12. RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements
RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS	In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and the International Accounting Standards Board (the “IASB”) jointly issued a comprehensive new revenue recognition standard that will supersede nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). Previous revenue recognition guidance in GAAP consisted of broad revenue recognition concepts together with numerous revenue requirements for particular industries or transactions, which sometimes resulted in different accounting for economically similar transactions. In contrast, IFRS provided limited revenue recognition guidance and, consequently, could be difficult to apply to complex transactions. Accordingly, the FASB and the IASB initiated a joint project to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue and to develop a common revenue standard for U.S. GAAP and IFRS that would: (1) remove inconsistencies and weaknesses in revenue requirements; (2) provide a more robust framework for addressing revenue issues; (3) improve comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions, and capital markets; (4) provide more useful information to users of financial statements through improved disclosure requirements; and (5) simplify the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an entity must refer. To meet those objectives, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The standard’s core principle is that a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In doing so, companies generally will be required to use more judgment and make more estimates than under current guidance. These may include identifying performance obligations in the contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. The standard was initially effective for public entities for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016; early adoption was not permitted. However, in August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers - Deferral of the Effective Date” which deferred the effective date by one year (i.e., interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017). For financial reporting purposes, the standard allows for either full retrospective adoption, meaning the standard is applied to all of the periods presented, or modified retrospective adoption, meaning the standard is applied only to the most current period presented in the financial statements with the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard recognized at the date of initial application. In addition, the FASB has begun to issue targeted updates to clarify specific implementation issues of ASU 2014- 09. These updates include ASU No. 2016-08, “Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net),” ASU No. 2016-10, “Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing,” ASU No. 2016-12, “Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients,” and ASU No. 2016-20 “Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The Company has assessed its revenue streams and reviewed its contracts that could potentially be affected by the ASU including deposit related fees, interchange fees, and merchant income, to determine the potential impact the new guidance is expected to have on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company adopted ASU No. 2014-09 on January 1, 2018. The effects of adopting ASU No. 2014-09 did not change the amounts of revenue recorded for the Company’s in-scope revenue streams. In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” This ASU addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments by making targeted improvements to GAAP as follows: (1) require equity investments (except those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee) to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. However, an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer; (2) simplify the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment. When a qualitative assessment indicates that impairment exists, an entity is required to measure the investment at fair value; (3) eliminate the requirement to disclose the fair value of financial instruments measured at amortized cost for entities that are not public business entities; (4) eliminate the requirement for public business entities to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet; (5) require public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; (6) require an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments; (7) require separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset (that is, securities or loans and receivables) on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements; and (8) clarify that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. ASU No. 2016-01 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early application was permitted as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption only for provisions (3) and (6) above. Early adoption of the other provisions mentioned above were not permitted. The Company adopted ASU No. 2016-01 on January 1, 2018. The effects of adopting ASU No. 2016-01 resulted in the Company using the exit price notion for valuing financial instruments in 2018, but did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases.” Under the new guidance, lessees will be required to recognize the following for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases): 1) a lease liability, which is the present value of a lessee’s obligation to make lease payments, and 2) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. Lessor accounting under the new guidance remains largely unchanged as it is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for sales-type leases, direct financing leases, and operating leases. Leveraged leases have been eliminated, although lessors can continue to account for existing leveraged leases using the current accounting guidance. Other limited changes were made to align lessor accounting with the lessee accounting model and the new revenue recognition standard. All entities will classify leases to determine how to recognize lease-related revenue and expense. Quantitative and qualitative disclosures will be required by lessees and lessors to meet the objective of enabling users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The intention is to require enough information to supplement the amounts recorded in the financial statements so that users can understand more about the nature of an entity’s leasing activities. ASU No. 2016-02 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018; early adoption is permitted. All entities are required to use a modified retrospective approach for leases that exist or are entered into after the beginning of the earliest comparative period in the financial statements. They have the option to use certain relief; full retrospective application is prohibited. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02. Based on the initial evaluation of the Company’s current lease obligations, the Company has determined that the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02 may result in an increase in assets to recognize the present value of the lease obligations with a corresponding increase in liabilities. The Company currently leases nine of its office leases under operating leases with future lease payments, as of January 1, 2019, of approximately $4,358,000, however, the Company does not expect this to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” This ASU significantly changes how entities will measure credit losses for most financial assets and certain other instruments that aren’t measured at fair value through net income. In issuing the standard, the FASB is responding to criticism that today’s guidance delays recognition of credit losses. The standard will replace today’s “incurred loss” approach with an “expected loss” model. The new model, referred to as the current expected credit loss (“CECL”) model, will apply to: (1) financial assets subject to credit losses and measured at amortized cost, and (2) certain off-balance sheet credit exposures. This includes, but is not limited to, loans, leases, held-to-maturity securities, loan commitments, and financial guarantees. The CECL model does not apply to available-for-sale (“AFS”) debt securities. For AFS debt securities with unrealized losses, entities will measure credit losses in a manner similar to what they do today, except that the losses will be recognized as allowances rather than reductions in the amortized cost of the securities. As a result, entities will recognize improvements to estimated credit losses immediately in earnings rather than as interest income over time, as they do today. The ASU also simplifies the accounting model for purchased credit-impaired debt securities and loans. ASU 2016-13 also expands the disclosure requirements regarding an entity’s assumptions, models, and methods for estimating the allowance for loan and lease losses. In addition, entities will need to disclose the amortized cost balance for each class of financial asset by credit quality indicator, disaggregated by the year of origination. ASU No. 2016-13 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019; early adoption is permitted for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Entities will apply the standard’s provisions as a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (i.e., modified retrospective approach). While the Company is currently evaluating the provisions of ASU No. 2016-13 to determine the potential impact the new standard will have on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements, it has taken steps to prepare for the implementation when it becomes effective, such as forming an internal task force, gathering pertinent data, consulting with outside professionals, evaluating its current IT systems, and purchasing a software solution.

12. RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2018

Recently Issued Accounting Pronouncements

RECENTLY ISSUED ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and the International Accounting Standards Board (the “IASB”) jointly issued a comprehensive new revenue recognition standard that will supersede nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance under GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”). Previous revenue recognition guidance in GAAP consisted of broad revenue recognition concepts together with numerous revenue requirements for particular industries or transactions, which sometimes resulted in different accounting for economically similar transactions. In contrast, IFRS provided limited revenue recognition guidance and, consequently, could be difficult to apply to complex transactions. Accordingly, the FASB and the IASB initiated a joint project to clarify the principles for recognizing revenue and to develop a common revenue standard for U.S. GAAP and IFRS that would: (1) remove inconsistencies and weaknesses in revenue requirements; (2) provide a more robust framework for addressing revenue issues; (3) improve comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions, and capital markets; (4) provide more useful information to users of financial statements through improved disclosure requirements; and (5) simplify the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an entity must refer. To meet those objectives, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The standard’s core principle is that a company will recognize revenue when it transfers promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the company expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. In doing so, companies generally will be required to use more judgment and make more estimates than under current guidance. These may include identifying performance obligations in the contract, estimating the amount of variable consideration to include in the transaction price and allocating the transaction price to each separate performance obligation. The standard was initially effective for public entities for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2016; early adoption was not permitted. However, in August 2015, the FASB issued ASU No. 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers - Deferral of the Effective Date” which deferred the effective date by one year (i.e., interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017). For financial reporting purposes, the standard allows for either full retrospective adoption, meaning the standard is applied to all of the periods presented, or modified retrospective adoption, meaning the standard is applied only to the most current period presented in the financial statements with the cumulative effect of initially applying the standard recognized at the date of initial application. In addition, the FASB has begun to issue targeted updates to clarify specific implementation issues of ASU 2014- 09. These updates include ASU No. 2016-08, “Principal versus Agent Considerations (Reporting Revenue Gross versus Net),” ASU No. 2016-10, “Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing,” ASU No. 2016-12, “Narrow-Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients,” and ASU No. 2016-20 “Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers.” The Company has assessed its revenue streams and reviewed its contracts that could potentially be affected by the ASU including deposit related fees, interchange fees, and merchant income, to determine the potential impact the new guidance is expected to have on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. The Company adopted ASU No. 2014-09 on January 1, 2018. The effects of adopting ASU No. 2014-09 did not change the amounts of revenue recorded for the Company’s in-scope revenue streams.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-01, “Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” This ASU addresses certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments by making targeted improvements to GAAP as follows: (1) require equity investments (except those accounted for under the equity method of accounting or those that result in consolidation of the investee) to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income. However, an entity may choose to measure equity investments that do not have readily determinable fair values at cost minus impairment, if any, plus or minus changes resulting from observable price changes in orderly transactions for the identical or a similar investment of the same issuer; (2) simplify the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment. When a qualitative assessment indicates that impairment exists, an entity is required to measure the investment at fair value; (3) eliminate the requirement to disclose the fair value of financial instruments measured at amortized cost for entities that are not public business entities; (4) eliminate the requirement for public business entities to disclose the method(s) and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet; (5) require public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; (6) require an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the total change in the fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments; (7) require separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset (that is, securities or loans and receivables) on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements; and (8) clarify that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities in combination with the entity’s other deferred tax assets. ASU No. 2016-01 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Early application was permitted as of the beginning of the fiscal year of adoption only for provisions (3) and (6) above. Early adoption of the other provisions mentioned above were not permitted. The Company adopted ASU No. 2016-01 on January 1, 2018. The effects of adopting ASU No. 2016-01 resulted in the Company using the exit price notion for valuing financial instruments in 2018, but did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, “Leases.” Under the new guidance, lessees will be required to recognize the following for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases): 1) a lease liability, which is the present value of a lessee’s obligation to make lease payments, and 2) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. Lessor accounting under the new guidance remains largely unchanged as it is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for sales-type leases, direct financing leases, and operating leases. Leveraged leases have been eliminated, although lessors can continue to account for existing leveraged leases using the current accounting guidance. Other limited changes were made to align lessor accounting with the lessee accounting model and the new revenue recognition standard. All entities will classify leases to determine how to recognize lease-related revenue and expense. Quantitative and qualitative disclosures will be required by lessees and lessors to meet the objective of enabling users of financial statements to assess the amount, timing, and uncertainty of cash flows arising from leases. The intention is to require enough information to supplement the amounts recorded in the financial statements so that users can understand more about the nature of an entity’s leasing activities. ASU No. 2016-02 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018; early adoption is permitted. All entities are required to use a modified retrospective approach for leases that exist or are entered into after the beginning of the earliest comparative period in the financial statements. They have the option to use certain relief; full retrospective application is prohibited. The Company is currently evaluating the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02. Based on the initial evaluation of the Company’s current lease obligations, the Company has determined that the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02 may result in an increase in assets to recognize the present value of the lease obligations with a corresponding increase in liabilities. The Company currently leases nine of its office leases under operating leases with future lease payments, as of January 1, 2019, of approximately $4,358,000, however, the Company does not expect this to have a material impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” This ASU significantly changes how entities will measure credit losses for most financial assets and certain other instruments that aren’t measured at fair value through net income. In issuing the standard, the FASB is responding to criticism that today’s guidance delays recognition of credit losses. The standard will replace today’s “incurred loss” approach with an “expected loss” model. The new model, referred to as the current expected credit loss (“CECL”) model, will apply to: (1) financial assets subject to credit losses and measured at amortized cost, and (2) certain off-balance sheet credit exposures. This includes, but is not limited to, loans, leases, held-to-maturity securities, loan commitments, and financial guarantees. The CECL model does not apply to available-for-sale (“AFS”) debt securities. For AFS debt securities with unrealized losses, entities will measure credit losses in a manner similar to what they do today, except that the losses will be recognized as allowances rather than reductions in the amortized cost of the securities. As a result, entities will recognize improvements to estimated credit losses immediately in earnings rather than as interest income over time, as they do today. The ASU also simplifies the accounting model for purchased credit-impaired debt securities and loans. ASU 2016-13 also expands the disclosure requirements regarding an entity’s assumptions, models, and methods for estimating the allowance for loan and lease losses. In addition, entities will need to disclose the amortized cost balance for each class of financial asset by credit quality indicator, disaggregated by the year of origination. ASU No. 2016-13 is effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2019; early adoption is permitted for interim and annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018. Entities will apply the standard’s provisions as a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective (i.e., modified retrospective approach). While the Company is currently evaluating the provisions of ASU No. 2016-13 to determine the potential impact the new standard will have on the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements, it has taken steps to prepare for the implementation when it becomes effective, such as forming an internal task force, gathering pertinent data, consulting with outside professionals, evaluating its current IT systems, and purchasing a software solution.