Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Policies)

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2018

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements include 1^ST Constitution Bancorp (the “Company”), its wholly-owned subsidiary, 1^ST Constitution Bank (the “Bank”), and the Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiaries, 1^ST Constitution Investment Company of New Jersey, Inc., FCB Assets Holdings, Inc., 204 South Newman Street Corp. and 249 New York Avenue, LLC. 1^ST Constitution Capital Trust II, a subsidiary of the Company, is not included in the Company’s consolidated financial statements, as it is a variable interest entity and the Company is not the primary beneficiary. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation and certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to current year presentation. The accounting and reporting policies of the Company and its subsidiaries conform to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) and pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and the notes thereto included in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, filed with the SEC on March 19, 2018.

Subsequent Events

The Company has evaluated events and transactions occurring subsequent to the balance sheet date of June 30, 2018 for items that should potentially be recognized or disclosed in these financial statements. The evaluation was conducted through the date these financial statements were issued.

Adoption of New Accounting Standards

ASU 2014-09 - Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)

On January 1, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2014-09 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and all subsequent amendments to the ASU (collectively, “Topic 606”), which (i) creates a single framework for recognizing revenue from contracts with customers that fall within its scope and (ii) revises when it is appropriate to recognize a gain or loss from the transfer of nonfinancial assets, such as other real estate owned (“OREO”). The majority of the Company’s revenues come from interest income, other services to customers and other sources, including loans, leases and securities that are outside the scope of Topic 606. The Company’s services that fall within the scope of Topic 606 are presented within non-interest income and are recognized as revenue as the Company satisfies its obligation to the customer. Services within the scope of Topic 606 include service charges on deposits, interchange income, other services and the sale of OREO. Refer to Note 6 - Revenue from Contracts with Customers - for further discussion on the Company’s accounting policies for revenue sources within the scope of Topic 606.

The Company adopted Topic 606 using the modified retrospective method for reporting periods beginning after January 1, 2018. The Company did not have any contracts that were not completed as of January 1, 2018. The adoption of Topic 606 did not result in a change to the accounting for any of the in-scope revenue streams; therefore, no cumulative effect adjustment was recorded.

ASU Update 2017-07 - Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-07, “Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost,” which requires that an employer disaggregate the service cost component from the other components of net benefit costs as follows: (1) service cost must be presented in the same line item(s) as other employee compensation costs. These costs are generally included within income from continuing operations but in some cases, may be eligible for capitalization if certain criteria are met; and (2) all other components of net benefit cost must be presented in the income statement separately from the service cost component and outside a subtotal of income from operations, if one is presented. These generally include interest cost, actual return on plan assets, amortization of prior service cost included in accumulated other comprehensive income and gains or losses from changes in the value of the projected benefit obligation or plan assets.

For the Company, the provisions of this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those years. The adoption of this guidance in 2018 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2017-01 - Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01 “Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business,” which clarifies the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist companies and other reporting organizations with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses. The amendments in this ASU provide a more robust framework to use in determining when a set of assets and activities is a business. The current definition of a business is interpreted broadly and can be difficult to apply. Stakeholders indicated that analyzing transactions is inefficient and costly and the definition does not permit the use of reasonable judgment.

Under current implementation guidance, there are three elements of a business: inputs, processes and outputs. While an integrated set of assets and activities (collectively referred to as a “set”) that is a business usually has outputs, outputs are not required to be present. Additionally, all the inputs and processes that a seller uses in operating a set are not required if market participants can acquire the set and continue to produce outputs, for example, by integrating the acquired set with their own inputs and processes.

The ASU introduces a “screen” to assist entities in determining when a set should not be considered a business. If substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not considered a business. If the screen is not met, the ASU requires that to be considered a business, a set must include, at a minimum, an input and a substantive process that together significantly contribute to the ability to create output. Further, the ASU removes the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace missing elements (as required under current U.S. GAAP).

For the Company, the ASU is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those periods. The amendments in this ASU should be applied prospectively on or after the effective date. No disclosures are required at transition. The adoption of this guidance in 2018 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2016-15 - Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15 “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments,” which clarifies whether the following items should be categorized as operating, investing or financing in the statement of cash flows: (1) debt prepayment and extinguishment costs, (2) settlement of zero-coupon debt, (3) settlement of contingent consideration, (4) insurance proceeds, (5) settlement of corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) and bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies, (6) distributions from equity method investees, (7) beneficial interests in securitization transactions and (8) receipts and payments with aspects of more than one class of cash flows.

For the Company, the provisions of this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017 and interim periods within those fiscal years. The Company currently classifies cash flows related to BOLI in accordance with the guidance, and the adoption of this guidance in 2018 did not have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2016-01 - Financial Instruments-Overall: Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01 “Financial Instruments-Overall: Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities.” The guidance in the ASU, among other things, requires equity investments, with certain exceptions, to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income; simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment; eliminates the requirement for public business entities to disclose the methods 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; requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes; requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income, the portion of the change in 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; requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset on the balance sheet or the accompanying notes to the financial statements; and clarifies that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities.

For the Company, the guidance in this ASU is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. The adoption of this guidance in 2018 did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

ASU Update 2018-07 - Compensation - Stock Compensation (Topic 718)

In June 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-07, “Compensation-Stock Compensation,” which expands the scope of Topic 718 to include share-based payment transactions for acquiring goods and services from non-employees.

The amendments specify that Topic 718 applies to all share-based payment transactions in which a grantor acquires goods or services to be used or consumed in a grantor’s own operations by issuing share-based payment awards. The amendment also clarifies that Topic 718 does not apply to share-based payments used to effectively provide (1) financing to the issuer or (2) awards granted in conjunction with selling goods or services to customers as part of a contract accounted for under Topic 606, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers.”

For the Company, the provisions of this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those years. 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 the interim period.

The Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2017-08 - Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-08, “Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities,” which shortens the amortization period for premiums on purchased callable debt securities to the earliest call date (i.e., yield-to-earliest call amortization) rather than amortizing over the full contractual term. The ASU does not change the accounting for securities held at a discount.

The amendments apply to callable debt securities with explicit, non-contingent call features that are callable at fixed prices and on preset dates. If a security may be prepaid based upon prepayments of the underlying loans and not because the issuer exercised a date specific call option, it is excluded from the scope of the new standard. However, for instruments with contingent call features, once the contingency is resolved and the security is callable at a fixed price and preset date, the security is within the scope of the amendments. Further, the amendments apply to all premiums on callable debt securities, regardless of how they were generated.

The amendments require companies to reset the effective yield using the payment terms of the debt security if the call option is not exercised on the earliest call date. If the security has additional future call dates, any excess of the amortized cost basis over the amount repayable by the issuer at the next call date should be amortized to the next call date.

The Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2017-04 - Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04 “Intangibles-Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment,” which simplifies how all entities assess goodwill for impairment by eliminating Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test. As amended, the goodwill impairment test will consist of one step comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An entity should recognize a goodwill impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit's fair value. The primary goal of this ASU is to simplify the goodwill impairment test and provide cost savings for all entities by removing the requirement to determine the fair value of individual assets and liabilities in order to calculate a reporting unit's "implied" goodwill under current U.S. GAAP.

For the Company, the provisions of this ASU are effective for its annual or any interim goodwill impairment tests in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. The amendments should be adopted prospectively. Early adoption is permitted for interim or annual goodwill impairment tests performed on testing dates after January 1, 2017.

The Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2016-13 - Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13 “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” which requires credit losses on most financial assets to be 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. 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 assets will use the CECL model described above.

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 the Company, the provisions of this ASU are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted for all entities as of the fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years.

The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the pending adoption of the new standard on its consolidated financial statements.

ASU Update 2016-02 - Leases

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02 “Leases.” From the lessee’s perspective, the new standard establishes a right- of-use (“ROU”) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement for a lessee. From the lessor’s perspective, the new standard requires a lessor to classify leases as either sales-type, finance or operating. A lease will be treated as a sale if it transfers all of the risks and rewards, as well as control of the underlying asset, to the lessee. If risks and rewards are conveyed without the transfer of control, the lease is treated as a financing. If the lessor doesn’t convey risks and rewards or control, an operating lease results.

The new standard is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessees for capital and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessors for sales-type, direct financing and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available.

The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the adoption of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements and has determined that the provisions of ASU 2016-02 will result in an increase in assets to recognize the present value of the lease obligations (right-of-use assets) with a corresponding increase in liabilities. The initial measurement of the right-of-use asset and the corresponding liability will be affected by certain key assumptions, such as expectations of renewals or extensions of leases and the interest rate to be used to discount the future lease obligations. The Company is currently assessing its lease portfolio to determine the key assumptions and financial statement impact; however, the total impact of the new standard will be affected by any new leases that are executed, leases that are terminated prior to the effective date and any leases with changes to key assumptions or expectations, such as renewals and extensions and discount rates.

Investment Securities

U.S. Treasury securities and obligations of U.S. Government sponsored entities and agencies: The unrealized losses on investments in these securities were caused by increases in market interest rates. The Company does not intend to sell these investments and it is not more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell these investments before a market price recovery or maturity. Therefore, these investments are not considered other-than-temporarily impaired.

Residential collateralized mortgage obligations and residential mortgage backed securities: The unrealized losses on investments in residential collateralized mortgage obligations and mortgage backed securities were caused by increases in market interest rates. The contractual cash flows of these securities are guaranteed by the issuers, which are primarily government or government sponsored agencies. It is expected that the securities would not be settled at a price less than the amortized cost of the investment. The decline in fair value is attributable to changes in interest rates and not credit quality. The Company does not intend to sell these investments and it is not more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell these investments before a market price recovery or maturity. Therefore, these investments are not considered other-than-temporarily impaired.

Obligations of state and political subdivisions: The unrealized losses on investments in these securities were caused by increases in market interest rates. It is expected that the securities would not be settled at a price less than the amortized cost of the investment. None of the issuers have defaulted on interest payments. These investments are not considered to be other than temporarily impaired because the decline in fair value is attributable to changes in interest rates and not credit quality. The Company does not intend to sell these investments and it is not more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell these investments before a market price recovery or maturity. Therefore, these investments are not considered other-than-temporarily impaired.

Corporate debt securities: The unrealized losses on investments in corporate debt securities were caused by increases in market interest rates. None of the corporate issuers have defaulted on interest payments. The decline in fair value is attributable to changes in interest rates and not a decline in credit quality. The Company does not intend to sell these investments and it is not more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell these investments before a market price recovery or maturity. Therefore, these investments are not considered other-than-temporarily impaired.

Trust preferred debt securities – single issuer: The investments in these securities with unrealized losses are comprised of two corporate trust preferred securities issued by one large financial institution that mature in 2027. The contractual terms of the trust preferred securities do not allow the issuer to settle the securities at a price less than the face value of the trust preferred securities, which is greater than the amortized cost of the trust preferred securities. The issuer maintains an investment grade credit rating and has not defaulted on interest payments. The decline in fair value is attributable to the widening of interest rate and credit spreads and the lack of an active trading market for these securities. The Company does not intend to sell these investments and it is not more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell these investments before a market price recovery or maturity. Therefore, these investments are not considered other-than-temporarily impaired.

Trust preferred debt securities – pooled: This trust preferred debt security was issued by a two-issuer pool (Preferred Term Securities XXV, Ltd. co-issued by Keefe, Bruyette and Woods, Inc. and First Tennessee (“PRETSL XXV”)) consisting primarily of debt securities issued by financial institution holding companies. During 2009, the Company recognized an other-than-temporary impairment of $865,000, of which $364,000 was determined to be a credit loss and charged to operations and $501,000 was recognized in the other comprehensive income (loss) component of shareholders’ equity.

The primary factor used to determine the credit portion of the impairment loss recognized in the income statement for this security was the discounted present value of projected cash flow where that present value of cash flow was less than the amortized cost basis of the security. The present value of cash flow was developed using a model that considered performing collateral ratios, the level of subordination to senior tranches of the security and credit ratings of and projected credit defaults in the underlying collateral.

On a quarterly basis, management evaluates the security to determine if any additional other-than-temporary impairment is required. As of June 30, 2018, the security was in an unrealized gain position.

Allowance for Loan Losses and Credit Quality Disclosure

The Company’s internal credit risk grades are based on the definitions currently utilized by the banking regulatory agencies. The grades assigned and their definitions are as follows, and loans graded excellent, above average, good and watch list are treated as “pass” for grading purposes:

1. Excellent - Loans that are based upon cash collateral held at the Company and adequately margined. Loans that are based upon “blue chip” stocks listed on the major stock exchanges and adequately margined.

2. Above Average - Loans to companies whose balance sheets show excellent liquidity and long-term debt is on well-spread schedules of repayment easily covered by cash flow. Such companies have been consistently profitable and have diversification in their product lines or sources of revenue. The continuation of profitable operations for the foreseeable future is likely. Management is comprised of a mix of ages, experience and backgrounds and management succession is in place. Sources of raw materials and, for service companies, the sources of revenue are abundant. Future needs have been planned for. Character and management ability of individuals or company principals are excellent. Loans to individuals are supported by their high net worth and liquid assets.

3. Good - Loans to companies whose balance sheets show good liquidity and cash flow adequate to meet maturities of long-term debt with a comfortable margin. Such companies have established profitable records over a number of years, and there has been growth in net worth. Operating ratios are in line with those of the industry, and expenses are in proper relationship to the volume of business done and the profits achieved. Management is well-balanced and competent in their responsibilities. Economic environment is favorable; however, competition is strong. The prospects for growth are good. Loans in this category do not meet the collateral requirements of loans in categories 1 and 2 above. Loans to individuals are supported by their high net worth but whose supporting assets are illiquid.

3w. Watch - Included in this category are loans evidencing problems identified by Company management that require closer supervision. Such problems have not developed to the point that requires a “special mention” rating. This category also covers situations where the Company does not have adequate current information upon which credit quality can be determined. The account officer has the obligation to correct these deficiencies within 30 days from the time of notification.

4. Special Mention - A “special mention” loan has potential weaknesses that deserve management's close attention. If left uncorrected, these potential weaknesses may result in deterioration of the repayment prospects for the loan or in the Company's credit position at some future date. Special mention loans are not adversely classified and do not expose the Company to sufficient risk to warrant adverse classification.

5. Substandard - A “substandard” loan is inadequately protected by the current net worth and paying capacity of the obligor or by the collateral pledged, if any. Loans so classified must have a well-defined weakness or weaknesses that jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. They are characterized by the distinct possibility that the Company will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected.

6. Doubtful - A loan classified as “doubtful” has all the weaknesses inherent in a loan classified as substandard with the added characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently known facts, conditions and values, highly questionable and improbable.

7. Loss - A loan classified as “loss” is considered uncollectible and of such little value that its continuance on the books is not warranted. This classification does not mean that the loan has absolutely no recovery or salvage value, but rather it is not practical or desirable to defer writing off this loan even though partial recovery may occur in the future.

Fair Value Disclosures

U.S. GAAP has established a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation methods used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (Level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (Level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are as follows:


Level 1:	Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical unrestricted assets or liabilities.


Level 2:	Quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs that are observable either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.


Level 3:	Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (i.e., supported with little or no market activity).

An asset’s or liability’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

A description of the valuation methodologies used for instruments measured at fair value, as well as the general classification of such instruments pursuant to the valuation hierarchy, is set forth below. These valuation methodologies were applied to all of the Company’s financial assets and financial liabilities carried at fair value.

In general, fair value is based upon quoted market prices, where available. If such quoted market prices are not available, fair value is based upon internally developed models that primarily use, as inputs, observable market-based parameters. Valuation adjustments may be made to ensure that financial instruments are recorded at fair value. These adjustments may include amounts to reflect counterparty credit quality and counterparty creditworthiness, among other things, as well as unobservable parameters. Any such valuation adjustments are applied consistently over time. The Company’s valuation methodologies may produce a fair value calculation that may not be indicative of net realizable value or reflective of future values. While management believes the Company’s valuation methodologies are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.

Securities Available for Sale. Securities classified as available for sale are reported at fair value utilizing quoted market prices on nationally recognized exchanges (Level 1) or by using Level 2 inputs. For Level 2 securities, the Company obtains fair value measurements from an independent pricing service. The fair value measurements consider observable data that may include dealer quotes, market spreads, cash flows, the U.S. Treasury yield curve, live trading levels, trade execution data, market consensus prepayments speeds, credit information and the security’s terms and conditions, among other things.

Impaired loans. Impaired loans are those which the Company has measured and recognized impairment, generally based on the fair value of the loan’s collateral. Fair value is generally determined based upon independent third-party appraisals of the collateral or discounted cash flows based on the expected proceeds. These assets are included as Level 3 fair values, based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurements. The fair value consists of the loan balances less specific valuation allowances.

Other Real Estate Owned. Foreclosed properties are adjusted to fair value less estimated selling costs at the time of foreclosure in preparation for transfer from portfolio loans to other real estate owned (“OREO”), thereby establishing a new accounting basis. The Company subsequently adjusts the fair value of the OREO, utilizing Level 3 inputs on a non-recurring basis to reflect partial write-downs based on the observable market price, current appraised value of the asset or other estimates of fair value. The fair value of other real estate owned is determined using appraisals, which may be discounted based on management’s review and changes in market conditions.

- Definition

Disclosure of accounting policy for investments in financial assets, including marketable securities (debt and equity securities with readily determinable fair values), investments accounted for under the equity method and cost method, securities borrowed and loaned, and repurchase and resale agreements. For marketable securities, the disclosure may include the entity's accounting treatment for transfers between investment categories and how the fair values for such securities are determined. Also, for all investments, an entity may describe its policy for assessing, recognizing and measuring impairment of the investment.

+ References + Details