UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-K

                        (Mark one)

☒Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016

 

or

 

☐Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

For the transition period from ______________ to _______________

 

Commission File Number 001-35272

 

MIDLAND STATES BANCORP, INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

(217) 342-7321

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as define in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. ☐ Yes   ☒ No

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ☐ Yes  ☒ No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  ☒ Yes   ☐ No

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  ☒ Yes  ☐ No

 

Indicated by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-T (§229.405) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. ☒

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  ☐ Yes  ☒ No

 

The aggregate market value of the Registrant’s voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2016 was $242,113,280 (based on the closing price on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on that date of $21.69).

 

As of February 28, 2017, the Registrant had 15,561,366 shares of outstanding common stock, $0.01 par value.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held May 1, 2017 to be filed within 120 days after December 31, 2016, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

 

 

MIDLAND STATES BANCORP, INC.

2016 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, future events and our financial performance. These statements are often, but not always, made through the use of words or phrases such as “may,” “might,” “should,” “could,” “predict,” “potential,” “believe,” “expect,” “continue,” “will,” “anticipate,” “seek,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “projection,” “goal,” “target,” “outlook,” “aim,” and “would” or the negative version of those words or other comparable words or phrases of a future or forward‑looking nature. These forward‑looking statements are not historical facts, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, management’s beliefs and certain assumptions made by management, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control. Accordingly, we caution you that any such forward‑looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, assumptions, estimates and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward‑looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, actual results may prove to be materially different from the results expressed or implied by the forward‑looking statements.

A number of important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated in these forward‑looking statements, including those factors identified in “Item 1A – Risk Factors” or “Item 7 – Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” or the following:

•business and economic conditions, particularly those affecting the financial services industry and our primary market areas;

•our ability to successfully manage our credit risk and the sufficiency of our allowance for loan loss;

•factors that can impact the performance of our loan portfolio, including real estate values and liquidity in our primary market areas, the financial health of our commercial borrowers and the success of construction projects that we finance, including any loans acquired in acquisition transactions;

•compliance with governmental and regulatory requirements, including the Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and others relating to banking, consumer protection, securities and tax matters, and our ability to maintain licenses required in connection with commercial mortgage origination, sale and servicing operations;

•our ability to identify and address cyber‑security risks, fraud and systems errors;

•our ability to effectively execute our strategic plan and manage our growth;

•risks related to our acquisition strategy, including our ability to identify suitable acquisition candidates, exposure to potential asset and credit quality risks and unknown or contingent liabilities, the time and costs of integrating systems, procedures and personnel, the need for capital to finance such transactions, and possible failures in realizing the anticipated benefits from acquisitions;

•the effects of the accounting treatment for loans acquired in connection with our acquisitions;

•risks associated with our pending acquisition of Centrue Financial Corporation, including the possibility that we may not complete the transaction on a timely basis or at all, and the possibility that we may not realize the anticipated benefit of the transaction;

•changes in our senior management team and our ability to attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel;

•governmental monetary and fiscal policies, and changes in market interest rates;

•liquidity issues, including fluctuations in the fair value and liquidity of the securities we hold for sale and our ability to raise additional capital, if necessary;

•effects of competition from a wide variety of local, regional, national and other providers of financial, investment and insurance services; and

•changes in federal tax law or policy.

The foregoing factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read together with the other cautionary statements included in this report. In addition, our past results of operations are not necessarily indicative of

our future results. Any forward‑looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update or review any forward‑looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

PART I

Item 1 –  Business

Our Company

Midland States Bancorp, Inc. (“the Company,” “we,” “our,” or “us”), an Illinois corporation formed in 1988, is a diversified financial holding company headquartered in Effingham, Illinois. The Company completed its initial public offering on May 24, 2016. Our banking subsidiary, Midland States Bank (the “Bank”), an Illinois state-chartered bank formed in 1881, has branches across Illinois and in Missouri and Colorado, and provides a broad array of traditional community banking and other complementary financial services, including commercial lending, residential mortgage origination, wealth management, merchant services and prime consumer lending. We also originate and service government sponsored mortgages for multifamily and healthcare facilities through our subsidiary, Love Funding Corporation (“Love Funding”), based in Washington, D.C., and operate a commercial equipment leasing business on a nationwide basis through our subsidiary, Heartland Business Credit Corporation (“Business Credit”), based in Denver, Colorado.

In 2007, we adopted a strategic plan focused on building a performance-based, customer-centric culture, seeking accretive acquisitions, driving organic growth, creating revenue diversification and building a robust enterprise-wide risk management program. Since that time we have grown organically and through a series of ten acquisitions, with an over-arching focus on enhancing shareholder value and building a platform for scalability. Most recently, we acquired approximately $400.0 million in wealth management assets under administration from Sterling National Bank of Yonkers, New York (“Sterling”) in the fourth quarter of 2016. In December 2014, we acquired Heartland Bank, which greatly expanded our commercial, retail and mortgage banking services in the St. Louis metropolitan area. Additionally, the Heartland Bank acquisition facilitated our entry into Colorado, with one branch office located in Denver and three Colorado mortgage offices. This transaction also provided us the opportunity to enter complementary commercial Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) loan origination and commercial equipment leasing business lines. On January 26, 2017, we announced that we entered into a merger agreement with Centrue Financial Corporation (“Centrue”), pursuant to which we have agreed to acquire Centrue and its banking subsidiary, Centrue Bank. As of December 31, 2016, Centrue had total assets of $977.8 million, net loans of $676.9 million and total deposits of $740.0 million.

Our Principal Businesses

Traditional Community Banking.  Our traditional community banking business primarily consists of commercial and retail lending and deposit taking. We deliver a comprehensive range of banking products and services to individuals, businesses, municipalities and other entities within our market areas, which include Illinois (other than Chicago), and the St. Louis and Denver metropolitan areas. Through our Midland Merchant Services group, we also offer credit card processing and related services to a variety of merchants. As of December 31, 2016, we operated 45 banking offices in 36 communities.

Our lending strategy is to maintain a broadly diversified loan portfolio based on the type of customer (i.e., businesses versus individuals), type of loan product (e.g., owner occupied commercial real estate, commercial loans, agricultural loans, etc.), geographic location and industries in which our business customers are engaged (e.g., manufacturing, retail, hospitality, etc.). We principally focus our commercial lending activities on loans that we originate from borrowers located in our market areas.

We market our lending products and services to qualified lending customers through branch offices and high touch personal service. We focus our business development and marketing strategy primarily on middle market businesses. Commercial lending products include owner occupied commercial real estate loans, commercial real estate investment loans, commercial loans (such as business term loans, equipment financing and lines of credit), real estate construction loans, multifamily loans and loans to purchase farmland and finance agricultural production.

Commercial Loans. Our commercial loan portfolio is comprised primarily of term loans to purchase capital equipment and lines of credit for working capital and operational purposes to small and midsized businesses. Although most loans are made on a secured basis, loans may be made on an unsecured basis where warranted by the overall

financial condition of the borrower. Part of our commercial loan portfolio includes loans extended to finance agricultural equipment and production. These loans are typically short-term loans extended to farmers and other agricultural producers to purchase seed, fertilizer and equipment.

Commercial Real Estate Loans.  We offer real estate loans for owner occupied and non-owner occupied commercial property. The real estate securing our existing commercial real estate loans includes a wide variety of property types, such as owner occupied offices, warehouses and production facilities, office buildings, hotels, mixed-use residential and commercial, retail centers, multifamily properties and assisted living facilities. Our commercial real estate loan portfolio includes farmland loans. Farmland loans are generally made to a borrower actively involved in farming rather than to passive investors.

Construction and Land Development Loans.  Our construction portfolio includes loans to small and midsized businesses to construct owner-user properties, loans to developers of commercial real estate investment properties and residential developments and, to a lesser extent, loans to individual clients for construction of single family homes in our market areas. These loans are typically disbursed as construction progresses and carry interest rates that vary with LIBOR.

Residential Real Estate Loans.  We offer first and second mortgage loans to our individual customers primarily for the purchase of primary residences. We also offer home equity lines of credit, or HELOCs, consisting of loans secured by first or second mortgages on primarily owner-occupied primary residences.

Consumer Installment Loans.  We provide consumer installment loans for the purchase of cars, boats and other recreational vehicles, as well as for the purchase of major appliances and other home improvement projects. Our vehicle financing programs include both direct and indirect lending efforts, and we have built relationships with auto dealers in many of our markets. Our major appliance and other home improvement lending is originated principally through national and regional retailers and other vendors of these products and services. We typically service our vehicle financing loans and use a third party servicer for our national and regional home improvement loans.

Deposit Taking.  We offer traditional depository products, including checking, savings, money market and certificates of deposits, to individuals, businesses, municipalities and other entities throughout our market areas. We also offer sweep accounts to our business customers. Deposits at the Bank are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) up to statutory limits. We also offer sweep accounts that are guaranteed through repurchase agreements to our business and municipal customers. Our ability to gather deposits, particularly core deposits, is an important aspect of our business franchise.

Residential Mortgage Origination.  Through the Bank, we also engage in the origination of residential first-and second-lien mortgage loans. We sell the majority of these loans to the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, and various institutional purchasers, such as investment banks and other financial institutions.

Wealth Management.  Our wealth management group operates under the Midland Wealth Management name and provides a comprehensive suite of trust and wealth management products and services, including financial and estate planning, trustee and custodial services, investment management, tax and insurance planning, business planning, corporate retirement plan consulting and administration and retail brokerage services through a nationally recognized third party broker dealer.

FHA Origination and Servicing.  We conduct our FHA origination business through Love Funding, which we acquired in the Heartland Bank transaction. Love Funding originates commercial mortgage loans for multifamily and healthcare facilities under FHA insurance programs, and sells those loans into the secondary market through Ginnie Mae-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities. We generally retain the mortgage servicing rights on the underlying loans (for which we receive a servicing fee). Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Love Funding operates on a nationwide basis, with offices in many of the largest metropolitan areas, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, St. Louis and Cleveland.

Commercial Equipment Leasing.   Our Business Credit subsidiary, also acquired in the Heartland Bank transaction, develops, originates and manages custom leasing and financing programs for equipment and software vendors on a nationwide basis. Business Credit has been in business since 1999 and principally focuses on the

healthcare, petroleum, telecommunications and lighting industries, although it also serves other industries as well. Its model is based on serving as a financing solution to well established manufacturers and their sales teams. This model permits Business Credit to develop long-term relationships with these vendors and to tailor leasing solutions that support these vendors' sales efforts, without needing to maintain a large sales staff. It also permits Business Credit to provide comparably fast, consistent credit decisions. Leases generated by Business Credit are retained and serviced by Business Credit, and are most typically in the $50,000 to $150,000 range.

Competition

We compete in a number of areas, including commercial and retail banking, residential mortgages, wealth management, commercial leasing and commercial FHA loan originations in the multi-family and health care sectors. These industries are highly competitive, and the Bank and its subsidiaries face strong direct competition for deposits, loans, wealth management, leasing and FHA loan originations and other financial-related services. We compete with other community banks, thrifts and credit unions. Although some of these competitors are situated locally, others have statewide or regional presence. In addition, we compete with large banks and other financial intermediaries, such as consumer finance companies, brokerage firms, mortgage banking companies, business leasing and finance companies, insurance companies, FHA loan origination businesses, securities firms, mutual funds and certain government agencies as well as major retailers, all actively engaged in providing various types of loans and other financial services. Additionally, we face growing competition from so-called "online businesses" with few or no physical locations, including online banks, lenders and consumer and commercial lending platforms, as well as automated retirement and investment service providers. We believe that the range and quality of products that we offer, the knowledge of our personnel and our emphasis on building long-lasting relationships sets us apart from our competitors.

Our banking operations are largely concentrated in Illinois, the St. Louis metropolitan area and the Denver metropolitan area. According to the FDIC Summary of Deposits, as of June 30, 2016, there were 11 banks operating within Effingham County, Illinois, where three of the Bank’s offices are located, including its principal office. As of the same date, the Bank ranked first based on total deposits of all banking offices in Effingham County, with approximately 30.5% of the total deposits. As of June 30, 2016, there were 12 banks operating within Lee County, Illinois, where three of the Bank’s offices are located. As of the same date, the Bank ranked second based on total deposits of all banking offices in Lee County, with approximately 23.2% of the total deposits. The Bank also has branches located in Bond, Bureau, Champaign, Fayette, Kankakee, Kendall, La Salle, Marion, Monroe, St. Clair, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago Counties in Illinois. In the entire state of Illinois, as of June 30, 2016, there were 540 banks operating, and the Bank had approximately 0.3% of total deposits. The Bank also has branches and competes for deposits and loans in Franklin, Jefferson, St. Charles, and St. Louis Counties in Missouri, as well as Denver County in Colorado.

Employees

As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately 715 employees. None of our employees are represented by any collective bargaining unit or are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our relations with our employees are good.

Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 1201 Network Centre Drive, Effingham, Illinois 62401, and our telephone number at that address is (217) 342-7321. Through our website at www.midlandsb.com under “Investors,” we make available, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as proxy statements, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).

Supervision and Regulation

General

FDIC-insured institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates are extensively regulated under federal and state law.  As a result, the Company’s growth and earnings performance may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various bank regulatory agencies, including the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (the “DFPR”), the FDIC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

(the “Federal Reserve”), and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”).  Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board, securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities, and anti-money laundering laws enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) have an impact on the Company’s business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and accounting rules are significant to the Company’s operations and results.

Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation and enforcement on the operations of FDIC-insured institutions, their holding companies and affiliates that is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC-insured deposits and depositors of banks, rather than shareholders. These laws, and the regulations of the bank regulatory agencies issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of the Company’s business, the kinds and amounts of investments the Company and the Bank may make, reserve requirements, required capital levels relative to assets, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the Company’s ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with the Company’s and the Bank’s insiders and affiliates, and the Company’s payment of dividends. In the last several years, the Company has experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny following the global financial crisis and as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). Although the reforms primarily targeted systemically important financial service providers, their influence filtered down in varying degrees to community banks over time and the reforms have caused the Company’s compliance and risk management processes, and the costs thereof, to increase. While it is anticipated that the Trump administration will not increase the regulatory burden on community banks and may reduce some of the burdens associated with implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the true impact of the new administration is impossible to predict with any certainty.

This supervisory and regulatory framework subjects banks and bank holding companies to regular examination by their respective regulatory agencies, which results in examination reports and ratings that are not publicly available and that can impact the conduct and growth of their business. These examinations consider not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also capital levels, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, liquidity, and various other factors. The regulatory agencies generally have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on the operations of a regulated entity where the agencies determine, among other things, that such operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations or with the supervisory policies of these agencies.  

The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to the Company and the Bank, beginning with a discussion of the continuing regulatory emphasis on the Company’s capital levels.  It does not describe all of the statutes, regulations and regulatory policies that apply, nor does it restate all of the requirements of those that are described. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provision.  

Regulatory Emphasis on Capital

Regulatory capital represents the net assets of a banking organization available to absorb losses. Because of the risks attendant to their business, FDIC-insured institutions are generally required to hold more capital than other businesses, which directly affects the Company’s earnings capabilities. While capital has historically been one of the key measures of the financial health of both bank holding companies and banks, its role became fundamentally more important in the wake of the global financial crisis, as the banking regulators recognized that the amount and quality of capital held by banks prior to the crisis was insufficient to absorb losses during periods of severe stress.  Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, discussed below, establish strengthened capital standards for banks and bank holding companies that are meaningfully more stringent than those in place previously.

Minimum Required Capital Levels.  Banks have been required to hold minimum levels of capital based on guidelines established by the bank regulatory agencies since 1983. The minimums have been expressed in terms of ratios of capital divided by total assets. As discussed below, bank capital measures have become more sophisticated over the years and have focused more on the quality of capital and the risk of assets.  Bank holding companies have historically had to comply with less stringent capital standards than their bank subsidiaries and have been able to raise capital with hybrid instruments such as trust preferred securities. The Dodd-Frank Act mandated the Federal Reserve to establish minimum capital levels for holding companies on a consolidated basis as stringent as those required for FDIC-insured institutions.  A result of this change is that the proceeds of hybrid instruments, such as trust preferred securities, are being excluded from capital over a phase-out period. However, if such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by

bank holding companies with less than $15 billion of assets, they may be retained, subject to certain restrictions. Because the Company has assets of less than $15 billion, the Company is able to maintain its trust preferred proceeds as capital but the Company has to comply with new capital mandates in other respects and will not be able to raise capital in the future through the issuance of trust preferred securities.

The Basel International Capital Accords.  The risk-based capital guidelines for U.S. banks since 1989 were based upon the 1988 capital accord known as “Basel I” adopted by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors that acts as the primary global standard-setter for prudential regulation, as implemented by the U.S. bank regulatory agencies on an interagency basis. The accord recognized that bank assets for the purpose of the capital ratio calculations needed to be risk weighted (the theory being that riskier assets should require more capital) and that off-balance sheet exposures needed to be factored in the calculations.  Basel I had a very simple formula for assigning risk weights to bank assets from 0% to 100% based on four categories.  In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as “Basel II,” for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more, or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more) known as “advanced approaches” banks.  The primary focus of Basel II was on the calculation of risk weights based on complex models developed by each advanced approaches bank. Because most banks were not subject to Basel II, the U.S. bank regulators worked to improve the risk sensitivity of Basel I standards without imposing the complexities of Basel II. This “standardized approach” increased the number of risk-weight categories and recognized risks well above the original 100% risk weighting. The standardized approach is institutionalized by the Dodd-Frank Act for all banking organizations as a floor. 

On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced agreement on a strengthened set of capital requirements for banking organizations around the world, known as Basel III, to address deficiencies recognized in connection with the global financial crisis.  

The Basel III Rule.  In July of 2013, the U.S. federal banking agencies approved the implementation of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms in pertinent part, and, at the same time, promulgated rules effecting certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Basel III Rule”).  In contrast to capital requirements historically, which were in the form of guidelines, Basel III was released in the form of enforceable regulations by each of the regulatory agencies. The Basel III Rule is applicable to all banking organizations that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including federal and state banks and savings and loan associations, as well as to bank and savings and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies” (generally holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $1 billion that do not have securities registered with the SEC).

The Basel III Rule required higher capital levels, increased the required quality of capital, and required more detailed categories of risk weighting of riskier, more opaque assets.  For nearly every class of assets, the Basel III Rule requires a more complex, detailed and calibrated assessment of credit risk and calculation of risk weightings.

Not only did the Basel III Rule increase most of the required minimum capital ratios in effect prior to January 1, 2015, but it introduced the concept of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, which consists primarily of common stock, related surplus (net of Treasury stock), retained earnings, and Common Equity Tier 1 minority interests subject to certain regulatory adjustments. The Basel III Rule also changed the definition of capital by establishing more stringent criteria that instruments must meet to be considered Additional Tier 1 Capital (primarily non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock that meets certain requirements) and Tier 2 Capital (primarily other types of preferred stock and subordinated debt, subject to limitations).  A number of instruments that qualified as Tier 1 Capital under Basel I do not qualify, or their qualifications changed. For example, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, which qualified as simple Tier 1 Capital under Basel I, does not qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, but qualifies as Additional Tier 1 Capital. The Basel III Rule also constrained the inclusion of minority interests, mortgage-servicing assets, and deferred tax assets in capital and requires deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 Capital in the event that such assets exceed a certain percentage of a banking institution’s Common Equity Tier 1 Capital. 

The Basel III Rule required minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 2015, as follows:

In addition, institutions that seek the freedom to make capital distributions (including for dividends and repurchases of stock) and pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers without restriction must also maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to a capital conservation buffer being phased in over three years beginning in 2016 (which, as of January 1, 2017, was phased in half-way to 1.25%). The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banking institutions maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. Factoring in the fully phased-in conservation buffer increases the minimum ratios depicted above to 7% for Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, 8.5% for Tier 1 Capital and 10.5% for Total Capital. 

Banking organizations (except for large, internationally active banking organizations) became subject to the new rules on January 1, 2015.  However, there are separate phase-in/phase-out periods for: (i) the capital conservation buffer; (ii) regulatory capital adjustments and deductions; (iii) nonqualifying capital instruments; and (iv) changes to the prompt corrective action rules discussed below. The phase-in periods commenced on January 1, 2016 and extend until 2019.

Well-Capitalized Requirements.  The ratios described above are minimum standards in order for banking organizations to be considered “adequately capitalized.” Bank regulatory agencies uniformly encourage banks to hold more capital and be “well-capitalized” and, to that end, federal law and regulations provide various incentives for banking organizations to maintain regulatory capital at levels in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. For example, a banking organization that is well-capitalized may: (i) qualify for exemptions from prior notice or application requirements otherwise applicable to certain types of activities; (ii) qualify for expedited processing of other required notices or applications; and (iii) accept, roll-over or renew brokered deposits. Higher capital levels could also be required if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations. For example, the Federal Reserve’s capital guidelines contemplate that additional capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other things, interest rate risk, or the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional activities or securities trading activities. Further, any banking organization experiencing or anticipating significant growth would be expected to maintain capital ratios, including tangible capital positions (i.e., Tier 1 Capital less all intangible assets), well above the minimum levels.

Under the capital regulations of the FDIC and Federal Reserve, in order to be well‑capitalized, a banking organization must maintain:

It is possible under the Basel III Rule to be well-capitalized while remaining out of compliance with the capital conservation buffer discussed above.

As of December 31, 2016: (i) the Bank was not subject to a directive from the DFPR or FDIC to increase its capital and (ii) the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by FDIC regulations.  As of December 31, 2016, the Company

had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s requirements and met the Basel III Rule requirements to be well-capitalized.

Prompt Corrective Action. An FDIC-insured institution’s capital plays an important role in connection with regulatory enforcement as well.  Federal law provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions.  The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation.  Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to sell itself; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

Regulation and Supervision of the Company

General. The Company, as the sole shareholder of the Bank, is a bank holding company.  As a bank holding company, the Company is registered with, and subject to regulation, supervision and enforcement by, the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”).  The Company is legally obligated to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where the Company might not otherwise do so.  Under the BHCA, the Company is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve and is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the Company’s operations and such additional information regarding the Company and the Bank as the Federal Reserve may require. 

Acquisitions, Activities and Change in Control. The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company.  Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the United States. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its FDIC-insured institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company.  Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and examiners must rate them well-managed in order to effect interstate mergers or acquisitions.  For a discussion of the capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

The BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries.  This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking ... as to be a proper incident thereto.”  This authority would permit the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage services. The BHCA does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies.

Additionally, bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines by order to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of FDIC-

insured institutions or the financial system generally. The Company has elected to be, and continues to operate as, a financial holding company.

In order to maintain the Company’s status as a financial holding company, the Company and the Bank must be well-capitalized, well-managed, and have a least a satisfactory Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) rating. If the Federal Reserve determines that a financial holding company is not well-capitalized or well-managed, the Company has a period of time in which to achieve compliance, but during the period of noncompliance, the Federal Reserve may place any limitations on the Company it believes to be appropriate. Furthermore, if the Federal Reserve determines that a financial holding company’s subsidiary bank has not received a satisfactory CRA rating, the Company will not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities.

Federal law also prohibits any person or company from acquiring “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company without prior notice to the appropriate federal bank regulator.  “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 10% and 24.99% ownership. 

Capital Requirements. Bank holding companies are required to maintain capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy requirements.  For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

Dividend Payments. The Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies.    As an Illinois corporation, the Company is subject to the Illinois Business Corporation Act, as amended, which prohibits the Company from paying a dividend if, after giving effect to the dividend: (i) the Company would be insolvent; (ii) the net assets of the Company would be less than zero; or (iii) the net assets of the Company would be less than the maximum amount then payable to shareholders of the Company who would have preferential distribution rights if the Company were liquidated. 

As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends to shareholders if:  (i) the company’s net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends; (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention is inconsistent with the company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition; or (iii) the company will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. The Federal Reserve also possesses enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries to prevent or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices or violations of applicable statutes and regulations. Among these powers is the ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek the freedom to pay dividends will have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years beginning in 2016. See “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

Incentive Compensation. There have been a number of developments in recent years focused on incentive compensation plans sponsored by bank holding companies and banks, reflecting recognition by the bank regulatory agencies and Congress that flawed incentive compensation practices in the financial industry were one of many factors contributing to the global financial crisis. Layered on top of that are the abuses in the headlines dealing with product cross-selling incentive plans. The result is interagency guidance on sound incentive compensation practices and proposed rulemaking by the agencies required under Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The interagency guidance recognized three core principles: effective incentive plans should: (i) provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (ii) be compatible with effective controls and risk-management; and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. Much of the guidance addresses large banking organizations and, because of the size and complexity of their operations, the regulators expect those organizations to maintain systematic and formalized policies, procedures, and systems for ensuring that the incentive compensation arrangements for all executive and non-executive employees covered by this guidance are identified and reviewed, and appropriately balance risks and rewards.  Smaller banking organizations like the Company that use incentive compensation arrangements are expected to be less extensive, formalized, and detailed than those of the larger banks. 

Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required the banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, the SEC and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to jointly prescribe regulations that prohibit types of incentive-based compensation that encourage inappropriate risk taking and to disclose certain information regarding such plans.  On June 10, 2016, the agencies released an updated proposed rule for comment. Section 956 will only apply to banking organizations with assets of greater than $1 billion. The Company has consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50 billion and the Company is considered a Level 3 banking organization under the proposed rules. The proposed rules contain mostly general principles and reporting requirements for Level 3 institutions so there are no specific prescriptions or limits, deferral requirements or claw-back mandates. Risk management and controls are required, as is board or committee level approval and oversight. Management expects to review its incentive plans in light of the proposed rulemaking and guidance and implement policies and procedures that mitigate unreasonable risk.

Monetary Policy.    The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has a significant effect on the operating results of financial or bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the tools available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market transactions in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

Federal Securities Regulation. The Company’s common stock is registered with the SEC under the Exchange Act.  Consequently, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Exchange Act.

Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies.  It increased stockholder influence over boards of directors by requiring companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, and authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate and solicit voters for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. The legislation also directed the Federal Reserve to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of bank holding companies, regardless of whether such companies are publicly traded.

Regulation and Supervision of the Bank

General. The Bank is an Illinois-chartered bank. The deposit accounts of the Bank are insured by the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations, currently $250,000 per insured depositor category. As an Illinois-chartered FDIC-insured bank, the Bank is subject to the examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the DFPR, the chartering authority for Illinois banks, and as a member bank, the Federal Reserve. 

Deposit Insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, the Bank is required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC.  The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system whereby FDIC-insured institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on minimum and maximum assessment rates. Effective July 1, 2016, the FDIC changed its pricing system for banks under $10 billion, like the Bank, so that minimum and maximum initial base assessment rates are established based on supervisory ratings. The initial base assessment rates currently range from three basis points to 30 basis points. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, increases or decreases the assessment rates, following notice and comment on proposed rulemaking.

The assessment base against which an FDIC-insured institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the DIF are calculated is based on its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. This method shifts the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those large depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. 

The reserve ratio is the DIF balance divided by estimated insured deposits. The Dodd-Frank Act altered the minimum reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to FDIC-insured institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds.  The reserve ratio reached 1.15% on June 30, 2016, when revised factors were put in place for calculating the assessment.  If the reserve ratio does not reach 1.35% by December 31, 2018 (provided it is at least 1.15%), the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on March 31, 2019 on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. The FDIC will provide assessment credits to insured depository

institutions, like the Bank, with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion for the portion of their regular assessments that contribute to growth in the reserve ratio between 1.15% and 1.35%. The FDIC will apply the credits each quarter that the reserve ratio is at least 1.38% to offset the regular deposit insurance assessments of institutions with credits.

FICO Assessments. In addition to paying basic deposit insurance assessments, FDIC-insured institutions must pay Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments.  FICO is a mixed-ownership governmental corporation chartered by the former Federal Home Loan Bank Board (“FHLB”) pursuant to the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 to function as a financing vehicle for the recapitalization of the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation.  FICO issued 30-year noncallable bonds of approximately $8.1 billion that mature in 2017 through 2019.  FICO’s authority to issue bonds ended on December 12, 1991. Since 1996, federal legislation has required that all FDIC-insured institutions pay assessments to cover interest payments on FICO’s outstanding obligations.  The FICO assessment rate is adjusted quarterly and for the fourth quarter of 2016 was 0.560 basis points (56 cents per $100 dollars of assessable deposits).

Supervisory Assessments. All Illinois banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the DFPR to fund the operations of that agency. The amount of the assessment is calculated on the basis of the Bank’s total assets. During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Bank paid supervisory assessments to the DFPR totaling approximately $237,000.    

Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses.  For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

Liquidity Requirements. Liquidity is a measure of the ability and ease with which bank assets may be converted to cash. Liquid assets are those that can be converted to cash quickly if needed to meet financial obligations. To remain viable, FDIC-insured institutions must have enough liquid assets to meet their near-term obligations, such as withdrawals by depositors.  Because the global financial crisis was in part a liquidity crisis, Basel III also includes a liquidity framework that requires FDIC-insured institutions to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests. One test, referred to as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity has an adequate stock of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets that can be converted easily and immediately in private markets into cash to meet  liquidity needs for a 30-calendar day liquidity stress scenario. The other test, known as the Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of FDIC-insured institutions over a one-year horizon. These tests provide an incentive for banks and holding companies to increase their holdings in Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets, increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source and rely on stable funding like core deposits (in lieu of brokered deposits).

In addition to liquidity guidelines already in place, the federal bank regulatory agencies implemented the Basel III LCR in 2014 and have proposed the NSFR. While the LCR only applies to the largest banking organizations in the country, as will the NSFR, certain elements are expected to filter down to all FDIC-insured institutions. The Company continues to review the Company’s liquidity risk management policies in light of the LCR and NSFR.

Stress Testing. A stress test is an analysis or simulation designed to determine the ability of a given FDIC-insured institution to deal with an economic crisis. In October 2012, U.S. bank regulators unveiled new rules mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act that require the largest U.S. banks to undergo stress tests twice per year, once internally and once conducted by the regulators. Stress tests are not required for banks with less than $10 billion in assets; however, the FDIC now recommends stress testing as means to identify and quantify loan portfolio risk and the Bank is engaged in the process.

Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Bank. Under the Illinois Banking Act, the Bank generally may not pay dividends in excess of its net profit. The payment of dividends by any FDIC-insured institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and a FDIC-insured institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. As described above, the Bank exceeded its capital requirements under applicable guidelines as of December 31, 2016.  Notwithstanding the availability of funds for dividends, however, the FDIC and the DFPR may prohibit the payment of dividends by the Bank if either or both determine such payment would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek the freedom to pay dividends will have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital

attributable to the capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years beginning in 2016. See “—Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

State Bank Investments and Activities. The Bank is permitted to make investments and engage in activities directly or through subsidiaries as authorized by Illinois law. However, under federal law and FDIC regulations, FDIC-insured state banks are prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from making or retaining equity investments of a type, or in an amount, that are not permissible for a national bank. Federal law and FDIC regulations also prohibit FDIC-insured state banks and their subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions, from engaging as principal in any activity that is not permitted for a national bank unless the Bank meets, and continues to meet, its minimum regulatory capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity would not pose a significant risk to the DIF. These restrictions have not had, and are not currently expected to have, a material impact on the operations of the Bank.

Insider Transactions. The Bank is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on “covered transactions” between the Bank and its “affiliates.” The Company is an affiliate of the Bank for purposes of these restrictions, and covered transactions subject to the restrictions include extensions of credit to the Company, investments in the stock or other securities of the Company and the acceptance of the stock or other securities of the Company as collateral for loans made by the Bank.  The Dodd-Frank Act enhanced the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.

Certain limitations and reporting requirements are also placed on extensions of credit by the Bank to its directors and officers, to directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries, to principal shareholders of the Company and to “related interests” of such directors, officers and principal shareholders.  In addition, federal law and regulations may affect the terms upon which any person who is a director or officer of the Company or the Bank, or a principal shareholder of the Company, may obtain credit from banks with which the Bank maintains a correspondent relationship. 

Safety and Soundness Standards/Risk Management. The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines that establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of FDIC-insured institutions. The guidelines set forth standards for internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality and earnings.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals.  If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the FDIC-insured institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If an FDIC-insured institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the FDIC-insured institution’s rate of growth, require the FDIC-insured institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

During the past decade, the bank regulatory agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of sound risk management processes and strong internal controls when evaluating the activities of the FDIC-insured institutions they supervise.  Properly managing risks has been identified as critical to the conduct of safe and sound banking activities and has become even more important as new technologies, product innovation, and the size and speed of financial transactions have changed the nature of banking markets.  The agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking institution including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal, and reputational risk. In particular, recent regulatory pronouncements have focused on operational risk, which arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. New products and services, third-party risk and cybersecurity are critical sources of operational risk that FDIC-insured institutions are expected to address in the current environment. The Bank is expected to have active board and senior management oversight; adequate policies, procedures, and limits; adequate risk measurement, monitoring, and management information systems; and comprehensive internal controls.

Branching Authority. Illinois banks, such as the Bank, have the authority under Illinois law to establish branches anywhere in the State of Illinois, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals.  Federal law permits state and national banks to merge with banks in other states subject to: (i) regulatory approval; (ii) federal and state deposit concentration limits; and (iii) state law limitations requiring the merging bank to have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) prior to the merger.  The Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized and well-managed banks to establish new interstate branches or acquire individual branches of a bank in another state (rather than the acquisition of an out-of-state bank in its entirety) without impediments.

Transaction Account Reserves. Federal Reserve regulations require FDIC-insured institutions to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and regular checking accounts). For 2017: the first $15.5 million of otherwise reservable balances are exempt from reserves and have a zero percent reserve requirement; for transaction accounts aggregating more than $15.5 million to $115.1 million, the reserve requirement is 3% of total transaction accounts; and for net transaction accounts in excess of $115.1 million, the reserve requirement is 3% up to $115.1 million plus 10% of the aggregate amount of total transaction accounts in excess of $115.1 million.  These reserve requirements are subject to annual adjustment by the Federal Reserve.

Community Reinvestment Act Requirements. The Community Reinvestment Act requires the Bank to have a continuing and affirmative obligation in a safe and sound manner to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.  Federal regulators regularly assess the Bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its communities. Applications for additional acquisitions would be affected by the evaluation of the Bank’s effectiveness in meeting its Community Reinvestment Act requirements.

Anti-Money Laundering. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “Patriot Act”) is designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the U.S. financial system and has significant implications for FDIC-insured institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act mandates financial services companies to have policies and procedures with respect to measures designed to address any or all of the following matters: (i) customer identification programs; (ii) money laundering; (iii) terrorist financing; (iv) identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions; (v) currency crimes; and (vi) cooperation between FDIC-insured institutions and law enforcement authorities.

Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern. The interagency Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices guidance (“CRE Guidance”) provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) commercial real estate loans exceeding 300% of capital and increasing 50% or more in the preceding three years; or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of commercial real estate lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. On December 18, 2015, the federal banking agencies issued a statement to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to CRE lending, having observed substantial growth in many CRE asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising CRE concentrations in banks, and an easing of CRE underwriting standards. The federal bank agencies reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the risks arising from CRE lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their CRE concentration risk. Based on the Bank’s loan portfolio as of December 31, 2016, it did not exceed the 300% guideline for commercial real estate loans. 

Consumer Financial Services. The historical structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services changed significantly on July 21, 2011, when the CFPB commenced operations to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all providers of consumer products and services, including the Bank, as well as the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over providers with more than $10 billion in assets. FDIC-insured institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like the Bank, continue to be examined by their applicable bank regulators. 

Because abuses in connection with residential mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the global financial crisis, many new rules issued by the CFPB and required by the Dodd-Frank Act address mortgage and mortgage-related products, their underwriting, origination, servicing and sales. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property and augmented federal law combating predatory lending practices. In addition to numerous disclosure requirements, the Dodd‑Frank Act imposed new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including all FDIC-insured institutions, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s “ability to repay,” while also establishing a presumption of compliance for certain “qualified mortgages.” In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally required lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans that the lender sells, and other asset‑backed securities that the securitizer issues, if the loans have not complied with the ability-to-repay standards. The Company does not currently expect the CFPB’s rules to have a significant impact on the Bank’s operations, except for higher compliance costs.     

Item 1A –  Risk Factors

The material risks that management believes affect the Company are described below. You should carefully consider the risks as described below, together with all of the information included herein. The risks described below are not the only risks the Company faces. Additional risks not presently known also may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Business

A decline in general business and economic conditions and any regulatory responses to such conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our business and operations are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States, generally, and particularly the state of Illinois and the St. Louis metropolitan area. If the national, regional and local economies experience worsening economic conditions, including high levels of unemployment, our growth and profitability could be constrained. Weak economic conditions are characterized by, among other indicators, deflation, elevated levels of unemployment, fluctuations in debt and equity capital markets, increased delinquencies on mortgage, commercial and consumer loans, residential and commercial real estate price declines, lower home sales and commercial activity, and fluctuations in the commercial FHA financing sector. All of these factors are generally detrimental to our business. Our business is significantly affected by monetary and other regulatory policies of the U.S. federal government, its agencies and government‑sponsored entities. Changes in any of these policies are influenced by macroeconomic conditions and other factors that are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects.

If we do not effectively manage our credit risk, we may experience increased levels of nonperforming loans, charge‑offs and delinquencies, which could require increases in our provision for loan losses.

There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers, risks of nonpayment, risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral and cash flows available to service debt and risks resulting from changes in economic and market conditions. We cannot guarantee that our credit underwriting and monitoring procedures will reduce these credit risks, and they cannot be expected to completely eliminate our credit risks. If the overall economic climate in the United States, generally, or our market areas, specifically, declines, our borrowers may experience difficulties in repaying their loans, and the level of nonperforming loans, charge‑offs and delinquencies could rise and require further increases in the provision for loan losses, which would cause our net income, return on equity and capital to decrease.

Our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio.

We establish our allowance for loan losses and maintain it at a level that management considers adequate to absorb probable loan losses based on an analysis of our portfolio and market environment. The allowance for loan losses represents our estimate of probable losses in the portfolio at each balance sheet date and is based upon relevant information available to us. The actual amount of loan losses is affected by changes in economic, operating and other conditions within our markets, which may be beyond our control, and such losses may exceed current estimates.

As of December 31, 2016, our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 0.64% and as a percentage of total nonperforming loans was 47.03%. Although management believes that the allowance for loan losses

is adequate to absorb losses on any existing loans that may become uncollectible, we may be required to take additional provisions for loan losses in the future to further supplement the allowance for loan losses, either due to management’s decision to do so or because our banking regulators require us to do so. Our bank regulatory agencies will periodically review our allowance for loan losses and the value attributed to nonaccrual loans or to real estate acquired through foreclosure and may require us to adjust our determination of the value for these items. These adjustments may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Because a significant portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of real estate loans, negative changes in the economy affecting real estate values and liquidity could impair the value of collateral securing our real estate loans and result in loan and other losses.

At December 31, 2016, approximately 60.4% of our loan portfolio was comprised of loans with real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. As a result, adverse developments affecting real estate values in our market areas could increase the credit risk associated with our real estate loan portfolio. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the area in which the real estate is located. Adverse changes affecting real estate values and the liquidity of real estate in one or more of our markets could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio, significantly impair the value of property pledged as collateral on loans and affect our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure without a loss or additional losses, which could result in losses that would adversely affect profitability. Such declines and losses would have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and growth prospects. In addition, if hazardous or toxic substances are found on properties pledged as collateral, the value of the real estate could be impaired. If we foreclose on and take title to such properties, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses to address unknown liabilities and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property.

Many of our loans are to commercial borrowers, which have a higher degree of risk than other types of loans.

Commercial loans represented 69.2% of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2016. Commercial loans are often larger and involve greater risks than other types of lending. Because payments on such loans often depend on the successful operation or development of the property or business involved, repayment of such loans is often more sensitive than other types of loans to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the general business climate and economy. Accordingly, a downturn in the real estate market and a challenging business and economic environment may increase our risk related to commercial loans, particularly commercial real estate loans. Unlike residential mortgage loans, which generally are made on the basis of the borrowers’ ability to make repayment from their employment and other income and which are secured by real property whose value tends to be more easily ascertainable, commercial loans typically are made on the basis of the borrowers’ ability to make repayment from the cash flow of the commercial venture. Our operating commercial loans are primarily made based on the identified cash flow of the borrower and secondarily on the collateral underlying the loans. Most often, this collateral consists of accounts receivable, inventory and equipment. Inventory and equipment may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. If the cash flow from business operations is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Due to the larger average size of each commercial loan as compared with other loans such as residential loans, as well as collateral that is generally less readily‑marketable, losses incurred on a small number of commercial loans could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

The small to midsized businesses that we lend to may have fewer resources to weather adverse business developments, which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan, and such impairment could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We target our business development and marketing strategy primarily to serve the banking and financial services needs of small to midsized businesses. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities, frequently have smaller market shares than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial volatility in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small and midsized business often depends on the management talents and efforts of one or two people or a small group of people, and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these people could have a material adverse impact on the business and its ability to repay its loan. If general economic conditions negatively impact the markets in which we operate and small to midsized businesses are adversely affected or our borrowers are otherwise affected by adverse business developments, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Real estate construction loans are based upon estimates of costs and values associated with the complete project. These estimates may be inaccurate, and we may be exposed to significant losses on loans for these projects.

Real estate construction loans comprised approximately 7.7% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2016, and such lending involves additional risks because funds are advanced upon the security of the project, which is of uncertain value prior to its completion, and costs may exceed realizable values in declining real estate markets. Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs and the realizable market value of the completed project and the effects of governmental regulation of real property, it is relatively difficult to evaluate accurately the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan‑to‑value ratio. As a result, construction loans often involve the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project and the ability of the borrower to sell or lease the property, rather than the ability of the borrower or guarantor to repay principal and interest. If our appraisal of the value of the completed project proves to be overstated or market values or rental rates decline, we may have inadequate security for the repayment of the loan upon completion of construction of the project. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to or at completion due to a default, we may not be able to recover all of the unpaid balance of, and accrued interest on, the loan as well as related foreclosure and holding costs. In addition, we may be required to fund additional amounts to complete the project and may have to hold the property for an unspecified period of time while we attempt to dispose of it.

System failure or breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other liabilities.

The computer systems and network infrastructure we use could be vulnerable to hardware and cyber security issues. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer equipment against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event. We could also experience a breach by intentional or negligent conduct on the part of employees or other internal or external sources, including our third‑party vendors. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect the computer systems and network infrastructure utilized by us, including our internet banking activities, against damage from physical break‑ins, cyber security breaches and other disruptive problems caused by the internet or other users. Such computer break‑ins and other disruptions would jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability, damage our reputation and inhibit the use of our internet banking services by current and potential customers. We regularly add additional security measures to our computer systems and network infrastructure to mitigate the possibility of cyber security breaches, including firewalls and penetration testing. However, it is difficult or impossible to defend against every risk being posed by changing technologies as well as criminals intent on committing cyber‑crimes. Increasing sophistication of cyber criminals and terrorists make keeping up with new threats difficult and could result in a breach. Controls employed by our information technology department and cloud vendors could prove inadequate. A breach of our security that results in unauthorized access to our data could expose us to a disruption or challenges relating to our daily operations, as well as to data loss, litigation, damages, fines and penalties, significant increases in compliance costs and reputational damage, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations could be interrupted if our third‑party service providers experience difficulty, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking regulations.

We depend to a significant extent on a number of relationships with third‑party service providers. Specifically, we receive core systems processing, essential web hosting and other internet systems, deposit processing and other processing services from third‑party service providers. If these third‑party service providers experience difficulties or terminate their services and we are unable to replace them with other service providers, our operations could be interrupted. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period of time, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected, perhaps materially. Even if we are able to replace them, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, customer or employee fraud and data processing system failures and errors.

Employee errors and employee and customer misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our customers or improper use of confidential information. It is

not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence.

We maintain a system of internal controls and insurance coverage to mitigate against operational risks, including data processing system failures and errors and customer or employee fraud. If our internal controls fail to prevent or detect an occurrence, or if any resulting loss is not insured or exceeds applicable insurance limits, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our strategy of pursuing growth via acquisitions exposes us to financial, execution and operational risks that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our acquisition activities could require us to use a substantial amount of cash, other liquid assets, and/or incur debt. There are risks associated with an acquisition strategy, including the following:

•We may incur time and expense associated with identifying and evaluating potential acquisitions and negotiating potential transactions, resulting in management’s attention being diverted from the operation of our existing business.

•We are exposed to potential asset and credit quality risks and unknown or contingent liabilities of the banks or businesses we acquire. If these issues or liabilities exceed our estimates, our earnings, capital and financial condition may be materially and adversely affected.

•The acquisition of other entities generally requires integration of systems, procedures and personnel of the acquired entity. This integration process is complicated and time consuming and can also be disruptive to the customers and employees of the acquired business and our business. If the integration process is not conducted successfully, we may not realize the anticipated economic benefits of acquisitions within the expected time frame, or ever, and we may lose customers or employees of the acquired business. We may also experience greater than anticipated customer losses even if the integration process is successful.

•To finance an acquisition, we may borrow funds or pursue other forms of financing, such as issuing voting and/or non‑voting common stock or preferred stock, which may have high dividend rights or may be highly dilutive to holders of our common stock, thereby increasing our leverage and diminishing our liquidity.

•We may be unsuccessful in realizing the anticipated benefits from acquisitions. For example, we may not be successful in realizing anticipated cost savings. We also may not be successful in preventing disruptions in service to existing customer relationships of the acquired institution, which could lead to a loss in revenues.

In addition to the foregoing, we may face additional risks in acquisitions to the extent we acquire new lines of business or new products, or enter new geographic areas, in which we have little or no current experience, especially if we lose key employees of the acquired operations. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with acquisitions. Our inability to overcome risks associated with acquisitions could have an adverse effect on our ability to successfully implement our acquisition growth strategy and grow our business and profitability.

Pending litigation against Midland and Centrue could result in an injunction preventing the completion of the merger.

Following the announcement on January 26, 2017 of the execution of the merger agreement, a purported Centrue shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois against Centrue, the individual members of the Centrue board of directors (including Centrue’s Chief Executive Officer), Midland and Sentinel Acquisition, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Midland (“Merger Sub”), challenging the proposed transaction. Other Centrue shareholders may file additional lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction. The outcome of any such litigation is uncertain. If any case is not resolved, the lawsuit(s) could prevent or delay completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to Midland and Centrue, including any costs associated with the indemnification of directors and officers that are not covered by insurance. One of the conditions to each party’s obligation to close the merger is that no order, injunction or decree issued by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction or other legal restraint or prohibition preventing the consummation of the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement shall be in effect. As such, if plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the

completion of the merger or the bank merger on the agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may prevent the merger from being completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger is completed may adversely affect the combined company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. For more information, see “Item 3 - Legal Proceedings.”

We may be exposed to unrecoverable losses on loans we have acquired.

Although we have generally acquired the loan assets of our recent acquisitions at substantial discounts to their unpaid principal balances, we may incur losses on acquired loans.

If the goodwill that we recorded in connection with a business acquisition becomes impaired, it could require charges to earnings, which would have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Goodwill represents the amount by which the cost of an acquisition exceeded the fair value of net assets we acquired in connection with the purchase. We review goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of the asset might be impaired.

We determine impairment by comparing the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill with the carrying amount of that goodwill. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. Any such adjustments are reflected in our results of operations in the periods in which they become known. There can be no assurance that our future evaluations of goodwill will not result in findings of impairment and related write‑downs, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to continue growing our business, particularly if we cannot make acquisitions or increase loans through organic loan growth, either because of an inability to find suitable acquisition candidates, constrained capital resources or otherwise.

While we intend to continue to grow our business through strategic acquisitions coupled with organic loan growth, because certain of our market areas are comprised of mature, rural communities with limited population growth, we anticipate that much of our future growth will be dependent on our ability to successfully implement our acquisition growth strategy. A risk exists, however, that we will not be able to identify suitable additional candidates for acquisitions. In addition, even if suitable targets are identified, we expect to compete for such businesses with other potential bidders, many of which may have greater financial resources than we have, which may adversely affect our ability to make acquisitions at attractive prices. Furthermore, many acquisitions we may wish to pursue would be subject to approvals by bank regulatory authorities, and we cannot predict whether any targeted acquisitions will receive the required regulatory approvals. In light of the foregoing, our ability to continue to grow successfully will depend to a significant extent on our capital resources. It also will depend, in part, upon our ability to attract deposits, identify favorable loan and investment opportunities and on whether we can continue to fund growth while maintaining cost controls and asset quality, as well on other factors beyond our control, such as national, regional and local economic conditions and interest rate trends.

Also, as our acquired loan portfolio, which produces higher yields than our originated loans due to loan discount accretion on our purchased credit impaired loan portfolio (a component of the accretable yield), is paid down, we expect downward pressure on our income to the extent that the run‑off is not replaced with other high‑yielding loans. The accretable yield represents the excess of the net present value of expected future cash flows over the acquisition date fair value and includes both the expected coupon of the loan and the discount accretion. For example, the total loan yield for the year ended December 31, 2016 was 4.83%, while the yield generated using only the expected coupon would have been 4.36% during the same period. As a result of the foregoing, if we are unable to replace loans in our existing portfolio with comparable high‑yielding loans or a larger volume of loans, we could be adversely affected. We could also be materially and adversely affected if we choose to pursue riskier higher‑yielding loans that fail to perform.

The accounting for loans acquired in connection with our acquisitions is based on numerous subjective determinations that may prove to be inaccurate and have a negative impact on our results of operations.

Loans acquired in connection with our acquisitions have been recorded at estimated fair value on their acquisition date without a carryover of the related allowance for loan losses. In general, the determination of estimated fair value of acquired loans requires management to make subjective determinations regarding discount rate, estimates of

losses on defaults, market conditions and other factors that are highly subjective in nature. A risk exists that our estimate of the fair value of acquired loans will prove to be inaccurate and that we ultimately will not recover the amount at which we recorded such loans on our balance sheet, which would require us to recognize losses.

Loans acquired in connection with acquisitions that have evidence of credit deterioration since origination and for which it is probable at the date of acquisition that we will not collect all contractually required principal and interest payments are accounted for under ASC Topic 310‑30, Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality. These credit‑impaired loans, like non‑credit‑impaired loans acquired in connection with our acquisitions, have been recorded at estimated fair value on their acquisition date, based on subjective determinations regarding risk ratings, expected future cash flows and fair value of the underlying collateral, without a carryover of the related allowance for loan losses. We evaluate these loans quarterly to assess expected cash flows. Subsequent decreases to the expected cash flows will generally result in a provision for loan losses. Subsequent increases in cash flows result in a reversal of the provision for loan losses to the extent of prior charges or a reclassification of the difference from non‑accretable to accretable with a positive impact on interest income. Because the accounting for these loans is based on subjective measures that can change frequently, we may experience fluctuations in our net interest income and provisions for loan losses attributable to these loans. These fluctuations could negatively impact our results of operations.

We are highly dependent on our management team, and the loss of our senior executive officers or other key employees could harm our ability to implement our strategic plan, impair our relationships with customers and adversely affect our business, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our success is dependent, to a large degree, upon the continued service and skills of our existing executive management team, particularly Mr. Leon J. Holschbach, our Chief Executive Officer and President, and Mr. Jeffrey G. Ludwig, our Executive Vice President.

Our business and growth strategies are built primarily upon our ability to retain employees with experience and business relationships within their respective market areas. The loss of Mr. Holschbach, Mr. Ludwig or any of our other key personnel could have an adverse impact on our business and growth because of their skills, years of industry experience, knowledge of our market areas and the difficulty of finding qualified replacement personnel, particularly in light of the fact that we are headquartered outside of a major metropolitan area. In addition, although we have non‑competition agreements with each of our eight executive officers and with several others of our senior personnel, we do not have any such agreements with other employees who are important to our business, and in any event the enforceability of non‑competition agreements varies across the states in which we do business. While our mortgage originators, loan officers and wealth management professionals are generally subject to non‑solicitation provisions as part of their employment, our ability to enforce such agreements may not fully mitigate the injury to our business from the breach of such agreements, as such employees could leave us and immediately begin soliciting our customers. The departure of any of our personnel who are not subject to enforceable non‑competition agreements could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and growth prospects.

Fluctuations in interest rates may reduce net interest income and otherwise negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Shifts in short‑term interest rates may reduce net interest income, which is the principal component of our earnings. Net interest income is the difference between the amounts received by us on our interest‑earning assets and the interest paid by us on our interest‑bearing liabilities. When interest rates rise, the rate of interest we pay on our liabilities, such as deposits, rises more quickly than the rate of interest that we receive on our interest‑bearing assets, such as loans, which may cause our profits to decrease. The impact on earnings is more adverse when the slope of the yield curve flattens, that is, when short‑term interest rates increase more than long‑term interest rates or when long‑term interest rates decrease more than short‑term interest rates.

Interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers, which increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of the underlying property may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their mortgages and other indebtedness at lower rates.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to an increase in nonperforming assets and a reduction of income recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of

operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. Subsequently, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of nonperforming assets would have an adverse impact on net interest income.

If short‑term interest rates remain at their historically low levels for a prolonged period, and assuming longer term interest rates fall further, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest‑bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem. This would have a material adverse effect on our net interest income and our results of operations.

Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and/or investment securities and from other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our most important source of funds consists of our customer deposits, including escrow deposits held in connection with our commercial mortgage servicing business. Such deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market, as providing a better risk/return tradeoff, or, in connection with our commercial mortgage servicing business, third parties for whom we provide servicing choose to terminate that relationship with us. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into other investments, we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, which would require us to seek wholesale funding alternatives in order to continue to grow, thereby increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities or on terms that are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry.

Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to continue to implement our strategic plan, including originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses, pay dividends to our shareholders or to fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, and if we fail to maintain sufficient capital, whether due to losses, an inability to raise additional capital or otherwise, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations, as well as our ability to maintain regulatory compliance, would be adversely affected.

We face significant capital and other regulatory requirements as a financial institution. The Company, on a consolidated basis, and the Bank, on a stand‑alone basis, must meet certain regulatory capital requirements and maintain sufficient liquidity. Importantly, regulatory capital requirements could increase from current levels, which could require us to raise additional capital or contract our operations. Our ability to raise additional capital depends on conditions in the capital markets, economic conditions and a number of other factors, including investor perceptions regarding the banking industry, market conditions and governmental activities, and on our financial condition and performance. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital if needed or on terms acceptable to us. If we fail to maintain capital to meet regulatory requirements, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

Decreased residential and commercial mortgage origination, volume and pricing decisions of competitors, and changes in interest rates, may adversely affect our profitability.

We currently operate a residential and commercial mortgage origination and servicing business. Changes in interest rates and pricing decisions by our loan competitors may adversely affect demand for our mortgage loan products, the revenue realized on the sale of loans, revenues received from servicing such loans and the valuation of our mortgage servicing rights. New regulations, increased regulatory reviews, and/or changes in the structure of the secondary mortgage markets which we would utilize to sell mortgage loans may be introduced and may increase costs and make it more difficult to operate a residential and commercial mortgage origination and servicing business.

We could recognize losses on securities held in our securities portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.

Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. For example, fixed‑rate securities acquired by us are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities or our own analysis of the value of the security, defaults by the issuer or individual mortgagors with respect to the underlying securities, and continued instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause an other‑than‑temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other‑than‑temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, we may recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Downgrades in the credit rating of one or more insurers that provide credit enhancement for our state and municipal securities portfolio may have an adverse impact on the market for and valuation of these types of securities.

We invest in tax‑exempt state and local municipal securities, some of which are insured by monoline insurers. Since the economic crisis unfolded in 2008, several of these insurers have come under scrutiny by rating agencies. Even though management generally purchases municipal securities on the overall credit strength of the issuer, the reduction in the credit rating of an insurer may negatively impact the market for and valuation of our investment securities. Such downgrade could adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Our mortgage banking profitability could significantly decline if we are not able to originate and resell a high volume of mortgage loans.

Mortgage production, especially refinancing activity, declines in rising interest rate environments. While we have been experiencing historically low interest rates over the last few years, this low interest rate environment likely will not continue indefinitely. Moreover, when interest rates increase further, there can be no assurance that our mortgage production will continue at current levels. Because we sell a substantial portion of the mortgage loans we originate, the profitability of our mortgage banking business also depends in large part on our ability to aggregate a high volume of loans and sell them in the secondary market at a gain. Thus, in addition to our dependence on the interest rate environment, we are dependent upon (i) the existence of an active secondary market and (ii) our ability to profitably sell loans or securities into that market. If our level of mortgage production declines, the profitability will depend upon our ability to reduce our costs commensurate with the reduction of revenue from our mortgage operations.

Our ability to originate and sell mortgage loans readily is dependent upon the availability of an active secondary market for single‑family mortgage loans, which in turn depends in part upon the continuation of programs currently offered by government‑sponsored entities (“GSEs”) and other institutional and non‑institutional investors. These entities account for a substantial portion of the secondary market in residential mortgage loans. Because the largest participants in the secondary market are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GSEs whose activities are governed by federal law, any future changes in laws that significantly affect the activity of these GSEs could, in turn, adversely affect our operations. In September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government. The federal government has for many years considered proposals to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the results of any such reform, and their impact on us, are difficult to predict. To date, no reform proposal has been enacted.

In addition, our ability to sell mortgage loans readily is dependent upon our ability to remain eligible for the programs offered by the GSEs and other institutional and non‑institutional investors. Any significant impairment of our eligibility with any of the GSEs could materially and adversely affect our operations. Further, the criteria for loans to be accepted under such programs may be changed from time to time by the sponsoring entity, which could result in a lower volume of corresponding loan originations. The profitability of participating in specific programs may vary depending on a number of factors, including our administrative costs of originating and purchasing qualifying loans and our costs of meeting such criteria.

Our ability to maintain our reputation is critical to the success of our business, and the failure to do so may materially adversely affect our business and the value of our stock.

We are a community bank, and our reputation is one of the most valuable components of our business. Similarly, Love Funding, Business Credit, and Midland Trust Company operate in niche markets where reputation is critically important. As such, we strive to conduct our business in a manner that enhances our reputation. This is done, in part, by recruiting, hiring and retaining employees who share our core values of being an integral part of the communities we serve, delivering superior service to our customers and caring about our customers and associates. If our reputation is negatively affected, by the actions of our employees or otherwise, our business and, therefore, our operating results and the value of our stock may be materially adversely affected.

Our risk management framework may not be effective in mitigating risks and/or losses to us.

Our risk management framework is comprised of various processes, systems and strategies, and is designed to manage the types of risk to which we are subject, including, among others, credit, market, liquidity, interest rate and compliance. Our framework also includes financial or other modeling methodologies that involve management assumptions and judgment. Our risk management framework may not be effective under all circumstances or that it will adequately mitigate any risk or loss to us. If our framework is not effective, we could suffer unexpected losses and our business, financial condition, results of operations or growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. We may also be subject to potentially adverse regulatory consequences.

Changes in accounting standards could materially impact our financial statements.

From time to time, the FASB or the SEC may change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. Such changes may result in us being subject to new or changing accounting and reporting standards. In addition, the bodies that interpret the accounting standards (such as banking regulators or outside auditors) may change their interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. These changes may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently, also retrospectively, in each case resulting in our needing to revise or restate prior period financial statements.

The obligations associated with being a public company require significant resources and management attention, which may divert from our business operations.

As an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, we intend to take advantage of certain temporary exemptions from various reporting requirements, including reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements and an exemption from the requirement to obtain an attestation from our auditors on management’s assessment of our internal control over financial reporting. When these exemptions cease to apply, we expect to incur additional expenses and devote increased management effort toward ensuring compliance with them.

We are subject to potential claims and litigation pertaining to our fiduciary responsibilities.

Some of the services we provide, such as wealth management services, require us to act as fiduciaries for our customers and others. From time to time, third parties make claims and take legal action against us pertaining to the performance of our fiduciary responsibilities. If these claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to us, we may be exposed to significant financial liability and/or our reputation could be damaged. Either of these results may adversely impact demand for our products and services or otherwise have a harmful effect on our business and, in turn, on our financial condition and results of operations.

We have a continuing need for technological change, and we may not have the resources to effectively implement new technology or we may experience operational challenges when implementing new technology.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology‑driven products and services. In addition to better serving customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend in part upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow and expand our market area. We may experience operational challenges as we implement these new technology

enhancements, or seek to implement them across all of our offices and business units, which could result in us not fully realizing the anticipated benefits from such new technology or require us to incur significant costs to remedy any such challenges in a timely manner.

Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. As a result, they may be able to offer additional or superior products to those that we will be able to offer, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, a risk exists that we will not be able to effectively implement new technology‑driven products and services or be successful in marketing such products and services to our customers.

Real estate market volatility and future changes in our disposition strategies could result in net proceeds that differ significantly from our other real estate owned fair value appraisals.

As of December 31, 2016, we had $3.6 million of other real estate owned. Our other real estate owned portfolio consists of properties that we obtained through foreclosure or through an in‑substance foreclosure in satisfaction of loans. Properties in our other real estate owned portfolio are recorded at the lower of the recorded investment in the loans for which the properties previously served as collateral or the “fair value,” which represents the estimated sales price of the properties on the date acquired less estimated selling costs.

In response to market conditions and other economic factors, we may utilize alternative sale strategies other than orderly disposition as part of our other real estate owned disposition strategy, such as immediate liquidation sales. In this event, as a result of the significant judgments required in estimating fair value and the variables involved in different methods of disposition, the net proceeds realized from such sales transactions could differ significantly from appraisals, comparable sales and other estimates used to determine the fair value of our other real estate owned properties.

Nonperforming assets take significant time to resolve and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and could result in further losses in the future.

Our nonperforming assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or other real estate owned, thereby adversely affecting our net income and returns on assets and equity, increasing our loan administration costs and adversely affecting our efficiency ratio. When we take collateral in foreclosure and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the collateral to its then‑fair market value, which may result in a loss. These nonperforming loans and other real estate owned also increase our risk profile and the level of capital our regulators believe is appropriate for us to maintain in light of such risks. The resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant time commitments from management and can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. If we experience increases in nonperforming loans and nonperforming assets, our net interest income may be negatively impacted and our loan administration costs could increase, each of which could have an adverse effect on our net income and related ratios, such as return on assets and equity.

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information provided by customers and counterparties.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with customers and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of customers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. In deciding whether to extend credit, we may rely upon our customers’ representations that their financial statements conform to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. We also may rely on customer representations and certifications, or other audit or accountants’ reports, with respect to the business and financial condition of our clients. Our financial condition, results of operations, financial reporting and reputation could be negatively affected if we rely on materially misleading, false, inaccurate or fraudulent information.

If we breach any of the representations or warranties we make to a purchaser of our mortgage loans, we may be liable to the purchaser for certain costs and damages.

When we sell or securitize mortgage loans in the ordinary course of business, we are required to make certain representations and warranties to the purchaser about the mortgage loans and the manner in which they were originated. Under these agreements, we may be required to repurchase mortgage loans if we have breached any of these representations or warranties, in which case we may record a loss. In addition, if repurchase and indemnity demands

increase on loans that we sell from our portfolios, our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

We face strong competition from financial services companies and other companies that offer banking, mortgage, leasing, and wealth management services and providers of FHA financing and servicing, which could harm our business.

Our operations consist of offering banking and mortgage services, and we also offer commercial FHA financing, trust, wealth management and leasing services to generate noninterest income. Many of our competitors offer the same, or a wider variety of, banking and related financial services within our market areas. These competitors include national banks, regional banks and other community banks. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loan institutions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage banks and other financial intermediaries. In addition, a number of out‑of‑state financial intermediaries have opened production offices or otherwise solicit deposits in our market areas. Additionally, we face growing competition from so‑called “online businesses” with few or no physical locations, including online banks, lenders and consumer and commercial lending platforms, as well as automated retirement and investment service providers. Increased competition in our markets may result in reduced loans, deposits and commissions and brokers’ fees, as well as reduced net interest margin and profitability. Ultimately, we may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors. If we are unable to attract and retain banking, mortgage, leasing and wealth management customers, we may be unable to continue to grow our business, and our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Consumers and businesses are increasingly using non-banks to complete their financial transactions, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Technology and other changes are allowing consumers and businesses to complete financial transactions that historically have involved banks through alternative methods. For example, the wide acceptance of internet-based commerce has resulted in a number of alternative payment processing systems and lending platforms in which banks play only minor roles. Customers can now maintain funds in prepaid debit cards or digital currencies, and pay bills and transfer funds directly without the direct assistance of banks. The diminishing role of banks as financial intermediaries has resulted and could continue to result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the potential loss of lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we violate HUD lending requirements, or if the federal government shuts down or otherwise fails to fully fund the federal budget, our commercial FHA origination business could be adversely affected.

We originate, sell and service loans under FHA insurance programs, and make certifications regarding compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we were to violate these requirements and guidelines, or other applicable laws, or if the FHA loans we originate show a high frequency of loan defaults, we could be subject to monetary penalties and indemnification claims, and could be declared ineligible for FHA programs. Any inability to engage in our commercial FHA origination and servicing business would lead to a decrease in our net income.

In addition, disagreement over the federal budget has caused the U.S. federal government to shut down for periods of time in recent years. Federal governmental entities, such as HUD, that rely on funding from the federal budget, could be adversely affected in the event of a government shut‑down, which could have a material adverse effect on our commercial FHA origination business and our results of operations.

Risks Related to the Business Environment and Our Industry

Legislative and regulatory actions taken now or in the future may increase our costs and impact our business, governance structure, financial condition or results of operations.

Compliance with the Dodd‑Frank Act and its implementing regulations has and may continue to result in additional operating and compliance costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

In addition, new proposals for legislation may continue to be introduced in the U.S. Congress that could further substantially increase regulation of the bank and non‑bank financial services industries and impose restrictions on the

operations and general ability of firms within the industry to conduct business consistent with historical practices. Federal and state regulatory agencies also frequently adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. Certain aspects of current or proposed regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, if enacted or adopted, may impact the profitability of our business activities, require more oversight or change certain of our business practices, including the ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory interest spreads and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs. These changes also may require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to operations to comply and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The financial services industry, as well as the broader economy, may be subject to new legislation, regulation, and government policy.

At this time, it is difficult to predict the legislative and regulatory changes that will result from the combination of a new President of the United States and the first year since 2010 in which both Houses of Congress and the White House have majority memberships from the same political party. Recently, however, both the new President and senior members of the House of Representatives have advocated for significant reduction of financial services regulation, to include amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act and structural changes to the CFPB. The new Administration and Congress also may cause broader economic changes due to changes in governing ideology and governing style. New appointments to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve could affect monetary policy and interest rates, and changes in fiscal policy could affect broader patterns of trade and economic growth. Future legislation, regulation, and government policy could affect the banking industry as a whole, including our business and results of operations, in ways that are difficult to predict. In addition, our results of operations also could be adversely affected by changes in the way in which existing statutes and regulations are interpreted or applied by courts and government agencies.

As a result of the Dodd‑Frank Act and recent rulemaking, we are subject to more stringent capital requirements.

The failure to meet applicable regulatory capital requirements of the Basel III Rule could result in one or more of our regulators placing limitations or conditions on our activities, including our growth initiatives, or restricting the commencement of new activities, and could affect customer and investor confidence, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock, our ability to make acquisitions, and our business, results of operations and financial conditions, generally.

Monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to being affected by general economic conditions, our earnings and growth are affected by the policies of the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the money supply and credit conditions. Among the instruments used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market purchases and sales of U.S. government securities, adjustments of the discount rate and changes in banks’ reserve requirements against bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall economic growth and the distribution of credit, bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use also affects interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

The monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The effects of such policies upon our business, financial condition and results of operations cannot be predicted.

Federal and state regulators periodically examine our business, and we may be required to remediate adverse examination findings.

The Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the DFPR periodically examine our business, including our compliance with laws and regulations. If, as a result of an examination, a banking agency were to determine that our financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity or other aspects of any of our operations had become unsatisfactory, or that we were in violation of any law or regulation, they may take a number of different remedial actions as they deem appropriate. These actions include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative action to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital, to restrict our growth, to assess civil money penalties, to fine or remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be

corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate our deposit insurance and place us into receivership or conservatorship. Any regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to numerous laws designed to protect consumers, including the Community Reinvestment Act and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations prohibit discriminatory lending practices by financial institutions. The U.S. Department of Justice, federal banking agencies, and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A challenge to an institution’s compliance with fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, restrictions on expansion, and restrictions on entering new business lines. Private parties may also challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti‑money laundering statutes and regulations.

The Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti‑money laundering program and to file reports such as suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports. We are required to comply with these and other anti‑money laundering requirements. The federal banking agencies and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and have recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts against banks and other financial services providers with the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. We are also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions, which may include restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans.

Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

As a matter of policy, the Federal Reserve expects a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. The Dodd‑Frank Act codified the Federal Reserve’s policy on serving as a source of financial strength. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to a subsidiary bank. A capital injection may be required at times when the holding company may not have the resources to provide it and therefore may be required to borrow the funds or raise capital. Any loans by a holding company to its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the institution’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the Company to make a required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A new accounting standard may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has adopted a new accounting standard that will be effective for the Company and the Bank for our first fiscal year after December 15, 2019. This standard, referred to as Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, will require financial institutions to determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans, and recognize the expected credit losses as allowances for loan losses. This will change the current

method of providing allowances for loan losses that are probable, which may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses, and to greatly increase the types of data we will need to collect and review to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or expenses incurred to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Any future action by the U.S. Congress lowering the federal corporate income tax rate and/or eliminating the federal corporate alternative minimum tax could result in the need to establish a deferred tax asset valuation allowance and a corresponding charge against earnings including any deferred tax assets we acquire in future acquisitions.

Deferred tax assets are reported as assets on the Company’s balance sheet and represent the decrease in taxes expected to be paid in the future because of net operating losses (“NOLs”) and tax credit carryforwards and because of future reversals of temporary differences in the bases of assets and liabilities as measured by enacted tax laws and their bases as reported in the financial statements. As of December 31, 2016, the Company’s net deferred tax liability was $8.6 million, which included deferred tax assets for a $1.5 million alternative minimum tax credit carryforward that can be carried forward indefinitely. Tax credit carryforwards result in reductions to future tax liabilities. If it becomes more likely than not that some portion or the entire deferred tax asset will not be realized, a valuation allowance must be recognized. The President of the United States and the majority political party in the U.S. Congress have announced plans to lower the federal corporate income tax rate from its current level of 35% and to eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. If these plans ultimately result in the enactment of new laws lowering the corporate income tax rate by a material amount and/or eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax, certain of the Company’s deferred tax assets would need to be re-measured to evaluate the impact that the lower tax rate and/or the elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax will have on the currently expected full utilization of the deferred tax assets. If the lower tax rate and/or the elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax makes it more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be realized, a valuation allowance will need to be recognized and this would result in a corresponding charge against the Company’s earnings.

We may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services companies are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, and other relationships. We have exposure to different industries and counterparties, and through transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, and other institutional clients. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services companies, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market‑wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. These losses or defaults could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Additionally, if our competitors were extending credit on terms we found to pose excessive risks, or at interest rates which we believed did not warrant the credit exposure, we may not be able to maintain our business volume and could experience deteriorating financial performance.

The stock market can be volatile, and fluctuations in our operating results and other factors could cause our stock price to decline.

The stock market has experienced and may continue to experience, fluctuations that significantly impact the market prices of securities issued by many companies. Market fluctuations could adversely affect our stock price. These fluctuations have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations, as well as general economic, systematic, political and market conditions, such as recessions, loss of investor confidence, interest rate changes, or international currency fluctuations, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock. Moreover, our operating results may fluctuate and vary from period to period due to the risk factors set forth herein. As a result, period-to-period comparisons should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. Our stock price could fluctuate significantly in response to our quarterly or annual results, annual projections and the impact of these risk factors on our operating results or financial position.

 

Item 1B – Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

 

Item 2 – Properties

Our corporate headquarters office building is located at 1201 Network Centre Drive, Effingham, Illinois, 62401. We own our corporate headquarters office building, which was built in 2011 and consists of approximately 79,000 square feet. The property also houses our primary operations center. We have an additional operations center located in St. Louis, Missouri, Love Funding’s headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. and Business Credit’s headquarters are located in Denver, Colorado. At December 31, 2016, the Company had more than 80 locations across the United States. This includes 32 branches of the Bank located in Illinois, 12 branches of the Bank located in the St. Louis metropolitan area, and one branch of the Bank located in Colorado.

We believe that the leases to which we are subject are generally on terms consistent with prevailing market terms. None of the leases are with our directors, officers, beneficial owners of more than 5% of our voting securities or any affiliates of the foregoing, except that our branch bank in Town and Country, Missouri and our regional office in Clayton, Missouri are leased from entities principally owned by Andrew S. Love, Jr., who beneficially owns more than 5% of our voting securities, and Laurence A. Schiffer, one of our directors. We believe that our facilities are in good condition and are adequate to meet our operating needs for the foreseeable future.

 

Item 3 – Legal Proceedings

In the normal course of business, we are named or threatened to be named as a defendant in various lawsuits, none of which we expect to have a material effect on the Company. However, given the nature, scope and complexity of the extensive legal and regulatory landscape applicable to our business (including laws and regulations governing consumer protection, fair lending, fair labor, privacy, information security and anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism laws), we, like all banking organizations, are subject to heightened legal and regulatory compliance and litigation risk. Except as described below, there are no material pending legal proceedings to which the Company or any of its subsidiaries is a party or of which any of their property is the subject.

Centrue, Midland, Merger Sub and the individual members of the Centrue board of directors have been named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by an alleged shareholder of Centrue in the Circuit Court of LaSalle County, Illinois: Rader v. Battles, et al., Case No. 17L16 (filed February 3, 2017). The complaint alleges, among other things, that the directors of Centrue breached their fiduciary duties in connection with entering into the merger agreement and that Centrue, Midland and Merger Sub aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. Plaintiffs claim, among other things, that Centrue’s board of directors failed to ensure that Centrue’s shareholders would receive maximum value for their shares, utilized preclusive corporate and deal protection terms to inhibit an alternate transaction and failed to conduct an appropriate sale process, and that Centrue’s largest shareholder and its representative on Centrue’s board of directors exerted undue influence to force a sale of Centrue at an unfair price. The action seeks a variety of equitable and injunctive relief including, among other things, enjoining the consummation of the merger, directing the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of Centrue shareholders and awarding plaintiff its costs and attorneys’ fees. The defendants believe that the claims in these lawsuits are wholly without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. It is possible other potential plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction.

The outcome of the pending and any additional future litigation is uncertain. If any case is not resolved, the lawsuit(s) could prevent or delay completion of the merger and result in substantial costs to Midland and Centrue, including any costs associated with the indemnification of directors and officers that are not covered by insurance. One of the conditions to each party’s obligation to close the merger is that no order, injunction or decree issued by any court or agency of competent jurisdiction or other legal restraint or prohibition preventing the consummation of the merger or any of the other transactions contemplated by the merger agreement shall be in effect. As such, if plaintiffs are successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting the completion of the merger or the bank merger on the agreed-upon terms, then such injunction may prevent the merger from being completed, or from being completed within the expected timeframe. The defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains unresolved at the time the merger is completed may adversely affect the combined company’s business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Item 4 – Mine Safety Disclosures

None.

 

PART II

Item 5 – Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer of Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Our common stock began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the symbol “MSBI” on May 24, 2016. Prior to that, there was no public market for our common stock. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices of our common stock for the period of May 24, 2016 to December 31, 2016, as reported by NASDAQ, and the cash dividends declared for the periods indicated.

 

Shareholders

As of February 28, 2017, the Company had 601 common stock shareholders of record, and a closing price of the Company’s common stock was  $35.16 per share.  The number of holders of record does not represent the actual number of beneficial owners of our common stock because securities dealers and others frequently hold shares in “street name” for the benefit of individual owners who have the right to vote shares. 

Dividend Policy

It has been our policy to pay quarterly dividends to holders of our common stock, and we intend to generally maintain our current dividend levels. Our dividend policy and practice may change in the future, however, and our board of directors may change or eliminate the payment of future dividends at its discretion, without notice to our shareholders. Any future determination to pay dividends to holders of our common stock will depend on our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, banking regulations, contractual restrictions and any other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant.

Dividend Restrictions. Under the terms of our subordinated notes issued in June 2015 and the related subordinated note purchase agreements, we are not permitted to declare or pay any dividends on our capital stock if an event of default occurs under the terms of the subordinated notes. Additionally, under the terms of such notes, we are not permitted to declare or pay any dividends on our capital stock if we are not “well capitalized” for regulatory purposes immediately prior to the payment of such dividend. The terms of the debentures underlying our trust preferred securities also prohibit us from paying dividends on our capital stock if we are in deferral of interest payments on those debentures.

As a bank holding company, our ability to pay dividends is affected by the policies and enforcement powers of the Federal Reserve. Information on regulatory restrictions on our ability to pay dividends is set forth in “Part I, Item I – Business – Supervision and Regulation – Regulation and Supervision of the Company – Dividend Payments.” In addition, because we are a holding company, we are dependent upon the payment of dividends by the Bank to us as our principal source of funds to pay dividends in the future, if any, and to make other payments. The Bank is also subject to various legal, regulatory and other restrictions on its ability to pay dividends and make other distributions and payments

to us, as further discussed in “Part I, Item I – Business – Supervision and Regulation—Regulation and Supervision of the Bank—Dividend Payments.”

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return on the Company's common stock from May 24, 2016 (the date of the Company’s initial public offering and listing on NASDAQ) through December 31, 2016. The graph compares the Company's common stock with the NASDAQ Composite Index and the NASDAQ Bank Index. The graph assumes an investment of $100.00 in the Company's common stock and each index on May 24, 2016 and reinvestment of all quarterly dividends. Measurement points are May 24, 2016 and the last trading day of each subsequent month end through December 31, 2016. There is no assurance that the Company's common stock performance will continue in the future with the same or similar results as shown in the graph.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

The following table sets forth information regarding the Company’s repurchase of shares of its outstanding common stock during the fourth quarter of 2016.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

None.

Use of Proceeds from Registered Securities

On May 24, 2016, the Company sold 3,044,252 shares of common stock in its initial public offering, and on June 6, 2016, the Company issued an additional 545,813 shares of common stock when the underwriters for the initial public offering fully exercised their option to purchase additional shares. All of the shares were sold pursuant to our Registration Statement on Form S-1, as amended (File No. 333-210683), which was declared effective by the SEC on May 23, 2016. Our common stock is currently traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol “MSBI”.

There has been no material change in the planned use of proceeds from our initial public offering as described in our prospectus filed with the SEC on May 24, 2016 pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) under the Securities Act. From the effective date of the registration statement through December 31, 2016, the Company contributed $25.0 million of the net proceeds of the initial public offering to the Bank, and used $8.0 million to redeem the Company’s outstanding 8.25% subordinated notes due June 2021.

 

Item 6 – Selected Financial Data

The following consolidated selected financial data is derived from the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2016. This information should be read in connection with our audited consolidated financial statements, related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” appearing elsewhere in this report.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-GAAP Financial Measures

Our management uses the following non-GAAP financial measures in its analysis of our performance: “tangible common equity,” “tangible common equity to tangible assets,” “tangible book value per share,” “tangible book value per share—as converted,” “return on average tangible common equity,” “adjusted earnings,” “adjusted diluted earnings per share,” “adjusted return on average assets,” “adjusted return on average tangible common equity,” “yield on loans excluding accretion income,” and “net interest margin excluding accretion income.”

Tangible Common Equity, Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets Ratio, Tangible Book Value Per Share and Tangible Book Value Per Share (as converted).  Tangible common equity, tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio, tangible book value per share and tangible book value per share—as converted are non-GAAP measures generally used by financial analysts and investment bankers to evaluate capital adequacy. We calculate: (i) tangible common equity as total shareholders’ equity less preferred equity, noncontrolling interest in subsidiaries, goodwill and other intangible assets (excluding mortgage servicing rights); (ii) tangible assets as total assets less goodwill and other intangible assets; and (iii) tangible book value per share as tangible common equity divided by shares of common stock outstanding (in the case of the “as converted” measure, assuming the conversion of all preferred shares that were outstanding prior to December 31, 2014).

Our management, banking regulators, many financial analysts and other investors use these measures in conjunction with more traditional bank capital ratios to compare the capital adequacy of banking organizations with significant amounts of preferred equity and/or goodwill or other intangible assets, which typically stem from the use of the purchase accounting method of accounting for mergers and acquisitions. Tangible common equity, tangible assets, tangible book value per share and related measures should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for total shareholders’ equity, total assets, book value per share or any other measure calculated in accordance with GAAP. Moreover, the manner in which we calculate tangible common equity, tangible assets, tangible book value per share (as converted) and any other related measures may differ from that of other companies reporting measures with similar names. The following table reconciles shareholders’ equity (on a GAAP basis) to tangible common equity and total assets (on a GAAP basis) to tangible assets, and calculates our tangible book value per share (as converted):