Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)

Organization and Basis of Presentation (Policies)

Organization and Basis of Presentation (Policies)
9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Organization, Consolidation and Presentation of Financial Statements [Abstract]  
Basis of Accounting
In management’s opinion, the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Hanmi Financial and its subsidiaries reflect all adjustments of a normal and recurring nature that are necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim period ended September 30, 2019, but are not necessarily indicative of the results that will be reported for the entire year or any other interim period. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in annual financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted. The unaudited consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with GAAP and in accordance with the instructions to Form 10-Q pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The interim information should be read in conjunction with our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018 (the “2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K”).
Use of Estimates
The preparation of interim unaudited consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. These estimates and assumptions affect the amounts reported in the unaudited financial statements and disclosures provided, and actual results could differ.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Descriptions of our significant accounting policies are included in Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in the Notes to consolidated financial statements in our 2018 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Effective January 1, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Topic 825) and ASU 2018-02, Reclassification of Certain Tax Effects from Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (Topic 220). Summaries of ASU 2016-01 and 2018-02 and the impact of their adoption are included in Notes 2 and 5 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements, respectively. In addition to other provisions, ASU 2016-01 requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes. Beginning with the quarter ended March 31, 2018, the Company measured the fair value of certain financial instruments, included in Note 10 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements, using an exit price notion.

The Company also adopted ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), as of January 1, 2018, as required. ASU 2014-09 replaces existing revenue recognition guidance for contracts to provide goods or services to customers and amends existing guidance related to recognition of gains and losses on the sale of certain nonfinancial assets such as real estate.  See Note 13 to the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements for the impact of the adoption of this new standard on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Effective January 1, 2019, the Company adopted ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which requires lessees to recognize a right of use asset and a lease liability on their balance sheet for all leases, including operating leases, with a term of greater than 12 months. In July 2018, the FASB issued ASU 2018-11, which adds a transition option permitting entities to apply the provisions of the new standard at its adoption date instead of the earliest comparative period presented in the consolidated financial statements. Under this transition option, comparative reporting would not be required, and the provisions of the standard would be applied prospectively to leases in effect at the date of adoption. The Company elected to use the optional transition method provided by ASU 2018-11. The Company also elected the package of practical expedients permitted under the transition guidance within the new standard, which allowed the Company to carry forward its ASC 840 assessment regarding definition of a lease, lease classification, and initial direct costs. The following practical expedients were applied during implementation of this standard:

We did not reassess whether any expired or existing contracts are, or contain, leases. Additionally, we did not reassess for lease classifications of expired or existing leases, or initial direct costs for any existing leases.

We applied incremental borrowing rates as of adoption date of January 1, 2019.

We elected to not separate non-lease components from lease components and, instead, to account for each separate lease component and the non-lease components associated with it as a single lease component recognized on the balance sheet. This election has been made for all classes of leases.

We elected the short-term lease exception, which allows us to account for leases with a lease term of twelve months or less to be accounted for similar to existing operating leases. The cost of these leases is disclosed, but is not recognized in the right-of-use asset and lease liability balances. Consistent with ASC 842 requirements, leases that are one month or less are not included in the disclosures.

We have elected to account for the leases under the portfolio approach applying them prospectively for this accounting change. The portfolio approach allows us to present multiple similar leased assets in a pool and prospectively allows us to commence the calculation of the portfolio of leases using the remaining commitments from adoption date forward.

See Note 14 to the unaudited consolidated financial statements for the impact of the adoption of this new standard on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

FASB ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, introduces new guidance for the accounting for credit losses on instruments within its scope. The new guidance introduces an approach based on expected losses to estimate credit losses on certain types of financial instruments. It also modifies the impairment model for available-for-sale debt securities and provides for a simplified accounting model for purchased financial assets with credit deterioration since their origination. Current expected credit losses (“CECL”) model, will apply to: (1) financial assets subject to credit losses and measured at amortized cost; and (2) certain off-balance sheet credit exposures. This includes loans, held-to-maturity debt securities, loan commitments, financial guarantees, and net investments in leases, as well as reinsurance and trade receivables. Upon initial recognition of the exposure, the CECL model requires an entity to estimate the credit losses expected over the life of an exposure (or pool of exposures). The estimate of expected credit losses (“ECL”) should consider historical information, current information, and reasonable and supportable forecasts, including estimates of prepayments. Financial instruments with similar risk characteristics should be grouped together when estimating ECL. ASU 2016-13 is effective for public entities for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2019. On July 2, 2019, the FASB voted to delay CECL's effective date for non-public companies and Smaller Reporting Companies who are public filers. Due to the Company's categorization as a large accelerated filer, this delay will not have any impact on its adoption of ASU 2016-13. The Company has established a steering committee comprised of senior executives from the Accounting and Credit Risk functions and has engaged third party consultants to support CECL adoption activities.

The Company is currently engaged in CECL implementation activities and has completed development of its methodologies, data/input gathering and validation, and initial testing of its designed models. The Company plans to leverage three loss rate methodologies across the Bank's four major loan and lease segments.

The Company commenced parallel processing and review of the model outputs during the three-month period ended September 30, 2019. In addition, the Company has devised risk documentation and policies and procedures associated with CECL to support the ongoing estimation activities and the continuous assessment of risks related to the methodology and its models, and data governance. As of September 30, 2019, the Company continues to evaluate the impacts of ASU 2016-13 on its consolidated financial statements.
Fair Value Assumptions of Financial Instruments
The following methods and assumptions were used to estimate the fair value of each class of financial instrument below:

Securities available for sale - The fair values of securities available for sale are determined by obtaining quoted prices on nationally recognized securities exchanges. If quoted prices are not available, fair values are measured using matrix pricing, which is a mathematical technique used widely in the industry to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices for the specific securities but rather by relying on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities, or other model-based valuation techniques requiring observable inputs other than quoted prices such as yield curve, prepayment speeds, and default rates. Level 1 securities include U.S. Treasury securities that are traded on an active exchange or by dealers or brokers in active over-the-counter markets. The fair value of these securities is determined by quoted prices on an active exchange or over-the-counter market. Level 2 securities primarily include U.S. government agency and sponsored agency mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage obligations and debt securities as well as municipal bonds in markets that are active. In determining the fair value of the securities categorized as Level 2, we obtain reports from nationally recognized broker-dealers detailing the fair value of each investment security held as of each reporting date. The broker-dealers use prices obtained from nationally recognized pricing services to value our fixed income securities. The fair value of the municipal securities is determined based on pricing data provided by nationally recognized pricing services. We review the prices obtained for reasonableness based on our understanding of the marketplace, and also consider any credit issues related to the bonds. As we have not made any adjustments to the market quotes provided to us and as they are based on observable market data, they have been categorized as Level 2 within the fair value hierarchy. Level 3 securities are instruments that are not traded in the market. As such, no observable market data for the instrument is available, which necessitates the use of significant unobservable inputs.

Loans held for sale - Loans held for sale are all SBA loans and carried at the lower of cost or fair value. Management obtains quotes, bids or pricing indication sheets on all or part of these loans directly from the purchasing financial institutions. Premiums received or to be received on the quotes, bids or pricing indication sheets are indicative of the fact that cost is lower than fair value. At September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the entire balance of SBA loans held for sale was recorded at its cost. We record SBA loans held for sale on a nonrecurring basis with Level 2 inputs.

Impaired loans - Nonaccrual loans and performing restructured loans are considered impaired for reporting purposes and are measured and recorded at fair value on a non-recurring basis. All impaired loans with a carrying balance over $250,000 are reviewed individually for the amount of impairment, if any. Impaired loans with a carrying balance of $250,000 or less are evaluated for impairment collectively. The Company does not record loans at fair value on a recurring basis. However, from time to time, nonrecurring fair value adjustments to collateral-dependent impaired loans are recorded based on either the current appraised value of the collateral, a Level 2 measurement, or management’s judgment and estimation of value reported on older appraisals that are then adjusted based on recent market trends, a Level 3 measurement.

OREO - Fair value of OREO is based primarily on third party appraisals, less costs to sell and result in a Level 2 classification of the inputs for determining fair value. Appraisals are required annually and may be updated more frequently as circumstances require and the fair value adjustments are made to OREO based on the updated appraised value of the property.

Fair Value Measurements
ASC 825, Financial Instruments, requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities, including those financial assets and financial liabilities that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring basis or non-recurring basis. The methodologies for estimating the fair value of financial assets and financial liabilities that are measured on a recurring basis or non-recurring basis are discussed above.

The estimated fair value of financial instruments has been determined by using available market information and appropriate valuation methodologies. However, considerable judgment is required to interpret market data in order to develop estimates of fair value. Accordingly, the estimates presented herein are not necessarily indicative of the amounts that we could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different market assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts.

Effective January 1, 2018, the Company adopted ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (Topic 825). This standard, among other provisions, requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes. Other than certain financial instruments for which we have concluded that the carrying amounts approximate fair value, the fair value estimates shown below are based on an exit price notion as of September 30, 2019, as required by ASU 2016-01. The financial instruments for which we have concluded that the carrying amounts approximate fair value include, cash and due from banks, accrued interest receivable and payable, and noninterest-bearing deposits. The fair values of off-balance sheet items are based upon the difference between the current value of similar loans and the price at which the Bank has committed to make the loans.