Basis of Presentation (Policies)

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2017

Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]

The accompanying interim condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Cascade Bancorp (“Bancorp”), an Oregon-chartered single bank holding company, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bank of the Cascades (the “Bank”) (collectively, the “Company” or “Cascade”). All significant inter-company accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Consolidation

The interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared by the Company without audit and in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information. Accordingly, certain financial information and footnotes have been omitted or condensed. In the opinion of management, the interim condensed consolidated financial statements include all adjustments (all of which are of a normal and recurring nature) necessary for the fair presentation of the results of the interim periods presented.

Use of Estimates

In preparing the interim condensed consolidated financial statements, management is required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities as of the dates of the balance sheets and income and expenses for the reporting periods. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Operating results for the interim periods disclosed herein are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for a full year or any future period.

New Accounting Pronouncements

New Authoritative Accounting Guidance

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-08, “Receivables- Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs (Subtopic 310-20): Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities” (“ASU 2017-08”). ASU 2017-08 shortens the amortization period for certain purchased callable debt securities held at a premium. The amendment requires the premium to be amortized to the earliest call date. ASU 2017-08 does not require an accounting change for securities held at a discount; the discount will continue to be amortized to maturity. ASU 2017-08 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018. As we approach the effective date, we will consult our third party investment carriers to insure that the securities held at a premium are being accounted for effectively.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-07, “Compensation- Retirement Benefits (Topic 715): Improving the Presentation of Net Periodic Pension Cost and Net Periodic Postretirement Benefit Cost” (“ASU 2017-07”). The amendment requires that the benefit service costs be segregated from other components of the net benefit cost. Further, it is required that the service costs and other benefit costs be presented as a separate line item in the income statement, or if the two are presented together then the line item description must disclose both costs. ASU 2017-07 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017. As we approach the effective date, we will evaluate which classification is the most useful and transparent to our shareholders.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, “Intangibles - Goodwill and Other (Topic 350): Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment” (“ASU 2017-04”). ASU 2017-04 simplifies how an entity is required to test goodwill for impairment by eliminating a step from the goodwill impairment test. The amendments in this update provide that an entity should perform its annual, or interim, goodwill impairment test by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. An entity should recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value; however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. Additionally, an entity should consider income tax effects from any tax deductible goodwill on the carrying amount of the reporting unit when measuring the goodwill impairment loss, if applicable. An entity still has the option to perform the qualitative assessment for a reporting unit to determine if the quantitative impairment test is necessary. ASU 2017-04 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, including interim periods within those fiscal years. As we approach the effective date, we will consult the updated goodwill impairment test steps to determine if an impairment charge should be recognized.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, “Business Combinations (Topic 805): Clarifying the Definition of a Business” (“ASU 2016-15”). ASU 2017-01 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. The amendments in this update provide a screen to determine when a set is not a business. The screen requires that when substantially all of the fair value of the gross assets acquired (or disposed of) is concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets, the set is not a business. This screen reduces the number of transactions that need to be further evaluated. If the screen is not met, the amendments in this update (1) require 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 and (2) remove the evaluation of whether a market participant could replace missing elements. The amendments provide a framework to assist entities in evaluating whether both an input and a substantive process are present. The framework includes two sets of criteria to consider that depend on whether a set has outputs. ASU 2017-01 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. As we approach the effective date, we will consult the framework to determine if the event should be disclosed as an acquisition or disposal of an asset or business.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, “Statement of Cash Flows (Topic 230): Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments” (“ASU 2016-15”). ASU 2016-15 addresses the classification of debt prepayment or debt extinguishment costs; settlement of zero-coupon debt instruments or other debt instruments with coupon interest rates that are insignificant in relation to the effective interest rate of the borrowing; contingent consideration payments made after a business combination; proceeds from the settlement of insurance claims; proceeds from the settlement of Corporate-Owned Life Insurance policies, including Bank-Owned Life Insurance policies, distributions received from equity method investees; beneficial interests in securitization transactions; and separately identifiable cash flows and application of the predominance principle. ASU 2016-15 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating which classifications apply to our business and will be prepared to report these classifications in the statement of cash flows.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, “Financial Instruments- Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (“ASU 2016-13”). ASU 2016-13 requires financial assets that are measured at amortized cost to be presented as the net amount expected to be collected. The income statement will reflect the measurement of credit losses for newly recognized financial assets and for the expected increase or decrease of expected credit losses. ASU 2016-13 notes that credit losses related to available-for-sale debt securities should be recorded through an allowance for credit losses. The initial allowance for credit losses, for purchased available-for-sale securities, is added to the purchase price rather than reported as a credit loss expense. Subsequent changes in the allowance are recorded as credit loss expense. Interest income should be recognized based on the effective interest rate, excluding the discount attributed to the assessment of credit loss at acquisition. ASU 2016-13 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, including interim periods within those fiscal years. We are currently evaluating our available-for-sale security portfolio in order to determine the most efficient way to track the net amount expected to be collected on the security. As we approach the effective date, we will continue to develop this process in order to report on the expected increase or decrease of expected credit losses.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, “Compensation- Stock Compensation (Topic 718): Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting” (“ASU 2016-09”). ASU 2016-09 describes simplifications related to accounting and presenting share-based payment awards. ASU 2016-09 states that excess tax benefits and tax deficiencies are to be recognized as income tax expense or benefit in the income statement; excess tax benefits should be classified with other income tax as an operating activity on the statement of cash flows; an entity may make an entity-wide accounting policy to either estimate the number of awards that are expected to vest or account for forfeitures as they occur; and cash paid by an employer when directly withholding shares for tax-withholding purposes should be classified as a financing activity. ASU 2016-09 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2016, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Adoption of ASU 2016-09 did not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, “Leases” (“ASU 2016-02”). ASU 2016-02 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. ASU 2016-02 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. While the effect of the pronouncement has not yet been quantified, we are continuing to evaluate the impact of recording the right-of-use assets and liabilities on our balance sheet.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, “Financial Instruments- Overall (Subtopic 825-10): Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“ASU 2016-01”). ASU 2016-01 simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments, clarifies reporting disclosure requirements for financial instruments measured at amortized cost, and requires the exit price notion be disclosed when measuring fair value of financial instruments. ASU 2016-01 details the required separate presentation in other comprehensive income for the change in fair value of a liability related to change in instrument specific credit risk and details the required separate presentation of financial assets and liabilities by measurement category, and clarifies the need for a valuation allowance on DTA related to available-for-sale securities. ASU 2016-01 is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2017. Adoption of ASU 2016-01 is not expected to have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers” (“ASU 2014-09”). ASU 2014-09 establishes a comprehensive revenue recognition standard for virtually all industries under GAAP, including those that previously followed industry-specific guidance such as the real estate, construction and software industries. The revenue standard’s core principle is built on the contract between a vendor and a customer for the provision of goods and services. It attempts to depict the exchange of rights and obligations between the parties in the pattern of revenue recognition based on the consideration to which the vendor is entitled. To accomplish this objective, the standard requires five basic steps: i) identify the contract with the customer, (ii) identify the performance obligations in the contract, (iii) determine the transaction price, (iv) allocate the transaction price to the performance obligations in the contract, and (v) recognize revenue when (or as) the entity satisfies a performance obligation. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2016 with three transition methods available - full retrospective, retrospective and cumulative effect approach. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Deferral of the Effective Date” (“ASU 2015-14”). ASU 2015-14 amended the effective date to December 15, 2017. In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-08, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Principal Versus Agent Considerations” (“ASU 2016-08”). ASU 2016-08 defines the roles of a principal and agent in revenue recognition and determines when control of the good or service is transferred to the customer. In April 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-10, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Identifying Performance Obligations and Licensing” (“ASU 2016-10”). ASU 2016-10 establishes guidance on identifying performance obligations and licensing implementation. In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Narrow- Scope Improvements and Practical Expedients” (“ASU 2016-12”). ASU 2016-12 clarifies the objective of the collectability criteria and notes the differences in applying the update at transition and on an ongoing basis. In December 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-20, “Revenue from Contracts with Customers: Technical Corrections and Improvements to Topic 606” (“ASU 2016-20”). ASU 2016-20 provides clarity on codification or to correct unintended application of guidance. Adoption of ASU 2014-09, ASU 2015-14, ASU 2016-08, ASU 2016-10, ASU 2016-12 and ASU 2016-20 are not expected to have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Fair Value Measurement

Fair Value Measurements

GAAP establishes a hierarchy for determining fair value measurements that includes three levels and is based upon the valuation techniques used to measure assets and liabilities. The three levels are as follows:


•	Level 1: Inputs that are quoted unadjusted prices in active markets - that the Company has the ability to access at the measurement date - for identical assets or liabilities.

•

Level 2: Inputs that reflect the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on market data obtained from sources independent of the reporting entity including quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar assets or liabilities in inactive markets, and inputs derived principally from, or corroborated by, observable market data by correlation or other means.


•	Level 3: Inputs that reflect the reporting entity’s own assumptions about the assumptions market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability developed based on the best information available in the circumstances.

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 assets and liabilities carried at fair value. Where available, fair value is based upon quoted market prices. Significant balances of the Bank’s financial assets and liabilities do not have quoted market prices. In such circumstances, fair value is based upon internal or third party models that primarily use, as inputs, observable market-based parameters, such as yields and discount rates of comparable instruments of like duration or credit quality. Valuation adjustments may be made to model results with respect to various assets or liabilities. These adjustments may include amounts to reflect counterparty credit quality and the Company’s 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 fair values. While management believes that 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 assets and liabilities could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. Furthermore, the reported fair value amounts have not been comprehensively revalued since the presentation dates, and, therefore, estimates of fair value after the condensed consolidated balance sheet date may differ significantly from the amounts presented herein.

The following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for assets measured at fair value on a recurring or nonrecurring basis, as well as the general classification of such assets pursuant to valuation hierarchy:

Investment securities available-for-sale: Where quoted prices for identical assets are available in an active market, investment securities available-for-sale are classified within level 1 of the hierarchy. If quoted market prices for identical securities are not available, then fair values are estimated by independent sources using pricing models and/or quoted prices of investment securities with similar characteristics or discounted cash flows. The Company has categorized its investment securities available-for-sale as level 2, since a majority of such securities are MBS which are mainly priced in this latter manner.

Interest rate swap derivatives: The fair value of the interest rate lock commitments and forward sales commitments are estimated using quoted or published market prices for similar instruments, adjusted for factors such as pull-through rate assumptions based on historical information, where appropriate. The fair value of the interest rate swaps is determined using a discounted cash flow technique with values provided by third party swap dealers or consultants. The Company has determined that the majority of the inputs used to value its interest rate swap derivatives fall within Level 2.

Impaired loans: In accordance with GAAP, loans are measured for impairment using one of three methods: an observable market price (if available), the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, or at the fair value of the loan’s collateral (if collateral dependent). Estimated fair value of the loan’s collateral is determined by appraisals or independent valuations which are then adjusted for the estimated costs related to liquidation of the collateral. Management’s ongoing review of appraisal information may result in additional discounts or adjustments to valuation based upon more recent market sales activity or more current appraisal information derived from properties of similar type and/or locale. A significant portion of the Bank’s impaired loans are measured using the estimated fair market value of the collateral less the estimated costs to sell. The Company has categorized all its loans impaired during the calendar year utilizing fair value metrics as level 3. Loans that were impaired during the calendar year based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the loans’ effective interest rates are not included in the table below as the loans’ effective interest rates are not based on current market rates.

OREO: The Company’s OREO is measured at estimated fair value less estimated costs to sell. Fair value is generally determined based on third-party appraisals of fair value in an orderly sale. Historically, appraisals have considered comparable sales of like assets in reaching a conclusion as to fair value. Since many recent real estate sales could be termed “distressed sales”, and since a preponderance have been short-sale or foreclosure related, this has directly impacted appraisal valuation estimates. Estimated costs to sell OREO are based on standard market factors. The valuation of OREO is subject to significant external and internal judgment. Management periodically reviews OREO to determine whether the property continues to be carried at the lower of its recorded book value or estimated fair value, net of estimated costs to sell. The Company has categorized its OREO as level 3.

The Company uses the following methods and assumptions to estimate the fair value of its financial instruments:

Cash and cash equivalents: The carrying amount approximates the estimated fair value of these instruments.

Investment securities: See above description.

FHLB stock: The carrying amount approximates the estimated fair value of this investment.

Loans: The estimated fair value of non-impaired loans is calculated by discounting the contractual cash flows of the loans using March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 origination rates. The resulting amounts are adjusted to estimate the effect of changes in the credit quality of borrowers since the loans were originated. Estimated fair values for impaired loans are determined using an observable market price (if available) or the fair value of the loan’s collateral (if collateral dependent) as described above. Observable market prices for community bank loans are not generally available given the non-homogenous characteristics of such loans.

BOLI: The carrying amount of both the separate and general account BOLI approximates the estimated fair value of these instruments. Fair values of insurance policies owned are based on the insurance contracts’ cash surrender values.

MSRs: The estimated fair value of MSRs is calculated by discounting the expected future contractual cash flows. Factors considered in the estimated fair value calculation include prepayment speed forecasts, market discount rates, earning rates, servicing costs, acquisition costs, ancillary income, and borrower rates.

Deposits: The estimated fair value of demand deposits, consisting of checking, interest bearing demand, and savings deposit accounts, is represented by the amounts payable on demand. At the reporting date, the estimated fair value of time deposits is calculated by discounting the scheduled cash flows using the March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 rates offered on those instruments.

Other borrowings: The fair value of other borrowings (including federal funds purchased, if any) is estimated using discounted cash flow analysis based on the Bank’s March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 incremental borrowing rates for similar types of borrowing arrangements.

Loan commitments and standby letters of credit: The majority of the Bank’s commitments to extend credit have variable interest rates and “escape” clauses if the customer’s credit quality deteriorates. Therefore, the fair values of these items are not significant and are not included in the following table.