21. Commitments and contingencies

In the normal course of business, various commitments and contingent liabilities are outstanding. The following table presents the Company’s significant commitments. Certain of these commitments are not included in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet.

	December 31
	2016		2015
	(In thousands)
Commitments to extend credit
Home equity lines of credit	$	5,499,609	$	5,631,680
Commercial real estate loans to be sold		70,100	57,597
Other commercial real estate		6,451,709		5,949,933
Residential real estate loans to be sold		478,950		488,621
Other residential real estate		232,721		212,619
Commercial and other		12,298,473		11,802,850
Standby letters of credit		2,987,091		3,330,013
Commercial letters of credit		44,723		55,559
Financial guarantees and indemnification contracts		3,043,580		2,794,322
Commitments to sell real estate loans		1,489,237		782,885

Commitments to extend credit are agreements to lend to customers, generally having fixed expiration dates or other termination clauses that may require payment of a fee. Standby and commercial letters of credit are conditional commitments issued to guarantee the performance of a customer to a third party. Standby letters of credit generally are contingent upon the failure of the customer to perform according to the terms of the underlying contract with the third party, whereas commercial letters of credit are issued to facilitate commerce and typically result in the commitment being funded when the underlying transaction is consummated between the customer and a third party. The credit risk associated with commitments to extend credit and standby and commercial letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved with extending loans to customers and is subject to normal credit policies. Collateral may be obtained based on management’s assessment of the customer’s creditworthiness.

Financial guarantees and indemnification contracts are oftentimes similar to standby letters of credit and include mandatory purchase agreements issued to ensure that customer obligations are fulfilled, recourse obligations associated with sold loans, and other guarantees of customer performance or compliance with designated rules and regulations. Included in financial guarantees and indemnification contracts are loan principal amounts sold with recourse in conjunction with the Company’s involvement in the Fannie Mae DUS program. The Company’s maximum credit risk for recourse associated with loans sold under this program totaled approximately $2.8 billion and $2.5 billion at December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

Since many loan commitments, standby letters of credit, and guarantees and indemnification contracts expire without being funded in whole or in part, the contract amounts are not necessarily indicative of future cash flows.

The Company utilizes commitments to sell real estate loans to hedge exposure to changes in the fair value of real estate loans held for sale. Such commitments are considered derivatives and along with commitments to originate real estate loans to be held for sale are generally recorded in the consolidated balance sheet at estimated fair market value.

The Company occupies certain banking offices and uses certain equipment under noncancelable operating lease agreements expiring at various dates over the next 22 years. Minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases are summarized in the following table:

	(In thousands)
Year ending December 31:
2017	$	99,847
2018		94,448
2019		74,814
2020		58,216
2021		44,508
Later years		94,825
	$	466,658

The Company is contractually obligated to repurchase previously sold residential real estate loans that do not ultimately meet investor sale criteria related to underwriting procedures or loan documentation. When required to do so, the Company may reimburse loan purchasers for losses incurred or may repurchase certain loans. The Company reduces residential mortgage banking revenues by an estimate for losses related to its obligations to loan purchasers. The amount of those charges is based on the volume of loans sold, the level of reimbursement requests received from loan purchasers and estimates of losses that may be associated with previously sold loans. Nevertheless, given the outcome of the matter discussed in the following paragraph, at December 31, 2016 the Company’s remaining obligation to loan purchasers was not considered material to the Company’s consolidated financial position.

The Company was the subject of an investigation by government agencies relating to the origination of Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) insured residential home loans and residential home loans sold to The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and Fannie Mae. A number of other U.S. financial institutions have announced similar investigations. Regarding FHA loans, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Department of Justice (collectively, the “Government”) investigated whether the Company complied with underwriting guidelines concerning certain loans where HUD paid FHA insurance claims. The Company fully cooperated with the investigation. The Government advised the Company that based upon its review of a sample of loans for which an FHA insurance claim was paid by HUD, some of the loans did not meet underwriting guidelines. The Company, based on its own review of the sample, did not agree with the sampling methodology and loan analysis employed by the Government. Regarding loans originated by the Company and sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the investigation concerned whether the mortgages sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae complied with applicable underwriting guidelines. The Company also cooperated with that portion of the investigation. In order to bring those investigations to a close, M&T Bank entered into a settlement agreement with the Government under which M&T Bank paid $64 million on May 12, 2016, without admitting liability. As a result, on May 20, 2016, a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal was filed with the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The settlement did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial condition or results of operations in the year ended December 31, 2016.

M&T and its subsidiaries are subject in the normal course of business to various pending and threatened legal proceedings and other matters in which claims for monetary damages are asserted. On an on-going basis management, after consultation with legal counsel, assesses the Company’s liabilities and contingencies in connection with such proceedings. For those matters where it is probable that the Company will incur losses and the amounts of the losses can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an expense and corresponding liability in its consolidated financial statements. To the extent the pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure in excess of that liability, the amount of such excess is not currently estimable. Although not considered probable, the range of reasonably possible losses for such matters in the aggregate, beyond the existing recorded liability, was between $0 and $40 million. Although the Company does not believe that the outcome of pending litigations will be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, it cannot rule out the possibility that such outcomes will be material to the consolidated results of operations for a particular reporting period in the future.