Webster Financial - 10-K annual report 2014

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-K

______________________________________________________________________________

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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

 

 

PART 1

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. For a discussion of forward-looking statements, see the section captioned “Forward-Looking Statements” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

The core of our company's value proposition is the service delivery model that comes to life through our brand promise, “Living Up to You,” which encapsulates how our bankers build meaningful relationships with our customers through a deeper understanding of their lives beyond the bank. This value proposition is delivered by our bankers who are knowledgeable, are deeply committed to the communities that we serve, know their markets well, and make decisions at the local level. The Company operates with a local market orientation as a community-focused, values-guided regional bank. Operating objectives include acquiring and developing high value customer relationships through sales specialists, universal bankers, marketing, and cross-sale efforts to fuel organic growth and expand contiguously.

During 2014, the Company strategically reconfigured its approach to community banking with the goal of focusing primarily on customer preferences and what matters most to them. This process has brought together our consumer banking and business banking services and products, including deposits, investments, lending, and cash management services, under the umbrella of Community Banking. This strategic transformation incorporates comprehensive changes including increased focus on mass affluent consumers and businesses, banking center network optimization, and a build-out of an integrated omni-channel delivery focused on improving the customer experience. Strategic investments in the distribution infrastructure in response to meeting customers' changing preferences have lowered our service delivery costs while improving the customer experience as evidenced by receiving ‘Best Online Banking in New England’ recognition from J.D. Power. The Company upgraded its mobile and online banking capabilities during 2014 and upgraded functionalities and service standards for our ATM machines. We believe that the shift to an electronic infrastructure provides customers with more convenience while giving banking center personnel greater opportunity to build broader, deeper relationships with customers across all lines of business. Driven by the investments in these channels, deposit taking through electronic, self-service channels increased by 14%, while transactions processed in banking centers decreased by 7% year over year.

Webster is subject to strong competition from banks and other financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, finance companies, credit unions, consumer finance companies, and insurance companies. Certain of these competitors are larger financial institutions with substantially greater resources, lending limits, larger branch systems, and a wider array of commercial banking services than Webster. Competition could intensify in the future as a result of industry consolidation, the increasing availability of products and services from non-banks, greater technological developments in the industry, and continued bank regulatory reforms.

Webster faces substantial competition for deposits and loans throughout its market areas. The primary factors in competing for deposits are interest rates, personalized services, the quality and range of financial services, convenience of office locations, automated services, and office hours. Competition for deposits comes primarily from other commercial banks, savings institutions, credit unions, mutual funds, and other investment alternatives. The primary factors in competing for commercial and business loans are interest rates, loan origination fees, the quality and range of lending services, and personalized service. Competition for origination of mortgage loans comes primarily from savings institutions, mortgage banking firms, mortgage brokers, other commercial banks, and insurance companies. Factors which affect competition include the general and local economic conditions, current interest rate levels, and volatility in the mortgage markets.

Webster, Webster Bank, and certain of its non-banking subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state laws. The regulatory framework applicable to bank holding companies and their subsidiary banks is intended to protect depositors, federal deposit insurance funds, consumers, and the banking system as a whole, and not necessarily investors in bank holding companies such as Webster.

Set forth below is a description of the significant elements of the laws and regulations applicable to Webster and its subsidiaries. The description that follows is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes, regulations, and policies that are described. Also, such statutes, regulations, and policies are continually under review by Congress and state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies. A change in statutes, regulations, or regulatory policies applicable to Webster and its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the results of the Company.

Webster Bank is organized as a national banking association under the National Bank Act. It is subject to broad regulation and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) as its primary supervisory agency, as well as by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). As noted below, on July 21, 2011, supervision of compliance with federal consumer financial protection laws for Webster and Webster Bank was transferred to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFPB”). Webster and Webster Bank may also be subject to increased scrutiny and enforcement efforts by state attorneys general in regard to state consumer protection laws. Webster Bank's deposits are insured by the FDIC, subject to FDIC guidelines.

The Company's non-bank subsidiary is also subject to regulation by the FRB and other federal and state agencies. Other non-bank subsidiaries are subject to both federal and state laws and regulations.

If a bank holding company seeks to engage in the broader range of activities that are permitted under the BHC Act for financial holding companies, (i) all of its depository institution subsidiaries, and the holding company must be “well capitalized” and “well managed,” as defined in the FRB's Regulation Y, and (ii) it must file a declaration with the FRB that it elects to be a “financial holding company.”

In order for a financial holding company to commence any activity that is financial in nature, incidental thereto, or complementary to a financial activity, or to acquire a company engaged in any such activity permitted by the BHC Act, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the Community Reinvestment Act ("CRA"). See the section captioned “Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending Laws” included elsewhere in this item.

The BHC Act, the Bank Merger Act, and other federal and state statutes regulate acquisitions of commercial banks. The BHC Act requires the prior approval of the FRB for the direct or indirect acquisition of 5% or more of the voting shares of a commercial bank or its parent holding company. Under the Bank Merger Act, the prior approval of the OCC is required for a national bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In reviewing applications seeking approval of merger and acquisition transactions, the federal banking agencies will consider, among other things, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position of the combined organization, the applicant's performance record under the CRA (see the section captioned “Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending Laws” included elsewhere in this item), and the effectiveness of the subject organizations in combating money laundering activities.

Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to further rulemaking, guidance, and interpretation by the applicable federal banking agencies. Webster will continue to evaluate the impact of any new regulations so promulgated, including changes in regulatory costs and fees, modifications to consumer products or disclosures required by the CFPB, and the requirements of the enhanced supervision provisions, among others. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act applicable to Webster are discussed herein.

In July 2013, the FRB, the OCC, and the FDIC approved final rules (the “New Capital Rules”) establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. The New Capital Rules generally implement the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s (the “Basel Committee”) December 2010 final capital framework referred to as “Basel III” for strengthening international capital standards. The New Capital Rules substantially revise the risk-based capital requirements applicable to BHCs and their depository institution subsidiaries, including Webster and the Bank, as compared to the current U.S. general risk-based capital rules. The New Capital Rules revise the definitions and the components of regulatory capital, as well as address other issues affecting the numerator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios. The New Capital Rules also address asset risk weights and other matters affecting the denominator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios and replace the existing general risk-weighting approach, which was derived from the Basel Committee’s 1988 “Basel I” capital accords, with a more risk-sensitive approach based, in part, on the “standardized approach” in the Basel Committee’s 2004 “Basel II” capital accords. In addition, the New Capital Rules implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, including the requirements of Section 939A to remove references to credit ratings from the federal banking agencies’ rules.

In October 2012, the FDIC, the OCC, and the FRB issued separate but similar Dodd-Frank Act-mandated final rules requiring covered banks and bank holding companies with $10 billion to $50 billion in total consolidated assets to conduct an annual company-run stress test. The Company and Webster Bank submitted stress test results to the Federal Reserve and OCC in March of 2014 as required by regulation. The Company and Webster Bank are not required to publicly disclose its results for the March 2014 submission. The Company and Webster Bank will submit their second year of stress test results by March 31, 2015. In addition, the Company and Webster Bank will publicly release their results of the Severely Adverse Scenario stress test between June 15, 2015 and June 30, 2015, as required by regulation.

In February 2014, the FRB adopted a final rule on enhanced prudential requirements required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Although most of the enhanced prudential requirements only apply to bank holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets, the final rule, as directed by the Dodd-Frank Act, contains certain requirements that apply to bank holding companies with more than $10 billion in assets, including an annual company-run stress test requirement and a requirement to use a risk committee of the Company's board of directors for enterprise-wide risk management practices. Webster meets these requirements.

In June 2011, the FRB approved a final debit card interchange rule pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act that would cap an issuer's base fee at 21 cents per transaction and allow an additional amount equal to 5 basis points of the transaction's value. The FRB separately issued a final rule in July 2012 that also allows a fraud-prevention adjustment of 1 cent per transaction conditioned upon an issuer developing, implementing, and updating reasonably designed fraud-prevention policies and procedures.

In April 2013, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (together, the “Commissions”) jointly issued final rules and guidelines to require certain regulated entities to establish programs to address risks of identity theft. The rules and guidelines implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. These provisions amended Section 615(e) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and directed the Commissions to adopt rules requiring entities that are subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction to address identity theft in two ways. First, the rules require financial institutions and creditors to develop and implement a written identity theft prevention program that is designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft in connection with certain existing accounts or the opening of new accounts. The rules include guidelines to assist entities in the formulation and maintenance of programs that would satisfy the requirements of the rules. Second, the rules establish special requirements for any credit and debit card issuers that are subject to the Commissions’ jurisdiction, to assess the validity of notifications of changes of address under certain circumstances. Webster implemented an ID Theft Prevention Program, approved on April 25, 2013 by its Board of Directors, to address these requirements.

In December 2013, the federal banking agencies jointly adopted final rules implementing Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly known as the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule restricts the ability of banking entities, such as Webster, to engage in proprietary trading or to own, sponsor, or have certain relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds, defined as Covered Funds. The final rule definition of Covered Funds includes certain investments such as collateralized loan obligation (“CLO”) and collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) securities. Compliance is generally required by July 21, 2017.

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act imposes a new set of requirements related to over-the-counter derivatives. Key provisions of Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act are being implemented through Commodity Futures Trading Commission ("CFTC") rulemakings with respect to previously unregulated derivatives, including interest rate swaps. Among other things, the CFTC’s rules focus on swap dealers, major swap participants and commercial entities that enter into OTC derivatives transactions to hedge or mitigate risk. Under these new rules and CFTC guidance, end users are subject to a wide range of requirements including capital, margining, clearing, documentation, reporting, eligibility and business conduct requirements.

The Company has adopted and complies with all aspects of the Title VII regulation that impact derivative activities including interest rate risk hedges and its customer loan hedge program.

It is difficult to predict at this time the specific impact certain provisions and yet to be finalized rules and regulations will have on the Company, including any regulations promulgated by the CFPB. Financial reform legislation and rules could have adverse implications on the financial industry, the competitive environment, and our ability to conduct business. Management will apply resources to ensure compliance with all applicable provisions of the regulatory reform, including the Dodd-Frank Act and any implementing rules, which may increase our costs of operations and adversely impact our earnings.

In addition, Webster and Webster Bank are subject to other regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain adequate capital above regulatory minimums. The appropriate federal regulatory authority is authorized to determine, under certain circumstances relating to the financial condition of a bank holding company or a bank, that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit payment thereof. The appropriate banking agency authorities have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a bank's capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice and that banking organizations should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.

In addition, under the National Bank Act, if the capital stock of Webster Bank is impaired by losses or otherwise, the OCC is authorized to require payment of the deficiency by assessment upon Webster. If the assessment is not paid within three months, the OCC could order a sale of the Webster Bank stock held by Webster to make good the deficiency.

Pursuant to the New Capital Rules, the minimum capital ratios effective January 1, 2015 are as follows:

The New Capital Rules also introduce a new “capital conservation buffer,” composed entirely of CET1, on top of these minimum risk-weighted asset ratios. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the capital conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity, and other capital instrument repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

Thus, when fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, the capital standards applicable to Webster will include an additional capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of CET1, effectively resulting in minimum ratios inclusive of the capital conservation buffer of (i) CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7%, (ii) Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.5%, and (iii) Total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 10.5%.

The New Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing assets, deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, 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 items, in the aggregate, exceed 15% of CET1.

In addition, under the current general risk-based capital rules, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income or loss items included in shareholders’ equity (for example, mark-to-market of securities held in the available-for-sale portfolio) under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles are reversed for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Pursuant to the New Capital Rules, the effects of certain of these items are not excluded; however, non-advanced approaches banking organizations, including the Company, may make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. The Company will make the one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items concurrently with the first filing of certain of Webster’s periodic regulatory reports in 2015. This election will not affect Webster's ability to meet all capital adequacy requirements to which it is subject.  

The New Capital Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities, from inclusion in bank holding companies’ Tier 1 capital, subject to phase-out in the case of bank holding companies, such as Webster, that had $15 billion or more in total consolidated assets as of December 31, 2009. As of December 31, 2014, the Company has $75.0 million of trust preferred securities included in the Tier 1 capital of Webster for regulatory reporting purposes pursuant to the Federal Reserve’s capital adequacy guidelines. The New Capital Rules require the Company to phase out trust preferred securities from Tier 1 capital, beginning January 1, 2015. Excluding trust preferred securities from the Tier 1 capital will not affect Webster’s ability to meet all capital adequacy requirements to which it is subject.

Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 will begin on January 1, 2015 and will be phased in over a 4-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter). The implementation of the capital conservation buffer will begin on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and increase by 0.625% on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019.

With respect to the Bank, the New Capital Rules revise the “prompt corrective action” (“PCA”) regulations adopted pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), by: (i) introducing a CET1 ratio requirement at each PCA category (other than critically under capitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8% (as compared to the current 6%); and (iii) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3% leverage ratio and still be adequately capitalized. The New Capital Rules do not change the total risk-based capital requirement for any PCA category.

The New Capital Rules prescribe a new standardized approach for risk weightings that expand the risk-weighting categories from the current four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset classes.

Management believes Webster will be in compliance with the targeted capital ratios upon implementation of the revised requirements, as finalized.

Further, Section 22(h) of the FRA restricts loans to directors, executive officers, and principal stockholders (“insiders”). Under Section 22(h), loans to insiders and their related interests may not exceed, together with all other outstanding loans to such persons and affiliated entities, the institution's total capital and surplus. Loans to insiders above specified amounts must receive the prior approval of the board of directors. Further, under Section 22(h), loans to directors, executive officers, and principal stockholders

must be made on terms substantially the same as offered in comparable transactions to other persons, except that such insiders may receive preferential loans made under a benefit or compensation program that is widely available to the bank's employees and does not give preference to the insider over the employees. Section 22(g) of the FRA places additional limitations on loans to executive officers.

On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing the ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage (QM) provisions of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “QM Rule”). The ability-to-repay provision requires creditors to make reasonable, good faith determinations that borrowers are able to repay their mortgages before extending the credit based on a number of factors and consideration of financial information about the borrower from reasonably reliable third-party documents. Under the Dodd-Frank Act and the QM Rule, loans meeting the definition of “qualified mortgage” are entitled to a presumption that the lender satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. The presumption is a conclusive presumption/safe harbor for prime loans meeting the QM requirements and a rebuttable presumption for higher-priced/subprime loans meeting the QM requirements. The definition of a “qualified mortgage” incorporates the statutory requirements, such as not allowing negative amortization or terms longer than 30 years. The QM Rule also adds an explicit maximum 43% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers if the loan is to meet the QM definition, though some mortgages that meet GSE, FHA, and VA underwriting guidelines may, for a period not to exceed seven years, meet the QM definition without being subject to the 43% debt-to-income limits. The QM Rule became effective on January 10, 2014.

In addition, federal law and certain state laws currently contain client privacy protection provisions. These provisions limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to affiliated companies and non-affiliated third parties. These rules require disclosure of privacy policies to clients and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to affiliates or non-affiliated third parties by means of "opt out" or "opt in" authorizations. Pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLBA") and certain state laws, companies are required to notify clients of security breaches resulting in unauthorized access to their personal information.

In February 2011, the FDIC issued rules to implement changes to the deposit insurance assessment base and risk-based assessments mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. The base for insurance assessments changed from domestic deposits to consolidated average assets less average tangible equity. Assessment rates are calculated using formulas that take into account the risk of the institution being assessed. The rule was effective April 1, 2011. On September 28, 2011, the FDIC issued notification to insured depository institutions that the transition guidance for reporting certain leveraged and subprime loans on the Call Report had been extended from October 1, 2011 to April 1, 2012. On October 9, 2012, the FDIC finalized the definitions of "higher-risk" consumer and C&I loans and securities used under Large Bank Pricing of deposit insurance assessments adopted February 25, 2011 for banks with $10 billion or more of assets. The final rule, among other things, renames leveraged loans “higher-risk C&I loans and securities”; renames subprime consumer loans “higher-risk consumer loans”; clarifies when an asset must be identified as higher risk; and clarifies the way securitizations are identified as higher risk.

Under the FDIA, the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC. Webster's management is not aware of any practice, condition, or violation that might lead to the termination of its deposit insurance.

Webster applies an integrated, forward-looking Enterprise Risk Management ("ERM") approach to identifying, assessing and managing risks across the Company. The ERM framework enables the aggregation of risk across the enterprise and ensures the Company has the tools, programs and processes in place to support informed decision making, anticipate risks before they materialize and maintain Webster's risk profile consistent with its risk strategy and appetite. Webster's risk appetite framework consists of a risk appetite statement supported by board and business-level scorecards for monitoring Webster's risk positions relative to its established risk appetite.

Key components of the ERM framework include a culture that promotes proactive risk management by all Webster bankers, a risk appetite framework consisting of a risk appetite statement and board and business-level scorecards for monitoring Webster's risk positions relative to its established risk appetite, and three lines of defense to manage and oversee risk. Bankers in each line of business serve as the first line of defense and have responsibility for identifying, managing and owning the risks in their businesses. Risk and other corporate support functions (e.g., Human Resource and Legal departments) serve as the second line of defense and are responsible for providing guidance, oversight and appropriate challenge to the first line of defense. Internal Audit and Credit Risk Review, both of which are independent of management, serve as the third line of defense.

The Risk Committee of the Board of Directors (“Risk Committee”), comprised of independent directors, oversees all Webster's risk-related matters and provides input and guidance to the Board of Directors and the Executive team, as appropriate. Webster's Enterprise Risk Management Committee (“ERMC”), which reports directly to the Risk Committee, is chaired by the Chief Risk Officer ("CRO") and is comprised of members of Webster's Executive Management Committee and Senior Risk Officers.

The CRO is responsible for establishing and maintaining the Company's ERM framework and overseeing credit risk, operational risk, compliance risk, and loan workout/recovery programs. The Corporate Treasurer, who reports to the Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), is responsible for overseeing market, liquidity, and capital risk management activities.

Credit Risk Management policies and transaction approvals are managed under the supervision of the Chief Credit Officer (“CCO”) who reports to the CRO. The CCO and team of credit executives are independent of the loan production and Treasury areas. The credit risk function oversees the underwriting, approval and portfolio management process, establishes and ensures adherence to credit policies, and manages the collections and problem asset resolution activities.

As part of Credit Risk Management governance, Webster established a Credit Risk Management Committee ("CRMC") that meets regularly to review key credit risk topics, issues, and policies. The CRMC reviews Webster's credit risk scorecard, which covers key risk indicators and limits established as part of the Company's risk appetite framework. The CRMC is chaired by the CCO and includes senior managers responsible for lending as well as senior managers from the Credit Risk Management function. Important findings regarding credit quality and trends within the loan and investment portfolios are regularly reported by the CCO to the ERMC and Risk Committee.

In addition to the Credit Risk Management team, there is an independent Credit Risk Review function that assesses risk ratings and credit underwriting process for all areas of the organization that incur credit risk. The head of Credit Risk Review reports directly to the Risk Committee and administratively to the CRO. Credit Risk Review findings are reported to the CRMC, ERMC and Risk Committee. Corrective measures are monitored and tested to ensure risk issues are mitigated or resolved.

The Company requires funds for dividends to shareholders, payment of debt obligations, repurchase of shares, potential acquisitions, and for general corporate purposes. Its sources of funds include dividends from Webster Bank, income from investment securities, the issuance of equity, and debt in the capital markets.

Both Webster Bank and the Company maintain a level of liquidity necessary to achieve their business objectives under both normal and stressed conditions. Liquidity risk is monitored and managed by ALCO and reviewed regularly with the ERMC, Risk Committee and Board of Directors.

The Operational Risk function is responsible for establishing processes and tools to identify, manage, and aggregate operational risk across the organization; providing guidance and advice on operational risk matters; and educating the organization on operational risks. Specific programs and functions have been implemented to manage the risks associated with legal and regulatory requirements, suppliers and other third-parties, information security, business disruption, fraud, models, and new products and services.

Webster's Operational Risk Management Committee ("ORMC"), which consists of Senior Risk Officers and senior managers responsible for operational risk management to periodically review the aforementioned programs, key operational risk trends, concerns, and mitigation best practices. The ORMC is co-chaired by the CRO and Director of Operating Risk Management, who is responsible for overseeing Webster's operational risk management framework.

Results of Internal Audit reviews are reported to management and the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors. Corrective measures are monitored to ensure risk issues are mitigated or resolved. The General Auditor reports directly to the Audit Committee and administratively to the Chief Executive Officer. The appointment or replacement of the General Auditor is overseen by the Audit Committee.

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Our financial condition and results of operations are subject to various risks inherent in our business. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect us are described below. If any of the events or circumstances described in the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition or results of operations could suffer. You should consider all of the following risks together with all of the other information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Changes in interest rates and spreads could have an impact on earnings and results of operations which could have a negative impact on the value of our stock.

The possibility of the economy’s return to recessionary conditions and the possibility of further turmoil or volatility in the financial markets would likely have an adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

We continue to face risks resulting from the aftermath of the severe recession generally and the moderate pace of the current recovery. A slowing or failure of the economic recovery would likely aggravate the adverse effects of these difficult economic and market conditions on us and on others in the financial services industry.

In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with the current economic and market environment:

We are subject to extensive government regulation and supervision, which may interfere with our ability to conduct our business and may negatively impact our financial results.

Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent any such violations, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur.   See the section captioned “Supervision and Regulation” in Item 1 of this report for further information.

If all or a significant portion of the unrealized losses in our portfolio of investment securities were determined to be other-than-temporarily impaired, we would recognize a material charge to our earnings and our capital ratios would be adversely impacted.

Our allowance for loan and lease losses may be insufficient.

Changes in local economic conditions could adversely affect our business.

Our stock price can be volatile.

General market fluctuations, industry factors and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes, credit loss trends or currency fluctuations, could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of our operating results.

We operate in a highly competitive industry and market area. If we fail to compete effectively, our financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The unsoundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.

If the goodwill that we have recorded in connection with our acquisitions becomes impaired, it could have a negative impact on our profitability.

We may not be able to attract and retain skilled people.

We continually encounter technological change. The failure to understand and adapt to these changes could negatively impact our business.

Our controls and procedures may fail or be circumvented, which may result in a material adverse effect on our business.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risks. A failure to successfully manage these risks may have a material adverse effect on our business.

A failure or breach of our systems, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers, including as a result of cyber attacks, could disrupt our businesses, result in the misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses.

Third parties with whom we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including exchanges, clearing houses, financial intermediaries or vendors that provide services or security solutions for our operations, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints.

Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber attacks or other information security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains heightened and as a result the continued development and enhancement of our controls, processes and practices designed to protect our systems, computers, software, data and networks from attack, damage or unauthorized access remain a priority for us. As an additional layer of protection, we have purchased network and privacy liability risk insurance coverage which includes digital asset loss, business interruption loss, network security liability, privacy liability, network extortion and data breach coverage. As cyber threats continue to evolve, we may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities.

We may not pay dividends if we are not able to receive dividends from our subsidiary, Webster Bank.

We are exposed to risk of environmental liabilities with respect to properties to which we obtain title.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Webster has no unresolved comments from the SEC staff.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

The Company's headquarters is located in Waterbury, CT. This facility houses the Company's executive and primary administrative offices, as well as the principal banking headquarters of Webster Bank.

The following subsidiaries and divisions maintain the following offices: Webster Private Banking is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut with offices in Hartford, Connecticut; New Haven, Connecticut; Waterbury, Connecticut; Greenwich, Connecticut; Wilton, Connecticut; White Plains, New York; and Providence, Rhode Island. Webster Capital Finance is headquartered in Kensington, Connecticut. Webster Business Credit Corporation is headquartered in New York, New York with offices in Boston, Massachusetts; Radnor, Pennsylvania; New Milford, Connecticut; and Washington D.C. HSA Bank is headquartered in Sheboygan, Wisconsin with an office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, Webster and its subsidiaries are subject to certain legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. Management presently believes that the ultimate outcome of these proceedings, individually and in the aggregate, will not be material to Webster or its consolidated financial position. Webster establishes reserves for specific legal matters when it determines that the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is probable and the loss is reasonably estimable. Legal proceedings are subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings could occur that could cause Webster to adjust its litigation reserves or could have, individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, or operating results.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

None

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Webster's common shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “WBS.”

Under the regulations, the OCC may grant specific approval permitting divergence from the requirements and also has the discretion to prohibit any otherwise permitted capital distribution on general safety and soundness grounds. In addition, the payment of dividends is subject to certain other restrictions, none of which is expected to limit any dividend policy that the Board of Directors may in the future decide to adopt.

If the capital of Webster is diminished by depreciation in the value of its property, by losses, or otherwise, to an amount less than the aggregate amount of the capital represented by the issued and outstanding stock of all classes having a preference upon the distribution of assets, no dividends may be paid out of net profits until the deficiency in the amount of capital represented by the issued and outstanding stock of all classes having a preference upon the distribution of assets has been repaired. See the “Supervision and Regulation” section contained elsewhere within this report for additional information on dividends.

Registered securities are exchanged as part of employee and director stock compensation plans.

The performance graph compares Webster’s cumulative shareholder return on its common stock over the last five fiscal years to the cumulative total return of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (“S&P 500 Index”) and the Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Regional Banking Index (“KRX”). KRX is used as the industry index because Webster believes it provides a representative comparison and appropriate benchmark against which to measure relative bank stock performance.

Total shareholder return is measured by dividing total dividends (assuming dividend reinvestment) for the measurement period plus share price change for a period by the share price at the beginning of the measurement period. Webster’s cumulative shareholder return over a five-year period is based on an initial investment of $100 on December 31, 2009.

Comparison of Five Year Cumulative Total Return Among Webster, S&P 500 Index, KRX

ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements of Webster Financial Corporation and the Notes thereto included elsewhere within this report (collectively, the “Consolidated Financial Statements”).

Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”). Forward-looking statements can be identified by words such as “believes,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “targeted,” “continue,” “remain,” “will,” “should,” “may,” “plans,” “estimates,” and similar references to future periods; however, such words are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. Examples of forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) projections of revenues, expenses, income or loss, earnings or loss per share, and other financial items; (ii) statements of plans, objectives and expectations of Webster or its management or Board of Directors; (iii) statements of future economic performance; and (iv) statements of assumptions underlying such statements. Forward-looking statements are based on Webster’s current expectations and assumptions regarding its business, the economy and other future conditions. Because forward-looking statements relate to the future, they are subject to inherent uncertainties, risks and changes in circumstances that are difficult to predict. Webster’s actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by the forward-looking statements, which are neither statements of historical fact nor guarantees or assurances of future performance. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to: (i) local, regional, national and international economic conditions and the impact they may have on us and our customers and our assessment of that impact; (ii) volatility and disruption in national and international financial markets; (iii) government intervention in the U.S. financial system; (iv) changes in the level of non-performing assets and charge-offs; (v) changes in estimates of future reserve requirements based upon the periodic review thereof under relevant regulatory and accounting requirements; (vi) adverse conditions in the securities markets that lead to impairment in the value of securities in our investment portfolio; (vii) inflation, interest rate, securities market and monetary fluctuations; (viii) the timely development and acceptance of new products and services and perceived overall value of these products and services by customers; (ix) changes in consumer spending, borrowings and savings habits; (x) technological changes and cyber-security matters; (xi) the ability to increase market share and control expenses; (xii) changes in the competitive environment among banks, financial holding companies and other financial services providers; (xiii) the effect of changes in laws and regulations (including laws and regulations concerning taxes, banking, securities and insurance) with which we and our subsidiaries must comply, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and the New Capital Rules; (xiv) the effect of changes in accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the regulatory agencies, as well as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and other accounting standard setters; (xv) the costs and effects of legal and regulatory developments including the resolution of legal proceedings or regulatory or other governmental inquiries and the results of regulatory examinations or reviews; and (xvi) our success at managing the risks involved in the foregoing items. Any forward-looking statement made by the Company in this Annual Report on Form 10-K speaks only as of the date on which it pursuant to is made. Factors or events that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for the Company to predict all of them. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

Accounting estimates are necessary in the application of certain accounting policies and procedures that are particularly susceptible to significant change. Critical accounting policies are defined as those that require the most complex or subjective judgment, are reflective of significant uncertainties, and could potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. Management has identified the Company's most critical accounting policies and accounting estimates, which have been discussed with the appropriate committees of the Board of Directors, as follows:

Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses

The allowance for loan and lease losses is a reserve established through a provision for credit losses charged to expense, which represents management’s best estimation of probable losses that are inherent within the Company’s portfolio of loans and leases as of the balance sheet date. The allowance for loan and lease losses is based on guidance provided in SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 102, “Selected Loan Loss Allowance Methodology and Documentation Issues” and includes amounts calculated in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 310, “Receivables” and allowance allocation calculated in accordance with ASC Topic 450, “Contingencies.”

The level of the allowance for loan and lease losses reflects management’s judgment based on continuing evaluation of industry concentrations, specific credit risks, loss experience, current portfolio quality, present economic, political, and regulatory conditions and inherent risks not captured in quantitative modeling and methodologies, as well as trends therein. This allowance balance may be allocated for specific portfolio credits; however, the entire allowance balance is available for any credit that, in management’s judgment, should be charged off. While management utilizes its best judgment and information available, the ultimate adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses is dependent upon a variety of factors beyond the Company’s control, including performance of the Company’s loan portfolio, the economy, changes in interest rates, and regulatory authorities altering their loan classification guidance.

Fair Value Measurements

The Company records certain assets and liabilities at fair value in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date, as defined by applicable accounting guidance.

To increase consistency and comparability in fair value measures, management adheres to the three-level hierarchy established to prioritize the inputs used in valuation techniques, which consists of (i) quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities that the reporting entity can access at the measurement date, (ii) inputs other than quoted prices included in Level 1 that are observable for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly, and (iii) unobservable data such as the Company’s own data or single dealer non-binding pricing quotes. All assets and liabilities recorded at fair value are categorized both on a recurring and nonrecurring basis into the above three levels. At the end of each quarter, management assesses the valuation hierarchy for each asset or liability and, as a result, assets or liabilities may be transferred between hierarchy levels due to changes in availability of observable market inputs used to measure fair value at that measurement date.

When observable market prices are not available, fair value is estimated using modeling techniques such as discounted cash flow analysis. These modeling techniques utilize assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability, including assumptions about the risk inherent in a particular valuation technique, the effect of a restriction on the sale or use of an asset, and the risk of nonperformance. Depending on the nature of the asset or liability, the Company uses various valuation techniques and assumptions when estimating the instrument’s fair value. In addition, changes in legislation or regulatory environment could further impact these assumptions.

Credit-driven OTTI is monitored for pooled trust preferred securities due to the continued inactive market and illiquid nature in the entire capital structure of these CDO securities. An internal cash flow model is used to value these securities on a quarterly basis. The Company employs an internal CDO model for projection of future cash flows and discounting those cash flows to a net present value. Each underlying issuer in the pool is rated internally using the latest financial data on each institution, and future deferrals, defaults and losses are then estimated on the basis of continued stress in the financial markets. Further, all current and projected deferrals are not assumed to cure, and all current and projected defaults are assumed to have no recovery value. The resulting net cash flows are then discounted at current market levels for similar types of products that are actively trading. Management compares the amortized cost to the present value of expected cash flows adjusted for deferrals and defaults using the discount margin at the time of purchase to determine potential OTTI due to credit losses, which would be charged against earnings. Other factors that management considers include an analysis of excess subordination and temporary interest shortfall coverage. Additional interest deferrals, defaults, or ratings changes could result in further OTTI due to credit losses.

On December 10, 2013, Federal banking agencies jointly adopted final regulations to implement Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, commonly known as the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule restricts the ability of banking entities to engage in proprietary trading or have an ownership interest in Covered Funds. The final rule definition of a Covered Fund includes investments such as certain CLO and CDO securities, in the available-for-sale portfolio, and alternative investments. The company will divest its Covered Fund investments in accordance with the conformance period defined in the Final Rule. As a result, OTTI is immediately triggered since it becomes more likely than not that the company would be required to divest of a security with a current unrealized loss before achieving full recovery of its cost. Unlike credit-driven OTTI, when only the credit portion of the impairment is charged against earnings, a required divestiture situation results in a full write-down to market value in the current period. Therefore, the Company recognized OTTI of $1.1 million related to the CLO securities for the year ended December 31, 2014.

Goodwill Valuation

Goodwill represents the excess purchase price of businesses acquired over the fair value, at acquisition, of the identifiable net assets acquired and is assigned to specific reporting units. Goodwill is evaluated for impairment, at least annually, in accordance with ASC Topic 350, "Intangibles - Goodwill and Other." Quarterly, an assessment of potential triggering events is performed and should events or circumstances be present that, more likely than not, would reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying value, the Company would then evaluate: periods of market disruption; market capitalization to book value erosion; financial services industry-wide factors; geo-economic factors, and internally developed forecasts to determine if its recorded goodwill may be impaired. Goodwill is evaluated for impairment by either performing a qualitative evaluation or a two-step quantitative test. The qualitative evaluation is an assessment of factors to determine whether it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, including goodwill. Discounted cash flow estimates, which include significant management assumptions relating to revenue growth rates, net interest margins, weighted-average cost of capital, and future economic and market conditions, are used to determine fair value under the two-step quantitative test. In “Step 1,” the fair value of a reporting unit is compared to its carrying amount, including goodwill. If the fair value of the reporting unit exceeds its carrying amount, goodwill of the reporting unit is not considered impaired, and it is not necessary to continue to “Step 2” of the impairment process. Otherwise, Step 2 is performed where the implied fair value of goodwill is compared to the carrying value of goodwill in the reporting unit. If a reporting unit's carrying value exceeds fair value, the difference is charged to non-interest expense.

During 2014, Webster performed its annual impairment test under Step 1 as of its elected measurement date of August 31. Subsequently, Webster elected to change prospectively the measurement date for its annual goodwill impairment test from August 31 to November 30 of each fiscal year beginning in 2015. In conjunction with this change, Webster performed a Step 1 impairment test at December 31, 2014. This change is not expected to result in the delay, acceleration, or avoidance of an impairment charge. Webster believes this timing is preferable as it better aligns the goodwill impairment test with the Company's strategic business planning process, which is a key component of the goodwill impairment test.

The valuation of goodwill involves estimates which require significant management judgment. Determining the fair value of a reporting unit involves several management estimates, including developing a discounted cash flow valuation model which utilizes variables such as revenue growth rates, expense trends, discount rates, and terminal values. Based upon an evaluation of key data and market factors, management selects from a range, the specific variables to be incorporated into the valuation model. Projected future cash flows are discounted using estimated rates based on the Capital Asset Pricing Model, which considers the risk-free interest rate, market risk premium, beta, and unsystematic risk and size premium adjustments specific to the reporting unit. The Company utilizes both an income approach and a market approach to arrive at an indicated fair value range for the reporting unit. The comparable company method is used to corroborate the income approach, giving an indication of the fair value of equity of the reporting units, by including small to mid-sized banks based in the Northeast with significant geographic or product line overlap to Webster and its reporting units.

In estimating the carrying value of each reporting unit, Webster also uses a methodology that is based upon Basel III asset risk weightings and fully allocates book capital to all assets and liabilities of each reporting unit. Capital is allocated to assets based on risk weightings and to funding liabilities based on an assessment of operational risk, collateral needs and residual leverage capital as appropriate.

Calculations around sensitivity are hypothetical and should not be considered to be predictive of future performance. Impacts to implied fair value based on adverse changes in assumptions should not be extrapolated as the relationship of change in assumption to the change in fair value may not be linear.

In accordance with ASC Topic 740, "Income Taxes," certain aspects of accounting for income taxes require significant management judgment, including assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets and the resolution of uncertain tax positions. Such judgments are subjective and involve estimates and assumptions about matters that are inherently uncertain. Should actual factors and conditions differ materially from those used by management, the actual realization of deferred tax assets and resolution of uncertain tax positions could differ materially from the amounts recorded in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Deferred tax assets generally represent items that can be used as a tax deduction or credit in future income tax returns and for which a financial statement tax benefit has been recognized. The realization of deferred tax assets depends upon future sources of taxable income and the existence of prior years' taxable income to which carry back refund claims could be made. Valuation allowances are established for those deferred tax assets determined not likely to be realized based on management's judgment.

Tax positions that are uncertain but meet a more likely than not recognition threshold are measured as the largest amount of tax benefit that has a greater than 50% likelihood of being realized upon settlement with a taxing authority that has full knowledge of all relevant information. The determination of whether or not a tax position meets the more likely than not recognition threshold considers the facts, circumstances and information available at the reporting date and is subject to management's judgment.

Defined Benefit Pension and Postretirement Benefits Plans

See Note 1 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere within this report for details of recently issued accounting pronouncements and their expected impact on the Company's financial statements.

The primary factors positively impacting income before tax expense include:

Selected financial highlights are presented in the following table:

The efficiency ratio, which measures the costs expended to generate a dollar of revenue, is calculated excluding foreclosed property expense, amortization of intangibles, gain or loss on securities, and other non-recurring items. Accordingly, this is also a non-GAAP financial measure.

The Company believes the use of these non-GAAP financial measures provides additional clarity in assessing the results of the Company. Other companies may define or calculate supplemental financial data differently.

The following table reconciles the non-GAAP financial measures with financial measures defined by GAAP:

The following table summarizes the Company's daily average balances, interest, average yields and net interest margin on a fully tax-equivalent basis:

The table below describes the extent to which changes in interest rates and changes in the volume of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities have impacted interest income and interest expense during the periods indicated. Information is provided in each category with respect to the impact attributable to changes in volume (change in volume multiplied by prior rate), changes attributable to rates (change in rates multiplied by prior volume), and the total net change. The change attributable to the combined impact of volume and rate has been allocated proportionately to the change due to volume and the change due to rate.