NYCB 2017 Annual Report

75 The interest rate sensitivity gap is defined as the difference between the amount of interest-earning assets maturing or repricing within a specific time frame and the amount of interest-bearing liabilities maturing or repricing within that same period of time. In a rising interest rate environment, an institution with a negative gap would generally be expected, absent the effects of other factors, to experience a greater increase in the cost of its interest-bearing liabilities than it would in the yield on its interest-earning assets, thus producing a decline in its net interest income. Conversely, in a declining rate environment, an institution with a negative gap would generally be expected to experience a lesser reduction in the yield on its interest-earning assets than it would in the cost of its interest-bearing liabilities, thus producing an increase in its net interest income. In a rising interest rate environment, an institution with a positive gap would generally be expected to experience a greater increase in the yield on its interest-earning assets than it would in the cost of its interest-bearing liabilities, thus producing an increase in its net interest income. Conversely, in a declining rate environment, an institution with a positive gap would generally be expected to experience a lesser reduction in the cost of its interest-bearing liabilities than it would in the yield on its interest-earning assets, thus producing a decline in its net interest income. At December 31, 2017, our one-year gap was a negative 19.57%, as compared to a negative 21.37% at December 31, 2016. The 180-basis point change was primarily due to an increase in cash balances as a result of the sale of the mortgage banking operations, which was partially offset by a decrease in loans maturing or repricing in one year and an increase in borrowings maturing in one year. The table on the following page sets forth the amounts of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities outstanding at December 31, 2017 which, based on certain assumptions stemming from our historical experience, are expected to reprice or mature in each of the future time periods shown. Except as stated below, the amounts of assets and liabilities shown as repricing or maturing during a particular time period were determined in accordance with the earlier of (1) the term to repricing, or (2) the contractual terms of the asset or liability. The table provides an approximation of the projected repricing of assets and liabilities at December 31, 2017 on the basis of contractual maturities, anticipated prepayments, and scheduled rate adjustments within a three-month period and subsequent selected time intervals. For residential mortgage-related securities, prepayment rates are forecasted at a weighted average constant prepayment rate (“CPR”) of 5% per annum; for multi-family and CRE loans, prepayment rates are forecasted at weighted average CPRs of 15% and 8% per annum, respectively. Borrowed funds were not assumed to prepay. Savings, NOW, and money market accounts were assumed to decay based on a comprehensive statistical analysis that incorporated our historical deposit experience. Based on the results of this analysis, savings accounts were assumed to decay at a rate of 48% for the first five years and 52% for years six through ten. Interest-bearing checking accounts were assumed to decay at a rate of 70% for the first five years and 30% for years six through ten. The decay assumptions reflect the prolonged low interest rate environment and the uncertainty regarding future depositor behavior. Including those accounts having specified repricing dates, money market accounts were assumed to decay at a rate of 89% for the first five years and 11% for years six through ten. Prepayment and deposit decay rates can have a significant impact on our estimated gap. While we believe our assumptions to be reasonable, there can be no assurance that the assumed prepayment and decay rates noted above will approximate actual future loan and securities prepayments and deposit withdrawal activity. To validate our prepayment assumptions for our multi-family and CRE loan portfolios, we perform a monthly analysis, during which we review our historical prepayment rates and compare them to our projected prepayment rates. We continually review the actual prepayment rates to ensure that our projections are as accurate as possible, since prepayments on these types of loans are not as closely correlated to changes in interest rates as prepayments on one-to-four family loans tend to be. In addition, we review the call provisions in our borrowings and investment portfolios and, on a monthly basis, compare the actual calls to our projected calls to ensure that our projections are reasonable.