What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Business

2021-03-26 compared with 2020-03-13 · 194 added, 207 removed, 211 unchanged (66% of the section changed)

The Company was incorporated under the laws of Maryland on March 15, 1996 and is a financial holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”).

The Company is the largest independent financial holding company located on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

The Company, through its subsidiary, provides commercial banking products and services, including trust, wealth management and financial planning services.

The Company and Shore United Bank (the “Bank”) are Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employers.

Recent Transactions

On December 31, 2018, the Company sold the assets and activities of its insurance business, The Avon-Dixon Agency, LLC (“Avon”), a Maryland limited liability company, with two specialty lines, trading as Elliot Wilson Insurance (Trucking) and Jack Martin & Associates (Marine).

The Company received net proceeds from the sale of $25.2 million.

In addition, the Company discontinued operations of its insurance premium finance business, Mubell, LLC (“Mubell”), a Maryland limited liability company.

Additional details related to the sale of Avon and the discontinuing operations of Mubell can be located in Note 2 to the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of Part II of this annual report.

The Company, through its wholly owned banking subsidiary, Shore United Bank (the “Bank”) provides commercial banking products and services, including trust, wealth management and financial planning services.

The Company and the Bank are Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employers.

Pending Transaction

On March 3, 2021, the Company and Severn Bancorp, Inc.

(“Severn”) entered into a definitive agreement for the Company to acquire the Maryland-based Severn.

This transaction will create the third largest community bank headquartered in Maryland.

This transaction will, among others, (i) permit the Company to expand its Maryland market area by entering the greater Annapolis market area, (ii) provide increased opportunities for current Severn products and services and (iii) enhance the Company’s scale to drive efficiency and profitability.

Additionally, this transaction is intended to create a competitive position in the Columbia/Baltimore/Towson MSA, while filling in the Company’s current market footprint.

Under the terms of the agreement, Severn shareholders will have the right to receive 0.6207 shares of Shore common stock and $1.59 in cash for each share of Severn common stock.

Upon closing, Shore shareholders will own approximately 59.6% of the combined Company and Severn will own approximately 40.4% of the combined Company.

The transaction is subject to satisfaction of customary closing conditions, including regulatory approvals and shareholder approval from Shore and Severn shareholders.

The transaction is expected to close in the third quarter of 2021.

As of December 31, 2020, Severn had more than $950 million in assets and operated 7 full-service community banking offices throughout Anne Arundel County, Maryland.

Banking Products and Services

The Bank is a Maryland chartered commercial bank with trust powers that can trace its origin to 1876.

The Bank currently operates 21 full service branches, 23 ATMs, 2 loan production offices, and provides a full range of commercial and consumer banking products and services to individuals, businesses, and other organizations in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County, Kent County, Queen Anne’s County, Caroline County, Talbot County, Dorchester County and Worcester County in Maryland, Kent County, Delaware and in Accomack County, Virginia.

The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable legal limits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”).

The Bank currently operates 22 full service branches, 24 ATMs, 2 loan production offices, and provides a full range of commercial and consumer banking products and services to individuals, businesses, and other organizations in Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Howard County, Kent County, Queen Anne’s County, Caroline County, Talbot County, Dorchester County and Worcester County in Maryland, Kent County, Delaware and in Accomack County, Virginia.

The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable legal limits by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”).

The Bank is an independent community bank that serves businesses and individuals in their respective market areas.

3 unchanged sentences

Merchant credit card clearing services are available as well as direct deposit of payroll, internet banking and telephone banking services.

Services to individuals include checking accounts, various savings programs, mortgage loans, home improvement loans, installment and other personal loans, credit cards, personal lines of credit, automobile and other consumer financing, safe deposit boxes, debit cards, 24‑hour telephone banking, internet banking, mobile banking, and 24‑hour automatic teller machine services.

The Bank also offers nondeposit products, such as mutual funds and annuities, and discount brokerage services to their customers.

Services to individuals include checking accounts, various savings programs, mortgage loans, home improvement loans, installment and other personal loans, credit cards, personal lines of credit, automobile and other consumer financing, safe deposit boxes, debit cards, 24-hour telephone banking, internet banking, mobile banking, and 24-hour automatic teller

machine services.

The Bank also offers non-deposit products, such as mutual funds and annuities, and discount brokerage services to their customers.

Additionally, the Bank has Saturday hours and extended hours on certain evenings during the week for added customer convenience.

4 unchanged sentences

Repayment is often dependent upon the successful operation of the business and may be affected by adverse conditions in the local economy or real estate market.

The financial condition and cash flow of commercial borrowers is therefore carefully analyzed during the loan approval

process, and continues to be monitored by obtaining business financial statements, personal financial statements and income tax returns.

The financial condition and cash flow of commercial borrowers is therefore carefully analyzed during the loan approval process, and continues to be monitored by obtaining business financial statements, personal financial statements and income tax returns.

The frequency of this ongoing analysis depends upon the size and complexity of the credit and collateral that secures the loan.

It is also the Bank’s general policy to obtain personal guarantees from the principals of the commercial loan borrowers.

The Bank’s commercial real estate loans are primarily secured by land for residential and commercial development, agricultural purpose properties, service industry buildings such as restaurants and motels, retail buildings and general purpose business space.

The Bank attempts to mitigate the risks associated with these loans through thorough financial analyses, conservative underwriting procedures, including loan to value ratio standards, obtaining additional collateral, closely monitoring construction projects to control disbursement of funds on loans, and management’s knowledge of the local economy in which the Bank lends.

It is also the Bank’s general policy to obtain personal guarantees from the principals of the commercial loan borrowers.

The Bank provides residential real estate construction loans to builders and individuals for single family dwellings.

Residential construction loans are usually granted based upon “as completed”

appraisals and are secured by the property under construction.

Residential construction loans are usually granted based upon “as completed” appraisals and are secured by the property under construction.

Additional collateral may be taken if loan to value ratios exceed 80%.

4 unchanged sentences

The Bank originates fixed and variable rate residential mortgage loans.

As with any consumer loan, repayment is dependent upon the borrower’s continuing financial stability, which can be adversely impacted by job loss, divorce, illness, or personal bankruptcy, among other factors.

Underwriting standards recommend loan to value ratios not to exceed 80% at origination based on appraisals performed by approved appraisers.

1 unchanged sentence

A variety of consumer loans are offered to customers, including home equity loans, credit cards and other secured and unsecured lines of credit and term loans.

Careful analysis of an applicant’s creditworthiness is performed before granting credit, and ongoing monitoring of loans outstanding is performed in an effort to minimize risk of loss by identifying problem loans early.

Deposit Activities

4 unchanged sentences

Trust Services

The Bank has a trust department through which it offers trust, asset management and financial planning services to customers within our market areas using the trade name Wye Financial & Trust.

The Bank has a trust department through which it offers trust, asset management and financial planning services to customers within our market areas using the trade name Wye Financial Partners.

Management does not believe that our business activities are seasonal in nature.

At February 29, 2020, we employed 294 persons, of which 284 were employed on a full-time basis.

Employees and Human Capital Resources

At March 15, 2021, we employed 295 persons, of which 286 were employed on a full-time basis.

None of our employees are represented by any collective bargaining unit or are a party to a collective bargaining agreement.

Management of the Company considers its employee relations to be excellent.

We believe the relationship with our employees to be excellent and were recently named a Best Bank to Work for by American Banker.

Our ability to attract and retain employees is a key to our success.

We offer a competitive total rewards program to our employees and monitor the competitiveness of our compensation and benefits programs in our various market areas.

The Company prides itself on being a values-driven organization, where employees are empowered to share Ideas that keep the organization connected.

Our company core values guide each team member to:

•Act as an Owner

•Practice Balanced Risk Management

•Leverage the Team

• Create a positive impact

We believe that these values enable our success with our customers and have helped us build an inspiring, vibrant and accountability driven culture.

In addition, we are committed to developing our staff through internal/external training programs, availability of online training resources, and continuing to implement leadership development programs to all levels of leadership within the organization.

This includes identifying future leaders and preparing them for leadership opportunities

The safety, health and wellness for our employees is a top priority and consists of policies, procedures, guidelines, and mandates all tasks be conducted in a safe and efficient manner complying with all local, state and federal safety and health regulations.

At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we successfully moved to a virtual-workplace and had 85% of our people working remotely.

As of today, most employees have returned to the workplace.

Employees are subject to policies and procedures put in place to protect them including a full stock of PPE.

The organization has continually provided guidelines to employees to promote healthy habits and ways to stay connected while working remotely.

Shore Bancshares, Inc.

6 unchanged sentences

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The following is a summary of the material regulations and policies applicable to us and is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion.

To the extent that the following information describes statutory and regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

Proposals to change the laws and regulations governing the banking industry are frequently raised at both the state and federal levels.

The likelihood and timing of any changes in these laws and regulations, and the impact such changes may have on us, are difficult to ascertain.

In addition to laws and regulations, bank regulatory agencies may issue policy statements, interpretive letters and similar written guidance applicable to the Company or the Bank.

A change in applicable laws, regulations or regulatory guidance, or in the manner such laws, regulations or regulatory guidance are interpreted by regulatory agencies or courts, may have a material effect on our business, operations, and earnings.

The Company is a financial holding company registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB”) under the BHC Act and, as such, is subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the BHC Act and the regulations of the FRB.

The Bank is a Maryland chartered commercial bank subject to the banking laws of Maryland and to regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Regulation of Maryland, who is required by statute to make at least one examination in each calendar year (or at 18‑month intervals if the Commissioner determines that an examination is unnecessary in a particular calendar year).

The Bank is a Maryland chartered commercial bank subject to the banking laws of Maryland and to regulation by the Commissioner of Financial Regulation of Maryland.

The primary federal regulator of the Bank is the FRB.

1 unchanged sentence

In addition to the foregoing, the Bank is subject to numerous state and federal statutes and regulations that affect the business of banking generally.

Nonbank affiliates of the Company are subject to examination by the FRB, and, as affiliates of the Bank, may be subject to examination by the Bank’s regulators from time to time.

To the extent that the following information describes statutory and regulatory provisions, it is qualified in its entirety by reference to the text of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

Legislative and regulatory initiatives, which necessarily impact the regulation of the financial services industry, are introduced from time-to-time.

We cannot predict whether or when potential legislation or new regulations will be enacted, and if enacted, the effect that new legislation or any implemented regulations and supervisory policies would have on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), by way of example, contains a comprehensive set of provisions designed to govern the practices and oversight of financial institutions and other participants in the financial markets.

The Dodd-Frank Act made extensive changes in the regulation of financial institutions and their holding companies.

Some of the changes brought about by the Dodd-Frank Act have been modified by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (the “Regulatory Relief Act”), signed into law on May 24, 2018.

The Dodd-Frank Act has increased the regulatory burden and compliance costs of the Company.

Moreover, bank regulatory agencies can be more aggressive in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations, which could result in an increased issuance of enforcement actions to financial institutions requiring action to address credit quality, liquidity and risk management, and capital adequacy, as well as other safety and soundness concerns.

Regulation of Financial Holding Companies

In November 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLB Act”) was signed into law.

The GLB Act revised the BHC Act and repealed the affiliation provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which, taken together, limited the securities,

insurance and other non-banking activities of any company that controls an FDIC insured financial institution.

Under the GLB Act, a bank holding company can elect, subject to certain qualifications, to become a “financial holding company.”

The GLB Act provides that a financial holding company may engage in a full range of financial activities, including insurance and securities underwriting and agency activities, merchant banking, and insurance company portfolio investment activities, with new expedited notice procedures.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (the “GLB Act”) amended the BHC Act and repealed the affiliation provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which, taken together, limited the securities, insurance and other non-banking activities of any company that controls an FDIC insured financial institution.

Under the GLB Act, a bank holding company can elect, subject to certain qualifications, to become a “financial holding company.” The GLB Act provides that a financial holding company may engage in a full range of financial activities, including insurance and securities underwriting and agency activities, merchant banking, and insurance company portfolio investment activities, with new expedited notice procedures.

The Company is a financial holding company.

1 unchanged sentence

This support may be required at times when the Company may not have the resources to provide the support.

Under the prompt corrective action provisions, if a controlled bank is undercapitalized, then the regulators could require the bank holding company to guarantee the bank’s capital restoration plan.

In addition, if the FRB believes that a company’s activities, assets or affiliates represent a significant risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of a controlled bank, then the FRB could require the bank holding company to terminate the activities, liquidate the assets or divest the affiliates.

Under the prompt corrective action provisions, if a controlled bank is undercapitalized, then the regulators could require the bank holding company to guarantee the bank’s capital restoration plan.

The regulators may require these and other actions in support of controlled banks even if such actions are not in the best interests of the bank holding company or its stockholders.

Because the Company is a bank holding company, it is viewed as a source of financial and managerial strength for any controlled depository institutions, like the Bank.

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which made sweeping changes to the financial regulatory landscape that impacts all financial institutions, including the Company and the Bank.

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, made sweeping changes to the financial regulatory landscape that impacts all financial institutions, including the Company and the Bank.

The Dodd-Frank Act directs federal bank regulators to require that all companies that directly or indirectly control an insured depository institution serve as sources of financial strength for the institution.

The term “source of financial strength”

is defined under the Dodd-Frank Act as the ability of a company to provide financial assistance to its insured depository institution subsidiaries in the event of financial distress.

The term “source of financial strength” is defined under the Dodd-Frank Act as the ability of a company to provide financial assistance to its insured depository institution subsidiaries in the event of financial distress.

The appropriate federal banking agency for such a depository institution may require reports from companies that control the insured depository institution to assess their abilities to serve as sources of strength and to enforce compliance with the source-of-strength requirements.

1 unchanged sentence

Under this requirement, the Company could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank should it experience financial distress.

In addition, under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, depository institutions insured by the FDIC can be held liable for any losses incurred by, or reasonably anticipated to be incurred by, the FDIC in connection with (i) the default of a commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institution or (ii) any assistance provided by the FDIC to a commonly controlled FDIC-insured depository institution in danger of default.

Accordingly, in the event that any insured subsidiary of the Company causes a loss to the FDIC, other insured subsidiaries of the Company could be required to compensate the FDIC by reimbursing it for the estimated amount of such loss.

Such cross guaranty liabilities generally are superior in priority to obligations of a financial institution to its stockholders and obligations to other affiliates.

Federal Regulation of Banks

7 unchanged sentences

Other laws tie the maximum amount that may be loaned to any one customer and its related interests to capital levels.

As part of the Federal Deposit Insurance Company Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), each federal banking regulator adopted non-capital safety and soundness standards for institutions under its authority.

These standards include internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, and compensation, fees and benefits.

3 unchanged sentences

FDICIA also imposes capital standards on insured depository institutions.

The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) requires that, in connection with the examination of financial institutions within their jurisdictions, the federal banking regulators evaluate the record of the financial institution in meeting the credit needs of their communities including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of those banks.

These factors are also considered by all regulatory agencies in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility.

As of the date of its most recent examination report, the Bank has a CRA rating of “Satisfactory.”

The Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act significantly changed the bank regulatory structure and affected the lending, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FRB to set minimum capital levels for bank holding companies that are as stringent as those required for insured depository institutions.

The legislation also establishes a floor for capital of insured depository institutions and directs the federal banking regulators to implement new leverage and capital requirements.

The new leverage and capital requirements must take into account off-balance sheet activities and other risks, including risks relating to securitized products and derivatives.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has backup enforcement authority over a depository institution holding company, such as the Company, if the conduct or threatened conduct of such holding company poses a risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”), although such authority may not be used if the holding company is generally in sound condition and does not pose a foreseeable and material risk to the DIF.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act contains a wide variety of provisions (many of which are not yet effective) affecting the regulation of depository institutions, including restrictions related to mortgage originations, risk retention requirements as to securitized loans and the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”).

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act continue to be subject to rulemaking and have yet to take full effect, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company, its customers or the financial industry generally.

Provisions in the legislation that affect deposit insurance assessments, payment of interest on demand deposits and interchange fees could increase the costs associated with deposits as well as place limitations on certain revenues those deposits may generate.

Regulatory Relief Act

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act”

(the “Regulatory Relief Act”), which amends parts of the Dodd-Frank Act and other laws that involve regulation of the financial industry.

While the Regulatory Relief Act keeps in place fundamental aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act’s regulatory framework, it does make regulatory changes that are favorable to depository institutions with assets under $10 billion, such as the Bank and to bank holding companies(“BHCs”) with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company.

The Regulatory Relief Act also makes changes to consumer mortgage and credit reporting regulations and to the authorities of the agencies that regulate the financial industry.

Certain provisions of the Regulatory Relief Act favorable to the Company and the Bank require the federal banking agencies to either promulgate

regulations or amend existing regulations, and it will likely take some time for these agencies to implement the necessary regulations.

Provisions That Are Favorable to Community Banks .

There are several provisions in the Regulatory Relief Act that will have a favorable impact on community banks such as the Bank.

These are briefly referenced below.

Increase in Small Bank Holding Company Policy Threshold.

The Regulatory Relief Act directs the FRB to increase the asset threshold for qualifying for the FRB’s “Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement”

(the “Policy”), from $1 billion to $3 billion.

The FRB’s revisions to the Policy took effect on August 30, 2018.

Small BHCs or savings and loan holding companies(“SLHCs”) are excluded from the Policy if they are engaged in significant nonbanking activities, engaged in significant off-balance sheet activities, or have a material amount of debt or equity registered with the SEC.

The Regulatory Relief Act directed the FRB to increase the asset threshold for qualifying for the FRB’s “Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement” (the “Policy”), from $1 billion to $3 billion.

The FRB’s revisions to the Policy took effect on August 30, 2018.

The FRB also retains the authority to exclude any BHC or SLHC from the Policy if such action is warranted for supervisory purposes.

The Policy allows covered BHCs to operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted, subject to certain restrictions on dividends and the expectation that the BHC will reduce its reliance on debt over time.

Also, BHCs that are subject to the Policy are exempt from the FRB’s consolidated risk-based and leverage capital rules implementing Basel III.

BHCs subject to the Policy also have less extensive regulatory reporting requirements than larger organizations filing reports on a semi-annual rather than quarterly basis.

The Company meets the conditions of the FRB’s Policy and is therefore currently excluded from consolidated capital requirements.

The Company meets the conditions of the FRB’s Policy and is

therefore currently excluded from consolidated capital requirements.

However, the Bank remains subject to regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies.

Increase in Asset Threshold for Qualifying for an 18-Month Examination Cycle.

The Regulatory Relief Act increases the asset threshold for institutions qualifying for an 18-month on-site examination cycle from $1 billion to $3 billion in total consolidated assets.

Short Form Call Reports.

The Regulatory Relief Act requires the federal banking agencies to promulgate regulations allowing an insured depository institution with less than $5 billion in total consolidated assets (and that satisfies such other criteria as determined to be appropriate by the agencies) to submit a short-form call report for its first and third quarters.

Deposit Insurance

3 unchanged sentences

The assessment amount is the product of multiplying the assessment base by the assessment amount.

The assessment base against which the assessment rate is applied to determine the total assessment due for a given period is the depository institution’s average total consolidated assets during the assessment period less average tangible equity during that assessment period.

Tangible equity is defined in the assessment rule as Tier 1 Capital and is calculated monthly, unless the insured depository institution has less than $1 billion in assets, in which case the insured depository institution calculates Tier 1 Capital on an end-of-quarter basis.

Parents or holding companies of other insured depository institutions are required to report separately from their subsidiary depository institutions.

The FDIC’s methodology for setting assessments for individual banks has changed over time, although the broad policy is that lower-risk institutions should pay lower assessments than higher-risk institutions.

The FDIC now uses a methodology, known as the “financial ratios method,”

that began to apply on July 1, 2016, in order to meet requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The statute established a minimum designated reserve ratio (the “DFR”), for the DIF of 1.35% of the estimated insured deposits and required the FDIC to adopt a restoration plan should the reserve ratio fall below 1.35%.

The FDIC now uses a methodology, known as the “financial ratios method,” that began to apply on July 1, 2016, in order to meet requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The financial ratios took effect when the DRR exceeded 1.15%.

1 unchanged sentence

Accordingly, beginning July 1, 2016, the FDIC began to use the financial ratios method.

This methodology assigns a specific assessment rate to each institution based on the institution’s leverage capital, supervisory ratings, and information from the institution’s call report.

Under this methodology, the assessment rate schedules used to determine assessments due from insured depository institutions become progressively lower when the reserve ratio in the DIF exceeds 2% and 2.5%.

5 unchanged sentences

Capital Adequacy Guidelines

In December 2010, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision released its final framework for strengthening international capital and liquidity regulation, or Basel III.

Basel III requires banks to maintain a higher level of capital than previously required, with a greater emphasis on common equity.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposed generally applicable capital requirements with respect to BHCs and their bank subsidiaries and mandated that the federal banking regulatory agencies adopt rules and regulations to implement the Basel III requirements.

In July 2013, the federal banking agencies adopted a final rule, or the Basel III Final Rule, implementing these standards.

The Dodd-Frank Act provides for countercyclical capital requirements so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

Under the Basel III Final Rule, which implements this concept, banks must maintain a capital conservation buffer consisting of additional common equity Tier 1 capital equal to 2.5% of risk-weighted assets above each of the required minimum capital levels in order to avoid limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying certain discretionary bonuses.

This new capital conservation buffer requirement began to be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and increased by this amount each year until it became fully implemented at 2.5% in January 2019.

For purposes of calculating risk-weighted assets, the Basel III Final Rule is designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banks, to account for off-balance sheet exposures, and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets.

Under this rule, assets and off-balance sheet items are assigned to broad risk categories, each with appropriate weights.

The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets, which reflect on- and off-balance sheet items.

For this purpose, certain off-balance sheet items are assigned certain credit conversion factors to convert them to asset-equivalent amounts to which an appropriate risk-weighting will apply.

Those computations result in the total risk-weighted assets.

Most loans are assigned to the 100% risk category, except for performing first mortgage loans fully secured by residential property, which carry a 50% risk weighting.

Most investment securities (including, primarily, general obligation claims of states or other political subdivisions of the United States) are assigned to the 20% category.

Exceptions include municipal or state revenue bonds, which have a 50% risk weighting, and direct obligations of the United States Treasury or obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, which have a 0% risk weighting.

In converting off-balance sheet items, direct credit substitutes, including general guarantees and standby letters of credit backing financial obligations, are assigned a 100% credit conversion factor.

Transaction-related contingencies such as bid bonds, standby letters of credit backing non-financial obligations, and undrawn commitments (including commercial credit lines with an initial maturity of more than one year) are assigned a 50% credit conversion factor.

Short-term commercial letters of credit are assigned a 20% credit conversion factor, and certain short-term unconditionally cancelable commitments are assigned a 0% credit conversion factor.

Minimum capital standards under the Basel III Final Rule for banks of our size took effect on January 1, 2015 with a phase-in period that generally extended through January 1, 2019 for certain of the changes.

As discussed under “-Prompt Corrective Action,”

depository institutions and depository holding companies with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, such as the Company and the Bank, will be deemed to satisfy both the leverage and risk-based capital requirements, provided they satisfy a new “Community Bank Leverage Ratio”

required to be promulgated by the Federal Banking agencies.

Under the Basel III Final Rule, the minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) is 8%.

While there was previously no required ratio of “Common Equity Tier 1 Capital”

(“CET1”) (which generally consists of common stock, retained earnings, certain qualifying capital instruments issued by consolidated subsidiaries, and Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, subject to certain adjustments and deductions for items such as goodwill, other intangible assets, reciprocal holdings of other banking organizations’

capital instruments, investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries and any other deductions as determined by the appropriate regulator) to risk-weighted assets, a required minimum ratio of 4.5% became effective on January 1, 2015 as well.

The required ratio of “Tier 1 Capital”

(consisting generally of CET1 and qualifying preferred stock) to risk-weighted assets is 6%.

The remainder of total capital, or Tier 2 Capital, may consist of (a) the allowance for loan losses of up to 1.25% of risk-weighted assets, (b) preferred stock not qualifying as Tier 1 Capital, (c) hybrid capital instruments, (d) perpetual debt, (e) mandatory convertible securities, and (f) certain subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock up to 50% of Tier 1 Capital.

Total Capital is the sum of Tier 1 Capital and Tier 2 Capital.

As of January 1, 2019, the Bank is required to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4.0%, a minimum CET1 to risk-weighted assets ratio of 7%, a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 8.5% and a minimum total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 10.5%.

The Basel III Final Rule also includes minimum leverage ratio requirements for banking organizations, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 Capital to adjusted average consolidated assets.

Prior to the effective date of the Basel III Final Rule, banks and BHCs meeting certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating and not experiencing significant growth or expansion, were permitted to maintain a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to adjusted average quarterly assets equal to 3%.

Other banks and BHCs generally were required to maintain a minimum leverage ratio between 4% and 5%.

Under the Basel III Final Rule, as of January 1, 2015, the required minimum leverage ratio for all banks is 4%.

As an additional means of identifying problems in the financial management of depository institutions, the federal banking regulatory agencies have established certain non-capital safety and soundness standards for institutions for which they are the primary federal regulator.

The standards relate generally to operations and management, asset quality, interest rate exposure, and executive compensation.

The agencies are authorized to take action against institutions that fail to meet such standards.

The requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act are still in the process of being implemented over time and most will be subject to regulations implemented over the course of several years.

In addition, the Regulatory Relief Act modifies several provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, but are subject to implementing regulations.

Given the uncertainty associated with the how the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Regulatory Relief Act will be implemented by the various regulatory agencies and through regulations, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on our operations is unclear.

On September 27, 2017, the federal banking agencies proposed a rule intended to reduce the regulatory compliance burden, particularly on community banking organizations, by simplifying several requirements in the Basel III-based capital rules.

Specifically, the proposed rule simplifies the capital treatment for certain acquisition, development, and construction loans, mortgage servicing assets, certain deferred tax assets, investments in the capital instruments of unconsolidated financial institutions, and minority interest.

In 2017, the federal banking agencies adopted an extension of the transition period for application of the Basel III-based capital rules to certain investments, effectively freezing the capital treatment of affected investments until the changes proposed in the September 2017 proposal are finalized and effective.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms, which standards are commonly referred to as Basel IV.

Among other things, these standards revise the Basel Committee’s standardized approach for credit risk (including the recalibration of the risk weights and the introduction of new capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments,”

such as unused credit card lines of credit) and provides a new standardized approach for operational risk capital.

Bank holding companies and banks are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by state and federal agencies.

These agencies may establish higher minimum requirements if, for example, a banking organization previously has received special attention or has a high susceptibility to interest rate risk.

Risk-based capital requirements determine the adequacy of capital based on the risk inherent in various classes of assets and off-balance sheet items.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the FRB must apply consolidated capital requirements to depository institution holding companies that are no less stringent than those currently applied to depository institutions.

The Dodd-Frank Act additionally requires capital requirements to be countercyclical so that the required amount of capital increases in times of economic expansion and decreases in times of economic contraction, consistent with safety and soundness.

Under federal regulations, bank holding companies and banks must meet certain risk-based capital requirements.

Effective as of January 1, 2015, the Basel III final capital framework, among other things, (i) introduces as a new capital measure “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specifies that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) defines CET1 narrowly by requiring that most adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital, and (iv) expands the scope of the adjustments as compared to existing regulations.

Beginning January 1, 2016, financial institutions are required to maintain a minimum

“capital conservation buffer” to avoid restrictions on capital distributions such as dividends and equity repurchases and other payments such as discretionary bonuses to executive officers.

The minimum capital conservation buffer has been phased-in over a four year transition period with minimum buffers of 0.625%, 1.25%, 1.875%, and 2.50% during 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively.

As fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, Basel III subjects banks to the following risk-based capital requirements:

• a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% capital conservation buffer, or 7%;

• a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer, or 8.5%;

• a minimum ratio of Total (Tier 1 plus Tier 2) capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer, or 10.5%;

• a minimum leverage ratio of 4%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to balance sheet exposures plus certain off-balance sheet exposures.

The Basel III final framework provides for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1.

These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1.

Basel III also includes, as part of the definition of CET1 capital, a requirement that banking institutions include the amount of Additional Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”), which primarily consists of unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, which are not required to be treated as other-than-temporary impairment, net of tax) in calculating regulatory capital.

Banking institutions had the option to opt out of including AOCI in CET1 capital if they elected to do so in their first regulatory report following January 1, 2015.

As permitted by Basel III, the Company and the Bank have elected to exclude AOCI from CET1.

In addition, goodwill and most intangible assets are deducted from Tier 1 capital.

For purposes of applicable total risk-based capital regulatory guidelines, Tier 2 capital (sometimes referred to as “supplementary capital”) is defined to include, subject to limitations:

perpetual preferred stock not included in Tier 1 capital, intermediate-term preferred stock and any related surplus, certain hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt securities, allowances for loan and lease losses, and intermediate-term subordinated debt instruments.

The maximum amount of qualifying Tier 2 capital is 100% of qualifying Tier 1 capital.

For purposes of determining total capital under federal guidelines, total capital equals Tier 1 capital, plus qualifying Tier 2 capital, minus investments in unconsolidated subsidiaries, reciprocal holdings of bank holding company capital securities, and deferred tax assets and other deductions.

Basel III changed the manner of calculating risk-weighted assets.

New methodologies for determining risk-weighted assets in the general capital rules are included, including revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation, including a greater recognition of financial collateral and a wider range of eligible guarantors.

They also include risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans;

and higher (greater than 100%) risk weighting for certain commercial real estate exposures that have higher credit risk profiles, including higher loan to value and equity components.

In particular, loans categorized as “high-volatility commercial real estate” loans (“HVCRE loans”), as defined pursuant to applicable federal regulations, are required to be assigned a 150% risk weighting, and require additional capital support.

In addition to the uniform risk-based capital guidelines and regulatory capital ratios that apply across the industry, the regulators have the discretion to set individual minimum capital requirements for specific institutions at rates significantly above the minimum guidelines and ratios.

Future changes in regulations or practices could further reduce the amount of capital recognized for purposes of capital adequacy.

Such a change could affect our ability to grow and could restrict the amount of profits, if any, available for the payment of dividends.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal banking agencies to adopt capital requirements that address the risks that the activities of an institution poses to the institution and the public and private stakeholders, including risks arising from certain enumerated activities.

Basel III became applicable to the Bank on January 1, 2015.

The Company meets the conditions of the FRB’s “Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement” and is therefore currently excluded from consolidated capital requirements.

Overall, the Corporation believes that implementation of the Basel III Rule has not had and will not have a material adverse effect on the Corporation’s or the Bank’s capital ratios, earnings, shareholder’s equity, or its ability to pay dividends, effect stock repurchases or pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms (the standards are commonly referred to as “Basel IV”).

Among other things, these standards revise the Basel Committee’s standardized approach for credit risk (including recalibrating risk weights and introducing new capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments,” such as unused credit card lines of credit) and provides a new standardized approach for operational risk capital.

Under the Basel framework, these standards will generally be effective on January 1, 2022, with an aggregate output floor phasing in through January 1, 2027.

Under the current U.S.

capital rules, operational risk capital requirements and a capital floor apply only to advanced approaches institutions, and not to the Bank.

The impact of Basel IV on us will depend on how it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

capital rules, operational risk capital requirements and a capital floor apply only to advanced approaches institutions, and not to the Company or the Bank.

The impact of Basel IV on us will depend on the manner in which it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

In 2018, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a variety of proposals and made statements concerning regulatory capital standards.

These proposals touched on such areas as commercial real estate exposure, credit loss allowances under generally accepted accounting principles and capital requirements for covered swap entities, among others.

Public statements by key agency officials have also suggested a revisiting of capital policy and supervisory approaches on a going-forward basis.

In July 2019, the federal bank regulators adopted a final rule that simplifies the capital treatment for certain deferred tax assets, mortgage servicing assets, investments in non-consolidated financial entities and minority interests for banking organizations, such as the Company and the Bank, that are not subject to the advanced approaches requirements.

We will be assessing the impact on us of these new regulations and supervisory approaches as they are proposed and implemented.

In February 2019, the U.S.

federal bank regulatory agencies approved a final rule modifying their regulatory capital rules and providing an option to phase-in over a three-year period the Day 1 adverse regulatory capital effects of CECL accounting standard.

Additionally, in March 2020, the U.S.

Federal bank regulatory agencies issued an interim final rule that provides banking organizations an option to delay the estimated CECL impact on regulatory capital for an additional two years for a total transition period of up to five years to provide regulatory relief to banking organizations to better focus on supporting lending to creditworthy households and businesses in light of recent strains on the U.S.

economy as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The capital relief in the interim is calibrated to approximate the difference in allowances under CECL relative to the incurred loss methodology for the first two years of the transition period using a 25% scaling factor.

The cumulative difference at the end of the second year of the transition period is then phased in to regulatory capital at 25% per year over a three-year transition period.

The final rule was adopted and became effective in September 2020.

As a result, entities may gradually phase in the full effect of CECL on regulatory capital over a five-year transition period.

The Company is not required to implement the CECL model until January 1, 2023.

Prompt Corrective Action

In addition to the required minimum capital levels described above, federal law establishes a system of “prompt corrective actions”

that federal banking agencies are required to take, and certain actions that they have discretion to take, based upon the capital category into which a federally regulated depository institution falls.

Regulations set forth detailed procedures and criteria for implementing prompt corrective action in the case of any institution which is not adequately capitalized.

Under the prompt corrective action rules, an institution is deemed “well capitalized”

if its leverage ratio, Common Equity Tier 1 ratio, Tier 1 Capital ratio, and Total Capital ratio meet or exceed 5%, 6.5%, 8%, and 10%, respectively.

An institution is deemed to be “adequately capitalized”

or better if its leverage, Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1, and Total Capital ratios meet or exceed the minimum federal regulatory capital requirements set forth in the Basel III Final Rule.

An institution is “undercapitalized”

if it fails to meet the minimum capital requirements.

An institution is “significantly undercapitalized”

if any one of its leverage, Common Equity Tier 1, Tier 1, and Total Capital ratios falls below 3%, 3%, 4%, and 6%, respectively, and “critically undercapitalized”

if the institution has a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is equal to or less than 2%.

The Regulatory Relief Act requires the federal banking agencies to promulgate a rule establishing a new “Community Bank Leverage Ratio”

of 8% to 10% for depository institutions and depository institution holding companies, including banks and BHCs, with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, such as the Company and the Bank.

If such a depository institution or holding company maintains tangible equity in excess of this leverage ratio, it would be deemed in compliance with all other capital and leverage requirements:

(1) the leverage and risk-based capital requirements promulgated by the federal banking agencies;

(2) in the case of a depository institution, the capital ratio requirements to be considered “well capitalized”

under the federal banking agencies’

“prompt corrective action”

and (3) any other capital or leverage requirements to which the depository institution or holding company is subject, in each case, unless the appropriate federal banking agency determines otherwise based on the particular institution’s risk profile.

The prompt corrective action rules require an undercapitalized institution to file a written capital restoration plan, along with a performance guaranty by its holding company or a third party.

In addition, an undercapitalized institution becomes subject to certain automatic restrictions, including a prohibition on payment of dividends and a limitation on asset growth and expansion in certain cases, a limitation on the payment of bonuses or raises to senior executive officers, and a prohibition on the payment of certain “management fees”

to any “controlling person.”

Institutions that are classified as undercapitalized are also subject to certain additional supervisory actions, including increased reporting burdens and regulatory monitoring;

limitations on the institution’s ability to make acquisitions, open new branch offices, or engage in new lines of business;

obligations to raise additional capital;

restrictions on transactions with affiliates;

and restrictions on interest rates paid by the institution on deposits.

In certain cases, banking regulatory agencies may require replacement of senior executive officers or directors, or sale of the institution to a willing purchaser.

If an institution is deemed to be “critically undercapitalized”

and continues in that category for 90 days, the statute requires, with certain narrowly limited exceptions, that the institution be placed in receivership.

An insured depository institution’s capital level may have consequences outside the prompt corrective action regime.

For example, only well-capitalized institutions may accept brokered deposits without restrictions on rates, while adequately capitalized institutions must seek a waiver from the FDIC to accept such deposits and are subject to rate restrictions.

Well-capitalized institutions may be eligible for expedited treatment of certain applications, an advantage not available to other institutions.

As noted above, Basel III integrates the new capital requirements into the prompt corrective action category definitions.

As a result of the FRB’s revisions to the Policy raising the total consolidated asset limit in the Policy from $1 billion to $3 billion, the Company is currently exempt from the consolidated capital requirements.

The federal banking regulators are required to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to capital-deficient institutions.

Federal banking regulations define, for each capital category, the levels at which institutions are “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” Under applicable regulations, the Bank was “well capitalized,” which means it had a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5% or higher;

a Tier I risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or higher;

a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or higher;

a leverage ratio of 5.0% or higher;

and was not subject to any written agreement, order or directive requiring it to maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.

As noted above, Basel III integrates the capital requirements into the prompt corrective action category definitions.

The following capital requirements have applied to the Bank since January 1, 2015.

Capital Category

20 unchanged sentences

Critically Undercapitalized

As of December 31, 2019, the Bank was “well capitalized”

according to the guidelines as generally discussed above.

As of December 31, 2020, the Bank was “well capitalized” according to the guidelines as generally discussed above.

An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters.

An institution’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the institution’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

In the event an institution becomes “undercapitalized,” it must submit a capital restoration plan.

The capital restoration plan will not be accepted by the regulators unless each company having control of the undercapitalized institution guarantees the subsidiary’s compliance with the capital restoration plan up to a certain specified amount.

Any such guarantee from a depository institution’s holding company is entitled to a priority of payment in bankruptcy.

The aggregate liability of the holding company of an undercapitalized bank is limited to the lesser of 5% of the institution’s assets at the time it became undercapitalized or the amount necessary to cause the institution to be “adequately capitalized.” The bank regulators have greater power in situations where an institution becomes “significantly” or “critically” undercapitalized or fails to submit a capital restoration plan.

In addition to requiring undercapitalized institutions to submit a capital restoration plan, bank regulations contain broad restrictions on certain activities of undercapitalized institutions including asset growth, acquisitions, branch establishment and expansion into new lines of business.

With certain exceptions, an insured depository institution is prohibited from making capital distributions, including dividends, and is prohibited from paying management fees to control persons if the institution would be undercapitalized after any such distribution or payment.

As an institution’s capital decreases, the regulators’ enforcement powers become more severe.

A significantly undercapitalized institution is subject to mandated capital raising activities, restrictions on interest rates paid and transactions with affiliates, removal of management, and other restrictions.

A regulator has limited discretion in dealing with a critically undercapitalized institution and is virtually required to appoint a receiver or conservator.

Banks with risk-based capital and leverage ratios below the required minimums may also be subject to certain administrative actions, including the termination of deposit insurance upon notice and hearing, or a temporary suspension of insurance without a hearing in the event the institution has no tangible capital.

Safety and Soundness Standards

16 unchanged sentences

and (vi) provide periodic asset quality reports with adequate information for management and the board of directors to assess the level of asset risk.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) requires the federal banking regulatory agencies to assess all financial institutions that they regulate to determine whether these institutions are meeting the credit needs of the communities they serve, including their assessment area(s) (as established for these purposes in accordance with applicable regulations based principally on the location of branch offices).

In addition to substantial 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 regulating and supervising other activities.

Under the CRA, institutions are assigned a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve,” or “unsatisfactory.” An institution’s record in meeting the requirements of the CRA is based on a performance-based evaluation system, and is made publicly available and is taken into consideration in evaluating any applications it files with federal regulators to engage in certain activities, including approval of a branch or other deposit facility, mergers and acquisitions, office relocations, or expansions into nonbanking activities.

Our Bank received a “satisfactory” rating in its most recent CRA evaluation.

In April 2018, the U.S.

Department of Treasury issued a memorandum to the federal banking regulators recommending changes to the CRA’s regulations to reduce their complexity and associated burden on banks, and in December 2019, the FDIC and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”) proposed for public comment rules to modernize the agencies' regulations under the CRA.

The OCC adopted its final rules in May 2020, and, to date, the FDIC has not adopted revised rules.

In September 2020, the FRB released for public comment its proposed rules to modernize CRA regulations.

We will continue to evaluate the impact of any changes to the CRA regulations.

Anti-Terrorism, Money Laundering Legislation and OFAC

The Bank is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act(“BSA”) and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”).

The Bank is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”).

These statutes and related rules and regulations impose requirements and limitations on specified financial transactions and accounts and other relationships intended to guard against money laundering and terrorism financing.

program involving due diligence to confirm the identities of persons seeking to open accounts and to deny accounts to those persons unable to demonstrate their identities, (iii) the filing of currency transaction reports for deposits and withdrawals of large amounts of cash and suspicious activities reports for activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities, (iv) additional precautions for accounts sought and managed for non-U.S.

The principal requirements for an insured depository institution include (i) establishment of an anti-money laundering program that includes training and audit components, (ii) establishment of a “know your customer” program involving due diligence to confirm the identities of persons seeking to open accounts and to deny accounts to those persons unable to demonstrate their identities, (iii) the filing of currency transaction reports for deposits and withdrawals of large amounts of cash and suspicious activities reports for activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities, (iv) additional precautions for accounts sought and managed for non-U.S.

persons and (v) verification and certification of money laundering risk with respect to private banking and foreign correspondent banking relationships.

4 unchanged sentences

The Bank otherwise has implemented policies and procedures to comply with the foregoing requirements.

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries and persons, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress.

OFAC publishes lists of persons that are the target of sanctions, including the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.

11 unchanged sentences

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is an independent bureau with broad authority to regulate the consumer finance industry, including regulated financial institutions, nonbanks and others involved in extending credit to consumers.

The CFPB has authority through rulemaking, orders, policy statements, guidance, and enforcement actions to administer and enforce federal consumer financial laws, to oversee several entities and market segments not previously under the supervision of a federal regulator, and to impose its own regulations and pursue enforcement actions when it determines that a practice is unfair, deceptive, or abusive.

3 unchanged sentences

Mortgage Loan Origination

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages, including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act and the implementing final rule adopted by the CFPB, or the ATR/QM Rule, a financial institution may not make a residential mortgage loan to a consumer unless it first makes a “reasonable and good faith determination”

that the consumer has a “reasonable ability”

to repay the loan.

In addition, the ATR/QM Rule limits prepayment penalties and permits borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage,”

as defined by the CFPB.

For this purpose, the ATR/QM Rule defines a “qualified mortgage”

to include a loan with a borrower debt-to-income ratio of less than or equal to 43% or, alternatively, a loan eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership, and loans eligible for insurance or guarantee by the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, or United States Department of Agriculture.

The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages, including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act and the implementing

final rule adopted by the CFPB, or the ATR/QM Rule, a financial institution may not make a residential mortgage loan to a consumer unless it first makes a “reasonable and good faith determination” that the consumer has a “reasonable ability” to repay the loan.

In addition, the ATR/QM Rule limits prepayment penalties and permits borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage,” as defined by the CFPB.

For this purpose, the ATR/QM Rule defines a “qualified mortgage” to include a loan with a borrower debt-to-income ratio of less than or equal to 43% or, alternatively, a loan eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership, and loans eligible for insurance or guarantee by the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans Administration, or United States Department of Agriculture.

Additionally, a qualified mortgage may not:

2 unchanged sentences

or (iii) include interest only or negative amortization payments.

The ATR/QM Rule specifies the types of income and assets that may be considered in the ability-to-repay determination, the permissible sources for verification, and the required methods of calculating the loan’s monthly payments.

The ATR/QM Rule became effective in January 2014.

The Regulatory Relief Act provides that for certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, mortgage loans that are originated and retained in portfolio will automatically be deemed to satisfy the “ability to repay”

To qualify for this, the insured depository institutions and credit unions must meet conditions relating to prepayment penalties, points and fees, negative amortization, interest-only features and documentation.

The Regulatory Relief Act directs Federal banking agencies to issue regulations exempting certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions with assets of $10 billion or less from the requirement to establish escrow accounts for certain residential mortgage loans.

Insured depository institutions and insured credit unions that originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans or 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding years are exempt from a subset of disclosure requirements (recently imposed by the CFPB) under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), provided they have received certain minimum CRA ratings in their most recent examinations.

The Regulatory Relief Act also directs the Comptroller of the Currency to conduct a study assessing the effect of the exemption described above on the amount of HMDA data available at the national and local level.

In addition, Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) to require sponsors of asset-backed securities (“ABS”) to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the assets underlying the securities and generally prohibits sponsors from transferring or hedging that credit risk.

In October 2014, the federal banking regulatory agencies adopted a final rule to implement this requirement (the “Risk Retention Rule”).

Among other things, the Risk Retention Rule requires a securitizer to retain not less than 5% of the credit risk of any asset that the securitizer, through the issuance of an ABS, transfers, sells, or conveys to a third party;

1 unchanged sentence

In certain situations, the final rule allows securitizers to allocate a portion of the risk retention requirement to the originator(s) of the securitized assets, if an originator contributes at least 20% of the assets in the securitization.

The Risk Retention Rule also provides an exemption to the risk retention requirements for an ABS collateralized exclusively by Qualified Residential Mortgages (“QRMs”), and ties the definition of a QRM to the definition of a “qualified mortgage”

established by the CFPB for purposes of evaluating a consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage loan.

The federal banking agencies have agreed to review the definition of QRMs in 2019, following the CFPB’s own review of its “qualified mortgage”

The federal banking agencies have agreed to review the definition of QRMs in 2019, following the CFPB’s own review of its “qualified mortgage” regulation.

For purposes of residential mortgage securitizations, the Risk Retention Rule took effect on December 24, 2015.

7 unchanged sentences

Although a significant number of the rules and regulations mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act have been finalized, many of the requirements called for have yet to be implemented and will likely be subject to implementing regulations over the course of several years.

Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented by the various agencies, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on financial institutions’

operations is unclear.

Other Laws and Regulations

12 unchanged sentences

● Truth-In-Savings Act, requiring certain disclosures for consumer deposit accounts;

Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E of the FRB, which govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts and customers’

rights and liabilities arising from the use of automated teller machines and other electronic banking services;

● Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E of the FRB, which govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts and customers’ rights and liabilities arising from the use of automated teller machines and other electronic banking services;

● Rules and regulations of the various federal agencies charged with the responsibility of implementing these federal laws.

4 unchanged sentences

Like most of our competitors, we have faced and expect to continue to face increased regulation and regulatory and political scrutiny, which creates significant uncertainty for us, as well as for the financial services industry in general.

Future Legislation and Regulation

Regulators have increased their focus on the regulation of the financial services industry in recent years, leading in many cases to greater uncertainty and compliance costs for regulated entities.

Proposals that could substantially intensify the regulation of the financial services industry have been and may be expected to continue to be introduced in the United States Congress, in state legislatures, and by applicable regulatory authorities.

These proposals may change banking statutes and regulations and our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways.

If enacted, these proposals could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions.

We cannot predict whether any of these proposals will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that these proposals, or any implementing regulations, would have on our business, results of operations, or financial condition.

Enforcement Powers

The federal regulatory agencies have substantial penalties available to use against depository institutions and certain “institution-affiliated parties.” Institution-affiliated parties primarily include management, employees, and agents of a financial institution, as well as independent contractors and consultants, such as attorneys, accountants, and others who participate in the conduct of the financial institution’s affairs.

An institution can be subject to an enforcement action due to the failure to timely file required reports, the filing of false or misleading information, or the submission of inaccurate reports, or engaging in other unsafe or unsound banking practices.

Civil penalties may be as high as $1,924,589 per day for violations.

The Financial Institution Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act provided regulators with greater flexibility to commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution-affiliated parties and to terminate an institution’s deposit insurance.

It also expanded the power of banking regulatory agencies to issue regulatory orders.

Such orders may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnification, or guarantees against loss.

A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts, or take other actions as determined by the ordering agency to be appropriate.

The Dodd-Frank Act increases regulatory oversight, supervision and examination of banks, BHCs, and their respective subsidiaries by the appropriate regulatory agency.

Federal Securities Laws

The shares of the Company’s common stock are registered with the SEC under Section 12(b) of the Act and listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

The Company is subject to information reporting requirements, proxy solicitation requirements, insider trading restrictions and other requirements of the Exchange Act, including the requirements imposed under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the rules of The NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC.

4 unchanged sentences

Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the FRB to implement these objectives are open market operations in U.S.

Government securities, changes in the federal funds rate, changes in the discount rate of member bank borrowings, and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits.

Government securities, changes in the federal funds rate, changes in the discount rate of member bank borrowings, and changes in reserve requirements

against member bank deposits.

These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth of bank loans, investments and deposits and may also affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits.

3 unchanged sentences

The Company maintains an Internet site at www.shorebancshares.com on which it makes available, free of charge, its Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to the foregoing as soon as reasonably practicable after these reports are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.

In addition, stockholders may access these reports and documents on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov .

The information on, or accessible through, our website or any other website cited in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K is not part of, or

incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10‑K and should not be relied upon in determining whether to make an investment decision.

In addition, stockholders may access these reports and documents on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov .

The information on, or accessible through, our website or any other website cited in this Annual Report on Form 10-K is not part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K and should not be relied upon in determining whether to make an investment decision.

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-K

Item 1. Business