George G. Gleason
Analyst · Timur Braziler from Wells Fargo
Yes. Good question. Thank you. Obviously, every CIB loan, just like every RESG loan has an ACL model that it is associated with that calculates the loss and the expected loss and the loss given default, the probability of default, the loss given default resulting in an expected loss. Those cumulative numbers for every loan in our portfolio, whether it's RESG, CIB or something else, is factored into our ACL calculation. As Tim has mentioned in our management comments document, Tim and Jay, we have maintained our weighting very much to the downside scenario. So we mentioned in our management comments, in regard to our discussion about ACL, that our Moody's S4, which is a downside economic recession scenario, if you would and our Moody's S6, which is a stagflation scenario, are currently weighted more highly in our calculation of losses than the Moody's baseline scenario. So we've maintained a -- throughout this Fed tightening cycle and I think we were fairly preemptive in the way we approached it. But we've maintained a fairly cautious outlook regarding the uncertainty around the economy. And we continue with that. We hope we get to a period of more certainty and that, that certainty is economic stability and not a recession or not a stagflationary scenario. And if we get to a point where it becomes clear that we're not going into a recession and we're not going into a stagflation scenario, those risk ratings will become tail risk weightings and those elements of our ACL allocations will come down and the baseline would become the larger case. But we're continuing to take what I think is a very prudent and appropriate approach and acknowledging that there's a lot of uncertainty still out there around a host of issues in the economy. So that has resulted in a $366 million build in our ACL over the last 12 quarters. And in almost all of those quarters, not every one of them but almost all of them, we still, even without that big ACL build, had record net income and record earnings per share, which I think speaks to the -- just the strength of our business model and the strength of our franchise to do that. Now that's resulted in us putting about $4 in the reserve for every $1 of losses more or less over that period of time. So we've had a huge reserve bill, $366 million, as I mentioned. And if we get to the other side of this period of economic uncertainty and we don't incur losses, then, obviously, the reserve levels will come down. If we experience adversity, we feel like we're well reserved for that reflective of our allocation of risk models there. So we feel like we're well prepared. I can't predict exactly how this economy is going to turn out. I don't think anybody can. Everybody has a thesis about it. But we're just being appropriately prudent and cautious as we continue to work through this period of uncertainty. Our portfolio is performing very well as we would expect it to. And you see this once again in our net charge-off ratio being 1/3 or 1/4 of the industry's net charge- off ratio, which it's been every year since we went public in 1997. We've averaged about 1/3 of the industry's charge-off ratio and we're continuing to run close to that metric. So we feel very, very good about the way the portfolio is performing. The principal reason our portfolio is performing as well as it is, is our sponsors continue to support and be engaged with their projects. And we made the comment in the management comments that we expect most of our sponsors will continue to support their projects until normal property performance and economic conditions return, whenever that is. Now we've obviously had, I guess, I would say 5 exceptions to sponsor support, 4 of them were in foreclosed assets right now and one of them was that Arts District Los Angeles office loan that we've talked a lot about last year. The sponsor quit supporting it in regard to making payments but stayed engaged and successfully sold that project, so that we had a full recovery of principal and most or some of our post-default interest actually. We recovered -- we lost just a bit of our post-default interest on that. So I guess you could say the sponsor gave up and that they quit making payments but they stayed engaged and helped achieve a very successful exit for that property given the fact that it was a distressed property. So we, again, think that just speaks to the quality of most of our sponsors. Will we have additional bumps in the road? Probably. It's a very uncertain economy. Will those be things that will be disruptive to our earnings or cause us to have to increase reserves even further in some extraordinary way, we certainly don't expect that. We feel like we're adequately reserved and the portfolio is performing very, very well. Timur, I might mention that list of loans you've been attaching to your research report, I think 5 have been paid off in the last quarter. Timur Felixovich Braziler Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Research Division Okay. That's good color there. Maybe just, if I could just one more follow-up on your comments about the sponsor support and the optionality. Just maybe within life science specifically, can you just talk to some of the trends in occupancy that you're seeing there and the appetite to maybe convert those to traditional office, if those conversations have started to pick up and just generally what your thoughts are on that asset class here?