Texas Capital Bancshares Inc (TCBI) 2015 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon, and welcome to the Texas Capital Bancshares second-quarter 2015 earnings conference call.

(Operator Instructions)

Please note that this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Heather Worley, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Welcome to the Texas Capital Bancshares second-quarter 2015 earnings conference call. I'm Heather Worley, Director of Investor Relations. If you have any follow-up questions, please call me directly at 214-932-6646. Before we get into our discussion today, I would like to read the following statement. Certain matters discussed on this call may contain forward-looking statements as defined in federal securities law, which statements are subject to risks and uncertainties and are based on Texas Capital's current estimates or expectations of future events or future results. These statements are not historical in nature and can generally be identified by such words as believe, expect, estimate, anticipate, plan, may, will, intend, and similar expressions.

A number of factors, many of which are beyond Texas Capital's control, could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by our forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include the risk of adverse impact from general economic conditions, the effects of recent declines in oil and gas prices on our customers, competition, changes in interest rates, and exposure to regulatory and legislative changes. These and other factors that could cause results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements, as well as a discussion of the risks and uncertainties that may affect Texas Capital's business, can be found in our annual report on Form 10-K and other filings made by Texas Capital with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this call. Texas Capital is under no obligation and expressly disclaims any obligation to update, alter, or revise its forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Joining me on the call today are Keith Cargill, President and CEO; and Peter Bartholow, CFO and COO. After our prepared remarks, our operator, Casio, will facilitate a Q&A session. At this time, I would like to turn the call over to Keith who will begin on slide 3 of the webcast.

Thank you, Heather. Following my opening comments, Peter Bartholow will review his assessment of the quarter, and I will offer closing comments before opening the call for Q&A. Let's begin with slide 3. Again, our bankers and credit team put some impressive loan growth numbers on the board. Traditional LHI grew 4.2% in average outstandings from Q1 to Q2. Mortgage finance loans grew 22% linked quarter on average outstandings with the quarter-end balance down due to efforts to manage the quarter-end surge. Demand deposits grew 22% linked quarter on average as well. Liquidity assets were 4.2% higher on average from Q1 to Q2. Growth in loans and deposits was across virtually all regions and lines of business with leading growth in Houston, Dallas real estate, builder finance, premium finance, and mortgage finance.

Asset sensitivity continues to increase as demand deposits and our floating rate asset mix each continue to grow. Net interest margin was flat on a linked quarter basis despite our continued liquidity bill. This is encouraging and we hope marks affirming in NIM. Now let's review our credit metrics. NPAs increased $55 million from Q1. Two SNC energy relationships made up more than half of the dollar increase. Net charge-offs for Q2 were 14 basis points, and no charge-offs were energy related. While the loan loss provision represents a high coverage ratio relative to charge-offs, we believe our loan loss methodology is sound and the provision is appropriate.

On slide 4 we describe the launch of our previously unnamed business. The mortgage correspondent aggregation, or MCA business. Not only will MCA complement our current offerings in the national mortgage market, it also will increase our capital efficiency since purchased whole loans carry a risk weight of 20% or 50% as compared to the current 100% risk weight on existing mortgage finance products. As we describe on slide 4, the MCA business will buy whole mortgage loans from existing and new mortgage banking clients, then hold the loans for a short period before selling and securitizing. By launching MCA, Texas Capital will offer a full range of products and services under the mortgage finance group, including mortgage warehousing, MCA, treasury management, and other business lending to our mortgage banking clients such as mortgage servicing rights financing.

It was important to inform you that we were building a new business as we began to invest increasing dollars in the diligence and risk assessment of the MCA business. Since 2014, Texas Capital has expensed more than $3.5 million on MCA in order to build a meaningful risk appropriate high ROE business for our shareholders and mortgage finance clients. It has been important to us that we hire top national talent and design processes and technology that in combination will effectively minimize the incremental risk of put-back exposure and provide a client friendly interface to improve efficiency and quality assurance for both our clients and Texas Capital. Because Texas Capital has established a premier reputation in the national mortgage finance industry and achieved a strong market share position, we believe the time and opportunities are right for our launch of MCA next month.

As we prepare to launch the MCA business, we are quite encouraged by the early reaction from existing and prospective mortgage banking clients. Having gained the approvals of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae, we believe Texas Capital is well positioned to exploit the market opportunity. You will likely find Peter's comments related to forecasted profitability of MCA most interesting. We should acknowledge the truly outstanding teamwork and commitment demonstrated by the MCA team, risk management team, finance team, and technology team to build what we believe will be one of the most significant businesses ever launched at Texas Capital. Peter?

Thank you, Keith. As Keith mentioned, the Company produced record level of net income with $39 million during the quarter. We saw net interest income and net revenue both increase 9% from the first quarter, and both also up 23% from the year-ago quarter. Despite the continued buildout we achieved improvement in operating leverage compared both to the first quarter of this year, and more especially to the second quarter of last year. Funding costs were stable with exceptional growth in demand deposits. The impact of growth in liquidity assets on NIM and ROA of course remains very high. The pace of linked quarter growth in DDA increased to reach a record level of $6.8 billion, an increase of more than $1.2 billion just from the first quarter of this year.

The shift in deposit composition from interest bearing to DDA balances had a significant impact on our asset sensitivity. Since the second quarter of last year, the impact on net interest income from a change in 100-basis point and 200-basis point increases in the fed funds rate has increased sharply. The 100-basis-point shock, net interest income shows an increase from $54 million to $84 million over the course of one year. With the 200-basis-point shock, net interest income shows an increase from $119 million to $178 million. Linked quarter growth in liquidity assets from the first quarter was more manageable this time as the funds were effectively deployed in mortgage finance loans and certainly helped with the stability of our net interest margin. Year-over-year growth in DDA was $3.2 billion or almost 88% while liquidity assets increased by $2.1 billion, more than 10 times the level in the second quarter of 2014. Net interest margin remains stable, as Keith mentioned, with Q1 at 3.2%.

No weakening of yield in traditional held for investment loans was noted. Actually, a 1 basis point increase. Yield trends have actually remained favorable considering the stiff competition, the magnitude of the growth in our balance sheet. We saw a yield reduction in mortgage finance of just 3 basis points as at the end of the quarter we saw a strengthening of pricing in that sector. Compared to full year 2014, the NIM impact to liquidity build has been almost 40 basis points. That's obviously a very modest benefit for net interest income. As noted, we experienced growth of 4.2% in traditional held for investment balances from the first quarter and 22% from a year ago. This growth reflected and compensated for a substantial increase in paydown activity over the course of the second quarter compared to Q1.

The pace of paydown activity almost equaled the record level experienced in the second quarter of last year when net loan growth was just $220 million point to point. This represents solid growth despite the level of paydown activity and the declining contribution we see in both CRE and energy lending. Over the remainder of 2015, we expect a further reduction in the benefit from growth in CRE, builder finance, and energy. We did experience growth in each category in Q1. And as I commented in Q1, this quarter, excluding the growth in those components, were year-to-date average balances, growth rate has been 13% versus the 2014 full year average balance of traditional held for investment loans. As Keith mentioned, mortgage finance business is clearly benefiting from Texas Capital's position in this business. Average balances were over $4.5 billion in Q2, 22% above the first quarter average, and 62% growth from the prior year.

To maintain capacity to expand relationships, manage concentration, and limit quarter-end spike, we've ramped up the participation program. Excluding the quarter-end balance -- quarter-end build in balances, the average balance remained consistent with our mix objective at 29% of total loans. This business has been shown to be a source of sustainable contribution and very high risk adjusted returns. We think the expansion of MCA will amplify our presence at this higher levels of profit contribution and returns with a significant benefit of reducing risk weight of total mortgage finance asset class. Net income, fees, deposits, and very negligible credit or related exposures are evident in this very highly liquid asset class.

Turning to slide 6, the components of net interest income and NIM are shown. Net interest income and net revenue were both up 9% from the prior year. Excuse me, from the immediate past quarter, and 23% from the prior year. The yields on traditional held for investment loans have remained good, as I commented, especially given the significance of competitive activity and the amount of growth that we've experienced. Funding costs have obviously remained very stable given the improved deposit composition. We saw components of growth in net interest income that are reflected on slides -- excuse me, non-interest expense on slide 9. 6% growth from the first quarter for the reasons shown. And I'll explain that the core growth of 3.8%, when you exclude the $1.9 million impact of the movement in stock price over the quarter.

I will point out the $1.9 million comes from a credit that we've benefited from in Q1, a reduction in expense, with a $1 million increase in expense in Q2, for a $1.9 million linked quarter impact. I mentioned earlier the operating leverage improved from Q1 with net revenue growth of 9% and the lower level of core expense growth, reducing the efficiency ratio of 52.4%. We saw a buildout expense increase to $1.6 million, a combination for MCA, wealth advisory, and general growth, compared to $800,000 in the first quarter. As Keith mentioned, since MCA began through the second quarter of 2015, we've incurred total buildout costs of approximately $3.5 million, or $0.05 a share. MCA is expected to incur a very minor loss in Q3 and recover all cash operating expenses for 2015 during Q4.

Slide 8, the quarterly highlights. Obviously, ROA has been reduced by the significant impact of the liquidity asset increases. Adjusted ROA, allowing for the effect of that increase, was still above 1%. Obviously, the elevated levels of provision have had an impact on the year-over-year comparisons. ROE returned to the 10 plus level with more effective utilization of capital, offsetting the increase in the provision and the efficiency ratio with noted improvement due to high productivity in mortgage finance throughout the rest of the organization. On slide 9, the outlook for the remainder of 2015. On the strength of the first half growth, our outlook for traditional held for investment growth has improved to the mid to upper teens. Again, that's in contrast to the 13% level of total LHI growth year to date excluding CRE, builder finance, and energy, versus the full-year balance in 2014. We expect to see the level of mortgage finance loans increase also.

The uncertainty for the last half of 2015 does relate to rising rates and the seasonal weaknesses the industry experiences in Q4, given our higher level of purchase financing in our portfolio. Seasonal weakness in Q4 may also be compounded by the change in regulation set to start October 1. Potential for further market share gain was managed with participations, which do affect obviously the average balances. Softer industry conditions may also be offset by MCA in evaluating total mortgage finance group performance because we will see over time, a shifting balance in our total mortgage finance portfolio between traditional warehouse balances at 100% risk weight, and the MCA balances which today, given our current profile, would have an average risk weight of less than 40%.

Loan categories. Again, there's no change in our view that we will see muted growth in CRE, builder, and energy. Those outlooks have been unchanged. On net interest income, our outlook is improved to mid to high teens growth from 2014. NIM is still focused on 340 to 350, excluding the outsized effects of growth in liquidity assets compared to 2014. I mentioned earlier, Q2 is approximately 3.6% before the impact of liquidity build. The improvement in the Q2 efficiency ratio is certainly a positive, and our guidance has improved. We may remain cautious about predicting more significant improvement due to a planned buildout further of MCA before meaningful contribution is expected in the second -- excuse me, in Q4. A ramp-up of expenses really began near the end of Q2, so there will be a carry-over effect along with continued growth in Q3.

We do expect, as I mentioned, a significant contribution in Q4 that has the potential for eliminating or covering all cash operating expense for 2015. Net charge-offs are still expected to be less than 25 basis points. There is uncertainty about provision, which reflected in our Q2 results. Our methodology drives quarterly levels which could be consistent with Q2 based on exposures already taken into consideration without significant change in our credit outlook. Net interest expense growth is still expected in the low to mid teens before the impact of increase in stock price which grew at a rate of over 14% in Q2. And that pace should slow in Q4 after the ramp-up of MCA costs in Q3. Keith?

Thank you, Peter. Slide 12 summarizes our asset quality metrics. I will now retrace my opening comments on asset quality but will point out that the net charge-offs at 14 basis points increased from 12 basis points in Q1 and only 7 basis points in 2014. Thus far in 2015, we have had no charge-offs related to energy. In fact, in the entire history of Texas Capital, we continue to have only experienced one charge-off in energy totaling $300,000 several years ago. We hope that track record will continue. My closing comments are outlined on slide 14. We are confident in our LHI guidance for the full year of 2015 despite our efforts to limit CRE and builder finance growth and the uncertain energy environment. The ever diligent focus on credit quality and effective problem loan management continues.

Special attention to managing quarter end spikes in mortgage finance volumes resulted in moderating period end outstandings without depressing strong average outstandings growth from Q1. Despite a continued build in liquidity, NIM was stable in Q2 as compared to Q1. Asset sensitivity remains strong and increasing. And finally, the long awaited launch of our new MCA business is imminent and we believe will be well received by the mortgage banking market. Our new MCA business should contribute to strong earnings growth and improved returns for our shareholders. This concludes our comments, and we now will gladly attempt to answer your questions. Heather?

Casio, go ahead and queue up for questions, please.

Thank you.

(Operator Instructions)

The first question comes from Brady Gailey at KBW. Please go ahead.

Hello, good afternoon, guys.

Hello, Brady.

Congrats on the launch of MCA, or almost launching MCA.

Thank you.

So do you care to give any comments on what the increased profitability or accretion could be coming from MCA next year? You're kind of indirectly hinting that you are going to earn back the $0.05 that you've spent already, you are going to earn that back in 4Q. So if you annualize that, that would be $0.20 a share. But any shot at what this new business line could offer in increased earnings next year?

Brady, first of all, let me -- and Keith can supplement this. The $0.05 a share began in Q1 of 2014. The full-year impact of that in 2015 is less than $0.05.

Okay.

That we have expended so far. Does that make sense?

What we are saying, Brady, is the cumulative from first quarter 2014 through the second quarter was $0.05. So that's over an 18-month period. Then we've got a much more ramped, with all the hiring late in the second quarter, expense run rate that will hit in the third quarter related to this business, but in spite of that, we expect to really begin to hit our stride on growth in the fourth quarter on the revenue side to a sufficient degree to cover all the expense, cash operating expense in actual calendar year 2015.

Okay.

It's a little bit convoluted because we're trying to give you a cumulative impact of the $0.05 over a year and a half period, and really why we wanted to talk about that is we've talked for some time about the business we were building and we just wanted to give you some order of magnitude of what kind of expenses we're building and the reason we had to talk about a business that was being built out.

We've given no further guidance on what it could mean to 2016 other than we have been quoted as saying that it could be -- should be maybe not as early as all of 2016, but one of the top decile businesses in our portfolio in terms of ROE.

Will the hold times change as you switch from the traditional warehouse into this buy the loan and securitize it? Will the hold times cap out at all, or will those remain pretty consistent?

It will be a bifurcated business. We'll continue to run the mortgage finance business seamless as we've been able to execute in the past. This will be an incremental business, and to some extent over time, it will make up some increased mix, but our mortgage finance business is a growing market share business. We intend for it to continue to be. The hold times on the new MCA business, yes, will vary. Initially, they will be a bit longer because you need to accumulate a sufficient pool of notes to have a good economic securitization. But as time passes and as we ramp up volume, the hold times will be more muted.

The total portfolio will still fit our general profile. But the composition will shift between today all mortgage warehouse loans to a combination of mortgage warehouse and MCA.

Okay.

You may remember there was a lot of discussion with our investors about the appeal we made relative to 100% risk based capital on the mortgage finance business. It's taken us some time to figure out how to appropriately deal with that, and we think this mix improvement on incremental MCA growth at the 20% to 50% risk based capital level is going to help overall ROE with this business.

We also, as we reference in the materials, do have greater flexibility on the timing of sales, and therefore the impact on quarter-end balances. That's to be developed as the business matures. That is an additional level of flexibility that we will gain.

Okay. And then lastly, so the time in between when you buy the whole loan and when you securitize it, will you hedge away the risk of rates moving and you all selling those loans for a price different than you bought it? Will you hedge that risk away?

Absolutely. That's a really critical piece of the talent we recruited, the processes we put in place, and the technology to ensure that we're real-time on top of that risk to be sure we mitigate the interest rate risk. Very important.

Okay. Great. Thanks, guys.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from Dave Rochester of Deutsche Bank. Please go ahead.

Hello, good afternoon, guys.

Hello, Dave.

I was just wondering as this business matures, what kind of revenue split are you expecting, fees versus NII? And then when you're talking about top decile ROEs, I would imagine those would have to be double digit. If you could just frame how good those could be for us, that would be great.

Very good, Dave. You know, because it is a new business, obviously we've run every scenario we can imagine, and believe it will be one of our very best ROE businesses, and also believe that we've put the right risk mitigation steps and technology and people in place to deliver a really outsized risk/reward return for our shareholder. But at this point, it's a little premature for us to talk about, I think, the range. But again, we think it will be in the top 10% of all the businesses we run today, one of the top two businesses that we run in the Company over the course of -- certainly by early 2017. That's our best estimate today. And so that's the reason this has been important to us, is to really focus on the ROE enhancement it gives our shareholders, and we think the outsized percentage growth it will offer also.

In today's market, Dave, there would be a significant yield pickup versus our traditional mortgage finance portfolio, along with the fee component from both gain on sale of the asset and the sale of mortgage servicing rights.

Got you. Thanks for that. And then just switching to credit, you had mentioned the reserve methodology and maybe some changes there. Can you just talk about that, and how much of the provision was due to that change, and then how much was due to energy this quarter?

That was not what I intended to communicate. There was no change in our methodology. I referred to the provision being higher in terms of coverage of charge-offs, but that we believed it was appropriate because our methodology, we think, is quite sound. It served us well for -- through the last downturn, through the ups and downs in the economy. We have high confidence in the methodology we use to develop our provisioning in appropriate reserve levels. That was the intended message, Dave.

Okay. I thought that you had mentioned in the release something about a change in applied risk weights that was based on historical experience or something like that. So there was really no material change to which you guys are doing?

No, no.

Then the portion of that that was related to energy, and then just as a follow-up, in terms of your guidance for the second half of provision in line with the second quarter, if you could just talk about what's driving that, in migration that you're expecting and where you're expecting to see it.

It's our best estimate, but it is only an estimate. We believe that from the indications we've got in the last three quarters, that we'll still have some downgrade risk with the energy book, that's continued to be the case, and that does drive some higher provisioning. You may recall a year ago, virtually all the provisioning we did was related to growth in the portfolio. We still are growing at a very healthy pace so there's a significant piece of provisioning from us every quarter that relates to just growth.

But now that we're seeing some migration of credit from one grade down to the next grade, you have that compounding and the methodology along with the growth factor. And we expect that will continue for the balance of the year to some degree. It's our best estimate. We don't see anything systemic that would cause that to deviate one way or another in a big way. And we just would rather stay the course at this point, not seeing anything significant improving in the economy or in the energy business. We think this is a conservative appropriate approach on guidance.

So I think at the end of last quarter, you said you were 90% of the way through your redetermination process. I would imagine you have completed that at this point.

We have. We have. And we feel, again, like we have our arms around it, and we have had clients over the course of the last quarter, some clients choose to put additional hedges in place. Obviously, at a much lower hedge price than what they had a year or year and a half ago, but we think that our clients are managing their business well relative to the environment, and we're on top of those relationships. And yet it is a commodity business, and until we see something fundamental shift to improve the prospects of the energy business, we think we should stay with the more conservative estimate of provisioning.

Great. And one last one. Can you just talk about the growth trend in the energy book this quarter as well as the shared national credit book? That would be great.

Dave, this is Peter. We actually had a very small increase in the average balance outstanding in energy, less than 1%. I don't have the exact number in front of me. And in shared national credits, we actually had a small reduction in balances.

And on an end of period basis, were they both down?

End of period balance was down very slightly.

Great. All right, thanks, guys.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from Ebrahim Poonawala of Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, guys.

Hello. How are you, Ebrahim?

I'm very well, thank you. Just a follow-up on provisioning guidance for the second half, Peter, and then Keith. You have gone through the energy book. I'm just trying to understand that given the SNC review, given the spring redetermination, what's the incremental sort of driver? I mean, I know a lot of things can go wrong, but I'm just trying to understand if it's lower oil or you're still concerned about a set of borrowers whose financial condition could deteriorate in the back half of the year which could drive higher provisioning.

As you can tell, we've had some increases in non-performing assets. Some of those have been C&I loans. A couple of those have deteriorated some. We don't see anything on the horizon that gives us great concern. But when you consider that the energy business is still in transition, and we don't see anything systemic or that would be a domino effect of this impacting C&I, but we've had a couple of C&I issues. We think it's prudent both for the energy downgrade trend and for the overall economy to estimate our provisioning of this size for the balance of the year. It could change. We could have some things develop that are more clearly to the positive. We just don't want to be overly optimistic at this point because of the trend we've seen.

And would the C&I, the rest of the 50% of the increase in non-accruals, were those connected to the energy industry or just completely independent?

Completely independent. No connection whatsoever in either of those credits.

And can you disclose what the result was for the energy book at the end of the quarter or not?

Hang on just a second. I think it was still right about $1 billion. Maybe just under.

I meant the result that we hold against that portfolio.

The reserve? We know a lot of people do that, but the real point of that is, what's the reserve against those where you actually have exposure as opposed to the total level. Just to clarify, we have credits which there is realistically no exposure. So given the weight of those in our portfolio, the real question is, what do you have against what could be exposed. You also have the issue that we've talked about before, which is, as a credit grade changes, you pick up additional burden and when it goes to criticized and substandard, you pick up an automatic increase. In the case of criticized 5% or so, and 4% plus and about 15% on substandard when it's not realistic in our view that you would you actually lose 5% or 15% on those loans. So again, it's really based on -- must be based on specific loan terms and identification of what our exposure is, not as a percent of the total portfolio.

Understood. And just on a separate topic, Peter, you mentioned earlier the NHI mortgage yield held up pretty nicely this quarter. Were there any one of the tail yield or are we unlikely to see the kind of impact we saw in the first quarter of this year and the fourth quarter of last year in terms of where the yields might be going on that book?

Well, we just -- we think we had pay -- I mentioned a high level of paydowns. It appears that a lot of the paydowns may have come in lower yielding categories. There are no linked quarter trends in fees that had a significant impact. But we have more work to do to understand if there are any other dynamics associated with the change, or lack of change.

Understood. And just one last question on MCA. So I guess if I understand the balance sheet impact correctly, you are going to be within that 25% to 30% of average loans, but it's going to be split between the warehouse and the MCA balance going forward? Is that correct?

That's correct. Now, as it matures, the composition will change more significantly, but you will begin to see that really probably at the end of the fourth quarter.

And the MCA book will have a higher yield?

Yes, the MCA book -- the yield today on the product we're financing in mortgage finance today will be 1 point or so higher than the current yield.

That's very helpful. Thank you very much for taking my questions.

The next question comes from Jennifer Demba of SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thank you. Peter, could you just give a little more color around your net interest margin outlook as it relates to the reported margin versus your reported margin of 3.22% in second quarter?

Yes. It's just an adjustment for the level of liquidity assets on average year to date, or through the course of the balance of the year. Today, that level would be about -- between 3.50% and 3.60%, and we are allowing for the fact that we will have additional liquidity asset growth because DDA balances and total deposit balances will continue to outstrip the loan balances over the course of the remainder of 2015.

Okay. And I think -- I couldn't hear you clearly in your monologue. How many loans were downgraded in the energy book in the SNCs? I think you said the number of loans.

Well, there were two loans that were downgraded, Jennifer.

Okay.

That were energy loans.

Okay. Totaling around $36 million?

That's right.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from Michael Rose of Raymond James. Please go ahead.

Hello, good afternoon, guys. How are you?

Good, Michael.

Hey, just to follow up on that margin question from Jennifer. Maybe asked another way, if mortgage warehouse balances are going to come down in the back half of the year potentially from lower volumes, that usually has a net positive impact to the margin. Can you maybe kind of walk us through what you think that could be? I think your longer-term guidance is for the warehouse to be somewhere in the $2.5 billion to $3 billion range on average. Thanks.

Our longer term view is it can stay between 25% and 30% of total loans. In the last half of the year, you do have some issues with the level of purchase financing in our portfolio. The October 1 stated deadline for change in rules that is going to have an effect on the industry but at the same time we have systematically over the last couple of years had meaningful improvements in market share that have offset. Then also, with beginning of MCA, we'll see increased balances in that portion of the portfolio based on today's rates at yields that are higher.

Okay. That's helpful. And then as it relates to the risk weighted assets from the MCA business, can you -- I don't know if you told us your capital ratios in the preamble, but if you could, that would be helpful, and then what positive impact this may have on capital levels in your eyes going forward. Thanks.

Today's mortgage finance portfolio is comprised of about 45% or FHA/VA loans that today would have, if they were whole loans, a 20% risk weight. The balance of the portfolio is essentially 50% risk weight. So an average of less than 40%, 37%, 38%. And that's the way we analyze capital needs, provided that we don't have issues with respect to well capitalized levels. In other words, our assessment begins with what we think is a detailed analysis of the actual risk characteristics of that asset, not the regulatory risk weight. The combination of the two tells us, over the course of the remainder of the year, we will not have a capital issue. If we see things change, we've made it very clear we believe that we can have sustained levels of average balances growth -- average balanced growth way in excess of the -- or significantly in excess of the ROE, then we'll address it. But that is not today's outlook.

Okay, so what were your risk based capital levels at the end of the quarter?

The CET1 was between 7.40% and 7.50%. And the other ones are capital of more than 10%, obviously in total capital ratio. Tier 1 capital at 8.82%, and there's about 100-basis-point pickup if you assess the mortgage finance portfolio using the actual risk weight of the underlying asset.

Okay. That's very helpful. Just one final question from me.

More than a 100-basis-point pickup.

Okay. Just one final question from me. On the energy growth this quarter, can you characterize if it was more draw down on existing lines, or was it actually new client acquisition? Wondering if your banks actually had some new client acquisitions this quarter? Thanks.

It's new client acquisition. I think we've explained, people don't get to draw down on lines unless there's a borrowing base enhancement that permits that. There are essentially lines or guidance lines based on the amount of borrowing base that's available to us. I think we've made clear it's an underappreciated aspect of that business but the banks have enormous flexibility in determining that borrowing base.

But while some of that occurred in the first quarter on the first redetermination, Michael, it began to decelerate in the second quarter. So it was new client acquisition.

That's what I wanted to get. Okay. Thanks a lot, guys, appreciate it.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from Brad Milsaps of Sandler O'Neill.

Hello, Brad.

Keith, just curious if you could maybe speak to the health of the energy market. As you guys have gone through your book, we're hearing a lot of evidence of different private equity funds looking to take advantage of distressed assets. Have you guys experienced that? Just curious to what degree you're seeing money step up to maybe aid borrowers that you have either to help shore up some of the credits.

Yes, there's quite a lot of activity. It began some time ago, six months or so ago, and it's picked up. Our borrowers that are most significantly impacted are on the upper end of the size of borrowers, but we have private equity investment happening on a case-by-case basis at all levels. But there's no question, the private equity flow has really helped the health of the overall energy business in Texas over the last year. And there is really quite an optimistic longer view by private equity that it's a buying opportunity, and there will be good returns if they have an operator that they trust and can invest with.

Some of the credits that you downgraded this quarter, do you view those as some that could be helped out in that market, or how do those sort of right themselves in your eyes?

Well, one of them we expect to be refinanced very soon. It appears to be largely, if not completely, a debt refinance at a higher amount than we're at. But it's non-banks that are putting the financing together. So not only are you having private equity flow into the sector but some non-bank lenders, too, are finding it opportunistic as the regulators are a bit more conservative with the banks, and so at the end of the day there is quite a lot of capital flowing into this sector, and that's been helpful.

Great. Peter, I'm sorry if I missed this in your comments but what was the mix in the warehouse in terms of purchase and refi?

Just over 30% at the end of the quarter.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Refi.

Brad, I should mention, too, there's quite a lot of undrawn equity that a lot of our borrowers had before the downturn really got underway. So, not only do you have new interested private equity but you have existing committed equity that's also further cushioned some of the companies.

The next question comes from Emlen Harmon of Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Hello, good evening, everyone.

Hello, Emlen.

A quick follow-up on the question about the capital impact and the new risk weightings. Peter, you mentioned there could be 100 or greater than 100 basis point pickup in the regulatory ratios if treated according to the mortgage rates. Is that to say that the entirety of the existing mortgage warehouse portfolio could be treated under that regime, or is there some portion that's going to continue to maintain the 100% risk weight?

No, today's mortgage finance portfolio we would expect will always have the full 100% risk weight.

Okay.

We meant to say if it wasn't clear, is that when you look at the risk, the actual risk of the asset class, the first thing we do is take out the effect of the quarter-end spike, and just for example, CET1 goes from just over 7.40% to just almost 7.60% on that basis. And then we take another look, and we say, all right, looking at the underlying risk characteristics of the asset, if it were rated at that level of just 40% risk weight, the CET1 would go to 8.82%. It's all hypothetical. But the character of the asset that we will take in MCA, we would say would look more like the asset we have today but it will be whole loans and will be subject to the risk weight. We might add that it's also subject to availability of financing at the Federal Home Loan Bank in terms of any issue about liquidity management.

Got you. So the natural follow-on to that would be, what portion of the existing mortgage warehouse could theoretically find its way into the MCA business going forward once you get that -- (multiple speakers).

No way to give a projection on that but we do know that customer response from our existing customer base has been very favorable, and we obviously then have access to balances that are on our balance sheet today. Not every asset will meet our criteria, but we will have the ability to screen and evaluate from those portfolios, and then obviously our customers have the option of placing with us or going elsewhere. Ideally, we'll be offering a service level and an efficiency that will make us an attractive way to go.

Got it. All right. Perfect. Thank you. And then a follow-up on the held for investment loan growth guide. If I look at the 2Q average loan growth balance, it's about 18% higher than the 2014 average. And Keith, you commented that ex-CRE construction and energy that the other buckets of the loan book had grown about 13% year to date. Would you expect -- are you expecting any slowing in those buckets, or should they be a net contributor to overall loan growth through the rest of the year?

We think we are going to see comparable loan growth in the C&I component to what we've seen over the last four quarters actually. I think that's what Peter alluded to is looking back over four quarters, if you take those other three buckets out, we've grown about 13%.

If you take those buckets out because you are not expecting them to grow year over year in a significant way, they have grown, they continue to grow through Q2 more modestly. If you take those out, the remaining balance has grown -- the year-to-date average balance is more than -- is 13% greater than the full-year average balance in 2014 for all of the traditional held for investment balances, including those that are not expected to grow during -- much during 2015.

Got it. So even versus that kind of 18% growth so far year to date, there is potential -- there is, it sounds like, potential for a little bit of continued growth on the average balance.

We would -- at the end of the first quarter, we said that number was 10%. So we went from the number that I just described. That number went from 10% to 13% over the additional one quarter. So we're on a pace, obviously depending on competition and other factors in our marketplace.

I wouldn't expect it to pick up like it did from first to second, though, Emlen, because we just expect it will be somewhat more modest in the back half of the year. That's all built into the overall guidance for the year.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from John Moran of Macquarie Capital. Please go ahead.

Hello, guys, thanks for taking the question. Real quick, kind of follow-up on the energy stuff, do you guys disclose or have you disclosed what percentage of classified and criticized is in that book today versus where maybe it was at the peak of the last cycle?

No, we haven't. We haven't chosen to disclose that. It's a slippery slope to start with more detail on something like that. It's still a dynamic category. It just gives us some pause, honestly, John, to make those statements. We feel like we've got our arms around it as evidenced by no charge-offs for several years, and we continue to experience some downgrades, but it's not something we want to really disclose in that much detail today.

Okay. Then a second one from me. I think in your prepared remarks, Keith, you mentioned that Houston was real strong. Could you give us a little bit of color about what you guys are seeing down there? I know you've got some folks that rolled off of non-competes and a couple of really good teams that you hired out of banks down there. Any kind of look that you could provide in terms of what you are seeing down there?

Yes. It's really continuing to be a quite healthy market as I believe we talked about early in the year that we expected another higher percentage growth year from Houston than probably any of our other four regions. And that is, in fact, what's happening. It's primarily C&I growth. And C&I growth that is not in the oil service category, despite the fact that everywhere you look in Houston, there is a lot of oil service business, and some of it is still healthy, and doing well, but it's an area that we have avoided for many years and we're finding good opportunities in non-oil service areas of C&I.

Great. And then I think, Peter, I may have missed this, but how much is participated out today, or at quarter end on the mortgage finance business? And then it sounds like you guys are just going to use participation to kind of manage the mix with the addition of the MCA business.

I think that's a good way to look at it. We ended the quarter at $540 million in participations sold.

How does that compare to first quarter?

First quarter, end of quarter was under $450 million.

Okay. Thanks very much for taking the questions, guys.

You're welcome, John.

The next question comes from Steve Moss of Evercore ISI. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

I was wondering if you could give a little color around the construction loan or loans that went NPA this quarter.

We had one construction loan in our San Antonio region, and that was the extent of it.

Okay. You guys have been cautious on construction for a little while now. Are you guys seeing adverse credit migration in terms of criticized and substandard?

We really aren't, Steve. We know we're early relative to what appears to be still a very healthy market. Really in all categories. Our single family is as healthy as I've ever seen it in three decades. It's quite strong in Texas. Our multi-family is still extremely strong. Even in our Houston market where we have some projects that I, six or eight months ago, had some concern about, CRE construction projects. They're holding up quite nicely, and as they complete, they seem to be hitting pro forma rents or better. And so we hope that continues, but the reality is we've just had such great success attracting top notch clients in all the different categories, industrial, multi-family, and single family, that we've been outgrowing as a percentage those businesses relative to C&I.

And we just believe strongly that you can have too much of a good thing in terms of concentration risk. While today they're three of the healthiest businesses we have, in a down cycle in a recession, they have more cyclical risk, and that's the only reason that we're tamping down the growth rate. Everything looks quite good today. In fact, the credit in San Antonio is downgraded actually as an owner occupied, not a C&D.

Okay. And just wanted to go back to the mortgage warehouse yield commentary. Was I correct in hearing that mortgage warehouse loan yields could increase in third quarter, just given the mix in underlying loans?

You know, that business begins to seasonally taper back half of the third quarter and then loses some momentum as it goes into the fourth seasonally. Because we're more heavily purchase mix than most companies, we have even less refi mix than others, that seasonality affects us a bit more. So as we open up the spigot on the new MCA business, it will come on really quite slowly the last half of this quarter. We're anticipating it opening next month, and as you would expect on a new business, we want to start slow and be sure everything is working absolutely optimum. So the impact of pickup in outstandings on the MCA component of mortgage finance really won't be noticed in a big way until the fourth quarter.

Okay, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from Gary Tenner of D.A. Davidson. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Good afternoon. I also had a follow-up regarding the MCA business. I think I had two questions. First, if I understand correctly, based on the combination of MCA and the traditional mortgage warehouse business you think will continue to make up 25% to 35% of total loans. Is that correct?

That's correct.

So over time, given the more efficient use of capital and the higher yields, it will be more optimal to have a lion's share of that total exposure in the MCA. Is that how you are kind of thinking about it over time?

Not necessarily. Again, the core business, the mortgage finance warehousing business, has been a phenomenal business and continues to be for us. Over time, we would anticipate that more of our participation program will, in fact, be in that business allowing us more shelf space, if you will, and mix benefit from the MCA business. But in no way do we intend to stop taking market share and growing the core mortgage finance business. It also feeds the MCA business.

Okay. And then I guess the other question then, if some amount of existing mortgage finance balance is essentially converted to MCA balances, for lack of a better way of putting it, does it do anything to your ability to use that portfolio as your de facto liquidity portfolio?

Not really, but it is still -- you contain financing in increments of two weeks at the Federal Home Loan Bank with very high advance rates just as we now have access through our traditional mortgage warehouse portfolio to that incrementally at a 96% advance rate. So it's not a liquidity issue at all. It's a capital management tool in terms of the ability first to see how the portfolio migrates, or evolves the two components and the ability to manage asset sales at the end of quarters or whenever we choose.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

You're welcome.

The next question comes from Dave Bishop of Drexel Hamilton. Please go ahead.

Yes, good morning, or good afternoon, I'm sorry. Wondering if you could go over the change in asset sensitivity again intra-quarter, sort of missed those numbers during the preamble.

Not so much intra-quarter. It's just the change since the year-ago quarter. So since the number we will include in the 10-Q for tomorrow, that number versus the year ago, same number. For 100 basis point shock, we see an NII increase of from $54 million to $84 million. And on the 200-basis-point shock, the NII shows an increase from $119 million to $178 million. And what we've seen over the course of really the last two years is every quarter that number increases because basically of the growth in demand deposits and obviously the growth in the floating rate earning assets.

Got it. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Next a follow-up question from Jennifer Demba of SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. Please go ahead.

Hi, thanks. Just wondering if you have the peak non-performing assets in the energy portfolio from the last energy price downturn, if you're disclosing that information.

I really can't answer that. I'm not sure, Jennifer. I will need to follow up on that, and we can talk about it, I guess, at our next conference, but I don't know the answer.

Okay. Thank you.

We believe it's substantially lower because it really -- the portfolio is obviously much smaller. But as a percentage, I don't think it was bigger.

They can follow up with you on that after the call.

Okay, thanks.

The next question comes from Matthew Keating of Barclays. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Thank you. I understand that it's your objective to not -- or to keep the total mortgage finance loans between 25% and 30% of your overall loan portfolio. I guess if we look at this year, though, if you look at the MBA's mortgage finance forecast, they have mortgage originations growing 20% year over year, as we look out to 2016, we have mortgage originations down 7%. Just wondering, for that total book, do you still expect growth in those balances as they take share, or do you think the industry dynamic will actually lead to a decline in balances as we look out to 2016? Thanks.

We expect to have some modest growth. We've typically each year been able to outperform the industry projections and actual industry results, and we don't anticipate that changing. So even with the headwinds, Matt, we think we would likely have some modest growth. But we're not really prepared to give any guidance on 2016.

We're starting from zero in MCA so any -- every dollar is an increase to some degree in market share. But it will be -- it needs to be looked at as the sum of the two over time and how the mix shifts between the two over time as the new business matures.

Right. And I guess on that front, I know it's really hard to forecast before the MCA business even gets off the ground, but in your business plans, you guys have obviously done a lot of planning over the last 18 months. Do you have any expectations or goals for what the MCA balances could look like over the next couple of years? Thanks.

No, the -- yes, we have projections, but we're not prepared to describe those today.

That's fair enough. And then just a final question. I understand that you don't view sort of the reserves on the energy book as a particularly meaningful metric but if you wouldn't mind just sharing that with us, it would be helpful as we try to look at TCBI's reserves vis-a-vis some of the competitors that have disclosed that. That would be great. Thanks.

We just don't believe it's an apples-to-apples comparison is our problem with it, Matt. And -- .

We know banks that have larger concentrations in large -- larger loans that have a significant mezz debt piece that creates issues. That's not the case with us. Character of every portfolio is the only thing that could really be assessed. All we can say is our reserves are, we believe, very conservative relative to actual exposure for the reasons that I mentioned. You think about a 15% reserve for a substandard loan that's substandard for a liquidity reason, or it's out of borrowing base, not for solvency or value of collateral reason.

Great. Thanks very much for the color. Appreciate it.

You're welcome. Thank you.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. Should you have any follow-up questions, please call Heather Worley at 214-932-6646, or e-mail Heather at Heather.Worley@Texascapitalbank.com. I would now like to turn the conference back over to President and CEO, Keith Cargill, for any closing remarks. Please go ahead.

We appreciate your attention and your interest in our Company. We are quite optimistic about our new business, but also our core business, and we appreciate your time. Thank you.