
|
Washington State Profile - Winter 2003
Washington experienced minimal economic growth during the year ending
third quarter 2003 and reported one of the highest unemployment rates
in the nation.
- The 0.15 percent year-over-year decrease in payroll employment for
third quarter 2003, while a significant improvement from one year ago,
remained well below the average growth rate of 2.4 percent during the
1990s (see Chart 1).
[D]
- Employment growth in the education and health, FIRE,1 and
construction sectors balanced sharp declines in the manufacturing sector,
which were led by layoffs at Boeing.
1 The FIRE sector includes the finance, insurance, and real
estate industries.
- In light of Washington’s weak economic growth, sales tax revenue
decreased 1.6 percent for the second quarter ending June 2003, a significant
contributing factor to the State’s total revenue decrease of 0.5
percent for this period. As of third quarter 2003, employment growth
in state and local government slowed, only increasing year-over-year
by 0.31 percent.
- As of third quarter 2003, the state’s unemployment rate increased
40 basis points to 7.6 percent, the third highest rate in the nation,
behind Oregon and Alaska.
- Civilian aerospace and high-tech sector weaknesses pushed up average
unemployment rates, particularly in the Portland
and Tacoma metropolitan statistical areas
(MSAs), while layoffs at the nuclear cleanup company Fluor Hanford forced
the unemployment rate higher in Richland.
Average unemployment rates within MSAs elsewhere in the state remained
relatively stable or improved during the year ending third quarter 2003
(see Chart 2).
[D]
- Employment weakness may affect home prices in some areas adversely.
According to a PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. report, the Seattle
MSA ranked fourth out of 50 metropolitan areas, for having a “high
risk” of a housing price decline.
Softening demand for commercial real estate (CRE) in Seattle could adversely
affect credit quality among insured institutions with relatively high
CRE loan concentrations.2
2 CRE loans include mortgages secured by nonfarm-nonresidential,
multifamily, and construction projects.
- Demand for commercial properties in the Seattle MSA continued to be
weak. Office vacancy rates increased to 15.3 percent at the end of third
quarter 2003, up from 3.4 percent three years earlier, while industrial
vacancies increased from 5.5 percent to 10.7 percent over the same period
(see Chart 3). According to Torto Wheaton Research
data, third quarter 2003 Seattle office rents declined 29 percent from
their peak in fourth quarter 2000, while industrial rents fell 32 percent
since their first quarter 2000 peak. The commercial and industrial real
estate markets are expected to remain soft.
[D]
- During the year ending June 30, 2003, the median CRE loan-to-Tier
1 capital ratio among established community institutions3
increased from 314 percent to 356 percent, more than double the national
ratio. The median construction and development (C&D)-to-Tier 1 capital
ratio was 78.2 percent at the end of the third quarter, more than triple
the 21.7 percent national ratio (see Chart 4).
Concentrations among established community institutions based in the
Seattle MSA were even higher, with the CRE loan-to-Tier 1 capital ratio
at 408 percent, and the C&D-to-Tier 1 capital ratio at 134 percent.
3Defined as insured institutions open more than 3 years,
with assets of less than $1 billion, and excludes specialty institutions.
[D]
- Despite increased vacancy rates and exposures to CRE and construction
loans, the median CRE loan-delinquency ratio reported by Washington’s
established community institutions dropped from 0.65 percent to 0.31
percent from June 2002 to June 2003.4
4 Murray, Thomas. “How Long Can Bank Portfolios Withstand
Problems in Commercial Real Estate?” FDIC FYI, June 23, 2003.
- Lower interest rates may have enabled property owners to reduce financing
costs, thereby offsetting the effects of lower rental income. In addition,
low interest rates appear to be keeping capitalization rates low and
property values stable, despite deteriorating fundamentals. Other contributing
factors include the tremendous growth in public, non-governmental mortgage
securitization, greater regulatory oversight, and stringent CRE lending
standards.
Earnings and asset quality improved among insured institutions headquartered
in Washington during 2003.
- The median return on assets (ROA) among insured institutions headquartered
in Washington as of June 30, 2003, remained stable, only increasing
from 1.02 percent in 2002 to 1.03 percent in 2003 at the end of second
quarter, and slightly below the national median of 1.06 percent.
- Earnings trends continued to be buoyed by the performance of the state’s
thrifts. Washington-based thrifts posted a median ROA of 1.20 percent
through June 30, 2003, compared to 0.81 percent for thrifts nationally.
Conversely, commercial banks headquartered in Washington reported a
median ROA of 0.92 percent through second quarter 2003, significantly
below the 1.11 percent return earned by commercial banks nationwide.
Thrifts net interest margins (NIMs) benefited more than commercial banks
from declining interest rates during 2001, 2002, and the first half
of 2003 (see Chart 5).
[D]
- One-third of institutions headquartered in the state have been in
operation less than nine years. These “young” institutions
are not yet as profitable as more established Washington-based insured
institutions, and reported a median ROA of 0.78 percent as of second
quarter 2003. Compared to older institutions, profitability among the
states’ “young” institutions was held back by higher
overhead and provision expenses.
Washington at a Glance
| General Information |
Jun-03 |
Jun-02 |
Jun-01 |
Jun-00 |
Jun-99 |
| Institutions (#) |
102 |
101 |
99 |
106 |
100 |
| Total Assets (in thousands) |
81,675,665 |
69,382,046 |
74,588,294 |
70,197,935 |
64,897,241 |
| New Institutions (# < 3
years) |
8 |
12 |
16 |
20 |
19 |
| New Institutions (# < 9
years) |
34 |
35 |
34 |
34 |
31 |
| |
| Capital |
Jun-03 |
Jun-02 |
Jun-01 |
Jun-00 |
Jun-99 |
| Tier 1 Leverage (median) |
9.48 |
9.75 |
9.69 |
10.56 |
10.67 |
| |
| Asset Quality |
Jun-03 |
Jun-02 |
Jun-01 |
Jun-00 |
Jun-99 |
| Past-Due and Nonaccrual (median %) |
1.04% |
1.67% |
1.39% |
0.81% |
1.01% |
| Past-Due and Nonaccrual ≥ 5% |
7 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
8 |
| ALLL/Total Loans (median %) |
1.35% |
1.29% |
1.13% |
1.07% |
1.15% |
| ALLL/Noncurrent Loans (median multiple) |
1.80 |
1.49 |
1.66 |
1.96 |
2.09 |
| Net Loan Losses/Loans (aggregate) |
0.23% |
0.26% |
0.19% |
0.12% |
0.11% |
| |
| Earnings |
Jun-03 |
Jun-02 |
Jun-01 |
Jun-00 |
Jun-99 |
| Unprofitable Institutions (#) |
6 |
9 |
14 |
17 |
17 |
| Percent Unprofitable |
5.88% |
8.91% |
14.14% |
16.04% |
17.00% |
| Return on Assets (median %) |
1.03 |
1.02 |
0.93 |
1.07 |
1.02 |
| 25th Percentile |
0.67 |
0.63 |
0.49 |
0.43 |
0.62 |
| Net Interest Margin (median %) |
4.58% |
4.67% |
4.50% |
5.17% |
4.94% |
| Yield on Earning Assets (median) |
6.44% |
7.30% |
8.60% |
8.69% |
8.14% |
| Cost of Funding Earning Assets (median) |
1.85% |
2.44% |
4.12% |
3.68% |
3.17% |
| Provisions to Avg. Assets (median) |
0.27% |
0.28% |
0.26% |
0.24% |
0.19% |
| Noninterest Income to Avg. Assets (median) |
0.65% |
0.60% |
0.58% |
0.48% |
0.53% |
| Overhead to Avg. Assets (median) |
3.61% |
3.55% |
3.62% |
3.69% |
3.87% |
| |
| Liquidity/Sensitivity |
Jun-03 |
Jun-02 |
Jun-01 |
Jun-00 |
Jun-99 |
| Loans to Deposits (median %) |
89.30% |
90.63% |
91.95% |
90.72% |
85.65% |
| Loans to Assets (median %) |
72.54% |
74.55% |
76.31% |
75.77% |
71.81% |
| Brokered Deposits (# of institutions) |
33 |
33 |
24 |
17 |
12 |
| Bro. Deps./Assets (median for above inst.) |
3.28% |
2.89% |
3.48% |
1.67% |
0.19% |
| Noncore Funding to Assets (median) |
21.52% |
22.45% |
23.07% |
21.10% |
16.63% |
| Core Funding to Assets (median) |
66.76% |
65.37% |
64.78% |
66.25% |
69.60% |
| |
| Bank Class |
Jun-03 |
Jun-02 |
Jun-01 |
Jun-00 |
Jun-99 |
| State Nonmember |
62 |
62 |
59 |
64 |
60 |
| National |
13 |
15 |
15 |
16 |
16 |
| State Member |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| S&L |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
7 |
| Savings Bank |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Mutually Insured |
14 |
14 |
14 |
15 |
13 |
| |
| MSA Distribution |
# of Inst. |
Assets |
% Inst. |
% Assets |
|
| Seattle-Bellevue-Everett WA PMSA |
39 |
56,531,432 |
38.24% |
69.21% |
|
| No MSA |
29 |
7,890,087 |
28.43% |
9.66% |
|
| Tacoma WA PMSA |
8 |
2,929,928 |
7.84% |
3.59% |
|
| Spokane WA |
6 |
7,696,173 |
5.88% |
9.42% |
|
| Olympia WA PMSA |
5 |
1,454,346 |
4.90% |
1.78% |
|
| Portland-Vancouver OR-WA PMSA |
4 |
1,361,793 |
3.92% |
1.67% |
|
| Yakima WA |
3 |
1,297,009 |
2.94% |
1.59% |
|
| Bremerton WA PMSA |
3 |
857,200 |
2.94% |
1.05% |
|
| Bellingham WA |
3 |
1,435,163 |
2.94% |
1.76% |
|
| Richland-Kennewick-Pasco WA |
2 |
222,534 |
1.96% |
0.27% |
|
|