UNITY BANCORP INC quarterly report, Q1 FY2019

Unity Bancorp, Inc. — Q1 2019 Form 10-Q

Business context and period. Unity Bancorp is a New Jersey bank holding company operating Unity Bank, with 19 branches in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. This unaudited report covers the three months ended March 31, 2019; balance-sheet comparisons are to December 31, 2018, and operating results are compared with Q1 2018. Unless stated otherwise, financial amounts below are in millions of dollars.

Key financial results

MetricQ1 2019 / March 31, 2019Comparable period / prior date
Net income$5.74; diluted EPS $0.52$5.23; diluted EPS $0.48 in Q1 2018
Interest income / net interest income$18.50 / $14.22$15.64 / $12.87 in Q1 2018
Net interest margin4.06%3.99% in Q1 2018
Noninterest income / expense$2.02 / $8.48$2.29 / $8.19 in Q1 2018
Cash from operating activities$11.21$7.61 in Q1 2018
Total assets$1,590.0$1,579.2 at December 31, 2018
Total loans$1,313.0$1,304.6 at December 31, 2018
Total deposits$1,226.6$1,207.7 at December 31, 2018
Borrowed funds and subordinated debentures$205.3$220.3 at December 31, 2018
Cash and cash equivalents$149.1$145.5 at December 31, 2018
Shareholders’ equity$143.7$138.5 at December 31, 2018

Material changes and operating performance

  • Net income increased about 9.8% year over year. Net interest income rose 10.4%, primarily on loan growth and higher loan yields; average loans increased $131.0 million and the average loan yield rose 38 basis points to 5.45%.
  • Higher funding costs partly offset asset growth: interest expense increased 54.8% to $4.28 million, and the average cost of interest-bearing liabilities rose to 1.60% from 1.12%. Net interest spread narrowed to 3.68% from 3.73%, although net interest margin improved.
  • Noninterest income declined 11.6%, mainly due to lower loan payoff charges and reduced SBA loan-sale premiums. Noninterest expense rose 3.4%, with management citing software and equipment investment; the efficiency ratio improved to 52.53% from 54.00%.
  • Return on average assets was 1.55% versus 1.53%; return on average equity was 16.52% versus 17.69%. The effective tax rate increased to 20.9% from 19.1%.
  • Loans grew $8.4 million from year-end, led by commercial, residential mortgage and consumer lending; SBA loans declined. Deposits rose $18.9 million, principally from time deposits, while demand deposits declined. Management attributed demand-deposit outflows primarily to seasonal municipal activity.

Cash flow, liquidity, capital and credit

  • Cash increased $3.62 million during the quarter. Investing activities used $10.93 million, while financing activities provided $3.34 million. Financing included $18.90 million of net deposit growth and $175 million of new borrowings, offset by $190 million of borrowing repayments.
  • The allowance for loan losses was $15.68 million, or 1.19% of loans. The quarter included $304,000 of net charge-offs, compared with $140,000 of net recoveries in Q1 2018. Nonperforming loans were $7.27 million (0.55% of loans), up from $6.87 million at year-end and $4.28 million a year earlier. Nonperforming assets were $7.55 million, or 0.47% of assets.
  • Approximately 94% of loans were secured by real estate. Management noted that real-estate values, local economic conditions and borrower performance can affect collateral and credit losses. Potential problem loans totaled $4.5 million. One performing commercial real-estate TDR was $738,000.
  • The Bank reported a 9.71% leverage ratio, 12.14% CET1 ratio, 12.14% Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and 13.39% total risk-based capital ratio; each exceeded the stated well-capitalized thresholds.
  • Unfunded loan commitments were approximately $314.3 million, including $171.0 million expiring within one year. The Company said it believed it had adequate liquidity to honor commitments. It reported $259.9 million of additional FHLB borrowing capacity. Certain municipal deposits are short-duration and price-sensitive.

Outlook, commentary, risks and unusual items

  • Management said net interest margin was expected to remain stable; the filing provides no specific earnings or revenue guidance. Results for the quarter are not necessarily indicative of full-year results.
  • Management identified economic, market, regulatory and interest-rate changes as factors that could affect results, including the effect of rates on spreads and income. A 200-basis-point rate shock was estimated to change economic value of equity by a 0.67% decline in a rising-rate scenario and a 0.28% increase in a falling-rate scenario, within Board limits.
  • The Company adopted lease accounting guidance on January 1, 2019, recognizing operating lease right-of-use assets and liabilities of approximately $2.7 million. It was evaluating the expected-credit-loss standard (ASU 2016-13), effective for the Company in 2020; it did not quantify the adoption impact. Management did not expect the cited goodwill standard to have a material effect.
  • New Jersey tax changes include a temporary corporate surtax and mandatory unitary combined reporting; the reported effective tax rate rose year over year. Unrealized changes in equity securities were recognized in earnings under the applicable accounting standard.
  • Management said pending ordinary-course legal matters were not expected to materially affect financial position or results. The filing reported no material change in market-risk assessment, effective disclosure controls, and no significant change in internal control over financial reporting.

Important facts for investors to verify

  • Whether loan growth and higher yields can continue to offset deposit and borrowing cost increases, and whether the stated stable-margin outlook holds.
  • Credit trends behind the increase in nonperforming loans, particularly residential mortgages, and the adequacy of the allowance given higher Q1 net charge-offs.
  • Deposit mix, reliance on time and municipal deposits, and the cost and availability of alternative funding.
  • Exposure to real-estate collateral and the scale, timing and funding of the $314.3 million in unfunded commitments.
  • The eventual impact of ASU 2016-13 and the effect of New Jersey tax changes on future effective tax rates.