Toggle SGML Header (+)


Section 1: 10-K (FORM 10-K)

Document
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
þ
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 
For the transition period from             to     

Commission file number 001-34095 
FIRST BUSINESS FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Wisconsin
 
39-1576570
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
 
 
401 Charmany Drive, Madison, WI
 
53719
(Address of principal executive offices)
 
(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (608) 238-8008

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: 
Title of each class
Trading Symbol(s)
Name of each exchange on which registered
Common Stock, $0.01 par value
FBIZ
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act
None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ¨    No  þ
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  þ
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  þ    No  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted 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 such files.)    Yes  þ    No  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer”, “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Large accelerated filer o
Accelerated filer þ
Non-accelerated filer o
Smaller reporting company þ
Emerging growth company o

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes  ¨    No  þ
The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the closing price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $203.9 million.
As of February 18, 2020, 8,513,390 shares of common stock were outstanding.
  
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III – Portions of the Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 24, 2020 are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

1


Table of Contents



2

Table of Contents

PART I.
 
Item 1. Business
BUSINESS
General

First Business Financial Services, Inc. (together with all of its subsidiaries, collectively referred to as the “Corporation,” “FBFS,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) is a registered bank holding company originally incorporated in 1986 under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and is engaged in the commercial banking business through its wholly-owned bank subsidiary, First Business Bank (“FBB” or the “Bank”), headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin. All of our operations are conducted through the Bank and certain subsidiaries of FBB. The Bank operates as a business bank, delivering a full line of commercial banking products and services tailored to meet the specific needs of small and medium-sized businesses, business owners, executives, professionals, and high net worth individuals. Our products and services include those for business banking, private wealth, and bank consulting. Within business banking, we offer commercial lending, consumer and other lending, asset-based lending, accounts receivable financing, equipment financing, vendor financing, Small Business Administration (“SBA”) lending and servicing, treasury management services, and company retirement plans. Our private wealth services for executives and individuals include trust and estate administration, financial planning, investment management, and private banking. For other banks, our bank consulting experts provide investment portfolio administrative services, asset liability management services, and asset liability management process validation. We do not utilize a branch network to attract retail clients. Our operating philosophy is predicated on deep client relationships fostered by local banking partners and specialized business lines where we provide skilled expertise, combined with the efficiency of centralized administrative functions, such as information technology, loan and deposit operations, finance and accounting, credit administration, compliance, marketing, and human resources. Our focused model allows experienced staff to provide the level of financial expertise needed to develop and maintain long-term relationships with our clients. We conduct our business operations through one operating segment.
The Corporation previously owned three separate bank charters: Alterra Bank (“Alterra”), Leawood, Kansas, First Business Bank-Milwaukee (“FBB-Milwaukee”), Brookfield, Wisconsin, and FBB, Madison, Wisconsin. Effective June 1, 2017, Alterra and FBB-Milwaukee were merged with and into FBB. The Corporation’s existing management structure remains unchanged, with the current roles and decision making authority retained by local banking leaders, as well as the heads of our private wealth management and specialty finance businesses.
As of December 31, 2019, on a consolidated basis, we had total assets of $2.097 billion, total gross loans and leases of $1.715 billion, total deposits of $1.530 billion, and total stockholders’ equity of $194.2 million.

Business Lines

Commercial Lending
We strive to meet the specific commercial lending needs of small- to medium-sized companies in our primary markets in Wisconsin, Kansas, and Missouri, predominantly through lines of credit and term loans to businesses with annual sales of up to $75 million. Through FBB, we service the greater Madison area, Southeast Wisconsin, Northeast Wisconsin, and the greater Kansas City Metro.
Our commercial loans are typically secured by various types of business assets, including inventory, receivables, and equipment. We also originate loans secured by commercial real estate, including owner-occupied commercial facilities, multi-family housing, office buildings, retail centers, and, to a lesser extent, commercial real estate construction loans. In very limited cases, we may originate loans on an unsecured basis. As of December 31, 2019, our commercial real estate and commercial loans – excluding asset-based lending, equipment financing, and SBA lending described below – represented approximately 80% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.
Consumer and Other Lending
The Bank originates a small amount of consumer loans. As of December 31, 2019, our consumer and other loans represented approximately 2% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.
Asset-Based Lending
First Business Capital Corp. (“FBCC”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FBB, provides asset-based lending to small- to medium-sized companies. With its sales offices located in several states, FBCC serves clients nationwide.

1

Table of Contents

FBCC primarily provides revolving lines of credit and term loans for financial and strategic acquisitions, capital expenditures, working capital to support rapid growth, bank debt refinancing, debt restructuring, corporate turnaround strategies, and debtor-in-possession financing in the course of bankruptcy proceedings or the exit therefrom. As a bank-owned, asset-based lender with strong underwriting standards, FBCC is positioned to provide cost-effective financing solutions to companies who do not have the established, stable cash flows necessary to qualify for traditional commercial lending products. These borrowing relationships generally range between $2 million and $12 million with terms of 24 to 60 months. Asset-based lending typically generates higher yields than traditional commercial lending. This line of business complements our traditional commercial loan portfolio and provides us with more diverse income opportunities. As of December 31, 2019, FBCC – excluding accounts receivable financing described below – represented approximately 8% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.
First Business Growth Funding (“FBGF”), formerly known as First Business Factors, a division of FBCC, provides funding to clients by purchasing accounts receivable primarily on a full recourse basis. FBGF provides competitive rates to clients seeking growth and needing cash flow support, or who are experiencing financial issues. Accounts receivable financing typically generates higher yields than traditional commercial lending and complements our traditional commercial portfolio. FBGF is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, and with its sales offices located in several states, is able to serve clients nationwide. As of December 31, 2019, FBGF represented approximately 1% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.
Equipment Financing
First Business Equipment Finance, LLC (“FBEF”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of FBB, delivers a broad range of equipment finance products, including loans and leases, to address the financing needs of commercial clients in a variety of industries. FBEF’s focus includes manufacturing equipment, industrial assets, construction and transportation equipment, and a wide variety of other commercial equipment. These financings generally range between $250,000 and $5 million with terms of 36 to 84 months. As of December 31, 2019, FBEF – excluding small ticket vendor equipment financing described below – represented approximately 2% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.
FBEF also delivers small ticket vendor equipment financing through its proprietary, online, application-only credit decision architecture. Through this nationwide distribution channel, FBEF provides financing solutions for equipment vendors and their end users. These equipment vendors specialize primarily in healthcare, manufacturing, and technology equipment, as well as specialty vehicles. The end users (i.e., our lessees and borrowers) are primarily businesses utilizing vocational trucks, physician group practices, veterinarians, and hospitals. These financings generally range between $25,000 and $250,000 with terms of 36 to 84 months. Small ticket vendor equipment financing typically generates higher yields than traditional commercial lending. As of December 31, 2019, our small ticket vendor equipment financing business line represented approximately 3% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.
SBA Lending and Servicing
SBA loans are made through programs designed by the federal government to assist the small business community in obtaining financing. We are an approved participant in the SBA’s Preferred Lender Program (“PLP”). The PLP is part of the SBA's effort to streamline the procedures necessary to provide financial assistance to the small business community. Under this program, the SBA delegates the final credit decision and most servicing and liquidation authority and responsibility to PLP lenders. We leverage this expertise and capacity to package, underwrite, process, service, and liquidate, if necessary, SBA loans nationwide.
Our SBA loans fall into three categories: loans originated under the SBA’s 7(a) term loan program; loans originated under the SBA’s 504 program; and SBA Express loans and lines of credit. Specific program guidelines vary based on the SBA loan program; however, all loans must be underwritten, originated, monitored, and serviced according to the SBA’s Standard Operating Procedures in order to maintain the guaranty, if any, under the SBA program. Except for loans originated under the SBA’s 504 program, the SBA generally provides a guaranty to the lender ranging from 50% to 90% of principal and interest as an inducement to the lender to originate the loan.
The majority of our SBA loans are originated using the 7(a) term loan program. This program typically provides a guaranty of 75% of principal and interest. In the event of default on the loan, the lender may request that the SBA purchase the guaranteed portion of the loan for an amount equal to outstanding principal plus accrued interest permissible under SBA guidelines. In addition, the SBA will share on a pro-rata basis in certain costs of collection, subject to SBA rules and limits, as well as the proceeds of liquidation.
SBA lending is designed to generate new business opportunities for the Bank by meeting the needs of clients that cannot be met with conventional bank loans. We earn interest income from these loans, generally at variable rates higher than those of our traditional commercial loans. We also obtain funding and service fee income by gathering deposits from these clients. In addition, our SBA strategy generates non-interest income from two primary sources. First, we typically sell the

2

Table of Contents

guaranteed portions of the SBA loans to aggregators who securitize the assets for sale in the secondary market. We receive a premium on each loan sold, resulting in the recognition of a gain in the period of sale. Second, we receive servicing income from the holder of the securitized asset over the life of the loan. As of December 31, 2019, the on-balance sheet portion of SBA loans represented approximately 4% of our total gross loans and leases receivable.

Treasury Management Services

The Bank provides comprehensive services for commercial clients to manage their cash and liquidity, including lockbox, accounts receivable collection services, electronic payment solutions, fraud detection and protection, information reporting, reconciliation, and data integration solutions. For our clients involved in international trade, the Bank offers international payment services, foreign exchange, and trade letters of credit. The Bank also offers a variety of deposit accounts and balance optimization solutions.

Private Wealth Management

FBB, through its First Business Trust & Investments (“FBTI”) division, acts as fiduciary and investment manager for individual and corporate clients, creating and executing asset allocation strategies tailored to each client’s unique situation. FBTI has full fiduciary powers and offers trust and estate administration, financial planning, and investment management, acting in a trustee or agent capacity, as well as company retirement plan services. FBTI also provides brokerage and custody-only services, for which it administers and safeguards assets, but does not provide investment advice. As of December 31, 2019, FBTI had $1.892 billion of assets under management and administration.

Bank Consulting Services

FBB, through its newly created First Business Consulting Services (“FBCS”) division, provides outsourced treasury services to assist banks and other financial institutions with balance sheet management. These services include investment portfolio administrative services, asset liability management services, and asset liability process validations required by regulators.

Competition

The Bank encounters strong competition across all of our lines of business. Such competition includes banks, savings institutions, mortgage banking companies, credit unions, finance companies, equipment finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage firms, investment banking firms, and FinTech companies. The Bank also competes with regional and national financial institutions, many of which have greater liquidity, higher lending limits, greater access to capital, more established market recognition, and more resources than the Bank. We believe the experience, expertise, and responsiveness of our banking professionals, and our focus on fostering long-lasting relationships sets us apart from our competitors.

Employees

At December 31, 2019, we had 301 employees equating to approximately 288 full-time equivalent employees (“FTE”). None of our employees are represented by a union or subject to a collective bargaining agreement.

Subsidiaries

First Business Bank

FBB is a state bank chartered in 1909 in Wisconsin under the name Kingston State Bank. In 1990, FBB relocated its home office to Madison, Wisconsin, and began focusing on providing high-quality banking services to small- to medium-sized businesses located in Madison and the surrounding area. FBB’s business lines include commercial loans, commercial real estate loans, equipment loans and leases, commercial deposit accounts, and treasury management services. FBB offers a variety of deposit accounts and personal loans to business owners, executives, professionals, and high net worth individuals. FBB also offers private wealth management services through FBTI and bank consulting services through FBCS, both divisions of FBB. FBB has four full-service banking locations in Madison, Brookfield, and Appleton, Wisconsin, and Leawood, Kansas.
FBB has nine wholly-owned subsidiaries. Refer to Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Non-bank Consolidated Subsidiaries for additional information on FBB’s

3

Table of Contents

subsidiaries. As of December 31, 2019, FBB had total gross loans and leases receivable of $1.715 billion, total deposits of $1.531 billion, and total stockholders’ equity of $222.1 million.

FBFS Statutory Trust II

In September 2008, FBFS formed FBFS Statutory Trust II (“Trust II”), a Delaware business trust wholly-owned by FBFS. In 2008, Trust II completed the sale of $10.0 million of 10.5% fixed rate trust preferred securities. Trust II also issued common securities in the amount of $315,000 to FBFS. Trust II used the proceeds from the offering to purchase $10.3 million of 10.5% junior subordinated notes issued by FBFS. FBFS has the right to redeem the junior subordinated notes at each interest payment date on or after September 26, 2013. The preferred securities are mandatorily redeemable upon the maturity of the junior subordinated notes on September 26, 2038. FBFS’s ownership interest in Trust II has not been consolidated into the financial statements.

Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 401 Charmany Drive, Madison, Wisconsin 53719 and our telephone number is (608) 238-8008. We maintain an Internet website at www.firstbusiness.com. This Form 10-K and all of our other filings under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), are available free of charge through that website, including copies of our proxy statement, annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we file those materials with, or furnish them to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference into this Form 10-K.

Markets

Although certain of our business lines are marketed throughout the Midwest and beyond, our primary markets lie in Wisconsin, Kansas, and Missouri. Specifically, our three markets in Wisconsin consist of the greater Madison area, Southeast Wisconsin, and Northeast Wisconsin. We serve the greater Kansas City Metro through our Leawood, Kansas office, which is located in the Kansas City metropolitan statistical area. Each of our primary markets provides a unique set of economic and demographic characteristics which provide us with a variety of strategic opportunities. A brief description of each of our primary markets is as follows:

Greater Madison Area

As the capital of Wisconsin and home of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the greater Madison area, specifically Dane County, offers an appealing economic environment populated by a highly educated workforce. While the economy of the greater Madison area is driven in large part by the government and education sectors, there is also a diverse array of industries outside of these segments. The greater Madison area is also home to technology and research and development related companies, which benefit from the area’s strong governmental and academic ties, as well as several major health care systems and hospitals, which provides healthcare services to South Central Wisconsin.

Southeast Wisconsin

Our Milwaukee market, the primary commercial and industrial hub for Southeast Wisconsin, provides a diverse economic base, with both a highly skilled labor force and significant manufacturing base. The most prominent economic sectors in the Milwaukee market include manufacturing, financial services, health care, diversified service companies, and education. Milwaukee is home to several major hospitals, providing health services to the greater Southeast Wisconsin market, several large academic institutions including the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Marquette University, and a wide variety of small- to medium-sized firms with representatives in nearly every industrial classification.

Northeast Wisconsin

The cities of Appleton, Green Bay, Oshkosh, and Manitowoc, Wisconsin serve as the primary population centers in our Northeast Wisconsin market and provide an attractive market to a variety of industries, including transportation, utilities, packaging, and diversified services, with the most significant economic drivers being the manufacturing, packaging, and paper goods industries.


4

Table of Contents

Kansas City Metro

Geographically located in the center of the U.S., the greater Kansas City Metro includes 15 counties and more than 50 communities in Missouri and Kansas, including a central business district located in Kansas City, Missouri and communities on both sides of the state line. The area is known for the diversity of its economic base, with major employers in manufacturing and distribution, architecture and engineering, technology, telecommunications, financial services, and bioscience, as well as local government and higher education.

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT

The following contains certain information about the executive officers of FBFS. There are no family relationships between any directors or executive officers of FBFS.

Corey A. Chambas, age 57, has served as a director of FBFS since July 2002, as Chief Executive Officer since December 2006 and as President since February 2005. He served as Chief Operating Officer of FBFS from February 2005 to September 2006 and as Executive Vice President from July 2002 to February 2005. He served as Chief Executive Officer of FBB from July 1999 to September 2006 and as President of FBB from July 1999 to February 2005. He also currently serves as a director of our subsidiary FMIC. Mr. Chambas has over 30 years of commercial banking experience. Prior to joining FBFS in 1993, he was a Vice President of Commercial Lending with M&I Bank, now known as BMO Harris Bank, N.A. (“BMO Harris Bank”), in Madison, Wisconsin.

Edward G. Sloane, Jr., age 59, has served as Chief Financial Officer of FBFS since January 2016. Mr. Sloane also serves as the Chief Financial Officer of the Bank. Mr. Sloane has over 30 years of financial services experience including mergers and acquisitions, strategic planning and financial reporting and analysis. Prior to joining FBFS, Mr. Sloane was Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer with Peoples Bancorp, Inc. in Marietta, Ohio from 2008 to 2015. He also served as Senior Vice President of Strategic Planning & Analysis for WesBanco, Inc. in Wheeling, West Virginia from 2006 to 2008, as Senior Vice President and Controller from 1998 to 2006 and in various other capacities from 1989 to 1998.

Michael J. Losenegger, age 62, has served as Chief Credit Officer of FBFS since May 2011. Mr. Losenegger also serves as the Chief Credit Officer of the Bank. He also currently serves as a director for our subsidiaries FBCC and FBEF. Prior to being appointed Chief Credit Officer, Mr. Losenegger served as FBFS’s Chief Operating Officer from September 2006 to May 2011. Mr. Losenegger joined FBFS in 2003 and has held various positions with FBB, including Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President of Business Development. Mr. Losenegger has over 30 years of experience in commercial lending. Prior to joining FBFS, Mr. Losenegger was Senior Vice President of Lending at M&I Bank, now known as BMO Harris Bank, in Madison, Wisconsin.

Barbara M. Conley, age 66, has served as FBFS’s General Counsel since June 2008. Ms. Conley also serves as General Counsel of the Bank. She has over 35 years of experience in commercial banking. Immediately prior to joining FBFS in 2007, Ms. Conley was a Senior Vice President in Corporate Banking with Associated Bank, National Association. She had been employed at Associated Bank since May 1976.

Jodi A. Chandler, age 55, has served as Chief Human Resources Officer of FBFS since January 2010. Prior to that, she held the position of Senior Vice President-Human Resources for several years. She has been an employee of FBFS for over 25 years.

Mark J. Meloy, age 58, has served as Chief Executive Officer of FBB since December 2007. Mr. Meloy joined FBFS in 2000 and has held various positions including Executive Vice President of FBB and President and Chief Executive Officer of FBB-Milwaukee. He currently serves as CEO of FBEF. He also currently serves as a director of our subsidiaries FBB, FBCC and FBEF. Mr. Meloy has over 25 years of commercial lending experience. Prior to joining FBFS, Mr. Meloy was a Vice President and Senior Relationship Manager with Firstar Bank, NA, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, now known as U.S. Bank, working in their financial institutions group with mergers and acquisition financing.

Daniel S. Ovokaitys, age 46, has served as Chief Information Officer since June 2014. Prior to joining FBFS, Mr. Ovokaitys held the position of Head of Corporate IT (North/South America) for Merz Pharmaceuticals, located in Frankfurt, Germany, from 2010 to 2014. He also served as Director of IT for Aurora Health Care from 2006 to 2010 and Manager of IT for the American Transmission Company from 2000 to 2006.


5


David R. Seiler, age 55, has served as Chief Operating Officer of FBFS since April 2016. He also currently serves as a director for our subsidiary FBCC. Mr. Seiler has over 25 years of financial services experience including his previous position as Managing Director (formerly Senior Vice President/Manager) of the Correspondent Banking Division with BMO Harris Bank in Milwaukee, Wisconsin which he held from 2007 to 2016. Prior to that, he held the position of Senior Vice President/Team Leader, Correspondent Real Estate Division from 2005 to 2007 and Vice President, Relationship Manager, Commercial Real Estate from 2002 to 2005.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION
Below is a brief description of certain laws and regulations that relate to us and the Bank. This narrative does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to applicable laws and regulations.
General
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”)-insured institutions, like the Bank, their holding companies, and their affiliates are extensively regulated under federal and state law. As a result, our 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 our primary regulator, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”), the Bank’s state regulator, the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“WDFI”), and its primary federal regulator, the FDIC. Furthermore, taxation laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) 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 our business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies, and accounting rules are significant to our 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 stockholders. These laws, and the regulations of the bank regulatory agencies issued under them, affect, among other things, the scope of our business, the kinds and amounts of investments the Corporation 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 ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with the Corporation’s and the Bank’s insiders and affiliates, and payment of dividends. In reaction to the global financial crisis and particularly following the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), we experienced heightened regulatory requirements and scrutiny. Although the reforms primarily targeted systemically important financial service providers, their influence filtered down in varying degrees to community banks over time and caused our compliance and risk management processes, and the costs thereof, to increase. After the 2016 federal elections, momentum to decrease the regulatory burden on community banks gathered strength. In May 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act (the “Regulatory Relief Act”) was enacted to modify or remove certain financial reform rules and regulations. While the Regulatory Relief Act maintains most of the regulatory structure established by the Dodd-Frank Act, it amends certain aspects of the regulatory framework for small depository institutions with assets of less than $10 billion, like us, and for large banks with assets of more than $50 billion that were considered systemically important under the Dodd-Frank Act solely because of size. Many of these changes are intended to result in meaningful regulatory relief for community banks and their holding companies, including new rules that may make the capital requirements less complex. For a discussion of capital requirements, see The Role of Capital below. It also eliminated questions about the applicability of certain Dodd-Frank Act reforms to community bank systems, including relieving the Bank of any requirement to engage in mandatory stress tests, name a risk committee, or comply with the Volcker Rule’s complicated prohibitions on proprietary trading and ownership of private funds. The Corporation believes these reforms are generally favorable to its operations.
The supervisory framework for U.S. banking organizations 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.
The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to the Corporation and the Bank, beginning with a discussion of the continuing regulatory emphasis on our capital levels. It does not

6


describe all of the statutes, regulations, and regulatory policies that apply, nor does it restate all of the requirements of those that are described. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provision.
The Role of Capital
Regulatory capital represents the net assets of a banking organization available to absorb losses. Because of the risks attendant to their business, FDIC-insured institutions are generally required to hold more capital than other businesses, which directly affects our 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 capital standards for banks and bank holding companies that are meaningfully more stringent than those in place previously.
Minimum Required Capital Levels. Banks have been required to hold minimum levels of capital based on guidelines established by the bank regulatory agencies since 1983. The minimums have been expressed in terms of ratios of “capital” divided by “total assets.” As discussed below, bank capital measures have become more sophisticated over the years and have focused more on the quality of capital and the risk of assets. Bank holding companies have historically had to comply with less stringent capital standards than their bank subsidiaries and have been able to raise capital with hybrid instruments such as trust preferred securities. The Dodd-Frank Act mandated the Federal Reserve to establish minimum capital levels for holding companies on a consolidated basis as stringent as those required for FDIC-insured institutions. A result of this change is that the proceeds of hybrid instruments, such as trust preferred securities, were excluded from capital over a phase-out period. However, if such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by bank holding companies with less than $15 billion of assets, they may be retained, subject to certain restrictions. Because we have assets of less than $15 billion, we are able to maintain our trust preferred proceeds as capital but we have to comply with new capital mandates in other respects and will not be able to raise capital in the future through the issuance of trust preferred securities.
The Basel International Capital Accords. The risk-based capital guidelines for U.S. banks since 1989 were based upon the 1988 capital accord known as “Basel I” adopted by the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors that acts as the primary global standard-setter for prudential regulation, as implemented by the U.S. bank regulatory agencies on an interagency basis. The accord recognized that bank assets for the purpose of the capital ratio calculations needed to be assigned risk weights (the theory being that riskier assets should require more capital) and that off-balance sheet exposures needed to be factored in the calculations. Basel I had a very simple formula for assigning risk weights to bank assets from 0% to 100% based on four categories. In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as “Basel II,” for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more, or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more) known as “advanced approaches” banks. The primary focus of Basel II was on the calculation of risk weights based on complex models developed by each advanced approaches bank. Because most banks were not subject to Basel II, the U.S. bank regulators worked to improve the risk sensitivity of Basel I standards without imposing the complexities of Basel II. This “standardized approach” increased the number of risk-weight categories and recognized risks well above the original 100% risk weight. It is institutionalized by the Dodd-Frank Act for all banking organizations, even for the advanced approaches banks, as a floor.
On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced 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. In July 2013, the U.S. federal banking agencies approved the implementation of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms in pertinent part, and, at the same time, promulgated rules effecting certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Basel III Rule”). In contrast to capital requirements historically, which were in the form of guidelines, Basel III was released in the form of enforceable regulations by each of the regulatory agencies. The Basel III Rule is applicable to all banking organizations that are subject to minimum capital requirements, including federal and state banks and savings and loan associations, as well as to bank and savings and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies” who are relieved from compliance with the Basel III Rule. While holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $3 billion, like the Corporation, are considered small bank holding companies for this purpose, the Corporation has securities registered with the SEC and that disqualifies us from taking advantage of the relief. Banking organizations became subject to the Basel III Rule on January 1, 2015, and its requirements were fully phased-in as of January 1, 2019.

7


The Basel III Rule increased the required quantity and quality of capital and, for nearly every class of assets, it requires a more complex, detailed and calibrated assessment of risk and calculation of risk-weight amounts.
Not only did the Basel III Rule increase most of the required minimum capital ratios in effect prior to January 1, 2015, but it introduced the concept of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, which consists primarily of common stock, related surplus (net of treasury stock), retained earnings, and Common Equity Tier 1 minority interests subject to certain regulatory adjustments. The Basel III Rule also changed the definition of capital by establishing more stringent criteria that instruments must meet to be considered Additional Tier 1 Capital (primarily non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock that meets certain requirements) and Tier 2 Capital (primarily other types of preferred stock and subordinated debt, subject to limitations). A number of instruments that qualified as Tier 1 Capital under Basel I do not qualify, or their qualifications changed. For example, noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, which qualified as simple Tier 1 Capital under Basel I, does not qualify as Common Equity Tier 1 Capital, but qualifies as Additional Tier 1 Capital. The Basel III Rule also constrained the inclusion of minority interests, mortgage-servicing assets, and deferred tax assets in capital and requires deductions from Common Equity Tier 1 Capital in the event that such assets exceed a certain percentage of a banking institution’s Common Equity Tier 1 Capital.
The Basel III Rule required minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 2015, as follows:
A ratio of minimum Common Equity Tier 1 Capital equal to 4.5% of risk-weighted assets;
An increase in the minimum required amount of Tier 1 Capital from 4% to 6% of risk-weighted assets;
A continuation of the minimum required amount of Total Capital (Tier 1 plus Tier 2) at 8% of risk-weighted assets; and
A minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total quarterly average assets equal to 4% in all circumstances.
In addition, 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 (fully phased-in as of January 1, 2019). 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 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.
Well-Capitalized Requirements. The ratios described above are minimum standards in order for banking organizations to be considered “adequately capitalized.” Bank regulatory agencies uniformly encourage banks to hold more capital and be “well-capitalized” and, to that end, federal law and regulations provide various incentives for banking organizations to maintain regulatory capital at levels in excess of minimum regulatory requirements. For example, a banking organization that is well-capitalized may: (i) qualify for exemptions from prior notice or application requirements otherwise applicable to certain types of activities; (ii) qualify for expedited processing of other required notices or applications; and (iii) accept, roll-over, or renew brokered deposits. Higher capital levels could also be required if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profiles of individual banking organizations. For example, the Federal Reserve’s capital guidelines contemplate that additional capital may be required to take adequate account of, among other things, interest rate risk, or the risks posed by concentrations of credit, nontraditional activities, or securities trading activities. Further, any banking organization experiencing or anticipating significant growth would be expected to maintain capital ratios, including tangible capital positions (i.e., Tier 1 Capital less all intangible assets), well above the minimum levels.
Under the capital regulations of the FDIC, in order to be well‑capitalized, a banking organization must maintain:
A Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio to risk-weighted assets of 6.5% or more;
A ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total risk-weighted assets of 8% or more (6% under Basel I);
A ratio of Total Capital to total risk-weighted assets of 10% or more (the same as Basel I); and
A leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total adjusted average quarterly assets of 5% or greater.
As of December 31, 2019: (i) the Bank is not subject to a directive from the WDFI or the FDIC to increase its capital and (ii) the Bank was well-capitalized, as defined by FDIC regulations. Additionally, the Corporation had regulatory capital in excess of the Federal Reserve’s requirements as of December 31, 2019.
Prompt Corrective Action. The concept of an institution being “well-capitalized” is part of a regulatory enforcement regime that provides the federal banking regulators with broad power to take “prompt corrective action” to resolve the problems of institutions based on the capital level of each particular institution. The extent of the regulators’ powers depends on whether the institution in question is “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized,” in each case as defined by regulation. Depending upon the capital category to which an institution is assigned, the regulators’ corrective powers include: (i) requiring the institution to submit a capital restoration plan;

8


(ii) limiting the institution’s asset growth and restricting its activities; (iii) requiring the institution to issue additional capital stock (including additional voting stock) or to sell itself; (iv) restricting transactions between the institution and its affiliates; (v) restricting the interest rate that the institution may pay on deposits; (vi) ordering a new election of directors of the institution; (vii) requiring that senior executive officers or directors be dismissed; (viii) prohibiting the institution from accepting deposits from correspondent banks; (ix) requiring the institution to divest certain subsidiaries; (x) prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; and (xi) ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.
Community Bank Capital Simplification. Community banks have long raised concerns with bank regulators about the regulatory burden, complexity, and costs associated with certain provisions of the Basel III Rule. In response, Congress provided a potential Basel III “off-ramp” for certain institutions, like us, under Section 201 of the Regulatory Relief Act. Pursuant to authority granted thereunder, on September 17, 2019, the agencies adopted a final rule, effective on January 1, 2020, providing that banks and bank holding companies that have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and meet other qualifying criteria, including a “Community Bank Leverage Ratio” (“CBLR”)-calculated by dividing tier 1 capital by average total consolidated assets-of greater than 9%, will be eligible to opt into the CBLR framework. By opting into the framework, qualifying banks and bank holding companies maintaining a CBLR greater than 9% will be considered to have satisfied the generally applicable risk-based and leverage capital requirements in the agencies’ capital rules and, if applicable, will be considered to have met the well-capitalized ratio requirements for purposes of section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. In addition to the consolidated assets and CBLR requirements described above, a qualifying bank or bank holding company must also have (i) total off-balance sheet exposures (excluding derivatives other than sold credit derivatives and unconditionally cancelable commitments) of 25% or less of total consolidated assets, and (ii) the sum of total trading assets and trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets.
The Corporation and the Bank are in the process of considering the final rule and will make a determination as to whether each qualifies for and wishes to opt into the CBLR framework in conjunction with its preparation of first quarter financial reports.
FBFS
General. As the sole stockholder of the Bank, we are a bank holding company. As a bank holding company, we are registered with, and subject to regulation, supervision, and enforcement by, the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”). We are legally obligated to act as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where we might not otherwise do so. Under the BHCA, we are subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve. We are required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of our operations and such additional information regarding the Corporation and our subsidiaries as the Federal Reserve may require.
Acquisitions and Activities. The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any acquisition by a bank holding company of another bank or bank holding company. Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the United States. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its FDIC-insured institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank has been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed in order to effect interstate mergers or acquisitions. For a discussion of the capital requirements, see The Role of Capital above.
The BHCA generally prohibits the Corporation 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 permits the Corporation 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

9


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. The Corporation has not elected to operate as a financial holding company.
Change in Control. 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. On January 30, 2020, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule, effective April 1, 2020, clarifying and expanding upon the Federal Reserve’s position on determinations of whether a company has the ability to exercise a controlling influence over another company. In particular, the final rule is intended to provide a better understanding of the facts and circumstances that the Federal Reserve considers most relevant when assessing whether control exists.
Capital Requirements. The Corporation has been subject to the complex consolidated capital requirements of the Basel III Rule since the U.S. federal banking agencies approved its implementation effective January 1, 2015. Only qualifying small bank holding companies were excluded from compliance with the Basel III Rule by virtue of the Federal Reserve’s “Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement.” Prior to 2018, our assets were in excess of the maximum permitted in the definition of a small bank holding company for this purpose; however, the Regulatory Relief Act expanded the category of holding companies that may rely on the policy statement by raising the maximum amount of assets they may hold to $3 billion, and the Federal Reserve issued an interim final rule, effective August 30, 2018, to bring the policy statement in line with the law. As a result, qualifying holding companies with assets of less than $3 billion are not subject to the capital requirements of the Basel III Rule and are deemed to be “well-capitalized.” However, one of the qualifications for this treatment is that the holding company not have securities registered with the SEC. The Corporation is a public reporting company and has shares registered with the SEC. As such, the Corporation does not meet the qualifications of the Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement. For a discussion of capital requirements, see The Role of Capital above.
Dividend Payments. Our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. As a Wisconsin corporation, we are subject to the limitations of Wisconsin law, which allows it to pay dividends unless, after giving it effect, any of the following would occur: (i) we would not be able to pay our debts as they become due in the usual course of business or (ii) the total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus any amount that would be needed if we were to be dissolved at the time of the dividend payment, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of stockholders whose rights are superior to the rights of the stockholders receiving the distribution.
As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer, or significantly reduce dividends to stockholders if: (i) the company’s net income available to stockholders 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 nonbank 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 have to maintain 2.5% in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer. See The Role of Capital above for additional information.
Monetary Policy. The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has a significant effect on the operating results of financial or bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the tools available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market transactions in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on bank borrowings, and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.
Federal Securities Regulation. The Corporation’s common stock is registered with the SEC under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Exchange Act. Consequently, we are subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading, and other restrictions and requirements of the SEC under the Exchange Act.
Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addressed many investor protection, corporate governance, and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act increased

10


stockholder influence over boards of directors by requiring companies to give stockholders a nonbinding vote on executive compensation and so-called “golden parachute” payments, and by authorizing the SEC to promulgate rules that would allow stockholders to nominate and solicit voters for their own candidates using a company’s proxy materials. The legislation also directed the Federal Reserve to promulgate rules prohibiting excessive compensation paid to executives of bank holding companies, regardless of whether such companies are publicly traded.
The Bank
General. The Bank is a Wisconsin state-chartered bank. The deposit accounts of the Bank are insured by the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations, currently $250,000 per insured depositor category. As a Wisconsin-chartered FDIC-insured bank, the Bank is subject to the examination, supervision, reporting, and enforcement requirements of the WDFI, the chartering authority for Wisconsin banks, and the FDIC, designated by federal law as the primary federal regulator of insured state banks that, like the Bank, are not members of the Federal Reserve System (nonmember banks).
Deposit Insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, the Bank is required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system whereby FDIC-insured institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. For institutions like the Bank that are not considered large and highly complex banking organizations, assessments are now based on examination ratings and financial ratios. The total base assessment rates currently range from 1.5 basis points to 30 basis points. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, increases or decreases the assessment rates, following notice and comment on proposed rulemaking. The assessment base against which an FDIC-insured institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the DIF has been calculated since effectiveness of the Dodd-Frank Act based on its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. This method shifted the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those large depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. 
The reserve ratio is the FDIC insurance fund 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 1.36% as of September 30, 2018, exceeding the statutory required minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%. Accordingly, pursuant to rules adopted by the FDIC, in January 2019 the FDIC provided notice of assessment credits awarded to insured depository institutions, like the Bank, with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion for the portion of their regular assessments that contributed to growth in the reserve ratio between 1.15% and 1.35%. The FDIC will apply the credits each quarter (beginning with the September 2019 assessment invoice for the second quarter of 2019) that the reserve ratio is at least 1.38% to offset the regular deposit insurance assessments of institutions with credits. As of June 30, 2019, the most recent available date, the reserve ratio was 1.40%.
FICO Assessments. In addition to paying basic deposit insurance assessments, FDIC-insured institutions have long been required to pay Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments. FICO is a mixed-ownership governmental corporation chartered by the former Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) Board pursuant to the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 to function as a financing vehicle for the recapitalization of the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. FICO issued 30-year noncallable bonds of approximately $8.1 billion that mature through 2019. The final FICO assessment was on March 29, 2019.
Supervisory Assessments. All Wisconsin banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the WDFI to fund the operations of that agency. The amount of the assessment is calculated on the basis of the Bank’s total assets.
Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see The Role of Capital above.
Liquidity Requirements. Liquidity is a measure of the ability and ease with which bank assets may be converted to cash. Liquid assets are those that can be converted to cash quickly if needed to meet financial obligations. To remain viable, FDIC-insured institutions must have enough liquid assets to meet their near-term obligations, such as withdrawals by depositors. Because the global financial crisis was in part a liquidity crisis, Basel III also includes a liquidity framework that requires FDIC-insured institutions to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests. One test, referred to as the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity has an adequate stock of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets that can be converted easily and immediately in private markets into cash to meet liquidity needs for a 30-calendar day liquidity stress scenario. The other test, known as the Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of FDIC-insured institutions over a one-year horizon. These tests provide an incentive for banks and holding companies to increase their holdings in Treasury securities and other sovereign debt

11


as a component of assets, increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source, and rely on stable funding like core deposits (in lieu of brokered deposits).
In addition to liquidity guidelines already in place, the federal bank regulatory agencies implemented the Basel III LCR in September 2014, which requires large financial firms to hold levels of liquid assets sufficient to protect against constraints on their funding during times of financial turmoil, and in 2016 proposed implementation of the NSFR. While these rules do not apply to the Bank, it continues to review its liquidity risk management policies.
Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for the Corporation is dividends from the Bank. Under Wisconsin law, the board of directors of a bank may declare and pay a dividend from its undivided profits in an amount they consider expedient. The board of directors must provide for the payment of all expenses, losses, required reserves, taxes, and interest accrued or due from the bank before the declaration of dividends from undivided profits. If dividends declared and paid in either of the two immediately preceding years exceeded net income for either of those two years respectively, the bank may not declare or pay any dividend in the current year that exceeds year-to-date net income except with the written consent of the WDFI. The FDIC and the WDFI 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 percent in Common Equity Tier 1 Capital attributable to the capital conservation buffer. See The Role of Capital above.
State Bank Investments and Activities. The Bank is permitted to make investments and engage in activities directly or through subsidiaries as authorized by Wisconsin law. However, under federal law and FDIC regulations, FDIC-insured state banks are prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from making or retaining equity investments of a type, or in an amount, that are not permissible for a national bank. Federal law and FDIC regulations also prohibit FDIC-insured state banks and their subsidiaries, subject to certain exceptions, from engaging as principal in any activity that is not permitted for a national bank unless the bank meets, and continues to meet, its minimum regulatory capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity would not pose a significant risk to the DIF. These restrictions have not had, and are not currently expected to have, a material impact on the operations of the Bank.
Insider Transactions. The Bank is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on “covered transactions” between the Bank and its “affiliates.” We are an affiliate of the Bank for purposes of these restrictions, and covered transactions subject to the restrictions include extensions of credit to the Corporation, investments in the stock or other securities of the Corporation, and the acceptance of the stock or other securities of the Corporation as collateral for loans made by the Bank. The Dodd-Frank Act enhanced the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.
Certain limitations and reporting requirements are also placed on extensions of credit by the Bank to its directors and officers, to directors and officers of the Corporation and its subsidiaries, to principal stockholders of the Corporation, and to “related interests” of such directors, officers, and principal stockholders. In addition, federal law and regulations may affect the terms upon which any person who is a director or officer of the Corporation or the Bank, or a principal stockholder of the Corporation, may obtain credit from banks with which the Bank maintains a correspondent relationship.
Safety and Soundness Standards/Risk Management. The federal banking agencies have adopted operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of FDIC-insured institutions. The standards apply to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, risk mitigation, deposit and loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality, and earnings.
In general, the safety and soundness standards prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. While regulatory standards do not have the force of law, if an institution operates in an unsafe and unsound manner, the FDIC-insured institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If an FDIC-insured institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the 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 safety and soundness may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

12


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, compliance, 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, incentive compensation, and cybersecurity are critical sources of 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.
Branching Authority. Wisconsin banks, such as the Bank, have the authority under Wisconsin law to establish branches anywhere in the State of Wisconsin, subject to receipt of all required regulatory approvals. The establishment of new interstate branches has historically been permitted only in those states the laws of which expressly authorize such expansion. The Dodd-Frank Act permits well-capitalized and well-managed banks to establish new interstate branches or acquire individual branches of a bank in another state (rather than the acquisition of an out-of-state bank in its entirety) without impediments. Federal law permits state and national banks to merge with banks in other states subject to: (i) regulatory approval; (ii) federal and state deposit concentration limits; and (iii) state law limitations requiring the merging bank to have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) prior to the merger.
Transaction Account Reserves. Federal Reserve regulations require FDIC-insured institutions to maintain reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily negotiable order of withdrawal and regular checking accounts). For 2020, the first $16.9 million of otherwise reservable balances are exempt from reserves and have a zero percent reserve requirement; for transaction accounts aggregating between $16.9 million to $127.5 million, the reserve requirement is 3% of those transaction account balances; and for net transaction accounts in excess of $127.5 million, the reserve requirement is 10% of the aggregate amount of total transaction account balances in excess of $127.5 million. These reserve requirements are subject to annual adjustment by the Federal Reserve.
Brokered Deposits. On December 19, 2018, the FDIC adopted a final rule on the treatment of reciprocal deposits pursuant to the Regulatory Relief Act. The final rule, effective March 6, 2019, exempts certain reciprocal deposits from being considered as brokered deposits for certain insured institutions. In particular, well-capitalized and well-rated institutions are not required to treat reciprocal deposits as brokered deposits up to the lesser of 20% of their total liabilities or $5 billion. Institutions that are not both well-capitalized and well-rated may also exclude reciprocal deposits from their brokered deposits under certain circumstances.
On December 12, 2019, the FDIC issued a proposed rule on brokered deposits. The proposed rule aims to clarify and modernize the FDIC’s existing regulatory framework for brokered deposits. Among other things, the proposed rule would establish a new framework for analyzing whether deposits placed through deposit placement arrangements qualify as brokered deposits. These include arrangements between insured depository institutions and third parties, such as financial technology companies.
Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) Requirements. The CRA requires the Bank to have a continuing and affirmative obligation in a safe and sound manner to help meet the credit needs of the entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Federal regulators regularly assess the Bank’s record of meeting the credit needs of its communities. An institution’s CRA assessment may be used by its regulators in their evaluation of certain applications, including a merger, acquisition, or the establishment of a branch office. An unsatisfactory rating may be used as a basis for denial of such an application.
On December 12, 2019, the FDIC issued a proposed rule to modernize its regulations under the CRA. The proposed rule would (i) clarify which activities qualify for CRA credit and (ii) require banks to identify an additional assessment area based on where they receive a significant portion of their domestic retail products, thus creating two assessment areas: a deposit-based assessment area and a facility-based assessment area. The Federal Reserve chose not to participate in the current proposed rulemaking which causes uncertainty as to the content and timing of the final rule.
Anti-Money Laundering. The Corporation is subject to several federal laws that are designed to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and to restrict transactions with persons, companies, or foreign governments sanctioned by United States authorities. This category of laws includes the Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA”), the Money Laundering Control

13


Act, the USA PATRIOT Act (collectively, “AML laws”) and implementing regulations as administered by the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“sanctions laws”).
As implemented by federal banking and securities regulators and the Department of the Treasury, AML laws obligate depository institutions to verify their customers’ identity, conduct customer due diligence, report on suspicious activity, file reports of transactions in currency, and conduct enhanced due diligence on certain accounts. Sanctions laws prohibit persons of the United States from engaging in any transaction with a restricted person or restricted country. Depository institutions are required by their respective federal regulators to maintain policies and procedures in order to ensure compliance with the above obligations. Federal regulators regularly examine BSA/Anti–Money Laundering (“AML”) and sanctions compliance programs to ensure their adequacy and effectiveness, and the frequency and extent of such examinations and the remedial actions resulting therefrom have been increasing. Non–compliance with sanctions laws and/or AML laws or failure to maintain an adequate BSA/AML compliance program can lead to significant monetary penalties and reputational damage, and federal regulators evaluate the effectiveness of an applicant in combating money laundering when determining whether to approve a proposed bank merger, acquisition, restructuring, or other expansionary activity.
Privacy and Cybersecurity. The Bank is subject to many U.S. federal and state laws and regulations governing requirements for maintaining policies and procedures to protect non-public confidential information of their customers. These laws require the Bank to periodically disclose their privacy policies and practices relating to sharing such information and permit consumers to opt out of their ability to share information with unaffiliated third parties under certain circumstances. They also impact the Bank’s ability to share certain information with affiliates and non-affiliates for marketing and/or non-marketing purposes, or to contact clients with marketing offers. In addition, the Bank is required to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information. These security and privacy policies and procedures, for the protection of personal and confidential information, are in effect across the Bank and its subsidiaries.
Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate. Concentration risk exists when FDIC-insured institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. A concentration in commercial real estate is one example of regulatory concern. The interagency Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending, Sound Risk Management Practices guidance (“CRE Guidance”) provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) commercial real estate loans exceeding 300% of capital and increasing 50% or more in the preceding three years; or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of capital. The CRE Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of commercial real estate lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. On December 18, 2015, the federal banking agencies issued a statement to reinforce prudent risk-management practices related to CRE lending, having observed substantial growth in many CRE asset and lending markets, increased competitive pressures, rising CRE concentrations in banks, and an easing of CRE underwriting standards. The federal bank agencies reminded FDIC-insured institutions to maintain underwriting discipline and exercise prudent risk-management practices to identify, measure, monitor, and manage the risks arising from CRE lending. In addition, FDIC-insured institutions must maintain capital commensurate with the level and nature of their CRE concentration risk.
Consumer Financial Services. The historical structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services changed significantly on July 21, 2011, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) commenced operations to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all providers of consumer products and services, including the Bank, as well as the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over providers with more than $10 billion in assets. FDIC-insured institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like the Bank, continue to be examined by their applicable bank regulators.

14


Because abuses in connection with residential mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the financial crisis, many new rules issued by the CFPB and required by the Dodd-Frank Act addressed 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 banks and savings associations, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay, while also establishing a presumption of compliance for certain “qualified mortgages.” The Regulatory Relief Act provided relief in connection with mortgages for banks with assets of less than $10 billion, and, as a result, mortgages the Bank makes are now considered to be qualified mortgages if they are held in portfolio for the life of the loan.
Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) Treatment. In June 2016, the FASB issued an accounting standard update, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” which replaces the current “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the CECL model. Under the CECL model, we will be required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. On December 21, 2018, the federal banking agencies approved a final rule modifying their regulatory capital rules and providing an option to phase in over a period of three years the day-one regulatory capital effects of the CECL model. The final rule also revises the agencies’ other rules to reflect the update to the accounting standards. The final rule took effect April 1, 2019.
In October 2019, four federal banking agencies issued a request for comment on a proposed interagency policy statement on the new CECL methodology. The policy statement proposes to harmonize the agencies' policies on allowance for credit losses with the FASB’s new accounting standards. Specifically, the statement (i) updates concepts and practices from prior policy statements issued in December 2006 and July 2001 and specifies which prior guidance documents are no longer relevant; (ii) describes the appropriate CECL methodology, in light of Topic 326, for determining Allowances for Credit Losses (“ACLs”) on financial assets measured at amortized cost, net investments in leases, and certain off-balance sheet credit exposures; and (iii) describes how to estimate an ACL for an impaired available-for-sale debt security in line with Topic 326. The proposed policy statement would be effective at the time that each institution adopts the new standards required by the FASB.

15

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors
An investment in our common stock is subject to risks inherent to our business. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully read and consider the following risks and uncertainties. We may encounter risks in addition to those described below, including risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or those we currently deem to be immaterial. The risks described below, as well as such additional risks and uncertainties, may impair or materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Credit Risks
If we do not effectively manage our credit risk, we may experience increased levels of delinquencies, non-performing loans, and charge-offs, which would require increases in our provision for loan and lease losses.
There are risks inherent in making any loan or lease, including risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers, risks of nonpayment, risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral and cash flows available to service debt, and risks resulting from changes in economic and market conditions. We cannot assure you that our credit risk approval and monitoring procedures have identified or will identify all of these credit risks, and they cannot be expected to completely eliminate our credit risks. If the overall economic climate in the U.S., generally, or our markets, specifically, deteriorates, or if the financial condition of our borrowers otherwise declines, then our borrowers may experience difficulties in repaying their loans and leases, and the level of non-performing loans and leases, charge-offs, and delinquencies could rise and require increases in the provision for loan and lease losses, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our allowance for loan and lease losses may not be adequate to cover actual losses.
We establish our allowance for loan and lease losses and maintain it at a level considered appropriate by management based on an analysis of our portfolio and market environment. The allowance for loan and lease losses represents our estimate of probable losses inherent in the portfolio at each balance sheet date and is based upon relevant information available to us. The allowance contains provisions for probable losses that have been identified relating to specific relationships, as well as probable losses inherent in our loan and lease portfolio that are not specifically identified. Additions to the allowance for loan and lease losses, which are charged to earnings through the provision for loan and lease losses, are determined based on a variety of factors, including an analysis of our loan and lease portfolio by segment, historical loss experience, and an evaluation of current economic conditions in our markets. The actual amount of loan and lease losses is affected by changes in economic, operating, and other conditions within our markets, which may be beyond our control, and such losses may exceed current estimates.
At December 31, 2019, our allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases was 1.14% and as a percentage of total non-performing loans and leases was 94.70%. Although management believes the allowance for loan and lease losses is appropriate as of such date, we may be required to take additional provisions for losses in the future to further supplement the allowance, either due to management’s decision, based on credit conditions, or requirements by our banking regulators. In addition, bank regulatory agencies will periodically review our allowance for loan and lease losses and the value attributed to non-performing loans and leases. Such regulatory agencies may require us to adjust our determination of the value for these items. Any significant increases to the allowance for loan and lease losses may materially decrease our net income, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
A significant portion of our loan and lease portfolio is comprised of commercial real estate loans, which involve risks specific to real estate values and the real estate markets in general.
At December 31, 2019 we had $1.2 billion of commercial real estate loans, which represented 67.3% of our total loan and lease portfolio. Because payments on such loans are often dependent on the successful operation or development of the property or business involved, repayment of such loans is sensitive to conditions in the real estate market or the general economy, which are outside the borrower’s control. In the event that the cash flow from the property is reduced, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan could be negatively impacted. The deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a material increase in our level of non-performing loans, which would result in a loss of revenue from these loans and could result in an increase in the provision for loan and lease losses and an increase in charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse impact on our net income. Additionally, many of these loans have real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of economic conditions. Adverse developments affecting real estate values in one or more of our markets could impact the collateral coverage associated with the commercial real estate segment of our portfolio, possibly leading to increased specific reserves or charge-offs, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Because of the risks associated with commercial real estate loans, we closely monitor the concentration of such loans in our portfolio. If we or our regulators determine that this concentration is approaching or exceeds appropriate limits, we may need to reduce or cease the origination of additional commercial real estate loans, which could adversely affect our growth

16

Table of Contents

plans and profitability. In addition, we may be required to sell existing loans in our portfolio, but there can be no assurances that we would be able to do so at prices that are acceptable to us.
Real estate construction and land development loans are based upon estimates of costs and values associated with the completed project. These estimates may be inaccurate and we may be exposed to significant losses on loans for these projects.
Real estate construction and land development loans, subsets of commercial real estate loans, comprised approximately $109.1 million, or 6.4%, and $51.1 million, or 3.0%, of our gross loan and lease portfolio, respectively, as of December 31, 2019. Such lending involves additional risks as these loans are underwritten using the as-completed value of the project, which is uncertain prior to its completion, and costs may exceed realizable values in declining real estate markets. Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs and the realizable market value of the completed project, it can be relatively difficult to evaluate accurately the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan-to-value ratio. As a result, construction loans often involve the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project and the ability of the borrower to sell or lease the property, rather than the ability of the borrower or guarantor to repay principal and interest. If the appraisal of the completed project’s value proves to be overstated or market values decline, we may have inadequate security for the repayment of the loan upon completion of construction of the project. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to or at completion due to a default, we may not be able to recover all of the unpaid balance of, and accrued interest on, the loan and may incur related foreclosure and holding costs. In addition, we may be required to fund additional amounts to complete the project and may have to hold the property for an unspecified period of time while we attempt to dispose of it.
A large portion of our loan and lease portfolio is comprised of commercial loans secured by various business assets, the deterioration in value of which could increase our exposure to future probable losses.
At December 31, 2019, approximately $503.4 million, or 29.3%, of our loan and lease portfolio was comprised of commercial loans to businesses collateralized by general business assets, including accounts receivable, inventory, and equipment. Our commercial loans are typically larger in amount than loans to individual consumers and therefore, have the potential for larger losses on an individual loan basis. Additionally, asset-based borrowers are usually highly leveraged and/or have inconsistent historical earnings. Significant adverse changes in various industries could cause rapid declines in values and collectability associated with those business assets resulting in inadequate collateral coverage that may expose us to future losses. An increase in specific reserves and charge-offs may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.     
SBA lending is a significant part of our strategic business plan. The success of our SBA lending program is dependent upon the continued availability of SBA loan programs, our status as a Preferred Lender under the SBA loan programs, our ability to effectively compete and originate new SBA loans, and our ability to comply with applicable SBA lending requirements.
SBA loans, consisting of both commercial real estate and commercial loans, comprised approximately $62.8 million, or 3.7%, of our gross loan and lease portfolio as of December 31, 2019.
As an SBA Preferred Lender, we enable our clients to obtain SBA loans without being subject to the potentially lengthy SBA approval process necessary for lenders that are not SBA Preferred Lenders. The SBA periodically reviews the lending operations of participating lenders to assess, among other things, whether the lender exhibits prudent risk management. When weaknesses are identified, the SBA may request corrective actions or impose other restrictions, including revocation of the lender’s Preferred Lender status. If we lose our status as a Preferred Lender, we may lose our ability to compete effectively with other SBA Preferred Lenders, and as a result we could experience a material adverse effect to our financial results. Any changes to the SBA program, including changes to the level of guaranty provided by the federal government on SBA loans or changes to the level of funds appropriated by the federal government to the various SBA programs, may also have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Typically we sell the guaranteed portions of our SBA 7(a) loans in the secondary market. These sales result in earning premium income and create a stream of future servicing income. There can be no assurance that we will be able to continue originating these loans, that a secondary market will exist, or that we will continue to realize premiums upon the sale of the guaranteed portions of these loans. Whether or not we sell the guaranteed portion of a SBA loan, we retain credit risk on the non-guaranteed portion of the loan. If we retain the guaranteed portion of a SBA loan on our balance sheet, we have credit risk on the non-guaranteed portion of the loan and the guaranteed portion if a determination is made by the SBA that there is a deficiency in the manner in which the loan was originated, funded, or serviced by the Corporation.
In order for a borrower to be eligible to receive an SBA loan, it must be established that the borrower would not be able to secure a bank loan without the credit enhancements provided by a guaranty under the SBA program. Accordingly, the SBA loans in our portfolio generally have weaker credit characteristics than the rest of our portfolio, and may be at greater risk of default. In the event of a loss resulting from default and a determination by the SBA that there is a deficiency in the manner

17

Table of Contents

in which the loan was originated, funded, or serviced by the Corporation, the SBA may require the Corporation to repurchase the previously sold portion of the loan, deny its liability under the guaranty, reduce the amount of the guaranty, or, if it has already paid under the guaranty, seek recovery of the principal loss related to the deficiency from the Corporation. Management has estimated losses in the outstanding guaranteed portions of SBA loans and recorded an allowance for loan and lease losses and a SBA recourse reserve at a level determined to be appropriate. Significant increases to the allowance for loan and leases losses and the recourse reserve may materially decrease our net income, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Non-performing assets take significant time to resolve, adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and could result in further losses in the future.
At December 31, 2019, our non-performing loans and leases totaled $20.6 million, or 1.20% of our gross loan and lease portfolio, and our non-performing assets (which include non-performing loans and foreclosed properties) totaled $23.5 million, or 1.12% of total assets. Our non-performing assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on non-accrual loans, 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 net realizable value, less estimated selling costs, which may result in a loss. These non-performing loans and foreclosed properties also increase our risk profile and the capital our regulators believe is appropriate in light of such risks. The resolution of non-performing assets requires significant time commitments from management and can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. If we experience increases in non-performing loans and non-performing assets, our net interest income may be negatively impacted and our loan administration costs could increase, each of which may adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.     
The FASB issued an accounting standard that may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses and may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The FASB has issued a new accounting standard that will be effective for our first fiscal year after December 15, 2022.  This standard, referred to as CECL, will require financial institutions to determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans and leases and recognize the expected credit losses as allowances for loan and lease losses. This will change the current method of providing allowances for loan and lease losses that are probable, which may require us to increase our allowance for loan and lease 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 and lease losses. Any increase in our allowance for loan and lease losses or expenses incurred to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan and lease losses may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. See Note 1 – Nature of Operations and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies in the Consolidated Financial Statements for additional information.
Liquidity and Interest Rate Risks
Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Our ability to implement our business strategy will depend on our liquidity and ability to obtain funding for loan originations, working capital, and other general purposes. 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 preferred source of funds consists of client deposits, which we supplement with other sources, such as wholesale deposits made up of brokered deposits and deposits gathered through internet listing services. Such account and deposit balances can decrease when clients perceive alternative investments as providing a better risk/return profile. If clients move money out of bank deposits and into other investments, we may increase our utilization of wholesale deposits, FHLB advances, and other wholesale funding sources necessary to fund desired growth levels. Because these funds generally are more sensitive to interest rate changes than our targeted in-market deposits, they are more likely to move to the highest rate available. In addition, the use of brokered deposits without regulatory approval is limited to banks that are “well capitalized” according to regulation. If the Bank is unable to maintain its capital levels at “well capitalized” minimums, we could lose a significant source of funding, which would force us to utilize different wholesale funding or potentially sell assets at a time when pricing may be unfavorable, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.
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. Regional and community banks generally have less access to the capital markets than do national and super-regional banks because of their smaller size and limited analyst coverage. During periods of economic turmoil or decline, the financial services industry and the credit markets generally may be materially and adversely affected by declines in asset values and by diminished liquidity. 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

18

Table of Contents

risks of other banks. Correspondent lenders may also reduce or even eliminate federal funds lines for their correspondent clients in difficult economic times.
As a result, we rely on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans and investment securities 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, meet 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 effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
The Corporation is a bank holding company and its sources of funds necessary to meet its obligations are limited.
The Corporation is a bank holding company and its operations are primarily conducted by the Bank, which is subject to significant federal and state regulation. Cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders, pay our obligations, and meet our debt service requirements is derived primarily from our existing cash flow sources, our third party line of credit, dividends received from the Bank, or a combination thereof. Future dividend payments by the Bank to us will require the generation of future earnings by the Bank and are subject to certain regulatory guidelines. If the Bank is unable to pay dividends to us, we may not have the resources or cash flow to pay or meet all of our obligations.
Interest rate shifts may reduce net interest income and otherwise negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.
Shifts in short-term interest rates may reduce net interest income, which is the principal component of our earnings. Net interest income is the difference between the amounts received by us on our interest-earning assets and the interest paid by us on our interest-bearing liabilities. In certain scenarios, when interest rates rise, the rate of interest we pay on our liabilities may rise more quickly than the rate of interest that we receive on our interest-bearing assets, which could cause our profits to decrease. Similarly, when interest rates fall, the rate of interest we pay on our liabilities may not decrease as quickly as the rate of interest we receive on our interest-bearing assets, which could cause our profits to decrease. However, the structure of our balance sheet and resultant sensitivity to interest rates in various scenarios may change in the future.
Additionally, interest rate increases on variable rate loans often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers, which increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of underlying collateral may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on certain loans as borrowers refinance at lower rates.
Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans. 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 non-accrual 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 non-performing assets would have an adverse impact on net interest income.
Rising interest rates may also 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 and reduce total stockholders’ equity. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and will reduce our regulatory capital ratios.
The transition to an alternative reference rate could cause instability and have a negative effect on financial market conditions.
The London Inter-bank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) represents the interest rate at which banks offer to lend funds to one another in the international interbank market for short-term loans. Beginning in 2008, concerns were expressed that some of the member banks surveyed by the British Bankers’ Association (the “BBA”) in connection with the calculation of LIBOR rates may have been under-reporting or otherwise manipulating the interbank lending rates applicable to them. Regulators and law enforcement agencies from a number of governments have conducted investigations relating to the calculation of LIBOR across a range of maturities and currencies. If manipulation of LIBOR or another inter-bank lending rate occurred, it may have resulted in that rate being artificially lower (or higher) than it otherwise would have been. Responsibility for the calculation of LIBOR was transferred to ICE Benchmark Administration Limited, as independent LIBOR administrator, effective February 1, 2014.
On July 27, 2017, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority announced that it will no longer persuade or compel banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR rates after 2021 (the “July 27th Announcement”). The July 27th Announcement indicates that the continuation of LIBOR on the current basis cannot and will not be guaranteed after 2021. Consequently, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether and to what extent banks will continue to provide LIBOR submissions to the administrator of LIBOR or whether any additional reforms to LIBOR may be enacted in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

19

Table of Contents

Similarly, it is not possible to predict whether LIBOR will continue to be viewed as an acceptable benchmark, what rate or rates may become accepted alternatives to LIBOR, or the effect of any such changes in views or alternatives on the value of LIBOR-linked securities.
Although the Financial Stability Oversight Council has recommended a transition to an alternative reference rate in the event LIBOR is no longer available after 2021, such plans are still in development and, if enacted, could present challenges. Moreover, contracts linked to LIBOR are vast in number and value, are intertwined with numerous financial products and services, and have diverse parties. The downstream effect of unwinding or transitioning such contracts could cause instability and negatively impact the financial markets and individual institutions. The uncertainty surrounding the sustainability of LIBOR more generally could undermine market integrity and threaten individual financial institutions and the U.S. financial system more broadly.
The Corporation has developed a LIBOR transition team to complete the transition away from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate, if necessary. The transition team has added language to new loan agreements regarding the use of alternative reference rates and the Corporation has evaluated existing loan agreements linked to LIBOR and will work with those parties to modify the agreements.
The manner and impact of the transition from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate, as well as the effect of these developments on our compliance costs, funding costs, loan and security portfolios, derivatives, asset-liability management, and business, is uncertain.
Operational Risks
We rely on our management and the loss of one or more of those managers may harm our business.
Our success has been and will be greatly influenced by our continuing ability to retain the services of our existing senior management and to attract and retain additional qualified senior and middle management. The unexpected loss of key management personnel or the inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in the future could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results. In addition, our failure to develop and/or maintain an effective succession plan will impede our ability to quickly and effectively react to unexpected loss of key management, and in turn, may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our information systems may experience an interruption, breach in security or cyber attack, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business.
The Corporation relies heavily on internal and outsourced technologies, networks, and information systems to conduct its business. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the Corporation collects, processes, and stores confidential information and sensitive information, including personal information, regarding our employees, clients, and others. As our reliance on technology has increased, so has the potential risk of technology failures, outages, and interruptions, including disruptions in our client relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan, or other core processing systems, or security incidents or other cyber threats, including unauthorized access to our or third party systems, intentional denial of service, and cyber extortion. These risks have increased for all financial institutions as our reliance on technology has increased and those technologies and systems have become more interconnected, both of which are necessary to conduct our business and facilitate financial and other business transactions. The sophistication, evolution, and proliferation of cyber threat actors, including hackers, fraudsters, insiders, criminal gangs, nation states, and others, and the increase in attack vectors and methodologies of cyber threat actors creates a challenging cyber threat environment and the ever-present risk of security incidents involving theft of or unauthorized access to sensitive and confidential information, business email compromises, malware and ransomware, advanced persistent threats, wire transfer fraud, and identity theft-related crimes. Despite our ongoing efforts to identify vulnerabilities and security gaps, there is no guarantee we will be able to identify every vulnerability and close every security gap or anticipate or implement effective preventive measures against all cyber threats.
We rely on our advisors, vendors, and employees to comply with our policies and procedures to safeguard confidential and sensitive information. The failure of these parties to comply with such policies and procedures could result in the loss or wrongful use of such confidential or sensitive information, or an unauthorized intrusion into our systems.
The Corporation also faces cyber threats and attacks in connection with credit card and debit card transactions, especially those that involve the transmission of sensitive information regarding our clients through various third parties, including merchant acquiring banks, payment processors, payment card networks, and its processors. Entities involved in credit and debit card transactions have in the past suffered security breaches and continue to be the target of cyber threat actors. Because these transactions involve third parties and environments, including diverse point-of-sale devices and infrastructure the Corporation does not own or control, future security breaches or cyber threats affecting any of those systems or entities could impact us through no fault of our own, and in some cases we may have exposure and suffer losses for breaches or attacks relating to them. Any cyber attack or security incident we suffer could damage our reputation, cause

20

Table of Contents

considerable consumer concern leading to withdrawals or other financial impacts, increase regulatory scrutiny, or subject us to litigation, all of which could result in considerable cost and expense, and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
We are dependent upon third parties for certain information system, data management and processing services, and to provide key components of our business infrastructure, which are subject to operational, security, and other risks.
As with many other companies, we outsource certain information system, data management, and processing functions to third-party providers, including key components of our business infrastructure like internet and network access, and core application processing. While we have selected these third-party vendors carefully, we do not control their actions, nor is any vendor due diligence perfect. These third-party service providers are sources of operational and informational security risk to us, including risks associated with operational errors, information system interruptions or outages, unauthorized access or disclosure of sensitive or confidential information. If our third-party service providers encounter any of these issues, or if we have difficulty exchanging information with or receiving services from them, we could be exposed to disruption of operations, an inability to provide products and services to our clients, a loss of service or connectivity, reputational damage, and litigation risk that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our business continuity plans could prove to be inadequate, resulting in a material interruption in or disruption to our business and a negative impact on our results of operations.
We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business and our operations are dependent on our ability to protect our systems against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunication failure, or other emergencies. The computer systems and network infrastructure we use could be vulnerable to unforeseen problems. These problems may arise in both our internally developed systems and the systems of our third-party service providers. Any failure or interruption of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in general ledger, core bank processing systems, client relationship management, and other systems. While we have a business continuity plan and other policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of a failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any of those events will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately remediated. The occurrence of any failure, interruption, or security breach of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of clients, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
New lines of business, products, and services are essential to our ability to compete but may subject us to additional risks.
Frequently, we implement new lines of business and/or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There can be substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets for such services are still developing or due diligence is not fully vetted. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products or services, we invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved, and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. New technologies needed to support the new line of business or product may result in incremental operating costs and system defects. Compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives, and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. In instances of new lines of businesses offering credit services, weaknesses relating to underwriting may impact credit and capital. Delinquency may negatively affect non-performing assets and increase the provision for loan and lease losses.
Any new line of business and/or new product or service could also have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our framework for managing risks may not be effective in mitigating risk and loss to us.
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 which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
We are subject to changes in accounting principles, policies, or guidelines.

21

Table of Contents

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 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 more drastic changes may occur in the future. The implementation of such changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our internal controls may be ineffective.
Management regularly reviews and updates its 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 controls are met. In addition, as we continue to grow the Corporation, our controls need to be updated to keep up with such growth. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could cause us to report a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting and conclude that our controls and procedures are not effective, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Strategic and External Risks
Our business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally.
Our operations and profitability are impacted by general business and economic conditions in the U.S. and, to some extent, abroad. These conditions include short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, money supply, political issues, legislative and regulatory changes, fluctuations in both debt and equity markets, broad trends in industry and finance, the strength of the U.S. economy and uncertainty in financial markets globally, all of which are beyond our control. A deterioration in economic conditions could result in an increase in loan delinquencies and non-performing assets, decreases in loan collateral values, and a decrease in demand for our products and services, among other things, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Our business is concentrated in and largely dependent upon the continued growth and welfare of the general geographical markets in which we operate.
Our operations are heavily concentrated in the greater Madison area of Wisconsin and, to a lesser extent, the Southeast and Northeast regions of Wisconsin and the greater Kansas City Metro and, 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 clients’ business and financial interests may extend well beyond these markets, adverse economic conditions that affect these markets could reduce our growth rate, affect the ability of our clients 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.
Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively affected if we fail to effectively execute our strategic plan or manage the growth called for in our strategic plan.
We introduced a new five year strategic plan to the Corporation calling for above average performance by focusing on four key strategies – talent, efficiency, deposits, and optimizing business line performance. While we believe we have the management resources and internal systems in place to successfully execute our strategic plan, we cannot guarantee that opportunities will be available and that the strategic plan will be successful or effectively executed.
Although we do not have any current definitive plans to do so, in implementing our strategic plan we may expand into additional communities or attempt to strengthen our position in our current markets through opportunistic acquisitions of similar or complementary financial services organizations. To the extent that we do so, we may experience higher operating expenses relative to operating income from the new operations or certain one-time expenses associated with the closure of offices, all of which may have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Other effects of engaging in such strategies may include potential diversion of our management’s time and attention and general disruption to our business. To the extent that we grow through new locations, we cannot ensure that we will be able to adequately and profitably manage this growth. Acquiring other banks and businesses will involve similar risks to those commonly associated

22

Table of Contents

with branching, but may also involve additional risks, including potential exposure to unknown or contingent liabilities of banks and businesses we acquire and exposure to potential asset quality issues of the acquired bank or related business.
We could recognize impairment losses on securities held in our securities portfolio, goodwill, or other long-lived assets.
As of December 31, 2019, the fair value of our securities portfolio was approximately $206.3 million. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. For example, fixed-rate securities acquired by us are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults by the issuer or individual mortgagors with respect to the underlying securities, and instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause other-than-temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, we may recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
As of December 31, 2019, the Corporation had goodwill of $10.7 million. Goodwill is not amortized but, instead, is subject to impairment tests on at least an annual basis, and more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. A decline in our stock price, decline in the performance of our acquired operations, or the occurrence of another triggering event could, under certain circumstances, result in an impairment charge being recorded. During 2019, our annual impairment test conducted in July indicated that the estimated fair value of the reporting unit exceeded the carrying value (including goodwill). Depending on market conditions, economic forecasts, results of operations, additional adverse circumstances or other factors, the goodwill impairment analysis may require additional review of assumptions and outcomes prior to our next annual impairment testing date of July 1, 2020. In the event that we conclude that all or a portion of our goodwill may be impaired, a non-cash charge for the amount of such impairment would be recorded to earnings. Such a charge would have no impact on tangible capital or regulatory capital.
We could be required to establish a deferred tax asset valuation allowance and a corresponding charge against earnings if we experience a decrease in earnings.
Deferred tax assets are reported as assets on our balance sheet and represent the decrease in taxes expected to be paid in the future in connection with our allowance for loan and lease losses and other matters. If it becomes more likely than not that some portion or the entire deferred tax asset will not be realized, a valuation allowance must be recognized. The Corporation believes it will fully realize its deferred tax asset, and therefore, no valuation allowance was necessary as of December 31, 2019. This determination was based on the evaluation of several factors, including our recent earnings history, expected future earnings, and appropriate tax planning strategies. A decrease in earnings could adversely impact our ability to fully utilize our deferred tax assets. If we determine that it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax assets will not be realized, a valuation allowance will need to be recognized and this would result in a corresponding charge against our earnings.    
Competition from other financial institutions could adversely affect our profitability.
We encounter heavy competition in attracting commercial loan, specialty finance, deposit, and private wealth management clients. We believe the principal factors that are used to attract quality clients and distinguish one financial institution from another include value-added relationships, interest rates and rates of return, types of accounts, service fees, flexibility, and quality of service.
Our competition includes banks, savings institutions, mortgage banking companies, credit unions, finance companies, equipment finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage firms, investment banking firms, and FinTech companies. We also compete with regional and national financial institutions that have a substantial presence in our market areas, many of which have greater liquidity, higher lending limits, greater access to capital, more established market recognition, and more resources and collective experience than we do. In addition, some larger financial institutions that have not historically competed with us directly have substantial excess liquidity and have sought, and may continue to seek, smaller lending relationships in our primary markets. Furthermore, tax-exempt credit unions operate in our market areas and aggressively price their products and services to a large portion of the market. Finally, technology has also lowered the barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services we have traditionally offered, such as automatic funds transfer and automatic payment systems. Our profitability depends, in part, upon our ability to successfully maintain and increase market share.

23

Table of Contents

Consumers and businesses are increasingly using non-banks to complete their financial transactions, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.
Technology and other changes are allowing consumers and businesses to complete financial transactions that historically have involved banks through alternative methods. The wide acceptance of Internet-based and person-to-person commerce has resulted in a number of alternative payment processing systems and lending platforms in which banks play only minor roles. Consumers 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 client 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.
If we are unable to keep pace with technological advances in our industry, our ability to attract and retain clients could be adversely affected.
The banking industry is constantly subject to technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to better serving clients, the effective use of technology increases our efficiency and enables us to reduce costs. Our future success will depend in part on our ability to address the needs of our clients by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy client demands for convenience as well as create additional efficiencies in our operations. A number of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements, as well as significant economies of scale. There can be no assurance that we will be able to implement and offer new technology-driven products and services to our clients. If we fail to do so, our ability to attract and retain clients may be adversely affected.
Our private wealth management services operations may be negatively impacted by changes in economic and market conditions.
Our private wealth management services operations may be negatively impacted by changes in general economic conditions and the conditions in the financial and securities markets, including the values of assets held under management. Our management contracts generally provide for fees payable for services based on the market value of assets under management. Because most of our contracts provide for a fee based on market values of securities, declines in securities prices will generally have an adverse effect on our results of operations from this business. Market declines and reductions in the value of our clients’ private wealth management services accounts could result in us losing private wealth management services clients, including those who are also banking clients.
Potential acquisitions may disrupt our business and dilute shareholder value.
While we remain committed to organic growth, we also may consider additional acquisition opportunities involving complementary financial service organizations if the right situation were to arise. Various risks commonly associated with acquisitions include, among other things:
Potential exposure to unknown or contingent liabilities of the target company.
Exposure to potential asset quality issues of the target company.
Potential disruption to our business.
Potential diversion of our management’s time and attention.
Possible loss of key employees and clients of the target company.
Difficulty in estimating the value of the target company.
Potential changes in banking or tax laws or regulations that may affect the target company.
Difficulty in integrating operations, personnel, technologies, services, and products of acquired companies.
Acquisitions may involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, and, therefore, some dilution of our tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any future transaction. Furthermore, failure to realize the expected revenue increases, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
The investments we make in certain tax-advantaged projects may not generate returns as anticipated and may have an adverse impact on the Corporation’s financial results.
We invest in certain tax-advantaged projects promoting community development. Investments in these projects are designed to generate a return primarily through the realization of federal and state income tax credits, and other tax benefits, over specified time periods. The Corporation is subject to the risk that previously recorded tax credits, which remain subject to recapture by taxing authorities based on compliance features required to be met at the project level, will fail to meet certain government compliance requirements and will not be able to be realized. The possible inability to realize these tax credit and other tax benefits could have a negative impact on the Corporation’s financial results. The risk of not being able to realize the

24

Table of Contents

tax credits and other tax benefits depends on many factors outside of the Corporation’s control, including changes in the applicable tax code and the ability of the projects to be completed.
A prolonged U.S. government shutdown or default by the U.S. on government obligations would harm our results of operations.
Our results of operations, including revenue, non-interest income, expenses and net interest income, would be adversely affected in the event of widespread financial and business disruption on account of a default by the United States on U.S. government obligations or a prolonged failure to maintain significant U.S. government operations. Of particular impact to the Corporation are the operations pertaining to the SBA or the FDIC. Any such failure to maintain such U.S. government operations, and the after-effects of such shutdown, could impede our ability to originate SBA loans and our ability to sell such loans in the secondary market, which would materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
In addition, many of our investment securities are issued by and some of our loans are made to the U.S. government and government agencies and sponsored entities. Uncertain domestic political conditions, including prior federal government shutdowns and potential future federal government shutdowns or other unresolved political issues, may pose credit default and liquidity risks with respect to investments in financial instruments issued or guaranteed by the federal government and loans to the federal government. Any downgrade in the sovereign credit rating of the United States, as well as sovereign debt issues facing the governments of other countries, could have a material adverse impact on financial markets and economic conditions in the United States and worldwide. Any such adverse impact could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition, and results of operations.
Regulatory, Compliance, Legal and Reputational Risks
We operate in a highly regulated industry and the laws and regulations that govern our operations, corporate governance, executive compensation, and accounting principles, or changes in them, or our failure to comply with them, may adversely affect us.
We are subject to extensive regulation and supervision that govern almost all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations, among other matters, prescribe minimum capital requirements, impose limitations on our business activities and compensation practices, limit the dividends or distributions that we can pay, restrict the ability to guarantee our debt, and impose certain specific accounting requirements that may be more restrictive and may result in greater or earlier charges to earnings or reductions in our capital than generally accepted accounting principles. Compliance with laws and regulations can be difficult and costly, and changes to laws and regulations often impose additional compliance costs. Further, our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, even if the failure was inadvertent or reflects a difference in interpretation, could subject us to restrictions on our business activities, fines, and other penalties, any of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
The financial services industry, as well as the broader economy, may be subject to new legislation, regulation, and government policy.
From time to time, federal and state governments and bank regulatory agencies modify the laws and regulations that govern financial institutions and the financial system generally. Such laws and regulations can affect our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. Among other effects, such laws and regulations can increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand the scope of permissible activities, or affect the competitive balance among banks and other financial institutions.  In addition, any changes in monetary policy, fiscal policy, tax laws, and other policies can affect the broader economic environment, interest rates, and patterns of trade. Any of these changes could affect our company and the banking industry as a whole in ways that are difficult to predict, and could adversely impact our business, financial condition, or results of operations.
We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.
AML laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain effective anti-money laundering programs and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, established by Treasury to administer the BSA, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and IRS. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Federal and state bank regulators also focus on compliance with AML laws.
If our policies, procedures, and systems are deemed deficient or the policies, procedures, and systems of the financial institutions that we may acquire in the future are deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions, such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with

25

Table of Contents

certain aspects of our business plan which would adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us.         
We are periodically subject to examination and scrutiny by a number of banking agencies and, depending upon the findings and determinations of these agencies, we may be required to make adjustments to our business that could adversely affect us.
Federal and state banking agencies periodically conduct examinations of our business, including compliance with applicable laws and regulations. If, as a result of an examination, a federal banking agency was to determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, asset concentration, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, or other aspects of any of our operations has become unsatisfactory, or that we or our management is in violation of any law or regulation, it could take a number of different remedial actions as it deems appropriate. These actions include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative actions to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital, to restrict our growth, to change the asset composition of our portfolio or balance sheet, to assess civil monetary penalties against our officers or directors, to remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate our deposit insurance. If we become subject to such regulatory actions, our business, results of operations, and financial condition may be adversely affected.
We are subject to claims and litigation pertaining to our fiduciary responsibilities.
Some of the services we provide, such as private wealth management services, require us to act as fiduciaries for our clients and others. From time to time, third parties could make claims and take legal action against us pertaining to the performance of our fiduciary responsibilities. If fiduciary investment decisions are not appropriately documented to justify action taken or trades are placed incorrectly, among other possible claims, and if these claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to us, we may be exposed to significant financial liability and/or our reputation could be damaged. Either of these results may adversely impact demand for our products and services or otherwise have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.
Negative publicity could damage our reputation and adversely impact our business and financial results.
Reputation risk, or the risk to our earnings and capital due to negative publicity, is inherent in our business. Negative publicity can result from our actual or alleged conduct in a number of activities, including lending practices, information security, management actions, corporate governance, and actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to those activities. Negative publicity can adversely affect our ability to keep and attract clients, and can expose us to litigation and regulatory action, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.
Risks Related to Investing in Our Common Stock
Our stock is thinly traded and our stock price can fluctuate.
Although our common stock is listed for trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, low volume of trading activity and volatility in the price of our common stock may make it difficult for our shareholders to sell common stock when desired and at prices they find attractive. Our stock price can fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:
actual or anticipated variations in our quarterly results of operations;
recommendations by securities analysts;
operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors deem comparable to us;
news reports relating to trends, concerns, and other issues in the financial services industry;
perceptions in the marketplace regarding us or our competitors and other financial services companies;
new technology used, or services offered, by competitors; and
changes in government regulations.
General market fluctuations, industry factors, and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes, or credit loss trends, could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of our operating results.
To maintain adequate capital levels, we may be required to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed and/or could be dilutive to our existing shareholders.
We are required by regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. In order to ensure our ability to support the operations of the Bank, we may need to limit or terminate cash dividends that can be paid to our shareholders. In addition, we may need to raise capital in the future. Our ability to raise capital, if needed, will depend in

26

Table of Contents

part on our financial performance and conditions in the capital markets at that time, and accordingly, we cannot guarantee our ability to raise capital on terms acceptable to us. In addition, if we decide to raise equity capital in the future, the interests of our shareholders could be diluted. Any issuance of common stock would dilute the ownership percentage of our current shareholders and any issuance of common stock at prices below tangible book value would dilute the tangible book value of each existing share of our common stock held by our current shareholders. The market price of our common stock could also decrease as a result of the sale of a large number of shares or similar securities, or the perception that such sales could occur. If we cannot raise capital when needed, our ability to serve as a source of strength to the Bank, pay dividends, maintain adequate capital levels and liquidity, or further expand our operations could be materially impaired.
If equity research analysts publish research or reports about our business with unfavorable commentary or downgrade our common stock, the price and trading volume of our common stock could decline.
The trading market for our common stock could be affected by whether equity research analysts publish research or reports about us and our business and what is included in such research or reports. If equity analysts publish research reports about us containing unfavorable commentary, downgrade our stock, or cease publishing reports about our business, the price of our stock could decline. If any analyst electing to cover us downgrades our stock, our stock price could decline rapidly. If any analyst electing to cover us ceases coverage of us, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our common stock price or trading volume to decline and our common stock to be less liquid.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2. Properties
The following table provides certain summary information with respect to the principal properties in which we conduct our operations, all of which were leased, as of December 31, 2019:
Location
 
Function
 
Expiration
Date
401 Charmany Drive, Madison, WI
 
Full-service banking location of FBB - Madison Region and office of FBFS
 
2028
18500 W. Corporate Drive, Brookfield, WI
 
Full-service banking location of FBB - Southeast Region
 
2020
11300 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy, Leawood, KS
 
Full-service banking location of FBB - Kansas City Region
 
2023
3913 West Prospect Avenue, Appleton, WI
 
Full-service banking location of FBB - Northeast Region
 
2025
For the purpose of generating business development opportunities in our specialty finance and consulting businesses, as of December 31, 2019, office space was also leased in several states nationwide under shorter-term lease agreements, which generally have terms of one year or less.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We believe that no litigation is threatened or pending in which we face potential loss or exposure which could materially affect our consolidated financial position, consolidated results of operations, or consolidated cash flows. Since our subsidiaries act as depositories of funds, lenders, and fiduciaries, they are occasionally named as defendants in lawsuits involving a variety of claims. This and other litigation is ordinary, routine litigation incidental to our business.
 
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable.

27

Table of Contents

PART II.
 
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Holders
The common stock of the Corporation is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “FBIZ.” As of February 18, 2020, there were 388 registered shareholders of record of the Corporation’s common stock.
Dividend Policy
It has been our practice to pay a dividend to common shareholders. Dividends historically have been declared in the month following the end of each calendar quarter. However, the timing and amount of future dividends are at the discretion of the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board”) and will depend upon the consolidated earnings, financial condition, liquidity, and capital requirements of the Corporation and the Bank, the amount of cash dividends paid to the Corporation by the Bank, applicable government regulations and policies, supervisory actions, and other factors considered relevant by the Board. Refer to Item 1 - Business - Supervision and Regulation - Regulation and Supervision of the Bank - Dividend Payments for additional discussion regarding the limitations on dividends and other capital contributions by the Bank to the Corporation. The Board anticipates it will continue to declare dividends as appropriate based on the above factors.
Issuer Purchases of Securities
In August 2019, the Corporation completed its prior $5 million share repurchase program which was initiated in December 2018 and had a termination date of December 31, 2019. The Corporation repurchased 223,149 shares under the repurchase program at an average price of $22.36 per share. On September 20, 2019, the Corporation announced its Board approved a new share repurchase program. The program authorizes the repurchase by the Corporation of up to $5 million in aggregate value of its outstanding shares of common stock over a period of approximately twelve months, ending on September 30, 2020.
Under the new share repurchase program, shares may be repurchased from time to time in the open market or negotiated transactions at prevailing market rates, or by other means in accordance with federal securities laws. In connection with the share repurchase program, the Corporation implemented a 10b5-1 trading plan. The trading plan allows the Corporation to repurchase shares of its common stock at times when it otherwise might be prevented from doing so under insider trading laws by requiring that an agent selected by the Corporation repurchase shares of common stock on the Corporation’s behalf on pre-determined terms.        
The following table sets forth information about the Corporation's purchases of its common stock during the three months ended December 31, 2019.
Period
 
Total Number of Shares Purchased(1)
 
Average Price Paid Per Share
 
Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs
 
Total Number of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs(2)
October 1, 2019 - October 31, 2019
 
32,350

 
$
24.07

 
32,350

 
 
November 1, 2019 - November 30, 2019
 
26,688

 
24.56

 
24,966

 
 
December 1, 2019 - December 31, 2019
 
16,713

 
25.92

 
16,713

 
 
Total
 
75,751

 
 
 
74,029

 
108,313

 
(1)
During the fourth quarter of 2019, the Corporation repurchased an aggregate 75,751 shares of the Corporation’s common stock in open-market transactions, of which 74,029 shares were purchased pursuant to the repurchase program publicly announced on September 20, 2019, and of which 1,722 shares were surrendered to us to satisfy income tax withholding obligations in connection with the vesting of restricted shares.
(2)
As of December 31, 2019, the maximum number of shares that may yet be purchased under the plan is 108,313 based on the closing price of the Corporation’s common stock on December 31, 2019 of $26.33 per share.


28

Table of Contents


Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Not applicable.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Forward-Looking Statements
When used in this report the words or phrases “may,” “could,” “should,” “hope,” “might,” “believe,” “expect,” “plan,” “assume,” “intend,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “project,” “likely,” or similar expressions are intended to identify “forward-looking statements.” Such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, including among other things:

Competitive pressures among depository and other financial institutions nationally and in our markets.
Adverse changes in the economy or business conditions, either nationally or in our markets.
Increases in defaults by borrowers and other delinquencies.
Our ability to manage growth effectively, including the successful expansion of our client support, administrative infrastructure, and internal management systems.
Fluctuations in interest rates and market prices.
The consequences of continued bank acquisitions and mergers in our markets, resulting in fewer but much larger and financially stronger competitors.
Changes in legislative or regulatory requirements applicable to us and our subsidiaries.
Changes in tax requirements, including tax rate changes, new tax laws, and revised tax law interpretations.
Fraud, including client and system failure or breaches of our network security, including our internet banking activities.
Failure to comply with the applicable SBA regulations in order to maintain the eligibility of the guaranteed portions of SBA loans.
These risks, together with the risks identified in Item 1A — Risk Factors, could cause actual results to differ materially from what we have anticipated or projected. These risk factors and uncertainties should be carefully considered by our shareholders and potential investors. Investors should not place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made.
Where any such forward-looking statement includes a statement of the assumptions or bases underlying such forward-looking statement, we caution that, while our management believes such assumptions or bases are reasonable and are made in good faith, assumed facts or bases can vary from actual results, and the differences between assumed facts or bases and actual results can be material, depending on the circumstances. Where, in any forward-looking statement, an expectation or belief is expressed as to future results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis, but there can be no assurance that the statement of expectation or belief will be achieved or accomplished.
We do not intend to, and specifically disclaim any obligation to, update any forward-looking statements.
The following discussion and analysis is intended as a review of significant events and factors affecting our financial condition and results of operations for the periods indicated. The discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and the Notes thereto.


29

Table of Contents

Overview
We are a registered bank holding company incorporated under the laws of the State of Wisconsin and are engaged in the commercial banking business through our wholly-owned banking subsidiary, FBB. All of our operations are conducted through the Bank and certain subsidiaries of FBB. We operate as a business bank focusing on delivering a full line of commercial banking products and services tailored to meet the specific needs of small and medium-sized businesses, business owners, executives, professionals, and high net worth individuals. Our products and services include those for business banking, private wealth, and bank consulting. Within business banking, we offer commercial lending, consumer and other lending, asset-based lending, accounts receivable financing, equipment financing, vendor financing, SBA lending and servicing, treasury management services, and company retirement plans. Our private wealth services for executives and individuals include trust and estate administration, financial planning, investment management, and private banking. For other banks, our bank consulting experts provide investment portfolio administrative services, asset liability management services, and asset liability management process validation. We do not utilize a branch network to attract retail clients. Our operating philosophy is predicated on deep client relationships fostered by local banking partners and specialized business lines where we provide skilled expertise, combined with the efficiency of centralized administrative functions such as information technology, loan and deposit operations, finance and accounting, credit administration, compliance, marketing, and human resources. Our focused model allows experienced staff to provide the level of financial expertise needed to develop and maintain long-term relationships with our clients.
Long-Term Strategic Plan

In early 2019, the Corporation finalized the development of its five year strategic plan and began the implementation of strategies and initiatives that will drive successful execution. The Corporation’s objective over this five year period is to excel by building the best team that works together to impact client success more than any other financial partner. To meet this objective, we identified four key strategies which are linked to corporate financial goals, all business lines, and centralized administration functions to ensure communication and execution are consistent at all levels of the Corporation. These four strategies are described below:
We will identify, attract, develop, and retain high performing talent to positively impact the overall performance and efficiency of the Corporation.
We will increase internal efficiencies, deliver a differentiated client experience, and drive client experience utilizing technology where possible.
We will diversify and grow our deposit base.
We will optimize our business lines for diversification and performance.
We made considerable progress towards advancing each of these four strategies in the first year of plan execution. Most apparent was the focus on growing our deposit base, as in-market deposits as of December 31, 2019 increased $199.5 million, or 16.9%, to $1.379 billion from $1.179 billion as of December 31, 2018, surpassing loan growth for the year and enabling the Corporation to lower its reliance on wholesale funding alternatives.
We will remain focused on employee development, creating efficiencies, growing deposits, and optimizing business line performance. Our drive to improve operating efficiency will remain intact; however, we believe timely investments in technology and people are imperative as we continue to scale the Corporation to keep pace with our strategic growth trajectory.
Financial Performance Summary 
Results as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019 include:
Total assets at December 31, 2019 increased $130.3 million, or 6.6%, to $2.097 billion from $1.966 billion at December 31, 2018.
Net income for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $23.3 million, increasing 43.1% compared to $16.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018.
Diluted earnings per common share were $2.68 for the year ended December 31, 2019, increasing 44.1% compared to $1.86 in the prior year.
Net interest margin was 3.61% for the year ended December 31, 2019, declining 11 basis points from 3.72% for the year ended December 31, 2018.
Top line revenue, which consists of net interest income and non-interest income, grew 9.1% to $93.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $85.5 million for the same period in 2018.
Return on average assets and return on average equity for the year ended December 31, 2019 were 1.14% and 12.55% respectively, compared to 0.86% and 9.41%, respectively, for 2018.

30

Table of Contents

Provision for loan and lease losses was $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $5.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. Net charge-offs as a percentage of average loans and leases decreased to 0.18% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 0.24% for the year ended December 31, 2018.
SBA recourse provision was $188,000 for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018.
Period-end gross loans and leases receivable at December 31, 2019 increased $97.0 million, or 6.0%, to $1.715 billion from $1.618 billion as of December 31, 2018. Average gross loans and leases of $1.704 billion increased $120.4 million, or 7.6% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.584 billion for the same period in 2018.
Non-performing assets were $23.5 million and 1.12% of total assets as of December 31, 2019, compared to $27.8 million and 1.42% of total assets as of December 31, 2018.
Period-end in-market deposits at December 31, 2019 increased $199.5 million, or 16.9%, to $1.379 billion from $1.179 billion as of December 31, 2018. Average in-market deposits of $1.271 billion increased $173.7 million, or 15.8%, for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.097 billion for the same period in 2018.
Trust assets under management and administration increased by $261.9 million, or 16.1%, to $1.892 billion at December 31, 2019 compared to $1.630 billion at December 31, 2018.
Private wealth management service fee income increased by $453,000, or 5.8%, to $8.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $7.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2018.

31

Table of Contents

Results of Operations
Top Line Revenue
Top line revenue, comprised of net interest income and non-interest income, increased 9.1% for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the year ended December 31, 2018 primarily due to a $2.5 million, or 3.7%, increase in net interest income and a $5.3 million, or 28.9%, increase in non-interest income. The increase in net interest income was driven by an increase in average loans and leases outstanding, average loan and lease yields, and loan fees collected in lieu of interest, while the increase in non-interest income was primarily a result of a $2.5 million increase in swap fees and a $2.3 million increase in other non-interest income. These favorable variances in top line revenue were partially offset by a reduction in net interest margin which decreased 11 basis points to 3.61% for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 3.72% in the prior year.
The components of top line revenue were as follows: 
 
 
For the Year Ended December 31,
 
Change From Prior Year
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
$ Change
 
% Change
 
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Net interest income
 
$
69,856

 
$
67,342

 
$
2,514

 
3.7
%
Non-interest income
 
23,423

 
18,167

 
5,256

 
28.9

Top line revenue
 
$
93,279

 
$
85,509

 
$
7,770

 
9.1

Return on Average Assets and Return on Average Equity
Return on average assets (“ROAA”) was 1.14% for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to 0.86% for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase in ROAA can be attributed principally to an increase in earnings as net income increased 43.1% during the same time period. The increase in net income for the year ended December 31, 2019 was primarily due to an increase in net interest income, an increase in commercial swap fee income, and a decrease in the provision for loan and lease losses. These benefits were partially offset by an increase in operating expenses. We consider ROAA a critical metric to measure the profitability of our organization and how efficiently our assets are deployed. ROAA also allows us to better benchmark our profitability to our peers without the need to consider different degrees of leverage which can ultimately influence return on equity measures.
Return on average equity (“ROAE”) for the year ended December 31, 2019 was 12.55% compared to 9.41% for the year ended December 31, 2018. The primary reasons for the increase in ROAE are consistent with the net income variance explanations discussed above. We view ROAE as an important measurement for monitoring profitability and continue to focus on improving our return to our shareholders by enhancing the overall profitability of our client relationships, controlling our expenses, and minimizing our costs of credit.
Efficiency Ratio
Efficiency ratio is a non-GAAP measure representing non-interest expense excluding the effects of the SBA recourse provision, impairment of tax credit investments, losses on foreclosed properties, amortization of other intangible assets, and other discrete items, if any, divided by operating revenue, which is equal to net interest income plus non-interest income less realized gains or losses on securities, if any.
The efficiency ratio improved to 66.59% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 67.77% for the year ended December 31, 2018. This improvement was the result of exceptional 2019 operating revenue attributable to above average fee income generated by the Corporation’s commercial loan interest rate swap program, as well as an increase in net interest income driven by a 7.6% increase in average loans and leases receivable. The increase in operating revenue was partially offset by an increase in compensation expense reflecting in part the Corporation’s continued investment in its long-term growth strategy. FTEs were 288 at December 31, 2019, increasing by 14, or 5.1%, from 274 at December 31, 2018. The year-over-year increase in FTEs consisted of eight new production positions and six new support positions across multiple business lines. We believe we will continue to generate modest positive operating leverage and progress towards enhancing our long-term efficiency ratio at a measured pace as we focus on strategic initiatives directed toward revenue growth. These initiatives include efforts to expand our specialty finance lines of business, increase our commercial banking market share, and scale our private wealth management business in less mature markets.
We believe the efficiency ratio allows investors and analysts to better assess the Corporation’s operating expenses in relation to its top line revenue by removing the volatility that is associated with certain non-recurring and other discrete items.

32

Table of Contents

The efficiency ratio also allows management to benchmark performance of our model to our peers without the influence of the loan loss provision and tax considerations, which will ultimately influence other traditional financial measurements, including ROAA and ROAE. The information provided below reconciles the efficiency ratio to its most comparable GAAP measure.
Please refer to the Non-Interest Income and Non-Interest Expense sections below for discussion on additional drivers of the year-over-year change in the efficiency ratio.
 
 
For the Year Ended December 31,
 
Change From Prior Year
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
$ Change
 
% Change
 
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Total non-interest expense
 
$
66,695

 
$
62,363

 
$
4,332

 
6.9
 %
Less:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss on foreclosed properties
 
224

 
367

 
(143
)
 
(39.0
)
Amortization of other intangible assets
 
40

 
47

 
(7
)
 
(14.9
)
SBA recourse provision
 
188

 
1,913

 
(1,725
)
 
(90.2
)
Impairment of tax credit investments
 
4,094

 
2,083

 
2,011

 
96.5

Total operating expense
 
$
62,149

 
$
57,953

 
$
4,196

 
7.2

Net interest income
 
$
69,856

 
$
67,342

 
$
2,514

 
3.7

Total non-interest income
 
23,423

 
18,167

 
5,256

 
28.9

Less:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net loss on sale of securities
 
(46
)
 
(4
)
 
(42
)
 
NM

Total operating revenue
 
$
93,325

 
$
85,513

 
$
7,812

 
9.1

Efficiency ratio
 
66.59
%
 
67.77
%
 

 

NM = Not meaningful
Net Interest Income
Net interest income levels depend on the amount of and yield on interest-earning assets as compared to the amount of and rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Net interest income is sensitive to changes in market rates of interest and the asset/liability management processes to prepare for and respond to such changes.

33

Table of Contents

The table below shows average balances, interest, average rates, net interest margin and the spread between combined average rates earned on our interest-earning assets and cost of interest-bearing liabilities for the periods indicated. The average balances are derived from average daily balances.
 
 
For the Year Ended December 31,
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
 
Average
Balance
 
Interest
 
Average
Yield/
Rate
 
Average
Balance
 
Interest
 
Average
Yield/
Rate
 
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Interest-earning assets
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commercial real estate and other mortgage loans(1)
 
$
1,142,201

 
$
58,330

 
5.11
%
 
$
1,074,873

 
$
53,620

 
4.99
%
Commercial and industrial loans(1)
 
500,058

 
35,251

 
7.05
%
 
447,687

 
30,043

 
6.71
%
Direct financing leases(1)
 
30,462

 
1,276

 
4.19
%
 
31,276

 
1,268

 
4.05
%
Consumer and other loans(1)
 
31,250

 
1,372

 
4.39
%
 
29,761

 
1,297

 
4.36
%
Total loans and leases receivable(1)
 
1,703,971

 
96,229

 
5.65
%
 
1,583,597

 
86,228

 
5.45
%
Mortgage-related securities(2)
 
161,969

 
4,069

 
2.51
%
 
137,145

 
3,185

 
2.32
%
Other investment securities(3)
 
26,661

 
568

 
2.13
%
 
33,929

 
657

 
1.94
%
FHLB stock
 
7,398

 
357

 
4.83
%
 
7,472

 
290

 
3.88
%
Short-term investments
 
35,344

 
817

 
2.31
%
 
49,365

 
915

 
1.85
%
Total interest-earning assets
 
1,935,343

 
102,040

 
5.27
%
 
1,811,508

 
91,275

 
5.04
%
Non-interest-earning assets
 
113,692

 
 
 
 
 
92,631

 
 
 
 
Total assets
 
$
2,049,035

 
 
 
 
 
$
1,904,139

 
 
 
 
Interest-bearing liabilities
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transaction accounts
 
$
222,244

 
3,408

 
1.53
%
 
$
269,943

 
2,671

 
0.99
%
Money market
 
617,341

 
10,576

 
1.71
%
 
491,756

 
5,375

 
1.09
%
Certificates of deposit
 
156,048

 
3,852

 
2.47
%
 
94,172

 
1,599

 
1.70
%
Wholesale deposits
 
225,302

 
5,122

 
2.27
%
 
302,440

 
5,888

 
1.95
%
Total interest-bearing deposits
 
1,220,935

 
22,958

 
1.88
%
 
1,158,311

 
15,533

 
1.34
%
FHLB advances
 
286,464

 
6,219

 
2.17
%
 
274,382

 
5,640

 
2.06
%
Other borrowings
 
25,236

 
1,895

 
7.51
%
 
24,537

 
1,648

 
6.72
%
Junior subordinated notes
 
10,040

 
1,112

 
11.08
%
 
10,025

 
1,112

 
11.09
%
Total interest-bearing liabilities
 
1,542,675

 
32,184

 
2.09
%
 
1,467,255

 
23,933

 
1.63
%
Non-interest-bearing demand deposit accounts
 
275,495

 
 
 
 
 
241,529

 
 
 
 
Other non-interest-bearing liabilities
 
45,047

 
 
 
 
 
22,076

 
 
 
 
Total liabilities
 
1,863,217

 
 
 
 
 
1,730,860

 
 
 
 
Stockholders’ equity
 
185,818

 
 
 
 
 
173,279

 
 
 
 
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity
 
$
2,049,035

 
 
 
 
 
$
1,904,139

 
 
 
 
Net interest income
 
 
 
$
69,856

 
 
 
 
 
$
67,342

 
 
Net interest spread
 
 
 
 
 
3.19
%
 
 
 
 
 
3.41
%
Net interest-earning assets
 
$
392,668

 
 
 
 
 
$
344,253

 
 
 
 
Net interest margin
 
 
 
 
 
3.61
%
 
 
 
 
 
3.72
%
Average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities
 
125.45
%
 
 
 
 
 
123.46
%
 
 
 
 
Return on average assets
 
1.14
%
 
 
 
 
 
0.86
%
 
 
 
 
Return on average equity
 
12.55
%
 
 
 
 
 
9.41
%
 
 
 
 
Average equity to average assets
 
9.07
%
 
 
 
 
 
9.10
%
 
 
 
 
Non-interest expense to average assets
 
3.25
%
 
 
 
 
 
3.28
%
 
 
 
 
(1)
The average balances of loans and leases include non-accrual loans and leases and loans held for sale. Interest income related to non-accrual loans and leases is recognized when collected. Interest income includes net loan fees collected in lieu of interest.
(2)
Includes amortized cost basis of assets available-for-sale and held-to-maturity.
(3)
Yields on tax-exempt municipal securities are not presented on a tax-equivalent basis in this table.

34

Table of Contents

The following table provides information with respect to: (1) the change in net interest income attributable to changes in rate (changes in rate multiplied by prior volume); and (2) the change in net interest income attributable to changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior rate) for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the year ended December 31, 2018. The change in net interest income attributable to changes in rate and volume (changes in rate multiplied by changes in volume) has been allocated to the rate and volume changes in proportion to the relationship of the absolute dollar amounts of the change in each.
Rate/Volume Analysis
 
 
Increase (Decrease) for the Year Ended December 31,
 
 
2019 Compared to 2018
 
 
Rate
 
Volume
 
Net
 
 
(In Thousands)
Interest-earning assets
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commercial real estate and other mortgage loans(1)
 
$
1,294

 
$
3,416

 
$
4,710

Commercial and industrial loans(1)
 
1,570

 
3,638

 
5,208

Direct financing leases(1)
 
41

 
(33
)
 
8

Consumer and other loans(1)
 
10

 
65

 
75

Total loans and leases receivable(1)
 
2,915

 
7,086

 
10,001

Mortgage-related securities(2)
 
275

 
609

 
884

Other investment securities
 
62

 
(151
)
 
(89
)
FHLB Stock
 
70

 
(3
)
 
67

Short-term investments
 
196

 
(294
)
 
(98
)
Total net change in income on interest-earning assets
 
3,518

 
7,247

 
10,765

Interest-bearing liabilities
 
 
 
 
 
 
Transaction accounts
 
1,272

 
(535
)
 
737

Money market
 
3,586

 
1,615

 
5,201

Certificates of deposit
 
920

 
1,333

 
2,253

Wholesale deposits
 
888

 
(1,654
)
 
(766
)
Total deposits
 
6,666

 
759

 
7,425

FHLB advances
 
325

 
254

 
579

Other borrowings
 
199

 
48

 
247

Junior subordinated notes
 
(2
)
 
2

 

Total net change in expense on interest-bearing liabilities
 
7,188

 
1,063

 
8,251

Net change in net interest income
 
$
(3,670
)
 
$
6,184

 
$
2,514

(1)
The average balances of loans and leases include non-accrual loans and leases and loans held for sale. Interest income related to non-accrual loans and leases is recognized when collected. Interest income includes net loan fees collected in lieu of interest.
(2)
Includes amortized cost basis of assets available-for-sale and held-to-maturity.

Net interest income increased by $2.5 million, or 3.7%, for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase compared to the prior year was principally due to an increase in average loans and leases outstanding, average loan and lease yields, and loan fees collected in lieu of interest. Average gross loans and leases of $1.704 billion increased by $120.4 million, or 7.6% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.584 billion for the same period in 2018 while loan fees collected in lieu of interest increased 20.1% to $6.3 million, compared to $5.2 million during the same period of comparison. These favorable variances were partially offset by an increase in interest expense resulting from an increase in rate and volume across various interest-bearing products, specifically money market accounts and certificates of deposit, as well as one-time interest expense items related to exercising the call options on subordinated debt and brokered deposits.
The yield on average earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2019 was 5.27%, an increase of 23 basis points compared to 5.04% for the year ended December 31, 2018. This increase was principally due to an increase in higher-yielding specialty finance loans combined with the increase in recurring loan fees collected in lieu of interest. Excluding the impact of

35

Table of Contents

loan fees in lieu of interest in both 2019 and 2018, the yield on average earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2019 was 4.95%, an increase of 20 basis points compared to 4.75% for the year ended December 31, 2018.
The yield on average loans and leases receivable for the year ended December 31, 2019 was 5.65%, an increase of 20 basis points compared to 5.45% for the year ended December 31, 2018. The primary reasons for this increase are consistent with the average interest-earning asset yield variance explanations discussed above. Excluding the impact of loan fees collected in lieu of interest in both 2019 and 2018, the yield on average loans and leases receivable for the year ended December 31, 2019 was 5.28%, an increase of 16 basis points compared to 5.12% for the year ended December 31, 2018.
The average rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities was 2.09% for the year ended December 31, 2019, an increase of 46 basis points from 1.63% for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase in average rate paid was principally due to a $125.6 million, or 25.5% increase in average money market accounts for the year ended December 31, 2019 at an average rate paid of 1.71%, compared to an average rate paid of 1.09% for the year ended December 31, 2018. This increase in interest-bearing deposits was partially offset by a $77.1 million, or 25.5% reduction in average wholesale deposits, which are typically longer duration and a higher cost funding source than in-market deposits.
Consistent with the Corporation’s longstanding funding strategy to manage interest rate risk and use the most efficient and cost effective source of wholesale funds, a combination of fixed rate wholesale deposits and fixed rate FHLB advances are used at various maturity terms to meet the Corporation’s funding needs. Average FHLB advances for the year ended December 31, 2019 increased $12.1 million to $286.5 million at an average rate paid of 2.17%. As of December 31, 2019, the weighted average original maturity of our FHLB term advances was 5.4 years, compared to 3.7 years as of December 31, 2018. Average wholesale deposits, consisting of brokered certificates of deposit and deposits gathered from internet listing services, for the year ended December 31, 2019 decreased $77.1 million to $225.3 million at an average rate paid of 2.27%. As of December 31, 2019, the weighted average original maturity of our wholesale deposits was 5.3 years, compared to 4.7 years as of December 31, 2018. The rate paid on average wholesale funding is greater than the cost of in-market deposits and changes more gradually because the portfolio includes longer original maturities as the Corporation match-funds its longer-term fixed rate loans to mitigate interest rates risk.
Net interest margin decreased 11 basis points to 3.61% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 3.72% for the year ended December 31, 2018. Excluding fees collected in lieu of interest and one-time interest expense items related to exercising the call options on subordinated debt and brokered deposits, adjusted net interest margin measured 3.31% for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to 3.43% for the year ended December 31, 2018. The 12 basis point decrease in adjusted net interest margin was primarily due to the increase in rate paid on average in-market deposits, partially offset by an increase in the yield on average loans and leases receivable, combined with a reduction in average wholesale deposits as the growth in average in-market deposits exceeded the growth in average loans and leases receivable.
Management believes the successful efforts to manage funding costs and profitably expand loan balances will allow the Corporation to continue to maintain a net interest margin of 3.50% or better. However, the collection of loan fees in lieu of interest is an expected source of volatility to net interest income and net interest margin. Net interest margin may also experience volatility due to events such as the collection of interest on loans previously in non-accrual status or the accumulation of significant short-term deposit inflows.
Despite an uncertain rate environment, management expects to effectively manage the Corporation’s liability structure in both term and rate. Further, we expect to attract new in-market deposit relationships which we believe will contribute to our ability to maintain an appropriate cost of funds. Period end in-market deposits - comprised of all transaction accounts, money market accounts, and non-wholesale deposits - were $1.379 billion at December 31, 2019, compared to $1.179 billion at December 31, 2018. Average in-market deposits were $1.271 billion for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.097 billion for the year ended December 31, 2018.
Provision for Loan and Lease Losses
We determine our provision for loan and lease losses pursuant to our allowance for loan and lease loss methodology, which is based on the magnitude of current and historical net charge-offs recorded throughout the established look-back period, the evaluation of several qualitative factors for each portfolio category, and the amount of specific reserves established for impaired loans that present collateral shortfall positions. Refer to Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses, below, for further information regarding our allowance for loan and lease loss methodology.
We recorded a provision for loan and lease losses of $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 as compared to $5.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The decrease in provision for loan and lease losses was primarily due to a decrease in specific reserves in our legacy SBA portfolio, defined as SBA 7(a) and Express loans originated in 2016 and prior.

36

Table of Contents

The current year provision also reflected a modest increase to the general reserve commensurate with an increase in loan and lease receivables.
Additional information on our legacy SBA portfolio is as follows:
 
 
December 31,
2019
 
December 31,
2018
 
 
(In Thousands)
Performing loans:
 
 
 
 
Off-balance sheet loans
 
$
35,029

 
$
48,989

On-balance sheet loans
 
19,697

 
26,260

Gross loans
 
54,726

 
75,249

Non-performing loans:
 
 
 
 
Off-balance sheet loans
 
7,290

 
13,036

On-balance sheet loans
 
12,037

 
13,028

Gross loans
 
19,327

 
26,064

Total loans:
 
 
 
 
Off-balance sheet loans
 
42,319

 
62,025

On-balance sheet loans
 
31,734

 
39,288

Gross loans
 
$
74,053

 
$
101,313

The addition of specific reserves on impaired loans represents new specific reserves established when collateral shortfalls or government guaranty deficiencies are present, while conversely the release of specific reserves represents the reduction of previously established reserves that are no longer required. Changes in the allowance for loan and lease losses due to subjective factor changes reflect management’s evaluation of the level of risk within the portfolio based upon several factors for each portfolio segment. Charge-offs in excess of previously established specific reserves require an additional provision for loan and lease losses to maintain the allowance for loan and lease losses at a level deemed appropriate by management. This amount is net of the release of any specific reserve that may have already been provided. Change in the inherent risk of the portfolio is primarily influenced by the overall growth in gross loans and leases and an analysis of loans previously charged off, as well as movement of existing loans and leases in and out of an impaired loan classification where a specific evaluation of a particular credit may be required rather than the application of a general reserve loss rate. Refer to Asset Quality, below, for further information regarding the overall credit quality of our loan and lease portfolio.
Non-Interest Income
Non-interest income increased by $5.3 million, or 28.9%, to $23.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, from $18.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. Management continues to focus on revenue growth from multiple non-interest income sources in order to maintain a diversified revenue stream through greater contribution from fee-based revenues. Total non-interest income accounted for 25.1% of our total revenues in 2019, exceeding our long-term goal of 25%, compared to 21.2% in 2018.
The increase in total non-interest income for the year ended December 31, 2019 primarily reflected record private wealth management services fee income, record commercial loan interest rate swap fee income, and an increase in other non-interest income.

37

Table of Contents

The components of non-interest income were as follows: 
 
For the Year Ended December 31,
 
Change From Prior Year
 
2019
 
2018
 
$ Change
 
% Change
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Private wealth management services fee income
$
8,197

 
$
7,744

 
$
453

 
5.8
 %
Gain on sale of SBA loans
1,459

 
1,451

 
8

 
0.6

Service charges on deposits
3,104

 
3,062

 
42

 
1.4

Loan fees
1,767

 
1,783

 
(16
)
 
(0.9
)
Increase in cash surrender value of bank-owned life insurance
1,198

 
1,191

 
7

 
0.6

Net loss on sale of securities
(46
)
 
(4
)
 
(42
)
 
NM

Swap fees
4,165

 
1,670

 
2,495

 
NM

Other non-interest income
3,579

 
1,270

 
2,309

 
NM

Total non-interest income
$
23,423

 
$
18,167

 
$
5,256

 
28.9

Fee income ratio(1)
25.1
%
 
21.2
%
 
 
 
 
(1)
Fee income ratio is fee income, per the above table, divided by top line revenue (defined as net interest income plus non-interest income).
Private wealth management services fee income increased by $453,000, or 5.8%, to a record $8.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to $7.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. Private wealth management services fee income is primarily driven by the amount of assets under management and administration, as well as the mix of business at different fee structures, and can be positively or negatively influenced by the timing and magnitude of volatility within the capital markets. This increase was driven by growth in assets under management and administration attributable to both new client relationships and increased equity market values. At December 31, 2019, our trust assets under management and administration were a record $1.892 billion, or 16.1% more than trust assets under management and administration of $1.630 billion at December 31, 2018. We expect to continue to increase our revenue from assets under management and administration as we deepen existing and grow new client relationships in our primary Wisconsin and Kansas City markets, but market volatility may also affect the actual change in revenue.
Commercial loan swap fees increased by $2.5 million to $4.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 from $1.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. We originate commercial real estate loans in which we offer clients a floating rate and an interest rate swap. The client’s swap is then offset with a counter-party dealer. The execution of these transactions generates swap fee income. The above average swap fee income in 2019 was primarily due to three large commercial real estate transactions which generated $2.1 million of fees. Interest rate swaps continue to be an attractive product for our commercial borrowers, although associated fee income can be variable from period to period based on client demand and the interest rate environment in any given quarter.
Other non-interest income increased by $2.3 million to $3.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. This favorable variance was primarily due to a $900,000 increase in fee income associated with above average returns on our investments in mezzanine funds, a $561,000 increase in gains recognized on end-of-term buyout agreements in equipment financing, and a $413,000 increase in gains related to the sale of state historic tax credits.
Gain on sale of SBA loans for the year ended December 31, 2019 totaled $1.5 million, an increase of $8,000, or 0.6%, from the same period in 2018. Gross SBA loan commitments closed for the year ended December 31, 2019 totaled $24.4 million, compared to $26.1 million for the same period in 2018. Of the $24.4 million commitments closed in 2019, $11.6 million were closed in the fourth quarter, which we believe is a fair indication of production activity expected to continue throughout 2020. Based on this recent activity, an enhanced business development team, and a growing pipeline of new business, management believes the gain on sale of SBA loans will continue to increase at a measured pace moving forward.
Non-Interest Expense
Non-interest expense increased by $4.3 million, or 6.9%, to $66.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 from $62.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase in non-interest expense was primarily due to an increase in compensation, computer software expense, impairment on tax credit investments, and other non-interest expense. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in FDIC insurance, collateral liquidation costs, and SBA recourse provision.

38

Table of Contents

The components of non-interest expense were as follows: 
 
For the Year Ended December 31,
 
Change From Prior Year
 
2019
 
2018
 
$ Change
 
% Change
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Compensation
$
42,021

 
$
37,439

 
$
4,582

 
12.2
 %
Occupancy
2,293

 
2,192

 
101

 
4.6

Professional fees
3,703

 
3,869

 
(166
)
 
(4.3
)
Data processing
2,562

 
2,362

 
200

 
8.5

Marketing
2,221

 
2,135

 
86

 
4.0

Equipment
1,230

 
1,434

 
(204
)
 
(14.2
)
Computer software
3,414

 
3,015

 
399

 
13.2

FDIC insurance
641

 
1,478

 
(837
)
 
(56.6
)
Collateral liquidation costs
119

 
646

 
(527
)
 
(81.6
)
Net loss on foreclosed properties
224

 
367

 
(143
)
 
(39.0
)
Impairment on tax credit investments
4,094

 
2,083

 
2,011

 
96.5

SBA recourse provision
188

 
1,913

 
(1,725
)
 
(90.2
)
Other non-interest expense
3,985

 
3,430

 
555

 
16.2

Total non-interest expense
$
66,695

 
$
62,363

 
$
4,332

 
6.9

Total operating expense(1)
$
62,189

 
$
58,000

 
$
4,189

 
7.2

Full-time equivalent employees
288

 
274

 


 


(1)
Total operating expense represents total non-interest expense, adjusted to exclude the impact of discrete items as previously defined in the non-GAAP efficiency ratio calculation above.
Compensation expense increased by $4.6 million, or 12.2%, to $42.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 from $37.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase reflects new hires, annual merit increases, growth in employee benefit costs, and an increase in performance-based incentive compensation. FTEs as of December 31, 2019 were 288, up 14, or 5.1%, from 274 at December 31, 2018. The increase in FTEs is a reflection of our opportunistic approach to talent acquisition as we added eight new producers and six new support positions across multiple business lines, including commercial lending, SBA lending, private wealth management, and equipment financing. We expect to continue investing in talent, both in the form of additional business development and operational staff, to support our long-term strategic plan.
Computer software expense increased by $399,000, or 13.2%, to $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 from $3.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase was principally due to investments in technology platforms to improve the client experience and continuing our strategic focus on scaling the Corporation to efficiently execute our growth strategy.
Impairment on tax credit investments increased $2.0 million, or 96.5%, to $4.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $2.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The impairment on tax credit investments is related to historic rehabilitation tax credits and new market tax credits that are more than offset by a reduction to income tax expense, which, including the aforementioned gain on state tax credits, results in a net benefit to earnings. The increase in 2019 primarily reflects $3.6 million of impairment associated with the recognition of $5.2 million in federal historic tax credits in 2019, compared to $1.4 million of impairment associated with the recognition of a $2.3 million federal historic tax credit in 2018.
Other non-interest expense increased by $555,000, or 16.2%, to $4.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 from $3.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase was principally due to a one-time right-of-use impairment of $299,000 from vacating and subleasing unused office space in our Kansas City market. We also experienced an increase in business travel and training costs consistent with the increase in FTEs referenced above.
FDIC expense for the year ended December 31, 2019 benefited from a reduction in FDIC insurance expense as the DIF reached 1.38%, exceeding the statutorily required minimum ratio of 1.35% and requiring the FDIC to distribute assessment credits to small banks for their portion of their assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio. The

39

Table of Contents

Corporation received a credit of $458,000 during the year ended December 31, 2019. Management expects FDIC insurance expense to return to normalized levels in 2020 and increase thereafter commensurate with asset growth.
Collateral liquidation costs for the year ended December 31, 2019 were $119,000 compared to $646,000 for the year ended December 31, 2018. The decrease primarily reflects the improvement in our overall credit quality, as well as the recovery of previously expensed liquidation costs.
SBA recourse provision for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $188,000 compared to $1.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The total recourse reserve balance was $1.3 million, or 1.8% of total sold SBA loans outstanding, at December 31, 2019, compared to $3.0 million, or 3.6% of total sold SBA loans outstanding, at December 31, 2018. Changes to SBA recourse reserves may be a source of non-interest expense volatility in future quarters, though the magnitude of this volatility should continue to diminish over time as the outstanding balance of sold legacy SBA loans continues to decline.
Income Taxes
Income tax expense was $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2019, compared to $1.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. The Corporation recognized federal historic tax credits in both 2019 and 2018, which reduced income tax expense by $5.2 million and $2.3 million, respectively. The effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2019 was 4.8% compared to 7.7% for the year ended December 31, 2018.
FINANCIAL CONDITION
General
At December 31, 2019 total assets were $2.097 billion, representing an increase of $130.3 million, or 6.6%, from $1.966 billion at December 31, 2018. The increase in total assets was primarily driven by an increase in loans and leases receivable and securities available-for-sale.
Short-term investments
Short-term investments decreased by $12.2 million to $51.0 million at December 31, 2019 from $63.2 million at December 31, 2018. Short-term investments primarily consist of interest-bearing deposits held at the Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) and commercial paper. We value the safety and soundness provided by the FRB, and therefore, we incorporate short-term investments in our on-balance sheet liquidity program. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, interest-bearing deposits held at the FRB were $44.4 million and $43.6 million, respectively. Although the majority of short-term investments consist of deposits with the FRB, we also make investments in commercial paper. As of December 31, 2019, our total investment in commercial paper was $5.9 million compared to $19.3 million at December 31, 2018. We approach our decisions to purchase commercial paper with similar rigor and underwriting standards as applied to our loan and lease portfolio. The original maturities of the commercial paper are usually 60 days or less and provide an attractive yield in comparison to other short-term alternatives. These investments also assist us in maintaining a shorter duration of our overall investment portfolio which we believe is necessary to be in a position to benefit from an anticipated change in the yield curve level and shape. In general, the level of our short-term investments will be influenced by the timing of deposit gathering, scheduled maturities of wholesale deposits, funding of loan and lease growth when opportunities are presented, and the level of our securities portfolio. Please refer to the section entitled Liquidity and Capital Resources for further discussion.
Securities
Total securities, including available-for-sale and held-to-maturity, increased by $29.7 million to $205.8 million at December 31, 2019 from $176.1 million at December 31, 2018. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, our total securities portfolio had a weighted average estimated maturity of approximately 4.4 years and 4.1 years, respectively. The investment portfolio primarily consists of mortgage-backed securities and is used to provide a source of liquidity, including the ability to pledge securities for possible future cash advances, while contributing to the earnings potential of the Bank. The overall duration of the securities portfolio is established and maintained to further mitigate interest rate risk present within our balance sheet as identified through asset/liability simulations. We purchase investment securities intended to protect net interest margin while maintaining an acceptable risk profile. In addition, we will purchase investment securities to utilize our cash position effectively within appropriate policy guidelines and estimates of future cash demands. While mortgage-backed securities present prepayment risk and extension risk, we believe the overall credit risk associated with these investments is minimal, as the majority of the securities we hold are guaranteed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”), or the Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”), a U.S. government agency. The estimated repayment streams associated with this portfolio also allow us to better match short-term liabilities. The Bank’s investment policies allow for various types of investments, including tax-exempt municipal securities.

40

Table of Contents

The ability to invest in tax-exempt municipal securities provides for further opportunity to improve our overall yield on the securities portfolio. We evaluate the credit risk of the municipal securities prior to purchase and generally limit exposure to general obligation issuances from municipalities, primarily in Wisconsin.
The majority of the securities we hold have active trading markets; therefore, we have not experienced difficulties in pricing our securities. We use a third-party pricing service as our primary source of market prices for the securities portfolio. On a quarterly basis, we validate the reasonableness of prices received from this source through independent verification of the portfolio, data integrity validation through comparison of current price to prior period prices, and an expectation-based analysis of movement in prices based upon the changes in the related yield curves and other market factors. On a periodic basis, we review the third-party pricing vendor’s methodology for pricing relevant securities and the results of its internal control assessments. Our securities portfolio is sensitive to fluctuations in the interest rate environment and has limited sensitivity to credit risk due to the nature of the issuers and guarantors of the securities as previously discussed. If interest rates decline and the credit quality of the securities remains constant or improves, the fair value of our debt securities portfolio would likely improve, thereby increasing total comprehensive income. If interest rates increase and the credit quality of the securities remains constant or deteriorates, the fair value of our debt securities portfolio would likely decline and therefore decrease total comprehensive income. The magnitude of the fair value change will be based upon the duration of the portfolio. A securities portfolio with a longer average duration will exhibit greater market price volatility than a securities portfolio with a shorter average duration in a changing rate environment. During the year ended December 31, 2019, we recognized unrealized holding gains of $2.7 million before income taxes through other comprehensive income. These gains were the result of a decrease in interest rates. No securities within our portfolio were deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired as of December 31, 2019. We sold approximately $22.5 million of securities during the year ended December 31, 2019 to proactively manage our securities portfolio and meet our long-term investment objectives. As of December 31, 2019 no securities were classified as trading securities. At December 31, 2019, $30.3 million of our securities were pledged to secure various obligations, including interest rate swap contracts and municipal deposits.

41

Table of Contents

The tables below set forth information regarding the amortized cost and fair values of our securities.
 
 
As of December 31,
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
 
Amortized Cost
 
Fair Value
 
Amortized Cost
 
Fair Value
 
 
(In Thousands)
Available-for-sale:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. government agency securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 
$
23,616

 
$
23,758

 
$
999

 
$
990

Municipal securities
 
160

 
160

 
5,953

 
5,886

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government issued
 
16,119

 
16,348

 
14,594

 
14,495

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 
111,561

 
112,002

 
105,524

 
104,186

Commercial mortgage-backed securities - government issued
 
6,705

 
6,663

 
5,413

 
5,133

Commercial mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 
11,953

 
11,967

 
5,404

 
5,292

Other securities
 
2,205

 
2,235

 
2,450

 
2,376

 
 
$
172,319

 
$
173,133

 
$
140,337

 
$
138,358

 
 
As of December 31,
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
 
Amortized Cost
 
Fair Value
 
Amortized Cost
 
Fair Value
 
 
(In Thousands)
Held-to-maturity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Municipal securities
 
$
19,727

 
$
20,054

 
$
21,066

 
$
21,079

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government issued
 
5,776

 
5,786

 
7,358

 
7,186

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored issued
 
5,183

 
5,211

 
6,524

 
6,368

Commercial mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 
2,014

 
2,137

 
2,783

 
2,776

 
 
$
32,700

 
$
33,188

 
$
37,731

 
$
37,409

U.S. government agency securities - government-sponsored enterprises represent securities issued by FNMA and the SBA. Municipal securities include securities issued by various municipalities located primarily within Wisconsin and are primarily general obligation bonds that are tax-exempt in nature. Residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities - government issued represent securities guaranteed by GNMA. Residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises include securities guaranteed by FHLMC, FNMA, and the FHLB. Other securities represent certificates of deposit of insured banks and savings institutions with an original maturity greater than three months. As of December 31, 2019, no issuer's securities exceeded 10% of our total stockholders' equity.
The following table sets forth the contractual maturity and weighted average yield characteristics of the fair value of our available-for-sale securities and the amortized cost of our held-to-maturity securities at December 31, 2019, classified by remaining contractual maturity. Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because issuers have the right to call or prepay securities without call or prepayment penalties. Yields on tax-exempt securities have not been computed on a tax equivalent basis.

42

Table of Contents

 
 
Less than One Year
 
One to Five Years
 
Five to Ten Years
 
Over Ten Years
 
 
 
 
Fair Value
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Fair Value
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Fair Value
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Fair Value
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Total
 
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Available-for-sale:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. government agency securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 
$
1,002

 
2.04
%
 
$

 
%
 
$
3,487

 
2.64
%
 
$
19,269

 
2.57
%
 
$
23,758

Municipal securities
 
160

 
2.38

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
160

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government issued
 

 

 

 

 
3,526

 
2.99

 
12,822

 
2.72

 
16,348

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 

 

 
2,535

 
2.39

 
20,048

 
2.66

 
89,419

 
2.50

 
112,002

Commercial mortgage-backed securities - government issued
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
6,663

 
2.22

 
6,663

Commercial mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 

 

 
2,407

 
2.13

 
7,316

 
2.29

 
2,244

 
2.47

 
11,967

Other securities
 

 

 
2,235

 
2.38

 

 

 

 

 
2,235

 
 
$
1,162

 
 
 
$
7,177

 
 
 
$
34,377

 
 
 
$
130,417

 
 
 
$
173,133

 
 
Less than One Year
 
One to Five Years
 
Five to Ten Years
 
Over Ten Years
 
 
 
 
Amortized Cost
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Amortized Cost
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Amortized Cost
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Amortized Cost
 
Weighted
Average
Yield
 
Total
 
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Held-to-maturity:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Municipal securities
 
1,525

 
2.01
 
13,474

 
2.08
 
4,728

 
2.45
 

 
 
19,727

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government issued
 

 
 

 
 
2,712

 
1.95
 
3,064

 
2.24
 
5,776

Residential mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 

 
 

 
 
3,531

 
1.67
 
1,652

 
3.31
 
5,183

Commercial mortgage-backed securities - government-sponsored enterprises
 

 
 

 
 
2,014

 
3.23
 

 
 
2,014

 
 
$
1,525

 
 
 
$
13,474

 
 
 
$
12,985

 
 
 
$
4,716

 
 
 
$
32,700

Derivative Activities
The Bank’s investment policies allow the Bank to participate in hedging strategies or to use financial futures, options, forward commitments, or interest rate swaps with prior approval from the Board. The Bank utilizes, from time to time, derivative instruments in the course of their asset/liability management. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, the Bank did not hold any derivative instruments that were designated as fair value hedges. The derivative portfolio includes interest rate swaps offered directly to qualified commercial borrowers, which allow the Bank to provide a fixed rate alternative to their clients while mitigating interest rate risk by keeping a variable rate loan in their portfolios. The Bank economically hedges client derivative transactions by entering into equal and offsetting interest rate swap contracts executed with dealer counterparties. The economic hedge with the dealer counterparties allows the Bank to primarily offset the fixed rate interest rate risk. Derivative transactions executed through this program are not designated as accounting hedge relationships and are marked to market through earnings each period.
As of December 31, 2019, the aggregate amortizing notional value of interest rate swaps with various commercial borrowers was approximately $326.9 million. We receive fixed rates and pay floating rates based upon LIBOR on the swaps with commercial borrowers. These swaps mature between March 2021 and October 2036. Commercial borrower swaps are completed independently with each borrower and are not subject to master netting arrangements. These commercial borrower swaps were reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as a derivative asset of $18.3 million, included in accrued interest receivable and other assets, and as a derivative liability of $64,000, included in accrued interest payable and other liabilities. On the offsetting swap contracts with dealer counterparties, we pay fixed rates and receive floating rates based upon LIBOR. These interest rate swaps also have maturity dates between March 2021 and October 2036. Dealer counterparty swaps are subject to master netting agreements among the contracts within our Bank and are reported on the Consolidated Balance Sheet as a net derivative liability of $18.3 million, included in accrued interest payable and other liabilities. The gross amount of dealer counterparty swaps, without regard to the enforceable master netting agreement, was a gross derivative liability of $18.3 million and a gross derivative asset of $64,000.

43

Table of Contents

The Corporation also enters into interest rate swaps to manage interest rate risk and reduce the cost of match-funding certain long-term fixed rate loans. These derivative contracts involve the receipt of floating rate interest from a counterparty in exchange for the Corporation making fixed-rate payments over the life of the agreement, without the exchange of the underlying notional value. The instruments are designated as cash flow hedges as the receipt of floating rate interest from the counterparty is used to manage interest rate risk associated with forecasted issuances of short-term FHLB advances. The change in the fair value of these hedging instruments is recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income and is subsequently reclassified into earnings in the period that the hedged transactions affects earnings. As of December 31, 2019, the aggregate notional value of interest rate swaps designated as cash flow hedges was $54.0 million. These interest rate swaps mature between December 2021 and December 2027. A pre-tax unrealized loss of $2.4 million was recognized in other comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2019 and there was no ineffective portion of these hedges information about the balance sheet location and fair value of the Corporation’s derivative instruments to qualified commercial borrowers as of December 31, 2019 and 2018.
Loans and Leases Receivable
Loans and leases receivable, net of allowance for loan and lease losses, increased by $97.9 million, or 6.1%, to $1.695 billion at December 31, 2019 from $1.597 billion at December 31, 2018. Multi-family and commercial and industrial loans (“C&I”) were the largest contributor to loan growth in 2019, increasing $49.5 million and $41.1 million, respectively.
In general, our composition of total loans and leases has remained relatively consistent due to balanced growth across our product offerings. Commercial real estate (“CRE”) loans represented 67.3% and 67.6% of our total loans and leases as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2019, approximately 19.6% of the CRE loans were owner-occupied CRE, compared to 18.6% as of December 31, 2018. We consider owner-occupied CRE more characteristic of the Corporation’s C&I portfolio as, in general, the client’s primary source of repayment is the cash flow from the operating entity occupying the commercial real estate property.
Our C&I portfolio increased $41.1 million, or 8.9%, to $503.4 million at December 31, 2019 from $462.3 million at December 31, 2018 reflecting growth in both conventional lending and specialty finance. C&I loans represented 29.3% and 28.6% of our total loans and leases as of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, respectively. We will continue to emphasize actively pursuing C&I loans across the Corporation as this segment of our loan and lease portfolio provides an attractive yield commensurate with an appropriate level of credit risk and creates opportunities for in-market deposit, treasury management, and private wealth management relationships which generate additional fee revenue.
Underwriting of new credit is primarily through a committee process and is a key component of our operating philosophy. Business development officers have relatively low individual lending authority limits, and thus, a significant portion of our new credit extensions require approval from a loan approval committee regardless of the type of loan or lease, amount of the credit, or the related complexities of each proposal. In addition, we make every reasonable effort to ensure that there is appropriate collateral or a government guarantee at the time of origination to protect our interest in the related loan or lease. To monitor the ongoing credit quality of our loans and leases, each credit is evaluated for proper risk rating using a nine grade risk rating system at the time of origination, subsequent renewal, evaluation of updated financial information from our borrowers, or as other circumstances dictate.
While we continue to experience significant competition from banks operating in our primary geographic areas, we remain committed to our underwriting standards and will not deviate from those standards for the sole purpose of growing our loan and lease portfolio. We continue to expect our new loan and lease activity to be adequate to replace normal amortization, allowing us to continue growing in future years.

44

Table of Contents

The following table presents information concerning the composition of the Bank’s consolidated loans and leases receivable. 
 
 
As of December 31,
 
 
2019
 
2018
 
 
Amount Outstanding
 
% of Total Loans and Leases
 
Amount Outstanding
 
% of Total Loans and Leases
 
 
(Dollars in Thousands)
Commercial real estate:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Commercial real estate — owner occupied
 
$
226,614

 
13.2
%
 
$
203,476

 
12.6
%
Commercial real estate — non-owner occupied
 
516,652

 
30.1

 
484,427

 
29.9

Land development
 
51,097

 
3.0

 
42,666

 
2.6

Construction
 
109,057

 
6.4

 
161,562

 
10.0

Multi-family
 
217,322

 
12.7

 
167,868

 
10.4

1-4 family
 
33,359

 
1.9

 
34,340

 
2.1

Total commercial real estate
 
1,154,101

 
67.3

 
1,094,339

 
67.6

Commercial and industrial
 
503,402

 
29.3

 
462,321

 
28.6

Direct financing leases, net
 
28,203

 
1.7

 
33,170

 
2.0

Consumer and other:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Home equity and second mortgage
 
7,006

 
0.4

 
8,438

 
0.5

Other
 
22,664

 
1.3

 
20,789

 
1.3

Total consumer and other
 
29,670

 
1.7

 
29,227

 
1.8

Total gross loans and leases receivable
 
1,715,376

 
100.0
%
 
1,619,057

 
100.0
%
Less:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Allowance for loan and lease losses
 
19,520

 
 
 
20,425

 
 
Deferred loan fees
 
741

 
 
 
1,402

 
 
Loans and leases receivable, net
 
$
1,695,115

 
 
 
$
1,597,230

 
 
The following table shows the scheduled contractual maturities of the Bank’s consolidated gross loans and leases receivable, as well as the dollar amount of such loans and leases which are scheduled to mature after one year and have fixed or adjustable interest rates, as of December 31, 2019.