SecProbe.io

Filing text and metadata
Intelligence Terminal Search Probe Scores Topics IPO Watchlist Monthly Activity About API

SEC Company Response from SouthState Corp (SSB) (CIK 0000764038) (SSB) — Nov 5, 2009

SouthState Corp (SSB) (CIK 0000764038)
Date: Nov. 5, 2009 · CIK: 0000764038 · Accession: 0001104659-09-062987

AI Filing Summary & Sentiment

File numbers found in text: 001-12669

Date
December 31, 2008
Author
/s/ John C. Pollok
Form
CORRESP
Company
SouthState Corp (SSB) (CIK 0000764038)

Letter

Securities and Exchange Commission Division of Corporation Finance SCBT Financial Corporation Form 10-K for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2008 Form 10-Q for Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2009 File No. 001-12669

Re:

Dear Mr. Nolan:

The letter is provided on behalf of SCBT Financial Corporation (the “Company,” “SCBT,” “we,” or “our”) in response to the letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) dated November 4, 2009 (the “Request Letter”) related to its review of the Company’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2009, and request for certain information.

The Company acknowledges that:

· The Company is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the referenced filings;

· Staff comments or changes to disclosures in response to staff comments do not foreclose the Commission from taking any action with respect to the referenced filings; and

· The Company may not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceedings initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United States.

Below we have outlined our response to the Request Letter. For your convenience, we have restated the SEC’s comment (in italics) prior to our response.

1. Consistent with the guidance in paragraphs 10 and 12 of FSP EITF 99-20-1 and 25 and 26 of FSP 115-2, we believe you must look at the specific collateral underlying each individual security to develop the credit deferral assumptions for your estimated cash flows and that simply using the same general deferral assumption for every pooled trust preferred security you hold is not a reasonable methodology consistent with the guidance. Therefore, please revise your OTTI methodology for these securities to use the specific collateral underlying each security as the basis for your credit deferral/default assumptions or provide us with an analysis that supports that the difference in credit loss is not material. In addition, if you intend to change you OTTI methodology going forward, please clearly disclose this policy in future filings.

RESPONSE:

In connection with this request, we submit the following analysis that supports that the difference in credit loss produced by our current methodology is not materially different than using a specific collateral methodology. See the two attached exhibits (1 and 2) representing our analysis that the difference is not material to the Company.

In addition, we intend to change our methodology going forward for determining OTTI. For such analysis, we will use the methodology that looks at the specific collateral underlying each individual trust preferred security to develop credit deferral/default assumptions for our estimated cash flows. We will clearly disclose this policy in future filings beginning with the filing of our Form 10-K subsequent to the fourth quarter of 2009.

Please contact the undersigned at (803) 765-4630 with any questions regarding this letter. Thank you.

Sincerely,
/s/ John C. Pollok

Show Raw Text
CORRESP
1
filename1.htm

November 5,
2009

Mr. John
P. Nolan

Senior
Assistant Chief Accountant

Securities
and Exchange Commission

Division
of Corporation Finance

100
F. Street, N.E.

Washington,
D.C.  20549

  Re:

  SCBT
  Financial Corporation

  Form 10-K
  for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2008

  Form 10-Q
  for Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2009

  File
  No. 001-12669

Dear
Mr. Nolan:

The
letter is provided on behalf of SCBT Financial Corporation (the “Company,” “SCBT,”
“we,” or “our”)  in response to the
letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) dated November 4,
2009 (the “Request Letter”) related to its review of the Company’s Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2009, and request for certain information.

The
Company acknowledges that:

·                  The Company is
responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the disclosure in the referenced
filings;

·                  Staff comments
or changes to disclosures in response to staff comments do not foreclose the
Commission from taking any action with respect to the referenced filings; and

·                  The Company may
not assert staff comments as a defense in any proceedings initiated by the
Commission or any person under the federal securities laws of the United
States.

Below
we have outlined our response to the Request Letter.  For your convenience, we have restated the
SEC’s comment (in italics) prior to our
response.

1.              Consistent
with the guidance in paragraphs 10 and 12 of FSP EITF 99-20-1 and 25 and 26 of FSP
115-2, we believe you must look at the specific collateral underlying each
individual security to develop the credit deferral assumptions for your
estimated cash flows and that simply using the same general deferral assumption
for every pooled trust preferred security you hold is not a reasonable
methodology consistent with the guidance.
Therefore, please revise your OTTI methodology for these securities to
use the specific collateral underlying each security as the basis for your
credit deferral/default assumptions or provide us with an analysis that
supports that the difference in credit loss is not material.  In addition, if you intend to change you OTTI
methodology going forward, please clearly disclose this policy in future filings.

RESPONSE:

In connection with this request, we submit the following analysis that
supports that the difference in credit loss produced by our current methodology
is not materially different than using a specific collateral methodology.  See the two attached exhibits (1 and 2) representing
our analysis that the difference is not material to the Company.

In addition, we intend to change our methodology going forward for
determining OTTI.  For such analysis, we
will use the methodology that looks at the specific collateral underlying each
individual trust preferred security to develop credit deferral/default
assumptions for our estimated cash flows.
We will clearly disclose this policy in future filings beginning with
the filing of our Form 10-K subsequent to the fourth quarter of 2009.

Please contact the undersigned at (803) 765-4630 with any questions
regarding this letter.  Thank you.

  Sincerely,

  /s/ John C. Pollok

  John C. Pollok

  Senior Executive Vice President and

  Chief Financial Officer

  cc:

  Matt Snow, CPA, Member, Dixon Hughes PLLC

  John Jennings, Nelson Mullins Riley &
  Scarborough LLP

2

EXHIBIT 1

SCBT Financial Corporation

September 30, 2009

SAB 99 Analysis - TRUPs Investment Securities

(Dollars in thousands)

  During the current

  period – 2009

  End of the period –

  9/30/2009

  Credit portion of

  Credit portion of

  OTTI on TRUPs

  OTTI on TRUPs

  a

  Misstatement due to inability to precisely estimate

  No

  No

  b

  Do misstatements mask a trend in earnings? (if made, would a positive
  trend become negative?)

  No

  No

  c

  Would misstatements (if adjusted) cause the company to miss analyst
  expectations?

  No

  No

  d

  Does misstatement change a loss to income or income to a loss?

  No

  No

  e

  Is the misstatement relevant to the area of the Company’s business that
  is most critical in determining the profitability of the business (NIM,
  Provision for loan losses)

  No

  No

  f

  Would misstatements (if adjusted) materially affect compliance with
  regulatory requirements (particularly RBC ratios?)

  No

  No

  g

  Do misstatements impact compliance with loan covenants?

  No

  No

  h

  Has misstatement increased management compensation?

  No

  No

  i

  Does misstatement conceal an unlawful transaction?

  No

  No

  j

  How have changes in financial statement items in which misstatements are
  noted impacted the volatility of the company’s stock price?(For example, if
  the company had previously announced significant REO charge-offs, and the
  stock price had been significantly impacted, this might indicate that the
  market is particularly sensitive to that line item.)

  The misstatements would not have had any
  impact on the company’s stock price in the opinion of management.

  The misstatements would not have had any
  impact on the company’s stock price in the opinion of management.

  Pre-tax net income on YTD basis 9/30/2009

  $

  18,305

  Pre-tax net income on QTD basis 9/30/2009

  $

  3,185

  Pre-tax net income understated by

  $

  315

  $

  315

  Understated for the quarter ended 9/30/2009 - (1)

  9.89%

  Understated for the nine months ended 9/30/2009

  1.72%

  (1)

  SCBT does not believe that $315,000 understatement of net income is
  material for the following reasons:
  Net income is unusually deflated due to this impairment charge of
  $2.204 million, due to elevated loan loss provision, OREO expenses and FDIC
  assessments.  This adjustment would
  increase net earnings versus decrease earnings, and on an annual basis
  represents 1.72% of YTD earnings.
  Annual net income is expected to be more than the September 30, 2009
  YTD results, consequently the percentage understatement will be less than the
  1.72% referenced above.

EXHIBIT
2

Analysis
of OTTI Charges as of September 30, 2009

  15% Recovery

  5% Recovery

  Book Value Sept 09

  I. 75 bps Annually

  Approach

  II. 11.5% Accelerated

  Prior SCBT Approach

  III. 75 bps Annually

  Approach

  IV. 11.5% Accelerated

  SCBT Approach

  V. Specific Collateral

  Approach

  $2,982,526

  PreTSL 9

  (396,958.00)

  (591,919.00)

  (493,136.00)

  (699,291.00)

  (402,317.00)

  $3,082,531

  PreTSL 10 B-1

  (289,294.00)

  (576,310.00)

  (357,016.00)

  (654,435.00)

  (686,305.00)

  $865,412

  PreTSL 10 B-3

  (83,206.00)

  (164,512.00)

  (101,914.00)

  (186,294.00)

  (180,756.00)

  $3,000,000

  PreTSL 11

  11,927.00

  11,927.00

  11,927.00

  (39,528.00)

  11,927.00

  $1,000,000

  PreTSL 13

  3,983.00

  (26,777.00)

  3,983.00

  (49,637.00)

  (105,710.00)

  $1,800,000

  PreTSL 14

  7,381.00

  7,381.00

  7,381.00

  7,381.00

  7,429.00

  $1,009,620

  PreTSL 16

  (329,153.00)

  (509,994.00)

  (379,765.00)

  (574,818.00)

  (514,153.00)

  $13,740,089

  TOTAL
  PreTSL’s Impairment

  (1,098,611.00)

  (1,869,512.00)

  (1,331,831.00)

  (2,204,003.00)

  (1,889,241.00)

  Projected Deferrals

  Projected Deferrals

  Projected Deferrals

  Projected Deferrals

  Projected Deferrals

  Projected Deferrals

  Projected Deferrals

  PreTSL 9

  PreTSL 10 B-1

  PreTSL 10 B-3

  PreTSL 11

  PreTSL 13

  PreTSL 14

  PreTSL 16

  September 30, 2009

  Specific Collateral

  Approach specific issuer

  based deferrals

  6.06

  %

  8.87

  %

  8.87

  %

  9.67

  %

  12.33

  %

  9.21

  %

  10.39

  %

  deferrals as

  Remaining
  deferrals

  4.625

  %

  4.688

  %

  4.688

  %

  4.75

  %

  4.88

  %

  4.94

  %

  5.13

  %

  a % of

  deal collateral

  Total
  Specific Collateral

  Approach (V)

  10.685

  %

  13.558

  %

  13.558

  %

  14.420

  %

  17.205

  %

  14.150

  %

  15.515

  %

  Deferrals based
  upon SCBT’s 99-

  20 approach (IV)

  16.313

  %

  16.375

  %

  16.375

  %

  16.438

  %

  16.563

  %

  16.625

  %

  16.813

  %

  Difference

  5.628

  %

  2.817

  %

  2.817

  %

  2.018

  %

  -0.642

  %

  2.475

  %

  1.298

  %

  specific collateral
  approach - to be used prospectively.

  represents securities
  with a value denoting no credit related OTTI

  SCBT’s method used