BankFinancial CORP - Annual Report: 2010 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010

or

For transition period from              to             

Commission File Number 0-51331

BANKFINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (800) 894-6900

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

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

None

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s outstanding voting common stock held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2010, determined using a per share closing price on that date of $8.31, as quoted on The Nasdaq Stock Market, was $165.6 million.

At March 7, 2011, there were 21,072,966 shares of common stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

None

PART I

Forward Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains, and other periodic and current reports and press releases of BankFinancial Corporation may contain, forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that involve significant risks and uncertainties. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and are including this statement for the purpose of invoking these safe harbor provisions. Forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions or describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, and are generally identifiable by use of the words “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “project,” “plan,” or similar expressions. Our ability to predict results or the actual effect of plans or strategies is inherently uncertain, and actual results or effects may differ from those predicted. Factors that could have a material adverse effect on operations and could affect management’s outlook or our future prospects include, but are not limited to: higher than expected overhead, infrastructure and compliance costs, changes in market interest rates, changes in the yield curve, balance sheet shrinkage or less than anticipated balance sheet growth, lack of demand for loan products, illiquidity and changes in financial markets, including the market for mortgage backed securities and other debt obligations, declining demand for real estate and real estate valuations, increasing unemployment levels, deposit flows, pricing, underwriting and other forms of competition, adverse federal or state legislative or regulatory developments, monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. Government, including policies of the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve Board, adverse economic conditions that could result in increased delinquencies in our loan portfolio or a decline in the value of our investment securities and the collateral for our loans, the quality or composition of our loan or investment portfolios, demand for financial services and multi-family, commercial and residential real estate loans in our market areas, the possible dilutive effect of potential acquisitions or de novo branches, if any, changes in accounting principles, policies and guidelines, increased costs of federal deposit insurance, our failure to integrate an acquired institution successfully or achieve expected synergies and cost savings, and future adverse developments concerning the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago. These risks and uncertainties, as well as the Risk Factors set forth in Item 1A below, should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. We do not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement in the future, or to reflect circumstances and events that occur after the date on which the forward-looking statement was made.

BankFinancial Corporation

BankFinancial Corporation, a Maryland corporation headquartered in Burr Ridge, Illinois (the “Company”), became the owner of all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of BankFinancial, F.S.B. (the “Bank”) on June 23, 2005, when we consummated a plan of conversion and reorganization that the Bank and its predecessor holding companies, BankFinancial MHC, Inc. and BankFinancial Corporation, a federal corporation, adopted on August 25, 2004. BankFinancial Corporation, the Maryland corporation, was organized in 2004 to facilitate the mutual-to-stock conversion and to become the holding company for the Bank upon its completion.

As part of the mutual-to-stock conversion, BankFinancial Corporation, the Maryland corporation, sold 24,466,250 shares of common stock in a subscription offering for $10.00 per share. The separate corporate existences of BankFinancial MHC and BankFinancial Corporation, the federal corporation, ceased upon the completion of the mutual-to-stock conversion. For a further discussion of the mutual-to-stock conversion, see our Prospectus as filed on April 29, 2005 with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) pursuant to Rule 424(b)(3) of the Rules and Regulations of the Securities Act of 1933 (File Number 333-119217).

We manage our operations as one unit, and thus do not have separate operating segments. Our chief operating decision-makers use consolidated results to make operating and strategic decisions.

BankFinancial, F.S.B.

The Bank is a full-service, community-oriented federal savings bank principally engaged in the business of commercial, family and personal banking, and offers our customers a broad range of loan, deposit, and other financial products and services through 18 full-service banking offices and three Express Branch facilities located in Cook, DuPage, Lake and Will Counties, Illinois, and through our Internet Branch, www.bankfinancial.com.

2

The Bank’s primary business is making loans and accepting deposits. The Bank also offers our customers a variety of financial products and services that are related or ancillary to loans and deposits, including cash management, funds transfers, bill payment and other online banking transactions, automated teller machines, safe deposit boxes, wealth management, and general insurance agency services.

The Bank’s primary lending area consists of the counties where our branch offices are located, and contiguous counties in the State of Illinois. We derive the most significant portion of our revenues from these geographic areas. Through our Wholesale Commercial Lending and National Commercial Leasing Departments, we also engage in multi-family lending activities in selected metropolitan areas outside our primary lending area and in commercial leasing activities on a nationwide basis. The Bank’s primary market for deposits is concentrated around the areas where our full-service banking offices and Express Branch facilities are located.

Lending Activities

Our loan portfolio consists primarily of investment and business loans (multi-family, nonresidential real estate, commercial, construction and land loans, and commercial leases), which represented 75.9% of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, $296.9 million, or 27.7%, of our total loan portfolio consisted of multi-family mortgage loans; $282.0 million, or 26.3%, of our total loan portfolio consisted of nonresidential real estate loans; $64.7 million, or 6.0%, of our total loan portfolio consisted of commercial loans; $151.1 million, or 14.1%, of our total loan portfolio consisted of commercial leases; and $18.4 million, or 1.7%, of our total loan portfolio consisted of construction and land loans. $256.3 million, or 23.9%, of our total loan portfolio consisted of one-to-four family residential mortgage loans (of which $76.0 million, or 7.1%, were loans to investors in non-owner-occupied single-family homes), including home equity loans and lines of credit.

Deposit Activities

Our deposit accounts consist principally of savings accounts, NOW accounts, checking accounts, money market accounts, certificates of deposit, and IRAs and other qualified plan accounts. We provide commercial checking accounts and related services such as cash management. We also provide low-cost checking account services. We rely on our favorable locations, customer service, competitive pricing, our Internet Branch and related deposit services such as cash management to attract and retain deposit accounts.

At December 31, 2010, our deposits totaled $1.235 billion. Interest-bearing deposits totaled $1.123 billion and noninterest-bearing demand deposits totaled $112.5 million, which included $6.0 million in internal checking accounts such as bank cashier checks and money orders. Savings, money market and NOW account deposits totaled $742.8 million, and certificates of deposit totaled $380.1 million, of which $271.2 million had maturities of one year or less.

Related Products and Services

The Bank’s Wealth Management Group provides investment, financial planning and other wealth management services to our customers through arrangements with a third-party broker-dealer. The Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Financial Assurance Services, Inc. (“Financial Assurance”), sells life insurance, fixed annuities, property and casualty insurance and other insurance products on an agency basis. Financial Assurance was engaged in the sale of title insurance on an agency basis until March 15, 2008. On that date, Financial Assurance completed the sale of its title insurance agency business to a newly formed, third-party title insurance agency. The sale of the title insurance agency business did not affect Financial Assurance’s other insurance businesses. During the year ended December 31, 2010, Financial Assurance reported net income of $209,000. At December 31, 2010, Financial Assurance had four full-time employees. The Bank’s other wholly-owned subsidiary, BF Asset Recovery Corporation, is in the business of holding title to and selling certain Bank-owned real estate, and reported a loss of $2.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2010.

3

Website and Stockholder Information

The website for the Company and the Bank is www.bankfinancial.com. Information on this website does not constitute part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

The Company makes available, free of charge, its Annual Report on Form 10-K, its quarterly reports on Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, its current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ( “Exchange Act”), as soon as reasonably practicable after such forms are filed with or furnished to the SEC. Copies of these documents are available to stockholders at BankFinancial’s web site, www.bankfinancial.com, under Stockholder Information, and at the SEC’s web site, www.sec.gov.

Competition

We face significant competition in both originating loans and attracting deposits. The Chicago metropolitan area and some other areas in which we operate have a high concentration of financial institutions, many of which are significantly larger institutions that have greater financial resources than we have, and many of which are our competitors to varying degrees. Our competition for loans and leases comes principally from commercial banks, savings banks, mortgage banking companies, credit unions, leasing companies, insurance companies, real estate conduits and other companies that provide financial services to businesses and individuals. Our most direct competition for deposits has historically come from commercial banks, savings banks and credit unions. We face additional competition for deposits from online financial institutions and non-depository competitors such as the mutual fund industry, securities and brokerage firms and insurance companies.

We seek to meet this competition by emphasizing personalized service and efficient decision-making tailored to individual needs. In addition, we reward long-standing relationships with preferred rates and terms on deposit products based on existing and prospective lending business. We do not rely on any individual, group or entity for a material portion of our loans or our deposits.

Employees

At December 31, 2010, we had 310 full-time employees and 27 part-time employees. The employees are not represented by a collective bargaining unit and we consider our working relationship with our employees to be good.

Supervision and Regulation

General

As a federally chartered savings bank, the Bank is currently regulated and supervised primarily by the Office of Thrift Supervision ( “OTS”). The Bank is also subject to regulation by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( “FDIC”) in more limited circumstances because the Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC. This regulatory and supervisory structure establishes a comprehensive framework of activities in which a financial institution may engage, and is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC’s deposit insurance funds, depositors and the banking system. Under this system of federal regulation, financial institutions are periodically examined to ensure that they satisfy applicable standards with respect to their capital adequacy, assets, management, earnings, liquidity and sensitivity to market interest rates. After completing an examination, the OTS critiques the financial institution’s operations in a report of examination and assigns it a rating (known as an institution’s CAMELS rating). Under federal law, an institution may not disclose its CAMELS rating to the public.

The Bank is a member of, and owns stock in, the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago ( “FHLBC”), which is one of the 12 regional banks in the Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Bank also is regulated to a lesser extent by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with regard to reserves it must maintain against deposits and other matters. The OTS examines the Bank and prepares reports for the consideration of its Board of Directors on any identified operating deficiencies. The Bank’s relationship with its depositors and borrowers also is regulated in some respects by both federal and state laws, especially in matters concerning the ownership of deposit accounts, and the form and content of the Bank’s consumer loan documents.

4

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( “Dodd-Frank Act”), which was signed by the President on July 21, 2010, provides for the transfer of the authority for regulating and supervising federal savings banks from the OTS to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), and the authority for regulating and supervising savings and loan holding companies and their non-depository subsidiaries from the OTS to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board ( “FRB”). The transfer is currently scheduled to occur July 21, 2011. The Dodd-Frank Act also creates a new federal agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( “CFPB”), as an independent bureau of the Federal Reserve Board, to conduct rule-making, supervision, and enforcement of federal consumer financial protection and fair lending laws and regulations. The CFPB will have examination and primary enforcement authority in connection with these laws and regulations for depository institutions with total assets of more than $10 billion. Depository institutions with $10 billion or less in total assets will continue to be examined for compliance with these laws and regulations by their primary federal regulators, and will remain subject to their enforcement authority. Because of these changes, the OCC will become the primary federal regulator of the Bank and the FRB will become the primary federal regulator of the Company on the transfer date. The Bank will not be subject to the examination or the primary enforcement authority of the CFPB.

There can be no assurance that laws, rules and regulations will not change in the future, which could make compliance more difficult or expensive or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects. Any change in these laws or regulations, or in regulatory policy, whether by the OCC, FDIC, the FRB, the OTS, the CFPB or Congress, could have a material adverse impact on the Company, the Bank and their respective operations.

Federal Banking Regulation

Business Activities. As a federal savings bank, the Bank derives its lending and investment powers from the Home Owners’ Loan Act, as amended, and the regulations of the OTS. Under these laws and regulations, the Bank may invest in mortgage loans secured by residential and nonresidential real estate, commercial business and consumer loans, certain types of securities and certain other loans and assets. Specifically, the Bank may originate, invest in, sell, or purchase unlimited loans on the security of residential real estate, while loans on nonresidential real property generally may not, on a combined basis, exceed 400% of the Bank’s total capital. In addition, secured and unsecured commercial loans and certain types of commercial personal property leases may not exceed 20% of the Bank’s assets; however, amounts in excess of 10% of assets may only be used for small business loans. Further, the Bank may generally invest up to 35% of its assets in consumer loans, corporate debt securities and commercial paper on a combined basis, and up to the greater of its capital or 5% of its assets in unsecured construction loans. The Bank may invest up to 10% of its assets in tangible personal property, for rental or sale. Certain leases on tangible personal property are not aggregated with commercial or consumer loans for the purposes of determining compliance with the limitations set forth for those investment categories. The Bank also may establish subsidiaries that may engage in activities not otherwise permissible for the Bank directly, including real estate investment and insurance agency activities. A violation of the lending and investment limitations may be subject to the same enforcement mechanisms of the primary federal regulator as other violations of a law or regulation.

Capital Requirements. The regulations of the OTS require federal savings banks to meet three minimum capital standards: a ratio of tangible capital to adjusted total assets of 1.5%; a ratio of Tier 1 (core) capital to adjusted total assets of 4.0% (3% for institutions receiving the highest rating on the CAMELS rating system); and a ratio of total capital to total risk-adjusted assets of 8.0%. The prompt corrective action standards discussed below, in effect, establish a minimum 2% tangible capital standard.

The risk-based capital standard for federal savings banks requires the maintenance of Tier 1, or core capital, and total capital (which is defined as core capital and supplementary capital) to risk-weighted assets of at least 4% and 8%, respectively. In determining the amount of risk-weighted assets, all assets, including certain off-balance sheet assets, are multiplied by a risk-weight factor of 0% to 100%, assigned by the OTS capital regulation based on the risks inherent in the type of asset. Core capital is defined as common stockholders’ equity (including retained earnings), certain noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus and minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, less intangibles other than certain mortgage servicing rights and credit card relationships. The components of supplementary capital currently include cumulative perpetual preferred stock, long-term preferred stock, mandatory convertible securities, subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock, allowance for loan and lease losses up to a maximum of 1.25% of risk-weighted assets and up to 45% of net unrealized gains on available-for-sale equity securities with readily determinable fair market values. Overall, the amount of supplementary capital included as part of total capital cannot exceed 100% of core capital.

5

At December 31, 2010, the Bank’s capital exceeded all applicable regulatory requirements.

Loans-to-One-Borrower. A federal savings bank generally may not make a loan or extend credit to a single or related group of borrowers in excess of 15% of unimpaired capital and surplus. An additional amount may be loaned, equal to 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus, if the loan is secured by readily marketable collateral, which generally does not include real estate. As of December 31, 2010, the Bank was in compliance with the loans-to-one-borrower limitations.

Qualified Thrift Lender Test. As a federal savings bank, the Bank is subject to a qualified thrift lender, or “QTL,” test. Under the QTL test, the Bank must maintain at least 65% of its “portfolio assets” in “qualified thrift investments” in at least nine months of the most recent 12-month period. “Portfolio assets” generally means the total assets of a savings institution, less the sum of specified liquid assets up to 20% of total assets, goodwill and other intangible assets, and the value of property used in the conduct of the federal savings bank’s business.

“Qualified thrift investments” include various types of loans made for residential and housing purposes, investments related to those purposes, including certain mortgage-backed and related securities, and loans for personal, family, household and certain other purposes up to a limit of 20% of portfolio assets. “Qualified thrift investments” also include 100% of an institution’s credit card loans, education loans and small business loans. The Bank also may satisfy the QTL test by qualifying as a “domestic building and loan association” as defined in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. At December 31, 2010, the Bank maintained approximately 76.95% of its portfolio assets in qualified thrift investments, and as of that date, satisfied the QTL test. A federal savings bank that fails the QTL test must operate under specified restrictions, including limits on growth, branching, new investment and dividends. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, noncompliance with the QTL test is subject to regulatory enforcement action as a violation of law.

Capital Distributions. The regulations of the OTS govern capital distributions by a federal savings bank, which include cash dividends, stock repurchases and other transactions charged to the institution’s capital account. A federal savings bank must file an application for approval of a capital distribution if:

Even if an application is not otherwise required, every federal savings bank that is a subsidiary of a holding company must still file a notice with the OTS at least 30 days before the board of directors declares a dividend or approves a capital distribution. At December 31, 2010, the Bank would be required to file an application for approval of a capital distribution to the Company.

The OTS may disapprove a notice or application if:

6

Liquidity. A federal savings bank is required to maintain a sufficient amount of liquid assets to ensure its safe and sound operation.

Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending Laws. All federal savings banks have a responsibility under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) and related regulations of the OTS to help meet the credit needs of their communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. In connection with its examination of a federal savings bank, the OTS is required to evaluate and rate the federal savings bank’s record of compliance with the CRA. In addition, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act prohibit lenders from discriminating in their lending practices based on the characteristics specified in those statutes. A federal savings bank’s failure to comply with the provisions of the CRA could, at a minimum, result in regulatory restrictions on its activities. The failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act could result in enforcement actions by the OTS, as well as other federal regulatory agencies and the Department of Justice. The OTS has rated the Bank’s CRA performance as “Outstanding,” the highest possible rating, in the CRA Performance Evaluations the OTS has completed on the Bank since 1999.

Privacy Standards. Financial institutions are subject to regulations implementing the privacy protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. These regulations require the Bank to disclose its privacy policy, including identifying with whom it shares “nonpublic personal information” to customers at the time of establishing the customer relationship and annually thereafter. In addition, the Bank is required to provide its customers with the ability to “opt-out” of or consent to having the Bank share their nonpublic personal information with unaffiliated third parties before it can disclose such information, subject to certain exceptions. The implementation of these regulations did not have a material adverse effect on the Bank. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act also allows each state to enact legislation that is more protective of consumers’ personal information.

The OTS and other federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines establishing standards for safeguarding customer information to implement certain provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. The guidelines describe the agencies’ expectations for the creation, implementation and maintenance of an information security program, which would include administrative, technical and physical safeguards appropriate to the size and complexity of a financial institution and the nature and scope of its activities. The standards set forth in the guidelines are intended to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records, and to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or other information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. The Bank has implemented these guidelines, and such implementation has not had a material adverse effect on our operations.

Transactions with Related Parties. A federal savings bank’s authority to engage in transactions with its “affiliates” is limited by OTS regulations and by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and its implementing regulation, Regulation W. The term “affiliates” for these purposes generally means any company that controls or is under common control with an insured depository institution, although subsidiaries of federal savings banks are generally not considered affiliates for the purposes of Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. The Company is an affiliate of the Bank. In general, transactions with affiliates must be on terms that are as favorable to the federal savings bank as comparable transactions with non-affiliates. In addition, certain types of these transactions are restricted to an aggregate percentage of the federal savings bank’s capital. Collateral in specified amounts must usually be provided by affiliates in order to receive loans from the federal savings bank. OTS regulations also prohibit a federal savings bank from lending to any of its affiliates that are engaged in activities that are not permissible for bank holding companies, and from purchasing the securities of any affiliate, other than a subsidiary.

The Bank’s authority to extend credit to its directors, executive officers and 10% stockholders, as well as to entities controlled by such persons, is currently governed by the requirements of Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O of the Federal Reserve Board. Among other things, these provisions require that extensions of credit to insiders be made on terms that are substantially the same as, and follow credit underwriting procedures that are not less stringent than, those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated persons and that do not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features, and not exceed certain limitations on the amount of credit extended to such persons, individually and in the aggregate, which limits are based, in part, on the amount of the Bank’s capital. In addition, extensions of credit in excess of certain limits must receive the prior approval of the Bank’s Board of Directors.

7

Enforcement. The OTS has primary enforcement responsibility over federal savings banks, and has the authority to bring enforcement action against the Bank and all “institution-affiliated parties,” including stockholders, attorneys, appraisers and accountants who knowingly or recklessly participate in wrongful action likely to have an adverse effect on an insured institution. Formal enforcement action may range from the issuance of a capital directive or cease and desist order to the removal of officers and/or directors, receivership, conservatorship or the termination of deposit insurance. Civil monetary penalties cover a wide range of violations and actions, and range up to $25,000 per day, unless a finding of reckless disregard is made, in which case penalties may be as high as $1 million per day. The FDIC also has the authority to recommend to the Director of the OTS that an enforcement action be taken with respect to a particular savings institution. If action is not taken by the Director, the FDIC has authority to take action under specified circumstances. The OTS’ enforcement authority over federal savings banks is currently scheduled to be transferred to the OCC on July 21, 2011 pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act.

Standards for Safety and Soundness. Federal law requires each federal banking agency to prescribe certain standards for all insured depository institutions. These standards relate to, among other things, internal controls, information systems and audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, compensation and other operational and managerial standards as the agency deems appropriate. The federal banking agencies adopted Interagency Guidelines Prescribing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement the safety and soundness standards required under federal law. The guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards that the federal banking agencies use to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. The guidelines address internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, credit underwriting, loan documentation, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits. If the appropriate federal banking agency determines that an institution fails to meet any standard prescribed by the guidelines, the agency may require the institution to submit to the agency an acceptable plan to achieve compliance with the standard.

Prompt Corrective Action Regulations. Under the prompt corrective action regulations, the OTS is required and authorized to take supervisory actions against undercapitalized federal savings banks. For this purpose, a federal savings bank is placed in one of the following five categories based on the federal savings bank’s capital:

Generally, the banking regulator is required to appoint a receiver or conservator for a federal savings bank that is “critically undercapitalized.” The regulation also provides that a capital restoration plan must be filed with the OTS within 45 days of the date a bank receives notice that it is “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” or “critically undercapitalized.” In addition, numerous mandatory supervisory actions become immediately applicable to the federal savings bank, including, but not limited to, restrictions on growth, investment activities, capital distributions and affiliate transactions. The OTS may also take any one of a number of discretionary supervisory actions against undercapitalized federal savings banks, including the issuance of a capital directive and the replacement of senior executive officers and directors.

At December 31, 2010, the Bank met the criteria for being considered “well-capitalized.”

Interest on Deposits. Federal laws and regulations currently prohibits depository institutions from paying interest on commercial checking accounts. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the payment of interest on commercial checking accounts effective July 21, 2011.

8

Insurance of Deposit Accounts. The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC. Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, insured institutions are assigned to one of four risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other factors, with less risky institutions paying lower assessments. An institution’s assessment rate depends upon the category to which it is assigned, subject to certain adjustments specified by the FDIC’s. Assessment rates currently range from seven to 77.5 basis points of assessable deposits. The FDIC may adjust the scale uniformly, except that no adjustment can deviate by more than three basis points from the base scale without notice and comment. No institution may pay a dividend if it is in default of the federal deposit insurance assessment.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to revise its procedures to base its assessments upon total assets less tangible equity instead of on deposits. The FDIC recently issued a final rule that will implement that change beginning the second quarter of 2011.

The FDIC imposed on all insured institutions a special emergency assessment of five basis points of total assets minus Tier 1 capital (as of June 30, 2009), capped at ten basis points of an institution’s deposit assessment base, in order to cover losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund. That special assessment was collected on September 30, 2009.

The FDIC provided for similar assessment authority during the final two quarters of 2009, if deemed necessary. In lieu of further special assessments, the FDIC required insured institutions to prepay estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 through the fourth quarter of 2012. The estimated assessments which included an assumed annual base increase of 5%, were recorded as a prepaid expense asset as of December 31, 2009, and each quarter thereafter, a charge to earnings is recorded for each regulator assessment with an offsetting credit to the prepaid asset.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum target Deposit Insurance Fund ratio from 1.15% of estimated insured deposits to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits. The FDIC must seek to achieve the 1.35% ratio by September 30, 2020. Insured institutions with assets of $10 billion or more are supposed to fund the increase. The Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the 1.5% maximum fund ratio, instead leaving the ratio to the discretion of the FDIC. The FDIC recently exercised that discretion by establishing a long-range fund ratio of 2%.

The FDIC has authority to increase insurance assessments. A significant increase in insurance premiums would be likely have an adverse effect on the operating expenses and results of operations of the Bank. The Bank cannot predict what the insurance assessment rates will be in the future.

An insured institution’s deposit insurance may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or regulatory condition imposed in writing. The management of the Bank does not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance.

In addition to the FDIC assessments, the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) is authorized to impose and collect, with the approval of the FDIC, assessments for anticipated payments, issuance costs and custodial fees on bonds issued by the FICO in the 1980’s to recapitalize the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. The bonds issued by the FICO are due to mature in 2017 through 2019. For the quarter ended December 31, 2010, the annualized FICO assessment was equal to 1.04 basis points for each $100 in domestic deposits maintained at an insured institution.

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. On October 14, 2008, the FDIC announced the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. This program has two components – The Debt Guarantee Program and the Transaction Account Guarantee Program. The Debt Guarantee Program guarantees newly issued senior unsecured debt of a participating organization, up to certain limits established for each institution, issued between October 14, 2008 and June 30, 2009, later extended to October 31, 2010. The Bank and the Company opted not to participate in the Debt Guarantee Program.

The Transaction Account Guarantee Program provides, for a fee, full federal deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction deposit accounts, regardless of dollar amount, until June 30, 2010, later extended to December 31, 2010. The Bank participated in the Transaction Account Guarantee Program. The Dodd-Frank Act extended unlimited federal deposit insurance coverage for certain non-interest bearing transaction accounts until December 31, 2012, without opportunity for opt out.

9

U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) provided the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury with broad authority to implement certain actions to help restore stability and liquidity to U.S. markets. One of the provisions resulting from the legislation is the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (“TARP”), which provides direct equity investment by the U.S. Treasury Department in qualified financial institutions. The TARP program was voluntary. The Company did not participate in TARP.

Prohibitions Against Tying Arrangements. Federal savings banks are prohibited, subject to some exceptions, from extending credit to or offering any other service, or fixing or varying the consideration for such extension of credit or service, on the condition that the customer obtain some additional service from the institution or its affiliates or not obtain services of a competitor of the institution.

Federal Home Loan Bank System. The Bank is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which consists of 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks. The Federal Home Loan Bank System provides a central credit facility primarily for member institutions. As a member of the FHLBC, the Bank is required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLBC in an amount at least equal to 1% of the aggregate principal amount of its unpaid residential mortgage loans and similar obligations at the beginning of each year, or 1/20 of its borrowings from the FHLBC, whichever is greater. As of December 31, 2010, the Bank was in compliance with this requirement.

The USA PATRIOT Act and the Bank Secrecy Act

The USA PATRIOT Act and the Bank Secrecy Act require financial institutions to develop programs to detect and report money-laundering and terrorist activities, as well as suspicious activities. The USA PATRIOT Act also gives the federal government powers to address terrorist threats through enhanced domestic security measures, expanded surveillance powers, increased information sharing and broadened anti-money laundering requirements. The federal banking agencies are required to take into consideration the effectiveness of controls designed to combat money-laundering activities in determining whether to approve a merger or other acquisition application of a member institution. Accordingly, if we engage in a merger or other acquisition, our controls designed to combat money laundering would be considered as part of the application process. In addition, non-compliance with these laws and regulations could result in fines, penalties and other enforcement measures. We have developed policies and continue to augment procedures and systems designed to comply with these laws and regulations.

Federal Reserve System

The FRB’s regulations require federal savings banks to maintain noninterest-earning reserves against their transaction accounts, such as negotiable order of withdrawal and regular checking accounts. At December 31, 2010, the Bank was in compliance with these reserve requirements. The balances maintained to meet the reserve requirements imposed by the FRB may be used to satisfy liquidity requirements imposed by the OTS.

Holding Company Regulation

The Company is a unitary savings and loan holding company, and is currently subject to regulation and supervision by the OTS. The OTS also currently has enforcement authority over the Company and its non-savings institution subsidiaries. Among other things, this authority permits the OTS to restrict or prohibit activities that are determined to be a risk to the Bank. The Dodd-Frank Act provides for the transfer of the authority for supervising and regulating savings and loan holding companies and their non-depository subsidiaries from the OTS to the FRB. The transfer is presently scheduled to occur on July 21, 2011.

The Company’s activities are limited to the activities permissible for financial holding companies or for multiple savings and loan holding companies. A financial holding company may engage in activities that are financial in nature, including underwriting equity securities and insurance, incidental to financial activities or complementary to a financial activity. A multiple savings and loan holding company is generally limited to activities permissible for bank holding companies under Section 4(c) (8) of the Bank Holding Company Act, subject to the prior approval of the OTS, and certain additional activities authorized by OTS regulations.

10

Federal law prohibits a savings and loan holding company, directly or indirectly, or through one or more subsidiaries, from acquiring control of another savings institution or holding company thereof, without prior written approval of the OTS. It also prohibits the acquisition or retention of, with specified exceptions, more than 5% of the equity securities of a company engaged in activities that are not closely related to banking or financial in nature or acquiring or retaining control of an institution that is not federally insured. In evaluating applications by holding companies to acquire savings institutions, the OTS must consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the savings institution, the effect of the acquisition on the risk to the insurance fund, the convenience and needs of the community and competitive factors.

Capital. Savings and loan holding companies are not currently subject to specific regulatory capital requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act, however, requires the FRB to promulgate consolidated capital requirements for depository institution holding companies that are no less stringent, both quantitatively and in terms of components of capital, than those applicable to their subsidiary depository institutions. As is currently the case with bank holding companies, instruments such as cumulative preferred stock and trust-preferred securities will no longer be includable as Tier 1 capital. However, instruments issued by May 19, 2010 will be grandfathered for holding companies with assets of $15 billion or less. There is a five-year transition period from the July 21, 2010 effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act before the capital requirements will apply to savings and loan holding companies.

Source of Strength Doctrine. The “source of strength doctrine” requires bank holding companies to provide financial assistance to their subsidiary depository institutions in the event the subsidiary depository institution experiences financial distress. The Dodd-Frank Act extends the source of strength doctrine to savings and loan holding companies. The applicable regulatory agencies must issue regulations requiring that all bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies serve as a source of strength to their subsidiary depository institutions by providing capital, liquidity and other support in times of financial distress.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted in response to public concerns regarding corporate accountability in connection with certain accounting scandals. The stated goals of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act are to increase corporate responsibility, to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures pursuant to the securities laws. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act generally applies to all companies that file or are required to file periodic reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the Exchange Act.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act includes specific additional disclosure requirements, requires the Securities and Exchange Commission and national securities exchanges to adopt extensive additional disclosure, corporate governance and other related rules, and mandates further studies of certain issues by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Federal Securities Laws

The Company’s common stock is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Exchange Act. The Company is subject to the information, proxy solicitation, insider trading restrictions and other requirements of the Exchange Act.

Taxation

Federal Taxation. The Company and the Bank are subject to federal income taxation in the same general manner as other corporations, with some exceptions discussed below. The following discussion of federal taxation is intended only to summarize material federal income tax matters and is not a comprehensive description of the tax rules applicable to the Company and the Bank.

Method of Accounting. For federal income tax purposes, the Company currently reports its income and expenses on the accrual method of accounting and uses a tax year ending December 31 for filing its consolidated federal income tax returns.

Bad Debt Reserves. The Small Business Protection Act of 1996 eliminated the use of the reserve method of accounting for bad debt reserves by federal savings banks, effective for taxable years beginning after 1995. Prior to the enactment of this law, the Bank was permitted to establish a reserve for bad debts for tax purposes and to make annual additions to the reserve. These additions could, within specified formula limits, be deducted in arriving at the Bank’s taxable income. Because of the Small Business Protection Act of 1996, the Bank must use the specific charge-off method in computing its bad debt deduction for tax purposes.

11

Taxable Distributions and Recapture. Prior to the Small Business Protection Act of 1996, bad debt reserves created prior to 1988 were subject to recapture into taxable income if the Bank failed to meet certain thrift asset and definition tests. The Small Business Protection Act of 1996 eliminated these thrift-related recapture rules. However, under current law, pre-1988 reserves remain subject to tax recapture should the Bank make certain distributions from its tax bad debt reserve or cease to maintain a financial institution charter. At December 31, 2010, the Bank’s total federal pre-1988 reserve was $14.9 million. This reserve reflects the cumulative effects of federal tax deductions by the Bank for which no federal income tax provision has been made.

Alternative Minimum Tax. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, imposes an alternative minimum tax at a rate of 20% on a base of regular taxable income plus certain tax preferences, referred to as “alternative minimum taxable income.” The alternative minimum tax is payable to the extent alternative minimum taxable income is in excess of an exemption amount. Net operating losses can, in general, offset no more than 90% of alternative minimum taxable income unless resulting from a loss carryback from 2008 or 2009 pursuant to the special provisions of the Worker, Homeownership & Business Assistance Act of 2009.

Net Loss Carryovers. A financial institution may carry back net operating losses to the preceding two taxable years (up to five years for losses incurred in 2008 or 2009 pursuant to the special provisions of the Worker, Homeownership & Business Assistance Act of 2009) and forward to the succeeding 20 taxable years. At December 31, 2010, the Company had a federal net operating loss carryforward of $5.9 million that will begin to expire in 2029. At December 31, 2010, the Company had a state net operating loss carryforward for the State of Illinois of $32.0 million that will expire in 2025. The net operating losses have resulted in the recording of deferred taxes.

Corporate Dividends. The Company may exclude from its income 100% of the dividends it receives from the Bank as a member of the same affiliated group of corporations.

State and Local Taxation. The Company pays income tax to the State of Illinois. As a Maryland business corporation, the Company is required to file annual returns and pay annual fees to the State of Maryland, but these fees are not material in amount. At December 31, 2010, the Company had a state net operating loss for the State of Illinois of $32.0 million, which will expire in 2025. Beginning in 2010 and 2009, the Company and the Bank became subject to income taxes in the States of Colorado and New Jersey, respectively, due to the physical presence of regional National Commercial Leasing bankers in these jurisdictions.

Deferred Income Taxes. The Company evaluates deferred taxes for recoverability using an approach that considers the relative impact of negative and positive evidence, including historical financial performance, projections of future taxable income, future reversals of existing taxable temporary differences, tax-planning strategies and any available carryback capacity. In evaluating the need for a valuation allowance, the Company estimates future taxable income based on management-approved business plans and ongoing tax planning. Only those tax planning strategies that are both prudent and feasible, and which management has the ability and intent to implement, may be incorporated into the analysis and assessment.

The Company’s historical financial performance includes a cumulative loss over a three-year period consisting of the current year and the previous two years. The most significant component of the cumulative loss was impairment losses that the Company recorded on Freddie Mac preferred stocks that it previously held in its investment portfolio. The Company sold these securities in 2009 so the impairment losses will not recur. The most significant component of the Company’s net loss in 2010 was the combined effects of specific valuation allowances on classified loans and write-downs on other real estate owned (“OREO”), together with the expenses incurred to resolve collection litigation and manage the related collateral. In 2011, we expect to further deploy our excess liquidity to generate additional loan-related interest income and we expect the negative effects from classified loans and assets to diminish over time. In addition, we expect further pre-tax net income contributions from our acquisition of Downers Grove National Bank (see Note 13 – Subsequent Events of the Consolidated Financial Statements). After taking these factors into account, we believe it more likely than not that the Company will return to profitability during 2011 and maintain profitability in subsequent years such that it will fully realize the benefit of the deferred tax assets recorded at December 31, 2010. Should the Company not return to profitability in 2011 or in subsequent years, it may become necessary to record a valuation allowance for all or a portion of the deferred tax asset.

12

The risks set forth below may adversely affect our business, financial condition and operating results. In addition to the risks set forth below and the other risks described in Item 1, “Business, Forward Looking Statements,” and Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” there may also be additional risks and uncertainties that are not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial that could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or operating results. As a result, past financial performance may not be a reliable indicator of future performance, and historical trends should not be used to anticipate results or trends in future periods.

Current Economic Conditions Present Higher Risks to Our Loan Portfolio

At December 31, 2010, our loan portfolio included $296.9 million in multi-family mortgage loans, or 27.7% of total loans; $282.0 million in nonresidential real estate loans, or 26.3% of total loans; $151.1 million in commercial leases, or 14.1% of total loans; $64.7 million in commercial loans, or 6.0% of total loans; and $76.0 million in non owner occupied residential real estate loans, or 7.1% of total loans; $103.3 million in residential real estate loans, or 16.7% of total loans; and $18.4 million in construction and land loans, or 1.7% of total loans. Current economic conditions, including high unemployment rates, weakened consumer and business spending and materially declining real estate values, all present risks to our loan portfolio. Our historical loan underwriting standards presumed a reasonable range of economic and operating conditions for our borrowers and their underlying business or personal circumstances. The depth and speed of the decline in economic activity exceeded, and will continue to exceed, the financial and management capabilities of certain borrowers to meet their credit obligations. Furthermore, the decline in real estate values in all market segments not only diminishes an important source of repayment, but also diminishes the economic interest of borrowers in investing additional financial resources into their businesses or residences. Though the risk of a sudden and catastrophic event in financial markets appears to have receded, persistently weak economic growth in the U.S. and certain of its trading partners will continue to depress the operating results of certain commercial lessees. These factors and conditions and prudent loan portfolio management have also combined to reduce the overall level of acceptable credit exposures available in the market, resulting in lower loan portfolio balances and reduced interest income from the loan portfolio.

If Our Allowance for Loan Losses is Not Sufficient to Cover Actual Loan Losses, Our Earnings Could Decrease

In the event that our loan customers do not repay their loans according to their terms, and the collateral securing the repayment of these loans is insufficient to cover any remaining loan balance, we could experience significant loan losses or increase our provision for loan losses or both, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. At December 31, 2010, our allowance for loan losses was $22.2 million, representing 2.07% of total loans and 48.5% of nonperforming loans as of that date. In determining the amount of our allowance for loan losses, we rely on our loan quality reviews, our experience and our evaluation of economic conditions, among other factors. In addition, we make various estimates and assumptions about the collectability of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets, if any, serving as collateral for the repayment of our loans. We also make judgments concerning our legal positions and the priority of our interests in contested legal or bankruptcy proceedings, and at times, we may lack sufficient information to establish specific reserves for loans involved in such proceedings. We base these estimates, assumptions and judgments on information that we consider reliable, but if an estimate, assumption or judgment that we make ultimately proves to be incorrect, additional provisions to our allowance for loan losses may become necessary.

We Have a Goodwill Asset that Could Be Classified as Impaired in the Future. If the Goodwill Asset Is Considered to Be Partially or Fully Impaired in the Future, Our Earnings and the Book Values of This Asset Would Decrease

As of December 31, 2010, we maintained goodwill as an asset in the amount of $22.6 million. We assess our goodwill asset for impairment at least annually. In fourth quarter, 2010, we engaged an independent third-party valuation firm to assist us in our most recent goodwill impairment testing as of December 31, 2010. In its valuation analysis, the third-party valuation firm determined that the fair value of BankFinancial, F.S.B., the reporting unit pursuant to ASC 350-20-35-36, was sufficient to support the carrying value of our goodwill asset. However, if our market capitalization remains below its tangible book value or if the fair value of the reporting unit were to decline, future goodwill impairment testing could result in a partial or full impairment of the value of the Bank’s goodwill asset. If we determine that an impairment of our goodwill asset exists at a given point in time, our earnings and the book value of our goodwill asset will be reduced by the amount of the impairment. An impairment of our goodwill asset would have little or no impact on our tangible book value or regulatory capital levels.

13

If the Company’s Deferred Tax Assets Require a Valuation Allowance in the Future, Earnings Will Be Negatively Impacted

We periodically evaluate our deferred tax assets to determine whether a valuation allowance is needed for some portion or all of our deferred tax assets. A valuation allowance must be recognized for a deferred tax asset if, based on the weight of available evidence, it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. We concluded from our most recent evaluation of our deferred tax assets that it is more likely than not that we will realize the $17.6 million in gross deferred tax assets that were recorded at December 31, 2010. However, if we record net losses in 2011 or in future years, this could call into question our ability to realize some portion or all of the deferred tax assets that we have recorded and require us to recognize a valuation allowance. The recognition of a valuation allowance would have a corresponding impact on our earnings in the period it is recognized.

Changes in Market Interest Rates Could Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Our financial condition and results of operations are significantly affected by changes in market interest rates because our assets, primarily loans, and our liabilities, primarily deposits, are monetary in nature. Our results of operations depend substantially on our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income that we earn on our interest-earning assets and the interest expense that we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities. We are unable to predict changes in market interest rates that are affected by many factors beyond our control, including inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, domestic and international events and changes in the United States and other financial markets. Our net interest income is affected not only by the level and direction of interest rates, but also by the shape of the yield curve and relationships between interest sensitive instruments and key driver rates, including credit risk spreads, and by balance sheet growth, customer loan and deposit preferences and the timing of changes in these variables which themselves are impacted by changes in market interest rates. As a result, changes in market interest rates can significantly impact our net interest income as well as the fair market valuation of our assets and liabilities.

The Risks Presented by the Acquisition of Other Institutions Could Adversely Affect Our Financial Condition and Results of Operations

If we acquire other institutions, we will be presented with many risks that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. An institution that we acquire may have unknown asset quality issues or unknown or contingent liabilities that we did not discover or fully recognize in the due diligence process, thereby resulting in unanticipated losses, particularly in the case of FDIC-assisted transactions due to the highly restrictive due diligence available to potential bidders. The acquisition of other institutions typically requires the integration of different corporate cultures, loan and deposit products, pricing strategies, data processing systems and other technologies, accounting, internal audit and financial reporting systems, operational processes, policies, procedures and internal controls, marketing programs and personnel of the acquired institution in order to make the transaction economically advantageous. The integration process is complicated and time consuming, and could divert our attention from other business concerns and be disruptive to our customers and the customers of the acquired institution. Our failure to integrate an acquired institution successfully could result in the loss of key customers and employees, and prevent us from achieving expected synergies and cost savings. Acquisitions also result in professional fees, purchase price adjustments, the amortization of core deposit intangibles and other expenses that could adversely affect our earnings, and in goodwill that could become impaired, requiring us to recognize further charges. We may finance acquisitions with borrowed funds, thereby increasing our leverage and reducing our liquidity, or with potentially dilutive issuances of equity securities.

14

Since Our Business is Concentrated in the Chicago Metropolitan Area, Local Economic Conditions May Adversely Affect Our Business

Although we make certain types of loans and leases to borrowers located in other states, our lending and deposit gathering activities are concentrated primarily in the Chicago metropolitan area. Our success can be affected by the general economic conditions of this area and surrounding areas. In addition, many of the loans in our loan portfolio are secured by real estate located in the Chicago metropolitan area. Negative conditions in the real estate markets where collateral for a mortgage loan is located could adversely 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 beyond our control, including real estate supply and demand, the impact of mortgage foreclosures and short sales, changes in general or regional economic conditions and unemployment rates, interest rates, governmental rules or policies and natural disasters. The value of real estate located in many segments of the Chicago metropolitan area has been and continues to be adversely impacted by many of these factors, and this has had, and may continue to have, a negative impact on our loan growth, our ability to collect certain loans according to their terms, and our results of operations.

Difficult Economic Conditions Have Adversely Affected the Banking Industry

National and local economic conditions have been difficult in recent years, and this has resulted in declining real estate values, a tightening of the availability of credit, illiquidity in certain securities markets, increasing loan delinquencies, mortgage foreclosures, personal and business bankruptcies, rising unemployment rates, declining consumer confidence and spending, significant write-downs of asset values by financial institutions and government-sponsored entities, and a reduction of manufacturing and service business activity and international trade. These conditions have contributed to significant declines in the trading prices of certain financial institution stocks, many of which have not fully recovered. We do not expect that the national and local economies will fully recover over the short term, and a continuation or worsening of these conditions could exacerbate their adverse effects. The adverse effects of these conditions could include increases in loan delinquencies and charge-offs, increases to the portion of our loan loss reserve that we base on national or local economic factors, increases to our specific loan loss reserves due to the impact of these conditions on specific borrowers or the collateral for their loans, declines in the value of our investment securities, increases in regulatory and compliance costs, and declines in the trading price of our common stock.

If Our Investment in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago is Classified as Other-Than-Temporarily Impaired, Our Earnings Could Decrease

We own FHLBC common stock to qualify for membership in the Federal Home Loan Bank System and to be eligible to borrow funds under the FHLBC’s advance program. The aggregate cost of our FHLBC common stock as of December 31, 2010 was $15.6 million based on its par value. There is no market for our FHLBC common stock. Due to our receipt of stock dividends and a reduction of our outstanding FHLBC advances, we owned shares of FHLBC common stock at December 31, 2010 with a par value that was $9.0 million more than we were required to own to maintain our membership, in the Federal Home Loan Bank System and to be eligible to obtain advances (“excess” or “voluntary” capital stock).

The FHLBC is subject to a cease and desist order issued by the Federal Housing Finance Board, now known as the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), in 2007. Among other things, the cease and desist order requires the FHLBC to submit a capital plan to the FHFA, prohibits certain capital stock repurchases and stock redemptions, including certain redemptions upon membership withdrawal, without the prior approval of the Director of the Office of Supervision of the FHFA ( “Director”), and prohibits the payments of dividends without the prior approval of the Director. The FHLBC has reported that it has submitted a capital plan to the Director but that it has not yet been approved. The FHLBC did not pay any dividends from the third quarter of 2007 through 2010, but in the first quarter of 2011, paid a nominal cash dividend at an annualized rate of 10 basis points per share. The FHLBC reported in February 2011 that it had earnings of net income of $366 million for 2010, compared to a net loss of $65 million in 2009, and that it is in compliance with its regulatory capital requirements.

Current accounting guidance requires us to evaluate our FHLBC common stock for impairment based on the “ultimate recoverability” of the par value of the security without regard to temporary declines in value. We concluded from our most recent impairment testing that it is probable that the par value of our FHLBC common stock is ultimately recoverable based on the FHLBC’s current compliance with its regulatory capital requirements, the net income that it reported for 2010, its receipt of regulatory approval to pay a dividend in the first quarter of 2011 and published reports indicating that it is continuing to work with its regulator to finalize a capital plan. However, if events were to occur that give rise to substantial doubt about the ultimate recoverability of the par value of our FHLBC common stock, this investment could become other-than-temporarily impaired, and the impairment loss that we would be required to record would cause our earnings to decrease by the after-tax amount of the impairment loss.

15

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 geographic markets 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, real estate conduits, and specialized finance companies. Many of our competitors offer products and services that 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 be more aggressive in pricing loans and deposits in order to increase their market share. Some of the financial institutions and financial services organizations with which we compete are not subject to the extensive regulations imposed on federal savings banks and their holding companies. As a result, these nonbank competitors have certain advantages over us in accessing funding and in providing various financial services.

Our Business May Be Adversely Affected by the Highly Regulated Environment in Which We Operate

We are subject to extensive federal and state legislation, regulation, examination and supervision. The Dodd-Frank Act and other recently enacted legislation, the regulations promulgated there, and future legislation and regulations that may be enacted or promulgated, could have an adverse effect on our business and operations. In addition, the OTS will cease to be the primary federal regulator of the Company and the Bank on July 21, 2011, and we may need to make adjustments in our policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the rules and regulations of the OCC and the FRB. Our success will be impacted by our continued ability to comply with applicable laws and regulations. Some of these laws and regulations may increase our costs. While we cannot predict what effect any future changes in these laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on us, these changes or interpretations may adversely affect our future operations.

Trading Activity in the Company’s Common Stock Could Result in Material Price Fluctuations

It is possible that trading activity in the Company’s common stock, including short-selling or significant sales by current stockholders, could result in material price fluctuations of the price per share of the Company’s common stock. In addition, such trading activity and the resultant volatility could make it more difficult for the Company to sell equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price it deems appropriate, or to use its stock as consideration for an acquisition. See “Our Ability to Successfully Conduct Acquisitions Will Affect Our Ability to Grow Our Franchise and Compete Effectively in Our Marketplace”.

Our Return on Stockholders’ Equity Will Continue to Be Low Due to Our High Capital Level

Net income divided by average stockholders’ equity, known as return on equity, is a ratio that many investors use to compare the performance of a financial institution to its peers. Our capital remains relatively high by industry standards pending a more optimal deployment of the additional capital raised in our 2005 mutual-to-stock conversion. Until we can increase our net interest income and noninterest income, we expect our return on equity to continue to be below the historical industry average, which may negatively affect the value of our shares of common stock

16

The Company’s Ability to Pay Dividends is Affected by Regulatory Limitations on the Bank’s Ability to Pay Dividends and Other Regulatory Limitations

The Company is a separate legal entity from its subsidiaries and does not have significant operations of its own. Dividends from the Bank provide a significant source of cash for the Company. The availability of dividends from the Bank is limited by various statutes and regulations. Under these statutes and regulations, the Bank is not permitted to pay dividends on its capital stock to the Company, its sole stockholder, if the dividend would reduce the stockholders’ equity of the Bank below the amount of the liquidation account established in connection with the mutual-to-stock conversion. The Bank may pay dividends without the approval of its primary federal regulator only if the Bank meets its applicable regulatory capital requirements before and after the payment of the dividends and its total dividends do not exceed its net income to date over the calendar year plus its retained net income over the preceding two years. Although the Bank’s capital exceeded applicable regulatory requirements at December 31, 2010, the Bank did not have sufficient net income over the preceding two years to pay a dividend to the Company without the prior approval of its primary federal regulator. If the Bank were to seek the approval of its primary federal regulator to pay a dividend, there can be no assurance that such approval would be granted. If at some point in the future the Company utilizes its available cash for other purposes Bank is unable to pay dividends to the Company, the Company may not have sufficient funds to continue to pay dividends on its common stock. In addition, the Company’s ability to pay dividends on its common stock could be further limited by the application of the “source of strength doctrine,” which requires holding companies to provide financial support to their subsidiary depository institutions if the subsidiary is in financial distress, or by regulatory order.

We Continually Encounter Technological Change, and May Have Fewer Resources than Many of Our Competitors to Continue to Invest in Technological Improvements

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We also may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers.

Our Ability to Successfully Conduct Acquisitions Will Affect Our Ability to Grow Our Franchise and Compete Effectively in Our Marketplace

We consider the possible acquisition of other banks, thrifts and other financial services companies in private or FDIC-assisted transactions to supplement internal growth. Although we entered into a definitive agreement to acquire DG Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary, Downers Grove National Bank in the third quarter of 2010, our efforts to acquire other financial institutions and financial service companies in the future may not be successful. Other potential acquirors exist for most acquisition candidates, creating competition that can affect the purchase price for which the institution can be acquired. In many cases, our competitors have significantly greater resources than we have, and greater flexibility to structure the consideration for the transaction. We may not participate in specific acquisition opportunities if we consider the proposed transaction unacceptable, including the current or potential future terms, conditions and limitations imposed by an FDIC-assisted transaction. We also may not be the successful bidder in acquisition opportunities that we pursue due to the willingness or ability of other potential acquirors to propose a higher purchase price or more attractive terms and conditions than we are willing or able to propose. The results of a merger or acquisition could change materially based on future changes in applicable accounting principles and regulatory requirements related to acquired assets and liabilities. If we are unable to or do not conduct acquisitions to supplement internal growth, our ability to deploy effectively the capital we raised in the 2005 offering, expand our geographic presence and improve our results of operations could be adversely affected.

FDIC Deposit Insurance Premiums Have Increased and May Increase Further in the Future

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended, requires the FDIC to maintain a reserve ratio between 1.15% and 1.50%. The FDIC’s Board of Directors is required to establish a designated reserve ratio within that range and set assessment rates to meet that target within a time frame that the FDIC’s Board of Directors deems appropriate. If the reserve ratio falls below 1.15%, the FDIC’s Board of Directors is required to establish a restoration plan to bring the reserve ratio back to 1.15% within five years. The FDIC’s reserve ratio declined over the past several years due to costs associated with bank failures, and it is possible that the reserve ratio could be placed under stress due to future bank failures. As part of its plan to restore the reserve ratio to 1.15%, the FDIC’s Board of Directors imposed a special assessment equal to five basis points of assets less Tier 1 capital as of June 30, 2009, which was payable on September 30, 2009. In addition, the FDIC increased its quarterly assessment rates and amended the method by which rates are calculated. On November 12, 2009, the FDIC approved a final rule requiring insured depository institutions to prepay, on December 30, 2009, their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. Prepaid assessments are to be applied against the actual quarterly assessments until exhausted, and may not be applied to any special assessments that may occur in the future. Any unused prepayments will be returned on June 30, 2013. See “Supervision and Regulation – Insurance of Deposit Accounts.” On December 30, 2009, the Bank paid the estimated assessment fees for the fourth quarter of 2009 and prepaid $6.8 million in estimated assessment fees through 2012. These increased assessments have had an adverse impact on our results of operations in 2009 and will continue to have an adverse impact in future years. If circumstances require the FDIC to impose additional special assessments or further increase its quarterly assessment rates, the adverse impact will be exacerbated.

17

Various Factors May Make Takeover Attempts That You Want to Succeed More Difficult to Achieve, Which May Affect the Value of Shares of Our Common Stock

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, federal regulations, Maryland law and various other factors may make it more difficult for companies or persons to acquire control of the Company without the consent of our board of directors. You may want a takeover attempt to succeed because, for example, a potential acquiror could offer a premium over the then prevailing price of our shares of common stock. The OTS regulations prohibit the direct or indirect acquisition of more than 10% of any class of equity security of a converted savings institution without the prior approval of the OTS. Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws also may make it difficult to remove our current board of directors or management if our board of directors opposes the removal. We have elected to be subject to the Maryland Business Combination Act, which places restrictions on mergers and other business combinations with large stockholders. In addition, our articles of incorporation provide that certain mergers and other similar transactions, as well as amendments to our articles of incorporation, must be approved by stockholders owning at least two-thirds of our shares of common stock entitled to vote on the matter unless first approved by at least two-thirds of the number of our authorized directors, assuming no vacancies. If approved by at least two-thirds of the number of our authorized directors, assuming no vacancies, the action must still be approved by a majority of our shares entitled to vote on the matter. In addition, a director can be removed from office, but only for cause, if such removal is approved by stockholders owning at least two-thirds of our shares of common stock entitled to vote on the matter. However, if at least two-thirds of the number of our authorized directors, assuming no vacancies, approves the removal of a director, the removal may be with or without cause, but must still be approved by a majority of our voting shares entitled to vote on the matter. Additional provisions include limitations on the voting rights of any beneficial owners of more than 10% of our common stock. Our bylaws, which can only be amended by the board of directors, also contain provisions regarding the timing, content and procedural requirements for stockholder proposals and nominations.

Non-Compliance with USA PATRIOT Act, Bank Secrecy Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Truth-in-Lending Act or Other Laws and Regulations Could Result in Fines or Sanctions, and Curtail Expansion Opportunities

Financial institutions are required under the USA PATRIOT and Bank Secrecy Acts to develop programs to prevent financial institutions from being used for money-laundering and terrorist activities. Financial institutions are also obligated to file suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network if such activities are detected. These rules also require financial institutions to establish procedures for identifying and verifying the identity of customers seeking to open new financial accounts. Failure or the inability to comply with these regulations could result in fines or penalties, curtailment of expansion opportunities, intervention or sanctions by regulators and costly litigation or expensive additional controls and systems. During the last few years, several banking institutions have received large fines for non-compliance with these laws and regulations. In addition, the U.S. Government imposed and will continue to expand laws and regulations relating to residential and consumer lending activities that create significant new compliance burdens and financial risks. We have developed policies and continue to augment procedures and systems designed to assist in compliance with these laws and regulations.

18

None.

19

As of December 31, 2010 the net book value of our properties was $28.5 million. The following is a list of our offices:

Except for our Chicago-Lincoln Park, Northbrook, and Hyde Park East offices, which are leased, all of our offices are owned. In addition to the above listed properties, we also operate three Express Branch facilities, two satellite national commercial leasing offices and two remote ATMs on sites where we do not have a full-service banking office.

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to various legal actions arising in the normal course of business. In the opinion of management, based on currently available information, the resolution of these legal actions is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

20

PART II

Our shares of common stock are traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “BFIN.” The approximate number of holders of record of the Company’s common stock as of December 31, 2010 was 1,820. Certain shares of the Company’s common stock are held in “nominee” or “street” name, and accordingly, the number of beneficial owners of such shares is not known or included in the foregoing number.

The following table presents quarterly market information provided by the Nasdaq Stock Market for the Company’s common stock and cash dividends paid for the periods ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.

The Company is subject to state law limitations on the payment of dividends. Maryland law generally limits dividends to an amount equal to the excess of our capital surplus over payments that would be owed upon dissolution to stockholders whose preferential rights upon dissolution are superior to those receiving the dividend, and to an amount that would not make us insolvent provided, however, that even if the Company’s assets are less than the amount necessary to satisfy the requirement set forth above, the Company may make a distribution from: (A) the Company’s net earnings for the fiscal year in which the distribution is made; (B) the Company’s net earnings for the preceding fiscal year; or (C) the sum of the Company’s net earnings for the preceding eight fiscal quarters. Dividends from the Bank provide a significant source of cash for the Company. The availability of dividends from the Bank is limited by various statutes and regulations. For a discussion of the Bank’s ability to pay dividends, see Part I, Item 1, Business -“Supervision and Regulation—Federal Banking Regulation—Capital Distributions.”

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

The Company had no sales of unregistered stock during the quarter ended December 31, 2010.

Repurchases of Equity Securities

Our Board of Directors has authorized the repurchase of up to 5,047,423 shares of our common stock. In accordance with this authorization, we had repurchased 4,239,134 shares of our common stock as of December 31, 2010. There were no share repurchases conducted in the fourth quarter of 2010. The current share repurchase authorization will expire on May 16, 2011, unless extended by our Board of Directors.

21

Stock Performance Graph

The following Performance Graph and related information shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission, nor shall such information be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or Securities Exchange Act of 1934, each as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference into such filing.

We completed our mutual-to-stock conversion on June 23, 2005, in connection with which the Company sold an aggregate of 24,466,250 shares of common stock at a price of $10.00 per share. The Company’s common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol “BFIN” on June 24, 2005, and the per share closing price of one share of the Company’s common stock on that date was $13.60. The following graph represents $100 invested in our common stock at the $13.60 per share closing price on June 24, 2005. The graph illustrates the comparison of the cumulative total returns for the common stock of the Company, the Russell 2000 Index, the NASDAQ Bank Index and the America’s Community Bankers NASDAQ Index for the periods indicated.

There can be no assurance that our stock performance will continue in the future with the same or similar trend depicted in the graph below. We will not make or endorse any predictions as to future stock performance.

22

The following information is derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company. For additional information, reference is made to Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and the Consolidated Financial Statements of the Company and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

(footnotes on following page)

23

N.M. Not Meaningful

24

The discussion and analysis that follows focuses on the factors affecting our consolidated financial condition at December 31, 2010 and 2009, and our consolidated results of operations for the three years ended December 31, 2010. The consolidated financial statements, the related notes and the discussion of our critical accounting policies appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report should be read in conjunction with this discussion and analysis.

Overview

Loans. Our loan portfolio consists primarily of investment and business loans (multifamily, nonresidential real estate, commercial, construction and land loans, and commercial leases), which together make up 75.9% of gross loans at December 31, 2010. Net loans receivable decreased $167.8 million, or 13.8%, to $1.051 billion at December 31, 2010, from $1.219 billion at December 31, 2009. Multi-family mortgage loans decreased by $32.3 million, or 9.8%, due in substantial part to a HUD refinancing that was completed by a related group of borrowers. Commercial loans decreased by $23.4 million, or 26.6%, due to the combined impact of loan pay downs and reduced originations. Commercial leases decreased by $25.7 million, or 14.5%, as scheduled lease payments outpaced originations. Nonresidential real estate loans decreased $34.6 million, or 10.9%, primarily due to principal payments of $56.6 million, which were partially offset by $15.3 million in draws on existing credit commitments. Construction and land loans decreased $14.2 million, or 43.5%, primarily due to project sales and conversions to permanent amortizing loans. One-to-four family residential mortgage loans decreased $33.3 million, or 11.5%, primarily due to refinancings that were not replaced with new originations. Future loan growth could be adversely affected by our unwillingness to compete for loans by relaxing our historical underwriting standards.

Securities. Securities increased $18.6 million, or 18.2%, to $120.7 million at December 31, 2010, from $102.1 million at December 31, 2009. The primary reason for the increase was $50.5 million in purchases, offset by $31.8 million of principal repayments and maturities of securities. During 2010 we utilized FDIC insured certificates of deposit as an investment option.

Deposits. Deposits increased $2.0 million, or 0.2%, to $1.235 billion at December 31, 2010, from $1.233 billion at December 31, 2009. We increased our core deposits (savings, money market, noninterest-bearing demand and NOW accounts) by $25.5 million and reduced our balances of wholesale deposits by $14.7 million during the year. Core deposits increased as a percentage of total deposits, representing 69.2% of total deposits at December 31, 2010, compared to 67.3% of total deposits at December 31, 2009.

Borrowings. Borrowings decreased $27.0 million, or 53.2%, to $23.7 million at December 31, 2010, from $50.8 million at December 31, 2009, due to our repayments of maturing FHLBC advances.

Stockholders’ Equity. Total stockholders’ equity was $253.3 million at December 31, 2010, compared to $263.6 million at December 31, 2009. The decrease in total stockholders’ equity was primarily due to the combined impact of our repurchase of 356,411 shares of our common stock during 2010 at a total cost of $3.1 million, our declaration and payment of cash dividends totaling $5.9 million, the $4.3 million net loss that we recorded for 2010 and a $50,000 decrease in accumulated other comprehensive income. These items were partially offset by a $3.1 million increase in total stockholders’ equity that resulted from the vesting of stock-based compensation and ESOP shares earned. The unallocated shares of common stock that our ESOP owns were reflected as a $14.2 million reduction to stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2010, compared to a $15.2 million reduction to stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2009.

Net Loss. We recorded a net loss of $4.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to net losses of $738,000 and $19.4 million for 2009 and 2008, respectively. The net loss in 2010 was due in substantial part to our recording a $12.1 million provision for loan losses, $7.3 million for nonperforming asset management expense and operations of other real estate owned combined with a $1.8 million decrease in net interest income. The net loss in 2009 was due primarily to the recording of an $8.8 million provision for loan losses, a $2.1 million increase in FDIC expense and $1.4 million in combined pre-tax losses that we recorded in connection with the impairment and subsequent sale of our Freddie Mac preferred stocks. The impact of these items was partially offset by a $1.3 million gain that we recognized on the sale of our merchant processing operations in 2009. The net loss in 2008 was due in substantial part to a $35.9 million pre-tax impairment loss that we recorded on our Freddie Mac preferred stocks after Freddie Mac was placed into conservatorship. Our basic loss per common share was $0.22, $0.04 and $0.98 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively.

25

Net Interest Income. We recorded net interest income of $51.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $53.6 million for 2009 and $52.3 million for 2008. The decrease in net interest income for 2010 reflected a $9.2 million decrease in interest income, which was partially offset, by a $7.4 million decrease in interest expense. Our net interest rate spread was 3.36% for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.

Provision for Loan Losses. We recorded a provision for loan losses of $12.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $8.8 million for 2009 and $5.1 million for 2008. The provision for loan losses that we recorded in 2010 reflects the combined impact of a $4.4 million increase in the portion of the specific allowance for loan losses that we allocate to impaired loans and $8.5 million in net charge-offs, which were partially offset by a $794,000 decrease in the general component of the allowance for loan losses.

Noninterest Income. Noninterest income for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $7.1 million, compared to $7.2 million for 2009 and $10.4 million for 2008. Our noninterest income for 2010 included service charges and fees of $3.0 million, compared to $3.4 million for 2009 and $3.6 million for 2008. Earnings on bank-owned life insurance were $430,000 for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to a $20,000 loss for 2009 and earnings of $586,000 for 2008. Our noninterest income for 2009 included a $988,000 loss on the sale of our Freddie Mac preferred stocks and a $1.3 million gain on the sale of our merchant processing operations. Our noninterest income for 2008 included a $1.4 million pre-tax gain on the sale of shares of Visa, Inc. Class B common stock that we received in connection with Visa, Inc.’s initial public offering, and a $1.2 million pre-tax gain on additional shares of Visa, Inc. Class B common stock that were allocated to us in the initial public offering and are currently held in a litigation escrow under Visa, Inc.’s retrospective responsibility plan. The gain that we recorded on the escrowed shares of the Visa, Inc. Class B common stock reduced our obligation to indemnify Visa USA under Visa, Inc.’s retrospective responsibility plan.

Noninterest Expense. Noninterest expense for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $53.9 million, compared to $52.7 million for 2009 and $89.1 million for 2008. Noninterest expense for 2010 included $3.3 million in nonperforming asset management expenses, compared to $770,000 in 2009. Operations of other real estate owned totaled $4.0 million in 2010, compared to $1.3 million in 2009. Noninterest expense for 2009 included a $401,000 pre-tax impairment loss that we recorded on our holdings of Freddie Mac preferred stocks. Expense for FDIC deposit insurance totaled $2.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $2.2 million for 2009 and $162,000 for 2008. The increase in our 2009 expense for FDIC deposit insurance was due to the combined effect of the FDIC’s increase in its quarterly assessment rate, the FDIC’s imposition of a special assessment against all insured institutions and the full utilization of the FDIC assessment credits that we previously had available to offset or reduce FDIC quarterly assessments. Noninterest expense for 2008 included a $35.9 million pre-tax impairment loss that we recorded on our holdings of Freddie Mac preferred stocks and a $2.0 million pre-tax loss on the early extinguishment of borrowings that we recorded in connection with the prepayment of a $25 million FHLBC term advance.

Income Taxes. We recorded an income tax benefit of $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to $13,000 and $12.0 million for 2009 and 2008. The effective tax rates were 38.94%, 1.73% and 38.32% for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, respectively. For 2009, the difference between the GAAP basis (fair market value at the date of grant) and the tax basis (fair market value at the date of vesting) of equity-based compensation granted in prior years reduced our income tax benefit. The income tax benefit for 2008 was due in substantial part to the recording of an impairment loss on our Freddie Mac preferred stocks.

Key Strategic Initiatives and Events

Stock Repurchase Program. Our Board of Directors has authorized the repurchase of up to 5,047,423 shares of our common stock. The authorization permits shares to be repurchased in open market or negotiated transactions, and pursuant to any trading plan that may be adopted in accordance with Rule 10b5-1 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The authorization may be utilized at management's discretion, subject to the limitations set forth in Rule 10b-18 of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other applicable legal requirements, and to price and other internal limitations established by the Board of Directors. The repurchase authorization will expire on May 16, 2011, unless extended by the Board of Directors. As of December 31, 2010, the Company had repurchased 4,239,134 shares of its common stock pursuant to the repurchase authorization.

26

Quarterly Cash Dividends. Our Board of Directors declared four quarterly cash dividends of $0.07 per share during 2010. Cash dividends totaling $5.9 million were paid in 2010. On January 27, 2011, the Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.07 per share that is payable on March 4, 2011.

Pending Acquisition. On September 13, 2010, we entered into a definitive agreement to acquire DG Bancorp, Inc., the bank holding company for Downers Grove National Bank, a privately held community bank with approximately $219 million in assets and $213 million in deposits as of December 31, 2010. Downers Grove National Bank has two banking offices located in Downers Grove and Westmont, Illinois. We have received all regulatory approvals that are required to consummate the transaction and the closing is expected to occur during the first quarter of 2011, subject to customary closing conditions. Downers Grove National Bank will be merged into the Bank as part of the consummation of the transaction.

We are in the process of negotiating the acquisition of a portfolio of performing loans from Citibank N.A. with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of approximately $155.8 million. The purchase is scheduled to close in March 2011, subject to customary closing conditions. This loan portfolio consists of multifamily loans originated by Citibank N.A. or the former Citibank, F.S.B. and the loans are secured by real estate collateral located in the Chicago metropolitan market area. The portfolio consists of 470 loans with an overall weighted average effective yield of 5.87%. All loans in the portfolio were current on all payments due as of the month prior to the month in which the purchase is scheduled to close. Upon the closing of the purchase, we expect to file a Current Report on Form 8-K further describing the portfolio acquisition transaction and the portfolio characteristics.

Economic and Competitive Conditions

General U.S. financial market conditions further stabilized during 2010. The national economy began a very modest expansion but local economic conditions remained largely unchanged from 2009. Pricing and underwriting for multi-family and commercial real estate loans were generally favorable, but we experienced relatively low demand for these loan types throughout 2010. Pricing for commercial leases became less favorable during 2010 amid weak supply as lessors deployed excess cash and several competitors re-entered the market during the year. Demand for the Bank’s traditional adjustable-rate residential mortgage loans remained low due to an overwhelming market preference for fixed-rate residential mortgage loans given low market interest rates and our underwriting standards.

We experienced net declines in all loan portfolio component balances during 2010 due to several factors, including overall weak loan demand, loan payoffs, our decisions to exit certain credit relationships and transfers of certain loans to OREO upon the conclusion of formal collection proceedings. We expect a return to modest growth in most loan portfolio segments if real estate market valuations stabilize and the supply of commercial lease opportunities improves based on global macroeconomic conditions.

Our loan portfolio quality metrics reflected the overall economic environment in 2010. The net increase in nonaccrual loans and a related increase in our loan loss reserves resulted primarily from a corresponding material decline in the valuations of the underlying collateral and a decline in effective rents and occupancies in certain income-producing properties; however, effective rents and occupancies in multifamily properties began to stabilize late in 2010. We also noted a continued influx of personal and business bankruptcy cases; of these, the majority of borrowers sought to avoid their obligations while a minority sought to restructure their debt to continue ownership of their assets. General market conditions and efforts by various governmental entities and local courts to further slow the pace of foreclosures continued to affect the pace of our progress in resolving classified assets, but we expect the pace of resolutions to increase in 2011. We continue to believe that unemployment, consumer spending and borrower perceptions of residential and commercial real estate valuations will be the primary factors affecting loan portfolio quality in 2011.

As we expected, our general loan loss reserves continued to increase. As part of our computation of the required level for our general loan loss reserve, our model incorporates the changes in national and local economic risk factors, the changes in the levels of classified loans by loan type, and the impact of the additional specific valuation allowances or charge-offs recorded on classified loans. Our underwriting standards remain consistent with our historical standards, although our credit analyses incorporate somewhat more conservative assumptions with respect to effective rents, expenses and occupancies given the current economic environment.

27

Deposits increased slightly in 2010. Pricing conditions for local deposits, whether low-balance core deposits, certificates of deposits or high-balance, high-yield transaction accounts, remained favorable during the year due to very low market yields and continued weak industry-wide loan demand. We continued to moderate our competitive position given the weak lending environment and our excess liquidity position. We expect a similar competitive environment for the first half of 2011, and we will continue our marketing efforts to further enhance the depth and quality of our deposit portfolio.

Our net interest spread declined in 2010 as the decline in loan portfolio balances and, to a lesser extent, the impact of loans placed on non-accrual status offset the benefits of a favorable yield curve and improved credit spreads. Given the quantity and volatility of the variables affecting our net interest margin and net interest spread, we are unable to confidently predict our net interest margin and net interest spread in 2011.

Non-interest income decreased in 2010 due to a materially lower net gain on the sale of securities and reduced deposit-related fee income, which was partially offset by higher income from insurance and annuities and other fee income. Wealth management performed slightly better than our expectations for 2010.

Non-interest expense increased slightly in 2010 as a significant increase in expenses related to non-performing assets and write-downs on OREO offset the favorable impact of our focus on improving efficiency through operational reviews and technology deployments. We expect that the expenses related to non-performing loans and classified asset management will decline in the latter part of 2011 in conjunction with the anticipated gradual decline of the levels of non-performing assets.

Critical Accounting Policies

Critical accounting policies are defined as those that are reflective of significant judgments and uncertainties, and could potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. We believe that the most critical accounting policies upon which our financial condition and results of operation depend, and which involve the most complex subjective decisions or assessments, are as follows:

Allowance for Loan Losses. Arriving at an appropriate level of allowance for loan losses involves a high degree of judgment. Our allowance for loan losses provides for probable incurred losses based upon evaluations of known and inherent risks in the loan portfolio. We review the level of the allowance on a quarterly basis and establish the provision for loan losses based upon historical loan loss experience, the nature and volume of the loan portfolio, information about specific borrower situations, estimated collateral values, economic conditions and other factors to assess the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses. Among the material estimates that we must make to establish the allowance are loss exposure at default; the amount and timing of future cash flows on affected loans; the value of collateral; and a determination of loss factors to be applied to the various elements of the loan portfolio. All of these estimates are susceptible to significant change. Although we believe that we use the best information available to us to establish the allowance for loan losses, future adjustments to the allowance may be necessary if borrower financial, collateral valuation or economic conditions differ substantially from the information and assumptions used in making the evaluation. In addition, as an integral part of their examination process, our regulatory agencies periodically review the allowance for loan losses. These agencies may require us to recognize additions to the allowance based on their judgments of information available to them at the time of their examination. A large loss could deplete the allowance and require increased provisions to replenish the allowance, which would negatively affect earnings.

Intangible Assets. Acquisitions accounted for under purchase accounting require us to record as assets on our financial statements both goodwill, an intangible asset that is equal to the excess of the purchase price which we pay for another company over the estimated fair value of the net assets acquired, and identifiable intangible assets such as core deposit intangibles and non-compete agreements. We evaluate our goodwill asset at least annually, or when other indicators suggest that an impairment may have occurred. We are required to reduce the carrying value of our goodwill asset through a charge to earnings if an impairment exists. Core deposit and other identifiable intangible assets are amortized to expense over their estimated useful lives and are reviewed for impairment at least annually, or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be fully recoverable. The valuation techniques that we use to determine the carrying value of tangible and intangible assets acquired in acquisitions and the estimated lives of identifiable intangible assets involve estimates for discount rates, projected future cash flows and time period calculations, all of which are susceptible to change based on changes in economic conditions and other factors. Future events or changes in the estimates that we used to determine the carrying value of our goodwill and identifiable intangible assets or which otherwise adversely affect their value or estimated lives could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations. As of December 31, 2010, our intangible assets consisted of a goodwill asset of $22.6 million and core deposit intangibles of $2.7 million.

28

In performing its analysis, the third-party valuation firm considered three general approaches to valuation: the asset-based approach, the market approach, and the income approach. In its valuation, the third-party valuation firm used two methods within the market approach and one method within the income approach. The method utilized within the income approach was the discounted cash flow method, which relies upon the perception of a future stream of benefits, the present value of which represents the indication of value of BankFinancial FSB, the reporting unit pursuant to applicable ASC 350 guidance. The methods utilized within the market approach were the guideline public company method and guideline transaction method. The guideline public company method utilizes the pricing of guideline public companies, which in our case were publicly-traded banks and bank holding companies bearing certain similarities to the reporting unit, including asset size, geographic region, and profitability. The third-party valuation firm concluded that the fair value of the reporting unit, exceeded its carrying value as of the valuation date, and therefore, there was no impairment of our goodwill asset pursuant to the first step of the goodwill impairment test prescribed by ASC 350, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. We concurred with the methodology and the conclusion of the third-party valuation firm.

Income Taxes. We consider accounting for income taxes a critical accounting policy due to the subjective nature of certain estimates that are involved in the calculation. We use the asset/liability method of accounting for income taxes in which deferred tax assets and liabilities are established for the temporary differences between the financial reporting basis and the tax basis of our assets and liabilities. We must assess the realization of the deferred tax asset and, to the extent that we believe that recovery is not likely, a valuation allowance is established. Adjustments to increase or decrease the valuation allowance are charged or credited, respectively, to income tax expense. No valuation allowance was required at December 31, 2010. Although we have determined a valuation allowance is not required for any deferred tax assets at December 31, 2010, there is no guarantee that a valuation allowance will not be required in the future.

Statement of Financial Condition at December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2009

Total assets decreased $36.3 million, or 2.3%, to $1.531 billion at December 31, 2010, from $1.567 billion at December 31, 2009, primarily due to a $167.8 million decrease in net loans, to $1.051 billion at December 31, 2010, from $1.219 billion at December 31, 2009, partially offset by a $112.6 million increase in net cash and cash equivalents to $220.8 million at December 31, 2010, from $108.2 million at December 31, 2009.

Our loan portfolio consists primarily of investment and business loans (multi-family, nonresidential real estate, commercial, construction and land loans, and commercial leases), which together make up 75.9% of gross loans. Net loans receivable decreased $167.8 million, or 13.8%, to $1.051 billion at December 31, 2010, from $1.219 billion at December 31, 2009. Nonresidential real estate loans decreased $34.6 million, or 10.9%, primarily due to principal payments of $56.6 million, which were partially offset by $15.3 million in draws on existing credit commitments. Multi-family mortgage loans decreased by $32.3 million, or 9.8%, due in substantial part to a HUD refinancing that was completed by a related group of borrowers. Commercial loans decreased by $23.4 million, or 26.6%, due the combined impact of loan pay downs and reduced originations. Commercial leases decreased by $25.7 million, or 14.5%, as scheduled lease payments outpaced originations. Construction and land loans decreased $14.2 million, or 43.5%, primarily due to project sales and conversions to permanent amortizing loans. One-to-four family residential mortgage loans decreased $33.3 million, or 11.5%, primarily due to refinancings that were not replaced with new originations.

Our allowance for loan losses increased by $3.6 million, to $22.2 million at December 31, 2010, from $18.6 million at December 31, 2009. The increase reflects the combined impact of a $4.4 million increase in the portion of the specific allowance for loan losses that we allocate to impaired loans and $8.5 million in net charge-offs, which were partially offset by a $794,000 decrease in the general component of the allowance for loan losses. Increases in the specific portion of the allowance for loan losses occurred principally in the following areas: multi-family mortgage loans ($2.6 million); non-residential real estate loans ($131,000); commercial loans ($1.1 million); construction and land loans ($729,000); and commercial leases ($72,000). Net decreases in the specific portion of the allowance for loan losses that we allocate to impaired loans occurred for investor-owned one-to-four family residential loans ($283,000), due to the transfer of properties to other real estate owned during 2010.

29

Securities increased by $18.6 million, or 18.2%, to $120.7 million at December 31, 2010, from $102.1 million at December 31, 2009. The primary reason for the increase was $50.5 million in security purchases, which were partially offset by $31.8 million in principal repayments, sales and maturities of securities. In 2010, we utilized investments in FDIC insured certificates of deposit as an investment option.

We owned common stock of the FHLBC with a stated par value of $15.6 million at December 31, 2010 and 2009. The FHLBC did not declare or pay any dividends from the third quarter of 2007 through 2010. In the first quarter of 2011, the FHLBC declared and paid a cash dividend at an annualized rate of 10 basis points per share.

In late 2009, we prepaid our estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the remainder of 2009, and for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012, pursuant to the FDIC final rule requiring the prepayment of deposit insurance assessments by insured depository institutions. At December 31, 2010, the remaining prepaid FDIC assessment was $4.8 million.

In conjunction with the sale of our Freddie Mac preferred stocks in 2009, we recorded an income tax receivable of $11.7 million at December 31, 2009. We received $11.3 million in tax refunds during 2010. Other assets increased $2.9 million to $15.1 million at December 31, 2010, from $12.2 million at December 31, 2009, primarily due to a $2.7 million increase in deferred tax assets.

Deposits increased $2.0 million, or 0.2%, to $1.235 billion at December 31, 2010, from $1.233 billion at December 31, 2009, primarily due to increased money market account, savings and noninterest-bearing demand balances. Money market accounts increased $18.9 million, or 5.9%, to $341.0 million at December 31, 2010, from $322.1 million at December 31, 2009. Savings accounts increased $2.8 million, or 2.9%, to $98.9 million at December 31, 2010, from $96.1 million at December 31, 2009, and noninterest-bearing demand accounts increased $4.2 million to $112.5 million at December 31, 2010, from $108.3 million at December 31, 2009. Total core deposits (savings, money market, noninterest-bearing demand and interest-bearing NOW accounts) increased as a percentage of total deposits, representing 69.2% of total deposits at December 31, 2010, compared to 67.3% of total deposits at December 31, 2009.

Borrowings decreased $27.0 million, or 53.2%, to $23.7 million at December 31, 2010, from $50.8 million at December 31, 2009, due to our repayments of maturing FHLBC advances.

Total stockholders’ equity was $253.3 million at December 31, 2010, compared to $263.6 million at December 31, 2009. The decrease in total stockholders’ equity was primarily due to the combined impact of our repurchase of 356,411 shares of our common stock during 2010 at a total cost of $3.1 million, and our declaration and payment of cash dividends totaling $5.9 million, the $4.3 million net loss that we recorded for 2010 and a $50,000 decrease accumulated other comprehensive income. These items were partially offset by a $3.1 million increase in total stockholders’ equity that resulted from the vesting of stock-based compensation and ESOP shares earned. The unallocated shares of common stock that our ESOP owns were reflected as a $14.2 million reduction to stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2010, compared to a $15.2 million reduction to stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2009.

Loans

We originate multi-family mortgage loans, nonresidential real estate loans, commercial loans, commercial leases, and construction and land loans. In addition, we originate one-to-four family residential mortgage loans and consumer loans, and purchase and sell loan participations from time-to-time. The following briefly describes our principal loan products.

Multi-family Mortgage Loans. Loans secured by multi-family mortgage loans totaled $296.9 million, or 27.7%, of our total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2010. At December 31, 2010, $73.0 million of our multi-family mortgage loan portfolio consisted of loans originated in carefully selected metropolitan markets outside the Bank’s primary lending area, and these loans represented 24.6% of our multi-family mortgage loan portfolio and 6.8% of our total loan portfolio. Multi-family mortgage loans generally are secured by multi-family rental properties such as apartment buildings, including subsidized apartment units. The majority of our multi-family mortgage loans have adjustable interest rates following an initial fixed-rate period, typically between three and five years.

30

Nonresidential Real Estate Loans. Loans secured by nonresidential real estate totaled $282.0 million, or 26.3%, of our total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2010. We emphasize nonresidential real estate loans with initial principal balances between $1.0 million and $5.0 million. The nonresidential real estate properties securing these loans are predominantly office buildings, light industrial buildings, shopping centers and mixed-use developments, and to a lesser extent, more specialized properties such as nursing homes and other healthcare facilities. Substantially all of our nonresidential real estate loans are secured by properties located in our primary market area. Our nonresidential real estate loans are typically written as three- or five-year adjustable-rate mortgage loans or mortgage loans with balloon maturities of three or five years. Amortization of these loans is typically based on 20- to 25-year payout schedules. We also originate some 15-year fixed-rate, fully amortizing loans.

Commercial Loans. Commercial loans totaled $64.7 million, or 6.0%, of our total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2010. This total includes unsecured commercial loans with an aggregate outstanding balance of $7.8 million. We generally make commercial loans to customers in our primary market area to finance equipment acquisition, expansion, working capital and other general business purposes. The terms of these loans generally range from less than one year to five years. The loans either carry a fixed-rate or adjustable interest rates indexed to a lending rate that is either determined internally or based on a short-term market rate index.

Commercial Leases. Commercial leases totaled $151.1 million, or 14.1%, of our total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2010. Our commercial leases primarily involve technology equipment, material handling equipment, medical equipment and other capital equipment. The transactions are generally structured as a non-recourse assignment by the leasing company of the payment stream on the lease supplemented by the grant of a security interest in the lease and the leased equipment. Consequently, we underwrite leases by examining the creditworthiness of the lessee rather than the lessor. The lessee generally agrees to send the lease payments directly to us. As of December 31, 2010, 57.7% of our commercial lease portfolio involved lessees with investment-grade rated public debt, 39.9% involved publicly-traded lessees with no public debt and thus no public debt rating, and 2.4% involved privately-held lessees or lessees with a below investment-grade public debt rating. Debt ratings are determined by Moody’s, Standard & Poors, Fitch, A.M. Best or an equivalent rating firm. Commercial leases typically have a maximum maturity of seven years and we limit our maximum outstanding credit exposure to $10.0 million to any single lessee. Leases to companies with no public debt ratings generally involve companies with a net worth in excess of $25.0 million and typically have a maximum maturity of five years.

Construction and Land Loans. Construction and land loans totaled $18.4 million, or 1.7%, of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2010. These loans generally consist of land acquisition loans to help finance the purchase of land intended for further development, including single-family homes, multi-family housing and commercial income property, development loans to builders in our market area to finance improvements to real estate, consisting mostly of single-family subdivisions, typically to finance the cost of utilities, roads, sewers and other development costs. These builders generally rely on the sale of single-family homes to repay development loans, although in some cases the improved building lots may be sold to another builder, often in conjunction with development loans. In general, the maximum loan-to-value ratio for raw land acquisition loan is 65% of the appraised value of the property, and the maximum term of these loans is two years. The maximum amount loaned on a development loan is generally limited to the cost of the land and public improvements, and advances are made in accordance with a schedule reflecting the cost of the improvements. Advances are generally limited to 90% of actual construction costs and, as required by applicable regulations, a 75% loan to completed appraised value ratio. We have discouraged new construction lending for the past several years and have had only limited interest in site acquisition loans for future construction.

One-to-Four Family Residential Mortgage Lending. Conforming and non-conforming fixed-rate and adjustable-rate residential mortgage loans totaled $256.3 million, or 23.9%, of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2010. Our residential mortgage loan portfolio includes traditional one-to-four family residential mortgage loans, home equity loans and home equity lines of credit that are secured by the borrower’s primary residence, and loans to investors in non-owner-occupied single-family homes. At December 31, 2010, home equity loans totaled $9.8 million, or 0.9%, of total loans, home equity lines of credit totaled $79.7 million, or 7.4%, of total loans, and loans to investors in non-owner-occupied single-family homes totaled $76.0 million, or 7.1% of total loans. We generally originate both fixed- and adjustable-rate loans in amounts up to the maximum conforming loan limits as established by Fannie Mae, which currently is $417,000 for single-family homes in our market area. Private mortgage insurance is required for first mortgage loans with loan-to-value ratios in excess of 80%. At December 31, 2010, our adjustable-rate residential first mortgage loan portfolio totaled $129.6 million, and included $18.6 million in loans that re-price once a year and $111.0 million in loans that re-price periodically after an initial fixed-rate period of three years or more.

31

We also originate loans above conforming limits, referred to as “jumbo loans,” that are underwritten to the credit standards of Fannie Mae given the demand for these loans in the Chicago metropolitan area. We also originate loans that do not fully meet the credit standards of Fannie Mae if they are considered acceptable risks given their favorable compensating risk factors. In general, we do not originate or purchase loans with underwriting characteristics that, taken together, are materially lower than the credit standards of Fannie Mae, and as part of the underwriting process, we consider the availability of purchasers for jumbo and other nonconforming loans.

32

Loan Portfolio Composition

The following table sets forth the composition of our loan portfolio, excluding loans held-for-sale, by type of loan at the dates indicated.

33

Loan Portfolio Maturities

The following table summarizes the scheduled repayments of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2010. Demand loans, loans having no stated repayment schedule or maturity and overdraft loans are reported as being due in one year or less.

Past Due Loans

The following table reflects investment and business loans past due less than 90 days:

At December 31, 2010, multifamily, non-residential real estate, construction and development and commercial loans past due loans totaled $50.1 million. Of the $50.1 million, $29.5 million or 58.9% were “Pass” rated matured loans in the process of renewal and $8.4 million or 16.8% were on non-accrual status. The remaining $13.0 million or 24.5% were subject to informal collection activity to bring the loan current.

34

Nonperforming Loans and Assets

We review loans on a regular basis, and generally place loans on nonaccrual status when either principal or interest is 90 days or more past due. In addition, we place loans on nonaccrual status when we do not expect to receive full payment of interest or principal. Interest accrued and unpaid at the time a loan is placed on nonaccrual status is reversed from interest income. Interest payments received on nonaccrual loans are recognized in accordance with our significant accounting policies. Once a loan is placed on nonaccrual status, the borrower must generally demonstrate at least six months of payment performance before the loan is eligible to return to accrual status. We may have loans classified as 90 days or more delinquent and still accruing. Generally, we do not utilize this category of loan classification unless: (1) the loan is repaid in full shortly after the period end date; (2) the loan is well secured and there are no asserted or pending legal barriers to its collection; or (3) the borrower has remitted all scheduled payments and is otherwise in substantial compliance with the terms of the loan, but the processing of loan payments actually received or the renewal of the loan has not occurred for administrative reasons. At December 31, 2010, we had four loans totaling $818,000 in this category.

We typically obtain new third-party appraisals or collateral valuations when we place a loan on nonaccrual status or when we commence formal collection action, unless the existing valuation information for the collateral is sufficiently current to comply with the requirements of our Appraisal and Collateral Valuation Policy ( “ACV Policy”). We also obtain new third-party appraisals or collateral valuations when the judicial foreclosure process concludes with respect to real estate collateral, and when we otherwise acquire actual or constructive title to real estate collateral. We use updated valuation information based on Multiple Listing Service data, broker opinions of value, actual sales prices of similar assets sold by us, and approved sales prices in response to offers to purchase similar assets owned by us to provide interim valuation information for financial statement and management purposes. Our ACV Policy establishes the maximum useful life of a real estate appraisal at 18 months. As of December 31, 2010, the average life of the third-party appraisals on collateral supporting the computation of ASC 310-10-35 specific valuation allowances was 12 months and the average life of the appraisals supporting the net realizable value of OREO was nine months. Because appraisals and updated valuations utilize historical or “ask-side” data in reaching valuation conclusions, the appraised or updated valuation may or may not reflect the actual sales price that we will receive at the time of sale.

Real estate appraisals may include up to three approaches to value: the sales comparison approach, the income approach (for income-producing property) and the cost approach. Not all appraisals utilize all three approaches. Depending on the nature of the collateral and market conditions, we may emphasize one approach over another in determining the fair value of real estate collateral. Appraisals may also contain different estimates of value based on the level of occupancy or planned future improvements. “As-is” valuations represent an estimate of value based on current market conditions with no changes to the use or condition of the real estate collateral. “As-stabilized” or “as-completed” valuations assume the real estate collateral will be improved to a stated standard or achieve its highest and best use in terms of occupancy. “As-stabilized” or “as-completed” valuations may be subject to a present value adjustment for market conditions or the schedule of improvements.

As part of the asset classification process, we develop an exit strategy for real estate collateral or OREO by assessing overall market conditions, the current use and condition of the asset, and its highest and best use. For most income-producing real estate, investors value most highly a stable income stream from the asset; consequently, we conduct a comparative evaluation to determine whether conducting a sale on an “as-is,” “as-stabilized” or “as-improved” basis is most likely to produce the highest net realizable value. If we determine that the “as-stabilized” or “as-improved” basis is appropriate, we then complete the necessary improvements or tenant stabilization tasks, with the applicable time value discount and improvement expenses incorporated into our estimates of the expected costs to sell. As of December 31, 2010, impaired real estate loans and OREO valued on an “as-is” basis was $27.3 million, or 74.0% of the total principal balance of impaired real estate loans, and $10.3 million, or 70.7% of the net book value of OREO.

Our estimates of the net realizable value of real estate collateral also include a deduction for the expected costs to sell the collateral or such other deductions from the cash flows resulting from the operation and liquidation of the asset as are appropriate. For most real estate collateral subject to the judicial foreclosure process, we apply a 10.0% deduction to the value of the asset to determine the expected costs to sell the asset. This estimate includes one year of real estate taxes, sales commissions and miscellaneous repair and closing costs. If we receive a purchase offer that requires unbudgeted repairs, or if the expected resolution period for the asset exceeds one year, we then include, on a case-by-case basis, the costs of the additional real estate taxes and repairs and any other material holding costs in the expected costs to sell the collateral. For OREO, we only apply a 5.0% deduction to determine the expected costs to sell, as expenses for real estate taxes and repairs are expensed when incurred.

35

Nonperforming Assets Summary

The following table below sets forth the amounts and categories of our nonperforming loans and nonperforming assets at the dates indicated.

Loans on Nonaccrual Status

At December 31, 2010, nonaccrual loans declined slightly due principally to transfers of loans to OREO and resolutions of pending cases. The decline was partially offset by isolated increases in nonaccrual loans in the commercial real estate and commercial lease categories. Nonaccrual loans decreased by $3.8 million to $45.7 million at December 31, 2010, from $49.5 million at December 31, 2009. For the year ended December 31, 2010, no accrued interest on nonaccrual loans had been recognized.

At December 31, 2010, our total non-performing loans involved 105 borrower relationships, or an average of $435,000 loan per borrower relationship. Therefore, there are no specific concentrations of credit risk such that a majority of loans involves only a few borrower relationships. Our three largest non-performing borrower relationships represent 31.9% of total non-performing loans. These loans are briefly described as follows:

36

Other Real Estate Owned or In Process

Real estate that is acquired through foreclosure or a deed in lieu of foreclosure is classified as OREO or OREO in process until it is sold. When real estate is acquired through foreclosure or by deed in lieu of foreclosure, it is recorded at its fair value, less the estimated costs of disposal as discussed above. If the fair value of the property is less than the loan balance, the difference is charged against the allowance for loan losses.