MidWestOne Financial Group - 10-K annual report 2016

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. ☐  Yes    ☒  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    ☒  Yes    ☐  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Annual Report on Form 10-K

On February 17, 2017 the Company announced its plans to expand into the Denver, Colorado market area through the hiring of four bankers and the establishment of a full-service branch in Denver. The Company expects its first Denver-area full service bank office will open in late spring of 2017 once all arrangements and regulatory approvals are secured.

Our operating strategy is based upon a sophisticated community banking model delivering a complete line of financial products and services while following five guiding principles: (1) hire and retain excellent employees; (2) take care of our customers; (3) conduct business with the utmost integrity; (4) work as one team; and (5) learn constantly so we can continually improve.

Management believes the personal and professional service offered to customers provides an appealing alternative to the “megabanks” that have resulted from large out-of-state national banks acquiring Iowa and Minnesota-based community banks. While we employ a community banking philosophy, we believe that our size, combined with our complete line of financial products and services, is sufficient to effectively compete in our relevant market areas. To remain price competitive, management also believes that we must grow organically as well as through strategic transactions, manage expenses and our efficiency ratio, and remain disciplined in our asset/liability management practices.

Our holding company’s principal offices are located in Iowa City, Iowa. The city of Iowa City is located in east-central Iowa, approximately 220 miles west of Chicago, Illinois, and approximately 115 miles east of Des Moines, Iowa. It is situated approximately 60 miles west of the Mississippi River on Interstate 80 and is the home of the University of Iowa, a public university with approximately 24,500 undergraduate students and 8,900 graduate and professional students. Iowa City is the home of the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, a 761-bed comprehensive academic medical center and regional referral center with approximately 1,650 staff physicians, residents, and fellows and approximately 2,100 professional nurses. The city of Iowa City has a total population of approximately 74,000 and the Iowa City MSA has a total population of approximately 161,000. Iowa City is the fifth largest city in the state of Iowa, and Johnson County is the second fastest growing county in Iowa. Based on deposit information collected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the”FDIC”) as of June 30, 2016, the most recent date for which data is available, the Bank had the second highest deposit market share in the Iowa City MSA at approximately 18.2% compared to 21 other institutions in the market.

The Bank operates 23 branch offices in 13 counties in central and east-central Iowa, 13 branches along with a loan production office in Minnesota, 4 branches in Wisconsin, and 2 branches in Florida. Based on deposit information collected by the FDIC as of June 30, 2016, in 7 of the 13 counties in Iowa, the Bank held between 9% and 39% of the deposit market share. In Mahaska County, Iowa, the Bank held 39% of the deposit market share. In the remaining 6 counties of Iowa, the Bank’s market share is less than 8%. In 3 of the 8 counties in Minnesota, the Bank held between 6% and 16% of the deposit market share. In Polk County Wisconsin, the Bank held 25% of the deposit market share. In the remaining 3 counties in Wisconsin and Florida the Bank’s market share is less than 6%.

We provide a range of commercial and retail lending services to businesses, individuals and government agencies. These credit activities include commercial and industrial loans; agricultural loans; commercial and residential real estate loans; and consumer loans.

We market our services to qualified lending customers. Lending officers actively solicit the business of new companies entering their market areas as well as long-standing members of the business communities in which we operate. Through professional service, competitive pricing and innovative structure, we have been successful in attracting new lending customers. We also actively pursue consumer lending opportunities. With convenient locations, advertising and customer communications, we believe that we have been successful in capitalizing on the credit needs of our market areas.

Our management emphasizes credit quality and seeks to avoid undue concentrations of loans to a single industry or based on a single class of collateral. We have established lending policies that include a number of underwriting factors to be considered in making a loan, including location, loan-to-value ratio, cash flow, interest rate and credit history of the borrower.

We have a strong commercial loan base. We focus on, and tailor our commercial loan programs to, small- to mid-sized businesses in our market areas. Our loan portfolio includes loans to wholesalers, manufacturers, contractors, business services companies and retailers. We provide a wide range of business loans, including lines of credit for working capital and operational purposes and term loans for the acquisition of equipment. 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. Terms of commercial business loans generally range from one to five years.

Agricultural loans, most of which are secured by crops, livestock and machinery, are generally provided to finance capital improvements and farm operations as well as acquisitions of livestock and machinery. The ability of the borrower to repay may be affected by many factors outside of the borrower’s control, including adverse weather conditions, loss of livestock due to disease or other factors, declines in market prices for agricultural products and the impact of government regulations. The ultimate repayment of agricultural loans is dependent upon the profitable operation or management of the agricultural entity.

Our agricultural lenders work closely with our customers, including companies and individual farmers, and review the preparation of budgets and cash flow projections for the ensuing crop year. These budgets and cash flow projections are monitored closely during the year and reviewed with the customers at least once annually. We also work closely with governmental agencies to help agricultural customers obtain credit enhancement products such as loan guarantees or interest rate assistance.

The Company acquired its loan pool participations in the merger with Former MidWestOne and continued in this business following that merger. However, in 2010, the Company made the decision to exit this line of business and did not purchase new

We believe that we offer competitive deposit products and programs that address the needs of customers in each of the local markets that we serve. The deposit products are offered to individuals, nonprofit organizations, partnerships, small businesses, corporations and public entities. These products include non-interest-bearing and interest-bearing demand deposits, savings accounts, money market accounts and certificates of deposit.

We offer trust and investment services, primarily in our Iowa market at this time, to help our business and individual clients in meeting their financial goals and preserving wealth. Our services include administering estates, personal trusts, conservatorships and providing property management, farm management, investment advisory, retail securities brokerage, and financial planning and custodial services. Licensed brokers (who are registered representatives of a third-party registered broker-dealer) serve selected branches and provide investment-related services including securities trading, financial planning, mutual funds sales, fixed and variable annuities and tax-exempt and conventional unit trusts.

A discussion of our liquidity and funding programs has been included in Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations under “Liquidity,” and Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk under “Liquidity Risk.”

We encounter competition in all areas of our business pursuits. To compete effectively, grow our market share, maintain flexibility and keep pace with changing economic and social conditions, we continuously refine and develop our products and services. The principal methods of competing in the financial services industry are through service, convenience and price.

The banking industry is highly competitive, and we face strong direct competition for deposits, loans, and other finance-related services. Our offices in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Florida compete and the branch expected to open on 2017 in Colorado will compete, with other commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions, stockbrokers, finance divisions of auto and farm equipment companies, agricultural suppliers, and other agriculture-related lenders. Some of these competitors are local, while others are statewide, regional or nationwide. We compete for deposits principally by offering depositors a wide variety of deposit programs, convenient office locations, hours and other services, and for loan originations primarily through the interest rates and loan fees we charge, the variety of our loan products and the efficiency and quality of services we provide to borrowers, with an emphasis on building long-lasting relationships. Some of the financial institutions and financial service organizations with which we compete are not subject to the same degree of regulation as that imposed on federally insured state-chartered banks. The financial services industry is also likely to become more competitive as technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. These technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial intermediaries in the transfer of funds between parties.

We compete for loans principally through the range and quality of the services we provide, with an emphasis on building long-lasting relationships. Our strategy is to serve our customers above and beyond their expectations through excellence in customer service and needs-based selling. We believe that our long-standing presence in the communities we serve and the personal service we emphasize enhance our ability to compete favorably in attracting and retaining individual and business customers. We actively solicit deposit-oriented clients and compete for deposits by offering personal attention, combined with electronic banking convenience, professional service and competitive interest rates.

We maintain a website for the Bank at www.midwestone.com. We make available, free of charge, on this website our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Information on, or accessible through, our website is not part of, or incorporated by reference in, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

FDIC-insured institutions, like the Bank, as well as 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 bank regulatory agencies, including the Iowa Division of Banking (the “Iowa Division”), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”), the FDIC and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”). Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities, and anti-money laundering laws enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“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 bank regulatory agencies issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of the Company’s business, the kinds and amounts of investments the Company and the Bank may make, reserve requirements, required capital levels relative to assets, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the Company’s ability 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 the last several years, the Company has experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny following the global financial crisis and as a result of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). Although the reforms primarily targeted systemically important financial service providers, their influence filtered down in varying degrees to community banks over time and the reforms have caused the Company’s compliance and risk management processes, and the costs thereof, to increase. While it is anticipated that the new presidential administration will not increase the regulatory burden on community banks and may reduce some of the burdens associated with implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the true impact of the new administration is impossible to predict with any certainty.

This supervisory and regulatory framework subjects banks and bank holding companies to regular examination by their respective regulatory 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, liquidity, and various other factors. The regulatory agencies generally have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on the operations of a regulated entity where the agencies determine, among other things, that such operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations or with the supervisory policies of these agencies.

The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to the Company and the Bank, beginning with a discussion of the continuing regulatory emphasis on the Company’s capital levels. 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.

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 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 regulators recognized that the amount and quality of capital held by banks prior to the crisis was insufficient to absorb losses during periods of severe stress. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, discussed below, establish strengthened capital standards for banks and bank holding companies that are meaningfully more stringent than those in place previously.

On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced agreement on a strengthened set of capital requirements for banking organizations around the world, known as Basel III, to address deficiencies recognized in connection with the global financial crisis.

The Basel III Rule required higher capital levels, increased the required quality of capital, and required more detailed categories of risk weighting of riskier, more opaque assets. For nearly every class of assets, the Basel III Rule requires a more complex, detailed and calibrated assessment of credit risk and calculation of risk weightings.

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

In addition, institutions that seek the freedom to make capital distributions (including for dividends and repurchases of stock) and pay discretionary bonuses to executive officers without restriction must also maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to a capital conservation buffer being phased in over three years beginning in 2016 (which, as of January 1, 2017, was phased in half-way to 1.25%). The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banking institutions maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. Factoring in the fully phased-in 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.

Banking organizations (except for large, internationally active banking organizations) became subject to the new rules on January 1, 2015. However, there are separate phase-in/phase-out periods for: (i) the capital conservation buffer; (ii) regulatory capital adjustments and deductions; (iii) nonqualifying capital instruments; and (iv) changes to the prompt corrective action rules discussed below. The phase-in periods commenced on January 1, 2016 and extend until 2019.

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, 2016: (i) the Bank was not subject to a directive from the Iowa Division or FDIC to increase its capital and (ii) the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by FDIC regulations. As of December 31, 2016, 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 BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking ... as to be a proper incident thereto.” This authority would permit the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage services. The BHCA does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies.

Additionally, bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines by order to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of FDIC-insured institutions or the financial system generally. We have elected to operate as a financial holding company.

In order to become and maintain our 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 Community Reinvestment Act (“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 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, the company will not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities.

Federal law also prohibits any person or company from acquiring “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company without prior notice to the appropriate federal bank regulator. “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 10% and 24.99% ownership.

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 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, institutions that seek the freedom to pay dividends will have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years beginning in 2016. See “-Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

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 addresses large banking organizations and, because of the size and complexity of their operations, the regulators 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.  Smaller banking organizations like the Company that use incentive compensation arrangements are expected to be less extensive, formalized, and detailed than those of the larger banks. 

Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act required the banking agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, the SEC and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to jointly prescribe regulations that prohibit types of incentive-based compensation that encourage inappropriate risk taking and to disclose certain information regarding such plans. On June 10, 2016, the agencies released an updated proposed rule for comment. Section 956 will only apply to banking organizations with assets of greater than $1 billion. The Company has consolidated assets greater than $1 billion and less than $50 billion and the Company is considered a Level 3 banking organization under the proposed rules. The proposed rules contain mostly general principles and reporting requirements for Level 3 institutions so there are no specific prescriptions or limits, deferral requirements or claw-back mandates. Risk management and controls are required, as is board or committee level approval and oversight. Management expects to review its incentive plans in light of the proposed rulemaking and guidance and implement policies and procedures that mitigate unreasonable risk.

The reserve ratio is the DIF balance divided by estimated insured deposits. The Dodd-Frank Act altered the minimum reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to FDIC-insured institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds.  The reserve ratio reached 1.15% on June 30, 2016, when revised factors were put in place for calculating the assessment.  If the reserve ratio does not reach 1.35% by December 31, 2018 (provided it is at least 1.15%), the FDIC will impose a shortfall assessment on March 31, 2019 on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. The FDIC will provide assessment credits to insured depository institutions, like the Bank, with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion for the portion of their regular assessments that contribute to growth in the reserve ratio between 1.15% and 1.35%. The FDIC will apply the credits each quarter that the reserve ratio is at least 1.38% to offset the regular deposit insurance assessments of institutions with credits.

Prior to the merger of Central Bank and the Bank, during the year ended December 31, 2016, Central Bank paid no supervisory assessments to the Minnesota Department of Commerce.

In addition to liquidity guidelines already in place, the federal bank regulatory agencies implemented the Basel III LCR in 2014 and have proposed the NSFR. While the LCR only applies to the largest banking organizations in the country, as will the NSFR, certain elements are expected to filter down to all FDIC-insured institutions. The Company continues to review the Company’s liquidity risk management policies in light of the LCR and NSFR.

Under the Iowa Banking Act, Iowa-chartered banks, such as the Bank, generally may pay dividends only out of undivided profits. In addition, the Iowa Division may restrict the declaration or payment of a dividend by an Iowa-chartered bank, such as the Bank.

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 a 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, 2016.

Notwithstanding the availability of funds for dividends, however, the FDIC and the respective state banking regulator may prohibit the payment of dividends by the Bank if either or both determine such payment would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek the freedom to pay dividends will have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer to be phased in over three years beginning in 2016. See “Regulatory Emphasis on Capital” above.

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.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the 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 regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the FDIC-insured institution’s rate of growth, require 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 regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

During the past decade, the bank regulatory 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 agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking institution including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal, and reputational risk. In particular, recent regulatory pronouncements have focused on operational risk, which arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. New products and services, third-party risk and cybersecurity are critical sources of operational risk that FDIC-insured institutions are expected to address in the current environment. 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.

Based on its loan portfolio as of December 31, 2016, the Bank did not exceed the 300% guideline for non-owner occupied commercial real estate loans to total risk-based capital.

Because abuses in connection with residential mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the global financial crisis, many new rules issued by the CFPB and required by the Dodd-Frank Act address mortgage and mortgage-related products, 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 all FDIC-insured institutions, 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.” In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally required lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans that the lender sells, and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues, if the loans have not complied with the ability-to-repay standards. The Company does not currently expect the CFPB’s rules to have a significant impact on the Bank’s operations, except for higher compliance costs.

This report contains certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of such term in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We and our representatives may, from time to time, make written or oral statements that are “forward-looking” and provide information other than historical information. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause actual results to be materially different from any results, levels of activity, performance or achievements expressed or implied by any forward-looking statement. These factors include, among other things, the factors listed below.

Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of our management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “should,” “could,” “would,” “plans,” “intend,” “project,” “estimate,” “forecast,” “may” or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from

Our ability to predict results or the actual effect of future plans or strategies is inherently uncertain. Factors that could have an impact on our ability to achieve operating results, growth plan goals and future prospects include, but are not limited to, the following:

An investment in our securities is subject to risks inherent in our business. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included in this report. In addition to the risks and uncertainties described below, other risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also may materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. The value or market price of our securities could decline due to any of these identified or other risks, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

We measure interest rate risk under various rate scenarios and using specific criteria and assumptions. A summary of this process, along with the results of our net interest income simulations, is presented at “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk” included under Item 7A of Part II of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Although we believe our current level of interest rate sensitivity is reasonable and effectively managed, significant fluctuations in interest rates may have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to an increase in nonperforming assets and a reduction of income recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. Subsequently, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of nonperforming assets would have an adverse impact on net interest income.

Rising interest rates will likely result in a decline in value of our fixed-rate debt securities. The unrealized losses resulting from holding these securities would be recognized in other comprehensive income (or net income, if the decline is other-than-temporary), and reduce total shareholders’ equity. Unrealized losses do not negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios; however, tangible common equity and the associated ratios used by many investors would be reduced. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and will reduce our regulatory capital ratios.

We operate primarily in the Iowa City, Iowa and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota markets and their surrounding communities in the upper midwest. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows are significantly impacted by changes in the economic conditions in those areas. Our success depends to a significant extent upon the business activity, population, income levels, deposits and real estate activity in these markets. Although our customers’ business and financial interests may extend well beyond these market areas, adverse economic conditions that affect these market areas could reduce our growth rate, affect the ability of our customers to repay their loans to us, affect the value of collateral underlying loans and generally affect our financial condition and results of operations. Because of our geographic concentration, we are less able than other regional or national financial institutions to diversify our credit risks across multiple markets. Although, in general, the upper midwest economy and real estate market were not affected as severely as some other areas of the United States in recent years, they are not immune to challenging economic conditions that affect the United States and world economies.

Substantially all of our business is conducted in the states of Iowa and Minnesota, and a significant portion is conducted in rural communities. The upper Midwest economy, in general, is heavily dependent on agriculture and therefore the economy, and particularly the economies of the rural communities that we serve, can be greatly affected by severe weather conditions, including droughts, storms, tornadoes and flooding. Unfavorable weather conditions may decrease agricultural productivity or could result in damage to our branch locations or the property of our customers, all of which could adversely affect the local economy. An adverse effect on the economies of Iowa or Minnesota would negatively affect our profitability.

There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers, risks of nonpayment, risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral and risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions. We attempt to minimize our credit risk through prudent loan application approval procedures, careful monitoring of the concentration of our loans within specific industries and periodic independent reviews of outstanding loans by our credit review department. However, we cannot assure you that such approval and monitoring procedures will reduce these credit risks.

If the overall economic climate in the United States, generally, or our market areas, specifically, declines, or even if it does not, our borrowers may experience difficulties in repaying their loans, and the level of nonperforming loans, charge-offs and delinquencies could rise and require increases in the provision for loan losses, which would cause our net income and return on equity to decrease.

A significant portion of the Bank’s loan portfolio consists of commercial loans, and we focus on lending to small to medium-sized businesses. The size of the loans we can offer to commercial customers is less than the size of the loans that our competitors with larger lending limits can offer. This may limit our ability to establish relationships with the area’s largest businesses. As a result, we may assume greater lending risks than financial institutions that have a lesser concentration of such loans and tend to make loans to larger businesses. Collateral for these loans generally includes accounts receivable, inventory, equipment and real estate. However, depending on the overall financial condition of the borrower, some loans are made on an unsecured basis. In addition to commercial loans and commercial real estate loans, the Bank is also active in residential mortgage and consumer lending. Should the economic climate worsen, or even if it does not, our borrowers may experience financial difficulties, and the level of nonperforming loans, charge-offs and delinquencies could rise, which could negatively impact our business.

Payments on agricultural loans are dependent on the successful operation or management of the farm property. The success of the farm may be affected by many factors outside the control of the borrower, including adverse weather conditions that prevent the planting of a crop or limit crop yields (such as hail, drought and floods), loss of livestock due to disease or other factors, declines in market prices for agricultural products (both domestically and internationally) and the impact of government regulations (including changes in price supports, subsidies and environmental regulations). In addition, many farms are dependent on a limited number of key individuals whose injury or death may significantly affect the successful operation of the farm. If the cash flow from a farming operation is diminished, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. The primary crops in our market areas are corn and soybeans. Accordingly, adverse circumstances affecting these crops could have an adverse effect on our agricultural real estate loan portfolio. Likewise, agricultural operating loans involve a greater degree of risk than lending on residential properties, particularly in the case of loans that are unsecured or secured by rapidly depreciating assets such as farm equipment or assets such as livestock or crops. In these cases, any repossessed collateral for a defaulted loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment of the outstanding loan balance as a result of the greater likelihood of damage, loss or depreciation.

If problems develop in the commercial real estate market, particularly within one or more of our markets, the value of collateral securing our commercial real estate loans could decline. In such case, we may not be able to realize the amount of security that we anticipated at the time of originating the loan, which could cause us to increase our provision for loan losses and adversely affect our operating results, financial condition and/or capital. We generally have not experienced a downturn in credit performance by our commercial real estate loan customers in recent years, but, in light of the continued general uncertainty that exists in the economy and credit markets nationally, there can be no guarantee that we will not experience any deterioration in such performance.

Our nonperforming assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or other real estate owned, thereby adversely affecting our net income and returns on assets and equity, increasing our loan administration costs and adversely affecting our efficiency ratio. When we take collateral in foreclosure and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the collateral to its then-fair market value, which may result in a loss. These nonperforming loans and other real estate owned also increase our risk profile and the capital our regulators believe is appropriate in light of such risks. The resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant time commitments from management and can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. If we experience increases in nonperforming loans and nonperforming assets, our net interest income may be negatively impacted and our loan administration costs could increase, each of which could have an adverse effect on our net income and related ratios, such as return on assets and equity.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. In the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property's value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase our exposure to environmental liability. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are required by federal and state regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. We intend to grow our business organically and to explore opportunities to grow our business by taking advantage of attractive acquisition opportunities, and such growth plans may require us to raise additional capital to ensure that we have adequate levels of capital to support such growth on top of our current operations. We may at some point need to raise additional capital to support our growth plans and in this regard, in mid 2016, we renewed our universal shelf-registration statement registering for future sale up to $75 million of securities. That filing should allow us to be in a better position to raise capital if the need were to arise or if an attractive opportunity were presented. Our ability to raise additional capital will depend on conditions in the capital markets, economic conditions and a number of other factors, including investor perceptions regarding the banking industry, market conditions and governmental activities, and on our financial condition and performance. Accordingly, we cannot assure you of our ability to raise additional capital, if needed or desired, on terms acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed or desired, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth or acquisitions could be materially impaired.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our primary sources of funds consist of cash from operations, investment maturities and sales, deposits and funds from sales of capital securities. Additional liquidity is provided by brokered deposits, bank lines of credit, repurchase agreements and the ability to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank and the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”). Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities or on terms that are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry.

During periods of economic turmoil, the financial services industry and the credit markets generally may be materially and adversely affected by significant declines in asset values and by historically depressed levels of liquidity. As demonstrated by the recent financial crisis, under such circumstances, the liquidity issues are often particularly acute for regional and community banks, as larger financial institutions may curtail their lending to regional and community banks to reduce their exposure to the risks of other banks. Correspondent lenders may also reduce or even eliminate federal funds lines for their correspondent customers in difficult economic times. Furthermore, regional and community banks generally have less access to the capital markets than do the national and super-regional banks because of their smaller size and limited analyst coverage.

As a result, we rely more on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans and investment securities, respectively, to ensure that we have adequate liquidity to fund our operations. Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, pay our expenses, pay dividends to our shareholders, or fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company and the Bank are subject to extensive regulation by multiple regulatory agencies. These regulations may affect the manner and terms of delivery of our services. If we do not comply with governmental regulations, we may be subject to fines, penalties, lawsuits or material restrictions on our businesses in the jurisdiction where the violation occurred, which may adversely affect our business operations. Changes in these regulations can significantly affect the services that we provide, as well as our costs of compliance with such regulations. In addition, adverse publicity and damage to our reputation arising from the failure or perceived failure to comply with legal, regulatory or contractual requirements could affect our ability to attract and retain customers.

Economic conditions since 2008, particularly in the financial markets, resulted in government regulatory agencies and political bodies placing increased focus and scrutiny on the financial services industry. This environment has subjected financial institutions to additional restrictions, oversight and costs. In addition, new legislative and regulatory proposals, and modifications of existing regulations, could be introduced that could further increase the oversight of the financial services industry. While it is anticipated that the new presidential administration will not increase the regulatory burden on community banks and may reduce some of the burdens associated with implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the true impact of the new administration is impossible to predict with any certainty.

In addition to being affected by general economic conditions, our earnings and growth are affected by the policies of the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the money supply and credit conditions. Among the instruments used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market operations in U.S. government securities, adjustments of the discount rate and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall economic growth and the distribution of credit, bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use also affects interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

The monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The effects of such policies upon our business, financial condition and results of operations cannot be predicted.

All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on business demand deposit accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result, some financial institutions have commenced offering interest on these demand deposits to compete for customers. Although this development has not meaningfully impacted our interest expense in the current low-rate, high-liquidity environment in which competition among financial institutions for deposits is generally low, competitive pressures in the future could require us to pay interest on these demand deposits to attract and retain business customers, in which case our interest expense would increase and our net interest margin would decrease. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The laws, regulations, rules, policies and regulatory interpretations governing us are constantly evolving and may change significantly over time as Congress and various regulatory agencies react to adverse economic conditions or other matters. The global financial crisis of 2008-09 served as a catalyst for a number of significant changes in the financial services industry, including the Dodd-Frank Act, which reformed the regulation of financial institutions in a comprehensive manner, and the Basel III regulatory capital reforms, which increase both the amount and quality of capital that financial institutions must hold.

The Dodd-Frank Act, together with the regulations developed and to be developed thereunder, affects large and small financial institutions alike, including several provisions that impact how community banks, thrifts and small bank and thrift holding companies will operate in the future. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act changed the base for FDIC insurance assessments to a bank’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, rather than its deposit base, permanently raised the current standard deposit insurance limit to $250,000, and expanded the FDIC’s authority to raise the premiums we pay for deposit insurance. The legislation allowed financial institutions to pay interest on business checking accounts, contained provisions on mortgage-related matters (such as steering incentives, determinations as to a borrower’s ability to repay and prepayment penalties) and established the CFPB as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve. This entity has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act included provisions that affect corporate governance and executive compensation at all publicly traded companies. However, there may be changes to the Dodd-Frank Act and the CFPB under the new presidential administration.

In addition, in July 2013, the U.S. federal banking authorities approved the implementation of the Basel III Rule. The Basel III Rule is applicable to all U.S. banks that are subject to minimum capital requirements as well as to bank and saving and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies” (generally bank holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $1 billion). The Basel III Rule became effective on January 1, 2015 with a phase-in period through 2019 for many of the new rules.

The Basel III Rule not only increased most of the required minimum regulatory capital ratios, it introduced a new Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio and the concept of a capital conservation buffer. The Basel III Rule also expanded the definition of capital by establishing additional criteria that capital instruments must meet to be considered Additional Tier 1 Capital (i.e., Tier 1 Capital in addition to Common Equity) and Tier 2 Capital. A number of instruments that previously generally qualified as Tier 1 Capital do not qualify or their qualifications changed upon the effectiveness of the Basel III Rule. The Basel III Rule maintained the general structure of the prompt corrective action thresholds while incorporating the increased requirements, including the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio. In order to be a “well-capitalized” depository institution under the new regime, an institution must maintain a Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio of 6.5% or more, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of 8% or more, a Total Capital ratio of 10% or more, and a leverage ratio of 5% or more. Institutions must also maintain a capital conservation buffer consisting of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital.

These provisions, as well as any other aspects of current or proposed regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, will impact the profitability of our business activities and may change certain of our business practices, including the ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans, and achieve satisfactory interest spreads, and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs. These changes also may require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to operations in order to comply, and could therefore also materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits and, accordingly, the Bank is subject to FDIC deposit insurance assessments. We generally cannot control the amount of premiums the Bank will be required to pay for FDIC insurance. The FDIC recently increased the deposit insurance fund’s target reserve ratio to 2.0% of insured deposits following the Dodd-Frank Act’s elimination of the 1.5% cap on the insurance fund’s reserve ratio and has put in place a restoration plan to restore the deposit insurance fund to its 1.35% minimum reserve ratio mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act by September 30, 2020. Additional increases in assessment rates may be required in the future to achieve this targeted reserve ratio. In addition, higher levels of bank failures in recent years and increases in the statutory deposit insurance limits have increased resolution costs to the FDIC and put pressure on the deposit insurance fund. The Bank may be required to pay even higher FDIC insurance premiums than the recently increased levels, or the FDIC may charge additional special assessments. Future increases of FDIC insurance premiums or special assessments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our ability to pay dividends is limited by regulatory restrictions and the need to maintain sufficient consolidated capital. The ability of the Bank to pay dividends to us is limited by its obligations to maintain sufficient capital and liquidity and by other general restrictions on dividends that are applicable to the Bank, including the requirement under the Iowa Banking Act that the Bank may not pay dividends in excess of its accumulated net profits. If these regulatory requirements are not met, the Bank will not be able to pay dividends to us, and we may be unable to pay dividends on our common stock.

In addition, as a bank holding company, our ability to declare and pay dividends is subject to the guidelines of the Federal Reserve regarding capital adequacy and dividends. The Federal Reserve guidelines generally require us to review the effects of the cash payment of dividends on common stock and other Tier 1 capital instruments (i.e., perpetual preferred stock and trust preferred debt) in light of our earnings, capital adequacy and financial condition. As a general matter, the Federal Reserve indicates that the board of directors of a bank holding company (including a financial holding company) should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce the Company’s dividends if:

Much of our success and growth has been influenced by our ability to attract and retain management experienced in banking and financial services and familiar with the communities in our market areas. Our ability to retain our executive officers, current management teams, branch managers and loan officers will continue to be important to the successful implementation of our strategy. It is also critical, as we grow, to be able to attract and retain qualified additional management and loan officers with the appropriate level of experience and knowledge about our market areas to implement our community‑based operating strategy. The Dodd-Frank Act also directs the Federal Reserve to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to bank holding company executives. These rules, when adopted, may make it more difficult to attract and retain the people we need to operate our businesses and limit our ability to promote our objectives through our compensation and incentive programs. The unexpected loss of services of any key management personnel, or the inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in the future, could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The banking and financial services businesses in our markets are highly competitive. Our competitors include large regional banks, local community banks, savings and loan associations, securities and brokerage companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies, finance companies, money market mutual funds, small local credit unions as well as large aggressive and expansion-minded credit unions, and other nonbank financial services providers. Many of these competitors are not subject to the same regulatory restrictions as we are. Many of our unregulated competitors compete across geographic boundaries and are able to provide customers with a competitive alternative to traditional banking services.

Increased competition in our markets may result in a decrease in the amounts of our loans and deposits, reduced spreads between loan rates and deposit rates or loan terms that are more favorable to the borrower. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our ability to grow and remain profitable. If increased competition causes us to significantly discount the interest rates we offer on loans or increase the amount we pay on deposits, our net interest income could be adversely impacted. If increased competition causes us to modify our underwriting standards, we could be exposed to higher losses from lending activities. Additionally, many of our competitors are much larger in total assets and capitalization, have greater access to capital markets, have larger lending limits and offer a broader range of financial services than we can offer.

Technology and other changes are allowing consumers and businesses to complete financial transactions that historically have involved banks through alternative methods. For example, the wide acceptance of internet-based commerce has resulted in a number of alternative payment processing systems and lending platforms in which banks play only minor roles. Customers can now maintain funds in prepaid debit cards or digital currencies, and pay bills and transfer funds directly without the direct assistance of banks. The diminishing role of banks as financial intermediaries has resulted and could continue to result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the potential loss of lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The financial services industry continues to undergo rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to enabling us to better serve our customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and the potential for cost reduction. Our future success will depend in part upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow our market share. Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. As a result, they may be able to offer additional or superior products to those that we will be able to offer, which could put us at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, we cannot provide you with assurance that we will be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing such products and services to our customers.

The Company relies heavily on internal and outsourced technologies, communications, and information systems to conduct its business. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the Company collects, processes and retains sensitive and confidential information regarding our customers. As the Company’s reliance on technology has increased, so have the potential risks of a technology-related operation interruption (such as disruptions in the Company’s customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan, or other systems) or the occurrence of a cyber-attacks (such as unauthorized access to the Company’s systems). These risks have increased for all financial institutions due to new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies (including mobile devices) to conduct financial and other business transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, perpetrators of fraud, hackers, terrorists and others. In addition to cyber-attacks or other security breaches involving the theft of sensitive and confidential information, hackers have engaged in attacks against large financial institutions, particularly denial of service attacks, that are designed to disrupt key business services, such as customer-facing web sites. In addition, it is possible that we may not be able to detect security breaches on a timely basis, or at all, which could increase the costs and risks associated with any such breach. The Company is not able to anticipate or implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches of these types, especially because the techniques used change frequently and because attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources. However, applying guidance from the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, the Company has analyzed and will continue to analyze security related to device specific considerations, user access topics, transaction-processing and network integrity.

The Company also faces risks related to cyber-attacks and other security breaches in connection with credit card and debit card transactions that typically involve the transmission of sensitive information regarding the Company’s customers through various third parties, including merchant acquiring banks, payment processors, payment card networks and its processors. Some of these parties have in the past been the target of security breaches and cyber-attacks, and because the transactions involve third parties and environments such as the point of sale that the Company does not control or secure, future security breaches or cyber-attacks affecting any of these third parties could impact the Company through no fault of its own, and in some cases it may have exposure and suffer losses for breaches or attacks relating to them. In addition, we offer our customers protection against fraud and certain losses for unauthorized use of debit cards in order to stay competitive with other financial institutions. Offering such protection exposes us to possible losses. Further cyber-attacks or other breaches in the future, whether affecting the Company or others, could intensify consumer concern and regulatory focus and result in reduced use of payment cards and increased costs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business. To the extent we are involved in any future cyber-attacks or other breaches, the Company’s reputation could be affected, would could also have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Employee errors and employee and customer misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our customers or improper use of confidential information. It is not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence.

We maintain a system of internal controls and insurance coverage to mitigate against operational risks, including data processing system failures and errors and customer or employee fraud. Should our internal controls fail to prevent or detect an occurrence, and if any resulting loss is not insured or exceeds applicable insurance limits, such failure could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our financial performance is impacted by accounting principles, policies and guidelines. Some of these policies require the use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. Some of our accounting policies are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. If such estimates or assumptions underlying our financial statements are incorrect, we may experience material losses.

From time to time, the FASB and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards or the interpretation of those standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes are beyond our control, can be difficult to predict and could materially impact how we report our financial condition and results of operations. Changes in these standards are continuously occurring, and given recent economic conditions, more drastic changes may occur. The implementation of such changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The FASB has adopted a new accounting standard that will be effective for the Company and the Bank for our first fiscal year after December 15, 2019. This standard, referred to as Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, will require financial institutions to determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans, and recognize the expected credit losses as allowances for loan losses. This will change the current method of providing allowances for loan losses that are probable, which may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses, and to greatly increase the types of data we will need to collect and review to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or expenses incurred to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our risk management framework seeks to mitigate risk and loss to us. We have established processes and procedures intended to identify, measure, monitor, report and analyze the types of risk to which we are subject, including liquidity risk, credit risk, market risk, interest rate risk, operational risk, compensation risk, legal and compliance risk, and reputational risk, among others. However, as with any risk management framework, there are inherent limitations to our risk management strategies as there may exist, or develop in the future, risks that we have not appropriately anticipated or identified. Our ability to successfully identify and manage risks facing us is an important factor that can significantly impact our results. If our risk management framework proves ineffective, we could suffer unexpected losses and could be materially adversely affected.

Management regularly reviews and updates our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

Reputational risk, or the risk to our business, financial condition or results of operations from negative publicity, is inherent in our business. Negative publicity can result from actual or alleged conduct in a number of areas, including legal and regulatory compliance, lending practices, corporate governance, litigation, inadequate protection of customer data, ethical behavior of our employees, and from actions taken by regulators, ratings agencies and others as a result of that conduct. Damage to our reputation could impact our ability to attract new or maintain existing loan and deposit customers, employees and business relationships.

Our ability to engage in routine funding and other transactions could be negatively affected by the actions and the soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services institutions are generally interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, credit or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties and regularly engage in transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks and other institutional customers. Many of these transactions may expose us to credit or other risks if another financial institution experiences adverse circumstances. In certain circumstances, the collateral that we hold may be insufficient to fully cover the risk that a counterparty defaults on its obligations, which may cause us to experience losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although our common shares are listed for quotation on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, the trading in our common shares has substantially less liquidity than many other companies listed on NASDAQ. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the market of willing buyers and sellers of our common shares at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. We cannot assure you that the volume of trading in our common shares will increase in the future.

The stock market has experienced, and may continue to experience, fluctuations that significantly impact the market prices of securities issued by many companies. Market fluctuations could adversely affect our stock price. These fluctuations have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations, as well as general economic, systemic, political and market conditions, such as recessions, loss of investor confidence, interest rate changes, or international currency fluctuations, may negatively affect the market price of our common stock. Moreover, our operating results may fluctuate and vary from period to period due to the risk factors set forth herein. As a result, period-to-period comparisons should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. Our stock price could fluctuate significantly in response to our quarterly or annual results, annual projections and the impact of these risk factors on our operating results or financial position.