The Serious Problem at Kendallville Bank

The Serious Problem at Kendallville Bank: A Call for Action Introduction The case of Kendallville Bank presents a series of concerning issues that demand immediate attention. This essay aims to shed light on the main problems identified and provide recommendations for the appropriate actions the board of directors, audit committee, and compensation committee should take.

1. On a scale of 1 to 10, how serious of a problem exists at Kendallville Bank?

On a scale of 1 to 10, the seriousness of the problem at Kendallville Bank is an alarming 8. The bank is facing significant challenges in terms of financial reporting accuracy, governance practices, corporate culture, and internal audit independence. These issues pose a threat to the bank’s integrity, stability, and long-term success.

2. The Main Issue: Inaccurate Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL)

The main issue at Kendallville Bank revolves around the inaccurate calculation of the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL). This crucial financial metric serves as a buffer against potential loan losses, protecting the bank from financial instability. However, Dan Davis, the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), made inappropriate adjustments to the ALLL in the second and third quarters, compromising its accuracy and reliability.

3. Davis’ Actions Regarding the ALLL in the Second Quarter

In the second quarter, Davis made changes to the ALLL by reducing its value. This adjustment was questionable as it potentially understated the bank’s actual loan loss reserves. By doing so, Davis presented a misleading financial picture that did not accurately reflect the bank’s true risk exposure.

4. Appropriateness of the Change in the Second Quarter

The change made by Davis to the ALLL in the second quarter was not appropriate. It went against accounting principles and undermined the transparency and accuracy of financial reporting. Such actions erode stakeholders’ trust and can have serious consequences for the bank’s credibility and reputation.

5. The Impact of Changing the Look-Back Period

Changing the look-back period from 8 quarters to 12 quarters would have a significant impact on the ALLL. By extending the period, the bank would include historical data from a more extended time frame, providing a more accurate reflection of the bank’s loan loss experience. This change would likely increase the ALLL, ensuring a more conservative approach to risk management.

6. The Impact of Changing the Look-Back Period on Financials

Changing the look-back period would impact the financials by increasing the reported ALLL. This adjustment would result in reduced net income and potentially lower earnings per share. While it may present short-term challenges, it is essential for the long-term health of the bank’s balance sheet and risk management practices.

7. Motivations Behind Davis’ Proposal for Changing the Look-Back Period

Davis’ motivations for proposing the change in the look-back period may stem from a desire to present a more favorable financial picture to stakeholders. By reducing the ALLL, he could potentially improve the bank’s perceived financial performance and boost investor confidence. However, this motivation is misguided and compromises the bank’s integrity.

8. Appropriateness of Discussions at Credit Quarterly Committee Meetings

The discussions at the Credit Quarterly Committee meetings were not at an appropriate level of detail. There was a lack of deep analysis and examination of potential risks and issues. These meetings should have provided a platform for robust discussions about the accuracy and appropriateness of financial reporting, including the ALLL calculation.

9. Davis’ Actions Regarding the ALLL in the Third Quarter

In the third quarter, Davis made further changes to the ALLL, this time dropping the CRE2 category from consideration. This action raises concerns about Davis’ commitment to accurate financial reporting and his willingness to manipulate data to present a more favorable financial position.

10. Distortion of the ALLL by Using Historical Loss Rates from Only the CRE1 Loans

Using historical loss rates from only the CRE1 loans does distort the ALLL. By excluding the CRE2 category, which represents a significant portion of the bank’s loan portfolio, the calculation fails to account for potential risks and losses associated with these loans. This distortion creates an inaccurate representation of the bank’s overall risk exposure.

11. Motivations Behind Dropping the CRE2 Category

Davis’ proposal to drop the CRE2 category at this time may be driven by a desire to downplay potential risks associated with these loans. By doing so, he could present a more favorable financial position to stakeholders, potentially improving investor confidence. However, this manipulation compromises the integrity of financial reporting and is not in line with best practices.

12. Managing Dan Davis: Recommendations for Sandra Renford

If I were Sandra Renford, I would manage Dan Davis by taking the following actions:

• Clearly communicate expectations regarding accurate and transparent financial reporting.
• Reinforce the importance of adhering to accounting principles and ethical standards.
• Establish a culture of accountability and integrity throughout the organization.
• Implement regular training and education programs to ensure employees are aware of their responsibilities.
• Conduct a thorough review of Davis’ actions and consider disciplinary measures if necessary.
• Strengthen internal controls and oversight to prevent future misconduct.

Conclusion Kendallville Bank is facing a serious problem that demands urgent attention. The inaccurate calculation of the ALLL, along with other governance and cultural issues, poses significant risks to the bank’s stability and reputation. The board of directors, audit committee, and compensation committee must take decisive actions to rectify these problems, restore stakeholder trust, and ensure the bank’s long-term success.

Sample Answer