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, 2017

 

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 defined 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 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  ☒ Yes  ☐ No

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) 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, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) 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, 2017 was $563,546,452 (based on the closing price on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on that date of $33.52).

 

As of March 1, 2018, the Registrant had 23,738,671 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 7, 2018 to be filed within 120 days after December 31, 2017, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

 

 

MIDLAND STATES BANCORP, INC.

2017 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 of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Basel III rules 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;

•legislative and regulatory changes;

•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 recently completed acquisition of Alpine Bancorporation, Inc. (“Alpine”), including the possibility that we may not realize the anticipated benefits of the transaction;

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

•monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. government, including policies of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”), 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;

•the effects of competition from a wide variety of local, regional, national and other providers of financial, investment and insurance services and demand for financial services in our market areas;

•changes in federal tax law or policy, including effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act;

•the quality and composition of our loan and investment portfolios and the valuation of our investment portfolio;

•demand for loan products and deposit flows; and

•accounting principles, policies and guidelines.

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. Our commercial equipment leasing and finance business, which operates on a nationwide basis, was formerly conducted through our subsidiary, Heartland Business Credit Corporation (“Business Credit”), based in Denver, Colorado, and beginning in January 2018 was brought directly into the Bank as Midland Equipment Finance. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had total assets of $4.4 billion, and our wealth management group had assets under administration of approximately $2.0 billion.

Our strategic plan is focused on building a performance-based, customer-centric culture, seeking accretive acquisitions, driving organic growth, creating revenue diversification and maintaining a robust enterprise-wide risk management program. Over the past several years, we have grown organically and through a series of acquisitions, with an over-arching focus on enhancing shareholder value and building a platform for scalability. Most recently, on February 28, 2018, we acquired Alpine Bancorporation, Inc. (“Alpine”) and its banking subsidiary, Alpine Bank & Trust Co. (“Alpine Bank”), which we intend to merge into the Bank as part of our integration process. As of December 31, 2017, Alpine had total assets of $1.2 billion, gross loans of $824.6 million and total deposits of $1.1 billion. In addition, on June 9, 2017, the Company completed its acquisition of Centrue Financial Corporation (“Centrue”) and its banking subsidiary, Centrue Bank. As of June 9, 2017, Centrue had total assets of $990.3 million, loans of $679.9 million and deposits of $739.9 million. We also acquired CedarPoint Investment Advisors, Inc. (“CedarPoint”), an SEC registered investment advisory firm with approximately $180.0 million in assets under administration on March 28, 2017.

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. As of December 31, 2017, we operated 61 banking offices in 43 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 facilities, 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.

Commercial Equipment Leasing.   Midland Equipment Finance, the Bank’s equipment leasing and financing group, originates and manages custom leasing and financing programs for commercial customers on a nationwide basis.  This business is based on developing and maintaining strong relationships with customers and vendors and providing comparably fast, consistent credit decisions.  The financings generated by this group are most typically retained and serviced by the Bank, and are generally in the $50,000 to $250,000 range, but can be larger in certain circumstances.

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. In March 2017, we acquired CedarPoint, a registered investment advisor, which provides us with an additional investment platform to offer our clients. In November 2017, CedarPoint was renamed Midland Financial Advisors, Inc.

FHA Origination and Servicing.  We conduct our FHA origination business through Love Funding. Love Funding originates commercial mortgage loans for multifamily and healthcare facilities under FHA insurance programs, and sells those loans into the secondary market through mortgage-backed securities guaranteed by the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”). We generally retain the mortgage servicing rights on the underlying loans. 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.

Competition

We compete in a number of areas, including commercial and retail banking, residential mortgages, wealth management, commercial equipment leasing and financing and commercial FHA loan originations in the multifamily 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, 2017, 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 32.9% of the total deposits. As of June 30, 2017, 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 first based on total deposits of all banking offices in Lee County, with approximately 23.8% of the total deposits. With the addition of Centrue on June 9, 2017, the Bank ranked first based on total deposits of all banking offices in Kankakee County, with approximately 17.2% of the total deposits as of June 30, 2017 and second based on total deposits of all banking offices in La Salle County, with approximately 10.9% of the total deposits as of June 30, 2017. The Bank also has branches located in Bond, Bureau, Champaign, Fayette, Grundy, Kendall, Livingston, Marion, Monroe, St. Clair, Stephenson, Whiteside, Will, and Winnebago Counties in Illinois. In the entire state of Illinois, as of June 30, 2017, there were 518 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, 2017, we had approximately 840 employees. None of our employees is represented by any collective bargaining unit or is a party 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”). The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference into this report.

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 Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”).  Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities, and anti-money laundering laws enforced by the 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 we may make, reserve requirements, required capital levels relative to the Company’s 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 insiders and affiliates and the Company’s payment of dividends. In reaction to the global financial crisis and particularly following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, we experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny. Although the reforms primarily targeted systemically important financial service providers, their influence filtered down in varying degrees to community banks over time and caused the Company’s compliance and risk management processes, and the costs thereof, to increase. After the 2016 federal elections, momentum to decrease the regulatory burden on community banks gathered strength. Although these deregulatory trends continue to receive much discussion among the banking industry, lawmakers and the bank regulatory agencies, little substantive progress has yet been made. The true impact of proposed reforms remains difficult to predict with any certainty.

The supervisory framework for U.S. banking organizations 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, require more capital to be held in the form of common stock and disallow certain funds from being included in capital determinations. These standards represent regulatory capital requirements 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 we have assets of less than $15 billion, we are able to maintain the Company’s trust preferred proceeds as capital but we have 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. As 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. It is institutionalized by the Dodd-Frank Act for all banking organizations, even for the advanced approaches banks, 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 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 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 bank holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $1 billion).

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 will change. 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 (as of January 1, 2018, it had phased in to 1.875%). 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 January 1, 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, 2017: (i) the Bank was not subject to a directive from the Federal Reserve to increase its capital and (ii) the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by Federal Reserve regulations. As of December 31, 2017, 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, we are registered with, and subject to regulation by, the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. We are 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 we might not otherwise do so. Under the BHCA, we are subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve and are required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the Company’s operations and such additional information regarding us 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 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 us 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. In 2006, we elected to operate as a financial holding company. In order to maintain our status as a financial holding company, both 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 we are not well-capitalized or well-managed, we will have a period of time in which to achieve compliance, but during the period of noncompliance, the Federal Reserve may place any limitations on us it believes to

be appropriate. Furthermore, if the Federal Reserve determines that the Bank has not received a satisfactory CRA rating, we will not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities. As of December 31, 2017, we retained our election as a financial holding company, which such election affords the ability to respond more quickly to market developments and opportunities.

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 the Company’s 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, we are subject to the limitations of the Illinois Business Corporations Act, as amended, which allows us to pay dividends unless, after such dividend, (i) we would not be able to pay the Company’s debts as they become due in the usual course of business or (ii) the Company’s total assets would be less than the sum of the Company’s total liabilities plus any amount that would be needed if we were to be dissolved at the time of the dividend payment, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders whose rights are superior to the rights of the shareholders receiving the distribution.

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 encourages 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. We have consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50

billion and we are 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. As of December 31, 2017, these rules remain in proposed form.

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, we are 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. The Dodd-Frank Act increased shareholder 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 shareholders 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 their risk classification. For institutions like the Bank that are not considered large and highly complex banking organizations, assessments are now based on examination ratings and financial ratios. The total base assessment rates currently range from 1.5 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 the resources other than U.S. deposits.

  The reserve ratio is the FDIC insurance fund 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 1.28% on September 30, 2017. 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 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 2017 was 0.540 basis points (54 cents per $100 dollars of assessable deposits).

Supervisory Assessments.  All Illinois-chartered 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, 2017, the Bank paid supervisory assessments to the DFPR totaling approximately $298,000.    

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 September 2014, which requires large financial firms to hold levels of liquid assets sufficient to protect against constraints on their funding during times of financial turmoil, and in 2016 proposed implementation of the NSFR. While these tests only apply to the largest banking organizations in the country, certain elements are expected to filter down to all FDIC-insured institutions. We are reviewing 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 conducting quarterly commercial real estate portfolio stress testing.

Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Bank. Under Illinois banking law, Illinois-chartered banks generally may pay dividends only out of undivided profits.  The DFPR may restrict the declaration or payment of a dividend by an Illinois-chartered bank, such as the Bank. 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, 2017.  Notwithstanding the availability of funds for dividends, however, the Federal Reserve 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 laws and 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 laws and 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 a 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 must 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 establishment of new interstate branches has

historically been permitted only in those states the laws of which expressly authorize such expansion. The Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized and well-managed banks to establish new interstate branches or the acquisition of 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 2018, the first $16 million of otherwise reservable balances are exempt from reserves and have a zero percent reserve requirement; for transaction accounts aggregating more than $16 million to $122.3 million, the reserve requirement is 3% of total transaction accounts; and for net transaction accounts in excess of $122.3 million, the reserve requirement is 3% up to $122.3 million plus 10% of the aggregate amount of total transaction accounts in excess of $122.3 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 (“USA 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 USA 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, 2017, 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. We do not currently expect the CFPB’s rules to have a significant impact on the Company’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, 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 or that the Company believes are immaterial 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 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 maintain our allowance for loan losses 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, 2017, our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 0.51% and as a percentage of total nonperforming loans was 61.4%. Although management believed, as of such date, that the allowance for loan losses was 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, 2017, approximately 64.9% 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 68.0% of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2017. 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 the value of which 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 or 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 6.2% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2017, 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.

The occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our information security controls or cybersecurity-related incidents could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

As a bank, we are susceptible to fraudulent activity, information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents that may be committed against us or our clients, which may result in financial losses or increased costs to us or our clients, disclosure or misuse of our information or our client information, misappropriation of assets, privacy breaches against our clients, litigation or damage to our reputation.  Such fraudulent activity may take many forms, including check fraud, electronic fraud, wire fraud, phishing, social engineering and other dishonest acts.  Information security breaches and cybersecurity-related incidents may include fraudulent or unauthorized access to systems used by us or our clients, denial or degradation of service attacks and malware or other cyber-attacks. 

In recent periods, there continues to be a rise in electronic fraudulent activity, security breaches and cyber-attacks within the financial services industry, especially in the commercial banking sector due to cyber criminals targeting commercial bank accounts.  Moreover, in recent periods, several large corporations, including financial institutions and retail companies, have suffered major data breaches, in some cases exposing not only confidential and proprietary corporate information, but also sensitive financial and other personal information of their customers and employees and subjecting them to potential fraudulent activity. Some of our clients may have been affected by these breaches, which could increase their risks of identity theft and other fraudulent activity that could involve their accounts with us.

Information pertaining to us and our clients is maintained, and transactions are executed, on networks and systems maintained by us and certain third party partners, such as our online banking, mobile banking or accounting systems.  The secure maintenance and transmission of confidential information, as well as execution of transactions over these systems, are essential to protect us and our clients against fraud and security breaches and to maintain the confidence of our clients.  Breaches of information security also may occur through intentional or unintentional acts by those having access to our systems or the confidential information of our clients, including employees.  In addition, increases in criminal activity levels and sophistication, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries, vulnerabilities in third party technologies (including browsers and operating systems) or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the technology, processes and controls that we use to prevent fraudulent transactions and to protect data about us, our clients and underlying transactions, as well as the technology used by our clients to access our systems.  Our third party partners’ inability to anticipate, or failure to adequately mitigate, breaches of security could result in a number of negative events, including losses to us or our clients, loss of business or clients, damage to our reputation, the incurrence of additional expenses, disruption to our business, additional regulatory scrutiny or penalties or our exposure to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

We depend on information technology and telecommunications systems of third parties, and any systems failures, interruptions or data breaches involving these systems could adversely affect our operations and financial condition.

Our business is highly dependent on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems, third party servicers, accounting systems, mobile and online banking platforms and financial intermediaries.  We outsource to third parties many of our major systems, such as data processing and mobile and online banking.  The failure of these systems, or the termination of a third party software license or service agreement on which any of these systems is based, could interrupt our operations.  Because our information technology and telecommunications systems interface with and depend on third party systems, we could experience service denials if demand for such services exceeds capacity or such third party systems fail or experience interruptions.  A system failure or service denial could result in a deterioration of our ability to process loans or gather deposits and provide customer service, compromise our ability to operate effectively, result in potential noncompliance with applicable laws or regulations, damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business or subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.  In addition, failures of third parties to comply with applicable laws and regulations,

or fraud or misconduct on the part of employees of any of these third parties, could disrupt our operations or adversely affect our reputation.

It may be difficult for us to replace some of our third party vendors, particularly vendors providing our core banking and information services, in a timely manner if they are unwilling or unable to provide us with these services in the future for any reason and even if we are able to replace them, it may be at higher cost or result in the loss of customers.  Any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our operations rely heavily on the secure processing, storage and transmission of information and the monitoring of a large number of transactions on a minute-by-minute basis, and even a short interruption in service could have significant consequences.  We also interact with and rely on retailers, for whom we process transactions, as well as financial counterparties and regulators. Each of these third parties may be targets of the same types of fraudulent activity, computer break-ins and other cyber security breaches described above, and the cyber security measures that they maintain to mitigate the risk of such activity may be different than our own and may be inadequate.

As a result of financial entities and technology systems becoming more interdependent and complex, a cyber incident, information breach or loss, or technology failure that compromises the systems or data of one or more financial entities could have a material impact on counterparties or other market participants, including ourselves.  As a result of the foregoing, our ability to conduct business may be adversely affected by any significant disruptions to us or to third parties with whom we interact.

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.

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 and to 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 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. If we are unable to replace loans in our existing portfolio with comparable high‑yielding loans or a larger volume of loans, our results of operations 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 Accounting Standards Codification (“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 Mr. Jeffrey G. Ludwig, our President and Chief Financial Officer.

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 seven 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 low levels for a prolonged period, and assuming longer term interest rates fall, 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. 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, and in a rising interest rate environment, 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.

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.

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, each of our subsidiaries 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 Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (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, 2017, we had $5.7 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.

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 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“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 change 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.

There is uncertainty surrounding the potential legal, regulatory and policy changes that may be enacted by the current presidential administration in the U.S. that may directly affect financial institutions and the global economy.

The current presidential administration has indicated that it would like to see changes made to certain financial reform regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act, which has resulted in increased regulatory uncertainty, and we are assessing the potential impact on financial and economic markets and on our business. Changes in federal policy and at regulatory agencies are expected to occur over time through policy and personnel changes, which could lead to changes involving the level of oversight and focus on the financial services industry. The nature, timing and economic and political effects of potential changes to the current legal and regulatory framework affecting financial institutions remain highly uncertain. At this time, it is unclear what laws, regulations and policies may change and whether future changes or uncertainty surrounding future changes will adversely affect our operating environment and therefore our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be adversely affected by changes in U.S. tax laws and regulations.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law on December 22, 2017. The legislation lowered the 35% corporate tax rate to 21%, modified the U.S. taxation of income earned outside the U.S. and limited or eliminated various deductions, tax credits and/or other tax preferences. While we will benefit on a prospective net income basis from the decrease in corporate tax rates, the legislation could negatively impact our customers because it lowers the existing caps on mortgage interest deductions and limits the state and local tax deductions. These changes could make it more difficult for borrowers to make their loan payments could also negatively impact the housing market, which could adversely affect our business and loan growth.

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 USA 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 FASB 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.

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, including for the Midland Equipment Financing operations, and Love Funding’s headquarters are located in Washington, D.C. At December 31, 2017, the Company had more than 80 locations across the United States. This includes 47 branches of the Bank located in Illinois, 13 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. and Laurence A. Schiffer, one of

our former 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. 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.

Item 4 – Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

 

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, 2017, as reported by Nasdaq, and the cash dividends declared for the periods indicated.

 

Shareholders

As of March 1, 2018, the Company had 1,157 common stock shareholders of record, and the closing price of the Company’s common stock was $31.89 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 October 2017 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. The terms of our loan agreement with another bank entered into in May 2017 provide that we are not permitted to pay dividends on our capital stock if an event of default occurs under the terms of the loan agreement.

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, 2017. 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 quarter end through December 31, 2017. 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 2017.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

None.

 

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, 2017. 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,” “return on average tangible common equity,” “adjusted earnings,” “adjusted diluted earnings per share,” “adjusted return on average assets,” and “adjusted return on average tangible common equity.”

Tangible Common Equity, Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets Ratio and Tangible Book Value Per Share.  Tangible common equity, tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio and tangible book value per share 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, 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.

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 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:

 

Return on Average Tangible Common Equity.  Management measures return on average tangible common equity to assess the Company’s capital strength and business performance. Tangible equity excludes preferred equity, goodwill and other intangible assets (excluding mortgage servicing rights), and is reviewed by banking and financial institution regulators when assessing a financial institution’s capital adequacy. This non-GAAP financial measure should not be considered a substitute for operating results determined in accordance with GAAP and may not be comparable to other similarly titled measures used by other companies. The following table reconciles return on average tangible common equity to its most comparable GAAP measure: