considered to be 100% due to the fact that the BOB program has
no collateral or credit enhancement requirements. Probability of
default is based on small business default statistics from the
NRSROs as well as the Small Business Administration (SBA) and
trends in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Based on the nature of
the program, all of the loans in the BOB program are classified
as nonperforming loans.
The allowance for credit losses for off-balance sheet credit
exposure is recorded in other liabilities in the Statement of
Condition and is mainly comprised of the reserve associated with
BOB loan commitments. Because there is a high likelihood that
BOB commitments will ultimately be funded, the allowance for
credit losses related to the BOB loan commitments is based on
the same methodology as BOB loans.
The Bank has not incurred any losses on advances since its
inception. Due to the Banks collateral security position
and the repayment history for member loans, management believes
that an allowance for credit losses for advances is unnecessary.
Derivatives. All derivatives are
recognized on the Statement of Condition at fair value.
Derivative assets and derivative liabilities reported on the
Statement of Condition include the net cash collateral and
accrued interest from counterparties.
154
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Each derivative is designated as one of the following:
|
|
|
|
|
a hedge of the fair value of a recognized asset or liability or
an unrecognized firm commitment (a fair value hedge);
|
|
|
a hedge of a forecasted transaction or the variability of cash
flows that are to be received or paid in connection with a
recognized asset or liability (a cash flow hedge);
|
|
|
a non-qualifying hedge of an asset or liability (an
economic hedge) for asset/liability management
purposes; or
|
|
|
a non-qualifying hedge of another derivative (an
intermediation hedge) that is offered as a product
to members or used to offset other derivatives with nonmember
counterparties.
|
Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is designated and
qualifies as a fair value hedge, along with changes in the fair
value of the hedged asset or liability that are attributable to
the hedged risk (including changes that reflect losses or gains
on firm commitments), are recorded in other income (loss) as
net gain (loss) on derivatives and hedging
activities.
Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is designated and
qualifies as a cash flow hedge, to the extent that the hedge is
effective, are recorded in other comprehensive income, a
component of capital, until earnings are affected by the
variability of the cash flows of the hedged transactions (i.e.,
until the periodic recognition of interest on a variable-rate
asset or liability).
For both fair value and cash flow hedges, any hedge
ineffectiveness (which represents the amount by which the change
in the fair value of the derivative differs from the change in
the fair value of the hedged item or the variability in the cash
flows of the forecasted transaction) is recorded in other income
(loss) as net gain (loss) on derivatives and hedging
activities.
An economic hedge is defined as a derivative hedging specific or
non-specific underlying assets, liabilities or firm commitments
that does not qualify or was not designated for hedge accounting
but is an acceptable hedging strategy under the Banks risk
management program. Economic hedging strategies also comply with
the Finance Agency regulatory requirements prohibiting
speculative hedge transactions. An economic hedge by definition
introduces the potential for earnings variability caused by the
change in fair value on the derivatives that are recorded in the
Banks income but not offset by corresponding changes in
the value of the economically hedged assets, liabilities or firm
commitments. As a result, the Bank recognizes only the net
interest and the change in fair value of these derivatives in
other income (loss) as net gain (loss) on derivatives and
hedging activities with no offsetting fair value
adjustments for the assets, liabilities, or firm commitments.
The derivatives used in the intermediary activities do not
qualify for hedge accounting treatment and are separately
marked-to-market
through earnings. The net result of accounting for these
derivatives does not significantly affect the operating results
of the Bank. These amounts are recorded in other income (loss)
as net gain (loss) on derivatives and hedging
activities.
The difference between accruals of interest receivables and
payables on derivatives designated as fair value or cash flow
hedges are recognized as adjustments to the income or expense of
the designated underlying investment securities, advances,
consolidated obligations or other financial instruments. The
difference between accruals of interest receivables and payables
on intermediation derivatives for members and other economic
hedges are recognized in other income (loss) as net gain
(loss) on derivatives and hedging activities.
The Bank routinely issues debt, makes advances, or purchases
financial instruments in which a derivative instrument is
embedded. Upon execution of these transactions, the Bank
assesses whether the economic characteristics of the embedded
derivative are clearly and closely related to the economic
characteristics of the remaining component of the advance or
debt (the host contract) and whether a separate, non-embedded
instrument with the same terms as the embedded instrument would
meet the definition of a derivative instrument. When the Bank
determines that (1) the embedded derivative has economic
characteristics that are not clearly and closely related to the
economic characteristics of the host contract and (2) a
separate, stand-alone instrument with the same terms would
qualify as a derivative instrument, the embedded derivative is
separated from the host contract, carried
155
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
at fair value, and designated as a stand-alone derivative
instrument pursuant to an economic hedge. However, if the entire
contract (the host contract and the embedded derivative) is to
be measured at fair value, with changes in fair value reported
in current period earnings (such as an investment security
classified as trading as well as hybrid financial instruments),
or if the Bank cannot reliably identify and measure the embedded
derivative for purposes of separating that derivative from its
host contract, the entire contract is carried on the Statement
of Condition at fair value and no portion of the contract is
designated as a hedging instrument. The Bank currently does not
have any instruments containing embedded derivatives that are
not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics
of the host contract.
If hedging relationships meet certain criteria including, but
not limited to, formal documentation of the hedging relationship
and an expectation to be highly effective, they are eligible for
hedge accounting and the offsetting changes in fair value of the
hedged items may be recorded in earnings. The application of
hedge accounting generally requires the Bank to evaluate the
effectiveness of hedging relationships on an ongoing basis and
to calculate the changes in fair value of the derivatives and
related hedged items independently. This is known as the
long-haul method of accounting. Transactions that
meet more stringent criteria qualify for the
short-cut method of hedge accounting in which an
assumption can be made that the change in fair value of a hedged
item exactly offsets the change in value of the related
derivative.
Derivatives are typically executed at the same time as the
hedged advances or consolidated obligations and the Bank
designates the hedged item in a qualifying hedge relationship as
of the trade date. In many hedging relationships, the Bank may
designate the hedging relationship upon its commitment to
disburse a loan to a member or trade a consolidated obligation
in which settlement occurs within the shortest period of time
possible for the type of instrument based on market settlement
conventions. The Bank defines market settlement conventions for
advances to be five business days or less and for consolidated
obligations to be thirty calendar days or less, using a next
business day convention. The Bank then records the changes in
fair value of the derivative and the hedged item beginning on
the trade date. The short-cut method may be utilized
when the hedging relationship is designated on the trade date,
the fair value of the derivative is zero on that date and the
Bank meets the rest of the applicable criteria.
The Bank discontinues hedge accounting prospectively when:
(1) it determines that the derivative is no longer
effective in offsetting changes in the fair value or cash flows
of a hedged item (including hedged items such as firm
commitments or forecasted transactions); (2) the derivative
and/or the
hedged item expires or is sold, terminated or exercised;
(3) it is no longer probable that the forecasted
transaction will occur in the originally expected period;
(4) a hedged firm commitment no longer meets the definition
of a firm commitment; or (5) management determines that
designating the derivative as a hedging instrument is no longer
appropriate (i.e., de-designation).
When hedge accounting is discontinued because the Bank
determines that the hedge relationship no longer qualifies as an
effective fair value hedge, the Bank continues to carry the
derivative on the Statement of Condition at its fair value,
ceases to adjust the hedged asset or liability for changes in
fair value, and amortizes the cumulative basis adjustment on the
hedged item into earnings over the remaining life of the hedged
item using the interest method.
When hedge accounting is discontinued because the Bank
determines that the hedge relationship no longer qualifies as an
effective cash flow hedge, the Bank continues to carry the
derivative on the Statement of Condition at its fair value and
reclassifies the cumulative other comprehensive income
adjustment into earnings when earnings are affected by the
existing hedge item (i.e., the original forecasted transaction).
Under limited circumstances, when the Bank discontinues cash
flow hedge accounting because it is no longer probable that the
forecasted transaction will occur in the originally expected
period plus the following two months, but it is probable the
transaction will still occur in the future, the gain or loss on
the derivative remains in accumulated other comprehensive income
and is recognized as earnings when the forecasted transaction
affects earnings. However, if it is probable that a forecasted
transaction will not ever occur, the gains and losses in
accumulated other comprehensive income are recognized
immediately in earnings.
156
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
When hedge accounting is discontinued because the hedged item no
longer meets the definition of a firm commitment, the Bank
continues to carry the derivative on the Statement of Condition
at its fair value, removing from the Statement of Condition any
asset or liability that was recorded to recognize the firm
commitment and recording it as a gain or loss in current period
earnings.
Premises, Software and Equipment. The
Bank records premises, software and equipment at cost less
accumulated depreciation and amortization and computes
depreciation using the straight-line method over the estimated
useful lives of assets, which range from one to ten years. The
Bank amortizes leasehold improvements using the straight-line
method over the shorter of the estimated useful life of the
improvement or the remaining term of the lease. The Bank
capitalizes improvements and major renewals but expenses
ordinary maintenance and repairs when incurred. The Bank
includes gains and losses on the disposal of premises, software
and equipment in other income (loss).
Costs of computer software developed or obtained for internal
use are accounted for in accordance with appropriate accounting
guidance. This guidance requires the cost of purchased software
and certain costs incurred in developing computer software for
internal use to be capitalized and amortized over future
periods. The Bank amortizes such costs using a straight-line
method over estimated lives ranging from three to seven years.
Mandatorily Redeemable Capital
Stock. The Bank reclassifies stock subject to
redemption from equity to a liability after a member provides
written notice of redemption, gives notice of intention to
withdraw from membership, or attains non-member status by
merger, acquisition, charter termination or other involuntary
termination from membership, because the members shares
will then meet the definition of a mandatorily redeemable
financial instrument. Shares meeting this definition are
reclassified to a liability at fair value. Dividends declared on
shares classified as a liability are accrued at the expected
dividend rate and reflected as interest expense in the Statement
of Operations. Once redeemed, the repayment of these mandatorily
redeemable financial instruments (by repurchase or redemption of
the shares) is reflected as a financing cash outflow in the
Statement of Cash Flows.
If a member cancels its written notice of redemption or notice
of withdrawal, the Bank will reclassify mandatorily redeemable
capital stock from a liability to equity. After the
reclassification, dividends on the capital stock will no longer
be classified as interest expense.
Prepayment Fees. The Bank charges a
borrower a prepayment fee when the borrower prepays certain
advances before the original maturity. In cases in which the
Bank funds a new advance concurrent with the prepayment of an
existing advance or shortly thereafter, the Bank evaluates
whether the transactions represent a minor modification of an
existing advance or is a new advance. Such determination is
primarily based upon a comparison of the net present value of
the old advance to the net present value of the new advance,
along with certain qualitative factors.
If the transactions qualify as a minor modification of the
existing advance and no derivative hedging relationship existed
whereby a swap termination fee would be offset with the
prepayment fee, the prepayment fee on the prepaid advance is
deferred. The prepayment fee is recorded in the basis of the
modified loan, and amortized over the life of the modified loan
using the interest method, which produces a constant effective
yield for the loan. This amortization is recorded in interest
income.
If the transactions do not qualify as a minor modification, they
are treated as an advance termination with a subsequent funding
of a new advance, and the prepayment fee is immediately recorded
to interest income.
If the transactions qualify as a minor modification of a hedged
advance that continues to be in a qualifying hedge relationship,
they are marked to fair value after the modification, and
subsequent fair value changes are recorded in other income
(loss).
Commitment Fees. The Bank does not
currently collect commitment fees on advances. The Bank records
commitment fees for standby letters of credit as a deferred
credit when the Bank receives the fee and accretes them using
the straight-line method over the term of the standby letter of
credit. The Bank believes the likelihood of standby letters of
credit being drawn upon is remote based on past experience.
157
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Concessions on Consolidated
Obligations. Concessions are paid to dealers
in connection with the issuance of consolidated obligations. The
OF pro-rates the amount of the concession to the Bank based upon
the percentage of the debt issued that is assumed by the Bank.
The Bank defers and amortizes concession fees using the interest
method over the contractual term of the consolidated
obligations. Unamortized concessions were $13.7 million and
$23.9 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively, and are included in other assets on
the Statement of Condition. Amortization of such concessions was
included in interest expense and totaled $16.6 million,
$26.0 million and $14.2 million in 2009, 2008 and
2007, respectively.
Discounts and Premiums on Consolidated
Obligations. The Bank amortizes the discounts
on consolidated obligation discount notes and bonds using the
interest method over the contractual term of the related
obligations. If the consolidated obligation is called prior to
maturity, the remaining discount, premium or concession is
charged to interest expense on the call date.
Finance Agency/Finance Board
Expenses. The Bank, along with the other
eleven FHLBanks, funded the costs of operating the Finance Board
and fund a portion of the costs of operating the Finance Agency
since it was created on July 30, 2008. The Finance Board
allocated its operating and capital expenditures to each of the
FHLBanks based on each FHLBanks percentage of total
combined regulatory capital stock plus retained earnings through
July 29, 2008. The portion of the Finance Agencys
expenses and working capital fund paid by the FHLBanks are
allocated among the FHLBanks based on the pro rata share
of the annual assessments (which are based on the ratio between
each FHLBanks minimum required regulatory capital and the
aggregate minimum required regulatory capital of every FHLBank).
The Bank must pay an amount equal to one-half of its annual
assessment twice each year.
Office of Finance (OF) Expenses. The
Bank is assessed for its proportionate share of the costs of
operating the OF. The OF allocates its operating and capital
expenditures based on each FHLBanks percentage of capital
stock, percentage of consolidated obligations issued and
percentage of consolidated obligations outstanding.
Affordable Housing Program (AHP). The
Act requires each FHLBank to establish and fund an AHP. The Bank
charges the required funding for AHP to earnings and establishes
a liability. As allowed per AHP regulations, an FHLBank can
elect to allot fundings based on future periods required
AHP contributions to be awarded during a year (referred to as
Accelerated AHP). The Accelerated AHP allows an FHLBank to
commit and disburse AHP funds to meet the FHLBanks mission
when it would otherwise be unable to do so, based on its normal
funding mechanism. The AHP funds provide subsidies to members to
assist in the purchase, construction, or rehabilitation of
housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The
requirements of the Act can be satisfied by either a grant or a
loan; the Bank primarily issues grants. AHP loans would be
executed at interest rates below the customary interest rate for
non-subsidized loans. When the Bank makes an AHP loan, the
present value of the variation in the cash flow caused by the
difference in the interest rate between the AHP loan rate and
the Banks related cost of funds for comparable maturity
funding is charged against the AHP liability and recorded as a
discount on the AHP loan. The discount on AHP loans is accreted
to earnings using the interest method. See Note 17 for more
information.
Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP)
Assessments. Although FHLBanks are exempt
from ordinary Federal, State, and local taxation except for
local real estate tax, the FHLBanks are required to make
quarterly payments to REFCORP to fund interest on bonds issued
by the REFCORP. REFCORP is a corporation established by Congress
in 1989 to provide funding for the resolution and disposition of
insolvent savings institutions. Officers, employees, and agents
of the OF are authorized to act for and on behalf of REFCORP to
carry out the functions of REFCORP. See Note 18 for more
information.
Estimated Fair Values. Some of the
Banks financial instruments lack an available trading
market characterized by transactions between a willing buyer and
a willing seller engaging in an exchange transaction. Therefore,
the Bank uses a combination of third-party pricing sources and
internal models to determine estimated fair value. Both employ
significant assumptions in determining estimated fair values.
See Note 22 for information regarding the estimated fair
values of the Banks financial instruments.
158
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Cash Flows. In the Statement of Cash
Flows, the Bank considers cash and due from banks as cash and
cash equivalents. Federal funds sold are not treated as cash
equivalents for purposes of the Statement of Cash Flows, but are
instead treated as short-term investments and are reflected in
the investing activities section of the Statement of Cash Flows.
Earnings (Loss) per Share. Basic
earnings (loss) per share of capital stock is computed on the
basis of weighted average number of shares of capital stock
outstanding. Mandatorily redeemable capital stock is excluded
from the calculation. The Bank does not have diluted earnings
(loss) per share because it has no financial instruments
convertible to capital stock.
Reclassifications. Certain prior period
amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2009
presentation.
Note 3
Accounting Adjustments, Changes in Accounting Principle and
Recently Issued Accounting Standards and
Interpretations
Enhanced Disclosure about Derivative Instruments and
Hedging Activities. During March 2008, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued guidance
which required enhanced disclosures for derivative instruments.
The intent of the enhanced derivative disclosures is to assist
the users of the financial statements to better understand how
and why an entity uses derivative instruments and how derivative
instruments and hedging activities affect the entitys
financial position, financial performance and cash flows. The
Bank adopted this guidance on January 1, 2009, which
resulted in increased financial statement disclosure but had no
impact on the Banks Statement of Operations or Statement
of Condition. See Note 12 to the audited financial
statements in this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for the enhanced disclosures.
Issuers Accounting for Liabilities Measured at Fair
Value with a Third-Party Credit
Enhancement. During September 2008, the FASB
ratified guidance to determine the issuers unit of
accounting for a liability that is issued with an inseparable
third-party credit enhancement when it is recognized or
disclosed at fair value on a recurring basis. The Bank adopted
this guidance on January 1, 2009 and applied it
prospectively. This adoption had no impact on its Statement of
Operations or Statement of Condition.
Recognition and Presentation of
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairments (OTTI). During April 2009, the
FASB issued guidance amending previous OTTI guidance for debt
securities (amended OTTI guidance). The intent of the amended
OTTI guidance is to provide greater clarity to investors about
the credit and noncredit component of an OTTI event and to
communicate more effectively when an OTTI event has occurred. It
amends the OTTI guidance for debt securities; however, it does
not amend OTTI accounting for equity securities. It improves the
presentation and disclosure of OTTI on debt securities and
changes the calculation of the OTTI recognized in earnings in
the financial statements.
For debt securities in an unrealized loss position, the amended
OTTI guidance requires the Bank to assess whether (1) it
has the intent to sell the debt security, or (2) it is more
likely than not that it will be required to sell the debt
security before its anticipated recovery. If either of these
conditions is met, an OTTI on the security must be recognized.
The Bank will recognize into net income an amount equal to the
entire difference between fair value and amortized cost basis.
When a credit loss exists but neither of the criteria in the
paragraph above are present, the OTTI (i.e., the difference
between the securitys then-current carrying amount and its
estimated fair value) is separated into (1) the amount of
the total impairment related to the credit loss (the credit
component) and (2) the amount of the total impairment
related to all other factors (the noncredit component). The
credit component is recognized in earnings and the noncredit
component is recognized in AOCI. The total OTTI is required to
be presented in the Statement of Operations with an offset for
the noncredit component recognized in AOCI. Previously, if an
impairment was determined to be other than temporary, an
impairment loss was recognized in earnings in an amount equal to
the entire difference between the securitys amortized cost
basis and its fair value at the Statement of Condition date of
the reporting period for which the assessment was made.
159
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The noncredit component of OTTI losses recognized in AOCI for
debt securities classified as
held-to-maturity
is accreted over the remaining life of the debt security as an
increase in the carrying value of the security unless and until
the security is sold, the security matures, or there is an
additional OTTI that is recognized in earnings. The noncredit
portion of the OTTI loss on securities classified as
available-for-sale
is adjusted to fair value with an offsetting adjustment to its
carrying value. In periods subsequent to the recognition of an
OTTI loss, the
other-than-temporarily
impaired debt security is accounted for as if it had been
purchased on the measurement date of the OTTI at an amount equal
to the previous amortized cost basis less the OTTI recognized in
earnings. The difference between the new amortized cost basis
and the cash flows expected to be collected is accreted as
interest income over the remaining life of the security in a
prospective manner based on the amount and timing of future
estimated cash flows.
The Bank adopted the amended OTTI guidance as of January 1,
2009, and recognized the effects of applying this guidance as a
change in accounting principle. The cumulative effect adjustment
required the Bank to reclassify the noncredit component of a
previously recognized OTTI charge from retained earnings to AOCI
if the Bank does not intend to sell the security and it is not
more likely than not that the entity will be required to sell
the security before recovery of its amortized cost basis. The
Bank recognized the $255.9 million cumulative effect as an
adjustment to retained earnings at January 1, 2009, with a
corresponding offset to AOCI. Had the Bank not adopted the
amended OTTI guidance, the Bank would have recognized an amount
approximated by the total OTTI losses in net income for 2009.
Determining Fair Value When the Volume and Level of
Activity for an Asset or Liability Has Significantly Decreased
and Identifying Transactions That Are Not
Orderly. During April 2009, the FASB issued
guidance which clarified the approach to, and provided
additional factors to consider in, estimating fair value when
the volume and level of activity for an asset or liability has
significantly decreased. It also provides guidance in
identifying circumstances which would indicate a transaction is
not orderly. This guidance affirms the objective that fair value
is the price that would be received to sell an asset in an
orderly transaction (that is not a forced liquidation or
distressed sale) between market participants at the measurement
date under current market conditions (that is, in the inactive
market). This guidance provides additional instruction to
determine whether a market for a financial asset is inactive and
determine if a transaction is distressed. The Bank adopted this
updated guidance on January 1, 2009. The Banks
adoption did not have a material effect on its Statement of
Operations or Statement of Condition.
Interim Disclosure Regarding Fair Value of Financial
Instruments. During April 2009, the FASB
issued guidance regarding the disclosure of fair value of
financial instruments. This guidance requires disclosures about
the fair value of financial instruments in interim financial
statements as well as in annual financial statements, including
the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the
fair value of financial instruments. Previously, these
disclosures were required only in annual financial statements.
The Bank adopted this guidance on January 1, 2009. The
adoption resulted in increased interim financial statement
disclosures, but did not affect the Banks Statement of
Operations or Statement of Condition.
Subsequent Events. The FASB issued
guidance establishing general standards of accounting and
disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but
before financial statements are issued. In particular, it
established that the Bank must evaluate subsequent events
through the date the financial statements are issued, the
circumstances under which a subsequent event should be
recognized, and the circumstances for which a subsequent event
should be disclosed. The Bank adopted this guidance during 2009.
The Banks adoption of this guidance had no impact on the
Statement of Operations and Statement of Condition.
Accounting for Transfers of Financial
Assets. During June 2009, the FASB issued
guidance which is intended to improve the relevance,
representational faithfulness, and comparability of information
about a transfer of financial assets. This guidance amends sale
accounting by eliminating the concept of a qualifying
special-purpose entity (QSPE), establishes the requirements for
sale accounting for transfers of portions of a financial
instrument, clarifies and amends de-recognition provisions,
amends the gain/loss recognition provisions related to sales of
beneficial interests, and requires enhanced disclosures. This
guidance was effective for transfers of financial assets
beginning January 1, 2010. The Banks adoption of this
guidance did not have a material impact on its Statement of
Operations and Statement of Condition.
160
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Accounting for the Consolidation of Variable-Interest
Entities (VIEs). During June 2009, the FASB
issued guidance intended to amend the consolidation guidance for
VIEs. This updated guidance eliminates the scope exception for
QSPEs, establishes a more qualitative evaluation to determine
the primary beneficiary based on power and obligation to absorb
losses or right to receive benefits, and requires the Bank to
constantly reassess who is the primary beneficiary of a VIE.
This guidance was effective for the Bank as of January 1,
2010 and was, and will be, applied to all current VIEs
(including QSPEs). The Banks adoption of this guidance did
not have a material impact on its Statement of Operations and
Statement of Condition.
Codification of Accounting
Standards. During June 2009, the FASB
established the FASB Accounting Standards Codification
(Codification) as the single source of authoritative
nongovernmental GAAP. The Codification does not change current
GAAP. The intent is to organize all accounting literature by
topic in one place to enable users to quickly identify
appropriate GAAP. The Codification was effective July 1,
2009. The Banks adoption of the codification had no impact
on its Statement of Operations or Statement of Condition.
Measuring Liabilities at Fair
Value. During August 2009, the FASB issued
guidance on measuring the fair value of liabilities when a
quoted price in an active market for the liability is not
available. It sets forth the following valuation techniques:
(1) quoted price of an identical or similar liability
traded as an asset; or (2) market/income valuation
techniques based on the amount the Bank would pay to transfer or
receive to enter into an identical liability. It also clarifies
that no adjustment is required for transfer restrictions. This
guidance was effective for the Bank as of October 1, 2009.
The Banks adoption of this guidance did not have a
material impact on its Statement of Operations or Statement of
Condition.
Improving Disclosures about Fair Value
Measurements. During January 2010, the FASB
issued amended guidance specific to fair value disclosures. The
amended guidance requires that the Bank disclose: (1) the
amounts of significant transfers in and out of Levels 1 and
2 of the fair value hierarchy and the reasons for such transfers
and (2) separately, the amount of purchases, sales,
issuance and settlement activity in the reconciliation for fair
value measurements using significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3). The amended guidance clarifies that fair value
disclosures should be provided for each class of assets and
liabilities, which would normally be a subset of a line item in
the Statement of Condition. The amended guidance also requires
additional disclosure regarding inputs and valuation techniques
used to measure fair values classified under Levels 2 or 3
of the fair value hierarchy. With the exception of the required
changes noted above related to the reconciliation of
Level 3 fair values, which are effective for the Bank
January 1, 2011, the amended guidance was effective for the
Bank beginning January 1, 2010. The Banks adoption of
this amended guidance will result in increased financial
statement disclosures, but will not affect the Banks
Statement of Operations and Statement of Condition.
Scope Exception Related to Embedded Credit
Derivatives. During March 2010, the FASB
issued amended guidance to clarify that the only type of
embedded credit derivative feature related to the transfer of
credit risk that is exempt from derivative bifurcation
requirements is one that is in the form of subordination of one
financial instrument to another. As a result, contracts
containing an embedded derivative feature in a form other than
such subordination will need to be assessed to determine if
bifurcation and separate accounting as a derivative is required.
This guidance will be effective for the Bank beginning
July 1, 2010. The Bank is currently evaluating the effect
of adopting this guidance on its Statement of Operations and
Statement of Condition.
Scope Exception Related to Embedded Credit
Derivatives. During March 2010, the FASB
issued amended guidance to clarify that the only type of
embedded credit derivative feature related to the transfer of
credit risk that is exempt from derivative bifurcation
requirements is one that is in the form of subordination of one
financial instrument to another. As a result, contracts
containing an embedded derivative feature in a form other than
such subordination will need to be assessed to determine if
bifurcation and separate accounting as a derivative is required.
This guidance will be effective for the Bank beginning
July 1, 2010. The Bank is currently evaluating the effect
of adopting this guidance on its Statement of Operations and
Statement of Condition.
Certificates of Deposit (CD). During
the third quarter of 2008, on a retrospective basis, the Bank
reclassified its investments in certain certificates of deposit
including related interest income and cash flow activity,
previously included as a component of interest-earning deposits,
to
held-to-maturity
securities in its Statement of Condition,
161
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Statement of Operations and Statement of Cash Flows based on the
definition of a security. These financial instruments have been
classified as
held-to-maturity
securities based on their short-term nature and the Banks
history of holding them until maturity. This reclassification
had no effect on total assets, total net interest income or net
income. The Bank has certain other interest-earning deposits
that do not meet the definition of a security; therefore, these
balances, as well as related interest income and cash flow
activity, continued to be classified as interest-earning
deposits on the Statement of Condition, Statement of Operations
and Statement of Cash Flows.
The effects of this reclassification on the Banks
Statement of Operations and Statement of Cash Flows for the full
year 2007 are presented in the following table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As Originally
|
|
|
Impact of
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Reported
|
|
|
Reclassification
|
|
|
As Adjusted
|
|
|
|
|
Statement of Operations full year ended
December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-earning deposits
|
|
$
|
237,706
|
|
|
$
|
(236,994
|
)
|
|
$
|
712
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
|
638,987
|
|
|
|
236,994
|
|
|
|
875,981
|
|
Total interest income
|
|
$
|
4,278,344
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
4,278,344
|
|
Statement of Cash Flows full year ended
December 31, 2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investing activities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net change in interest-earning deposits
|
|
$
|
(2,120,052
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,060,000
|
|
|
$
|
(60,052
|
)
|
Held-to-maturity
net (increase) decrease in short-term
|
|
|
255,783
|
|
|
|
(2,060,000
|
)
|
|
|
(1,804,217
|
)
|
Total investing activities
|
|
$
|
(22,962,863
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(22,962,863
|
)
|
Allowance for Credit Losses. During the
fourth quarter of 2009, the Bank changed the estimates used to
determine the allowance for credit losses on mortgage loans
purchased by the Bank. The Bank changed the loss severity rates
which included the following: updating current market estimates;
incorporating actual loss statistics; and incorporating amended
collateral procedures. The impact of the change in estimate
reduced the allowance for credit losses by approximately
$4.9 million.
Note 4
Cash and Due from Banks
The Bank maintains compensating and collected cash balances with
commercial banks in return for certain services. These
agreements contain no legal restrictions about the withdrawal of
funds. The average compensating and collected cash balances for
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, were
approximately $30.9 million and $15.6 million,
respectively.
In addition, the Bank maintained average required balances with
various Federal Reserve Banks (FRBs) of approximately $30
thousand for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.
These represent average balances required to be maintained over
each 14-day
reporting cycle; however, the Bank may use earnings credits on
these balances to pay for services received from the FRBs.
Cash and due from banks totaled $1.4 billion and
$67.6 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
Pass-through Deposit Reserves. The Bank
acts as a pass-through correspondent for member institutions
required to deposit reserves with the FRBs. The amount shown as
cash and due from banks includes pass-through reserves deposited
with FRBs of approximately $15.4 million and
$11.0 million as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. The Bank includes member reserve balances in
noninterest-bearing deposits within liabilities on the Statement
of Condition.
162
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Note 5
Trading Securities
The following table presents trading securities as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of
deposits(1)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
500,613
|
|
TLGP investments
|
|
|
250,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. Treasury bills
|
|
|
1,029,499
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting deferred compensation
|
|
|
6,698
|
|
|
|
6,194
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,286,205
|
|
|
$
|
506,807
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents certificates of deposit
that meet the definition of a security.
|
The mutual funds are held in a Rabbi trust to generate returns
that seek to offset changes in liabilities related to market
risk of certain deferred compensation agreements. These deferred
compensation liabilities were $6.7 million and
$6.2 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. See Note 20 to these audited financial
statements for additional information.
The Bank recorded net gains on trading securities of
$1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2009 and
net losses on trading securities of $706 thousand and $79
thousand for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Net interest income on trading securities was
$13.5 million and $474 thousand for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. There were no
trading certificates of deposit held or purchased in 2007 and,
therefore, no related interest income for the year ended
December 31, 2007.
Note 6
Available-for-Sale
Securities
The following table presents
available-for-sale
securities as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
OTTI Recognized
|
|
|
Gross Unrecognized
|
|
|
Gross Unrecognized
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Cost(1)
|
|
|
in
OCI(2)
|
|
|
Holding
Gains(3)
|
|
|
Holding
Losses(3)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting supplemental retirement plan
|
|
$
|
1,993
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,995
|
|
Private label MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential
|
|
|
3,061,870
|
|
|
|
(1,026,734
|
)
|
|
|
347,859
|
|
|
|
(2,022
|
)
|
|
|
2,380,973
|
|
HELOCs
|
|
|
26,963
|
|
|
|
(13,225
|
)
|
|
|
597
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,335
|
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
|
3,088,833
|
|
|
|
(1,039,959
|
)
|
|
|
348,456
|
|
|
|
(2,022
|
)
|
|
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$
|
3,090,826
|
|
|
$
|
(1,039,959
|
)
|
|
$
|
348,458
|
|
|
$
|
(2,022
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,397,303
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
Gross Unrealized
|
|
Gross Unrealized
|
|
Estimated Fair
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Cost(1)
|
|
Gains
|
|
Losses
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Private label MBS
|
|
$
|
34,196
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(14,543
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,653
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$
|
34,196
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(14,543
|
)
|
|
$
|
19,653
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amortized cost includes adjustments
made to the cost basis of an investment for accretion and/or
amortization, collection of cash, and/or previous OTTI
recognized in earnings (less any cumulative effect adjustments
recognized in accordance with the transition provisions of the
amended OTTI guidance).
|
|
(2) |
|
Represents the noncredit portion of
an OTTI recognized during the life of the security.
|
|
(3) |
|
Unrecognized holding gains/(losses)
represent the difference between amortized cost less OTTI
recognized in other comprehensive loss and estimated fair value.
|
163
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The mutual funds are held in a Rabbi trust to secure a portion
of the Banks supplemental retirement obligation to
participants. These obligations were $4.0 million at both
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
The following table presents a reconciliation of the
available-for-sale
OTTI loss recognized through AOCI to the total net noncredit
portion of OTTI losses on
available-for-sale
securities in AOCI as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Total OTTI loss recognized in OCI
|
|
$
|
(1,039,959
|
)
|
Subsequent unrecognized changes in fair value
|
|
|
348,456
|
|
|
|
Net noncredit portion of OTTI losses on
available-for-sale
securities in AOCI
|
|
$
|
(691,503
|
)
|
|
|
The following tables summarize the
available-for-sale
securities with unrealized losses as of December 31, 2009
and 2008. The unrealized losses are aggregated by major security
type and length of time that individual securities have been in
a continuous unrealized loss position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Less than 12 Months
|
|
|
Greater than 12 Months
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized
Losses(1)
|
|
|
|
|
Private label:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,380,973
|
|
|
$
|
(680,897
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,380,973
|
|
|
$
|
(680,897
|
)
|
HELOC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14,335
|
|
|
|
(12,628
|
)
|
|
|
14,335
|
|
|
|
(12,628
|
)
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
|
(693,525
|
)
|
|
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
|
(693,525
|
)
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
securities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
$
|
(693,525
|
)
|
|
$
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
$
|
(693,525
|
)
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
As a result of differences in the
definitions of unrealized losses and unrecognized holding
losses, total unrealized losses in the table above will not
agree with total gross unrecognized holding losses in the
previous December 31, 2009 table. Unrealized losses include
OTTI recognized in OCI and gross unrecognized holding gains and
losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Less than 12 Months
|
|
|
Greater than 12 Months
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
18,089
|
|
|
$
|
(14,543
|
)
|
|
$
|
18,089
|
|
|
$
|
(14,543
|
)
|
|
|
Securities Transferred. During 2009,
the Bank transferred certain private label MBS from its
held-to-maturity
investment portfolio to the
available-for-sale
investment portfolio. The private label MBS transferred had an
OTTI recognized during the quarters in 2009 in which they were
transferred, which the Bank believes constitutes evidence of a
significant decline in the issuers creditworthiness. The
Bank transferred the securities to the
available-for-sale
portfolio to increase financial flexibility to sell these
securities if management determines it is prudent to do so. The
Bank has no current plans to sell these securities nor is the
Bank under any requirement to sell the securities. The Bank made
transfers on June 30, 2009, September 30, 2009 and
December 31, 2009. The following table presents information
on private label MBS transferred during 2009 as of each transfer
date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Unrecognized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI Recognized in
|
|
|
Holding
|
|
|
Gross Unrecognized
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Amortized Cost
|
|
|
OCI
|
|
|
Gains
|
|
|
Holding Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009 transfers
|
|
$
|
319,788
|
|
|
$
|
(72,648
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,649
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
259,789
|
|
September 30, 2009 transfers
|
|
|
1,047,646
|
|
|
|
(265,690
|
)
|
|
|
19,161
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
801,117
|
|
June 30, 2009 transfers
|
|
|
2,035,028
|
|
|
|
(820,385
|
)
|
|
|
22,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,237,078
|
|
|
|
Total 2009 transfers
|
|
$
|
3,402,462
|
|
|
$
|
(1,158,723
|
)
|
|
$
|
54,245
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,297,984
|
|
|
|
164
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Redemption Terms. As of
December 31, 2009, the amortized cost and estimated fair
value of the private label MBS in the Banks
available-for-sale
securities portfolio were $3.1 billion and
$2.4 billion, respectively. As of December 31, 2008,
the balances were $34.2 million and $19.7 million,
respectively. Expected maturities will differ from contractual
maturities because borrowers have the right to prepay
obligations with or without call or prepayment fees.
As of December 31, 2009, the amortized cost of the
Banks private label MBS classified as
available-for-sale
included net purchased discounts of $18.5 million and
credit losses of $238.6 million, partially offset by
OTTI-related accretion adjustments of $16.2 million. At
December 31, 2008, the amortized cost of the Banks
private label MBS classified as
available-for-sale
included $2.9 million of OTTI-related discounts determined
in accordance with the OTTI guidance effective at
December 31, 2008. The increase in total net discounts was
due to the transfer of certain OTTI securities from
held-to-maturity
to
available-for-sale.
Interest Rate Payment Terms. The
following table details interest payment terms for
available-for-sale
MBS at December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized cost of
available-for-sale
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pass through securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
|
|
$
|
1,464,702
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Variable-rate
|
|
|
53,370
|
|
|
|
956
|
|
Collateralized mortgage obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
|
|
|
1,492,169
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable-rate
|
|
|
78,592
|
|
|
|
33,240
|
|
|
|
Total
available-for-sale
MBS
|
|
$
|
3,088,833
|
|
|
$
|
34,196
|
|
|
|
Note: Certain MBS securities have a fixed-rate
component for a specified period of time, then have a rate reset
on a given date. Examples of this type of instrument would
include securities supported by underlying 5/1, 7/1 and 10/1
hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). For purposes of the
table above, these securities are reported as fixed-rate until
the rate reset date is hit. At that point, the security is then
considered to be variable-rate.
Realized Gains and Losses. During 2009,
the Bank received $5.6 million in proceeds from the sale of
available-for-sale
securities and realized $2.2 million in losses on these
sales. There were no sales of
available-for-sale
securities and, therefore, no realized gains or losses on sales
for the year ended December 31, 2008. During 2007, the Bank
sold equity mutual funds which were maintained to offset certain
deferred compensation arrangements. This sale generated
$5.6 million in proceeds and a gain of $1.6 million.
165
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Note 7
Held-to-Maturity
Securities
The following table presents
held-to-maturity
securities as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
Gross
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrecognized
|
|
|
Unrecognized
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Recognized in
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Holding
|
|
|
Holding
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Cost(1)
|
|
|
OCI
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Gains(2)
|
|
|
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of
deposit(3)
|
|
$
|
3,100,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
3,100,000
|
|
|
$
|
143
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,100,139
|
|
Government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
176,741
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
176,741
|
|
|
|
1,853
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178,594
|
|
State or local agency obligations
|
|
|
608,363
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
608,363
|
|
|
|
17,009
|
|
|
|
(30,837
|
)
|
|
|
594,535
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,885,104
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,885,104
|
|
|
|
19,005
|
|
|
|
(30,841
|
)
|
|
|
3,873,268
|
|
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency
|
|
|
1,755,686
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,755,686
|
|
|
|
2,019
|
|
|
|
(4,551
|
)
|
|
|
1,753,154
|
|
Government- sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
1,312,228
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,312,228
|
|
|
|
47,999
|
|
|
|
(2,337
|
)
|
|
|
1,357,890
|
|
Private label MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential
|
|
|
3,500,813
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,500,813
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
(391,869
|
)
|
|
|
3,109,317
|
|
HELOC
|
|
|
28,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28,556
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,960
|
)
|
|
|
12,596
|
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
|
3,529,369
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,529,369
|
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
(407,829
|
)
|
|
|
3,121,913
|
|
|
|
Total MBS
|
|
|
6,597,283
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,597,283
|
|
|
|
50,391
|
|
|
|
(414,717
|
)
|
|
|
6,232,957
|
|
|
|
Total
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
$
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
$
|
69,396
|
|
|
$
|
(445,558
|
)
|
|
$
|
10,106,225
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross Unrealized
|
|
|
Gross Unrealized
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Amortized
Cost(1)
|
|
|
Gains(2)
|
|
|
Losses(2)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Certificates of
deposit(3)
|
|
$
|
2,700,000
|
|
|
$
|
4,488
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,704,488
|
|
Government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
954,953
|
|
|
|
6,217
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
961,170
|
|
State or local agency obligations
|
|
|
636,830
|
|
|
|
9,596
|
|
|
|
(61,563
|
)
|
|
|
584,863
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,291,783
|
|
|
|
20,301
|
|
|
|
(61,563
|
)
|
|
|
4,250,521
|
|
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency
|
|
|
268,948
|
|
|
|
59
|
|
|
|
(760
|
)
|
|
|
268,247
|
|
Government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
1,853,665
|
|
|
|
28,443
|
|
|
|
(19,846
|
)
|
|
|
1,862,262
|
|
Private label
|
|
|
8,503,649
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,059,338
|
)
|
|
|
6,444,311
|
|
|
|
Total MBS
|
|
|
10,626,262
|
|
|
|
28,502
|
|
|
|
(2,079,944
|
)
|
|
|
8,574,820
|
|
|
|
Total
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
$
|
14,918,045
|
|
|
$
|
48,803
|
|
|
$
|
(2,141,507
|
)
|
|
$
|
12,825,341
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amortized cost includes adjustments
made to the cost basis of an investment for accretion and/or
amortization, collection of cash, and/or previous OTTI
recognized in earnings (less any cumulative effect adjustments
recognized in accordance with the transition provisions of the
amended OTTI guidance).
|
|
(2) |
|
Unrecognized holding gains/(losses)
represent the difference between estimated fair value and
carrying value, while gross unrealized gains/(losses) represent
the difference between estimated fair value and amortized cost.
|
|
(3) |
|
Represents certificates of deposit
that meet the definition of a security.
|
Restricted securities related to the Shared Funding Program are
classified as
held-to-maturity
and are included in private label residential MBS as of
December 31, 2009 and private label MBS as of
December 31, 2008. The restricted securities had a total
amortized cost of $33.2 million and $47.2 million as
of December 31, 2009 and
166
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
December 31, 2008, respectively. No
held-to-maturity
securities were pledged as collateral at December 31, 2009
or 2008.
The following tables summarize the
held-to-maturity
securities with unrealized losses as of December 31, 2009
and 2008. The unrealized losses are aggregated by major security
type and length of time that individual securities have been in
a continuous unrealized loss position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Less than 12 Months
|
|
|
Greater than 12 Months
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Certificates of deposit
|
|
$
|
399,996
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
399,996
|
|
|
$
|
(4
|
)
|
State or local agency obligations
|
|
|
2,771
|
|
|
|
(37
|
)
|
|
|
258,233
|
|
|
|
(30,800
|
)
|
|
|
261,004
|
|
|
|
(30,837
|
)
|
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency
|
|
|
1,126,928
|
|
|
|
(4,551
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,126,928
|
|
|
|
(4,551
|
)
|
Government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
207,951
|
|
|
|
(2,337
|
)
|
|
|
207,951
|
|
|
|
(2,337
|
)
|
Private label:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,075,741
|
|
|
|
(391,869
|
)
|
|
|
3,075,741
|
|
|
|
(391,869
|
)
|
HELOC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,596
|
|
|
|
(15,960
|
)
|
|
|
12,596
|
|
|
|
(15,960
|
)
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,088,337
|
|
|
|
(407,829
|
)
|
|
|
3,088,337
|
|
|
|
(407,829
|
)
|
|
|
Total MBS
|
|
|
1,126,928
|
|
|
|
(4,551
|
)
|
|
|
3,296,288
|
|
|
|
(410,166
|
)
|
|
|
4,423,216
|
|
|
|
(414,717
|
)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
1,529,695
|
|
|
$
|
(4,592
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,554,521
|
|
|
$
|
(440,966
|
)
|
|
$
|
5,084,216
|
|
|
$
|
(445,558
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Less than 12 months
|
|
|
Greater than 12 months
|
|
|
Total
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Unrealized Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
State or local agency obligations
|
|
|
47,230
|
|
|
|
(4,090
|
)
|
|
|
210,882
|
|
|
|
(57,473
|
)
|
|
|
258,112
|
|
|
|
(61,563
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
47,230
|
|
|
|
(4,090
|
)
|
|
|
210,882
|
|
|
|
(57,473
|
)
|
|
|
258,112
|
|
|
|
(61,563
|
)
|
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. agency
|
|
|
86,841
|
|
|
|
(543
|
)
|
|
|
27,335
|
|
|
|
(217
|
)
|
|
|
114,176
|
|
|
|
(760
|
)
|
Government-sponsored enterprises
|
|
|
203,411
|
|
|
|
(10,977
|
)
|
|
|
519,862
|
|
|
|
(8,869
|
)
|
|
|
723,273
|
|
|
|
(19,846
|
)
|
Private label
|
|
|
2,414,231
|
|
|
|
(853,951
|
)
|
|
|
3,699,546
|
|
|
|
(1,205,387
|
)
|
|
|
6,113,777
|
|
|
|
(2,059,338
|
)
|
|
|
Total MBS
|
|
|
2,704,483
|
|
|
|
(865,471
|
)
|
|
|
4,246,743
|
|
|
|
(1,214,473
|
)
|
|
|
6,951,226
|
|
|
|
(2,079,944
|
)
|
|
|
Total temporarily impaired
|
|
$
|
2,751,713
|
|
|
$
|
(869,561
|
)
|
|
$
|
4,457,625
|
|
|
$
|
(1,271,946
|
)
|
|
$
|
7,209,338
|
|
|
$
|
(2,141,507
|
)
|
|
|
Securities Transferred. During 2009,
the Bank transferred certain private label MBS from its
held-to-maturity
investment portfolio to the
available-for-sale
investment portfolio. The private label MBS transferred had an
other-than-temporary
impairment loss recognized during the quarters in 2009 in which
they were transferred, which the Bank believes constitutes
evidence of a significant decline in the issuers
creditworthiness. The Bank transferred the securities to the
available-for-sale
portfolio to increase financial flexibility to sell these
securities if management determines it is prudent to do so. The
Bank made transfers on June 30, 2009, September 30,
2009 and December 31, 2009. See Note 6 for additional
information.
167
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Redemption Terms. The amortized
cost and fair value of
held-to-maturity
securities by contractual maturity as of December 31, 2009
and 2008 are presented below. Expected maturities of some
securities will differ from contractual maturities because
borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with
or without call or prepayment fees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
|
|
Year of Maturity
|
|
Cost
|
|
|
Value
(1)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Cost(2)
|
|
|
Value (2)
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
|
|
Due in one year or less
|
|
$
|
3,255,517
|
|
|
$
|
3,255,517
|
|
|
$
|
3,256,500
|
|
|
$
|
2,800,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,800,000
|
|
|
$
|
2,804,536
|
|
Due after one year through five years
|
|
|
77,852
|
|
|
|
77,852
|
|
|
|
82,252
|
|
|
|
885,059
|
|
|
|
885,059
|
|
|
|
899,260
|
|
Due after five years through ten years
|
|
|
88,545
|
|
|
|
88,545
|
|
|
|
90,142
|
|
|
|
105,209
|
|
|
|
105,209
|
|
|
|
106,170
|
|
Due after ten years
|
|
|
463,190
|
|
|
|
463,190
|
|
|
|
444,374
|
|
|
|
501,515
|
|
|
|
501,515
|
|
|
|
440,555
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,885,104
|
|
|
|
3,885,104
|
|
|
|
3,873,268
|
|
|
|
4,291,783
|
|
|
|
4,291,783
|
|
|
|
4,250,521
|
|
MBS
|
|
|
6,597,283
|
|
|
|
6,597,283
|
|
|
|
6,232,957
|
|
|
|
10,626,262
|
|
|
|
10,626,262
|
|
|
|
8,574,820
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
$
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
$
|
10,106,225
|
|
|
$
|
14,918,045
|
|
|
$
|
14,918,045
|
|
|
$
|
12,825,341
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
In accordance with the amended OTTI
guidance, carrying value of
held-to-maturity
securities represents amortized cost after adjustment for
noncredit losses recognized in AOCI.
|
|
(2) |
|
At December 31, 2008, carrying
value equaled amortized cost.
|
At December 31, 2009, the amortized cost of the Banks
private label MBS classified as
held-to-maturity
included net purchased discounts of $39.8 million and no
OTTI-related discounts. At December 31, 2008, the amortized
cost of the Banks private label MBS classified as
held-to-maturity
included net purchased discounts of $80.4 million and
$263.1 million of OTTI-related discounts determined in
accordance with the OTTI guidance effective at December 31,
2008. The decrease in total net discounts was due to the
transfers of certain OTTI securities from
held-to-maturity
to
available-for-sale
during 2009.
Interest Rate Payment Terms. The
following table details interest rate payment terms for
held-to-maturity
securities at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Amortized cost of
held-to-maturity
securities other than MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
|
|
$
|
3,428,553
|
|
|
$
|
3,815,779
|
|
Variable-rate
|
|
|
456,551
|
|
|
|
476,004
|
|
|
|
Total non-MBS
|
|
|
3,885,104
|
|
|
|
4,291,783
|
|
Amortized cost of
held-to-maturity
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pass through securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
|
|
|
1,382,318
|
|
|
|
4,552,525
|
|
Variable-rate
|
|
|
1,181,345
|
|
|
|
581,359
|
|
Collateralized mortgage obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
|
|
|
2,227,045
|
|
|
|
5,057,353
|
|
Variable-rate
|
|
|
1,806,575
|
|
|
|
435,025
|
|
|
|
Total MBS
|
|
|
6,597,283
|
|
|
|
10,626,262
|
|
|
|
Total
held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
$
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
$
|
14,918,045
|
|
|
|
Note: Certain MBS securities have a
fixed-rate component for a specified period of time, then have a
rate reset on a given date. Examples of this type of instrument
would include securities supported by underlying 5/1, 7/1 and
10/1 hybrid adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). For purposes of
the table above, these securities are reported as fixed-rate
until the rate reset date is hit. At that point, the security is
then considered to be variable-rate.
168
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Realized Gains and Losses. In 2009, the
Bank sold certain
held-to-maturity
securities which had less than 15 percent of the acquired
principal outstanding remaining at the time of sale. Such sales
are considered maturities for the purposes of security
classification as discussed in Note 2 to these audited
financial statements. The Bank received $144.4 million as
proceeds from the sales and realized $1.8 million in net
gains. There were no sales of
held-to-maturity
securities and, therefore, no realized gains or losses on sales,
for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007.
Changes in circumstances may cause the Bank to change its intent
to hold a certain security to maturity without calling into
question its intent to hold other debt securities to maturity in
the future, as noted above in the Securities Transferred and
Realized Gains and Losses discussions. Thus, the sale or
transfer of a
held-to-maturity
security due to certain changes in circumstances, such as
evidence of significant deterioration in the issuers
creditworthiness or changes in regulatory requirements, is not
considered to be inconsistent with its original classification.
Other events that are isolated, nonrecurring, and unusual for
the Bank that could not have been reasonably anticipated may
cause the Bank to sell or transfer a
held-to-maturity
security without necessarily calling into question its intent to
hold other debt securities to maturity.
Note 8
Other-Than-Temporary
Impairment
The Bank evaluates its individual
available-for-sale
and
held-to-maturity
investment securities holdings in an unrealized loss position
for OTTI on a quarterly basis. As part of this process, the Bank
considers its intent to sell each debt security and whether it
is more likely than not the Bank will be required to sell the
security before its anticipated recovery. If either of these
conditions is met, the Bank recognizes an OTTI loss in earnings
equal to the entire difference between the securitys
amortized cost basis and its fair value at the Statement of
Condition date. For securities in an unrealized loss position
that meet neither of these conditions, the Bank performs
analysis to determine if any of these securities will incur a
credit loss and, therefore, are OTTI.
For state or local housing finance agency obligations, the Bank
has determined that all unrealized losses reflected above are
temporary given the creditworthiness of the issuers and the
underlying collateral.
The Bank invests in MBS, which are rated AAA at the time of
purchase with the exception of one of the restricted securities
related to the Shared Funding Program. This security was rated
AA at the time of purchase. Each MBS may contain one or more
forms of credit protection/enhancements, including but not
limited to guarantee of principal and interest, subordination,
over-collateralization, and excess interest and insurance wrap.
For agency MBS, the Bank has determined that the strength of the
issuers guarantees through direct obligations or support
from the U.S. government is sufficient to protect the Bank
from losses based on current expectations. As a result, the Bank
has determined that, as of December 31, 2009, all of the
gross unrealized losses on its agency MBS are temporary.
To support consistency among the FHLBanks, beginning in the
first quarter of 2009, the Bank completed its OTTI analysis
primarily using key modeling assumptions that were consistent
within the FHLBank System. Beginning in the second quarter of
2009, these assumptions were provided by the FHLBanks OTTI
Governance Committee for the majority of its private label MBS.
Additionally, certain private label MBS backed by multi-family
and commercial real estate loans, HELOCs, manufactured housing
loans and other securities that were not able to be cash flow
tested using the FHLBanks common platform were outside of
the scope of the FHLBanks OTTI Governance Committee.
Therefore, these types of securities were analyzed for OTTI by
the Bank using other methods. Beginning with the third quarter
of 2009, the Bank cash flow tests 100 percent of its
private label MBS portfolio, other than those securities
discussed above, for purposes of OTTI cash flow analysis, using
the FHLBanks common platform and approved assumptions.
Beginning fourth quarter 2009, for certain private label MBS
where underlying collateral data is not available, alternate
procedures, as prescribed by the OTTI Governance Committee, are
used by the Bank to assess these securities for OTTI,
potentially including a cash flow test.
To assess whether the entire amortized cost bases of its private
label residential MBS will be recovered, the Bank performed a
cash flow analysis or alternative procedures. In performing the
cash flow analysis for each of
169
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
these securities classified as prime, Alt-A and subprime, the
Bank used two third party models. The first model considered
borrower characteristics and the particular attributes of the
loans underlying the Banks securities, in conjunction with
assumptions about future changes in home prices and interest
rates, to project prepayments, defaults and loss severities. A
significant input to the first model was the forecast of future
housing price changes which were forecasted for the relevant
states and core-based statistical areas (CBSAs), based upon an
assessment of the individual housing markets. The term CBSA
refers collectively to metropolitan and micropolitan statistical
areas as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget; as currently defined, a CBSA must contain at least one
urban area of 10,000 or more people. The Banks housing
price forecast assumed
current-to-trough
home price declines ranging from 0 percent to
15 percent over the next nine to fifteen months.
Thereafter, home prices are projected to remain flat for the
first six months, then increase 0.5 percent in the next six
months, 3 percent in the second year and 4 percent in
each subsequent year.
The
month-by-month
projections of future loan performance derived from the first
model, which reflect the projected prepayments, defaults and
loss severities, were then input into a second model that
allocated the projected loan level cash flows and losses to the
various security classes in the securitization structure in
accordance with its prescribed cash flow and loss allocation
rules. In a securitization in which the credit enhancement for
the senior securities is derived from the presence of
subordinate securities, losses are generally allocated first to
the subordinate securities until their principal balance is
reduced to zero. The projected cash flows are based on a number
of assumptions and expectations, and the results of these models
can vary significantly with changes in assumptions and
expectations. The scenario of cash flows determined based on the
modeling approach described above reflects a best estimate
scenario and includes a base case
current-to-trough
housing price forecast and a base case housing price recovery
path. Securities other than HELOCs evaluated using alternative
procedures were not significant to the Bank, as they represented
less than 1 percent of MBS at December 31, 2009.
To assess whether the entire amortized cost basis of HELOCs will
be recovered, the Bank performs a security-level cash flow test
because loan-level data is not available. The security-level
cash flow test is based on published assumptions concerning
prepayments and defaults, adjusted for the actual performance of
the HELOC. Loss severities are assumed to be 100 percent.
Certain private-label MBS owned by the Bank are insured by
third-party bond insurers (monoline insurers). The bond
insurance on these investments guarantees the timely payments of
principal and interest if these payments cannot be satisfied
from the cash flows of the underlying mortgage pool. The cash
flow analysis of the HELOCs protected by such third-party
insurance looks first to the performance of the underlying
security, considering its embedded credit enhancements in the
form of excess spread, overcollateralization, and credit
subordination, to determine the collectability of all amounts
due. If these protections are deemed insufficient to make timely
payment of all amounts due, then the Bank considers the capacity
of the third-party bond insurer to cover any shortfalls. Certain
of the monoline insurers have been subject to adverse ratings,
rating downgrades, and weakening financial performance measures.
Accordingly, the Bank has performed analyses to assess the
financial strength of these monoline insurers to establish an
expected case regarding the time horizon of the bond
insurers ability to fulfill their financial obligations
and provide credit support. The projected time horizon of credit
protection provided by an insurer is a function of claim paying
resources and anticipated claims in the future. This assumption
is referred to as the burnout period and is expressed in months.
The results of the insurer financial analysis were then
incorporated in the third-party cash flow model, as a key input.
Any cash flow shortfalls that occurred beyond the burnout period
were considered not recoverable and the insured security was
then deemed to be OTTI.
For those securities for which an OTTI was determined to have
occurred during the year ended December 31, 2009 (that is,
a determination was made that the entire amortized cost bases
will not likely be recovered), the following table presents a
summary of the significant inputs used to measure the amount of
the credit loss recognized in earnings during the year ended
December 31, 2009 as well as related current credit
enhancement. Credit enhancement is defined as the percentage of
subordinated tranches and over-collateralization, if any, in a
security structure that will generally absorb losses before the
Bank will experience a loss on the security. The calculated
averages represent the dollar weighted averages of the
significant inputs used to measure the credit loss recognized in
earnings during 2009. The CUSIP classification (Prime, Alt-A and
subprime) is based on the model
170
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
used to run the estimated cash flows for the CUSIP and not the
classification at the time of issuance. Securities classified as
Prime at issuance, but experiencing poor performance based on
delinquency rates of the underlying collateral pool, are modeled
as Alt-A. Estimating cash flows of Prime securities with Alt-A
assumptions increased the projected losses on certain CUSIPs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant Inputs for OTTI Residential MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prepayment Rates
|
|
|
Default Rates
|
|
|
Loss Severities
|
|
|
Current Credit Enhancement
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
Year of Securitization
|
|
Avg %
|
|
|
Range %
|
|
|
Avg %
|
|
|
Range %
|
|
|
Avg %
|
|
|
Range %
|
|
|
Avg %
|
|
|
Range %
|
|
|
|
|
Prime:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
5.9-28.1
|
|
|
|
23.7
|
|
|
|
8.3-46.0
|
|
|
|
42.0
|
|
|
|
36.2-48.5
|
|
|
|
7.1
|
|
|
|
3.9-8.5
|
|
2006
|
|
|
8.6
|
|
|
|
5.9-12.6
|
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
6.1-26.6
|
|
|
|
40.4
|
|
|
|
27.7-54.1
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
1.5-14.5
|
|
2005
|
|
|
12.6
|
|
|
|
6.0-17.2
|
|
|
|
11.4
|
|
|
|
2.4-19.3
|
|
|
|
41.7
|
|
|
|
30.1-63.8
|
|
|
|
4.8
|
|
|
|
4.3-4.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
5.9-28.1
|
|
|
|
20.0
|
|
|
|
2.4-46.0
|
|
|
|
41.6
|
|
|
|
27.7-63.8
|
|
|
|
6.9
|
|
|
|
1.5-14.5
|
|
Alt-A:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
12.2
|
|
|
|
8.2-17.1
|
|
|
|
42.5
|
|
|
|
12.0-57.2
|
|
|
|
41.2
|
|
|
|
30.9-50.8
|
|
|
|
10.2
|
|
|
|
4.4-16.8
|
|
2006
|
|
|
12.9
|
|
|
|
7.8-20.1
|
|
|
|
36.7
|
|
|
|
7.2-74.4
|
|
|
|
41.6
|
|
|
|
33.7-52.8
|
|
|
|
8.8
|
|
|
|
3.7-15.3
|
|
2005
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
8.4-16.9
|
|
|
|
28.5
|
|
|
|
19.0-43.8
|
|
|
|
36.8
|
|
|
|
27.6-49.6
|
|
|
|
7.0
|
|
|
|
4.9-10.1
|
|
2004 and prior
|
|
|
15.7
|
|
|
|
13.3-19.0
|
|
|
|
14.9
|
|
|
|
1.3-27.3
|
|
|
|
28.0
|
|
|
|
9.7-45.6
|
|
|
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
4.3-12.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.5
|
|
|
|
7.8-20.1
|
|
|
|
37.9
|
|
|
|
1.3-74.4
|
|
|
|
40.7
|
|
|
|
9.7-52.8
|
|
|
|
9.2
|
|
|
|
3.7-16.8
|
|
Subprime:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and prior
|
|
|
13.6
|
|
|
|
10.1-18.1
|
|
|
|
28.3
|
|
|
|
9.1-40.1
|
|
|
|
75.6
|
|
|
|
56.4-89.7
|
|
|
|
17.5
|
|
|
|
16.1-18.4
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
|
|
5.9-28.1
|
|
|
|
31.0
|
|
|
|
1.3-74.4
|
|
|
|
41.1
|
|
|
|
9.7-89.7
|
|
|
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
1.5-18.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant Inputs for OTTI
HELOCs(1)
|
|
|
Prepayment Rates
|
|
Default Rates
|
|
Loss Severities
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
Year of Securitization
|
|
Avg %
|
|
Range %
|
|
Avg %
|
|
Range %
|
|
Avg %
|
|
Range %
|
|
|
Alt-A:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2004 and prior
|
|
|
13.2
|
|
|
|
11.4-14.4
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
|
|
7.5-19.9
|
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a not applicable
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Current credit enhancement weighted
average and range percentages are not considered meaningful for
home equity loan investments, as the majority of these
investments are third-party insured.
|
There are four insurers wrapping the Banks HELOC
investments. Of these four, the financial guarantee from
Financial Services Assurance Corp (FSA) is considered sufficient
to cover all future claims and is, therefore, excluded from the
burnout analysis discussed above. Another insurer, Assured
Guaranty Municipal Corp (AGMC), was recently ordered by the New
York Insurance Department to suspend all claim payments. In
effect, AGMC then has no burnout period and no analysis was
performed. The Bank has analyzed the burnout period for the two
remaining insurers, Ambac Assurance Corp (Ambac) and MBIA
Insurance Corp (MBIA). These results are presented in the table
below and the Bank factored in these assumptions when relying on
credit protection from Ambac and MBIA. The Bank monitors the
insurers and as facts and circumstances change, the burnout
period could significantly change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protection Time Horizon
|
|
|
|
Calculation
|
|
|
|
Ambac
|
|
|
MBIA
|
|
|
|
|
Burnout period (months)
|
|
|
18
|
|
|
|
18
|
|
Coverage ignore date
|
|
|
6/30/2011
|
|
|
|
6/30/2011
|
|
171
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
To determine the amount of the credit loss, the Bank compares
the present value of the cash flows expected to be collected
from its private label residential MBS to its amortized cost
basis. For the Banks private label residential MBS, the
Bank uses a forward interest rate curve to project the future
estimated cash flows. The Bank then uses the effective interest
rate for the security prior to impairment for determining the
present value of the future estimated cash flows. For securities
previously identified as
other-than-temporarily
impaired, the Bank updates its estimate of future estimated cash
flows on a quarterly basis.
During the quarter ended December 31, 2009, the Bank
changed its estimation technique used to determine the present
value of estimated cash flows expected to be collected for its
variable rate and hybrid private label residential MBS.
Specifically, the Bank employed a technique that allowed it to
update the effective interest rate used in its present value
calculation, which isolated movements in the underlying interest
rate indices from its measurement of credit loss. Prior to this
change, the Bank had determined the effective interest rate on
each security prior to its first impairment and continued to use
this effective interest rate for calculating the present value
of cash flows expected to be collected, even though the
underlying interest rate indices changed over time. This change
in present value estimation technique did not have a significant
impact on the Banks estimated credit losses for its
variable rate and hybrid private label residential MBS at
December 31, 2009.
The table below summarizes the Banks investment securities
for which an OTTI has been recognized during the year ended
December 31, 2009. All of the Banks OTTI securities
incurred a credit loss during 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Held-to-Maturity Securities
|
|
|
Available-for-Sale Securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unpaid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unpaid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
|
Principal
|
|
|
Amortized
|
|
|
Fair
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Cost(1)
|
|
|
Value(2)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Balance
|
|
|
Cost(1)
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
Private label residential
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,894,691
|
|
|
$
|
1,796,644
|
|
|
$
|
1,434,308
|
|
Alt-A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,391,695
|
|
|
|
1,255,919
|
|
|
|
940,534
|
|
Subprime
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,164
|
|
|
|
2,691
|
|
|
|
1,537
|
|
Private label HELOCs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,492
|
|
|
|
26,963
|
|
|
|
14,335
|
|
|
|
Total OTTI securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,323,042
|
|
|
|
3,082,217
|
|
|
|
2,390,714
|
|
Private label MBS not OTTI
|
|
|
3,553,894
|
|
|
|
3,529,369
|
|
|
|
3,529,369
|
|
|
|
3,121,913
|
|
|
|
6,616
|
|
|
|
6,616
|
|
|
|
4,594
|
|
|
|
Total private label MBS
|
|
$
|
3,553,894
|
|
|
$
|
3,529,369
|
|
|
$
|
3,529,369
|
|
|
$
|
3,121,913
|
|
|
$
|
3,329,658
|
|
|
$
|
3,088,833
|
|
|
$
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amortized cost includes adjustments
made to the cost basis of an investment for accretion and/or
amortization, collection of cash, and/or previous OTTI
recognized in earnings (less any cumulative effect adjustments
recognized in accordance with the transition provisions of the
amended OTTI guidance).
|
|
(2) |
|
In accordance with the amended OTTI
guidance, carrying value of
held-to-maturity
represents amortized cost after adjustment for noncredit related
impairment recognized in other comprehensive loss.
|
The remainder of the private label MBS investment securities
portfolio has experienced unrealized losses and a decrease in
fair value due to interest rate volatility, illiquidity in the
marketplace, and credit deterioration in the U.S. mortgage
markets. However, the decline is considered temporary as the
Bank expects to recover the entire amortized cost basis on the
remaining investment securities in an unrealized loss position
and neither intends to sell these securities nor considers it
more likely than not that the Bank would be required to sell the
security before its anticipated recovery.
172
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The table below summarizes the impact of OTTI credit and
noncredit losses recorded on investment securities for the
twelve months ended December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI Related to
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OTTI Related to
|
|
|
Net Noncredit
|
|
|
Total OTTI
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Credit Loss
|
|
|
Loss
|
|
|
Losses
|
|
|
|
|
Private label Residential MBS:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prime
|
|
$
|
(95,191
|
)
|
|
$
|
(510,953
|
)
|
|
$
|
(606,144
|
)
|
Alt-A
|
|
|
(126,295
|
)
|
|
|
(292,453
|
)
|
|
|
(418,748
|
)
|
Subprime
|
|
|
(511
|
)
|
|
|
(1,385
|
)
|
|
|
(1,896
|
)
|
Private label HELOCs
|
|
|
(6,523
|
)
|
|
|
(10,383
|
)
|
|
|
(16,906
|
)
|
|
|
Total OTTI on private label MBS
|
|
$
|
(228,520
|
)
|
|
$
|
(815,174
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,043,694
|
)
|
|
|
The following table presents the rollforward of the amounts
related to credit losses recognized during the life of the
security for which a portion of the OTTI charges was recognized
in AOCI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
Beginning balance
|
|
$
|
10,039(1
|
)
|
Additions:
|
|
|
|
|
Credit losses for which OTTI was not previously recognized
|
|
|
156,365
|
|
Additional OTTI credit losses for which an OTTI charge was
previously
recognized(2)
|
|
|
72,155
|
|
Reductions:
|
|
|
|
|
Increases in cash flows expected to be collected, recognized
over the remaining life of the
securities(3)
|
|
|
(429
|
)
|
|
|
Ending balance
|
|
$
|
238,130
|
|
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
The Bank adopted the amended OTTI
guidance as of January 1, 2009 and recognized the
cumulative effect of initially applying this guidance, totaling
$255.9 million, as an adjustment to retained earnings at
January 1, 2009, with a corresponding offsetting adjustment
to AOCI.
|
|
(2) |
|
For the year ended
December 31, 2009, OTTI previously recognized
represents securities that were impaired prior to
January 1, 2009.
|
|
(3) |
|
This represents the increase in
cash flows recognized in interest income during the period.
|
173
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Note 9
Advances
Redemption Terms. At
December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank had advances
outstanding including AHP loans (see Note 17) at
interest rates ranging from 0% to 7.84% as summarized below. AHP
subsidized loans have interest rates ranging between 0% and
6.50%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Average
|
|
Year of Contractual Maturity
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
$
|
18,967,798
|
|
|
|
2.55
|
%
|
|
$
|
22,032,873
|
|
|
|
2.46
|
%
|
Due after 1 year through 2 years
|
|
|
4,478,412
|
|
|
|
3.07
|
|
|
|
12,337,582
|
|
|
|
4.47
|
|
Due after 2 years through 3 years
|
|
|
4,735,971
|
|
|
|
3.51
|
|
|
|
5,504,010
|
|
|
|
3.64
|
|
Due after 3 years through 4 years
|
|
|
2,835,357
|
|
|
|
3.41
|
|
|
|
4,916,316
|
|
|
|
3.68
|
|
Due after 4 years through 5 years
|
|
|
1,474,737
|
|
|
|
4.61
|
|
|
|
4,099,048
|
|
|
|
3.79
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
7,263,708
|
|
|
|
5.17
|
|
|
|
10,675,571
|
|
|
|
5.19
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
|
39,755,983
|
|
|
|
3.34
|
%
|
|
|
59,565,400
|
|
|
|
3.66
|
%
|
|
|
Discount on AHP advances
|
|
|
(854
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,097
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred prepayment fees
|
|
|
(154
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(102
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Hedging adjustments
|
|
|
1,422,335
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,589,240
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total book value
|
|
$
|
41,177,310
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
62,153,441
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Index amortizing loans require repayment according to
predetermined amortization schedules linked to the level of
various indices. Usually, as market interest rates rise (fall),
the maturity of an index amortizing loan to member extends
(contracts).
The Bank offers advances that may be prepaid on pertinent dates
(call dates) without incurring prepayment or termination fees
(returnable advances). Other advances may only be prepaid by
paying a fee (prepayment fee) to the Bank that makes the Bank
financially indifferent to the prepayment of the loan. At
December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank had returnable
advances of $12.0 million and $3.6 billion,
respectively. The following table summarizes advances by year of
contractual maturity or next call date for returnable advances
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Year of Contractual Maturity or Next Call Date
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
$
|
18,979,798
|
|
|
$
|
25,607,873
|
|
Due after 1 year through 2 years
|
|
|
4,478,412
|
|
|
|
12,147,582
|
|
Due after 2 years through 3 years
|
|
|
4,733,971
|
|
|
|
5,349,010
|
|
Due after 3 years through 4 years
|
|
|
2,835,357
|
|
|
|
4,514,316
|
|
Due after 4 years through 5 years
|
|
|
1,474,737
|
|
|
|
3,224,048
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
7,253,708
|
|
|
|
8,722,571
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
39,755,983
|
|
|
$
|
59,565,400
|
|
|
|
174
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The Bank also offers convertible advances. With a convertible
advance, the Bank purchases an option from the member that
allows the Bank to convert the interest rate from fixed to
floating by terminating the fixed advance, which the Bank
normally would exercise when interest rates increase, and
offering a floating-rate advance. At December 31, 2009 and
2008, the Bank had convertible advances outstanding of
$6.8 billion and $7.4 billion, respectively. The
following table summarizes advances by year of contractual
maturity or next convertible date for convertible advances as of
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Year of Contractual Maturity or Next Convertible Date
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
$
|
23,975,498
|
|
|
$
|
28,169,793
|
|
Due after 1 year through 2 years
|
|
|
4,089,962
|
|
|
|
11,368,362
|
|
Due after 2 years through 3 years
|
|
|
4,104,971
|
|
|
|
5,084,560
|
|
Due after 3 years through 4 years
|
|
|
2,160,357
|
|
|
|
4,156,316
|
|
Due after 4 years through 5 years
|
|
|
1,223,987
|
|
|
|
3,424,048
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
4,201,208
|
|
|
|
7,362,321
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
39,755,983
|
|
|
$
|
59,565,400
|
|
|
|
Security Terms. The Bank lends to
financial institutions involved in housing finance within its
district according to Federal statutes, including the Act. The
Act requires the Bank to obtain sufficient collateral on
advances to protect against losses and to accept only certain
U.S. government or government agency securities,
residential mortgage loans, cash or deposits in the Bank, and
other eligible real estate-related assets as collateral on such
advances.
CFIs are eligible under expanded statutory collateral rules to
use secured small business, small farm and small agriculture
loans and securities representing a whole interest in such
secured loans. Secured loans for community development
activities is a permitted purpose for funding use and as
eligible collateral for advances to CFIs.
Effective February 4, 2010, CDFIs were also considered
eligible members of the FHLBank. Because none of the
newly-eligible CDFIs are insured by the FDIC, they cannot be
CFIs and thus cannot either pledge community development loans
as collateral or obtain long-term advances to support community
development purposes. To the extent that the collateral and
advances regulations may need to be revised to better
accommodate CDFI members, the Finance Agency would undertake
those changes as part of a separate rulemaking.
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank had collateral with
an eligible collateral value in excess of the book value of all
outstanding advances. The estimated value of the collateral
required to secure each members obligation is calculated
by applying collateral discounts or weightings. On the basis of
the financial condition of the member, the type of security
agreement, and other factors, the Bank requires the member and
any affiliate pledgor to execute a written security agreement
and imposes one of two requirements to protect the collateral
secured:
|
|
|
|
|
Allows a member or affiliate pledgor to retain possession of the
collateral pledged to the Bank, under a written security
agreement that requires the member or affiliate pledgor to hold
such collateral for the benefit of the Bank; or
|
|
|
Requires the member or affiliate pledgor to deliver physical
custody to the Bank or custodian or grant control of the pledged
collateral to the Bank through its third-party custodian.
|
Beyond these provisions, the Act affords any security interest
granted by a member or any affiliate of the member to the Bank
priority over the claims or rights of any other party. The
exceptions are those claims that would be entitled to priority
under otherwise applicable law and are held by bona fide
purchasers for value or by secured parties with perfected
security interests ahead in priority to the Banks. As
additional security, the Bank has a statutory lien on each
borrowers capital in the Bank.
Credit Risk. While the Bank has never
experienced a loan loss on an advance, the expansion of
collateral for CFIs and lending to nonmember housing associates
and CDFIs provides the potential for additional credit risk for
the Bank. Deterioration in real estate values in various
markets, with a resulting decline in the value of certain
175
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
mortgage loans and mortgage securities pledged as collateral,
also pose the potential for additional risk. The management of
the Bank has policies and procedures in place to manage this
credit risk. Accordingly, the Bank has not provided any
allowances for credit losses on advances.
The Banks potential credit risk from advances is
concentrated in commercial banks and savings institutions. As of
December 31, 2009, the Bank had advances of
$25.4 billion outstanding to the five largest borrowers,
which represented 63.9% of total advances outstanding. The
contractual interest income from these loans was
$1.2 billion during the year ended December 31, 2009.
The contractual amount excludes the net interest settlements on
derivatives in fair value hedge relationships presented in the
interest income line item on the Statement of Operations. Of
these five, three each had outstanding loan balances in excess
of 10 percent of the total portfolio at December 31,
2009. As of December 31, 2008, the Bank had advances of
$37.6 billion outstanding to the five largest borrowers,
which represented 63.2% of total advances outstanding. The
contractual interest income from these advances was
$1.8 billion during the year ended December 31, 2008.
Of these five, three each had outstanding advance balances in
excess of 10% of the total portfolio at December 31, 2008.
The Bank held sufficient collateral to secure advances and the
Bank does not expect to incur any losses on advances. See
Note 21 for further information on transactions with
related parties.
Interest Rate Payment Terms. The
following table details interest rate payment terms for advances
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed rate overnight
|
|
$
|
147,577
|
|
|
$
|
2,269,643
|
|
Fixed rate term:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
|
18,476,686
|
|
|
|
19,435,466
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
17,569,424
|
|
|
|
30,627,579
|
|
Variable-rate:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
|
343,535
|
|
|
|
327,763
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
3,218,761
|
|
|
|
6,904,949
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
39,755,983
|
|
|
$
|
59,565,400
|
|
|
|
Note 10
Mortgage Loans Held for Portfolio
Under the MPF Program, the Bank invests in mortgage loans which
it purchases from its participating members and housing
associates. The total loans represent
held-for-portfolio
loans under the MPF Program whereby the Banks members
originate, service, and credit enhance residential mortgage
loans that are then sold to the Bank. In the past, the Bank has
sold participation interests in some of its MPF Program loans to
other FHLBanks and purchased participation interests from other
FHLBanks. See Note 21 for further information regarding
transactions with related parties.
The following table presents information as of December 31,
2009 and 2008 on mortgage loans held for portfolio:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed medium-term single-family
mortgages(1)
|
|
$
|
878,332
|
|
|
$
|
1,067,503
|
|
Fixed long-term single-family
mortgages(1)
|
|
|
4,243,117
|
|
|
|
5,049,825
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
|
5,121,449
|
|
|
|
6,117,328
|
|
|
|
Premiums
|
|
|
47,703
|
|
|
|
60,596
|
|
Discounts
|
|
|
(18,798
|
)
|
|
|
(22,375
|
)
|
Hedging adjustments
|
|
|
15,163
|
|
|
|
14,018
|
|
|
|
Total mortgage loans held for portfolio
|
|
$
|
5,165,517
|
|
|
$
|
6,169,567
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Medium-term is defined as a term of
15 years or less. Long-term is defined as greater than
15 years.
|
176
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following tables detail the par value of mortgage loans held
for portfolio outstanding categorized by type and by maturity as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Government-guaranteed/insured loans
|
|
$
|
398,039
|
|
|
$
|
449,416
|
|
Conventional loans
|
|
|
4,723,410
|
|
|
|
5,667,912
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
5,121,449
|
|
|
$
|
6,117,328
|
|
|
|
Year of maturity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due within one year
|
|
$
|
19
|
|
|
$
|
21
|
|
Due after one year through five years
|
|
|
4,665
|
|
|
|
4,313
|
|
Due after five years
|
|
|
5,116,765
|
|
|
|
6,112,994
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
5,121,449
|
|
|
$
|
6,117,328
|
|
|
|
Note 11
Allowance for Credit Losses
Mortgage Loans Held for Portfolio. The
following table presents the rollforward of the allowance for
credit losses for mortgage loans held for portfolio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
4,301
|
|
|
$
|
1,055
|
|
|
$
|
853
|
|
Charge-offs
|
|
|
(16
|
)
|
|
|
(9
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(1,605
|
)
|
|
|
3,255
|
|
|
|
202
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
2,680
|
|
|
$
|
4,301
|
|
|
$
|
1,055
|
|
|
|
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank had
$71.2 million and $38.3 million, respectively, of
nonaccrual mortgage loans which represent conventional loans
delinquent by 90 days or more. At December 31, 2009
and 2008, the Banks other assets included
$11.1 million and $5.9 million, respectively, of other
real estate owned (REO). The REO balances are carried at the
lower of cost or market.
Credit losses that are not paid by primary mortgage insurance
are allocated to the Bank up to an agreed upon amount, called a
First Loss Account (FLA). The FLA functions as a tracking
mechanism for determining the point after which the
participating member is required to cover losses. The FLA can be
either an account which builds over time or an amount equal to
an
agreed-upon
percentage of the aggregate balance of the mortgage loans
purchased, depending on the MPF Program product. The Bank pays
the participating member a fee, a portion of which may be based
on the credit performance of the mortgage loans, in exchange for
absorbing the second layer of losses up to an
agreed-upon
CE amount. Performance-based fees may be withheld to cover
losses allocated to the Bank under the FLA. At December 31,
2009 and 2008, the Banks exposure under the FLA, excluding
amounts that may be recovered through withholding of
performance-based CE fees, was $43.5 million and
$44.0 million, respectively. This exposure includes both
accrual and nonaccrual loans.
The Bank records CE fees as a reduction to mortgage loan
interest income. CE fees totaled $6.5 million,
$7.1 million and $7.7 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
177
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Banking on Business Loans. The
following table presents the rollforward of the allowance for
credit losses for BOB loans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
9,725
|
|
|
$
|
6,797
|
|
|
$
|
6,735
|
|
Charge-offs
|
|
|
(439
|
)
|
|
|
(289
|
)
|
|
|
(1,623
|
)
|
Provision for credit losses
|
|
|
195
|
|
|
|
3,217
|
|
|
|
1,685
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
9,481
|
|
|
$
|
9,725
|
|
|
$
|
6,797
|
|
|
|
The Bank charged off $439 thousand, $289 thousand and
$1.6 million of BOB loans during the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank had
$21.3 million and $21.1 million, respectively, of
gross nonaccrual BOB loans, before allowance for credit losses.
The amount of forgone interest income on nonaccrual BOB loans
for each of the periods presented was less than $1 million.
The Bank recorded $93 thousand, $68 thousand and $103 thousand
of cash basis interest income on BOB loans during the years
ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
Off-Balance Sheet Credit Risk. The
following table presents the rollforward of the allowance for
off-balance sheet credit risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
1,266
|
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
$
|
1,013
|
|
Provision (benefit) for credit losses
|
|
|
(1,152
|
)
|
|
|
643
|
|
|
|
(390
|
)
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
114
|
|
|
$
|
1,266
|
|
|
$
|
623
|
|
|
|
The off-balance sheet credit risk is associated with BOB loan
commitments and standby letters of credit.
See Note 2 to these audited financial statements regarding
the methodologies for the allowance for credit losses on
mortgage loans held for portfolio, BOB loans and off-balance
sheet credit risk.
Note 12
Derivatives and Hedging Activities
Nature of Business Activity. The Bank
is exposed to interest rate risk primarily from the effect of
interest rate changes on its interest-earning assets and
liabilities.
Consistent with Finance Agency policy, the Bank enters into
derivatives to manage the interest-rate risk exposures inherent
in otherwise unhedged assets and funding positions, to achieve
the Banks risk management objectives, and to act as an
intermediary between its members and counterparties. Finance
Agency regulation and the Banks risk management policy
prohibit trading in or the speculative use of these derivative
instruments and limit credit risk arising from these
instruments. The Bank may only use derivatives to reduce funding
costs for consolidated obligations and to manage interest-rate
risk, mortgage prepayment risk and foreign currency risk
positions. Interest-rate exchange agreements (also referred to
as derivatives) are an integral part of the Banks
financial management strategy.
The most common ways, in no particular order, in which the Bank
uses derivatives are to:
|
|
|
|
|
reduce interest-rate sensitivity and repricing gaps of assets
and liabilities;
|
|
|
reduce funding costs by combining a derivative with a
consolidated obligation as the cost of a combined funding
structure can be lower than the cost of a comparable
consolidated obligation bond;
|
|
|
preserve a favorable interest-rate spread between the yield of
an asset (e.g., an advance) and the cost of the related
liability (e.g., the consolidated obligation bond used to fund
the advance). Without the use of
|
178
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
derivatives, this interest-rate spread could be reduced or
eliminated when a change in the interest rate on the advance
does not match a change in the interest rate on the bond;
|
|
|
|
|
|
mitigate the adverse earnings effects of the shortening or
extension of certain assets (e.g., advances or mortgage assets)
and liabilities;
|
|
|
protect the value of existing asset or liability positions or of
anticipated transactions;
|
|
|
manage embedded options in assets and liabilities; and
|
|
|
as part of its overall asset/liability management.
|
Types of Interest-Rate Exchange
Agreements. The Banks risk governance
policy establishes guidelines for its use of interest-rate
exchange agreements. The Bank can use the following instruments,
in no particular order of importance, to reduce funding costs
and to manage exposure to interest rate risks inherent in the
normal course of the Banks business lending, investment,
and funding activities:
|
|
|
|
|
interest-rate swaps;
|
|
|
interest-rate swaptions; and
|
|
|
interest-rate caps or floors.
|
The goal of the Banks interest rate risk management
strategy is not to eliminate interest rate risk, but to manage
it within appropriate limits. One strategy the Bank uses to
manage interest rate risk is to acquire and maintain a portfolio
of assets and liabilities which, together with their associated
interest rate derivatives limit the Banks risk exposure.
The Bank may use interest rate derivatives to adjust the
effective maturity, repricing frequency, or option
characteristics of financial instruments (such as advances, MPF
loans, MBS, and consolidated obligations) to achieve risk
management objectives.
Interest-Rate Swaps. An interest-rate swap is
an agreement between two entities to exchange cash flows in the
future. The agreement sets the dates on which the cash flows
will be paid and the manner in which the cash flows will be
calculated. One of the simplest forms of an interest-rate swap
involves the promise by one party to pay cash flows equivalent
to the interest on a notional principal amount at a
predetermined fixed rate for a given period of time. In return
for this promise, this party receives cash flows equivalent to
the interest on the same notional principal amount at a
variable-rate for the same period of time. The variable rate
paid or received by the Bank in most interest-rate exchange
agreements is LIBOR.
Swaptions. A swaption is an option on a swap
that gives the buyer the right to enter into a specified
interest-rate swap at a certain time in the future. When used as
a hedge, a swaption can protect the Bank when it is planning to
lend or borrow funds in the future against future interest rate
changes. From time to time, the Bank purchases both payer
swaptions and receiver swaptions. A payer swaption is the option
to make fixed interest payments at a later date and a receiver
swaption is the option to receive fixed interest payments at a
later date.
Interest-Rate Caps and Floors. In a cap
agreement, a cash flow is generated if the price or rate of an
underlying variable rises above a certain threshold (or
cap) price. In a floor agreement, a cash flow is
generated if the price or rate of an underlying variable falls
below a certain threshold (or floor) price. Caps and
floors are designed as protection against the interest rate on a
variable-rate asset or liability rising above or falling below a
certain level.
Application of Interest-Rate Exchange
Agreements. The Bank uses these derivatives
to adjust the effective maturity, repricing frequency or option
characteristics of financial instruments in order to achieve
risk management and funding objectives. Derivative financial
instruments are used by the Bank in three ways:
|
|
|
|
|
by designating them as a fair-value or cash-flow hedge of an
associated financial instrument, a firm commitment or an
anticipated transaction;
|
|
|
in asset/liability management (i.e.,economic hedges
that do not qualify for hedge accounting); or
|
|
|
by acting as an intermediary.
|
The Bank reevaluates its hedging strategies from time to time
and may change the hedging techniques it uses or adopt new
strategies.
179
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Bank management uses derivatives when they are considered to be
the most cost-effective alternative to achieve the Banks
financial and risk management objectives. Accordingly, the Bank
may enter into derivatives that do not necessarily qualify for
hedge accounting (economic hedges).
Types of Assets and Liabilities
Hedged. The Bank documents at inception all
relationships between derivatives designated as hedging
instruments and hedged items, its risk management objectives and
strategies for undertaking various hedge transactions, and its
method of assessing effectiveness. This process includes linking
all derivatives that are designated as fair value or cash flow
hedges to (1) assets and liabilities on the Statement of
Condition, (2) firm commitments, or (3) forecasted
transactions. The Bank also formally assesses (both at the
hedges inception and on a monthly basis) whether the
derivatives that it uses in hedging transactions have been
effective in offsetting changes in the fair value or cash flows
of hedged items and whether those derivatives may be expected to
remain effective in future periods. The Bank uses regression
analyses to assess the effectiveness of its hedges.
Consolidated Obligations. While consolidated
obligations are the joint and several obligations of the
FHLBanks, each FHLBank has consolidated obligations for which it
is the primary obligor. To date, no FHLBank has ever had to
assume or pay the consolidated obligations of another FHLBank.
The Bank enters into derivatives to hedge the interest rate risk
associated with its specific debt issuances. The Bank manages
the risk arising from changing market prices and volatility of a
consolidated obligation by matching the cash inflow on the
interest-rate exchange agreement with the cash outflow on the
consolidated obligation.
For instance, in a typical transaction, fixed-rate consolidated
obligations are issued by the Bank, and the Bank simultaneously
enters into a matching derivative in which the counterparty pays
fixed cash flows designed to mirror, in timing and amount, the
cash outflows that the Bank pays on the consolidated obligation.
The Bank pays a variable cash flow that closely matches the
interest payments it receives on short-term or variable-rate
advances (typically one- or three-month LIBOR). The fixed-rate
consolidated obligation and matching derivative are treated as
fair-value hedges. The Bank may issue variable-rate consolidated
obligation bonds indexed to LIBOR, the
U.S. Prime rate, or Federal funds rate and simultaneously
execute interest-rate swaps to hedge the basis risk of the
variable-rate debt. Basis risk represents the risk that changes
to one interest rate index will not perfectly offset changes to
another interest rate index.
This strategy of issuing bonds while simultaneously entering
into interest rate exchange agreements enables the Bank to offer
a wider range of attractively priced advances and may allow the
Bank to reduce its funding costs. The continued attractiveness
of such debt depends on yield relationships between the bond and
interest rate exchange markets. If conditions in these markets
change, the Bank may alter the types or terms of the bonds that
it issues. By acting in both the capital and the swap markets,
the Bank may be able to raise funds at lower costs than through
the issuance of simple fixed- or variable-rate consolidated
obligations in the capital markets alone.
Advances. The Bank offers a wide array of
advances structured to meet members funding needs. These
advances may have maturities up to 30 years with variable
or fixed rates and may include early termination features or
options. The Bank may use derivatives to adjust the repricing
and/or
options characteristics of advances in order to more closely
match the characteristics of the funding liabilities. In
general, whenever a member executes a fixed-rate loan to member
or a variable-rate loan to member with embedded options, the
Bank may simultaneously execute a derivative with terms that
offset the terms and embedded options in the loan to member. For
example, the Bank may hedge a fixed-rate advance with an
interest-rate swap where the Bank pays a fixed-rate coupon and
receives a variable-rate coupon, effectively converting the
fixed-rate advances to variable-rate. This type of hedge is
treated as a fair-value hedge.
When issuing convertible advances, the Bank may purchase put
options from a member that allow the FHLBank to convert the loan
from a fixed rate to a variable rate if interest rates increase.
A convertible loan to member carries an interest rate lower than
a comparable-maturity fixed-rate loan to member that does not
have the conversion feature. With a putable loan to member, the
Bank effectively purchases a put option from the member that
allows the Bank to put or extinguish the fixed-rate loan to
member, which the Bank normally would exercise
180
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
when interest rates increase, and the borrower may elect to
enter into a new loan. The Bank may hedge these advances by
entering into a cancelable interest-rate swap.
Mortgage Loans. The Bank invests in fixed-rate
mortgage loans. The prepayment options embedded in mortgage
loans can result in extensions or contractions in the expected
repayment of these investments, depending on changes in
estimated prepayment speeds. The Bank manages the interest-rate
and prepayment risks associated with mortgages through a
combination of debt issuance and, at times, derivatives, such as
interest-rate caps and floors, swaptions and callable swaps.
Although these derivatives are valid economic hedges against the
prepayment risk of the loans, they are not specifically linked
to individual loans and, therefore, do not receive either
fair-value or cash-flow hedge accounting. The derivatives are
marked-to-market
through earnings.
Firm Commitment Strategies. Certain mortgage
purchase commitments are considered derivatives. When the
mortgage purchase commitment derivative settles, the current
market value of the commitment is included with the basis of the
mortgage loan and amortized accordingly.
The Bank may also hedge a firm commitment for a forward starting
advance through the use of an interest-rate swap. In this case,
the swap will function as the hedging instrument for both the
firm commitment and the subsequent advance. Because the firm
commitment ends at the same exact time that the advance is
settled, the basis movement associated with the firm commitment
is effectively rolled into the basis of the advance.
Investments. The Bank primarily invests in
certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasuries, U.S. agency
obligations, MBS, and the taxable portion of state or local
housing finance agency obligations, which may be classified as
held-to-maturity,
available-for-sale
or trading securities. The interest-rate and prepayment risks
associated with these investment securities is managed through a
combination of debt issuance and from time to time, derivatives.
The Bank may manage the prepayment and interest rate risks by
funding investment securities with consolidated obligations that
have call features or by hedging the prepayment risk with caps
or floors, callable swaps or swaptions. The Bank may manage
duration risk by funding investment securities with consolidated
obligations that contain call features. The Bank may also manage
the risk arising from changing market prices and volatility of
investment securities by matching the cash outflow on the
interest-rate exchange agreements with the cash inflow on the
investment securities. The derivatives held by the Bank that may
be associated with trading and
available-for-sale
securities, carried at fair value, and
held-to-maturity
securities, carried at amortized cost, are designated as
economic hedges. The changes in fair values of these derivatives
are recorded in current-period earnings.
Anticipated Debt Issuance. The Bank may enter
into interest-rate swaps for the anticipated issuance of
fixed-rate consolidated obligations bonds to lock in
the cost of funding. The interest-rate swap is terminated upon
issuance of the fixed-rate consolidated obligations
bond, with the realized gain or loss on the interest-rate swap
recorded in other comprehensive income (loss). Realized gains
and losses reported in AOCI are recognized as earnings in the
periods in which earnings are affected by the cash flows of the
fixed-rate consolidated obligations bonds.
Intermediation. To meet the asset/liability
management needs of members, the Bank may enter into
interest-rate exchange agreements with members and offsetting
interest-rate exchange agreements with other counterparties.
Under these agreements, the Bank acts as an intermediary between
members and other counterparties. This intermediation grants
smaller members indirect access to the derivatives market. The
derivatives used in intermediary activities do not receive hedge
accounting treatment and are separately
marked-to-market
through earnings. The net result of the accounting for these
derivatives does not significantly affect the operating results
of the Bank.
Managing Credit Risk on
Derivatives. The Bank is subject to credit
risk due to nonperformance by counterparties to the derivative
agreements. The degree of counterparty credit risk depends on
the extent to which master netting arrangements are included in
such contracts to mitigate the risk. The Bank manages
counterparty credit risk through credit analysis, collateral
requirements and adherence to the requirements set forth in its
policies
181
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
and regulations. The recent deterioration in the
credit/financial markets has heightened the Banks
awareness of derivative default risk. In response, the Bank has
created a task force which has worked toward lessening this risk
by (1) verifying that the derivative counterparties are in
full compliance with existing ISDA requirements through enhanced
monitoring efforts; (2) substituting securities for cash
collateral, which would allow a more detailed identification of
the Banks particular collateral; and (3) attempting
to negotiate revised ISDA Master Agreement terms, when
necessary, that should help to mitigate losses in the event of a
counterparty default. These agreement negotiations include
establishing tri-party collateral agreements where possible to
further protect the Banks collateral. The Banks ISDA
Master Agreements typically require segregation of the
Banks collateral posted with the counterparty and do not
permit rehypothecation.
The contractual or notional amount of derivatives reflects the
involvement of the Bank in the various classes of financial
instruments. The notional amount of derivatives does not measure
the credit risk exposure of the Bank, and the maximum credit
exposure of the Bank is substantially less than the notional
amount. The Bank requires collateral agreements on all
derivatives that establish collateral delivery thresholds. The
maximum credit risk is defined as the estimated cost of
replacing interest-rate swaps, forward interest-rate agreements,
mandatory delivery contracts for mortgage loans, and purchased
caps and floors that have a net positive market value, assuming
the counterparty defaults and the related collateral, if any, is
of no value to the Bank.
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Banks maximum
credit risk, as defined above, was approximately
$7.6 million and $38.7 million, respectively. These
totals include $4.9 million and $10.2 million of net
accrued interest receivable, respectively. In determining
maximum credit risk, the Bank considers accrued interest
receivables and payables, and the legal right to offset
derivative assets and liabilities by counterparty. The Bank held
no cash collateral at December 31, 2009 compared to
$9.8 million of cash collateral at December 31, 2008.
Additionally, collateral related to derivatives with member
institutions includes collateral assigned to the Bank, as
evidenced by a written security agreement and held by the member
institution for the benefit of the Bank.
Certain of the Banks derivative instruments contain
provisions that require the Bank to post additional collateral
with its counterparties if there is deterioration in its credit
rating. If the Banks credit rating is lowered by a major
credit rating agency, the Bank would be required to deliver
additional collateral on derivative instruments in net liability
positions. The aggregate fair value of all derivative
instruments with credit-risk-related contingent features that
were in a net liability position at December 31, 2009 was
$1.1 billion for which the Bank has posted cash and
securities collateral with a fair value of approximately
$725.0 million in the normal course of business. If the
Banks credit ratings had been lowered one notch (i.e.,
from its current rating to the next lower rating), the Bank
would have been required to deliver up to an additional
$320.0 million of collateral to its derivative
counterparties at December 31, 2009. However, the
Banks credit ratings have not changed during the previous
twelve months.
The Bank transacts most of its derivatives with large banks and
major broker-dealers. Some of these banks and broker-dealers or
their affiliates buy, sell, and distribute consolidated
obligations. Note 23 discusses assets pledged by the Bank
to these counterparties. The Bank is not a derivative dealer and
thus does not trade derivatives for short-term profit.
Financial Statement Effect and Additional Financial
Information. Derivative Notional
Amounts. The notional amount of derivatives
serves as a factor in determining periodic interest payments or
cash flows received and paid. The notional amount of derivatives
represents neither the actual amounts exchanged nor the overall
exposure of the Bank to credit and market risk. The overall
amount that could potentially be subject to credit loss is much
smaller. Notional values are not meaningful measures of the
risks associated with derivatives.
182
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following tables summarize the notional and fair value of
derivative instruments as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
For purposes of this disclosure, the derivative values include
fair value of derivatives and related accrued interest.
Fair
Values of Derivative Instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
$
|
51,335,964
|
|
|
$
|
451,215
|
|
|
$
|
1,568,756
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
$
|
51,335,964
|
|
|
$
|
451,215
|
|
|
$
|
1,568,756
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
$
|
34,000
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,580
|
|
Interest rate caps or floors
|
|
|
1,653,750
|
|
|
|
9,617
|
|
|
|
1,096
|
|
Mortgage delivery commitments
|
|
|
3,406
|
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives not in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
$
|
1,691,156
|
|
|
$
|
9,637
|
|
|
$
|
2,679
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives before netting and collateral
adjustments
|
|
$
|
53,027,120
|
|
|
$
|
460,852
|
|
|
$
|
1,571,435
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(453,190
|
)
|
|
|
(453,190
|
)
|
Cash collateral and related accrued interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(494,721
|
)
|
|
|
Total collateral and netting
adjustments(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(453,190
|
)
|
|
|
(947,911
|
)
|
|
|
Derivative assets and derivative liabilities as reported on
the Statement of Condition
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
7,662
|
|
|
$
|
623,524
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Notional
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
|
Derivative
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Derivatives
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
$
|
57,813,315
|
|
|
$
|
907,940
|
|
|
$
|
2,655,150
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
$
|
57,813,315
|
|
|
$
|
907,940
|
|
|
$
|
2,655,150
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
$
|
553,836
|
|
|
$
|
155
|
|
|
$
|
5,704
|
|
Interest rate caps or floors
|
|
|
225,000
|
|
|
|
3,379
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage delivery commitments
|
|
|
31,206
|
|
|
|
427
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives not in hedge accounting relationships
|
|
$
|
810,042
|
|
|
$
|
3,961
|
|
|
$
|
5,705
|
|
|
|
Total derivatives before netting and collateral adjustments
|
|
$
|
58,623,357
|
|
|
$
|
911,901
|
|
|
$
|
2,660,855
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netting adjustments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(873,183
|
)
|
|
|
(873,183
|
)
|
Cash collateral and related accrued interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(9,830
|
)
|
|
|
(1,432,658
|
)
|
|
|
Total collateral and netting
adjustments(1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
(883,013
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,305,841
|
)
|
|
|
Derivative assets and derivative liabilities as reported on the
Statement of Condition
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
28,888
|
|
|
$
|
355,014
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts represent the effect of
legally enforceable master netting agreements that allow the
Bank to settle positive and negative positions and also cash
collateral held or placed with the same counterparties.
|
183
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table presents the components of net gains
(losses) on derivatives and hedging activities as presented in
the Statement of Operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Twelve Months Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Gain (Loss)
|
|
|
Gain (Loss)
|
|
|
Gains (Loss)
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives and hedged items in fair value hedging relationships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
$
|
11,469
|
|
|
$
|
(9,863
|
)
|
|
$
|
13,694
|
|
|
|
Total net gain (loss) related to fair value hedge ineffectiveness
|
|
$
|
11,469
|
|
|
$
|
(9,863
|
)
|
|
$
|
13,694
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Economic hedges
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
$
|
2,118
|
|
|
$
|
62,985
|
|
|
$
|
(2,659
|
)
|
Interest rate swaptions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(108
|
)
|
|
|
(1,965
|
)
|
Interest rate caps or floors
|
|
|
(6,002
|
)
|
|
|
2,368
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net interest settlements
|
|
|
(1,454
|
)
|
|
|
(2,030
|
)
|
|
|
804
|
|
Mortgage delivery commitments
|
|
|
5,020
|
|
|
|
594
|
|
|
|
295
|
|
Intermediary transactions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest rate swaps
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
(1
|
)
|
|
|
53
|
|
Other
|
|
|
866
|
|
|
|
12,329
|
|
|
|
591
|
|
|
|
Total net gain (loss) related to derivatives not designated
as hedging instruments
|
|
$
|
551
|
|
|
$
|
76,137
|
|
|
$
|
(2,881
|
)
|
|
|
Net gains (losses) on derivatives and hedging activities
|
|
$
|
12,020
|
|
|
$
|
66,274
|
|
|
$
|
10,813
|
|
|
|
On September 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers Holding, Inc.
(Lehman) filed for bankruptcy. At that time, Lehmans
subsidiary, Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (LBSF) was
the Banks largest derivatives counterparty, with a total
of 595 outstanding derivative trades having a total notional
value of $16.3 billion. Lehman was a guarantor under the
Banks agreement with LBSF such that Lehmans
bankruptcy filing triggered an event of default. Substantially
all of these derivatives were in fair value hedging
relationships. As a result of the bankruptcy filing, the Bank
evaluated the outstanding trades it had with LBSF to assess
which individual derivatives were most important to the
Banks overall risk position. Of the 595 trades, 63
represented approximately half of the total LBSF notional value
and almost 100 percent of the base case duration impact of
the LBSF portfolio. Therefore, the Bank elected to enter into 63
identical new trades with different counterparties on
September 18, 2008. The fair value hedging relationships
associated with the 63 LBSF trades were de-designated with the
respective hedged items being simultaneously re-designated in
new hedging relationships with the new derivatives traded on
September 18, 2008. Management determined that it was in
the Banks best interest to declare an event of default and
designate September 19, 2008 as the early termination date
of the Banks agreement with LBSF. Accordingly, all LBSF
derivatives were legally terminated at that time and the Bank
began the process of obtaining third party quotes for all of the
derivatives in order to settle its position with LBSF in
accordance with the ISDA Master Agreement. On September 22,
2008, the Bank replaced additional LBSF derivatives by trading
40 derivatives identical to certain LBSF derivatives that were
terminated on September 19, 2008. The Bank was unable to
place these 40 replacement derivatives into fair value hedge
relationships until October 10, 2008.
The above-described Lehman-related transactions had a material
impact on the components of net gain (loss) on derivatives and
hedging activities for the twelve months ended December 31,
2008 as presented in the table above. Fair value hedge
ineffectiveness for the twelve months ended December 31,
2008, includes a loss of $10.9 million resulting from the
replacement of the 63 LBSF derivatives described above that were
in fair value hedging relationship with certain advances. For
the twelve months ended December 31, 2008, gains (losses)
associated with economic hedges include a $69.0 million
gain associated with 63 replaced LBSF derivatives that
184
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
remained as economic hedges for a one day period after they were
replaced. The gains (losses) associated with economic hedges for
the twelve months ended December 31, 2008 also include a
gain of $0.2 million associated with the 40 additional
replacement derivatives. For the twelve months ended
December 31, 2008, other gains (losses) on derivatives and
hedging activities includes a gain of $11.8 million
associated with the termination of the LBSF derivatives.
The following table presents, by type of hedged item, the gains
(losses) on derivatives and the related hedged items in fair
value hedging relationships and the impact of those derivatives
on the Banks net interest income for the year ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Effect of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net Fair
|
|
|
Derivatives on
|
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss) on
|
|
|
Gain/(Loss) on
|
|
|
Value Hedge
|
|
|
Net Interest
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Derivative
|
|
|
Hedged Item
|
|
|
Ineffectiveness
|
|
|
Income(1)
|
|
|
|
|
2009:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedged item type:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
1,131,401
|
|
|
$
|
(1,146,160
|
)
|
|
$
|
(14,759
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,071,622
|
)
|
Consolidated obligations - bonds
|
|
|
(285,834
|
)
|
|
|
312,062
|
|
|
|
26,228
|
|
|
|
438,094
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
845,567
|
|
|
$
|
(834,098
|
)
|
|
$
|
11,469
|
|
|
$
|
(633,528
|
)
|
|
|
2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedged item type:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
(1,664,959
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,659,789
|
|
|
$
|
(5,170
|
)
|
|
$
|
(568,921
|
)
|
Consolidated obligations - bonds
|
|
|
519,711
|
|
|
|
(524,404
|
)
|
|
|
(4,693
|
)
|
|
|
277,477
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(1,145,248
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,135,385
|
|
|
$
|
(9,863
|
)
|
|
$
|
(291,444
|
)
|
|
|
2007:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hedged item type:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advances
|
|
$
|
(993,607
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,001,822
|
|
|
$
|
8,215
|
|
|
$
|
211,966
|
|
Consolidated obligations - bonds
|
|
|
476,713
|
|
|
|
(471,234
|
)
|
|
|
5,479
|
|
|
|
(131,705
|
)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
(516,894
|
)
|
|
$
|
530,588
|
|
|
$
|
13,694
|
|
|
$
|
80,261
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Represents the net interest
settlements on derivatives in fair value hedge relationships
presented in the interest income/expense line item of the
respective hedged item.
|
The Bank had no active cash flow hedging relationships during
the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. The losses
reclassified from AOCI into income for the effective portion of
the previously terminated cash flow hedges are presented in the
tables below for the twelve months ended December 31, 2009
and 2008. This activity was reported in interest
expense consolidated obligation-bonds in the
Banks Statement of Operations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses Reclassified from
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
AOCI into Income
|
|
|
|
|
For the twelve months ended December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
(1,173
|
)
|
For the twelve months ended December 31, 2008
|
|
|
(2,048
|
)
|
For the twelve months ended December 31, 2007
|
|
|
(2,010
|
)
|
As of December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, the deferred net
gains (losses) on derivative instruments in AOCI expected to be
reclassified to earnings during the next twelve months are not
material.
185
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Note 13
Premises, Software and Equipment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Computer hardware and software
|
|
$
|
48,652
|
|
|
$
|
44,238
|
|
Furniture
|
|
|
3,035
|
|
|
|
3,035
|
|
Leasehold improvements
|
|
|
3,494
|
|
|
|
3,454
|
|
Equipment and other
|
|
|
1,887
|
|
|
|
1,790
|
|
|
|
Total premises, software and equipment, gross
|
|
|
57,068
|
|
|
|
52,517
|
|
Less: Accumulated depreciation and amortization
|
|
|
35,361
|
|
|
|
29,835
|
|
|
|
Total premises, software and equipment, net
|
|
$
|
21,707
|
|
|
$
|
22,682
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization expenses were $5.6 million,
$5.1 million and $5.1 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. Gains and
losses on disposal of premises and equipment are included in
other income (loss) on the Statement of Operations. There was no
material net realized gain (loss) on disposal of premises and
equipment for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and
2007.
Software amortization expense was $4.5 million,
$3.7 million and $3.6 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The
unamortized software balance was $19.1 million and
$19.5 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
During the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank
capitalized $4.1 million and $3.0 million,
respectively, in costs associated with computer software being
developed for internal use.
Note 14
Deposits
The Bank offers demand and overnight deposits to both members
and qualifying nonmembers and term deposits to members.
Noninterest-bearing demand and overnight deposits are comprised
of funds collected by members pending disbursement to the
mortgage loan holders, as well as member funds deposited at the
FRB.
Interest-bearing deposits classified as demand and overnight pay
interest based on a daily interest rate. Term deposits pay
interest based on a fixed rate determined at the issuance of the
deposit. The average interest rates paid on average deposits
during 2009 and 2008 were 0.08% and 1.87%, respectively.
The following table details interest-bearing and
noninterest-bearing deposits as of December 31, 2009 and
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-bearing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand and overnight
|
|
$
|
1,246,717
|
|
|
$
|
1,451,856
|
|
Term
|
|
|
11,000
|
|
|
|
15,750
|
|
|
|
Total interest-bearing deposits
|
|
$
|
1,257,717
|
|
|
$
|
1,467,606
|
|
Noninterest-bearing:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Demand and overnight
|
|
|
26,613
|
|
|
|
18,771
|
|
|
|
Total deposits
|
|
$
|
1,284,330
|
|
|
$
|
1,486,377
|
|
|
|
The aggregate amount of time deposits with a denomination of
$100 thousand or more was $11.0 million and
$15.7 million as of December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively.
186
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Note 15
Borrowings
Securities Sold Under Agreements to
Repurchase. The amounts received under these
agreements represent short-term borrowings and are classified as
liabilities on the Statement of Condition. The Bank has
delivered securities sold under agreements to repurchase to the
primary dealer. Should the market value of the underlying
securities fall below the market value required as collateral,
the Bank may be required to deliver additional securities to the
dealer. The Bank had no securities sold under agreements to
repurchase at December 31, 2009 and 2008.
Loans from Other FHLBanks. There were
no loans from other FHLBanks outstanding at December 31,
2009 and 2008.
Note 16
Consolidated Obligations
Consolidated obligations consist of consolidated bonds and
discount notes, and as provided by the Act or Finance Agency
regulation, are backed only by the financial resources of the
FHLBanks. The FHLBanks issue consolidated obligations through
the OF as their agent. In connection with each debt issuance,
each FHLBank specifies the amount of debt it wants to be issued
on its behalf. The OF tracks the amount of debt issued on behalf
of each FHLBank. In addition, the Bank separately tracks and
records as a liability its specific portion of consolidated
obligations for which it is the primary obligor. The Finance
Agency and the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury have
oversight over the issuance of FHLBank debt through the OF.
Consolidated bonds are issued primarily to raise intermediate
and long-term funds for the FHLBanks and are not subject to any
statutory or regulatory limits on their maturity. Consolidated
discount notes are issued primarily to raise short-term funds.
These notes sell at less than their face amount and are redeemed
at par value when they mature.
Although the Bank is primarily liable for its portion of
consolidated obligations (i.e., those issued on its behalf), the
Bank is also jointly and severally liable with the other eleven
FHLBanks for the payment of principal and interest on all
consolidated obligations of each of the FHLBanks. The Finance
Agency, at its discretion, may require any FHLBank to make
principal or interest payments due on any consolidated
obligations whether or not the consolidated obligation
represents a primary liability of such FHLBank. Although it has
never occurred, to the extent that an FHLBank makes any payment
on a consolidated obligation on behalf of another FHLBank that
is primarily liable for such consolidated obligation, Finance
Agency regulations provide that the paying FHLBank is entitled
to reimbursement from the non-complying FHLBank for any payments
made on its behalf and other associated costs (including
interest to be determined by the Finance Agency). However, if
the Finance Agency determines that the non-complying FHLBank is
unable to satisfy its repayment obligations, then the Finance
Agency may allocate the outstanding liabilities of the
non-complying FHLBank among the remaining FHLBanks on a pro rata
basis in proportion to each FHLBanks participation in all
consolidated obligations outstanding. The Finance Agency
reserves the right to allocate the outstanding liabilities for
the consolidated obligations between the FHLBanks in any other
manner it may determine to ensure that the FHLBanks operate in a
safe and sound manner.
The par amounts of the twelve FHLBanks outstanding
consolidated obligations, including consolidated obligations
held by other FHLBanks, were $930.6 billion and $1.3
trillion at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
Regulations require the Bank to maintain unpledged qualifying
assets equal to its participation of the consolidated
obligations outstanding. Qualifying assets are defined as cash;
secured advances; assets with an assessment or rating at least
equivalent to the current assessment or rating of the
consolidated obligations; obligations of or fully guaranteed by
the United States, obligations, participations, or other
instruments of or issued by Fannie Mae or Ginnie Mae; mortgages,
obligations or other securities which are or have ever been sold
by Freddie Mac under the Act; and such securities as fiduciary
and trust funds may invest in under the laws of the state in
which the Bank is located. Any assets subject to a lien or
pledge for the benefit of holders of any issue of consolidated
obligations are treated as if they are free from lien or pledge
for purposes of compliance with these regulations.
187
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
General Terms. Consolidated obligations
are issued with either fixed-rate coupon payment terms or
variable-rate coupon payment terms that use a variety of indices
for interest rate resets including LIBOR, Constant Maturity
Treasury (CMT), U.S. Treasury Bills (T-Bills), the
U.S. Prime rate, 11th District Cost of Funds Index
(COFI) and others. To meet the expected specific needs of
certain investors in consolidated obligations, both fixed-rate
bonds and variable-rate bonds may contain features which may
result in complex coupon payment terms and call options. When
such consolidated obligations are issued, the Bank may enter
into derivatives containing offsetting features that effectively
convert the terms of the bond to those of a simple variable-rate
bond or a fixed-rate bond. The Bank has no outstanding
consolidated obligations denominated in currencies other than
U.S. dollars.
These consolidated obligations, beyond having fixed-rate or
simple variable-rate coupon payment terms, may also have the
following broad terms regarding either principal repayment or
coupon payment terms:
Indexed Principal Redemption Bonds (index
amortizing notes) repay principal according to predetermined
amortization schedules that are linked to the level of a certain
index. A form of an indexed principal redemption bond that the
Bank has issued in the past is an Amortizing Prepayment Linked
Security (APLS). The APLS redeems based on the prepayments of
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae or private label reference
pools. As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, most of the index
amortizing notes had fixed-rate coupon payment terms. Usually,
as market interest rates rise (fall), the average life of the
index amortizing notes extends (contracts).
Optional Principal Redemption Bonds (callable
bonds) that the Bank may redeem in whole or in part at its
discretion on predetermined call dates according to the terms of
the bond offerings.
Interest Rate Payment Terms. With
respect to interest payments, consolidated obligation bonds may
also have the following terms:
Step-up
Bonds generally pay interest at increasing fixed rates
at specified intervals over the life of the bond. These bonds
generally contain provisions enabling the Bank to call bonds at
its option on the
step-up
dates;
Inverse Floating Bonds have coupons that increase
as an index declines and decrease as an index rises;
Conversion Bonds have coupons that the Bank may
convert from fixed to floating, or floating to fixed, or from
one U.S. or other currency index to another, at its
discretion on predetermined dates according to the terms of the
bond offerings;
Range Bonds pay interest at fixed or variable
rates provided a specified index is within a specified range.
The computation of the variable interest rate differs for each
bond issue, but the bond generally pays zero interest or a
minimal rate of interest if the specified index is outside the
specified range;
Zero-Coupon Bonds are long-term discounted
instruments that earn a fixed yield to maturity or the optional
principal redemption date. All principal and interest are paid
at maturity or on the optional principal redemption date, if
exercised prior to maturity. The par value of the zero-coupon
bonds in the following tables represents the principal due at
maturity as opposed to the optional principal redemption values.
188
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table details interest rate payment terms for
consolidated obligation bonds as of December 31, 2009 and
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Par value of consolidated bonds:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate
|
|
$
|
42,153,784
|
|
|
$
|
43,003,621
|
|
Step-up
|
|
|
210,000
|
|
|
|
470,000
|
|
Floating-rate
|
|
|
6,430,000
|
|
|
|
16,615,000
|
|
Zero coupon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,728,000
|
|
Range bonds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
210,000
|
|
Conversion bonds:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed to floating
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
Floating to fixed
|
|
|
15,000
|
|
|
|
25,000
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
48,808,784
|
|
|
$
|
62,066,621
|
|
|
|
Bond premiums
|
|
|
42,114
|
|
|
|
36,142
|
|
Bond discounts
|
|
|
(27,645
|
)
|
|
|
(1,312,533
|
)
|
Hedging adjustments
|
|
|
280,615
|
|
|
|
608,457
|
|
|
|
Total book value
|
|
$
|
49,103,868
|
|
|
$
|
61,398,687
|
|
|
|
Maturity Terms. The following is a
summary of the Banks participation in consolidated
obligation bonds outstanding by year of contractual maturity as
of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average
|
|
Year of Contractual Maturity
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Interest Rate
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
$
|
21,165,000
|
|
|
|
1.42
|
%
|
|
$
|
27,669,100
|
|
|
|
3.04
|
%
|
Due after 1 year through 2 years
|
|
|
8,170,700
|
|
|
|
1.89
|
|
|
|
6,663,000
|
|
|
|
3.97
|
|
Due after 2 years through 3 years
|
|
|
5,665,000
|
|
|
|
3.25
|
|
|
|
4,723,000
|
|
|
|
3.95
|
|
Due after 3 years through 4 years
|
|
|
3,402,500
|
|
|
|
3.80
|
|
|
|
4,415,000
|
|
|
|
4.84
|
|
Due after 4 years through 5 years
|
|
|
1,977,900
|
|
|
|
4.37
|
|
|
|
4,017,000
|
|
|
|
4.56
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
4,610,500
|
|
|
|
4.83
|
|
|
|
9,496,500
|
|
|
|
4.11
|
|
Index amortizing notes
|
|
|
3,817,184
|
|
|
|
5.05
|
|
|
|
5,083,021
|
|
|
|
4.98
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
48,808,784
|
|
|
|
2.60
|
%
|
|
$
|
62,066,621
|
|
|
|
3.76
|
%
|
|
|
The following table presents the breakout of the Banks
consolidated obligation bonds between callable and noncallable
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Par value of consolidated bonds:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Noncallable
|
|
$
|
42,660,284
|
|
|
$
|
47,755,121
|
|
Callable
|
|
|
6,148,500
|
|
|
|
14,311,500
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
48,808,784
|
|
|
$
|
62,066,621
|
|
|
|
189
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table summarizes consolidated obligation bonds
outstanding by year of contractual maturity or next call date,
whichever is earlier, as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Year of Contractual Maturity or Next Call Date
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
$
|
25,917,000
|
|
|
$
|
37,683,100
|
|
Due after 1 year through 2 years
|
|
|
9,015,700
|
|
|
|
9,610,000
|
|
Due after 2 years through 3 years
|
|
|
4,339,000
|
|
|
|
3,424,000
|
|
Due after 3 years through 4 years
|
|
|
2,599,500
|
|
|
|
1,865,000
|
|
Due after 4 years through 5 years
|
|
|
1,245,400
|
|
|
|
1,865,000
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
1,875,000
|
|
|
|
2,536,500
|
|
Index amortizing notes
|
|
|
3,817,184
|
|
|
|
5,083,021
|
|
|
|
Total par value
|
|
$
|
48,808,784
|
|
|
$
|
62,066,621
|
|
|
|
Consolidated Discount
Notes. Consolidated discount notes are issued
to raise short-term funds. Discount notes are consolidated
obligations with original maturities up to 365 days. These
notes are issued at less than their face amount and redeemed at
par value when they mature. The following table presents the
Banks participation in consolidated discount notes, all of
which are due within one year, as of December 31, 2009 and
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Book value
|
|
$
|
10,208,891
|
|
|
$
|
22,864,284
|
|
Par value
|
|
|
10,210,000
|
|
|
$
|
22,883,813
|
|
Weighted average interest rate
|
|
|
0.08
|
%
|
|
|
0.90
|
%
|
Note 17
Affordable Housing Program (AHP)
Section 10(j) of the Act requires each Bank to establish an
AHP. Each FHLBank provides subsidies in the form of direct
grants
and/or
below-market interest rate advances where the funds are used to
assist in the purchase, construction or rehabilitation of
housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.
Annually, the FHLBanks must set aside for the AHP the greater of
$100 million or ten percent of net earnings (income under
GAAP before interest expense related to mandatorily redeemable
capital stock and the assessment for AHP, but after the
assessment for REFCORP). The exclusion of interest expense
related to mandatorily redeemable capital stock is based on an
advisory bulletin issued by the Finance Agency. The AHP and
REFCORP assessments are calculated simultaneously because of
their interdependence on each other. The Bank accrues this
expense monthly based on its net earnings. The Bank reduces the
AHP liability as members use subsidies. The calculation of the
REFCORP assessment is discussed in Note 18.
If the Bank experienced a net loss during a quarter, but still
had net earnings for the year, the Banks obligation to the
AHP would be calculated based on the Banks
year-to-date
net earnings. If the Bank had net earnings in subsequent
quarters, it would be required to contribute additional amounts
to meet its calculated annual obligation. If the Bank
experienced a net loss for a full year, the Bank would have no
obligation to the AHP for the year since each FHLBanks
required annual AHP contribution is limited to its annual net
earnings. As allowed per AHP regulations, an FHLBank can elect
to allot fundings based on future periods required AHP
contributions to be awarded during a year (referred to as
Accelerated AHP). The Accelerated AHP allows an FHLBank to
commit and disburse AHP funds to meet the FHLBanks mission
when it would otherwise be unable to do so, based on its normal
funding mechanism.
If the aggregate ten percent calculation described above was
less than $100 million for all twelve FHLBanks, each
FHLBank would be required to assure that the aggregate
contributions of the FHLBanks equal $100 million. The
proration would be made on the basis of an FHLBanks income
in relation to the income of all FHLBanks for
190
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
the previous year. Each FHLBanks required annual AHP
contribution is limited to its annual net income. There was no
shortfall in 2009, 2008 or 2007. If an FHLBank finds that its
required contributions are contributing to the financial
instability of that FHLBank, it may apply to the Finance Agency
for a temporary suspension of its contributions. The Bank did
not make such an application in 2009, 2008 or 2007. The Bank had
outstanding principal in AHP-related advances of
$8.7 million and $9.6 million at December 31,
2009 and 2008, respectively.
There was no AHP assessment for the year ended December 31,
2009. For the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, the
Bank added $2.2 million and $26.4 million,
respectively, to its AHP liability as a result of annual
assessments. Also, during the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007, the Bank disbursed $18.9 million,
$18.7 million and $15.8 million, respectively, for
qualifying AHP subsidies on a net basis. The following table
presents a rollforward of the AHP liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
43,392
|
|
|
$
|
59,912
|
|
|
$
|
49,386
|
|
Expenses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,186
|
|
|
|
26,361
|
|
Subsidy usage, net
|
|
|
(18,851
|
)
|
|
|
(18,706
|
)
|
|
|
(15,835
|
)
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
24,541
|
|
|
$
|
43,392
|
|
|
$
|
59,912
|
|
|
|
Note 18
Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP)
Each FHLBank is required to pay quarterly to the REFCORP twenty
percent of income calculated in accordance with GAAP after the
assessment for AHP, but before the assessment for REFCORP. The
AHP and REFCORP assessments are calculated simultaneously
because of their interdependence on each other. The Bank accrues
its REFCORP assessment on a monthly basis. Calculation of the
AHP assessment is discussed in Note 17. The Resolution
Funding Corporation has been designated as the calculation agent
for AHP and REFCORP assessments. Each FHLBank provides their net
income before AHP and REFCORP to the Resolution Funding
Corporation, who then performs the calculations for each
quarter-end.
The FHLBanks will continue to be obligated to these amounts
until the aggregate amounts actually paid by all twelve FHLBanks
are equivalent to a $300 million annual annuity (or a
scheduled benchmark payment of $75 million per quarter)
whose final maturity date is April 15, 2030, at which point
the required payment of each FHLBank to REFCORP will be fully
satisfied. The cumulative amount to be paid to REFCORP by the
Bank is not determinable at this time because it depends on the
future earnings of all FHLBanks and interest rates. If the Bank
experienced a net loss during a quarter, but still had net
income for the year, the Banks obligation to the REFCORP
would be calculated based on the Banks
year-to-date
GAAP net income. The Bank would be entitled to use the
overpayment of amounts paid for the full year that were in
excess of its calculated annual obligation as a credit against
future REFCORP assessments. If the Bank experienced a net loss
for a full year, the Bank would have no obligation to the
REFCORP for the year. The Finance Agency is required to extend
the term of the FHLBanks obligation to the REFCORP for
each calendar quarter in which there is a deficit quarterly
payment. A deficit quarterly payment is the amount by which the
actual quarterly payment falls short of $75 million.
The FHLBanks aggregate payments through 2009 exceeded the
scheduled payments, effectively accelerating payment of the
REFCORP obligation and shortening its expected remaining term to
April 15, 2012 effective December 31, 2009. The
FHLBanks aggregate payments through 2009 have satisfied
$2.3 million of the $75.0 million scheduled payment
due on April 15, 2012 and all scheduled payments
thereafter. This date assumes that the FHLBanks will pay exactly
$300 million annually after December 31, 2009 until
the annuity is satisfied.
The benchmark payments or portions of the payments could be
reinstated if the actual REFCORP payments of the FHLBanks fall
short of $75 million in a quarter. The maturity date of the
REFCORP obligation may be extended beyond April 15, 2030,
if such extension is necessary to ensure that the value of the
aggregate amounts paid by the
191
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
FHLBanks exactly equals a $300 million annual annuity. Any
payment beyond April 15, 2030, will be paid to the
U.S. Treasury.
In 2008, the Bank overpaid its 2008 REFCORP assessment as a
result of the loss recognized in fourth quarter 2008. As
instructed by the U.S. Treasury, the Bank will use its
overpayment as a credit against future REFCORP assessments (to
the extent the Bank has positive net income in the future) over
an indefinite period of time. This overpayment was recorded as a
prepaid asset and reported as prepaid REFCORP
assessment on the Statement of Condition at
December 31, 2009 and 2008. Over time, as the Bank uses
this credit against its future REFCORP assessments, the prepaid
asset will be reduced until the prepaid asset has been
exhausted. If any amount of the prepaid asset still remains at
the time that the REFCORP obligation for the FHLBank System as a
whole is fully satisfied, REFCORP, in consultation with the
U.S. Treasury, will implement a procedure so that the Bank
would be able to collect on its remaining prepaid asset.
The following table presents an analysis of the REFCORP
asset/liability for the years ended December 31, 2009 and
2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Net balance, beginning of year
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
$
|
16,677
|
|
Expense
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,850
|
|
Cash payments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(61,168
|
)
|
|
|
Net balance, end of
year(1)
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
$
|
(39,641
|
)
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
2008 activity resulted in a prepaid
assessment balance at December 31, 2008, which remained at
December 31, 2009.
|
Note 19
Capital
The Bank is subject to three capital requirements under its
current capital plan structure and the Finance Agency rules and
regulations: (1) risk-based capital, (2) total capital
and (3) leverage capital. First, under the risk-based
capital requirements, each Bank must maintain at all times
permanent capital, defined as capital stock and retained
earnings, in an amount at least equal to the sum of its credit
risk, market risk, and operating risk capital requirements, all
of which are calculated in accordance with rules and regulations
of the Finance Agency. The Finance Agency may require the Bank
to maintain a greater amount of permanent capital than is
required by the risk-based capital requirements as defined.
Second, the Bank is required to maintain at all times a total
capital-to-assets
ratio of at least 4.0%. Total regulatory capital is the sum of
permanent capital, any general loss allowance, if consistent
with GAAP and not established for specific assets, and other
amounts from sources determined by the Finance Agency as
available to absorb losses. Third, each Bank is required to
maintain at all times a leverage
capital-to-assets
ratio of at least 5.0%. Leverage capital is defined as the sum
of (i) permanent capital weighted 1.5 times and
(ii) all other capital without a weighting factor.
Mandatorily redeemable capital stock is considered capital for
determining the Banks compliance with its regulatory
requirement.
192
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table demonstrates the Banks compliance with
these capital requirements at December 31, 2009 and 2008:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
Required
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
Required
|
|
|
Actual
|
|
|
|
|
Regulatory capital requirements:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Risk-based capital
|
|
$
|
2,826,882
|
|
|
$
|
4,415,308
|
|
|
$
|
3,923,143
|
|
|
$
|
4,156,856
|
|
Total
capital-to-asset
ratio
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.8
|
%
|
|
|
4.0
|
%
|
|
|
4.6
|
%
|
Total regulatory capital
|
|
$
|
2,611,634
|
|
|
$
|
4,415,422
|
|
|
$
|
3,632,237
|
|
|
$
|
4,170,882
|
|
Leverage ratio
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
10.1
|
%
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.9
|
%
|
Leverage capital
|
|
$
|
3,264,543
|
|
|
$
|
6,623,076
|
|
|
$
|
4,540,296
|
|
|
$
|
6,249,310
|
|
On August 4, 2009, the Finance Agency issued its final
Prompt Corrective Action Regulation (PCA Regulation)
incorporating the terms of the Interim Final Regulation issued
on January 30, 2009. See the Legislative and
Regulatory Developments discussion in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis in this 2009 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional information regarding the terms of the Interim
Final Regulation. On January 12, 2010, the Bank received
final notification from the Finance Agency that it was
considered adequately capitalized for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009. In its determination, the Finance
Agency expressed concerns regarding the Banks level of
retained earnings, the quality of the Banks private label
MBS portfolio and related AOCI and the Banks ability to
maintain permanent capital above risk-based capital
requirements. As of the date of this filing, the Bank has not
received notice from the Finance Agency regarding its capital
classification for the quarter ended December 31, 2009.
Under the capital plan, member institutions are required to
maintain holdings of capital stock in the Bank in an amount
equal to no less than the sum of three amounts: (1) a
specified percentage of their outstanding loans from the Bank;
(2) a specified percentage of their unused borrowing
capacity (defined generally as the remaining collateral value
that can be borrowed against) with the Bank; and (3) a
specified percentage of the principal balance of residential
mortgage loans previously sold to the Bank and still held by the
Bank (any increase in this percentage will be applied on a
prospective basis only). These specified percentages may be
adjusted by the Banks Board within pre-established ranges
as contained in the capital plan.
The stock purchase requirement for unused borrowing capacity is
referred to as the membership capital stock purchase requirement
because it applies to all members. The other two stock purchase
requirements are referred to as activity-based requirements. The
Bank determines membership capital stock purchase requirements
by considering the aggregate amount of capital necessary to
prudently capitalize the Banks business activities. The
amount of capital is dependent upon the size of the current
balance sheet, expected members borrowing requirements and
other forecasted balance sheet changes.
The GLB Act made membership voluntary for all members. The Bank
issues stock that may be redeemed subject to certain
restrictions by giving five years notice. The Bank is not
required to redeem activity-based stock until the latter of the
expiration of the notice of redemption or the activity no longer
remains outstanding. Activity-based stock becomes excess stock
when the associated activity no longer remains outstanding. In
addition to capital stock redemptions, the Bank may also, in its
discretion, repurchase excess capital stock from members from
time to time. On December 23, 2008, the Bank announced that
it had suspended excess capital stock repurchases until further
notice. Before being readmitted to membership in any FHLBank, a
member that withdraws from membership must wait five years from
the divestiture date for all capital stock that is held as a
condition of membership, as that requirement is set out in the
Banks capital plan. A member may cancel or revoke its
written notice of redemption or its notice of withdrawal from
membership prior to the end of the five-year redemption period.
The Banks capital plan provides that the Bank may charge
the member a cancellation fee. The Board may change the
cancellation fee with prior written notice to members.
193
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Capital Concentrations. The following
table presents member holdings of ten percent or more of the
Banks total capital stock including mandatorily redeemable
capital stock outstanding as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
(dollars in thousands)
|
|
|
Percent of
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of
|
|
Member
|
|
Capital
Stock(2)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Capital Stock
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Sovereign Bank, Reading PA
|
|
$
|
644,438
|
|
|
|
16.0
|
|
|
$
|
644,438
|
|
|
|
16.2
|
|
Ally Bank, Midvale
UT(1)
|
|
|
496,090
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
|
|
|
496,090
|
|
|
|
12.4
|
|
ING Bank, FSB, Wilmington, DE
|
|
|
478,637
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
|
|
|
478,637
|
|
|
|
12.0
|
|
PNC Bank, N.A., Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
442,436
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
|
|
|
442,417
|
|
|
|
11.1
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Formerly known as GMAC Bank. For
Bank membership purposes, principal place of business is
Horsham, PA.
|
|
(2) |
|
Total capital stock includes
mandatorily redeemable capital stock.
|
The Bank suspended excess capital stock repurchases in December
2008; therefore, the capital stock balances for the members
presented above did not decline from December 31, 2008 to
December 31, 2009. In addition, the members noted above did
not increase their borrowings with the Bank during 2009, and
therefore, additional stock purchases were not required. PNC
Bank, N.A. had a marginal increase in its balance due to the
inclusion of $19 thousand of mandatorily redeemable capital
stock pertaining to National City Bank. The assets of National
City Bank, a nonmember of the Bank, were merged with PNC Bank,
N.A. in November 2009. Members are currently required to
purchase Bank stock with a value of 4.75% of member loans
outstanding, 4.0% on AMA activity (Master Commitments executed
on or after May 1, 2009) and 0.75% of unused borrowing
capacity.
Mandatorily Redeemable Capital
Stock. Once a member exercises a written
redemption right, gives notice of intent to withdraw from
membership, or attains nonmember status by merger or
acquisition, charter termination, or involuntary termination
from membership, the Bank reclassifies the stock subject to
mandatory redemption from equity to liability at fair value.
Dividends related to capital stock classified as a liability are
accrued at the expected dividend rate and reported as interest
expense in the Statement of Operations. The repayment of these
mandatorily redeemable financial instruments is reflected as a
cash outflow in the financing activities section of the
Statement of Cash Flows. If a member cancels its written notice
of redemption or notice of withdrawal, the Bank reclassifies
mandatorily redeemable capital stock from a liability to equity.
After the reclassification, dividends on the capital stock are
no longer classified as interest expense.
The Finance Agency has confirmed that the liability accounting
treatment for certain shares of its capital stock does not
affect the definition of total capital for purposes of
determining the Banks compliance with its regulatory
capital requirements, calculating its mortgage securities
investment authority (300% of total capital), calculating its
unsecured credit exposure limit to other government-sponsored
enterprises (100% of total capital), or calculating its
unsecured credit limits to other counterparties (various
percentages of total capital depending on the rating of the
counterparty).
At December 31, 2009 and 2008, the Bank had
$8.3 million and $4.7 million, respectively, in
capital stock subject to mandatory redemption with payment
subject to a five-year waiting period and the Bank meeting its
minimum regulatory capital requirements. No dividends were paid
on mandatorily redeemable stock for the year ended
December 31, 2009. For the years ended December 31,
2008 and 2007, dividends on mandatorily redeemable capital stock
in the amount of $148 thousand and $393 thousand, respectively,
were recorded as interest expense.
194
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table provides the related dollar amounts for
activities recorded in mandatorily redeemable stock during 2009,
2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
4,684
|
|
|
$
|
3,929
|
|
|
$
|
7,892
|
|
Capital stock subject to mandatory redemption reclassified from
capital stock: Due to withdrawals
|
|
|
197
|
|
|
|
54,326
|
|
|
|
|
|
Others
|
|
|
4,038
|
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transfer of mandatorily redeemable capital stock to capital
stock due to mergers
|
|
|
(663
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Redemption of mandatorily redeemable capital stock due to
withdrawals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(53,663
|
)
|
|
|
(3,963
|
)
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
$
|
8,256
|
|
|
$
|
4,684
|
|
|
$
|
3,929
|
|
|
|
As of December 31, 2009, the total mandatorily redeemable
capital stock reflected balances for seven institutions. One
institution was in receivership and one had notified the Bank to
voluntarily redeem their capital stock and withdraw from
membership. In addition, two other institutions were taken over
by the FDIC and their charters were dissolved. One institution
voluntarily dissolved its charter with the OTS. One institution
was merged out of district and is considered a nonmember. The
remaining institution was merged into a nonmember; subsequently,
as of November 6, 2009, the nonmember was fully integrated
into a member. Thus, the stock remains classified as mandatorily
redeemable capital stock, although it is owned by a member.
These redemptions were not complete as of December 31,
2009. The following table shows the amount of mandatorily
redeemable capital stock by contractual year of redemption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Due in 1 year or less
|
|
$
|
3,249
|
|
|
$
|
667
|
|
Due after 1 year through 2 years
|
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
3,899
|
|
Due after 2 years through 3 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
|
Due after 3 years through 4 years
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
6
|
|
Due after 4 years through 5 years
|
|
|
4,884
|
|
|
|
94
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
8,256
|
|
|
$
|
4,684
|
|
|
|
The year of redemption in the table above is the later of the
end of the five-year redemption period or the maturity date of
the activity the stock is related to, if the capital stock
represents the activity-based stock purchase requirement of a
nonmember (former member that withdrew from membership, merged
into a nonmember or was otherwise acquired by a nonmember).
In 2008, the Bank repurchased $53.7 million of capital
stock related to
out-of-district
mergers. As noted above, effective December 23, 2008,
repurchases of excess capital stock were suspended until further
notice. Therefore, there were no repurchases in 2009.
Dividends, Retained Earnings and
AOCI. At December 31, 2009, retained
earnings stood at $389.0 million, representing an increase
of $218.5 million, or 128.2%, from December 31, 2008.
This increase is primarily due to the early adoption of the
amended OTTI guidance effective January 1, 2009. This
adoption resulted in a $255.9 million increase in retained
earnings as a result of a cumulative effect adjustment as of
January 1, 2009. Additional information regarding this
guidance is available in Note 3 to the audited financial
statements in this annual report filed on
Form 10-K.
195
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The Finance Agency has issued regulatory guidance to the
FHLBanks relating to capital management and retained earnings.
The guidance directs each FHLBank to assess, at least annually,
the adequacy of its retained earnings with consideration given
to future possible financial and economic scenarios. The
guidance also outlines the considerations that each FHLBank
should undertake in assessing the adequacy of the Banks
retained earnings.
All dividend payments are subject to Board approval. Dividends
may be paid in either capital stock or cash; historically, the
Bank has paid cash dividends only. In September 2008, the Bank
revised its retained earnings policy and added a new capital
adequacy metric, including a floor and target for this metric
and a requirement to establish an implementation plan to reach
the target and restrict dividend payments during the period the
plan is in place. As announced on December 23, 2008, the
Bank has suspended dividend payments until further notice.
The following table summarizes the changes in AOCI for the years
ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
Noncredit
|
|
|
Noncredit
|
|
|
Net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
OTTI
|
|
|
OTTI
|
|
|
Unrealized
|
|
|
Pension and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Losses on
|
|
|
Losses on
|
|
|
Losses on
|
|
|
Losses on
|
|
|
Post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-
|
|
|
Available-
|
|
|
Held-to-
|
|
|
Hedging
|
|
|
Retirement
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
for-Sale
|
|
|
for-Sale
|
|
|
Maturity
|
|
|
Activities
|
|
|
Plans
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2006
|
|
$
|
1,470
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(4,973
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,658
|
)
|
|
$
|
(5,161
|
)
|
|
|
Net unrealized loss
|
|
|
(1,803
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,803
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment for losses included in net income
|
|
|
(1,588
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,057
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
469
|
|
Pension and postretirement Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
191
|
|
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2007
|
|
$
|
(1,921
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2,916
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,467
|
)
|
|
$
|
(6,304
|
)
|
|
|
Net unrealized loss
|
|
|
(15,464
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(15,464
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment for losses included in net income
|
|
|
2,842
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,031
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,873
|
|
Pension and postretirement Benefit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(410
|
)
|
|
|
(410
|
)
|
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2008
|
|
$
|
(14,543
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(885
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,877
|
)
|
|
$
|
(17,305
|
)
|
|
|
Cumulative effect adjustments relating to the amended OTTI
guidance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,842
|
)
|
|
|
(253,119
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(255,961
|
)
|
Net unrealized gain
|
|
|
10,345
|
|
|
|
294,212
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
304,557
|
|
Noncredit component of OTTI losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(10,857
|
)
|
|
|
(961,443
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(972,300
|
)
|
Reclassification adjustment of noncredit OTTI losses included in
net income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
132,462
|
|
|
|
24,664
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157,126
|
|
Accretion of noncredit OTTI losses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,175
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
31,175
|
|
Noncredit OTTI losses and unrecognized gain transferred from
held-to-
maturity to
available-for-sale
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,104,478
|
)
|
|
|
1,158,723
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
54,245
|
|
Reclassification adjustment for losses included in net income
|
|
|
2,178
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,327
|
|
Pension and postretirement benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,196
|
|
|
|
1,196
|
|
|
|
Balances as of December 31, 2009
|
|
$
|
(2,020
|
)
|
|
$
|
(691,503
|
)
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
264
|
|
|
$
|
(681
|
)
|
|
$
|
(693,940
|
)
|
|
|
196
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Statutory and Regulatory Restrictions on Capital Stock
Redemption. In accordance with the GLB Act,
Bank stock is considered putable with restrictions given the
significant restrictions on the obligation/right to redeem and
the limitation of the redemption privilege to a small fraction
of outstanding stock. Statutory and regulatory restrictions on
the redemption of Bank stock include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
In no case may the Bank redeem any capital stock if, following
such redemption, the Bank would fail to satisfy its minimum
capital requirements (i.e., a statutory capital/asset ratio
requirement, established by the GLB Act, and a regulatory
risk-based
capital-to-asset
ratio requirement established by the Finance Agency). By law,
all member holdings of Bank stock immediately become
non-redeemable if the Bank becomes undercapitalized (as
determined by the Finance Agency) and only a minimal portion of
outstanding stock qualifies for redemption consideration.
|
|
|
In no case may the Bank redeem any capital stock if either its
Board or the Finance Agency determine that it has incurred, or
is likely to incur, losses resulting, or expected to result, in
a charge against capital while such charges are continuing or
expected to continue.
|
|
|
The Board has a statutory obligation to review and adjust member
capital stock requirements in order to comply with the
Banks minimum capital requirements, and each member must
comply promptly with any such requirement.
|
|
|
In addition to possessing the authority to prohibit stock
redemptions, the Banks Board has a right to call for
additional capital stock purchases by its members as a condition
of membership, as needed to satisfy statutory and regulatory
capital requirements under the GLB Act.
|
|
|
If, during the period between receipt of a stock redemption
notification from a member and the actual redemption (which may
last indefinitely if the Bank is undercapitalized, does not have
the required credit rating, etc.), the Bank becomes insolvent
and is either liquidated or forced to merge with another
FHLBank, the redemption value of the stock will be established
through the liquidation process or through negotiation with the
merger partner.
|
|
|
The GLB Act states that the Bank may repurchase, in its sole
discretion, stock investments which exceed the required minimum
amount.
|
|
|
In no case may the Bank redeem or repurchase any capital stock
if the principal or interest payment due on any consolidated
obligation issued by the OF has not been paid in full.
|
|
|
In no case may the Bank redeem or repurchase any capital stock
if the Bank has failed to provide the Finance Agency with the
necessary quarterly certification required by Section
966.9(b)(1) of the Finance Agencys regulations prior to
declaring or paying dividends for a quarter.
|
|
|
In no case may the Bank redeem or repurchase any capital stock
if the Bank is unable to provide the required certification,
projects that it will fail to comply with statutory or
regulatory liquidity requirements or will be unable to timely
and fully meet all of its current obligations, actually fails to
satisfy these requirements or obligations, or negotiates to
enter or enters into an agreement with another Bank to obtain
financial assistance to meet its current obligations.
|
Note 20
Employee Retirement Plans
The Bank participates in the Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan for
Financial Institutions (Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan), a tax
qualified defined benefit pension plan. The plan covers
substantially all officers and employees of the Bank. Funding
and administrative costs of the Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
charged to other operating expense were $3.3 million,
$3.4 million and $4.2 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan is a multi-employer plan in which
assets contributed by one participating employer may be used to
provide benefits to employees of other participating employers
since assets contributed by an employer are not segregated in a
separate account or restricted to provide benefits only to
employees of that employer. As a result, disclosure and
accounting of the accumulated benefit obligations, plan assets,
and the components of annual pension expense attributable to the
Bank cannot be made.
The Bank also participates in the Pentegra Defined Contribution
Plan for Financial Institutions, a tax qualified defined
contribution pension plan. The Banks contributions consist
of a matching contribution equal to a
197
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
percentage of voluntary employee contributions, subject to
certain limitations. The Bank contributed $975 thousand, $900
thousand and $824 thousand for the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively.
In addition, the Bank maintains nonqualified deferred
compensation plans, available to select employees and directors,
which are, in substance, unfunded supplemental defined
contribution retirement plans. The plans liabilities
consist of the accumulated compensation deferrals and accrued
earnings (losses) on the deferrals. The Banks minimum
obligation from these plans was $7.0 million and
$6.6 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Operating expense includes deferred compensation
and accrued earnings (losses) of $1.2 million, $(493)
thousand and $1.8 million for the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. The Bank
owns mutual funds held in a Rabbi trust to offset the earnings
(losses) of certain deferred compensation agreements. See
Note 5 for more information.
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan. The
Bank sponsors a retiree benefits program that includes health
care and life insurance benefits for eligible retirees.
Employees who retired prior to January 1, 1992, receive
health care benefits at the Banks expense after
age 65. Employees retiring after January 1, 1992, are
required to contribute toward the cost of health care benefits
above the established expense caps after attaining age 65.
A limited life insurance benefit is provided at the Banks
expense for retirees who retired prior to January 1, 2009.
Those employees retiring after January 1, 1992, are also
required to meet specific eligibility requirements of
age 60 with ten years of service at the time of retirement
to be eligible for retiree health and life insurance benefits.
The approximate Accumulated Postretirement Benefit Obligation
(APBO) as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 was
$1.9 million and $2.8 million, respectively.
Effective January 1, 2010, the Bank amended the
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan such that all retirees who
retired after January 1, 1992 will participate in a health
reimbursement account (HRA). The Bank will make a contribution
to each participants HRA monthly. At the discretion of the
Bank, the amount contributed can be modified.
Supplemental Retirement Plan. The Bank
also maintains a Supplemental Retirement Plan, a nonqualified
defined benefit retirement plan, for certain executives. The
plan ensures, among other things, that participants receive the
full amount of benefits to which they would have been entitled
under the qualified defined benefit pension plan in the absence
of limits on benefits levels imposed by the Internal Revenue
Service. The accumulated benefit obligation for the supplemental
retirement plan was $2.9 million and $2.7 million at
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. The Bank owns
mutual funds held in a Rabbi trust to help secure the
Banks obligation to participants. See Note 6 for more
information.
198
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The Bank does not have any plan assets or any unrecognized
transitional obligation. The following table sets forth the
changes in benefit obligation associated with these defined
benefit plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Change in benefit obligation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year
|
|
$
|
3,971
|
|
|
$
|
4,829
|
|
|
$
|
2,757
|
|
|
$
|
2,296
|
|
Service cost
|
|
|
247
|
|
|
|
258
|
|
|
|
93
|
|
|
|
75
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
Amendments changes in assumptions
|
|
|
(7
|
)
|
|
|
494
|
|
|
|
(781
|
)
|
|
|
204
|
|
Actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
|
(128
|
)
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
(151
|
)
|
|
|
209
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(354
|
)
|
|
|
(1,878
|
)
|
|
|
(165
|
)
|
|
|
(171
|
)
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year
|
|
|
3,958
|
|
|
|
3,971
|
|
|
|
1,906
|
|
|
|
2,757
|
|
|
|
Change in fair value of plan assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, beginning of the year fair value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Employer contribution
|
|
|
354
|
|
|
|
1,878
|
|
|
|
165
|
|
|
|
171
|
|
Benefits paid
|
|
|
(354
|
)
|
|
|
(1,878
|
)
|
|
|
(165
|
)
|
|
|
(171
|
)
|
|
|
Balance, end of the year fair value
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funded status at end of year
|
|
$
|
(3,958
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,971
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,906
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,757
|
)
|
|
|
The following table presents the amounts recognized in the
Statement of Condition at December 31, 2009 and 2008
associated with these defined benefit plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Other liabilities
|
|
$
|
(3,958
|
)
|
|
$
|
(3,971
|
)
|
|
$
|
(1,906
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,757
|
)
|
|
|
The following table presents the amounts recognized in AOCI at
December 31, 2009 and 2008 associated with these defined
benefit plans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Net actuarial loss (gain)
|
|
$
|
1,062
|
|
|
$
|
1,296
|
|
|
$
|
94
|
|
|
$
|
245
|
|
Prior service cost (benefit)
|
|
|
(20
|
)
|
|
|
(30
|
)
|
|
|
(455
|
)
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,042
|
|
|
$
|
1,266
|
|
|
$
|
(361
|
)
|
|
$
|
611
|
|
|
|
199
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table presents the components of the net periodic
benefit cost and other amounts recognized in OCI for these
defined benefit plans for the years ended December 31,
2009, 2008 and 2007.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Service cost
|
|
$
|
247
|
|
|
$
|
258
|
|
|
$
|
345
|
|
|
$
|
93
|
|
|
$
|
75
|
|
|
$
|
78
|
|
Interest cost
|
|
|
229
|
|
|
|
251
|
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
144
|
|
|
|
131
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost (benefit)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
|
40
|
|
Amortization of net loss
|
|
|
98
|
|
|
|
79
|
|
|
|
149
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Settlement loss
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
405
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$
|
564
|
|
|
$
|
983
|
|
|
$
|
749
|
|
|
$
|
286
|
|
|
$
|
260
|
|
|
$
|
249
|
|
|
|
Other changes in OCI:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net loss (gain)
|
|
$
|
(136
|
)
|
|
$
|
106
|
|
|
$
|
87
|
|
|
$
|
(932
|
)
|
|
$
|
414
|
|
|
$
|
(99
|
)
|
Amortization of net loss (gain)
|
|
|
(98
|
)
|
|
|
(79
|
)
|
|
|
(149
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization of prior service cost (benefit)
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
10
|
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
(41
|
)
|
|
|
(40
|
)
|
|
|
Total recognized in OCI
|
|
|
(224
|
)
|
|
|
37
|
|
|
|
(52
|
)
|
|
|
(972
|
)
|
|
|
373
|
|
|
|
(139
|
)
|
|
|
Total recognized in net periodic benefit cost and OCI
|
|
$
|
340
|
|
|
$
|
1,020
|
|
|
$
|
697
|
|
|
$
|
(686
|
)
|
|
$
|
633
|
|
|
$
|
110
|
|
|
|
The following table presents the estimated net actuarial loss
(gain) and prior service cost (benefit) associated with these
defined benefit plans that will be amortized from AOCI into net
periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental
|
|
|
Postretirement
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
Net actuarial loss
|
|
$
|
83
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
Prior service cost (benefit)
|
|
|
(10
|
)
|
|
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
Total to be amortized into net periodic benefit cost
|
|
$
|
73
|
|
|
$
|
(18
|
)
|
|
|
The measurement date used to determine the current years
benefit obligations was December 31, 2009. Key assumptions
used for the actuarial calculation to determine benefit
obligations and net periodic benefit cost for the Banks
supplemental retirement plan and postretirement health benefit
plan for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 are
presented in the tables below. The discount rate for both plans
as of December 31, 2009 was determined by using a
discounted cash-flow approach, which incorporates the timing of
each expected future benefit payment. The estimate of the future
benefit payments is based on the plans census data,
benefit formula and provisions, and valuation assumptions
reflecting the probability of decrement and survival. The
present value of the future benefit payments is then determined
by using duration based interest rate yields from the Citibank
Pension Liability Index as of December 31, 2009 and solving
for the single discount rate that produces the same present
value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit Obligation
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
Salary increase
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
200
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supplemental Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Postretirement Health Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Discount rate
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
|
|
6.25
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
|
|
6.5
|
%
|
|
|
5.75
|
%
|
Salary increase
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
5.5
|
%
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
The following table presents the assumed health care cost trend
rates for the Banks postretirement health benefit plan at
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
Health Care Cost Trend Rates
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Assumed for next year
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
Ultimate rate
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
|
|
5.0
|
%
|
Year that ultimate rate is reached
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
The effect of a percentage point increase in the assumed
healthcare trend rates would be an increase in postretirement
benefit expense of $4 thousand and in APBO of $51 thousand. The
effect of a percentage point decrease in the assumed healthcare
trend rates would be a decrease in postretirement benefit
expense of $3 thousand and in APBO of $48 thousand.
The supplemental retirement plan and postretirement health plan
are not funded. The following table presents the estimated
future benefits payments reflecting expected future services for
the years ending after December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Supplemental
|
|
|
Postretirement Health
|
|
Years
|
|
Retirement Plan
|
|
|
Benefit Plan
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
103
|
|
|
$
|
133
|
|
2011
|
|
|
116
|
|
|
|
145
|
|
2012
|
|
|
130
|
|
|
|
154
|
|
2013
|
|
|
153
|
|
|
|
164
|
|
2014
|
|
|
167
|
|
|
|
178
|
|
2015-2019
|
|
|
1,163
|
|
|
|
899
|
|
Note 21
Transactions with Related Parties
The Bank is a cooperative whose member institutions own the
capital stock of the Bank and may receive dividends on their
investments. In addition, certain former members that still have
outstanding transactions are also required to maintain their
investment in Bank capital stock until the transactions mature
or are paid off. All loans, including BOB loans, are issued to
members and all mortgage loans held for portfolio are purchased
from members. The Bank also maintains demand deposit accounts
for members primarily to facilitate settlement activities that
are directly related to advances and mortgage loan purchases.
All transactions with members are entered into in the normal
course of business. In instances where the member also has an
officer or a director who is a director of the Bank, those
transactions are subject to the same eligibility and credit
criteria, as well as the same terms and conditions, as all other
transactions. Related parties are defined as those parties
meeting any one of the following criteria: (1) other
FHLBanks in the System; (2) members with capital stock
outstanding in excess of 10% of total capital stock outstanding;
or (3) members and non-member borrowers that have an
officer or director who is a director of the Bank.
201
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The following table includes significant outstanding related
party member balances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Investments
|
|
$
|
400,945
|
|
|
$
|
427,485
|
|
Advances
|
|
|
24,635,662
|
|
|
|
34,505,362
|
|
Deposits
|
|
|
29,617
|
|
|
|
15,354
|
|
Capital stock
|
|
|
2,139,936
|
|
|
|
2,260,791
|
|
MPF loans
|
|
|
3,864,494
|
|
|
|
123,670
|
|
The following table summarizes the Statement of Operations
effects corresponding to the above related party member balances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Interest income on investments
|
|
$
|
10,454
|
|
|
$
|
10,403
|
|
|
$
|
9,393
|
|
Interest income on
advances(1)
|
|
|
1,199,235
|
|
|
|
1,818,663
|
|
|
|
1,531,242
|
|
Interest expense on deposits
|
|
|
21
|
|
|
|
8,497
|
|
|
|
6,041
|
|
Interest income on MPF loans
|
|
|
43,725
|
|
|
|
7,064
|
|
|
|
7,054
|
|
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Excludes the net interest
settlements on derivatives in fair value hedge relationships
presented in the interest income line item on the income
statement.
|
The following table includes the MPF activity of the related
party members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Total MPF loan volume purchased
|
|
$
|
14,593
|
|
|
$
|
10,262
|
|
|
$
|
4,981
|
|
The following table summarizes the effect of the MPF activities
with FHLBank of Chicago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Mortgage loans participated to FHLBank of Chicago
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
25
|
|
Mortgage loans participated from FHLBank of Chicago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
218,039
|
|
|
|
|
|
Servicing fee expense
|
|
|
543
|
|
|
|
336
|
|
|
|
174
|
|
Interest income on MPF deposits
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
|
107
|
|
|
|
265
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Interest-earning deposits maintained with FHLBank of Chicago
|
|
$
|
7,571
|
|
|
$
|
2,393
|
|
From time to time, the Bank may borrow from or lend to other
FHLBanks on a short-term uncollateralized basis. See
Note 15 for further information. The following table
includes gross amounts transacted under these arrangements for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007. As of
December 31, 2007, the Bank had $500 million reported
as Loans to Other FHLBanks on the Statement of Condition. This
balance was repaid on January 2, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Year ended December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowed from other FHLBanks
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
20,212
|
|
|
$
|
14,548
|
|
Repaid to other FHLBanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,212
|
|
|
|
14,548
|
|
Loaned to other FHLBanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
Repaid by other FHLBanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
202
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Subject to mutually agreed upon terms, on occasion, an FHLBank
may transfer its primary debt obligations to another FHLBank,
which becomes the primary obligor on the transferred debt upon
completion of the transfer. During the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2007, there were no transfers of debt
between the Bank and another FHLBank. During the year ended
December 31, 2008, the Bank assumed the debt of other
FHLBanks having a total par value of $300 million and total
fair value of $314 million.
From time to time, a member of one FHLBank may be acquired by a
member of another FHLBank. When such an acquisition occurs, the
two FHLBanks may agree to transfer at fair value the loans of
the acquired member to the FHLBank of the surviving member. The
FHLBanks may also agree to the purchase and sale of any related
hedging instrument. The Bank had no such activity during 2009,
2008 or 2007.
Note 22
Estimated Fair Values
The Bank adopted guidance regarding fair value measurement and
the fair value option for financial instruments on
January 1, 2008. The fair value measurement guidance
provides a single definition of fair value, establishes a
framework for measuring fair value, and requires expanded
disclosures about fair value. This guidance is applied to all
fair value measurements, but does not change whether or not an
instrument is carried at fair value. The guidance regarding the
fair value option for financial instruments provides companies
with an option to elect fair value as an alternative measurement
method for selected financial assets, financial liabilities,
unrecognized firm commitments, and written loan commitments not
previously carried at fair value. It requires entities to
display the fair value of those assets and liabilities for which
the company has chosen to use the fair value option on the face
of the balance sheet. Under this guidance, fair value is used
for both the initial and subsequent measurement of the
designated assets, liabilities and commitments, with the changes
in fair value recognized in net income. The Bank has not elected
the fair value option on any financial assets or liabilities.
The Bank carries trading securities,
available-for-sale
securities and derivatives at fair value. Fair value is defined
as the price that would be received to sell an asset, or paid to
transfer a liability, (i.e., an exit price) in an orderly
transaction between market participants at the measurement date.
The transaction to sell the asset or transfer the liability is a
hypothetical transaction at the measurement date, considered
from the perspective of a market participant that holds the
asset or owes the liability. In general, the transaction price
will equal the exit price and, therefore, represents the fair
value of the asset or liability at initial recognition. In
determining whether a transaction price represents the fair
value of the asset or liability at initial recognition, the Bank
is required to consider factors specific to the asset or
liability, the principal or most advantageous market for the
asset or liability, and market participants with whom the Bank
would transact in that market.
Fair Value Hierarchy. The fair value
hierarchy is used to prioritize the inputs of valuation
techniques used to measure fair value. The inputs are evaluated
and an overall level for the fair value measurement is
determined. This overall level is an indication of the market
observability of the fair value measurement. Fair value is
defined as the price in an orderly transaction between market
participants to sell an asset or transfer a liability in the
principal (or most advantageous) market for the asset or
liability at the measurement date (an exit price). In order to
determine the fair value or the exit price, the Bank must
determine the unit of account (i.e., item being measured for
financial statement purposes), highest and best use, principal
market, and market participants. These determinations allow the
Bank to define the inputs for fair value and level within the
fair value hierarchy.
Outlined below is the application of the fair value hierarchy to
the Banks financial assets and financial liabilities that
are carried at fair value.
Level 1 defined as those instruments for
which inputs to the valuation methodology are quoted prices
(unadjusted) for identical assets or liabilities in active
markets. An active market for the asset or liability is a market
in which the transactions for the asset or liability occur with
sufficient frequency and volume to provide pricing information
on an ongoing basis. Certain of the Banks trading and
available for sale securities, which consist of publicly traded
mutual funds, are considered Level 1 instruments.
203
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Level 2 defined as those instruments for
which inputs to the valuation methodology include quoted prices
for similar assets and liabilities in active markets, and inputs
that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly
or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the financial
instrument. The Banks derivative instruments, TLGP
securities and U.S. Treasury bills are generally considered
Level 2 instruments based on the inputs utilized to derive
fair value.
Level 3 defined as those instruments for
which inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and
significant to the fair value measurement. Unobservable inputs
are those supported by little or no market activity or by the
entitys own assumptions. As a result of the current market
conditions and the use of significant unobservable inputs, the
private label MBS in the Banks
available-for-sale
portfolio are considered Level 3 instruments.
The Bank utilizes valuation techniques that maximize the use of
observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.
If quoted market prices or market-based prices are not
available, fair value is determined based on valuation models
that use market-based information available to the Bank as
inputs to the models.
Fair Value on a Recurring Basis. The
following tables present, for each hierarchy level, the
Banks assets and liabilities that are measured at fair
value on a recurring basis on its Statement of Condition at
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netting
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Adjustment(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T-Bills
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,029,499
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,029,499
|
|
TLGP securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250,008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
250,008
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting deferred compensation
|
|
|
6,698
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,698
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mutual funds offsetting employee benefit plan obligations
|
|
|
1,995
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,995
|
|
Private label MBS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,395,308
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
460,852
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(453,190
|
)
|
|
|
7,662
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
8,693
|
|
|
$
|
1,740,359
|
|
|
$
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
$
|
(453,190
|
)
|
|
$
|
3,691,170
|
|
|
|
Liabilities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,571,435
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(947,911
|
)
|
|
$
|
623,524
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,571,435
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(947,911
|
)
|
|
$
|
623,524
|
|
|
|
204
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netting
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Level 1
|
|
|
Level 2
|
|
|
Level 3
|
|
|
Adjustment(1)
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading securities
|
|
$
|
6,194
|
|
|
$
|
500,613
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
506,807
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,653
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,653
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
911,901
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(883,013
|
)
|
|
|
28,888
|
|
|
|
Total assets at fair value
|
|
$
|
6,194
|
|
|
$
|
1,412,514
|
|
|
$
|
19,653
|
|
|
$
|
(883,013
|
)
|
|
$
|
555,348
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,660,855
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2,305,841
|
)
|
|
$
|
355,014
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities at fair value
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,660,855
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
$
|
(2,305,841
|
)
|
|
$
|
355,014
|
|
|
|
Note:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
Amounts represent the effect of
legally enforceable master netting agreements that allow the
Bank to settle positive and negative positions and also cash
collateral held or placed with the same counterparties.
|
For instruments carried at fair value, the Bank reviews the fair
value hierarchy classifications on a quarterly basis. Changes in
the observability of the valuation attributes may result in a
reclassification of certain financial assets or liabilities.
Such reclassifications are reported as transfers in/out of
Level 3 at fair value in the quarter in which the changes
occur. The following table presents a reconciliation of all
assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on the
Statement of Condition using significant unobservable inputs
(Level 3) for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Available-for-Sale
|
|
|
Available-for-Sale
|
|
|
|
Securities-Private
|
|
|
Securities-Private
|
|
|
|
Label MBS for the
|
|
|
Label MBS for the
|
|
|
|
Twelve Months
|
|
|
Twelve Months
|
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
|
Ended
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at January 1
|
|
$
|
19,653
|
|
|
$
|
24,916
|
|
Total gains or losses (realized/unrealized):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Included in net gain/loss on sale of AFS securities
|
|
|
(2,178
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Included in net OTTI losses
|
|
|
(142,215
|
)
|
|
|
(2,842
|
)
|
Included in other comprehensive income (loss)
|
|
|
437,012
|
|
|
|
(3,907
|
)
|
Purchase, issuances and settlements
|
|
|
(214,948
|
)
|
|
|
(3,845
|
)
|
Transfers in and/or out of Level 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,331
|
|
Transfers of OTTI securities from
held-to-maturity
to
available-for-sale
|
|
|
2,297,984
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance at December 31
|
|
|
2,395,308
|
|
|
|
19,653
|
|
|
|
Total amount of gains or losses for the twelve month period
included in earnings attributable to the change in unrealized
gains or losses relating to assets and liabilities still held at
December 31
|
|
$
|
(142,215
|
)
|
|
$
|
(2,842
|
)
|
|
|
During 2009, the Bank transferred certain private label MBS from
its
held-to-maturity
portfolio to its
available-for-sale
portfolio. Because transfers of OTTI securities are separately
reported in the quarter in which they occur, the net OTTI losses
and noncredit losses recognized on these securities are not
separately reflected in the tables above. Further details,
including the OTTI charges relating to this transfer, are
presented in Note 6.
205
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Fair Value. The following fair value
amounts have been determined by the Bank using available market
information and the Banks best judgment of appropriate
valuation methods. These estimates are based on pertinent
information available to the Bank as of December 31, 2009
and 2008. Although the Bank uses its best judgment in estimating
the fair value of these financial instruments, there are
inherent limitations in any estimation technique or valuation
methodology. For example, because an active secondary market
does not exist for a majority of the Banks financial
instruments, in certain cases fair values are not subject to
precise quantification or verification and may change as
economic and market factors and evaluation of those factors
change. Therefore, these fair values are not necessarily
indicative of the amounts that would be realized in current
market transactions, although they do reflect the Banks
judgment of how a market participant would estimate the fair
values. In addition to these fair value limitations on specific
assets and liabilities, no value has been ascribed to the future
business opportunities of the Bank which would be included in an
overall valuation of the Bank as a going concern.
Subjectivity of Estimates. Estimates of
the fair value of advances with options, mortgage instruments,
derivatives with embedded options and consolidated obligations
bonds with options using the methods described below and other
methods are highly subjective and require judgments regarding
significant matters such as the amount and timing of future cash
flows, prepayment speed assumptions, expected interest rate
volatility, methods to determine possible distributions of
future interest rates used to value options, and the selection
of discount rates that appropriately reflect market and credit
risks. Changes in these judgments often have a material effect
on the fair value estimates. Since these estimates are made as
of a specific point in time, they are susceptible to material
near term changes.
Cash and Due from Banks. The fair value
approximates the recorded book balance.
Interest-Earning Deposits and Investment
Securities. The fair value of
non-mortgage-related securities and interest earning deposits is
determined based on quoted market prices, when available. When
quoted market prices are not available, the Bank estimates the
fair value of these instruments by calculating the present value
of the expected future cash flows and reducing the amount for
accrued interest receivable.
The Bank changed the methodology used to estimate the fair value
of MBS during the third quarter of 2009. Under the new
methodology, the Bank requests prices for all MBS from four
specific third-party vendors, and, depending on the number of
prices received for each security, selects a median or average
price as defined by the methodology. The methodology also
incorporates variance thresholds to assist in identifying median
or average prices that may require further review. In certain
limited instances (i.e., prices are outside of variance
thresholds or the third-party services do not provide a price),
the Bank will obtain a price from securities dealers or
internally model a price that is deemed most appropriate after
consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances that would
be considered by market participants. Prior to the adoption of
the new pricing methodology, the Bank used a similar process
that utilized three third-party vendors and similar variance
thresholds. This change in pricing methodology did not have a
significant impact on the Banks fair values of its MBS.
Federal Funds Sold and Loans to Other
FHLBanks. The fair value is determined by
calculating the present value of the expected future cash flows.
The discount rates used in these calculations are the rates for
instruments with similar terms.
Mutual Funds Offsetting Deferred Compensation and Employee
Benefit Plan Obligations. Fair values for
publicly traded mutual funds are based on quoted market prices.
Advances. The Bank determines the fair
value of advances by calculating the present value of expected
future cash flows from the loans and excluding the amount for
accrued interest receivable. The discount rates used in these
calculations are the replacement loan rates for advances with
similar terms. Under Finance Agency regulations, advances with a
maturity or repricing period greater than six months require a
prepayment fee sufficient to make the Bank financially
indifferent to the borrowers decision to prepay the loans.
Therefore, the fair value of advances does not assign a value to
the ability of the member to prepay the advance.
206
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
Mortgage Loans Held For Portfolio. The
fair values for mortgage loans are determined based on quoted
market prices of similar mortgage instruments. These prices,
however, can change rapidly based upon market conditions.
Accrued Interest Receivable and
Payable. The fair value approximates the
recorded book value. Derivative accrued interest receivable and
payable are excluded and are valued as described below.
Derivative Assets/Liabilities. The Bank
bases the fair values of derivatives on market prices, when
available, including derivative accrued interest receivable and
payable. However, market prices do not exist for many types of
derivative instruments. Consequently, fair values for these
instruments must be estimated using techniques such as
discounted cash flow analysis and comparisons to similar
instruments. Estimates developed using these methods are highly
subjective and require judgment regarding significant matters
such as the amount and timing of future cash flows, volatility
of interest rates and the selection of discount rates that
appropriately reflect market and credit risks. Changes in these
judgments often have a material effect on the fair value
estimates. Because these estimates are made as of a specific
point in time, they are susceptible to material near-term
changes. The Bank is subject to credit risk in derivatives
transactions due to potential nonperformance by the derivatives
counterparties. To mitigate this risk, the Bank enters into
master-netting
agreements for interest-rate-exchange agreements with
highly-rated institutions. In addition, the Bank has entered
into bilateral security agreements with all active derivatives
dealer counterparties that provide for delivery of collateral at
specified levels tied to counterparty credit ratings to limit
the Banks net unsecured credit exposure to these
counterparties. The Bank has evaluated the potential for the
fair value of the instruments to be impacted by counterparty
credit risk and has determined that no adjustments were
significant or necessary to the overall fair value measurements.
If these netted amounts are positive, they are classified as an
asset and if negative, a liability.
BOB Loans. The fair value approximates
the carrying value.
Deposits. The Bank determines fair
values of Bank deposits by calculating the present value of
expected future cash flows from the deposits and reducing this
amount for accrued interest payable. The discount rates used in
these calculations are the cost of deposits with similar terms.
Consolidated Obligations. The
Banks internal valuation model determines fair values of
consolidated obligations bonds and discount notes by calculating
the present value of expected cash flows using market-based
yield curves. Adjustments may be necessary to reflect the
FHLBanks credit quality when valuing consolidated
obligations bonds measured at fair value. Due to the joint and
several liability of consolidated obligations, the Bank monitors
its own creditworthiness and the creditworthiness of the other
FHLBanks to determine whether any credit adjustments are
necessary in its fair value measurement of consolidated
obligations. The credit ratings of the FHLBanks and any changes
to these credit ratings are the basis for the Bank to determine
whether the fair values of consolidated obligations have been
significantly affected during the reporting period by changes in
the instrument-specific credit risk. Either no adjustment or an
immaterial adjustment was made during the twelve months ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008, as deemed appropriate by the
Bank.
Mandatorily Redeemable Capital
Stock. The fair value of capital stock
subject to mandatory redemption is equal to par value. Capital
stock can be acquired by members only at par value and may be
redeemed or repurchased at par value. Capital stock is not
traded and no market mechanism exists for the exchange of stock
outside the cooperative structure of the Bank.
Commitments. The fair value of the
Banks unrecognized commitments to extend credit, including
standby letters of credit, was immaterial at December 31,
2009 and 2008. 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 standby letters
of credit is based on the present value of fees currently
charged for similar agreements or on the estimated cost to
terminate them or otherwise settle the obligations with the
counterparties.
Commitments to Extend Credit for Mortgage
Loans. Certain mortgage loan purchase
commitments are recorded as derivatives at their fair value.
207
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
The carrying value and fair values of the Banks financial
instruments at December 31, 2009 and 2008 are presented in
the table below.
Fair
Value Summary Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
|
December 31, 2008
|
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Estimated
|
|
|
Carrying
|
|
|
Estimated Fair
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Fair Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
Value
|
|
|
|
|
Assets:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and due from banks
|
|
$
|
1,418,743
|
|
|
$
|
1,418,743
|
|
|
$
|
67,577
|
|
|
$
|
67,577
|
|
Interest-earning deposits
|
|
|
7,571
|
|
|
|
7,571
|
|
|
|
5,103,671
|
|
|
|
5,103,632
|
|
Federal funds sold
|
|
|
3,000,000
|
|
|
|
2,999,939
|
|
|
|
1,250,000
|
|
|
|
1,249,981
|
|
Trading securities
|
|
|
1,286,205
|
|
|
|
1,286,205
|
|
|
|
506,807
|
|
|
|
506,807
|
|
Available-for-sale
securities
|
|
|
2,397,303
|
|
|
|
2,397,303
|
|
|
|
19,653
|
|
|
|
19,653
|
|
Held-to-maturity
securities
|
|
|
10,482,387
|
|
|
|
10,106,225
|
|
|
|
14,918,045
|
|
|
|
12,825,341
|
|
Advances
|
|
|
41,177,310
|
|
|
|
41,299,566
|
|
|
|
62,153,441
|
|
|
|
61,783,968
|
|
Mortgage loans held for portfolio, net
|
|
|
5,162,837
|
|
|
|
5,373,977
|
|
|
|
6,165,266
|
|
|
|
6,303,065
|
|
BOB loans
|
|
|
11,819
|
|
|
|
11,819
|
|
|
|
11,377
|
|
|
|
11,377
|
|
Accrued interest receivable
|
|
|
229,005
|
|
|
|
229,005
|
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
|
|
434,017
|
|
Derivative assets
|
|
|
7,662
|
|
|
|
7,662
|
|
|
|
28,888
|
|
|
|
28,888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits
|
|
$
|
1,284,330
|
|
|
$
|
1,284,393
|
|
|
$
|
1,486,377
|
|
|
$
|
1,486,539
|
|
Consolidated obligations:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discount notes
|
|
|
10,208,891
|
|
|
|
10,209,195
|
|
|
|
22,864,284
|
|
|
|
22,882,625
|
|
Bonds
|
|
|
49,103,868
|
|
|
|
49,776,909
|
|
|
|
61,398,687
|
|
|
|
62,202,614
|
|
Mandatorily redeemable capital stock
|
|
|
8,256
|
|
|
|
8,256
|
|
|
|
4,684
|
|
|
|
4,684
|
|
Accrued interest payable
|
|
|
301,495
|
|
|
|
301,495
|
|
|
|
494,078
|
|
|
|
494,078
|
|
Derivative liabilities
|
|
|
623,524
|
|
|
|
623,524
|
|
|
|
355,014
|
|
|
|
355,014
|
|
Note 23
Commitments and Contingencies
As described in Note 16, the twelve FHLBanks have joint and
several liability for all the consolidated obligations issued on
their behalf. Accordingly, should one or more of the FHLBanks be
unable to repay its participation in the consolidated
obligations, each of the other FHLBanks could be called upon to
repay all or part of such obligations, as determined or approved
by the Finance Agency. The Finance Agency, in its discretion and
notwithstanding any other provision, may at any time order any
FHLBank to make principal or interest payments due on any
consolidated obligation, even in the absence of default by the
primary obligor. No FHLBank has ever been asked or required to
repay the principal or interest on any consolidated obligation
on behalf of another FHLBank, and as of December 31, 2009
and through the filing date of this report, the Bank does not
believe that it is probable that they will be asked to do so.
The FHLBanks determined it was not necessary to recognize a
liability for the fair value of the FHLBanks joint and
several liability for all of the consolidated obligations
because the joint and several obligations are mandated by
Finance Agency regulations and are not the result of arms-length
transactions among the FHLBanks. The FHLBanks have no control
over the amount of the guaranty or the determination of how each
FHLBank would perform under the joint and several obligations.
Accordingly, the Bank has not recognized a liability for its
joint and several obligation related to other FHLBanks
consolidated obligations at December 31, 2009 and 2008. The
par amounts of the FHLBanks consolidated obligations for
which the Bank is jointly and severally liable were
approximately $930.6 billion and $1.3 trillion at
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
208
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
During the third quarter of 2008, the Bank entered into a
Lending Agreement with the U.S. Treasury in connection with
the U.S. Treasurys establishment of the Government
Sponsored Enterprise Credit Facility (GSECF), as authorized by
the Housing Act. The GSECF was designed to serve as a contingent
source of liquidity for the housing GSEs, including each of the
twelve FHLBanks. Any borrowings by one or more of the FHLBanks
under GSECF would have been considered consolidated obligations
with the same joint and several liability as all other
consolidated obligations. The terms of any borrowings would have
been agreed to at the time of issuance. Loans under the Lending
Agreement were to be secured by collateral acceptable to the
U.S. Treasury, which consists of Bank advances that have
been collateralized in accordance with regulatory standards and
MBS issued by the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The Bank was
required to submit to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
(FRBNY), acting as fiscal agent of the U.S. Treasury, a
list of eligible collateral, updated on a weekly basis. The
amount of collateral was subject to an increase or decrease
(subject to the approval of the U.S. Treasury) at any time
through the delivery of an updated listing of collateral. The
Bank never drew on this available source of liquidity. The GSECF
expired on December 31, 2009.
Commitments that legally bind and unconditionally obligate the
Bank for additional advances, including BOB loans, totaled
approximately $14.7 million and $4.4 million at
December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. Commitments can
be for periods of up to twelve months. Standby letters of credit
are issued on behalf of members for a fee. A standby letter of
credit is generally a short-term financing arrangement between
the Bank and its member. If the Bank is required to make payment
for a beneficiarys draw, these amounts are withdrawn from
the members DDA account. Any remaining amounts not covered
by the withdrawal from the members DDA account are
converted into a collateralized loan to the member. The
following table presents outstanding standby letters of credit
as of December 31, 2009 and 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in millions)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Outstanding notional
|
|
$
|
8,727.4
|
|
|
$
|
10,002.3
|
|
Final expiration year
|
|
|
2014
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
Original terms
|
|
less than 1 month to 5 years
|
The Bank monitors the creditworthiness of its standby letters of
credit based on an evaluation of the member. The Bank has
established parameters for the review, assessment, monitoring
and measurement of credit risk related to these standby letters
of credit.
Except as described below regarding BOB commitments, based on
managements credit analyses, collateral requirements, and
adherence to the requirements set forth in Bank policy and
Finance Agency regulations, the Bank has not recorded any
liability on these commitments and standby letters of credit.
Excluding BOB, commitments and standby letters of credit are
collateralized at the time of issuance. The Bank records a
liability with respect to BOB commitments, which is reflected in
other liabilities on the Statement of Condition.
Commitments that unconditionally obligate the Bank to purchase
mortgage loans under the MPF program totaled $3.4 million
and $31.2 million at December 31, 2009 and 2008,
respectively. Delivery commitments are generally for periods not
to exceed 45 days. Such commitments are recorded as
derivatives at their fair value.
The Bank generally executes derivatives with major banks and
broker-dealers and generally enters into bilateral collateral
agreements. As of December 31, 2009, the Bank has pledged
total collateral of $725.3 million, including cash of
$494.7 million and securities that cannot be sold or
repledged with a fair value of $230.6 million, to certain
of its derivative counterparties. The Bank had $1.4 billion
of cash collateral pledged at December 31, 2008. As
previously noted, the Banks ISDA Master Agreements
typically require segregation of the Banks collateral
posted with the counterparty. The Bank reported
$230.6 million of the collateral as trading securities as
of December 31, 2009. There were no securities pledged as
of December 31, 2008.
The Bank had committed to issue or purchase consolidated
obligations totaling $400.0 million and $635.0 million
at December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The Bank terminated its previous lease and signed a new lease,
effective May 1, 2008, to remain at its existing location,
601 Grant Street. The lease has a term of 17 years,
expiring April 30, 2025, with the option for two additional
renewal terms of five years each at 90% of market terms.
However, the Bank also has the right to
209
Notes to
Financial Statements (continued)
terminate the lease, after 10, 12 and 14 years at a cost
estimated to be less than $1.0 million. The Bank charged to
operating expense net rental costs of approximately
$2.1 million, $2.2 million and $2.6 million for
the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007,
respectively. Lease agreements for Bank premises generally
provide for increases in the basic rentals resulting from
increases in property taxes and maintenance expenses. Such
increases are not expected to have a material effect on the Bank.
The following table presents future minimum rentals as of
December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 31, 2009
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
Premises
|
|
|
Equipment
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
$
|
1,844
|
|
|
$
|
135
|
|
|
$
|
1,979
|
|
2011
|
|
|
1,857
|
|
|
|
135
|
|
|
|
1,992
|
|
2012
|
|
|
1,870
|
|
|
|
17
|
|
|
|
1,887
|
|
2013
|
|
|
1,815
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,815
|
|
2014
|
|
|
1,849
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,849
|
|
Thereafter
|
|
|
20,489
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,489
|
|
|
|
Total
|
|
$
|
29,724
|
|
|
$
|
287
|
|
|
$
|
30,011
|
|
|
|
In September 2008, the Bank terminated all of its derivative
contracts with Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. (LBSF).
Related to the termination of these contracts, the Bank had a
receivable due from LBSF in the amount of $41.5 million as
of December 31, 2009. The Bank filed an adversary
proceeding against LBSF and JP Morgan to return the cash
collateral posted by the Bank associated with the derivative
contracts. See discussion within Item 3. Legal Proceedings
in the Banks 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for more information with respect to the proceeding. The
discovery phase of the adversary proceeding is now underway,
which has provided management information related to its claim.
Based on this information, managements most probable
estimated loss is $35.3 million, which was recorded in
first quarter 2009.
During discovery in the Banks adversary proceeding against
LBSF, the Bank learned that LBSF had failed to keep the
Banks posted collateral in a segregated account in
violation of the Master Agreement between the Bank and LBSF. In
fact, the posted collateral was held in a general operating
account of LBSF the balances of which were routinely swept to
other Lehman Brothers entities, including Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. among others. After discovering that the
Banks posted collateral was transferred to other Lehman
Brothers entities and not held by JP Morgan, the Bank agreed to
discontinue the LBSF adversary proceeding against JP Morgan. JP
Morgan was dismissed from the Banks proceeding on
June 26, 2009. In addition, the Bank discontinued its LBSF
adversary proceeding and pursued its claim in the LBSF
bankruptcy through the proof of claim process, which made
continuing the adversary proceeding against LBSF unnecessary.
The Bank has filed proofs of claim against Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc. and Lehman Brothers Commercial Corp. as well.
The Bank has filed a new complaint against Lehman Brothers
Holding Inc., Lehman Brothers, Inc., Lehman Brothers Commercial
Corporation, Woodlands Commercial Bank, formerly known as Lehman
Brothers Commercial Bank, and Aurora Bank FSB (Aurora), formerly
known as Lehman Brothers Bank FSB, alleging unjust enrichment,
constructive trust, and conversion claims. Aurora is a member of
the Bank. Aurora did not hold more than 5% of the Banks
capital stock as of December 31, 2009.
As of December 31, 2009, the Bank maintained a reserve of
$35.3 million on this receivable as this remains the most
probable estimated loss.
Notes 2, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 also discuss
other commitments and contingencies.
Supplementary
Data
In addition to the Financial Statements and related notes and
the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP; the schedules for
which provision is made in the applicable accounting regulation
of the SEC that would appear in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data are included in the
Financial Information section in Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis.
210
Item 9: Changes
in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and
Financial Disclosure
None
Item 9A: Controls
and Procedures
Disclosure
Controls and Procedures
Under the supervision and with the participation of the
Banks management, including the chief executive officer
and chief financial officer, the Bank conducted an evaluation of
its disclosure controls and procedures, as such term is defined
under
Rule 13a-15(e)
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the Exchange Act). Based on this evaluation, the
Banks chief executive officer and chief financial officer
concluded that the Banks disclosure controls and
procedures were effective as of December 31, 2009.
Managements
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
See Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary
Financial Data Managements Annual Report on
Internal Control over Financial Reporting.
Changes
in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
There have been no changes in internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the fourth quarter of 2009 that
have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially
affect, the Banks internal control over financial
reporting.
Item 9B: Other
Information
None
211
PART III
|
|
Item 10:
|
Directors,
Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
|
Following enactment of the Housing Act, the Banks Board is
comprised of a combination of industry directors elected by the
Banks member institutions (Member Directors)
on a
state-by-state
basis and independent public interest directors elected by a
plurality of the Banks members (Independent
Directors). Prior to enactment of the Housing Act, the
Banks Board was comprised of a combination of directors
elected by the members and public interest directors appointed
by the Finance Agency. No member of the Banks management
may serve as a director of an FHLBank. The Banks Board
currently includes nine Member Directors and six Independent
Directors. Under the Housing Act, there are no matters that are
submitted to shareholders for votes with the exception of the
annual election of the Banks Directors. Effective on
enactment of the Housing Act, all of the Banks Directors
are required to be elected by the Banks members.
Nomination
of Member Directors
Member Directors are required by statute and regulation to meet
certain specific criteria in order to be eligible to be elected
and serve as Bank Directors. To be eligible, an individual must:
(1) be an officer or director of a Bank member institution
located in the state in which there is an open Bank Director
position; (2) the member institution must be in compliance
with the minimum capital requirements established by its
regulator; and (3) the individual must be a
U.S. citizen. See 12 U.S.C. 1427 and 12 C.F.R.
1261 et. seq. These criteria are the only
permissible eligibility criteria that Member Directors must
meet. The FHLBanks are not permitted to establish additional
eligibility criteria or qualifications for Member Directors or
nominees. For Member Directors, each eligible institution may
nominate representatives from member institutions in its
respective state to serve four-year terms on the Board of the
Bank. As a matter of statute and regulation, only FHLBank
stockholders may nominate and elect Member Directors. FHLBank
Boards are not permitted to nominate or elect Member
Directors. Specifically, institutions, which are members
required to hold stock in the Bank as of the record date (i.e.,
December 31 of the year prior to the year in which the election
is held), are entitled to participate in the election process.
With respect to Member Directors, under Finance Agency
regulations, no director, officer, employee, attorney or agent
of the Bank (except in
his/her
personal capacity) may, directly or indirectly, support the
nomination or election of a particular individual for a Member
Directorship. Because of the laws and regulations governing
FHLBank Member Director nominations and elections, an FHLBank
does not know what factors the Banks member institutions
consider in selecting Member Director nominees or electing
Member Directors. Under 12 C.F.R. 1261.9, if an
FHLBanks Board has performed a self-assessment, then, in
publishing the nomination or election announcement, that FHLBank
can include a statement indicating to the FHLBanks members
participating in the election what skills or experience the
Board believes would enhance the FHLBanks Board. The Bank
did not include such a statement in its 2009 or 2008 Member
Director nomination or election announcement. In its 2007 Member
Director announcement, the Bank included a statement that its
Board believed that continuity of service on the Board was an
important element of effective governance. Mr. Marshall,
Mr. Maddy, and Mr. Gibson were elected by the
Banks member institutions in the 2007 Member Director
election.
Nomination
of Independent Directors
For the remainder of directors (referred to as Independent
Directors), the members elect these individuals on a
district-wide basis to four-year terms. Independent Directors
cannot be officers or directors of a Bank member. Independent
Director nominees must meet certain statutory and regulatory
eligibility criteria and must have experience in, or knowledge
of, one or more of the following areas: auditing and accounting,
derivatives, financial management, organizational management,
project development, risk management practices and the law. In
the case of a public interest Independent Director nominee, such
nominee must have more than four years experience
representing consumer or community interests in banking
services, credit needs, housing, or consumer financial
protection. See 12 C.F.R. 1261.6.
212
In 2009, the Finance Agency issued a final regulation
implementing the terms of the Housing Act which provide that the
Finance Agency establish the procedure for the nomination and
election of Independent Directors. The 2009 final regulation was
substantially similar to the interim final regulation issued by
the Finance Agency in 2008.
Under the Finance Agency regulation, members are permitted to
recommend candidates to be considered by the Bank to be included
on the nominee slate and the Banks Board (or
representatives thereof) is required to consult with the
Banks Advisory Council. Also under Finance Agency
regulations, before the nominee slate is final, the slate must
be sent to the Finance Agency for its review and consideration.
Finance Agency regulations permit a Bank Director, officer,
attorney, employee or agent and the Banks Board and
Advisory Council to support the candidacy of any person
nominated by the Board for election to an Independent
Directorship.
In 2008, the Banks Board selected Mr. Bond and
Mr. Hudson as public interest Independent Director
nominees, based on a determination that they met the required
regulatory qualifications for a public interest Independent
Director described above. Mr. Bond and Mr. Hudson were
elected to the Banks Board in 2008 and their biographical
information is set forth below.
In 2009, the Banks Board selected Mr. Marlo as an
Independent Director nominee based on a determination that he
met the required regulatory qualifications (e.g., financial
management experience) described above. The Board nominated
Mr. Cortés as a public interest Independent Director,
following a determination that he met the public interest
Independent Director regulatory qualifications as described.
Mr. Marlo and Mr. Cortés were elected to the
Banks Board in 2009 and their biographical information is
set forth below.
2009
Member and Independent Director Elections
Voting rights and process with regard to the election of Member
and Independent Directors are set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1427
and 12 C.F.R. 1261. For the election of both Member
Directors and Independent Directors, each eligible institution
is entitled to cast one vote for each share of stock that it was
required to hold as of the record date (December 31 of the
preceding year); however, the number of votes that each
institution may cast for each directorship cannot exceed the
average number of shares of stock that were required to be held
by all member institutions located in that state on the record
date. The only matter submitted to a vote of shareholders in
2009 was the election of vacant Member and Independent
Directors, which occurred in the fourth quarter of 2009. The
Bank conducted these elections to fill the open Member and
Independent Directorships for 2010 designated by the Finance
Agency. In 2009, the nomination and election of Member Directors
and Independent Directors was conducted electronically. No
meeting of the members was held in regard to either election.
The Board of the Bank does not solicit proxies, nor are eligible
institutions permitted to solicit or use proxies to cast their
votes in an election for Member or Independent Directors. The
election was conducted in accordance with 12 C.F.R. 1261.
Information about the results of the election, including the
votes cast, was reported in an
8-K filed on
December 18, 2009, included as Exhibit 22.1 to this
2009 Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
Former
Finance Agency Appointed Directors and Member Director Elected
by the Banks Board
Prior to the passage of the Housing Act, which provides for
election of Independent Directors, the Finance Agency appointed
a portion of an FHLBanks directors. These directors, like
Independent Directors, are also prohibited from serving as
officers or directors of Bank members. Under Finance Agency
regulations in effect prior to the Housing Act, an FHLBank was
permitted to identify candidates for consideration by the
Finance Agency as appointed directors. In 2007, the Bank
identified Mr. DAlessio to the Finance Agency to
serve as an appointed director of the Bank based on his skills
and experience as described in his biographical information
below, which includes experience in non-profit economic
development. The Bank also identified Mr. Darr to serve as
an appointed community interest director based on his experience
as a director of Manna, Inc. as set forth in his biographical
information below. The Finance Agency appointed
Mr. DAlessio and Mr. Darr to the Banks
Board in 2007 and they are currently serving as Bank Directors.
As described above, an FHLBanks Board generally is
prohibited from nominating or electing a Member Director. The
Finance Agency regulations provide a limited exception in the
case of a Member Director vacancy that arises prior to the
expiration of the Member Directors term. In such a case,
an FHLBanks Board can elect an individual to fill the open
Member Director seat, provided
213
that the individual meets the statutory and regulatory criteria
of being an officer or director of a Bank member located in the
state in which the open director seat is located; the
individuals institution meets its capital requirements;
and the individual is a U.S. citizen. In 2008, as a result
of a Member Director vacancy, the Banks Board elected
Mr. Mason as a director to serve the remainder of an open
Member Director position currently allocated to Delaware.
Mr. Mason continues to serve on the Banks Board.
Information
Regarding Current FHLBank Directors
The following table sets forth the certain information (ages as
of February 28, 2010) regarding each of the Directors
serving on the Banks Board, beginning on January 1,
2010. No Director of the Bank is related to any other Director
or executive officer of the Bank by blood, marriage, or adoption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
|
|
|
Term
|
|
|
Board
|
Name
|
|
Age
|
|
|
Since
|
|
|
Expires
|
|
|
Committees
|
|
Dennis S. Marlo (Chair) (Independent)*
|
|
|
67
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
|
H. Charles Maddy, III (Vice Chair) (Member)*
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
|
2002
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)
|
Patrick A. Bond (Independent)
|
|
|
60
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
(b)(c)(e)
|
Rev. Luis A. Cortés, Jr. (Independent)**
|
|
|
52
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
(c)(d)
|
Walter DAlessio (Independent)
|
|
|
76
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(c)(d)
|
John K. Darr (Independent)
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(a)(b)(e)
|
David R. Gibson (Member)
|
|
|
53
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(b)(c)
|
Brian A. Hudson (Independent)
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
(a)(d)(e)
|
Glenn B. Marshall (Member)
|
|
|
51
|
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(a)(b)
|
John C. Mason (Member)****
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
(b)(c)
|
John S. Milinovich (Member)
|
|
|
57
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
(a)(d)
|
Edward J. Molnar (Member)***
|
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
2004
|
|
|
|
2011
|
|
|
(b)(c)
|
Charles J. Nugent (Member)
|
|
|
61
|
|
|
|
2010
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
(a)(b)
|
Patrick J. Ward (Member)
|
|
|
54
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
2013
|
|
|
(a)(d)(e)
|
Robert W. White (Member)
|
|
|
65
|
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
|
2012
|
|
|
(a)(d)
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Member of Audit Committee |
|
(b) |
|
Member of Finance and Risk Management Committee |
|
(c) |
|
Member of Governance, Public Policy and Human Resources Committee |
|
(d) |
|
Member of Affordable Housing and Products & Services
Committee |
|
(e) |
|
Member of Executive Committee |
|
(*) |
|
Serves on the Executive Committee and as an ex-officio member of
other committees. |
|
(**) |
|
Rev. Cortés served a previous term from 2002 to 2004 as an
appointed director. |
|
(***) |
|
Mr. Molnar served a previous term from 1982 to 1988 as a
member director. |
|
(****) |
|
Mr. Mason was elected by the Board to fill a vacant
non-guaranteed stock Member Director seat. |
Dennis S. Marlo (Chair) Dennis Marlo has
served on the Board of Directors of the Bank since November
2002. Mr. Marlo is currently Managing Director of Sanctuary
Group LTD, a financial and executive advisory firm located in
Malvern, Pennsylvania. Mr. Marlo has served as a Director
on the Board of NOVA Bank. In addition, he formerly was an
Executive Vice President of Sovereign Bank, representing the
Bank in various community, bank industry, and Bank-related
activities. Prior to that, he was employed for 25 years at
KPMG Peat Marwick and its predecessor organizations, where he
retired as a partner in the firm. A graduate of LaSalle
University and a Certified Public Accountant (CPA),
Mr. Marlo also completed studies at the Graduate School of
Community Bank Management, University of Texas/Austin. He is
currently a member of the Board of Trustees of Harcum College in
Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania; the Board of Directors of EnerSys in
Reading, Pennsylvania; the Board of Directors of Main Line
Health Real Estate, LP; the Lankenau Hospital Foundation Board
of Trustees in Wynnewood,
214
Pennsylvania; and the Council of Presidents Associates of
LaSalle University in Philadelphia. He is also a member of both
the American and Pennsylvania Institutes of Certified Public
Accountants and the Financial Managers Society, having served on
its national board of directors.
H. Charles Maddy, III (Vice Chair)
H. Charles Maddy, III joined the Board of
Directors of the Bank in January 2002. He currently serves as
the Banks Vice Chairman. Mr. Maddy is President and
Chief Executive Officer of Summit Financial Group, Inc. in
Moorefield, West Virginia. He is a member of the Board of
Directors for Summit Financial Group and its banking subsidiary:
Summit Community Bank. Mr. Maddy is also a Director for the
West Virginia Bankers Association and the Hardy County Child
Care Center. He is a past President and past Director of the
West Virginia Association of Community Bankers, and a public
accountant certified by the West Virginia Board of Accountancy.
Mr. Maddy graduated magna cum laude from Concord College in
Athens, West Virginia, earning a BS in business administration
with a concentration in accounting.
Patrick A. Bond Patrick Bond joined the
Board of Directors of the Bank in May 2007. He is a Founding
General Partner of Mountaineer Capital, LP in Charleston, West
Virginia. He graduated with a BS in Industrial Engineering and
an MS in Industrial Engineering from West Virginia University.
He is a former President of the West Virginia Symphony
Orchestra, Vice Chairman of the Board of Charleston Area
Alliance, a former President of Charleston Renaissance
Corporation, and a former member of the FHLBank
Pittsburghs Affordable Housing Advisory Council.
Luis A. Cortés Luis Cortés joined
the Board of Directors of the Bank in April 2007. Reverend
Cortés has served as the President and CEO of Esperanza
since its inception in 1986. Esperanza is the largest Hispanic
faith-based organization in the country. The
not-for-profit
corporation has over 225 employees and manages a
$20 million budget. The organization is networked with over
twelve thousand Latino congregations in the United States. He is
also President Emeritus of Hispanic Clergy of Philadelphia, a
religious organization. He has served as a Board member of the
FHLBank Pittsburgh from
2002-2004,
which included his serving as Vice Chairman of the Board. He
also serves on the Board of The Cancer Treatment Centers of
America, a privately-held cancer hospital, as well as on the
Board of the American Bible Society.
Walter DAlessio Walter DAlessio joined
the Board of Directors of the Bank in January 2008. A leader in
the area of economic development in Greater Philadelphia,
Mr. DAlessio joined NorthMarq Capital in 2003. He is
currently NorthMarqs Vice Chairman, and a member of its
Board of Directors and also serves as Senior Managing Partner of
NorthMarq Corporate Solutions. As Chairman of the Board of the
Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC),
Mr. DAlessio has played a key role in building that
organizations international reputation. As a non-profit
partnership between the City of Philadelphia and the Chamber of
Commerce, PIDC administers financing programs, land development,
and project management targeted to economic growth. During his
time with the Citys Redevelopment Authority and at PIDC,
Mr. DAlessio has been involved in numerous
large-scale projects, including Market Street East, Penns
Landing, Franklin Town, and the development and expansion of the
University of Pennsylvania, Temple University and Drexel
University. Mr. DAlessio serves on the boards of
Brandywine Realty Trust, Exelon, and Pennsylvania Real Estate
Investment Trust and has served on a wide array of non-profit
boards, including the American Red Cross, the World Affairs
Council, and Independence Seaport Museum. He has been recognized
locally and nationally with numerous awards.
John K. Darr John Darr joined the Board of
Directors of the Bank in January 2008. Mr. Darr retired
from the FHLBanks Office of Finance at the end of 2007
where he served as CEO and Managing Director for 15 years.
He was responsible for issuing debt in the global capital
markets on behalf of the FHLBanks, consistent with their mission
of providing low-cost liquidity for member-owner financial
institutions. He also was responsible for issuing the FHLBank
Systems Combined Financial Statement and was intimately
involved in the FHLBank Systems SEC Registration process.
Mr. Darr has a total of 39 years of business
experience, including several years as Treasurer of FHLBank
San Francisco, serving as a control officer of three member
institutions, and as CFO of Sallie Mae, CEO of a registered
investment management company, and Managing Director of Mortgage
Finance at a securities dealer. Mr. Darr is a former
Director of Mortgage IT. In addition to his service on the Board
of FHLBank Pittsburgh, Mr. Darr is a Trustee of a mutual
fund complex serving as a Trustee of Advisors Inner Circle
Fund I, Advisors Inner Circle Fund II, and Bishop
Street Funds. Mr. Darr also serves as a Director of two
non-profit entities, including Manna, Inc., a very low-income
home builder, homeownership counseling, and mortgage lending
entity in the
215
District of Columbia. During his 15 years of service to
this faith-based organization, Mr. Darr served as Chair of
the Boards Audit and Finance Committee, as co-chair of its
Leadership Committee and as a fund-raiser. Manna is credited
with having provided more than 1,000 units of affordable
housing over the past 25 years as well as counseling
hundreds of homebuyers.
David R. Gibson David Gibson was elected to
the Board of Directors of the Bank and began his term
January 1, 2007. Mr. Gibson, who has served Wilmington
Trust for more than 25 years, was named its Chief Financial
Officer in 1996. He holds an MBA in Finance and Accounting from
Vanderbilt University and earned his undergraduate degree from
the University of Delaware. Mr. Gibson is a member of the
finance committee of the Board of Christiana Care Health Systems
and a former member of the Boards of the Delaware Workforce
Investment Board, St. Edmonds Academy, and Junior
Achievement of Delaware. He is a member of the Financial
Executives Institute and the National Association of Accountants.
Brian A. Hudson Brian Hudson joined the
Board of Directors of the Bank in May 2007. Mr. Hudson is
currently the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer,
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. He has a BA from Pennsylvania State University. He
is a CPA and a Certified Treasury Professional (CTP). He is a
member of the Board of National Council of State Housing
Agencies, a member of the Finance Committee of Lackawanna
College, Chair of Commonwealth Cornerstone Group, Board member
National Housing Trust, and a former Chair of the Harrisburg
Public School Foundation.
Glenn B. Marshall Glenn Marshall was elected
to the Board of Directors of the Bank and began his term
January 1, 2008. Mr. Marshall is President and Chief
Executive Officer of First Resource Bank, Exton, Pennsylvania.
He has more than 25 years of banking experience.
Mr. Marshall graduated from Drexel University with a
bachelors degree in Accounting and Marketing. He also
holds a masters degree from St. Josephs University
with a concentration in Finance and Banking. Mr. Marshall
is the Vice Chairman of the Audit Committee of West Whiteland
Township and is a member of the Radnor Hunt Foundation.
John C. Mason John Mason was appointed by
the Banks Board to fill a vacant non-guaranteed stock seat
on the Board and began his term January 1, 2009.
Mr. Mason is ING Bank, FSBs (ING DIRECT USA) Chief
Investment Officer and Treasurer. Mr. Mason joined ING in
June, 2004. Mr. Mason has over 34 years of experience
in the financial services industry. Mr. Mason graduated
from Indiana University in Bloomington, IN with a Bachelor of
Science degree in Business Economics. Mr. Mason is a
participant in the Junior Achievement Titan and Economics for
Success Programs.
John S. Milinovich John Milinovich was
elected to the Board of Directors of the Bank and began his term
January 1, 2009. Mr. Milinovich is Executive Vice
President, Treasurer, and CFO of Washington Financial Bank.
Mr. Milinovichs
35-year
career combines strong financial expertise with 10 years of
banking experience gained through executive level finance,
operations, and strategic planning functions and 25 years
of public accounting experience, including audit, tax, and
management consulting services. At the Bank, John provides a
leadership role for the Senior Management Group, manages the
financial reporting process and investment portfolios for the
Bank and its subsidiaries, heads up the annual budget process
and oversees the Asset/Liability Management, Cash Management,
Treasury and Liquidity processes. John has broad public
accounting experience which spans from an international
accounting firm (Ernst & Ernst now Ernst
and Young) to a number of medium-sized local CPA firms,
including his own firm for over ten years. He also has
experience serving as an independent Bank Director for a
community bank. Mr. Milinovich holds a Bachelor of Science
degree in Accounting from Duquesne University and has
continuously maintained his CPA license in Pennsylvania from
1976 to present. He has completed the
graduate-level Americas Community Bankers
National School of Banking program at Fairfield University,
where he received the prestigious Chairmans Award for
leadership ability and academic excellence. Over the past few
years, Mr. Milinovich has served as the past Chairman of
the Washington County Chamber of Commerce, on the Steering
Committee of the Southwestern PA Growth Alliance, the Board of
Directors of the Southwest Corner Workforce Investment Board,
the Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania Economy
League Western Division, as Chairman of the
Washington County Branch of the Pennsylvania Economy League, as
Treasurer and Board Member of the United Way of Washington
County, as Chairman of the PICPA State Continuing Professional
Education Committee and as a Committee member of the PICPA State
Education Committee.
216
Edward J. Molnar Edward Molnar has served on
the Board of Directors of the Bank since 2004. Mr. Molnar
is Chairman of both Harleysville Savings Financial Corporation
and Harleysville Savings Bank. With over 45 years
experience in banking, Mr. Molnar is a member of the Board
of Directors of Americas Community Bankers, past Chairman
of the Pennsylvania Association of Community Bankers and past
Chairman of the bank advisory counsel of the Federal Reserve
Bank of Philadelphia.
Charles J. Nugent Charles Nugent was elected
to the Board of Directors of the Bank and began his term
January 1, 2010. Charles J. Nugent is Vice President,
Fulton Bank, N.A. and Senior Executive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer of Fulton Financial Corporation. Fulton
Financial, the largest commercial bank holding company
headquartered in the Third Federal Reserve District, has
$16.5 billion in assets and owns eight banking institutions
located in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and
Virginia. Mr. Nugent is the Vice Chairman of the Risk
Management Committee at Fulton Financial Corporation. Prior to
joining Fulton in 1992, he served for eight years as the Chief
Financial Officer of First Peoples Financial Corporation in New
Jersey. Earlier in his career, he worked for Philadelphia
National Corporation and Price Waterhouse. He has been active in
a variety of community activities, having served on the Boards
of Directors of St. Josephs Hospital of Lancaster, the
United Way of Lancaster County, the Susquehanna Association for
the Blind and Vision Impaired, the YMCA of Lampeter-Strasburg
and the Lancaster Symphony Orchestra. Mr. Nugent earned a
BS in Business Administration from LaSalle University. He is a
CPA.
Patrick J. Ward Patrick Ward has served on
the Board of Directors of the Bank since January 2007.
Mr. Ward is currently Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
of Penn Liberty Bank. Mr. Ward has more than 20 years
of experience in the banking industry, including executive
experience with Citizens Bank of Pennsylvania and Commonwealth
Bancorp in Malvern, PA. He also held a variety of positions at
Mellon Bank. Mr. Ward is a graduate of Carnegie Mellon
University with a degree in Economics and earned his MBA at The
University of Notre Dame. He serves on the Boards of Directors
of the Philadelphia Police Athletic League, Phoenixville Area
YMCA, EconomicsPennsylvania, and the Chester County Chamber of
Commerce.
Robert W. White Robert White was elected to
the Board of Directors of the Bank and began his term
January 1, 2009. Mr. White began his banking career in
1970 after serving as a First Lieutenant in the United States
Army from 1966 to 1969, including a tour of duty in Vietnam. He
joined Abington Bank in 1974. In 1991, he was appointed
President and subsequently became CEO and Chairman of the Board
in 1994. Mr. White also served as Chairman of the Board,
President and CEO of Abington Community Bancorp, Inc., after the
Banks conversion to a mutual holding company form in June
2004, and has served as Chairman of the Board, President and CEO
of Abington Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: ABBC), since the Banks
conversion to a full stock public company in June 2007. During
Mr. Whites tenure as President, Abington Bank has
grown from four branches and $187.7 million in total assets
at the end of 1991 to 20 branches and $1.238 billion in
total assets at September 30, 2008.
Audit
Committee
The Audit Committee has a written charter adopted by the
Banks Board of Directors. The Audit Committee is directly
responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of
the Banks independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
(RPAF) and Chief Internal Auditor. The Audit Committee is also
responsible for approving all audit engagement fees, as well as
any permitted non-audit services with the independent RPAF. The
Audit Committee pre-approves all auditing services and permitted
non-audit services to be performed for the Bank by the
independent RPAF. The independent RPAF reports directly to the
Audit Committee. The Banks Chief Internal Auditor also
reports directly to the Committee.
The Audit Committee assists the Board in fulfilling its
responsibilities for general oversight of:
|
|
|
|
|
The Banks financial reporting processes and the audit of
the Banks financial statements, including the integrity of
the Banks financial statements;
|
|
|
The Banks administrative, operating, and internal
accounting controls;
|
|
|
The Banks compliance with legal and regulatory
requirements;
|
|
|
The independent auditors qualifications and
independence; and
|
|
|
The performance of the Banks internal audit function and
independent auditors.
|
217
As of February 28, 2010, the Audit Committee was composed
of Messrs. Hudson (Chair), Milinovich (Vice Chair), Darr,
Marshall, Nugent, Ward, and White. The Audit Committee regularly
holds separate sessions with the Banks management,
internal auditors, and independent RPAF.
The Board has determined that Messrs. Hudson, Milinovich,
Darr, Nugent, Ward, and White are each an audit committee
financial expert within the meaning of the SEC rules. The
Bank is required for the purposes of SEC rules regarding
disclosure to use a definition of independence of a national
securities exchange or a national securities association and to
disclose whether each audit committee financial
expert is independent under that definition.
The Board has elected to use the New York Stock Exchange
definition of independence, and under that definition,
Messrs. Hudson, Milinovich, Marshall, Nugent, Ward, and
White are not independent. Mr. Darr is independent.
Messrs. Hudson, Milinovich, Marshall, Nugent, Ward, and
White are independent according to the Finance Agency rules
applicable to members of the audit committees of the Boards of
Directors of the FHLBanks.
Executive
Officers
The following table sets forth certain information (ages as of
February 28, 2010) regarding the executive officers of
the Bank.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive Officer
|
|
Age
|
|
Capacity in Which Serves
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
|
71
|
|
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
John J. Bendel
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Director, Community Investment
|
Dale N. DAlessandro
|
|
|
56
|
|
|
Managing Director, Human Resources
|
Teresa M. Donatelli
|
|
|
46
|
|
|
Chief Information Officer
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
|
47
|
|
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
Michael A. Rizzo
|
|
|
48
|
|
|
Chief Risk Officer
|
Peter A. Rubinsky
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
Acting Managing Director, Capital Markets
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
|
45
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
|
John R. Price became President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Bank on January 2, 2006. Prior to joining the Bank,
Mr. Price was a Senior Advisor to the Institute of
International Finance. Mr. Price also held several
senior-level positions at JP Morgan Chase & Co. in New
York (formerly Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., which later
merged into Chemical Bank and Chase Manhattan Bank).
Mr. Price was responsible for the mortgage banking and
consumer finance subsidiaries, led the team advising the
U.S. government on the securitization on $5 billion of
community development and rural low-income housing loans, and
earlier served as Corporate Secretary. Mr. Price graduated
from Grinnell College in Iowa, was named a Rhodes Scholar,
earned advanced degrees in Development Economics and Diplomatic
History from Queens College at Oxford University, and received
his law degree from Harvard Law School. Mr. Price was a
member of the Board and Chair of the Audit Committee of the
Principal Financial Corporation, is a life Trustee of Grinnell
College and was the founding Chairman of Americans for Oxford.
Mr. Price also served as President of the Bankers
Association for Finance and Trade.
Winthrop Watson joined the Bank on November 18, 2009 as
Chief Operating Officer (COO). As COO, Mr. Watson is
responsible for the Banks core business activities, which
include advances, the MPF Program, letters of credit, community
investment, safekeeping, and product development; balance sheet
management, which includes investments, funding and hedging;
operations and technology; and strategic planning.
Mr. Watson served as Managing Director at J.P. Morgan
in Hong Kong from
2007-2009
after serving the company in various capacities in New York for
22 years. In Hong Kong, he served as Senior Client
Executive for J.P. Morgans Asia Pacific central banks
and sovereign wealth funds, head of its Asia Pacific debt
capital markets, and as Chairman of its Asia Pacific investment
banking business evaluation committee. Earlier, Mr. Watson
was a Managing Director of J.P. Morgan Securities in New
York where he helped build the companys investment and
commercial banking franchise for U.S. GSEs, including the
FHLBanks. His background also includes several financial
advisory assignments on behalf of FHLBanks. Mr. Watson
holds an MBA from Stanford University and a BA from the
University of Virginia.
218
John J. Bendel joined the Bank in 1995 and is the Director of
Community Investment. Mr. Bendel is responsible for
directing the Banks Housing, Economic and Community
Development Programs: the Affordable Housing Program, Community
Lending Program, Banking On Business, First Front Door, and the
Blueprint Communities leadership and capacity-building
initiative. He serves as Community Investment liaison with the
Banks Board of Directors, the Affordable Housing Advisory
Council, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the other
FHLBanks nationwide. Prior to joining the Bank in 1995,
Mr. Bendel was a Consultant for Mullin & Lonergan
Associates, an affordable housing and community development
consulting firm in Philadelphia. Mr. Bendel received a
master of science degree in Public Administration from the
University of Pittsburgh and a Bachelor of Science degree in
Business Administration from St. Vincent College.
Dale N. DAlessandro joined the Bank in April 2008 as the
Managing Director of Human Resources. Prior to joining the Bank,
Mr. DAlessandro was Vice President of Human Resources
at Mylan Pharmaceuticals and prior to that, directed Human
Resources and Labor Relations at Dominion Resources. With
experience in organizational development, compensation and
benefits, contract negotiation, recruiting, and performance
assessment, Mr. DAlessandro is responsible for
managing all aspects of Human Resources at the Bank in addition
to serving as Co-Secretary of the Governance, Public Policy and
Human Resources Committee of the Board of Directors.
Mr. DAlessandro holds a Bachelor of Science degree in
Human Resource Management from Geneva College.
Teresa M. Donatelli joined the Bank in 1992 and held several
managerial positions in Administration and Information
Technology prior to assuming the position of Chief Information
Officer in May 2004. Prior to joining the Bank,
Ms. Donatelli held a variety of technical and managerial
positions at Alcoa, Deloitte & Touche, and Mellon
Bank. Ms. Donatelli has a Bachelor of Arts degree in
English from Duquesne University and a Masters degree in
Business Administration from the University of Pittsburgh.
Craig C. Howie joined the Bank in 1990 and is the Group Director
of the Banks Member Services department, which includes
Member Money Desk, Sales and Marketing, Community Investment,
Mortgage Partnership Finance, Bank4Banks, and Safekeeping.
Before joining the Bank, Mr. Howie worked for Chemical Bank
in New York as an Assistant Vice President in Mortgage Capital
Markets. Prior to that, Mr. Howie worked for GMAC as an
Assistant Vice President in Secondary Marketing. Mr. Howie
received a bachelors degree in Finance and Marketing from
Susquehanna University and a masters degree in Business
Administration with a concentration in Finance from Drexel
University.
Michael A. Rizzo joined the Bank as Chief Risk Officer on
March 1, 2010. Prior to joining the Bank, Mr. Rizzo
was the Chief Risk Officer at GMAC ResCap. As Chief Risk
Officer, Mr. Rizzo was responsible for the direction and
oversight of all aspects of ResCap risk management, including
commercial and consumer credit risk, operations risk and
compliance, and valuation risk. He began working for GMAC ResCap
in 2004 as Senior Director, Enterprise Risk Assessments and
served in a variety of capacities, including Commercial
Counterparty Credit Officer and Chief Credit Officer, GMAC Bank.
Before joining GMAC ResCap in 2004, Mr. Rizzo worked for
Provident Financial Group, BankBoston, and Fleet Financial.
Mr. Rizzo holds a bachelors degree in business
administration from Bucknell University.
Peter A. Rubinsky joined the Bank in 1991 after serving two
Pittsburgh financial institutions as a Portfolio Manager and
Senior Financial Analyst, respectively. Mr. Rubinsky is the
Banks Treasurer and Acting Managing Director of Capital
Markets. At FHLBank Pittsburgh, he worked as Portfolio Manager,
Mortgage-Backed Securities, and as Assistant Treasurer before
being named Treasurer in 1999. In his current position,
Mr. Rubinsky oversees the Banks mortgage finance and
treasury activities. He holds a BA in Psychology from the
University of Chicago and an MBA from the University of
Pittsburgh. Mr. Rubinsky is a member of the Association for
Financial Professionals (AFP).
219
Kristina K. Williams joined the Bank on December 31, 2004
as Chief Accounting Officer. Ms. Williams became Chief
Financial Officer February 1, 2006. Additionally,
Ms. Williams was named Acting Chief Risk Officer on
December 1, 2009 and served in this role until
March 1, 2010. Prior to joining the Bank, Ms. Williams
was the Chief Financial Officer of Wholesale Banking for PNC
Financial Services Group. Ms. Williams also spent time in
SEC and Regulatory Reporting and served as Director of
Accounting Policy for PNC. Ms. Williams previously spent
several years in public accounting with PricewaterhouseCoopers
and Deloitte & Touche. Ms. Williams graduated
magna cum laude from West Liberty State College and received her
Masters in Professional Accountancy from West Virginia
University. Ms. Williams is a CPA and a member of the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Pennsylvania
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and is the audit
committee Chairperson on the Board of Directors for the West
Liberty State College Foundation.
Dana A. Yealy joined the Bank in 1986 and has served as General
Counsel since August 1991. Mr. Yealy is responsible for the
legal, government relations, corporate secretary, and ethics
functions of the Bank. Prior to joining the Bank, he was an
attorney with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Dallas.
Mr. Yealy earned his bachelors degree in Economics
from Westminster College, his Juris Doctorate from the Dickinson
School of Law, and his LL.M in Banking Law from the Boston
University School of Law. Mr. Yealy is a member of the
Association of Corporate Counsel, the Society of Corporate
Secretaries & Governance Professionals, and the
Society of Corporate Compliance and Ethics. Mr. Yealy is
also a member of several committees of the American,
Pennsylvania, and Allegheny County Bar Associations.
Each executive officer serves at the pleasure of the Board of
Directors.
Code
of Conduct
The Bank has adopted a code of ethics for all of its employees
and directors, including its Chief Executive Officer, Chief
Financial Officer, Controller, and those individuals who perform
similar functions. A copy of the code of ethics is on the
Banks public Web site, www.fhlb-pgh.com, and will be
provided without charge upon written request to the Legal
Department of the Bank at 601 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA
15219, Attention: General Counsel. Any amendments to the
Banks Code of Conduct are posted to the Banks public
Web site,
www.fhlb-pgh.com.
220
|
|
Item 11:
|
Executive
Compensation
|
Compensation
Discussion and Analysis
Executive
Summary
This Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) presents
information related to the Banks compensation program
provided to its Principal Executive Officer (the CEO) and other
Named Executive Officers (other Executives). The information
includes, among other things, the objectives of the Banks
compensation program and the elements of compensation the Bank
provides to its CEO and other Executives.
The Banks Board has determined that in order to make
executive compensation decisions in a comprehensive manner it is
necessary to consider the nature and level of all elements of
the Banks compensation and benefits program in order to
establish each element of the program at the appropriate level.
Compensation
Philosophy
The Banks Total Compensation Program is designed to:
|
|
|
|
|
Attract, motivate and retain staff critical to the Banks
long-term success; and, thereby,
|
|
|
Enable the Bank to meet its public policy mission while
balancing the evolving needs of customers and shareholders.
|
In 2009, the Banks CEO and other Executives were
compensated through a mix of base salary, eligibility for
incentive compensation awards, benefits and perquisites, with
base salary as the core component of the total compensation
package. The Banks compensation plan for the CEO and other
Executives establishes each component of compensation to be
competitive within the FHLBank System. The salary range data for
comparable positions at the other FHLBanks serves as the primary
benchmark for the CEO and the other Executives with the Bank
targeting to pay the median of such salary range. A periodic
review of the financial services market survey data (defined as
those institutions with assets less than $25 billion) is
conducted at least annually, as well as on an interim basis
should variations arise or if the data indicates a need to
differ from this benchmarking approach. Although the Bank had
assets of $65.3 billion at December 31, 2009, for
compensation purposes the Board has considered institutions with
assets less than $25 billion to be comparable to the Bank
in terms of the relative complexity of the business. As the Bank
is a cooperative, it does not offer equity-based compensation as
is typically offered in publicly-traded financial services
institutions; however, the Banks incentive compensation
and enhanced retirement benefits for the CEO and other
Executives together are intended to provide a competitive
compensation package.
For 2009, the Board reduced the incentive opportunity for the
CEO and other Executives. Considering the Banks current
financial condition, the Board determined that the funds
available for incentive compensation award opportunities should
be lower than previous years and reduced the amount; the
applicable potential payout percentages were also adjusted
accordingly.
For 2009 and 2010, as part of an overall review of the
Banks compensation programs, the Board evaluated the
various aspects of these programs, taking into consideration
associated risk as it pertained to the expectations and goals of
each element of compensation. The Bank does not offer commission
or similar bonus compensation programs. The only portion of the
compensation package in which the risk element exists and should
be considered is the incentive compensation awards. Details
regarding the 2009 incentive compensation goals are discussed
below.
Human
Resources Committees Role and Responsibilities
The Boards Governance, Public Policy and Human Resources
Committee (HR Committee) is responsible for the establishment
and oversight of the CEOs compensation and oversight of
other Executives compensation. This includes setting the
objectives of and reviewing performance under the Banks
compensation, benefits and perquisites programs for the CEO and
other Executives.
221
Additionally, the HR Committee has adopted the practice of
periodically retaining compensation and benefit consultants and
other advisors, as well as reviewing analysis from the
Banks Human Resources Department (HR Department), to
assist in performing its duties in regard to the CEOs and
other Executives compensation. A comprehensive total
compensation study was conducted in 2007.
Role of
the Federal Housing Finance Agency
Under the Housing Act, the FHLBanks regulator, the Finance
Agency, has been granted certain authority over executive
compensation. Specifically under the Housing Act the Director of
the Finance Agency is: (1) authorized to prohibit executive
compensation that is not reasonable and comparable with
compensation in similar businesses and (2) if an FHLBank is
undercapitalized, the Finance Agency Director may also restrict
executive compensation. The Finance Agency has directed the Bank
and all the FHLBanks to submit to the Agency at least four weeks
prior to action by the Banks board, all proposed
compensation and benefits actions in regard to the CEO or other
Executives that require approval by the Banks Board.
Through December 31, 2009, the Finance Agency Director had
additional authority to approve, disapprove or modify executive
compensation. Effective January 29, 2009, the Finance
Agency issued a final regulation regarding prohibitions on
golden parachute payments.
On June 5, 2009, the Finance Agency published a proposed
regulation designed to implement these statutory requirements.
The proposed regulation covers compensation payable to members
of an FHLBanks senior executive team and defines
reasonable and comparable compensation as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable Compensation. Compensation that, taken in total
or in part, would be customary and appropriate for the position
based on a review of the relevant factors, including the unique
duties and responsibilities of the executives position.
|
|
|
Comparable Compensation. Compensation that, taken in total
or in part, does not materially exceed benefits paid at similar
institutions for similar duties in responsibilities. Comparable
benefit levels are considered to be at or below the median
compensation for a given position at similar institutions (i.e.,
those institutions that are similar in size, complexity and
function).
|
In addition, under the proposed regulation, the Finance Agency
Director would have authority to approve certain compensation
and termination benefits.
The Finance Agency issued a proposed regulation on June 29,
2009 to amend its final golden parachute regulation and new
rules limiting director and officer indemnification payments.
The proposed amendment includes clarifications indicating that
deferred compensation agreements and supplemental retirement
benefits would be excluded from coverage under the golden
parachute rule similar to the approach taken by the FDIC in its
golden parachute rule.
On October 27, 2009, the Finance Agency issued an Advisory
Bulletin establishing the following standards against which the
Finance Agency will evaluate each FHLBanks executive
compensation: (1) each individual executives
compensation should be reasonable and comparable to that offered
to executives in similar positions at comparable financial
institutions; (2) such compensation should be consistent
with sound risk management and preservation of the par value of
FHLBank stock; (3) a significant percentage of
incentive-based compensation should be tied to longer-term
performance and outcome-indicators; and (4) the Board
should promote accountability and transparency with respect to
the process of setting compensation.
Determining
the CEOs Cash Compensation
Consistent with 2008, in 2009 the HR Committee used the FHLBanks
as the peer group for benchmarking the CEOs cash
compensation. The Board determined that the chief executive
officer positions at the other FHLBanks were the best
comparison. The CEOs cash compensation (including both
base salary and incentive compensation) was compared to the
median for all FHLBanks chief executive officers. The HR
Committee considered the benchmark data, length of service in
the position and job performance when determining the CEOs
cash compensation. In view of the Banks financial
performance, no base salary increases were provided for the CEO
in 2009 or 2010.
222
Determining
Other Executives Cash Compensation
For 2009, with respect to the other Executives base
salaries and incentive compensation, the HR department used the
FHLBanks survey data to determine competitive cash
compensation. The base salary range midpoint for other
Executives was based on the median of the FHLBank System survey
data. A review of the financial services industry survey data
reflecting institutions with asset size of $25 billion or
less was also used to determine consistency with FHLBank System
survey data. Actual annual base salary and incentive
compensation payout levels were evaluated based on review of the
FHLBank survey data, length of service in the position, and job
performance. In view of the Banks financial performance,
there were no 2009 base salary increases for other Executives.
For 2010, a base salary increase was provided to one other
Executive, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), in consideration
of her salary in comparison with the median salary for the
identified benchmark group, the CFOs of the other
FHLBanks. There were no other 2010 base salary increases
provided for other Executives. In addition to the 2010 base
salary increase for the CFO, the CFO will be provided a lump sum
payment of $30 thousand on or before April 15, 2010, equal
to $10 thousand per month for the three months in which she
assumed the responsibilities of Acting Chief Risk Officer, in
addition to her duties as CFO, until a permanent Chief Risk
Officer was hired.
Key
Employee Temporary Incentive Plan (TIP)
2009:
The Board established the TIP on January 1, 2009, replacing
the VIP compensation award opportunities, as described in the
Banks 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
for the calendar year ended December 31, 2008. The TIP was
designed to retain and motivate the CEO and other Executives
during a period in which the Banks financial condition is
below typical performance levels in terms of earnings, dividend
payouts and excess capital stock repurchase activity. The TIP
includes both a base incentive award opportunity and an
additional incentive award opportunity, each contingent upon
achievement of goals approved by the HR Committee and Board.
These goals were both quantitative and qualitative. Award levels
were set at a percentage cap, based on individual executive
level. The plan year for the base incentive award opportunity is
the annual period ending December 31, 2009. The plan year
for the additional incentive award opportunity is the three-year
period ending December 31, 2011, unless otherwise modified
or terminated by the Board.
The Board has the discretion to determine whether or not to pay
out awards, increase awards or reduce awards. This includes
cases in which the goals may or may not have been met. In 2007
and 2008, the Board did not exercise the discretion to increase,
decrease or eliminate award payouts. In 2008, the base criteria
for payout under the VIP was financial performance of the Bank.
Because the Bank did not meet this criteria, no payouts were
made under the VIP for 2008.
Base Incentive Award Opportunity TIP
Goals. In its adoption of the TIP, the Board
determined that higher level positions within the organization
should have a greater impact on the achievement of Bank goals.
Therefore, in adopting the base incentive award opportunity
goals outlined in the TIP for 2009 for the CEO and other
Executives, the Board excluded financial results-based incentive
goals and instead focused on risk-related goals. These goals
were based on the determination of the Board that the key
business and organizational priorities for Bank management
should address improvement in Bank-wide risk management
practices. The TIP base incentive award opportunity for the CEO
and other Executives in 2009 was based on achievement of the
following five Bank operational goals:
|
|
|
|
|
Enhancement of analysis and modeling for private label MBS;
|
|
|
Simplification of product offerings, debt financing and use of
derivative products;
|
|
|
Evaluation and renovation of capital framework;
|
|
|
Identification and implementation of critical aspects of risk
management practices and metrics; and
|
|
|
Completion of activities related to Finance Agency initiatives.
|
223
The following presents the award opportunity levels in 2009,
expressed as a percentage of base salary.
|
|
|
Position
|
|
Cap
|
|
CEO
|
|
Up to 20%
|
Other Executives
|
|
Up to 18%
|
The Board may adjust downward the amount of the payout based on
the results of the five goals noted above. Additionally, the
Board may take into consideration other factors that it deems
appropriate when reviewing and approving any recommended payouts.
Additional Incentive Award Opportunity TIP
Goals. In addition to the base incentive award
opportunity, the CEO and other Executives are eligible for an
additional incentive award, based on the Banks long-term
financial performance. This award is cumulative each year in
which the TIP and additional incentive award goal remains in
effect. The additional incentive award opportunity goal was
established so that no payout would be made until the Bank
reinstates excess capital stock repurchases and members receive
dividends. Following the calendar year in which the Bank makes
dividend payments and repurchases excess capital stock, both in
the same two consecutive quarters, but no later than
December 31, 2011, participants will be eligible to receive
an additional incentive award. If the goal is not met by that
date, this opportunity will expire.
The following presents the award opportunity levels in 2009,
expressed as a percentage of base salary.
|
|
|
|
|
Position
|
|
Additional Annual Incentive
|
|
3-Year Additional Cumulative Incentive
|
|
CEO
|
|
Up to 35%
|
|
Up to 105%
|
Other Executives
|
|
Up to 22%
|
|
Up to 66%
|
The Board may adjust downward the amount of the payout.
Additionally, the Board may take into consideration other
factors that it deems appropriate when reviewing and approving
any recommended payouts.
Status reports on all of the incentive goals were reviewed with
the Committee at least once during the year and the goals were
modified as appropriate. The Bank did not meet the additional
incentive award opportunity goals in 2009; therefore, no
payments were made to the CEO or to the Executives with respect
to the additional incentive award opportunity for 2009.
Additional details related to the results of the performance
goals for 2009 are detailed in the Summary Compensation Table
(SCT) and accompanying narrative.
2010:
The HR Committee has recommended modifications to the TIP for
2010. The base incentive award opportunity levels in 2010,
expressed as a percentage of base salary, would be:
|
|
|
Position
|
|
Cap
|
|
CEO
|
|
Up to 22%
|
Other Executives
|
|
Up to 20%
|
The proposed 2010 TIP modifications for the additional incentive
opportunity provide competitive incentives for working toward
necessary objectives to improve the Banks financial and
mission performance. The Board took action as part of its
consideration of the 2010 plan to eliminate the additional
incentive award opportunity under the 2009 plan. For the 2010
TIP, the Board has established a more stringent financial goal
requiring attainment of a market-based dividend as well as
repurchase of excess capital stock. Recognizing the importance
of the financial performance goal to the Bank and its members,
the Board determined that the additional incentive award
opportunity available to the CEO and other Executives should be
increased, such that the executives have the greatest incentive
award opportunity the sooner the goal is met. The additional
incentive award opportunity under the 2010 TIP, expressed as a
percentage of base salary, would be:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance
|
|
Performance
|
|
Performance
|
Position
|
|
Achieved in 2010
|
|
Achieved in 2011
|
|
Achieved in 2012
|
|
CEO
|
|
Up to 200%
|
|
Up to 160%
|
|
Up to 120%
|
Other Executive
|
|
Up to 135%
|
|
Up to 108%
|
|
Up to 81%
|
224
The CEO and other Executives shall be eligible to receive an
additional incentive award up to the percentage indicated above
for the year in which the additional incentive award opportunity
goal is met. Such additional incentive award opportunity
percentage shall be applied to the participants
January 1, 2010 base salary.
As with the 2009 TIP, the Board may adjust downward the amount
of the payout. Additionally, the Board may take into
consideration other factors that it deems appropriate when
reviewing and approving any recommended payouts.
Approval of these modifications is subject to a 4-week
regulatory review period by the Finance Agency.
Additional
Incentives
From time to time, the CEO has recommended, and the Board has
approved, additional incentive awards in connection with
specific projects or other objectives of a unique, challenging
and time sensitive nature. There were no additional incentive
awards granted in 2009.
Perquisites
and other Benefits
The Board views the perquisites afforded to the CEO and other
Executives as an element of the total compensation program,
provided primarily as a benefit associated with their overall
position duties and responsibilities. Examples of perquisites
for the CEO
and/or other
Executives may include the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Personal use of a Bank-owned automobile;
|
|
|
Financial and tax planning;
|
|
|
Relocation;
|
|
|
Parking; and
|
|
|
Business club membership.
|
Additionally, the Bank may provide a tax
gross-up for
some of the perquisites offered, including relocation benefits.
Perquisites for the CEO and other Executives are detailed on the
SCT and accompanying narrative, where aggregate perquisites
exceeded $10 thousand in 2009.
Compensation
Agreement for One Executive
The Board entered into an agreement with the Banks new COO
which provided a 2009 signing bonus and guarantees a 2010 bonus.
Details of the agreement are presented in the SCT and Grants of
Plan-Based Awards Table and supporting narratives below and are
also available in the Banks report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on October 7, 2009.
Employee
Benefits
The Board and Bank management are committed to providing
competitive, high-quality benefits designed to promote health,
well-being and income protection for all employees. As described
above, the Bank has benchmarked the level of benefits provided
to the CEO and other Executives to the other FHLBanks and
financial services firms. The Bank offers all employees a core
level of benefits and the opportunity to choose from a variety
of optional benefits. Core and optional benefits offered
include, but are not limited to, medical, dental, prescription
drug, vision, long-term disability, short-term disability,
flexible spending accounts, parking or transportation subsidy,
workers compensation insurance, and life and accident
insurance. The CEO and other Executives participate in these
benefits on the same basis as all other full-time employees.
Beginning January 1, 2010, the CEO and other Executives are
eligible for a parking allowance.
Qualified
and Nonqualified Defined Benefit Plans
The Bank participates in the Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan for
Financial Institutions (PDBP), a tax-qualified,
multiple-employer defined-benefit plan. The PDBP is a funded,
noncontributory plan that covers all eligible employees. For all
employees hired prior to January 1, 2008, benefits under
the plan are based upon a 2 percent accrual rate, the
employees years of service and highest average base salary
for a consecutive three-year period.
225
Employees are not fully vested until they have completed five
years of employment. The regular form of retirement benefits
provides a single life annuity, with a guaranteed
12-year
payment; a lump-sum payment or other additional payment options
are also available. The benefits are not subject to offset for
Social Security or any other retirement benefits received. As a
result of changes to the PDBP, for all employees hired after
January 1, 2008, benefits under the plan are based upon a
1.5 percent accrual rate and the highest average base
salary for a consecutive five-year period.
The CEO and other Executives also participate in a Supplemental
Executive Retirement Plan (SERP). The SERP provides the CEO and
other Executives with a retirement benefit that the Bank is
unable to offer under the qualified PDBP due to Internal Revenue
Code (IRC) and qualified PDBP limitations, including the IRC
limitations on qualified pension plan benefits for employees
earning $245 thousand or more for 2009.
As a nonqualified plan, the benefits do not receive the same tax
treatment and funding protection as the qualified plan, and the
Banks obligations under the SERP are a general obligation
of the Bank. The terms of the SERP provide for distributions
from the SERP upon termination of employment with the Bank or in
the event of the death or disability of the employee. Payment
options under the SERP include annuity options as well as a
lump-sum distribution option.
The portion of the incentive compensation award percentages that
are included in determining the CEOs and other
Executives SERP benefit is capped at no more than the
amount of the incentive compensation award referenced in the
SERP plan document, available as Exhibit 10.6.2 to this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Qualified
and Nonqualified Defined Contribution Plans
All employees have the option to participate in the Financial
Institutions Thrift Plan (Thrift Plan), a qualified defined
contribution plan under the IRC. Subject to IRC and Thrift Plan
limitations, employees can contribute up to 50 percent of
their base salary in the Thrift Plan. The Bank matches employee
contributions based on their length of service and the amount of
employee contribution as follows:
|
|
|
Years of service:
|
|
Bank match:
|
|
2-3 years
|
|
100% match up to 3% of employees compensation
|
4-5 years
|
|
150% match up to 3% of employees compensation
|
More than 5 years
|
|
200% match up to 3% of employees compensation
|
In addition to the Thrift Plan, the CEO and other Executives are
also eligible to participate in the Supplemental Thrift Plan, an
unfunded nonqualified defined contribution plan that, in many
respects, mirrors the Thrift Plan. The Supplemental Thrift Plan
ensures, among other things, that the CEO and other Executives
whose benefits under the Thrift Plan would otherwise be
restricted by certain provisions of the IRC or limitations in
the Thrift Plan are able to make elective pretax deferrals and
receive the Bank matching contributions on those deferrals. In
addition, the Supplemental Thrift Plan permits deferrals of and
Bank matching contributions on the incentive compensation
awards, subject to the limits on deferrals of compensation under
the Supplemental Thrift Plan.
Thirty days prior to the beginning of the calendar year in which
the compensation is to be earned and paid, the CEO and other
Executives may elect to defer a percentage of their cash
compensation. The CEO and other Executives may defer up to
80 percent of their total cash compensation, less their
contributions to the Qualified Thrift Plan. The TIP provides for
a long-term award based on the financial performance of the
Bank. This additional incentive award is not eligible for
deferral under the Supplemental Thrift Plan.
For each deferral period in the Supplemental Thrift Plan, the
Bank credits a matching contribution equal to:
|
|
|
|
|
200 percent match on up to 3 percent of the CEOs
or other Executives base salary and annual incentive
compensation irrespective of their years of service; less
|
|
|
The Banks matching contribution to the Qualified Thrift
Plan.
|
The terms of the Supplemental Thrift Plan provide for
distributions upon termination of employment with the Bank, in
the event of the death of the employee or upon disability, at
the discretion of the Human Resources Committee and in
accordance with applicable IRC and other applicable
requirements. Payment options under the
226
Supplemental Thrift Plan include a lump-sum payment and annual
installments for up to 10 years. No loans are permitted
from the Supplemental Thrift Plan.
The portion of the incentive compensation award that is eligible
for a Bank matching contribution under the Supplemental Thrift
Plan is capped at no more than the amount of the incentive award
referenced in the Supplemental Thrift Plan document, available
as Exhibit 10.7.3 to this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
Rabbi
Trust Arrangements
The Bank has established Rabbi trusts to secure benefits under
both the SERP and Supplemental Thrift Plans. See the Pension
Benefits Table and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Table and
accompanying narratives below for more information.
Additional
Retirement Benefits
In 2009, the Bank provided post-retirement medical insurance
benefits for its employees, including the CEO and other
Executives who retire at age 60 or older with 10 years
of service. Retirees and their spouses age 65 and older pay
60 percent of the medical premium for the retirees
coverage and 80 percent of the premium for coverage for
their spouse.
Effective January 1, 2010 and forward, the Bank is
providing post-retirement medical benefit dollars in the form of
a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). HRA dollars can be used to
purchase individual healthcare coverage and other eligible
out-of-pocket
healthcare expenses. In 2010, the Bank will contribute $1,320
annually to the HRA account for a retiree and $660 annually for
a retirees spouse.
Severance
Policy (excluding change in control)
The Bank provides severance benefits to the CEO and other
Executives. These benefits reflect the potential difficulty
employees may encounter in their search for comparable
employment within a short period of time. The Banks
severance policy is designed to help bridge this gap in
employment.
The Board provided separate severance agreements as part of the
initial employment offer letters for the CEO and COO, which are
more fully described in the Post-Termination Compensation Table.
The Board determined that such severance arrangements are a
common practice in the marketplace.
The policy provides the following for other Executives:
|
|
|
|
|
Four weeks base salary continuation per year of service,
with a minimum of 26 weeks and a maximum of 52 weeks;
|
|
|
Medical coverage, based on current enrollment selections, for
the length of the salary continuation; and
|
|
|
Individualized outplacement service for a maximum of
12 months.
|
Change-in-Control
(CIC) Agreements
The Bank has entered into CIC agreements with the CEO and other
Executives. In 2007, the Board determined that CIC agreements
are an important recruitment and retention tool and that having
such agreements in place enables the CEO and other Executives to
effectively perform and meet their obligations to the Bank if
faced with the possibility of consolidation with another
FHLBank. Several FHLBanks have such agreements in place with
their executives. These agreements are a common practice in the
financial services market.
In the event of a merger of the Bank with another FHLBank, where
the merger results in the termination of employment (including
resignation for good reason as defined under the CIC
agreement) for the CEO or any other Executives, each such
individual(s) is (are) eligible for severance payments under
his/her CIC
Agreement. Such severance is in lieu of severance under the
Severance Policy discussed above. The Severance Policy (and in
the case of the CEO and COO, their separate severance
agreements) continues to apply to employment terminations of the
other Executives, other than those resulting from a Bank merger.
227
Benefits under the CIC Agreement for the CEO and other
Executives are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
Two years base salary;
|
|
|
Two times the incentive compensation award payout eligibility at
target in the year of separation from service;
|
|
|
Bank contributions for medical insurance for the benefits
continuation period of 18 months at the same level that the
Bank contributes to medical insurance for its then-active
employees; and
|
|
|
Individualized outplacement for up to 12 months.
|
In addition, under his CIC Agreement, the CEO also receives a
payment equal to:
|
|
|
|
|
The additional benefit amount that the CEO would receive for 2
additional years of credited service under the qualified and
nonqualified defined benefit plans; and
|
|
|
Two times 6 percent of his annual compensation (as defined
in the Supplement Thrift Plan) in the year of separation from
service. This amount is intended to replace the Bank matching
contribution under the Banks qualified and nonqualified
defined contribution plans.
|
The Bank has executed CIC agreements for the CEO and other
Executives. See Exhibits 10.9 and 10.9.1 to the 2008 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K
and Exhibit 10.9.2 filed in this 2009 Annual Report filed
on
Form 10-K
for more information.
Compensation
Committee Report
The HR Committee of the Banks Board has reviewed and
discussed the CD&A with management. Based on its review and
discussions with management, the HR Committee has recommended to
the Board that the CD&A be included in the Banks 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
The Governance, Public Policy and Human Resources Committee of
the Board of Directors
Patrick A. Bond, Chairman
Edward J. Molnar
Luis A. Cortés, Jr.
Walter DAlessio
David R. Gibson
John C. Mason
228
Summary
Compensation Table (SCT)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-Equity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Name and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentive Plan
|
|
Change in Pension
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Principal Position
|
|
Year
|
|
Salary
|
|
Bonus
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Value
|
|
Compensation
|
|
Total
|
|
John R.
Price(1)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
66,000
|
|
|
$
|
78,000
|
|
|
$
|
33,024
|
|
|
$
|
727,024
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
242,000
|
|
|
|
59,811
|
|
|
|
851,811
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
541,750
|
|
|
|
167,000
|
|
|
|
48,015
|
|
|
|
1,306,765
|
|
Winthrop
Watson,(2)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
49,905
|
|
|
$
|
155,000
|
|
|
$
|
3,825
|
|
|
$
|
7,000
|
|
|
$
|
77,244
|
|
|
$
|
292,974
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristina K.
Williams(3)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
289,380
|
|
|
|
30,000
|
|
|
$
|
31,253
|
|
|
$
|
43,000
|
|
|
$
|
22,106
|
|
|
$
|
415,739
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
289,380
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
49,000
|
|
|
|
23,325
|
|
|
|
361,705
|
|
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
273,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
208,163
|
|
|
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
22,239
|
|
|
|
523,402
|
|
Craig C.
Howie(4)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
254,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
27,518
|
|
|
$
|
111,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,506
|
|
|
$
|
413,824
|
|
Group Director,
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
254,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
123,000
|
|
|
|
20,281
|
|
|
|
398,081
|
|
Member Services
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
254,800
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
184,730
|
|
|
|
66,000
|
|
|
|
19,129
|
|
|
|
524,659
|
|
Dana A.
Yealy(5)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
250,427
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
27,046
|
|
|
$
|
150,000
|
|
|
$
|
20,155
|
|
|
$
|
447,628
|
|
General Counsel
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
250,427
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
155,000
|
|
|
|
20,004
|
|
|
|
425,431
|
|
Paul H.
Dimmick(6)
|
|
|
2009
|
|
|
$
|
194,606
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
19,469
|
|
|
$
|
151,000
|
|
|
$
|
184,780
|
|
|
$
|
549,855
|
|
Former Managing
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
270,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
|
|
|
94,000
|
|
|
|
22,129
|
|
|
|
386,529
|
|
Director, Capital Markets
|
|
|
2007
|
|
|
|
270,400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
206,180
|
|
|
|
81,000
|
|
|
|
21,399
|
|
|
|
578,979
|
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
For 2009, Mr. Prices
non-equity incentive plan compensation was the TIP described
below. All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $33,000. For 2008,
Mr. Prices non-equity incentive plan compensation was
the VIP described in the Banks 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $49,005, and perquisites totaling
$10,782. Perquisites included parking benefits, spousal travel
and child care expenses, personal miles on a company vehicle,
financial planning/tax preparation benefits, and non-business
travel expenses. For 2007, Mr. Prices non-equity
incentive plan compensation was the short-term and long-term
incentive plan awards described in the Banks 2007 Annual
Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $48,000.
|
|
(2) |
|
Mr. Watson was hired on
November 18, 2009. As part of the management of the overall
compensation package provided to Mr. Watson, a total bonus
of $155,000 was approved by the Board. Mr. Watson received
$75,000 as a signing bonus upon employment and will be provided
a guaranteed bonus in the amount of $80,000 payable on or about
December 1, 2010. Mr. Watson was eligible to
participate in the Banks 2009 TIP on a prorated basis.
Mr. Watsons non-equity incentive plan compensation
was the TIP described below. All other compensation included
employer contributions to defined contribution plans of $2,125
and perquisites totaling $75,095. Perquisites included
relocation expenses and parking benefits.
|
|
(3) |
|
For 2009, Ms. Williams
non-equity incentive plan compensation was the TIP described
below. A total bonus of $30,000 was paid to Ms. Williams in
recognition of her work in assuming duties as Acting Chief Risk
Officer until a Chief Risk Officer was hired. All other
compensation included employer contributions to defined
contribution plans of $17,630 and unused vacation benefits of
$4,452. For 2008, Ms. Williams non-equity incentive
plan compensation was the VIP described in the Banks 2008
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $23,301. For 2007,
Ms. Williams non-equity incentive plan compensation
was the short-term and long-term incentive plan awards as
described in the Banks 2007 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $22,224.
|
|
(4) |
|
For 2009, Mr. Howies
non-equity incentive plan compensation was the TIP described
below. All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $15,582 and unused vacation
benefits of $4,900. For 2008, Mr. Howies non-equity
incentive plan compensation was the VIP described in the
Banks 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $20,257. For 2007,
Mr. Howies non-equity incentive plan compensation was
the short-term and long-term incentive plan awards as described
in the Banks 2007 Annual Report filed on Form
10-K. All
other compensation included employer contributions to defined
contribution plans of $19,114.
|
|
(5) |
|
For 2009, Mr. Yealys
non-equity incentive plan compensation was the TIP described
below. All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $15,315 and unused vacation
benefits of $4,816. For 2008, Mr. Yealys non-equity
incentive plan compensation was the VIP described in the
Banks 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $19,980. Mr. Yealy was not
considered a named executive officer in 2007.
|
|
(6) |
|
Mr. Dimmicks employment
was terminated effective September 20, 2009.
Mr. Dimmick executed a severance agreement which provides
payments equal to 26 weeks of base salary, or $135,200,
payable in installments from October 15, 2009, through
March 31, 2010; and coverage under the group medical
program through March 21, 2010. Mr. Dimmicks
non-equity incentive plan compensation was the TIP described
below. Mr. Dimmicks change in pension value reflects
receipt of a lump sum payment for nonqualified defined benefit
plan benefit in 2009 (see Pension Table below). All other
compensation included the previously described severance
payments of $135,200; payment for accrued and unused vacation at
termination of $12,480; outplacement services of $20,000;
employer contributions to defined contribution plans of $12,425,
and medical insurance premiums paid during the severance period
of $4,651. For 2008, Mr. Dimmicks non-equity
incentive plan compensation was the VIP described in the
Banks 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $22,105. For 2007,
Mr. Dimmicks non-equity incentive plan compensation
was the short-term and long-term incentive plan awards as
described in the Banks 2007 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
All other compensation included employer contributions to
defined contribution plans of $21,384.
|
229
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation:
At its meeting on April 23, 2009, the Board of the Bank
took action to: (1) suspend the Banks Variable
Incentive Plan (VIP) for 2009; (2) adopt a Temporary
Incentive Plan for 2009 (TIP); and (3) approve 2009
performance goals under the TIP.
The base incentive award opportunity levels under the TIP
(expressed as a percentage of base salary) were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
CEO up to 20%
|
|
|
Other Executives up to 18%.
|
To receive such TIP award payments, Bank management would have
to attain by December 31, 2009 the following five 2009
operational goals established by the Board (weighted equally at
20% each):
(1) enhance loan-level analysis of the Banks private label
MBS:
(2) simplify the Banks business model;
(3) evaluate and renovate the Banks capital framework;
|
|
|
|
(4)
|
identify and implement critical aspects of improving the
Banks risk management practices and metrics; and
|
(5) complete activities related to Federal Housing Finance
Agency initiatives.
For any payout to be made relative to a specific goal, the goal
needed to be completed in its entirety meeting the key
objectives and deliverables set forth in the project plan. While
progress was made and certain deliverables were met, two goals
were not completed in their entirety and, therefore, payout
recommendations were reduced from a total of 100% to 60% of the
base incentive award opportunity described above for the CEO and
all other Executives. The key objectives and deliverables were
achieved for three of the five goals including enhancing
loan-level analysis of the Banks private label MBS,
simplifying the Banks business model, and evaluating and
renovating the Banks capital framework.
Payouts under the 2009 TIP are subject to prior Finance Agency
review. Actual payments will be made subsequent to that review.
Change
in Pension Value:
The qualified defined benefit plan, as described in the
CD&A, provides a normal retirement benefit of 2.0% of a
participants highest
3-year
average earnings, multiplied by the participants years of
benefit service for employees hired prior to January 1,
2008; or 1.5% of a participants highest
5-year
average earnings, multiplied by the participants years of
benefit service for employees hired on or after January 1,
2008. Earnings are defined as base salary, subject to an annual
IRS limit of $245 thousand on earnings for 2009. Annual benefits
provided under the qualified plan also are subject to IRS
limits, which vary by age and benefit payment type. The
participants accrued benefits are calculated as of
December 31, 2008 and December 31, 2009. The present
value is calculated using the accrued benefit at each date
valued multiplied by a present value factor based on an assumed
age 65 retirement date, 50% of the benefit using the 2000
RP Mortality table (generational mortality table for annuities)
and 50% of the benefit using the 2000 RP Mortality table (static
mortality table for lump sums) and 6.70% and 5.96% interest
respectively. The difference between the present value of the
December 31, 2009 accrued benefit and the present value of
the December 31, 2008 accrued benefit is the Change
in Pension Value for the qualified plan.
The nonqualified defined benefit plan, as described in the
CD&A, provides benefits under the same terms and conditions
as the qualified plan, except earnings are defined as base
salary plus annual incentive compensation. Benefits provided
under the qualified plan are an offset to the benefits provided
under the nonqualified plan. The participants benefits are
calculated as of December 31, 2008 and December 31,
2009. The present value is calculated by multiplying the
benefits accrued at each date by a present value factor based on
an assumed age 65 retirement date, 6.00% interest, and the
2000 RP Mortality table (generational mortality table). The
difference between the present value of the December 31,
2009 accrued benefit and the present value of the
December 31, 2008 accrued benefit is the Change in
Pension Value for the nonqualified plan.
The total Change in Pension Value included in the
Summary Compensation Table is the sum of the change in the
qualified plan and the change in the nonqualified plan.
230
Grants of
Plan-Based Awards
The following table shows the potential value of non-equity
incentive plan awards granted to the named officers during 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
|
|
|
|
|
Three-Year
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
One-Year Payout
|
|
Cumulative Payout
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
Up to $
|
110,000 (a
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
Up to $
|
192,500 (b
|
)
|
|
Up to $
|
577,500 (b
|
)
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
Up to $
|
76,500 (a
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
Up to $
|
93,500 (b
|
)
|
|
Up to $
|
280,500 (b
|
)
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
Up to $
|
52,088 (a
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
Up to $
|
63,664 (b
|
)
|
|
Up to $
|
190,991 (b
|
)
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
Up to $
|
45,864 (a
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
|
Up to $
|
56,056 (b
|
)
|
|
Up to $
|
168,168 (b
|
)
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
Up to $
|
45,077 (a
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
General Counsel
|
|
Up to $
|
55,094 (b
|
)
|
|
Up to $
|
165,282 (b
|
)
|
Paul H. Dimmick
|
|
Up to $
|
35,029 (a
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Director, Capital Markets
|
|
Up to $
|
42,813 (b
|
)
|
|
Up to $
|
128,439 (b
|
)
|
All are as described in the 2009 TIP section of the CD&A
and Exhibit 10.10.1, the 2009 Temporary Incentive Plan
document, to this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
. The Board terminated the 2009 additional incentive award under
the 2009 TIP effective December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
(a)
|
Base Incentive Award
Opportunity. Estimated TIP annual award
opportunity for January 1, 2009, through December 31,
2009; payouts are based on a percentage of the executives
base salary as of December 31, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
(b)
|
Additional Incentive Award
Opportunity. Payment of the additional
incentive award opportunity is based on long-term financial
performance. The additional award opportunity is cumulative each
year during the period in which the TIP and the financial
performance goal remain in effect. In 2009, only one additional
incentive award grant was made by the Board. Unless otherwise
modified or terminated by the Board, the period during which
this financial performance goal is in effect shall run from
January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2011, as noted in
the three-year cumulative payout column. The Board terminated
this portion of the TIP effective December 31, 2009.
|
The following table shows the potential value of non-equity
incentive plan awards granted to the named officers in 2010 or
future periods, as applicable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Future Payouts Under
|
|
|
Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards
|
Name and Principal Position
|
|
Threshold
|
|
Target
|
|
Maximum
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
$
|
84,700 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
108,900 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
121,000 (a
|
)
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
$
|
660,000 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
880,000 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
1,100,000 (b
|
)
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
$
|
59,500 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
76,500 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
85,000 (a
|
)
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
$
|
344,250 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
459,000 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
573,750 (b
|
)
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
$
|
42,134 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
54,172 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
60,191 (a
|
)
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
$
|
243,774 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
325,031 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
406,289 (b
|
)
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
$
|
35,672 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
45,864 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
50,960 (a
|
)
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
|
$
|
206,388 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
275,184 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
343,980 (b
|
)
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
$
|
35,060 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
45,077 (a
|
)
|
|
$
|
50,085 (a
|
)
|
General Counsel
|
|
$
|
202,846 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
270,461 (b
|
)
|
|
$
|
338,076 (b
|
)
|
Paul H. Dimmick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
39,659 (b
|
)
|
Managing Director, Capital Markets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
231
All are as described in the 2010 TIP section of the CD&A.
As referenced above, in April 2009 the Board suspended the VIP
for 2009 which in effect terminated any VIP award grants for
2009. Approval of the 2010 TIP modifications is subject to a
4-week regulatory review period by the Finance Agency. See
Exhibit 10.10.2 to this 2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K,
the 2010 Temporary Incentive Plan document
|
|
(a) |
Annual Incentive Award
Opportunity. Estimated TIP annual award
opportunity for January 1, 2010, through December 31,
2010, and payouts are based on a percentage of the
executives base salary as of December 31, 2010.
Estimated future payouts were calculated based on the
executives salary as of January 1, 2010.
|
The CEO and all other Executives share nine total goals related
to the Banks financial performance, mission performance,
regulatory requirements, and customer focus. Each goal includes
performance measures at threshold, target, and maximum with the
exception of the regulatory requirement goal in which there is
no payout unless all objectives have been met. The specific
performance measure at maximum and total weighting for each goal
is:
Market Value of Equity (MVE) (25% total weighting):
|
|
|
|
|
Increase the MVE to par value of capital stock price by up to 11
pts using the December 31, 2009 price as the base.
|
|
|
Increase the MVE to par value of capital stock price by up to 6
pts using the December 31, 2009 price as the base (using
the Alternate MVE calculation).
|
Earnings (25% total weighting):
|
|
|
|
|
Achieve core earned dividend spread of 2.72% after assessment.
|
|
|
Increase retained earnings by $64 million.
|
Affordable Housing (10% total weighting):
|
|
|
|
|
Increase the number of Affordable Housing Program applications
by eight.
|
|
|
Increase Affordable Housing Program disbursement ratio by 92%.
|
Regulatory Requirements (25% total weighting):
|
|
|
|
|
Address regulatory priorities in existence at December 31,
2009.
|
|
|
Achieve a targeted regulatory rating
|
Customer Focus (15% weighting):
|
|
|
|
|
Increase membership by ten.
|
|
|
(b) |
Additional Incentive Award
Opportunity. Payment of the additional
incentive award opportunity is based on long-term financial
performance. The additional award opportunity would be paid in
the year following the achievement of the specific financial
performance measures. If performance measures are achieved in
2010, maximum payout would be made. If performance measures are
achieved in 2011, target payout would be made. Threshold payout
would be made if performance measures were achieved in 2012. No
payout will be made unless or until performance measures are
achieved. Estimated future payouts were calculated based on the
executives salary as of January 1, 2010. Estimated
future payout for Mr. Dimmick reflects one grant relative
to financial performance goal achievement on or before
December 31, 2011, prorated in accordance with his
severance agreement.
|
The additional incentive award opportunity financial performance
goals are to (1) make a market-based dividend payment and
(2) implement a plan to repurchase excess capital stock,
all in the same two consecutive quarters.
232
Pension
Benefits
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Payments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
During
|
Name and
|
|
|
|
Number of Years
|
|
Present Value of
|
|
Last Fiscal
|
Principal Position
|
|
Plan Name
|
|
Credit Service
|
|
Accumulated Benefits
|
|
Year
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
|
|
|
3.41
|
|
|
$
|
168,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
SERP
|
|
|
4.00
|
|
|
$
|
430,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
|
|
|
0.00
|
|
|
$
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
SERP
|
|
|
0.16
|
|
|
$
|
7,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
|
|
|
4.50
|
|
|
$
|
66,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
SERP
|
|
|
5.00
|
|
|
$
|
79,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
|
|
|
18.50
|
|
|
$
|
375,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
|
SERP
|
|
|
19.08
|
|
|
$
|
154,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
|
|
|
23.83
|
|
|
$
|
561,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
General Counsel
|
|
SERP
|
|
|
24.33
|
|
|
$
|
241,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Dimmick
|
|
Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan
|
|
|
5.83
|
|
|
$
|
242,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
Managing Director, Capital Markets
|
|
SERP
|
|
|
6.33
|
|
|
$
|
24,000
|
|
|
$
|
195,000
|
|
The description of the Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan contained
in the Summary Plan Description for the Financial Institutions
Retirement Fund and the description of the SERP contained in the
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan are included as
Exhibits 10.13 and 10.6.2 to this 2009 Annual Report filed
on
Form 10-K
and are incorporated herein by reference.
This table represents an estimate of retirement benefits payable
at normal retirement age in the form of the actuarial present
value of the accumulated benefit. The amounts were computed as
of the same plan measurement date that the Bank uses for
financial statement reporting purposes. The same assumptions
were used that the Bank uses to derive amounts for disclosure
for financial reporting, except the above information assumed
normal retirement age as defined in the plan. See narrative
discussion of the Change in Pension Value column
under the SCT.
Compensation used in calculating the benefit for the Pentegra
Defined Benefit Plan includes base salary only. Compensation
used in calculating the benefit for the SERP includes base
salary plus the annual incentive compensation award limited to
no more than the amount of the incentive award that was included
in the SERP calculation under the former STI plan. Benefits
under the SERP vest after completion of 5 years of
employment (the vesting requirement under the qualified plan)
subject to forfeiture for cause provisions of the SERP.
Normal Retirement: Upon termination of
employment at or after age 65 where an executive has met
the vesting requirement of completing 5 years of
employment, an executive hired prior to January 1, 2008, is
entitled to a normal retirement benefit under the Pentegra
Defined Benefit Plan equal to: 2% of
his/her
highest three-year average salary multiplied by
his/her
years of benefit service. Under the SERP normal retirement
benefit, the executive also would receive 2% of
his/her
highest three-year average short-term incentive payment for such
same three-year period multiplied by
his/her
years of benefit service. An executive hired on or after
January 1, 2008, is entitled to a normal retirement benefit
under the Pentegra Defined Benefit Plan equal to: 1.5% of
his/her
highest five-year average salary multiplied by
his/her
years of benefit service. Under the SERP normal retirement
benefit, the executive also would receive 1.5% of
his/her
highest five-year average short-term incentive payment for such
same five-year period multiplied by
his/her
years of benefit service.
Early Retirement: Upon termination of
employment prior to age 65, executives meeting the
5 year vesting and age 45 (age 55 if hired on or
after January 1, 2008) early retirement eligibility
criteria are entitled to an early retirement benefit. The early
retirement benefit amount is calculated by taking the normal
retirement benefit amount and reducing it by 3% times the
difference between the age of the early retiree and age 65.
For example, if an individual retires at age 61, the early
retirement benefit amount would be 88% of the normal retirement
benefit amount, a total reduction of 12%. At December 31,
2009, Mr. Howie, Mr. Yealy and Ms. Williams were
eligible for early retirement benefits. Mr. Dimmick was
eligible for and received early retirement benefits following
his
233
employment termination on September 20, 2009. The amounts
set forth above reflect any qualified and nonqualified pension
plan payments made to Mr. Dimmick in 2009.
Nonqualified
Deferred Compensation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive
|
|
Registrant
|
|
Earnings
|
|
Aggregate
|
|
Aggregate Balance at
|
Name and
|
|
Contributions in
|
|
Contributions in
|
|
(Losses) in
|
|
Withdrawals/
|
|
December 31,
|
Principal Position
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
2009
|
|
Distributions
|
|
2009
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
$
|
9,150
|
|
|
$
|
21,975
|
|
|
$
|
22,573
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
1,135,949
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,125
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
2,125
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
$
|
2,930
|
|
|
$
|
6,578
|
|
|
$
|
94,530
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
449,180
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
$
|
882
|
|
|
$
|
637
|
|
|
$
|
63,736
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
268,721
|
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
$
|
21,786
|
|
|
$
|
8,513
|
|
|
$
|
101,887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$
|
484,504
|
|
General Counsel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul H. Dimmick
|
|
$
|
4,209
|
|
|
$
|
2,285
|
|
|
$
|
18,419
|
|
|
($
|
91,694
|
)
|
|
$
|
23,697
|
|
Managing Director, Capital Markets
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See descriptions in the Qualified and Nonqualified Defined
Contribution Plans section of the CD&A. A description of
the Supplemental Thrift Plan is also contained in the
Supplemental Thrift Plan filed as Exhibit 10.7.3 to this
2009 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
and incorporated herein by reference.
Amounts shown as Executive Contributions in 2009
were deferred and reported as Salary in the Summary
Compensation Table. Amounts shown as Registrant
Contributions in 2009 are reported as All Other
Compensation in the Summary Compensation Table.
The CEO and other Executives may defer up to 80% of their total
cash compensation (base salary and annual incentive
compensation), less their contributions to the qualified thrift
plan. Annual incentive compensation is limited to no more than
the maximum amount of incentive compensation that would have
been included under the Banks former STI plan. All
benefits are fully vested at all times subject to the forfeiture
for cause provisions of the Supplemental Thrift Plan.
The investment options available under the nonqualified deferred
compensation plan are closely matched to those available under
the qualified defined contribution plan. Investment options
include stock funds, bond funds, money market funds and target
retirement funds.
234
Post-Termination
Compensation
The CEO and other Executives would have received the benefits
below in accordance with the Banks severance policy (or
terms of their separate agreements, as applicable) if their
employment had been severed without cause during 2009.
Post-Termination
Compensation Severance (Excluding
Change-In-Control)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Executive
|
|
|
|
|
Name and
|
|
Base Salary
|
|
|
Medical Insurance
|
|
|
Outplacement
|
|
|
|
|
Principal Position
|
|
Length
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Length
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Length
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
550,000
|
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
9,301
|
|
|
|
12 months
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
579,301
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
425,000
|
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
9,301
|
|
|
|
12 months
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
454,301
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
|
26 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
144,690
|
|
|
|
26 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
4,651
|
|
|
|
12 months
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
169,341
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
254,800
|
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
9,301
|
|
|
|
12 months
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
284,101
|
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
250,427
|
|
|
|
52 weeks
|
|
|
$
|
9,301
|
|
|
|
12 months
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
279,728
|
|
General Counsel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
235
Under the CIC Agreements, in the event of employment termination
other than for cause (including constructive discharge)
following a change in control event, in place of the severance
benefits above, the CEO and all other executives would instead
receive the following:
Post-Termination
Compensation
Change-In-Control
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Severance/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Defined
|
|
|
Severance/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefit
|
|
|
Defined
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credited
|
|
|
Contribution
|
|
|
|
|
Name and
|
|
Base
|
|
|
TIP
|
|
|
Medical
|
|
|
Outplacement
|
|
|
Service
|
|
|
Match
|
|
|
|
|
Principal Position
|
|
Salary(1)
|
|
|
Award(2)
|
|
|
Insurance(3)
|
|
|
Services(4)*
|
|
|
Amount(5)**
|
|
|
Amount(6)**
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
John R. Price
|
|
$
|
1,100,000
|
|
|
$
|
605,000
|
|
|
$
|
13,952
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
$
|
338,214
|
|
|
$
|
79,200
|
|
|
$
|
2,156,366
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Winthrop Watson
|
|
$
|
850,000
|
|
|
$
|
340,000
|
|
|
$
|
13,952
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
$
|
1,223,952
|
|
Chief Operating Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristina K. Williams
|
|
$
|
578,760
|
|
|
$
|
231,504
|
|
|
$
|
13,952
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
$
|
844,216
|
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Craig C. Howie
|
|
$
|
509,600
|
|
|
$
|
203,840
|
|
|
$
|
13,952
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
$
|
747,392
|
|
Group Director, Member Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dana A. Yealy
|
|
$
|
500,854
|
|
|
$
|
200,342
|
|
|
$
|
13,952
|
|
|
$
|
20,000
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
|
n/a
|
|
|
$
|
735,148
|
|
General Counsel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n/a not applicable
|
|
|
*
|
|
Estimated cost
|
|
**
|
|
Includes both qualified and
nonqualified plans.
|
Notes:
|
|
|
(1) |
|
CIC agreements stipulate two years
of base salary for eligible participants.
|
|
(2) |
|
CIC agreements stipulate two years
of annual incentive award payout amount for eligible
participants.
|
|
(3) |
|
CIC agreements stipulate
18 months of medical insurance coverage for eligible
participants.
|
|
(4) |
|
CIC agreements stipulate
12 months of outplacement services for eligible
participants.
|
|
(5) |
|
CIC agreement for CEO stipulates
additional severance in an amount equivalent to the increase in
the amount of the benefits that would be paid under the defined
benefit plans with two years of additional defined benefit
credit service.
|
|
(6) |
|
CIC agreement for CEO stipulates
additional severance in an amount equivalent to two years of
defined contribution match.
|
236
DIRECTOR
COMPENSATION
The Banks directors were compensated in accordance with
the 2009 Directors Fee Policy (2009 Fee Policy) as
adopted by the Banks Board. With the enactment of the
Housing Act, the statutory caps on director fees were removed.
Director compensation levels are now established by each
FHLBanks board of directors. In connection with setting
director compensation for 2009, the Bank participated in an
FHLBank System review of director compensation, which included a
director compensation study prepared by McLagan Partners. The
McLagan study included separate analysis of director
compensation for small asset size commercial banks, farm credit
banks and S&P 1500 firms. The Banks Board considered
this study in establishing the Banks 2009 Fee Policy and
the 2009 director fees are relatively consistent with those
at the other FHLBanks. Under the 2009 Fee Policy, the total
annual director fees were paid as a combination of a quarterly
retainer fee and per meeting fees. The following table sets
forth the maximum fees that Bank directors could earn in 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retainer Fees
|
|
|
Meeting Fees
|
|
|
Total
|
|
|
Board Chair
|
|
$
|
30,000
|
|
|
$
|
30,000
|
|
|
$
|
60,000
|
|
Board Vice Chair
|
|
$
|
25,000
|
|
|
$
|
30,000
|
|
|
$
|
55,000
|
|
Committee Chair
|
|
$
|
25,000
|
|
|
$
|
30,000
|
|
|
$
|
55,000
|
|
Director
|
|
$
|
21,000
|
|
|
$
|
24,000
|
|
|
$
|
45,000
|
|
Compensation can exceed the guidelines under the 2009 Fee Policy
based on a Director assuming additional responsibilities, such
as chairing a Committee or Board meeting. The 2009 Fee Policy is
attached as Exhibit 10.5 to the 2008 Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fees Earned or
|
|
|
All Other
|
|
|
Total
|
|
Name
|
|
Paid in Cash
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Compensation
|
|
|
Dennis Marlo (Chair)
|
|
$
|
60,000
|
|
|
$
|
24
|
|
|
$
|
60,024
|
|
H. Charles Maddy III (Vice Chair)
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
Patrick A. Bond
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
Rev. Luis A. Cortés Jr.
|
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
50,024
|
|
Walter DAlessio
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
45,024
|
|
John K. Darr
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
David R. Gibson
|
|
|
52,500
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
52,524
|
|
Brian A. Hudson
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
Glenn B. Marshall
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
John C. Mason
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
45,024
|
|
John S. Milinovich
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
45,024
|
|
Edward J. Molnar
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
Sarah E. Peck
|
|
|
46,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
46,024
|
|
Patrick J. Ward
|
|
|
55,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
55,024
|
|
Robert W. White
|
|
|
45,000
|
|
|
|
24
|
|
|
|
45,024
|
|
Total Compensation does not include previously
deferred director fees for prior years service and
earnings on such fees for those directors participating in the
Banks nonqualified deferred compensation deferred fees
plan for directors. The plan allows directors to defer their
fees and receive earnings based on returns available under or
comparable to certain publicly available mutual funds, including
equity funds and money market funds. No Bank matching
contributions are made under the plan.
All Other Compensation for each includes $24 per
director annual premium for director travel and accident
insurance.
The Bank reimburses directors and pays for travel and related
expenses associated with meeting attendance in accordance with
its Travel & Expense Policy. The Bank also pays
certain other director Bank business expenses. Total expenses
paid in 2009 were $159,218.
For 2010, the Banks Board adopted the 2010 Director
Fees Policy with the fees and basis for fee payment
(combination of quarterly retainer and per meeting fees) set at
the same levels as in 2009. See Exhibit 10.5.1 to this 2009
Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
for additional details on the 2010 Director Fees
Policy. The Finance Agency has determined that the payment of
director compensation is subject to Finance Agency review.
237
Item 12: Security
Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and
Related Stockholder Matters
Generally, the Bank may issue capital stock only to members. As
a result, the Bank does not offer any compensation plan under
which equity securities of the Bank are authorized for issuance.
Member
Institutions Holding 5% or More of Outstanding Capital Stock
as of February 28, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Percent of Total
|
|
Name
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Capital Stock
|
|
|
Sovereign Bank, Reading, PA
|
|
$
|
644,437,900
|
|
|
|
16.0
|
%
|
Ally Bank, Midvale,
UT(a)
|
|
|
496,090,000
|
|
|
|
12.3
|
%
|
ING Bank, FSB, Wilmington, DE
|
|
|
478,636,700
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
PNC Bank, N.A., Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
442,436,200
|
|
|
|
11.0
|
%
|
Chase Bank USA, N.A., Newark, DE
|
|
|
242,250,000
|
|
|
|
6.0
|
%
|
Citicorp Trust Bank, FSB, Newark, DE
|
|
|
204,498,100
|
|
|
|
5.1
|
%
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Formerly known as GMAC Bank. For
Bank membership purposes, principal place of business is
Horsham, PA.
|
Additionally, due to the fact that a majority of the Board of
the Bank is elected from the membership of the Bank, these
elected directors are officers
and/or
directors of member institutions that own the Banks
capital stock. These institutions are provided in the following
table.
Capital
Stock Outstanding to Member Institutions
Whose Officers and/or Directors Served as a Director of the
Bank
as of February 28, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Capital
|
|
|
Percent of Total
|
|
Name
|
|
Stock
|
|
|
Capital Stock
|
|
|
ING Bank, FSB, Wilmington, DE
|
|
$
|
478,636,700
|
|
|
|
11.9
|
%
|
Fulton Bank, Lancaster, PA
|
|
|
43,660,000
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
%
|
Summit Community Bank, Charleston, WV
|
|
|
20,745,500
|
|
|
|
0.5
|
%
|
Harleysville Savings Bank, Harleysville, PA
|
|
|
16,095,800
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Abington Savings Bank, Jenkintown, PA
|
|
|
14,607,700
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Wilmington Trust Company, Wilmington, DE
|
|
|
14,440,700
|
|
|
|
0.4
|
%
|
Washington Financial Bank, Washington, PA
|
|
|
5,091,800
|
|
|
|
0.1
|
%
|
First Resource Bank, Exton, PA
|
|
|
691,400
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Penn Liberty Bank, Wayne, PA
|
|
|
620,300
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
Note: In accordance with Section 10(c) of the
Act and the terms of the Banks security agreement with
each member, the capital stock held by each member is pledged to
the Bank as additional collateral to secure that members
loans from and other indebtedness to the Bank.
238
|
|
Item 13:
|
Certain
Relationships and Related Transactions and Director
Independence
|
Corporate
Governance Guidelines
The Bank has adopted corporate governance guidelines titled
Governance Principles which are available at
www.fhlb-pgh.com by first clicking Investor
Relations and then Governance. The Governance
Principles are also available in print to any member upon
written request to the Bank, 601 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA
15219, Attention: General Counsel. These principles were adopted
by the Board of Directors to best ensure that the Board of
Directors is independent from management, that the Board of
Directors adequately performs its function as the overseer of
management and to help ensure that the interests of the Board of
Directors and management align with the interests of the
Banks members.
On an annual basis, each director and executive officer is
obligated to complete a director and officer questionnaire which
requires disclosure of any transactions with the Bank in which
the director or executive officer, or any member of his or her
immediate family, have a direct or indirect material interest.
All directors must adhere to the Banks Code of Conduct
which addresses conflicts of interest. Under the Code of
Conduct, only the Board can grant a waiver of the Codes
requirements in regard to a director or executive officer.
The
Banks Cooperative Structure
All members are required by law to purchase capital stock in the
Bank. The capital stock of the Bank can be purchased only by
members. As a cooperative, the Banks products and services
are provided almost exclusively to its members. In the ordinary
course of business, transactions between the Bank and its
members are carried out on terms that are established by the
Bank, including pricing and collateralization terms that treat
all similarly situated members on a nondiscriminatory basis.
Loans included in such transactions did not involve more than
the normal risk of collectibility or present other unfavorable
terms. Currently, nine of the Banks fifteen directors are
officers or directors of members. In recognition of the
Banks status as a cooperative, in correspondence from the
Office of Chief Counsel of the Division of Corporate Finance of
the SEC, dated September 28, 2005, transactions in the
ordinary course of the Banks business with member
institutions are excluded from SEC Related Person Transaction
disclosure requirements. No individual director or executive
officer of the Bank or any of their immediate family members has
been indebted to the Bank at any time.
Related
Person Transaction Policy
In addition to the Banks Code of Conduct which continues
to govern potential director and executive officer conflicts of
interest, effective January 31, 2007, the Bank adopted a
Related Person Transaction Policy, which is in writing. (The
Policy is subject to annual review and approval and was most
recently re-approved by the Board in February 2010 without
change.) In accordance with the terms of the Policy, the Bank
will enter into Related Person Transactions that are not in the
ordinary course of Bank business only when the Governance
Committee of the Board determines that the Related Person
Transaction is in the best interests of the Bank and its
investors. Ordinary course of Bank business is defined as
providing the Banks products and services, including
affordable housing products, to member institutions on terms no
more favorable than the terms of comparable transactions with
similarly situated members. A Related Person Transaction is a
transaction, arrangement or relationship (or a series of
transactions, arrangements or relationships) in which the Bank
was, is or will be a participant, the amount involved exceeds
$60 thousand and in which a Related Person had, has or will have
a direct or indirect material interest. A Related Person is any
director or executive officer of the Bank, any member of their
immediate families or any holder of 5 percent or more of
the Banks outstanding capital stock. A transaction with a
company with which a Related Person is associated is deemed
pre-approved where the Related Person: (1) serves only as a
director of such company; (2) is only an employee (and not
an executive officer) of such company; or (3) is the
beneficial owner of less than 10 percent of such
companys shares.
Related
Person Transactions
In accordance with the Banks Related Person Transaction
Policy, on February 16, 2007, the Governance Committee of
the Board of Directors approved Wilmington Trust Company as
an authorized counterparty for Federal funds transactions with
the Bank. The Governance Committee also approved Wilmington
Trust as a
239
counterparty for receiving Bank deposits on June 6, 2007.
Mr. Gibson, a director of the Bank and an executive officer
of Wilmington Trust Company was not a member of the
Governance Committee and did not participate in the
Committees consideration or approval. The Bank did not
execute any Federal funds or deposit transactions with
Wilmington Trust Company in 2009 nor through
February 28, 2010.
Beginning in 1997, the Bank began purchasing bonds issued by
Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA). On May 14,
2007, Brian Hudson, Executive Director and Chief Executive
Officer of PHFA, was appointed as a director of the Bank by the
Finance Agency. On June 25, 2007, in accordance with the
Related Person Transaction Policy, the Governance Committee
approved the Banks continued purchases of PHFA bonds. In
2009, the Bank did not purchase any PHFA bonds. As of
February 28, 2010, the total outstanding principal amount
of all PHFA bonds held by the Bank was $400.9 million. The
greatest outstanding principal amount of a single PHFA bond held
by the Bank in 2009 was $156.3 million. In 2009, the Bank
received $10.9 million in interest payments on outstanding
PHFA bonds and $26.5 million in principal payments due to
bond calls and redemptions.
PHFA, as the state housing finance agency for Pennsylvania,
provides funding for housing for very-low- and low-income
households. As a result, many of the projects that PHFA provides
funding to are projects that also apply for and receive funding
from the Banks AHP program. Consequently, on June 25,
2007, the Governance Committee also approved the Bank continuing
to enter into AHP grant transactions in which PHFA participates.
In 2009, the Bank approved $797,205 in AHP grants for 4 projects
in which PHFA served as a sponsor or otherwise participated. The
$797,205 in AHP grants was approved in accordance with the
competitive AHP scoring regulations of the Finance Agency,
including the requirement that any FHLBank director who is
associated with, or whose institution is associated with, an AHP
grant under consideration for approval, recuse themselves from
the consideration of the grant by the Banks Board (see
12 C.F.R. 1291.10). The Bank followed this process in
regard to its Boards consideration and approval of these
AHP grants at its meeting in October 2009. Mr. Hudson did
not participate in the consideration or approval of the $797,205
in grant requests presented to the Board.
Since December 2000, as permitted under the Finance
Agencys AHP Regulations at 12 C.F.R. 1291.7, PHFA has
been a party to an AHP project monitoring agreement with the
Bank under which PHFA agrees to monitor the AHP compliance
requirements for the Bank with respect to projects in which PHFA
also monitors federal tax credit compliance. The Bank pays PHFA
a fee of $225 for each AHP project monitored by PHFA during the
year. In 2009, the Bank paid PHFA a total of $675 for monitoring
AHP projects. The amount of fees paid by the Bank fluctuates
each year and is dependent on the number of projects the Bank
identifies each year that need to be monitored for compliance
with AHP requirements.
As a state housing finance agency, PHFA is eligible to apply to
the Bank and be approved as a non-member housing associate
borrower from the Bank in accordance with Finance Agency
Regulations (see 12 C.F.R. 926.5). The Bank approved PHFA
as a housing associate borrower on December 19, 2007. With
the approval of PHFA as a housing associate, the Bank has three
housing associate borrowers. The terms of any Bank loans to such
housing associates are ordinary course of business transactions
governed by the Banks Member Products Policy and applied
to all housing associates. Under the terms of the Banks
Related Person Transaction Policy, provided that the loans to
any related person are in accordance with the terms of the
Banks Member Products Policy, then, such transactions are
within the ordinary course of business of the Bank and not
subject to Governance Committee approval. As of
February 28, 2010, there were no outstanding loans from the
Bank to PHFA.
In 2001, in furtherance of its mission to provide funding for
economic development in the Banks district, the Bank
entered into an agreement to make up to a $500,000 capital
contribution to Mountaineer Capital, LP (Mountaineer Capital).
Mountaineer Capital is a Small Business Investment Company
(SBIC) which provides financing for small businesses in West
Virginia. On May 14, 2007, Patrick Bond, General Partner
for Mountaineer Capital, was appointed to serve as a director of
the Bank. On January 23, 2007, the Bank made a capital
contribution of $50 thousand to Mountaineer Capital. At year-end
2007, the total amount of Bank capital contributions was $375
thousand. On February 12, 2008, the Governance Committee
approved a $50 thousand capital contribution request and granted
approval for additional capital contributions to Mountaineer
Capital in accordance with the terms of the Banks
agreement, up to a total amount of $500 thousand. Through
February 28, 2010, the Banks total capital
contributions to Mountaineer Capital were $475 thousand.
Since approximately 2002, Chase Bank, USA N.A. (Chase Bank) has
been approved for Federal funds and other money market
investment transactions with the Bank in accordance with the
requirements and limits
240
established in the Banks policies. During 2008, the Bank
entered into overnight Federal funds transactions with Chase
Bank. Chase Bank became a 5 percent or greater Bank
shareholder in October 2008. On February 19, 2009, the
Governance Committee ratified these transactions and approved
the Bank entering into other Federal funds and money market
investment transactions with Chase Bank in accordance with the
Banks applicable investment and counterparty policy
statements. The largest principal amount outstanding for such
transactions with Chase during 2009 was $245 million. The
amount of interest paid during 2009 was $2,642 and the aggregate
amount of principal paid (representing repayment of each
overnight Federal funds transaction) was $485 million.
There were overnight Federal funds transactions with Chase Bank
in 2010; however, there were no outstanding Federal funds
transactions with Chase Bank as of February 28, 2010.
On February 19, 2009 the Governance Committee approved the
Bank entering into interest bearing deposit, Federal funds,
unsecured note purchase and other money market transactions with
Bank members, including 5 percent or greater shareholders
of the Bank and Member Directors institutions. All such
transactions must be in accordance with the terms of the
Banks investment and counterparty policy statements and
limits. In 2009 the Bank did not enter into any such money
market transactions with such other 5 percent or greater
shareholders or Member Directors institutions. In 2010,
the Bank has entered into Federal funds transactions with
Sovereign Bank. The largest principal amount outstanding for
such transactions with Sovereign through February 28, 2010
was $500 million. The amount of interest paid through
February 28, 2010 was $24,674 and the aggregate amount of
principal paid (representing repayment of each overnight Federal
funds transaction) was $5.125 billion.
Director
Independence
Under the Act, Bank management is not allowed to serve on the
Banks Board. Consequently, all directors of the Bank are
outside directors. As discussed in Item 10, directors are
classified under the Act as either being a Member Director or an
Independent Director. By statute, the Board cannot expand or
reduce the number of directors that serve on the Board. Only the
Finance Agency has the authority to determine how many seats
exist on the Board. As of February 28, 2010, the Board was
comprised of fifteen directors: nine Member Directors and six
Independent Directors.
The Banks Directors are prohibited from personally owning
stock in the Bank. In addition, the Bank is required to
determine whether its directors are independent under two
distinct director independence standards. First, the Act and
Finance Agency Regulations establish independence criteria,
including independence criteria for directors who serve on the
Banks Audit Committee. Second, the SEC rules require, for
disclosure purposes, that the Banks Board apply the
independence criteria of a national securities exchange or
automated quotation system in assessing the independence of its
directors.
The
Act and Finance Agency Regulations.
Following the enactment of the Housing Act amendments to the Act
on July 30, 2008, an individual is not eligible to be an
Independent Bank director if the individual serves as an
officer, employee, or director of any member of the Bank, or as
a recipient of loans from the Bank. During 2009 and through
February 28, 2010, none of the Banks Independent
Directors were an officer, employee or director of any member or
of any institution that received advances from the Bank.
Effective upon enactment of the Housing Act, the FHLBanks are
required to comply with the substantive Audit Committee director
independence standards under Section 10A(m) of the Exchange
Act.
Rule 10A-3(b)(ii)(B)
implementing Section 10A(m) provides that in order to be
considered to be independent, a member of an audit committee may
not: a) accept directly or indirectly a compensatory fee
(other than from the issuer for service on the Board) or
b) be an affiliated person of the issuer, defined as
someone who directly or indirectly controls the issuer. The SEC
implementing regulations provide that a person will be deemed
not to control an issuer if the person does not own directly or
indirectly more than 10% of any class of voting equity
securities. The existence of this safe harbor does not create a
presumption in any way that a person exceeding the ownership
requirement controls or is otherwise an affiliate of a specified
person. In regard to the Bank and the other FHLBanks, this
provision of the Housing Act raises an issue whether a Member
Director whose institution is a 10% or greater Bank shareholder
could be viewed as an affiliate of the Bank, rendering such
Member Director ineligible to serve on the Banks Audit
Committee. Because of the cooperative structure of the FHLBanks,
the limited items on which FHLBank stockholders may vote and the
statutory cap limiting the votes that any one member may cast
for a director to
241
the state average, it is not clear that the fact that a Member
Directors institution that is a 10% or greater Bank
shareholder is an affiliate of the Bank. Nevertheless, none of
the Banks current Audit Committee members nor those who
served during 2009 were Member Directors from institutions that
were 10 percent or greater Bank shareholders.
In addition, the Finance Agency director independence standards
prohibit individuals from serving as members of the Banks
Audit Committee if they have one or more disqualifying
relationships with the Bank or its management that would
interfere with the exercise of that individuals
independent judgment. Disqualifying relationships considered by
the Board are: employment with the Bank at any time during the
last five years; acceptance of compensation from the Bank other
than for service as a director; being a consultant, advisor,
promoter, underwriter or legal counsel for the Bank at any time
within the last five years; and being an immediate family member
of an individual who is or who has been within the past five
years, a Bank executive officer. As of March 18, 2010, all
current members of the Audit Committee were independent under
the Act and Finance Agency regulatory criteria.
SEC Rules. Pursuant to the SEC rules
applicable to the Bank for disclosure purposes, the Banks
Board has adopted the independence standards of the New York
Stock Exchange (the NYSE) to determine which of its directors
are independent, which members of its Audit Committee are not
independent and whether the Banks Audit Committee
financial expert is independent. As the Bank is not a listed
company, the NYSE director independence standards are not
substantive standards that are applied to determine whether
individuals can serve as members of the Banks Board or the
Audit Committee.
After applying the NYSE independence standards, the Board
determined that for purposes of the SEC rules, as of
February 19, 2010, with respect to the Banks current
directors, four of the Banks Independent Directors,
Directors Cortés, DAlessio, Darr and Marlo are
independent. In determining that Director Cortés was
independent, the Board considered that Nueva Esperanza, the
non-profit organization for which Director Cortés serves as
President, has received AHP grants and charitable contributions
from the Bank from time to time, including when Director
Cortés was not a Bank Director. None of these transactions
which occurred in 2009 required consideration under the
Banks Related Person Transaction Policy. With respect to
Director Darr, the Board considered that Manna Inc., a
non-profit organization on which Mr. Darr serves as a
director, was approved for an AHP grant by the Bank in 2007,
prior to Mr. Darr becoming a member of the Board of
Directors.
With respect to the Banks remaining two current
Independent Directors, the Board determined that in view of the
historic and ongoing relationship and transactions described
above, with respect to PHFA and Mountaineer Capital, Directors
Hudson and Bond are not independent.
The Board was unable to affirmatively determine that there are
no material relationships (as defined in the NYSE rules) between
the Bank and its Member Directors, and concluded that none of
the Banks current Member Directors was independent under
the NYSE independence standards. In making this determination,
the Board considered the cooperative relationship between the
Bank and its Member Directors. Specifically, the Board
considered the fact that each of the Banks Member
Directors are officers or directors of a Bank member
institution, and each member institution has access to, and is
encouraged to use, the Banks products and services.
Furthermore, the Board considered the appropriateness of making
a determination of independence with respect to the Member
Directors based on a members given level of business as of
a particular date, when the level of each members business
with the Bank is dynamic and the Banks desire as a
cooperative is to increase its level of business with each of
its members. As the scope and breadth of a members
business with the Bank changes, such members relationship
with the Bank might, at any time, constitute a disqualifying
transaction or business relationship under the NYSEs
independence standards.
For Director Peck who served on the Board in 2009 but no longer
serves on the Board, the Board determined on February 19,
2010, that Director Peck was independent.
The Board has a standing Audit Committee. The Board determined
that none of the current Member Directors serving as members of
the Banks Audit Committee, Directors Marshall, Milinovich,
Nugent, Ward and White are independent under the NYSE standards
for Audit Committee members and that Independent Director Hudson
is also not independent. The Board of Directors determined that
Independent Director Darr, who serves on the Audit Committee, is
independent under the NYSE independence standards for audit
committee members.
242
|
|
Item 14:
|
Principal
Accountant Fees and Services
|
The following table sets forth the aggregate fees billed to the
Bank for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 by its
independent registered public accounting firm,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Year Ended
|
|
|
|
December 31,
|
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands)
|
|
2009
|
|
|
2008
|
|
|
|
|
Audit fees
|
|
$
|
1,045
|
|
|
$
|
710
|
|
Audit-related fees
|
|
|
55
|
|
|
|
25
|
|
Tax fees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All other fees
|
|
|
3
|
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
|
Total fees
|
|
$
|
1,103
|
|
|
$
|
743
|
|
|
|
Audit fees consist of fees billed for professional services
rendered for the audits of the financial statements and reviews
of interim financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008. Starting in 2009, the
Banks independent auditors began providing an audit of the
Banks Internal Controls over Financial Reporting. The
increase in audit fees
year-over-year
reflects this additional work.
Audit-related fees consist of fees billed in the years ended
December 31, 2009 and 2008 for assurance and related
services reasonably related to the performance of the audit or
review of the financial statements. Audit-related fees were
primarily for accounting consultations.
The Bank is exempt from all federal, state and local income
taxation with the exception of real estate property taxes. There
were no tax fees paid during the years ended December 31,
2009 and 2008.
Other fees paid during the years ended December 31, 2009
and 2008 represent licensing fees associated with the use of
accounting research software.
The Audit Committee approves the annual engagement letter for
the Banks audit. All other services provided by the
independent accounting firm are pre-approved by the Audit
Committee. The Audit Committee delegates to the Chair of the
Audit Committee the authority to pre-approve non-audit services
not prohibited by law to be performed by the independent
auditors, subject to any single request involving a fee of
$100,000 or higher being circulated to all Audit Committee
members for their information and comment. The Chair shall
report any decision to pre-approve such services to the full
Audit Committee at its next meeting.
The Bank paid additional fees to PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP in
the form of assessments paid to the Office of Finance. These
fees were approximately $52 thousand and $36 thousand for the
years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008, respectively. These
fees were classified as Other Expense - Office of Finance on the
Statement of Operations and were not included in the totals
above.
243
PART IV
|
|
Item 15:
|
Exhibits
and Financial Statement Schedules
|
|
|
(a)(1)
|
Financial
Statements
|
The following Financial Statements and related notes, together
with the report of PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, appear in
Item 8.
Statement of Operations for each of the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
Statement of Condition as of December 31, 2009 and 2008
Statement of Cash Flows for each of the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
Statement of Changes in Capital for each of the years ended
December 31, 2009, 2008 and 2007
(2) Financial Statement Schedules
The schedules and exhibits for which provision is made in the
applicable accounting regulation of the Securities and Exchange
Commission that would appear in Item 8. Financial
Statements and Supplementary Data are included in the
Financial Information section within Item 7.
Managements Discussion and Analysis.
244
The following is a list of the exhibits filed with this Annual
Report on
Form 10-K
or incorporated herein by reference:
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
Method of Filing +
|
|
|
3.1
|
|
Certificate of Organization
|
|
Incorporated by reference to the correspondingly numbered
Exhibit to our registration statement on Form 10 filed with
the SEC on June 9, 2006.
|
3.2
|
|
The Bylaws of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
4.1
|
|
Bank Capital Plan
|
|
Incorporated by reference to the correspondingly numbered
Exhibit to our registration statement on Form 10 filed with
the SEC on June 9, 2006.
|
10.1
|
|
Severance Policy*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to the correspondingly numbered
Exhibit to our registration statement on Form 10 filed with
the SEC on June 9, 2006.
|
10.2
|
|
Services Agreement with FHLBank of Chicago
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to our
registration statement on Form 10 filed with the SEC on
June 9, 2006.
|
10.3
|
|
Offer Letter for John Price*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to our
registration statement on Form 10 filed with the SEC on
June 9, 2006.
|
10.4
|
|
Federal Home Loan Banks P&I Funding and Contingency Plan
Agreement
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to Amendment
No. 1 to the Banks registration statement on
Form 10 filed with the SEC on July 19, 2006.
|
10.5
|
|
2009 Directors Fee Policy*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.5.1 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 27, 2009.
|
10.5.1
|
|
2010 Directors Fee Policy*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
10.6
|
|
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Amended and Restated
Effective June 26, 2007*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on August 8, 2007.
|
10.6.1
|
|
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Amended and Restated
Amended and Restated Effective June 26, 2007 and Revised
December 19, 2008*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.6.1 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 27, 2009.
|
10.6.2
|
|
Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Amended and Restated
Effective June 26, 2007 Revised December 19, 2008 and
Further Revised December 18, 2009*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
10.7
|
|
Supplemental Thrift Plan Amended and Restated Effective June 26,
2007*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on August 8, 2007.
|
10.7.1
|
|
Supplemental Thrift Plan Amended and Restated Effective June 26,
2007, Further Revised September 26, 2007*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.16 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on November 7, 2007.
|
10.7.2
|
|
Supplemental Thrift Plan Amended and Restated Effective June 26,
2007, Further Revised September 26, 2007 and December 19, 2008*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.7.2 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 27, 2009.
|
245
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
Method of Filing +
|
|
|
10.7.3
|
|
Supplemental Thrift Plan Amended and Restated Effective June 26,
2007, Further Revised September 26, 2007, December 19, 2008
and December 18, 2009*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
10.8
|
|
Mortgage Partnership
Finance®
Services Agreement Dated August 31, 2007 with FHLBank of
Chicago
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.17 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on November 7, 2007.
|
10.9
|
|
Form of Change in Control Agreement with Executive Officers,
including Messrs. Dimmick, Howie, Yealy and Ms. Williams*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.18 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 13, 2008.
|
10.9.1
|
|
Change in Control Agreement with Mr. Price*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.19 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 13, 2008.
|
10.9.2
|
|
Change in Control Agreement with Mr. Watson*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
10.10
|
|
Variable Incentive Compensation Plan Effective January 1, 2008*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 13, 2008.
|
10.10.1
|
|
2009 Executive Officer and Key Employee Temporary Incentive Plan*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
10.10.2
|
|
2010 Executive Officer and Key Employee Temporary Incentive Plan*
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
10.11
|
|
Executive Officer Agreement and Release with William G. Batz*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on May 9, 2008.
|
10.12
|
|
United States Department of the Treasury Lending Agreement Dated
September 9, 2008
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to the
Banks current report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on September 9, 2008.
|
10.13
|
|
Pentegra Financial Institutions Retirement Fund Summary Plan
Description Dated June 1, 2008*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.13 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 27, 2009.
|
10.14
|
|
Agreement and Release with Paul H Dimmick*
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on November 12, 2009.
|
10.15
|
|
Offer Letter for Winthrop Watson
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to the
Banks Quarterly Report filed on
Form 10-Q
with the SEC on November 12, 2009.
|
12.1
|
|
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
22.1
|
|
Election of Directors Report
|
|
Incorporated by reference to the Banks current report on
Form 8-K
filed with the SEC on December 18, 2009.
|
24.0
|
|
Power of Attorney
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
31.1
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a)
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
31.2
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Rule
13a-14(a)
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
246
|
|
|
|
|
Exhibit No.
|
|
Description
|
|
Method of Filing +
|
|
|
32.1
|
|
Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
32.2
|
|
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
99.1
|
|
Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh Board of Directors Audit
Committee Charter
|
|
Filed herewith.
|
99.3
|
|
Unaudited Quarterly Statement of Cash Flow-Restatements Effects
|
|
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to the
Banks Annual Report filed on
Form 10-K
with the SEC on March 16, 2007.
|
|
|
|
+ |
|
Incorporated document references to filings by the registrant
are to SEC File
No. 000-51395. |
|
* |
|
Denotes management contract or compensatory plan. |
247
Glossary
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
(AOCI): Represents gains and losses of the Bank
that have not yet been realized; balance is presented in the
Equity section of the Statement of Condition.
Advance: Secured loan made to a member.
Agent fee: Fee payable to a PFI by an MPF Bank
in accordance with the Origination Guide, in connection with the
origination of a Bank-funded mortgage.
Affordable Housing Program (AHP): Bank program
that provides primarily direct grants
and/or
subsidized loans to assist members in meeting communities
affordable housing needs. Each FHLBank sets aside approximately
10% of its net income to fund the program with a minimum
$100 million annual contribution by all twelve FHLBanks.
ALCO: Asset/Liability Management Committee of
the Bank.
AMA: Acquired member assets.
APBO: Accumulated Post-retirement Benefit
Obligation.
Adjustable-rate mortgage: Mortgage that
features predetermined adjustments of the loan interest rate at
regular intervals based on an established index.
Banking On Business (BOB): Bank program that
assists eligible small businesses with
start-up and
expansion. A small business is defined as any firm,
proprietorship, partnership or corporation that has less than
50 employees and the lesser of $10 million in annual
receipts or the annual receipts limits set by the Small Business
Administrations (SBA) size standards by North American
Industry Classification (NAIC).
Capital plan: New capital structure for
FHLBanks, required by the GLB Act, that produces a more
permanent source of capital and facilitates compliance with new
risk-based capital requirements.
Capital stock: The five-year redeemable stock
issued by the Bank pursuant to its capital plan.
Collateral: Property subject to a security
interest that secures the discharge of an obligation (e.g.,
mortgage or debt obligation); a security interest that an
FHLBank is required by statute to obtain and thereafter maintain
beginning at the time of origination or renewal of a loan.
Collateralized mortgage obligation: Type of
bond that divides cash flows from a pool of mortgages into
multiple classes with different maturities or risk profiles.
Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures
(CUSIP): CUSIP-based identifiers provide a unique
name for a wide range of global financial instruments including
equity and debt issues, derivatives and syndicated loans. The
CUSIP consists of a combination of nine characters, both letters
and numbers, which identify a company or issuer and the type of
security.
Community Development Financial Institution
(CDFI): Private institutions that provide
financial services dedicated to economic development and
community revitalization in underserved markets; include
community development loan funds, venture capital funds and
state-chartered credit unions without Federal deposit insurance.
Effective February 4, 2010, CDFIs were eligible to become
Bank members.
Community Financial Institution (CFI): Bank
member that has deposits insured under the FDIC and average
total assets for 2008 of less than $1 billion over the past
three years and is exempt from the requirement of having at
least 10% of total assets in residential mortgage loans.
Community Investment Cash Advance
Program: General framework under which the
FHLBanks may offer an array of specific standards for projects,
targeted beneficiaries and targeted income levels that the
Finance Agency has determined support community lending. This
includes AHP and CLP.
Community Lending Program (CLP): Bank program
that funds community and development projects through an
$825 million noncompetitive revolving loan pool. When loans
are repaid, the money is available to be lent to other projects.
Constant Maturity Treasury (CMT): Refers to
the par yield that would be paid by a U. S. Treasury bill,
note or bond that matures in exactly one, two, three, five,
seven, ten, 20 or 30 years.
Consolidated Obligation (CO): Bonds and
discount notes that are the joint and several liability of all
twelve FHLBanks and are issued and serviced through the OF.
These instruments are the primary source of funds for the
FHLBanks.
Conventional loan/mortgage: Mortgage that is
neither insured nor guaranteed by the FHA, VA or any other
agency of the Federal government.
248
Convexity: A measure of the change in
price sensitivity or duration of an asset or liability for
specified changes in interest rates. While all fixed income
instruments have some degree of convexity, mortgage assets and
callable liabilities have notable convexity characteristics
because of the option components within those instruments.
Cost of funds: Estimated cost of issuing
FHLBank System consolidated obligations and discount notes.
Credit enhancement fee: Fee payable monthly by
an MPF Bank to a PFI in consideration of the PFIs
obligation to fund the realized loss for a Master Commitment;
based on fee rate applicable to such Master Commitment and
subject to terms of the Master Commitment and applicable MPF
mortgage product, which may include performance and risk
participation features.
Demand Deposit Account (DDA): The account each
member maintains with the Bank. All incoming and outgoing wires,
loan credits and debits, as well as any principal and interest
payments from securities and loans are posted into the DDA.
Delivery commitment: Mandatory commitment of
the parties, evidenced by a written, machine- or electronically
generated transmission issued by an MPF Bank to a PFI accepting
the PFIs oral mortgage loan delivery commitment offer.
Duration: A common measure of the price
sensitivity of an asset or liability to specified changes in
interest rates.
Exempt securities: Bank securities under
Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933.
Fannie Mae, Federal National Mortgage Association
(FNMA): GSE established in 1938 to expand the
flow of mortgage money by creating a secondary market.
Financial Accounting Standards Board
(FASB): Board created in 1973 responsible for
establishing and interpreting generally accepted accounting
principles and improving standards of financial accounting and
reporting for the guidance and education of the public,
including issuers, auditors and users of financial information.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC): Federal agency established in 1933 that
guarantees (with limits) funds on deposit in member banks and
performs other functions such as making loans to or buying
assets from member banks to facilitate mergers or prevent
failures.
Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932 (the
Act): Enacted by Congress in 1932 creating the
FHLBank Board, whose role was to supervise a series of discount
banks across the country. The intent was to increase the supply
of money available to local institutions that made home loans
and to serve them as a reserve credit resource. The FHLBank
Board became the Federal Housing Board in 1989, which was
replaced by The Federal Housing Finance Agency in 2008.
Federal Home Loan Banks Office of Finance
(OF): FHLBank Systems centralized debt
issuance facility that also prepares combined financial
statements, selects/evaluates underwriters, develops/maintains
the infrastructure needed to meet FHLBank System goals, and
administers REFCORP and FICO funding programs.
Federal Housing Administration
(FHA): Government agency established in 1934 and
insures lenders against loss on residential mortgages.
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA or Finance
Agency): Independent regulatory agency
(established on enactment of the Housing Act) of the executive
branch ensuring the FHLBanks, Federal National Mortgage
Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage corporation operate
in a safe and sound manner, carry out their statutory missions
and remain adequately capitalized and able to raise funds in the
capital markets.
Federal Reserve Bank (FRB): One part of the
Federal Reserve System. There are a total of twelve regional
privately-owned FRBs located in major cities throughout the
U.S., which divide the nation into twelve districts. The FRBs
act as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury; each have their
own nine-member board of directors. The FRBs are located in
Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond,
Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City,
Dallas and San Francisco.
Federal Reserve Board (Federal
Reserve): Governing body over the Federal Reserve
System, The Federal Reserve is responsible for:
(1) conducting the nations monetary policy;
(2) supervising and regulating banking institutions;
(3) maintaining the stability of the financial system and
containing systemic risk; and (4) providing financial
services to depository institutions, the U.S. government
and foreign official institutions.
Federal Reserve System: Central banking system
of the U.S.
Financing Corporation (FICO): Mixed-ownership,
government corporation in charge of servicing debt on bonds that
were issued as a result of the savings and loan
bailout. Mixed-ownership corporations are those with
capital stock owned by both the United States and borrowers or
other private holders.
249
First Front Door (FFD): Bank program developed
to provide grant assistance to cover the down payment and
closing costs to first-time homebuyers at or below 80% area
median income.
First Loss Account (FLA): Notational account
established by an MPF Bank for each Master Commitment based on
and in the amount required under the applicable MPF mortgage
product description and Master Commitment.
FRBNY: Federal Reserve Bank of New York; one
of twelve regional FRBs in the U.S.
Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(FHLMC): GSE chartered by Congress in 1970 to
keep money flowing to mortgage lenders in support of
homeownership and rental housing.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
(GAAP): Accounting term that encompasses the
conventions, rules, and procedures necessary to define accepted
accounting practice at a particular time. GAAP includes not only
broad guidelines of general application, but also detailed
practices and procedures. Those conventions, rules, and
procedures provide a standard by which to measure financial
presentations.
Ginnie Mae, Government National Mortgage Association
(GNMA): GSE established by Congress in 1968 that
guarantees securities backed by a pool of mortgages.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act): Enacted in
1999 that set forth the following:
|
|
|
|
|
Banks with less than $500 million in assets may use
long-term loans for loans to small businesses, small farms and
small agri-businesses.
|
|
|
A new, permanent capital structure for FHLBanks is established.
Two classes of stock are authorized, redeemable on six
months and five years notice. FHLBanks must meet a
5% leverage minimum tied to total capital and a risk-based
requirement tied to permanent capital.
|
|
|
Equalizes the stock purchase requirement for banks and thrifts.
|
|
|
Voluntary membership for federal savings associations took
effect six months after enactment.
|
|
|
Annual $300 million funding formula for REFCORP obligations
of FHLBanks is changed to 20% of annual net earnings.
|
Governance of the FHLBanks is decentralized from the Finance
Board (the regulator at that time) to the individual FHLBanks.
Changes include the election of a chairperson and vice
chairperson of each FHLBank by its directors rather than the
Finance Board and a statutory limit on FHLBank directors
compensation.
Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE): A
private organization with a government charter whose function is
to provide liquidity for the residential loan market or another
identified government purpose.
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of
2008: Enacted by Congress in 2008; designed
primarily to address the subprime mortgage crisis. Established
the Finance Agency, replacing the Federal Housing Finance Board
and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight.
HUD: Housing and Urban Development
Index amortizing swap: Typically a fixed to
float rate interest rate swap whereby the notional principal
amortizes in response to changes in the referenced index.
Internal Credit Rating (ICR): A scoring system
used by the Bank to measure the financial condition of a member
or housing associate and is based on quantitative and
qualitative factors.
ISDA: International Swap Dealers Association
Joint and several liability: Obligation for
which multiple parties are each individually and all
collectively liable for payment.
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR): Offer
rate that a Euromarket bank demands to place a deposit at (or
equivalently, make a loan to) another Euromarket bank in London.
LIBOR is frequently used as the reference rate for the
floating-rate coupon in interest rate swaps and option contracts
such as caps and floors.
Loan level credit enhancement: Portion of the
credit enhancement pertaining to the risks of an individual
mortgage loan.
Master Commitment: A document executed by a
PFI and an MPF Bank, which provides the terms under which the
PFI will deliver mortgage loans to the MPF Bank.
Master Servicer: Financial institution that
the MPF Provider has engaged to perform various master servicing
duties on its behalf in connection with the MPF Program.
Maximum Borrowing Capacity (MBC): Total
possible borrowing limit for an individual member. This is
determined based on the type and amount of collateral each
member has available to pledge as security for Bank advances. It
is computed using specific asset balances (market
and/or book
values) from qualifying
250
collateral categories, which are discounted by applicable
collateral weighting percentages. The MBC is equal to the
aggregate collateral value net of any pledged assets.
Mortgage-Backed securities (MBS): Investment
instruments backed by mortgage loans as security.
Mortgage Partnership Finance (MPF)
Program: FHLBank of Chicago program offered by
select FHLBanks to their members to provide an alternative for
funding mortgages through the creation of a secondary market.
NRSRO: Nationally Recognized Statistical
Rating Organization. Credit rating agency registered with the
SEC. Currently ten firms are registered as NRSROs.
Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS): Primary
regulator of all federal and many state-chartered thrift
institutions, including savings banks and savings and loans.
ORERC: Other real estate-related collateral.
Other-than-Temporary
Impairment (OTTI): From an accounting standpoint,
an impairment of a debt or equity security occurs
when the fair value of the security is less than its amortized
cost basis, i.e., whenever a security has an unrealized loss.
Pair-off fee: A fee assessed against a PFI
when the aggregate principal balance of mortgages funded or
purchased under a delivery commitment falls above or below the
tolerance specified.
Permanent capital: Retained earnings plus
capital stock; capital stock includes mandatorily redeemable
capital stock.
Participating Financial Institution
(PFI): Bank member participating in the MPF
Program, which is legally bound to originate, sell
and/or
service mortgages in accordance with the PFI Agreement, which it
signs with the MPF Bank of which it is a member.
Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit
(REMIC): Multi-class bond backed by a pool of
mortgage securities or mortgage loans.
Real Estate Owned (REO): Mortgaged property
acquired by a servicer on behalf of the mortgagee, through
foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure.
Resolution Funding Corporation
(REFCORP): Mixed-ownership, government
corporation created by Congress in 1989 to issue
bailout bonds and raise industry funds to finance
activities of the Resolution Trust Corporation, and merge
or close insolvent institutions inherited from the disbanded
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. Mixed-ownership
corporations are those with capital stock owned by both the
United States and borrowers or other private holders.
RHS: Rural Housing Service
RPAF: Registered Public Accounting Firm.
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Enacted in 2002 in
response to numerous corporate and accounting scandals;
legislation set new or enhanced standards for all
U.S. public company boards, management and public
accounting firms.
Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC): Independent agency of the
U.S. government which holds primary responsibility for
enforcing the federal securities laws and regulating the
securities industry, the nations stock and option
exchanges and other electronic securities markets.
SERP: Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan.
Servicer: Institution approved to service
mortgages funded or purchased by an MPF Bank. The term servicer
refers to the institution acting in the capacity of a servicer
of mortgages for an MPF Bank under a PFI Agreement.
Standby letter of credit: Document issued by
the FHLBanks on behalf of a member as a guarantee against which
funds can be drawn, that is used to facilitate various types of
business transactions the member may have with third parties.
Standby is defined as the Bank standing by to make good on the
obligation made by the member to the beneficiary.
Supplemental Mortgage Insurance (SMI)
policy: Any and all supplemental or pool mortgage
guarantee insurance policies applicable to mortgages delivered
under the Master Commitment.
TAP auction debt: Term used to address
multiple FHLBank debt issuances within a given quarter which
have the same terms. As an FHLBank issues debt with terms
similar to other FHLBank debt already issued, the FHLBank
taps the original issuance and is assigned the same
CUSIP; this creates one larger, more liquid issue.
Total Credit Products (TCP): Includes member
loans, letters of credit, loan commitments, MPF credit
enhancement obligations and other credit product exposure.
251
Underlying: A specified interest rate,
security price, commodity price, foreign exchange rate, index of
prices or rates or other variable. An underlying may be the
price or rate of an asset or liability, but is not the asset or
liability itself.
Veterans Affairs, Department of (VA): Federal
agency with oversight for programs created for veterans of the
U.S. armed forces. Mortgage loans granted by a lending
institution to qualified veterans or to their surviving spouses
may be guaranteed by the VA.
Weighted average coupon (WAC): Weighted
average of the interest rates of loans within a pool or
portfolio.
Weighted average life (WAL): The average
amount of time that will elapse from the date of a
securitys issuance until each dollar of principal is
repaid. The WAL of mortgage loans or MBS is only an assumption.
The average amount of time that each dollar of principal is
actually outstanding is influenced by, among other factors, the
rate at which principal, both scheduled and unscheduled, is paid
on the mortgage loans.
252
Signatures
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this amended report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh
(Registrant)
Date: March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
By:
|
/s/ John R. Price
John R. Price
|
President and Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ John
R. Price
John
R. Price
|
|
President & Chief Executive Officer
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
/s/ Kristina
K. Williams
Kristina
K. Williams
|
|
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Dennis
S. Marlo
Dennis
S. Marlo
|
|
Chairman of the Board of Directors
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ H.
Charles Maddy, III
H.
Charles Maddy, III
|
|
Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Patrick
A. Bond
Patrick
A. Bond
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Rev.
Luis A. Cortés Jr.
Rev.
Luis A. Cortés Jr.
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Walter
DAlessio
Walter
DAlessio
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ John
K. Darr
John
K. Darr
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ David
R. Gibson
David
R. Gibson
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Brian
A. Hudson
Brian
A. Hudson
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Glenn
B. Marshall
Glenn
B. Marshall
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
253
|
|
|
|
|
Signature
|
|
Capacity
|
|
Date
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ John
C. Mason
John
C. Mason
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ John
S. Milinovich
John
S. Milinovich
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Edward
J. Molnar
Edward
J. Molnar
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Charles
J. Nugent
Charles
J. Nugent
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Patrick
J. Ward
Patrick
J. Ward
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
* /s/ Robert
W. White
Robert
W. White
|
|
Director
|
|
March 18, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
*By: /s/ Dana
A.
Yealy Dana
A. Yealy, Attorney-in-fact
|
|
|
|
|
254