8JANUARY 2024In the early 1990's and extending through the mid-2000's large and mid-size regional banks totally cut or severely diminished the scope of in-house credit training programs. These programs were viewed as expensive, labor intensive and not vital as banks strove to recover from the crises within the industry during these periods. During this same period banking regulations became more stringent and quantitative measurement of portfolio risk more critical. Technological advancements enabled greater reliance on computer-aided training to lower training costs and reach a wider audience. Organizations such as RMA developed certificate programs that sought to standardize credit analysis training. Banks also utilized external training resources to leverage the expertise of specialized training providers without incurring significant long-term costs.To summarize the shift towards external training programs occurred for several reasons:1. Cost-effectiveness: Developing and maintaining in-house training programs was expensive. External training programs allowed banks to leverage the expertise of specialized training providers without incurring significant costs.2. Expertise and specialization: External training programs often provide access to industry experts and trainers who have specialized knowledge in credit analysis and lending. This allows banks to provide their employees with the most up-to-date and relevant training.3. Regulatory requirements: The banking industry has witnessed increased regulatory scrutiny in recent years. External training programs often OPINIONIN MYBy Sandra Williams, Senior Vice President, Senior Credit Officer, Liberty Bank - CTTHE REEMERGENCE OF FORMAL IN-HOUSE CREDIT TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE BANKING INDUSTRYSandra Williams
< Page 7 | Page 9 >