Significant Accounting Policies and Basis of Presentation (Policies)

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2017

The interim unaudited consolidated financial statements of Customers Bancorp and subsidiaries have been prepared pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC. These interim unaudited consolidated financial statements reflect all normal and recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary to present a fair statement of the financial position and the results of operations and cash flows of Customers Bancorp and subsidiaries for the interim periods presented. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in the annual consolidated financial statements have been omitted from these interim unaudited consolidated financial statements as permitted by SEC rules and regulations. The December 31, 2016 consolidated balance sheet presented in this report has been derived from Customers Bancorp’s audited 2016 consolidated financial statements. Management believes that the disclosures are adequate to present fairly the consolidated financial statements as of the dates and for the periods presented. These interim unaudited consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the 2016 consolidated financial statements of Customers Bancorp and subsidiaries included in Customers' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the SEC on March 8, 2017. That Form 10-K describes Customers Bancorp’s significant accounting policies, which include its policies on Principles of Consolidation; Cash and Cash Equivalents and Statements of Cash Flows; Restrictions on Cash and Amounts due from Banks; Business Combinations; Investment Securities; Loan Accounting Framework; Allowance for Loan Losses; Goodwill and other Intangible Assets; Investments in FHLB, Federal Reserve Bank, and other restricted stock; Other Real Estate Owned; FDIC Loss Sharing Receivable and Clawback Liability; Bank-Owned Life Insurance; Bank Premises and Equipment; Treasury Stock; Income Taxes; Share-Based Compensation; Segments; Derivative Instruments and Hedging; Comprehensive Income; and Earnings per Share. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation. Results for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of those that may be expected for the fiscal year.

Reclassifications

As described in NOTE 3 - TAX-FREE SPIN-OFF AND MERGER, as of September 30, 2017, Customers reclassified BankMobile, a segment previously classified as held for sale to held and used, as it no longer met the held-for-sale criteria. Certain prior period amounts and note disclosures (including NOTE 9 and NOTE 12) have been reclassified to conform with the current period presentation. Except for these reclassifications, there have been no material changes to Customers' significant accounting policies as disclosed in Customers' Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Presented below are recently issued accounting standards that Customers has adopted as well as those that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) has issued but are not yet effective or that Customers has not yet adopted.

Recently Issued Accounting Standards

Accounting Standards Adopted in 2017

Since January 1, 2017, Customers has adopted the following FASB Accounting Standard Updates (“ASUs”), none of which had a material impact to Customers’ consolidated financial statements:

•

Customers adopted ASU 2016-05, Derivatives and Hedging: Effect of Derivative Contract Novations on Existing Hedge Accounting Relationships, on a prospective basis. This ASU clarifies that a change in the counterparties to a derivative contract (i.e., a novation), in and of itself, does not require the de-designation of a hedging relationship provided that all the other hedge accounting criteria continue to be met.

•

Customers also adopted ASU 2016-06, Contingent Put and Call Options in Debt Instruments. This ASU clarifies that a contingency of put or call exercise does not need to be evaluated to determine whether it relates to interest rates and credit risk in an embedded derivative analysis of hybrid financial instruments. In other words, a contingent put or call option embedded in a debt instrument would be evaluated for possible separate accounting as a derivative instrument without regard to the nature of the exercise contingency. However, as required under the existing guidance, companies will still need to evaluate the other relevant embedded derivative guidance, such as whether the payoff from the contingent put or call option is adjusted based on changes in an index other than interest rates or credit risk, and whether the debt involves a substantial premium or discount. As the adoption did not result in any significant impact to Customers’ consolidated financial statements, it did not result in a modified retrospective application.

•

Customers also adopted ASU 2016-07, Simplifying the Transition to the Equity Method of Accounting, on a prospective basis. This ASU eliminates the requirement for the retrospective use of the equity method of accounting as a result of an increase in the level of ownership interest or degree of influence of an investor. The amendments require that the equity method investor add the cost of acquiring the additional interest in the investee to the current basis of the investor’s previously held interest and adopt the equity method of accounting as of the date the investment becomes qualified for the equity method of accounting.

•

Customers also adopted ASU 2016-17, Consolidation - Interests Held Through Related Parties that are Under Common Control. This ASU amends the guidance included in ASU 2015-02, Consolidation: Amendments to Consolidation Analysis which Customers adopted in first quarter 2016. This ASU makes a narrow amendment that requires that a single decision maker considers indirect economic interests in an entity held through related parties that are under common control on a proportionate basis when determining whether it is the primary beneficiary of that VIE. Prior to this amendment, indirect interests held through related parties that are under common control were to be considered equivalent of the single decision maker’s direct interests in their entirety which could result in a single decision maker consolidating the VIE. As the adoption did not result in any significant impact to Customers’ consolidated financial statements, it did not result in a full or modified retrospective application.

Accounting Standards Issued But Not Yet Adopted

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-12, Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities, which amends the existing hedge accounting model and expands an entity’s ability to hedge nonfinancial and financial risk components and reduce complexity in fair value hedges of interest rate risk. The guidance eliminates the requirement to separately measure and report hedge ineffectiveness and generally requires the entire change in the fair value of a hedging instrument to be presented in the same income statement line as the hedged item. The guidance also changes certain documentation and assessment requirements and modifies the accounting for components excluded from the assessment of hedge effectiveness. This ASU is effective for public business entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted. Customers plans to adopt this ASU by January 1, 2018. Adoption of this new guidance must be applied on a modified retrospective approach. While Customers continues to assess all potential impacts of the standard, Customers does not currently expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

In July 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-11, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Down Round Features, which will change the classification analysis of certain equity-linked financial instruments (or embedded features) with down round features. When determining whether certain financial instruments should be classified as liabilities or equity instruments, a down round feature no longer precludes equity classification when assessing whether the instrument is indexed to an entity’s own stock. As a result, a freestanding equity-linked financial instrument (or embedded conversion option) would no longer be accounted for as a derivative liability at fair value as a result of the existence of a down round feature. For freestanding equity-classified financial instruments, the amendments require entities to recognize the effect of the down round feature when it is triggered. That effect is treated as a dividend and as a reduction of income available to common shareholders in basic earnings per share ("EPS"). For public business entities, the amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2018. Customers currently does not have any equity-linked financial instruments (or embedded features) with down round features, accordingly Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements, however, Customers will continue to evaluate the potential impact through the adoption date.

In May 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-09, Compensation - Stock Compensation: Scope of Modification Accounting, which clarifies when to account for a change to the terms or conditions of a share-based payment award as a modification in Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 718. Under this ASU, modification accounting is required only if the fair value, the vesting conditions, or the classification of the award as equity or a liability changes as a result of the change in terms or conditions. This ASU does not change the accounting for modifications under ASC 718. The ASU will be effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Adoption of this new guidance must be applied prospectively to an award modified on or after the adoption date. Customers generally does not modify the terms of conditions of its share-based payment awards, accordingly Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements, however, Customers will continue to evaluate the potential impact through the adoption date.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-08, Receivables-Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs: Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities, which requires that premiums for certain callable debt securities held be amortized to their earliest call date. This ASU does not affect the accounting for securities purchased at a discount. This ASU will be effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2018, with earlier adoption permitted. Adoption of this new guidance must be applied on a modified retrospective approach. Customers currently has an immaterial amount of callable debt securities purchased with premiums, accordingly Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements, however, Customers will continue to evaluate the potential impact through the adoption date.

In February 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-05, Clarifying the Scope of Asset Derecognition Guidance and Accounting for Partial Sales of Nonfinancial Assets, which clarifies the scope and application of the accounting guidance on the sale of nonfinancial assets to non-customers, including partial sales. This ASU defines an in-substance nonfinancial asset, in part, as a financial asset promised to a counterparty in a contract if substantially all of the fair value of the assets (recognized and unrecognized) that are promised to the counterparty in the contract is concentrated in nonfinancial assets. If substantially all of the fair value of the assets that are promised to the counterparty in a contract is concentrated in nonfinancial assets, then all of the financial assets promised to the counterparty are in substance nonfinancial assets within the scope of Subtopic 610-20. This ASU also unifies the guidance related to partial sales of nonfinancial assets, eliminates rules specifically addressing the sales of real estate, removes exceptions to the financial asset derecognition model, and clarifies the accounting for contributions of nonfinancial assets to joint ventures. This ASU will be effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of this new guidance must be applied on a full or modified retrospective basis. Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-04, Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment, which will simplify the subsequent measurement of goodwill by eliminating Step 2 from the goodwill impairment test that requires an entity to determine the implied fair value of its goodwill through a hypothetical purchase price allocation. Instead, under this ASU, an entity should recognize an impairment charge for the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value however, the loss recognized should not exceed the total amount of goodwill allocated to that reporting unit. All other goodwill impairment guidance will remain largely unchanged. The same one-step impairment test will be applied to goodwill at all reporting units, even those with zero or negative carrying amounts. Entities will also be required to disclose the amount of goodwill at reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. An entity still has the option to perform the qualitative assessment for a reporting unit to determine if the quantitative impairment test is necessary. This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2019. Early adoption is permitted for impairment tests performed after January 1, 2017. Customers expects to early adopt this ASU upon its next annual goodwill impairment test in 2017 and does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-01, Clarifying the Definition of a Business, which narrows the definition of a business and clarifies that to be considered a business, the fair value of gross assets acquired (or disposed of) should not be concentrated in a single identifiable asset or a group of similar identifiable assets. In addition, to be considered a business, an acquisition would have to include an input and a substantive process that together will significantly contribute to the ability to create an output. Also, the amendments narrow the definition of the term “output” so that it is consistent with how outputs are defined in ASC Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017. Adoption of this new guidance must be applied on a prospective basis. Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

In November 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-18, Statement of Cash Flows: Restricted Cash, which requires that a statement of cash flows explain the change during the period in the total of cash, cash equivalents, and amounts generally described as restricted cash or restricted cash equivalents. Therefore, amounts generally described as restricted cash and restricted cash equivalents should be included with cash and cash equivalents when reconciling the beginning-of-period and end-of-period total amounts shown on the statement of cash flows. This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Customers does not expect the adoption to this ASU to have a significant impact on the presentation of its statement of cash flows.

In October 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-16-Income Taxes (Topic 740): Intra-Entity Transfers of Assets Other Than Inventory, which requires that an entity recognize the income tax consequences of an intra-entity transfer of an asset other than inventory when the transfer occurs. This eliminates the current exception for all intra-entity transfers of an asset other than inventory that requires deferral of the tax effects until the asset is sold to a third party or otherwise recovered through use.

This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

In August 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-15, Statement of Cash Flows: Classification of Certain Cash Receipts and Cash Payments, which aims to reduce the existing diversity in practice with regards to the following specific items in the Statement of Cash Flows:


1.	Cash payments for debt prepayment or extinguishment costs will be classified in financing activities.


2.	Upon settlement of zero-coupon bonds and bonds with insignificant cash coupons, the portion of the payment attributable to imputed interest will be classified as an operating activity, while the portion of the payment attributable to principal will be classified as a financing activity.

Cash paid by an acquirer soon after a business combination (i.e. approximately three months or less) for the settlement of a contingent consideration liability will be classified in investing activities. Payments made thereafter should be separated between financing activities and operating activities. Cash payments up to the amount of the contingent consideration liability recognized at the acquisition date will be classified in financing activities; any excess will be classified in operating activities.


4.	Cash proceeds received from the settlement of insurance claims will be classified on the basis of the related insurance coverage (i.e., the nature of the loss). Cash proceeds from lump-sum settlements will be classified based on the nature of each loss component included in the settlement.


5.	Cash proceeds received from the settlement of bank-owned life insurance (BOLI) policies will be classified as cash inflows from investing activities. Cash payments for premiums on BOLI may be classified as cash outflows for investing, operating, or a combination of both.


6.	A transferor’s beneficial interest obtained in a securitization of financial assets will be disclosed as a non-cash activity, and cash received from beneficial interests will be classified in investing activities.


7.	Distributions received from equity method investees will be classified using either a cumulative earnings approach or a look-through approach as an accounting policy election.

The ASU contains additional guidance clarifying when an entity should separate cash receipts and cash payments and classify them into more than one class of cash flows (including when reasonable judgment is required to estimate and allocate cash flows) versus when an entity should classify the aggregate amount into one class of cash flows on the basis of predominance. This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, with early adoption permitted. Customers is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU and does not expect the ASU to have a material impact on the presentation of its statement of cash flows.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, Financial Instruments - Credit Losses: Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This ASU requires an entity to utilize a new impairment model known as the current expected credit loss ("CECL") model to estimate lifetime expected credit loss and record an allowance that, when deducted from the amortized cost basis of the financial asset (including HTM securities), presents the net amount expected to be collected on the financial asset. This ASU will replace today’s “incurred loss” approach. The CECL model is expected to result in earlier recognition of credit losses. For available-for-sale debt securities, entities will be required to record allowances for credit losses rather than reduce the carrying amount, as they do today under the OTTI model, and will be allowed to reverse previously established allowances in the event the credit of the issuer improves. It also simplifies the accounting model for purchased credit-impaired debt securities and loans. This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2019. Earlier adoption is also permitted. Adoption of the new guidance can be applied through a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is adopted. Customers is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU, initiating implementation efforts across the company, and planning for loss modeling requirements consistent with lifetime expected loss estimates. It is expected that the new model will include different assumptions used in calculating credit losses, such as estimating losses over the estimated life of a financial asset and will consider expected future changes in macroeconomic conditions. The adoption of this ASU may result in an increase to Customers' allowance for loan losses which will depend upon the nature and characteristics of Customers' loan portfolio at the adoption date, as well as the macroeconomic conditions and forecasts at that date. Customers currently does not intend to early adopt this new guidance.

In March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-04, Liabilities - Extinguishments of Liabilities: Recognition of Breakage for Certain Prepaid Stored-Value Products, that would require issuers of prepaid stored-value product (such as gift cards, telecommunication cards, and traveler’s checks), to derecognize the financial liability related to those products for breakage. Breakage is the value of prepaid stored-value products that is not redeemed by consumers for goods, services or cash. There is currently a diversity in the methodology used to recognize breakage. Subtopic 405-20, Extinguishment of Liabilities, includes derecognition guidance for both financial liabilities and nonfinancial liabilities, and Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, includes authoritative breakage guidance but excludes financial liabilities. The amendments in this ASU provide a narrow scope exception to the guidance in Subtopic 405-20 to require that breakage be accounted for consistent with the breakage guidance in Topic 606. This ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017. Customers does not expect the adoption of this ASU to have a significant impact on its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases, which supersedes the current lease accounting guidance for both lessees and lessors under ASC 840, Leases. From the lessee's perspective, the new standard establishes a right-of-use (ROU) model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement for lessees. The new guidance will require lessors to account for leases using an approach that is substantially similar to the existing guidance for sales-type, direct financing leases and operating leases. The new standard is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2018. Early adoption is permitted. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessees for capital and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. A modified retrospective transition approach is required for lessors for sales-type, direct financing, and operating leases existing at, or entered into after, the beginning of the earliest comparative period presented in the financial statements, with certain practical expedients available. Customers is currently evaluating the impact of this ASU on its financial condition and results of operations and expects to recognize right-of-use assets and lease liabilities for substantially all of its operating lease commitments based on the present value of unpaid lease payments as of the date of adoption. Customers does not intend to early adopt this ASU.

In January 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-01, Recognition and Measurement of Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities. The guidance in this ASU among other things, (1) requires equity investments with certain exceptions, to be measured at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in net income, (2) simplifies the impairment assessment of equity investments without readily determinable fair values by requiring a qualitative assessment to identify impairment, (3) eliminates the requirement for public entities to disclose the methods and significant assumptions used to estimate the fair value that is required to be disclosed for financial instruments measured at amortized cost on the balance sheet, (4) requires public business entities to use the exit price notion when measuring the fair value of financial instruments for disclosure purposes, (5) requires an entity to present separately in other comprehensive income the portion of the change in fair value of a liability resulting from a change in the instrument-specific credit risk when the entity has elected to measure the liability at fair value in accordance with the fair value option for financial instruments, (6) requires separate presentation of financial assets and financial liabilities by measurement category and form of financial asset on the balance sheet or in the accompanying notes to the financial statements and (7) clarifies that an entity should evaluate the need for a valuation allowance on a deferred tax asset related to available-for-sale securities. The guidance in this ASU is effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Customers is in the process of evaluating the impacts of the adoption of this ASU, however, it does not expect the impact to be significant to its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements given the immaterial amount of its investment in equity securities.

In May 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), superseding the revenue recognition requirements in ASC 605. This ASU requires an entity to recognize revenue for the transfer of promised goods or services to customers in an amount that reflects the consideration to which the entity expects to be entitled in exchange for those goods or services. The amendment includes a five-step process to assist an entity in achieving the main principle(s) of revenue recognition under ASC 605. In August 2015, the FASB issued ASU 2015-14, which formalized the deferral of the effective date of the amendment for a period of one-year from the original effective date. Following the issuance of ASU 2015-14, the amendment will be effective for Customers for its first reporting period beginning after December 15, 2017. In March 2016, the FASB also issued ASU 2016-08, an amendment to the guidance in ASU 2014-09, which reframed the structure of the indicators of when an entity is acting as an agent and focused on evidence that an entity is acting as the principal or agent in a revenue transaction. ASU 2016-08 also eliminated two of the indicators (the entity’s consideration is in the form of a commission and the entity is not exposed to credit risk) in making that determination. This amendment also clarifies that each indicator may be more or less relevant to the assessment depending on the terms and conditions of the contract. In April 2016, the FASB also issued ASU 2016-10, which clarifies the implementation guidance on identifying promised goods or services and on determining whether an entity's promise to grant a license with either a right to use the entity's intellectual property (which is satisfied at a point in time) or a right to access the entity's intellectual property (which is satisfied over time). In May 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-12, an amendment to ASU 2014-09, which provided practical expedients related to disclosures of remaining performance obligations, as well as other amendments to guidance on transition, collectability, non-cash consideration and the presentation of sales and other similar taxes. The amendments, collectively, should be applied retrospectively to each prior reporting period presented or as a cumulative effect adjustment as of the date of adoption.

Because the ASU does not apply to revenue associated with leases and financial instruments (including loans and securities), Customers current assessment is that the new guidance will not have a material impact on the elements of its consolidated statements of operations most closely associated with leases and financial instruments (such as interest income, interest expense and securities gain). Customers will adopt this ASU on January 1, 2018 using a modified retrospective approach. Customers has completed its identification of all revenue streams that are included in its financial statements and has identified its deposit related fees, service charges, debit card and prepaid card interchange income, and university fees to be within the scope of the standard. Customers is also substantially complete with its review of the related contracts and has also completed its evaluation of certain costs related to these revenue streams to determine whether such costs should be presented as expenses or contra-revenue (i.e., gross vs. net). Customers' overall assessment suggests that adoption of this ASU will not materially change its current method and timing of recognizing revenue for these revenue streams. Customers, however, is still evaluating the ASU’s expanded disclosure requirements. As provided above, Customers current assessment is that the adoption of this ASU will not have a significant impact to its financial condition, results of operations and consolidated financial statements.

Fair Value Measurement

Customers uses fair value measurements to record fair value adjustments to certain assets and liabilities and to disclose the fair value of its financial instruments. ASC Topic 825, Financial Instruments, requires disclosure of the estimated fair value of an entity’s assets and liabilities considered to be financial instruments. For Customers, as for most financial institutions, the majority of its assets and liabilities are considered to be financial instruments. Many of these financial instruments lack an available trading market as characterized by a willing buyer and a willing seller engaging in an exchange transaction. For fair value disclosure purposes, Customers utilized certain fair value measurement criteria under ASC Topic 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, as explained below.

In accordance with ASC 820, the fair value of a financial instrument is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. Fair value is best determined based upon quoted market prices. However, in many instances, there are no quoted market prices for Customers' various financial instruments. In cases where quoted market prices are not available, fair values are based on estimates using present value or other valuation techniques. Those techniques are significantly affected by the assumptions used, including the discount rate and estimates of future cash flows. Accordingly, the fair value estimates may not be realized in an immediate settlement of the instrument.

The fair value guidance provides a consistent definition of fair value, focusing on an exit price in an orderly transaction (that is, not a forced liquidation or distressed sale) between market participants at the measurement date under current market conditions. If there has been a significant decrease in the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability, a change in valuation technique or the use of multiple valuation techniques may be appropriate. In such instances, determining the price at which willing market participants would transact at the measurement date under current market conditions depends on the facts and circumstances and requires the use of significant judgment. The fair value is a reasonable point within the range that is most representative of fair value under current market conditions.

The fair value guidance also establishes a fair value hierarchy and describes the following three levels used to classify fair value measurements.

Level 1: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities.

Level 2: Quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs that are observable either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

Level 3: Prices or valuation techniques that require adjustments to inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (i.e., supported with little or no market activity).

A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

Impaired Loans

Impaired loans:

Impaired loans are those loans that are accounted for under ASC 310, Receivables, in which the Bank has measured impairment generally based on the fair value of the loan’s collateral or discounted cash flow analysis. Fair value is generally determined based upon independent third-party appraisals of the properties that collateralize the loans or discounted cash flows based upon the expected proceeds. These assets are generally classified as Level 3 fair values, based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurements.

Derivatives

Risk Management Objectives of Using Derivatives

Customers is exposed to certain risks arising from both its business operations and economic conditions. Customers manages economic risks, including interest rate, liquidity, and credit risk, primarily by managing the amount, sources, and durations of its assets and liabilities. Specifically, Customers enters into derivative financial instruments to manage exposures that arise from business activities that result in the receipt or payment of future known and uncertain cash amounts, the value of which are determined by interest rates. Customers' derivative financial instruments are used to manage differences in the amount, timing, and duration of Customers' known or expected cash receipts and its known or expected cash payments principally related to certain borrowings. Customers also has interest-rate derivatives resulting from a service provided to certain qualifying customers, and therefore, they are not used to manage Customers' interest-rate risk in assets or liabilities. Customers manages a matched book with respect to its derivative instruments used in this customer service in order to minimize its net risk exposure resulting from such transactions.

Cash Flow Hedges of Interest Rate Risk

Customers' objectives in using interest-rate derivatives are to add stability to interest expense and to manage exposure to interest-rate movements. To accomplish this objective, Customers primarily uses interest rate swaps as part of its interest-rate-risk management strategy. Interest-rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges involve the receipt of variable amounts from a counterparty in exchange for Customers making fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreements without exchange of the underlying notional amount.

The effective portion of changes in the fair value of derivatives designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income and is subsequently reclassified into earnings in the period that the hedged forecasted transaction affects earnings. To date, such derivatives were used to hedge the variable cash flows associated with the forecasted issuances of debt. The ineffective portion of the change in fair value of the derivatives is to be recognized directly in earnings.