FIRST NORTHERN COMMUNITY BANCORP 10-K

ITEM 1 - BUSINESS General First Northern Community Bancorp (the “Company”) is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). Its legal headquarters and principal administrative offices are located at 195 N. First Street, Dixon, CA 95620 and its telephone number is (707) 678-3041. The Company provides a full range of community banking services to individual and corporate customers throughout the California Counties of Solano, Yolo, Placer, and Sacramento as well as portions of El Dorado and Contra Costa Counties through its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, First Northern Bank of Dixon (“First Northern” or the “Bank”). The Company’s operating policy since inception has emphasized the banking needs of individuals and small- to medium-sized businesses. In addition, the Bank owns 100% of the capital stock of Yolano Realty Corporation, a subsidiary created for the purpose of managing selected other real estate owned properties. The Bank was established in 1910 under a California state charter as Northern Solano Bank, and opened for business on February 1st of that year. On January 2, 1912, the First National Bank of Dixon was established under a federal charter, and until 1955, the two entities operated side by side under the same roof and with the same management. In an effort to increase efficiency of operation, reduce operating expense, and improve lending capacity, the two banks were consolidated on April 8, 1955, with the First National Bank of Dixon as the surviving entity. On January 1, 1980, the Bank’s federal charter was relinquished in favor of a California state charter, and the Bank’s name was changed to First Northern Bank of Dixon. In April of 2000, the shareholders of First Northern approved a corporate reorganization, which provided for the creation of the bank holding company. This reorganization, effected May 19, 2000, enabled the Company to better compete and grow in its competitive and rapidly changing marketplace. The Bank has eleven full-service branches located in the cities of Auburn, Davis, Dixon, Fairfield, Rancho Cordova, Roseville, Sacramento, Vacaville, West Sacramento, Winters and Woodland. The Bank has one satellite banking office inside a retirement community in the city of Davis and a residential mortgage loan office in Davis. The Bank engages financial advisors, through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., who offer non-FDIC insured investment and brokerage services throughout the region from offices strategically located in West Sacramento, Davis and Auburn. The Bank also has a commercial loan office in the Contra Costa County city of Walnut Creek that serves the East Bay Area’s small- to medium-sized business lending needs. The Bank’s operations center is located in Dixon and provides back-office support including information services, central operations, and the central loan department. In 2019, the Bank opened an additional administrative office in Sacramento. On November 5, 2022, the Bank entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”) with Columbia State Bank, a Washington state-chartered commercial bank (“Columbia”) and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Columbia Banking System, Inc., to acquire three branches of Columbia located in the California towns of Colusa, Orland and Willows. On January 20, 2023 the Company completed the acquisition of these branches. This acquisition enabled the Company to extend its existing footprint. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Bank acquired these branches for consideration in an amount equal to 3.15% of the average daily closing balance of the deposits for the period commencing thirty calendar days prior to the closing date and concluding on the date preceding the closing date plus the net book values of certain assets of Columbia and accrued interest and fees with respect to the acquired loans. At the closing of the acquisition, and subject to the terms of the Purchase Agreement, the Bank assumed the deposit liabilities related to certain accounts. The aggregate deposits assumed totaled approximately $116 million, and the aggregate principal balance of the loans acquired totaled approximately $4 million. The Bank is in the commercial banking business and generates most of its revenue by providing a wide range of products and services to small- and medium-sized businesses and individuals including accepting demand, interest bearing transaction, savings, and time deposits, and making commercial, consumer, and real estate related loans. It also issues cashier’s checks, rents safe deposit boxes, and provides other customary banking services. First Northern offers a broad range of alternative investment products, fiduciary and other financial services through Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. First Northern also offers equipment leasing, credit cards, merchant card processing, payroll services, and limited international banking services through third parties. 5 Table of Contents The Bank’s principal source of revenue is interest income. Interest income is primarily derived from interest and fees on loans and leases, interest on investments, and due from banks interest bearing accounts. For the year ended December 31, 2022, these sources comprised approximately 76%, 16%, and 7%, respectively, of the Company’s interest income. The Bank is a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and all deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC to the maximum amount permitted by law, currently $250,000 per depositor. Most of the Bank’s deposits are attracted from the market of northern and central Solano County, southern and central Yolo County and Placer County. The Bank’s deposits are not received from a single depositor or group of affiliated depositors, the loss of any one which would have a materially adverse impact on the business of the Bank. A material portion of the Bank’s deposits are not concentrated within a single industry group of related industries. As of December 31, 2022, the Company had consolidated assets of approximately $1.87 billion, liabilities of approximately $1.75 billion and stockholders’ equity of approximately $125.0 million. The Company and its subsidiaries employed 192 full-time-equivalent employees as of December 31, 2022. The Company and the Bank consider their relationship with their employees to be good and have not experienced any interruptions of operations due to labor disagreements. Available Information The Company makes available free of charge on its website, www.thatsmybank.com , its Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC. These filings are also accessible on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov . The information found on the Company’s website shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this report into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts. The Effect of Government Policy on Banking The earnings and growth of the Bank are affected not only by local market area factors and general economic conditions, but also by government monetary and fiscal policies. For example, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”) influences the supply of money through its open market operations in U.S. Government securities, adjustments to the discount rates applicable to borrowings by depository institutions and others and establishment of reserve requirements against both member and non-member financial institutions’ deposits. Such actions significantly affect the overall growth and distribution of loans, investments, and deposits and also affect interest rates charged on loans and paid on deposits. The nature and impact of future changes in such policies on the business and earnings of the Company cannot be predicted. Additionally, state and federal tax policies can impact banking organizations. Because of the extensive regulation of commercial banking activities in the United States, the business of the Company is particularly susceptible to being affected by the enactment of federal and state legislation which may have the effect of increasing or decreasing the cost of doing business, modifying permissible activities or enhancing the competitive position of other financial institutions. Any change in applicable laws, regulations, or policies may have a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition, or results of operations, or prospects of the Company. In May 2018, the President signed into law the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “EGRRCPA”) which amended various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as other federal banking statutes, and generally authorized the FRB to tailor regulation to better reflect the character of the different banking firms that the FRB supervises. In August 2018, the FRB began implementing the EGRRCPA with several interim final rules which, among other things, revised the FRB’s Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement (the “policy statement”) to raise the consolidated assets threshold from $1 billion to $3 billion, allowing the Company to qualify under the policy statement. This policy statement applies to bank holding companies with pro forma consolidated assets of less than $3 billion that (i) are not engaged in significant nonbanking activities either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; (ii) do not conduct significant off-balance sheet activities (including securitization and asset management or administration) either directly or through a nonbank subsidiary; and (iii) do not have a material amount of debt or equity securities outstanding (other than trust preferred securities) that are registered with the SEC. This policy statement permits qualifying bank holding companies, such as the Company, to operate with higher levels of debt, facilitating the ability of community banks to issue debt and raise capital. Qualifying bank holding companies, such as the Company, also are permitted to be examined by a Federal banking agency every 18 months (as opposed to every 12 months) and are eligible to use shorter call report forms. Whether and to what extent the EGRRCPA or new legislation will result in additional regulatory initiatives and policies, or modifications of existing regulations and policies, which may impact our business, cannot be predicted at this time. 6 Table of Contents Supervision and Regulation of Bank Holding Companies The Company is a bank holding company subject to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). The Company reports to, registers with, and is subject to supervision and examination by, the FRB. The FRB also has the authority to examine the Company’s subsidiaries. The costs of any examination by the FRB are payable by the Company. The FRB has significant supervisory, regulatory and enforcement authority over the Company and its affiliates. The FRB requires the Company to maintain certain levels of capital. See “Capital Standards” below for more information. The FRB also has the authority to take enforcement action against any bank holding company that commits any unsafe or unsound practice, or violates certain laws, regulations, or conditions imposed in writing by the FRB. See “Prompt Corrective Action and Other Enforcement Mechanisms” below for more information. Such enforcement powers include the power to assess civil money penalties against any bank holding company violating any provision of the BHCA or any regulation or order of the FRB under the BHCA. Knowing violations of the BHCA or regulations or orders of the FRB can also result in criminal penalties for the bank holding company and any individuals participating in such conduct. Under long-standing FRB policy and provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies are required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks, and to commit resources to support their subsidiary banks. This support may be required at times when a bank holding company may not have the resources to provide such support, or may not be inclined to provide such support under the then-existing circumstances. Under the BHCA, a company generally must obtain the prior approval of the FRB before it exercises a controlling influence over a bank, or acquires, directly or indirectly, more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of any bank or bank holding company. Thus, the Company is required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB before it acquires, merges, or consolidates with any bank or bank holding company. Any company seeking to acquire, merge, or consolidate with the Company also would be required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB. The Company is generally prohibited under the BHCA from acquiring ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank or bank holding company and from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than banking, managing banks, or providing services to affiliates of the holding company. However, a bank holding company, with the approval of the FRB, may engage, or acquire the voting shares of companies engaged, in activities that the FRB has determined to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. A bank holding company must demonstrate that the benefits to the public of the proposed activity will outweigh the possible adverse effects associated with such activity. The FRB generally prohibits a bank holding company from declaring or paying a cash dividend which would impose undue pressure on the capital of subsidiary banks or would be funded only through borrowing or other arrangements that might adversely affect a bank holding company’s financial position. The FRB’s policy is that a bank holding company should not continue its existing rate of cash dividends on its common stock unless its net income is sufficient to fully fund each dividend and its prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with its capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition. The Company is also subject to restrictions relating to the payment of dividends under California corporate law. See “Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions” below for additional restrictions on the ability of the Company and the Bank to pay dividends. Supervision and Regulation of the Bank The Bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the Financial Institutions Division of the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (“DFPI”) and the FDIC. The regulations of and laws administered by these agencies affect most aspects of the Bank’s business and prescribe permissible types of loans and investments, the amount of required reserves, requirements for branch offices, the permissible scope of the Bank’s activities and various other requirements. While the Bank is not a member of the FRB, it is directly subject to certain regulations of the FRB dealing with such matters as check clearing activities, establishment of banking reserves, Truth-in-Lending (“Regulation Z”), and Equal Credit Opportunity (“Regulation B”). The Bank is also subject to regulations of (although not direct supervision and examination by) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which was created by the Dodd-Frank Act. Among the CFPB’s responsibilities are implementing and enforcing federal consumer financial protection laws, reviewing the business practices of financial services providers for legal compliance, monitoring the marketplace for transparency on behalf of consumers and receiving complaints and questions from consumers about consumer financial products and services. The Dodd-Frank Act added prohibitions on unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices to the scope of consumer protection regulations overseen and enforced by the CFPB. The banking industry is also subject to significantly increased regulatory controls and processes regarding the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws. Over the past decade, a number of banks and bank holding companies announced the imposition of regulatory sanctions, including regulatory agreements and cease and desist orders and, in some cases, fines and penalties, by the bank regulators due to failures to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering legislation. In a number of these cases, the fines and penalties have been significant. Failure to comply with these additional requirements may also adversely affect the Bank’s ability to obtain regulatory approvals for future initiatives requiring regulatory approval, including acquisitions. 7 Table of Contents Under California law, the Bank is subject to various restrictions on, and requirements regarding, its operations and administration including the maintenance of branch offices and automated teller machines, capital and reserve requirements, deposits and borrowings, and investment and lending activities. California law permits a state-chartered bank to invest in the stock and securities of other corporations, subject to a state-chartered bank receiving either general authorization or, depending on the amount of the proposed investment, specific authorization from the DFPI. Federal banking laws, however, impose limitations on the activities and equity investments of state-chartered, federally insured banks. The FDIC rules on investments prohibit a state bank from acquiring an equity investment of a type, or in an amount, not permissible for a national bank. FDIC rules also prohibit a state bank from engaging as a principal in any activity that is not permissible for a national bank, unless the bank is adequately capitalized and the FDIC approves the activity after determining that such activity does not pose a significant risk to the deposit insurance fund. The FDIC rules on activities generally permit subsidiaries of banks, without prior specific FDIC authorization, to engage in those activities that have been approved by the FRB for bank holding companies because such activities are so closely related to banking to be a proper incident thereto. Other activities generally require specific FDIC prior approval, and the FDIC may impose additional restrictions on such activities on a case-by-case basis in approving applications to engage in otherwise impermissible activities. The USA Patriot Act Title III of the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“USA Patriot Act”) includes numerous provisions for fighting international money laundering and blocking terrorism access to the U.S. financial system. The USA Patriot Act requires certain additional due diligence and record keeping practices, including, but not limited to, new customers, correspondent and private banking accounts. Part of the USA Patriot Act is the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (“IMLAFATA”). Among its provisions, IMLAFATA requires each financial institution to: (i) establish an anti-money laundering program; (ii) establish appropriate anti-money laundering policies, procedures, and controls; (iii) appoint a Bank Secrecy Act officer responsible for day-to-day compliance; and (iv) conduct independent audits. In addition, IMLAFATA contains a provision encouraging cooperation among financial institutions, regulatory authorities, and law enforcement authorities with respect to individuals, entities and organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected of engaging in, terrorist acts or money laundering activities. IMLAFATA expands the circumstances under which funds in a bank account may be forfeited and requires covered financial institutions to respond under certain circumstances to requests for information from federal banking agencies within 120 hours. IMLAFATA also amends the BHCA and the federal Bank Merger Act to require the federal banking agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing an application under these Acts. Pursuant to IMLAFATA, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other government agencies, has adopted measures applicable to banks, bank holding companies, and/or other financial institutions. These measures include enhanced record keeping and reporting requirements for certain financial transactions that are of primary money laundering concern, due diligence requirements concerning the beneficial ownership of certain types of accounts, and restrictions or prohibitions on certain types of accounts with foreign financial institutions. Privacy Restrictions The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (“GLBA”), which became law in 1999, in addition to the previous described changes in permissible non-banking activities permitted to banks, bank holding companies and financial holding companies, also requires financial institutions in the U.S. to implement policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties. In general, the GLBA requires explanations to consumers on policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of such nonpublic personal information, and, except as otherwise required by law, prohibits disclosing such information except as provided in the banks’ policies and procedures and applicable law. These regulations also allow consumers to opt-out of the sharing of certain information between affiliates, and impose other requirements. Certain state laws and regulations designed to protect the privacy and security of customer information also apply to us and our subsidiaries, including laws requiring notification to affected individuals and regulators of data security breaches. For additional information, see “Information security breaches or other technological difficulties could adversely affect the Company” in Part I, Item 1A. “Risk Factors” in this report. The Company believes that it complies with all provisions of GLBA and all implementing regulations, and that the Bank has developed appropriate policies and procedures to meet its responsibilities in connection with the privacy provisions of GLBA. 8 Table of Contents California and other state legislatures have adopted privacy laws, including laws prohibiting sharing of customer information without the customer’s prior permission. These laws may make it more difficult for the Company to share information with its marketing partners, reduce the effectiveness of marketing programs, and increase the cost of marketing programs. In June 2018, the State of California enacted The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (“CCPA”). This new law became effective on January 1, 2020, and provides consumers with expansive rights and controls over their personal information which is obtained by or shared with “covered businesses”, which includes the Bank and most other banking institutions subject to California law. The CCPA gives consumers the right to request disclosure of information collected about them and whether that information has been sold or shared with others, the right to request deletion of personal information subject to certain exceptions, the right to opt out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information and the right not to be discriminated against because of choices regarding the consumer’s personal information. The CCPA provides for certain monetary penalties and for its enforcement by the California Attorney General or consumers whose rights under the law are not observed. It also provides for damages as well as injunctive or declaratory relief if there has been unauthorized access, theft or disclosure of personal information due to failure to implement reasonable security procedures. The CCPA contains several exemptions, including a provision to the effect that the CCPA does not apply where the information is collected, processed, sold or disclosed pursuant to the GLBA if the GLBA is in conflict with the CCPA. The impact of the CCPA on the business of the Bank is yet to be determined, but it could result in increased operating expenses as well as additional exposure to the risk of litigation by or on behalf of consumers. In November 2020, California voters approved state-wide Proposition 24, also known as the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act of 2020 (the “CPREA”) which expanded and amended certain provisions of the CCPA and created the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce privacy rights for Californians and impose fines for violations of such rights. The CPREA requires businesses to not share a consumer’s personal information upon the consumer’s request, provides consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information used or disclosed for advertising or marketing, to obtain permission for collecting data on certain minors, and to correct a consumer’s inaccurate information upon the consumer’s request. It also removed the ability of businesses to remedy violations before being penalized for violations and increased the penalties for such violations. Most of the provisions of the CPREA will take effect in 2023 but some portions, such as the creation of the new state agency, went into effect immediately. The impact of these laws on the business of the Bank is yet to be determined, but they could result in increased operating expenses as well as additional exposure to the risk of litigation by or on behalf of consumers. Capital Standards The FRB and the federal banking agencies have in place risk-based capital standards applicable to U.S. bank holding companies and banks. In July 2013, the FRB and the other U.S. federal banking agencies adopted final rules making significant changes to the U.S. regulatory capital framework for U.S. banking organizations and to conform this framework to the guidelines published by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (“Basel Committee”) known as the Basel III Global Regulatory Framework for Capital and Liquidity. The Basel Committee is a committee of banking supervisory authorities from major countries in the global financial system which formulates broad supervisory standards and guidelines relating to financial institutions for implementation on a country-by-country basis. These rules adopted by the FRB and the other federal banking agencies (“the U.S. Basel III Capital Rules”) replaced the federal banking agencies’ general risk-based capital rules, advanced approaches rule, market risk rule, and leverage rules, in accordance with certain transition provisions. Banks, such as First Northern, became subject to these rules on January 1, 2015. The rules implement higher minimum capital requirements, include a common equity Tier 1 capital requirement, and establish criteria that instruments must meet in order to be considered common equity Tier 1 capital, additional Tier 1 capital, or Tier 2 capital. The final rules provide for increased minimum capital ratios as follows: (a) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (b) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6%; (c) a total capital ratio of 8%; and (d) a Tier 1 leverage ratio to average consolidated assets of 4%. Under these rules, in order to avoid certain limitations on capital distributions, including dividend payments and certain discretionary bonus payments to executive officers, a banking organization must hold a capital conservation buffer composed of common equity Tier 1 capital above its minimum risk-based capital requirements (equal to 2.5% of total risk-weighted assets). The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. First Northern believes that it was in compliance with these requirements at December 31, 2022. Pursuant to the EGRRCPA, the FRB adopted a final rule, effective August 31, 2018, amending the Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Statement (the “policy statement”) to increase the consolidated assets threshold to qualify to utilize the provisions of the policy statement from $1 billion to $3 billion. Bank holding companies, such as the Company, are subject to capital adequacy requirements of the FRB; however, bank holding companies which are subject to the policy statement are not subject to compliance with the regulatory capital requirements until they hold $3 billion or more in consolidated total assets. As a consequence, as of December 31, 2018 and through December 31, 2022, the Company was not required to comply with the FRB’s regulatory capital requirements until such time that its consolidated total assets equal $3 billion or more or if the FRB determines that the Company is no longer deemed to be a small bank holding company. However, if the Company had been subject to these regulatory capital requirements, it would have exceeded all regulatory requirements. 9 Table of Contents In August of 2020, the federal banking agencies adopted the final version of the community bank leverage ratio framework rule (the “CBLR”), implementing two interim final rules adopted in April of 2020. The rule provides an optional, simplified measure of capital adequacy. Under the optional CBLR framework, the CBLR was 8.5% through calendar year 2021 and 9% thereafter. The rule is applicable to all non-advanced approaches FDIC-supervised institutions with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. Banks not electing the CBLR framework will continue to be subject to the generally applicable risk-based capital rule. At the present time, the Company and the Bank do not intend to elect to use the CBLR framework. The following table presents the capital ratios for the Bank as of December 31, 2022 (calculated in accordance with the Basel III capital rules): The Bank 2022 Adequately Capitalized Well Capitalized Capital Ratio Ratio* Ratio Tier 1 Leverage Capital (to Average Assets) $ 170,533 8.7 % 4.0 % 5.0 % Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (to Risk-Weighted Assets) 170,533 14.7 % 4.5 % 6.5 % Tier 1 Capital (to Risk-Weighted Assets) 170,533 14.7 % 6.0 % 8.0 % Total Risk-Based Capital (to Risk-Weighted Assets) 185,079 15.9 % 8.0 % 10.0 % * Ratio for regulatory requirement excludes the capital conservation buffer of 2.50%. The federal banking agencies must take into consideration concentrations of credit risk and risks from non-traditional activities, as well as an institution’s ability to manage those risks, when determining the adequacy of an institution’s capital. This evaluation will be made as a part of the institution’s regular safety and soundness examination. The federal banking agencies must also consider interest rate risk (when the interest rate sensitivity of an institution’s assets does not match the sensitivity of its liabilities or its off-balance-sheet position) in evaluating a Bank’s capital adequacy. In January 2014, the Basel Committee issued an updated version of its leverage ratio and disclosure guidance (“Basel III leverage ratio”). The Basel Committee guidance continues to set a minimum Basel III leverage ratio of 3%. The Basel Committee, in December 2017, adopted further revisions to the Basel III capital standards (“Basel IV”) which refined the definition of the leverage ratio “exposure measures” (the Basel III term for non risk-weighted assets). Beginning January 1, 2023, the updates to the leverage ratio will be implemented. Prompt Corrective Action and Other Enforcement Mechanisms The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) requires each federal banking agency to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions, including but not limited to those that fall below one or more prescribed minimum capital ratios. The law required each federal banking agency to promulgate regulations defining the following five categories in which an insured depository institution will be placed, based on the level of its capital ratios: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, under-capitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. Under the prompt corrective action provisions of FDICIA, an insured depository institution generally will be classified in one of five capital categories ranging from “well-capitalized” to “critically under-capitalized.” An institution that, based upon its capital levels, is classified as “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized” or “under-capitalized” may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if the appropriate federal banking agency, after notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that an unsafe or unsound condition or an unsafe or unsound practice warrants such treatment. At each successive lower capital category, an insured depository institution is subject to increased restrictions on its operations. Management believes that at December 31, 2022, the Company and the Bank exceeded the required ratios for classification as “well capitalized.” Institutions that are “under-capitalized” or lower are subject to certain mandatory supervisory corrective actions. Failure to meet regulatory capital guidelines can result in a bank being required to raise additional capital. An “under-capitalized” bank must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must generally guarantee compliance with the plan. In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, commercial banking organizations may be subject to potential enforcement actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses or for violations of any law, rule, regulation or any condition imposed in writing by the agency or any written agreement with the agency. Enforcement actions may include the imposition of a conservator or receiver, the issuance of a cease-and-desist order that can be judicially enforced, the termination of insurance of deposits (in the case of a depository institution), the imposition of civil money penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, the issuance of formal and informal agreements, the issuance of removal and prohibition orders against institution-affiliated parties and the enforcement of such actions through injunctions or restraining orders based upon a judicial determination that the agency would be harmed if such equitable relief was not granted. Additionally, a holding company’s inability to serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary banking organizations could serve as a further basis for a regulatory action against the holding company. 10 Table of Contents Safety and Soundness Standards FDICIA also implemented certain specific restrictions on transactions and required federal banking regulators to adopt overall safety and soundness standards for depository institutions related to internal control, loan underwriting and documentation and asset growth. Among other things, FDICIA limits the interest rates paid on deposits by undercapitalized institutions, restricts the use of brokered deposits, limits the aggregate extensions of credit by a depository institution to an executive officer, director, principal shareholder, or related interest, and reduces deposit insurance coverage for deposits offered by undercapitalized institutions for deposits by certain employee benefits accounts. The federal banking agencies may require an institution to submit to an acceptable compliance plan as well as have the flexibility to pursue other more appropriate or effective courses of action given the specific circumstances and severity of an institution’s non-compliance with one or more standards. Restrictions on Dividends and Other Distributions The power of the board of directors of an insured depository institution to declare a cash dividend or other distribution with respect to capital is subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions which limit the amount available for such distribution depending upon the earnings, financial condition and liquidity needs of the institution, as well as general business conditions. FDICIA prohibits insured depository institutions from paying management fees to any controlling persons or, with certain limited exceptions, making capital distributions, including dividends, if, after such transaction, the institution would be undercapitalized. The federal banking agencies also have authority to prohibit a depository institution from engaging in business practices, which are considered to be unsafe or unsound, possibly including payment of dividends or other payments under certain circumstances even if such payments are not expressly prohibited by statute. In addition to the restrictions imposed under federal law, banks chartered under California law generally may only pay cash dividends to the extent such payments do not exceed the lesser of retained earnings of the bank’s net income for its last three fiscal years (less any distributions to shareholders during such period). In the event a bank desires to pay cash dividends in excess of such amount, the bank may pay a cash dividend with the prior approval of the DFPI in an amount not exceeding the greatest of the bank’s retained earnings, the bank’s net income for its last fiscal year, or the bank’s net income for its current fiscal year. Premiums for Deposit Insurance The Bank is a member of the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) maintained by the FDIC. Through the DIF, the FDIC insures the deposits of the Bank up to prescribed limits for each depositor. To maintain the DIF, member institutions are assessed an insurance premium based on their deposits and their institutional risk category. The FDIC determines an institution’s risk category by combining its supervisory ratings with its financial ratios and other risk measures. The FDIC also has the authority to impose special assessments at any time it estimates that DIF reserves could fall to a level that would adversely affect public confidence. In September, 2020, the FDIC board of directors voted to adopt a restoration plan to restore the DIF reserve ratio to at least 1.35% within 8 years as required by the FDIC Act. This action was in response to the reserve ratio dropping to 1.30% primarily due to the inflow of more than $1 trillion in estimated insured deposits in the first six month of 2020 resulting mainly from the pandemic, monetary policy actions, direct government assistance and an overall reduction in business spending. No change was made in the current schedule of assessment rates for all insured depository institutions. Deposit insurance assessments and assessment rates are subject to change by the FDIC and can be impacted by the overall economy and the stability of the banking industry as a whole. There can be no assurance that the FDIC will not impose special assessments or increase annual assessments in the future. The ultimate effect on our business of legislative, regulatory and economic developments on the DIF cannot be predicted with certainty. Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending The Bank is subject to certain fair lending requirements and reporting obligations involving its home mortgage lending operations and is also subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”). The CRA generally requires the federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of the Bank’s local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. In addition to substantive penalties and corrective measures that may be required for a violation of certain fair lending laws, the federal banking agencies may take compliance with such laws and CRA into account when reviewing other activities by the Bank, particularly applications involving business expansion such as acquisitions or de novo branching. 11 Table of Contents On January 9, 2020, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) published a notice of proposed rule-making intended to modernize and strengthen the CRA regulations to better achieve their underlying statutory purpose by clarifying which activities qualify for CRA credit, updating where activities count for CRA credit, creating a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance, and providing for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. Later in 2020, the OCC adopted the new rule, which will apply to national banks, but the FDIC declined to take action on its proposed rule, thus leaving in place the existing CRA regulatory framework. It cannot be predicted at this time as to whether the FDIC will eventually adopt such a proposed rule and, if it does so, what impact this rule may have on FDIC-supervised institutions, such as the Bank. Certain CFPB Rules The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) has adopted an Ability-to-Repay rule that all newly originated residential mortgages must meet. The Ability-to-Repay rule establishes guidelines that the lender must follow when reviewing an applicant’s income, obligations, assets, liabilities, and credit history and requires that the lender make a reasonable and good faith determination of an applicant’s ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Lenders will be presumed to have met the Ability-to-Repay rule by originating loans that meet the criteria for “Qualified Mortgages”, which are set forth in detail in the rule. The mortgage loans originated by the Bank with the intent to sell them to Freddie Mac meet the Qualified Mortgage criteria. The CFPB has also adopted a rule on simplified and improved mortgage loan disclosures, otherwise known as Know Before You Owe. The rule provides that mortgage borrowers receive a loan estimate three business days after application and a closing disclosure three days before closing. These forms replace disclosure forms previously provided to borrowers under other provisions of federal law. The rule provides for limitations on application fees and increases in closing costs. Any new regulatory requirements promulgated by the CFPB could have an adverse impact on our residential mortgage lending business as the industry adapts to the additional regulations. Our business strategy, product offerings and profitability may change as the market adjusts to any additional regulations and as these requirements are interpreted by the regulators and courts. Conservatorship and Receivership of Insured Depository Institutions If any insured depository institution becomes insolvent and the FDIC is appointed its conservator or receiver, the FDIC may, under federal law, disaffirm or repudiate any contract to which such institution is a party, if the FDIC determines that performance of the contract would be burdensome, and that disaffirmance or repudiation of the contract would promote the orderly administration of the institution’s affairs. Such disaffirmance or repudiation would result in a claim by its holder against the receivership or conservatorship. The amount paid upon such claim would depend upon, among other factors, the amount of receivership assets available for the payment of such claim and its priority relative to the priority of others. In addition, the FDIC as conservator or receiver may enforce most contracts entered into by the institution notwithstanding any provision providing for termination, default, acceleration, or exercise of rights upon or solely by reason of insolvency of the institution, appointment of a conservator or receiver for the institution, or exercise of rights or powers by a conservator or receiver for the institution. The FDIC as conservator or receiver also may transfer any asset or liability of the institution without obtaining any approval or consent of the institution’s shareholders or creditors. The Dodd-Frank Act The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, has resulted in sweeping changes to the U.S. financial system and financial institutions, including us. Many of the law’s provisions have been implemented by rules and regulations of the federal banking agencies. The law contains many provisions which have particular relevance to our business, including provisions that have resulted in adjustments to our FDIC deposit insurance premiums and that resulted in increased capital and liquidity requirements, increased supervision, increased regulatory and compliance risks and costs and other operational costs and expenses, reduced fee-based revenues and restrictions on some aspects of our operations, and increased interest expense on our demand deposits. In May 2018, the President signed into law the EGRRCPA, which amended various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as other federal banking statutes. See “The Effect of Government Policy on Banking” above for additional information. The environment in which financial institutions continue to operate since the U.S. financial crisis, including legislative and regulatory changes affecting capital, liquidity, supervision, permissible activities, corporate governance and compensation, and changes in fiscal policy may have long-term effects on the business model and profitability of financial institutions that cannot now be foreseen. 12 Table of Contents Overdraft and Interchange Fees The FRB’s Regulation E imposes restrictions on banks’ abilities to charge overdraft services and fees. The rule prohibits financial institutions from charging fees for paying overdrafts on ATM and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act, through a provision known as the Durbin Amendment, required the FRB to establish standards for interchange fees that are “reasonable and proportional” to the cost of processing debit card transactions and imposes other requirements on card networks. Under the rule, the maximum permissible interchange fee that a bank may receive is the sum of $0.21 per transaction and five basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction, with an additional upward adjustment of no more than $0.01 per transaction if a bank develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve fraud-prevention standards set by regulation. This regulation has resulted in decreased revenues and increased compliance costs for the banking industry and the Bank, and there can be no assurance that alternative sources of revenues can be implemented to offset the impact of these developments. Possible Future Legislation and Regulatory Initiatives The economic and political environment of the past several years has led to a number of proposed legislative, governmental and regulatory initiatives, at both the federal and state levels, certain of which are described above, that may significantly impact our industry. These and other initiatives could significantly change the competitive and operating environment in which we and our subsidiaries operate. We cannot predict whether these or any other proposals will be enacted or the ultimate impact of any such initiatives on our operations, competitive situation, financial condition or results of operations. The results of the 2020 national elections with the change of the U.S. President and the shift of control in the U.S. Senate could lead to new legislative and regulatory initiatives or the roll-back of initiatives of the previous Administration which could have significant impact on the banking and financial services industry and on our business. We cannot assess at this time the degree to which this may occur. The change of Administration in Washington, D.C. is also likely to result in changes in the leadership and other senior positions at the federal bank regulatory agencies. We cannot assess at this time the impact such changes will have on the banking and financial services industry and on our business. Competition In the past, an independent bank’s principal competitors for deposits and loans have been other banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions. Many of these competitors are large financial institutions that have substantial capital, technology and marketing resources, which are well in excess of ours, although these larger institutions may be required to hold more regulatory capital and as a result, achieve lower returns on equity. For agricultural loans, the Bank also competes with constituent entities with the Federal Farm Credit System. To a lesser extent, competition is also provided by thrift and loans, mortgage brokerage companies and insurance companies. Other institutions, such as brokerage houses, mutual fund companies, credit card companies, and even retail establishments have offered new investment vehicles, which also compete with banks for deposit business. Additionally, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and payment systems. We also experience competition, especially for deposits, from internet-based banking institutions and other financial companies, which do not always have a presence in our market footprint and have grown rapidly in recent years. Current federal law has made it easier for out-of-state banks to enter and compete in California. Competition in our principal markets may further intensify as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act which, among other things, permits out-of-state de novo branching by national banks, state banks and foreign banks from other states. While the impact of these changes cannot be predicted with certainty, it is clear that the business of banking in California will remain highly competitive. Competition in our industry is likely to further intensify as a result of continued consolidation of financial services companies, including consolidations of significance in our market area. In order to compete with major financial institutions and other competitors in its primary service areas, the Bank relies upon the experience of its executive and senior officers in serving business clients, and upon its specialized services, local promotional activities and the personal contacts made by its officers, directors and employees. For customers whose loan demand exceeds the Bank’s legal lending limit, the Bank may arrange for such loans on a participation basis with correspondent banks. In the past, the seasonal swings, discussed below in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation – Liquidity”, have had some impact on the Bank’s liquidity. The management of investment maturities, sale of loan participations, federal fund borrowings, qualification for funds under the Federal Reserve Bank’s seasonal credit program, and the ability to sell mortgages in the secondary market is intended to allow the Bank to satisfactorily manage its liquidity. 13 Table of Contents