Peter Bartholow
Analyst · Evercore
Thank you, Keith. As Keith mentioned, 2013 was another year of exceptional growth and very strong core profitability, and 22% growth in traditional LHI balances, we ended up with a 2% growth in mortgage finance, exceeding clearly the industry trends in this highly profitable business, and with a flat contribution in earnings from 2012. We saw DDA balances up 50%, total deposits up 30%. Total deposit cost at just over 16 -- just 16 basis points in the fourth quarter. We had net revenue growth of 10%. We've now achieved a 10% CAGR in net revenue growth of 22%. We saw net income slightly ahead with 2012 as reported and up $10 million as adjusted for items that we will discuss. We had a high ROA and ROE throughout the year. We saw EPS down by 9% in Q4 compared to Q3, and as adjusted, up slightly to 76% - $0.76 from $0.74. We saw ROA of 1.1% as reported and 1.23% as adjusted. We benefited especially from a stable NIM from Q3 2013, even with the strong growth in traditional LHI and the yield reduction in mortgage finance loans. Yield was down just 6% from the fourth quarter of 2012, and that's after $1.5 billion in average balance growth. The yield on mortgage finance loans was down by 20 basis points linked quarter, driven by relationship pricing to maintain the high balances. We have a loan classification change beginning in this quarter, with -- representing correction of an immaterial error where LHS will now be presented as LHI mortgage finance. You may hear us occasionally forget to say LHI traditional or LHS, but we now will classify these as loans held for investment mortgage finance. There is no change obviously in the character of the asset, quality, balance sheet or operating results. It's a technical accounting change that now corresponds to regulatory accounting that we showed in Q3 2013. I will say it's simply not to have an inconsistency between GAAP and regulatory accounting principles. Beginning on Slide 5 we see the loan growth. Again this quarter, broad-based growth throughout the quarter and the year in traditional held for investment lines. In the fourth quarter we grew $435 million, another 5% linked quarter growth rate in end of period and grew 22% -- 25% and $1.7 billion compared to the end-of-period 2012 and 22% year-over-year average. As Keith mentioned, mortgage finance was -- ended up as projected, to be flat or slightly up for the year. We have a stronger position in a market that provided superior results. In terms of expense management, warrants some discussion. We saw a change from Q3 driven by our growth, the exceptional performance of the company, the improvement in stock price appreciation, and highly successful recruiting throughout the year. From Q3, a change in stock price of $16, $13 on average December versus average September drove a $12.6 million increase in long-term incentive costs. Cost of these programs is variable to the recipients based on stock price so couldn't be -- really couldn't be more aligned with shareholder interest. The increase from the end of Q3 represented a $650 million increase in market cap that was associated with a $2.4 million after-tax cost of these plans, or $0.06 per share. As is customary, in Q4 we can have adjustment of the performance of important lines of business. Because of the exceptional performance of certain lines of business that contributed more than $10 million above plan and year-over-year growth of more than 20%, we saw an increase of $1.6 million or $0.03 a share. We saw an increase in the build-out expense in the fourth quarter, representing success of recruiting throughout the year and the ability or the need to build strategic capabilities to take advantage of the growth opportunities we see. For all of 2013, I'll comment that the unusual items that had been discussed this quarter and prior quarters represented a total of $20 million pre-tax. On Slide 6 we talk about funding where we've seen a dramatic improvement in the overall profile, with a especially strong growth in DDA. We saw growth in average balance from Q4 of 2012 of $933 million, just under $1 billion year over year, and more importantly, representing 64% of the growth in the traditional held for investment lines over that same period. Coupled with the strong growth in these loans, we've obviously seen a significant increase on our asset sensitivity by a significant factor. Keith mentioned credit costs remained very low. We did see this in Q4, $466,000 cost associated with the big or 60% reduction in OREO balances. Non-performing asset level is in our pre-recession lows and net charge-offs for the year, another year at very low levels at 7 basis points. Slide 7 and 8 simply show the quarterly and annual progression of earnings and performance metrics with high ROA and ROE for all of 2013 and a good progression following the low point in 2009. Efficiency ratio is elevated in Q4 as a result of the items that I mentioned. And as adjusted, it's back in the mid-50s. As we've discussed earlier, very high levels of operating performance and leverage come when the held-for-investment balances are high relative to the total. With mortgage finance now representing a smaller proportion of the total, we're seeing a slight increase in that level but believe that it's sustainable in the low to mid 50 range. As mentioned, net interest margin has remained high due to the very important factors that we discussed: earning asset composition with a low proportion of mortgage finance loans; the stability of yields in traditional LHI categories; and the growth in DDA and low funding costs which will be obviously much more valuable when short-term rates finally increase. Slide 11 through 13 simply describe the growth in average in year-over-year -- quarterly and year-over-year growth in held-for-investment, mortgage finance and other categories. We mentioned mortgage finance lines held up extremely well in the face of the very sharp profitably [ph] financing activity, which results then from our stronger market position, growth in the number of relationships, and the success in reducing dependency on refinancing volume to less than 30%. Obviously the DDA growth played a major factor in our success as well. In slides 14 through 16, it's obvious that the growth as depicted in the charts has been exceptional. I mentioned net revenue growth 10-year [ph] of 22% CAGR, happens to be the same as the CAGR since 2008. Held-for-investment including -- excluding mortgage finance, DD and total deposits, also very strong. All this we believe demonstrates the clear advantage of our business model coupled of course with having a strong presence in the best markets in Texas. A few comments about our outlook for 2014, which obviously have to be very general. And I will say this, not much different from what we communicated in the past, we're not out there with anything of significance related to the offering that's to be launched. Loan and deposit growth, we have a carryover from 2013 in our traditional lines, provisioning a yearend balance almost 14% above the full year 2013 average. We've had emphasis in strengthening of business we currently conduct, augmented by new RMs in Houston, San Antonio in treasury, private client and wealth management. As with Q4 2013, we expect mortgage finance to benefit from continued consolidation in the industry, addition of new customers and increased value of current relationships, resulting in volumes down by a fraction for the year from industry and peer levels. Deposit growth opportunity appears exceptional once again and offers an important opportunity, building on the continuing success of treasury management and the penetration of cash-rich business that began in earnest five or six years ago. Planning for the future with an increase in value of asset of sensitive position, we believe the opportunity expand relationships and deposits will be enormously beneficial when rates rise. But the build-up in liquidity that will result will have an impact on NIM in the short term. In terms of margin and efficiency, we always expect some pressure on NIM from growth in traditional product lines. We will benefit from our shift in composition with some softness in mortgage finance volumes declining as a percent of total. Obviously mortgage finance is also producing lower margins than the rest of the portfolio. The expected growth in deposits will exceed total loan growth and we will maintain a very short maturity profile, essentially placing excess liquidity in balances at the Federal Reserve. We expect to see an increase in the degree of asset sensitivity in 2014, following trends that began actually several years ago. And they will provide significant earnings leverage when interest rates finally increase. We expect to see core operating records [ph] with the pace of growth in net revenue slightly exceeding that for net interest -- non-interest expense, producing again a reduction in the efficiency ratio. In terms of expense management, our build-out will continue. Our business model drives that and produces the results that we've described. We do not expect to see the unusual items evident in 2013 such as the incentive expense that resulted in the stock price -- from the stock price move. We know that regulatory and compliance costs will increase, but they do not -- we do not expect they will have a material impact on our operating results. Capital initiatives that we've discussed our mentioned comes from our business model. The industry is experiencing very little in the way of organic growth and is not really expected to change dramatically until the economy strengthens on a national basis. Our bank is producing strong growth and profitability well in excess of industry and peer performance. Moving market share with the acquisition of talent, not the acquisition of banks or expansion of branches, is our way to provide capital-efficient growth with favorable returns while maintaining a superior credit profile. Capital plans we mentioned are plan to raise 1.25 million shares -- sell 1.25 million shares. As you would recall, we last placed common equity in July 2012 and performance since that date obviously justified that initiative. We've seen the extremely favorable leverage of $88 million in capital raised at that time. Since then, in just 18 months, we've experienced growth of $2.3 billion in the traditional held-for-investment categories and average yield -- at an average yield during that period in excess of 4.75%. The incremental returns from this investment are obviously exceptional with such strong credit characteristics. The increase in common equity was augmented later by 30-year fixed rate debt to reduce our cost of capital. We've often stated that we would evaluate capital initiatives in the context of our growth opportunity. Traditional held-for-investment categories are in excess of an already high ROE. Capital levels had been targeted to produce very favorable returns, making sure in addition that we have the capital when the opportunity for growth exists because we cannot be constrained at a time when capital is either not available or might become excessively expensive. We did that, as you recall, in September of 2008 and then again in May of 2009. Our initiative is obviously driven by a view of growth opportunity. Especially when the economy improves further, we can benefit from margin expansion with the highly sensitive assets in the balance sheet. We view common equity as the foundation of our growth with potential addition of Tier 2 capital when conditions are favorable. Combination of those is designed to produce a properly balanced capital structure and a lower total cost of capital for the benefit of our shareholders. Keith?