SEC Company Response from FIRST COMMUNITY BANKSHARES (FCBC) — Nov 13, 2009
FIRST COMMUNITY BANKSHARES INC /VA/ (FCBC) (CIK 0000859070)
Date: Nov. 13, 2009 · CIK: 0000859070 · Accession: 0001144204-09-059082
AI Filing Summary & Sentiment
File numbers found in text: 000-19297
Referenced dates: June 23, 2009
Show Raw Text
CORRESP
1
filename1.htm
Unassociated Document
November
13, 2009
Via
EDGAR
Ms.
Angela Connell
Reviewing
Accountant
Division
of Corporation Finance
U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F
Street, NW
Washington,
D.C. 20549
Mail Stop
4720
Re:
First
Community Bancshares, Inc.
Form
10-Q for the Fiscal Quarter Ended June 30, 2009
File
No. 000-19297
Dear Ms.
Connell:
This
letter is provided on behalf of First Community Bancshares, Inc. (“First
Community,” the “Company,” “we,” or “our”) in response to your letter of October
7, 2009, regarding the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
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 Securities and Exchange Commission (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 proceeding
initiated by the Commission or any person under the federal securities
laws of the United States.
For your
convenience, we have included in this letter, in bold, each of the comments in
your letter; our responses follow.
Form 10-Q for Fiscal Quarter
Ended June 30, 2009
Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements
General
1.
Please
revise your future quarterly filings to provide the disclosures required
by paragraph 20(a) of SFAS 114. Please note that such disclosures are
required as of each balance sheet date, including quarterly
periods.
Beginning
with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009,
we have provided the disclosures required by paragraph 20(a) of SFAS
114. The following disclosure was included in the Company’s Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
The
following table presents the Company’s investment in loans considered to be
impaired and related information on those impaired loans for the periods ended
September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008.
P.O. Box
989 □ One Community Place □ Bluefield, VA 24605 □ Telephone: 276-326-9000 □ Fax:
276-326-9010 □ www.fcbinc.com
Ms.
Angela Connell
November
13, 2009
Page
2
September
30,
December
31,
(In
Thousands)
2009
2008
Recorded
investment in loans considered to be impaired:
Impaired
loans with reserves
$
4,231
$
4,796
Impaired
loans without reserves
10,559
8,504
Total
impaired loans
14,790
13,300
Allowance
for loan losses related to loans considered to be impaired
1,221
678
Interest
income recognized on impaired loans, year to date
397
793
Impaired
loans without reserves at September 30, 2009, include $4.24 million of acquired
loans with credit deterioration. Interest income realized on impaired
loans is recognized upon receipt if the impaired loan is on a non-accrual
basis.
Note 3. Investment
Securities, pages 14-15
2.
In
your response to comment 17 of our letter dated June 23, 2009 you stated
that you would add a column to your investment tables disclosing the
amount of OTTI recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income. It
does not appear that you have included this required disclosure in your
June 30, 2009 Form 10-Q. Accordingly, please revise your future filings to
include this disclosure as required by paragraph 19 of SFAS 115 as amended
by FSP FAS 115-2 and 124-2.
We
included the amount of OTTI recognized in AOCI, as required by paragraph 19 of
SFAS 115, as amended, in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009. The following disclosure was included in the
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2009.
Ms.
Angela Connell
November
13, 2009
Page
3
As of
September 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, the amortized cost and estimated fair
value of available-for-sale securities were as follows:
September
30, 2009
Amortized
Unrealized
Unrealized
Fair
OTTI
in
Cost
Gains
Losses
Value
AOCI
(In
Thousands)
U.S.
Government agency securities
$
66,191
$
697
$
-
$
66,888
$
-
States
and political subdivisions
134,885
4,092
(481
)
138,496
-
Trust
preferred securities:
Single
issue
55,586
-
(18,132
)
37,454
-
Pooled
60,116
-
(37,014
)
23,102
(31,862
)
Total
trust preferred securities
115,702
-
(55,146
)
60,556
(31,862
)
Mortgage-backed
securities:
Agency
284,092
6,875
(361
)
290,606
-
Non-Agency
prime residential
6,166
-
(627
)
5,539
-
Non-Agency
Alt-A residential
20,968
-
(9,437
)
11,531
(9,437
)
Total
mortgage-backed securities
311,226
6,875
(10,425
)
307,676
(9,437
)
Equities
2,312
208
(336
)
2,184
-
Total
$
630,316
$
11,872
$
(66,388
)
$
575,800
$
(41,299
)
December
31, 2008
Amortized
Unrealized
Unrealized
Fair
OTTI
in
Cost
Gains
Losses
Value
AOCI
(In
Thousands)
U.S.
Government agency securities
$
53,425
$
1,393
$
-
$
54,818
$
-
States
and political subdivisions
163,042
864
(4,487
)
159,419
-
Trust
preferred securities:
Single
Issue
55,491
-
(21,950
)
33,541
-
Pooled
93,269
-
(60,757
)
32,512
-
Total
trust preferred securities
148,760
-
(82,707
)
66,053
-
Mortgage-backed
securities:
Agency
212,315
4,649
(2
)
216,962
-
Non-Agency
prime residential
7,423
-
(1,657
)
5,766
-
Non-Agency
Alt-A residential
10,750
-
-
10,750
-
Total
mortgage-backed securities
230,488
4,649
(1,659
)
233,478
-
Equities
7,979
357
(1,381
)
6,955
-
Total
$
603,694
$
7,263
$
(90,234
)
$
520,723
$
-
3.
Refer
to comment 10 in our letter dated June 23, 2009. Regarding the cumulative
effect adjustment related to the $15.5 million in other-than-temporary
impairment (“OTTI”) charges recorded in 2008 on your pooled trust
preferred securities, you state that you determined the entire amount of
the impairment to be credit-related based on a review of the cash flow
projections you used in your determination of whether or not there had
been an adverse change in cash flow at December 31, 2008 and that you
enhanced your assumptions to include a continuing element of defaults in
addition to those projected. Please provide us additional specific details
regarding how you enhanced your assumptions to include a continuing
element of defaults in addition to those projected, tell us why you
believe it was appropriate to revise your cash flow projections and
provide us the authoritative guidance which you believe supports your
methodology. It appears that paragraph 45 of FSP FAS 115-2 and 124-2
requires you to calculate the cumulative adjustment as of the beginning of
the period in which you adopt the standard and therefore your calculations
would be based on the unadjusted cash flows expected to be collected used
in your adverse change in cash flow assessment at December 31,
2008.
Ms.
Angela Connell
November
13, 2009
Page
4
At
December 31, 2008, GAAP at that time, as prescribed by EITF 99-20 paragraph
12.b., was to determine if an adverse change in cash flows had
occurred. Our initial cash flow projections for the SOLOSO 2007
security were based upon actual and projected specific defaults and deferrals
for the underlying collateral, but no assumption for default of banks that were
not specifically identified. This analysis indicated that a break in
yield was present, and under then-current GAAP, further analysis or
consideration of further projected defaults was unnecessary and was not
performed at that time, as any adverse change in cash flow resulted in an
immediate recognition of the entire unrealized loss as an
other-than-temporary-impairment charge. Under the GAAP in effect as
of the filing date of our Form 10-K, we appropriately recognized
other-than-temporary impairment of $15.46 million, reducing the carrying value
to approximately $2.94 million.
Upon the
adoption of FSP 115-2 and 124-2, we reviewed our cash flow projections for the
security as of December 31, 2008. We determined that we had an
adverse change in cash flows at December 31, 2008, before we completed the full
expected cash flow analysis that was consistent with our analysis for all of our
other pooled trust preferred securities. At that time additional, consistent
analysis would not have provided a different result, as any adverse change in
cash flows would result in the same amount of impairment charge to be taken
through the income statement. Our process at that time for all of our
other pooled trust preferred securities was to add a continuing element of
default of 75 basis points as a FAS 5 component to overlay the specifically
known and projected defaults and deferrals. This represents our
enhancement to the original cash flow analysis performed as of December 31,
2008, which we felt was prudent in order to determine whether or not there was
reasonable justification for recording a cost basis in this security that was
above fair value. We view it not as an enhancement, but a consistent
application of our approach as of December 31, 2008.
In
accordance with paragraph 25 of FSP 115-2, we considered other factors besides
the discounted cash flow analysis that had an impact on our assessment of
whether the recorded loss was credit related. As noted in paragraph
25.d., this security has certain structural issues that are different from our
other holdings and that we believe add a greater degree of risk to the
realization of projected cash flows. For example, this security has a
collateral manager that can swap collateral within the structure without the
approval of the rated security holders. The collateral manager is
able to replace unrated trust preferred and subordinate debt collateral within
the deal with other more highly rated collateral. The replacement
collateral, in all likelihood, will pay a lesser amount of periodic interest,
thus decreasing the overall cash flows coming into the deal. This
introduces an added element of risk and uncertainty to the realization of future
cash flows.
Additionally,
Like most other pooled trust preferred deals, the SLOSO has the ability to
direct cash flow to the highest rated tranches and decrease the outstanding
principal balance when certain overcollateralization tests are not
met. Generally, the lower tranches receive a “payment-in-kind” when
this occurs and the interest payment due is effectively capitalized into the
principal amount of the tranche. This security was deferring interest
payments, which remained contractually due, but the principal balance of t