XML 26 R7.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT  v2.3.0.11
General
 6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
General  
General
(1) General. OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the "Holding Company") is a one-bank holding company and owns 100% of OptimumBank (the "Bank"), a state (Florida)-chartered commercial bank. The Bank's wholly-owned subsidiaries are OB Real Estate Management, LLC, OB Real Estate Holdings, LLC and OB Real Estate Holding 1503, LLC, all of which were formed in 2009, OB Real Estate Holdings 1695, OB Real Estate Holdings 1669, OB Real Estate Holdings 1645 and OB Real Estate Holdings 1565, all formed in 2010 and OB Real Estate Holdings 1443 and OB Real Estate Holdings 1620, formed in 2011. The Holding Company's only business is the operation of the Bank and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company"). The Bank's deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). The Bank offers a variety of community banking services to individual and corporate customers through its three banking offices located in Broward County, Florida. OB Real Estate Management, LLC is primarily engaged in managing foreclosed real estate. This subsidiary had no activity in 2011 and 2010. All other subsidiaries are primarily engaged in holding and disposing of foreclosed real estate.

In the opinion of management, the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements of the Company contain all adjustments (consisting principally of normal recurring accruals) necessary to present fairly the financial position at June 30, 2011, and the results of operations for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2011 and 2010. The results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2011, are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.

Going Concern. The Company's continuing high levels of nonperforming assets, declining net interest margin, continuing high levels of noninterest expenses related to the credit problems, and eroding regulatory capital raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.

The Bank has not complied with its regulatory capital requirements set forth in the Consent Order issued by the FDIC and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation ("OFR") discussed in Note 9, or contained in the FDIC regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. The Company needs to raise substantial additional capital for it return to profitability and continue operations. The Company is currently conducting a private placement offering of its common stock to increase regulatory capital. There can be no assurance, however, that the Company will raise sufficient capital, if any, in the current private placement offering, to meet the Bank's capital requirements. Further, there can be no assurance that other financing alternatives or recapitalization plans will be available, forthcoming or successfully implemented, or receive regulatory approval. If the Company is unable to raise capital and the Bank's regulatory capital levels continue to decline to a level that would cause the Bank to be considered critically undercapitalized (a ratio of tangible equity to total assets equal to or less than 2.0%), it is likely that the regulators will take additional enforcement action against the Bank, including placing the Bank into conservatorship or receivership, to protect the interests of depositors insured by the FDIC.

 

Comprehensive Loss. Generally accepted accounting principles generally requires that recognized revenue, expenses, gains and losses be included in net loss. Although certain changes in assets and liabilities, such as unrealized gains and losses on available for sale securities, are reported as a separate component of the equity section of the consolidated balance sheet, such items along with net loss, are components of comprehensive loss. The only component of other comprehensive loss is the net change in the unrealized loss on the securities available for sale.

Income Taxes. During the year ended December 31, 2009, the Company assessed its earnings history and trend over the past year and its estimate of future earnings, and determined that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax asset will not be realized in the near term. Accordingly, a valuation allowance was recorded against the net deferred tax asset for the amount not expected to be realized in the future. Based on the available evidence in 2010 and 2011, the Company determined that it is still more likely than not that the deferred tax assets will not be realized in the near term. Accordingly, the valuation allowance was increased in 2010 and 2011 to offset the increase in the net deferred tax asset.

Recent Accounting Standards Update. In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued ASU No. 2010-06, Improving Disclosures about Fair Value Measurements (Topic 820), which amends the guidance for fair value measurements and disclosures. The guidance in ASU 2010-06 requires a reporting entity to disclose separately the amounts of significant transfers in and out of Level 1 and Level 2 fair value measurements and to describe the reasons for the transfers. Furthermore, ASU 2010-06 requires a reporting entity to present separately information about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the reconciliation for fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs; clarifies existing fair value disclosures about the level of disaggregation and about inputs and valuation techniques used to measure fair value; and amends guidance on employers' disclosures about postretirement benefit plan assets to require that disclosures be provided by classes of assets instead of by major categories of assets. The ASU was effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning January 1, 2010, except for the disclosures about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements in the rollforward of activity in Level 3 fair value measurements. Those disclosures were effective January 1, 2011 and for interim periods thereafter. In the period of initial adoption, entities will not be required to provide the amended disclosures for any previous periods presented for comparative purposes. The adoption of this guidance did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

 

Recent Accounting Standards Update, Continued. In July 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-20, Receivables (Topic 310): Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses. The new disclosures will require significantly more information about credit quality in a financial institution's loan portfolio. This statement addresses only disclosures and does not change recognition or measurement of the allowance. For public entities, the disclosures as of the end of a reporting period was effective for interim and annual reporting periods ending on December 31, 2010. The disclosures about activity that occurs during a reporting period was effective for interim and annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2011. The adoption of the ASU did not have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, Receivables (Topic 310) A Creditor's Determination of Whether a Restructuring Is a Troubled Debt Restructuring. This amends the guidance for troubled debt restructurings. The guidance clarifies the guidance on a creditor's evaluation of whether it has granted a concession and whether a debtor is experiencing financial difficulties. For public entities, the amendments are effective for first interim or annual period beginning on or after June 15, 2011 and should be applied retrospectively to the beginning of the annual period of adoption. The adoption of the ASU is not expected to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements.