Midland States Bancorp, Inc. 10-K

ITEM 1 – BUSINESS Our Company Midland States Bancorp, Inc., an Illinois corporation formed in 1988, is a diversified financial holding company headquartered in Effingham, Illinois. Our banking subsidiary, Midland States Bank, an Illinois state-chartered bank formed in 1881, has branches across Illinois and in Missouri, and provides a full range of commercial and consumer banking products and services, business equipment financing, merchant credit card services, trust and investment management, and insurance and financial planning services. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had total assets of $7.51 billion, and our wealth management group had assets under administration of approximately $4.15 billion. Our strategic plan focuses on delivering a superior customer experience through a high-tech, high-touch approach, while remaining committed to core community banking and relationship-driven growth. We continue to enhance our regional franchise approach that serves our core customers with a consistent, high-performance culture rooted in our One Midland values and with a strong foundation in Enterprise Risk Management. Our Principal Businesses Community Banking. Our community banking business primarily consists of commercial and retail lending and deposit taking. We deliver a comprehensive range of banking products and services to individuals, businesses, municipalities and other entities within our market areas, which include Illinois and the St. Louis metropolitan area, where we operated 53 full-service banking offices as of December 31, 2024. Our lending strategy is to maintain a broadly diversified loan portfolio based on the type of customer (i.e., businesses versus individuals), type of loan product (e.g., owner occupied commercial real estate, commercial loans, agricultural loans, etc.), geographic location and industries in which our business customers are engaged (e.g., manufacturing, retail, hospitality, etc.). We principally focus our commercial lending activities on loans that we originate from borrowers located in our market areas. We market our lending products and services to qualified lending customers primarily through branch offices and high touch personal service. We focus our business development and marketing strategy primarily on middle market businesses. Our primary products and services include the following: Commercial Loans. Our commercial loan portfolio is comprised primarily of term loans to purchase capital equipment and lines of credit for working capital and operational purposes to small and midsized businesses. Although most loans are made on a secured basis, loans may be made on an unsecured basis where warranted by the overall financial condition of the borrower. Part of our commercial loan portfolio includes loans extended to finance agricultural equipment and production. 5 Table of Contents These loans are typically short-term loans extended to farmers and other agricultural producers to purchase seed, fertilizer and equipment. Commercial Real Estate Loans. We offer real estate loans for owner occupied and non-owner occupied commercial property. The real estate securing our existing commercial real estate loans includes a wide variety of property types, such as owner occupied offices, warehouses and production facilities, office buildings, hotels, mixed-use residential and commercial facilities, retail centers, multifamily properties and assisted living facilities. Our commercial real estate loan portfolio includes farmland loans. Farmland loans are generally made to a borrower actively involved in farming rather than to passive investors. Construction and Land Development Loans. Our construction portfolio includes loans to small and midsized businesses to construct owner-user properties, loans to developers of commercial real estate investment properties and residential developments and, to a lesser extent, loans to individual clients for construction of single family homes in our market areas. These loans are typically disbursed as construction progresses and carry interest rates that may vary with SOFR. The following table presents the balance and associated percentage of the major property types within our commercial real estate and construction and land development loan portfolios at December 31, 2024 and 2023: December 31, 2024 2023 (dollars in thousands) Balance % Balance % Multi-Family $ 547,016 18.9 % $ 516,295 18.1 % Retail 460,283 15.9 469,096 16.4 Skilled Nursing 400,902 13.8 454,589 15.9 Industrial/Warehouse 235,674 8.2 217,956 7.6 Hotel/Motel 228,764 7.9 159,707 5.6 Office 146,295 5.1 153,756 5.4 All other 872,572 30.2 888,039 31.0 Total commercial real estate and construction and land development loans $ 2,891,506 100.0 % $ 2,859,438 100.0 % Residential Real Estate Loans. We offer first and second mortgage loans to our individual customers primarily for the purchase of primary residences. We also offer home equity lines of credit, consisting of loans secured by first or second mortgages primarily on owner occupied primary residences. Consumer Installment Loans. We provide consumer installment loans for the purchase of cars, boats and other recreational vehicles, as well as for the purchase of major appliances and other home improvement projects. Our major appliance and other home improvement lending is originated principally through national and regional retailers and other vendors of these products and services. We have historically originated these loans through GreenSky and LendingPoint. However, during the fourth quarter of 2023, the Company ceased originating consumer loans through both GreenSky and LendingPoint. Subsequently, we sold our LendingPoint portfolio in the fourth quarter of 2024, and in April 2025 sold participation interests in consumer loans with an aggregate principal amount of $317.5 million that were originated through the GreenSky program. Commercial Equipment Leasing. We originate and manage custom leasing and financing programs for commercial customers on a nationwide basis. The industries we service include manufacturing, construction, transportation and healthcare. The financings generated are typically retained and serviced by the Bank, and are generally leases between $50,000 and $500,000, but can be larger in certain circumstances. Deposit Taking. We offer traditional depository products, including checking, savings, money market and certificates of deposits, to individuals, businesses, municipalities and other entities throughout our market areas. We also offer sweep accounts to our business customers. Deposits at the Bank are insured by the FDIC up to statutory limits. We also offer sweep accounts that are guaranteed through repurchase agreements to our business and municipal customers. Our ability to gather deposits, particularly core deposits, is an important aspect of our business franchise. Wealth Management. Our wealth management group operates under the name Midland Wealth Management and provides a comprehensive suite of trust and wealth management products and services, including financial and estate planning, 6 Table of Contents trustee and custodial services, investment management, tax and insurance planning, business planning, corporate retirement plan consulting and administration and retail brokerage services through a nationally recognized third party broker dealer. Competition We compete in a number of areas, including commercial and retail banking, residential mortgages, wealth management and commercial equipment leasing. These industries are highly competitive, and the Bank and its subsidiaries face strong direct competition for deposits, loans and leases, wealth management, and other financial-related services. We compete primarily with other community banks, thrifts and credit unions. In addition, we compete with large banks and other financial intermediaries, such as consumer finance companies, private credit funds, brokerage firms, mortgage banking companies, business leasing and finance companies, insurance companies, securities firms, mutual funds and certain government agencies as well as major retailers, all actively engaged in providing various types of loans and other financial services. Additionally, we face growing competition from so-called "online businesses" with few or no physical locations, including online banks, lenders and consumer and commercial lending platforms, and FinTech companies, as well as automated retirement and investment service providers. We believe that the range and quality of products that we offer, the knowledge of our personnel and our emphasis on building long-lasting relationships set us apart from our competitors. The following table reflects information on the markets we currently serve, as of June 30, 2024 , the most recent date for which such information was publicly available: (dollars in thousands) June 30, 2024 December 31, 2024 County State Deposits Market Share # of Banking Offices Effingham IL $ 1,060,572 37.66 % 1 St. Charles MO 993,953 9.87 2 Winnebago IL 874,694 11.76 7 Kankakee IL 819,476 32.21 8 La Salle IL 309,863 8.21 4 Will IL 285,690 1.33 4 St. Louis MO 276,933 0.62 6 Lee IL 251,061 29.61 1 Boone IL 213,454 27.42 2 Whiteside IL 190,361 10.05 2 Bureau IL 154,169 12.77 1 Kendall IL 139,720 4.93 2 Grundy IL 101,530 6.31 1 Monroe IL 85,578 7.43 2 Marion IL 76,452 7.01 1 Champaign IL 48,844 0.70 1 St. Clair IL 45,373 0.83 1 Fayette IL 43,509 7.81 2 Jefferson MO 42,476 1.11 1 Franklin MO 34,342 0.93 1 Bond IL 29,255 6.73 1 Saint Louis (City) MO 25,353 0.05 1 Livingston IL 21,984 1.65 1 Human Capital Resources At December 31, 2024, we had 896 employees, including 32 part-time employees. Our employees are not represented by any collective bargaining group. Management considers its employee relations to be good. We believe our ability to attract and retain employees is a key to our success. Accordingly, we strive to offer competitive salaries and employee benefits to all employees and monitor salaries in our market areas. In addition, we are committed to developing our staff through continuing and specialty education within banking. In this regard, we have developed and provided all employees with access to our Midland University training program. This program was developed to provide continuing education required or advisable regarding regulatory matters (such as anti-money laundering, bank secrecy, etc.) as well as other matters important to our organization and culture (e.g., social inclusion, diversity 7 Table of Contents and non-discrimination, etc.). Additionally, our Midland University program provides for continuing education in areas specifically related to our banking and financial services business. Leadership and professional development at Midland is reinforced through programs designed to cultivate talent and accelerate development. Our MASTERS program—Midland’s Advanced Study for Talent Enrichment and Resource Strengthening— enhances the career growth of high-potential employees who demonstrate the qualities essential for the Company’s continued success. More than 110 employees have participated in this program since 2016. Additionally, we support professional growth and community-building through affinity groups such as Midland WOMEN and the African American Affinity Group. Midland WOMEN is dedicated to advancing the leadership development of women at all levels of the organization, offering programs and initiatives that engage employees across the Company. The African American Affinity Group provides a platform for personal and professional development, fostering opportunities for advancement and mentorship. Executive management actively supports these groups. Corporate Information Through our website at www.midlandsb.com under “Investors - SEC Filings,” we make available, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as well as proxy statements, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference into this report. Supervision and Regulation General FDIC-insured institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates are extensively regulated under federal and state law. As a result, the Company’s growth and earnings performance may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various banking agencies, including the DFPR, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the CFPB. Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the FASB, securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities, and anti-money laundering laws and sanctions enforced by the Treasury have an impact on the Company’s business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and accounting rules are significant to the Company’s operations and results. Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation and enforcement on the operations of FDIC-insured institutions, their holding companies and affiliates that is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC-insured deposits and depositors of banks, rather than shareholders. These laws, and the regulations of the banking agencies issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of the Company’s business, the kinds and amounts of investments that the Company and the Bank may make, required capital levels relative to assets, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the ability of the Company or the Bank to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with the Company’s and the Bank’s insiders and affiliates and the Company’s payment of dividends. In reaction to the global financial crisis and particularly following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act, the Company experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny. Although the reforms primarily targeted large banking organizations and systemically important financial institutions, their influence filtered down in varying degrees to community banks over time and caused the Company’s compliance and risk management processes, and the costs thereof, to increase. However, in May 2018, the Regulatory Relief Act was enacted by Congress in part to provide regulatory relief for community banks and their holding companies. To that end, the law eliminated questions about the applicability of certain Dodd-Frank Act reforms to community bank systems, including relieving the Company of any requirement to engage in mandatory stress tests, maintain a risk committee or comply with the Volcker Rule’s complicated prohibitions on proprietary trading and ownership of private funds. The Company believes these reforms are favorable to its operations. It is anticipated that the Trump Administration and the current U.S. Congress likely will not increase the regulatory burden on community banking organizations and may seek to reduce and streamline certain prudential and regulatory requirements applicable to these banking organizations at a federal level based on statements made by relevant congressional leaders and the acting leaders of certain federal banking agencies. At this time, however, it is not possible to predict with any certainty the actual impact that the Trump Administration may have on the banking industry or the operations of the Company or the Bank. The supervisory framework for U.S. banking organizations subjects banks and bank holding companies to regular examination by their respective banking agencies, which results in examination reports and ratings that are not publicly available and that can impact the conduct and growth of their business. These examinations consider not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also capital levels, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, 8 Table of Contents liquidity, and various other factors. The banking 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. The approach to supervision adopted by each banking agency may have significant impacts on the operations and results of the Company and the Bank, as well as the banking industry in general. Based on statements made by congressional leaders and the acting leaders of certain federal banking agencies, there may be changes in the supervisory processes and approach made by the federal banking 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 and regulatory provision. The Role of Capital Regulatory capital represents the net assets of a banking organization available to absorb losses. Because of the risks attendant to their business, FDIC-insured institutions, such as the Bank, as well as their holding companies ( i.e. , banking organizations) are generally required to hold more capital than other businesses, which directly affects the Company’s earnings capabilities. While capital has historically been one of the key measures of the financial health of both bank holding companies and banks, its role became fundamentally more important in the wake of the global financial crisis, as the banking agencies recognized that the amount and quality of capital held by banking organizations prior to that crisis was insufficient to absorb losses during periods of severe stress. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Basel III Rule, defined and discussed below, establish capital standards for banks and bank holding companies that are meaningfully more stringent than those in place previously. Minimum Required Capital Levels. Banking organizations have been required to hold minimum levels of capital based on guidelines established by the Federal banking agencies since 1983. The minimum capital levels for banking organizations have been expressed in terms of ratios of “capital” divided by “total assets”. As discussed below, bank capital measures have become more sophisticated over the years and have focused more on the quality of capital and the risks of bank assets. Bank holding companies have historically had to comply with less stringent capital standards than their bank subsidiaries and have been able to raise capital with hybrid instruments such as trust preferred securities. The Dodd-Frank Act mandated the Federal Reserve to establish minimum capital levels for bank holding companies on a consolidated basis as stringent as those required for FDIC-insured institutions. A result of this change is that the proceeds of hybrid instruments, such as trust preferred securities, were excluded from capital over a phase-out period. However, if such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by bank holding companies with less than $15 billion of assets, they may be retained, subject to certain restrictions. Because the Company has assets of less than $15 billion, the Company is able to maintain its trust preferred proceeds as capital but the Company has to comply with new capital mandates in other respects and will not be able to raise capital in the future through the issuance of trust preferred securities. The Basel International Capital Accords. The risk-based capital guidelines for U.S. banking organizations since 1989 were based upon the 1988 capital accord known as “Basel I” adopted by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors that acts as the primary global standard-setter for prudential regulation, as implemented by the U.S. banking agencies on an interagency basis. The accord recognized that bank assets for the purpose of the capital ratio calculations needed to be assigned risk weights (the theory being that riskier assets should require more capital) and that off-balance sheet exposures needed to be factored in the calculations. Basel I had a very simple formula for assigning risk weights to bank assets from 0% to 100% based on four categories. In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as “Basel II,” for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more, or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more) known as “advanced approaches” banks. The primary focus of Basel II was on the calculation of risk weights based on complex models developed by each advanced approaches bank. Because most banks were not subject to Basel II, the U.S. banking agencies worked to improve the risk sensitivity of the Basel I standards without imposing the complexities of Basel II. This “standardized approach” increased the number of risk-weight categories and recognized risks well above the original 100% maximum risk weight. It is institutionalized by the Dodd-Frank Act for all banking organizations, even for the advanced approaches banks, as a floor. On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced an 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. 9 Table of Contents The Basel III Rule. In July 2013, the U.S. federal banking agencies approved the implementation of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms in pertinent part, and, at the same time, promulgated rules effecting certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act (the "Basel III Rule"). In contrast to capital requirements historically, which were in the form of guidelines, Basel III was released in the form of enforceable regulations by each of the federal banking agencies. The Basel III Rule is applicable to all banking organizations that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including national and state banks and savings and loan associations, as well as to bank and savings and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies” (generally holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $3 billion) and certain qualifying banking organizations that may elect a simplified framework (which the Company has not done.) Thus, the Company and the Bank are each currently subject to the Basel III Rule as described below. The Basel III Rule increased the required quantity and quality of capital and, for nearly every class of assets, it requires a more complex, detailed and calibrated assessment of risk and calculation of risk-weight amounts. Not only did the Basel III Rule increase most of the required minimum capital ratios in effect prior to January 1, 2015, but it introduced the concept of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, which consists primarily of common stock, related surplus (net of Treasury stock), retained earnings, and Common Equity Tier 1 minority interests subject to certain regulatory adjustments. The Basel III Rule also changed the definition of capital by establishing more stringent criteria that instruments must meet to be considered Additional Tier 1 Capital (primarily non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock that meets certain requirements) and Tier 2 Capital (primarily other types of preferred stock and subordinated debt, subject to limitations). A number of instruments that qualified as Tier 1 Capital under Basel I do not qualify, or their qualifications changed. For example, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, which qualified as simple Tier 1 Capital under Basel I, does not qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, but qualifies as Additional Tier 1 Capital. The Basel III Rule also constrained the inclusion of minority interests, mortgage-servicing assets, and deferred tax assets in capital and requires deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 Capital in the event that such assets exceed a certain percentage of a banking organization’s Common Equity Tier 1 Capital. The Basel III Rule requires banking organizations to maintain minimum capital ratios as follows: • A ratio of minimum Common Equity Tier 1 Capital equal to 4.5% of risk-weighted assets; • An increase in the minimum required amount of Tier 1 Capital from 4% to 6% of risk-weighted assets; • A continuation of the minimum required amount of Total Capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2) at 8% of risk-weighted assets; and • A minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total quarterly average assets equal to 4% in all circumstances. In addition, banking organizations that want to make capital distributions (including for dividends and repurchases of stock) and pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers without restriction must also maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to a capital conservation buffer. The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banking organizations 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 minimum ratios depicted above to 7% for Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, 8.5% for Tier 1 Capital and 10.5% for Total Capital. In July 2023, the Biden Administration federal banking agencies had proposed wide-ranging and significant changes to the Basel III Rule (the “Basel III Endgame Proposal”), which would have, among other requirements, imposed structural changes to the calculation of capital requirements and risk-weighted assets in an effort to finish the implementation of the Basel III accords. The Basel III Endgame Proposal would generally have impacted the capital requirements applicable to banking organizations with $100 billion or more in total assets, and, as a general matter, would not have had a significant impact on the Company or the Bank. The Basel III Endgame Proposal has not been, and is not expected to be, adopted in a form substantially similar to the Basel III Endgame Proposal. Based on statements made by the current leaders of the federal banking agencies, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury, the agencies may issue a new version of this proposal. Well-Capitalized Requirements . The capital ratios described above are minimum standards in order for banking organizations to be considered “adequately capitalized.” Banking agencies uniformly encourage banking organizations to hold more capital and be “well-capitalized” and, to that end, federal law and regulations provide various incentives for banking organizations to maintain regulatory capital at levels in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. For example, a banking organization that is well-capitalized may: (i) qualify for exemptions from prior notice or application requirements otherwise applicable to certain types of activities; (ii) qualify for expedited processing of other required notices or applications; and (iii) accept, roll-over or renew brokered deposits. Higher capital levels could also be required if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations. For example, the Federal Reserve’s capital guidelines 10 Table of Contents contemplate that additional capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other things, interest rate risk, or the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional activities or securities trading activities. Further, any banking organization experiencing or anticipating significant growth would be expected to maintain capital ratios, including tangible capital positions ( i.e. , Tier 1 Capital less all intangible assets), well above the minimum levels. Under the capital regulations of the Federal Reserve, in order to be well-capitalized, a banking organization must maintain: • A Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio to risk-weighted assets of 6.5% or more; • A ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8% or more; • A ratio of Total Capital to total risk-weighted assets of 10% or more; and • A leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total adjusted average quarterly assets of 5% or greater. It is possible under the Basel III Rule to be well-capitalized while remaining out of compliance with the capital conservation buffer discussed above. As of December 31, 2024: (i) the Bank was not subject to a directive from the Federal Reserve or the DFPR to increase its capital; and (ii) the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by Federal Reserve regulations. As of December 31, 2024, the Company had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s requirements and met the Basel III Rule requirements to be well-capitalized. The Company is also in compliance with the capital conservation buffer. Prompt Corrective Action . The concept of a banking organization being “well-capitalized” is part of a regulatory enforcement regime that provides the federal banking agencies with broad power to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve the problems of undercapitalized depository institutions based on the capital level of each particular institution. The extent of the banking agencies’ powers depends on whether the banking organization 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 a banking organization is assigned, the banking agencies’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan; (ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to sell itself; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution. Community Bank Capital Simplification . Community banking organizations have long raised concerns with the federal banking agencies about the regulatory burden, complexity, and costs associated with certain provisions of the Basel III Rule. In response, the U.S. Congress provided an “off-ramp” for institutions, like the Company, with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion as part of the Regulatory Relief Act. Section 201 of the Regulatory Relief Act specifically instructed the federal banking agencies to establish a single CBLR of between 8% and 10%. Under the final rule, a community banking organization is eligible to elect to comply with its capital requirements the CBLR framework if it has (i) less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, (ii) limited amounts of certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures, and (iii) a CBLR greater than 9%. Nevertheless, the Company has not currently determined to elect the CBLR, but it may elect the framework at any time. Supervision and Regulation of the Company General. The Company, as the sole shareholder of the Bank, is a bank holding company that has elected financial holding company status. As a bank holding company, the Company is registered with, and is subject to regulation supervision and enforcement by, the Federal Reserve under the BHCA. The Company is legally obligated to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where the Company might not otherwise do so. Under the BHCA, the Company is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve. 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. Acquisitions, Activities and Financial Holding Company Election . The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company. Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank 11 Table of Contents holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the United States. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its FDIC-insured institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed in order to effect interstate mergers or acquisitions. For a discussion of the capital requirements, see “The Role of Capital” above. The BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of 5% or more of a class 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 permits the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage services. The BHCA does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies. In addition to approval from the Federal Reserve that may be required in certain circumstances, prior approval for acquisitions by the Company may be required from other agencies, such as the DFPR or other agencies that regulate the target company of an acquisition. Additionally, bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines by order to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of FDIC-insured institutions or the financial system generally. In 2006, the Company elected to operate as a financial holding company. In order to maintain its status as a financial holding company, the Company and the Bank must be well-capitalized, well-managed, and the Bank must have a least a satisfactory CRA rating. If the Federal Reserve determines that a financial holding company is not well-capitalized or well-managed, the Company has a period of time in which to achieve compliance, but during the period of noncompliance, the Federal Reserve may place any limitations on the Company that it believes to be appropriate. Furthermore, if the Federal Reserve determines that a financial holding company’s subsidiary bank has not received a satisfactory CRA rating, that company will not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities. Change in Control. Federal law 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 banking agency. “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 10% and 24.99% ownership. Capital Requirements. Bank holding companies are required to maintain capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy requirements. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “The Role of Capital” above. Dividend Payments. The Company’s ability to pay dividends to the Company’s shareholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and the policies and capital requirements of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. As an Illinois corporation, the Company is subject to the limitations of the Illinois Business Corporations Act, as amended, which allows us to pay dividends unless, after such dividend, (i) the Company would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of business or (ii) the Company’s total assets would be less than the sum of the Company’s total liabilities plus any amount that would be needed if it were to be dissolved at the time of the dividend payment, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders whose rights are superior to the rights of the shareholders receiving the distribution. As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends to shareholders if: (i) the company’s net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends; (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention is inconsistent with the company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition; or (iii) the company will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. The Federal Reserve also possesses enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries to 12 Table of Contents prevent or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices or violations of applicable statutes and regulations. Among these powers is the ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, banking organizations that want to pay unrestricted dividends have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer. See “The Role of Capital” above. Incentive Compensation. There have been a number of developments in recent years focused on incentive compensation plans sponsored by bank holding companies and banks, reflecting recognition by the federal banking agencies and U.S. Congress that flawed incentive compensation practices in the financial industry were one of many factors contributing to the global financial crisis. The result is interagency guidance on sound incentive compensation practices for banking organizations. The interagency guidance recognized three core principles. Effective incentive plans should: (i) provide employees incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (ii) be compatible with effective controls and risk-management; and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. Much of the guidance is directed at large banking organizations and, because of the size and complexity of their operations, the federal banking agencies expect those organizations to maintain systematic and formalized policies, procedures, and systems for ensuring that the incentive compensation arrangements for all executive and non-executive employees covered by this guidance are identified and reviewed, and appropriately balance risks and rewards. Under the guidance, smaller banking organizations like the Company that use incentive compensation arrangements are expected to implement less extensive, formalized, and detailed policies, procedures, and systems than those of larger banks. In May 2024, certain of the federal banking and other financial services agencies released a proposed rule regarding certain incentive-based compensation arrangements at certain financial institutions with at least $1 billion in assets, as required under Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act. This proposal was largely based on an earlier 2016 proposal. The Federal Reserve and the SEC, however, did not join this proposal and it was not published in the Federal Register, signaling potential interagency misalignment. In March 2025, the FDIC withdrew its support for this proposed rule, making it unlikely that any rule in a substantially similar form will be finalized. Monetary Policy. The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has a significant effect on the operating results of bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the tools available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market transactions in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits, which may impact the business and operations of the Company and the Bank. Federal Securities Regulation. The Company’s common stock is registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Exchange Act. Consequently, the Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Exchange Act. Corporate Governance . The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd Frank Act increased shareholder influence over boards of directors by requiring companies to give shareholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, and authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow shareholders to nominate and solicit voters for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. The Dodd-Frank Act also directed the Federal Reserve, together with the other federal banking and financial services agencies, to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of bank holding companies, regardless of whether such companies are publicly traded. Supervision and Regulation of the Bank General. The Bank is an Illinois-chartered bank. The deposit accounts of the Bank are insured by the FDIC’s DIF to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations, currently $250,000 per insured depositor category. As an Illinois-chartered FDIC-insured bank, the Bank is subject to the examination, supervision, reporting and enforcement requirements of the DFPR, the chartering authority for Illinois banks, and, as a bank that is a member of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve. Deposit Insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, the Bank is required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system whereby FDIC-insured institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. For institutions like the Bank that are not considered large and 13 Table of Contents highly complex banking organizations, assessments are now based on examination ratings and financial ratios. The total base assessment rates, effective as of January 1, 2023, currently range from 2.5 basis points to 32 basis points. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, increases or decreases the assessment rates, following notice and comment on proposed rulemaking. For this purpose, the reserve ratio is the DIF balance divided by estimated insured deposits. In response to the global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum reserve ratio from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits. In its October 2024 semiannual update, the FDIC stated that the reserve ratio likely will reach the statutory minimum by the September 30, 2028 deadline; and no adjustments to the base assessment rates is currently projected. In addition, because the total cost of the failures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank to the DIF was approximately $24.1 billion, the FDIC adopted a special assessment for banking organizations with assets of $5 billion or more, at an annual rate of 13.4 basis points beginning with the first quarterly assessment period of 2024, and an invoice payment date of June 28, 2024. The FDIC will continue to collect special assessments for an anticipated total of eight quarterly assessment periods. The base for the special assessment is equal to an insured depository institution’s estimated uninsured deposits for the December 31, 2022 reporting period, adjusted to exclude the first $5 billion in estimated uninsured deposits. Although the Bank was technically subject to the FDIC special assessment as part of a banking organization with assets of $5 billion or more, the Bank does not have to pay this assessment. Supervisory Assessments . All Illinois-chartered banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the DFPR to fund the operations of that agency. The amount of the assessment is calculated on the basis of the Bank’s total assets. During the year ended December 31, 2024, the Bank paid supervisory assessments to the DFPR totaling approximately $0.5 million . Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “The Role of Capital” above. Liquidity Requirements. Liquidity is a measure of the ability and ease with which bank assets may be converted to cash to meet financial obligations, such as deposits or other funding sources. Banks are required to implement liquidity risk management frameworks that ensure they maintain sufficient liquidity, including a cushion of unencumbered, high quality liquid assets, to withstand a range of stress events. The level and speed of deposit outflows contributing to the failures of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank in the first half of 2023 was unprecedented and contributed to acute liquidity and funding strain. These events have further underscored the importance of liquidity risk management and contingency funding planning by insured depository institutions like the Bank, as highlighted in a 2023 addendum to existing interagency guidance on funding and liquidity risk management. The primary roles of liquidity risk management are to: (i) prospectively assess the need for funds to meet financial obligations; and (ii) ensure the availability of cash or collateral to fulfill those needs at the appropriate time by coordinating the various sources of funds available to the institution under normal and stressed conditions. Because the global financial crisis was in part a liquidity crisis, the Basel III Rule includes a liquidity framework that requires the largest FDIC-insured institutions to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio, or LCR, is designed to ensure that the banking organization has an adequate stock of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets that can be converted easily and immediately in private markets into cash to meet liquidity needs for a 30-calendar day liquidity stress scenario. The other test, known as the net stable funding ratio, or NSFR, is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of FDIC-insured institutions over a one-year horizon. These tests provide an incentive for banks and bank holding companies to increase their holdings in Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets, increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source and rely on stable funding like core deposits (in lieu of brokered deposits). In addition to liquidity guidelines already in place, the federal banking agencies implemented the Basel III LCR in September 2014, which requires large financial firms to hold levels of liquid assets sufficient to protect against constraints on their funding during times of financial turmoil, and in 2016 proposed implementation of the NSFR. While these rules do not, apply to the Bank, it continues to review its liquidity risk management policies in light of developments. For instance, in July 2024, the FDIC released a request for information on deposits, soliciting information on whether and to what extent certain types of deposits may behave differently from each other (particularly during periods of economic or financial stress), the results of which may impact liquidity monitoring and risk management requirements going forward. Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Bank. Under Illinois banking law, Illinois-chartered banks generally may pay dividends only out of undivided profits. The DFPR may restrict the declaration 14 Table of Contents or payment of a dividend by an Illinois-chartered bank, such as the Bank. The Federal Reserve Act also imposes limitations on the amount of dividends paid by state member banks, such as the Bank. Without Federal Reserve approval, a state member bank may not pay dividends in any calendar year that, in the aggregate, exceed that bank’s calendar year-to-date net income plus the bank’s retained income for the two preceding calendar years. The payment of dividends by any FDIC-insured institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and an FDIC-insured institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. As described above, the Bank exceeded its capital requirements under applicable guidelines as of December 31, 2024. Notwithstanding the availability of funds for dividends, however, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the DFPR may prohibit the payment of dividends by the Bank any of them determine such payment would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that want to pay unrestricted dividends have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer. See “The Role of Capital” above. State Bank Investments, Activities and Acquisitions. The Bank is permitted to make investments and engage in activities directly or through subsidiaries as authorized by Illinois law. However, under federal law and FDIC regulations, FDIC-insured state banks are prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from making or retaining equity investments of a type, or in an amount, that are not permissible for a national bank. Federal law and FDIC regulations also prohibit FDIC-insured state banks and their subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions, from engaging as principal in any activity that is not permitted for a national bank unless the bank meets, and continues to meet, its minimum regulatory capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity would not pose a significant risk to the DIF. These restrictions have not had, and are not currently expected to have, a material impact on the operations of the Bank. The Bank may be required to seek approval from the DFPR and the Federal Reserve (or in some cases, the FDIC) before engaging in certain acquisitions or mergers under applicable state and federal law. In 2024, each of the OCC and the FDIC separately released updated policy statements—and in the case of the OCC, a final rule—regarding how each banking agency reviews applications submitted pursuant to the Bank Merger Act based on statutory factors. In March 2025, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to repeal its 2024 policy statement and reinstate its prior policy statement on bank mergers, while it considers wider changes to its bank merger review practices. Although the Federal Reserve, the Bank’s primary federal regulator, did not release any updated policy statement or rules regarding its review process under the Bank Merger Act in recent years, management of the Company has considered the impact that the OCC’s and FDIC’s rules and guidance may have on the review of any relevant transactions that the Bank undertakes. Insider Transactions. The Bank is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on “covered transactions” between the Bank and its “affiliates.” The Company is an affiliate of the Bank for purposes of these restrictions, and covered transactions subject to the restrictions include extensions of credit to the Company, investments in the stock or other securities of the Company and the acceptance of the stock or other securities of the Company as collateral for loans made by the Bank. The Dodd-Frank Act enhanced the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained. Certain limitations and reporting requirements are also placed on extensions of credit by the Bank to its directors and officers, to directors and officers of the Company and its subsidiaries, to principal shareholders of the Company and to “related interests” of such directors, officers and principal shareholders. In addition, federal law and regulations may affect the terms upon which any person who is a director or officer of the Company or the Bank, or a principal shareholder of the Company, may obtain credit from banks with which the Bank maintains a correspondent relationship. Safety and Soundness Standards/Risk Management. The federal banking agencies have adopted operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of FDIC-insured institutions. The standards apply to 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 standards prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. Although regulatory standards do not have the force of law, if an institution operates in an unsafe and unsound manner, the FDIC-insured institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If an FDIC-insured institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the banking agency is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the agency’s order is cured, the agency may restrict the FDIC-insured institution’s rate of growth, require 15 Table of Contents the FDIC-insured institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the agency deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with safety and soundness may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal banking agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments. During the past decade, the banking agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of sound risk management processes and strong internal controls when evaluating the activities of the FDIC-insured institutions they supervise. Properly managing risks has been identified as critical to the conduct of safe and sound banking activities and has become even more important as new technologies, product innovation, and the size and speed of financial transactions have changed the nature of banking markets. The banking agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking organization including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal, and reputational risk. The key risk themes identified for 2024 are: (i) elevated operational risk as banks adapt to an evolving technology environment and persistent cybersecurity risks, (ii) the need for banks to prepare for a cyclical change in credit risk while credit performance is strong, (iii) elevated interest rate risk due to lower rates continuing to compress net interest margins, and (iv) strategic risks from non-depository financial institutions, use of innovative and evolving technology, and progressive data analysis capabilities. The Bank is expected to have active board and senior management oversight; adequate policies, procedures, and limits; adequate risk measurement, monitoring, and management information systems; and comprehensive internal controls. The federal banking agencies also have released specific risk management guidance on certain topics, including third-party relationships, in response to the proliferation of relationships between banking organizations and financial technology companies (although the guidance applies more broadly). Privacy and Cybersecurity . The Bank is subject to many U.S. federal and state laws and regulations governing requirements for maintaining policies and procedures to protect non-public personal and confidential information of their customers. These laws require the Bank to periodically disclose its privacy policies and practices relating to sharing such information and permit consumers to opt out of their ability to share information with unaffiliated third parties under certain circumstances. They also impact the Bank’s ability to share certain information with affiliates and non-affiliates for marketing and/or non-marketing purposes, or to contact customers with marketing offers. In addition, the Bank is required to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information. These security and privacy policies and procedures, for the protection of personal and confidential information, are in effect across all businesses and geographic locations. The Bank and the Company also are subject to a number of federal and state laws and regulations requiring notifications and disclosures regarding certain cybersecurity incidents. The Bank must also consider and address cybersecurity considerations as part of its risk management processes. Branching Authority. Illinois banks, such as the Bank, have the authority under Illinois law to establish branches anywhere in the State of Illinois, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals. The establishment of new interstate branches has historically been permitted only in those states the laws of which expressly authorize such expansion. The Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized and well-managed banks to establish new interstate branches or the acquisition of individual branches of a bank in another state (rather than the acquisition of an out-of-state bank in its entirety) without impediments. 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. Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Bank is a member of a FHLB, which serves as a central credit facility for its members. The FHLB is funded primarily from proceeds from the sale of obligations of the FHLB system. It makes loans to member banks in the form of FHLB advances. All advances from the FHLB are required to be fully collateralized as determined by the FHLB. Community Reinvestment Act Requirements. The CRA requires the Bank to have a continuing and affirmative obligation in a safe and sound manner to help meet the credit needs of the entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The Federal Reserve regularly assess the Bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its communities. The Bank's CRA ratings derived from these examinations can have significant impacts on the activities in which the Bank and the Company may engage. For example, a low CRA rating may impact the review of applications for acquisitions by the Bank or the Company's financial holding company status. On October 24, 2023, the federal banking agencies issued a final rule to strengthen and modernize the CRA regulations (the “CRA Rule”). Elements of this rule were supposed to become effective on April 1, 2024 (while other elements had much later effective dates). However, the effective date of the CRA Rule was paused because of an order issued as part of ongoing litigation claiming that the federal banking agencies exceeded their statutory authority in promulgating the CRA Rule. 16 Table of Contents Despite the lawsuit, management of the Bank is continuing to assess the impact of the CRA Rule on its CRA lending and investment activities in its respective markets. The CRA Rule is designed to update how CRA activities qualify for consideration, where CRA activities are considered, and how CRA activities are evaluated. More specifically, the federal banking agencies described the goals of the CRA Rule as follows: (i) to expand access to credit, investment, and basic banking services in low and moderate income communities; (ii) to adapt to changes in the banking industry, including mobile and internet banking by modernizing assessment areas while maintaining a focus on branch based areas; (iii) to provide greater clarity, consistency, and transparency in the application of the regulations through the use of standardized metrics as part of CRA evaluation and clarifying eligible CRA activities focused on low and moderate income communities and underserved rural communities; (iv) to tailor CRA rules and data collection to bank size and business model; and (v) to maintain a unified approach among the regulators. In 2022, the Bank, like all Illinois-chartered banks, became subject to the state level CRA standards, following passage of the Illinois CRA. This means that, in addition to the federal CRA review, the Bank will be reviewed by the DFPR to assess the Bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its communities. Like the potential impact under the federal CRA, applications for additional acquisitions or activities would be affected by the evaluation of the Bank’s effectiveness in meeting its Illinois CRA requirements. Anti-Money Laundering/Sanctions. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) is the common name for a series of laws and regulations enacted in the United States to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. They are designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the U.S. financial system and haves significant implications for FDIC-insured institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The so-called Anti-Money Laundering/ Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) regime under the BSA provides a foundation to promote financial transparency and deter and detect those who seek to misuse the U.S. financial system to launder criminal proceeds, financed terrorist acts or move funds for other illicit purposes The laws require financial services companies to have policies and procedures with respect to measures designed to address: (i) customer identification programs; (ii) money laundering; (iii) terrorist financing; (iv) identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions; (v) currency crimes; and (vi) cooperation between FDIC-insured institutions and law enforcement authorities. The Bank must also comply with stringent economic and trade sanctions regimes administered and enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Concentrations in CRE. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern, which has been subject to additional scrutiny by federal banking agencies as well as the SEC (for publicly-traded banking organizations) in recent years. Interagency CRE Guidance provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant CRE loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) commercial real estate loans exceeding 300% of capital and increasing 50% or more in the preceding three years; or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of CRE lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their CRE concentrations. On December 18, 2015, and again in recent years, the federal banking agencies issued statements to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to CRE lending, having observed substantial growth in many CRE asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising CRE concentrations in banks, and an easing of CRE underwriting standards. The federal banking agencies also have reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the risks arising from CRE lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their CRE concentration risk. As of December 31, 2024, the Bank did not exceed these guidelines. Consumer Financial Services. The historical structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services changed significantly on July 21, 2011, when the CFPB commenced operations to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rule making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all providers of consumer products and services, including the Bank, as well as the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over providers with more than $10 billion in assets. FDIC-insured institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like the Bank, continue to be examined by their applicable primary federal banking regulators. Because abuses in connection with residential mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the global financial crisis, many rules issued by the CFPB, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, addressed mortgage and mortgage-related products, 17 Table of Contents their underwriting, origination, servicing and sales. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property and augmented federal law combating predatory lending practices. In addition to numerous disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposed new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including 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.” The current acting leader of the CFPB has indicated that the CFPB will adopt a deregulatory approach, and the CFPB has recently announced that it plans to roll back certain rulemakings adopted over the last several years. The U.S. Congress is also pursuing Congressional Review Act resolutions or otherwise taking steps to overturn certain recent CFPB rulemaking. While some of the CPFB’s recent rulemakings did not impact the Bank directly, the CFPB’s retreat from the aggressive approach to regulation (and supervision, where applicable) that it has previously adopted may benefit the operations of the Bank. Regulation of Affiliates The Company operates one affiliate that is regulated by functional financial regulatory agencies. Midland Wealth Advisors, LLC is a registered investment advisor. The SEC has supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over its operations. The SEC’s focus is primarily for the protection of investors under the federal securities laws. As a subsidiary of the Company, Midland Wealth Advisors, LLC is also subject to the supervision of the Federal Reserve on a consolidated basis.