Actionable news
0
All posts from Actionable news
Actionable news in BOFI: BofI Holding, Inc.,

Bofi Holding, Inc. October 14, 2015 Conference Call Transcript

The following excerpt is from the company's SEC filing.

Exhibit 99.1

Operator

Good day, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the BofI Holding Inc. conference call to discuss a recent media report.

(Operator Instructions)

This conference is being recorded today, Wednesday, October 14, 2015. Now I would like to turn the conference over to Johnny Lai, VP of Corporate Development and Investor Relations, BofI Holding Inc. Please go ahead, sir.

Johnny Lai - BofI Holding Inc - VP of Corporate Development and IR

Thank you, Stephanie, and good afternoon, everyone. With me today are the Company's President and Chi ef Executive Officer, Greg Garrabrants, and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Andy Micheletti. Greg will provide prepared remarks, and both Greg and Andy will be available to answer questions thereafter.

Before we begin, I would like to remind listeners that remarks made on this call may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties, and that management may make additional forward-looking statements in response to your questions. Therefore, the Company claims the Safe Harbor protection for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements related to the business of BofI Holding Inc. and its subsidiaries can be identified by commonly used forward-looking terminology, and those statements involve unknown risks and uncertainties, including all business related risks that are detailed in the Company's filings on Form 10-K, 10-Q, and 8-K with the SEC.

This call is being webcast, and there will be an audio replay available in the Investor Relations section of the Company's website located at bofiholding.com. Details for this call were provided on the conference call announcement, and in today's release. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Mr. Greg Garrabrants who will provide opening remarks. Greg, please begin.

Greg Garrabrants - BofI Holding Inc - President & CEO

Thanks, Johnny. Yesterday I received a copy of a complaint that was not file-stamped from the New York Times reporter that initially wrote a story about the Bank at the end of August. The New York Times reporter had received a complaint from the plaintiff's attorney who filed it. The complaint recycles old, baseless, and factually inaccurate allegations from an inexperienced, underperforming, junior audit team member who had been with the Bank for a short period of time. The complaint is riddled with evidence of basic misunderstandings, inaccuracies, out-of-context statements and illogical conclusions.

This junior disgruntled employee stated that he has contacted a variety of federal agencies, and that they have taken no action. Having failed in his attempt to get administrative agencies to act, he has turned to a stunt of filing a baseless lawsuit that was distributed first to the New York Times, rather than served on the only counter-party in the action. Additionally, Mr. Erhart asserts that he not only discussed in detail his issues with the OCC telephonically, but he met with them numerous times, and he provided a significant number of documents to them during our March 2015 examination.

As I have previously discussed, subsequent to these discussions that Mr. Erhart had with the OCC, the OCC approved our purchase of First Marblehead deposits in March of 2015, the same month that Mr. Erhart had talked to the OCC, and we also received approval for the H&R Block transaction on September 1. There are no regulatory issues of any kind that have arisen from Mr. Erhart's contact with the OCC.

Turning to specific allegations in the complaint, the Bank has never misstated its financials. And, at the time, the plaintiff was working at the Bank, he never made such an accusation. The plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel understand

BofI Holding, Inc. October 14, 2015 Conference Call Transcript

that they have no reasonable basis to make these serious claims today, so they have qualified their entire complaint with the word, “potentially.”

The Bank presented the 2015 business plan to the Board of Directors in July 2014 for approval, at which time it was discussed in detail and approved. The plaintiff was not familiar with business plans. The delay in obtaining the proper evidence for his own file was due to his own confusion.

Today, and at no time during which the plaintiff was employed by the Bank, did the Bank have 25% of its total deposits with only four customers, and nine customers with 40% of total deposits. The plaintiff did not understand the Bank's management reporting system, and all management interactions were designed to ensure that accurate data is presented to Bank’s constituents. The top four customers and top nine customers represent approximately 3% and 5% of total deposits, respectively, at the quarter ended June 30, 2015.

The Bank has never omitted a calculation which would impact the allowance for loan loss and leases. After reviewing the plaintiff's internal audit, it was clear that he did not understand which of the Bank's loan types had unfunded commitments, and that he did not understand the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles that would apply to this area. A review by the Bank's external auditors and examiners conclude that there are no significant findings.

It is important to note that we are a results-oriented culture, where poor performers are given an honest assessment of their shortcomings. Several elements of this allegation are factually inaccurate with regard to Mr. Ball's discipline procedures that were applied to him. First, the audit committee determines auditor compensation and bonuses, not the management team. Second, Jonathan Ball conducted Mr. Erhart's reviews, not Mr. Tolla, during his tenure, and communicated the results to the audit committee along with his recommended bonus.

During the 2013 performance review period, which was the first time Mr. Erhart received a performance review in June, and a performance review in December, which was Erhart's first full cycle review -- so he wasn't at the Bank that long -- Mr. Ball noted that Erhart’s “audit work would not experience as many delays if he improved his communication skills, and did not wait for email responses from business units”. In other words, Mr. Ball wanted him to get up and talk to people, because his emails were often incoherent and they did not elicit responses because of their incoherence.

During December 2014 review cycle, Mr. Ball, apparently, using a once-is-a-mistake, twice-is-a-habit rationale, was more direct in his criticism of the reliance on email alone to collect information. He indicated in the review that Erhart needs to quote, “use meetings and collaboration”, end quote, to ensure that quote, “audit does not drag on”. And that he continues to discourage him from drafting long emails, when a conversation would be more appropriate. Erhart was rated, ‘needs development in certain areas’, as a result of these and other various shortcomings.

With the regard to failure to disclose tax identification numbers, the alleged failure to disclose tax identification numbers to the OCC, the Bank did in fact respond to an OCC request pertaining to the deposit accounts without TINs, by stating that we do not have any. The request was under the heading CIP, Customer Information Program, and was related to deposit accounts.

Despite our confidence in the veracity of our response, the Bank also turned over a list of approximately 150 non-resident alien customer loans, each of which did not have TINs, though we did so under a more general catch-all request for information found elsewhere in the OCC letter. Mr. Erhart's complaint itself noted that factual disconnect. He states that he saw a folder under the heading, BSA, with approximately 150 to 200 accounts where the borrower did not have a TIN. That folder was prepared for and delivered to the OCC in response to the catch-all request for BSA information.

Mr. Erhart alleges that his Microsoft Outlook access was threatened. That's not correct. All Bank staff including the internal audit team and all staff has full and unfettered access to Microsoft Outlook, and there's not a shred of factual basis to this allegation.

It is unfortunate that a coordinated and baseless set of allegations could cause loss to our shareholders. But the Bank's core business has never been stronger, and we continue to see strength in our margin, asset growth, and earnings per share. We look forward to reporting a strong record quarter that beats analyst expectations. With that, I will take questions.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Bob Ramsey - FBR & Co. - Analyst

Hey, good afternoon, and thanks for doing the call, and taking the questions. I guess, I wanted to make sure I'm clear. I think you guys did talk about on September 2 call. But this employee did make all these concerns aware to the examiners, not only examiners sort of on a remote whistleblower line, but those that were in the office performing your last Bank regulatory exam, and they did investigate all of his concerns. And coming out of that process, do you know -- they let you guys know that basically they'd completed that review? Could you just review that that's about right?

That is correct.

Okay. And so, they've let you know that there is nothing ongoing related to these concerns that he raised, that they are still investigating at this point?

The OCC comes in and regularly reviews the Bank. If any of these things were true, we wouldn't have gotten our two acquisition deals done. You can take that as confirmation given that we got those deals done. One deal was done in the month that these allegations were made. We have great regulatory relations. We are under no regulatory orders, no regulatory restrictions on our business, and we continue to have great dialogue with our regulators. And there is no truth to any of these allegations that we did not provide information.

Okay, great. And then, in terms of the allegation that you all are doing business with customers that are on BSA-- do not touch list. I mean, you were all sort of complimented previously on your BSA practices after the last exam, isn't that right?

Yes, I have said that and that was a factually accurate statement. We do not do business with customers on the prohibited OFAC list. That's actually quite an easy thing to avoid, and that is a baseless allegation. Erhart had provided a series of loans that he had thoughts about to examiners at the prior examination, and they were reviewed.

Okay, perfect. One other question on the deposit front, I appreciate you all giving the updated numbers on really what your biggest deposit customers represent as a percent of deposits. But any sense of maybe what accounts for the discrepancy or the misunderstanding was? Because to go from 40% to 5% is a massive shift.

You're making the assumption that there is an attempt to actually have a good faith effort to reveal the truth here, and that is fundamentally mistaken as to what is going on. We will see ultimately what sort of payments are flowing to pa

rticipants here. And I don't want to make allegations at this time until we further review this suit. But I will guarantee you in my view anyway, by the time we are done, we will find a coordinated effort with the media, with short-sellers, and with Mr. Erhart to provide a variety of material non-public information to individuals who ultimately have been worried about the dollar sign. But they are going to have to remove the [S]. So instead they can be worried about tiny bars.

There's a lot more going on here, and we have absolutely nothing to hide, and I am extremely unhappy with these sort of factual inaccuracies. And so, obviously, I look forward to attributing some component of our share price decline, and ensuring that the John Doe's name will include all the short-sellers who are participating in this action, appropriately reward the Bank and the shareholders for any losses they took today.

No, the deposit concentration statement doesn't make any sense. It never made any sense, and doesn't make any sense now. There are other statements that make no sense. I don't really truly believe, for example, with regard to other allegations that Mr. Erhart actually doesn’t know the difference between deposit accounts and loans. He wasn't a great auditor, I will give you that, but he does know the difference between deposit accounts and loans, yet he conflates those two.

And because he had these discussions with the OCC, clearly they communicated things back to him. So the assumption that somehow these are misunderstandings is just simply not correct. It is a coordinated effort, and unfortunately there have been a lot of these efforts, but this one happened to be successful. And I feel badly for our shareholders for that. But I think that you are fundamentally misunderstanding what is going on here, if you're thinking that he is pursuing some sort of quest for...


More