enterprise-wide stress testing
DESCRIPTION
In this webinar-on-demand, hosted by American Banker and presented by Moody's Analytics, Thomas Day discussed enterprise-wide CCAR DFAST stress testing, including: best practices for expected loss (EL) and pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) forecasting, integrating stress testing into your existing business architecture, and transforming stress testing from a regulatory exercise to a strategic management tool.TRANSCRIPT
Welcome to Today’s Web Seminar!
September 17, 2013
12:00 PM ET Sponsored By: Hosted By:
MODERATOR:
Michael Sisk is a New York-based journalist who has
covered business and the financial markets for 15
years, including stints as the investor editor at Red
Herring, editor-at-large at American Banker, and
contributing editor at Bank Technology News.
His articles have appeared in numerous publications,
including American Banker, Barron's, Crain's New
York Business, Inc., Institutional Investor, strategy +
business and Worth. Michael has co-written and
edited three books; the most recent was Merge
Ahead: Mastering the Five Enduring Trends of Artful
M&A (McGraw-Hill 2009).
PRESENTER: Thomas Day Senior Director, Risk Solutions
Moody's Analytics Thomas works to solve difficult stress-testing, capital planning, and risk
management problems across complex portfolios and product sets for
financial organizations worldwide. Day’s primary areas of focus include
CCAR/DFA stress testing, pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) calculations,
systems, and methodologies, advanced liquidity risk quantification and
reporting, capital planning, performance and balance sheet management.
As a former Board member and Vice-Chairman of the membership driven
Professional Risk Managers’ International Association (PRMIA), Day is a
recognized industry expert with over twenty-two years of increasingly
senior roles with multifaceted experience in financial risk management,
corporate governance, business development and leadership.
Stress Testing Webinar Series: Enterprise-wide Stress Testing
September 17, 2013
Presented by: Thomas Day, Senior Director - Moody’s Analytics
5
Agenda
1. About stress testing
2. Best practices for expected loss (EL) and pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) forecasting
3. Integrating stress testing into existing business architecture
4. Techniques to make it worthwhile
5. Next webinar: Macroeconomic Conditional Loss Forecasting – October 29, 2013
6. Question and answers
6
About Stress Testing 1
7
Starting Point Assumptions
» Loss estimation (i.e., asset models) is the first most important element of the
stress test:
– Estimates of losses, revenues and expenses must all be “synchronized” with the same economic
and market conditions. Estimates must be driven by a variable selection process that is consistent
with the FRB scenarios, but may be more or less broad and these variables may be different from
one asset-model to another, as well as for PPNR.
» Integration of loss estimates into PPNR modeling has been weak; however,
this integration is required in order to get a proper quarterly ALLL and “net
income” number.
» Stress-testing requires unprecedented coordination between heretofore
“siloed” risk and financial planning processes.
» Data, data-management, and risk and finance integration are key elements of
success or failure.
8
Stress-Testing and Capital Planning
» August 19, 2013, the FRS issued a report entitled, “Capital Planning at Large Bank
Holding Companies: Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice.”
» While the requirements for smaller banks, those between $10 and $50 billion, are less
onerous (see FR Vol 78, No 150, 8/5/2013) for the initial submission (i.e., March 2014),
the underlying principles are important for all firms.
» One key lesson learned is that firms:
“…failed to adequately identify the potential exposures and risks stemming from
their firm-wide activities” and that one of the key weaknesses was the inability of
firms to simulate risks exposures, across the enterprise, in a comprehensive and
integrated fashion.”
» If one looks at the specification of the stress-test and Capital Plan Rule with an objective
eye, it seems plain that a primary goal of the exercise is to spur a significant
improvement in the internal infrastructure, planning, risk, and forecasting capabilities of
financial organizations.
» Conclusion: A significant amount of work on data, analytics, and integrated risk,
finance, and management reporting is required in order to create a repeatable,
sustainable, and transparent stress-testing and capital planning process. What does
that work-flow entail?
9
Stylized Workflow (Steps) for DFAST/CCAR Exercise » Beyond meeting the “use-test”, the biggest challenge of the DFAST/CCAR exercise is
the ability to integrate, automate, and validate the entirety of the business process.
Data Pull as of Sept-30
Fill-in “Missing” Data with Proxy Data (inc. Tags)
Populate Required Fields for FRY-
14M/Q
Document Workflow, Version, and Audit the Data
Receive Scenarios Expand and
“Regionalize” Scenarios
Ensure Market Data is Consistent with
the Scenario Tailor Scenarios
Calculate Conditional ELs
Across All Assets
Determine Business Strategy in Each Scenario
Create Proper Assumption Input
for Integrated PPNR
Calculate Expected NII/NIM and
Balance Sheet for Each Scenario
Calculated Expected NIR and
NIE in Each Scenario
Determine Charge-Off and ALLL in Each Scenario
Assess and Apply Other Losses,
Including Ops Risk
Calculate Appropriate Pro-
Forma Regulatory Capital
Populate Required Regulatory
Reporting Forms
Reconcile Reports to FRY-9C and
Other Reporting
Assess and Validate Results
Apply Measures to Capital Plan
Data
Scenario
Design
Analytics
Reporting
10
Case Study: CCAR Integration Framework
Market Context Scenario Context
ALM System COA Behavioral
Assumptions
• Prepayment model(s)
and tables
• Valuation method(s)
• Amortization type(s)
• Other factors
• Basecase scenario
• Alternative scenarios
(for reference and
recon only)
Results tables
– Runoff
(Basecase)
Current position
Basecase
Runoff
Moody’s Analytics
RiskFoundationTM
Datamart
FP&A Step (client defined)
FP&A Moody’s Analytics
RiskFoundationTM
Datamart
New Business Plan
• Rolling 9-quarter • Credit dimension • Non-interest income and
expense • RWA allocation
Scenario Planning
Basecase Plan – 9Q forecast
RVM NIR/NIE
Scenarios
Credit
Regulatory Reporting
Pro-Forma
Balance Sheet
PPNR Calculator Recon
Pro-Forma
Income
Statement
FP&A Step
(client defined)
Only volume, rate,
and maturity
New Business Plan
Results tables
– New bus.
(Basecase)
New Business
Basecase Runoff
1. Volume
2. Price
3. Maturity
11
Best Practices for EL and PPNR Forecasting 2
12
Requirements of an Effective Process
» Expected loss (EL) estimates must be integrated into the “forecast”. Questions that
arise:
– Should we utilize a “top-down” or a “bottom-up” approach? Does it matter by asset-class?
– Regardless of method, how do loss estimates ingrate into existing processes?
– Who “owns” the loss calculations?
» Pre-provision net revenue (PPNR) requires the integration of credit “and” business
planning into the pro-forma forecast. Question that arise:
– How do we estimate “conditional” new business volumes under stress? What is the correct
“volume” estimate? What is the “correct” credit conditioned “price” rate?
– How do we estimate the “credit quality” and “EL” of new business production under stress? How
does this relate to capital planning and pro-forma RWA calculations?
– How do we hit the right NPA levels and how do we create the right “drag” on earnings from
increased NPA as well as increased charge-off and reserves?
13
Expected Loss: Question #1 – Top Down or Bottom-up?
» Consider the following:
– Primary v. Challenger models Need both! They should be “integrated.”
– Wholesale (i.e., idiosyncratic and heterogeneous) v. Retail (i.e., homogeneous)
» Challenges are addressed by:
– Using your own data, but supplementing the data where needed (with documented explanation)
– Focus on how the models will be used for business purposes, not simply the stressed metric
» FRB Principle 2 for Designing and Implementing a Stress Testing Framework Expects
Banks to Use Multiple Approaches to Stress Testing:
An effective stress testing framework employs multiple conceptually sound stress testing activities and approaches
All measures of risk, including stress tests, have an element of uncertainty due to assumptions, limitations, and other factors associated with using
past performance measures and forward-looking estimates. Banking organizations should, therefore, use multiple stress testing activities and
approaches …, and ensure that each is conceptually sound. Stress tests usually vary in design and complexity, including the number of factors
employed and the degree of stress applied. A banking organization should ensure that the complexity of any given test does not undermine its
integrity, usefulness, or clarity. In some cases, relatively simple tests can be very useful and informative.
Furthermore, almost all stress tests, including well-developed quantitative tests supported by high-quality data, employ a certain amount of expert
or business judgment, and the role and impact of such judgment should be clearly documented.
Interagency Guidance on Stress Testing for Banking Organizations
with Total Consolidated Assets of More Than $10Bn
SR Letter 12-7, May 14, 2012
“Companies may choose loss estimation processes from a range of
available methods, techniques, and levels of granularity.”
14
Expected Loss: Question #2 – How to Integrate?
» Consider the following:
– We need to forecast the balance sheet and income statement, but ALM systems are often
insufficient
– How do we “initialize” the ALM computation so we avoid MRAs?
» Solution:
– If an ALM system is being used, it must be properly “seeded” with consistent inputs from the credit,
finance, and risk groups, including defining the proper input factors for market conditions.
– Develop transition matrices by asset class – by quarter (bottom up).
– Matrices should be derived from the bank’s champion models that are used for loss estimation
and reporting.
– Define and agree on “conditional” new business credit spreads and volume estimates.
– Business strategy must include credit, regulatory capital, and proper reporting data tags.
– Connection between credit quality and prepayment is critical, but often missed.
– Must consider legal entity, cost centers, and other non-traditional dimensions!
While some banks partially integrated loss projections into net interest income projections, some
“…BHCs were unable to demonstrate coherence between NII projections and loss projections,
generally because one or both modeling approaches did not fully capture the behavioral
characteristics of the loan portfolio.”
Source: FRB’s August 19.2013 paper entitled, “Capital Planning at Large Bank Holding Companies:
Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice”
15
Expected Loss: Question #3 – Who Owns the Loss Calcs?
» Should conditional expected loss calculations be owned by a central function, or more
integrated with front-office risk origination systems and processes?
» In order to pass the “use-test”, the loss estimates must be consistent with the manner in
which risk is originated and priced, actual and projected. Therefore, loss models used to
estimate risk and determine deal structure should be consistent with loss models for
CCAR/DFAST.
» Conclusion: Credit loss models must be integrated with front-office systems, and the
line-of-business managers should have a stake in validating/approving the conditional
loss estimates from models that are deployed.
» Line managers should determine stress-loss measures that may be important in deal
pricing, deal structuring, and “return-on” measures. Should support RAPM.
“Loan pricing should be consistent with both scenario conditions and competitive and
strategic factors, including projected changes to the size of the portfolio. Origination
assumptions should be the same for projecting loan balances, related loan fees,
origination costs, and loan losses.”
Source: FRB’s August 19.2013 paper entitled, “Capital Planning at Large Bank Holding Companies:
Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice”
16
PPNR: Question #1 – Estimating New Business Volume?
Review:
» Most new business volume forecasts are:
– Not conditioned for credit and associated EL contribution(s).
– Non-conditional on the macro-economic scenario.
– Defined by SME input only.
– Usually tied to the budget and planning process and are, thus, aspirational.
Thesis:
» FP&A need more accurate methods to estimate conditional new business volumes.
Solution:
» Quantitatively estimated approaches for new business volumes and credit spreads that
are “agreed” between the planners, the LOBs, and the model output.
» Sensitivity analysis around the range of estimates to determine the impact on capital.
17
PPNR: Question #2 – New Business Under Stress?
Review:
» The manner in which a firm’s “origination strategy” will change is heavily influenced by
the expected economic conditions.
» For stress-testing, many banks assume business mix either 1) stays the same or 2)
changes in ways not necessarily properly tied to scenario design and evolution.
» What level of NB estimation is needed?
Thesis:
» Since we must conduct pro-forma RWA calculations, each asset class must possess a
new business credit distribution over time, and will generate EL. For example, new C&I
must show rating grade origination by industry, by geography, by quarter in order to
produce an accurate RWA calc.
» These assumptions must “seed” any PPNR calculation; new business EL estimates must
be reviewed and confirmed with credit, risk and finance staff (and ALLL impacts).
Solution:
» This level of new business planning is not a normal element of existing finance/FP&A
processes. Thus, a certain level or BPM re-engineering is normally needed, as well as
the technology to support this re-engineering.
18
PPNR: Question #3 – NPA and ALLL Influence on NI Calculation?
Review:
» As loans “transition” to non-accrual, they create a “drag” on net interest income.
» The FRB has identified the integration of PPNR and credit as a key weakness.
» The current sound practice is to use “conditional” transition matrices, by asset class.
» Charge-off forecasting should be driven by a similar process, and calibrated to existing
charge-off history/experience.
Thesis:
» As credit transition from performing to non-performing rating grades under various
scenarios, the impact on earnings should be direct and transparent.
Solution:
» Integrating conditional loss models with the PPNR calculation engine is required. For
forecasting NPA levels, a key linkage (input assumption) are conditional transition
matrices.
» Charge-offs are relatively easy once the ALLL modeling method is chosen and linked to
the EL estimation methodology, and calibrated to loss history.
19
Integrating Stress Testing Into Existing Business Architecture 3
20
Initial Steps
» Start a stress-testing and capital planning “office.”
» Emphasis on project planning and program management early in the process.
» Ensure that someone in the “office” has responsibility for determining current and “future
state” architecture.
» Understand that the evolution of the future state will require integration across numerous
“legacy siloed” risk and finance systems. Need Board and Senior Management
champions.
» Understand that the process is multi-step, not single step.
» Be proactive - don’t simply wait for an MRA and regulatory pressure (the writing is on the
wall.)
Many “…financial companies simply failed to adequately indentify the potential
exposures and risks stemming from their firm-wide activities..." due in part to "...a failure
of information technology and MIS, the often fractured nature of which made it difficult
for some companies to identify and aggregate exposures across the firm."
Source: FRB’s August 19.2013 paper entitled, “Capital Planning at Large Bank Holding Companies:
Supervisory Expectations and Range of Current Practice”
21
Credit Loss Models For All Asset Classes
» Commercial
Mortgages
» Income Producing
» Construction
» Fixed & Floating Rate
Commercial Real
Estate Commercial &
Industrial
» Public Companies
» Private Companies
Treasury & Asset
Management
» Non-Agency & Agency
RMBS
» ABS (credit cards, autos,
student loans, etc)
» CMBS & CLOs`
Retail Banking
» Residential Mortgages,
1st and 2nd Liens
» Auto Loans & Leases
» Credit Cards
» Equipment Leasing
Baseline and
Custom
Scenario 3:
Deeper Second Recession
Scenario 2:
Mild Second Recession
Scenario 4:
Depression Scenario
Scenario 1:
Quicker Recovery
CCAR:
Adverse
CCAR:
Baseline
Probability of Default | Loss Given Default | Exposure at Default Charge Offs
CCAR:
Severely Adverse
All Methodologies: Top-Down, Hybrid, and Bottom-up
22
Three Phases to Developing a Comprehensive DFAST/CCAR Platform
» Three-tier (and “N” tier) architecture is fundamental to good systems design.
» Modular, comprehensive platforms creates a “future proof” design that embraces internal
and 3rd party technologies.
Analytic Layer:
For DFAST/CCAR purposes, best practice is to begin with the analytical layer and supporting
models while working towards automation of data and reporting.
1
Data Layer:
For DFAST/CCAR purposes, and to target required data reporting, many banks must launch a
technology project. The goal is to target a single data platform to support risk, finance, credit, and
regulatory reporting and capital planning needs.
Reporting Layer:
The DFAST/CCAR reports are complex, and must be reconciled to FRY-9C, FFIEC 031/041,
Basel FFIEC 101, and other internal management reports. Automating this process must leverage
work performed from the Analytic Layer and the Data Layer.
2
3
23
End-to-End Software Solution Modular, Flexible and Comprehensive – Allowing for Straight Through Risk Processing
Spreading System Core Systems
(e.g. GL, Loan Accounting)
Datamart
DA
TA
/ D
AT
AM
AR
T
Management
Reporting / Key
Performance
Indicators
Risk & Performance
Management
MA
NA
GE
ME
NT
AN
D
RE
GU
LA
TO
RY
RE
PO
RT
ING
Regulatory
Reporting
Risk Management
and ALM Systems
Outputs
Credit Models
(Wholesale & Retail)
Budgeting &
Planning Systems
Outputs BA
LA
NC
E S
HE
ET
&
INC
OM
E S
TA
TE
ME
NT
NCOs ALLL PPNR RWA
Sc
en
ari
o A
na
lyze
rTM
R
iskF
ou
nd
ati
on
TM
» Our solution design accommodates comprehensive regulatory
reporting, internal risk and LOB reporting, plus dimension /
hierarchy management:
– Executive and board-level reporting
– Instantiation of the organization’s Risk Appetite Framework(s)
– Existing and expected liquidity risk reporting
– Drill-through and scenario dependent PPNR, balance sheet, new
business volume
– Comprehensive wholesale and retail credit portfolio reporting
» Moody’s is able to work within existing analytical layer to
coordinate, enhance and improve risk transparency
» By linking results from point solutions to the reporting layer
(RiskFoundation), Moody’s can empower the bank by
providing key linkage between input data and output results.
» RiskFoundation Datamart as an integrated risk and finance
data layer, is the foundation for stress testing
» RiskFoundation can be fully integrated with various data
sources, including enterprise data warehouses and core
banking systems
» This platform layer is used for Dodd-Frank-mandated reporting
(e.g. CCAR stress testing), Basel II and III
24
Techniques to Make it Worthwhile 4
25
A few recent examples:
Lower Cost of Credit Delivery
» As capital and liquidity costs increase, the need to run a bank more efficiently becomes paramount.
One way to achieve this is to automate and integrate disconnected, bulky, and older technologies
into a common framework that allows for “straight-through-risk-processing” across the accrual book.
Capital Arbitrage
» The regulatory capital required for a bank may be far more than the economic capital required of an
entity that the bank can lend to. Lending to this “new entity” may attract lower regulatory capital than
“direct” lending to an obligor. Understanding these nuances requires integrated calculations.
Return on Capital After Stress (ROCAS)
» Not all businesses or relationships are created equal. Some industries and businesses are more or
less correlated with business cycles, and existing portfolio dynamics. Thus, the need to include more
advanced analytics, and to emphasize the continued importance of economic capital, the need to
consider correlations, portfolio shape, and granularity remain important considerations.
Enhance data model to include “latitude, longitude and elevation” of collateral
» The recent FRB guidance placed an emphasis on tailoring scenarios to the firm’s business model, mix
of assets and liabilities, geographic footprint, portfolio characteristics, and revenue drivers. Tailoring
included linking to things like natural disaster, particular counterparty default(s), and regional
events/issues. This speaks to some of the “vision” that some banks have vis-à-vis the data model
and the desire to expand it for more customized, idiosyncratic scenario analysis
26
» Poor DFAST/CCAR data, analytics, and processes may lead to:
– An inability to pay dividends
– Prohibition from buying back stock (treasury stock repurchase programs)
– Leverage limitations
– Capital and liquidity surcharges
– Prohibition on growth – organic and M&A
– Fines
– Informal and formal actions (e.g., WA, MOU, C&D, Capital Directive)
» Failure can originate from poor processes, weak governance, or analytical, infrastructure
and reporting shortcomings.
» Most common causes of failure (to date) are related to data and infrastructure
weaknesses.
Poor DFAST/CCAR Data, Analytics or Processes Can Cause a Failed Stress Test – With Severe Consequences
“I was being asked to attest to this. It is worse than SOX 404. I
hired [CRO] to have him sign it. I’m not signing this thing.”
27
Next Webinar 5
28
Moody’s Analytics Stress Testing Webinar Series
Macroeconomic Conditional Loss Forecasting
October 29, 2013 at 12:00pm EDT
Join Thomas Day and other Moody’s Analytics experts for a webinar covering:
» The primary challenges confronting banks when forecasting macroeconomic conditional
losses.
» Best practices for forecasting macroeconomic conditional losses.
» Tools and techniques used by Moody’s Analytics to address the challenges and/or close
any gaps between best practices and current challenges.
Register at: http://www.cvent.com/d/h4qj0l/4W
29
Questions? 6
3
0 moodysanalytics.com
Thomas Day
Senior Director
Direct: 404.617.8718
7 World Trade Center at
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
www.moodys.com
31
Find out more about our award-winning solutions
www.moodysanalytics.com
32
@MoodysAnalytics
Stay current with the latest risk
management and assessment news,
insights, events, and more.
@dismalscientist
View global economic data, analysis
and commentary by Mark Zandi and
the Moody's Analytics’ economics
team.
@CSIGlobalEd
Read the latest financial services
education information
@MA_CapitalMkts
Keep up to date on credit and equity
market signals reflecting investment
risk and opportunities for issuers and
sectors.
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
(212) 553-1653
121 North Walnut Street
Suite 500
West Chester PA 19380
(610) 235-5299
405 Howard Street
Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 874-6000
www.moodysanalytics.com
Moody's Analytics
Follow our company page to view risk
management content, such as white
papers, articles, webinars, and other
insightful content and news.
The Economic Outlook
This group features insightful
discussions and knowledge sharing
among business, economics, and
policy professionals regarding the
economic outlook.
Risk Practitioner Community
This group brings together risk
management practitioners from around
the world to discuss best practices,
share ideas and insights, and gain
networking opportunities.
33
moodys.com
Thomas Day
Senior Director
Direct: 404.617.8718
7 World Trade Center at
250 Greenwich Street
New York, NY 10007
www.moodys.com
34
© 2013 Moody’s Analytics, Inc. and/or its licensors and affiliates (collectively, “MOODY’S”). All rights reserved.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE
COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR
SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT
MOODY’S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY’S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as
other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided “AS IS” without warranty of any kind. Under no circumstances shall MOODY’S have any liability to any person or
entity for (a) any loss or damage in whole or in part caused by, resulting from, or relating to, any error (negligent or otherwise) or other circumstance or contingency within or outside
the control of MOODY’S or any of its directors, officers, employees or agents in connection with the procurement, collection, compilation, analysis, interpretation, communication,
publication or delivery of any such information, or (b) any direct, indirect, special, consequential, compensatory or incidental damages whatsoever (including without limitation, lost
profits), even if MOODY’S is advised in advance of the possibility of such damages, resulting from the use of or inability to use, any such information. The ratings, financial reporting
analysis, projections, and other observations, if any, constituting part of the information contained herein are, and must be construed solely as, statements of opinion and not
statements of fact or recommendations to purchase, sell or hold any securities.
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF
ANY SUCH RATING OR OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY’S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
Each rating or other opinion must be weighed solely as one factor in any investment decision made by or on behalf of any user of the information contained herein, and each such
user must accordingly make its own study and evaluation of each security and of each issuer and guarantor of, and each provider of credit support for, each security that it may
consider purchasing, holding, or selling.
Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of Moody’s Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569.
This document is intended to be provided only to “wholesale clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from
within Australia, you represent to MOODY’S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a “wholesale client” and that neither you nor the entity you represent
will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to “retail clients” within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001.
Q&A Session
Questions???
For More Information Contact:
Thomas Day
Senior Director, Risk Solutions
Moody's Analytics 7 World Trade Center at 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 [email protected] Direct: 404.617.8718