2.	New Accounting Standards

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)”. This ASU amends existing guidance related to the accounting for leases. These amendments, among other things, require lessees to account for most leases on the balance sheet while recognizing expense on the income statement in a manner similar to existing guidance. For lessors the guidance modifies the classification criteria and the accounting for sales-type and direct finance leases. This amended guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2019 and is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated operating results or financial condition. Based on a review of our operating leases that we currently have in place we do not expect a material change in the recognition, measurement and presentation of lease expense or impact on cash flow. While the primary impact will be the recognition of certain operating leases on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition this impact is not expected to be material.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, “Financial Instruments — Credit Losses (Topic 326), 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 are not measured at fair value through net income. This ASU will replace today’s “incurred loss” approach with an “expected loss” model for instruments measured at amortized cost. For securities available for sale, allowances will be recorded rather than reducing the carrying amount as is done under the current other-than-temporary impairment model. This ASU also simplifies the accounting model for purchased credit-impaired debt securities and loans. This amended guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2020. We began evaluating this ASU in 2016 and have formed a committee that includes personnel from various areas of Independent Bank (the “Bank”) that meets regularly to discuss the implementation of the ASU. We are currently in the process of gathering data and reviewing loss methodologies and have engaged third party resources that will assist us in the implementation of this ASU. While we have not yet determined what the impact will be on our consolidated operating results or financial condition by the nature of the implementation of an expected loss model compared to an incurred loss approach, we would expect our allowance for loan losses (“AFLL”) to increase under this ASU.

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12, “Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities”. This new ASU amends the hedge accounting model in Topic 815 to enable entities to better portray the economics of their risk management activities in the financial statements and enhance the transparency and understandability of hedge results. The amendments expand an entity’s ability to hedge nonfinancial and financial risk components and reduce complexity in fair value hedges of interest rate risk. The guidance eliminates the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and generally requires the entire change in the fair value of a hedging instrument to be presented in the same income statement line as the hedged item. The guidance also eases certain documentation and assessment requirements and modifies the accounting for components excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. This amended guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2019, and given our current level of derivatives designated as hedges is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated operating results or financial condition.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606)”, (“ASU 2014-09”). This ASU supersedes and replaces nearly all existing revenue recognition guidance, including industry-specific guidance, establishes a new control-based revenue recognition model, changes the basis for deciding when revenue is recognized over time or at a point in time, provides new and more detailed guidance on specific topics and expands and improves disclosures about revenue. In addition, this ASU specifies the accounting for some costs to obtain or fulfill a contract with a customer. We adopted this ASU using the modified retrospective approach with no impact to our accumulated deficit at January 1, 2018. Financial instruments for the most part and related contractual rights and obligations which are the sources of the majority of our operating revenue are excluded from the scope of this amended guidance. Those operating revenue streams that are included in the scope of this amended guidance were not materially impacted. Results for reporting periods beginning after January 1, 2018 are presented under this ASU while prior period amounts continue to be reported in accordance with legacy GAAP. The impact of the adoption of this ASU on our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine month periods ending September 30, 2018 is summarized in the table below. In addition, see note #17 for further discussion on our accounting policies for operating revenue streams that are included in the scope of this amended guidance.

The impact of the adoption of ASU 2014-09 on our Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations follows:

	As Reported		Under Legacy GAAP		Impact of ASU 2014-09
	(In thousands)
Three months ended September 30, 2018
Non-interest income - Interchange income	$	2,486	$	2,088	$	398	(1	)


Non-interest expense - interchange expense	$	715	$	317		398	(1	)
Impact on net income					$	-


Nine months ended September 30, 2018
Non-interest income - Interchange income	$	7,236	$	6,170	$	1,066	(1	)


Non-interest expense - interchange expense	$	1,974	$	908		1,066	(1	)
Impact on net income					$	-

(1)	Represents certain costs charged by payment networks that were previously netted against interchange income.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, “Financial Instruments – Overall (Subtopic 825-10) – Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities”. This ASU amends existing guidance related to the accounting for certain financial assets and liabilities. These amendments, among other things, 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, require public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes, require separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset and 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. This amended guidance was effective for us on January 1, 2018. The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our consolidated operating results or financial condition. As a result of the adoption of this ASU our equity securities previously classified as trading securities are now classified as equity securities at fair value on our September 30, 2018 Condensed Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition. In addition, this amended guidance impacted certain fair value disclosure items (see note #12).

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, “Business Combinations (Topic 805), Clarifying the Definition of a Business”. This new ASU clarifies the definition of a business with the objective of adding guidance to assist entities with evaluating whether transactions should be accounted for as acquisitions (or disposals) of assets or businesses which distinction determines whether goodwill is recorded or not. This amended guidance was effective for us on January 1, 2018, and did not have a material impact on our consolidated operating results or financial condition.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-4, “Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350), Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment”. This new ASU amends the requirement that entities compare the implied fair value of goodwill with its carrying amount as part of step 2 of the goodwill impairment test. As a result, entities should perform their annual or interim goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount and recognize an impairment if the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value. This amended guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2020 with early application permitted. Due to our recent acquisition (see note #16) and expectations this ASU will be relevant to us in 2018 we elected to adopt this amended guidance as of January 1, 2018. The adoption of this ASU did not have a material impact on our consolidated operating results or financial condition.

In February 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-02, ‘‘Income Statement – Reporting Comprehensive Income (Topic 220), Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income’’. This new ASU allows a reclassification from accumulated other comprehensive income to retained earnings for stranded tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As a result, this amended guidance eliminates the stranded tax effects resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and will improve the usefulness of information reported to financial statement users. This amended guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2019, with early application permitted in any period for which financial statements have not yet been issued. We elected to adopt this amended guidance during the fourth quarter of 2017 and it resulted in a $0.04 million reclassification between accumulated other comprehensive loss and accumulated deficit.