Earnings Call: Q1 2020

Apr 30, 2020

Good morning, and welcome to the Collins SaaS Tier 1 Earnings Results Call. My name is James, and I'll be facilitating the audio portion of today's interactive broadcast. All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. For those of you on the stream, please take note of the options available in your event console. At this time, I would like to turn the show over to Mr. Aby Mendez. Sir, the floor is yours. Thanks, James. This morning's conference call will be led by Phil Green, Chairman and CEO and Jerry Salinas, Group Executive Vice President and CFO. Before I turn the call to Phil and Jerry, I'd like to take a moment to address the Safe Harbor provisions. Some of the remarks made today will constitute forward looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 as amended. We intend such statements to be covered by the Safe Harbor provisions for forward looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 as amended. Please see the last page of text in this morning's earnings release for additional information about the risk factors associated with these forward looking statements. If needed, a copy of the release is available on our website or by calling the Investor Relations department at 210-220-5234. At this time, I'll turn the call over to Phil. Thanks, A. B. Good morning, everyone, and thanks for joining us. Today, I'll review the Q1 results for CullenFrost and our Chief Financial Officer, Jerry Salinas, will also provide additional comments before we open it up to your questions. In the Q1, Covered Frost earned $47,200,000 or $0.75 per share compared with earnings of $114,500,000 or $1.79 a share reported in the same quarter last year. In a very challenging environment in which our bank lobbies are closed and more than 2 thirds of our employees are working remotely, our team continues to serve our customers at a very high level that Frost is known for and to execute our strategy of pursuing consistent above average organic growth. In the Q1, our return on average assets was 0.57% compared to 1.48% in the Q1 of last year. Average deposits in the Q1 were $27,400,000,000 up from $26,100,000,000 in the Q1 of last year, and average loans in the Q1 were up to $15,000,000,000 from $14,200,000,000 in the Q1 of last year. Our credit loss expense was $175,200,000 for the Q1 and that compared to $8,400,000 in the Q4 of 2019 and $11,000,000 in the Q1 of 2019. In addition to changes related to CECL, our credit loss expense was elevated in the Q1 as a result of COVID-nineteen related business closures and also challenges faced by our energy industry customers due to recent commodity price declines. Net charge offs for the Q1 were $38,600,000 compared with $12,700,000 in the Q4 of 2019 and $6,800,000 in the first quarter of last year. Annualized net charge offs for the Q1 were 1.04 percent of average loans. Non performing assets were $67,500,000 at the end of the first quarter, down 38% from $109,500,000 at year end. Most of this decline came from charge offs related to 2 energy credits we've been dealing with for some time as they move through the snake towards resolution. Overall, delinquencies for accruing loans at the end of the Q1 were $122,300,000 or 80 basis points of period loans. Those numbers remain within our standards and comparable to what we've experienced in the past several years. Total problem loans, which we define as risk grade 10 and higher, were $582,000,000 at the end of the Q1 compared to $511,000,000 in the previous quarter. Energy related private loans were $141,700,000 at the end of the Q1 compared to $132,400,000 for the previous quarter and $119,300,000 in the Q1 of last year. Energy loans in general represented 10.2 percent of our portfolio at the end of the first quarter, well below our peak of more 16% in 2015 and down from 11.2% in the Q4 of 2019. Clearly, we entered the current downturn from a position of strength, but we're not confused. The deterioration in the economy brought on by COVID-nineteen's pandemic will have a negative but manageable effect on our portfolio. We're in the early stages of this downturn, which is unprecedented in our lifetime. We don't know the length. We don't know the ultimate resolution. We don't know the impact of massive financial fiscal stimulus brought to bear on the problem. But we do know that we'll address these issues consistent with our culture and core values that have guided us through multiple crises over our 152 year history. And while we don't have all the answers and outcomes, I'd like to share a few data points we hope will be helpful. We've identified 7 portfolio segments, 8 including energy that we feel have higher than usual risk to the current economic dislocations brought on by the pandemic. They include restaurants, hotels, aviation, entertainment and sports, retail, religious organizations and associations and organizations. The total of these portfolio segments represents $1,360,000,000 at the end of the Q1. There were $227,000,000 in deferrals related to this portfolio at quarter end. The reserve for loan losses against these segments at the end of the quarter was 2.25%. Looking at energy, this portfolio totaled $1,570,000,000 atquarterend and carried loan loss reserve of 6.58%. Reserve based borrowers represented 82% of the quarter end total. Significantly influencing our energy reserve number was an oil price scenario of $9 per barrel for the remainder of 2020. This assumption was combined with borrowers' plans to manage through the current cycle, hedge positions, cost structures, debt levels, other secondary sources of repayment and other factors. A similar analysis was performed on non reserve based borrowers. 57% of the production portfolio is hedged in 202032% in 2021, both at prices in the mid-50s. The average breakeven for the portfolio is $18.66 per barrel. Our focus on commercial loans continues to be consistent balanced growth, including both the core component, which we define as lending relationships under $10,000,000 in size as well as larger relationships while maintaining our quality standards. Regarding new loan commitments booked, the balance between these relationships went from 53% larger and 47% core at the end of 2019 to 57% larger and 43% core so far in 2020. The movement towards larger loans year to date was mostly due to 2 large public finance transactions. New relationships were off to a strong start in the 1st part of the quarter, but were negatively affected in February March by the COVID-nineteen pandemic, resulting in a decline of 16% compared with the Q1 of last year. The dollar amount of new loan commitments booked during the Q1 rose by 6% compared to the prior year. We continue to look at many deals and in the Q1 we booked 13% more loan commitments from opportunities compared with the same quarter last year. In CRE, we saw the market become more liberal in terms of structure. Our percentage of deals lost to structure increased from 76% this time last year to 91% in the Q1 of this year. Our weighted current active loan pipeline in the Q1 was down about 30% compared with the end of the 4th quarter due to the effects of the pandemic. On the consumer banking side, we continue to see solid growth in deposits and loans. Overall, net new consumer customer growth for the Q1 was 3.3%, up from 2.9% a year ago. Same store sales, as measured by account openings, were down by 1.1% through the end of the Q1. In the Q1, 33% of our account openings came from the online channel, which includes our Frost Bank mobile app. Online account openings were 31% higher compared to the Q1 of 2019. The consumer loan portfolio averaged $1,700,000,000 in the Q1, increasing by 2.6% compared to the Q1 last year. Overall, Frost Bankers have risen to the unique challenges presented by the pandemic and its resulting shutdowns with a mix of keeping our standards and sticking to our strategies along with a truly remarkable amount of flexibility and adaptability. We opened the 11th of our 25 planned new financial centers in the Houston region in the Q1 and we have 2 more openings scheduled for May. Even if lobbies remain closed through the new branches scheduled openings, One of the new locations has a motor bank and will begin serving customers on day 1. We continue to hire talented experienced bankers as part of our Houston expansion and we've already filled more than 170 of the approximately 200 positions expected. I'll talk more in a minute about our efforts around the Paycheck Protection Program, but I wanted to note that during the first round of funding this important small business program, Frost was number 1 in the Houston market in terms of the number of PPP loans it got approved. In Harris County, we've helped nearly 2,000 businesses get loans for $616,000,000 and that shows our strong commitment to the Houston market and reinforces our strategy of bringing our value proposition to more customers there. Late in the Q1, we began offering programs to assist our customers similar to the disaster loans and other relief efforts that we implemented after Hurricane Harvey. And Frost announced that it would donate $2,000,000 to non profit agencies assisting with pandemic relief in the areas where we have operations. Just before the quarter ended, Congress passed the CARES Act, which included provisions for $349,000,000,000 in small business loans through the Paycheck Protection Program or PPP. We knew that for our small business customers would benefit greatly from PPP loans. So even as we closed our lobbies and set up our employees to work remotely to protect them and our customers, we mobilized for the PPP application process. Even though the SBA finalized its application with only hours to spare, we were ready to begin processing on day 1 and the demand was tremendous. We received more than 9,000 applications in just the 1st 4 days. By comparison, we processed about 9,000 commercial loans in a typical year, but we dug in and across bankers adapted with technologies and they developed systems on the go. And through lots of hard work and many long hours we wrestled TPP to the ground. The initial funding was set up to last 2 months, but it was exhausted less than 2 weeks. Before that happened, Frost received 14,000 PPP applications for a total of $3,300,000,000 And because of the dedication and commitment and effort of 1,000 across bankers, more than 10,500 of our small business customers or more than 3 quarters of those applying received SBA funding in the 1st round for $3,000,000,000 or 90 percent of the amount requested. Based on our size, we projected we'd be fortunate to receive approval on about 900,000,000 dollars Instead, we were able to secure more than 3 times that amount. That $3,000,000,000 represents continued paychecks for workers whose employers have been affected by the pandemic. Through this process, our small business customers have learned the true value of having a relationship with Frost. Every quarter when we share our financial information, I talk about the great work that Frost Bankers do in executing our strategies while taking care of customers. This time I can say that I've never been prouder of the work our people do on behalf of our customers. I hope our shareholders have that same sense of pride knowing that their company is truly a source of strength for our customers and our communities and also a force for good in their lives. It's what makes me optimistic that we'll get past the many challenges that remain. Our credit teams have reached out to borrowers in our industries that are most affected by the pandemic. We continue to work very closely with both commercial and consumer customers. We're keeping a close eye on the recent anomalies in oil prices and the impact that that's having on the economy. We'll follow our best practices and public health guidelines as we formulate plans to return to our offices and reopen our lobbies. Our commitment to customer service was confirmed this month when Frost received the highest ranking in customer satisfaction in Texas and J. D. Power's U. S. Retail Banking Satisfaction Study for the 11th consecutive year. We sometimes take these achievements for granted or consider them routine. The events of the past few months should stand as a reminder that there's nothing routine about Frost and its culture. Now I'll turn the call over to our Chief Financial Officer, Jerry Sorines for some additional comments. Thank you, Phil. Today, I'm going to skip our usual comments about the Texas economy. Given the level of economic uncertainty in the short term, there wouldn't be much value in macro comments at this time. I will point out that it has been reported that businesses in Texas received more PPP loans than businesses in any other state and we are proud to have been a leading participant in that program as Phil mentioned in his remarks, making approximately $3,000,000,000 loans over a remarkably short period of time. We are now involved with the 2nd tranche of that program and we continue to assist our customers during this challenging time. Now I'll turn to our financial performance in the Q1. Looking at our net interest margin, our net interest margin percentage for the Q1 was 3.56%, down 6 basis points from the 3.62% reported last quarter. The decrease primarily resulted from lower loan lower yields on loans and balances at the Fed as well as an increase in the proportion of balances at the Fed as a percentage of earning assets, partially offset by lower funding costs. The taxable equivalent loan yield for the Q1 was 4.65 percent, down 23 basis points from the 4th quarter, impacted by the lower rate environment with the March Fed rate cuts and decreases in LIBOR during the quarter. Looking at our investment portfolio, the total investment portfolio averaged $13,000,000,000 during the Q1, down about $678,000,000 from the Q4 average of $13,600,000,000 The taxable equivalent yield on the investment portfolio was 3.46% in the 1st quarter, up 9 basis points from the 4th quarter. Our municipal portfolio averaged about $8,500,000,000 during the 1st quarter, up about $109,000,000 from the 4th quarter. The municipal portfolio had a taxable equivalent yield for the Q1 of 4.07%, down one basis point from the previous quarter. And at the end of the Q1, about 2 thirds of that municipal portfolio was PSF insured. As we mentioned last quarter, during the Q4, we purchased $500,000,000 in 30 year treasury securities yielding 2.27% as it hedged against falling interest rates. During the Q1, given the volatility in the yield curve, we decided to monetize the gain associated with those treasuries and sold them resulting in a pre tax gain of approximately $107,000,000 The duration of the investment portfolio at the end of the Q1 was 4.6 years, down from 5.4 years last quarter and was impacted by the sale of those 30 year treasuries. Our current plan does not include any material investment security purchases for the remainder of the year. Looking at our funding sources, the cost of total deposits for the Q1 was 24 basis points, down 5 basis points from the 4th quarter. The cost of combined Fed funds purchase and repurchase agreements, which consist primarily of customer repos, decreased 26 basis points to 0.95% for the 1st quarter from 1.21 percent in the previous quarter. Those balances averaged about $1,260,000,000 during the Q1, down about $158,000,000 from the previous quarter. During the Q1, we did redeem our $150,000,000 in preferred stock, resulting in the recognition of $5,500,000 in debt issuance costs, which reduced net income available to common shareholders for the Q1 and results in the elimination of that $2,000,000 quarterly dividend going forward. Looking at our credit loss expense, the components of our total credit loss expense consisted primarily of $110,000,000 for the energy portfolio, $34,800,000 for the commercial real estate portfolio and $22,000,000 for the C and I portfolio. Our energy reserve coverage at the end of the Q1 was 6 0.58%. Moving on to non interest expense. Total non interest expense for the quarter increased approximately $22,400,000 or 11.1 percent compared to the Q1 last year. Excluding the impact of the Houston expansion and the operating costs associated with our headquarters move in Downtown San Antonio, non interest expense growth would have been approximately 7.6%. We are withdrawing our previous earnings guidance and will not be providing any EPS guidance for full year 2020 at this time given the uncertainty surrounding the economic impact of the pandemic, including the potential impact of future expected credit loss expense. I will say that given the Fed rate cuts in March and the continuing decline in LIBOR rates, we do expect our net interest income and net interest margin percentage to decrease from the Q1 level. We will see a positive from the impact of the PPP loans, but given the short term nature of those loans, we expect that benefit to be relatively short term as the fees associated with those loans will be earned into interest income over the life of those loans. During our call last quarter, we did provide guidance around projected expense growth for 2020 over 2019. During these uncertain times, we continue to focus on managing expenses, including looking for ways to operate more efficiently. As a result, we currently expect that non interest expense in 2020 will grow at about 8.5% over 2019. That's about a 2% lower than our previous guidance. With that, I'll now turn the call back over to Phil for questions. Thank you, Jerry. Okay, we'll open it up for questions now. All right. Your first question comes from the line of Brady Gailey of KBW. Your line is open. Hey, thank you. Good morning, guys. Hey, Brady. Good morning. So if you look at period end loan balances, you had some strong growth in the Q1. Can you expand on what drove that and you're looking about loan growth for the rest of the year excluding the P3? Yes. Let me see. We got to get some period end. Are you looking at period end or are you looking at average numbers? I was talking about period in loans which grew about 16%. Yes, Brady. We did from a linked quarter basis, we did have a pretty significant growth. We grew 4% on period end, so about 16% annualized. A big portion of that growth, if you annualized it was related to our C and I portfolio that was up almost 6.7 just actual growth and if you annualize that almost 27%. And we did see some increases in commercial lines that were drawn on during the quarter and especially during that time period leading up to March period end. We have seen some of that begin to subside the pace of those draws. And I'm going to say that was the bulk of the increase there. We actually had a decrease in energy between December and March. They were down $84,000,000 We also had some nice gains in the public finance area with some large deals, One related to a port in the state, a very large and the other one was related to a medical center, large medical center HVAC. So both of those things were also positive. All right. And then when you look at the SBA's PPP, you hit $3,000,000,000 in round 1. 1. How much do you expect to do in round 2? And where is that fee coming? I think most banks are saying it's around 3%. Would that be a fair estimate for Frost? It is. Our fee running about that. I think it ended up maybe being a tad lower in the 1st round, but I think we're seeing a little bit smaller balance in the second. And so I think it will make it solidly in the 3%. As far as volumes, a couple of things are happening. One is we are making sure that we get through as best we can the applications that were not processed in the 1st round. So our backlog there was somewhere between 3000 4000 applications. I can't remember the exact number right now. And so we're working on those. As we look at the 2nd round applications, which we may be at the point of processing those now. As of late last night, we may have started that. We're seeing a little bit lower volume about we've received about 2,000 about we've received about 2,000 applications. As I recall, this event at the end of yesterday with loan balances as I said being a little bit on the smaller side. So still good activity, but not the huge rush that was there at the beginning because I think a lot of larger customers, more sophisticated customers had more visibility just in terms of their awareness of the program. So we saw a large rush from them at the beginning. As far as where we're booking that, that's going into interest income. Okay. That's helpful. And then finally for me, you mentioned 57% of the energy production is hedged in this year, 32% next year. And are you saying those percentages are as a percent of the total production or those are the percentages of your energy customers that just have some level of hedging? Yes. Those are customers that have some level of hedging. Okay, great. Thanks guys. Thank you, Brady. Your next question comes from the line of Ken Zerbe of Morgan Stanley. Your line is open. Great. Thanks. Good morning. I kind of a maybe a multipart question a little bit. Can you just talk a little bit more about the increase in charge offs in the quarter, but also layer in, how much of that related to energy and certainly whether how much of the energy reserve build related to specific reserves versus just sort of normal CECL reserves, if that makes sense? Yes. Well, first of all, the charge offs for the quarter were heavily related to energy. There was, as I recall, dollars 38,000,000 related to 2 credits who were non performing and we described those as been moving through the snake really for a couple of years now or even longer. They were written down to values which at the time were based upon deals that were on the table in one case and the reduction in volumes and demand usage worldwide. I think those user certainly in risk. So that's really what that relates to. It brought both of those two credits down to I think a combined amount of $28,000,000 And so we're close to getting them out of the snake, but it didn't quite move through in time for the pandemic. Just to clarify there, our total was $38,600,000 for the quarter and $33,800,000 of that was energy related as Phil mentioned. Thanks, Gerry. $33,000,000 $38,000,000 is total. And then in terms of specific energy reserve build versus more general CECL? Yes. We didn't book any specific energy reserves. I'm going to let Jerry speak the CECL aspect of it, which will include some overlays and Q factors. Yes. So what we did was our team ended up using the Moody's baseline forecast that was adjusted around the middle of March that took West Texas Intermediate down to $35 flat for 3 years in that scenario. I think it was called the S-eight scenario. And then what happened was that Moody's continued to reduce that given what was going on in the global economy, if you will, between Russia and Saudi Arabia. And so we were and the pandemic started coming in. And so we decided that what we would do is we would use really more overlay than adjust our update the usage of a different Moody's model if you will. So our energy reserves that we created were primarily related to overlays rather than specific reserves. And we can kind of talk a little bit if you'd like about the work that was done there, but that's how that's what increased the reserves. It was not so much specific as much as more macro sort of overlay type of test that were done. And as they update their models to be more reflective of the situation with energy in the pandemic, We can see maybe a reduction in overlays and Exactly. That would be our expectation. And just to give you a little bit of insight and all this is in our 10 Q and we'll file this here this morning. But the stress testing that was done on that energy portfolio assumed at $9 per barrel during 2020. And then we did create a sort of, I guess they call it an energy oversight council that became that was created in towards the end of March and they reviewed the credit portfolio of all our major energy credits. And so that group was very involved with what was done. And so they took the decision to go ahead and run those stress tests assuming $9 in 2020 and then increasing to $36 in 'twenty one, dollars 40 in $0.22 $0.45 thereafter. And that work that was done was what created the overlay. And I think the overlay in the energy portfolio was include the Q factors in the overlays like $88,000,000 And as Phil said, the expectation for us is that during the next quarter, if you will, when the CECL models are rerun, we would expect that we would use more updated model inputs. And our expectation currently is that a big portion of that overlay would be moved into more model type results. But we'll have to see what the model says. That's kind of what happened during this Q1. Makes sense. And then just one follow-up. I think you said you brought your energy as a percentage of total loans from 11.2% down to 10.2% total loans. Just kind of how did you bring it down so much in the quarter and where do you envision this going over the next few quarters? I think that we had a little bit of anomaly in the previous quarter going from 10 point basically 10% to 11%. I think it just came down to a more normalized level based upon activity. I don't think there was any one thing. We have been working to reduce the exposure of the energy portfolio and we'll continue to do so. We're going to get it below the 10% level. I'd like to see it move more towards the mid single digits over time, but that takes time to do because you've got credit agreements in place that you've got to move through and we're not in charge of the timing on all that. We're still going to be in the business as we said. We want to be there with the best customers and as we in periods like this, we call them prune the hedge and we want to continue to do that. So we're working hard to continue to rationalize our exposure down to more in line with some of the other significant components of the loan portfolio. And of course, as Phil mentioned earlier, we did have almost $34,000,000 in charge offs that are going to affect that percentage also. Understood. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Dave Rochester of Compass Point. Your line is open. Hey, good morning, guys. Good morning. Hey, on the energy book, definitely appreciated all the color you gave there and if I missed this, but I was just wondering if you could give some background on how far along you are in the redetermination process and what you're seeing in terms of how much lines are declining for customers and what utilization is at this point? Okay. We are about, I'd say about a third through the redetermination process that happens at this time of year. And what we've been seeing thus far is about a 13% reduction in valuations. So the actual lines to customers have only come in 13%? That's a reduction in the valuations. I don't know that we've been working to reduce that over and above the redetermination process. As Jerry mentioned, the Energy Council that we've put in place where we're talking with customers, making sure we understand what their operating plans are, what their expense reductions are, cash flow, etcetera. We've been pretty successful even before with 2 reasons getting some line reductions. So I don't want to say it all relates to the redeterminations, but because it has been just working with customers as well. And as far as we could look I guess on commitment levels and see what the difference is there, but I don't have at hand right now what the reduction is in that we can look while we're on a call. And then how does that inform the reserve for the quarter? Do you sort of extrapolate results from that 1 third onto the 2 thirds remaining that you're still working on and then you set the reserve that way? Or are we going see that incremental reserve flow into 2Q for the additional 2 thirds you're working on now? Well, remember some of what we did in this first stage of CECL and the overlay was really based on a stress test that had it based on $9 oil for the year. And I think that really at that point what they use, but they use the reserve levels that before the redetermination. Okay. Got it. And then for the 2 energy credits you talked about charging off, what was the severity on those? In what way? What do you mean severity? In terms of the book value, which you had the marks, what was the percentage charge that you ultimately took to resolve those? Those it's pretty big on those. I can cut somewhere around here the original amount, but their charge down, I would say it's at least 3 quarters on those. Those are These are some of the credits I think Phil may have said that are making their way through the snake. Yes, they were put in place. They've had some pretty significant charge offs associated with. Yes. It was obviously, you say, as a rule of thumb, say use 3 quarters. It's not our finest hour for sure. Okay. And then just backing up to the total loan book level, could you just give that deferral amount again on the higher risk bucket that you mentioned that combined $1,360,000,000 I think it was that you mentioned? And then what was the total deferral percentage for the entire loan book at this point? Okay. Well, the deferrals for the higher risk bucket and this is not including energy would have been and this was as of the end, let's say April 23, dollars 227,000,000 Okay. Of the $1,300,000,000 rate, dollars 61,000,000 outstanding. And if you look at the deferrals for the entire company, They're about $1,300,000,000 About 8% of our zones. 8%, okay. And maybe just one last one on the NIM. In 2Q, I know is when you'll get that full quarter impact of the rate cuts. You talked about the trend there being down. I was just wondering if you could sort of bracket that in terms of rough range or estimate in terms of magnitude of what you're expecting for 2Q that would be great? I think the only color I can give there really is I don't think any of us really completely understand how the PPP loans will affect the net interest margin, how quickly they'll be repaid. Some of our conversations internally, we talk about potentially 75% of them maybe getting paid within say the first 10 getting put into the system. There's no secret there. I know there's a lot of press associated with that. So I don't fully understand yet how all that's going to play out as we move forward. But that would be a big assuming that it worked out that way. Obviously, you'd have a significant hit there from a positive standpoint. Any way to just estimate backing that out? Because you're absolutely right. I mean that's going to be some noise in 2Q and maybe even 3Q, too, depending on when these things are forgiven or whatever happens with those. So maybe just backing that impact out, any sense just from a magnitude perspective? Yes. I would tell you that if you back them out and again, I think that our net interest margin, we were at 3.56%. I think that full year will still be north of 3 is what our current projection is. But you're going to see some drag especially between the first and the second. After that, it still levels out a little bit, but you're going to see some significant reductions in the NIM. Again, we're not making any investment assumptions. Of course, there's nothing really to buy right now about liquidity program. And so, yes, there's going to be obviously some pressure on that on the NIM and especially with LIBOR going down as much as it has here recently. It was kind of nice to have it at higher levels, but it's moving down pretty quickly now. Yes. Okay. All right. Thanks guys. Appreciate it. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Jennifer Demba of SunTrust. Your line is open. Thank you. Good morning. So you mentioned your $1,360,000,000 of loans in some more vulnerable categories. Right. Of those categories, what are the larger exposures within that 1,360,000,000 dollars Well, let me just give you what the segment for you. We'll if you look at the category for religion through public finance, outstandings at the end of the quarter were approximately $336,000,000 Restaurants total there outstanding $275,000,000 Hotels $239,000,000 aviation $196,000,000 If you look at the public finance area looking at associations and organizations with $1,000,000 Entertainment and Sports was 114,000,000 dollars and retail businesses not the industry, let's say, but the retail businesses were about $86,000,000 So that's the breakdown in those categories. Are any of those SBA loans or? We have some, but not a lot of them. I mean our portfolio of SBA is I would say it's if I remember it right, it's in $150,000,000 range. So are you talking about PPP loans, Jennifer? Or are you talking about traditional SBA loans? No, regular. Regular SBA? If you give me a minute, I might be able to pull that up. I could have seen that somewhere. It's not a big factor. Okay. And I assume the hotels are mainly limited service type properties? Yes, some are. Our hotel exposure is committed, I gave you outstandings, committed was $314,000,000 We've got 28 projects. We've got 8 of them in construction. The construction ones will be finished sometime this year, remains to be seen when they're going to open them. We've got average loan to value on that. Those properties are 64%. So our owners are experienced. They've got a lot of equity in the projects, good operators, a lot of Hilton and Marriott flags. There are no gateway cities, nothing related to cruise ships or theme parks or those kinds of things. All the projects they've actually closed since $38,000,000 in commitments, it's actually closed them from operations just gone dark on them because they've seen they've seen occupancy levels get down at such low levels. So actually we feel really good about the portfolio. I think we're going to have some risk grade increases in our parlance, which means increasing risk. But really don't feel at this point we see any loss in that portfolio. Good sponsors, many of which have good liquidity. What does the restaurant book look like though? The restaurants, our commitments there, again I gave you sorry, I gave you outstandings before we analyzed mainly on commitments. About $340,000,000 commitments, dollars 119,000,000 of them have asked for deferrals at this point. 2 thirds of that portfolio of committed dollars are associated with multiple format restaurants, multiple sites like franchisees with obviously lots of locations. I think the exposure there, Jennifer, probably relates to the small restaurant that maybe isn't as used to dealing with the takeout format. I'd say maybe borrowers of less than $100,000 where you don't have a lot of value in the collateral associated with it. It's not a big number. It's $6,400,000 for small restaurants that are loans less than $100,000 Obviously, they add up a bit. I think right now that's where we see the exposure. The hard thing about all this is that the numbers that we're working with really are from Q3 year end, we don't have audit reports for a lot of the companies. And even if you did, I mean, the numbers look good for everything. What we're doing is we're just having to analyze where we are and use our experience just to estimate where are these things going to show up. So when I tell you in the restaurants, we think it's under $100,000 and that portfolio is $6,400,000 that's true. That's our best guess of where we'll see it. But the fact is we just don't know right now. We're still waiting to see the impacts. Your next question comes from the line of Jon Arfstrom of RBC Capital Markets. Your line is open. Hey, thanks. Good morning. Hey, John. Good morning. Hey. I had a different topic, but I just wanted to follow-up one on Jennifer's questions. It looks like you had some downgrades in terms of problem loans outside of energy. Just curious about that and maybe can you touch on maybe broadness and frequency of your loan grading process? Yes. I think that we saw new problem loans. There's some of the larger ones public finance related organizations that are maybe in the arts or the education area. We saw some downgrades. Everything could be fine, but we saw that. I'd say energy is the main area where we did see the increases in what we call problem loans which are just grade 10 and higher. As far as the grading process, I mean our officers are responsible to have the grades and make sure they're accurate. We really want to avoid any double down grades and then we measure that as we measure individual relationship manager performance. So they're responsible for keeping up with it. And I didn't really notice anything that gave me much pause in the non energy migration to the downgrades that we saw. I think I may have somewhere around here Jerry, do you have the non energy tens? Chris Graves, is that in a few numbers? Yes, I have to look forward, give me a little bit of time. Okay. So John, excuse me, we're having to pull that up. Yes, we can come back to that. Just on PPP, curious why you think you were able to secure 3 times what you expected? And also wondering if you'd take a stab at how much of that $3,000,000,000 plus or $3,000,000,000 is maybe people that are new to Frost, customers that are new to Frost? Well, first of all, our position was that we would deal with Frost customers. So you didn't have to be a borrower, but you needed to be a commercial customer when you started out. And the reason for that wasn't it was all based upon what was the fastest way to get money into the community because if we were dealing with non customers, we would have to go through the federal government's regulations on BSA, AML, Know Your Customer and we really didn't have any slack. They didn't cut any slack for anyone that I'm aware of in that area. And so the fastest way to process the applications was to do it with people that we'd already gone through that process with. And that's the first thing as it relates to that. The second thing I'd say is regarding how we were able to do it as effectively as we did is just I've said before it's just terrific people and an outstanding culture that has a culture going above and beyond. We had over 500 volunteers and people that didn't do anything like this in their regular job that wanted to be a part of the process. And inputs applications at night from home. Everyone's doing the stuff at home, but not just application inputting. I mean the completion rate, accurate completion rate of the applications it comes in, I'll be surprised if it was 60%. And so a tremendous amount of work had to go into contacting the customer, getting information that might have been missing. Some cases we had suspicion that they had filled it out wrong based upon how they'd given the answers on the questionnaire. So we spent a lot of time talking to customers and getting those applications ready. And so being able to get 75% or so of the applications through, I think we're just amazing because I guarantee you, we didn't get 75% completed input ready applications. And so there was a tremendous amount of working from home at late hours around the clock. We've been doing this 7 days a week after we took Easter Sunday off and it's just been the grit, just grit of our people. I really think that what I've seen and not just us, but others community banks and other banks, I mean, everyone's trying their best. But it's just it's unprecedented. It's historic and truly really it's heroic what we've seen. And so I've just been amazed at the success we've had. Okay, Good. I'll leave it at that. Thanks guys. John, just one thing I was going to say. We I got the information for you, but it's really broken down by risk rate and by commercial loan class. And so I can go through all the numbers, but we're going to file our Q right after this and it will be on Page 17, it will be the current year by class and by risk rate of the current year. And the next page, on Page 18, will be the December information. With the new CECL disclosures, we just don't have I don't have a comparison here that I can just read to you one versus the other. Okay, that helps. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Steven Alexopoulos of JPMorgan. Your line is open. Hey, good morning everybody. Hi, Steve. Good morning. To start, just to follow-up on Energy Quick. What were the problem loan balances at the end of the Q1? I There was $132,000,000 last quarter. And then what specific deferrals did you provide to energy companies in the quarter? Okay. Problem loans would have been at the end of the Q1, 140 $1,700,000 and the previous as you said, they were 132.4 at the end of the previous quarter. Saw a decline in risk grade 10s and round number is about 40 and an increase in the risk grade 11. It looks like about let's say, 85 or so. So we had a little migration there. We talked as far as that we talked about a credit for the last two quarters that was really dependent upon asset sales in order to make their business plan work and they were fighting the issue that discount rates had gone so high with the absence of equity in the business and private equity moving out of the market. You added that on top of that, what's going on with this demand destruction with COVID-nineteen. So you've got just discount rates being high, but also prices being low. So we saw some deterioration in that relationship. So that I think that drove most of that that I just described. So that's I think those are the most. Yes. And on energy deferrals, we've not seen really a whole lot at all. I mean, it's a pretty de minimis amount of energy customers have asked for deferrals. Us. Okay. Okay, that's helpful. And then thank you. On the expense outlook being taken down for 2020, is that or how much of that is related to the Houston expansion? Is that being slowed at all? Can you give some color there? Yes. It's not related to the Houston expansion. It's just we're being careful on people that we're hiring. We're reducing expenses. Really all categories is just trying to be smart about it. As we do lose people and we see we're losing people from for various reasons and we're just asking the question do we need to replace that position. I think we're doing a good job there. We're continuing on with the Houston expansion. We've been investing in that for the last couple of years. I feel good about what's going on with regard to that. We were looking at it seems like ancient history now given everything is either PPP or COVID-nineteen. But I'm really excited about the performance we've had in Houston. If you look at our new household goal and where we are versus it, we're 146% ahead of our new household goal. And by the way, that's what I look at mostly to get to that one. It's taken care of. It tends to take care of everything else. We're 2 60 percent of our loan goal for our Houston expansion at this point in time. Our deposits are 68% of our goal, but it has been improving. For example, if you look over the last 3 months, we're 108% of our goal for deposits. And that's really because of the commercial side. The consumer side is actually over the last 3 months 2.40 percent of our goal. And so the commercial side takes longer to develop where you can move a relationship over, but it takes a while for that operating business to really end up in your numbers and as they move and mature. So we're about 50% of our goal over the last 3 months in commercial, but I'm not worried about that. That's our wheelhouse and I'm expecting that to go up. And as we mentioned, the business journal, Houston Business Journal reported that we were the number one PPP lender in that market from any bank including very large banks to community banks. And I think that's getting around in the marketplace. People are learning the value of the relationship. I have one customer mention that they didn't realize when they decided to open a checking account 15 years ago, they would be making a decision on whether their business would stay in business or not because they were able to get a PPP loan through the company that they had a positive relationship with. So I'm excited about the Houston expansion. I'm excited about the performance that we've had. And it is a tough market to do that in, but this is a very strategic, very long term effort for us that we're showing success and not only success because we knew that we could just meet our pro form a goals, this would be great. But in my mind, we're exceeding that and I'm extremely happy about it. I'm looking forward to getting past this pandemic situation and getting back to a more normalized environment. I think we're really going to be able to trade off of our value proposition in that marketplace. And how many branches have you opened at this point for Houston and how many are left? 11. 11 remaining or 11 openings? Remaining, no, we were open 25, so we have 14 remaining. 14 remaining. Okay. Thanks so much for the color. Your next question comes from the line of Matt Olley of Stephens. Your line is open. Hey, good morning and thanks for taking my question. Most of my questions have been addressed. But Phil, you mentioned the bank's intention to reduce the energy exposure over time to the mid single digit level. And it sounds like this could take a while, but can you talk more about the driver of that decision? Was it made at the Board level? And does this speak to the risk profile of the asset class that isn't as favorable as it once was? Or does it speak more to the volatility of the stock price? Just trying to understand the driver of this decision. Thanks. Yes. No, it wasn't made at the Board level. I've been talking about this. But keep in mind, when I first started talking about this, we were at 16% going to 20% probably. And so we stopped the growth. We made the decision to move it down. We said we wanted to be between 10% 13%. I think we obviously moved it down to 10%. I have said in previous calls that I'd like to see a single digit handle on that. And one of the things as you refer to, I'm just came up on the finance side, I'm a big believer in asset application, right? And you think just take your business, I mean you can pick the best stock in an industry segment that's not doing well and you're not going to do well even if you pick the best stock. And so I think our shareholders sign up for less volatility with a company like ours. And if you looked at the correlation of our stock price to energy prices, we have the highest correlation of stock price to the price of oil of any of our peers. And I just don't think that our shareholders sign up for that kind of volatility. I'm a big shareholder. I don't sign up for that kind of volatility with a company like ours. And so I think this made sense that what we needed to be doing was not just throwing the long haul around energy, but just by doing the ground game of what we talked about for a long time now, the core loans is under $10,000,000 And we're also making sure that we're doing what our culture and our what we say we do around underwriting, making sure that we're really being conservative around that around all our portfolios, including the energy portfolio. So we've been moving that way. We've been talking over the last year about we've got it down to 10, moving it down to the single digit levels. And as I have sort of inferred in previous calls. And I think that there is the next largest portfolio segment for our company is probably around 6% or 7% in terms of its size. I don't think there's any reason for the energy portfolio to be any larger than the next largest segment of our portfolio. I think doing the hard work of growing the rest of the business as well. As I said, we'll even at that level, reduced level, it will be a significant portfolio for us, but with less exposure than we have had historically. And it's important business for the state and then it will be something that I think that we're good at and we'll continue to do. But we have been trying to and we are ready to reduce that exposure over time. But as I said, it's not something you can do unilaterally. It has to be done in a smart way over time and in accordance with the lending agreements that you've got in place and maintaining the great relationships that we have with a great number of great customers that we have today. Thank you. Perfect. Thank you very much. Your next question comes from the line of Ebrahim Poonawala of Bank of America Securities. Your line is open. Good morning, guys. Most of my questions have been most of my questions have been asked and answered. Just a couple of follow ups. And then Phil, you previously talked about obviously the organic expansion in Houston and your interest there. I guess in the world where there is some market dislocations and some M and A opportunities come up, Can you talk to in terms of your interest level and like if there's something like a distressed situation, would you think about M and A in the current environment or you'd still rather go back to the organic growth that you were doing pre this crisis? Ebrahim, I think that we're still focused on the organic growth for all the reasons that we have been in the past, a lot of that around brand, a lot of that around operational exposure. I think this the pandemic introduces some other variables as well around credit that type of thing. But I mean at the core it's still that strategic decision that we've been able to create a brand that's shown demonstrated its ability to grow organically. And we just think it's the best deal for our shareholders who have let us build a company with a brand like that to be able to prosecute it even though it does take some operational burn in the build out period, but it's a winning long term strategy and one that we really like to see the benefits of go to the current shareholders that allowed us to build that brand as opposed to paying it for other companies that might dilute that. It continues to be our focus. Understood. And then just one follow-up in terms of you gave out a lot of numbers around the energy book. I think I heard you say that you assumed $9 in oil prices for this year and $36 next year. Is it reasonable to take the $36 and assume that if oil prices are higher like the power prices for next year above that mid-thirty percent your portfolio is well reserved for based on the stress and analysis that you performed? Well, did you say did you assume that yes, next year it's in the low 30s. We'll see some we're believing we'll see some increased demand. I think one thing that you're seeing also with the destruction of production in the U. S, one thing that we have to keep an eye on is are we going to see such a reduction in over the next 12 to 24 months that we see price movements up. So I think they tend to not be small movements. It's just small changes in the swing volumes up or down tend to make fairly large price changes. So we're expecting to see some resumption of usage and burn of current inventory and that's why we got the 30 for next year. 36 is our. 36 is your headsets that we did right. 36, okay. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Your next question comes from the line of Michael Rose of Raymond James. Your line is open. Hey, thanks for taking my questions. Just two follow ups. Looks like the total potential problem loans were up 71,000,000 dollars Looks like about $9,000,000 or $10,000,000 of that was energy related. What made up the other component of it and how much of it was in that higher risk category as you mentioned? I believe that the largest increase the biggest increase that we saw there was the credit that I mentioned earlier and have mentioned for the last couple of quarters with this reliant on sales of property. And as I mentioned, when equity grew dried up in the market and you saw the discount rates increase, it made anybody needing to sell properties was under some stress and would be under stress and we saw that. And then as we saw prices go down, so not only are discount rates really high, but prices are low. And so it really has hurt what was the operating model that credit had. So and that as I mentioned before, that one is about $50,000,000 it's about $49,000,000 Yes, exposure. Okay. That's helpful. And then just one additional question on capital. You guys were really strong during the great financial crisis and dividend Michael, I think at this point our focus would be around the dividend and the importance of that as opposed to buybacks. I think you're going to see us lean towards the dividend as opposed to the buyback. I think we're going to Yes. I think we've got $70,000,000 left on a program that was authorized. I think it expires in July. We made the decision we're not going to do any buybacks under that program. Okay. Any additional ones, yes. Okay. That's and then no other thoughts on the dividend? I assume it's stable here. Yes, yes. We'll look out. We haven't announced anything on that. But it's certainly a priority for us and something that we want to maintain in place. Yes. I mean, we it's certainly yes, it's important to us. We want ensuring that we keep that. And we got good capital levels. So yes, very focused on the dividend and continue to keep that there. Tom will tell you that's our focus. Great. Thanks for taking my questions. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. You may continue. Okay. Well, we thank everyone for your interest. And with that, we'll be adjourned. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference call. Thank you everyone for participating. You may now disconnect.