This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk04: Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to Bank 7 Corp's first quarter earnings conference call. Before we get started, I'd like to highlight the legal information and disclaimer on page 22 of the investor presentation. For those who do not have access to the presentation, management is going to discuss certain topics that contain forward-looking information, which is based on management's beliefs as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to management. Although management believes that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, they can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Such statements are subject to certain risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, including, among other things, the direct and indirect effect of economic conditions on interest rates, credit quality, loan demand, liquidity, and monetary and supervisory policies of banking regulators. Should one or more of these risks materialize or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those expected. Also, please note that this conference call contains references to non-GAAP financial measures. You can find reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to GAAP financial measures in an 8 that was filed this morning by the company. Representing the company on today's call, we have Tom Travis, President and CEO, J.T. Phillips, Chief Operating Officer, Jason Estes, Chief Credit Officer, Kelly Harris, Chief Financial Officer. With that, I will turn the call over to Tom Travis.
spk03: Good afternoon. Thanks for joining us. We're very pleased with our earnings for the first quarter and The company continues to benefit from our robust geographic markets and our pro-business environment. We're really pleased with where we are today, and we're really excited about the rest of the year. With that, we'll open it up for questions.
spk04: Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we'll begin the question and answer session. If you would like to ask a question, you can join the question queue by pressing star and then one using a touch-tone telephone. To withdraw your questions, you may press star and two. If you are using a speakerphone, we ask that you please pick up the handset prior to pressing the numbers to ensure the best sound quality. Once again, that is star and then one to join the question queue. Our first question today comes from Brady Gailey from KBW. Please go ahead with your question.
spk07: Hey, thanks. Good afternoon, guys. So I just want to start with the margin. I know this is the first full quarter with the acquisition embedded. And I know that your loan fees were down a little bit. But, you know, like last year, your margin was pretty regularly over 5%. It's now about 443. How are you thinking about the margin outlook from here?
spk03: Who wants to take that one?
spk02: Brady, this is Kelly. You know, we picked up an extra $100 million in debt securities in the first quarter, middle of March, really.
spk03: And that was on top of?
spk02: On top of the other $100 million.
spk03: That we picked up in December.
spk02: $200 million, you know, book yield is about $175, $176. So that really has weighted down our overall NEM in Q1. And I think it would be fair to say as we continue to fund up loan growth, as well as when those debt securities mature and move out of that bucket, you will see our NIM expand to more historical levels. Okay.
spk07: And I know we've talked about the fee component of the margin, which I keep hearing you guys say that'll normalize lower to about 50 basis points, but it's been higher than that just for years now. I know PPP is kind of nearing the end here, but do you still think that the loan fees as a component of the NIM will still get down to that 50 roughly basis point level?
spk03: Yeah, I think if you look at the data on slide eight, Brady, this is Tom, what you'll see is if you go back to historical levels, you can see a definite downward trend in that number. And so obviously 21 was really interrupted by COVID. And so I think that what we've been saying for some time that it wouldn't surprise us if the number got to 40 basis points at some point in our life cycle. It just happens as you as you grow. So I don't think that there's any belief on our case that that temporary march downward was anything but COVID related. Okay.
spk07: Y'all had a pretty nice loan growth quarter. XPVP was about 15% length quarter annualized. Is there any reason to think that that will slow at all from here? Or is that a good run rate?
spk05: You know, it's interesting. We continuously kind of provide the feedback or input that we expect kind of low double-digit growth rates year over year. I don't really like to get into going by quarter to quarter to quarter because we go through phases, and I think all banks, especially our size, would go through this, where you get kind of lumpy fundings and lumpy paydowns. And, you know, I feel really good about our deal pipeline today. Obviously, the first quarter was good. What this masks is, you know, we had heavy payoffs really fourth quarter and first quarter. And so we were able to offset those, overcome it, however you want to describe it, through the acquisition and then through just nice organic loan generation. And so I think there's going to be a lot more pressure in the second half of the year on loan growth than there has been in the first portion of the year. So I still stand by kind of that low double-digit growth for the year. Wouldn't shock me if we beat that a little bit. Wouldn't shock me if we came in on the low end of it.
spk07: Okay. And then finally, last question for me is expenses. The $6.4 million of expenses in the first quarter. I know there's maybe some noise with, I don't know if there is noise with the merger or any one-time charges or any upcoming cost saves, but how are y'all thinking about expenses off of that kind of $6.4 million base. Is that a good base to grow from here?
spk02: I would say in Q1, there was probably about $250,000 related to one time and or some of the noise related to the acquisition and expect to see something similar in Q2. But then after Q2, it should normalize. Okay.
spk07: All right, great. Thanks for the call, guys. Thank you.
spk04: Our next question comes from Nathan Race from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead with your question.
spk01: Yeah. Hi, guys. Afternoon.
spk04: Hi, Nate.
spk01: Going back to the margin discussion, you know, just kind of drilling into the outlook for loan yields going forward, looks like X fees, you know, loan yields came down by, you know, 20 basis points or so versus the fourth quarter. And I appreciate, you know, the disclosures in the deck around the kind of repricing characteristics of the loan book. So just curious kind of what the weight average rate on new loan originations were in the quarter and if you guys are kind of expecting some pricing pressures on new volumes to be offset by just the repricing of the loan book higher as the short end goes higher.
spk05: Yeah, I think in general I don't see big changes in what we're booking now and what we've had historically. I think some of that DECREASE THAT YOU'RE SEEING THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST QUARTER AS A RESULT OF A CHANGE IN THE LOAN MIX. WE HAD SOME REPAYMENT THROUGH WHETHER THEY SOLD ASSETS, COMPANIES, OR REFINANCED IN THE FOURTH AND FIRST QUARTER WHERE WE HAD SOME higher yielding loans. I'll note, you know, some were hospitality. There was some shuffling in our C&I book as well that you had maybe some loans that were priced a little higher that were gone. And then, you know, our new bookings seem to be consistent and have been really for the last I'd say three quarters as far as what we're able to achieve on an interest rate and fee in most cases on new originations for fresh new business. And so I think, you know, there will be some pressure in the second half of the year on interest rates, but I still don't think that it's going to be enough to overcome the positive benefits of rising interest rates in our asset sensitive portfolios.
spk03: I guess as I'm sitting here thinking about our pipeline that we look at every week, I'm going to take a stab at it, Jason, but the net new fundings over the next 60 days, I'm going to say on an all-in average, excluding fees, is in that 475 range.
spk05: Yeah, and it's starting to lift, but I think that's probably a good guesstimate.
spk03: Yeah, so I don't know how that compares to what you're seeing, Nate, on that 20 basis points degradation. But yeah, I think you're going to see us. If everything was static, you'd see us booking in that 475 range.
spk01: Okay, got it. And then just on the loan growth discussion, it looks like CNI was a nice driver in the quarter. Was that a function, Jason, of increasing line utilization or just adding new clients to the bank?
spk05: It was a nice combination of both.
spk01: Okay, great. And it also looks like energy on the E&P side was a driver as well in the quarter. Just some opportunistic client ads there. What are you guys seeing in the energy arena these days?
spk05: There's a very robust field out there for all kinds of opportunities. And I think you're seeing us stay with what we know, and that is the production loans with you know, rapid amortization, hedged production, and in some cases, you know, some significant secondary support to go along with that. But very favorable deal terms for the bank. And frankly, that segment will help with some of that NIM pressure.
spk03: You know, I would add to Jason's comments, Nate, that I don't want to suggest that we should say we feel sorry for the energy space because their prices are so high, but it's quite fascinating if you look at the space with regard to the ESG pressure, especially on the equity side. It is hard to describe how swiftly and materially the industry has been impacted by certain segments of capital that just say we don't want to go into the energy space for ESG reasons. And at the same time, the world is dying for more energy. And so what is remarkable is that incredibly high quality, I would couch it as pretty much riskless transactions because of the hedging. And you have energy borrowers that if you want to charge 5.5% today or 5%, And it's really quite stunning at the magnitude and how broad and deep it is. And so when Jason talks about how that's somewhat of a buffer, even though that's, Jason, is it 11 or 12% of the portfolio now? That's about right. Yeah, but it is, if we book energy credits, and we are going to because we have quite a few very, very good opportunities, it's at a a substantial premium, and yet the risk isn't there. And so it's an interesting dynamic.
spk01: Gotcha. Okay. And then maybe just one last one for me, just in terms of thinking about the reserve trajectory from here. Obviously, zero charge-offs in the quarter. You guys provided for some growth. I guess based on what you guys see out there, is there much in the way of loss content? It seems like you know, that one non-performer still constitutes, you know, 70% of overall balances within MPAs. So just trying to think about the trajectory of the reserve from here. I would appreciate any thoughts along those lines.
spk05: Yeah, we haven't seen any negative turns, you know, of any meaningful credits or anything of any size. You know, I can't remember how many quarters in a row, but I would say it's at least five or six where you really feel like each quarter it just improves you know the outlook improves and there's nothing that's happened that's changed that but obviously there's a lot going on in the economy you know and so we'll keep a close eye on it and you know make sure we're adequately reserved at all times.
spk03: I think that we're I don't think I know that we're living within our range and The range in our company has always been between 95 bps and 130 bps. And so I think presently we're at the lower end of the range and there really isn't any need for us to juice it back up to the higher end of the range because we don't see any stress. And so I think in our budget this year we had provided for the allowance to stay pretty constant in that low 1% to 1.05, or I don't know, but it gets to 1.1. Okay.
spk01: Very helpful. I will step back. I appreciate all the color. Thank you.
spk04: Thank you. Once again, if you would like to ask a question, please press star and 1. To withdraw yourself from the question queue, you may press star and 2. Our next question comes from Matt Olney from Stevens. Please go ahead with your question.
spk06: Hey, thanks, guys. I want to ask more about your expectations of funding the loan growth this year. Do you expect to grow deposits or just fund that growth with some of the excess liquidity?
spk07: Yeah, I think you'll see deposit growth consistent with what we've seen in the past. I mean, there's still quite a bit out there.
spk06: And then I guess the second part of that is thinking about deposit repricing with higher rates. And you gave us some great disclosures on the loan side on page seven. But what about on the deposit side? I'm curious what your expectations are. And are you increasing any deposit rates so far? And just some commentary maybe about the overall core markets and how much pricing discipline you're seeing so far. Thanks.
spk03: Yeah, we... actually had to revise our budget. When we initially were budgeting, I think along with most people back in the December timeframe, there was belief that the Fed was going to do 25 basis points and however many times they were going to do it. So we finished our budget and then things kind of went bonkers in late December and January and early February. And so we revised our budget and we carefully budgeted for basically we put in our budget 50 BIPs in next week and then another 50 in June and then I think we did maybe 25 and then what we did on deposit data is we went by, when you look at the mix of our customer base, it's almost exactly 50-50 on business purpose deposits versus consumer. And so that dynamic, we have substantial book of entrepreneurs that are really less focused on deposit rates and they're really more focused on the credit side of the bank and getting the benefits from our credit apparatus and so therefore when we attack the cost of funds budgeting process we took that in mind, kept that in mind and so we're very confident in our deposit betas and our ability to, I would expect us to have really good, favorable deposit betas because of that dynamic. And so, when you look at the impact of that in conjunction with the asset sensitivity that we displayed in that one slide, we're very bullish on 2Q. I would say that we're bullish on 2Q and very, very bullish on 3Q and 4Q with regard to the assets really pricing up and our ability to hold our cost of funds down.
spk06: Okay, that's great.
spk03: I would also add that it's somewhat related that when you start thinking about the banks, you know, the great loan growth that you noted that Jason talked about, the great percentage of that loan growth occurred very late in the quarter. And so we didn't have the benefit of that growth for the full quarter, which is another factor that makes us feel really good about not only the deposit betas and the asset sensitivity, but the, you know, the full blown effect of putting more loans on the books.
spk06: Yep. Okay. Perfect. Earlier in the call, I think Kelly mentioned some of the one-time-ish expenses in 1Q and possibly again in 2Q. Was there anything unusual from the acquisition with respect to NII with any kind of deal accretion, Purchase Account Accretion? Just trying to appreciate if there's any kind of noise in that first quarter number.
spk02: We did sell the UConn branch In March, there was a $440,000 gain with that that we took against Goodwill, lowered Goodwill, and then there were some purchase price accounting adjustments also that increased Goodwill. So I think the net increase to Goodwill was $330,000. I mean, outside of that, with the... Net decrease to Goodwill. It was a net increase. Increase. On which one? You mean on the gain? $440,000 gain lowered Goodwill, but then there was some purchase price accounting.
spk03: Oh, sorry. Yeah, I wasn't focused on those.
spk02: The net increase was $328,000, $330,000.
spk03: Yeah.
spk02: And outside of that, with the ongoing deconversion and conversion costs related to the acquisition that I spoke to, you're really looking at $250,000 net ups on non-interest expense in Q1 and Q2.
spk03: But I don't think any of it was considered material. Correct. Right.
spk06: Okay. Got it. And then I guess thinking more about the efficiency ratio and improvements from here, I think we were in the mid-30 range last year, obviously with the M&A deal jumped up. Can you talk about kind of the roadmap to get back to that mid-30% range, kind of what you guys need to see to get back there?
spk03: Yeah, I think we've tried to signal at the acquisition that two negative events were going to happen. One was going to be a decrease in the NIM because of the securities, and then the efficiency ratio was going to have. We felt both those were temporary changes, and we, you know, obviously for a lot of other reasons, we liked the acquisition when we did it, and we really like it now because it's coming to fruition because the ROE is going up and some other factors, and so But I would specifically say that if you look at our budget and our expectations, I think it's more realistic that the efficiency ratio settles in maybe in that 37 to 38% range, which I don't know if it gets back to 35. It just depends on if we can remix the balance sheet and the securities and get a little more revenue. We've always said it's going to be really difficult to live at 35%, but, you know, we'll take 38 or 39, too. So I think that's probably the best way to say it.
spk06: Yep. Okay. Thanks, guys.
spk04: Thank you. And our next question is a follow-up from Nathan Race from Piper Sandler. Please go ahead with your follow-up.
spk01: Yeah, thanks for taking the follow up. Just a question on capital. You know, TC really wasn't impacted like most peers this quarter because you guys don't really have a large securities book. So we'd just love to get some updated thoughts on the buyback appetite from here. Obviously, your stock, like most peers, has been under pressure over the last few months. So just curious how you guys are kind of weighing buyback opportunities versus other opportunities to deploy access capital.
spk03: You know, Nate, we're a broken record and we have somewhat of a, I don't know if I should use the word unique dynamic, but listen, we trade pretty much in line with peer on a tangible book value basis, but we're far below on a PE basis. And Brad always says we get penalized for making too much money. And so I know that it's quite interesting. It's the eyes of the beholder, right? So if you look at our stock price, and if you ask that question, and if your mind is either consciously or subconsciously driven more by the PE ratio, it's like buy, buy, buy. But if your mind is more driven by tangible book value multiple and where we're trading, then it's less so. And so, you know, we're not, we don't ignore those factors, and we appreciate people's perspective. However, we've been consistent from day one that we're opportunistic stock purchasers, just like anybody that may be on this call or that may have already bought our stock or anybody else in the market. And so we think anytime the tangible book value multiples are where they are, it's less opportunistic. And that's not to say that we're comfortable with the stock valuation because we think that we should get a higher valuation on a PE basis based on our strong performance. But we're just not prone to rush out and repurchase the stock. And in that kind of an environment, it doesn't mean to say that we wouldn't. But we don't have any predetermined belief that we should really you know, jump out there and really try to be eager and anticipate that we're buying stock really cheap because of the PE multiple. And I think that, look, if we were a company like First Financial and Abilene that had been on the market, been public for a lot longer, and they're benefiting from that higher tangible book value and that higher PE, there's a few others out there, Frost Bank, and, you know, then I think that that strategy may be it would be a lot easier to buy into that PE discount number. But for us, we're not in any hurry to do it. And the other thing is, if we can produce 20% estimate, you know, return on equity, which we've been doing on an annualized basis, and then you extrapolate that, and then you start saying why are we going to go buy stock if we're not totally believing that it's really opportunistic when we can generate double-digit increase in earnings per share anyway. Right? And so, you know, and so I guess it's a Rubik's Cube type thing. And as I said, we don't believe that the stock, we think the stock price is a good buy today for the reasons that we just talked about. But there's no pressure and rush to do it.
spk01: Understood. I agree and I appreciate all the color again. Thanks, Tom.
spk04: And ladies and gentlemen, at this time and showing no additional questions, I would like to turn the floor back over to management for any closing remarks.
spk03: Again, we're very happy with our quarter. Our company is broadening and deepening every day and our fundamentals are strong. Our management team is intact and we're happy with each other and we're really proud of our lending team and our bankers, and we really appreciate the support we get from the market and the analysts, and we're excited about the rest of the year, especially being in the markets that we're in. So thank you very much.
spk04: And ladies and gentlemen, with that, we'll conclude today's presentation. We do thank you for joining. You may now disconnect your lines.
Disclaimer