UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-K
x ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
OR
o 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 0-10537
OLD SECOND BANCORP, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
Delaware |
|
36-3143493 |
|
(State of Incorporation) |
|
(IRS Employer Identification Number) |
37 South River Street, Aurora, Illinois 60507
(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)
(630) 892-0202
(Registrant’s telephone number, including Area Code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
|
Title of Class |
|
Name of each exchange on which registered |
|
Common Stock, $1.00 par value |
|
The Nasdaq Stock Market |
|
Preferred Securities of Old Second Capital Trust I |
|
The Nasdaq Stock Market |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Preferred Share Purchase Rights
(Title of Class)
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o
No x
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o No x
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 x No o
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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K 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. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
|
Large accelerated filer o |
|
Accelerated filer o |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o |
|
Smaller reporting company x |
|
(Do not check if smaller reporting company) |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Exchange Act Rule 12b-2). Yes o No x
The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, on June 30, 2012, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $17.3 million. The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s common stock, par value $1.00 per share, was 14,120,918 at March 12, 2013.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the Company’s Proxy Statement for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III.
OLD SECOND BANCORP, INC.
Form 10-K
General
Old Second Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company” or the “Registrant”) was organized under the laws of Delaware on September 8, 1981. It is a registered bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHCA”). The Company’s office is located at 37 South River Street, Aurora, Illinois 60507.
The Company conducts a full service community banking and trust business through its wholly owned subsidiaries, which together with the Registrant are referred to as the “Company”:
· Old Second National Bank (the “Bank”).
· Old Second Capital Trust I, which was formed for the exclusive purpose of issuing trust preferred securities in an offering that was completed in July 2003.
· Old Second Capital Trust II, which was formed for the exclusive purpose of issuing trust preferred securities in an offering that was completed in April 2007.
· Old Second Affordable Housing Fund, L.L.C., which was formed for the purpose of providing down payment assistance for home ownership to qualified individuals.
· Station I, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in August 2008 to hold property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· Station II, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in August 2008 but not activated until February 2010, to hold additional property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· Station III, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in February 2011 but not activated until January 2012, to hold additional property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· Station IV, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in February 2011 but not activated until September 2012, to hold additional property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· Station V, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in December 2012 but not yet activated, to hold additional property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· Station VI, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in December 2012 but not yet activated, to hold additional property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· Station VII, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in December 2012 but not yet activated, to hold additional property acquired by the Bank through foreclosure or in the ordinary course of collecting a debt previously contracted with a borrower.
· River Street Advisors, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Old Second National Bank, which was formed in May 2010 to provide investment advisory/management services.
Inter-company transactions and balances are eliminated in consolidation. The Company provides financial services through its 27 banking locations that are located throughout the Chicago metropolitan area. These locations included retail offices located in Cook, Kane, Kendall, DeKalb, DuPage, LaSalle,
and Will counties in Illinois as of December 31, 2012. The Company expanded its franchise from long standing offices in the western suburbs into Cook County and traditionally growing southern Chicago suburbs with an acquisition in February 2008.
Business of the Company and its Subsidiaries
The Bank’s full service banking businesses include the customary consumer and commercial products and services that banks provide including demand, NOW, money market, savings, time deposit, individual retirement and Keogh deposit accounts; commercial, industrial, consumer and real estate lending, including installment loans, student loans, agricultural loans, lines of credit and overdraft checking; safe deposit operations; trust services; wealth management services, and an extensive variety of additional services tailored to the needs of individual customers, such as the acquisition of U.S. Treasury notes and bonds, the sale of traveler’s checks, money orders, cashier’s checks and foreign currency, direct deposit, discount brokerage, debit cards, credit cards, and other special services. The Bank also offers a full complement of electronic banking services such as Internet banking and corporate cash management products including remote deposit capture, mobile deposit capture, investment sweep accounts, zero balance accounts, automated tax payments, ATM access, telephone banking, lockbox accounts, automated clearing house transactions, account reconciliation, controlled disbursement, detail and general information reporting, wire transfers, vault services for currency and coin, and checking accounts. Commercial and consumer loans are made to corporations, partnerships and individuals, primarily on a secured basis. Commercial lending focuses on business, capital, construction, inventory and real estate lending. Installment lending includes direct and indirect loans to consumers and commercial customers. Additionally, the Bank provides a wide range of wealth management, investment, agency, and custodial services for individual, corporate, and not-for-profit clients. These services include the administration of estates and personal trusts, as well as the management of investment accounts for individuals, employee benefit plans, and charitable foundations. The Bank also originates residential mortgages, offering a wide range of mortgage products including conventional, government, and jumbo loans. Secondary marketing of those mortgages is also handled at the Bank.
Operating segments are components of a business about which separate financial information is available and that are evaluated regularly by the Company’s management in deciding how to allocate resources and assess performance. Public companies are required to report certain financial information about operating segments. The Company’s management evaluates the operations of the Company as one operating segment, i.e. community banking. As a result, disclosure of separate segment information is not required. The Company offers the products and services described above to its external customers as part of its customary banking business.
Market Area
The Bank is the principal operating subsidiary of the Company. The Bank’s primary market area is Aurora, Illinois, and its surrounding communities as well as southwestern Cook County. The city of Aurora is located in northeastern Illinois, approximately 40 miles west of Chicago. Aurora is strategically situated on U.S. Interstate 88 and is centrally located near our banking offices in Kane, Kendall, DeKalb, DuPage, LaSalle, and Will counties in Illinois. Based upon the most recent 2010 U.S. census estimates, these 6 counties together represent a market of more than 2.4 million people. Likewise, the City of Aurora has a reported population of 197,899 residents per 2010 U.S. census data. Aurora is the second largest city in the State of Illinois and is located primarily in Kane County but also areas of DuPage, Will and Kendall counties. Aurora has also experienced heavy growth as its population increased approximately 38% from the 2000 to 2010, according to U.S. census data.
Lending Activities
In 2009, the Company received an investment from the U.S. Department of Treasury (the “Treasury”) through the TARP Capital Purchase Program (the “CPP”). While the Company remains committed to using these funds to enable the Bank to continue to make loans to qualified borrowers in its market area, to date management of capital and continuing improvement in asset quality has been paramount ahead of loan growth . The Bank continued throughout 2012 to emphasize management of capital and asset quality over generating loan growth. In addition, management intends to reduce its portfolio concentrations in real estate in keeping with the requirements of the Consent Order between the Bank and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) as described in the “Supervision and Regulation” section and provided in Note 15 “Regulatory & Capital Matters” to the Consolidated Financial Statements. In 2012, the Bank originated approximately $451.2 million in loans, which included residential mortgage loans of just over $303.6 million that were subsequently sold to investors.
General. The Bank provides a broad range of commercial and retail lending services to corporations, partnerships, individuals and government agencies. The Bank actively markets its services to qualified borrowers. Lending officers actively solicit the business of new borrowers entering our market areas as well as long-standing members of the local business community. The Bank has established lending policies that include a number of underwriting factors to be considered in making a loan, including location, amortization, loan to value ratio, cash flow, pricing, documentation and the credit history of the borrower. The Bank’s loan portfolios are comprised primarily of loans in the areas of commercial real estate, residential real estate, construction, general commercial and consumer lending. As of December 31, 2012, residential mortgages made up approximately 36% of the Bank’s loan portfolio, commercial real estate loans comprised approximately 50%, construction lending comprised approximately 4%, general commercial loans comprised approximately 8%, and consumer and other lending comprised less than 2%. It is the Bank’s policy to comply at all times with the various consumer protection laws and regulations including, but not limited to, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. The Bank does not discriminate in application procedures, loan availability, pricing, structure, or terms on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, handicap, age (provided the applicant has the legal capacity to enter into a binding contract), whether income is derived from public assistance, whether a borrower resides, or his property is located, in a low- or moderate-income area, or whether a right was exercised under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The Bank strives to offer all of its credit services throughout its market area, including low- and moderate-income areas.
Commercial Loans. As noted above, the Bank is an active commercial lender, primarily located west and south of the Chicago metropolitan area and active in other parts of the Chicago and Aurora metropolitan areas. The Bank’s areas of emphasis include loans to wholesalers, manufacturers, business services companies, professionals, and retailers. The Bank provides a wide range of business loans, including lines of credit for working capital and operational purposes and term loans for the acquisition of equipment and other purposes. Collateral for these loans generally includes accounts receivable, inventory, equipment and real estate. In addition, the Bank may take personal guarantees to help assure repayment. Loans may be made on an unsecured basis if warranted by the overall financial condition of the borrower. Commercial lines of credit are generally for one year and have floating rates. Commercial term loans range principally from one to eight years with the majority falling in the one to five year range. Interest rates are primarily fixed although some have interest rates that change based on the prime rate or LIBOR. While management would like to continue to diversify the loan portfolio, overall demand for working capital and equipment financing continued to be muted in our primary market area in 2012. Repayment of commercial loans is largely dependent upon the cash flows generated by the operations of the commercial enterprise. The Bank’s underwriting procedures identify the sources of those cash flows and seek to match the repayment terms of the commercial loans to the sources. Secondary repayment sources are typically found in collateralization and guarantor support.
Commercial Real Estate Loans. While management has been actively working to reduce the Bank’s concentrations in real estate loans, including commercial real estate loans, a large portion of the loan portfolio continues to be comprised of commercial real estate loans. As of December 31, 2012, approximately $288.2 million, or 49.7%, of the total commercial real estate loan portfolio of $580.0 million was to owner occupied borrowers. A primary repayment risk for a commercial real estate loan is interruption or discontinuance of cash flows from operations. Such cash flows are usually derived from rent in the case of nonowner occupied commercial properties. Repayment could also be influenced by economic events, which may or may not be under the control of the borrower, or changes in governmental regulations that negatively impact the future cash flow and market values of the affected properties. With the exception of owner-occupied, multi-family apartments and select investor properties (including medical related) the Bank is not focused on initiating new commercial real estate loans at this time. Repayment risk can also arise from general downward shifts in the valuations of classes of properties over a given geographic area such as the price adjustments that have been observed by the Company beginning in 2008. Property valuations could continue to be affected by changes in demand and other economic factors, which could further influence cash flows associated with the borrower and/or the property. The Bank attempts to mitigate these risks through staying apprised of market conditions and by maintaining underwriting practices that provide for adequate cash flow margins and multiple repayment sources as well as remaining in regular contact with the borrowers. In most cases, the Bank has collateralized these loans and/or has taken personal guarantees to help assure repayment. Commercial real estate loans are primarily made based on the identified cash flow of the borrower and/or the property at origination and secondarily on the underlying real estate acting as collateral. Additional credit support is provided by the borrower for most of these loans and the probability of repayment is based on the liquidation of the real estate and enforcement of a personal guarantee, if any exists.
Construction Loans. The Bank is not actively seeking construction loans at this time, with the exception of existing borrowers whose businesses are expanding. Construction lending is very limited in the current economic environment, as such loans in this category decreased from $71.4 million at December 31, 2011 to $42.2 million at December 31, 2012. The Bank uses underwriting and construction loan guidelines to determine whether to issue loans to reputable contractors. Construction loans are structured most often to be converted to permanent loans at the end of the construction phase or, infrequently, to be paid off upon receiving financing from another financial institution. Construction loans are generally limited to our local market area. Lending decisions have been based on the appraised value of the property as determined by an independent appraiser, an analysis of the potential marketability and profitability of the project and identification of a cash flow source to service the permanent loan or verification of a refinancing source. Construction loans generally have terms of up to 12 months, with extensions as needed. The Bank disburses loan proceeds in increments as construction progresses and as inspections warrant.
Construction development loans involve additional risks and the Bank is not actively seeking any new development loans at this time because of the ongoing economic environment. Development lending often involves the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of the borrower or guarantor to repay principal and interest. This generally involves more risk than other lending because it is based on future estimates of value and economic circumstances. While appraisals are required prior to funding, and loan advances are limited to the value determined by the appraisal, there is the possibility of an unforeseen event affecting the value and/or costs of the project. Development loans are primarily used for single-family developments, where the sale of lots and houses are tied to customer preferences and interest rates. If the borrower defaults prior to completion of the project, the Bank may be required to fund additional amounts so that another developer can complete the project. The Bank is located in an area where a large amount of development activity has occurred as rural and semi-rural areas are being suburbanized. This type of growth presents
some economic risks should the shift in local demand for housing that occurred in conjunction with recent economic conditions become permanent. The Bank addresses these risks by closely monitoring local real estate activity, adhering to proper underwriting procedures, closely monitoring construction projects, and limiting the amount of construction development lending.
Activity in this sector slowed considerably with the downward economic trends in real estate and other markets that the Company and the U.S. economy have experienced since 2008. Very few construction loans were made in 2011 and 2012 compared to years prior to 2009 due to the unfavorable economic environment for new home sales.
Residential Real Estate Loans. Residential first mortgage loans, second mortgages, and home equity line of credit mortgages are included in this category. First mortgage loans may include fixed rate loans that are generally sold to investors. The Bank is a direct seller to the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) and to several large financial institutions. The Bank periodically retains servicing rights for sold mortgages. The periodic retention of such servicing rights also allows the Bank an opportunity to have regular contact with mortgage customers and can help to solidify community involvement. Other loans that are not sold include adjustable rate mortgages, lot loans, and constructions loans that are held in portfolio by the Bank. Home equity lending has continued to slow in the past year but is still a significant portion of the Bank’s business.
Consumer Loans. The Bank also provides many types of consumer loans including motor vehicle, home improvement, signature loans and small personal credit lines. Consumer loans typically have shorter terms and lower balances with higher yields as compared to other loans but generally carry higher risks of default. Consumer loan collections are dependent on the borrower’s continuing financial stability and thus are more likely to be affected by adverse personal circumstances.
Competition
The Company’s market area is highly competitive, and the Bank’s lines of business and activities require us to compete with many other companies. A number of these financial institutions are affiliated with large bank holding companies headquartered outside of our principal market area as well as other institutions that are based in Aurora’s surrounding communities and in Chicago, Illinois. All of these financial institutions operate banking offices in the greater Aurora area or actively compete for customers within the Company’s market area. The Bank also faces competition from finance companies, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage companies, securities brokerage firms, United States Government securities, money market funds, loan production offices and other providers of financial services. Many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive federal regulations that govern bank holding companies and banks, such as the Company. Such non-bank competitors may, as a result, have certain advantages over us in providing some services.
The Bank competes for loans principally through the range and quality of the client service and responsiveness to client needs that it provides in addition to competing on interest rates and loan fees. Management believes that its long-standing presence in the community and personal one-on-one service philosophy enhances its ability to compete favorably in attracting and retaining individual and business customers. The Bank actively solicits deposit-related clients and competes for deposits by offering personal attention, competitive interest rates, and professional services made available through practiced bankers and multiple delivery channels that fit the needs of its market.
The Bank is subject to vigorous competition from other financial institutions in the market. The Bank operated 27 branches in the seven counties of Kane, Kendall, LaSalle, Will, DeKalb, DuPage, and
southwestern Cook County as of December 31, 2012. As of June 30, 2012, the Bank was the deposit market leader in Kane and Kendall counties where it has a concentrated number of branches. In Kane and Kendall counties, the Bank faced competition from over 216 bank branches representing 43 different FDIC financial institutions per June 30, 2011 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) share of deposit data. The Bank’s branches in the remaining counties in which it operates face many of these same competitors as well as competition from other non-FDIC insured credit unions and financial service firms. Competition for residential mortgage lending also includes a number of mortgage brokerage operations as well as traditional banks, thrifts and credit unions. The Bank’s wealth management division includes traditional trust services as well as investment advisory, brokerage, and employee benefit administration services. This diverse array of products and services allows us to compete against other larger banks as well as specialized brokerage companies. The financial services industry is also likely to become more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services without having a physical presence in our market.
Employees
At December 31, 2012, the Company employed 481 full-time equivalent employees. The Company places a high priority on staff development, which involves extensive training, including customer service training. New employees are selected on the basis of both technical skills and customer service capabilities. None of the Company’s employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the Company.
Internet
The Company maintains a corporate web site at http://www.oldsecond.com. The Company makes available free of charge on or through its web site the Annual Report 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 Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Many of the Company’s policies, committee charters and other investor information including our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, are available on the web site. The Company’s reports, proxy and informational statements and other information regarding the Company are available free of charge on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov). The Company will also provide copies of its filings free of charge upon written request to: J. Douglas Cheatham, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Old Second Bancorp, Inc., 37 South River Street, Aurora, Illinois 60507.
SUPERVISION AND REGULATION
General
Financial institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates are extensively regulated under federal and state law. As a result, the growth and earnings performance of the Company may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various bank regulatory authorities, including the OCC, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”), FDIC and the newly-created Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB”). Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities have an impact on the business of the Company. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and accounting rules are significant to the operations and results of the Company and the Bank, and the nature and extent of future legislative, regulatory, or other changes affecting financial institutions are impossible to predict with any certainty.
Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation, and enforcement on the operations of financial 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 federal and state laws, and the regulations of the bank regulatory authorities issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of business, the kinds and amounts of investments banks may make, reserve requirements, capital levels relative to operations, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with insiders and affiliates and the payment of dividends. In addition, substantial turmoil in the credit markets in past years prompted the enactment of unprecedented legislation that has allowed the Treasury to make equity capital available to qualifying financial institutions to help restore confidence and stability in the U.S. financial markets, which imposes additional requirements on institutions in which the Treasury invests.
In addition, the Company and the Bank are subject to regular examination by their respective regulatory authorities, which results in examination reports and ratings (that are not publicly available) that can impact the conduct and growth of 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. 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 or regulatory provision.
Financial Regulatory Reform
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) into law. The Dodd-Frank Act represents a sweeping reform of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions and capital markets in the United States, certain aspects of which are described below in more detail. The Dodd-Frank Act creates new federal governmental entities responsible for overseeing different aspects of the U.S. financial services industry, including identifying emerging systemic risks. It also shifts certain authorities and responsibilities among federal financial institution regulators, including the supervision of holding company affiliates and the regulation of consumer financial services and products. In particular, and
among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act: creates the CFPB, which is authorized to regulate providers of consumer credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services; narrows the scope of federal preemption of state consumer laws enjoyed by national banks and federal savings associations and expands the authority of state attorneys general to bring actions to enforce federal consumer protection legislation; imposes more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies and subjects certain activities, including interstate mergers and acquisitions, to heightened capital conditions; significantly expands underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property; restricts the interchange fees payable on debit card transactions for issuers with $10 billion in assets or greater; requires the originator of a securitized loan, or the sponsor of a securitization, to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of securitized exposures unless the underlying exposures are qualified residential mortgages or meet certain underwriting standards to be determined by regulation; creates a Financial Stability Oversight Council as part of a regulatory structure for identifying emerging systemic risks and improving interagency cooperation; provides for enhanced regulation of advisers to private funds and of the derivatives markets; enhances oversight of credit rating agencies; and prohibits banking agency requirements tied to credit ratings.
Numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are required to be implemented through rulemaking by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies. Many of the required regulations have been issued and others have been released for public comment, but there remain a number that have yet to be released in any form. Furthermore, while the reforms primarily target systemically important financial service providers, their influence is expected to filter down in varying degrees to smaller institutions over time. Management of the Company and the Bank will continue to evaluate the effect of the changes; however, in many respects, the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act will not be fully known for years, and no current assurance may be given that the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other new legislative changes, will not have a negative impact on the results of operations and financial condition of the Company and the Bank.
The Increasing Regulatory Emphasis on Capital
The Company is subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking regulators noted above. Failure to meet regulatory capital requirements may result in certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on our financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for “prompt corrective action” (described below), the Company must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting policies. Our capital amounts and classifications are also subject to judgments by the regulators regarding qualitative components, risk weightings and other factors.
While capital has historically been one of the key measures of the financial health of both bank holding companies and depository institutions, its role is becoming fundamentally more important in the wake of the financial crisis, as the regulators have recognized that the amount and quality of capital held by banking organizations was insufficient to absorb losses during periods of severe stress. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, discussed below, will ultimately establish strengthened capital standards for banks and bank holding companies, will require more capital to be held in the form of common stock and will disallow certain funds from being included in capital determinations. Once fully implemented, these provisions will represent regulatory capital requirements that are meaningfully more stringent than those in place currently.
Company and Bank Required Capital Levels. Bank holding companies have historically had to comply with less stringent capital standards than their bank subsidiaries and were 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 bank holding companies on a consolidated basis that are as stringent as those required for insured depository institutions. As a consequence, over a phase-in period of three years, the components of holding company permanent capital known as “Tier 1 capital” are being restricted to capital instruments that are considered to be Tier 1 capital for insured depository institutions.
A result of this change is that the proceeds of trust preferred securities are being excluded from Tier 1 capital unless such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by bank holding companies with less than $15 billion of assets. Because the Company has assets of less than $15 billion, it is able to maintain its trust preferred proceeds as Tier 1 capital but will have to comply with new capital mandates in other respects, and will not be able to raise Tier 1 capital in the future through the issuance of trust preferred securities. In addition, the Basel III proposal, discussed below, includes a phase-out of trust preferred securities for all bank holding companies, including the Company.
Under current federal regulations, the Bank is subject to, and, after the phase-in period, the Company will be subject to, the following minimum capital standards:
· a leverage requirement, consisting of a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 3% for the most highly-rated banks with a minimum requirement of at least 4% for all others, and
· a risk-based capital requirement, consisting of a minimum ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8% and a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4%. For this purpose, “Tier 1 capital” consists primarily of common stock, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus less intangible assets (other than certain loan servicing rights and purchased credit card relationships). Total capital consists primarily of Tier 1 capital plus “Tier 2 capital,” which includes other non-permanent capital items, such as certain other debt and equity instruments that do not qualify as Tier 1 capital, and a portion of the Bank’s allowance for loan and lease losses.
The capital standards described above are minimum requirements. 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 brokered deposits. Under the capital regulations of the Federal Reserve, in order to be “well-capitalized,” a banking organization must maintain a ratio of total capital to total risk-weighted assets of 10% or greater, a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 6% or greater and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total assets of 5% or greater. The Federal Reserve’s guidelines also provide that bank holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. Furthermore, the guidelines indicate that the Federal Reserve will continue to consider a “tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio” (deducting all intangibles) in evaluating proposals for expansion or to engage in new activity.
Higher capital levels may 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.
Prompt Corrective Action. A banking organization’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 be acquired; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate 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.
As of December 31, 2012, the Bank exceeded its minimum regulatory capital requirements under OCC capital adequacy guidelines. However, as discussed under “— The Bank — Enforcement Actions,” the Bank has agreed with the OCC to maintain certain heightened regulatory capital ratios. As of December 31, 2012, the Bank exceeded the heightened regulatory capital ratios to which it had agreed. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s requirements and met the Dodd-Frank Act requirements.
Basel III. The current risk-based capital guidelines described above, which apply to the Bank and are being phased in for the Company, are 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, as implemented by the U.S. federal banking regulators on an interagency basis. 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). Basel II emphasized internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.
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. Basel III requires, among other things:
· a new required ratio of minimum common equity equal to 4.5% of risk-weighted assets,
· an increase in the minimum required amount of Tier 1 capital from the current level of 4% of total assets to 6% of risk-weighted assets, and
· a continuation of the current minimum required amount of total capital at 8% of risk-weighted assets.
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 attributable to a capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years. The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. Factoring in the conservation buffer increases the ratios depicted above to 7% for common equity, 8.5% for Tier 1 capital and 10.5% for total capital.
On June 12, 2012, the federal banking regulators (the OCC, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC) (the “Agencies”) formally proposed for comment, in three separate but related proposals, rules to implement Basel III in the United States. The proposals are: (i) the “Basel III Proposal,” which applies the Basel III capital framework to almost all U.S. banking organizations; (ii) the “Standardized Approach Proposal,” which applies certain elements of the Basel II standardized approach for credit risk weightings to almost all U.S. banking organizations; and (iii) the “Advanced Approaches Proposal,” which applies changes made to Basel II and Basel III in the past few years to large U.S. banking organizations subject to the advanced Basel II capital framework. The comment period for these notices of proposed rulemaking ended October 22, 2012.
The Basel III Proposal and the Standardized Approach Proposal are expected to have a direct impact on the Company and the Bank. The Basel III Proposal is applicable to all U.S. banks that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including federal and state banks, 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 $500 million). There will be separate phase-in/phase-out periods for: (i) minimum capital ratios; (ii) regulatory capital adjustments and deductions; (iii) nonqualifying capital instruments; (iv) capital conservation and countercyclical capital buffers; (v) a supplemental leverage ratio for advanced approaches banks; and (vi) changes to the FDIC’s prompt corrective action rules.
The criteria in the U.S. proposal for common equity and additional Tier 1 capital instruments, as well as Tier 2 capital instruments, are broadly consistent with the Basel III criteria. A number of instruments that now qualify as Tier 1 capital will not qualify, or their qualification will change, if the Basel III Proposal becomes final. For example, cumulative preferred stock and certain hybrid capital instruments, including trust preferred securities, which the Company may retain under the Dodd-Frank Act, will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital of any kind. Noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, which now qualifies as simple Tier 1 capital, would not qualify as common equity Tier 1 capital, but would qualify as additional Tier 1 capital.
In addition to the changes in capital requirements included within the Basel III Proposal, the Standardized Approach Proposal revises a large number of the risk weightings (or their methodologies) for bank assets that are used to determine the capital ratios. For nearly every class of assets, the proposal requires a more complex, detailed and calibrated assessment of credit risk and calculation of risk weightings. For example, under the current risk-weighting rules, residential mortgages have a risk weighting of 50%. Under the proposed new rules, two categories of residential mortgage lending would be created: (i) traditional lending would be category 1, where the risk weightings range from 35 to 100%; and (ii) nontraditional loans would fall within category 2, where the risk weightings would range from 50 to 150%. There is concern in the U.S. that the proposed methodology for risk weighting residential mortgage exposures and the higher risk weightings for certain types of mortgage products will increase costs to consumers and reduce their access to mortgage credit.
In addition, there is significant concern noted by the financial industry in connection with the Basel III rulemaking as to the proposed treatment of accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”). The proposed treatment of AOCI would require unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities to flow through to regulatory capital as opposed to the current treatment, which neutralizes such effects. There is concern that this treatment would introduce capital volatility, due not only to credit risk but also to interest rate risk, and affect the composition of firms’ securities holdings.
While the Basel III accord called for national jurisdictions to implement the new requirements beginning January 1, 2013, in light of the volume of comments received by the Agencies and the concerns expressed above, the Agencies have indicated that the commencement date for the proposed Basel III rules has been delayed and it is unclear when the Basel III regime, as it may be implemented by final rules, will become effective in the United States.
The Company
General. The Company, as the sole shareholder of the Bank, is a bank holding company. As a bank holding company, the Company is registered with, and is subject to regulation by, the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHCA”). In accordance with Federal Reserve policy, and as now codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is legally obligated to act as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where the Company might not otherwise do so. Under the BHCA, the Company is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve. The Company is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the Company’s operations and such additional information regarding the Company and its subsidiaries as the Federal Reserve may require.
Enforcement Action. On July 22, 2011, the Company entered into a Written Agreement (the “Written Agreement”) with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (the “Reserve Bank”). Under the terms of the Written Agreement, the Company is required to, among other things: (i) fully utilize its financial and managerial resources to serve as a source of strength to the Bank; (ii) obtain the written approval of the Reserve Bank (and in certain cases, the Federal Reserve) prior to the declaration or payment of any dividends, the acceptance of dividends or any other form of capital distribution from the Bank, and the payment of principal, interest, or other sums on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities; (iii) obtain the written approval of the Reserve Bank prior to incurring, increasing, or guaranteeing any debt, or repurchasing or redeeming any stock; (iv) develop, submit to the Reserve Bank, and implement a capital plan, and notify the Reserve Bank if any of the Company’s quarterly capital ratios fall below the minimum ratios set forth in the approved capital plan, along with a written plan to increase any applicable capital ratio to or above the approved minimum level; and (v) for each calendar year that the Written Agreement is in effect, submit to the Reserve Bank annual cash flow projections. The Company is also required to submit certain reports to the Reserve Bank with respect to the foregoing requirements. The Company believes that it is in compliance with the provisions of the Written Agreement.
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 and the Dodd-Frank Act), 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 insured depository institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state depository 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 “—The Increasing Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.
The BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking ... as to be a proper incident thereto.” This authority would permit the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage. The BHCA generally does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of non-bank 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 depository institutions or the financial system generally. The Company is not operating as a financial holding company.
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 minimum levels of capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy guidelines, as affected by the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—The Increasing Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.
U.S. Government Investment in Bank Holding Companies. Events in the U.S. and global financial markets in 2008 and 2009, including the deterioration of the worldwide credit markets, created significant challenges for financial institutions throughout the country. In response to this crisis affecting the U.S. banking system and financial markets, on October 3, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the “EESA”). The EESA authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to implement various temporary emergency programs designed to strengthen the capital positions of financial institutions and stimulate the availability of credit within the U.S. financial system. Financial institutions participating in certain of the programs established under the EESA are required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance.
On October 14, 2008, the Treasury announced that it would provide Tier 1 capital (in the form of perpetual preferred stock) to eligible financial institutions. This program, known as the TARP Capital Purchase Program (the “CPP”), allocated $250 billion from the $700 billion authorized by the EESA to the Treasury for the purchase of senior preferred shares from qualifying financial institutions (the “CPP Preferred Stock”). Under the program, eligible institutions were able to sell equity interests to the Treasury in amounts equal to between 1% and 3% of the institution’s risk-weighted assets. The CPP Preferred Stock is non-voting and pays dividends at the rate of 5% per annum for the first five years and thereafter at a rate of 9% per annum. In conjunction with the purchase of the CPP Preferred Stock, the Treasury received warrants to purchase common stock from the participating public institutions with an aggregate market price equal to 15% of the preferred stock investment. Participating financial institutions were required to adopt the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury holds equity issued under the CPP. These requirements are discussed in more detail in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section in the Company’s proxy statement, which is incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K.
Pursuant to the CPP, on January 16, 2009, the Company entered into a Letter Agreement with the Treasury, pursuant to which the Company issued (i) 73,000 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series B and (ii) a warrant to purchase 815,339 shares of the Company’s common stock for an aggregate purchase price of $73.0 million in cash. The Company’s federal regulators, as well as the Treasury’s Office of the Inspector General, maintain significant oversight over the Company as a participating institution, to evaluate how it is using the capital provided and to ensure that it strengthens its efforts to help its borrowers avoid foreclosure, which is one of the core aspects of the EESA.
Dividend Payments. The Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. As a Delaware corporation, the Company is subject to the limitations of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”). The DGCL allows the Company to pay dividends only out of its surplus (as defined and computed in accordance with the provisions of the DGCL) or, if the Company has no such surplus, out of its net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year.
As a general matter, the Federal Reserve indicates that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce the dividends 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 nonbank 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 prohibit the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies.
By virtue of express restrictions set forth in the Written Agreement, the Company may not pay any dividend unless it complies with certain provisions of the Written Agreement and receives a prior written determination of no supervisory objection from the Federal Reserve.
Furthermore, the Company’s ability to pay dividends on its common stock is restricted by the terms of certain of its other securities. For example, under the terms of certain of the Company’s junior subordinated debentures, it may not pay dividends on its capital stock unless all accrued and unpaid interest payments on the subordinated debentures have been fully paid. Additionally, the terms of the CPP Preferred Stock provide that no dividends on any common or preferred stock that ranks equal to or junior to the CPP Preferred Stock may be paid unless and until all accrued and unpaid dividends for all past dividend periods on the CPP Preferred Stock have been fully paid. On August 31, 2010, the Company announced that it had elected to begin deferring the interest payments due on the junior subordinated debentures described above, as well as the dividend payments due on the CPP Preferred Stock, and therefore may not pay common stock dividends until such time as these deferred payments have been made in full.
Federal Securities Regulation. The Company’s common stock is registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Consequently, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Exchange Act.
Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act will increase stockholder influence over boards of directors by requiring companies to give stockholders a non-binding vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, and authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate and solicit voters for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. The legislation also directs the Federal Reserve to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to bank holding company executives, regardless of whether the Company is publicly traded.
The Bank
General. The Bank is a national bank, chartered by the OCC under the National Bank Act. The deposit accounts of the Bank are insured by the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations, and the Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System. As a national bank, the Bank is subject to the examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the OCC, the chartering authority for national banks. The FDIC, as administrator of the DIF, also has regulatory authority over the Bank.
Enforcement Action. On May 16, 2011, the Bank entered into a Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) with the OCC. Pursuant to the Consent Order, the Bank has agreed to take certain actions and operate in compliance with the Consent Order’s provisions during its terms.
Under the terms of the Consent Order, the Bank is required to, among other things: (i) adopt and adhere to a three-year written strategic plan that establishes objectives for the Bank’s overall risk profile, earnings performance, growth, balance sheet mix, off-balance sheet activities, liability structure, capital adequacy,
reduction in nonperforming assets and its product development; (ii) adopt and maintain a capital plan; (iii) by September 30, 2011, achieve and thereafter maintain a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 11.25% and a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 8.75%; (iv) seek approval of the OCC prior to paying any dividends on its capital stock; (v) develop a program to reduce the Bank’s credit risk; (vi) obtain or update appraisals on certain loans secured by real estate; (vii) implement processes to ensure that real estate valuations conform to applicable standards; (viii) take certain actions related to credit and collateral exceptions; (ix) reaffirm the Bank’s liquidity risk management program; and (x) appoint a compliance committee of the Bank’s Board of Directors to help ensure the Bank’s compliance with the Consent Order. The Bank is also required to submit certain reports to the OCC with respect to the foregoing requirements and the Bank’s Board of Directors has appointed a compliance committee to monitor and coordinate the Bank’s performance under the Consent Order. The Bank believes that it is in compliance with the provisions of the Consent Order.
Because the Bank is deemed to be in “troubled condition” by virtue of the Consent Order, it also is required to: (i) obtain the prior approval of the OCC for the appointment of new directors and the hiring or promotion of senior executive officers; and (ii) comply with restrictions on severance payments and indemnification payments to institution-affiliated parties.
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 depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to the regulators.
On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule that required insured depository institutions to prepay estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. As such, on December 31, 2009, the Bank prepaid the FDIC its assessments based on its actual September 30, 2009 assessment base, adjusted quarterly by an estimated 5% annual growth rate through the end of 2012. The FDIC also used the institution’s total base assessment rate in effect on September 30, 2009, increasing it by an annualized 3 basis points beginning in 2011. The FDIC began to offset prepaid assessments on March 30, 2010, representing payment of the regular quarterly risk-based deposit insurance assessment for the fourth quarter of 2009. Any prepaid assessment not exhausted after collection of the amount due on June 30, 2013, will be returned to the institution.
Amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act also revise the assessment base against which an insured depository institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the DIF will be calculated. Under the amendments, the assessment base will no longer be the institution’s deposit base, but rather its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. This may shift the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those large depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act makes changes to the minimum designated 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 depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The FDIC is given until September 3, 2020 to meet the 1.35% reserve ratio target. Several of these provisions could increase the Bank’s FDIC deposit insurance premiums.
The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increases the maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks, savings institutions and credit unions to $250,000 per insured depositor, retroactive to January 1, 2009. Although the legislation provided that non-interest-bearing transaction accounts had unlimited deposit insurance coverage, that program ended on December 31, 2012.
FICO Assessments. The Financing Corporation (“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 depository institutions pay assessments to cover interest payments on FICO’s outstanding obligations. These FICO assessments are in addition to amounts assessed by the FDIC for deposit insurance. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the FICO assessment rate was approximately 0.0064%, which reflects the change from an assessment base computed on deposits to an assessment base computed on assets as required by the Dodd-Frank Act.
Supervisory Assessments. National banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the OCC to fund the operations of the OCC. The amount of the assessment is calculated using a formula that takes into account the bank’s size and its supervisory condition. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Bank paid supervisory assessments to the OCC totaling $787,000.
Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—The Increasing Regulatory Emphasis on Capital,” as well as “—Enforcement Actions.”
Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Bank. Under the National Bank Act, a national bank may pay dividends out of its undivided profits in such amounts and at such times as the bank’s board of directors deems prudent. Without prior OCC approval, however, a national bank may not pay dividends in any calendar year that, in the aggregate, exceed the bank’s year-to-date net income plus the bank’s retained net income for the two preceding years.
The payment of dividends by any financial institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and a financial institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. As described above, the Bank exceeded its minimum capital requirements under applicable OCC guidelines as of December 31, 2012.
By virtue of express restrictions set forth in the Consent Order, however, the Bank may not pay any dividend unless it complies with certain provisions of the Consent Order and receives a prior written determination of no supervisory objection from the OCC.
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 enhances the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates as of July 21, 2011, 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. The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines that establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of federally insured depository 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 institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If an 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 institution’s rate of growth, require the 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 banking regulators, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.
As described in further detail above, the Bank is currently subject to a Consent Order with the OCC pursuant to which it has agreed to implement a variety of programs and policies to reduce its level of credit risk. In addition, the Bank agreed to maintain certain regulatory capital ratios at levels in excess of the general minimums required to be considered “well capitalized” under applicable OCC regulations. See “— Enforcement Actions” for further detail.
Branching Authority. National banks headquartered in Illinois, such as the Bank, have the same branching rights in Illinois as banks chartered under Illinois law, subject to OCC approval. Illinois law grants Illinois-chartered banks the authority 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 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) has historically been permitted only in those states the laws of which expressly authorize such expansion. However, the Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized and well-managed banks to establish new branches across state lines without these impediments.
Financial Subsidiaries. Under federal law and OCC regulations, national banks are authorized to engage, through “financial subsidiaries,” in any activity that is permissible for a financial holding company and any activity that the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Federal Reserve, determines is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity, except (i) insurance underwriting, (ii) real estate development or real estate investment activities (unless otherwise permitted by law), (iii) insurance company portfolio investments and (iv) merchant banking. The authority of a national bank to invest in a financial subsidiary is subject to a number of conditions, including, among other things, requirements that the bank must be well-managed and well-capitalized (after deducting from capital the bank’s outstanding investments in financial subsidiaries). The Bank has not applied for approval to establish any financial subsidiaries.
Transaction Account Reserves. Federal Reserve regulations require depository institutions to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and regular checking accounts): For 2013: the first $12.4 million of otherwise reservable balances are exempt from the reserve requirements; for transaction accounts aggregating more than $12.4 million to $79.5 million, the reserve requirement is 3% of total transaction accounts; and for net transaction accounts in excess of $79.5 million, the reserve requirement is $2,013,000 plus 10% of the aggregate amount of total transaction accounts in excess of $79.5 million. These reserve requirements are subject to annual adjustment by the Federal Reserve. The Bank was in compliance with the requirements for 2012 and is in compliance with the 2013 requirements.
Consumer Financial Services
There are numerous developments in federal and state laws regarding consumer financial products and services that impact the Bank’s business. Importantly, the current 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. Banks and savings institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like the Bank, will continue to be examined by their applicable bank regulators.
Ability-to-Repay Requirement and Qualified Mortgage Rule. The Dodd-Frank Act contains additional provisions that affect consumer mortgage lending. First, it significantly expands underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property and augments federal law combating predatory lending practices. In addition to numerous new disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including banks and savings associations, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay, while also establishing a presumption of compliance for certain “qualified mortgages.” Most significantly, the new standards limit the total points and fees that the Bank and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans to 3% of the total loan amount. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally requires lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans that the lender sells and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues if the loans have not complied with the ability-to-repay standards. The risk retention requirement generally will be 5%, but could be increased or decreased by regulation.
On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule, effective January 10, 2014, which implements the Dodd-Frank Act’s ability-to-repay requirements and clarifies the presumption of compliance for “qualified mortgages.” In assessing a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage-related obligation, lenders generally must consider eight underwriting factors: (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) monthly payment on the subject transaction; (iv) monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) monthly payment for all mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. The final rule also includes guidance regarding the application of, and methodology for evaluating, these factors.
Further, the final rule also clarifies that qualified mortgages do not include “no-doc” loans and loans with negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, terms in excess of 30 years, or points and fees paid by the borrower that exceed 3% of the loan amount, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, for qualified mortgages, the monthly payment must be calculated on the highest payment that will occur in the first five years of the loan, and the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio generally may not be more than 43%. The final rule also provides that certain mortgages that satisfy the general product feature requirements for qualified mortgages and that also satisfy the underwriting requirements of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) (while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership) or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, or Department of Agriculture or Rural Housing Service are also considered to be qualified mortgages. This second category of qualified mortgages will phase out as the aforementioned federal agencies issue their own rules regarding qualified mortgages, the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ends, and, in any event, after seven years.
As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, subprime (or higher-priced) mortgage loans are subject to the ability-to-repay requirement, and the final rule provides for a rebuttable presumption of lender compliance for those loans. The final rule also applies the ability-to-repay requirement to prime loans, while also providing a conclusive presumption of compliance (i.e., a safe harbor) for prime loans that are also qualified mortgages. Additionally, the final rule generally prohibits prepayment penalties (subject to certain exceptions) and sets forth a 3-year record retention period with respect to documenting and
demonstrating the ability-to-repay requirement and other provisions.
Changes to Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation. Effective April 2, 2011, previously existing regulations concerning the compensation of mortgage loan originators were amended. As a result of these amendments, mortgage loan originators may not receive compensation based on a mortgage transaction’s terms or conditions other than the amount of credit extended under the mortgage loan. Further, the new standards limit the total points and fees that a bank and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans to 3.0% of the total loan amount. Mortgage loan originators may receive compensation from a consumer or from a lender, but not both. These rules contain requirements designed to prohibit mortgage loan originators from “steering” consumers to loans that provide mortgage loan originators with greater compensation. In addition, the rules contain other requirements concerning recordkeeping.
Foreclosure and Loan Modifications. Federal and state laws further impact foreclosures and loan modifications, with many of such laws having the effect of delaying or impeding the foreclosure process on real estate secured loans in default. Mortgages on commercial property can be modified, such as by reducing the principal amount of the loan or the interest rate, or by extending the term of the loan, through plans confirmed under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. In recent years, legislation has been introduced in the U.S. Congress that would amend the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to permit the modification of mortgages secured by residences, although at this time the enactment of such legislation is not presently proposed. The scope, duration and terms of potential future legislation with similar effect continue to be discussed. We cannot predict whether any such legislation will be passed or the impact, if any, it would have on our business.
GUIDE 3 STATISTICAL DATA REQUIREMENTS
The statistical data required by Guide 3 of the Guides for Preparation and Filing of Reports and Registration Statements under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is set forth in the following pages. This data should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements, related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” as set forth in Part II Items 7 and 8. All dollars in the tables are expressed in thousands.
I. Distribution of Assets, Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity; Interest Rate and Interest Differential.
The following table sets forth certain information relating to the Company’s average consolidated balance sheets and reflects the yield on average earning assets and cost of average liabilities for the years indicated. Dividing the related interest by the average balance of assets or liabilities derives rates. Average balances are derived from daily balances.
ANALYSIS OF AVERAGE BALANCES,
TAX EQUIVALENT INTEREST AND RATES
Years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
| ||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Average |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Balance |
|
Interest |
|
Rate |
|
Balance |
|
Interest |
|
Rate |
|
Balance |
|
Interest |
|
Rate |
| ||||||
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Interest bearing deposits |
|
$ |
48,820 |
|
$ |
119 |
|
0.24 |
% |
$ |
92,830 |
|
$ |
230 |
|
0.24 |
% |
$ |
64,894 |
|
$ |
156 |
|
0.24 |
% |
|
Federal funds sold |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
533 |
|
1 |
|
0.19 |
|
2,009 |
|
3 |
|
0.15 |
| ||||||
|
Securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Taxable |
|
395,225 |
|
7,212 |
|
1.82 |
|
161,986 |
|
3,989 |
|
2.46 |
|
154,485 |
|
4,766 |
|
3.09 |
| ||||||
|
Non-taxable (tax equivalent) |
|
10,350 |
|
640 |
|
6.18 |
|
13,220 |
|
749 |
|
5.67 |
|
45,435 |
|
2,761 |
|
6.08 |
| ||||||
|
Total securities |
|
405,575 |
|
7,852 |
|
1.94 |
|
175,206 |
|
4,738 |
|
2.70 |
|
199,920 |
|
7,527 |
|
3.77 |
| ||||||
|
Dividends from FRB and FHLB stock |
|
12,294 |
|
305 |
|
2.48 |
|
13,963 |
|
290 |
|
2.08 |
|
13,467 |
|
251 |
|
1.86 |
| ||||||
|
Loans and loans held-for-sale (1) |
|
1,270,162 |
|
67,110 |
|
5.20 |
|
1,535,054 |
|
80,513 |
|
5.17 |
|
1,909,064 |
|
99,791 |
|
5.16 |
| ||||||
|
Total interest earning assets |
|
1,736,851 |
|
75,386 |
|
4.28 |
|
1,817,586 |
|
85,772 |
|
4.66 |
|
2,189,354 |
|
107,728 |
|
4.86 |
| ||||||
|
Cash and due from banks |
|
26,197 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
27,402 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
37,670 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Allowance for loan losses |
|
(45,047 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
(69,471 |
) |
— |
|
— |
|
(74,487 |
) |
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Other noninterest-bearing assets |
|
232,624 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
239,947 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
273,819 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Total assets |
|
$ |
1,950,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,015,464 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,426,356 |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
NOW accounts |
|
$ |
274,299 |
|
$ |
270 |
|
0.10 |
|
$ |
264,470 |
|
$ |
422 |
|
0.16 |
|
$ |
402,954 |
|
$ |
1,125 |
|
0.28 |
|
|
Money market accounts |
|
314,363 |
|
576 |
|
0.18 |
|
295,212 |
|
835 |
|
0.28 |
|
356,627 |
|
2,243 |
|
0.63 |
| ||||||
|
Savings accounts |
|
211,632 |
|
216 |
|
0.10 |
|
191,857 |
|
322 |
|
0.17 |
|
185,175 |
|
699 |
|
0.38 |
| ||||||
|
Time deposits |
|
552,489 |
|
8,809 |
|
1.59 |
|
701,189 |
|
14,478 |
|
2.06 |
|
840,647 |
|
18,795 |
|
2.24 |
| ||||||
|
Total interest bearing deposits |
|
1,352,783 |
|
9,871 |
|
0.73 |
|
1,452,728 |
|
16,057 |
|
1.11 |
|
1,785,403 |
|
22,862 |
|
1.28 |
| ||||||
|
Securities sold under repurchase agreements |
|
4,826 |
|
2 |
|
0.04 |
|
1,957 |
|
1 |
|
0.05 |
|
14,883 |
|
28 |
|
0.19 |
| ||||||
|
Other short-term borrowings |
|
12,268 |
|
17 |
|
0.14 |
|
2,742 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
5,095 |
|
18 |
|
0.35 |
| ||||||
|
Junior subordinated debentures |
|
58,378 |
|
4,925 |
|
8.44 |
|
58,378 |
|
4,577 |
|
7.84 |
|
58,378 |
|
4,309 |
|
7.38 |
| ||||||
|
Subordinated debt |
|
45,000 |
|
903 |
|
1.97 |
|
45,000 |
|
822 |
|
1.80 |
|
45,000 |
|
838 |
|
1.84 |
| ||||||
|
Notes payable and other borrowings |
|
500 |
|
17 |
|
3.34 |
|
500 |
|
16 |
|
3.16 |
|
500 |
|
13 |
|
2.56 |
| ||||||
|
Total interest bearing liabilities |
|
1,473,755 |
|
15,735 |
|
1.07 |
|
1,561,305 |
|
21,473 |
|
1.37 |
|
1,909,259 |
|
28,068 |
|
1.47 |
| ||||||
|
Noninterest bearing deposits |
|
377,624 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
354,196 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
322,480 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Accrued interest and other liabilities |
|
27,285 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
20,238 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
18,767 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Stockholders’ equity |
|
71,961 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
79,725 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
175,850 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity |
|
$ |
1,950,625 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,015,464 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,426,356 |
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
Net interest income (tax equivalent) |
|
|
|
$ |
59,651 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
64,299 |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
79,660 |
|
|
| |||
|
Net interest income (tax equivalent) to total earning assets |
|
|
|
|
|
3.43 |
% |
|
|
|
|
3.54 |
% |
|
|
|
|
3.64 |
% | ||||||
|
Interest bearing liabilities to earnings assets |
|
84.85 |
% |
|
|
|
|
85.90 |
% |
|
|
|
|
87.21 |
% |
|
|
|
| ||||||
(1) Interest income from loans is shown tax equivalent as discussed below and includes fees of $2,111, $2,194 and $2,546 for 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
Nonaccrual loans are included in the above stated average balances.
Notes: For purposes of discussion, net interest income and net interest income to earning assets have been adjusted to a non-GAAP tax equivalent (“TE”) basis
using a marginal rate of 35% to more appropriately compare returns on tax-exempt loans and securities to other earning assets. The table below provides a
reconciliation of each non-GAAP TE measure to the GAAP equivalent:
|
|
|
Effect of Tax Equivalent Adjustment |
| |||||||
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
| |||
|
Interest income (GAAP) |
|
$ |
75,081 |
|
$ |
85,423 |
|
$ |
106,681 |
|
|
Taxable equivalent adjustment - loans |
|
81 |
|
87 |
|
81 |
| |||
|
Taxable equivalent adjustment - securities |
|
224 |
|
262 |
|
966 |
| |||
|
Interest income (TE) |
|
75,386 |
|
85,772 |
|
107,728 |
| |||
|
Less: interest expense (GAAP) |
|
15,735 |
|
21,473 |
|
28,068 |
| |||
|
Net interest income (TE) |
|
$ |
59,651 |
|
$ |
64,299 |
|
$ |
79,660 |
|
|
Net interest income (GAAP) |
|
$ |
59,346 |
|
$ |
63,950 |
|
$ |
78,613 |
|
|
Net interest income to total interest earning assets |
|
3.42 |
% |
3.52 |
% |
3.59 |
% | |||
|
Net interest income to total interest earning assets (TE) |
|
3.43 |
% |
3.54 |
% |
3.64 |
% | |||
The following table allocates the changes in net interest income to changes in either average balances or average rates for earnings assets and interest bearing liabilities. The changes in interest due to both volume and rate have been allocated proportionately to the change due to balance and due to rate. Interest income is measured on a tax-equivalent basis using a 35% rate as per the note to the analysis of averages balance table on the preceding page.
ANALYSIS OF YEAR-TO-YEAR CHANGES IN NET INTEREST INCOME
|
|
|
2012 Compared to 2011 |
|
2011 Compared to 2010 |
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Change Due to |
|
|
|
Change Due to |
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
Average |
|
Average |
|
Total |
|
Average |
|
Average |
|
Total |
| ||||||
|
|
|
Balance |
|
Rate |
|
Change |
|
Balance |
|
Rate |
|
Change |
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
EARNING ASSETS/INTEREST INCOME |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Interest bearing deposits |
|
$ |
(107 |
) |
$ |
(4 |
) |
$ |
(111 |
) |
$ |
69 |
|
$ |
5 |
|
$ |
74 |
|
|
Federal funds sold |
|
— |
|
(1 |
) |
(1 |
) |
(3 |
) |
1 |
|
(2 |
) | ||||||
|
Securities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
Taxable |
|
3,930 |
|
(707 |
) |
3,223 |
|
246 |
|
(1,023 |
) |
(777 |
) | ||||||
|
Tax-exempt |
|
(188 |
) |
79 |
|
(109 |
) |
(1,837 |
) |
(175 |
) |
(2,012 |
) | ||||||
|
Dividends from FRB and FHLB Stock |
|
(24 |
) |
39 |
|
15 |
|
10 |
|
29 |
|
39 |
| ||||||
|
Loans and loans held-for-sale |
|
(13,771 |
) |
368 |
|
(13,403 |
) |
(19,618 |
) |
340 |
|
(19,278 |
) | ||||||
|
TOTAL EARNING ASSETS |
|
(10,160 |
) |
(226 |
) |
(10,386 |
) |
(21,133 |
) |
(823 |
) |
(21,956 |
) | ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
INTEREST BEARING LIABILITIES/ INTEREST EXPENSE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
NOW accounts |
|
16 |
|
(168 |
) |
(152 |
) |
(313 |
) |
(390 |
) |
(703 |
) | ||||||
|
Money market accounts |
|
58 |
|
(317 |
) |
(259 |
) |
(336 |
) |
(1,072 |
) |
(1,408 |
) | ||||||
|
Savings accounts |
|
38 |
|
(144 |
) |
(106 |
) |
26 |
|
(403 |
) |
(377 |
) | ||||||
|
Time deposits |
|
(2,733 |
) |
(2,936 |
) |
(5,669 |
) |
(2,955 |
) |
(1,362 |
) |
(4,317 |
) | ||||||
|
Securities sold under repurchase agreements |
|
1 |
|
— |
|
1 |
|
(15 |
) |
(12 |
) |
(27 |
) | ||||||
|
Other short-term borrowings |
|
— |
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
(6 |
) |
(12 |
) |
(18 |
) | ||||||
|
Junior subordinated debentures |
|
— |
|
348 |
|
348 |
|
— |
|
268 |
|
268 |
| ||||||
|
Subordinated debt |
|
— |
|
81 |
|
81 |
|
— |
|
(16 |
) |
(16 |
) | ||||||
|
Notes payable and other borrowings |
|
— |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
— |
|
3 |
|
3 |
| ||||||
|
INTEREST BEARING LIABILITIES |
|
(2,620 |
) |
(3,118 |
) |
(5,738 |
) |
(3,599 |
) |
(2,996 |
) |
(6,595 |
) | ||||||
|
NET INTEREST INCOME |
|
$ |
(7,540 |
) |
$ |
2,892 |
|
$ |
(4,648 |
) |
$ |
(17,534 |
) |
$ |
2,173 |
|
$ |
(15,361 |
) |
II. Investment Portfolio
The following table presents the composition of the securities portfolio by major category as of December 31, of each year indicated:
SECURITIES PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
| ||||||||||||
|
|
|
Amortized |
|
Fair |
|
Amortized |
|
Fair |
|
Amortized |
|
Fair |
| ||||||
|
|
|
Cost |
|
Value |
|
Cost |
|
Value |
|
Cost |
|
Value |
| ||||||
|
SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
U.S. Treasury |
|
$ |
1,500 |
|
$ |
1,507 |
|
$ |
1,501 |
|
$ |
1,524 |
|
$ |
1,501 |
|
$ |
1,521 |
|
|
U.S. government agencies |
|
49,848 |
|
49,850 |
|
43,112 |
|
43,398 |
|
37,810 |
|
37,426 |
| ||||||
|
U.S. government agency mortgage-backed |
|
127,716 |
|
128,738 |
|
152,473 |
|
154,007 |
|
75,257 |
|
76,731 |
| ||||||
|
States and political subdivisions |
|
14,639 |
|
15,855 |
|
12,152 |
|
13,809 |
|
17,538 |
|
17,854 |
| ||||||
|
Corporate bonds |
|
36,355 |
|
36,886 |
|
32,357 |
|
31,389 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Collateralized mortgage obligations |
|
168,795 |
|
169,600 |
|
25,616 |
|
25,122 |
|
3,817 |
|
3,996 |
| ||||||
|
Asset-backed securities |
|
165,347 |
|
167,493 |
|
28,755 |
|
28,341 |
|
— |
|
— |
| ||||||
|
Collateralized debt obligations |
|
17,941 |
|
9,957 |
|
17,892 |
|
9,974 |
|
17,869 |
|
11,073 |
| ||||||
|
Equity securities |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
49 |
|
46 |
| ||||||
|
|
|
$ |
582,141 |
|
$ |
579,886 |
|
$ |
313,858 |
|
$ |
307,564 |
|
$ |
153,841 |
|
$ |
148,647 |
|
The Company’s holdings of U.S. government agency and U.S. government agency mortgage-backed securities are comprised of government-sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLB, which are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE MATURITY AND YIELDS
The following table presents the expected maturities or call dates and weighted average yield (non tax equivalent) of securities by major category as of December 31, 2012:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After One But |
|
After Five But |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||
|
|
|
Within One Year |
|
Within Five Years |
|
Within Ten Years |
|
After Ten Years |
|
Total |
|
|
| |||||||||||||
|
|
|
Amount |
|
Yield |
|
Amount |
|
Yield |
|
Amount |
|
Yield |
|
Amount |
|
Yield |
|
Amount |
|
Yield |
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
U.S. Treasury |
|
$ |
1,507 |
|
1.34 |
% |
$ |
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
— |
|
— |
|
$ |
1,507 |
|
1.34 |
% |
|
U.S. government agencies |
|
— |
|
— |
|
8,061 |
|
1.06 |
% |
12,315 |
|
2.15 |
% |
29,474 |
|
3.48 |
% |
49,850 |
|
2.76 |
% | |||||
|
States and political subdivisions |
|
483 |
|
4.41 |
% |
2,343 |
|
4.59 |
% |
8,262 |
|
3.94 |
% |
4,767 |
|
4.40 |
% |
15,855 |
|
4.20 |
% | |||||
|
Corporate bonds |
|
3,001 |
|
1.57 |
% |
19,444 |
|
1.99 |
% |
14,441 |
|
3.07 |
% |
— |
|
— |
|
36,886 |
|
2.38 |
% | |||||
|
|
|
4,991 |
|
1.77 |
% |
29,848 |
|
1.93 |
% |
35,018 |
|
2.92 |
% |
34,241 |
|
3.61 |
% |
104,098 |
|
2.81 |
% | |||||
|
Mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
298,338 |
|
1.77 |
% | |||||
|
Asset-backed securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
167,493 |
|
1.30 |
% | |||||
|
Collateralized debt obligations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,957 |
|
1.75 |
% | |||||
|
|
|
$ |
4,991 |
|
1.77 |
% |
$ |
29,848 |
|
1.93 |
% |
$ |
35,018 |
|
2.92 |
% |
$ |
34,241 |
|
3.61 |
% |
$ |
579,886 |
|
1.82 |
% |
As of December 31, 2012, net unrealized losses of $2,255,000, offset by deferred income taxes of $928,000, resulted in a decrease in equity capital of $1,327,000. As of December 31, 2011, net unrealized losses of $6,294,000, offset by deferred income taxes of $2,592,000, resulted in a decrease in equity capital of $3,702,000. At December 31, 2012, the fair value of the collateralized debt obligations issued by Trapeza CDO XIII, Ltd. and held by the Company totaled $10.0 million and, were greater than 10% of stockholders’ equity. Additional detailed information related to these securities is provided in Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data —Note 3 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements.
III. Loan Portfolio
Types of Loans
The following table presents the composition of the loan portfolio at December 31, for the years indicated:
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
| |||||
|
Commercial |
|
$ |
87,136 |
|
$ |
98,241 |
|
$ |
173,718 |
|
$ |
206,779 |
|
$ |
243,272 |
|
|
Real estate - commercial |
|
579,687 |
|
704,415 |
|
821,101 |
|
925,013 |
|
928,747 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - construction |
|
42,167 |
|
70,919 |
|
129,601 |
|
273,719 |
|
373,371 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - residential |
|
414,141 |
|
477,196 |
|
556,609 |
|
642,335 |
|
700,595 |
| |||||
|
Consumer |
|
3,414 |
|
4,172 |
|
5,587 |
|
10,447 |
|
19,972 |
| |||||
|
Overdraft |
|
994 |
|
457 |
|
739 |
|
830 |
|
761 |
| |||||
|
Lease Financing Receivables |
|
6,060 |
|
2,087 |
|
2,774 |
|
3,703 |
|
4,396 |
| |||||
|
Other |
|
16,451 |
|
11,498 |
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
|
N/A |
| |||||
|
Gross loans |
|
1,150,050 |
|
1,368,985 |
|
1,690,129 |
|
2,062,826 |
|
2,271,114 |
| |||||
|
Allowance for loan losses |
|
(38,597 |
) |
(51,997 |
) |
(76,308 |
) |
(64,540 |
) |
(41,271 |
) | |||||
|
Loans, net |
|
$ |
1,111,453 |
|
$ |
1,316,988 |
|
$ |
1,613,821 |
|
$ |
1,998,286 |
|
$ |
2,229,843 |
|
The above loan totals include net unearned and deferred loan fees and costs.
Maturity and Rate Sensitivity Of Loans to Changes in Interest Rates
The following table sets forth the remaining contractual maturities for certain loan categories at December 31, 2012:
|
|
|
|
|
Over 1 Year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Through 5 Years |
|
Over 5 Years |
|
|
| ||||||||||
|
|
|
One Year |
|
Fixed |
|
Floating |
|
Fixed |
|
Floating |
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
or Less |
|
Rate |
|
Rate |
|
Rate |
|
Rate |
|
Total |
| ||||||
|
Commercial |
|
$ |
38,927 |
|
$ |
16,082 |
|
$ |
23,391 |
|
$ |
6,187 |
|
$ |
2,549 |
|
$ |
87,136 |
|
|
Real estate - commercial |
|
200,087 |
|
238,020 |
|
45,923 |
|
66,927 |
|
28,730 |
|
579,687 |
| ||||||
|
Real estate - construction |
|
16,651 |
|
20,715 |
|
1,750 |
|
933 |
|
2,118 |
|
42,167 |
| ||||||
|
Real estate - residential |
|
62,969 |
|
57,922 |
|
69,047 |
|
34,251 |
|
189,952 |
|
414,141 |
| ||||||
|
Consumer |
|
973 |
|
803 |
|
1,302 |
|
15 |
|
321 |
|
3,414 |
| ||||||
|
Overdraft |
|
994 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
994 |
| ||||||
|
Lease financing receivables |
|
— |
|
5,883 |
|
— |
|
177 |
|
— |
|
6,060 |
| ||||||
|
Other |
|
7,306 |
|
8,012 |
|
1,133 |
|
— |
|
— |
|
16,451 |
| ||||||
|
Total |
|
$ |
327,907 |
|
$ |
347,437 |
|
$ |
142,546 |
|
$ |
108,490 |
|
$ |
223,670 |
|
$ |
1,150,050 |
|
The above loan table includes net unearned and deferred loans fees and costs, column one includes demand notes.
While there are no significant concentrations of loans where the customers’ ability to honor loan terms is dependent upon a single economic sector, the real estate related categories represented 90.1% and 91.5% of the portfolio at December 31, 2012, and 2011, respectively. The Company had no concentration of loans exceeding 10% of total loans, which were not otherwise disclosed as a category of loans at December 31, 2012.
Risk Elements
The following table sets forth the amounts of nonperforming assets at December 31, of the years indicated:
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
| |||||
|
Nonaccrual loans |
|
$ |
77,519 |
|
$ |
126,786 |
|
$ |
212,225 |
|
$ |
174,978 |
|
$ |
106,510 |
|
|
Troubled debt restructured loans accruing interest |
|
4,987 |
|
11,839 |
|
15,637 |
|
14,171 |
|
— |
| |||||
|
Loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest |
|
89 |
|
318 |
|
1,013 |
|
561 |
|
2,119 |
| |||||
|
Total nonperforming loans |
|
82,595 |
|
138,943 |
|
228,875 |
|
189,710 |
|
108,629 |
| |||||
|
Other real estate owned |
|
72,423 |
|
93,290 |
|
75,613 |
|
40,200 |
|
15,212 |
| |||||
|
Receivable from foreclosed loan participation |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
1,505 |
|
— |
| |||||
|
Receivable from swap terminations |
|
— |
|
— |
|
3,520 |
|
— |
|
— |
| |||||
|
Total nonperforming assets |
|
$ |
155,018 |
|
$ |
232,233 |
|
$ |
308,008 |
|
$ |
231,415 |
|
$ |
123,841 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
OREO as % of nonperforming assets |
|
46.7 |
% |
40.2 |
% |
24.5 |
% |
17.4 |
% |
12.3 |
% | |||||
Accrual of interest is discontinued on a loan when principal or interest is ninety days or more past due, unless the loan is well secured and in the process of collection. When a loan is placed on nonaccrual status, interest previously accrued but not collected in the current period is reversed against current period interest income. Interest income of approximately $813,000 and $1,784,000 was recorded and collected during 2012 and 2011, respectively, on loans that subsequently went to nonaccrual status at year-end. Interest income, which would have been recognized during 2012 and 2011, had these loans been on an accrual basis throughout the year, was approximately $6,488,000 and $10,555,000, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, and 2011, there were $5,441,000 and $5,351,000 respectively in restructured residential mortgage loans that were still accruing interest based upon their prior performance history. Additionally, the nonaccrual loans above include $11,505,000 and $16,189,000 in restructured loans for the period ending December 31, 2012, and 2011, respectively.
IV. Summary of Loan Loss Experience
Analysis of Allowance For Loan Losses
The following table summarizes, for the years indicated, activity in the allowance for loan losses, including amounts charged off, amounts of recoveries, additions to the allowance charged to operating expense, and the ratio of net charge-offs to average loans outstanding:
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
| |||||
|
Average total loans (exclusive of loans held-for-sale) |
|
$ |
1,263,172 |
|
$ |
1,527,311 |
|
$ |
1,900,604 |
|
$ |
2,206,189 |
|
$ |
2,181,675 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Allowance at beginning of year |
|
51,997 |
|
76,308 |
|
64,540 |
|
41,271 |
|
16,835 |
| |||||
|
Addition resulting from acquisition |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
— |
|
3,039 |
| |||||
|
Charge-offs: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Commercial |
|
344 |
|
366 |
|
2,247 |
|
3,493 |
|
115 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - commercial |
|
13,508 |
|
19,576 |
|
29,665 |
|
4,148 |
|
1,277 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - construction |
|
4,969 |
|
10,430 |
|
39,321 |
|
60,173 |
|
6,146 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - residential |
|
8,406 |
|
10,229 |
|
13,216 |
|
6,238 |
|
1,420 |
| |||||
|
Consumer and other loans |
|
638 |
|
568 |
|
560 |
|
926 |
|
426 |
| |||||
|
Total charge-offs |
|
27,865 |
|
41,169 |
|
85,009 |
|
74,978 |
|
9,384 |
| |||||
|
Recoveries: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Commercial |
|
115 |
|
173 |
|
320 |
|
22 |
|
202 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - commercial |
|
3,576 |
|
3,947 |
|
900 |
|
— |
|
4 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - construction |
|
3,420 |
|
1,262 |
|
3,674 |
|
1,123 |
|
16 |
| |||||
|
Real estate - residential |
|
583 |
|
1,807 |
|
1,799 |
|
47 |
|
— |
| |||||
|
Consumer and other loans |
|
487 |
|
782 |
|
416 |
|
340 |
|
244 |
| |||||
|
Total recoveries |
|
8,181 |
|
7,971 |
|
7,109 |
|
1,532 |
|
466 |
| |||||
|
Net charge-offs |
|
19,684 |
|
33,198 |
|
77,900 |
|
73,446 |
|
8,918 |
| |||||
|
Provision for loan losses |
|
6,284 |
|
8,887 |
|
89,668 |
|
96,715 |
|
30,315 |
| |||||
|
Allowance at end of year |
|
$ |
38,597 |
|
$ |
51,997 |
|
$ |
76,308 |
|
$ |
64,540 |
|
$ |
41,271 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Net charge-offs to average loans |
|
1.56 |
% |
2.17 |
% |
4.10 |
% |
3.33 |
% |
0.41 |
% | |||||
|
Allowance at year end to average loans |
|
3.06 |
% |
3.40 |
% |
4.01 |
% |
2.93 |
% |
1.89 |
% | |||||
The provision for loan losses is based upon management’s estimate of losses inherent in the portfolio and its evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. Factors which influence management’s judgment in estimating loan losses are the composition of the portfolio, past loss experience, loan delinquencies, nonperforming loans, and other factors that, in management’s judgment, deserve evaluation in estimating loan losses.
Allocation of the Allowance For Loan Losses
The following table shows the Company’s allocation of the allowance for loan losses by types of loans and the amount of unallocated allowance, at December 31, of the years indicated:
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
|
2009 |
|
2008 |
| |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
Loan Type |
|
|
|
Loan Type |
|
|
|
Loan Type |
|
|
|
Loan Type |
|
|
|
Loan Type |
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
to Total |
|
|
|
to Total |
|
|
|
to Total |
|
|
|
to Total |
|
|
|
to Total |
| |||||
|
|
|
Amount |
|
Loans |
|
Amount |
|
Loans |
|
Amount |
|
Loans |
|
Amount |
|
Loans |
|
Amount |
|
Loans |
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Commercial |
|
$ |
4,517 |
|
7.6 |
% |
$ |
5,070 |
|
7.2 |
% |
$ |
6,764 |
|
10.3 |
% |
$ |
4,547 |
|
10.0 |
% |
$ |
2,912 |
|
10.7 |
% |
|
Real estate - commercial |
|
20,100 |
|
50.4 |
% |
30,770 |
|
51.5 |
% |
42,242 |
|
48.5 |
% |
24,598 |
|
44.8 |
% |
13,741 |
|
40.9 |
% | |||||
|
Real estate - construction |
|
3,837 |
|
3.7 |
% |
7,937 |
|
5.2 |
% |
18,344 |
|
7.7 |
% |
29,895 |
|
13.3 |
% |
20,546 |
|
16.5 |
% | |||||
|
Real estate - residential |
|
4,535 |
|
36.0 |
% |
6,335 |
|
34.9 |
% |
6,999 |
|
33.0 |
% |
3,770 |
|
31.2 |
% |
2,365 |
|
30.8 |
% | |||||
|
Consumer |
|
1,178 |
|
0.3 |
% |
884 |
|
0.3 |
% |
880 |
|
0.3 |
% |
703 |
|
0.5 |
% |
557 |
|
0.9 |
% | |||||
|
Lease financing receivables |
|
— |
|
0.1 |
% |
— |
|
0.1 |
% |
— |
|
0.2 |
% |
— |
|
0.2 |
% |
50 |
|
0.2 |
% | |||||
|
Unallocated |
|
4,430 |
|
1.9 |
% |
1,001 |
|
0.8 |
% |
1,079 |
|
— |
|
1,027 |
|
— |
|
1,100 |
|
— |
| |||||
|
Total |
|
$ |
38,597 |
|
100.0 |
% |
$ |
51,997 |
|
100.0 |
% |
$ |
76,308 |
|
100.0 |
% |
$ |
64,540 |
|
100.0 |
% |
$ |
41,271 |
|
100.0 |
% |
The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance for loan losses, increased by the provision for loan losses and decreased by charge-offs less recoveries. Allocations of the allowance may be made for specific loans, but the entire allowance is available for losses inherent in the loan portfolio. In addition, federal regulatory authorities, as part of the examination process, periodically review the allowance for loan losses. Regulators can require management to record adjustments to the allowance level based upon their assessment of the information available to them at the time of examination. Although management believes the allowance for loan losses is sufficient to cover probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio, there can be no assurance that the allowance will prove sufficient to cover actual loan losses
Potential Problem Loans
The Company utilizes an internal asset classification system as a means of reporting problem and potential problem assets. At the scheduled board of directors meetings of the Bank, loan listings are presented, which show significant loan relationships listed as “Special Mention,” “Substandard,” and “Doubtful.” Loans classified as Substandard include those that have a well-defined weakness or weaknesses that jeopardize the liquidation of the debt. They are characterized by the distinct possibility that the institution will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. The Company’s loan policy definition of a problem loan is described in the Item 7, Management Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, under specific allocations. Assets classified as Doubtful have all the weaknesses inherent as those classified Substandard with the added characteristic that the weaknesses make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions and values, highly questionable and improbable. Assets that do not currently expose us to sufficient risk to warrant classification in one of the aforementioned categories, but possess weaknesses that deserve management’s close attention are deemed to be Special Mention.
Management’s determination as to the classification of assets and the amount of estimated valuation allowances is subject to review by the OCC, the Bank’s primary regulator, which can also order the establishment of additional specific or general loss allowances. There can be no assurance that regulators, in reviewing the loan portfolio, will not require us to materially adjust our allowance for loan losses. The OCC, in conjunction with the other federal banking agencies, has adopted an interagency policy statement on the allowance for loan losses. The policy statement provides guidance for financial institutions on both the responsibilities of management for the assessment and establishment of adequate allowances and guidance for banking agency examiners to use in determining the adequacy of general valuation guidelines. Generally, the policy statement recommends that (1) institutions have effective systems and controls to identify, monitor and address asset quality problems; (2) management has analyzed all significant factors that affect the collectability of the portfolio in a reasonable manner; and (3) management has established acceptable allowance evaluation processes that meet the objectives set forth in the policy statement. Management believes it has established an adequate estimated allowance for probable loan losses. Management reviews its process quarterly, makes changes as needed, and reports those results at meetings of our Audit Committee. However, there can be no assurance that regulators, in reviewing the loan portfolio, would not request us to materially adjust our allowance for loan losses at the time of their examination.
Although management believes that adequate specific and general loan loss allowances have been established, actual losses are dependent upon future events and, as such, further additions to the level of specific and general loan loss allowances may become necessary. Management defines potential problem loans as performing loans rated Substandard, that do not meet the definition of a nonperforming loan. These potential problem loans carry a higher probability of default and require additional attention by management.
V. Deposits
The following table sets forth the amount and maturities of deposits of $100,000 or more at December 31, 2012:
|
3 months or less |
|
$ |
20,701 |
|
|
Over 3 months through 6 months |
|
15,594 |
| |
|
Over 6 months through 12 months |
|
52,609 |
| |
|
Over 12 months |
|
103,044 |
| |
|
|
|
$ |
191,948 |
|
VI. Return on Equity and Assets
The following table presents selected financial ratios as of December 31, for the years indicated:
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
|
|
Return on average total assets |
|
0.00 |
% |
(0.32 |
)% |
|
Return on average equity |
|
(0.10 |
)% |
(8.15 |
)% |
|
Average equity to average assets |
|
3.69 |
% |
3.96 |
% |
|
Dividend payout ratio |
|
0.00 |
% |
0.00 |
% |
VII. Short-Term Borrowings
There were no categories of short-term borrowings having an average balance greater than 30% of stockholders’ equity of the Company at the end of the year.
RISK FACTORS
The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect the Company are described below. Before making an investment decision with respect to any of the Company’s securities, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties as described below, together with all of the information included herein. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only risks and uncertainties the Company faces. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known or currently deemed immaterial also may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations and financial condition. If any of the following risks actually occur, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition could suffer, possibly materially. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ substantially from those discussed or implied in these forward-looking statements.
Earnings Risk
The Company has incurred a net loss in the past and cannot ensure further losses will not be incurred.
The Company incurred a net loss of $72,000 for 2012 and $6.5 million for 2011, as well as a net loss of $108.6 million for 2010. In light of the persistent challenging economic environment and continuing depressed real estate markets, we cannot ensure we will not incur future losses. Any future losses may affect our ability to meet our expenses or raise additional capital, and may delay the time in which we can resume dividend payments on our common and preferred stock as well as distributions on our trust preferred securities. Furthermore, any future losses would likely cause a decline in our holding company regulatory capital ratios, which could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
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.
The Company and the Bank must meet minimum regulatory capital requirements and maintain sufficient liquidity. We also face significant capital and other regulatory requirements as a financial institution and a participant in the CPP. Our ability to raise additional capital, when and if needed, will depend on conditions in the economy and capital markets, and a number of other factors—including investor perceptions regarding the Company, banking industry and market condition, and governmental activities—many of which are outside our control, 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 meet these capital and other regulatory requirements, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Specifically, pursuant to the May 2011 Consent Order with the OCC, the Bank agreed to maintain a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 8.75% and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 11.25%. The Bank was in compliance with the heightened capital requirements required by the OCC as of December 31, 2012. However, if the Bank fails to be in full compliance with the agreed-upon capital ratios in the future, the OCC may take additional regulatory enforcement actions.
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.
At December 31, 2012, our nonperforming loans (which consist of nonaccrual loans and loans past due 90 days or more, still accruing interest and restructured loans still accruing interest) and our nonperforming assets (which include nonperforming loans plus other real estate owned (“OREO”)) are reflected in the table below (in millions):
|
|
|
12/31/2012 |
|
12/31/2011 |
|
% Change |
| ||
|
Nonperforming loans |
|
$ |
82.6 |
|
$ |
138.9 |
|
(40.5)% |
|
|
OREO |
|
72.4 |
|
93.3 |
|
(22.4)% |
| ||
|
Nonperforming assets |
|
$ |
155.0 |
|
$ |
232.2 |
|
(33.2)% |
|
Our nonperforming assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. For example, we do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans and OREO has expenses in excess of lease revenues collected, thereby adversely affecting our income and returns on assets and equity. Our loan administration costs also increase because of our nonperforming assets. The resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant time commitments from management, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. While we have made progress, there is no assurance that we will not experience further increases in nonperforming loans in the future, or that our nonperforming assets will not result in further losses in the future.
Interest Rate and Credit Risks
The Company is subject to interest rate risk.
The Company’s earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon its net interest income. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond the Company’s control, including general economic conditions our competition and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence the amount of interest the Company earns on loans and securities and the amount of interest it incurs on deposits and borrowings. Such changes could also affect the Company’s ability to originate loans and obtain deposits as well as the average duration of the Company’s securities portfolio. If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, the Company’s net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings.
Although management believes it has implemented effective asset and liability management strategies to reduce the potential effects of changes in interest rates on the Company’s results of operations, any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
The Company is subject to lending risks.
There are inherent risks associated with the Company’s lending activities. Underwriting and documentation controls cannot mitigate all credit risk, especially those outside the Company’s control. These risks include the impact of changes in interest rates and changes in the economic conditions in the markets in which the Company operates as well as those across the United States. Increases in interest rates and/or continuing weakening economic conditions could adversely impact the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans or the value of the collateral securing those loans.
The Company is also subject to various laws and regulations that affect its lending activities. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could subject the Company to regulatory enforcement action that could result in the assessment of significant civil monetary penalties against the Company.
An increase in non-performing loans could result in a net loss of earnings, an increase in the provision for loan losses, and an increase in loan charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
Our loan portfolio is concentrated heavily in residential and commercial real estate loans, including construction loans, which involve risks specific to real estate values and the real estate markets in general, all of which have been experiencing significant weakness.
Our loan portfolio generally reflects the profile of the communities in which we operate. Because we are in areas that saw rapid growth between 2000 and 2007, real estate lending of all types is a significant portion of our loan portfolio with total real estate lending at $1.04 billion, or approximately 90.1% of our December 31, 2012 loan portfolio. Given that the primary (if not only) source of collateral on these loans is real estate, additional adverse developments affecting real estate values in our market area could increase the credit risk associated with our real estate loan portfolio.
The effects of ongoing real estate challenges, combined with the ongoing correction in commercial and residential real estate market prices and reduced levels of home sales, have adversely affected our real estate loan portfolio and have the potential to further adversely affect such portfolio in several ways, each of which could further adversely impact our operating results and/or financial condition.
Real estate market volatility and future changes in disposition strategies could result in net proceeds that differ significantly from fair value appraisals of loan collateral and OREO and could negatively impact the Company’s operating performance.
Many of the Company’s non-performing real estate loans are collateral-dependent, meaning the repayment of the loan is largely dependent upon the successful operation of the property securing the loan. For collateral-dependent loans, the Company estimates the value of the loan based on appraised value of the underlying collateral less costs to sell. The Company’s OREO portfolio consists of properties acquired through foreclosure in partial or total satisfaction of certain loans as a result of borrower defaults. OREO is recorded at the lower of the recorded investment in the loans for which the property served as collateral or estimated fair value, less estimated selling costs.
In determining the value of OREO properties and loan collateral, an orderly disposition of the property is generally assumed. Significant judgment is required in estimating the fair value of property, and the period of time within which such estimates can be considered current is significantly shortened during periods of market volatility.
The Company’s allowance for loan losses may be insufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio.
The Company maintains an allowance for loan losses (“allowance”) at a level believed adequate to absorb estimated losses inherent in the existing loan portfolio. The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of industry concentrations; specific credit risks; credit loss experience; current loan portfolio quality; present economic, political, and regulatory conditions; and unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio.
Determination of the allowance is inherently subjective since it requires significant estimates and management judgment of credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. For example, the final allowance for December 31, 2012 included an amount reserved for other not specifically identified risk factors. Continuing deterioration in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans, and other factors, both within and outside of the Company’s control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review the Company’s allowance and may require an increase in the provision for loan losses or the recognition of additional loan charge-offs, based on judgments different from those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for loan losses, the Company will need additional provisions to increase the allowance. Any increases in the allowance will result in a decrease in net income and capital and may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
Financial services companies depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about customers and counterparties.
The Company may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties in deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions. This information could include financial statements, credit reports, and other financial information. The Company may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties, or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports, or other financial information could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Funding Risks
The Company could experience an unexpected inability to obtain needed liquidity.
Liquidity measures the ability to meet current and future cash flow needs as they become due. The liquidity of a financial institution reflects its ability to meet loan requests, to accommodate possible outflows in deposits, and to take advantage of interest rate market opportunities and is essential to a financial institution’s business. The ability of a financial institution to meet its current financial obligations is a function of its balance sheet structure, its ability to liquidate assets, and its access to alternative sources of funds. The Company seeks to ensure its funding needs are met by maintaining a level of liquidity through asset and liability management. If the Company becomes unable to obtain funds when needed, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Loss of customer deposits could increase the Company’s funding costs.
The Company relies on bank deposits to be a low cost and stable source of funding. The Company competes with banks and other financial services companies for deposits. If the Company’s competitors raise the rates they pay on deposits, the Company’s funding costs may increase, either because the Company raises its rates to avoid losing deposits or because the Company loses deposits and must rely on more expensive sources of funding. Higher funding costs could reduce the Company’s net interest margin and net interest income and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
The recent repeal of federal prohibitions on payment of interest on business demand deposits could increase our interest expense and have a material adverse effect on us.
All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on business demand deposit accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result, some financial institutions have commenced offering interest on these demand deposits to compete for customers. If competitive pressures require us to pay interest on these demand deposits to attract and retain business customers, our interest expense would increase and our net interest margin would decrease. This could have a material adverse effect on us. Further, the effect of the repeal of the prohibition could be more significant in a higher interest rate environment as business customers would have a greater incentive to seek interest on demand deposits.
Operational Risks
Our business is concentrated in and dependent upon the welfare of several counties in Illinois and the State of Illinois.
Our primary market area is Aurora, Illinois, and surrounding communities as well as southwestern Cook County. The city of Aurora is located in northeastern Illinois, approximately 40 miles west of Chicago. The Bank operates primarily in Kane, Kendall, DeKalb, DuPage, LaSalle, Will and Cook Counties in Illinois, and, as a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows are subject to changes and fluctuations in the economic conditions in those areas. We have developed a strong presence in the counties we serve, with particular concentration in Aurora, Illinois, and surrounding communities.
The communities that we serve grew rapidly over the past decade, and we intend to continue concentrating our business efforts in these communities. Our future success is largely dependent upon the overall economic health of these communities. However, since late 2007, the United States economy has generally experienced difficult economic conditions. Weak economic conditions are characterized by, among other indicators, deflation, unemployment, fluctuations in debt and equity capital markets, increased delinquencies on mortgage, commercial and consumer loans, residential and commercial real estate price declines and lower home sales and commercial activity. All of those factors are generally detrimental to our business. If the overall economic conditions fail to significantly improve or decline further, particularly within our primary market areas, we could experience a lack of demand for our products and services, an increase in loan delinquencies and defaults and high or increased levels of problem assets and foreclosures. Moreover, because of our geographic concentration, we are less able than other regional or national financial institutions to diversify our credit risks across multiple markets.
Similarly, we have credit exposure to entities or in industries that could be impacted by the continued financial difficulties at the state level. Exposure to health care, construction and social services organizations has been reviewed to evaluate credit impact from a possible reorganization of state finances. Credit downgrades, partial charge-offs and specific reserves could develop in this exposure with resulting impact on our financial condition if the State of Illinois encounters more severe payment issuance capabilities.
The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to changes in accounting principles, policies, or guidelines.
The Company’s financial performance is impacted by accounting principles, policies, and guidelines. Some of these policies require the use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of the Company’s assets or liabilities and financial results. Some of the Company’s accounting policies are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective, and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. If such estimates or assumptions underlying the Company’s financial statements are incorrect, it may experience material losses.
From time to time, the FASB and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards or the interpretation of those standards that govern the preparation of the Company’s external financial statements. These changes are beyond the Company’s control, can be difficult to predict, and could materially impact how the Company reports its results of operations and financial condition.
Changes in these standards are continuously occurring, and given the current economic environment, more drastic changes may occur. The implementation of such changes could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
The Company’s controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented.
Management regularly reviews and updates the Company’s loan underwriting and monitoring process, internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of the Company’s controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Loss of key employees may disrupt relationships with certain customers.
The Company’s business is primarily relationship-driven in that many of its key employees have extensive customer relationships. Loss of key employees with such customer relationships may lead to the loss of business if the customers were to follow that employee to a competitor. While the Company believes its relationships with its key personnel are strong, it cannot guarantee that all of its key personnel will remain with the organization. Loss of such key personnel, should they enter into an employment relationship with one of the Company’s competitors, could result in the loss of some of its customers, which could have a negative impact on the company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.
The Company’s information systems may experience an interruption or breach in security.
The Company relies heavily on internal and outsourced technologies, communications, and information systems to conduct its business. As the Company’s reliance on technology has increased, so have the potential risks of a technology-related operation interruption (such as disruptions in the Company’s customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan, or other systems) or the occurrence of a cyber incident (such as unauthorized access to the Company’s systems). Cyber incidents can result from deliberate attacks or unintentional events including (i) gaining unauthorized access to automated systems for purposes of misappropriating assets or sensitive information, corrupting data, or causing operational disruptions; (ii) causing denial-of-service attacks on websites; or (iii) intelligence gathering and social engineering aimed at obtaining information. The occurrence of operational interruption or a deficiency in the cyber security of the Company’s technology systems (internal or outsourced) could negatively impact the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.
The Company is dependent upon outside third parties for processing and handling of Company records and data.
The Company relies on software developed by third party vendors to process various Company transactions. In some cases, the Company has contracted with third parties to run its proprietary software on behalf of the Company. These systems include, but are not limited to, general ledger, payroll, wealth
management record keeping, and securities portfolio management. While the Company performs a review of controls instituted by the vendor over these programs in accordance with industry standards and institutes its own user controls, the Company must rely on the continued maintenance of these many controls by the outside party, including safeguards over the security of customer data. In addition, the Company maintains backups of key processing output daily in the event of a failure on the part of any of these systems. Nonetheless, the Company may incur a temporary disruption in its ability to conduct its business or process its transactions, or incur damage to its reputation if the third party vendor fails to adequately maintain internal controls or institute necessary changes to systems. Such disruption or breach of security may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.
The Company’s estimate of fair values for its investments may not be realizable if it were to sell these securities today.
The Company’s available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value. Accounting standards require the Company to categorize these securities according to a fair value hierarchy. As of December 31, 2012, 0.3% percent of the Company’s available-for-sale securities were categorized in Level 1 of the fair value hierarchy (meaning that the fair values were based on quoted market prices). Approximately, 98.0% of the Company’s available-for-sale securities were categorized in Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy (meaning that their fair values were determined by quoted prices for similar instruments or other observable inputs). The remaining securities were categorized as Level 3 (meaning that their fair values were determined by inputs that are unobservable in the market and therefore require a greater degree of management judgment).
The determination of fair value for securities categorized in Level 3 involves significant judgment due to the complexity of factors contributing to the valuation, many of which are not readily observable in the market. The market disruptions in recent years made the valuation process even more difficult and subjective.
External Risks
The Company operates in a highly competitive industry and market area.
The Company faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Our competitors primarily include national and regional banks as well as community banks within the markets we serve. The Company also faces competition from savings and loan associations, credit unions, personal loan and finance companies, retail and discount stockbrokers, investment advisors, mutual funds, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes. Banks, securities firms, and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer the wide spectrum of financial services to many customer segments. Many large scale competitors can leverage economies of scale and be able to offer better pricing for products and services compared to what the Company can offer.
The Company’s ability to compete successfully depends on developing, maintaining, and building long-term customer relationships, offering community banking services with features and pricing in line with customer interests, consistently achieving outstanding levels of customer service as well as adapting to many and frequent change in banking as well as local or regional economies. Failure to excel in these areas could significantly weaken the Company’s competitive position, which could adversely affect the Company’s growth and profitability. These weaknesses could have a significant negative impact on the
Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Legal/Compliance Risks
We may be materially and adversely affected by the highly regulated environment in which we operate.
We are subject to extensive federal and state regulation, supervision and examination. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, FDIC funds, customers and the banking system as a whole, rather than stockholders. These regulations affect our lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy, and growth, among other things.
As a bank holding company, we are subject to extensive regulation and supervision and undergo periodic examinations by our regulators, who have extensive discretion and authority to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law by banks and bank holding companies. Failure to comply with applicable laws, regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil monetary penalties, and/or damage to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Although we have policies and procedures designed to mitigate the risk of any such violations, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur.
The primary federal and state banking laws and regulations that affect us are described in this report under the section captioned “Supervision and Regulation” in Item 1. These laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies and interpretations are constantly evolving and may change significantly over time. For example, on July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law, which significantly changed the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act, together with the regulations to be developed thereunder, includes provisions affecting large and small financial institutions alike, including several provisions that affect how community banks, thrifts and small bank and thrift holding companies will be regulated. In addition, the Federal Reserve, in recent years, has adopted numerous new regulations addressing banks’ overdraft and mortgage lending practices. Further, the CFPB was recently established, with broad powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws, and additional consumer protection legislation and regulatory activity is anticipated in the near future.
In September 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, adopted Basel III, which constitutes a strengthened set of capital requirements for banking organizations in the United States and around the world. Basel III is currently the subject of notices of proposed rulemakings released in June of 2012 by the respective federal bank regulatory agencies. The comment period for these notices of proposed rulemakings ended on October 22, 2012, but final regulations have not yet been released. Basel III was intended to be implemented beginning January 1, 2013 and to be fully-phased in on a global basis on January 1, 2019. However, on November 9, 2012, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies announced that the implementation of the proposed rules under Basel III was indefinitely delayed. If and when implemented in the United States, Basel III would require capital to be held in the form of tangible common equity, generally increase the required capital ratios, phase out certain kinds of intangibles treated as capital and certain types of instruments, like trust preferred securities, and change the risk weightings of assets used to determine required capital ratios. Such changes, including changes regarding interpretations and implementation, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways and could have a material adverse effect on us. Further, such changes could subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer, and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things.
The policies of the Federal Reserve also have a significant impact on us. Among other things, the Federal Reserve’s monetary policies directly and indirectly influence the rate of interest earned on loans and paid on borrowings and interest-bearing deposits, and can also affect the value of financial instruments we hold and the ability of borrowers to repay their loans, which could have a material adverse effect on us.
The Company and its subsidiaries may not be able to realize the benefit of deferred tax assets.
The Company records deferred tax assets and liabilities for the future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The deferred tax assets can be recognized in future periods dependent upon a number of factors, including the ability to realize the asset through carrybacks or carryforwards to taxable income in prior or future years, the future reversal of existing taxable temporary differences, future taxable income, and the possible application of future tax planning strategies. The Company’s fully reserved deferred tax asset may not be recoverable with resulting adverse impact on the Company’s capital and potentially capital ratios.
The Company is subject to claims and litigation pertaining to fiduciary responsibility.
From time to time, customers make claims and take legal action pertaining to the Company’s performance of its fiduciary responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the Company’s performance of its fiduciary responsibilities are founded or unfounded, if such claims and legal action are not resolved in a manner favorable to the Company, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of the Company and its products and services as well as impact customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputational damage could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse impact on its financial condition and results of operations.
The Company is a defendant in a variety of litigation and other actions.
Currently, there are certain other legal proceedings pending against the Company and its subsidiaries in the ordinary course of business. While the outcome of any legal proceeding is inherently uncertain, based on information currently available, the Company’s management believes that any liabilities arising from pending legal matters would have a material adverse effect on the Bank or on the consolidated financial statements of the Company. However, if actual results differ from management’s expectations, it could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
Risks Associated with the Company’s Common Stock
The trading volume in the Company’s Common Stock is less than that of other larger financial services institutions.
Although the Company’s Common Stock is listed for trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market Exchange, the trading volume in its Common Stock may be less than that of other, larger financial services companies. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity, and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace of willing buyers and sellers of the Company’s Common Stock at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which the Company has no control. During any period of lower trading volume of the Company’s Common Stock, significant sales of shares of the Company’s Common Stock, or the
expectation of these sales could cause the Company’s Common Stock price to fall.
The Company has not established a minimum dividend payment level, and it cannot ensure its ability to pay dividends in the future.
Our July 2011 Written Agreement with the Federal Reserve includes restrictions on the Company’s payment of dividends on our common stock.
In addition, the Federal Reserve has issued Federal Reserve Supervision and Regulation Letter SR-09-4, which requires bank holding companies to inform and consult with Federal Reserve supervisory staff prior to declaring and paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period for which the dividend is being paid. Under this regulation, if the Company experiences losses in a series of consecutive quarters, it may be required to inform and consult with the Federal Reserve supervisory staff prior to declaring or paying any dividends. In this event, there can be no assurance that the Company’s regulators will approve the payment of such dividends.
We have deferred interest payments on our junior subordinated debentures and dividends on the Series B Preferred Stock, and the failure to resume payments may adversely affect the Company and the stockholders.
In the third quarter of 2010, the Company elected to defer regularly scheduled interest payments on $58.4 million of junior subordinated debentures related to the trust preferred securities issued by its two statutory trust subsidiaries, Old Second Capital Trust I and Old Second Capital Trust II (collectively, the “Trust Preferred Securities”). Because of the deferral on the junior subordinated debentures, the trusts have deferred regularly scheduled dividends on the Trust Preferred Securities. The total accumulated interest on the junior subordinated debentures including compounded interest from July 1, 2010 on the deferred payments totaled $11.7 million at December 31, 2012.
The Company has also suspended quarterly cash dividends on its Series B Preferred Stock, issued to the U.S. Treasury in connection with the Company’s participation in the TARP Capital Purchase Program. Dividend payments on the Series B Preferred Stock may be deferred without default, but the dividend is cumulative and therefore will continue to accrue. The dividends have been deferred since November 15, 2010, and the accumulated Series B Preferred Stock dividends totaled $9.1 million at December 31, 2012.
The Company is allowed to defer payments of interest for 20 quarterly periods on the junior subordinated debentures without default or penalty, but such amounts will continue to accrue. Also during the deferral period, the Company generally may not pay cash dividends on or repurchase its common stock or preferred stock, including the Series B Preferred Stock. In February, 2012, the Company did not pay the required dividend to Treasury for the sixth time and as a result, the Treasury has the right to appoint two representatives to the Company’s board of directors. The Treasury appointed a representative to our board of directors during the fourth quarter of 2012. The terms of the Series B Preferred Stock also prevent the Company from paying cash dividends on or repurchasing its common stock while Series B Preferred Stock dividends are in arrears.
The holders of our debt have rights that are senior to those of our stockholders.
We currently have a $45.5 million credit facility with a correspondent lender, which includes $45.0 million of subordinated debt and $500,000 in term debt. As of December 31, 2012, the entire $45.5 million of principal was outstanding. The term debt and subordinated debt mature on March 31, 2018. The senior debt is secured by all of the capital stock of the Bank. At December 31, 2012, the Company continued to be out of compliance with two of the financial covenants contained within the credit
agreement, which constitutes an event of default. In addition, as of December 31, 2012, we also had $58.4 million in junior subordinated debentures related to the Trust Preferred Securities. Payments of the principal and interest on the trust preferred securities are conditionally guaranteed by us to the extent the trusts have funds available for such obligations.
The rights of the holders of our senior debt, subordinated debt and junior subordinated debentures are senior to the shares of our common stock and senior preferred stock. As a result, we must make payments on our senior debt, subordinated debt and junior subordinated debentures (and the related Trust Preferred Securities) before any dividends can be paid on our common stock or preferred stock and, in the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution or liquidation, the holders of our senior debt, subordinated debt and junior subordinated debentures must be satisfied before any distributions can be made to our stockholders.
The holders of our senior preferred stock have rights that are senior to those of our common stockholders.
In January 2009, we issued and sold 73,000 shares of our Series B Preferred Stock, which ranks senior to our common stock in the payment of dividends and on liquidation, to the Treasury (together with the warrant to acquire 815,339 shares of our common stock) for $73.0 million. During the first quarter of 2013, Treasury sold substantially all of Series B Preferred Stock to third party investors and certain of our directors in a public auction. It is anticipated that after the close of the initial auction that Treasury will sell the remaining shares of Series B Preferred Stock in a subsequent auction , which is expected to close by the end of first quarter 2013 or early in second quarter 2013. In the event of our bankruptcy, dissolution, or liquidation, the holders of the Series B Preferred Stock will receive distributions of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock but after the holders of our senior debt, subordinated debt and junior subordinated debentures.
Holders of our Series B Preferred Stock have certain voting rights that may adversely affect our common stock holders, and the holders of the Series B Preferred Stock may have interests different from our common shareholders.
As a consequence of our missing the sixth dividend payment on our Series B Preferred Stock, the Treasury had the right to appoint two directors to our board of directors until all accrued but unpaid dividends have been paid. The Treasury exercised its right and appointed one director to the Company’s board of directors during the fourth quarter of 2012. In addition to holding a seat on our board, the holders of the Series B Preferred Stock have limited voting rights, except as required by law.
For as long as shares of the Series B Preferred Stock are outstanding, in addition to any other vote or consent of the shareholders required by law or our articles of incorporation, the vote or consent of holders of at least 66 2/3% of the shares of the Series B Preferred Stock outstanding is required for any authorization or issuance of shares ranking senior to the Series B Preferred Stock; any amendments to the rights of the Series B Preferred Stock so as to adversely affect the rights, privileges, or voting power of the Series B Preferred Stock; or initiation and completion of any merger, share exchange or similar transaction unless the shares of Series B Preferred Stock remain outstanding, or if we are not the surviving entity in such transaction, are converted into or exchanged for preference securities of the surviving entity and the shares of Series B Preferred Stock remaining outstanding or such preference securities have the rights, preferences, privileges and voting power of the Series B Preferred Stock.
The holders of our Series B Preferred Stock, including the Treasury, and the director representing the Series B Preferred Stock, may have different interests from the holders of our common stock, and could vote to block the forgoing transactions, even when considered desirable by, or in the best interests of the holders of our common stock.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None
We conduct our business at 27 retail banking center locations. We own 25 of our banking center facilities. The two leasehold facilities are leased through March 2015 and August 2016. All of our branches have ATMs, and we have 41 additional ATMs at other locations throughout northeastern Illinois. We believe that all of our properties and equipment are well maintained, in good operating condition and adequate for all of our present and anticipated needs.
Set forth below is information relating to each of our offices as of December 31, 2012. The total net book value of our premises and equipment (including land and land improvements, buildings, furniture and equipment, and buildings and leasehold improvements) at December 31, 2012, was $47.0 million.
Principal Business Office:
37 South River Street, Aurora, Illinois
Banking Office Locations:
Cook County
195 West Joe Orr Road, Chicago Heights, Illinois
DeKalb County
1810 Dekalb Avenue, Sycamore, Illinois
1100 South County Line Road, Maple Park, Illinois
DuPage County
4080 Fox Valley Center Drive, Aurora, Illinois
3101 Ogden Road, Lisle, Illinois
Kane County
1991 West Wilson Street, Batavia, Illinois
555 Redwood Drive, Aurora, Illinois
200 West John Street, North Aurora, Illinois
1350 North Farnsworth Avenue, Aurora, Illinois
Cross Street and State Route 47, Sugar Grove, Illinois
801 South Kirk Road, Saint Charles, Illinois
1230 North Orchard Road, Aurora, Illinois
1078 East Wilson Street, Batavia, Illinois
1000 South Mclean Boulevard, Elgin, Illinois (1)
3290 U.S. Highway 20 and Nesler Road, Elgin, Illinois
749 North Main Street, Elburn, Illinois
40W422 IL Route 64, Wasco, Illinois
194 South Main Street, Burlington, Illinois
2S101 Harter Road, Kaneville, Illinois (1)
Kendall County
1200 Douglass Road, Oswego, Illinois
26 West Countryside Parkway, Yorkville, Illinois
7050 Burroughs Avenue, Plano, Illinois
La Salle County
323 East Norris Drive, Ottawa, Illinois
Will County
850 Essington Road, Joliet, Illinois
20201 South Lagrange Road, Frankfort, Illinois
951 East Lincoln Highway, New Lennox, Illinois
(1) Leased facility
On February 17, 2011, a former employee filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Old Second Bancorp, Inc. Employees’ 401(k) Savings Plan and Trust alleging that the Company, the Bank, the Employee Benefits Committee of Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and certain of the Company’s officers and employees violated certain disclosure requirements and fiduciary duties established under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”). The complaint seeks equitable and as-of-yet unquantified monetary relief. Though the Company believes that it, its affiliates, and its officers and employees have acted, and continue to act, in compliance with ERISA law with respect to these matters, without conceding liability, the named defendants have negotiated a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs. On February 26, 2013, the plaintiffs requested the court’s preliminary approval of the parties’ settlement agreement. The Company and its legal counsel expect that the settlement agreement will be approved, and that the plaintiffs will therefore dismiss the litigation with a release of all claims. If approved, the settlement agreement will not have a material adverse effect on the financial statements of the Bank or on the consolidated financial position of the Company because the entire settlement amount will be paid by the Company’s insurers.
In addition to the matter described above, the Company and its subsidiaries have, from time to time, collection suits in the ordinary course of business against its debtors and are defendants in legal actions arising from normal business activities. Management, after consultation with legal counsel, believes that the ultimate liabilities, if any, resulting from these actions will not have a material adverse effect on the financial position of the Bank or on the consolidated financial position of the Company.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Old Second Bancorp, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Corporate Information
Corporate Office
37 River Street
Aurora, Illinois 60506-4172
(630) 892-0202
www.oldsecond.com
Market for the Company’s Common Stock
The Company’s common stock trades on The Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “OSBC”. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had approximately 985 stockholders of record of its common stock. The following table sets forth the range of prices during each quarter for 2012 and 2011.
|
|
|
2012 |
|
2011 |
| ||||||||||||||