Loan Portfolio Management: Comptroller's Handbook

A-LPM
Comptroller of the Currency

Administrator of National Banks
Loan Portfolio Management
Comptrollers Handbook
April 1998
Updated June 26, 2017, for Nonaccrual Status
AAssets
Loan Portfolio
Management Table of Contents
Overview .................................................................................................... 1
Risks Associated with Lending .................................................................... 3
Credit Culture and Risk Profile .................................................................. 11
Loan Portfolio Objectives......................................................................... 13
Strategic Planning for the Loan Portfolio.......................................... 13
Financial Goals ............................................................................... 14
Risk Tolerance ................................................................................ 15
Portfolio Risk and Reward ......................................................................... 15
The Loan Policy ........................................................................................ 17
Loan Policy Topics .......................................................................... 19
Loan Approval Process ................................................................... 20
Portfolio Management .............................................................................. 22
Oversight ........................................................................................ 22
Risk Identification .......................................................................... 22
Nonaccrual Status ........................................................................... 24
Exceptions to Policy, Procedures, and Underwriting Guidelines...... 25
Documentation Exceptions ........................................................ 25
Policy and Underwriting Exceptions........................................... 26
Aggregate Exception Tracking and Reporting .................................. 27
Portfolio Segmentation and Risk Diversification .............................. 28
Identifying Concentrations of Risk .............................................. 28
Evaluating and Managing Concentrations of Risk ............................ 30
Concentration Management Techniques .................................... 31
Stress Testing ............................................................................................ 32
Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses ........................................................ 33
Credit Management Information Systems .................................................. 34
Collections and Work-out ........................................................................ 35
Lending Control Functions ........................................................................ 37
Independence ................................................................................. 37
Credit Policy Administration ........................................................... 38
Loan Review ................................................................................... 38
Audit .............................................................................................. 39
Administrative and Documentation Controls ................................... 39
Loan Portfolio Management i Comptrollers Handbook

Communication with Senior Management and the Board .......................... 40
Loan Portfolio Management Supervision ................................................... 41
Asset Quality Reviews..................................................................... 41
Targeted Reviews ........................................................................... 42
Process Reviews ............................................................................. 42
Administrative and Documentation Reviews ................................... 43
Compliance Reviews...................................................................... 43
Follow-up Evaluations on Management Commitments .................... 43
Ongoing Supervision ...................................................................... 43
Examination Procedures ............................................................................ 45

General Procedures ........................................................................ 45
Quantity of Risk .............................................................................. 48
Quality of Risk Management ........................................................... 54
Conclusion Procedures ................................................................... 70
Appendixes .......................................................................................... 72
Topics of Loan Policy ..................................................................... 72
12 CFR 30 Safety and Soundness Standards ................................ 78
Portfolio Credit Risk Management Processes ................................... 80
Loan Production Offices ................................................................. 85
Loan Participations.......................................................................... 87
Loan Brokerage and Servicing Activities .......................................... 92
IRS Express Determination Letters ................................................... 93
References .......................................................................................... 97
Loan Portfolio Management ii Comptrollers Handbook

Loan Portfolio
Management Introduction
Overview
Lending is the principal business activity for most commercial banks. The
loan portfolio is typically the largest asset and the predominate source of
revenue. As such, it is one of the greatest sources of risk to a banks safety
and soundness. Whether due to lax credit standards, poor portfolio risk
management, or weakness in the economy, loan portfolio problems have
historically been the major cause of bank losses and failures.
Effective management of the loan portfolio and the credit function is

fundamental to a banks safety and soundness. Loan portfolio management
(LPM) is the process by which risks that are inherent in the credit process are
managed and controlled. Because review of the LPM process is so important,
it is a primary supervisory activity. Assessing LPM involves evaluating the
steps bank management takes to identify and control risk throughout the
credit process. The assessment focuses on what management does to identify
issues before they become problems. This booklet, written for the benefit of
both examiners and bankers, discusses the elements of an effective LPM
process. It emphasizes that the identification and management of risk among
groups of loans may be at least as important as the risk inherent in individual
loans.
For decades, good loan portfolio managers have concentrated most of their
effort on prudently approving loans and carefully monitoring loan
performance. Although these activities continue to be mainstays of loan
portfolio management, analysis of past credit problems, such as those
associated with oil and gas lending, agricultural lending, and commercial real
estate lending in the 1980s, has made it clear that portfolio managers should
do more. Traditional practices rely too much on trailing indicators of credit
quality such as delinquency, nonaccrual, and risk rating trends. Banks have
found that these indicators do not provide sufficient lead time for corrective
action when there is a systemic increase in risk.
Loan Portfolio Management 1 Comptrollers Handbook

Effective loan portfolio management begins with oversight of the risk in
individual loans. Prudent risk selection is vital to maintaining favorable loan
quality. Therefore, the historical emphasis on controlling the quality of
individual loan approvals and managing the performance of loans continues
to be essential. But better technology and information systems have opened
the door to better management methods. A portfolio manager can now
obtain early indications of increasing risk by taking a more comprehensive
view of the loan portfolio.
To manage their portfolios, bankers must understand not only the risk posed
by each credit but also how the risks of individual loans and portfolios are
interrelated. These interrelationships can multiply risk many times beyond
what it would be if the risks were not related. Until recently, few banks used
modern portfolio management concepts to control credit risk. Now, many
banks view the loan portfolio in its segments and as a whole and consider
the relationships among portfolio segments as well as among loans. These
practices provide management with a more complete picture of the banks
credit risk profile and with more tools to analyze and control the risk.
In 1997, the OCCs Advisory Letter 97-3 encouraged banks to view risk
management in terms of the entire loan portfolio. This letter identified nine
elements that should be part of a loan portfolio management process. These
elements complement such other fundamental credit risk management
principles as sound underwriting, comprehensive financial analysis, adequate
appraisal techniques and loan documentation practices, and sound internal
controls. The nine elements are:
Assessment of the credit culture,

Portfolio objectives and risk tolerance limits,
Management information systems,
Portfolio segmentation and risk diversification objectives,
Analysis of loans originated by other lenders,
Aggregate policy and underwriting exception systems,
Stress testing portfolios,
Independent and effective control functions,
Analysis of portfolio risk/reward tradeoffs.

Each of these elements is important to effective portfolio management. To a
greater or lesser degree, each indicates the importance of the
interrelationships among loans within the portfolio. Their focus is not on
individual transactions, but on a group of similar transactions and on
verifying the integrity of the process. Each practice, by itself, adds a
dimension to loan portfolio management, but their value is amplified when
they are used together; moreover, the absence of any one of these elements
will diminish the effectiveness of the others. These elements are described in
greater detail in appendix C and throughout the introductory section of this
booklet.
All banks need to have basic loan portfolio management principles in place
in some form. However, the need to formalize the various elements
discussed in this booklet, and the sophistication of the process, will depend
on the size of the bank, the complexity of its portfolio, and the types of
credit risks it has assumed. For example, a community bank may be able to
implement these principles in a less formal, less structured manner than a
large bank and still have an effective loan portfolio management process. But
even if the process is less formal, the risks to the loan portfolio discussed in
this booklet should be addressed by all banks.
The examiner assigned LPM is responsible for determining whether the bank
has an effective loan portfolio management process. This includes
determining whether the risks associated with the banks lending activities
are accurately identified and appropriately communicated to senior
management and the board of directors, and, when necessary, whether
appropriate corrective action is taken.
This booklet contains important background information on loan portfolio

management that examiners should review before conducting an asset
quality examination. The risks unique to specific types of loans are addressed
in several separate handbook booklets (e.g., Commercial Real Estate and
Construction Lending, Lease Financing, and Credit Card Lending).
Risks Associated with Lending
According to the OCCs supervision by risk philosophy, risk is the potential

that events, expected or unexpected, may have an adverse impact on the

banks earnings or capital. The OCC has defined nine categories of risk for
bank supervision purposes. These risks, which are defined in other
Comptrollers Handbook sections, are credit, interest rate, liquidity, price,
foreign exchange, transaction, compliance, strategic, and reputation. Banks
with international operations are also subject to country risk and transfer risk.
These risks are not mutually exclusive; any product or service may expose the
bank to multiple risks. For analysis and discussion, however, the OCC
identifies and assesses the risks separately.
A key challenge in managing risk is understanding the interrelationships of

the nine risk factors. Often, risks will be either positively or negatively
correlated to one another. Actions or events will affect correlated risks
similarly. For example, reducing the level of problem assets should reduce
not only credit risk but also liquidity and reputation risk. When two risks are
negatively correlated, reducing one type of risk may increase the other. For
example, a bank may reduce overall credit risk by expanding its holdings of
one- to four-family residential mortgages instead of commercial loans, only
to see its interest rate risk soar because of the interest rate sensitivity and
optionality of the mortgages.
Lending can expose a banks earnings and capital to all of the risks.
Therefore, it is important that the examiner assigned LPM understands all the
risks embedded in the loan portfolio and their potential impact on the
institution. How each of these categories relates to a banks lending function
is detailed in the following sections.
Credit Risk
For most banks, loans are the largest and most obvious source of credit risk.
However, there are other pockets of credit risk both on and off the balance
sheet, such as the investment portfolio, overdrafts, and letters of credit. Many
products, activities, and services, such as derivatives, foreign exchange, and
cash management services, also expose a bank to credit risk.
The risk of repayment, i.e., the possibility that an obligor will fail to perform
as agreed, is either lessened or increased by a banks credit risk management
practices. A banks first defense against excessive credit risk is the initial
credit-granting process sound underwriting standards, an efficient, balanced

approval process, and a competent lending staff. Because a bank cannot
easily overcome borrowers with questionable capacity or character, these
factors exert a strong influence on credit quality. Borrowers whose financial
performance is poor or marginal, or whose repayment ability is dependent
upon unproven projections can quickly become impaired by personal or
external economic stress. Management of credit risk, however, must continue
after a loan has been made, for sound initial credit decisions can be
undermined by improper loan structuring or inadequate monitoring.
Traditionally, banks have focused on oversight of individual loans in

managing their overall credit risk. While this focus is important, banks
should also view credit risk management in terms of portfolio segments and
the entire portfolio. The focus on managing individual credit risk did not
avert the credit crises of the 1980s. However, had the portfolio approach to
risk management augmented these traditional risk management practices,
banks might have at least reduced their losses.
Effective management of the loan portfolios credit risk requires that the board
and management understand and control the banks risk profile and its credit
culture. To accomplish this, they must have a thorough knowledge of the
portfolios composition and its inherent risks. They must understand the
portfolios product mix, industry and geographic concentrations, average risk
ratings, and other aggregate characteristics. They must be sure that the
policies, processes, and practices implemented to control the risks of
individual loans and portfolio segments are sound and that lending personnel
adhere to them.
Banks engaged in international lending face country risks that domestic

lenders do not. Country risk encompasses all of the uncertainties arising
from a nations economic, social, and political conditions that may affect the
payment of foreigners debt and equity investments. Country risk includes
the possibility of political and social upheaval, nationalization and
expropriation of assets, governmental repudiation of external indebtedness,
exchange controls, and currency devaluation or depreciation. Unless a
nation repudiates its external debt, these developments might not make a
loan uncollectible. However, even a delay in collection could weaken the
lending bank.

Transfer risk, which is a narrower form of country risk, is the possibility that
an obligor will not be able to pay because the currency of payment is
unavailable. This unavailability may be a matter of government policy. For
example, although an individual borrower may be very successful and have
sufficient local currency cash flow to pay its foreign (e.g., U.S. dollar) debt,
the borrowers country may not have sufficient U.S. dollars available to
permit repayment of the foreign indebtedness. The transfer risk associated
with banks exposures in foreign countries is evaluated by the Interagency
Country Exposure Review Committee (ICERC). For examination purposes,
the transfer risk rating assigned to a country by the ICERC applies to all bank
assets in that country. However, examiners may classify individual loans and
other assets more severely for credit risk reasons.
Strategies for managing country risk will be discussed in Country Risk

Management, a separate booklet in the Comptrollers Handbook.
Interest Rate Risk
The level of interest rate risk attributed to the banks lending activities
depends on the composition of its loan portfolio and the degree to which the
terms of its loans (e.g., maturity, rate structure, embedded options) expose the
banks revenue stream to changes in rates.
Pricing and portfolio maturity decisions should be made with an eye to

funding costs and maturities. When significant individual credits or portfolio
segments are especially sensitive to interest rate risk, they should be
periodically stress-tested. If the asset/liability management committee
(ALCO), which typically is responsible for managing the banks interest rate
risk, is to manage all of the banks positions, it must have sufficient reports on
loan portfolio and pipeline composition and trends. These reports might
include a maturing loans report, pipeline report, and rate and repricing
report.
Banks frequently shift interest rate risk to their borrowers by structuring loans
with variable interest rates. Borrowers with marginal repayment capacity
may experience financial difficulty if the interest rates on these loans
increase. As part of the risk management process, banks should identify
borrowers whose loans have heightened sensitivity to interest rate changes

and develop strategies to mitigate the risk. One method is to require
vulnerable borrowers to purchase interest rate protection or otherwise hedge
the risk.
The Comptrollers Handbook booklet Interest Rate Risk provides guidance

on interest rate risk management.
Liquidity Risk
Because of the size of the loan portfolio, effective management of liquidity

risk requires that there be close ties to, and good information flow from, the
lending function. Obviously, loans are a primary use of funds. And while
controlling loan growth has always been a large part of liquidity
management, historically the loan portfolio has not been viewed as a
significant source of funds for liquidity management. Practices are changing,
however. Banks can use the loan portfolio as a source of funds by reducing
the total dollar volume of loans through sales, securitization, and portfolio
run-off.
In fact, banks are taking a more active role in managing their loan portfolios.
While these activities are often initiated to manage credit risk, they have also
improved liquidity. Banks increasingly are originating loans for sale or
securitization. Consumer loans (mortgages, instalment loans, and credit
cards) are routinely originated for immediate securitization. Many larger
banks have been expanding their underwriting for the syndicated loan
market. Additionally, banks are also expanding the packaging and sale of
distressed credits and otherwise undesirable loans.
As part of liquidity planning, a banks overall liquidity strategy should include

the identification of those loans or loan portfolio segments that may be easily
converted to cash. A loans liquidity hinges on such characteristics as its
quality, pricing, scheduled maturities, and conformity to market standards for
underwriting. Loans are also a source of liquidity when used as collateral for
borrowings. The ease with which a bank can participate or sell loans to other
lenders or investors (and the terms on which the bank can do so) will vary
with market conditions, the type of loan, and the quality of loan. Information
provided for liquidity analysis should include an assessment of these
variables under various scenarios.

Liquidity is also affected by the amount of the banks commitments to lend
and the actual amount that borrowers draw against those commitments. A
bank should have systems to track commitments and borrower usage.
Knowledge of the types of commitments, deals in the pipeline, normal usage
levels, and historically high usage levels are important in assessing whether
available liquidity will be adequate for normal, seasonal, or emergency
needs. Management information systems should distinguish between
commitments that the bank is legally obligated to fund and those (guidance
or advisory lines) that it is not.
Any analysis of a banks ability to reduce or cut existing commitments must

consider more than its legal obligation to lend. It should also consider
reputation risk and the potential for lender-liability actions. The withdrawal
or reduction of commitments can have significant ramifications for a bank.
From a strategic perspective, any tightening of commitments may adversely
affect a banks ability to maintain or grow a customer base if it is perceived as
an unreliable lender in tight credit markets. A banks reputation may also
suffer if it is perceived as unwilling to support community credit needs.
Given these ancillary risks, bank management must carefully assess
the implications of curtailing lending lines.
Price Risk
Most of the developments that improve the loan portfolios liquidity have
implications for price risk. Traditionally, the lending activities of most banks
were not affected by price risk. Because loans were customarily held to
maturity, accounting doctrine required book value accounting treatment.
However, as banks develop more active portfolio management practices and
the market for loans expands and deepens, loan portfolios will become
increasingly sensitive to price risk.
Loans originated for sale as part of a securitization or for direct placement in

the secondary market carry price risk while they are in the pipeline awaiting
packaging and sale. During that period, the assets should be placed in a
held-for-sale account, where they must be repriced at the lower of cost or
market. The same accounting treatment can apply to syndicated credits and
distressed loans. When a bank underwrites a larger portion of a syndicated

loan than its hold position, the excess portion must be placed in a held-for-
sale account. Once a sale strategy is adopted for distressed or otherwise
undesirable credits, those credits should also be placed in a held-for-sale
account.
Banks engaged in international lending may be affected by price changes in

the secondary market for such loans. Each month, banks that actively trade
foreign debt must mark to market the loans in their trading account. In
addition, banks that have elected to hold so-called Brady Bonds as loans
must mark them to market in accordance with the requirements of FAS 115.
Foreign Exchange Risk
Foreign exchange risk is present when a loan or portfolio of loans is

denominated in a foreign currency or is funded by borrowings in another
currency. In some cases, banks will enter into multi-currency credit
commitments that permit borrowers to select the currency they prefer to use
in each rollover period. Foreign exchange risk can be intensified by
political, social, or economic developments. The consequences can be
unfavorable if one of the currencies involved becomes subject to stringent
exchange controls or is subject to wide exchange-rate fluctuations. Foreign
exchange risk is discussed in more detail in Foreign Exchange, a section of
the Comptrollers Handbook.
Transaction Risk
In the lending area, transaction risk is present primarily in the loan

disbursement and credit administration processes. The level of transaction
risk depends on the adequacy of information systems and controls, the
quality of operating procedures, and the capability and integrity of
employees. Significant losses in loan and lease portfolios have resulted from
inadequate information systems, procedures, and controls. For example,
banks have incurred increased credit risk when information systems failed to
provide adequate information to identify concentrations, expired facilities, or
stale financial statements. At times, banks have incurred losses because they
failed to perfect or renew collateral liens; to obtain proper signatures on loan
documents; or to disburse loan proceeds as required by the loan documents.

Compliance Risk
Lending activities encompass a broad range of compliance responsibilities

and risks. By law, a bank must observe limits on its loans to a single
borrower, to insiders, and to affiliates; limits on interest rates; and the array of
consumer protection and Community Reinvestment Act regulations. A banks
lending activities may expose it to liability for the cleanup of environmental
hazards. A bank may also become the subject of borrower-initiated lender
liability lawsuits for damages attributed to its lending or collection practices.
Supervisory activities should include the review of the banks internal
compliance process to ensure that examiners identify and investigate
compliance issues.
Strategic Risk
A primary objective of loan portfolio management is to control the strategic

risk associated with a banks lending activities. Inappropriate strategic or
tactical decisions about underwriting standards, loan portfolio growth, new
loan products, or geographic and demographic markets can compromise a
banks future. Examiners should be particularly attentive to new business and
product ventures. These ventures require significant planning and careful
oversight to ensure the risks are appropriately identified and managed. For
example, many banks are extending their consumer loan activities to sub-
prime borrowers. The product may be familiar, but the borrowers behavior
may differ considerably from the banks typical customer. Do they
understand the unique risks associated with this market, can they price for the
increased risk, and do they have the technology and MIS to service this
market? Moreover, how will they compete with the nonbank companies
who dominate this market? Both bankers and examiners need to decide
whether the opportunities outweigh the strategic risks. If a bank is
considering growing a loan product or business in a market saturated with
that product or business, it should make sure that it is not overlooking other
lending opportunities with more promise. During their evaluation of the loan
portfolio management process, examiners should ensure that bankers are
realistically assessing strategic risk.

Reputation Risk
When a bank experiences credit problems, its reputation with investors,

the community, and even individual customers usually suffers. Inefficient
loan delivery systems, failure to adequately meet the credit needs of the
community, and lender-liability lawsuits are also examples of how a banks
reputation can be tarnished because of problems within its lending
division.
Reputation risk can damage a banks business in many ways. The value of the
banks stock falls, customers and community support is lost, and business
opportunities evaporate. To protect their reputations, banks often feel that
they must do more than is legally required. For example, some banks have
repurchased loan participations when credit problems develop, even though
these problems were not apparent at the time of the underwriting.
Credit Culture and Risk Profile
Understanding the credit culture and the risk profile of the bank is central to
successful loan portfolio management. Because of the significance of a
banks lending activities, the influence of the credit culture frequently
extends to other bank activities. Staff members throughout the bank should
understand the banks credit culture and risk profile. The knowledge should
pass from the chief credit policy officer to account officers to administrative
support. Directors and senior management should not only publicly endorse
the credit standards that are a credit cultures backbone but should also
employ them when formulating strategic plans and overseeing portfolio
management.
A banks credit culture is the sum of its credit values, beliefs, and behaviors.
It is what is done and how it is accomplished. The credit culture exerts a
strong influence on a banks lending and credit risk management. Values and
behaviors that are rewarded become the standards and will take precedence
over written policies and procedures.
A banks risk profile is more measurable than its credit culture. A risk profile
describes the various levels and types of risk in the portfolio. The profile
evolves from the credit culture, strategic planning, and the day-to-day
activities of making and collecting loans. Developing a risk profile is no

simple matter. For example, two banks with identical levels of classified
loans can have quite different profiles. Bank As classified loans might be
fully secured and made to borrowers within its local market, while bank Bs
loans are out-of-market, unsecured loan participations. Consider, as well,
how much more the failure of a $3 million loan would hurt a $500 million
bank than a $5 billion bank. The risk profile will change over time as
portfolio composition and internal and external conditions change.
Credit culture varies from bank to bank. Some banks approach credit very
conservatively, lending only to financially strong, well-established borrowers.
Growth-oriented banks may approach lending more aggressively, lending to
borrowers who pose a higher repayment risk. These cultural differences are
grounded in a banks objectives for asset quality, growth, and earnings.
Emphasizing one of these objectives over another does not, in and of itself,
preclude achieving satisfactory performance in all three. However, the
emphasis will influence how lending activities are conducted and may
prompt changes in credit policies and risk control systems. For example, a
bank driven to achieve aggressive growth targets may require more detailed
credit policies and more controlling administrative and monitoring systems to
manage credit risk properly. Consistently successful banks achieve a balance
between asset quality, growth, and earnings. They have cultural values,
credit policies, and processes that reinforce each other and that are clearly
communicated, well understood, and carefully followed.
The culture, risk profile, and credit practices of a bank should be linked. If
the credit practices and risk-taking activities of a bank are inconsistent with
the desired culture and policies, management should find out why and
initiate change to bring them back in balance. When practices do not
correspond to policies, lenders may not clearly understand the culture, credit
controls may not be effective, policies and systems may be inappropriate for
the credit environment, or employees may be rewarded for behaviors that are
different from those advanced by policy. If the risk profile deviates from
cultural norms, management should reassess the limits, policies, and
practices.
Senior management and the board should periodically evaluate the banks
credit culture and risk profile. Are marketing plans and financial budgets
consistent with credit risk objectives? Do lender compensation programs

reward performance that promotes strong credit quality? Do employees
behaviors demonstrate their understanding of the culture? Because the credit
culture influences every aspect of the credit process, management should
regularly confirm that the culture is consistent with the desired appetite for
risk. Independent audit and internal loan review functions should help with
this assessment.
Significant cultural confusion can surface in merged and acquired companies.

Integrating credit cultures can prove time-consuming and difficult. Efforts to
force or hasten the transition are often disruptive. Banks should test
frequently to discover whether staff members are being assimilated into the
credit culture and whether the culture is consistent with policy. This can be
accomplished informally by talking to staff members, or more formally by
reviewing recommendations, such as new loan proposals or exceptions, to
ensure that the staffs actions reflect the desired culture.
Loan Portfolio Objectives
Loan portfolio objectives establish specific, measurable goals for the

portfolio. They are an outgrowth of the credit culture and risk profile. The
board of directors must ensure that loans are made with the following three
basic objectives in mind:
To grant loans on a sound and collectible basis.

To invest the banks funds profitably for the benefit of shareholders and
the protection of depositors.
To serve the legitimate credit needs of their communities.
Strategic Planning for the Loan Portfolio
For most banks, meeting these three objectives will require that senior
management and the board of directors develop medium- and long-term
strategic plans and objectives for the loan portfolio. These strategies should
be consistent with the strategic direction and risk tolerance of the institution.
They should be developed with a clear understanding of their risk/reward
consequences. They also should be reviewed periodically and modified as
appropriate. In drawing up strategic objectives, management and the board
should consider establishing:

What proportion of the balance sheet the loan portfolio should
comprise.
Goals for loan quality.
Goals for portfolio diversification.
How much the portfolio should contribute to the banks financial
objectives.
Loan product mix.
Loan growth targets by product, market, and portfolio segment.
Product specialization.
What the banks geographic markets should be.
Targeted industries.
Targeted market share.
Community needs and service.
General financial objectives (e.g., increase fee income).
The banks loan policies, underwriting guidelines, and procedures should

communicate and support the strategic objectives for the portfolio. MIS
should be able to inform management about whether performance measures
up to plans. Management should evaluate business, marketing, and
compensation plans to ensure that short-term goals and incentives are
consistent with strategic portfolio objectives and risk tolerances.
In community banks without formal strategic plans, senior management

should be able to articulate the banks strategic objectives. It should be
evident, as well, that the board of directors has endorsed those objectives.
Financial Goals
Business plans or budgets detailing the financial goals for the loan portfolio
are the next step in the strategic planning and goal setting process. Business
plans should set realistic financial goals that are consistent with strategic goals
and risk tolerance levels. Bankers and examiners should be alert to
aggressive financial goals because they generally require high growth and
increased risk-taking.
Banks typically assess their financial performance using measurements such

as earnings, return on equity, and return on assets. Financial performance
measures should also consider the relationship between risk and return.

Banks should assess the risk/return relationship at both the individual loan
and portfolio level. While more sophisticated loan pricing models include
multiple factors to differentiate risk, smaller banks can get acceptable results
with basic models relating a few variables loan income to capital, for
example. Banks increasingly are measuring the financial performance of
loan portfolios by their risk-adjusted returns. The OCC encourages banks to
incorporate more risk/reward analysis into their loan underwriting decisions
and portfolio management practices.
Risk Tolerance
In addition to establishing strategic objectives for the loan portfolio, senior

management and the board are responsible for setting risk limits on the
banks lending activities. Risk limits should take into consideration the
banks historical loss experience, its ability to absorb future losses, and the
banks desired level of return. Limits may be set in various ways, individually
and in combination. For example, they may be applied to a characteristic of
individual loans, to the volume of a particular segment of the loan portfolio,
and to the composition of the portfolio as a whole. Limits on loans to certain
industries or on certain segments of the portfolio should be set with an eye to
their impact on the portfolios aggregate risk. In other words, as some limits
are raised, it may be necessary to lower others to maintain the desired overall
level of risk. Limits should be based on the interrelationship of risk and
reward and on the risk to capital, earnings, or both.
The bank should have a system in place to ensure that exposures approaching
risk limits are brought to the attention of senior management and the board.
Both on- and off-balance-sheet exposure should be included in the risk limit
measurement system. Exceeding or modifying established risk limits should
require their explicit approval. In addition, any proposed changes to the
banks underwriting standards should be evaluated to determine how the
change will affect overall portfolio risk.
Portfolio Risk and Reward

Banking is both a risk-taking and profit-making business, and bank loan
portfolios should return profits commensurate with their risk. Although this
concept is intellectually sound and almost universally accepted by bankers

and examiners alike, banks have had difficulty implementing it. Over the
years, volatility in banks earnings usually has been linked to the loan
portfolio. While there are many contributing factors including market forces,
anxiety for income, poor risk measurement, and weak risk management, a
common underlying factor has been banks tendency to underestimate or
underprice credit risk. Because bank managements and boards are
responsible for serving their communities, achieving acceptable shareholder
returns, and protecting the interests of depositors, they need to ensure that the
loan portfolio provides consistent, reasonable returns. Individual credits and
portfolio segments should be priced to provide reasonable shareholder
returns while maintaining adequate capital and allowance levels.
The price (index rate, spread, and fees) charged for an individual credit
should cover funding costs, overhead/administrative expenses, the required
profit margin (generally expressed as a return on assets or equity), and risk.
Funding costs are relatively easy to measure and incorporate into loan
pricing. Measuring overhead and administrative costs is more complicated
because banks traditionally have not had strong cost accounting systems.
Additionally, common services with differing or ambiguous values to each
user (What, for example, is the dollar value of loan review?) can be difficult
to measure. The required profit margin is a straightforward concept and is
usually derived from the strategic plan.
This leaves risk, which is the crux of the pricing dilemma. The methods
used to incorporate risk into loan pricing decisions range from simple pro-
rata allocations of existing loan loss reserves and capital to complex
estimations of default frequency and probability, loss levels, and loss
volatility. Recent developments in credit and portfolio risk measurement and
modeling are improving banks ability to measure and price risk more
precisely and are facilitating the management of capital and the allowance for
loan and lease losses. However, these methods require accurate risk
measurement at the individual loan level and robust portfolio risk MIS.
Even with these developments, the loan pricing decision is clouded. Banks
often incorporate other revenues attributed to the lending relationship into
the loan pricing decision. The lending relationship has been, and continues
to be, used to win other business with the customer (cash management
services, F/X and derivatives sales, custody, etc.). Relationship pricing and

profitability measures are important tools for managing credit and portfolio
returns. These concepts are increasingly used to identify profitable business
opportunities and to cull lending relationships whose returns are insufficient
relative to risk. Both bankers and examiners, however, must be alert to
inappropriate application of relationship pricing and return methods. Loans
may be booked at unprofitable rates based on the assumption, or promise,
that other profitable business will follow. When the other business fails to
materialize, the returns may be insufficient to compensate the bank for the
credit risk. Banks should have systems to accurately measure relationship
returns, and must exercise tight controls over loans granted on the basis that
relationship profitability will be achieved in the future.
Portfolio risk and return concepts encompass almost all of the credit risk
measurement and management principles discussed throughout this booklet.
Ultimately, the risks in individual credits, lending relationships, portfolio
segments, and entire portfolios will be incorporated into pricing decisions
through discrete risk-based allowance and capital charges. For now, pricing
for risk continues to be a developing science. Banks are encouraged to
develop sufficient systems to measure and price risk within credits and
portfolios accordingly.
The Loan Policy
The loan policy is the primary means by which senior management and the
board guide lending activities. Although the policy primarily imposes
standards, it also is a statement of the banks basic credit philosophy. It
provides a framework for achieving asset quality and earnings objectives, sets
risk tolerance levels, and guides the banks lending activities in a manner
consistent with the banks strategic direction. Loan policy sets standards for
portfolio composition, individual credit decisions, fair lending, and
compliance management.
Loan policies vary in length, organization, degree of detail, and breadth of

topics there is no ideal format. Frequently, the banks general lending
policy will be supplemented by more detailed underwriting standards,
guidelines, and procedures. [N.B. Hereafter, references to loan policy should
be interpreted to include these supplements.] Within the same banking
company, certain aspects of the policy may vary because of factors such as

geographic location, economic conditions, personnel, or portfolio objectives.
The format should be tailored to fit the needs of a particular bank, and the
scope and detail should be commensurate with the complexity of the banks
lending activities.
In all but very small community banks, the loan policy will be written. The
policy should provide a realistic description of where the bank wants to
position itself on the risk/reward spectrum. It needs to provide sufficient
latitude for a bank to respond to good business opportunities while
concurrently controlling credit risk. In normal circumstances, a bank should
be able to achieve portfolio objectives and respond to changing market
conditions without triggering a limit. Limits should not be so conservative
that insignificant changes breach them, nor should they be so liberal that they
have no practical effect.
For the policy to be an effective risk management tool, it must clearly

establish the responsibilities of those involved in the lending process. For
example, who is authorized to approve a covenant violation, who arbitrates
risk rating differences, can a credit-scored decision be overridden? Lenders
must know what is expected of them. When policy is vague or too broad,
credit standards may be unclear and virtually nothing may be regarded as an
exception. If the policy states that a bank will extend credit to established
businesses, almost any company would qualify. But a policy further
requiring the business to be profitable, in operation for at least two years, and
located within the banks community is providing meaningful guidance.
When policy is too prescriptive and particular, exceptions to policy will
become the rule and meaningless exception data will mask meaningful
trends, thereby diminishing the effectiveness of the policy.
Because exceptions are so important, the policy should address them

specifically; it should state when they are acceptable and how they should be
identified, mitigated, and documented. Some lending standards, such as
those that implement legal requirements or those whose violation quickly
translates into losses, have greater significance than others. More substantive
exceptions should have heightened reporting requirements to senior
management and the board. Failure to comply with the provisions of loan
policy concerning exceptions is generally regarded as a material weakness.

Significant numbers of material exceptions should be a factor in a lenders
performance evaluation.
Policies should be periodically reviewed and revised to accommodate

changes in the banks strategic direction, risk tolerance, or market conditions.
Policy review should consider the organizational structure, breadth and
complexity of lending activities, capabilities and skills of lending personnel,
and strategic portfolio quality and earnings objectives. Changes in
regulations and business conditions also need to be considered. In addition
to providing an opportunity for change, the review should evaluate how well
the policy has guided lending decisions. For example, a high volume of
exceptions indicates that many loan decisions are being made outside the
policy. This could mean that the bank is assuming more risk than is desirable
or that the policy is too restrictive. If the banks policy is too restrictive,
easing it could increase business opportunities without unduly increasing
risk. Conversely, the absence of exceptions may indicate that the policy is
too vague, and a tightening of the policy could strengthen the controls on
loan quality. All policy reviews should include the organizational unit
responsible for assessing compliance with policy.
Loan Policy Topics
While the form and contents of loan policies and procedures will vary from
bank to bank, there are some topics that should be covered in all cases.
These are:
Loan authorities.
Limits on aggregate loans and commitments.
Portfolio distribution by loan category and product.
Geographic limits.
Desirable types of loans.
Underwriting criteria.
Financial information and analysis requirements.
Collateral and structure requirements.
Margin requirements.
Pricing guidelines.
Documentation standards.
Collections and charge-offs.

Reporting requirements.
Guidelines for loan participations.
Off-balance-sheet exposure.
These topics are described in more detail in appendix A.
The policy may also address insider transactions, affiliate transactions,

conflicts of interest, the code of ethics, community support, appraisal
requirements, environmental assessment requirements, relevant accounting
issues (such as charge-off loans, nonperforming loans, and debt restructuring),
and the allowance for loan and lease losses. Any administrative requirements
for granting loans should be covered in the policy. Policies and procedures
should also ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Loan Approval Process
The loan approval process is the first step towards good portfolio quality.
When individual credits are underwritten with sound credit principles, the
credit quality of the portfolio is much more likely to be sound. Although
good loans sometimes go bad, a loan that starts out bad is likely to stay that
way. The foremost means to control loan quality is a solid loan approval
process.
The OCC does not recommend any particular system of loan approval.
However, every loan approval process should introduce sufficient controls to
ensure acceptable credit quality at origination. The process should be
compatible with the banks credit culture, its risk profile, and the capabilities
of its lenders. Further, the system for loan approvals needs to establish
accountability.
Each method of loan approval has inherent strengths and weaknesses. The
committee method is advantageous because knowledge can be shared, but it
may diminish accountability and often slows a banks responsiveness. The
individual signature authority system is more timely and establishes clear
accountability, but it can create undue credit risk if a lenders knowledge and
experience are inadequate to his or her authority. Laddered or joint
authorities, variations that some banks employ, combine elements of both
systems. The involvement of an independent loan approval authority whose

primary goal is quality (such authority might be invested in a senior credit
officer or credit administrator) is also a method to introduce more objectivity
to the loan approval process. Whatever approach or combination of
approaches a bank uses, internal control mechanisms are necessary to ensure
that the approval system produces sound credit decisions.
An effective loan approval process establishes minimum requirements for the

information and analysis upon which a credit decision is based. It provides
guidance on the documents needed to approve new credit, renew credit,
increase credit to existing borrowers, and change terms in previously
approved credits. It will also designate who has the authority to approve
credit or changes in credit terms. Loan authorities should be commensurate
with the experience of the lender/credit officer and take into consideration
the type of credit, the amount of credit, and the level of risk involved.
Generally, underwriting document standards should include:
Financial information including:

current and historical balance sheet and income data,
balance sheet, income, and cash flow projections, when
appropriate, and
comparative industry data when appropriate.
Financial analysis, including repayment capacity.
Collateral identification and valuation.
Guarantor support and related financial information.
Summary of borrower and affiliated credit relationships.
Loan terms, including tenor and repayment structure.
Pricing information, including relationship profitability data.
Covenants and requirements for future submission of financial data.
Exceptions to policy and underwriting guidelines and mitigants.
Information fields to capture data for concentration reporting,
identifying SNCs (shared national credits), etc.
Risk rating or recommended risk rating.
The approval process for consumer loans may be more streamlined, but
should still include sufficient information to support the credit granting
decision, including, when applicable, scorecard data.

Portfolio Management
Oversight
To properly administer the loan portfolio, the bank should clearly define the
roles and responsibilities of management. Typically, one person or group is
responsible and authorized to take the steps necessary to assure that risk in
the portfolio stays within acceptable bounds. Since this goal can be
accomplished by a variety of structures, the OCC does not favor any
particular one the best system is the one that meets the banks needs.
Risk Identification
Effective risk identification starts with the evaluation of individual credits.

Rating the risk of each loan in timely credit evaluations is fundamental to
loan portfolio management. Some banks apply risk ratings to relationships,
others prefer to rate each facility, and still others rate both relationships and
facilities. All of these approaches are acceptable to the OCC. Risk ratings
should also be applied to off-balance-sheet exposures like letters of credit and
unfunded commitments that the bank is obligated to fund unless there is a
default. These evaluations allow the prompt detection of changes in portfolio
quality, enabling management to modify portfolio strategies and intensify the
supervision of weaker credits in a timely manner.
In grading loans for supervisory purposes, the OCC uses five categories: pass,
special mention, substandard, doubtful, and loss. Banks are encouraged to
use these regulatory classifications as a foundation for their own risk rating
systems. The OCC further encourages banks to expand their risk ratings for
pass credits. Using multiple ratings to differentiate the risks of pass
credits facilitates portfolio risk measurement and analysis, pricing for risk, and
early warning objectives. The number of additional ratings used will vary from
bank to bank and will depend on the banks own risk management
objectives.
After each loan has been risk rated, the ratings of individual credits should
be reviewed, and they should be analyzed in the context of the portfolio
segment and the entire portfolio. The analysis should ensure that ratings are
consistently applied and should consider trends, migration data, and

weighted average risk ratings. Risk ratings, when used in conjunction with
other information (such as exception levels, past-due trends, and loan
growth), can produce an instructive picture of asset quality and credit risk.
Risk ratings can help the banks portfolio managers in other ways as well
when they set underwriting standards, asset diversification goals, and pricing
levels, for example.
Loan policy should designate who is accountable for the accuracy of risk
ratings. The account officer is a logical choice because he or she knows
more about the credit than anyone else and should have access to timely
financial information from the borrower. Assigning the account officer risk
rating responsibility heightens his or her accountability for credit quality and
has derivative benefits for loan approvals and account management. Some
banks assign risk rating responsibility to a credit officer, loan review officer,
or a more senior bank officer. While these officers may be more objective
and experienced, they may be less sensitive to subtle changes in the
borrowers condition, and their ratings changes may be less timely. Perhaps
most important, making someone other than the account officer accountable
may diminish his or her sense of responsibility for identifying and controlling
credit risk.
A process should be in place to ensure that risk ratings are updated in a

timely fashion and that appropriate changes are made anytime there is a
significant occurrence. Absent such an event, the frequency of risk rating
analysis should be a function of the loans complexity and quality, the
portfolios risk characteristics, and the quality of the lending staff. At a
minimum, risk rating evaluations should be conducted annually. More
frequent attention should be given to certain kinds of credits criticized
loans, loans to borrowers in a troubled industry, and loans supervised by an
inexperienced or weak lender, for example. All risk ratings should be
reassessed when significant new information is received. Risk rating analyses
should be coordinated with analyses of the allowance for loan and lease
losses.
Management should systematically verify account officers risk ratings. In

larger banks, an independent loan review department usually evaluates the
ratings; in smaller banks, senior managers who are not involved in credit
decisions or a loan review officer (full-time or part-time) can evaluate

samples. Small banks can also outsource the evaluation. Whatever system is
selected, it should reflect the complexity and size of the portfolio and be
independent of the lending function. Each account officers performance
evaluation should take into account the accuracy of his or her risk ratings.
Because of their importance, risk identification system concepts and risk

rating accuracy are discussed in several sections of this booklet and in other
handbook booklets. For additional information please refer in the
Comptrollers Handbook to Classification of Credits: Domestic and
International and Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses, as well as the
booklets that address specialized lending.
Nonaccrual Status (Updated June 26, 2017)
Banks should follow the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Councils

Instructions for Preparation of Consolidated Reports of Condition and
Income (call report instructions) when determining the accrual status for
loan portfolio management. As a general rule, banks shall not accrue
interest, amortize deferred net loan fees or costs, or accrete discount on any
asset if
the asset is maintained on a cash basis because of deterioration in the

financial condition of the borrower,
payment in full of principal or interest is not expected, or
principal or interest has been in default for a period of 90 days or more
unless the asset is both well secured and in the process of collection. 1
The call report instructions provide one exception to the general rule for
commercial loans: 2
1
An asset is well secured if it is secured (1) by collateral in the form of liens on or pledges of real or
personal property, including securities, that have a realizable value sufficient to discharge the debt (including
accrued interest) in full, or (2) by the guarantee of a financially responsible party. An asset is in the process
of collection if collection of the asset is proceeding in due course either (1) through legal action, including
judgment enforcement procedures, or, (2) in appropriate circumstances, through collection efforts not
involving legal action which are reasonably expected to result in repayment of the debt or in its restoration to
a current status in the near future.
2
For more information, refer to the Nonaccrual Status entry in the Glossary section of the call report
instructions. This entry describes the general rule for the accrual of interest, as well as the exception for
commercial loans. The entry also describes criteria for returning a nonaccrual loan to accrual status.

Purchased credit-impaired loans need not be placed in nonaccrual
status when the criteria for accrual of income under the interest
method are met, regardless of whether the loans had been maintained
in nonaccrual status by the seller. 3
As a general rule, a nonaccrual loan may be returned to accrual status when
none of its principal and interest is due and unpaid and the bank expects
repayment of the remaining contractual principal and interest, or
it otherwise becomes well secured and is in the process of collection.
The OCCs Bank Accounting Advisory Series and the Rating Credit Risk
booklet provide more information for the recognition of nonaccrual loans,
including the appropriate treatment of cash payments for loans on
nonaccrual.
Exceptions to Policy, Procedures, and Underwriting Guidelines
Lending exceptions generally either relate to documentation or underwriting.

Banks should have systems to analyze and control both types of exceptions.
While it is advisable to identify, mitigate, and monitor all exceptions, the
level of attention and reporting should correspond with the materiality of the
exception. A missing title can be handled satisfactorily at the administrative
level, but a breach of the house lending limit should be brought to the
attention of senior management and the board. Institutions making low
documentation small business and farm loans are exempt from exception
tracking for the qualifying loans. (For additional information refer to Banking
Bulletin 93-18.)
Documentation Exceptions
Loan documentation refers broadly to the documents needed to legally

enforce the loan agreement and properly analyze the borrowers financial
capacity. When a document is missing, stale, or improperly executed, it
3
For more information, refer to the call report instructions Glossary section, entry Purchased Credit-Impaired
Loans and Debt Securities.

becomes an exception. Common loan documents are promissory notes, note
guarantees, financial statements, collateral agreements, and appraisals. The
promissory note, guarantee, and financial statement must be properly
prepared and signed; the financial statement must be received and analyzed
in a timely manner by the bank; and the collateral agreement must be
recorded in the appropriate jurisdiction.
Documentation exceptions can exacerbate problem loans and seriously

hamper work-out efforts. For example, failure to ensure that financial
information is received and reviewed in a timely manner can preclude the
early identification of potential problems and the opportunity to give those
problems immediate attention. Failure to promptly review financial
information can delay the identification of covenant violations, which may
jeopardize the enforceability of the loan agreement. Neglecting to renew a
UCC filing can turn a secured credit into an unsecured credit.
In most banks, loan administration is the control point for loan

documentation. A bank should systematically identify document exceptions,
initiate timely resolution, and ensure that documentation remains current and
valid throughout the loan term. Pre-closing reviews by the lender or attorney
and post-closing reviews by loan administration will surface most
deficiencies. Needless to say, document exceptions are much easier to
rectify before a loan is funded. Banks should analyze document exception
patterns to identify problems in the origination process as well as to identify
officers, units, or geographic locations that need to strengthen their
compliance with policies on documentation. The effectiveness of this control
function should be reviewed by audit and loan review.
Policy and Underwriting Exceptions
Policy and underwriting exceptions are conditions in approved loans that

violate the loan policy or underwriting guidelines. Because underwriting
guidelines are the primary means by which the bank steers lending decisions
toward planned strategic objectives and maintains desired levels of risk
within the portfolio, deviations from these guidelines should be well
documented and justified.
Banks serve a broad constituency. In order to meet the legitimate credit

needs of their communities and service creditworthy borrowers, banks will
occasionally approve loans outside established guidelines. Loans with
approved exceptions are often acceptable risks and should not be criticized
solely because of their exceptions. However, these credits often warrant
closer-than-normal supervision.
Identifying and approving exceptions is part of effective portfolio risk

management. The loan approval document should clearly identify
exceptions and provide mitigants that justify the decision to underwrite. This
information should be kept in the permanent loan file.
Aggregate Exception Tracking and Reporting
Tracking the aggregate level of exceptions helps detect shifts in the risk
characteristics of loan portfolios. In consumer lending, where such tracking
is common, it has facilitated risk evaluation, strengthened portfolio liquidity,
and helped management to identify new business opportunities. Similar
benefits can accrue from tracking underwriting exceptions in commercial and
real estate loan portfolios.
When viewed individually, underwriting exceptions may not appear to

increase risk significantly; exceptions are often well mitigated shortly after the
transaction has taken place. However, when aggregated, even well mitigated
exceptions can increase portfolio risk significantly. Aggregate exceptions
levels should be analyzed regularly and reported to the banks board of
directors. These analyses and reports allow the board and management to
evaluate underwriting practices and assess the level of compliance with the
general loan policy. An excessive volume or a pattern of exceptions may
signal an unintended or unwarranted relaxation of the banks underwriting
practices. If the volume of exceptions is high, the board of directors may be
prompted to reconsider its tolerance for risk; to revise the banks general loan
policy to bring it more into line with the banks credit culture or current
market conditions; to place new limits on the aggregate volume of
exceptions; or to change the type of exceptions permitted in the banks loan
portfolio. Early identification and analysis of adverse trends in the level of
exceptions, whether for a particular department, type of loan, or loan officer
will allow the bank to consider appropriate corrective action.

Exceptions pose varying degrees of risk and their relative significance changes
as portfolio composition, risk levels, and external conditions change. Over
time, the analysis of aggregate exceptions will enable a bank to correlate
particular types of loan policy exceptions with a high probability of default.
Portfolio managers should compare the performance of exception loans
with that of loans made within policy guidelines. In consumer portfolios,
tracking aggregate exceptions facilitates override and over-limit decisions and
aids in controlling underwriting risk.
Since effective exception tracking systems facilitate better risk management,

banks are encouraged to establish these systems and to improve them when
they can. Supervisory focus should be directed toward the risks that
exceptions create in aggregate or individually, rather than on the exceptions
themselves. Examiners should determine whether the bank analyzes
exceptions in a thorough and timely manner and whether corrective action
follows when necessary. While high volumes of exceptions may indicate
increased risk, a lack of exceptions to the loan policy may indicate that the
policy is too general to set clear limits on underwriting risk. When policy is
revised in response to high volumes of exceptions, examiners should assess
the implications of the revision and the impact on risk.
Portfolio Segmentation and Risk Diversification
Risk diversification is a basic tenet of portfolio management. Concentrations

of credit risk occur within a portfolio when otherwise unrelated loans are
linked by a common characteristic. If this common characteristic becomes a
common source of weakness for the loans in concentration, the loans could
pose considerable risk to earnings and capital.
Identifying Concentrations of Risk
Managing the loan portfolio includes managing any concentrations of risk.

By segmenting the portfolio into pools of loans with similar characteristics,
management can evaluate them in light of the banks portfolio objectives and
risk tolerances and, when necessary, develop strategies for reducing,
diversifying, or otherwise mitigating the associated risks.

For many banks, portfolio segmentation has customarily meant dividing the
loan portfolio into broad categories by loan types such as commercial and
industrial loans, real estate loans, and consumer loans. As segmentation
techniques became more sophisticated, banks identified industry
concentrations. Although these divisions are a good starting point, the full
benefits of portfolio segmentation can be realized only if the bank is able to
form segments using a broader range of risk characteristics.
The defining characteristics of some useful segments are readily discernible

borrowers industry, geographic area, collateral, tenor, facility structure,
and risk rating, for example. Other examples are: loans to consumers
working for the same employer (or in the same industry), loans to commercial
companies that are dependent on the same suppliers (or that sell to the same
customers), loans with a common purpose or source of repayment (including
guarantor support), loans to affiliated borrowers, and loans to industry sectors
that are likely to react in a similar manner to a change for instance, the
trucking and airline industries because of their sensitivity to the price of oil.
Because loans have multiple characteristics, it would not be unusual for a
loan to be included in more than one portfolio segment. A construction loan,
for example, might be included in a real estate concentration report, a
geographic concentration report, and a report of non-amortizing loans.
Segmenting a portfolio and diversifying risk require comprehensive

management information systems. The MIS data base should include both
on- and off-balance-sheet credit exposure. If a bank lacks adequate data on
each loan or does not possess a system to slice and dice the data for
analysis, managements ability to manage the loan portfolio is compromised.
But identifying the concentration is only half the job; understanding the
dynamics of the concentration and how it will behave in different economic
scenarios is the other half. As information about a particular concentration is
refined, its effect on the portfolio risk profile can be better evaluated. For
example, a bank with a concentration in the communications industry should
be able to monitor developments within that industry, track the performance
of the portfolio segment, and relate developments in that segment to the
overall portfolio. Banks should not be taking risks in industries or products
they do not understand. Examiners must use their judgment to determine
whether a banks MIS is sufficient to support effective concentration
measurement and management.

Evaluating and Managing Concentrations of Risk
Ideally, the overall portfolio composition and the level of risk in the various
pools will be consistent with the goals and guidelines established by the
banks directors. However, it is not unusual for one or more pools to raise
concern, either because of the risks associated with the loans or because of
the sheer volume of loans with similar characteristics.
Each pool should be evaluated individually that is, as a discrete pool of

risk and as part of the whole that is, by how it fits into the portfolio and
supports loan portfolio goals. A large exposure to one type of borrower or
industry may well be less risky than a small exposure to another. The goal is
to achieve the desired balance of risk and return for the portfolio as a whole.
Management should have performance standards, risk tolerance levels, and
business goals for each concentration, and it should be able to relate these to
the overall loan portfolio management strategy. 12 CFR 30, Standards for
Safety and Soundness (appendix B) requires banks to accord adequate
consideration to concentrations of credit risk in their underwriting practices.
In some cases, a pool of loans may represent a concentration of risk that is

difficult to avoid (or remedy). Smaller banks may, for example, accumulate
concentrations of risk because of their more limited geographic market and
the nature of the local economy. Larger banks may develop concentrations
of risk through mergers, or to gain leverage or build industry expertise. In
any case, the bank must decide whether a particular pool of loans represents
an undesirable concentration of risk that should be reduced.
Borrowers in a portfolio concentration exhibit similar financial characteristics

such as capital sources, repayment sources, and balance sheet structure.
Management should identify the common characteristics that influence credit
risk. Focusing monitoring efforts on these characteristics simultaneously
simplifies and strengthens the supervision of risk within the pool. Stress
testing using common financial indicators will determine which pools are
most vulnerable to credit risk and require increased attention.

Concentration Management Techniques
Over the past decade, banks, especially large ones, have been adopting more
active portfolio management practices. They are expanding their MIS
capabilities and strengthening their credit risk management practices. There
are a variety of techniques banks can use to manage portfolios and control
concentration risk.
The most common tool is setting exposure limits, or ceilings, on

concentrations. Diversifying away from a limit can be accomplished by
reducing certain exposures or increasing the borrower base. The reduction of
exposures begins with a reassessment of individual borrowers needs and
requires considerable discipline. Nonetheless, it can be a useful tool to
diversify risk over a larger customer base.
A bank can change the distribution of its assets by increasing the geographic
diversification of borrowers; altering the banks product mix (for example, by
reducing commercial lending and increasing consumer lending); or changing
the risk profile of the banks target market (for example, by turning from
middle-market, non-investment-grade customers to well-capitalized,
investment-grade customers). Asset sales can also be used to manage
concentrations. Banks sell whole loans, sell a portion of a loan into
syndication, sell participations in a loan, and securitize certain types of loans.
Each of these approaches entails risk/reward trade-offs that must be evaluated
in light of the banks strategic objectives.
Recently, banks have begun using credit derivatives to reduce the risk posed
by concentrations. Although their usage is modest in all but the largest
banks, credit derivatives are gaining acceptance. If appropriately managed,
derivatives may be useful as both a risk management tool and an investment
opportunity, especially in times of weak loan demand. Banks should strive to
understand both the benefits and the risks associated with these instruments.
As more research is conducted and their behavior is analyzed in various
economic scenarios, both the risks and benefits of credit derivatives will
become clearer. Supervision of derivative products is more fully explored in
the Risk Management of Financial Derivatives booklet of the Comptrollers
Handbook.

Stress Testing
In stress testing, a bank alters assumptions about one or more financial,
structural, or economic variables to determine the potential effect on the
performance of a loan, concentration, or portfolio segment. This can be
accomplished with back of the envelope analysis or by using sophisticated
financial models. The method employed is not the issue, rather the issue is
asking that critical what if question and incorporating the resulting answers
into the risk management process. Stress testing is a risk management
concept, and all banks will derive benefits, regardless of the sophistication of
their methods, from applying this risk management concept to their loans and
portfolios.
Banks commonly employ a form of stress testing when they subject various
assets and liabilities to hypothetical rate shock scenarios to determine their
exposure to changes in interest rates. Similarly, consumer portfolios that are
securitized (e.g., mortgages, credit cards, home equity loans) are heavily
stress tested during the structuring process to better gauge their risk and to
determine the level of credit enhancements.
While many banks use complex interest rate risk and consumer credit models
that take into account the interrelationships between many variables
simultaneously, less sophisticated testing methods can also be useful. These
same principles can also be used for evaluating commercial credit risk. Stress
testing for credit risk can be conducted on individual loans and
concentrations or other portfolio segments. Key underwriting assumptions or
a critical factor common to a particular portfolio are good candidates for
stress testing.
The MIS requirements for stress testing portfolios for credit risk can be
significant (they vary depending on the individual circumstances and
objectives of the institution). But because banks can evaluate the credit risk
of individual loans using little technical support, they should do so during
their routine credit evaluations. As part of the initial or ongoing credit
analysis, the bank can alter financial variables and assess the impact. These
results can then be rolled up to the portfolio level to assess the impact on
portfolio credit quality. For example, office space rental rates can be altered,
which affects the buildings cash flow and debt service repayment capacity.
Stress testing would allow bank management to determine at what rental rate

the project could no longer service its debt. The test results could then be
used to identify what percentage of the portfolio is vulnerable to a
hypothetical 10 percent decrease in rental rates. As the banks knowledge of
stress testing grows, it can alter a number of related variables at the same
time. Not only rental rates but also office vacancy rates can be altered (a
correlated change because occupancy rates drive rental rates). Or the bank
can analyze the response of a portfolio or portfolio segment to a variety of oil
and gas prices or regulated utility rates.
However, as these examples make clear, the usefulness of even simplified

stress testing depends on the accuracy of the model used to quantify the
sensitivity of loan performance to the selected variables. The results of any
such stress testing must always be interpreted with caution, because
important additional variables, or interrelationships among variables, may
have been omitted from the analysis.
Even if the bank cannot attach probabilities to the scenarios, stress tests can
reveal the kinds of events that might present problems. Banks should test the
debt service coverage of credits whose coverage is thin. Credits in significant
loan pool concentrations should also be stress tested as indicators of the
strength of those pools. Based on the results of stress testing, management
can develop contingency plans for the credits or pools that stress testing
indicates are vulnerable. These plans might include increasing supervision,
limiting further advances, restricting portfolio growth, devising exit
strategies, or hedging portfolio segments.
Credit portfolio stress testing is a relatively new analytical tool and the OCC
does not currently require banks to conduct stress tests or to develop or
purchase computer models to perform such tests. Bankers are encouraged,
however, to expand their capabilities. Banks of all sizes will benefit by
supplementing stress testing of individual loans with portfolio stress testing.
They may also want to consider credit modeling software as it becomes
more refined and readily available for stress testing.
Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses
Banks must have a program to establish and regularly review the adequacy
of their allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL). The ALLL exists to cover

any losses in the loan (and lease) portfolio of all banks. As such, adequate
management of the allowance is an integral part of managing credit risk. A
major function of effective loan portfolio management is establishing and
maintaining an effective process to ensure the adequacy of the ALLL. Credit
management is normally responsible for developing and implementing a
method of determining whether the ALLL is adequate. The method should
include periodic assessments of the level of risk in the loan portfolio and an
analysis to ensure that the allowance is adequate to absorb inherent losses.
Guidance on assessing the ALLL process and adequacy is included in the

ALLL booklet of the Comptrollers Handbook.
Credit Management Information Systems
The effectiveness of the banks LPM process heavily depends on the quality
of management information systems (MIS). Indeed, many of the
advancements of contemporary portfolio management are the direct result of
the more robust MIS that is available today. At the same time, many banks
are frustrated in their efforts to expand portfolio risk management by the
limitations of their MIS. Loan portfolio managers and examiners should be
active proponents of the continued improvement of credit-related MIS.
While a banks systems or technology often impedes MIS improvement, lack
of understanding or poor communications between credit management and
systems personnel can also do so.
Credit-related MIS helps management and the board to fulfill their respective
oversight roles. Therefore, when assessing MIS-produced credit reports, the
examiner should determine whether the users are receiving the right kind of
information at the right time. Reports to senior management and the board
must be more than a presentation of numbers; they must be analytical in
nature and allow the users to draw independent conclusions. For example, a
report presenting the level of classified assets has limited value; however, if
the report contains historical information and shows the classified asset
position relative to capital, it becomes more useful. Similarly, reports on
numbers of exceptions to policy are not very useful, but reports on aggregate
exceptions as a percentage of industry or specialized lending portfolios may
signal a change in risk assumption. Summary data presented in a concise
format generally satisfies managements needs. A report should not give

management or the board more information than it can understand in the
time it has to devote to the topic.
Line lending managers have different requirements than senior management

and the board. In order to properly inform such different user groups, a bank
requires good systems architecture. An ideal system would enable a banker
to query, track, and aggregate in all loan data fields; prepare a standard array
of reports; and prepare ad hoc reports. Bank management and examiners
should assess the adequacy and accuracy of the banks MIS based on the size
and scope of lending activities and any planned changes in the portfolio.
The best technology can be next to worthless if the data are not accurate.
Only if data are updated periodically and out-of-date loan information purged
can MIS reports remain accurate and useful. Preserving the reliability of MIS
can be especially difficult in banks that are expanding rapidly. Common data
integrity problems include incorrect industry codes, failure to report
delinquency, incomplete or outdated information on loan participations,
failure to archive note origination dates and amounts at renewal or
modification, inaccurate underwriting exception capture, lack of clear reports
and reporting lines, incorrect risk ratings or failure to archive risk ratings
when a change occurs, and omission of off-balance-sheet exposure. Loan
review, credit administration, and audit play a vital role in ensuring that data
are accurate. When MIS deficiencies or inaccuracies jeopardize or restrict
credit risk management practices, examiners will need to identify the root
cause and initiate corrective action.
Collections and Work-out
Banks differ on the methods and organization they use to manage problem
loans. The responsibilities for such loans may lie with the originating line
unit or a specialized work-out division, depending on the loan size or type.
Work-out units are usually staffed with specialized work-out lenders. It is not
uncommon for the work-out department to be independent from the line
lending unit, but the organization should be dictated by the needs of the
bank. Credit policy should articulate how a bank will manage problem
credits. A separate policy on problem loans often supplements corporate
loan policy.

Routine collection activities generally are handled by the account officers or a
specialized collection department. When collection problems persist or
credit weaknesses become more pronounced and risk ratings deteriorate,
many banks find it beneficial to transfer problem loans to a unit that
specializes in work-out activity. The additional resources and closer
management supervision of a work-out department normally improve results.
Although the managerial responsibility for the credit is transferred to work-
out, the financial responsibility, i.e., who is charged with any losses, should
be retained by the originating unit.
Specialized work-out units can save a bank considerable money especially

during an economic downturn. An effective work-out unit can help craft a
strategy to return a troubled borrower to financial health. Because of their
proficiency with both rehabilitation and exit strategies, work-out personnel
should be closely involved in developing strategy for marginally rated
borrowers or any problem loans that are supervised by the line account
officer. An experienced work-out unit can provide valuable guidance during
initial underwriting and restructures that can help to ensure that the banks
return is maximized in the event of default.
Successful loan work-outs depend on early identification of credit weaknesses

and adverse credit trends. The banks credit culture and risk rating system
should encourage lenders and managers to identify problem loans in a timely
manner. To facilitate early identification, the banks risk rating system should
have ratings grades for loans that are beginning to exhibit increased risk
attributes. These ratings should trigger additional oversight and monitoring.
Because lenders are often quite reluctant to transfer a credit even after a
problem has been identified, banks should be on guard against their lenders
reluctance to lower loan risk ratings. For lenders to surface loan problems at
the earliest possible stage, the positive support of senior management and the
board is essential. An added benefit of early identification of individual
problem loans is the opportunity it affords credit management to identify and
address the systemic risks posed by those loans or groups of similar loans.
Managing problem credits is time-consuming (time that a lender could

profitably spend on other duties) and requires special knowledge. Many
banks require lenders to transfer problem assets to a work-out unit (with
provision for documented exceptions). Such an automatic transfer policy
enables a bank to ensure that its dealings with troubled borrowers are

uniform. In larger banks where a relationship may contain facilities managed
by more than one department, it is generally preferable to transfer the entire
credit relationship to ensure consistent treatment of the borrower.
An important part of the work-out and collection process is the performance

of post mortem reviews to better understand how problem loans and losses
develop. At least for all larger loans, analysts should compare each loans
terms and characteristics with underwriting guidelines, and they should
determine the borrowers financial condition at the time of loan approval, the
timeliness of problem identification, the accuracy of collateral evaluation, the
effectiveness of financial covenant structure, and adequacy of documentation.
Lending Control Functions
Besides the loan policy, the primary controls over a banks lending activities
are its credit administration, loan review, and audit functions. Independent
credit administration, loan review, and audit functions are necessary to
ensure that the banks risk management process, MIS, and internal and
accounting controls are reliable and effective. The banks control functions
can also provide senior management and the board with a periodic
assessment of how the banks employees understand its credit culture and
whether their behaviors conform to the banks standards and values.
Independence
Independence is the ability to provide an objective report of facts and to form

impartial opinions. Without independence, the effectiveness of control units
may be jeopardized. Independence generally requires a separation of duties
and reporting lines. However, it should not be assumed that the
independence of a control function is solely a function of reporting lines.
Independence also depends heavily on the corporate cultures valuing and
promoting objective oversight and constructive criticism. No individual or
group should be expected to preserve its independence on its own; instead,
senior management, the board, the credit culture, and the organizational
framework should all support the independence of control units.
Budget constraints can compromise the independence and ultimately the

effectiveness of control functions. Control areas are easy targets for expense

reduction efforts because they do not generate revenue. But the costs of
control functions are relatively small compared with the much greater costs
that historically have resulted from their absence. Before reducing staffing
levels, coverage, or review cycles for control units, management should
carefully assess the risks to the institution. If management and the board
choose to make such reductions, they should be prepared to support them in
their overall corporate strategic plan.
Credit Policy Administration
Credit policy administration is responsible for the day-to-day supervision of

the loan policy. The unit decides whether the policy provides adequate
guidance for lending activities, determines whether employees are following
loan policy, reports policy violations, and administers policy and
underwriting exceptions. If policy needs to be supplemented or modified,
credit policy administration drafts the changes. This unit may also assist the
account officers with routine account maintenance such as monitoring
covenant compliance and ensuring that financial statements are received,
spread, and analyzed in a timely manner.
Credit policy administration is responsible for the body of written documents

loan policy, loan procedures, and policy-related credit memorandums
that govern the credit process. The unit should establish a formal process for
developing, implementing and reviewing policy directives.
Loan Review
Loan review is a mainstay of internal control of the loan portfolio. Periodic

objective reviews of credit risk levels and risk management processes are
essential to effective portfolio management. To ensure the independence of
loan review, the unit should report administratively and functionally to the
board of directors or a standing committee with audit responsibilities. The
board or committee approves the units operating budget, prepares the
performance evaluation for the divisions head, approves the units strategic
and operating plans, acts on the units findings, and ratifies administrative
matters. While it is not as critical that loan reviews administrative lines have
independence, the functional lines should not be compromised. The units
independence that is, its ability to remain objective during examinations

should be protected.
The LPM examiner should focus on the role and effectiveness of loan review
as part of a comprehensive loan portfolio management process. Weaknesses
in loan review hamper the entire portfolio management process and may
signal the need for more extensive testing during an examination.
Assessment of the loan review function should also include evaluation of its
role in assuring the effectiveness of the loan portfolio management process.
The loan review function should go beyond transactional testing to include
evaluation of how well individual departments perform.
Audit
12 CFR 30, Standards for Safety and Soundness (see appendix B), provides
that a bank should establish a system of independent, ongoing credit review
and the results of the credit reviews should be communicated to management
and the board of directors.
Audit activities in lending departments usually focus on the accounting

controls in the administrative support functions. While loan review has
primary responsibility for evaluating credit risk management controls, audit
will generally be responsible for validating the lending-related models (e.g.,
loan pricing models, funds transfer pricing, financial analysis software, credit
scoring). The logical structure and assumptions, as well as the data and
mathematical algorithms used by the models, must be accurate. Audits
should be done at least annually and whenever models are revised or
replaced.
Administrative and functional reporting lines for the audit function should be
similar to those for the loan review function. A full discussion of the OCCs
expectations with respect to the banks audit function can be found in the
booklet Internal and External Audit.
Administrative and Documentation Controls
The responsibilities of credit administration will vary widely from bank to

bank. Credit administration is the operations arm of the lending function.
For purposes of this booklet, credit administration includes the backroom
functions of loan disbursement, loan processing and billing, lien perfection,
and credit and collateral documentation.
Credit administration is an important control mechanism. In fact, the
backroom processing functions are often the first line of defense.
Weaknesses in credit administration can pose significant safety and
soundness issues for the bank. 12 CFR 30, Standards for Safety and
Soundness (see appendix B), establishes guidelines for loan documentation
practices. Credit administration is normally reviewed periodically by audit,
loan review, or both. Concerns about the adequacy of credit administration
may signal the need for more extensive testing.
Communication with Senior Management and the Board
Both senior management and the board of directors should receive clear,
concise, timely information about the loan portfolio and its attendant risks.
Examiners should determine that management has clearly communicated
strategic objectives and risk limits to the board and that the board has
approved them. Examiners should also ensure that risk measurement and
analysis is adequately reported to both senior management and the board.
Reports to senior management should provide sufficient information for

independent evaluation of risk and trends. Reports to the board generally
should not contain the same level of detail as those provided to senior
management, although in the smallest banks management reports may be
sufficient for board use. As the size and complexity of the loan portfolio
increases, information provided to the directors should be presented in a
summary format. Management should provide the board with readily
understandable reports on risk levels and trends. At times, individual
directors or boards may request supporting detail. Examiners should
determine whether the reports descriptions of loan portfolio risks are
sufficient to enable the board and management to exercise their supervisory
responsibilities.
A unit independent of the lending function should evaluate the accuracy,

completeness, and timeliness of the information in these reports. This
evaluation is normally part of loan review or audit activities. Examiners

should assure themselves that reports are accurate. The bank should have
evidence that it tests reports periodically for accuracy. If concerns exist about
internal testing, examiners should conduct sufficient testing to reach an
independent supervisory assessment.
Loan Portfolio Management Supervision
Examiners draw conclusions about the quality of a banks loan portfolio

management from their on-site reviews and from continual supervision of the
banks lending departments. The purpose and scope of those reviews are
discussed briefly in the sections that follow. During their reviews, examiners
should focus on identifying a products or processs sources and levels of risk
rather than on gathering data. Examiners should identify prospective risks as
well as existing ones because prospective risks must be evaluated if long-term
safety and soundness is to be ensured.
Asset Quality Reviews
In asset quality reviews, examiners test individual loans for quality. Using a
sample of loans, they draw conclusions about the quality of loan supervision,
the adequacy of the loan infrastructure, and the level of risk in the portfolio.
Traditionally, the analysis of individual loans has been used to determine
whether risk ratings are accurate and to build conclusions about loan
portfolio management. A more dynamic and efficient approach is to
simultaneously use the testing to verify risk ratings and test the lending
function itself. For example, a review of newly underwritten credits should
be structured to assess the risk in the new transactions as well as to test the
effectiveness of loan approval and other policies and processes that govern
credit quality. While this approach requires careful planning and design, the
results provide more comprehensive information.
Asset quality reviews can be used to draw conclusions about underwriting

practices, compliance with policy, loan administration, the accuracy of loan
information systems, the adequacy of financial and collateral documentation,
and the effectiveness of loan control functions. These reviews also reveal
whether the banks lending department is complying with banking law and
regulation. The frequency and scope of asset quality reviews should be
based on the level and direction of risk and the quality of risk management.

The procedures section of this booklet describes factors that should be
considered when designing asset quality and other credit examinations.
The evaluation of asset quality for various types of lending is discussed in

more detail in Comptrollers Handbook booklets on each type of lending.
Definitions of the regulatory risk rating categories for assets and a discussion
of their application can be found in the section on Classification of Credit:
Domestic and International.
Asset quality reviews for community banks incorporate many of the same
objectives as those in larger banks; however, the analysis is focused more on
the results of operations than the methods used to achieve them. These
reviews may need to be expanded when management is not effective or the
loan portfolio has a high risk profile or worrisome trends.
Targeted Reviews
Targeted reviews are designed to provide information about new products,

growth areas, or other areas of lending-related risk. For example, if a bank
had significantly increased the outstanding indirect paper for a particular
dealer or had recently started an asset-based lending department, it would be
appropriate to perform a targeted review of that activity. Although the scope
of these reviews is generally narrow, they may be combined with related
comprehensive reviews of other areas.
Process Reviews
Examiners perform process reviews to evaluate aspects of loan portfolio

management. These reviews examine methods, organization, work flow,
responsibility designations, control systems, and MIS. They focus on the root
cause of a problem and foster the early recognition of problems. Typically,
the reviews include little, if any, testing of individual loans. This type of
supervisory effort is an efficient way to evaluate parts of the loan portfolio
management process when staffing and time are limited. Using these
reviews, examiners can relate a processs design to how it works. Effective
loan portfolio processes generally exhibit good design, cautious
implementation, and ongoing maintenance. The results of a process review
may indicate that a fuller scope review, to include testing of individual loans,

is warranted.
Administrative and Documentation Reviews
Administrative and documentation reviews focus on one or more of a variety

of lending-related functions, including policy review, loan approval,
collection activity, credit MIS, and the backroom functions of loan
disbursement, lien perfection, and credit and collateral documentation.
These activities have been discussed more fully in previous sections.
Compliance Reviews
Examination procedures that test adherence to laws, rulings, and regulations

on consumer lending are outlined in the Consumer Compliance Examination
booklets. Testing compliance with applicable laws and regulations, however,
is not limited solely to compliance examinations. It may be appropriate,
depending on the supervisory objectives, to test compliance with particular
laws and regulations during an asset quality examination.
Follow-up Evaluations on Management Commitments
Effective supervision requires timely follow-up on identified weaknesses and

managements commitments to corrective action. If weaknesses are serious
enough, these commitments will be part of a formal administrative action.
Follow-up evaluations should be part of the supervisory strategy for every
bank. Examination documentation on follow-up evaluations is discussed in
detail in the booklets Bank Supervision Process and Large Bank
Supervision.
Ongoing Supervision
Ongoing supervision is an integral component of risk-based supervision and

complements examination and targeted review activities conducted
throughout the supervisory cycle. A primary objective of ongoing
supervision is to detect emerging risks within the loan portfolio and identify
changes in the banks culture. The more complex or risky the loan portfolio,
the greater the need for frequent, comprehensive oversight. Ongoing

supervision is the foundation for examination planning; it keeps examination
activities dynamic and enables examiners to respond to changing risk profiles
in a timely manner.
A primary task of ongoing supervision is to determine and periodically review
CAMELS (capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and
sensitivity to market risk) ratings. Risk-based supervision requires examiners
to integrate conclusions on risk assessment in the conclusions on CAMELS
ratings.
In large banks, ongoing supervision of credit risk involves, among other

things, periodic meetings with management and analysis of internal and
external MIS to identify current and prospective forces that affect the risk
profile of the loan portfolio. In smaller institutions when on-site examinations
are not being performed, examiners will use the Uniform Bank Performance
Report (UBPR) and quarterly telephonic or on-site meetings with
management as the primary means of analyzing loan portfolio trends. For
both large and small banks, examiners will update the credit risk assessment
and determine whether any changes in those assessments will trigger a
change in CAMELS ratings. Although LPM activity will primarily affect the
credit assessment factors and the asset quality component of the CAMELS
rating, the credit profile may also affect the other CAMELS categories.

Loan Portfolio
Management Examination Procedures
General Procedures
Assessing a banks LPM program involves assessing a variety of credit
functions and processes (e.g., underwriting, origination, MIS, administration,
loan review) rather than evaluating a single process or function as in other
examination programs. Therefore, LPM examination procedures are
presented in a cross-functional, as opposed to a drill down, format. The
overall LPM evaluation relies on examiner judgment to assign appropriate
weights and ratings to the interrelated functions and processes that
constitute the banks LPM system.
Planning is important to the effectiveness of an examination. How much

planning an examiner is required to do will depend on his or her knowledge
of the bank and the loan portfolio. Before establishing scope, the examiner
should make a preliminary assessment of the level and direction of risk and
the quality of risk management. To make these assessments, the examiner
should review reports and discuss with bank management the condition of
the portfolio, as well as changes or planned changes since the most recent
examination. Allocating sufficient resources and exercising good judgment
during the planning phase will maximize examination efficiencies for the
OCC and minimize examination burden for the bank. Banks or portfolios in
which the quantity of risk is low and the quality of risk management is high
will require examinations with a narrower scope than do those with higher,
more volatile levels of risk.
Objective: Develop a preliminary assessment about the quantity of risk and the
quality of risk management within the loan portfolio, the direction of risk, and
how the risk in the loan portfolio affects the aggregate level of risk of the
institution. This assessment will be used to set the scope for the loan
portfolio management examination.

Note: Much of the following information will be analyzed more completely
during the examination process. All of the listed reports may not be
available at all banks.
1. Review the following documents to determine the status of previously

identified problems related to the loan portfolio:
Previous examination reports.

Managements responses to previous examination findings and
other bank correspondence.
Ongoing supervisory comments.
Work papers from previous examinations.
Loan review reports.
Internal and external audit reports.
2. Review and analyze the Uniform Bank Performance Report (UBPR),

BERT, and the banks current risk assessment to identify broad trends
within the loan portfolio.
3. Obtain and analyze reports used by management to supervise the loan

portfolio. The reports may include:
Strategic and business plans for the loan portfolio.

Risk rating reports.
Problem loan and watch list reports.
Delinquency/nonperforming asset reports.
Concentration reports.
Portfolio size stratification report.
Stress test results.
List of new products, services, business initiatives.
Exception reports.
ALLL analysis.
Written policy and procedures manuals.
Organization charts.
The analysis should consider:
Growth and acquisitions.

New products, services, lines of business.
Management changes.
Policy and underwriting changes.
Changes in risk limits.
Changes in such external factors as:
National, regional, and local economy.
Industry outlook.
Regulatory framework.
Technological change.
4. Discuss with management:
How management supervises the loan portfolio.

Any significant changes in policies, procedures, personnel, and
control systems.
Any internal or external factors that could affect the loan portfolio.
Managements perception of the banks credit culture.
5. Based on the findings and analysis resulting from the previous steps
and in consultation with the EIC and other appropriate supervisors,
determine the scope of the examination. The scope should focus on
areas with emerging risk and on those areas of risk of greatest concern.
Determine how much testing is necessary. Sample criteria on size and
selection, if needed, are discussed in the statistical sampling appendix
to the Comptrollers Handbook for National Bank Examiners.
Select from among the following examination procedures the steps

necessary to meet examination objectives. Examiners should tailor
the procedures to the banks specific activities and risks. Note:
Examiners will seldom be required to complete every step.
6. As the examination procedures are performed, test for compliance with

all applicable laws, rules, and regulations and with established
policies. Confirm the existence of appropriate internal controls.
Identify any areas that have inadequate supervision or pose undue risk,
and discuss with the EIC the need to perform additional procedures or
testing.

Quantity of Risk
Conclusion: The quantity of risk is (low, moderate, high).
Objective: To determine the quantity of risk in the loan portfolio, help determine
the direction the risk is moving, and aid in the assessment of the aggregate
risk within the institution.
Note: Loan Policy, Underwriting Guidelines, and Strategic Factors are

risk management processes through which examiners reach conclusions
about the quality of risk management. However, they also exert a strong
influence on the quantity of risk and should be considered when drawing a
conclusion about the quantity of risk.
Loan Policy
1. Evaluate whether the loan policy provides adequate guidance to

control the quantity of credit risk. Consider the following:
Approval process: approval authority, loan committee structure,

loan evaluation analysis requirements, exception definition, and
exception reporting requirements.
Underwriting: credit standards, loan structure, maturity limits,

collateral, pricing, financial information requirements,
documentation standards, appraisal requirements, and
environmental assessments.
Loan quality monitoring and evaluation: risk rating definitions, risk

rating accountability and responsibility, risk analysis requirements,
collection and charge-off responsibility, exception reporting, obligor
financial reporting.
Portfolio limits and strategic goals: credit culture, asset distribution,

aggregate loan limits, desirable loan types, concentrations and
concentration limits, distribution goals, and participation guidelines.

Compliance: insider transactions, conflicts of interest, accounting
requirements, legal lending limit, and all other lending-related
regulations.
2. Determine whether the quantity of credit risk has changed or is likely

to change because of policy changes. Consider:
Permissible loans and loan structures,

Acceptable customer definition,
Acceptable collateral types and coverage levels,
Risk limit guidelines and the potential impact if risk limits are
reached,
Pricing guidelines. Does the banks pricing policy incorporate
risk/return (risk-based pricing) concepts?
3. Review the banks charge-off policy. Consider:
Consistency with regulatory and accounting definitions.

Adherence to policy, particularly on exceptions.
Responsibility for charging off assets.
Timeliness of charge-offs.
Senior management and board review of charge-offs.
4. Have clear lines of authority and responsibility for monitoring

adherence to policies, procedures, and limits been established by the
board and senior management?
5. Analyze the level and composition of policy exceptions and determine

the potential impact on the quantity of risk.
Note: A banks lack of an internal tracking system may require
examiners to test for adherence to policy.

Underwriting
1. Review the current underwriting guidelines. Assess how changes

since the previous examination have affected the quantity of risk.
Consider:
Customer size standards, external ratings, credit scores, and credit

history;
Debt service coverage, methods of calculating cash flow,
debt/income ratios;
Leverage standards, liquidity standards, and other covenant
requirements;
Amortization requirements, maturity standards;
Collateral coverage and collateral valuation;
Guarantor standards; and
2. Evaluate the banks analysis when considering a credit application.

Consider:
Purpose of loan,
Loan structure,
Borrowers repayment capacity,
Collateral requirements,
Portfolio goals and limits.
3. Analyze the level, composition, and trend of underwriting exceptions

and determine the impact on the quantity of risk.
Portfolio Composition and Strategic Factors
1. Analyze the composition and changes to the loan portfolio, including

off-balance-sheet exposure, since the previous examination.
Determine the implications for risk of the following:

Any significant growth or shift in relative size of key loan
segments.
Material changes in the portfolio or key portfolio segments to
include:
Elevated risk levels or high growth.
Changes and trends in problem, classified, past-due,
nonaccrual, and nonperforming assets; charge-off
volumes; and risk rating distribution.
Any significant concentrations, including individual, industry,
geographic, and product concentrations.
2. Review unfunded commitments and other pipeline reports to

determine the potential effect on the loan portfolios risk profile.
3. Evaluate the credit risk implications of concentrations. Consider the

volume and trend of:
Outstandings.
Risk rating stratification.
Exceptions (underwriting, policy, documentation).
Management expertise
Economic factors.
4. Determine whether new products have been introduced since the last
examination. Analyze their growth and potential effect on credit risk.
5. If the bank has acquired other institutions or loan portfolios, analyze

the effect these purchases have had on the portfolios composition and
risk profile. Consider changes to risk rating stratification,
concentrations, new obligor types, specialized credits, new loan types,
and pricing mechanisms.
6. Review and analyze management-prepared portfolio risk assessments.

Consider changes in risk quantification measurements and the
underlying causes of these changes.

7. Review the business and/or strategic plan for the loan portfolio.
Evaluate how implementation of the plan will affect the quantity of
credit risk. Consider:
Growth goals and potential sources of new loans;

Growth outside the current market area;
New products and business lines;
Emphasis on high risk products, customers, or industries;
Concentrations of credit;
Risk limits; and
Loss forecasts.
8. Compare portfolio performance with planned performance and

ascertain the risk implications.
9. Assess the impact of the banks asset securitization and loan

purchase/sale programs on the quantity of risk. Consider:
The magnitude of these programs and their relative significance to

overall portfolio composition.
The quality of the loans in the program.
Probability of, and potential impact if, loans are returned to the
banks balance sheet.
The revenues associated with these activities.
10. If the bank employs credit derivatives or other concentration

management tools to control credit exposures, analyze their impact on
the quantity of risk. Consider:
The objectives of these programs.

The volume of credit derivatives or similar products.
11. If the bank has developed portfolio diversification targets, evaluate

whether they have reduced portfolio risk.

Internal Controls
1. Review recent loan review and loan-related audit reports. If there are
any adverse trends in quantitative measures of risk or control
weaknesses reported, comment on whether and how much they may
increase risk.
2. Analyze the level, composition, and trend of documentation

exceptions and determine the potential risk implications.
3. Evaluate the level of compliance with laws, rules, and regulations

applicable to the lending function. Relate the level of compliance to
the quantity of credit risk.
External Factors
1. Review the local, regional, and national economic trends and assess
their impact on loan portfolio risk levels.
2. Evaluate the results of any stress testing of the loan portfolio or

portfolio segments. Include review of testing for changes in interest
rates, commodity prices, collateral valuations (such as real estate prices
or company valuations based on multiple formulas) or product pricing
declines due to competition or statutory rate controls.
3. Assess the banks exposure to any pending legislative, regulatory, or

accounting changes that will materially affect the loan portfolio.

Quality of Risk Management
Conclusion: The quality of risk management is (weak,
Acceptable, or strong).
Objective: To determine the quality of risk management for the loan portfolio and
its impact on the direction of risk and the aggregate level of risk within the
institution.
Policy and Strategic Planning
1. Determine whether management has clearly communicated loan

portfolio strategic objectives and risk limits to the board of directors
and whether the board has approved these goals. In coordination with
the assessment of the overall strategic plan, do the following:
Determine whether the reports to senior management and the board

of directors provide sufficient information to evaluate risk levels and
trends.
Assess the format and clarity of planning reports. Are they easy to
understand and interpret?
Assess the boards and senior managements ability to fulfill their
oversight roles using the reports.
Evaluate the system used to test the accuracy of planning reports.
Managements testing should be thorough and periodic.
2. Determine whether planning activities consider credit culture and loan

policy issues and are linked to business plans and budgets. Assess the
following:
The consistency between the stated or implied cultural philosophy

and the objectives in the strategic plan.
The review process for budgets, business plans, and strategic plans
to ensure that they are consistent and achievable.
The process to evaluate the plans implications for risk.

3. Compare actual performance of portfolio(s) with planned performance.
Verify that the board of directors and senior management routinely
compare performance with planned performance. Evaluate the boards
and senior managements review.
4. Evaluate the MIS used to make the foregoing comparison. Do

performance reports address the following subjects?
Earnings and capital relative to risk measurements and objectives.

Pricing objectives.
Market share objectives.
Diversification goals.
Credit quality goals.
Community service goals.
Nonfinancial objectives.
5. In coordination with the overall evaluation of the strategic plan,

evaluate the lending functions planning process for thoroughness and
reasonableness. Do plans consider internal strengths and weaknesses,
as well as external opportunities and threats?
6. Review the banks strategic plan for loan portfolio. The following
factors should be addressed:
Loan portfolio share of the balance sheet.

Loan quality goals.
Portfolio diversification goals.
Loan product mix.
Loan growth targets for significant products, customers, and
industries.
Product specialization.
Identification of target markets and industries.
Growth and market share goals.
External factors.
7. Determine whether the loan planning process provides for periodic

reassessments, modifications, or reaffirmations of strategic objectives.

8. Assess the process for making changes to the portfolio plan.
Determine whether changes have been made, and analyze the changes
to the plan.
9. Evaluate the banks business, marketing, and compensation plans in

the lending area to ensure that short-term goals and incentives do not
promote behaviors that are inconsistent with strategic portfolio
objectives and established risk tolerances. Determine whether
management conducted a similar analysis.
10. Assess the loan policy to determine whether it provides appropriate

guidance for the banks lending activities. Consider:
Approval process and authority levels.

Delivery system/distribution channel.
11. Evaluate how the policy establishes responsibility and accountability

for various lending activities. Consider:
Approval process.
Risk rating process.
Exception and over-limit process.
Loan closing procedures.
Nonaccrual and charge-off process.
Allocation process.
12. Evaluate the policys suitability to any planned changes in lending

(e.g., expanding into a new line of business or introducing a new
product).
13. Are risk limits well-defined and reasonable? Consider the way these
limits are measured (Are capital and earnings at risk used to define the
risk limit?) and the impact on the bank if the risk limit is reached.
14. Review the process employed to establish risk limits. Consider

managements objectives in setting risk limits.

15. Determine how compliance with risk limits is monitored and reported
to senior management and the board of directors.
16. Assess the level of review for credit exposures nearing their risk limits.
Is there sufficient reporting to senior managers and is supervision
heightened?
17. Evaluate the policy review process to ensure that the policy will
change with changes in practices or the external environment, such as
increases in risk for a particular product or industry.
18. Determine whether the board of directors has approved the loan policy
and whether the policy articulates the desired credit culture.
Processes
Underwriting
1. Determine whether the bank uses underwriting guidelines to better

define their credit risk limits. Assess the compatibility of the guidelines
with the loan policy and the strategic plan.
2. Determine whether automated loan decision or customer solicitation

models are used by lending management.
Is the model based on the institutions history or on a national

composite?
What is the models design? Were credit-related factors analyzed
and used in its development?
Does management understand the model and its application? What
are the implications of the models use?
Has management made a thorough and accurate assessment of the
models use? Is MIS adequate? Consider asset quality, acceptance
rate, rejection rate, overrides, delinquency, and revenue generation,
for example.
What is the models validation frequency?
How reliable is vendor support?

Problem Credit Administration
3. Determine whether there is a centralized unit that administers problem

credits.
4. Assess the criteria for loans managed by the centralized problem credit
(work-out) unit.
5. Determine whether assets managed by the problem credit unit are

reflected in the risk rating stratification of the originating unit. This is
to assure that concentrations of risk are adequately identified.
6. Determine whether losses are charged to the originating unit. This

provides a more accurate measure of profitability, reinforces
risk/reward analysis, and emphasizes officer accountability.
7. Evaluate the staff of the work-out function. Consider:
Number of staff and average account load.

Expertise and experience.
Access to external professionals.
8. How are work-out strategies devised? Do work-out strategies have

clearly defined goals, benchmarks, and target dates? Are the financial
benefits and costs of alternative strategies evaluated?
9. Review work-out MIS to determine whether sufficient information is

provided to supervise work-out assets and monitor work-out strategies.
Consider:
Rating changes of work-out assets.

Migration reports (assets coming in and going out).
Charge-off volumes.
Tracking reports to monitor the progress of work-out strategies.
10. Review the process for restructuring debt of troubled borrowers.

Evaluate the oversight provided by the banks accounting, legal, and
audit departments.

Collections
10. Determine whether there is a centralized collection unit.
11. Evaluate the collection unit. Consider:
Collection rate.
Cost per dollar collected.
Collection success by portfolio segment.
Collection strategies.
Use of technology.
Collection MIS, including the following information:
- collection rate reporting.
- restructured loan levels and performance.
- charge-off volumes.
- quality of assets in collection.
Productivity reports.
Compliance with laws and regulations.
12. Determine whether there are portfolios or credits being collected

outside the collections area. If so, assess the reasons and ensure
that controls are adequate. Analyze the agreement between the
bank and the agency. Consider:
Duties and responsibilities.

Compensation levels and expenses compared with in-
house departments.
Complaints made against the agency.
Whether the collection agency was selected in a
competitive process.
Whether there is a termination clause.
13. Assess the policy for re-aging past-due credits. Evaluate the
accounting practices used to report re-aged past due credits.

Charged-Off Assets
14. Evaluate managements analysis of charge-offs to determine their

causes (the post mortem analysis). If no such analysis is conducted,
determine whether credit risk management would be materially
improved by doing so.
Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses
15. Confer with the examiner analyzing the allowance for loan and lease
losses (ALLL).
Determine that risk ratings are accurately reflected in bank

managements ALLL analysis.
Verify that ALLL loss projections are reasonable.
Coordinate conclusions regarding quantity of risk and the direction
of credit risk with the ALLL examiner.
Determine whether credit risk is affected by the current ALLL level
or by plans to materially change the level of the ALLL.
Portfolio Composition
1. Evaluate managements process for identifying loan concentrations

within the portfolio.
Are concentrations defined in terms of earnings, capital at risk, or

both?
Is the definition of a concentration reasonable? Is it an adequate
safeguard for capital?
Is the definition of a concentration sufficiently broad in light of the
size and complexity of the banks loan portfolio (ensure that the
definition is not so narrow as to preclude any concentrations from
being identified)?
Can an asset be included in more than one concentration pool?
What concentrations have been identified? How much capital
supports them and, if management measures concentrations
differently, how large are they when measured that way?

2. Are loan concentrations subject to close management attention?
Have limits on concentrations been set? If so, are they reasonable?

Review policy, underwriting, and documentation exceptions in
identified concentrations. Evaluate the adequacy of exception
tracking for concentration pools.
Have key financial indicators for each concentration been identified?
If so, are they routinely monitored?
3. Compare the ratio of the largest relationships to total portfolio

outstandings. Assess the changes to this ratio over time in order to
determine whether management is permitting larger relationships.
What are the implications for credit risk of these larger relationships
and is management supervising these relationships more intensely?
4. Evaluate the policy to limit credit exposures. Confirm that the process
used to limit credit exposures includes the following characteristics:
Relationship risk ratings.

Geography.
Product type.
Maturity.
Collateral.
Industry.
House or legal lending limit.
5. Ensure that all credit risk exposures (off-balance-sheet activity,

contingent liability, related debt, etc.) are captured and included in the
borrowers relationship for credit risk management purposes.
6. Determine whether management has developed portfolio

diversification targets. If so, what are they?
7. Assess the integration of the banks asset distribution targets into its
overall risk management program or philosophy.
8. Verify the coordination of objectives and goals between asset

distribution targets and the business/strategic plan.

9. If portfolio composition has changed because of loan or portfolio
acquisitions or sales:
Determine the extent and adequacy of due diligence efforts.

Evaluate the management process for making the decision to
purchase or sell the assets.
10. If the bank has an ongoing program to purchase loans, evaluate the
credit risk in this program. Consider:
Third-party underwriting standards,

Recourse,
Lending limit implications,
Bank review of third-party paper,
The banks ability to reject loans under this program,
Financial capacity of third party,
Backroom support,
Termination clauses,
Legal, accounting, and loan review analysis of program.
11. Can credit MIS identify and segregate assets purchased and
underwritten outside the bank?
12. Is the performance of acquired assets monitored as a separate loan

pool? If so, how have the acquired assets performed? If there is no
tracking system for acquired assets, a sample may have to be
reviewed.
13. Evaluate the loan portfolio management process for interest rate risk
and liquidity factors. Consider:
Loan data and ALCO reporting requirements,

Loan pricing decisions and cost of funds,
Loan portfolio interest rate sensitivity,
Cash flow from the portfolio,
Portfolio maturity distribution, and
Loan liquidity (quality, sale eligible, etc.).

14. Verify and evaluate managements assessment of risk when it set loan
portfolio goals. Determine the appropriateness of the plans goals to
the risk assessment.
Personnel
1. Compare overall staffing levels in the lending and loan control areas
with the size, complexity, and level of risk of the loan portfolio.
Determine whether staffing levels will support planned or unplanned
increases in any of these characteristics. Evaluate current management
depth to determine its adequacy to support future growth objectives.
2. Determine whether a bank program ensures that staff acquires and

retains the appropriate skills. If a training program exists, evaluate it.
Consider:
Breadth and number of course offerings.

Structure of programs.
Course content and quality of instructors.
Measurement of students understanding of material (testing).
Course materials.
Training commitment (dollars or hours per year) per employee.
3. Analyze the lending areas compensation plan and performance

evaluation system.
Are asset-quality considerations in a proper balance with marketing

considerations? Are performance criteria measurable?
How does the compensation of lending personnel compare with that
of competitors?
How consistent are the compensation plan, performance evaluation
system, the business/strategic plan, and the credit culture?
4. Evaluate whether reporting lines encourage open communication and

limit the chances of conflicts of interest.

5. Determine whether the span of control for lending management is
reasonable.
6. Assess the average account load per lending officer. Consider

reasonableness in light of the complexity and condition of the officers
portfolio.
7. Evaluate the level of staff turnover and its impact on credit risk
management.
8. Evaluate the process by which the quality of an account officers

portfolio is incorporated into his or her compensation and performance
evaluation.
9. Interview bank personnel to determine whether they understand the

banks credit culture.
10. Determine whether the stated credit culture is reflected in the banks
goals, objectives, philosophy, and in the portfolios composition. If
not:
Describe the actual culture and evaluate the impact on risk in the
portfolio.
Determine whether the difference between the stated credit culture
and the actual credit culture results from lack of communication,
managements indifference towards the stated culture, or a
performance management system that rewards behaviors that are
inconsistent with the stated credit culture.
11. Assess how senior management and the board of directors periodically
evaluate bank personnels understanding of and conformance with the
banks stated credit culture and loan policy. If there is no process,
determine the impact on the management of credit risk.

Control Systems
1. Evaluate the adequacy of credit MIS. All evaluations of MIS should

assess timeliness, accuracy, level of detail, clarity of report format, and
distribution channels. Consider:
Earnings and capital-at-risk measurements.

Past-due and accrual status.
Risk rating stratification.
Loan yield and profitability data (per asset and portfolio).
Trend analysis.
Commitments, including type, amount, level of expected usage, and
highest usage on record.
Maturity categories.
Liquidity information on loans and portfolios to include data on
quality, maturity, and pledged collateral.
Exceptions to policy, underwriting, and documentation standards.
2. Does management conduct a periodic review and evaluation of MIS

and other internal controls? Is this evaluation frequent enough
considering the sophistication of the control systems and the level of
risk?
3. Review credit MIS and determine whether it provides sufficient detail

about individual transactions, portfolio segments, and the entire
portfolio.
4. Perform necessary testing to determine the accuracy of credit MIS. (If

internal lending controls are satisfactory, testing for accuracy may be
unnecessary.)
5. Evaluate the flexibility of the credit MIS system.
Evaluate the distribution of credit MIS.

Assess the amount and suitability of information provided to each
layer of management.
Evaluate credit MIS timeliness.

Are the reports generated off a database that allows data
manipulation? Can information be reported a number of ways (for
example, by industry, product, and industry per product)?
Can management design its own reports so it can access the type of
information it wants?
Can reports be developed quickly to respond to a specific need?
Discuss with users whether adequate resources are devoted to MIS
so information does not bottleneck.
6. If the bank conducts stress testing for credit risk, assess the following:
The appropriateness of assumptions used in the stress test scenarios

(for example, occupancy levels, raw material cost increases, and
reduction in revenue growth).
The amount of change each factor was subjected to.
The financial measurements being tested (debt service coverage,
leverage). Determine why management selected these
measurements.
What is stress tested individual relationships, portfolio segments,
the entire portfolio, or a combination of the foregoing?
The frequency of credit stress testing in light of the portfolios
complexity and quality.
The process for selecting loans or segments for stress testing. Is the
selection process based on risk?
How management uses stress test results. Have acceptable ranges
been defined? If results exceed the acceptable range, is corrective
action required?
7. Does stress testing incorporate all exposures (including off-balance-

sheet exposure) to credit risk for each relationship?
8. Review the banks risk rating definitions for consistency with regulatory
definitions. If the definitions differ, determine whether the banks
ratings are adequate.
Ensure that, when combining bank ratings with examiner ratings (to
calculate the total risk rating stratification), definitions are similar
enough to make the combination valid.

9. Evaluate the process for reviewing account officer risk ratings.
Consider:
Independence.
Technical knowledge.
Resources.
Rating disagreement resolution process.
10. How often are relationships analyzed for risk rating purposes? Are
there well-defined events that would require a risk rating analysis?
11. Evaluate risk rating analyses. Consider:
Rating change triggers.

Focus of analysis. (Are the appropriate credit risks and factors
analyzed?)
Relationship strategy.
12. Does an independent party analyze relationships frequently and

thoroughly?
13. Assess the adequacy of loan review and loan-related audit reports.
Consider:
Whether all pertinent issues are brought forward in the report.

Timeliness of report issuance.
Clear assignment and acknowledgment of issue ownership.
Reasonableness and completeness of management responses. Is the
issue addressed?
Are there time limits on corrective action? Are the limits reasonable?
Are they observed?
How corrective actions are monitored and assessed.
Do the reports contain enough information to inform senior
management and the board about the condition of the portfolio and
the effectiveness of internal controls?

14. If any control functions are performed by independent consultants (i.e.,
outsourced), review and evaluate the terms of the agreement.
Consider:
Whether responsibilities are clearly defined.

Access to information.
Reporting lines.
How the consultant is paid.
Whether the agreement contains a termination clause.
How the consultants conclusions are presented. How does the
bank act on the consultants recommendations?
15. Determine whether control function (loan review, audit, and

backroom) budgets and overall resources have kept pace with the
changes in the loan portfolio.
16. Determine whether any audit or loan reviews have been postponed or
canceled. If so, determine why. Verify that reviews were not delayed
to avoid criticism. Determine whether the distribution of any audit or
loan review reports has been delayed. If so, determine why.
17. Ensure that loan review is meeting its schedule and determine whether
loan-related audits have been conducted as planned. If either are
materially behind schedule determine the cause.
18. Determine whether control functions are independent. Consider:
Reporting lines.
Budget oversight.
Performance evaluation.
Compensation plans.
Access to the board.
19. Review the structure, charter, and mission of board and management
credit committees.
Is the committee mission clear and well-defined?

Evaluate the committees role in providing effective oversight.

Assess the adequacy of information provided to the committees.
Assess committee members attendance at meetings.
20. Has the board or senior management established adequate procedures

for ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations?
21. Is the banks internal control system appropriate for the type and level
of risks undertaken within the loan portfolio?

Conclusion Procedures
Objective: To communicate findings and initiate corrective action when policies,
practices, procedures, objectives, or internal controls are deficient or when
violations of law, rulings, or regulations occur.
For banks with an asset quality component rating of 1 or 2:
1. Prepare a summary memorandum detailing the results of the loan

portfolio management examination. Draft conclusions on:
The quantity of credit risk.

The quality of credit risk management.
2. Also address in the summary memorandum:

The direction of risk in the portfolio.
The extent to which credit risk management practices affect
aggregate risk.
Appropriateness of strategic and business plans.
Adequacy and adherence to policies and underwriting standards.
Adequacy of MIS.
Compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
Adequacy of loan control functions.
Recommended corrective action regarding deficient policies,
procedures, practices, or other concerns.
The banks prospects.
Other matters of significance.
3. Assign appropriate CAMELS rating. The asset quality rating should

incorporate the conclusions for quantity of risk and quality of risk
management. Provide input to EIC for M component.
4. Discuss examination findings and conclusions with the EIC. If

necessary, compose Matters Requiring Board Attention (MRBA) for
the loan portfolio management examination. MRBAs should cover
practices that:

Deviate from sound, fundamental principles and are likely to result
in financial deterioration if not addressed.
Result in substantive noncompliance with laws.
MRBAs should discuss:
Causes of the problem.

Consequences of inaction.
Managements commitment for corrective action.
The time frame for corrective action and person(s) responsible for
meeting that time frame.
5. Discuss findings with bank management including conclusions about

risks. If necessary, obtain commitments for corrective action.
6. Write a memorandum specifically setting out what the OCC should do

in the future to effectively supervise loan portfolio management.
Include time frames, staffing, and workdays required.
7. Update the supervisory record and any applicable report of

examination schedules or tables.
8. Update the examination work papers in accordance with OCC

guidance.
For banks with an asset quality component rating of 3 or worse, perform

the same steps as for banks rated 1 or 2. Then draw a conclusion
regarding managements ability to correct the banks fundamental
weakness(es).

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix A
Topics of Loan Policy
The elements of a loan policy are determined by the specific lending
activities and standards of each bank. However, most loan policies discuss
the topics below.
Loan Authority: The lending policy should describe who is authorized to

approve credit and should establish specific approval limits for credit
approvers. Lending limits may also be set for a group, allowing a
combination of officers or a committee to approve loans larger than the
members would be permitted to approve individually. Group approval
may include dual controls: one approver from the line business unit and
another from credit policy or a different line unit. The policy should
describe reporting procedures and the frequency of committee meetings.
Loan approval systems need to have sufficient flexibility to respond to
unanticipated needs while maintaining adequate controls to prevent
unwarranted risk.
Limit on Aggregate Loans and Commitments: The loan policy may

establish guidelines on the size of the loan portfolio relative to other
balance sheet accounts (some banks will cover this topic in the ALCO
policy). Limits should be developed for the aggregate volume of
outstanding loans as well as for total commitments. A bank will find it
much easier to develop a commitment limit if it has historical data on
usage of its commitments during various phases of the credit cycle.
Traditionally, limits have been set relative to deposits, capital, or total

assets. As risk management is adopted more widely, banks are also
developing limits on an activitys risk to earnings, capital, or both. A
benefit of this approach is that limits are more closely tied to risk. The
credit demands of the community, the volatility of the banks funding, and
the relative level of risk in the loan portfolio should also be considered
when limiting the size of the loan portfolio.

Distribution by Loan Category and Product: Policies also establish
guidelines on the percentage of total loans that can be allocated to a
particular loan category or concentration (e.g., commercial, real estate,
consumer, international, and health care). Limits may also be placed on
individual loan products within a loan category. For example, although a
bank may already limit consumer loans in general, it can also limit
installment loans or credit card loans. Loan category and product limits
enable a bank to direct the composition of its loan portfolio to achieve
strategic objectives rather than deferring to the demands of its market.
Geographic Limits: The banks geographic market should be identified,

including any exceptions or specific restrictions. Geographic limits are
consistent with the objective of serving the credit needs of the banks
community. They also help to ensure that the lending staff can supervise
the loan portfolio effectively. Such supervision is especially important for
new banks.
Types of Loans: The lending policy may identify specific types of loans
that the bank views as desirable or undesirable. For example, many banks
do not finance business start-ups, and others avoid loans to gambling
concerns. These guidelines should be based on the expertise of the
lending staff, anticipated credit demands of the community, and the
deposit structure of the bank. Real estate and other types of term lending,
for example, might be limited to a given percentage of the banks stable
funds.
Sophisticated credits and loans secured by collateral that requires

inordinate policing should be avoided unless the bank has the personnel
and resources to properly analyze and administer them. The lending
policy can be used to control or avoid specific types of loans that have
resulted in abnormal losses to the bank or that the bank considers
undesirable.
Financial performance standards: Financial performance standards usually

are based on the purpose and type of loan. At a minimum, the policy
should establish repayment requirements that stipulate acceptable primary
and secondary sources of repayment, their relative adequacy, and
circumstances in which guarantors are required. The policy may also

require a certain minimum working capital, customer size, external agency
credit rating, access to financial markets, leverage, and debt service
coverage ratio.
Financial information: Standards should stipulate what types of financial

information are required and how frequently they are to be provided. The
lending policy should define the financial statement requirements for
businesses and individuals at various borrowing levels and set guidelines
for audited, unaudited, fiscal, interim, operating, cash flow, guarantor,
projections, and other types of statements. For example, audited financial
statements might be required annually on all borrowers whose loans are
greater than a certain amount.
The policy should outline requirements for external credit checks. When
external credit reporting agencies are used to determine the
creditworthiness of borrowers, the information should be updated
periodically. This is especially important for revolving consumer credit.
Examiner guidance on citing credit exceptions in the report of examination

is provided in appendix B of this section.
Collateral and structure requirements: Policies usually describe

acceptable credit structures and establish permissible collateral types and
loan-to-value limits. They also establish limits for the amount financed,
which may vary by loan type. For instance, the policy might limit loans to
finance the purchase of equipment to 80 percent of purchase price and
might limit the amortization schedule of such loans to the lesser of five
years or the useful life of the equipment.
Maturity scheduling should be based on a realistic assessment of the

anticipated source of repayment, the purpose of the loan, and the useful
life of the collateral. For term loans, the lending policy should define the
maximum amortization period. Specific procedures may be needed when
balloon payments are involved. Guidelines should be established for lines
of credit, including the cleanup (out-of-debt) period and renewal
requirements.

Maximum Ratio of Loan Amount to the Market Value of Pledged
Securities:
In addition to the legal restrictions imposed by Regulation U (12 CFR 221),
the lending policy should establish margin requirements for all types of
securities accepted as collateral. Margin requirements should be related to
the marketability of the security, i.e., whether it is actively traded, over-the-
counter, or closely held. Guidelines should be developed for securities that
periodically reprice. The bank should consider placing limits, modified
margin requirements, or both on concentrations of loans to one industry or
one borrower. Such concentrations occur most often in community banks
located in an area dependent on one large company.
Pricing Guidelines: Policies generally describe loan pricing principles.

Interest rates and fees should be set at a level that covers the banks cost of
funds and overhead, and provides the bank with an acceptable return. In
setting profit goals, management should consider the risk/reward
relationship.
Many banks use simplified pricing models or profitability analysis when

granting credit to ensure uniform pricing by lenders. The information used
in these models should be accurate and assumptions should be realistic.
Banks may also use pricing to implement their strategic credit goals or to
modify their risk profiles. Rates and fees may be set at levels that either
encourage or discourage specific lines of business, certain industries, or
certain types of customers. Pricing is one of the most effective ways that a
bank can control or change its risk profile.
Documentation Standards: Policies should establish guidelines for the

internal and legal documents on various types loans. Internal documents
include such items as borrowing resolutions, credit memoranda, financial
analysis, appraisals, insurance, and processing documents; common legal
documents are mortgages, security agreements, and UCC filings.
Collections and Charge-Offs: The lending policy should require a

systematic collection process that grows more aggressive as the risk of loss
increases. Guidelines should specify charge-off requirements.

Reporting: The lending policy may describe the types, contents, and
frequency of reports provided to senior management and the board of
directors. Common management reports include summaries of the level
and trends of loans that are delinquent, nonaccrual, nonperforming, or
charged off. It should also include reports on portfolio composition such
as concentrations and policy exceptions. Reports on larger problem credits
should include information on the level of risk, loss potential, and
alternative courses of action.
Limits and Guidelines for Loan Participations: Loan participations involve

the sale and purchase of a portion of a loan or the whole loan. A
participation certificate issued by the lead bank usually sets forth a
purchasers interest in the loan and in any collateral as well as the terms of
the participation. The loan policy should be clear on how all transfer
obligations are to be met.
If sufficient loan demand exists, direct lending within the banks trade area
is generally safer and more profitable than purchasing loans. Direct
lending promotes customer relationships, fosters the local economy, and
helps to develop additional business for the bank. At the same time,
purchasing loans can benefit risk management. Purchased loans can be a
source of portfolio diversification, help balance interest rate gaps, be a
source of liquidity if such loans can be easily resold, and help achieve
strategic goals for particular loan products if a certain amount of such loans
are necessary to meet economies of scale thresholds. For smaller banks,
participations are an effective way to meet the credit needs of their
customers while complying with the legal lending limit. Loan sales afford
banks many of the benefits of loan participations.
The lending policy may establish limits on the amount of loans that can be
purchased from a single outside source and establish an aggregate limit for
all purchased loans. The administration of purchased loans should be
governed by the same credit principles and procedures that govern bank-
originated loans. Supervisory standards and related regulatory
requirements for loan participations are discussed in detail in appendix E.
Off-Balance-Sheet Exposure: With the increase in bank securitization

activity and the proliferation of capital markets products, more and more

credit risk is housed off the balance sheet. Traditionally, off-balance-sheet
credit risk has come primarily from loan commitments and letters of credit.
The credit risk in these products is fairly straightforward, albeit there is
always a measure of uncertainty about whether the facility will be drawn.
The credit risk inherent in the capital markets products is more difficult to
quantify because of the need to assign a credit risk equivalent. As for
securitizations, the banks residual exposure to the sold assets is also
difficult to measure. (The booklet Asset Securitization provides guidance
on credit risk associated with securitizations.) The loan policy should
require that off-balance-sheet and any other indirect exposure is included
in exposure limits and subject to periodic review and renewal as part of the
loan approval process.
Other Matters: A bank can supplement its general lending policy with
guidelines and procedures for specific lending departments. Other
lending-related booklets of the Comptrollers Handbook focus on loan
policy for specific types of lending.

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix B
12 CFR 30 Safety and Soundness Standards

Guidelines for Loan Documentation Practices
Appendix A (II,C) to 12 CFR 30, Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards

for Safety and Soundness, provides that a bank should establish and maintain
loan documentation practices that:
Enable the bank to make an informed lending decision and to assess risk, as
necessary, on an ongoing basis.
Identify the purpose of a loan and the source of repayment, and assess the
ability of the borrower to repay the indebtedness in a timely manner.
Ensure that any claim against a borrower is legally enforceable.
Demonstrate appropriate administration and monitoring of a loan.
Take account of the size and complexity of a loan.
Guidelines for Credit Underwriting Practices
Appendix A( II,D) to part 30 also provides that a bank should establish and
maintain prudent credit underwriting practices that:
Are commensurate with the types of loans the bank will make and consider
the terms and conditions under which they will be made.
Consider the nature of the markets in which loans will be made.
Provide for consideration, before making a credit commitment, of the

borrowers overall financial condition and resources, the financial

responsibility of any guarantor, the nature and value of any underlying
collateral, and the borrowers character and willingness to repay as agreed.
Establish a system of independent, ongoing credit review and appropriate

communication to management and to the board of directors.
Take adequate account of concentration of credit risk.
Are appropriate to the size of the bank and the nature and scope of its
activities.

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix C
Portfolio Credit Risk Management Processes

OCC Advisory Letter 97-3 describes nine elements of an effective portfolio
credit risk management process. Those elements are described below.
Assessment of the Credit Culture
A banks credit culture, which is the sum of its values, beliefs, and behaviors,
should reflect the standards and values of the board of directors and senior
management. Every bank has a credit culture, whether articulated or implied.
Banks that perform well consistently have a credit culture that is clearly
understood throughout the organization. Senior management and the board
should periodically assess whether employees understanding of the banks
credit culture, and their resulting behavior, conform with the desired
standards and values for the bank. Independent audit and internal loan
review functions can help in this assessment.
Because the credit culture influences every aspect of the credit process,
including credit risk selection and underwriting, a banks sales strategies must
be coordinated with its credit risk management objectives. In addition,
compensation systems for the lending area should reward the kind of
behavior that is consistent with long-term credit quality objectives.
Portfolio Objectives and Risk Tolerance Limits
For portfolio management to be effective, management should establish and

clearly communicate the banks strategic objectives. The bank also should
consider identifying objectives for every key portfolio segment. A business
plan to achieve these objectives should be a part of, and consistent with, the
banks overall planning process.
Management should use those objectives to establish risk tolerance limits. As

those limits are approached, the risk management process should require that

the board of directors and/or senior management review the portfolio to
assess the reasons for the increased level of risk and to take appropriate
action. Management should periodically evaluate each lending units
business and marketing plan for consistency with strategic portfolio
objectives.
Effective risk management also should include a periodic review of lending

policies and underwriting criteria. Before implementing any proposed
changes to policies or standards, management should estimate their potential
effect on risk tolerance limits, the banks overall risk profile, and the banks
ability to meet its portfolio objectives. Those estimates should later be tested
by comparing them with actual experience.
Management Information Systems
Effective portfolio credit risk management depends on adequate management

information systems (MIS). Industry consolidation and the relatively long
expansionary phase of the lending cycle have provided some banks with the
opportunity to increase their loan portfolios significantly, often by entering
new markets and product areas. However, the OCC has observed that the
credit MIS capabilities of some banks have not kept pace with this growth.
The OCC encourages bank senior management and board members to assess
periodically the adequacy of their banks credit MIS in light of recent loan
growth, acquisitions, and changes in the banks appetite for risk. The
maintenance of an adequate credit MIS gives banks the ability to segment
their loan portfolios and to assess risks more accurately.
Portfolio Segmentation and Risk Diversification Objectives
The selection and management of individual credit transactions remains an

important part of managing a banks credit risk, but portfolio credit risk
management also involves looking at entire segments of the portfolio
groups of loans with similar risk characteristics. Bank management may make
a different decision about underwriting requirements for an individual
transaction if it takes into account the risk profile of the banks entire portfolio
rather than focusing only on the individual transaction.

Effective portfolio management requires an understanding of all of the risk
characteristics of the portfolio. A bank should segment its portfolio in a
number of different ways for example, by loan type, industry, geography,
structure, collateral, tenor, and risk of default or loss. The same loan may be
included in several portfolio segments based on different risk elements.
Risk diversification is fundamental to portfolio management. The bank

should identify the risk characteristics of each segment. And, as part of
concentration management, the bank also should try to identify possible
covariances, similarities, or interrelationships among portfolio segments.
Identifying these shared risks is critical in developing diversification
strategies.
Analysis of Loans Originated by Other Lenders
Another part of portfolio credit risk management is assessing the effect of

loans originated and underwritten at other financial institutions on a banks
credit risk profile. These loans include individual syndicated credits and
participations and loans acquired through portfolio purchases. The OCC is
concerned that some downstream participants may be purchasing loans
based on underwriting standards significantly different from their own. The
acquisition of any such credits should be subject to proper due diligence.
The OCC encourages banks to consider the credit risks associated with
syndicated credits and participations from the perspective of overall portfolio
management. Before participating in a syndication or participation, a bank
should evaluate the risk of the proposed credit to determine whether the loan
is consistent with its portfolio strategy and risk tolerance. Because these
decisions often have a short deadline, an effective portfolio management
process is essential. Bankers should not invest in such credits without a
thorough understanding of their banks risk acceptance criteria and the
portfolio risk consequences.
The same portfolio risk concepts apply to the purchase of entire portfolios. A
bank must conduct sufficient due diligence to understand fully the credit risks
that it would assume in the purchase of a portfolio. The portfolio should be
appropriately segmented, and the credit risk should be properly evaluated.
Any decision to purchase, including the price at which to purchase, should

take into account the effect the loans will have on the banks overall portfolio
risk profile.
Banking Circular No. 181 (Revised), dated August 2, 1984, provides further
guidance regarding the purchase of loans and highlights actions required to
document, analyze, and control credit risk on such loans.
Aggregate Policy and Underwriting Exception System
Every bank should have a process to identify and approve loan policy and
underwriting exceptions and to document any mitigating factors. Most banks
do have effective systems for approving and monitoring exceptions for
individual transactions. However, just as the best way for a bank to
understand the full extent of its credit risk is to analyze aggregate loan data,
an important part of analyzing exceptions is to track and analyze policy and
underwriting exceptions in the aggregate.
Portfolio credit risk management is facilitated by reporting systems that

capture and track information on exceptions, both by transaction and by
relevant portfolio segments. The aggregate data is useful in assessing
portfolio risk profiles, reassessing existing policy and standards, and
evaluating the adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses. The data
also may serve as an oversight tool for monitoring the level of adherence to
policy and underwriting standards by departments or individual lenders. A
banks analysis of the information also may reveal a correlation between
certain types of exceptions and migration of internal risk ratings.
Stress Testing for Portfolios
In addition to stress testing significant individual credits, bank management

should consider developing what if scenarios for key portfolio segments.
The scenarios would identify possible credit risk triggers or events that could
increase risk for a portfolio segment or for the portfolio as a whole. The
trigger events may include interest rate changes, commodity or other price
shocks, economic cycles, or technological, political, or sociological changes.
Using scenarios can be more helpful if several possibilities are considered
and probabilities are assigned to each. One good, basic approach is to

develop best, worst, and most likely scenarios for each portfolio segment and
then to project the outcomes.
Bank management should also consider developing contingency plans for

scenarios and outcomes that involve credit risk in excess of the banks
established risk tolerances. These plans might include increasing monitoring,
limiting portfolio growth, and possibly hedging or exit strategies for both
significant individual transactions and key portfolio segments.
Independent and Effective Control Functions
Management should have control systems to ensure that credit extensions are
consistent with strategic portfolio and risk objectives. Reliable identification,
measurement, and monitoring of portfolio credit risk is possible only if
control systems ensure the accuracy of information. There are many control
functions throughout the lending process; in most banks, the key control
functions are loan review and audit.
The board of directors and senior management should ensure that these
important control functions are independent of the lending function and are
staffed adequately to perform their assigned duties. As bank systems and
composition of the portfolio become more sophisticated, the bank should
ensure that the expertise and experience of staff in the loan review and audit
functions keep pace. A bank should not attempt to achieve its operating
objectives at the expense of these necessary control functions.
Analysis of Portfolio Risk/reward Tradeoffs
Portfolio credit risk management is not sufficient if it does not take into
account the banks range of acceptable risk/reward relationships. The OCC
encourages banks to research and experiment with risk pricing models. The
models should consider individual transactions; relationship management,
including risks and revenues from all sources; and portfolio segment
risk/reward.

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix D
Loan Production Offices

Many national banks have established loan production offices to solicit and
originate business outside their main offices and authorized branches. The
solicitation and origination of loans by bank employees at loan production
offices (LPOs) is governed by Interpretive Ruling 7.1004, which requires that
the loans be approved and made at the main office or a branch office of the
bank or at an office of the LPO located on the premises of, or contiguous to,
the main office or a branch office of the bank.
Interpretive Ruling 7.1004 lists the following activities as examples of what

can be done at any LPO, regardless of location:
Soliciting loan business using, for example, advertisements disclosing

the nature and limitations of the loan production office.
Providing information on loan rates and terms.
Interviewing and counseling applicants regarding loans, including

giving them disclosures required by regulations such as Regulation Z of
the Federal Reserve Board.
Examiners should be alert for two practices that the interpretive ruling does
not allow. The first practice is originating and approving loans at a loan
production office, while disbursing funds from a main office or a branch.
Disbursing funds from the main office or a branch does not satisfy the
interpretive ruling since the loans are approved at the loan production office.
The second practice is making lending decisions at the LPO and forwarding
loans from the LPO to the main office or a branch for perfunctory approval
and disbursement. The interpretive ruling requires that bank employees at
the main office or a branch approve loans in accordance with safe and sound
banking practices by reviewing the credit quality of the loans and

determining that they meet the banks credit standards. Although employees
at the main office or a branch may consider recommendations made by the
loan production office when assessing the credit quality of a loan, they must
make independent, considered decisions.

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix E
Loan Participations
A participation, as distinguished from a multi-bank loan transaction
(syndicated loan), is an arrangement in which a bank makes a loan to a
borrower and then sells all or a portion of that loan to another bank. All
documentation is drafted in the name of the selling bank. Generally, the
purchasing banks share of the participated loan is evidenced by a certificate
that assigns an interest in the loan and any related collateral.
The purchase and sale of loans and participations in loans are established
banking practices. Such transactions serve legitimate needs of the buying and
selling banks and the public interest. However, the absence of satisfactory
controls over risk may constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.
Satisfactory controls over the purchase of loans and participations in loans

ordinarily include, but are not limited to, the following:
Sound policies and procedures governing these transactions.
An independent analysis of credit quality by the purchasing bank.
Agreement by the obligor to make full credit information available to

the selling bank.
Agreement by the selling bank to provide available information on the

obligor to the purchaser.
Written documentation of recourse arrangements outlining the rights

and obligations of each party.

Policy and Procedures
The purchase of loans, loan participations, and loan portfolios should be

governed by the credit principles and procedures contained in the purchasing
banks formal lending policy. The policy ordinarily should require:
Complete analysis and documentation of the credit quality of

obligations to be purchased.
An analysis of the value and lien status of the collateral.
The maintenance of full credit information on the obligor during the

term of the loan.
Independent Credit Analysis
To make a prudent credit decision, the purchasing bank should conduct an

independent credit analysis to satisfy itself that the loan, loan participation, or
loan portfolio meets its internal credit standards. The nature and extent of
this independent analysis should be based on the type of transaction being
considered and the purchasers lending policies and procedures. When loans
are purchased in bulk, for example, a prudent purchaser might assess the
credit of the class of obligors rather than each obligor.
Despite a favorable analysis of a loan by the seller, a credit rating institution,

or another entity, the purchasing bank should conduct an independent credit
analysis. A purchaser may, however, consider analyses obtained from the
seller and other sources.
To make an informed and independent evaluation of a credit, a purchaser

should have full credit information on an obligor. After the purchase is
made, the purchaser also needs timely credit information to monitor the
status of the credit. Although this information can often be obtained from
the seller, sometimes the information is insufficient. If it is, the purchaser
should look to other sources of information.

Prudent Transfer Agreements
The indirect relationship between the obligor and the purchaser makes it
difficult for the purchaser to assess the quality of the loan without the
cooperation of the selling or servicing bank. The purchaser ordinarily should
obtain full credit information on the obligor from the selling or servicing bank
at the outset and during the life of the participation. With such information at
hand, the purchaser should perform a continuing independent assessment of
the credit. Thus, the purchase or participation document should include an
agreement by the selling or servicing bank to continually provide any
available credit information on the obligor to the purchasing bank.
This is not intended to suggest that existing loan and participation agreements
need to be renegotiated when full credit information is not being furnished.
Nonetheless, the examiner should recommend appropriate action in any case
when less than full credit information is obtained.
The absence of prudent transfer agreements may affect a purchasers ability to

obtain, assess, and maintain sufficient credit information. Accordingly, the
purchase of a loan or participation in the absence of such transfer obligations
may be viewed as an unsafe or unsound banking practice.
Scope of Prudent Transfers
Transferred credit information should be sufficient in scope to enable a

purchaser to make an informed and independent credit decision. Full and
timely financial information should be transferred, as well as any nonfinancial
information that could help determine the quality of a loan. For example, any
known changes in the obligors corporate structure or management would
generally be disclosed.
Note: References to full and timely transfers of credit information are

intended to provide supervisory guidelines on safe and sound transfers of
credit information. The guidelines describe the scope of transfers required for
a purchaser to make an informed and independent credit decision. Apart
from such supervisory considerations, use of the terms full and timely is
not intended to suggest that the terms have particular legal significance; thus,
other terms may be used. The drafting and negotiation of standards

governing transfers of credit information are the responsibility of bank
management and counsel.
Financial information ordinarily includes:
Accrual status.
Status of principal and interest payments.
Financial statements, collateral values, and lien status.
Any factual information that affects the creditworthiness of the obligor.
Ordinarily, full credit information is obtained on each obligor. When loans

are purchased in bulk, however, credit information on the class of obligors
rather than each obligor could be sufficient for a prudent purchaser.
The selling bank should not release information if doing so would violate the
law. In particular, loan classification information and other examiner
opinions in confidential reports of examination and related documents may
not be disclosed without the express written approval of the Comptroller of
the Currency pursuant to 12 CFR 4.18(c). Unauthorized disclosures may
incur criminal penalties under 18 USC 641. The facts underlying examiners
loan criticisms can generally be furnished. A knowing misrepresentation of
credit quality may violate 18 USC 1014.
Recourse Arrangements
Repurchase agreements are subject to the limitations of 12 USC 84. If the

selling bank makes any direct or indirect recourse arrangements, written or
oral, that are not permitted by 12 USC 84, these arrangements are considered
to be extensions of credit to the selling bank subject to 12 USC 84. See 12
CFR 32.2(j)(1)(iv) and (j)(2)(vi).
Prudent recourse arrangements are documented in writing and reflected on

the books and records of both the buying and selling bank. The failure to
properly record or document these arrangements may constitute a false entry,
statement, report, or representation in violation of 18 USC 1005.

Sale and Purchase of U.S. Government-Guaranteed Loans
Examiners should review loan sale and purchase activities for government-
guaranteed loans. Lax or improper management of a selling banks servicing
responsibilities should be criticized. Lending out of the trade area for the
purpose of reselling any portion of U.S. government-guaranteed loans should
be carefully reviewed to ensure that the practice is conducted in a safe and
sound manner.
All income, including servicing fees and premiums charged in lieu of

servicing fees, associated with the sale of U.S. government-guaranteed loans
should be recognized as earned and amortized to appropriate income
accounts over the life of the loan.
Banks purchasing U.S. government-guaranteed loans should be aware that

the purchase premiums are not guaranteed and, if the loans are prepaid, are
not paid by the guaranteeing federal agency. It is generally considered an
unsafe and unsound banking practice for a bank to pay purchase premiums
that result in the value of bank assets being significantly overstated. Payment
of premiums that do not reasonably relate to the yield on a loan can distort
published financial reports by overstating the value of a banks assets.
Many variable-rate, government-guaranteed loans normally should not trade

at anything more than a modest premium or discount. Examiners should
carefully review any loans being sold or purchased at significant premiums
and should criticize any transactions with excessive premiums as unsafe and
unsound. Excessive purchase premiums should be classified loss. The loans
should be revalued to the market value at the time of the acquisition and the
excessive premiums charged against current earnings.
In addition, any unamortized loan premium on a government-guaranteed

loan must be immediately charged against income if the loan is prepaid,
regardless of whether payment is received from the borrower or the
guaranteeing agency.
The guaranteed portions of U.S. government-guaranteed loans should not be

recorded or carried as U.S. government or federal agency securities. They
should be carried and reported as U.S. government-guaranteed loans.

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix F
Loan Brokerage and Servicing Activities

Banks are engaging in more and more off-balance-sheet activities, including
the origination, sale, and servicing of various types of loans. Off-balance-
sheet activity is common in mortgage lending and occurs increasingly in
other consumer lending and in government-guaranteed lending (or portions
thereof) and credit card lending. Selling banks can generate income from
loan servicing fees and can reinvest the proceeds of the sales.
If loan sale proceeds are continually reinvested in new loan originations, the
volume of servicing assets may pose a risk. While loan servicing operations
usually benefit from economies of scale, the bank must recognize the
increased level of operational risk and take steps to ensure that it does not
become responsible for servicing more loans than it can effectively manage.
Failure to administer the loans properly may lead to legal or financial liabil-
ities that could severely affect bank capital. Examiners should review the
extent and nature of servicing activities to ensure that they are conducted in a
safe and sound manner. They should also ensure that servicing fees and
premiums charged in lieu of fees are amortized over the life of the loan.
Improper practices should be criticized.
Examiners should refer to the Comptrollers Handbook booklet on Asset

Securitization for a more complete discussion of the risks associated with off-
balance-sheet activities.

Loan Portfolio
Management Appendix G
IRS Express Determination Letters

This appendix outlines the procedures for issuing an express determination
letter in connection with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations
relating to bank-initiated charge-offs. It supplements appendix C,
Certification Procedures for Consumer Loans Charged Off between
Examinations in the Instalment Lending booklet of the Comptrollers
Handbook. The procedures contained in appendix C of Instalment Lending
remain in effect for banks that choose not to operate under the new
regulations.
Background
The IRS has issued regulations on the deductibility of loan charge-offs by

financial institutions. Under these regulations, institutions may elect to put
their tax accounting for bad debts in conformity with their regulatory
accounting. Institutions electing to do so will automatically be allowed to
deduct charge-offs of loss assets for federal income tax purposes in the same
year the charge-offs are taken for regulatory purposes.
The regulations require an institution to maintain loan loss classification

standards that are consistent with the standards established for loan
charge-offs by its primary federal supervisory agency. If the institution meets
these requirements, its loan charge-offs are conclusively presumed worthless
for federal income tax purposes. These regulations are effective for taxable
years ending on or after December 31, 1991.
Election Requirements
To be eligible, an institution must file a conformity election with its federal

tax return. The IRS regulations also require the institutions primary federal
supervisory agency to expressly determine whether the institution maintains

and applies classification standards for loan charge-offs that are consistent
with regulatory requirements.
Procedures
The bank is responsible for requesting an express determination letter during

each examination that covers the loan review process.
When a bank that has made or intends to make the election under IRS
Regulation 1.166-2(d)(3) requests such a letter, the examiner may issue one
similar to the sample letter following this appendix, provided the bank
maintains and applies loan loss classification standards that are consistent
with regulatory requirements.
The letter should be issued only when an examination covering the banks
loan review process is completed and when the examiner has concluded that
it is appropriate to issue it. Examiners should not alter the scope or frequency
of examinations merely to permit a bank to use this regulation.
The letter should be signed and dated by the examiner-in-charge and given to
the bank for its files. The letter is not part of the examination report. The
examiners conclusions on the banks loan loss classification standards should
appear in examination workpapers.
OCC standards for loan charge-offs and classification standards are set forth in
this booklets sections on instalment loans, credit card loans, and classification
of credits.
The determination letter should be issued only when:
The examination indicates that the bank maintains and applies loan loss
classification standards that are consistent with OCC standards regarding
the identification of losses and the charge-off of loans.
There are no material deviations from regulatory standards.
Minor criticisms of the banks loan review process or immaterial deviations from
regulatory standards should not preclude issuance of the letter.

The letter should not be issued when:
Examiners have significantly criticized the banks loan review process

on charge-offs.
Loan charge-offs are consistently overstated or understated on call

reports.
The bank has a pattern of failing to recognize loan charge-offs in the

appropriate year.
Revoking the Election
The banks election of the new method is revoked automatically if the

examiner does not issue an express determination letter following an
examination covering the loan review process. The OCC is not required to
rescind any previously issued express determination letters.
An examiners decision to withhold the determination letter revokes the

election for the current year. However, it does not invalidate a banks
election for any previous years. Withholding the determination letter places
the burden of proof on the bank to support its tax deductions for loan
charge-offs.

Sample Letter
Date
Chief Executive Officer National Bank
EXPRESS DETERMINATION LETTER FOR IRS REGULATION 1.166-2(d)(3)
In connection with the most recent examination of [NAME OF BANK] by the

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, we reviewed the institutions loan
review process as it relates to loan charge-offs. Based on our review, we
concluded that the bank, as of [EXAMINATION CLOSE DATE], maintained
and applied loan loss classification standards that were consistent with
regulatory standards regarding loan charge-offs.
This statement is made on the basis of a review that was conducted in

accordance with our normal examination procedures and criteria, including
sampling of loans in accordance with those procedures and criteria. It does
not in any way limit or preclude any formal or informal supervisory action
(including enforcement actions) by this supervisory authority relating to the
institutions loan review process or the level at which it maintains its
allowance for loan and lease losses.
Sincerely yours,
National Bank Examiner

Examiner-in-charge

Loan Portfolio
Management References
Laws, Regulations, and Rulings
Banking Laws for Examiners, OCC

Banking Regulations for Examiners, Volumes 1 - 4, OCC
(See the subject index in the back of Banking Laws for the laws, regulations,
or rulings sought.)
Interagency Policy Statements
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council Supervisory Policy, The

Sale of U.S. Government-Guaranteed Loans and Sale Premiums,
May 7, 1985
Interagency Policy Statement, Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses,
December 21, 1993
Attachment 1, Loan Review Systems
Attachment 2, International Transfer Risk Considerations
Accounting and Reporting Issues
Accounting Principles Board Opinion 21, Interest on Receivables and

Payables
Bank Accounting Advisory Series, OCC, June 1994
FAS 15, Accounting by Debtors and Creditors for Troubled Debt
Restructurings
FAS 66, Accounting for Sales of Real Estate
FAS 114, Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Consolidated Reports of
Condition and Income Instructions

Loan Portfolio Management: Comptroller's Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Loan Portfolio Management: Comptroller's Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Loan Portfolio Management: Comptroller's Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A-LPM

Comptroller of the Currency

Loan Portfolio Management

Updated June 26, 2017, for Nonaccrual Status

Loan Portfolio Management i Comptrollers Handbook

Examination Procedures ............................................................................ 45

Loan Portfolio Management ii Comptrollers Handbook

Effective management of the loan portfolio and the credit function is

Loan Portfolio Management 1 Comptrollers Handbook

Assessment of the credit culture,

Loan Portfolio Management 2 Comptrollers Handbook

This booklet contains important background information on loan portfolio

Risks Associated with Lending

According to the OCCs supervision by risk philosophy, risk is the potential

Loan Portfolio Management 3 Comptrollers Handbook

A key challenge in managing risk is understanding the interrelationships of

Loan Portfolio Management 4 Comptrollers Handbook

Traditionally, banks have focused on oversight of individual loans in

Banks engaged in international lending face country risks that domestic

Loan Portfolio Management 5 Comptrollers Handbook

Strategies for managing country risk will be discussed in Country Risk

Interest Rate Risk

Pricing and portfolio maturity decisions should be made with an eye to

Loan Portfolio Management 6 Comptrollers Handbook

The Comptrollers Handbook booklet Interest Rate Risk provides guidance

Because of the size of the loan portfolio, effective management of liquidity

As part of liquidity planning, a banks overall liquidity strategy should include

Loan Portfolio Management 7 Comptrollers Handbook

Any analysis of a banks ability to reduce or cut existing commitments must

Loans originated for sale as part of a securitization or for direct placement in

Loan Portfolio Management 8 Comptrollers Handbook

Banks engaged in international lending may be affected by price changes in

Foreign Exchange Risk

Foreign exchange risk is present when a loan or portfolio of loans is

In the lending area, transaction risk is present primarily in the loan

Loan Portfolio Management 9 Comptrollers Handbook

Lending activities encompass a broad range of compliance responsibilities

A primary objective of loan portfolio management is to control the strategic

Loan Portfolio Management 10 Comptrollers Handbook

When a bank experiences credit problems, its reputation with investors,

Credit Culture and Risk Profile

Loan Portfolio Management 11 Comptrollers Handbook

Loan Portfolio Management 12 Comptrollers Handbook

Significant cultural confusion can surface in merged and acquired companies.

Loan Portfolio Objectives

Loan portfolio objectives establish specific, measurable goals for the

To grant loans on a sound and collectible basis.

Strategic Planning for the Loan Portfolio

Loan Portfolio Management 13 Comptrollers Handbook

The banks loan policies, underwriting guidelines, and procedures should

In community banks without formal strategic plans, senior management

Banks typically assess their financial performance using measurements such

Loan Portfolio Management 14 Comptrollers Handbook

In addition to establishing strategic objectives for the loan portfolio, senior

Portfolio Risk and Reward

Loan Portfolio Management 15 Comptrollers Handbook

Loan Portfolio Management 16 Comptrollers Handbook

The Loan Policy