Toggle SGML Header (+)


Section 1: 10-K (10-K)

Table of Contents

 

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 


 

FORM 10-K

 

(Mark One)

 

x

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011

 

OR

 

o

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 0-24566-01

 

MB FINANCIAL, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

Maryland

 

36-4460265

(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

 

(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

 

 

 

800 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois

 

60607

(Address of Principal Executive Offices)

 

(Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:  (888) 422-6562

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

Title of Each Class

 

Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

 

 

 

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

 

The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC

 

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

 

None

(Title of Class)

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes x No o

 

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

 

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 x No o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes x No o

 

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statement incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  o

 

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

 

Large accelerated filer x

 

Accelerated filer o

 

 

 

Non-accelerated filer o

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

 

Smaller reporting company o

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).  Yes o No x

 

The aggregate market value of the voting shares held by non-affiliates of the Registrant was approximately $1,013,427,269 as of June 30, 2011, the last business day of the Registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter.  Solely for the purpose of this computation, it has been assumed that executive officers and directors of the Registrant are “affiliates.”

 

There were issued and outstanding 54,662,868 shares of the Registrant’s common stock as of February 10, 2012.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

 

Document

 

Part of Form 10-K

 

 

 

Portions of the definitive Proxy Statement to be used in conjunction with the Registrant’s 2012 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

 

Part III

 

 

 



Table of Contents

 

MB FINANCIAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

 

FORM 10-K

 

December 31, 2011

 

INDEX

 

 

 

 

Page

PART I

 

 

 

Item 1

Business

 

3

Item 1A

Risk Factors

 

17

Item 1B

Unresolved Staff Comments

 

25

Item 2

Properties

 

25

Item 3

Legal Proceedings

 

25

Item 4

Reserved

 

25

 

 

 

25

PART II

 

 

 

Item 5

Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

25

Item 6

Selected Financial Data

 

28

Item 7

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

 

34

Item 7A

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

 

60

Item 8

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

 

63

Item 9

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

 

126

Item 9A

Controls and Procedures

 

126

Item 9B

Other Information

 

126

 

 

 

 

PART III

 

 

 

Item 10

Directors, Executive Officers, and Corporate Governance

 

127

Item 11

Executive Compensation

 

127

Item 12

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners, and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

 

127

Item 13

Certain Relationships, Related Transactions and Director Independence

 

128

Item 14

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

 

128

 

 

 

 

PART IV

 

 

 

Item 15

Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

 

128

 

Signatures

 

129

 

2



Table of Contents

 

PART I

 

Item 1.  Business

 

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

 

When used in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in press releases or other public shareholder communications, or in oral statements made with the approval of an authorized executive officer, the words or phrases “believe,” “will,” “should,” “will likely result,” “are expected to,” “will continue,” “is anticipated,” “estimate,” “project,” “plans,” or similar expressions are intended to identify “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date made.  These statements may relate to MB Financial, Inc.’s future financial performance, strategic plans or objectives, revenues or earnings projections, or other financial items.  By their nature, these statements are subject to numerous uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in the statements.

 

Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results anticipated or projected include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) expected revenues, cost savings, synergies and other benefits from our merger and acquisition activities might not be realized within the anticipated time frames or at all, and costs or difficulties relating to integration matters, including but not limited to customer and employee retention, might be greater than expected; (2) the possibility that the expected benefits of the FDIC-assisted transactions we previously completed will not be realized; (3) the credit risks of lending activities, including changes in the level and direction of loan delinquencies and write-offs and changes in estimates of the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, which could necessitate additional provisions for loan losses, resulting both from loans we originate and loans we acquire from other financial institutions; (4) results of examinations by the Office of Comptroller of Currency and other regulatory authorities, including the possibility that any such regulatory authority may, among other things, require us to increase our allowance for loan losses or write-down assets; (5) competitive pressures among depository institutions; (6) interest rate movements and their impact on customer behavior and net interest margin; (7) the impact of repricing and competitors’ pricing initiatives on loan and deposit products; (8) fluctuations in real estate values; (9) the ability to adapt successfully to technological changes to meet customers’ needs and developments in the market-place; (10) our ability to realize the residual values of our direct finance, leveraged, and operating leases; (11) our ability to access cost-effective funding; (12) changes in financial markets; (13) changes in economic conditions in general and in the Chicago metropolitan area in particular; (14) the costs, effects and outcomes of litigation; (15) new legislation or regulatory changes, including but not limited to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act and regulations adopted thereunder, changes in federal and/or state tax laws or interpretations thereof by taxing authorities, changes in laws, rules or regulations applicable to companies that have participated in the TARP Capital Purchase Program of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and other governmental initiatives affecting the financial services industry; (16) changes in accounting principles, policies or guidelines; (17) our future acquisitions of other depository institutions or lines of business; and (18) future goodwill impairment due to changes in our business, changes in market conditions, or other factors.

 

We do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date on which the forward-looking statement is made.

 

3



Table of Contents

 

General

 

MB Financial, Inc., headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a financial holding company with banking offices located primarily in the Chicago area.  The words “MB Financial,”  “the Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to MB Financial, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiaries, unless we indicate otherwise.  Our primary market is the Chicago metropolitan area, in which we operate 87 banking offices through our bank subsidiary, MB Financial Bank, N.A. (MB Financial Bank). MB Financial Bank also has one banking office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Through MB Financial Bank, we offer a broad range of financial services primarily to small and middle market businesses and individuals in the markets that we serve.  Our primary lines of business include commercial banking, retail banking and wealth management.  As of December 31, 2011, we had total assets of $9.8 billion, deposits of $7.6 billion, stockholders’ equity of $1.4 billion, and $3.6 billion of client assets under administration in our Wealth Management Group (including $2.2 billion in our trust department, $432.0 million in brokerage accounts, and $998.1 million in our majority owned asset management firm, Cedar Hill Associates LLC).

 

We have completed a number of acquisitions in recent years, including the following most recent transactions.

 

During 2009 and 2010, MB Financial Bank acquired certain assets and assumed certain liabilities of Glenwood, Illinois-based Heritage Community Bank (Heritage); Oak Forest, Illinois-based InBank; Chicago-based Corus Bank, N.A. (Corus); Aurora, Illinois-based Benchmark Bank (Benchmark); Chicago, Illinois-based New Century Bank (New Century); and Chicago, Illinois-based Broadway Bank (Broadway) in transactions facilitated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).  For the Heritage, Benchmark, New Century and Broadway transactions, MB Financial Bank entered into loss-share agreements with the FDIC.  Under the loss-share agreements, MB Financial Bank shares in the losses on assets (generally loans and other real estate owned) covered under the agreements (referred to as “covered loans” and “covered other real estate owned”).  See Note 2 of the notes to our audited consolidated financial statements contained in Item 8 of this report for additional information.

 

MB Financial Bank, our largest subsidiary, has two wholly owned subsidiaries with significant operating activities: LaSalle Systems Leasing, Inc. and Vision Investment Services, Inc. MB Financial Bank also has a majority owned subsidiary with significant operating activities, Cedar Hill Associates, LLC.

 

LaSalle Systems Leasing, Inc. (LaSalle) focuses on leasing technology-related equipment to middle market and larger businesses located throughout the United States.  LaSalle also specializes in selling and administering third party equipment maintenance contracts as well as technology-related equipment.

 

Vision Investment Services, Inc. (Vision) is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission as a broker/dealer, is a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and is a licensed insurance agency.  Vision has one wholly owned subsidiary: Vision Insurance Services, Inc.  Vision Insurance Services, Inc. is a licensed insurance agency which functions as a distribution firm for certain insurance and annuity products.

 

Cedar Hill Associates, LLC (Cedar Hill) is an asset management firm located in Chicago, Illinois that we acquired in April 2008.

 

Recent Developments

 

On January 27, 2012, the Company announced that it will pay a cash dividend of $0.01 per share to stockholders of record as of February 15, 2012.

 

Primary Lines of Business

 

Our operations are currently managed as one unit, and we have one reportable segment.  Our chief operating decision-makers use consolidated information to make operating and strategic decisions.

 

We concentrate on serving middle market businesses and their owners.  We also serve consumers who live or work near our branches.  We have established three primary lines of business: commercial banking, retail banking, and wealth management.  Each is described below.

 

4



Table of Contents

 

Commercial Banking  Commercial banking focuses on serving middle market businesses, primarily located in the Chicago metropolitan area.  We provide a full set of credit, deposit, and treasury management products to these companies.  In general, our credit products are designed for companies with annual revenues between $10 million and $250 million.  We have a broad range of credit products for our target market, including working capital loans and lines of credit; accounts receivable financing; inventory and equipment financing; industrial revenue bond financing; business acquisition loans; owner occupied real estate loans; and financial, performance and commercial letters of credit.  Our deposit and treasury management products are designed for companies with annual revenues up to $500 million and include: internet banking products, investment sweep accounts, zero balance accounts, automated tax payments, ATM access, telephone banking, lockbox, automated clearing house transactions, account reconciliation, controlled disbursement, detail and general information reporting, wire transfers, vault services for currency and coin, a variety of international banking services, select capital markets products and checking accounts.  We also provide a full set of credit, deposit and treasury management services for real estate operators and investors.

 

Commercial banking also serves equipment leasing companies located throughout the United States.  We have provided banking services to this industry for more than three decades.  Competition in serving equipment lessors generally comes from large banks, finance companies, large industrial companies and some community banks.  We compete based upon rapid decision-making and elite service and by providing flexible financial solutions to meet our customers’ needs.  We provide full banking services to leasing companies by financing the debt portion of leveraged equipment leases (referred to as lease loans), providing short and long-term equity financing and by making working capital and bridge loans.  For lease loans, a lessee’s credit is often rated as investment grade for its public debt by Moody’s, Standard & Poors or the equivalent.  Whether or not a lessee has a public debt rating, they are subject to the same internal credit analysis as any other customer of MB Financial Bank.  We also invest directly in equipment that we lease to other companies located throughout the United States (referred to as operating leases).  Our operating lease portfolio is made up of various kinds of equipment, generally technology related, such as computer systems, satellite equipment, and general manufacturing equipment.  We seek leasing transactions where we believe the equipment leased is integral to the lessee’s business, thereby increasing the likelihood of renewal at the end of the lease term.

 

Additionally, our subsidiary, LaSalle, focuses on leasing technology-related equipment and providing related services to middle market and larger businesses throughout the United States and provides us the ability to directly originate leases.

 

Retail Banking.  Retail banking has 87 banking offices and approximately 125 ATMs located throughout the Chicago metropolitan area.  We also have one branch in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Our target customer includes individuals who live and work near our branch offices, as well as companies with annual revenues of $1 to $10 million located near our offices.  Our personal checking product line offers checking options designed for all market segments—the underserved, the more affluent, the loyal customer, the very young and the senior population.  These products are supported by relevant ancillary services such as “ibankmb.com,” our internet banking and bill pay service.  Customers may also take advantage of the MB Debit MasterCard, our Platinum Credit Card, and our new Everyday Prepaid Card.  Our retail lending division offers mortgages and other personal loan solutions.

 

Our business banking division offers the same business services available to our larger commercial business customers, customized to this business segment.  These customers are afforded the expertise of a business banker and the personal attention of a local branch. These customers can take advantage of a corporate credit card and corporate debit card as well as many other treasury management services to meet the needs of their business.

 

We also offer our extensive MB Bank@Work program through which our bankers will go to enrolled employers’ facilities to provide individual banking services for their employees.

 

Our bankers strive to provide high quality personal service.  Our telephone customer service center is open 7 days a week.  PAL, our automated telephone banking service, and MB.net are available 24/7 to provide a constant information source for our customers.

 

Wealth Management.  Our Wealth Management Group provides comprehensive wealth management solutions to individuals, corporations and not-for-profits.  We provide banking, investment management, custody, personal trust, financial planning and wealth advisory services to high net worth individuals through our Private Bankers, Asset Management and Trust Advisors and Cedar Hill.  Estate settlement, guardianship, tax deferred exchange services and retirement plan services are provided through our Asset Management and Trust Group.  Our investment advisors, working in our branches offer a wide variety of financial products and services to our retail customers.  MB Financial Bank subsidiaries Cedar Hill and Vision provide clients with non-FDIC insured investment alternatives and/or insurance products.

 

5



Table of Contents

 

Lending Activities

 

General.  Our loan portfolio consists primarily of loans to businesses or for business purposes.

 

Commercial.  We make commercial loans mainly to middle market businesses, most often located in the Chicago area.  Borrowers tend to be privately-owned and are generally manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, long-term health care operators and service providers.  Loan products offered are primarily working capital and term loans and lines of credit that help our customers finance accounts receivable, inventory and equipment.  We also offer financial, performance and commercial letters of credit.  Commercial loans secured by owner occupied real estate are classified as commercial real estate loans.  Most commercial loans are short-term in nature, being one year or less, with the maximum term generally being five to seven years.  Our commercial loans typically range in size from $500 thousand to $15 million.

 

Lines of credit for customers are typically secured, and are subject to renewal upon a satisfactory review of the borrower’s financial condition and credit history.  Secured short-term commercial business loans are usually collateralized by accounts receivable, inventory, equipment and/or real estate, and advances are usually predicated on predetermined advances rates depending upon asset class.  Such loans are typically, but not always, guaranteed by the owners of the business.  Collateral securing commercial loans may depreciate over time, be difficult to appraise and fluctuate in value based on the success of the business.  In addition, in the case of loans secured by accounts receivable, the availability of funds for repayment and economic conditions may impact the ability of the borrower to collect the amounts due from its customers.  Accordingly, we make our commercial loans primarily based on the historical and expected cash flow of the borrower, secondarily on underlying collateral provided by the borrower, and lastly on guarantor support.

 

Commercial Real Estate.  We originate commercial real estate loans that are generally secured by multi-unit residential property and owner and non-owner occupied commercial and industrial property.  Longer term commercial real estate loans are generally made at fixed rates, although some have interest rates that change based on the Prime Rate or LIBOR.  Generally, terms of up to twenty-five years are offered on fully amortizing loans, but most loans are structured with a balloon payment at the end of five years or less.  For our fixed rate loans with maturities greater than five years, we may enter into interest rate swap agreements with a third party to mitigate interest rate risk.  In deciding whether to make a commercial real estate loan, we consider, among other things, the experience and qualifications of the borrower as well as the value and cash flow of the underlying property.  Some factors considered are net operating income of the property before debt service and depreciation, the debt service coverage ratio (the ratio of the property’s net cash flow to debt service requirements), the global cash flows of the borrower, the ratio of the loan amount to the property value and the overall creditworthiness of the prospective borrower.  Our commercial real estate loans typically range in size from $250 thousand to $20 million.

 

The repayment of commercial real estate loans is often dependent on the successful operations of the property securing the loan or the business conducted on the property securing the loan.  In addition, most commercial real estate loans are not fully amortized over the loan period, but have balloon payments due at maturity.  A borrower’s ability to make a balloon payment typically will depend on their ability to either refinance the loan or complete a timely sale of the underlying property.

 

Construction Real Estate.  Historically we have provided construction loans for the acquisition and development of land and construction of condominiums, townhomes, and one-to-four family residences.  We have also provided acquisition, development and construction loans for retail and other commercial purposes, primarily in our market areas.  With regard to construction lending, there were fewer new loans made from 2008 through 2011 compared to prior years due to the unfavorable economic environment for new home sales and commercial properties.  Construction lending can involve a higher level of risk than other types of lending because funds are advanced partially based upon the value of the project, which is uncertain prior to the project’s completion.  Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs as well as the market value of a completed project and the effects of governmental regulation on real property, our estimates with regards to the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan-to-value ratio may vary from actual results.  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 or refinance the indebtedness.  If our estimate of the value of a project at completion proves to be overstated or market values have declined since we originated our loan, we may have inadequate security for repayment of the loan and we may incur a loss.

 

6



Table of Contents

 

Lease Loans.  We lend money to leasing companies to finance the debt portion of leases (which we refer to as lease loans).  A lease loan arises when a leasing company discounts the equipment rental revenue stream owed to the leasing company by a lessee.  Lease loans generally are non-recourse to the leasing company, and, consequently, our recourse is limited to the lessee and the leased equipment.  For this reason, we underwrite lease loans by examining the creditworthiness of the lessee rather than the lessor.  Generally, lease loans are secured by an assignment of lease payments and a security interest in the equipment being leased.  As with commercial loans secured by equipment, equipment securing our lease loans may depreciate over time, may be difficult to value and may fluctuate in value.  We rely on the lessee’s continuing financial stability, rather than the value of the leased equipment, for repayment of all required amounts under lease loans.  In the event of default, it is unlikely that the proceeds from the sale of leased equipment will be sufficient to satisfy the outstanding unpaid amounts under terms of the lease loan.

 

The lessee usually acknowledges our security interest in the leased equipment and often agrees to send lease payments directly to us.  Lessees are often companies that have an investment grade public debt rating by Moody’s or Standard & Poors or the equivalent although we also provide credit to below investment grade and non-rated companies.  Whether or not a lessee has a public debt rating, they are subject to the same internal credit analysis as any other customer.  Lease loans almost always are fully amortizing, with maturities typically ranging from three to five years.  Loan interest rates are fixed.

 

We also invest directly in equipment leased to other companies (which we refer to as operating leases).  The profitability of these investments depends, to a great degree, upon our ability to realize the expected residual values of this equipment.  See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Critical Accounting Policies-Residual Value of Our Direct Finance, Leveraged and Operating Leases.”

 

Residential Real Estate.  We originate fixed and adjustable rate residential real estate loans secured by one to four family homes.  Terms of first mortgages generally range from five to thirty years.  In deciding whether to make a residential real estate loan, we consider the qualifications of the borrower as well as the value of the underlying property.  Our general practice is to sell the majority of our newly originated fixed-rate residential real estate loans and to hold in portfolio a limited number of adjustable-rate residential real estate loans with 15 and 30 year maturities.

 

Consumer.  Our consumer loan portfolio is primarily focused on home equity lines of credit, fixed-rate second mortgage loans and indirect motorcycle loans, and to a lesser extent, secured and unsecured consumer loans, as well as personal and business credit cards.  Home equity lines of credit are generally extended up to 80% of the value of the property, less existing liens.  Terms for second mortgages typically range from five to ten years.  Indirect vehicle loans represent consumer loans made primarily through a network of motorcycle dealers in 46 states.  Consumer loans typically have shorter terms and lower balances with higher yields as compared to residential real estate loans, but carry a higher risk of default.  Consumer loan collections are dependent on the borrower’s continuing financial stability, and thus, are more likely to be affected by adverse personal circumstances.  Furthermore, the application of various federal and state laws, including bankruptcy and insolvency laws, may limit the amount which can be recovered on these loans in the event of default.

 

Competition

 

We face substantial competition in all phases of our operations, including deposit gathering and loan origination, from a variety of competitors.  Commercial banks, savings institutions, brokerage firms, credit unions, mutual fund companies, asset management firms, insurance companies and specialty finance companies all compete with us for new and existing customers.  Our bank competes by providing quality services to our customers, ease of access to our facilities, convenient hours and competitive pricing (including competitive interest rates paid on deposits, interest rates charged on loans and fees charged for other non-interest related services).

 

Personnel

 

As of December 31, 2011, we and our subsidiaries employed a total of 1,684 full-time equivalent employees.  We consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

 

7



Table of Contents

 

Supervision and Regulation

 

We, our subsidiary bank, and its subsidiaries, are subject to an extensive system of laws and regulations that are intended primarily for the protection of customers and depositors and not for the protection of security holders.  These laws and regulations govern such areas as capital, permissible activities, allowance for loan losses, loans and investments, and rates of interest that can be charged on loans.  Described below are elements of selected laws and regulations.  The descriptions are not intended to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes and regulations described.

 

Holding Company Regulation.  As a bank holding company and financial holding company, we are subject to comprehensive regulation by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, frequently referred to as the Federal Reserve Board, under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act”), the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), enacted on July 21, 2010, and other legislation.  We must file reports with the Federal Reserve Board and such additional information as the Federal Reserve Board may require, and our holding company and non-banking affiliates are subject to examination by the Federal Reserve Board.  Under Federal Reserve Board policy, the Dodd-Frank Act and Federal Reserve Board regulations, a bank holding company must serve as a source of strength for its subsidiary banks.  The Federal Reserve Board may require, and has required in the past, a holding company to contribute additional capital to an undercapitalized subsidiary bank.  The Bank Holding Company Act provides that a bank holding company must obtain Federal Reserve Board approval before:

 

·                  Acquiring directly or indirectly, ownership or control of any voting shares of another bank or bank holding company if, after such acquisition, it would own or control more than 5% of such shares (unless it already owns or controls the majority of such shares);

 

·                  Acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or

 

·                  Merging or consolidating with another bank holding company.

 

The Bank Holding Company Act generally prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank or bank holding company, or from engaging directly or indirectly in activities other than those of banking, managing or controlling banks, or providing services for its subsidiaries.  The principal exceptions to these prohibitions involve certain non-bank activities which, by statute or by Federal Reserve Board regulation or order, have been identified as activities closely related to the business of banking or managing or controlling banks.  The list of activities permitted by the Federal Reserve Board includes, among other things: lending; operating a savings institution, mortgage company, finance company, credit card company or factoring company; performing certain data processing operations; providing certain investment and financial advice; underwriting and acting as an insurance agent for certain types of credit-related insurance; leasing property on a full-payout, non-operating basis; selling money orders, travelers’ checks and United States Savings Bonds; real estate and personal property appraising; providing tax planning and preparation services; and, subject to certain limitations, providing securities brokerage services for customers.  These activities may also be affected by federal legislation.

 

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act amended portions of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to authorize bank holding companies, such as us, directly or through non-bank subsidiaries to engage in securities, insurance and other activities that are financial in nature or incidental to a financial activity.  In order to undertake these activities, a bank holding company must become a “financial holding company” by submitting to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank a declaration that the company elects to be a financial holding company and a certification that all of the depository institutions controlled by the company are well capitalized and well managed.  We submitted the declaration of our election to become a financial holding company with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in June 2002, and our election became effective in July 2002.

 

Depository Institution Regulation.  Our bank subsidiary is subject to regulation by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  This regulatory structure includes:

 

·                  Real estate lending standards, which provide guidelines concerning loan-to-value ratios for various types of real estate loans;

 

·                  Risk-based capital rules, including accounting for interest rate risk, concentration of credit risk and the risks posed by non-traditional activities;

 

8



Table of Contents

 

·                  Rules requiring depository institutions to develop and implement internal procedures to evaluate and control credit and settlement exposure to their correspondent banks;

 

·                  Rules restricting types and amounts of equity investments; and

 

·                  Rules addressing various safety and soundness issues, including operations and managerial standards, standards for asset quality, earnings and compensation standards.

 

Capital Adequacy.  The Federal Reserve Board, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have issued substantially similar risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to bank holding companies and banks.  In addition, these regulatory agencies may from time to time require that a bank holding company or bank maintain capital above the minimum levels, based on its financial condition or actual or anticipated growth.

 

The Federal Reserve Board’s risk-based guidelines establish a two-tier capital framework.  Tier 1 capital generally consists of common stockholders’ equity, retained earnings, a limited amount of qualifying perpetual preferred stock, qualifying trust preferred securities and noncontrolling interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less goodwill and certain intangibles.  Tier 2 capital generally consists of certain hybrid capital instruments and perpetual debt, mandatory convertible debt securities and a limited amount of subordinated debt, qualifying preferred stock, loan loss allowance, and unrealized holding gains on certain equity securities.  The sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital represents qualifying total capital, at least 50% of which must consist of Tier 1 capital.

 

Risk-based capital ratios are calculated by dividing Tier 1 and total capital by risk-weighted assets.  Assets and off-balance sheet exposures are assigned to one of four categories of risk-weights, based primarily on relative credit risk.  For bank holding companies, generally the minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is 4% and the minimum total risk-based capital ratio is 8%.  Our Tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios under these guidelines at December 31, 2011 were 17.36% and 19.41%, respectively.

 

The Federal Reserve Board’s leverage capital guidelines establish a minimum leverage ratio determined by dividing Tier 1 capital by adjusted average total assets.  The minimum leverage ratio is 3% for bank holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating.  All other bank holding companies generally are required to maintain a leverage ratio of at least 4%.  At December 31, 2011, we had a leverage ratio of 11.73%.

 

The federal regulatory authorities’ risk-based capital guidelines are based upon the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”).  The Basel Committee is a committee of central banks and bank supervisors/regulators from the major industrialized countries that develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s supervisors in determining the supervisory policies and regulations to which they apply.  Actions of the Committee have no direct effect on banks in participating countries.  In 2004, the Basel Committee published a new capital accord (“Basel II”) to replace Basel I.  Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk — an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances and a standardized approach that bases risk weightings on external credit assessments to a much greater extent than permitted in existing risk-based capital guidelines.  Basel II also addresses capital requirements for operational risk and refine the existing capital requirements for market risk exposures.

 

A final rule implementing the advanced approaches of Basel II in the United States, which applies only to certain large or internationally active banking organizations, or “core banks” — defined as those with consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposures of $10 billion or more, became effective as of April 1, 2008.  Certain other U.S. banking organizations would have the option to adopt the requirements of this rule.  The Company is not required to comply with the advanced approaches of Basel II.

 

In 2009, the United States Treasury Department issued a policy statement (the “Treasury Policy Statement”) entitled “Principles for Reforming the U.S. and International Regulatory Capital Framework for Banking Firms,” which contemplates changes to the existing regulatory capital regime involving substantial revisions to major parts of the Basel I and Basel II capital frameworks and affecting all regulated banking organizations and other systemically important institutions.  The Treasury Policy Statement calls for, among other things, higher and stronger capital requirements for all banking firms, with changes to the regulatory capital framework to be phased in over a period of several years.

 

9



Table of Contents

 

The Dodd-Frank Act includes certain provisions concerning the capital regulations of the United States banking regulators, which are often referred to as the “Collins Amendment.”  These provisions are intended to subject bank holding companies to the same capital requirements as their bank subsidiaries and to eliminate or significantly reduce the use of hybrid capital instruments, especially trust preferred securities, as regulatory capital. Under the Collins Amendment, trust preferred securities issued by a company, such as our company, with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion before May 19, 2010 and treated as regulatory capital are grandfathered, but any such securities issued later are not eligible as regulatory capital.  The banking regulators must develop regulations setting minimum risk-based and leverage capital requirements for holding companies and banks on a consolidated basis that are no less stringent than the generally applicable requirements in effect for depository institutions under the prompt corrective action regulations discussed below.  The banking regulators also must seek to make capital standards countercyclical so that the required levels of capital increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction.  The Act requires these new capital regulations to be adopted by the Federal Reserve in final form 18 months after the date of enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act (July 21, 2010).   To date, no proposed regulations have been issued.

 

In December 2010 and January 2011, the Basel Committee published the final texts of reforms on capital and liquidity generally referred to as “Basel III.”  Although Basel III is intended to be implemented by participating countries for large, internationally active banks, its provisions are likely to be considered by United States banking regulators in developing new regulations applicable to other banks in the United States, including MB Financial Bank.

 

For banks in the United States, among the most significant provisions of Basel III concerning capital are the following:

 

·                       A minimum ratio of common equity to risk-weighted assets reaching 4.5%, plus an additional 2.5% as a capital conservation buffer, by 2019 after a phase-in period.

·                       A minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets reaching 6.0% by 2019 after a phase-in period.

·                       A minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets, plus the additional 2.5% capital conservation buffer, reaching 10.5% by 2019 after a phase -in period.

·                       An additional countercyclical capital buffer to be imposed by applicable national banking regulators periodically at their discretion, with advance notice.

·                       Restrictions on capital distributions and discretionary bonuses applicable when capital ratios fall within the buffer zone.

·                       Deduction from common equity of deferred tax assets that depend on future profitability to be realized.

·                       Increased capital requirements for counterparty credit risk relating to OTC derivatives, repos and securities financing activities.

·                       For capital instruments issued on or after January 13, 2013 (other than common equity), a loss-absorbency requirement such that the instrument must be written off or converted to common equity if a trigger event occurs, either pursuant to applicable law or at the direction of the banking regulator.  A trigger event is an event under which the banking entity would become nonviable without the write-off or conversion, or without an injection of capital from the public sector.   The issuer must maintain authorization to issue the requisite shares of common equity if conversion were required.

 

The Basel III provisions on liquidity include complex criteria establishing a liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”) and a net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”).  The purpose of the LCR is to ensure that a bank maintains adequate unencumbered, high quality liquid assets to meet its liquidity needs for 30 days under a severe liquidity stress scenario.  The purpose of the NSFR is to promote more medium and long-term funding of assets and activities, using a one-year horizon.  Although Basel III is described as a “final text,” it is subject to the resolution of certain issues and to further guidance and modification, as well as to adoption by United States banking regulators, including decisions as to whether and to what extent it will apply to United States banks that are not large, internationally active banks.  In June 2011, the federal banking agencies adopted a rule applicable to only large, internationally active banks requiring their risk-based capital to meet the higher of the minimum requirements under the advanced approaches or under the risk-based capital rules generally applicable to United States banks.

 

Prompt Corrective Action.  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, among other things, identifies five capital categories for insured depository institutions (well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized) and requires the respective federal bank regulatory agencies to implement systems for “prompt corrective action” for insured depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements within these categories.  This act imposes progressively more

 

10



Table of Contents

 

restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the category in which an institution is classified.  Failure to meet the capital guidelines could also subject a banking institution to capital raising requirements.  An “undercapitalized” bank must develop a capital restoration plan and its parent holding company must guarantee that bank’s compliance with the plan.  The liability of the parent holding company under any such guarantee is limited to the lesser of five percent of the bank’s assets at the time it became “undercapitalized” or the amount needed to comply with the plan.  Furthermore, in the event of the bankruptcy of the parent holding company, such guarantee would take priority over the parent’s general unsecured creditors.  In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act requires the various regulatory agencies to prescribe certain non-capital standards for safety and soundness relating generally to operations and management, asset quality and executive compensation and permits regulatory action against a financial institution that does not meet these standards.

 

The various federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted substantially similar regulations that define the five capital categories identified by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act, using the total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and leverage capital ratios as the relevant capital measures.  These regulations establish various degrees of corrective action to be taken when an institution is considered undercapitalized.  Under the regulations, a “well capitalized” institution must have a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6%, a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10% and a leverage ratio of at least 5% and not be subject to a capital directive or order.  An institution is “adequately capitalized” if it has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4%, a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8% and a leverage ratio of at least 4% (3% in certain circumstances).  An institution is “undercapitalized” if it has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4%, a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8% or a leverage ratio of less than 4% (3% in certain circumstances).  An institution is “significantly undercapitalized” if it has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3%, a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6% or a leverage ratio of less than 3%.  An institution is “critically undercapitalized” if its tangible equity is equal to or less than 2% of total assets.  Generally, an institution may be reclassified in a lower capitalization category if it is determined that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or engaged in an unsafe or unsound practice.

 

As of December 31, 2011, our subsidiary bank met the requirements to be classified as “well-capitalized.”

 

Dividends.  The Federal Reserve Board’s policy is that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that its net income for the past year is sufficient to cover both the cash dividends and a rate of earnings retention that is consistent with the holding company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition, and that it is inappropriate for a bank holding company experiencing serious financial problems to borrow funds to pay dividends.  Furthermore, a bank that is classified under the prompt corrective action regulations as “undercapitalized” will be prohibited from paying any dividends.

 

On December 5, 2008, as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Capital Purchase Program of the United States Department of the Treasury (Treasury), the Company sold to Treasury 196,000 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), having a liquidation preference amount of $1,000 per share, for a purchase price of $196.0 million in cash and (ii) issued to Treasury a ten-year warrant to purchase 1,012,048 shares (which was subsequently reduced to 506,024 shares, as explained below) of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $29.05 per share (the “Warrant”).

 

The Company may redeem the Series A Preferred Stock at any time by repaying Treasury, without penalty, subject to Treasury’s consultation with the Company’s appropriate regulatory agency.  Additionally, upon redemption of the Series A Preferred Stock, the Warrant may be repurchased from the Treasury at its fair market value as agreed-upon by the Company and Treasury.

 

On September 17, 2009, the Company completed a public offering of its common stock by issuing 12,578,125 shares of common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of $201.3 million.  The net proceeds to the Company after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were $190.9 million.  With the proceeds from this offering and the proceeds received by the Company from issuances pursuant to its Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan, the Company has received aggregate gross proceeds from “Qualified Equity Offerings” in excess of the $196.0 million aggregate liquidation preference amount of the Series A Preferred Stock.  As a result, the number of shares of the Company’s common stock underlying the Warrant has been reduced by 50%, from 1,012,048 shares to 506,024 shares.

 

Under the securities purchase agreement between us and Treasury, prior to December 5, 2011, we could not, without the consent of Treasury, (a) pay a quarterly cash dividend on our common stock of more than $0.18 per share or (b) subject to limited exceptions, redeem, repurchase or otherwise acquire shares of our common stock, preferred stock (other than the Series A Preferred Stock) or trust preferred securities.  In addition, under

 

11



Table of Contents

 

the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock, we may not pay dividends on our common stock at any time we are in arrears on the dividends payable on the Series A Preferred Stock.  Dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock are payable quarterly at a rate of 5% per annum for the first five years and a rate of 9% per annum thereafter if not redeemed prior to that time.

 

Our primary source for cash dividends is the dividends we receive from our subsidiary bank.  Our bank is subject to various regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain capital above regulatory minimums.  A national bank must obtain the approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency prior to paying a dividend if the total of all dividends declared by the national bank in any calendar year will exceed the sum of the bank’s net profits for that year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus.

 

Federal Deposit Insurance Reform.  The FDIC currently maintains the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”), which was created in 2006 in the merger of the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund.  The deposit accounts of our subsidiary bank are insured by the DIF to the maximum amount provided by law.  The general insurance limit is $250 thousand, but for non-interest bearing transaction accounts, there is unlimited insurance coverage until January 1, 2013.  This insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

 

As insurer, the FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of and to require reporting by DIF-insured institutions.  It also may prohibit any DIF-insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious threat to the DIF.  The FDIC also has the authority to take enforcement actions against insured institutions.

 

The FDIC assesses deposit insurance premiums on each insured institution quarterly based on annualized rates for one of four risk categories. Under the rules in effect through March 31, 2011, these rates are applied to the institution’s deposits.  Each institution is assigned to one of four risk categories based on its capital, supervisory ratings and other factors.  Well capitalized institutions that are financially sound with only a few minor weaknesses are assigned to Risk Category I.  Risk Categories II, III and IV present progressively greater risks to the DIF.  A range of initial base assessment rates applies to each Risk Category, subject to adjustments based on an institution’s unsecured debt, secured liabilities and brokered deposits, such that the total base assessment rates after adjustments range from 7 to 24 basis points for Risk Category I, 17 to 43 basis points for Risk Category II, 27 to 58 basis points for Risk Category III, and 40 to 77.5 basis points for Risk Category IV.

 

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has adopted rules effective April 1, 2011, under which insurance premium assessments are based on an institution’s total assets minus its tangible equity (defined as Tier 1 capital) instead of its deposits.  Under these rules, an institution with total assets of less than $10 billion will be assigned to a Risk Category as described above, and a range of initial base assessment rates will apply to each category, subject to adjustment downward based on unsecured debt issued by the institution and, except for an institution in Risk Category I, adjustment upward if the institution’s brokered deposits exceed 10% of its domestic deposits, to produce total base assessment rates.  Total base assessment rates range from 2.5 to 9 basis points for Risk Category I, 9 to 24 basis points for Risk Category II, 18 to 33 basis points for Risk Category III, and 30 to 45 basis points for Risk Category IV, all subject to further adjustment upward if the institution holds more than a de minimis amount of unsecured debt issued by another FDIC-insured institution. The FDIC may increase or decrease its rates by 2.0 basis points without further rulemaking.  In an emergency, the FDIC may also impose a special assessment.

 

For a bank that has had total assets of $10 billion or more for four consecutive quarters, effective for assessments for the second quarter of 2011 and payable at the end of September 2011, FDIC regulations require the bank to be assessed quarterly for deposit insurance under a scorecard method. The scorecard method uses a performance score and a loss severity score, which are combined and converted into an initial base assessment rate.  The performance score is based on measures of the bank’s ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress and weighted CAMELS ratings. The loss severity score is a measure of potential losses to the FDIC in the event of the bank’s failure. Under a formula, the performance score and loss severity score are combined and converted to a total score that determines the bank’s initial base assessment rate. The FDIC has the discretion to alter the total score based on factors not captured by the scorecard.  The resulting initial base assessment rate is subject to adjustments downward based on long term unsecured debt issued by the bank, to adjustment upward based on long term unsecured debt held by the bank that is issued by other FDIC-insured institutions, and to further adjustment upward if the bank’s brokered deposits exceed 10% of its domestic deposits.  Modifications to the scorecard method may apply to certain “highly complex institutions.”

 

12



Table of Contents

 

In addition, all institutions with deposits insured by the FDIC are required to pay assessments to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, a mixed-ownership government corporation established to recapitalize a predecessor to the Deposit Insurance Fund.  These assessments will continue until the Financing Corporation bonds mature in 2019.

 

Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that the institution has engaged or is engaging in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC or written agreement entered into with the FDIC. The management of the Bank does not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance.

 

On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted regulations that required insured depository institutions to prepay on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, along with their quarterly risk-based assessment for the fourth quarter of 2009. The FDIC collected MB Financial Bank’s pre-paid assessments amounting to $45.0 million on December 30, 2009.

 

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has established 2.0% as the designated reserve ratio (DRR), that is, the ratio of the DIF to insured deposits. The FDIC has adopted a plan under which it will meet the statutory minimum DRR of 1.35% by September 30, 2020, the deadline imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act.  The Dodd-Frank requires the FDIC to offset the effect on institutions with assets less than $10 billion of the increase in the statutory minimum DRR to 1.35% from the former statutory minimum of 1.15%.  The FDIC has not yet announced how it will implement this offset or how larger institutions will be affected by it.

 

On November 9, 2010 and January 18, 2011, the FDIC (as mandated by Section 343 of the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act,” as described below) adopted rules providing for unlimited deposit insurance for traditional noninterest-bearing transaction accounts and IOLTA accounts for two years starting December 31, 2010.  This coverage applies to all insured deposit institutions, and there is no separate FDIC assessment for the insurance.   Furthermore, this unlimited coverage is separate from, and in addition to, the coverage provided to depositors with respect to other accounts held at an insured depository institution.

 

Transactions with Affiliates.  We and our subsidiary bank are affiliates within the meaning of the Federal Reserve Act.  The Federal Reserve Act imposes limitations on a bank with respect to extensions of credit to, investments in, and certain other transactions with, its parent bank holding company and the holding company’s other subsidiaries.  Furthermore, bank loans and extensions of credit to affiliates also are subject to various collateral requirements.

 

Community Reinvestment Act.  Under the Community Reinvestment Act, every FDIC-insured institution is obligated, consistent with safe and sound banking practices, to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods.  The Community Reinvestment Act requires the appropriate federal banking regulator, in connection with the examination of an insured institution, to assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to consider this record in its evaluation of certain applications, such as a merger or the establishment of a branch.  An unsatisfactory rating may be used as the basis for the denial of an application and will prevent a bank holding company of the institution from making an election to become a financial holding company.

 

As of its last examination, MB Financial Bank received a Community Reinvestment Act rating of “outstanding.”

 

Interstate Banking and Branching.  The Federal Reserve Board may approve an application of a bank holding company to acquire control of, or acquire all or substantially all of the assets of, a bank located in a state other than the bank holding company’s home state, without regard to whether the transaction is prohibited by the laws of any state.  The Federal Reserve Board may not approve the acquisition of a bank that has not been in existence for the minimum time period (not exceeding five years) specified by the law of the target bank’s home state.  The Federal Reserve Board also may not approve an application if the bank holding company (and its bank affiliates) controls or would control more than ten percent of the insured deposits in the United States or, generally, 30% or more of the deposits in the target bank’s home state or in any state in which the target bank maintains a branch.  Individual states may waive the 30% statewide concentration limit.  Each state may limit the percentage of total insured deposits in the state that may be held or controlled by a bank or bank holding company to the extent the limitation does not discriminate against out-of-state banks or bank holding companies.  Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the OCC may generally approve de novo branching by a national bank outside its home state.

 

The federal banking agencies are authorized to approve interstate bank merger transactions without regard to whether these transactions are prohibited by the law of any state, unless the home state of one of the banks

 

13



Table of Contents

 

opted out of interstate mergers prior to June 1, 1997.  Interstate acquisitions of branches are permitted only if the law of the state in which the branch is located permits these acquisitions.  Interstate mergers and branch acquisitions are subject to the nationwide and statewide-insured deposit concentration limits described above.

 

Privacy Rules.  Federal banking regulators, as required under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, have adopted rules limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties.  The rules require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to non-affiliated third parties.  The privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial services companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

 

International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001.  The President signed the USA Patriot Act of 2001 into law in October 2001.  This act contains the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “IMLAFA”).  The IMLAFA substantially broadens existing anti-money laundering legislation and the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the United States, imposes certain compliance and due diligence obligations, defines certain crimes and penalties, compels the production of documents located both inside and outside the United States, including those of foreign institutions that have a correspondent relationship in the United States, and clarifies the safe harbor from civil liability to customers.  The U.S. Treasury Department has issued a number of regulations implementing the USA Patriot Act that apply certain of its requirements to financial institutions such as our banking and broker-dealer subsidiaries.  The regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing.  The increased obligations of financial institutions, including us, to identify their customers, watch for and report suspicious transactions, respond to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and share information with other financial institutions, requires the implementation and maintenance of internal procedures, practices and controls which have increased, and may continue to increase, our costs and may subject us to liability.

 

As noted above, enforcement and compliance-related activity by government agencies has increased. Money laundering and anti-terrorism compliance is among the areas receiving a high level of focus in the present environment.

 

Regulatory Reform.  On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act (as amended) implements far-reaching changes across the financial regulatory landscape, including provisions that, among other things, will:

 

·                  Centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection by creating a new agency, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, with broad rulemaking, supervision and enforcement authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that would apply to all banks and certain others, including the examination and enforcement powers with respect to any bank with more than $10 billion in assets and its affiliates, and the power to prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices.

·                  Restrict the preemption of state consumer financial protection law by federal law and disallow subsidiaries and affiliates of national banks, such as MB Financial Bank, from availing themselves of such preemption.

·                  Require new capital rules and apply the same leverage and risk-based capital requirements that apply to insured depository institutions to most bank holding companies.

·                  Require the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to seek to make its capital requirements for national banks, such as MB Financial Bank, countercyclical so that capital requirements increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction.

·                  Require publicly-traded bank holding companies with assets of $10 billion or more to establish a risk committee responsible for enterprise-wide risk management practices, comprised of independent directors including one risk management expert.

·                  Change the assessment base for federal deposit insurance from the amount of insured deposits to consolidated average assets less tangible capital.

·                  Increase the minimum ratio of net worth to insured deposits of the Deposit Insurance Fund from 1.15% to 1.35% and require the FDIC, in setting assessments, to offset the effect of the increase on institutions with assets of less than $10 billion.  As a result, this increase is generally expected to impose more deposit insurance cost on institutions with assets of $10 billion or more.

·                  Provide for new disclosure and other requirements relating to executive compensation and corporate governance, including guidelines or regulations on incentive-based compensation and a prohibition on compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks or that could provide excessive compensation.

 

14



Table of Contents

 

·                  Make permanent the $250 thousand limit for federal deposit insurance and provide unlimited federal deposit insurance until January 1, 2013 for non-interest bearing demand transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions (later legislation extended this unlimited coverage to IOLTA accounts until January 1, 2013).

·                  Repeal the federal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts.

·                  Allow de novo interstate branching by banks.

·                  Give the Federal Reserve Board the authority to establish rules regarding interchange fees charged for electronic debit transactions by a payment card issuer that, together with its affiliates, has assets of $10 billion or more and to enforce a new statutory requirement that such fees be reasonable and proportional to the actual cost of a transaction to the issuer.  The Federal Reserve Board has rules under this provision that limit the swipe fees that a debit card issuer can charge a merchant for a transaction to the sum of 21 cents and five basis points times the value of the transaction, plus up to one cent for fraud prevention costs.

·                  Increase the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to examine the Company and its non-bank subsidiaries.

·                  Require all bank holding companies to serve as a source of financial strength to their depository institution subsidiaries in the event such subsidiaries suffer from financial distress.

·                  Restrict proprietary trading by banks, bank holding companies and others, and their acquisition and retention of ownership interests in and sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds.  This restriction is commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule.”  There is an exception in the Volcker Rule to allow a bank to organize and offer hedge funds and private equity funds to customers if certain conditions are met.  These conditions include, among others, requirements that the bank provides bona fide investment advisory services; the funds are organized only in connection with such services and to customers of such services; the bank does not have more than a de minimis interest in the funds, limited to a 3% ownership interest in any single fund and an aggregated investment in all funds of 3% of Tier 1 capital; the bank does not guarantee the obligations or performance of the funds; and no director or employee of the bank has an ownership interest in the fund unless he or she provides services directly to the funds.  Further details on the scope of the Volcker Rule and its exceptions are expected to be defined in regulations due to be issued.

·                  Require annual stress testing by banks with more than $10 billion in assets and impose certain reporting and disclosure requirements.

 

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company and the financial services industry more generally. Provisions in the legislation that affect deposit insurance assessments, and payment of interest on demand deposits could increase the costs associated with deposits. Provisions in the legislation that require revisions to the capital requirements of the Company and MB Financial Bank could require the Company and MB Financial Bank to seek additional sources of capital in the future.

 

TARP-Related Compensation and Corporate Governance Requirements. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) was signed into law on October 3, 2008 and authorized the U.S. Treasury to provide funds to be used to restore liquidity and stability to the U.S. financial system pursuant to the TARP.  Under the authority of EESA, Treasury instituted the TARP Capital Purchase Program to encourage U.S. financial institutions to build capital to increase the flow of financing to U.S. businesses and consumers and to support the U.S. economy.  As noted above, on December 5, 2008, the Company participated in this program by issuing 196,000 shares of the Company’s Series A Preferred Stock to Treasury for a purchase price of $196.0 million in cash and issued the Warrant to Treasury.

 

Participation in the TARP Capital Purchase Program includes certain requirements and restrictions regarding compensation that were expanded significantly by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), as implemented by Treasury’s Interim Final Rule on TARP Standards for Compensation and Corporate Governance.  These requirements and restrictions include, among others, the following: (i) a prohibition on paying or accruing bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation, other than qualifying long-term restricted stock or pursuant to certain preexisting employment contracts, to the Company’s five most highly-compensated employees; (ii) a general prohibition on providing severance benefits, or other benefits due to a change in control of the Company, to the Company’s senior executive officers (“SEOs”) and next five most highly compensated employees; (iii) a requirement to make subject to clawback any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation paid to any of the SEOs and any of the next twenty most highly compensated employees if such compensation was based on materially inaccurate financial statements or any other materially inaccurate performance metric criteria; (iv) a requirement to establish a policy on luxury or excessive expenditures; (v) a requirement to annually provide shareholders with a non-binding advisory “say on pay” vote on executive compensation; (vi) a prohibition on deducting more than $500,000 in annual compensation, including performance-based compensation, to the

 

15



Table of Contents

 

executives covered under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m); (vii) a requirement that the compensation committee of the board of directors evaluate and review on a semi-annual basis the risks involved in employee compensation plans; and (viii) a prohibition on providing tax “gross-ups” to the Company’s SEOs and the next 20 most highly compensated employees.  These requirements and restrictions will remain applicable to the Company until it has redeemed the Series A Preferred Stock in full.

 

Incentive Compensation.  The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal banking regulators and other agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, to issue regulations or guidelines requiring disclosure to the regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements and to prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements for directors, officers or employees that encourage inappropriate risks by providing excessive compensation, fees or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to a financial institution.  Proposed regulations for this purpose have been published, which are based upon the key principles that incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors and appropriate policies, procedures and monitoring.  The proposed regulations are consistent with the Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies issued by regulators in 2010.

 

As part of the regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations will be reviewed, and the regulator’s findings will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct any deficiencies.

 

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulations and regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the Company’s ability to hire, retain and motivate its key employees.

 

Other Future Legislation and Changes in Regulations.  From time to time, various other legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the MB Financial or any of its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the business of the Company.

 

Internet Website

 

We maintain a website with the address www.mbfinancial.com.  The information contained on our website is not included as a part of, or incorporated by reference into, this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  Other than an investor’s own Internet access charges, we make available free of charge through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to these reports, as soon as reasonably practicable after we have electronically filed such material with, or furnished such material to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

16



Table of Contents

 

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

 

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

 

A substantial portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, in particular commercial real estate. Continued deterioration in the real estate markets or other segments of our loan portfolio could lead to additional losses, which could have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

As of December 31, 2011, excluding loans acquired in the Heritage, Benchmark, Broadway and New Century FDIC-assisted transactions and covered by our loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC for those transactions, approximately 45% of our total loan portfolio was secured by real estate (compared to approximately 50% as of December 31, 2010), the majority of which is commercial real estate.  The commercial and residential real estate market continues to experience a variety of difficulties.  In particular, market conditions in the Chicago metropolitan area, in which a majority of our real estate loans are concentrated, have declined significantly beginning in 2008.  As a result of increased levels of commercial and consumer delinquencies and declining real estate values, which reduce the customer’s borrowing power and the value of the collateral securing the loan, for the last four years, we have experienced much higher than normal levels of charge-offs and provisions for loan losses. Continued increases in delinquency levels or continued declines in real estate values, which cause our borrowers’ loan-to-value ratios to increase, could result in additional charge-offs and provisions for loan losses. This could have a material negative effect on our business and results of operations.

 

Our commercial real estate loans make up approximately 31% of the loan portfolio and underlying weakness in the real estate market result in additional risk in the portfolio.

 

Our commercial real estate portfolio consists of healthcare, industrial, multifamily, office, retail and church and schools loans.  Our concentration in commercial real estate loans involves additional risk as the values of the properties securing the loans have declined.  Vacancy rates have increased, resulting in lower cash flows on the underlying properties and stress on our customers to repay their loans.

 

At December 31, 2011, excluding loans acquired in the Heritage, Benchmark, Broadway and New Century FDIC-assisted transactions and covered by our loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC for those transactions, our commercial real estate loans totaled $1.9 billion, or 31% of our total loan portfolio. This loan type represented approximately 59% of our total non-performing loans as of December 31, 2011.

 

The deterioration in the quality of our commercial real estate portfolio has been a significant factor behind the higher than normal charge-offs and provisions for loan losses we have experienced over the last three years.  The Chicago area real estate market remains weak, and we believe that further deterioration in the quality of our commercial real estate portfolio is a possibility.  This could result in additional charge-offs and provisions for loan losses, which could have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Repayment of our commercial loans and lease loans is often dependent on the cash flows of the borrower or lessee, which may be unpredictable, and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value.

 

We make our commercial loans primarily based on the identified cash flow of the borrower and secondarily on the underlying collateral provided by the borrower. Collateral securing commercial loans may depreciate over time, be difficult to appraise and fluctuate in value. In the case of loans secured by accounts receivable, the availability of funds for the repayment of these loans may be substantially dependent on the ability of the borrower to collect the amounts due from its customers. Accordingly, we make our commercial loans primarily based on the historical and expected cash flow of the borrower and secondarily on underlying collateral provided by the borrower.

 

We lend money to small and mid-sized independent leasing companies to finance the debt portion of leases (which we refer to as lease loans). A lease loan arises when a leasing company discounts the equipment rental revenue stream owed to the leasing company by a lessee. Our lease loans entail many of the same types of risks as our commercial loans. Lease loans generally are non-recourse to the leasing company, and, consequently, our recourse is limited to the lessee and the leased equipment. As with commercial loans secured by equipment, the equipment

 

17



Table of Contents

 

securing our lease loans may depreciate over time, may be difficult to appraise and may fluctuate in value. We rely on the lessee’s continuing financial stability, rather than the value of the leased equipment, for the repayment of all required amounts under lease loans. In the event of a default on a lease loan, it is unlikely that the proceeds from the sale of the leased equipment will be sufficient to satisfy the outstanding unpaid amounts under the terms of the loan.

 

Changes in economic conditions, particularly a further economic slowdown in the Chicago area, could hurt our business.

 

Our business is directly affected by market conditions, trends in industry and finance, legislative and regulatory changes, and changes in governmental monetary and fiscal policies and inflation, all of which are beyond our control. In 2008, the housing and real estate sectors experienced an economic slowdown that continued through 2011. Further deterioration in economic conditions, particularly within the Chicago area, could result in the following consequences, among others, any of which could hurt our business materially:

 

·                  loan delinquencies may increase;

·                  problem assets and foreclosures may increase;

·                  demand for our products and services may decline;

·                  collateral for our loans may decline in value, in turn reducing a customer’s borrowing power and reducing the value of collateral securing our loans; and

·                  the net worth and liquidity of loan guarantors may decline, impairing their ability to honor commitments to us.

 

Except for our leasing and lease loan activities and certain treasury management services, which are nationwide, our lending and deposit gathering activities are concentrated in the Chicago metropolitan area. Our success depends on the general economic conditions of this metropolitan area and its surrounding areas.

 

Many of the loans in our portfolio are secured by real estate. Most of these loans are secured by properties located in the Chicago metropolitan area. Deterioration in the real estate markets where collateral for a mortgage loan is located could negatively affect the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and the value of the collateral securing the loan. Real estate values are affected by various other factors, including changes in general or regional economic conditions, governmental rules or policies and natural disasters such as tornados.

 

Negative changes in the regional and general economy could reduce our growth rate, impair our ability to collect loans and generally have a negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Difficult market conditions and economic trends have adversely affected our industry and our business.

 

The United States has experienced an economic downturn beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2011.  While economic growth may have resumed recently, the rate of this growth has been very low and unemployment remains at high levels.  Many lending institutions, including us, have experienced declines in the performance of their loans, especially construction and commercial real estate loans. In addition, the values of real estate collateral supporting many loans have declined and may continue to decline. Bank and bank holding company stock prices have been negatively affected, as has the ability of banks and bank holding companies to raise capital or borrow in the debt markets. These conditions may have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, as a result of the foregoing factors, there is a potential for new laws and regulations regarding lending and funding practices, regulations requiring higher capital levels and liquidity standards are expected, and bank regulatory agencies have been and are expected to continue to be very aggressive in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations.

 

Negative developments in the financial industry and the impact of new legislation and regulations in response to those developments could restrict our business operations, including our ability to originate loans, and negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. Overall, during the past few years, the general business environment has had a negative effect on our business. Until there is a sustained improvement in economic conditions, we expect our business, financial condition and results of operations to be negatively affected.

 

18



Table of Contents

 

The downgrade of the U.S. credit rating and Europe’s debt crisis could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and liquidity.

 

Standard & Poor’s lowered its long term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America from AAA to AA+ on August 5, 2011. A further downgrade or a downgrade by other rating agencies 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. Many of our investment securities are issued by and some of our loans are made to U.S. government agencies and U.S. government sponsored entities.

 

In addition, the possibility that certain European Union (“EU”) member states will default on their debt obligations have negatively impacted economic conditions and global markets. The continued uncertainty over the outcome of international and the EU’s financial support programs and the possibility that other EU member states may experience similar financial troubles could further disrupt global markets. The negative impact on economic conditions and global markets could also have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our allowance for loan losses may prove to be insufficient to absorb losses in our loan portfolio.

 

Lending money is a substantial part of our business. Every loan carries a certain risk that it will not be repaid in accordance with its terms or that any underlying collateral will not be sufficient to assure repayment. This risk is affected by, among other things:

 

·                  cash flow of the borrower and/or the project being financed;

·                  the changes and uncertainties as to the future value of the collateral, in the case of a collateralized loan;

·                  the credit experience of a particular borrower;

·                  changes in economic and industry conditions; and

·                  the duration of the loan.

 

We maintain an allowance for loan losses, a reserve established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense, which we believe is appropriate to provide for probable losses in our loan portfolio. The amount of this allowance is determined by our management through a periodic review and consideration of several factors, including, but not limited to:

 

·                  our general reserve, based on our historical default and loss experience as well as current macroeconomic factors; and

·                  our specific reserve, based on our evaluation of non-performing loans and their underlying collateral.

 

The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. Continuing deterioration in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the provision for possible loan losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. In addition, if charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for loan losses, we may need additional provisions to replenish the allowance for loan losses. Any increases in the allowance for loan losses will result in a decrease in net income and, most likely, capital, and may have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

The value of the securities in our investment securities portfolio may be negatively affected by continued disruptions in securities markets.

 

Due to heightened credit and liquidity risks and the volatile economy, making the determination of the value of a securities portfolio is less certain.  There can be no assurance that decline in market value associated with these disruptions will not result in other-than-temporary or permanent impairments of these assets, which would lead to accounting charges which could have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

19



Table of Contents

 

Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could significantly increase our non-interest expense.

 

FDIC insurance rates increased significantly in 2009, and we may pay higher FDIC premiums in the future.  The Dodd-Frank Act established 1.35% as the minimum DRR. The FDIC has determined that the DRR should be 2.0% and has adopted a plan under which it will meet the statutory minimum DRR of 1.35% by the statutory deadline of September 30, 2020. The Dodd-Frank requires the FDIC to offset the effect on institutions with assets less than $10 billion of the increase in the statutory minimum DRR to 1.35% from the former statutory minimum of 1.15%.  The FDIC has not announced how it will implement this offset or how larger institutions will be affected by it.

 

The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the FDIC to base insurance premium on an institution’s total assets minus its tangible equity instead of its deposits. The FDIC has adopted regulations under which, effective for assessments for the second quarter of 2011 and payable at the end of September 2011, a bank that has had total assets of $10 billion or more for four consecutive quarters is assessed quarterly for deposit insurance under a scorecard method, using a performance score and a loss severity score, which are combined and converted into an initial base assessment rate which is subject to certain adjustments.  It is possible that our insurance premiums will increase under these regulations.

 

Changes in interest rates may reduce our net interest income.

 

Our consolidated operating results are largely dependent on our net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest earned on loans and investments and interest expense incurred on deposits and other borrowings. Our net interest income is impacted by changes in market rates of interest, changes in credit spreads, changes in the shape of the yield curve, the interest rate sensitivity of our assets and liabilities, prepayments on our loans and investments, and the mix of our funding sources and assets.

 

Our interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities may react in different degrees to changes in market interest rates. Interest rates on some types of assets and liabilities may fluctuate prior to changes in broader market interest rates, while rates on other types may lag behind. The result of these changes to rates may cause differing spreads on interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities. While we take measures intended to manage the risks from changes in market interest rates, we cannot control or accurately predict changes in market rates of interest or be sure our protective measures are adequate.

 

We pursue a strategy of supplementing internal growth by acquiring other financial companies or their assets and liabilities that we believe will help us fulfill our strategic objectives and enhance our earnings. There are risks associated with this strategy, including the following:

 

·                  We may be exposed to potential asset quality issues or unknown or contingent liabilities of the banks, businesses, assets, and liabilities we acquire. If these issues or liabilities exceed our estimates, our results of operations and financial condition may be materially negatively affected;

·                  Prices at which acquisitions can be made fluctuate with market conditions. We have experienced times during which acquisitions could not be made in specific markets at prices we considered acceptable and expect that we will experience this condition in the future;

·                  The acquisition of other entities generally requires integration of systems, procedures and personnel of the acquired entity into our company to make the transaction economically successful. This integration process is complicated and time consuming and can also be disruptive to the customers of the acquired business. If the integration process is not conducted successfully and with minimal effect on the acquired business and its customers, we may not realize the anticipated economic benefits of particular acquisitions within the expected time frame, and we may lose customers or employees of the acquired business. We may also experience greater than anticipated customer losses even if the integration process is successful.

·                  To the extent our costs of an acquisition exceed the fair value of the net assets acquired, the acquisition will generate goodwill.  As discussed below, we are required to assess our goodwill for impairment at least annually, and any goodwill impairment charge could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition;

·                  To finance an acquisition, we may borrow funds, thereby increasing our leverage and diminishing our liquidity, or raise additional capital, which could dilute the interests of our existing stockholders; and

·                  We have completed various acquisitions and opened additional banking offices in the past few years that enhanced our rate of growth.  We may not be able to continue to sustain our past rate of growth or to grow at all in the future.

 

Our participation in the loss-share agreements with the FDIC requires that we follow certain servicing procedures.

 

MB Financial Bank entered into loss-share agreements with the FDIC as part of the Heritage, Benchmark,

 

20



Table of Contents

 

Broadway and New Century transactions. These loss-share agreements require that MB Financial Bank follow certain servicing procedures as specified in the agreement.  A failure to follow these procedures or any other breach of the agreement by MB Financial Bank could result in the loss of FDIC reimbursement of losses on covered loans and other real estate owned, which could have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Our growth or future losses may require us to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed or the cost of that capital may be very high.

 

We are required by regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations. We anticipate that our capital resources will satisfy our capital requirements for the foreseeable future. We may at some point need to raise additional capital to support continued growth or losses, both internally and through acquisitions. Any capital we obtain may result in the dilution of the interests of existing holders of our common stock.

 

Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time (which are outside our control) and on our financial condition and performance. Accordingly, we cannot make assurances of our ability to raise additional capital if needed, or if the terms will be acceptable to us. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired and our financial condition and liquidity could be materially and negatively affected.

 

Conditions in the financial markets may limit our access to additional funding to meet our liquidity needs.

 

Liquidity is essential to our business, as we must maintain sufficient funds to respond to the needs of depositors and borrowers. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale or pledging as collateral of loans and other assets could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could negatively affect our access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity due to a market downturn or negative regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as severe disruption of the financial markets or negative news and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole, as evidenced by recent turmoil in the domestic and worldwide credit markets.

 

Our wholesale funding sources may prove insufficient to replace deposits or support our future growth.

 

As a part of our liquidity management, we use a number of funding sources in addition to core deposit growth and repayments and maturities of loans and investments. These sources include brokered certificates of deposit, repurchase agreements, federal funds purchased and Federal Home Loan Bank advances. Negative operating results or changes in industry conditions could lead to an inability to replace these additional funding sources at maturity. Our financial flexibility could be constrained if we are unable to maintain our access to funding or if adequate financing is not available to accommodate future growth at acceptable interest rates. Finally, if we are required to rely more heavily on more expensive funding sources to support future growth, our revenues may not increase proportionately to cover our costs. In this case, our results of operations and financial condition would be negatively affected.

 

The soundness of other financial institutions could negatively affect us.

 

Our ability to engage in routine funding and other transactions could be negatively affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. Defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and losses of depositor, creditor and counterparty confidence and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. We could experience increases in deposits and assets as a result of the difficulties or failures of other banks, which would increase the capital we need to support our growth.

 

Non-compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act, Bank Secrecy Act, or other laws and regulations could result in fines or sanctions.

 

The USA PATRIOT and Bank Secrecy Acts require financial institutions to develop programs to prevent financial institutions from being used for money laundering and terrorist activities. If such activities are detected, financial institutions are obligated to file suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. These rules require financial institutions to establish procedures for identifying and verifying the identity of customers seeking to open new financial accounts. Failure to comply with these regulations could

 

21



Table of Contents

 

result in fines or sanctions. During the last year, several banking institutions have received large fines for non-compliance with these laws and regulations. Although we have developed policies and procedures designed to assist in compliance with these laws and regulations, no assurance can be given that these policies and procedures will be effective in preventing violations of these laws and regulations.

 

We provide treasury management services to money services businesses, which include: check cashers, issuers/sellers of traveler’s checks, money orders and stored value cards, and money transmitters.  Money services businesses pose risk of compliance with regulatory guidance.

 

We provide treasury management services to the check cashing industry, offering: check clearing, monetary instrument, depository, and credit services.  We also provide treasury management services to money transmitters.  Financial institutions that open and maintain accounts for money services businesses are expected to apply the requirements of the USA PATRIOT Act and Bank Secrecy Act, as they do with all accountholders, on a risk-assessed basis.  As with any category of accountholder, there will be money services businesses that pose little risk of money laundering or lack of compliance with other laws and regulations and those that pose a significant risk.  Providing treasury management services to money services businesses represent a significant compliance and regulatory risk, and failure to comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements could result in fines or sanctions.

 

Financial reform legislation will, among other things, tighten capital standards, create a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and result in new regulations that are expected to increase our costs of operations.

 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law.  This law significantly changes the current bank regulatory structure and affects the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new implementing rules and regulations, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. The federal agencies are given significant discretion in drafting the implementing rules and regulations, and consequently, many of the details and much of the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act may not be known for many months or years.

 

Among the many requirements in the Dodd-Frank Act for new banking regulations is a requirement for new capital regulations to be adopted within 18 months.  These regulations must be at least as stringent as, and may call for higher levels of capital than, current regulations.  Generally, trust preferred securities will no longer be eligible as Tier 1 capital, but the Company’s currently outstanding trust preferred securities will be grandfathered and its currently outstanding TARP preferred securities will continue to qualify as Tier 1 capital.  In addition, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is required to seek to make its capital requirements for national banks, such as MB Financial Bank, countercyclical so that capital requirements increase in times of economic expansion and decrease in times of economic contraction.

 

Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are expected to have a near term impact on us.  For example, one year after the date of its enactment, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the federal prohibitions on paying interest on demand deposits, thus allowing businesses to have interest bearing checking accounts. Depending on competitive responses, this significant change to existing law could have an adverse impact on our interest expense.

 

The Dodd-Frank Act also broadened the base for FDIC insurance assessments. Assessments are now based on the average consolidated total assets less tangible equity capital of a financial institution and are generally expected to increase for institutions having total assets in excess of $10 billion. The Dodd-Frank Act also permanently increased the maximum amount of deposit insurance for banks, savings institutions and credit unions to $250,000 per depositor, retroactive to January 1, 2008, and non-interest bearing transaction accounts and IOLTA accounts have unlimited deposit insurance through December 31, 2013.

 

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act increased the authority of the Federal Reserve Board to examine the Company and its non-bank subsidiaries and gave the Federal Reserve Board the authority to establish rules regarding interchange fees charged for an electronic debit transaction by a payment card issuer that, together with its affiliates, has assets of $10 billion or more, and to enforce a new statutory requirement that such fees be reasonable and proportional to the actual cost of a transaction to the issuer.  By regulation, the Federal Reserve Board has limited the fees for such a transaction to the sum of 21 cents plus five basis points times the value of the transaction, plus up to one cent for fraud prevention costs.  The Dodd-Frank Act also restricts proprietary trading by banks, bank holding companies and others, and their acquisition and retention of ownership interests in and sponsorship of hedge funds and private equity funds, subject to an exception allowing a bank to organize and offer hedge funds and private equity funds to

 

22



Table of Contents

 

customers if certain conditions are met, including, among others, a requirement that the bank limit its ownership interest in any single fund to 3% and its aggregate investment in all funds to 3% of Tier 1 capital, with no director or employee of the bank holding an ownership interest in the fund unless he or she provides services directly to the funds.

 

The Dodd-Frank Act created a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection with broad powers to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The Bureau has broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The Bureau has examination and enforcement authority over all banks with more than $10 billion in assets.

 

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company.  However, compliance with this law and its implementing regulations has resulted, and will continue to result, in additional operating costs that could have a material adverse effect on our future financial condition and results of operations.  For additional discussion of the Dodd-Frank Act, see “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation-Regulatory Reform.”

 

New or changing tax, accounting, and regulatory rules and interpretations could significantly impact strategic initiatives, results of operations, cash flows, and financial condition.

 

The financial services industry is extensively regulated. Federal and state banking regulations are designed primarily to protect the deposit insurance funds and consumers, not to benefit a company’s stockholders. These regulations may sometimes impose significant limitations on operations. The significant federal and state banking regulations that affect us are described in this report under the heading “Item 1. Business-Supervision and Regulation”. These regulations, along with the currently existing tax, accounting, securities, insurance, and monetary laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, and interpretations control the methods by which financial institutions conduct business, implement strategic initiatives and tax compliance, and govern financial reporting and disclosures. These laws, regulations, rules, standards, policies, and interpretations are constantly evolving and may change significantly over time.

 

Significant legal actions could subject us to substantial liabilities.

 

We are from time to time subject to claims related to our operations. These claims and legal actions, including supervisory actions by our regulators, could involve large monetary claims and significant defense costs. As a result, we may be exposed to substantial liabilities, which could negatively affect our results of operations and financial condition.

 

The loss of certain key personnel could negatively affect our operations.

 

Our success depends in large part on the retention of a limited number of key management and other banking personnel. We could undergo a difficult transition period if we were to lose the services of any of these individuals. Our success also depends on the experience of our banking facilities’ managers and bankers and on their relationships with the customers and communities they serve. The loss of these key persons could negatively impact the affected banking operations.

 

As a result of our participation in the TARP Capital Purchase Program, we are subject to significant restrictions on compensation payable to our executive officers and other key employees.

 

Our ability to attract and retain key officers and employees may be impacted by legislation and regulation affecting the financial services industry. In 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “ARRA”) became law. The ARRA, through the implementing regulations of the U.S. Treasury, significantly expanded the executive compensation restrictions originally imposed on TARP participants, including us. Among other things, these restrictions limit our ability to pay bonuses and other incentive compensation and make severance payments. These restrictions will continue to apply to us for as long as the preferred stock we issued pursuant to the TARP Capital Purchase Program remains outstanding. These restrictions may negatively affect our ability to compete with financial institutions that are not subject to the same limitations.

 

We may experience future goodwill impairment.

 

If our estimates of the fair value of our goodwill change as a result of changes in our business or other factors, we may determine that an impairment charge is necessary. Estimates of fair value are based on a complex model using, among other things, cash flows and company comparisons.  As of December 31, 2011, our market capitalization

 

23



Table of Contents

 

was less than the book value of our total common stockholders’ equity.  Should this condition continue to exist for an extended period of time, the Company will consider this and other factors, including the Company’s anticipated cash flows, to determine whether goodwill is impaired. Our future cash flows estimates assume similar credit performance as we have seen in the last two quarters of 2011.  If this does not happen, our future cash flows would be negatively impacted.  Given the weak economy and the credit performance we experienced in 2009 and 2010, there is a high degree of uncertainty regarding this assumption.  No assurance can be given that the Company will not record an impairment loss on goodwill in the future and any such impairment loss could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

 

Our future success is dependent on our ability to compete effectively in the highly competitive banking industry.

 

We face substantial competition in all phases of our operations from a variety of different competitors. Our future growth and success will depend on our ability to compete effectively in this highly competitive environment. To date, we have grown our business successfully by focusing on our business lines and emphasizing the high level of service and responsiveness desired by our customers. We compete for loans, deposits and other financial services with other commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions, brokerage houses, mutual funds, insurance companies and specialized finance companies. Many of our competitors offer products and services which we do not offer, and many have substantially greater resources and lending limits, name recognition and market presence that benefit them in attracting business. In addition, larger competitors may be able to price loans and deposits more aggressively than we do, and smaller newer competitors may also be more aggressive in terms of pricing loan and deposit products than we are in order to obtain a share of the market. Some of the financial institutions and financial services organizations with which we compete are not subject to the same degree of regulation as is imposed on bank holding companies, federally insured state-chartered banks and national banks and federal savings banks. In addition, increased competition among financial services companies due to the recent consolidation of certain competing financial institutions and the conversion of certain investment banks to bank holding companies may negatively affect our ability to successfully market our products and services. As a result, these competitors have certain advantages over us in accessing funding and in providing various services.

 

We are subject to security and operational risks relating to our use of technology that could damage our reputation and our business.

 

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our computer systems and networks. Although we take protective measures and endeavor to modify them as circumstances warrant, our computer systems, software and networks may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses or other malicious code, and other events that could have a security impact. If one or more of such events occur, this potentially could jeopardize our or our customers’ confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, our computer systems and networks, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our or our customers’ operations. We may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify our protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, and we may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are either not insured against or not fully covered through any insurance maintained by us.

 

Security breaches in our internet banking activities could further expose us to possible liability and damage our reputation. Any compromise of our security also could deter customers from using our internet banking services that involve the transmission of confidential information. We rely on standard internet security systems to provide the security and authentication necessary to effect secure transmission of data. These precautions may not protect our systems from compromises or breaches of our security measures that could result in damage to our reputation and our business. Additionally, we outsource our data processing to a third party. If our third party provider encounters difficulties or if we have difficulty in communicating with such third party, it will significantly affect our ability to adequately process and account for customer transactions, which would significantly affect our business operations.

 

New lines of business or new products and services may subject us to additional risks.

 

From time to time, we may seek to implement new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed.  In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, we may 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, which could in turn have a material negative effect on our operating results.

 

24



Table of Contents

 

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

 

None.

 

Item 2.  Properties

 

We conduct our business at 87 banking offices located in the Chicago metropolitan area and one banking office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  We own a majority of our banking center facilities.  The remaining facilities are leased.  We have approximately 125 ATMs at our branches and at other locations.  We believe that all of our properties and equipment are well maintained, in good operating condition and adequate for all of our present and anticipated needs.  See Note 8 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding our premises and equipment.

 

We also have non-bank office locations in Chicago and Forest Park, Illinois; Paramus, New Jersey; Birmingham and Troy, Michigan; Columbus, Ohio; and LaJolla and Newport Beach, California.  These offices are used by our lease banking personnel and our Cedar Hill and LaSalle subsidiaries.

 

We believe our facilities in the aggregate are suitable and adequate to operate our banking and related business.

 

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

 

We are involved from time to time as plaintiff or defendant in various legal actions arising in the normal course of our businesses.  While the ultimate outcome of pending proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, it is the opinion of management, after consultation with counsel representing us in such proceedings, that the resolution of these proceedings should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operation.

 

Item 4.  (Removed and Reserved)

 

PART II

 

Item 5.  Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

 

Our common stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “MBFI.”  There were approximately 1,467 holders of record of our common stock as of December 31, 2011.

 

The following table presents quarterly market price information and cash dividends paid per share for our common stock for 2011 and 2010:

 

 

 

Market Price Range

 

 

 

High

 

Low

 

Dividends
Paid

 

2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarter ended December 31, 2011

 

$

17.97

 

$

14.01

 

$

0.01

 

Quarter ended September 30, 2011

 

$

21.25

 

$

13.86

 

$

0.01

 

Quarter ended June 30, 2011

 

$

22.49

 

$

17.38

 

$

0.01

 

Quarter ended March 31, 2011

 

$

21.52

 

$

17.09

 

$

0.01

 

2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quarter ended December 31, 2010

 

$

17.70

 

$

13.93

 

$

0.01

 

Quarter ended September 30, 2010

 

$

19.97

 

$

14.68

 

$

0.01

 

Quarter ended June 30, 2010

 

$

28.18

 

$

18.32

 

$

0.01

 

Quarter ended March 31, 2010

 

$

24.17

 

$

19.00

 

$

0.01

 

 

The timing and amount of cash dividends paid depends on our earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and other relevant factors.  The primary source for dividends paid to stockholders is dividends paid to us from MB Financial Bank and cash on hand.  We have an internal policy which provides that dividends paid to us by MB Financial Bank cannot exceed an amount that would cause the bank’s total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and Tier 1 leverage capital ratios to fall below 12%, 9% and 8%, respectively.  These ratios are in excess of the minimum ratios required for a bank to be considered “well capitalized” for regulatory purposes (10%, 6%

 

25



Table of Contents

 

and 5%, respectively).  In addition to adhering to our internal policy, there are regulatory restrictions on the ability of national banks to pay dividends.  See “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation - Dividends” above and Note 18 of notes to consolidated financial statements contained in Item 8 of this report.

 

The following table sets forth information for the three months ended December 31, 2011 with respect to our repurchases of our outstanding common shares:

 

 

 

Total Number of
Shares Purchased (1)

 

Average Price Paid
per Share

 

Number of Shares Purchased
as Part Publicly Announced
Plans or Programs

 

Maximum Number of
Shares that May Yet Be
Purchased Under the Plans
or Programs

 

October 1, 2011 — October 31, 2011

 

 

$

 

 

 

November 1, 2011 — November 30, 2011

 

910

 

16.40

 

 

 

December 1, 2011 — December 31, 2011

 

2,613

 

16.94

 

 

 

Total

 

3,523

 

$

16.80

 

 

 

 

 


(1)          Represents shares withheld to satisfy tax withholding obligations upon the exercise of stock options and vesting of restricted stock awards.

 

On December 5, 2008, as part of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (“TARP”) Capital Purchase Program of the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), the Company sold to Treasury 196,000 shares of the Company’s Fixed Rate Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), having a liquidation preference amount of $1,000 per share, for a purchase price of $196.0 million in cash and issued to Treasury a ten-year warrant to purchase 1,012,048 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $29.05 per share (the “Warrant”).  As explained below, the number of shares underlying the Warrant has been reduced to 506,024.

 

The Company may redeem the Series A Preferred Stock at any time by repaying Treasury, without penalty, subject to Treasury’s consultation with the Company’s appropriate regulatory agency.  Additionally, upon redemption of the Series A Preferred Stock, the Warrant may be repurchased from Treasury at its fair market value as agreed-upon by the Company and Treasury.

 

On September 17, 2009, the Company completed a public offering of its common stock by issuing 12,578,125 shares of common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of $201.3 million.  The net proceeds to the Company after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and offering expenses were approximately $190.9 million.  With the proceeds from this offering and the proceeds received by the Company from issuances pursuant to its Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan, the Company received aggregate gross proceeds from “Qualified Equity Offerings” in excess of the $196.0 million aggregate liquidation preference amount of the Series A Preferred Stock.  As a result, the number of shares of the Company’s common stock underlying the Warrant was reduced by 50%, from 1,012,048 shares to 506,024 shares.

 

Under the securities purchase agreement between us and Treasury, prior to December 5, 2011, we could not, without the consent of Treasury, (a) pay a cash dividend on our common stock of more than $0.18 per share or (b) subject to limited exceptions, redeem, repurchase or otherwise acquire shares of our common stock or preferred stock (other than the Series A Preferred Stock) or trust preferred securities.  In addition, under the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock, we may not pay dividends on our common stock unless we are current in our dividend payments on the Series A Preferred Stock.  Dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock are payable quarterly at a rate of 5% per annum for the first five years and a rate of 9% per annum thereafter if not redeemed prior to that time.

 

26



Table of Contents

 

Stock Performance Presentation

 

The following line graph shows a comparison of the cumulative returns for the Company, the NASDAQ Market Bank Index, an index of peer corporations selected by the Company and the NASDAQ Composite Index, for the period beginning December 31, 2006 and ending December 31, 2011.  The information assumes that $100 was invested at the closing price on December 31, 2006 in the Common Stock and each index, and that all dividends were reinvested.

 

COMPARISON OF 5-YEAR CUMULATIVE TOTAL RETURN

FOR MB FINANCIAL, INC.,

NASDAQ BANK INDEX, PEER GROUP INDEX AND NASDAQ COMPOSITE INDEX

 

 

 

 

Period Ending

 

Index

 

12/31/06

 

12/31/07

 

12/31/08

 

12/31/09

 

12/31/10

 

12/31/11

 

MB Financial, Inc.

 

$

100.00

 

$

83.68

 

$

77.83

 

$

55.45

 

$

48.83

 

$

48.31

 

NASDAQ Bank Index

 

100.00

 

80.09

 

62.84

 

52.60

 

60.04

 

53.74

 

Peer Group Index 2011

 

100.00

 

77.40

 

55.08

 

33.22

 

39.29

 

32.54

 

NASDAQ Composite

 

100.00

 

110.66

 

66.42

 

96.54

 

114.06

 

113.16

 

 

The Peer Group is made up of the common stocks of the following companies:

 

FIRST MIDWEST BANCORP INC

OLD SECOND BANCORP INC

PRIVATEBANCORP INC

TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP INC

WINTRUST FINANCIAL CORPORATION

 

27



Table of Contents

 

Item 6.  Selected Financial Data

 

Set forth below and on the following page is our summary consolidated financial information and other financial data.  This information should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included herein in response to Item 7 and the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included herein in response to Item 8 (in thousands, except common share data).

 

On August 10, 2009, the Company sold its merchant card processing business.  In accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP), the assets, liabilities, results of operations, including a pre-tax gain of $10.2 million, and cash flows of the Company’s merchant card processing business have been shown separately as discontinued operations in the consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations, and consolidated statements of cash flows for all periods presented.

 

On November 28, 2007, the Company sold its Union Bank (“Union”) subsidiary.  In accordance with U.S. GAAP, the assets, liabilities, results of operations, and cash flows of the business conducted by Union Bank have been shown separately as discontinued operations in the consolidated balance sheets, consolidated statements of operations, and consolidated statements of cash flows for all periods presented.

 

For purposes of the following discussion, balances, average rate, income and expenses associated with Union and the Company’s merchant card processing business have been excluded from continuing operations.

 

Our summary consolidated financial information and other financial data contain information determined by methods other than in accordance with GAAP.  These measures include net interest income on a fully tax equivalent basis and net interest margin on a fully tax equivalent basis.

 

The tax equivalent adjustment to net interest income and net interest margin recognizes the income tax savings when comparing taxable and tax-exempt assets and assumes a 35% tax rate.  Management believes that it is a standard practice in the banking industry to present net interest income and net interest margin on a fully tax equivalent basis, and accordingly believes that providing these measures may be useful for peer comparison purposes.

 

28



Table of Contents

 

do not pertain to our most central business operations, making the measure more meaningful when comparing our operating results from period to period.

 

The other measures exclude the ending balances of acquisition-related goodwill and other intangible assets, net of tax benefit, in determining tangible assets, tangible equity and tangible common equity.  Management believes the presentation of these other financial measures excluding the impact of such items provides useful supplemental information that is helpful in understanding our financial results, as they provide a method to assess management’s success in utilizing our tangible capital as well as our capital strength.  Management also believes that providing these measures that exclude balances of acquisition-related goodwill and other intangible assets, which are subjective components of valuation, facilitates the comparison of our performance with the performance of our competitors.  We also believe that these are standard financial measures used in the banking industry to measure performance.  These disclosures should not be viewed as substitutes for the results determined to be in accordance with GAAP, nor are they necessarily comparable to non-GAAP performance measures that may be presented by other companies.

 

A reconciliation of net interest margin on a fully tax equivalent basis to net interest margin is contained in the “Selected Financial Data” discussed below.

 

29



Table of Contents

 

Selected Financial Data:

 

 

 

As of or for the Year Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2011

 

2010 (1)

 

2009 (2)

 

2008

 

2007

 

Statement of Income Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest income

 

$

384,560

 

$

429,640

 

$

393,538

 

$

413,788

 

$

457,266

 

Interest expense

 

59,287

 

89,868

 

142,986

 

192,900

 

244,960

 

Net interest income

 

325,273

 

339,772

 

250,552

 

220,888

 

212,306

 

Provision for credit losses

 

120,750

 

246,200

 

231,800

 

125,721

 

19,313

 

Net interest income after provision for credit losses

 

204,523

 

93,572

 

18,752

 

95,167

 

192,993

 

Other income

 

109,106

 

185,756

 

127,154

 

80,393

 

83,528

 

Other expenses

 

269,633

 

258,776

 

223,750

 

183,390

 

191,506

 

Income (loss) before income taxes

 

43,996

 

20,552

 

(77,844

)

(7,830

)

85,015

 

Applicable income tax expense (benefit)

 

5,268

 

24

 

(45,265

)

(23,555

)

23,670

 

Income (loss) from continuing operations

 

38,728

 

20,528

 

(32,579

)

15,725

 

61,345

 

Income from discontinued operations, net of income tax

 

 

 

6,453

 

439

 

32,518

 

Net income (loss)

 

38,728

 

20,528

 

(26,126

)

16,164

 

93,863

 

Dividends and discount accretion on preferred shares

 

10,414

 

10,382

 

10,298

 

789

 

 

Net income (loss) available to common stockholders

 

$

28,314

 

$

10,146

 

$

(36,424

)

$

15,375

 

$

93,863

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common Share Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations

 

$

0.71

 

$

0.39

 

$

(0.81

)

$

0.45

 

$

1.70

 

Basic earnings per common share from discontinued operations

 

 

 

0.16

 

0.01

 

0.91

 

Impact of preferred stock dividends on basic earnings (loss) per common share

 

(0.19

)

(0.20

)

(0.26

)

(0.02

)

 

Basic earnings (loss) per common share

 

0.52

 

0.19

 

(0.91

)

0.44

 

2.61

 

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations

 

0.71

 

0.39

 

(0.81

)

0.45

 

1.68

 

Diluted earnings per common share from discontinued operations

 

 

 

0.16

 

0.01

 

0.89

 

Impact of preferred stock dividends on diluted earnings (loss) per common share

 

(0.19

)

(0.20

)

(0.26

)

(0.02

)

 

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share

 

0.52

 

0.19

 

(0.91

)

0.44

 

2.57

 

Common book value per common share

 

21.92

 

21.14

 

20.75

 

25.17

 

24.91

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic

 

54,057,158

 

52,724,715

 

40,042,655

 

34,706,092

 

35,919,900

 

Diluted

 

54,337,280

 

53,035,047

 

40,042,655

 

35,061,712

 

36,439,561

 

Dividend payout ratio (3) 

 

7.69

%

21.05

%

NM

 

163.64

%

27.59

%

Cash dividends per common share

 

$

0.04

 

$

0.04

 

$

0.15

 

$

0.72

 

$

0.72

 

 


(1)          In 2010, we completed two FDIC-assisted transactions.  See Note 2 in the notes to consolidated financial statements contained under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

(2)          In 2009, we completed four FDIC-assisted transactions.  See Note 2 in the notes to consolidated financial statements contained under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

(3)          Not meaningful for 2009 due to our net loss for that year.

 

30



Table of Contents

 

Selected Financial Data (continued):

 

 

 

As of or for the Year Ended December 31,

 

(Dollars in thousands)

 

2011

 

2010

 

2009

 

2008

 

2007

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Balance Sheet Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cash and due from banks

 

$

144,228

 

$

106,726

 

$

136,763

 

$

79,824

 

$

141,248

 

Investment securities

 

2,509,412

 

1,677,929

 

2,913,594

 

1,400,376

 

1,241,385

 

Loans, gross

 

5,950,995

 

6,617,811

 

6,524,547

 

6,228,563

 

5,615,627

 

Allowance for loan losses

 

126,798

 

192,217

 

177,072

 

144,001

 

65,103

 

Loans held for sale

 

4,727

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets

 

9,833,072

 

10,320,364

 

10,865,393

 

8,819,763

 

7,834,703

 

Deposits

 

7,647,607

 

8,152,958

 

8,683,276

 

6,495,571

 

5,513,783

 

Short-term and long-term borrowings

 

486,218

 

553,917

 

655,266

 

960,085

 

1,186,586

 

Junior subordinated notes issued to capital trusts

 

158,538

 

158,571

 

158,677

 

158,824

 

159,016

 

Stockholders’ equity

 

1,393,027

 

1,344,786

 

1,251,180

 

1,068,824

 

862,369

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Performance Ratios:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Return on average assets

 

0.39

%

0.20

%

(0.27

)%

0.20

%

1.19

%

Return on average equity

 

2.85

%

1.54

%

(2.32

)%

1.80

%

11.03

%

Return on average common equity

 

2.43

%

0.89

%

(3.91

)%

1.74

%

11.03

%

Net interest margin (1)

 

3.75

%

3.72

%

2.85

%

3.03

%

3.22

%

Tax equivalent effect

 

0.15

%

0.11

%

0.12

%

0.13

%

0.11

%

Net interest margin — fully tax equivalent basis (1) 

 

3.90

%

3.83

%

2.97

%

3.16

%

3.33

%

Loans to deposits

 

77.82

%

81.17

%

75.14

%

95.89

%

101.85

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Asset Quality Ratios:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-performing loans to total loans (2)

 

2.17

%

5.48

%

4.16

%

2.34

%

0.44

%

Non-performing assets to total assets (3)

 

2.12

%

4.21

%

2.84

%

1.71

%

0.33

%

Allowance for loan losses to total loans

 

2.13

%

2.90

%

2.71

%

2.31

%

1.16

%

Allowance for loan losses to non-performing loans (2)

 

98.00

%

53.03

%

65.26

%

98.67

%

266.17

%

Net loan charge-offs to average loans

 

2.90

%

3.42

%

3.09

%

0.79

%

0.25

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liquidity and Capital Ratios:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets

 

17.36

%

15.75

%

13.51

%

12.07

%

9.75

%

Total capital to risk-weighted assets

 

19.41

%

17.75

%

15.45

%

14.08

%

11.58

%

Tier 1 capital to average assets

 

11.73

%

10.66

%

8.71

%

9.85

%

8.18

%

Average equity to average assets

 

13.65

%

12.65

%

11.51

%

10.90

%

10.76

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Banking facilities

 

88

 

90

 

87

 

72

 

73

 

Full time equivalent employees

 

1,684

 

1,703

 

1,638

 

1,342

 

1,282

 

 


(1)          Net interest margin represents net interest income from continuing operations as a percentage of average interest earning assets.

(2)          Non-performing loans include loans accounted for on a non-accrual basis and accruing loans contractually past due 90 days or more as to interest or principal.  Non-performing loans excludes purchased credit-impaired loans that were acquired as part of the Heritage, InBank, Corus, Benchmark, Broadway, and New Century FDIC-assisted transactions.  See Note 6 in the notes to consolidated financial statements contained under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

(3)          Non-performing assets include non-performing loans, other real estate owned and other repossessed assets.  Non-performing assets exclude other real estate owned that is related to the Heritage, InBank, Benchmark, Broadway, and New Century FDIC-assisted transactions.  See Note 2 in the notes to consolidated financial statements contained under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

 

31



Table of Contents

 

The following table sets forth our selected quarterly financial data (in thousands, except common share data):

 

 

 

Three Months Ended 2011

 

Three Months Ended 2010

 

 

 

December

 

September

 

June

 

March

 

December

 

September

 

June

 

March

 

Statement of Income Data:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest income

 

$

93,433

 

$

94,288

 

$

98,105

 

$

98,734

 

$

103,573

 

$

109,752

 

$

110,441

 

$

105,874

 

Interest expense

 

13,188

 

13,872

 

15,698

 

16,529

 

18,918

 

22,134

 

23,760

 

25,056

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net interest income

 

80,245

 

80,416

 

82,407

 

82,205

 

84,655

 

87,618

 

86,681

 

80,818

 

Provision for credit losses

 

8,000

 

11,500

 

61,250

 

40,000

 

49,000

 

65,000

 

85,000

 

47,200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net interest income (loss) after provision for credit losses

 

72,245

 

68,916

 

21,157

 

42,205

 

35,655

 

22,618

 

1,681

 

33,618

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other income

 

24,451

 

26,367

 

29,145

 

29,143

 

30,795

 

35,798

 

92,706

 

26,457

 

Other expenses

 

69,433

 

66,608

 

66,728

 

66,864

 

64,615

 

66,478

 

66,032

 

61,651

 

Income (loss) before income taxes

 

27,263

 

28,675

 

(16,426

)

4,484

 

1,835

 

(8,062

)

28,355

 

(1,576

)

Income tax expense (benefit)

 

7,810

 

8,978

 

(9,060

)

(2,460

)

(1,358

)

(5,253

)

9,158

 

(2,523

)

Net income (loss)

 

$

19,453

 

$

19,697

 

$

(7,366

)

$

6,944

 

$

3,193

 

$

(2,809

)

$

19,197

 

$

947

 

Dividends and discount accretion on preferred shares

 

2,606

 

2,605

 

2,602

 

2,601

 

2,598

 

2,597

 

2,594

 

2,593

 

Net income (loss) available to common stockholders

 

$

16,847

 

$

17,092

 

$

(9,968

)

$

4,343

 

$

595

 

$

(5,406

)

$

16,603

 

$

(1,646

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net interest margin

 

3.71

%

3.74

%

3.79

%

3.76

%

3.72

%

3.81

%

3.79

%

3.55

%

Tax equivalent effect

 

0.20

%

0.16

%

0.13

%

0.12

%

0.11

%

0.11

%

0.12

%

0.12

%

Net interest margin on a fully tax equivalent basis

 

3.91

%

3.90

%

3.92

%

3.88

%

3.83

%

3.92

%

3.91

%

3.67

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Common Share Data :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Basic earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations

 

$

0.36

 

$

0.36

 

$

(0.14

)

$

0.13

 

$

0.06

 

$

(0.05

)

$

0.36

 

$

0.02

 

Basic earnings per common share from discontinued operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact of preferred stock dividends on basic earnings (loss) per common share

 

(0.05

)

(0.04

)

(0.04

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

Basic earnings (loss) per common share

 

0.31

 

0.32

 

(0.18

)

0.08

 

0.01

 

(0.10

)

0.31

 

(0.03

)

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share from continuing operations

 

0.36

 

0.36

 

(0.14

)

0.13

 

0.06

 

(0.05

)

0.36

 

0.02

 

Diluted earnings per common share from discontinued operations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Impact of preferred stock dividends on diluted earnings (loss) per common share

 

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.04

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

(0.05

)

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share

 

0.31

 

0.31

 

(0.18

)

0.08

 

0.01

 

(0.10

)

0.31

 

(0.03

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weighted average common shares outstanding

 

54,140,646

 

54,121,156

 

54,002,979

 

53,961,176

 

53,572,157

 

53,327,219

 

52,702,779

 

51,264,727

 

Diluted weighted average common shares outstanding

 

54,360,178

 

54,323,320

 

54,002,979

 

54,254,876

 

53,790,047

 

53,327,219

 

53,034,426

 

51,264,727

 

 

32



Table of Contents

 

Fourth Quarter Results

 

We had net income available to common stockholders of $16.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to net income available to common stockholders of $595 thousand for the fourth quarter of 2010.  The results for the fourth quarter of 2011 generated annualized return on average assets of 0.78% and an annualized return on average common equity of 5.66% compared to 0.12% and 0.21%, respectively, for the same period in 2010.

 

Net interest income decreased 5.2% to $80.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to $84.7 million for fourth quarter of 2010 primarily due to a decrease in interest earning assets partially offset by an increase in net interest margin.  Our net interest margin on a fully tax equivalent basis increased by 8 basis points to 3.91% for the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.  The margin increase from the fourth quarter of 2010 was due to a decrease in our average cost of funds as a result of an improved deposit mix and downward repricing of interest bearing deposits, as well as an improved interest earning asset mix and a lower level of non-performing loans.

 

The provision for loan losses was $8.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 and $49.0 million in the fourth quarter of 2010.  Net charge-offs were $13.9 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to $50.7 million in the fourth quarter of 2010.  See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Asset Quality” in Item 7 below for further analysis of the allowance for loan losses.

 

Other income was $24.5 million during the fourth quarter of 2011, a decrease of $6.3 million, or 20.6% compared to $30.8 million for the fourth quarter of 2010. Accretion of the FDIC indemnification asset decreased by $2.3 million as a result of the corresponding decrease in the FDIC indemnification asset balance during 2011.  Net losses recognized on other real estate owned were $3.4 million higher during the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 due to additional decreases in value of OREO properties.  Card fees were down $1.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the fourth quarter of 2010 primarily due to the impact of the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act on debit card interchange fees.

 

Other expense increased $4.8 million, or 7.5%, to $69.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2011 from $64.6 million for the fourth quarter of 2010.  Salaries and employee benefits increased by $3.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010 due to an increase in incentive compensation and an increase in health and benefits expense.  Computer services and telecommunication expense increased by $1.1 million due to product and system enhancements during the fourth quarter of 2011.  FDIC insurance premiums decreased by $1.3 million due to lower deposits, a change in the assessment computation during 2011, and the impact of improved credit quality on the computation.

 

Income tax expense from continuing operations for the fourth quarter of 2011 was $7.8 million compared to an income tax benefit from continuing operations of $1.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2010.  See Note 16 of notes to consolidated financial statements contained in Item 8 of this report for further analysis of income taxes.

 

33



Table of Contents

 

Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

 

The following is a discussion and analysis of our financial position and results of operations and should be read in conjunction with the information set forth under “Item 1A Risks Factors,” “General” in Item 7A, Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk, and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto appearing under Item 8 of this report.

 

Overview

 

We had net income available to common stockholders of $28.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to net income available to common stockholders of $10.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2010 and a net loss available to common stockholders of $36.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2009.  The increase in earnings from the year ended December 31, 2010 to the year ended December 31, 2011 was primarily due to lower provision for loan losses of $125.5 million as a result of improved credit quality, partially offset by $62.6 million in acquisition related gains recognized in 2010 and lower gains on investment securities of $18.0 million in 2011.  The increase in earnings from the year ended December 31, 2009 to the year ended December 31, 2010 was primarily due to an $89.2 million increase in net interest income, due to an increase in interest earning assets and a higher net interest margin, and a $58.6 million increase in other income, partially offset by an increase in other expense of $35.0 million and higher provision for loan losses of $14.4 million. Fully diluted earnings (loss) per common share were $0.52 for the year ended December 31, 2011 compared to $0.19 per common share in 2010 and ($0.91) per common share in 2009.

 

Our results for the year ended December 31, 2011 include a provision for credit losses of approximately $50 million in connection with the sale during the second quarter of 2011 of loans with an aggregate carrying amount of $281.6 million prior to the transfer to loans held for sale, including $156.3 million in non-performing loans.  We recognized approximately $87 million in charge-offs as a result of the sale.

 

The profitability of our operations depends primarily on our net interest income after provision for loan losses, which is the difference between interest earned on interest earning assets and interest paid on interest bearing liabilities less provision for loan losses.  The provision for loan losses is dependent on changes in our loan portfolio and management’s assessment of the collectability of our loan portfolio as well as prevailing economic and market conditions.  Our net income is also affected by other income and other expenses.  During the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, other income consisted of loan service fees, deposit service fees, net lease financing income, brokerage fees, trust and asset management fees, net gains on the sale of investment securities available for sale, increase in cash surrender value of life insurance, net gain (loss) on sale of other assets, other real estate owned gains or losses, acquisition related gains, accretion of the FDIC indemnification asset, card fees and other operating income.  During the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, other expenses included salaries and employee benefits, occupancy and equipment expense, computer services and telecommunication expense, advertising and marketing expense, professional and legal expense, brokerage fee expense, other intangibles amortization expense, FDIC insurance premiums, other real estate expenses (net of rental income), impairment charges and other operating expenses.  Additionally, dividends on preferred shares reduce net income available to common stockholders.

 

Net interest income is affected by changes in the volume and mix of interest earning assets, interest earned on those assets, the volume and mix of interest bearing liabilities and interest paid on interest bearing liabilities.  Other income and other expenses are impacted by growth of operations and growth in the number of loan and deposit accounts through both acquisitions and core banking business growth.  Growth in operations affects other expenses primarily as a result of additional employee, branch facility and promotional marketing expense.  Growth in the number of loan and deposit accounts affects other income, including service fees as well as other expenses such as computer services, supplies, postage, telecommunications and other miscellaneous expenses.  Higher levels of non-performing assets increase salaries and benefits because of the need for additional problem loan remediation staff, increased legal expenses and increased other real estate owned expenses.

 

As noted under “Item 6 Selected Financial Data,” on August 10, 2009, the Company sold its merchant card processing business, resulting in a pre-tax gain of $10.2 million.  For purposes of the following discussion, income and expenses associated with the Company’s merchant card processing business, including the gains recognized on the sale, have been excluded from continuing operations.  See Note 3 of the notes to our consolidated financial statements for additional information on discontinued operations.

 

34



Table of Contents

 

Critical Accounting Policies

 

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and follow general practices within the industries in which we operate.  This preparation requires management to make estimates, assumptions, and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes.  These estimates, assumptions, and judgments are based on information available as of the date of the financial statements; accordingly, as this information changes, actual results could differ from the estimates, assumptions, and judgments reflected in the financial statements.  Certain policies inherently have a greater reliance on the use of estimates, assumptions, and judgments and, as such, have a greater possibility of producing results that could be materially different than originally reported.  Management believes the following policies are both important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations and require subjective or complex judgments; therefore, management considers the following to be critical accounting policies.  Management has reviewed the application of these polices with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

 

Allowance for Loan Losses.  Subject to the use of estimates, assumptions, and judgments is management’s evaluation process used to determine the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, which combines several factors: management’s ongoing review and grading of the loan portfolio, consideration of past loan loss experience, trends in past due and nonperforming loans, risk characteristics of the various classifications of loans, existing economic conditions, the fair value of underlying collateral, and other qualitative and quantitative factors which could affect probable credit losses.  Because current economic conditions can change and future events are inherently difficult to predict, the anticipated amount of estimated loan losses, and therefore the adequacy of the allowance, could change significantly.  As an integral part of their examination process, various regulatory agencies also review the allowance for loan losses.  Such agencies may require that certain loan balances be charged off when their credit evaluations differ from those of management or require that adjustments be made to the allowance for loan losses, based on their judgments about information available to them at the time of their examination.  We believe the allowance for loan losses is adequate and properly recorded in the financial statements.  See “Allowance for Loan Losses” section below for further analysis.

 

Residual Value of Our Direct Finance, Leveraged, and Operating Leases.  Lease residual value represents the present value of the estimated fair value of the leased equipment at the termination date of the lease.  Realization of these residual values depends on many factors, including management’s use of estimates, assumptions, and judgment to determine such values.  Several other factors outside of management’s control may reduce the residual values realized, including general market conditions at the time of expiration of the lease, whether there has been technological or economic obsolescence or unusual wear and tear on, or use of, the equipment and the cost of comparable equipment.  If, upon the expiration of a lease, we sell the equipment and the amount realized is less than the recorded value of the residual interest in the equipment, we will recognize a loss reflecting the difference.  On a quarterly basis, management reviews the lease residuals for potential impairment.  If we fail to realize our aggregate recorded residual values, our financial condition and profitability could be adversely affected.  At December 31, 2011, the aggregate residual value of the equipment leased under our direct finance, leveraged, and operating leases totaled $54.9 million.  See Note 1 and Note 7 of our audited consolidated financial statements for additional information.

 

35



Table of Contents

 

Income Tax Accounting.  ASC Topic 740 provides guidance on accounting for income taxes by prescribing the minimum recognition threshold that a tax position must meet to be recognized in the financial statements.  ASC Topic 740 also provides guidance on measurement, recognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had $90 thousand of uncertain tax positions.  The Company elects to treat interest and penalties recognized for the underpayment of income taxes as income tax expense.  However, interest and penalties imposed by taxing authorities on issues specifically addressed in ASC Topic 740 will be taken out of the tax reserves up to the amount allocated to interest and penalties.  The amount of interest and penalties exceeding the amount allocated in the tax reserves will be treated as income tax expense.  As of December 31, 2011, the Company had approximately $7 thousand of accrued interest related to tax reserves.  The application of income tax law is inherently complex.  Laws and regulations in this area are voluminous and are often ambiguous.  As such, we are required to make many subjective assumptions and judgments regarding our income tax exposures.  Interpretations of and guidance surrounding income tax laws and regulations change over time.  As such, changes in our subjective assumptions and judgments can materially affect amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheets and statements of income.

 

Fair Value of Assets and Liabilities.  ASC Topic 820 defines fair value as the price that would be received to sell the financial asset or paid to transfer the financial liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

 

The degree of management judgment involved in determining the fair value of assets and liabilities is dependent upon the availability of quoted market prices or observable market parameters.  For financial instruments that trade actively and have quoted market prices or observable market parameters, there is minimal subjectivity involved in measuring fair value.  When observable market prices and parameters are not fully available, management judgment is necessary to estimate fair value.  In addition, changes in market conditions may reduce the availability of quoted prices or observable data.  For example, reduced liquidity in the capital markets or changes in secondary market activities could result in observable market inputs becoming unavailable.  Therefore, when market data is not available, the Company would use valuation techniques requiring more management judgment to estimate the appropriate fair value measurement.

 

During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company completed two FDIC-assisted transactions and completed four FDIC-assisted transactions in 2009.  The Company recorded assets and liabilities at the estimated fair value as of the acquisition dates.  See Note 2 below to the consolidated financial statements for additional information.

 

See Note 19 to the consolidated financial statements for a complete discussion on the Company’s use of fair valuation of assets and liabilities and the related measurement techniques.

 

Goodwill.  The excess of the cost of an acquisition over the fair value of the net assets acquired consists of goodwill, and core deposit and client relationship intangibles.  See Note 9 to the consolidated financial statements for further information regarding core deposit and client relationship intangibles.  The Company reviews goodwill and other intangible assets to determine potential impairment annually, or more frequently if events and circumstances indicate that the asset might be impaired, by comparing the carrying value of the asset with the anticipated future cash flows.

 

As of December 31, 2011, our market capitalization was less than our common stockholders’ equity.  Should this situation continue to exist for an extended period of time, the Company will consider this and other factors, including the Company’s anticipated future cash flows, to determine whether goodwill is impaired.  No assurance can be given that the Company will not record an impairment loss on goodwill in the future.

 

The Company’s annual assessment date is as of December 31.  No impairment losses were recognized during the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009.

 

Goodwill is tested for impairment at the reporting unit level.  All of our goodwill is allocated to MB Financial, Inc., which is the Company’s only applicable reporting unit for purposes of testing goodwill impairment.  Fair value was computed by estimating the future cash flows of the Company and present valuing those cash flows at an interest rate equal to our cost of capital.  In addition, we compared our fair value calculation with our stock price adjusted for a control premium for reasonableness relative to our fair value calculation.  Key assumptions used in estimating future cash flows included loan and deposit growth, the interest rate environment, credit spreads on new and renewed loans, future deposit pricing, loan charge-offs, provision for loan losses, fee income growth and operating expense growth.  Our future cash flows estimates assume similar credit performance to what we

 

36



Table of Contents

 

experienced in the last two quarters of 2011.

 

Recent Accounting Pronouncements.  Refer to Note 1 of our consolidated financial statements for a description of recent accounting pronouncements including the respective dates of adoption and effects on results of operations and financial condition.

 

Net Interest Income

 

The following table presents, for the periods indicated, the total dollar amount of interest income from average interest earning assets and the related yields, as well as the interest expense on average interest bearing liabilities, and the related costs, expressed both in dollars and rates (dollars in thousands).  The table below and the discussion that follows contain presentations of net interest income and net interest margin on a tax-equivalent basis, which is adjusted for the tax-favored status of income from certain loans and investments.  Net interest margin also is presented on a tax-equivalent basis in “Item 6 Selected Financial Data.”  We believe this measure to be the preferred industry measurement of net interest income, as it provides a relevant comparison between taxable and non-taxable amounts.

 

Reconciliations of net interest income and net interest margin on a tax-equivalent basis to net interest income and net interest margin in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America are provided in the table.

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2011

 

2010

 

2009

 

 

 

Average

 

 

 

Yield/

 

Average

 

 

 

Yield/

 

Average

 

 

 

Yield/

 

 

 

Balance

 

Interest

 

Rate

 

Balance

 

Interest

 

Rate

 

Balance

 

Interest

 

Rate

 

Interest Earning Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loans (1) (2) (3)

 

$

5,955,306

 

$

317,566

 

5.33

%

$

6,635,701

 

$

358,648

 

5.40

%

$

6,339,229

 

$

326,293

 

5.15

%

Loans exempt from federal income taxes (4)

 

143,732

 

11,118

 

7.63

 

123,075

 

8,978

 

7.19

 

82,019

 

7,658

 

9.21

 

Taxable investment securities

 

1,747,433

 

41,349

 

2.37

 

1,635,544

 

50,542

 

3.09

 

1,444,552

 

45,777

 

3.17

 

Investment securities exempt from federal income taxes (4)

 

383,509

 

26,562

 

6.83

 

356,496

 

20,900

 

5.86

 

391,071

 

22,698

 

5.72

 

Federal funds sold

 

 

 

 

352

 

2

 

0.56

 

 

 

 

Other interest bearing deposits

 

442,190

 

1,153

 

0.26

 

386,521

 

1,028

 

0.27

 

545,314

 

1,737

 

0.32

 

Total interest earning assets

 

8,672,170

 

$

397,748

 

4.59

 

9,137,689

 

$

440,098

 

4.82

 

8,802,185

 

$

404,163

 

4.59

 

Non-interest earning assets

 

1,283,963

 

 

 

 

 

1,368,339

 

 

 

 

 

975,103

 

 

 

 

 

Total assets

 

$

9,956,133

 

 

 

 

 

$

10,506,028

 

 

 

 

 

$

9,777,288

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest Bearing Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deposits:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOW and money market deposit

 

$

2,678,049

 

$

7,637

 

0.29

%

$

2,767,044

 

$

14,965

 

0.54

%

$

2,098,530

 

$

17,773

 

0.85

%

Savings deposit

 

732,731

 

1,379

 

0.19

 

619,304

 

1,911

 

0.31

 

473,477

 

1,717

 

0.36

 

Time deposits

 

2,610,436

 

35,865

 

1.37

 

3,335,457

 

58,974

 

1.77

 

3,725,326

 

102,124

 

2.74

 

Short-term borrowings

 

244,594

 

849

 

0.35

 

268,251

 

1,145

 

0.43

 

449,548

 

5,166

 

1.15

 

Long-term borrowings and junior subordinated notes

 

439,054

 

13,557

 

3.05

 

465,387

 

12,873

 

2.73

 

512,267

 

16,206

 

3.12

 

Total interest bearing liabilities

 

6,704,864

 

$

59,287

 

0.88

 

7,455,443

 

$

89,868

 

1.21

 

7,259,148

 

$

142,986

 

1.97

 

Non-interest bearing deposits

 

1,771,918

 

 

 

 

 

1,594,504

 

 

 

 

 

1,307,021

 

 

 

 

 

Other non-interest bearing liabilities

 

120,647

 

 

 

 

 

127,099

 

 

 

 

 

85,890

 

 

 

 

 

Stockholders’ equity

 

1,358,704

 

 

 

 

 

1,328,982

 

 

 

 

 

1,125,229

 

 

 

 

 

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity

 

$

9,956,133

 

 

 

 

 

$

10,506,028

 

 

 

 

 

$

9,777,288

 

 

 

 

 

Net interest income/interest rate spread (5)

 

 

 

$

338,461

 

3.71

%

 

 

$

350,230

 

3.61

%

 

 

$

261,177

 

2.62

%

Taxable equivalent adjustment

 

 

 

(13,188

)

 

 

 

 

(10,458

)

 

 

 

 

(10,625

)

 

 

Net interest income, as reported

 

 

 

$

325,273

 

 

 

 

 

$

339,772

 

 

 

 

 

$

250,552

 

 

 

Net interest margin (6)

 

 

 

 

 

3.75

%

 

 

 

 

3.72

%

 

 

 

 

2.85

%

Tax equivalent effect

 

 

 

 

 

0.15

%

 

 

 

 

0.11

%

 

 

 

 

0.12

%

Net interest margin on a fully tax equivalent basis (6)

 

 

 

 

 

3.90

%

 

 

 

 

3.83

%

 

 

 

 

2.97

%

 


(1)       Non-accrual loans are included in average loans.

(2)       Interest income includes amortization of deferred loan origination fees of $4.7 million, $4.6 million and $5.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.

(3)       Loans held for sale are included in the average loan balance listed.  Related interest income is included in loan interest income.

(4)       Non-taxable loan and investment income is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis assuming a 35% tax rate.

(5)       Interest rate spread represents the difference between the average yield on interest earning assets and the average cost of interest bearing liabilities and is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis.

(6)       Net interest margin represents net interest income as a percentage of average interest earning assets.

 

37



Table of Contents

 

Net interest income on a tax equivalent basis was $338.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2011, a decrease of $11.8 million, or 3.4%, from $350.2 million for the prior year.  The decrease in net interest income was a result of a lower level of interest earning assets partially offset by an increase in net interest margin.  The net interest margin, expressed on a fully tax equivalent basis, was 3.90% for 2011 and 3.83% for 2010.  The margin increase from the prior year was due to a decrease in our average cost of funds as a result of an improved deposit mix and downward repricing of interest bearing deposits, as well as a lower level of non-performing loans.  The deposit mix shifted as certificates of deposits for a majority of rate sensitive customers were not renewed and non-interest bearing deposits increased.  Our non-performing loans negatively impacted the net interest margin during 2011 and 2010 by approximately 12 basis points and 21 basis points, respectively.

 

Net interest income on a tax equivalent basis was $350.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, an increase of $89.1 million, or 34.1%, from $261.2 million for the prior year.  The increase in net interest income was due to a higher level of interest earning assets and a significant improvement in our net interest margin.  Interest earning assets increased largely due to our FDIC-assisted transactions completed during 2010 and 2009.  See Note 2 in the notes to consolidated financial statements contained under Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for additional information.  The margin increase from the prior year was due to an improved loan mix and a decrease in our average cost of funds as a result of an improved deposit mix and downward repricing of certificates of deposit.  The deposit mix shifted as certificates of deposits for a majority of rate sensitive customers were not renewed and our low cost deposits (non-interest bearing deposits, money market accounts, NOW and savings) increased.  The net interest margin, expressed on a fully tax equivalent basis, was 3.83% for 2010 and 2.97% for 2009.  Our non-performing loans negatively impacted the net interest margin during 2010 and 2009 by approximately 21 basis points and 15 basis points, respectively.

 

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act repealed the federal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits for commercial accounts, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts beginning July 21, 2011.  Although the ultimate impact of this legislation on the Company has not yet been determined, interest costs associated with demand deposits may change as a result of competitor responses.

 

38



Table of Contents

 

Volume and Rate Analysis of Net Interest Income

 

The following table presents the extent to which changes in volume and interest rates of interest earning assets and interest bearing liabilities have affected our interest income and interest expense during the periods indicated.  Information is provided in each category with respect to (i) changes attributable to changes in volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior period rate), (ii) changes attributable to changes in rates (changes in rates multiplied by prior period volume) and (iii) change attributable to a combination of changes in rate and volume (change in rates multiplied by the changes in volume) (in thousands).  Changes attributable to the combined impact of volume and rate have been allocated proportionately to the changes due to volume and the changes due to rate.

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

 

 

2011 Compared to 2010

 

2010 Compared to 2009

 

 

 

Change
Due to
Volume

 

Change
Due to
Rate

 

Total
Change

 

Change
Due to
Volume

 

Change
Due to
Rate

 

Total
Change

 

Interest Earning Assets:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loans

 

$

(36,341

)

$

(4,741

)

$

(41,082

)

$

15,629

 

$

16,726

 

$

32,355

 

Loans exempt from federal income taxes (1)

 

1,574

 

566

 

2,140

 

3,250

 

(1,930

)

1,320

 

Taxable investment securities

 

3,275

 

(12,468

)

(9,193

)

5,926

 

(1,161

)

4,765

 

Investment securities exempt from federal income taxes (1)

 

1,670

 

3,992

 

5,662

 

(2,025

)

227

 

(1,798

)

Federal funds sold

 

(2

)

 

(2

)

2

 

 

2

 

Other interest bearing deposits

 

145

 

(20

)

125

 

(452

)

(257

)

(709

)

Total increase (decrease) in interest income

 

(29,679

)

(12,671

)

(42,350

)

22,330

 

13,605

 

35,935

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest Bearing Liabilities:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deposits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NOW and money market deposit accounts

 

(467

)

(6,861

)

(7,328

)

4,703

 

(7,511

)

(2,808

)

Savings deposits

 

306

 

(838

)

(532

)

476

 

(282

)

194

 

Time deposits

 

(11,408

)

(11,701

)

(23,109

)

(9,823

)

(33,327

)

(43,150

)

Short-term borrowings

 

(95

)

(201

)

(296

)

(1,572

)

(2,449

)

(4,021

)

Long-term borrowings and junior subordinated notes

 

(756

)

1,440

 

684