Impact of Recent Accounting Pronouncements (Policies)	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Impact of Recent Accounting Pronouncements [Abstract]
Impact of Recent Accounting Pronouncements	Accounting Pronouncements Recently Adopted The following accounting standards have been adopted in the first quarter of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019: On July 1, 2018, Greene County Bancorp, Inc. adopted Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) 2014-09 amending guidance on “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”. The objective of the ASU is to align the recognition of revenue with the transfer of promised goods or services provided to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU replaces most existing revenue recognition guidance under GAAP. A significant amount of the Company’s revenues are derived from net interest income on financial assets and liabilities, which are excluded from the scope of the amended guidance. With respect to noninterest income, the Company has identified revenue streams within the scope of the guidance, which include service charges on deposits, interchange income, investment services fees and gains (losses) from the transfer of other real estate owned. Further details regarding the revenue recognition of these revenue streams is provided in Note 13 to these Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. On July 1, 2018, Greene County Bancorp, Inc. adopted ASU 2016-01 amending guidance on “Financial Instruments (Subtopic 825-10)”. This amendment addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. These amendments require equity securities to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value to be recognized through net income. The amendments also simplify the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring assessment for impairment qualitatively at each reporting period. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had several small equity investments with a cost of $62,000 and a fair value of $217,000. On July 1, 2018, the Company recorded a cumulative-effect adjustment to increase retained earnings in the amount of $114,000 representing the unrealized gain, net of tax, on these equity securities. Changes in fair value during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2019 have been recognized in net income. ASU 2016-01 also emphasized the existing requirement to use exit prices to measure fair value for disclosure purposes and clarifies that entities not make use of a practicability exception in determining the fair value of loans. Accordingly, we refined the calculation used to determine the disclosed fair value of our loans as part of adopting this standard. See Note 6, Fair Value Measurements and Fair Value of Financial Instruments, for further information. On July 1, 2018, Greene County Bancorp, Inc. adopted ASU 2017-07 amending guidance on “Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715)” to improve the presentation of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost. ASU 2017-07 requires that an employer report the service cost component in the same line item or items as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by the pertinent employees during the period. The other components of net benefit cost are required to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations, if one is presented. If a separate line item or items are used to present the other components of net benefit cost, that line item or items must be appropriately described. If a separate line item or items are not used, the line item or items used in the income statement to present the other components of net benefit cost must be disclosed. Prior to adoption of this update, the Company presented all components of net periodic pension cost in “salaries and employee benefits” on its income statement. The Company is presenting all components of net period pension cost in “other expense” for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, as the Company’s defined pension plan does not have a service cost component since the plan was frozen in 2006. Further details regarding the Company’s net periodic pension cost are provided in Note 10 to these Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. In August 2014, the FASB issued an amendment (ASU 2014-14) to its guidance on “Receivables – Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors (Subtopic 310-40)”. The objective of the ASU is to reduce the diversity in how creditors classify government-guaranteed mortgage loans, including FHA or VA guaranteed loans, upon foreclosure, to provide more decision-useful information about a creditor’s foreclosed mortgage loans that are expected to be recovered, at least in part, through government guarantees. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. In August 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-15) which clarifies how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The amendments are intended to reduce diversity in practice. The amendment covers the following cash flows: Cash payments for debt prepayment or extinguishment costs will be classified in financing activities. Upon settlement of zero-coupon bonds and bonds with insignificant cash coupons, the portion of the payment attributable to imputed interest will be classified as an operating activity, while the portion of the payment attributable to principal will be classified as a financing activity. Cash paid by an acquirer that isn’t soon after a business combination for the settlement of a contingent consideration liability will be separated between financing activities and operating activities. Cash payments up to the amount of the contingent consideration liability recognized at the acquisition date will be classified in financing activities; any excess will be classified in operating activities. Cash paid soon after the business combination will be classified in investing activities. Cash proceeds received from the settlement of insurance claims will be classified on the basis of the related insurance coverage (that is, the nature of the loss). Cash proceeds from lump-sum settlements will be classified based on the nature of each loss included in the settlement. Cash proceeds received from the settlement of corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) and bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies will be classified as cash inflows from investing activities. Cash payments for premiums on COLI and BOLI may be classified as cash outflows for investing, operating, or a combination of both. A transferor’s beneficial interest obtained in a securitization of financial assets will be disclosed as a noncash activity, and cash received from beneficial interests will be classified in investing activities. Distributions received from equity method investees will be classified using either a cumulative earnings approach or a look- through approach as an accounting policy election. The ASU contains additional guidance clarifying when an entity should separate cash receipts and cash payments and classify them into more than one class of cash flows (including when reasonable judgment is required to estimate and allocate cash flows) versus when an entity should classify the aggregate amount into one class of cash flows on the basis of predominance. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. In November 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-18) to its guidance on “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) Restricted Cash” addresses diversity in practice from entities classifying and presenting transfers between cash and restricted cash as operating, investing or financing activities or as a combination of those activities in the statement of cash flows. The ASU requires entities to show the changes in the total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in the Statement of Cash Flows. As a result, transfers between such categories will no longer be presented in the Statement of Cash Flows. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. In May 2017, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2017-09) to its guidance on “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718)” such that an entity must apply modification accounting to changes in the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award unless all of the following criteria are met: (1) The fair value of the modified award is the same as the fair value of the original award immediately before the modification. The standard indicates that if the modification does not affect any of the inputs to the valuation technique used to value the award, the entity is not required to estimate the value immediately before and after the modification. (2) The vesting conditions of the modified award are the same as the vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the modification. (3) The classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a liability instrument is the same as the classification of the original award immediately before the modification. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. Accounting Pronouncements to be adopted in future periods In February 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-02) to its guidance on “Leases (Topic 842)”. The new leases standard applies a right-of-use (ROU) model that requires a lessee to record, for all leases with a lease term of more than 12 months, an asset representing its right to use the underlying asset and a liability to make lease payments. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a practical expedient is available whereby a lessee may elect, by class of underlying asset, not to recognize an ROU asset or lease liability. The new leases standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, direct financing or operating, similar to existing U.S. GAAP. Classification depends on the same five criteria used by lessees plus certain additional factors. The subsequent accounting treatment for all three lease types is substantially equivalent to existing U.S. GAAP for sales-type leases, direct financing leases, and operating leases. However, the new standard updates certain aspects of the lessor accounting model to align it with the new lessee accounting model, as well as with the new revenue standard under Topic 606. Lessees and lessors are required to provide certain qualitative and quantitative disclosures to enable users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The amendments are effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this ASU will result in a gross up of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition for right-of-use assets and associated lease liabilities for operating leases in which the Company is the lessee. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-10, Codification Improvements to Topic 842 - Leases to address certain narrow aspects of the guidance issued in ASU No. 2016-02. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-11, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements, which amends FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC), Leases (Topic 842), to (1) add an optional transition method that would permit entities to apply the new requirements by recognizing a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the year of adoption, and (2) provide a practical expedient for lessors regarding the separation of the lease and non-lease components of a contract. In December 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-20, Narrow-Scope Improvements for Lessors, which addresses issues related to (1) sales tax and similar taxes collected from lessees, (2) certain lessor costs, and (3) recognition of variable payments for contracts with lease and non-lease components. In March 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-01, Leases (Topic 842): Codification Improvements, which addresses several issues related to the implementation of Topic 842. These issues include (1) determining the fair value of the underlying asset by lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers, (2) presentation on the statement of cash flows for sales-type and direct financing leases, and (3) transition disclosures related to Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. The Company is evaluating the significance and other effects of adoption on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations. Branch building leases have been reviewed and are considered immaterial to the financial statements; there are no equipment leases to consider. In June 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-13) to its guidance on “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments”. ASU 2016-13 requires credit losses on most financial assets measured at amortized cost and certain other instruments to be measured using an expected credit loss model (referred to as the current expected credit loss (CECL) model). Under this model, entities will estimate credit losses over the entire contractual term of the instrument (considering estimated prepayments, but not expected extensions or modifications unless reasonable expectation of a troubled debt restructuring exists) from the date of initial recognition of that instrument. The ASU also replaces the current accounting model for purchased credit impaired loans and debt securities. The allowance for credit losses for purchased financial assets with a more-than insignificant amount of credit deterioration since origination (“PCD assets”), should be determined in a similar manner to other financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis. However, upon initial recognition, the allowance for credit losses is added to the purchase price (“gross up approach”) to determine the initial amortized cost basis. The subsequent accounting for PCD financial assets is the same expected loss model described above. Further, the ASU made certain targeted amendments to the existing impairment model for available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities. For an AFS debt security for which there is neither the intent nor a more-likely-than-not requirement to sell, an entity will record credit losses as an allowance rather than a write-down of the amortized cost basis. For public business entities that are U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filers, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. All entities may adopt the amendments in this Update earlier as of the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity will apply the amendments in this Update through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (that is, a modified-retrospective approach). In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, which aligns the implementation date for nonpublic entities’ annual financial statements with the implementation date for their interim financial statements and clarifies the scope of the guidance in the amendments in ASU 2016-13. In April 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. ASU 2019-04 clarifies or addresses stakeholders’ specific issues about certain aspects of the amendments in Update 2016-13 related to measuring the allowance for loan losses under the new guidance. The effective dates and transition requirements for the amendments related to this Update are the same as the effective dates and transition requirements in Update 2016-13. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. The initial adjustment will not be reported in earnings and therefore will not have any material impact on our consolidated results of operations, but it is expected that it will have an impact on our consolidated financial position at the date of adoption of this Update. At this time, we have not calculated the estimated impact that this Update will have on our Allowance for Loan Losses, however, we anticipate it will have a significant impact on the methodology process we utilize to calculate the allowance. A vendor has been selected and alternative methodologies are currently being considered. Data requirements and integrity are being reviewed and enhancements incorporated into standard processes. The Company is in the early stages of evaluation and implementation of the guidance. In March 2017, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2017-08) to its guidance on “Receivables – Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs (Subtopic 310-20) related to premium amortization on purchased callable debt securities. The amendments in this Update shorten the amortization period for certain callable debt securities held at a premium. Specifically, the amendments require the premium to be amortized to the earliest call date. The amendments do not require an accounting change for securities held at a discount; the discount continues to be amortized to maturity. For public business entities, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. An entity should apply the amendments in this Update on a modified retrospective basis through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption. Additionally, in the period of adoption, an entity should provide disclosure about a change in accounting principle. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. In August 2018, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2018-13) to its guidance on “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820)”. This update modifies the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements. The following disclosure requirements were removed from Topic 820: (1) the amount of and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy; (2) the policy for timing of transfers between levels; (3) the valuation processes for Level 3 fair value measurements; and (4) for nonpublic entities, the changes in unrealized gains and losses for the period included in earnings for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements held at the end of the reporting period. The following disclosure requirements were modified in Topic 820: (1) in lieu of a rollforward for Level 3 fair value measurements, a nonpublic entity is required to disclose transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy and purchases and issues of Level 3 assets and liabilities; (2) for investments in certain entities that calculate net asset value, an entity is required to disclose the timing of liquidation of an investee’s assets and the date when restrictions from redemption might lapse only if the investee has communicated the timing to the entity or announced the timing publicly; and (3) the amendments clarify that the measurement uncertainty disclosure is to communicate information about the uncertainty in measurement as of the reporting date. The following disclosure requirements were added to Topic 820; however, the disclosures are not required for nonpublic entities: (1) the changes in unrealized gains and losses for the period included in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements held at the end of the reporting period; and (2) the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements. For certain unobservable inputs, an entity may disclose other quantitative information (such as the median or arithmetic average) in lieu of the weighted average if the entity determines that other quantitative information would be a more reasonable and rational method to reflect the distribution of unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements. In addition, the amendments eliminate at a minimum from the phrase “an entity shall disclose at a minimum” to promote the appropriate exercise of discretion by entities when considering fair value measurement disclosures and to clarify that materiality is an appropriate consideration of entities and their auditors when evaluating disclosure requirements. The amendments in ASU No. 2018-13 are effective for all entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The amendments on changes in unrealized gains and losses, the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and the narrative description of measurement uncertainty should be applied prospectively for only the most recent interim or annual period presented in the initial fiscal year of adoption. All other amendments should be applied retrospectively to all periods presented upon their effective date. Early adoption is permitted. An entity is permitted to early adopt any removed or modified disclosures upon issuance of ASU No. 2018-13 and delay adoption of the additional disclosures until their effective date. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. In August 2018, the FASB has issued an Update (ASU No. 2018-14), “Compensation—Retirement Benefits—Defined Benefit Plans—General (Subtopic 715-20): Disclosure Framework—Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Defined Benefit Plans”, that applies to all employers that sponsor defined benefit pension or other postretirement plans. The amendments modify the disclosure requirements for employers that sponsor defined benefit pension or other postretirement plans. The following disclosure requirements were removed from Subtopic 715-20: (1) the amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income expected to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year; (2) the amount and timing of plan assets expected to be returned to the employer; (3) the disclosures related to the June 2001 amendments to the Japanese Welfare Pension Insurance Law; related party disclosures about the amount of future annual benefits covered by insurance and annuity contracts and significant transactions between the employer or related parties and the plan; (4) for nonpublic entities, the reconciliation of the opening balances to the closing balances of plan assets measured on a recurring basis in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. However, nonpublic entities will be required to disclose separately the amounts of transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy and purchases of Level 3 plan assets; and (5) for public entities, the effects of a one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates on the (a) aggregate of the service and interest cost components of net periodic benefit costs and (b) benefit obligation for postretirement health care benefits. The following disclosure requirements were added to Subtopic 715-20: (1) the weighted-average interest crediting rates for cash balance plans and other plans with promised interest crediting rates; and (2) an explanation of the reasons for significant gains and losses related to changes in the benefit obligation for the period. The amendments also clarify the disclosure requirements in paragraph 715-20-50-3, which state that the following information for defined benefit pension plans should be disclosed: (1) the projected benefit obligation (PBO) and fair value of plan assets for plans with PBOs in excess of plan assets; and (2) the accumulated benefit obligation (ABO) and fair value of plan assets for plans with ABOs in excess of plan assets. ASU No. 2018-14 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2020, for public business entities and for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2021, for all other entities. Early adoption is permitted for all entities. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. In April 2019, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2019-04), Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. The amendments to Topic 326 and other Topics in this Update include items related to the amendments in Update 2016-13 discussed at the June 2018 and November 2018 Credit Losses TRG meetings. The amendments clarify or address stakeholders’ specific issues about certain aspects of the amendments in Update 2016-13 on a number of different topics, including the following: Accrued Interest, Transfers between Classifications or Categories for Loans and Debt Securities, Recoveries, Consideration of Prepayments in Determining the Effective Interest Rate, Consideration of Estimated Costs to Sell When Foreclosure Is Probable, Vintage Disclosures— Line-of-Credit Arrangements Converted to Term Loans, and Contractual Extensions and Renewals. The ASU also covered a number of issues that related to hedge accounting including: Partial-Term Fair Value Hedges of Interest Rate Risk, Amortization of Fair Value Hedge Basis Adjustments, Disclosure of Fair Value Hedge Basis Adjustments, Consideration of the Hedged Contractually Specified Interest Rate under the Hypothetical Derivative Method, Scoping for Not-for-Profit Entities, Hedge Accounting Provisions Applicable to Certain Private Companies and Not-for- Profit Entities, Application of a First- Payments-Received Cash Flow Hedging Technique to Overall Cash Flows on a Group of Variable Interest Payments, and Transition Guidance For Codification Improvements specific to ASU 2016-01, the following topics were covered within ASU 2019-04: Scope Clarifications, Held-to-Maturity Debt Securities Fair Value Disclosures, Applicability of Topic 820 to the Measurement Alternative, and Remeasurement of Equity Securities at Historical Exchange Rates. ASU 2019-04 has various implementation dates dependent on a number of factors as it pertains to the above items. The Company is in the early stages of evaluation of the guidance.

Accounting Pronouncements Recently Adopted

The following accounting standards have been adopted in the first quarter of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019:

On July 1, 2018, Greene County Bancorp, Inc. adopted Accounting Standard Update (“ASU”) 2014-09 amending guidance on “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”. The objective of the ASU is to align the recognition of revenue with the transfer of promised goods or services provided to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. This ASU replaces most existing revenue recognition guidance under GAAP. A significant amount of the Company’s revenues are derived from net interest income on financial assets and liabilities, which are excluded from the scope of the amended guidance. With respect to noninterest income, the Company has identified revenue streams within the scope of the guidance, which include service charges on deposits, interchange income, investment services fees and gains (losses) from the transfer of other real estate owned. Further details regarding the revenue recognition of these revenue streams is provided in Note 13 to these Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.

On July 1, 2018, Greene County Bancorp, Inc. adopted ASU 2016-01 amending guidance on “Financial Instruments (Subtopic 825-10)”. This amendment addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. These amendments require equity securities to be measured at fair value with changes in the fair value to be recognized through net income. The amendments also simplify the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring assessment for impairment qualitatively at each reporting period. As of June 30, 2018, the Company had several small equity investments with a cost of $62,000 and a fair value of $217,000. On July 1, 2018, the Company recorded a cumulative-effect adjustment to increase retained earnings in the amount of $114,000 representing the unrealized gain, net of tax, on these equity securities. Changes in fair value during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2019 have been recognized in net income. ASU 2016-01 also emphasized the existing requirement to use exit prices to measure fair value for disclosure purposes and clarifies that entities not make use of a practicability exception in determining the fair value of loans. Accordingly, we refined the calculation used to determine the disclosed fair value of our loans as part of adopting this standard. See Note 6, Fair Value Measurements and Fair Value of Financial Instruments, for further information.

On July 1, 2018, Greene County Bancorp, Inc. adopted ASU 2017-07 amending guidance on “Compensation - Retirement Benefits (Topic 715)” to improve the presentation of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost. ASU 2017-07 requires that an employer report the service cost component in the same line item or items as other compensation costs arising from services rendered by the pertinent employees during the period. The other components of net benefit cost are required to be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations, if one is presented. If a separate line item or items are used to present the other components of net benefit cost, that line item or items must be appropriately described. If a separate line item or items are not used, the line item or items used in the income statement to present the other components of net benefit cost must be disclosed. Prior to adoption of this update, the Company presented all components of net periodic pension cost in “salaries and employee benefits” on its income statement. The Company is presenting all components of net period pension cost in “other expense” for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2019 and 2018, as the Company’s defined pension plan does not have a service cost component since the plan was frozen in 2006. Further details regarding the Company’s net periodic pension cost are provided in Note 10 to these Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.

In August 2014, the FASB issued an amendment (ASU 2014-14) to its guidance on “Receivables – Troubled Debt Restructurings by Creditors (Subtopic 310-40)”. The objective of the ASU is to reduce the diversity in how creditors classify government-guaranteed mortgage loans, including FHA or VA guaranteed loans, upon foreclosure, to provide more decision-useful information about a creditor’s foreclosed mortgage loans that are expected to be recovered, at least in part, through government guarantees. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

In August 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-15) which clarifies how certain cash receipts and cash payments are presented and classified in the statement of cash flows. The amendments are intended to reduce diversity in practice. The amendment covers the following cash flows: Cash payments for debt prepayment or extinguishment costs will be classified in financing activities. Upon settlement of zero-coupon bonds and bonds with insignificant cash coupons, the portion of the payment attributable to imputed interest will be classified as an operating activity, while the portion of the payment attributable to principal will be classified as a financing activity. Cash paid by an acquirer that isn’t soon after a business combination for the settlement of a contingent consideration liability will be separated between financing activities and operating activities. Cash payments up to the amount of the contingent consideration liability recognized at the acquisition date will be classified in financing activities; any excess will be classified in operating activities. Cash paid soon after the business combination will be classified in investing activities. Cash proceeds received from the settlement of insurance claims will be classified on the basis of the related insurance coverage (that is, the nature of the loss). Cash proceeds from lump-sum settlements will be classified based on the nature of each loss included in the settlement. Cash proceeds received from the settlement of corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) and bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies will be classified as cash inflows from investing activities. Cash payments for premiums on COLI and BOLI may be classified as cash outflows for investing, operating, or a combination of both. A transferor’s beneficial interest obtained in a securitization of financial assets will be disclosed as a noncash activity, and cash received from beneficial interests will be classified in investing activities. Distributions received from equity method investees will be classified using either a cumulative earnings approach or a look- through approach as an accounting policy election. The ASU contains additional guidance clarifying when an entity should separate cash receipts and cash payments and classify them into more than one class of cash flows (including when reasonable judgment is required to estimate and allocate cash flows) versus when an entity should classify the aggregate amount into one class of cash flows on the basis of predominance. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

In November 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-18) to its guidance on “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230) Restricted Cash” addresses diversity in practice from entities classifying and presenting transfers between cash and restricted cash as operating, investing or financing activities or as a combination of those activities in the statement of cash flows. The ASU requires entities to show the changes in the total cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents in the Statement of Cash Flows. As a result, transfers between such categories will no longer be presented in the Statement of Cash Flows. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

In May 2017, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2017-09) to its guidance on “Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718)” such that an entity must apply modification accounting to changes in the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award unless all of the following criteria are met: (1) The fair value of the modified award is the same as the fair value of the original award immediately before the modification. The standard indicates that if the modification does not affect any of the inputs to the valuation technique used to value the award, the entity is not required to estimate the value immediately before and after the modification. (2) The vesting conditions of the modified award are the same as the vesting conditions of the original award immediately before the modification. (3) The classification of the modified award as an equity instrument or a liability instrument is the same as the classification of the original award immediately before the modification. The adoption of this guidance had no impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

Accounting Pronouncements to be adopted in future periods

In February 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-02) to its guidance on “Leases (Topic 842)”. The new leases standard applies a right-of-use (ROU) model that requires a lessee to record, for all leases with a lease term of more than 12 months, an asset representing its right to use the underlying asset and a liability to make lease payments. For leases with a term of 12 months or less, a practical expedient is available whereby a lessee may elect, by class of underlying asset, not to recognize an ROU asset or lease liability. The new leases standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, direct financing or operating, similar to existing U.S. GAAP. Classification depends on the same five criteria used by lessees plus certain additional factors. The subsequent accounting treatment for all three lease types is substantially equivalent to existing U.S. GAAP for sales-type leases, direct financing leases, and operating leases. However, the new standard updates certain aspects of the lessor accounting model to align it with the new lessee accounting model, as well as with the new revenue standard under Topic 606. Lessees and lessors are required to provide certain qualitative and quantitative disclosures to enable users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The amendments are effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The adoption of this ASU will result in a gross up of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition for right-of-use assets and associated lease liabilities for operating leases in which the Company is the lessee. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-10, Codification Improvements to Topic 842 - Leases to address certain narrow aspects of the guidance issued in ASU No. 2016-02. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-11, Leases (Topic 842): Targeted Improvements, which amends FASB Accounting Standards Codification (ASC), Leases (Topic 842), to (1) add an optional transition method that would permit entities to apply the new requirements by recognizing a cumulative-effect adjustment to the opening balance of retained earnings in the year of adoption, and (2) provide a practical expedient for lessors regarding the separation of the lease and non-lease components of a contract. In December 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-20, Narrow-Scope Improvements for Lessors, which addresses issues related to (1) sales tax and similar taxes collected from lessees, (2) certain lessor costs, and (3) recognition of variable payments for contracts with lease and non-lease components. In March 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-01, Leases (Topic 842): Codification Improvements, which addresses several issues related to the implementation of Topic 842. These issues include (1) determining the fair value of the underlying asset by lessors that are not manufacturers or dealers, (2) presentation on the statement of cash flows for sales-type and direct financing leases, and (3) transition disclosures related to Topic 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. The Company is evaluating the significance and other effects of adoption on the consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations. Branch building leases have been reviewed and are considered immaterial to the financial statements; there are no equipment leases to consider.

In June 2016, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2016-13) to its guidance on “Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments”. ASU 2016-13 requires credit losses on most financial assets measured at amortized cost and certain other instruments to be measured using an expected credit loss model (referred to as the current expected credit loss (CECL) model). Under this model, entities will estimate credit losses over the entire contractual term of the instrument (considering estimated prepayments, but not expected extensions or modifications unless reasonable expectation of a troubled debt restructuring exists) from the date of initial recognition of that instrument. The ASU also replaces the current accounting model for purchased credit impaired loans and debt securities. The allowance for credit losses for purchased financial assets with a more-than insignificant amount of credit deterioration since origination (“PCD assets”), should be determined in a similar manner to other financial assets measured on an amortized cost basis. However, upon initial recognition, the allowance for credit losses is added to the purchase price (“gross up approach”) to determine the initial amortized cost basis. The subsequent accounting for PCD financial assets is the same expected loss model described above. Further, the ASU made certain targeted amendments to the existing impairment model for available-for-sale (AFS) debt securities. For an AFS debt security for which there is neither the intent nor a more-likely-than-not requirement to sell, an entity will record credit losses as an allowance rather than a write-down of the amortized cost basis. For public business entities that are U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filers, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. All entities may adopt the amendments in this Update earlier as of the fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. An entity will apply the amendments in this Update through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (that is, a modified-retrospective approach). In November 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-19, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, which aligns the implementation date for nonpublic entities’ annual financial statements with the implementation date for their interim financial statements and clarifies the scope of the guidance in the amendments in ASU 2016-13. In April 2019, the FASB issued ASU 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. ASU 2019-04 clarifies or addresses stakeholders’ specific issues about certain aspects of the amendments in Update 2016-13 related to measuring the allowance for loan losses under the new guidance. The effective dates and transition requirements for the amendments related to this Update are the same as the effective dates and transition requirements in Update 2016-13. The Company is currently evaluating the potential impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position. The initial adjustment will not be reported in earnings and therefore will not have any material impact on our consolidated results of operations, but it is expected that it will have an impact on our consolidated financial position at the date of adoption of this Update. At this time, we have not calculated the estimated impact that this Update will have on our Allowance for Loan Losses, however, we anticipate it will have a significant impact on the methodology process we utilize to calculate the allowance. A vendor has been selected and alternative methodologies are currently being considered. Data requirements and integrity are being reviewed and enhancements incorporated into standard processes. The Company is in the early stages of evaluation and implementation of the guidance.

In March 2017, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2017-08) to its guidance on “Receivables – Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs (Subtopic 310-20) related to premium amortization on purchased callable debt securities. The amendments in this Update shorten the amortization period for certain callable debt securities held at a premium. Specifically, the amendments require the premium to be amortized to the earliest call date. The amendments do not require an accounting change for securities held at a discount; the discount continues to be amortized to maturity. For public business entities, the amendments in this Update are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted, including adoption in an interim period. If an entity early adopts the amendments in an interim period, any adjustments should be reflected as of the beginning of the fiscal year that includes that interim period. An entity should apply the amendments in this Update on a modified retrospective basis through a cumulative-effect adjustment directly to retained earnings as of the beginning of the period of adoption. Additionally, in the period of adoption, an entity should provide disclosure about a change in accounting principle. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

In August 2018, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2018-13) to its guidance on “Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820)”. This update modifies the disclosure requirements on fair value measurements. The following disclosure requirements were removed from Topic 820: (1) the amount of and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy; (2) the policy for timing of transfers between levels; (3) the valuation processes for Level 3 fair value measurements; and (4) for nonpublic entities, the changes in unrealized gains and losses for the period included in earnings for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements held at the end of the reporting period. The following disclosure requirements were modified in Topic 820: (1) in lieu of a rollforward for Level 3 fair value measurements, a nonpublic entity is required to disclose transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy and purchases and issues of Level 3 assets and liabilities; (2) for investments in certain entities that calculate net asset value, an entity is required to disclose the timing of liquidation of an investee’s assets and the date when restrictions from redemption might lapse only if the investee has communicated the timing to the entity or announced the timing publicly; and (3) the amendments clarify that the measurement uncertainty disclosure is to communicate information about the uncertainty in measurement as of the reporting date. The following disclosure requirements were added to Topic 820; however, the disclosures are not required for nonpublic entities: (1) the changes in unrealized gains and losses for the period included in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements held at the end of the reporting period; and (2) the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements. For certain unobservable inputs, an entity may disclose other quantitative information (such as the median or arithmetic average) in lieu of the weighted average if the entity determines that other quantitative information would be a more reasonable and rational method to reflect the distribution of unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements. In addition, the amendments eliminate at a minimum from the phrase “an entity shall disclose at a minimum” to promote the appropriate exercise of discretion by entities when considering fair value measurement disclosures and to clarify that materiality is an appropriate consideration of entities and their auditors when evaluating disclosure requirements. The amendments in ASU No. 2018-13 are effective for all entities for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The amendments on changes in unrealized gains and losses, the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop Level 3 fair value measurements, and the narrative description of measurement uncertainty should be applied prospectively for only the most recent interim or annual period presented in the initial fiscal year of adoption. All other amendments should be applied retrospectively to all periods presented upon their effective date. Early adoption is permitted. An entity is permitted to early adopt any removed or modified disclosures upon issuance of ASU No. 2018-13 and delay adoption of the additional disclosures until their effective date. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

In August 2018, the FASB has issued an Update (ASU No. 2018-14), “Compensation—Retirement Benefits—Defined Benefit Plans—General (Subtopic 715-20): Disclosure Framework—Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Defined Benefit Plans”, that applies to all employers that sponsor defined benefit pension or other postretirement plans. The amendments modify the disclosure requirements for employers that sponsor defined benefit pension or other postretirement plans. The following disclosure requirements were removed from Subtopic 715-20: (1) the amounts in accumulated other comprehensive income expected to be recognized as components of net periodic benefit cost over the next fiscal year; (2) the amount and timing of plan assets expected to be returned to the employer; (3) the disclosures related to the June 2001 amendments to the Japanese Welfare Pension Insurance Law; related party disclosures about the amount of future annual benefits covered by insurance and annuity contracts and significant transactions between the employer or related parties and the plan; (4) for nonpublic entities, the reconciliation of the opening balances to the closing balances of plan assets measured on a recurring basis in Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. However, nonpublic entities will be required to disclose separately the amounts of transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy and purchases of Level 3 plan assets; and (5) for public entities, the effects of a one-percentage-point change in assumed health care cost trend rates on the (a) aggregate of the service and interest cost components of net periodic benefit costs and (b) benefit obligation for postretirement health care benefits. The following disclosure requirements were added to Subtopic 715-20: (1) the weighted-average interest crediting rates for cash balance plans and other plans with promised interest crediting rates; and (2) an explanation of the reasons for significant gains and losses related to changes in the benefit obligation for the period. The amendments also clarify the disclosure requirements in paragraph 715-20-50-3, which state that the following information for defined benefit pension plans should be disclosed: (1) the projected benefit obligation (PBO) and fair value of plan assets for plans with PBOs in excess of plan assets; and (2) the accumulated benefit obligation (ABO) and fair value of plan assets for plans with ABOs in excess of plan assets. ASU No. 2018-14 is effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2020, for public business entities and for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2021, for all other entities. Early adoption is permitted for all entities. The adoption of this guidance is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.

In April 2019, the FASB issued an Update (ASU 2019-04), Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments-Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. The amendments to Topic 326 and other Topics in this Update include items related to the amendments in Update 2016-13 discussed at the June 2018 and November 2018 Credit Losses TRG meetings. The amendments clarify or address stakeholders’ specific issues about certain aspects of the amendments in Update 2016-13 on a number of different topics, including the following: Accrued Interest, Transfers between Classifications or Categories for Loans and Debt Securities, Recoveries, Consideration of Prepayments in Determining the Effective Interest Rate, Consideration of Estimated Costs to Sell When Foreclosure Is Probable, Vintage Disclosures— Line-of-Credit Arrangements Converted to Term Loans, and Contractual Extensions and Renewals. The ASU also covered a number of issues that related to hedge accounting including: Partial-Term Fair Value Hedges of Interest Rate Risk, Amortization of Fair Value Hedge Basis Adjustments, Disclosure of Fair Value Hedge Basis Adjustments, Consideration of the Hedged Contractually Specified Interest Rate under the Hypothetical Derivative Method, Scoping for Not-for-Profit Entities, Hedge Accounting Provisions Applicable to Certain Private Companies and Not-for- Profit Entities, Application of a First- Payments-Received Cash Flow Hedging Technique to Overall Cash Flows on a Group of Variable Interest Payments, and Transition Guidance For Codification Improvements specific to ASU 2016-01, the following topics were covered within ASU 2019-04: Scope Clarifications, Held-to-Maturity Debt Securities Fair Value Disclosures, Applicability of Topic 820 to the Measurement Alternative, and Remeasurement of Equity Securities at Historical Exchange Rates. ASU 2019-04 has various implementation dates dependent on a number of factors as it pertains to the above items. The Company is in the early stages of evaluation of the guidance.