Author Archives: ntobik

A Basel III discussion regarding capital

There has been a collective groan from the leagues of bankers as they consider what they might need to do to comply with Basel III capital guidelines.

Basel III is a set of voluntary banking guidelines for capital adequacy, market risk and stress testing.  The Basel III accords do not regulate banks, but bank regulators have taken a liking to the Basel guidelines and have used them to form new regulations.

In the United States regulators approved an inter-agency proposal in October of 2014 outlining the US version of Basel III compliance.  The guidelines are comprehensive and the goal of this post isn’t to summarize what the regulators have decided.  Instead I want to focus on one specific aspect of Basel III compliance and look at how many banks will be forced to raise capital in the near future.

Under the new Basel III capital guidelines banks are required to have higher levels of capital to protect against losses.  Under the new guidelines banks are required to have 4.5% of equity capital and 6% of Tier 1 capital.  Regulators can require higher capital levels beyond those based on economic factors or risk weighted factors.  An additional rule is that common shares and retained earnings must be at least half of a bank’s capital.  This will be a high hurdle for some banks to overcome if they’ve had significant losses in the past due to the Financial Crisis.

A lot of the outcry over the new regulations has been that community banks will be unfairly punished.  The argument is that these small banks that serve local communities will be forced to raise significant amounts of capital and that regulations will imperil their business.

I decided to dig into the data.  At the end of Q4 2014 there were 42 banks in the US where their equity capital plus retained earnings were less than 50% of their Tier 1 capital.  These 42 banks will be required to merge or be forced to raise capital to be in compliance with the new Basel III guidelines.  As expected all of these potentially deficient banks are small community banks.  The largest potentially deficient bank has $1.03b in assets and the smallest $31m in assets.

If the criteria is loosened to include banks whose equity and retained earnings are less than Tier 1 the number of banks increases to 86.  In the increased set only two have assets over $1b, and four have assets over $500m, the rest are sub-$500m in assets institutions.

Many of these institutions will decide that it’s easier to merge rather than raise capital or exist under the new regulatory regime.  For investors there are 18 listed stocks in the first group and 42 listed banks in the second group.

Based on the data the criticism that Basel III will unfairly hurt small banks appears true at first glance.  The banks potentially most deficient are small community banks.  What the data misses is that all banks will be potentially impacted.  This is because the Basel III guidelines are more conservative in the types of assets banks can hold for regulatory purposes as well as requiring certain types of assets to meet liquidity guidelines.

What we do know from the data I pulled is that the banks most deficient are smaller community banks.  What happens to these banks is yet to be seen, but this will probably fuel the merger and acquisition story for the next few years.

Finding bank stocks on your Bloomberg Terminal

In this post I want to walk through two possible ways to use the Bloomberg Terminal version of CompleteBankData (accessible via APPS BANKS <GO>)  to find bank equity investments.

To access the CompleteBankData app enter the command APPS BANKS <GO>.  If you aren’t a subscriber you can sign up for a free app preview.

Finding Ideas Using Proven Pre-Configured Strategies

One of the advantages of CompleteBankData is that we’ve leveraged our banking expertise and built over 20 investment idea generation strategies.  These strategies are refreshed based on real-time data giving you a constant stream of new investment ideas.

The Find Ideas page is always loaded in your application and is accessible via the tabs across the top of the screen.  Ideas can be sorted by bank size or category.  A screenshot of the Find Ideas page is shown below. Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 11.11.55 AM

Each strategy shows the top five matching results.  Clicking on a strategy will open a dialog box with a full list of matching banks as well as buttons to view details, compare banks or save banks for later viewing.  Here is what the dialog box looks like:Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 11.36.03 AM

Select a bank you are interested in by clicking on the checkbox next to the bank name.  Once a bank, or multiple banks are selected the buttons at the top of the dialog will be enabled.  For our example select a bank and then click View Details.  The detail page contains detailed financial statements as well as a valuation model for your selected bank.  You also have the ability to chart any piece of financial data on this page.

Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 11.38.35 AM

Finding Banks with the Customized Bank Screener

CompleteBankData on the Bloomberg Terminal (APPS BANKS <GO>) has the ability to create customized bank stock screens.  The screener has been optimized to contain both market and bank specific search criteria.  Because we know banks you won’t be seeing metrics that don’t apply to banks such as EV/EBITDA sneak into the screener.

The Customized Bank Screener is accessible via the main menu.  Open this menu by clicking on the green button titled Menu on the far left of the tab bar.

The top of the page contains the custom criteria.  To add additional screening criteria click the –Select a field– drop down and make your selection.  To remove a selection click on the orange X next to the criteria.

Once you have  configured the criteria as you wish click the Search button.  Matching banks will appear below your search criteria.  The screenshot below shows a search with multiple criteria and matching banks.

Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 11.56.12 AM

Select a bank you are interested in by clicking on the checkbox next to the bank name.  Once a bank, or multiple banks are selected the buttons at the top of the dialog will be enabled.  For our example select a bank and then click View Details.  The detail page contains detailed financial statements as well as a valuation model for your selected bank.  You also have the ability to chart any piece of financial data on this page.

A screenshot of a bank detail is shown below:

Screen Shot 2015-02-13 at 11.38.35 AM


More Information

Looking for more information for how CompleteBankData can give you the ultimate edge in bank equity investing?  Information about CompleteBankData including a full user guide can be found on your Terminal with the command APPS BANKS <GO> or on our website linked below.  Or contact our sales team via email or phone.


Phone: 1-866-591-8315


Interest rate portfolio positioning

Banks can take an explicit bet on short or long term interest rates by how they position their loan portfolio.  CompleteBankData provides a breakdown for banks showing a maturity and repricing schedule of a bank’s loan portfolio.  I spent some time today running some statistics to see how banks are positioning themselves regarding rates.

When a bank expects rates to rise they keep the maturity of their loan portfolio short term (short duration).  A bank keeps the duration short it’s because they expect their lower yielding loans to be replaced by new higher rate loans.  When rates rise banks with short duration portfolios see increases in their NIM if deposit costs don’t rise as fast as portfolio yield.  If rates don’t rise as quickly as a bank expects them to then short duration portfolio can result in a lower net interest margin (NIM).

A bank that doesn’t expect rates to rise might be more willing to lock in longer term loans.  If a bank expects rates to decline then they would want the majority of their portfolio to mature as late as possible.

Most banks in the US have positioned themselves for a rise in interest rates.  But before looking at the majority I think it’s worth looking at the minority rate opinion.

There are 18 banks in that have 80% or more of their portfolio maturing in longer than 15 years.  This means that 18 banks have decided that they are happy with current rates and would like to lock them in for the next 15 years.  This is an implicit bet on rates decreasing or staying stable for the next 15 years.

Banks making this bet range from Territorial Bancorp (TBNK), a $930m bank that primarily loans to residential borrowers to First Federal Savings & Loan a small $15m bank located in West Virginia also focusing on residential borrowers.

Before the advent of mortgage securitization if a bank wanted to keep their portfolio duration short they would need to limit their lending to only short term loans.  Securitization created an opportunity for banks to manage their portfolio duration regardless of the types of loans they originate.  Now a bank can originate a 30-year mortgage and if they decide they don’t want to hold it sell it to a GSE and retain servicing rights only keeping short term loans on their books.

Securitization makes the following statistics meaningful.  These banks have all actively managed their portfolios to keep their duration short.  As shown below the majority of US banks are expecting rates to rise sooner rather than later.

  • 3538 (more than half) banks have 50% or more of their portfolio maturing or repricing in less than three years.
  • 1099 banks have 70% or more of their portfolio maturing or repricing in less than three years.
  • 142 banks have 90% or more of their portfolio maturing or repricing in less than three years.
  • 836 banks have 50% or more of their portfolio maturing in less than a year.
  • 97 banks have 80% or more of their portfolio maturing in less than a year.

The numbers are clear, banks are expecting rates to rise within the next three years.  Some banks are expecting rates to rise in the next year, although those banks are in the minority.

What does RBC see in City National?

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) announced on January 22nd that they were acquiring City National Bank for $5.4 billion dollars.  RBC is paying 2.75x tangible common equity, and 1.86 times book value.  The deal price is one of the richest buyout multiples since the financial crisis.

City National is a $32b bank headquartered in Los Angeles, CA.  The bank has branches in entertainment hotspots throughout the country including, Beverly Hills, Nashville, Las Vegas, New York City, and Reno, Nevada.

The question is what does RBC see in City National that they’d pay such a high premium?

From a quantitative aspect there are a few things about City National that stand out.  The first is they earn a respectable ROA of .8% and have a declining Texas Ratio.  Secondly their foreclosure portfolio is declining and under control.  The bank is well capitalized, but not overly capitalized.  The bank has used excess capital to grow their loan portfolio, which in turn has contributed to growing earnings.

The true value for RBC are City National’s clients.  City National Bank has a reputation for being a primary destination for money coming from the entertainment industry.  This is clearly visible when one looks at their managed assets compared to their lending.  The bank has $13b in managed assets compared to $19b in net loans and leases.  While City National Bank has the word ‘bank’ in their title a significant amount of their earnings come from managing assets outside of the normal course of banking.

Beyond a jet-set list of clients RBC sees the opportunity to expand into Texas.  As a Canadian bank RBC is well versed in energy markets and they are hoping to expand in the US into the previously booming energy market of Texas.

The biggest question is whether RBC overpaid for City National Bank.  When setting the high water mark for deal metrics either one of two things is true.  Either the economy is in a strong recovery and we’ll continue to see deal volume at increasingly higher metrics.  Or RBC overpaid like they did with their last acquisition in the US in the fall of 2007.  A purchase that resulted in a massive write-down and a quick exit from US retail banking.

Only time will tell if RBC’s deal timing is poor, or if they overpaid.

Failed Bank Series: First National Bank of Crestview

The FDIC announced on January 16th that the First National Bank of Crestview in Florida had been taken into FDIC receivership.  The FDIC entered into an agreement with the First NBC Bank of New Orleans to assume all deposits of First National Bank of Crestview.

The First National Bank of Crestview was a $79m bank located in Crestview, Florida.  The bank had three branches all located in Okaloosa County.

The bank had shrunk dramatically from over $250m in assets in 2005 to $79m at the end of Q3, the date of their most recent regulatory filings.  The bank struggled with shrinking retail deposits over the past decade.  In 2005 the bank had $147m in retail deposits a figured that dropped to $85m at the end of Q3 2014.  Without a stable deposit base the bank couldn’t grow their loan portfolio and loans outstanding followed a similar trajectory to their deposits.

What didn’t shrink was the bank’s operating expenses.  In 2005 the bank had an efficiency ratio, a measure of operating expenses to revenue of 45%, a figure that could be considered very low for a small community bank.  This figure crossed 100% in 2010 and was 654% at the end of Q3 2014.  To put that into perspective for every $1 the bank received in interest on money they lent they had $6.40 in operating costs.  With expenses this high the bank quickly spent down their capital.

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 11.10.33 PM

Tier 1 capital was 2.36% at the end of the third quarter.  Tier 1 of 2.36% is well below what is considered ‘well capitalized’ by the FDIC.  What is somewhat unusual about this bank is they weren’t struggling with out of control loan losses.  At the end of the third quarter only 1.25% of their loans were non-current.  Their non-current loans to loans had been trending downward as well.

What ended the life of First National Bank of Crestview were high operating costs and a rapidly shrinking capital base.  At the end of the third quarter the bank had $813k in equity capital.  Their operating expenses were averaging $800k.  The bank also had continuing expenses related to their portfolio of foreclosures.  From a simple numbers basis if the bank hadn’t had any issues with their foreclosure portfolio they had about a quarter or possibly two left before running out of capital.  With the FDIC announcement we can ascertain that they weren’t able to get their foreclosure portfolio under control, and before risking the bank’s deposits the FDIC moved to terminate the bank.

Failed Banks Series: Northern Star Bank (NSBK)

The rate of banks taken into receivership by the FDIC has dropped significantly since the financial crisis.  Even though the number of failed banks has slowed considerably it hasn’t ceased completely.

This post is the first in a series that examines failed banks.  Success derives from a variety of factors that are both person and situation dependent.  But failure can be repeated and can often be tied back to a handful of general issues that are reproducible and avoidable.

The first bank I wanted to look at is Northern Star Bank.  Northern Star Bank was taken into FDIC receivership on December 14th 2014.  BankVista of Sartell, MN acquired Northern Star Bank’s deposit accounts.

The bank was established on January 25th of 1999 in Mankato, MN.  They operated two branches, Mankato and St Cloud, MN, which was established in 2001.  The bank’s Mankato branch held $11.6m in deposits as of June 30 2014, and their St. Cloud branch held $8.18m in deposits as of June 30 2014.

The survival of a bank rests on their ability to earn a profit, and adequate capital.  If a bank isn’t able to break even or earn a very small profit each quarter losses will reduce their capital.  When capital starts to disappear the clock begins to tick.  Either management needs to reverse the profit decline or they need to raise more capital extending their runway.

The reason Northern Star Bank failed is they failed to achieve the scale in their banking operation that would allow them to operate profitably.  The last time the company earned a profit on an annual basis was in 2003.  Since then there have been a few sporadic quarters of profitability, but nothing sustainable.

The bank’s income statement is shown below for 2005-2013:


If the financial crisis never happened it’s possible Northern Star Bank might have been able to grow into enough assets to cover their fixed expenses.  But unfortunately history wasn’t kind to them.  The bank was started at the beginning of the real estate boom and it appears they rode a portion of the wave.  Their day of reckoning came in 2010 when they were forced to set aside $1.33m in reserves for potential losses on loans.  This loan loss provision was 35% of their capital at the time.

At the end of 2009 the bank was considered well capitalized with an 10.14% Tier 1 ratio.  Their Tier 1 ratio dropped to 6.51% in 2010 with their outsized loan loss provision and continued to decline from there.  When the bank failed they had a Tier 1 ratio of 3.31%, well below what is considered adequate.

Northern Star Bank is owned by Northern Financial Inc, a bank holding company.  The bank holding company held a substantial amount of short term debt, which most likely limited their ability to raise capital.

Northern Star Bank’s continued losses and eroding capital led to an FDIC take-over.  But the story would have been different if the bank had been able to grow.  Bad lending and thin capital is always problematic.  But in my view the failure of Northern Star Bank started back in the early 2000’s when they failed to grow to a scale that overcame their operating expenses.  Without sufficient scale and high operating costs the bank ran out of time and became another statistic on the FDIC failed bank list.

You can access Northern Star Bank’s financials here:


All banks valued in five graphs

A new feature we’re working on is graphing all banks against each other based on valuations or operating metrics.  I put together five graphs that I feel depicts where we are in terms of general bank valuations at this point in the market cycle.

The first graph is of all listed banks measured by their P/E and P/B ratio against relevant banking indices.  This is a unique graph for two reasons.  It clearly shows that the US banking system is filled with a number of small banks and a few larger banks.  The second reason this graph is unique is that it highlights that relative banking value lies in two areas, very small banks, and a few larger banks.

The giant red line on the chart is a relative value of 1.  If a bank is plotted above this line they are trading for a multiple that’s richer than the bank index multiples.  If a bank trades below the red line they are trading for less than index multiples.  On the far right side of the graph are three points they are JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citigroup.  The three largest banks in the US are slightly undervalued on a relative basis.


Seeing as how the banking industry is comprised of so many small banks I thought it might be helpful to zoom in on banks with less than $1b in assets.  Most of the banks with less than $1b in assets are trading for less than their relative value.  The problem for investors is that many banks with less than $1b in assets are considered too small to be invested in.  This size factor is a likely explanation for the valuation difference.


The next graph shows banks plotted by their market cap and P/E ratio.  As in the other graphs there is a large cluster of banks around the bottom left corner representing hundreds of smaller community banks.

Most banks are trading for less than 20x earnings.  There are a number of small banks trading with high P/E ratios.  When a small stock trades for a high P/E ratio usually it’s because investors expect future growth.  For small banks it’s more likely they are barely profitable but investors are valuing them by P/B or pro-forma earning power to an acquirer rather than current earnings.


A misconception I hear often is that a bank earning less than 10% on their equity is ‘worthless’.  With low rates and higher required capital ratios fewer banks are earning high returns on equity.  In the most recent quarter 2217 banks earned more than 10% on their equity out of 6598 banks, or 33.6%.  This is down from the highs of 2005 and 2006 when 50% of banks earned more than 10% on equity.

When looking for an investment the sweet spot on the below graph are banks trading for less than book value but earning more than 10% on equity.  There are not many banks like this, but more than enough to dedicate further research time to, and many that are worth investment consideration.  As a note, I excluded banks with less than $500m in assets to screen out the majority of the negative outliers.  These are banks with considerable losses trading for returns on equity well below 1.


The last graph I have included is return on equity graphed against the P/E ratio for large banks.  I’ve included this graph to highlight what I mentioned above that there are a number of very large banks still trading very cheaply.  Right on the intersection of a P/E of 10 and ROE of 10% you have Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB).  Below a P/E of 15 there are 11 banks trading with ROE’s greater than 10%.  The one outlier is Discover Financial with an ROE of 22% and P/E of 12.valuation04

As I reviewed these graphs the conclusion I came to was that there are still plenty of banks trading at favorable valuations.  Many investors feel like they missed the boat for not investing in financials in 2009/2010/2011/2012, but I’m not sure they missed anything.  In 2009 and 2010 if an investor purchased any bank and the bank survived they earned multiples on their money.  So yes, those opportunities are gone, but the chance to own an undervalued bank in an environment with increased M&A and rising multiples hasn’t disappeared.


Low rates and bank profitability

There has been a lot of discussion over the past few years about how low interest rates are limiting the profitability of banks.  In a headline sense this might be true, but the data tells a different story.  We examined a number of metrics related to the US banking industry from 2004 to today with an eye to banks profitability.  What we found wasn’t surprising, banks like all companies find ways to adapt to a changing interest rate environment.

The following graph shows how interest income (orange) and interest expense (blue) have changed over the past ten years:



As expected the chart continues to slope downward the longer we are in a low rate environment.  But surprisingly banks have stabilized their interest income over the past year, and especially over the past few quarters.  In the third quarter of 2014 banks on average earned 4.16% on their portfolios and paid .48% for deposits.

The reason banks have been able to stay profitable is because they’ve continued to lower what they pay on deposits.  The spread between portfolio yield and funding cost (net interest margin) has remained very steady.  The following chart shows net interest margin over the same period:



While banks have bemoaned the 41% drop in interest rates the real story is that the average net interest margin only dropped 10% from 4.09% to 3.68%.

What does this mean going forward?  The lower rate environment coupled with the financial crisis eliminated a lot of marginal banks with questionable lending or costly operating structures.  The result is a banking system that has found a way to survive in a lower rate environment.  Low rates didn’t destroy the banking system, and it’s unlikely that high rates will either, especially if rate increases are gradual.

Announcing Reg F Complete

CompleteBankData Launches New Service to Speed Regulation F Compliance

Financial services information provider has launched Reg F Complete, a new service to help banks automate their Regulation F requirements to report on interbank liabilities.

Under current FDIC rules, banks must report quarterly to their boards on all banks with which they have interbank liabilities. These reports typically include dozens of pieces of information from government databases, and creating them is a time-consuming task for most banks that have multiple correspondent institutions.

Reg F Complete automates this process by compiling the required data from Fed and FDIC filings and automatically generating the compliance reports. After joining the service, users select their bank’s correspondent institutions to begin receiving the reports quarterly in PDF and hard copy format, along with a cover letter for submission to their boards.

“All the data needed for Reg F reporting is online and machine-readable, so it doesn’t make sense for banks to dedicate hours of analyst time to researching and compiling these reports,” said Nate Tobik, founder of Complete Bank Data. “This as an especially powerful tool for smaller and medium-sized banks without dedicated compliance departments.”

Reg F Complete builds on Complete Bank Data’s online database of current financials for over 10,000 U.S. banks and 4,700 holding companies, sourced directly from FDIC and Fed filings. Through a graphical interface, the platform allows users to compare banks to regional or national peers, screen institutions by over 1400 metrics, and create custom reports and comparison views.

Regulation F tutorial

All depository institutions insured by the FDIC are subject to Regulation F.  The FDIC’s Regulation F is a compliance measure created to ensure that banks do not concentrate too much risk with other financial institutions.  In plain English the regulation is meant to ensure that banks don’t build their business in a way that they are overly reliant on another financial institution, or that another financial institution is overly reliant on them.

The FDIC considers credit exposure of greater than 25% of total capital as a threshold for significant risk.  However, there is no threshold for risk, regulators have considered banks with just a 5% capital exposure to be at risk in certain circumstances.

Often times regulations are hard to understand, and their implications are even harder to understand.  I want to take a simple example to show how Regulation F might apply for a bank.

In our example let’s take a bank with $100m in total capital, and $25m in cash on deposit at other banks.  If the bank has $5m of their $25m in cash on deposit at a single bank their $5m deposit would be equivalent to 5% of their capital being at risk.

It’s not just cash (due from bank accounts) that Regulation F is concerned about, there are a number of other credit concentrations that need to be monitored as well including:

  • Federal funds sold on a principal basis
  • The over-collateralized amount on repurchase agreements
  • The under-collateralized portion of reverse repurchase agreements
  • Net current credit exposure on derivatives contracts
  • Unrealized gains on unsettled securities transactions
  • Direct or indirect loans to or for the benefit of the correspondent
  • Investments, such as trust preferred securities, subordinated debt, and stock purchases, in the correspondent.

To comply with Regulation F, banks are required to report on their correspondent relationships to their board of directors at least annually, and often quarterly.  Included in the report to the board are details on pertinent metrics including things such as the capital ratio, asset quality, levels of OREO, and other details as management desires.

It can be time consuming and labor intensive to gather details on correspondent relationships quarterly. can be used as a way to quickly gather details on correspondent banks and generate reports to be given to management.  Correspondent banking relationships can be saved in further reducing the time to gather details quarterly.

I want to walk through a simple tutorial showing how can be used to track correspondent bank relationships and quickly generate reports for Regulation F compliance.

The first step is generating a list of correspondent banks for monitoring.  We can use the Search function to find banks by a number of criteria including the FDIC RSSD, bank name, and state.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.26.43 AM

Once we have a list of correspondent banks the first thing we want to do is save them to the My Banks page.  This is accomplished by clicking on a bank in the search results and selecting “Add to My Banks” as seen below:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.29.11 AM

When banks are added to the My Banks page they are placed by default in the Uncategorized group.  We are going to create a new group for our Regulation F compliance and move the Uncategorized banks into that new group.

The banks in the initial Uncategorized group:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.38.35 AM

A new group is created from the Actions menu at the top of the screen:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.39.04 AM

When creating a new group a name is given:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.39.18 AM

The Regulation F banks group has been created and is initially empty:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.39.43 AM

We then select all of the banks in the Uncategorized group and move them to the Regulation F banks group at the same time.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.39.58 AM

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.40.04 AM

All of the selected banks are now saved in the Regulation F banks group.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.40.12 AM

The My Banks page allows users to save and group banks for later use.  Banks and groups on this page are persisted after a user logs out.

Once correspondent banks are saved in My Banks it’s simple to generate a report with relevant metrics.  The first step is to send the Regulation F banks group from My Banks to the Compare page:

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.52.16 AM

Upon selection all of the banks from the Regulation F banks group appear on the Compare page.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.54.26 AM

The next step is adding the relevant metrics that we want to compare the correspondent banks across.  This is accomplished by selecting the Actions menu and choosing “Add Fields to Compare”.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.55.38 AM

We are then presented with the dialog box shown below with common metrics.  If desired any of the 1,400 bank industry specific data points in the system can be used for the comparison report.  For our sample report we will select four common metrics.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 11.58.33 AM

Upon selection of criteria the Compare page updates to reflect the values for the correspondent banks.  Now that we have the banks we want to compare, and the metrics we want to compare across all we need to do is select the Download Results link to save an Excel version of the custom comparison report onto a local hard drive.

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 12.00.14 PM

Screen Shot 2014-05-07 at 12.01.43 PM

And that’s it!  Once a bank’s correspondent banking relationships are saved in My Banks creating a quarterly report is a simple task that shouldn’t take more than a few minutes.

If you are interested in learning more about how can help reduce your Regulation F reporting burden please contact us, or sign up for a free trial and see for yourself.