IBJNews

New collateral rules for Indiana deposits may favor big banks

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

New state rules designed to protect government cash from bank failures might have an unintended consequence: helping the biggest banks and hurting the smallest.

Anticipating the new rules, at least one big institution, JPMorgan Chase, already has bulked up collateral in order to continue qualifying for deposits from state and local government.

But many smaller banks are wrestling with the decision, and the stakes are huge. Adding collateral would be costly, but if they get out of the government banking business they lose a key source of capital with which to make loans and, ultimately, a profit.

Perhaps worse, the money would shift to competitors.

“There will be a migration of funds,” said Paul Chrisco, chief financial officer of Community Bank Shares Inc. in the southern Indiana city of New Albany. “Smaller banks [may] have to go to [government] customers and say, ‘We don’t have the securities to pledge. Your account’s too large. You’ll have to go elsewhere.’”

The demise of Irwin Financial Corp. in Columbus in September prompted the General Assembly this year to modernize the state’s public deposit insurance system for the first time since 1937. Fortunately for the state, the bankruptcy sapped no funds from the Public Deposit Insurance Fund because the FDIC arranged and guaranteed Cincinnati-based First Financial Bancorp’s takeover of Irwin.

IBJ.COM EXTRA
For a downloadable PDF file all Indiana banks that accept government savings deposits, click here.

So, in coming months, regulators will augment the fund by forcing banks to accept a sliding risk scale of additional collateral for every state and local government deposit.

“I will sleep far, far better once all the rules are in place,” said Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, one of the reform’s primary architects.

Indiana’s fund picks up where the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. leaves off at $250,000 per account. The state is motivated to keep its money safe because the FDIC protects only a fraction of the roughly $12 billion in total state and local government deposits in Indiana.

Agencies and schools use the bank accounts to park their money and pay bills.

Indiana created the fund during the Great Depression as a backstop against huge losses of government deposits if any bank failed. Until 1985, Hoosier banks paid annual assessments based on the percentage of public deposits they held.

Details are still being hammered out, but the assessments could be revived if the fund ever needs to be replenished quickly. As part of its recent reform, the General Assembly granted the Indiana Board for Depositories authority to issue $300 million in new debt to replenish the fund.

The obscure nine-member board is now developing a sliding-scale system for how much collateral banks must set aside against public deposits based on their default risk. It will hire a private subscription service to provide data for the analysis, then later this year assign grades to all 197 financial institutions that hold Hoosier government cash. The strongest banks may need few, if any, new guarantees. Weaker banks will be forced to dig deep for collateral.

The public has a stake in erring on the side of caution, but the banks have a keen interest, too. State and local deposits account for 13 percent of all dollars in Indiana banks, and nearly all of the 201 institutions doing business in the state accept at least some of the money deposits.

BankNew York-based Chase isn’t waiting for the new collateral rules to be issued. It has already decided to voluntarily pony up 100 percent.

Maria Quintana, Chase executive vice president and market manager for government, not-for-profit and health care in Indiana, explained that her bank sets aside collateral specifically for government deposits in 16 other states. So Chase is well-prepared to do the same here.

“We realized we’d be one of the first banks to step up and say we’re happy to collateralize and address the Treasurer’s concern of safety and soundness in the system,” Quintana said. “Obviously, having the lion’s share of that business, we don’t want to lose it.”

Chase has another good reason for embracing reform first. By doing so, it sheds an enormous potential cost. Any bank that receives the fund’s protection must also accept shared liability for all its peers in the system—including the weakest.

So if another bank in Indiana goes the way of Irwin Union, Chase won’t have to help clean up the mess.

Weighing options

Every other bank with an Indiana branch is weighing whether to follow Chase down the collateralization path, or to simply quit doing business with government customers.

“There are still a few banks in Indiana that are struggling,” said Indiana Bankers Association CEO Joe DeHaven. “I still have concern of what happens to the [PDIF] fund in the event a financial institution fails. We got very lucky with Irwin Union, in that there was no loss to the fund. I don’t know that we’ll be that lucky twice in a row.”

Community Bank Shares, parent of Your Community Bank in New Albany, saw the biggest jump last year among all banks in Indiana for the state’s CD business, pulling down $13.4 million in deposits, according to state treasurer’s records.

While Chrisco pointed out that state deposits remain a small part of Community’s $865.7 million in total assets, they’d be difficult to replace.

“To get an equivalent number of retail dollars, you have to attract a lot more accounts,” he said. “It can be an efficient way to attract deposits, but you don’t want to have too much concentration, because if they leave, it can have a big liquidity impact.”

Community has branches in Kentucky—which requires collateral for government deposits. As a result, Chrisco said, his bank hasn’t pursued them there. He said Community is reluctant to pledge and thus tie up marketable securities it might want or need to sell. And he expects the administrative burden related to meeting the state’s new collateral requirements will be the same whether Community’s risk rating requires it to set aside 25 percent or 100 percent.

Chrisco will watch to see how the new risk rating and collateral system unfolds. But he anticipates it could create an advantage for the biggest banks. He notes the state fund’s $250 million would be far more and collateralization might not be necessary if the General Assembly hadn’t decided to divert all its interest since 2003 toward shoring up underfunded police and firefighter pensions.

But Mourdock, the state treasurer, said the reforms will establish an even playing field for all banks to compete for public deposits.

Government officials must prioritize safety, liquidity and interest yield—in that order, he said. It’s up to the banks to prove they meet the state’s standards, or decide to concentrate instead on their other customers.

And Mourdock noted the government is likely going to give up some interest revenue in exchange for a safer overall deposit system.

“We’ve considered changes to the PDIF to make it so banks are in a position to make the best business decision for themselves if they want to be in the business of holding public funds,” Mourdock said. “Ironically, if banks are required to post collateral, it will mean government will receive a lower level of interest. But that’s a decision in the interest of safety.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT