HERITAGE COMMERCE CORP - Annual Report: 2017 (Form 10-K)

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10‑K

 

or the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

 

 

OR

 

 

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                                      TO

Commission file number 000‑23877

Heritage Commerce Corp

(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

150 Almaden Boulevard
San Jose, California 95113
(Address of Principal Executive Offices including Zip Code)

(408) 947‑6900
(Registrant’s Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

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 if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ☐  No ☒

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

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

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

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

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

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

 

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2017, based upon the closing price on that date of $13.78 per share as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, and 27,284,668 shares held, was approximately $376.0 million.

As of February 28, 2018, there were 38,265,869 shares of the Registrant’s common stock (no par value) outstanding.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A in connection with the 2018 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on May 24, 2018 are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report. The proxy statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the Registrant’s fiscal year ended December 31, 2017.

 

 

 

 

HERITAGE COMMERCE CORP

INDEX TO ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10‑K

FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017

 

 

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements

This Report on Form 10‑K contains various statements that may constitute forward‑looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Rule 175 promulgated thereunder, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Rule 3b‑6 promulgated thereunder and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any statements about our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not historical facts and may be forward‑looking. These forward‑looking statements often can be, but are not always, identified by the use of words such as “assume,” “expect,” “intend,” “plan,” “project,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “anticipate,” “may,” “might,” “should,” “could,” “goal,” “potential” and similar expressions. We base these forward‑looking statements on our current expectations and projections about future events, our assumptions regarding these events and our knowledge of facts at the time the statements are made. These statements include statements relating to our projected growth, anticipated future financial performance, and management’s long‑term performance goals, as well as statements relating to the anticipated effects on results of operations and financial condition.

These forward looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties that may be outside our control and our actual results could differ materially from our projected results. Risks and uncertainties that could cause our financial performance to differ materially from our goals, plans, expectations and projections expressed in forward-looking statements include those set forth in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), Item 1A of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the following listed below:

current and future economic and market conditions in the United States generally or in the communities we serve, including the effects of declines in property values, high unemployment rates and overall slowdowns in economic growth should these events occur;

effects of and changes in trade, monetary and fiscal policies and laws, including the interest rate policies of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve Board;

changes in inflation, interest rates, and market liquidity which may impact interest margins and impact funding sources;

volatility in credit and equity markets and its effect on the global economy;

changes in the competitive environment among financial or bank holding companies and other financial service providers;

changes in consumer and business spending and saving habits and the related effect on our ability to increase assets and to attract deposits;

our ability to develop and promote customer acceptance of new products and services in a timely manner;

risks associated with concentrations in real estate related loans;

other than temporary impairment charges to our securities portfolio;

changes in the level of nonperforming assets and charge offs and other credit quality measures, and their impact on the adequacy of the Company’s allowance for loan losses and the Company’s provision for loan losses;

regulatory limits on Heritage Bank of Commerce’s ability to pay dividends to the Company;

changes in our capital management policies, including those regarding business combinations, dividends, and share repurchases, among others;

operational issues stemming from, and/or capital spending necessitated by, the potential need to adapt to industry changes in information technology systems, on which we are highly dependent;

our ability to keep pace with technological changes, including our ability to identify and address cyber-security risks such as data security breaches, “denial of service” attacks, “hacking” and identity theft;

inability of our framework to manage risks associated with our business, including operational risk and credit risk;

risks of loss of funding of Small Business Administration or SBA loan programs, or changes in those programs;

compliance with governmental and regulatory requirements, including the Dodd-Frank Act and others relating to banking, consumer protection, securities , accounting and tax matters;

significant changes in applicable laws and regulations, including those concerning taxes, banking and securities;

effect of changes in accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the regulatory agencies, as well as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and other accounting standard setters;

costs and effects of legal and regulatory developments, including resolution of legal proceedings or regulatory or other governmental inquiries, and the results of regulatory examinations or reviews;

availability of and competition for acquisition opportunities;

risks associated with the completion of the proposed acquisition of Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank and the integration of these banks with the Company, including the possibility that we may not realize the anticipated benefits of the transaction;

risks resulting from domestic terrorism;

risks of natural disasters (including earthquakes) and other events beyond our control; and

our success in managing the risks involved in the foregoing factors.

Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. The Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. You should consider any forward looking statements in light of this explanation, and we caution you about relying on forward-looking statements.

PART I

ITEM 1 — BUSINESS

General

Heritage Commerce Corp, a California corporation organized in 1997, is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. We provide a wide range of banking services through Heritage Bank of Commerce, our wholly‑owned subsidiary. Heritage Bank of Commerce is a California state‑chartered bank headquartered in San Jose, California and has been conducting business since 1994.

Heritage Bank of Commerce is a multi‑community independent bank that offers a full range of commercial banking services to small and medium‑sized businesses and their owners, managers and employees. We operate through 11 full service branch offices located entirely in the southern and eastern regions of the general San Francisco Bay Area of California in the counties of Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Benito. Our market includes the headquarters of a number of technology based companies in the region commonly known as “Silicon Valley.”

Our lending activities are diversified and include commercial, real estate, construction and land development, consumer and Small Business Administration (“SBA”) guaranteed loans. We generally lend in markets where we have a physical presence through our branch offices. We attract deposits throughout our market area with a customer‑oriented product mix, competitive pricing, and convenient locations. We offer a wide range of deposit products for business banking and retail markets. We offer a multitude of other products and services to complement our lending and deposit services. In addition, Bay View Funding provides factoring financing throughout the United States.

As a bank holding company, Heritage Commerce Corp is subject to the supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). We are required to file with the Federal Reserve reports and other information regarding our business operations and the business operations of our subsidiaries. As a California chartered bank, Heritage Bank of Commerce is subject to primary supervision, periodic examination, and regulation by the Department of Business Oversight — Division of Financial Institutions (“DBO”), and by the Federal Reserve, as its primary federal regulator.

Our principal executive office is located at 150 Almaden Boulevard, San Jose, California 95113, telephone number: (408) 947-6900.

At December 31, 2017, we had consolidated assets of $2.84 billion, deposits of $2.48 billion and shareholders’ equity of $271.2 million.

When we use “we”, “us”, “our” or the “Company”, we mean the Company on a consolidated basis with Heritage Bank of Commerce. When we refer to “HCC” or the “holding company”, we are referring to Heritage Commerce Corp on a standalone basis. When we use “HBC”, we mean Heritage Bank of Commerce on a standalone basis.

The Internet address of the Company’s website is “http://www.heritagecommercecorp.com,” and the Bank’s website is “http://www.heritagebankofcommerce.com.” The Company makes available free of charge through the Company’s website, the Company’s annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these reports. The Company makes these reports available on its website on the same day they appear on the SEC website.

Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank Proposed Mergers

On December 20, 2017, the Company announced that it signed an agreement to acquire Tri-Valley Bank (“Tri-Valley”).  The transaction is valued at approximately $31.6 million. Tri-Valley shareholders will receive an exchange ratio of 0.0489 of a share of the Company’s common stock, or an aggregate of approximately 1.9 million shares for the outstanding shares of Tri-Valley common stock. In addition outstanding stock options and a warrant will be cashed out at a value of $1.5 million, as of the date of the agreement. The exchange ratio for the outstanding shares of Tri-Valley common stock is fixed and the aggregate and per share values of the merger consideration will fluctuate between the date of the agreement and the date that the merger is completed, which is expected in the second quarter of 2018. Based on the Company’s stock price of $15.76 for the 20-day volume weighted average as of December 19, 2017, the last trading day

before the announcement of the transaction, total consideration for each Tri-Valley share would be $0.77.   The transaction is subject to the approval of state and federal bank regulatory agencies and the shareholders of Tri-Valley and other customary closing conditions.  The Company does not need to obtain shareholder approval.  Tri-Valley is a full-service commercial bank headquartered in San Ramon, California, and serves businesses, non-profits, entrepreneurs and professionals primarily in California’s Tri-Valley area, specifically the cities and communities of Pleasanton, Livermore, Dublin, San Ramon and Danville in the counties of Contra Costa and Alameda.

On January 11, 2018, the Company announced that it signed an agreement to acquire United American Bank (“United American”). The transaction is valued at approximately $44.2 million.  United American common and preferred shareholders will receive an exchange ratio of 2.1644 shares of the Company’s common stock for each United American share of common stock, and each common stock equivalent underlying the United American Series D Preferred Stock and Series E Preferred Stock, or an aggregate of approximately 2.8 million shares. The exchange ratio is fixed and the aggregate and per share values of the merger consideration will fluctuate between the date of the agreement and the date that the merger is completed which is expected in the second quarter of 2018. Based on the Company’s stock price of $15.65 as of January 9, 2018, the penultimate trading day before the announcement of the transaction, total consideration for each United American share would be $33.87.   Additionally, holders of Series A Preferred Stock and Series B Preferred Stock will receive $1,000 per share in cash for a total of $9.1 million at closing.  The transaction is subject to the approval of state and federal bank regulatory agencies and the shareholders of United American and other customary closing conditions.  The Company does not need to obtain shareholder approval.  United American Bank is a full-service commercial bank located in San Mateo County with full-service branches located in San Mateo, Redwood City and Half Moon Bay, California. The bank is dedicated to providing quality banking and financial services to businesses, professionals and individuals who prefer a high level of personalized client service and management.

At December 31, 2017, Tri-Valley had approximately $145.5 million in assets, $122.6 million in net loans and $126.6 million in deposits.  At December 31, 2017, United American had approximately $330.3 million in assets, $225.9 million in net loans and $296.1 million in deposits.  At December 31, 2017, on a pro forma consolidated basis the combined company, including the Company, Tri-Valley, and United American, would have approximately $3.3 billion in total assets, $1.9 billion in total loans, and $2.9 billion in total deposits.  The pre-tax acquisition costs incurred by the Company related to the proposed mergers totaled $671,000 during the fourth quarter of 2017 and the year ended December 31, 2017. 

Heritage Bank of Commerce

HBC is a California state‑chartered bank headquartered in San Jose, California. It was incorporated in November 1993 and opened for business in June 1994. HBC operates through eleven full service branch offices. The locations of HBC’s current offices and the administrative office of CSNK Working Capital Finance Corp. d/b/a Bay View Funding (“Bay View Funding”) are:

 

Lending Activities

We offer a diversified mix of business loans encompassing the following loan products: (i) commercial and industrial loans; (ii) commercial real estate loans; (iii) construction loans; and (iv) SBA loans. We also offer home equity lines of credit (“HELOCS”), to accommodate the needs of business owners and individual clients, as well as consumer loans (both secured and unsecured). In the event creditworthy loan customers’ borrowing needs exceed our legal lending limit, we have the ability to sell participations in those loans to other banks. We encourage relationship banking, obtaining a substantial portion of each borrower’s banking business, including deposit accounts.

As of December 31, 2017, the percentage of our total loans for each of the principal areas in which we directed our lending activities were as follows: (i) commercial and industrial loans 36% (including SBA loans, asset-based lending, and factored receivables); (ii) commercial real estate loans 49%; (iii) land and construction loans 6%; (iv) residential mortgage loans 3%; and (v) consumer loans (including home equity loans) 6%. While no specific industry concentration is considered significant, our lending operations are located in market areas dependent on technology and real estate industries and their supporting companies.

Commercial and Industrial Loans.  Our commercial loan portfolio is comprised of operating secured and unsecured loans advanced for working capital, equipment purchases and other business purposes. Generally short‑term loans have maturities ranging from thirty days to one year, and “term loans” have maturities ranging from one to five years. Short‑term business loans are generally intended to finance current transactions and typically provide for periodic

principal payments, with interest payable monthly. Term loans generally provide for floating or fixed interest rates, with monthly payments of both principal and interest. Repayment of secured and unsecured commercial loans depends substantially on the borrower’s underlying business, financial condition and cash flows, as well as the sufficiency of the collateral. Compared to real estate, the collateral may be more difficult to monitor, evaluate and sell. It may also depreciate more rapidly than real estate. Such risks can be significantly affected by economic conditions.

Our factoring receivables portfolio is originated by Bay View Funding. Factored receivables are receivables that have been transferred by the originating organization and typically have not been subject to previous collection efforts. These receivables are acquired from a variety of companies, including but not limited to service providers, transportation companies, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, apparel companies, advertisers, and temporary staffing companies. The average life of the factored receivables is 36 days.

HBC’s commercial loans, except for the asset-based lending and the factored receivables at Bay View Funding, are primarily originated from locally‑oriented commercial activities in communities where HBC has a physical presence through its branch offices.

Commercial Real Estate Loans.  The commercial real estate (“CRE”) loan portfolio is comprised of loans secured by commercial real estate. These loans are generally advanced based on the borrower’s cash flow, and the underlying collateral provides a secondary source of payment. HBC generally restricts real estate term loans to no more than 75% of the property’s appraised value or the purchase price of the property, depending on the type of property and its utilization. HBC offers both fixed and floating rate loans. Maturities on such loans are generally restricted to between five and ten years (with amortization ranging from fifteen to twenty‑five years and a balloon payment due at maturity); however, SBA and certain real estate loans that can be sold in the secondary market may be advanced for longer maturities. CRE loans typically involve large balances to single borrowers or groups of related borrowers. Since payments on these loans are often dependent on the successful operation or management of the properties, as well as the business and financial condition of the borrower, repayment of such loans may be subject to adverse conditions in the real estate market, adverse economic conditions or changes in applicable government regulations. If the cash flow from the project decreases, or if leases are not obtained or renewed, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired.

During the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company purchased $31.1 million of CRE loans on properties located primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area, with an average loan principal amount of approximately $1.8 million, and weighted average yield of 3.88%, net of servicing fees to the servicer.  During the first quarter of 2017, the Company purchased an additional $7.4 million of CRE loans on properties located primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area, with an average loan principal amount of approximately $2.5 million per loan, and weighted average yield of 3.89%, net of servicing fees to the servicer. At December 31, 2017, the purchased CRE loans outstanding totaled $37.3 million, compared to $31.0 million at December 31, 2016.

Construction Loans.  We make commercial construction loans for rental properties, commercial buildings and homes built by developers on speculative, undeveloped property. We also make construction loans for homes built by owner occupants. The terms of commercial construction loans are made in accordance with our loan policy. Advances on construction loans are made in accordance with a schedule reflecting the cost of construction, but are generally limited to a 70% loan‑to‑value ratio, as completed. Repayment of construction loans on non‑residential properties is normally expected from the property’s eventual rental income, income from the borrower’s operating entity or the sale of the subject property. In the case of income‑producing property, repayment is usually expected from permanent financing upon completion of construction. At times we provide the permanent mortgage financing on our construction loans on income‑producing property. Construction loans are interest‑only loans during the construction period, which typically do not exceed 18 months. If HBC provides permanent financing the short‑term loan converts to permanent, amortizing financing following the completion of construction. Generally, before making a commitment to fund a construction loan, we require an appraisal of the property by a state‑certified or state‑licensed appraiser. We review and inspect properties before disbursement of funds during the term of the construction loan. The repayment of construction loans is dependent upon the successful and timely completion of the construction of the subject property, as well as the sale of the property to third parties or the availability of permanent financing upon completion of all improvements. Construction loans expose us to the risk that improvements will not be completed on time, and in accordance with specifications and projected costs. Construction delays, the financial impairment of the builder, interest rate increases or economic downturn may further impair the borrower’s ability to repay the loan. In addition, the borrower may not be able to obtain permanent financing or ultimate sale or rental of the property may not occur as anticipated. HBC utilizes underwriting guidelines to assess the

likelihood of repayment from sources such as sale of the property or permanent mortgage financing prior to making the construction loan.

SBA Loans. SBA loans are made through programs designed by the federal government to assist the small business community in obtaining financing from financial institutions that are given government guarantees as an incentive to make the loans. HBC has been designated as an SBA Preferred Lender. Our SBA loans fall into three categories: loans originated under the SBA’s 7a Program (“7a Loans”); loans originated under the SBA’s 504 Program (“504 Loans”); and SBA “Express” Loans. SBA 7a Loans are commercial business loans generally made for the purpose of purchasing real estate to be occupied by the business owner, providing working capital, and/or purchasing equipment or inventory. SBA 504 Loans are collateralized by commercial real estate and are generally made to business owners for the purpose of purchasing or improving real estate for their use and for equipment used in their business. The SBA “Express” Loans or lines of credit are for businesses that want to improve cash flow, refinance debt, or fund improvements, equipment, or real estate. It features an abbreviated SBA application process and accelerated approval times, plus it can offer longer terms and lower down payment requirements than conventional loans.

SBA lending is subject to federal legislation that can affect the availability and funding of the program. From time to time, this dependence on legislative funding causes limitations and uncertainties with regard to the continued funding of such programs, which could potentially have an adverse financial impact on our business.

Home Equity Loans.  Our home equity line portfolio is comprised of home equity lines of credit to customers in our markets. Home equity lines of credit are underwritten in a manner such that they result in credit risk that is substantially similar to that of residential mortgage loans. Nevertheless, home equity lines of credit have greater credit risk than residential mortgage loans because they are often secured by mortgages that are subordinated to the existing first mortgage on the property, which we do not hold, and they are not covered by private mortgage insurance coverage.

Residential Mortgage Loans.  During the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company purchased jumbo single family residential mortgage loans totaling $57.5 million, all of which are domiciled in California, with an average loan principal amount of approximately $834,000, and weighted average yield of 3.00%, net of servicing fees to the servicer. There were no purchases of residential mortgage loans during the year ended December 31, 2017. Residential mortgage loans outstanding at December 31, 2017 totaled $44.6 million, compared to $52.9 million at December 31, 2016. HBC does not originate first trust deed home mortgage loans or home improvement loans, other than HELOCS.

Consumer Loans.  The consumer loan portfolio is composed of miscellaneous consumer loans including loans for financing automobiles, various consumer goods and other personal purposes. Consumer loans are generally secured. Repossessed collateral for a defaulted consumer loan may not provide an adequate source of repayment for the outstanding loan, and the remaining deficiency may not warrant further substantial collection efforts against the borrower. In addition, consumer loan collections are dependent on the borrower’s continued financial stability, which can be adversely affected by job loss, divorce, illness or personal bankruptcy. Furthermore, the application of various federal and state laws, including federal and state bankruptcy and insolvency laws, may limit the amount which can be recovered on such loans.

Deposit Products

As a full-service commercial bank, we focus deposit generation on relationship accounts, encompassing non-interest bearing demand, interest bearing demand, and money market. In order to facilitate generation of non-interest bearing demand deposits, we require, depending on the circumstances and the type of relationship, our borrowers to maintain deposit balances with us as a typical condition of granting loans. We also offer certificates of deposit and savings accounts. We offer a “remote deposit capture” product that allows deposits to be made via computer at the customer’s business location. We also offer customers “e-statements” that allows customers to receive statements electronically, which is more convenient and secure than receiving paper statements.

For customers requiring full Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insurance on certificates of deposit in excess of $250,000, we offer the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service (“CDARS”) program, which allows HBC to place the certificates of deposit with other participating banks to maximize the customers’ FDIC insurance. HBC also receives reciprocal deposits from other participating financial institutions.

 

Electronic Banking

While personalized, service-oriented banking is the cornerstone of our business plan, we use technology and the Internet as a secondary means for servicing customers, to compete with larger banks and to provide a convenient platform for customers to review and transact business. We offer sophisticated electronic or “internet banking” opportunities that permit commercial customers to conduct much of their banking business remotely from their home or business. However, our customers will always have the opportunity to personally discuss specific banking needs with knowledgeable bank officers and staff who are directly accessible in the branches and offices as well as by telephone and email.

HBC offers multiple electronic banking options to its customers. It does not allow the origination of deposit accounts through online banking, nor does it accept loan applications through its online services. All of HBC’s electronic banking services allow customers to review transactions and statements, review images of paid items, transfer funds between accounts at HBC, place stop orders, pay bills and export to various business and personal software applications. HBC online commercial banking also allows customers to initiate domestic wire transfers and ACH transactions, with the added security and functionality of assigning discrete access and levels of security to different employees of the client and division of functions to allow separation of duties, such as input and release.

We also offer our internet banking customers an additional third party product designed to assist in mitigating fraud risk to both the customer and the Bank in internet banking and other internet activities conducted by the customer, at no cost to the customer.

Other Banking Services

We offer a multitude of other products and services to complement our lending and deposit services. These include cashier’s checks, bank by mail, night depositories, safe deposit boxes, direct deposit, automated payroll services, electronic funds transfers, online bill pay, homeowner association services, and other customary banking services. HBC currently operates ATMs at five different locations. In addition, we have established a convenient customer service group accessible by toll free telephone to answer questions and promote a high level of customer service. HBC does not have a trust department. In addition to the traditional financial services offered, HBC offers remote deposit capture, automated clearing house origination, electronic data interchange and check imaging. HBC continues to investigate products and services that it believes addresses the growing needs of its customers and to analyze other markets for potential expansion opportunities.

Investments

Our investment policy is established by the Board of Directors. The general investment strategies are developed and authorized by our Finance and Investment Committee of the Board of Directors. The investment policy is reviewed annually by the Finance and Investment Committee, and any changes to the policy are subject to approval by the full Board of Directors. The overall objectives of the investment policy are to maintain a portfolio of high quality and diversified investments to maximize interest income over the long term and to minimize risk, to provide collateral for borrowings, and to provide additional earnings when loan production is low. The policy dictates that investment decisions take into consideration the safety of principal, liquidity requirements and interest rate risk management. All securities transactions are reported to the Board of Directors’ Finance and Investment Committee on a monthly basis.

Sources of Funds

Deposits traditionally have been our primary source of funds for our investment and lending activities. We also are able to borrow from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to supplement cash flow needs. Our additional sources of funds are scheduled loan payments, maturing investments, loan repayments, income on other earning assets, and the proceeds of loan sales and securities sales.

Interest rates, maturity terms, service fees and withdrawal penalties are established on a periodic basis. Deposit rates and terms are based primarily on current operating strategies and market interest rates, liquidity requirements and our deposit growth goals.

Correspondent Banks

Correspondent bank deposit accounts are maintained to enable the Company to transact types of activity that it would otherwise be unable to perform or would not be cost effective due to the size of the Company or volume of activity. The Company has utilized several correspondent banks to process a variety of transactions.

Competition

The banking and financial services business in California generally, and in the Company’s market areas specifically, is highly competitive. The industry continues to consolidate and unregulated competitors have entered banking markets with products targeted at highly profitable customer segments. Many larger unregulated competitors are able to compete across geographic boundaries, and provide customers with meaningful alternatives to most significant banking services and products. These consolidation trends are likely to continue. The increasingly competitive environment is a result primarily of changes in regulation, changes in technology and product delivery systems, and the consolidation among financial service providers.

With respect to commercial bank competitors, the business is dominated by a relatively small number of major banks that operate a large number of offices within our geographic footprint. For the combined Santa Clara, Alameda Contra Costa, and San Benito county region, the three counties within which the Company operates, the top three institutions are all multi‑billion dollar entities with an aggregate of 275 offices that control a combined 54.19% of deposit market share based on June 30, 2017 FDIC market share data. HBC ranks fifteenth with 1.05% share of total deposits based on June 30, 2017 market share data. These banks have, among other advantages, the ability to finance wide‑ranging advertising campaigns and to allocate their resources to regions of highest yield and demand. Larger banks are seeking to expand lending to small businesses, which are traditionally community bank customers. They can also offer certain services that we do not offer directly, but may offer indirectly through correspondent institutions. By virtue of their greater total capitalization, these banks also have substantially higher lending limits than we do. For customers whose needs exceed our legal lending limit, we arrange for the sale, or “participation,” of some of the balances to financial institutions that are not within our geographic footprint.

In addition to other large regional banks and local community banks, our competitors include savings institutions, securities and brokerage companies, asset management groups, mortgage banking companies, credit unions, finance and insurance companies, internet‑based companies, and money market funds. In recent years, we have also witnessed increased competition from specialized companies that offer wholesale finance, credit card, and other consumer finance services, as well as services that circumvent the banking system by facilitating payments via the internet, wireless devices, prepaid cards, or other means. Technological innovations have lowered traditional barriers of entry and enabled many of these companies to compete in financial services markets. Such innovation has, for example, made it possible for non‑depository institutions to offer customers automated transfer payment services that previously were considered traditional banking products. In addition, many customers now expect a choice of delivery channels, including telephone and smart phones, mail, personal computer, ATMs, self‑service branches, and/or in‑store branches.

Strong competition for deposits and loans among financial institutions and non‑banks alike affects interest rates and other terms on which financial products are offered to customers. Mergers between financial institutions have placed additional pressure on other banks within the industry to remain competitive by streamlining operations, reducing expenses, and increasing revenues. Competition has also intensified due to Federal and state interstate banking laws enacted in the mid‑1990’s, which permit banking organizations to expand into other states. The relatively large and expanding California market has been particularly attractive to out of state institutions. The Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act of 1999 has made it possible for full affiliations to occur between banks and securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial companies, and has also intensified competitive conditions.

In order to compete with the other financial service providers, the Company principally relies upon community‑oriented, personalized service, local promotional activities, personal relationships established by officers, directors, and employees with its customers, and specialized services tailored to meet its customers’ needs. Our “preferred lender” status with the Small Business Administration allows us to approve SBA loans faster than many of our competitors. In those instances where the Company is unable to accommodate a customer’s needs, the Company seeks to arrange for such loans on a participation basis with other financial institutions or to have those services provided in whole or in part by its correspondent banks. See Item 1 — “Business — Correspondent Banks.”

Employees

Full-time equivalent employees were 278, 263, and 260 at December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, respectively.

Supervision and Regulation

Banking is a complex, highly regulated industry. Regulation and supervision by federal and state banking agencies are intended to maintain a safe and sound banking system, protect depositors and the FDIC’s insurance fund, and to facilitate the conduct of sound monetary policy. In furtherance of these goals, Congress and the states have created several largely autonomous regulatory agencies and enacted numerous laws that govern banks, bank holding companies and the financial services industry. Consequently, the growth and earnings performance of the Company can be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of applicable state and federal statues, regulations and the policies of various governmental regulatory authorities, including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, the DBO and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act.  Furthermore, tax laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the FASB, securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities, anti-money laundering laws enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or Treasury, and mortgage related rules, including with respect to loan securitization and servicing by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, also impact our business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and rules are significant to our financial condition and results of operations. Further, the nature and extent of future legislative, regulatory or other changes affecting financial institutions are impossible to predict with any certainty.

Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation and enforcement on the operations of banks, their holding companies and their affiliates. These laws are intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”), and bank customers rather than shareholders. Federal and state laws, and the related regulations of the bank regulatory agencies, affect, among other things, the scope of business, the kinds and amounts of investments banks may make, reserve requirements, capital levels relative to operations, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with insiders and affiliates and the payment of dividends. 

This supervisory and regulatory framework subjects banks and bank holding companies to regular examination by their respective regulatory agencies, which results in examination reports and ratings that, while not publicly available, can affect the conduct and growth of their businesses. These examinations consider not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also capital levels, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, liquidity, and various other factors. The regulatory agencies have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on the operations of a regulated entity where the agencies determine, among other things, that such operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations or with the supervisory policies of these agencies.

The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to HCC and its subsidiary, HBC. It does not describe all of the statutes, regulations and regulatory policies that apply, nor does it restate all of the requirements of those that are described. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provision.

The federal banking agencies have risk-based capital adequacy requirements intended to provide a measure of capital adequacy that reflects the perceived degree of risk associated with a banking organization’s operations, both for transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets and for transactions, such as letters of credit and recourse arrangements, that are recorded as off-balance sheet items. In 2013, the bank regulatory agencies issued final rules (the “Basel III Capital Rules”) establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. The Basel III Capital Rules implement the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework for strengthening international capital standards and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Capital Rules became effective on January 1, 2015.

 

The Basel III Capital Rules require HBC to comply with several minimum capital standards:

CET1 capital is generally defined as common stockholders’ equity and retained earnings.

Tier 1 capital is generally defined as CET1 and Additional Tier 1 capital. Additional Tier 1 capital generally includes certain noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus and minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries.

Total capital includes Tier 1 capital (CET1 capital plus Additional Tier 1 capital) and Tier 2 capital.

Tier 2 capital is comprised of capital instruments and related surplus meeting specified requirements, and may include cumulative preferred stock and long-term perpetual preferred stock, mandatory convertible securities, intermediate preferred stock and subordinated debt. Also included in Tier 2 capital is the allowance for loan loss limited to a maximum of 1.25% of risk-weighted assets and, for institutions that have exercised an opt-out election regarding the treatment of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”), up to 45% of net unrealized gains on available-for-sale equity securities with readily determinable fair market values.

Institutions that have not exercised the AOCI opt-out have AOCI incorporated into CET1 capital (including unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale-securities). We exercised the opt-out election regarding the treatment of AOCI in part to avoid significant variations in our capital levels resulting from changes in the fair value of our available-for-sale investment securities portfolio as interest rates fluctuate. The calculation of all types of regulatory capital is subject to deductions and adjustments specified in the regulations.

The Basel III Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that (i) mortgage servicing rights, (ii) deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, and (iii) significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such items, in the aggregate, exceed 15% of CET1. Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 began on January 1, 2015 and would be phased-in over a four-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter).

In addition to establishing the minimum regulatory capital requirements, the Basel III Capital Rules limit capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments to management if an institution does not hold a “capital conservation buffer” consisting of an additional 2.5% of CET1, on top of the minimum risk-weighted asset ratios. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. The capital conservation buffer requirement is being phased in over a four-year period beginning on January 1, 2016 at 0.625%, increasing by 0.625% each January 1 until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019.

During 2017, banking organizations, including HCC and HBC, were required to maintain a CET1 capital ratio of at least 5.75%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 7.25%, and a total capital ratio of at least 9.25% to avoid limitations on capital distributions and certain discretionary incentive compensation payments. When fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, HCC and HBC will be required to meet minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4.0%, a minimum CET1 to risk-weighted assets of 4.5% (7% with the capital conservation buffer), a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of 6.0% (8.5% including the capital conservation buffer) and a minimum total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8.0% (10.5% including the capital conservation buffer).

In determining the amount of risk-weighted assets for purposes of calculating risk-based capital ratios, a bank’s assets, including certain off-balance sheet assets (e.g., recourse obligations, direct credit substitutes, residual interests), are multiplied by a risk weight factor assigned by the regulations based on perceived risks inherent in the type of asset. As a

result, higher levels of capital are required for asset categories believed to present greater risk. For example, a risk weight of 0% is assigned to cash and U.S. government securities, a risk weight of 50% is generally assigned to prudently underwritten first lien 1 – 4 family residential mortgages, a risk weight of 100% is assigned to commercial and consumer loans, a risk weight of 150% is assigned to certain past due loans and a risk weight of between 0% to 600% is assigned to permissible equity interests, depending on certain specified factors. The Basel III Capital Rules increased the risk weights for a variety of asset classes, including certain commercial real estate mortgages. Additional aspects of the Basel III Capital Rules’ risk weighting requirements that are relevant to HCC and HBC include:

As of December 31, 2017, HCC’s and HBC’s capital ratios exceeded the minimum capital adequacy guideline percentage requirements of the federal banking agencies for “well capitalized” institutions under the Basel III Capital Rules on a fully phased-in basis.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. For purposes of prompt corrective action, the law establishes five capital tiers: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier depends on its capital levels and certain other factors established by regulation. The applicable FDIC regulations were amended to incorporate the increased capital requirements required by the Basel III Capital Rules that became effective on January 1, 2015. Under the amended regulations, an institution is deemed to be “well capitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater and a CET1 ratio of 6.5% or greater.

At each successively lower capital category, a bank is subject to increased restrictions on its operations. For example, a bank is generally prohibited from and making capital distributions and paying management fees to its holding company if doing so would make the bank “undercapitalized.” Asset growth and branching restrictions apply to undercapitalized banks, which are required to submit written capital restoration plans meeting specified requirements (including a guarantee by the parent holding company, if any). “Significantly undercapitalized” banks are subject to broad regulatory authority, including among other things, capital directives, forced mergers, restrictions on the rates of interest they may pay on deposits, restrictions on asset growth and activities, and prohibitions on paying bonuses or increasing compensation to senior executive officers without FDIC approval. “Critically undercapitalized” are subject to even more severe restrictions, including, subject to a narrow exception, the appointment of a conservator or receiver with 90 days after becoming critically undercapitalized.

The appropriate federal banking agency may determine (after notice and opportunity for a hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or deems the institution to be engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice. The appropriate agency is also permitted to require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with the supervisory provisions as if the institution were in the next lower category (but not treat a significantly

undercapitalized institution as critically undercapitalized) based on supervisory information other than the capital levels of the institution.

The capital classification of a bank holding company and a bank affects the frequency of regulatory examinations, the bank holding company’s and the bank’s ability to engage in certain activities and the deposit insurance premium paid by the bank. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt correct action regulations and the capital category may not accurately reflect the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects. 

As of December 31, 2017, we met the requirements for being considered “well-capitalized” for purposes of the prompt corrective action regulations.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties, and appoint a conservator or receiver for financial institutions. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could subject us and our officers and directors to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. In addition to the grounds discussed above under “—Prompt Corrective Actions,” the appropriate federal bank regulatory agency may appoint the FDIC as conservator or receiver for a depository institution (or the FDIC may appoint itself, under certain circumstances) if any one or more of a number of circumstances exist, including, without limitation, the fact that the depository institution is undercapitalized and has no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately capitalized, fails to become adequately capitalized when required to do so, fails to submit a timely and acceptable capital restoration plan or materially fails to implement an accepted capital restoration plan. The DBO also has broad enforcement powers over us, including the power to impose orders, remove officers and directors, impose fines and appoint supervisors and conservators.

General. As a bank holding company, HCC is subject to regulation and supervision by, the Federal Reserve under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, or the BHCA. Under the BHCA, HCC is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve. HCC is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the its operations and such additional information as the Federal Reserve may require. In accordance with Federal Reserve policy, and as now codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, HCC is legally obligated to act as a source of financial strength to HBC and to commit resources to support HBC in circumstances where HCC might not otherwise do so.

HCC is also a bank holding company within the meaning of Section 1280 of the California Financial Code. Consequently, HCC is subject to examination by, and may be required to file reports with, the DBO.

SEC and Nasdaq.  HCC’s stock is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (under the trading symbol “HTBK”), and HCC is subject to rules and regulations of The NASDAQ Stock Market, including those related to corporate governance. HCC is also subject to the periodic reporting requirements of Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), which requires HCC to file annual, quarterly and other current reports with the SEC. HCC is subject to additional regulations including, but not limited to, the proxy and tender offer rules promulgated by the SEC under Sections 13 and 14 of the Exchange Act, the reporting requirements of directors, executive officers and principal shareholders regarding transactions in HCC’s common stock and short swing profits rules promulgated by the SEC under Section 16 of the Exchange Act, and certain additional reporting requirements by principal shareholders of HCC promulgated by the SEC under Section 13 of the Exchange Act.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.  HCC is subject to the accounting oversight and corporate governance requirements of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”).  These include, for example: (i) required executive certification of financial presentations; (ii) increased requirements for board audit committees and their members; (iii) enhanced disclosure of controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting; (iv) enhanced controls over and reporting of insider trading; and (v) increased penalties for financial crimes and forfeiture of executive bonuses in certain circumstances.

Permitted Activities. The BHCA generally prohibits HCC from controlling or engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and

to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto.” This authority would permit HCC to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage. The BHCA generally does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of nonbank subsidiaries of bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve has the power to order any bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when the Federal Reserve has reasonable grounds to believe that continuing such activity, ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness, safety or stability of any bank subsidiary of the bank holding company.

Bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking. In addition bank holding companies may engage in any other activity that is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. HCC has not elected to be a financial holding company, and has not engaged in any activities determined by the Federal Reserve to be financial in nature or incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature.

If HCC should elect to become a financial holding company, in order to maintain HCC’s status as a financial holding company, HCC and HBC must be well-capitalized, well-managed, and have a satisfactory Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) rating. If HCC were to become a financial holding company and the Federal Reserve subsequently determined that HCC, as a financial holding company, is not well-capitalized or well-managed, HCC would have a period of time during which to achieve compliance, but during the period of noncompliance, the Federal Reserve may place any limitations on HCC it believes to be appropriate. Furthermore, if HCC became a financial holding company and the Federal Reserve subsequently determined that HBC, as a financial holding company subsidiary, has not received a satisfactory CRA rating, HCC would not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities.

Capital Requirements. Bank holding companies are required to maintain capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy requirements, as affected by the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Source of Strength Doctrine. Federal Reserve policy historically required bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement HCC is expected to commit resources to support HBC, including at times when HCC may not be in a financial position to provide it. HCC must stand ready to use its available resources to provide adequate capital to the subsidiary bank during periods of financial stress or adversity. HCC must also maintain the financial flexibility and capital raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting HBC. HCC’s failure to meet its source of strength obligations may constitute an unsafe and unsound practice or a violation of the Federal Reserve’s regulations or both. The source of strength doctrine most directly affects bank holding companies where a bank holding company’s subsidiary bank fails to maintain adequate capital levels. In such a situation, the subsidiary bank will be required by the bank’s federal regulator to take “prompt corrective action.” Any capital loans by a bank holding company to HBC are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of HBC. The BHCA provides that in the event of the company’s bankruptcy any commitment by a bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices. Bank holding companies and their non-banking subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in activities that represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or that constitute violation of law or regulations. Under certain conditions the Federal Reserve may conclude that certain actions of a bank holding company such as a payment of a cash dividend, would constitute an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve also has the authority to regulate the debt of bank holding companies, including the authority to impose interest rate ceilings and reserve requirements on such debt. Under certain circumstances the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to file written notice and obtain its approval prior to purchasing or redeeming its equity securities, unless certain conditions are met.

Tie in Arrangements. Federal law prohibits a bank holding company and any subsidiary banks from engaging in certain tie in arrangements in connection with the extension of credit. For example, HBC may not extend credit, lease or sell property, or furnish any services, or fix or vary the consideration for any of the foregoing on the condition that: (i) the customer must obtain or provide some additional credit, property or services from or to HBC other than a loan, discount, deposit or trust services; (ii) the customer must obtain or provide some additional credit, property or service from or to HCC or HBC; or (iii) the customer must not obtain some other credit, property or services from competitors, except reasonable requirements to assure soundness of credit extended.

Dividend Payments, Stock Redemptions and Repurchases. HCC’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders is affected by both general corporate law considerations and the policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. It is the Federal Reserve’s policy that bank holding companies should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. It is also the Federal Reserve’s policy that bank holding companies should not maintain dividend levels that undermine their ability to be a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. Additionally, in consideration of the current financial and economic environment, the Federal Reserve has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policy and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels unless both asset quality and capital are very strong. The Federal Reserve possesses enforcement powers over bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries to prevent or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices or violations of applicable statutes and regulations. Among these powers is the ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies. In addition, under the Basel Capital III Rules, institutions that seek to pay dividends must maintain a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% in CET1, which is to be phased in over a three year period that began on January 1, 2016. See “—Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Bank holding companies must consult with the Federal Reserve before redeeming any equity or other capital instrument included in Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital prior to stated maturity, if such redemption could have a material effect on the level or composition of the organization’s capital base. Bank holding companies experiencing financial weaknesses, or that are at significant risk of developing financial weaknesses, must consult with the Federal Reserve before redeeming or repurchasing common stock or other regulatory capital instruments.

As a California corporation, HCC is subject to the limitations of California law, which allows a corporation to distribute cash or property to shareholders, including a dividend or repurchase or redemption of shares, if the corporation meets either a retained earnings test or a “balance sheet” test. Under the retained earnings test, HCC may make a distribution from retained earnings to the extent that its retained earnings exceed the sum of (i) the amount of the distribution plus (ii) the amount, if any, of dividends in arrears on shares with preferential dividend rights. HCC may also make a distribution if, immediately after the distribution, the value of its assets equals or exceeds the sum of (a) its total liabilities plus (b) the liquidation preference of any shares which have a preference upon dissolution over the rights of shareholders receiving the distribution. Indebtedness is not considered a liability if the terms of such indebtedness provide that payment of principal and interest thereon are to be made only if, and to the extent that, a distribution to shareholders could be made under the balance sheet test. In addition, HCC may not make distributions if it is, or as a result of the distribution would be, likely to be unable to meet its liabilities (except those whose payment is otherwise adequately provided for) as they mature. A California corporation may specify in its articles of incorporation that distributions under the retained earnings test or balance sheet test can be made without regard to the preferential rights amount. HCC’s articles of incorporation do not address distributions under either the retained earnings test or the balance sheet test.

Acquisitions, Activities and Change in Control. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval by the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company or any of bank holding company’s acquisition of more than 5% of a class of voting securities of any additional bank or bank holding company or to acquire all or substantially all, the assets of any additional bank or bank holding company. In reviewing applications seeking approval of merger and acquisition transactions, Federal Reserve considers, among other things, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position and managerial resources of the combined organization, the risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system, the applicant’s performance record under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (“CRA”), the applicant’s compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws and the effectiveness of all organizations involved in combating money laundering activities. In addition, failure to implement or maintain adequate compliance programs could cause bank regulators not to approve an acquisition where regulatory approval is required or to prohibit an acquisition even if approval is not required.

Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA and the Dodd-Frank Act), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the United States. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its insured depository institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state depository institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed in order to complete interstate mergers or acquisitions. For a discussion of the capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Federal law also prohibits any person or company from acquiring “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company without prior notice to the appropriate federal bank regulator. “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 5% and 24.99% ownership.

Under the California Financial Code, any proposed acquisition of “control” of HBC by any person (including a company) must be approved by the Commissioner of the DBO. The California Financial Code defines “control” as the power, directly or indirectly, to direct HBC’s management or policies or to vote 25% or more of any class of HBC’s outstanding voting securities. Additionally, a rebuttable presumption of control arises when any person (including a company) seeks to acquire, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of any class of HBC’s outstanding voting securities.

General.  As a California commercial bank whose deposits are insured by the FDIC, HBC is subject to regulation, supervision, and regular examination by the FDIC, the DBO and by the Federal Reserve as HBC’s primary Federal regulators. The regulations of these agencies govern most aspects of a bank’s business.

California banks are also subject to various federal statutes and regulations including Federal Reserve Regulation O, Federal Reserve Act Sections 23A and 23B and Regulation W and similar state statutes, which restrict or limit loans or extensions of credit to “insiders,” including officers, directors and principal shareholders, and loans or extension of credit by banks to affiliates or purchasers of assets from affiliates, including parent bank holding companies, except pursuant to certain exceptions and terms and conditions at least as favorable to those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated parties.

Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (“FDIA”), and the California Financial Code, California state chartered commercial banks may generally engage in any activity permissible for national banks. Therefore, HBC may form subsidiaries to engage in the many so called “closely related to banking” or “nonbanking” activities commonly conducted by national banks in operating subsidiaries or subsidiaries of bank holding companies. Further, California banks may conduct certain “financial” activities in a subsidiary to the same extent as may a national bank, provided the bank is and remains “well capitalized,” “well managed” and in satisfactory compliance with the CRA.

HBC is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) of San Francisco. Among other benefits, each FHLB serves as a reserve or central bank for its members within its assigned region and makes available loans or advances to its members. Each FHLB is financed primarily from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB system. As an FHLB member HBC is required to own a certain amount of capital stock in the FHLB. At December 31, 2017, HBC was in compliance with the FHLB’s stock ownership requirement. FHLB stock is carried at cost and classified as a restricted security. Both cash and stock dividends are reported as income.

HBC is a member of the Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) of San Francisco. As a member of the FRB, the Bank is required to own stock in the FRB of San Francisco based on a specified ratio relative to our capital. FRB stock is carried at cost and may be sold back to the FRB at its carrying value. Cash dividends received are reported as income.

Depositor Preference.  In the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution, including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors, and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors along with the FDIC, will have

priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non deposit creditors including the parent bank holding company with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Brokered Deposit Restrictions.  Well capitalized institutions are not subject to limitations on brokered deposits, while an adequately capitalized institution is able to accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits only with a waiver from the FDIC and subject to certain restrictions on the yield paid on such deposits. Undercapitalized institutions are generally not permitted to accept, renew, or roll over brokered deposits. HBC is eligible to accept brokered deposits without limitations.

Loans to One Borrower.  With certain limited exceptions, the maximum amount that a California bank may lend to any borrower at any one time (including the obligations to the bank of certain related entities of the borrower) may not exceed 25% (and unsecured loans may not exceed 15%) of the bank’s shareholders’ equity, allowance for loan loss, and any capital notes and debentures of the bank.

Deposit Insurance. As an FDIC-insured institution, HBC is required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. The FDIC has adopted a risk-based assessment system whereby FDIC-insured depository institutions pay insurance premiums at rates based on their risk classification. An institution’s risk classification is assigned based on its capital levels and the level of supervisory concern the institution poses to the regulators. For deposit insurance assessment purposes, an insured depository institution is placed in one of four risk categories each quarter. An institution’s assessment is determined by multiplying its assessment rate by its assessment base. The total base assessment rates range from 2.5 basis points to 45 basis points. While in the past an insured depository institution’s assessment base was determined by its deposit base, amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act revised the assessment base so that it is calculated using average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity.

Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act altered the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The FDIC has until September 3, 2020 to meet the 1.35% reserve ratio target. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, may increase or decrease the assessment rates, following notice and comment on proposed rulemaking. As a result, HBC’s FDIC deposit insurance premiums could increase. During the year ended December 31, 2017, HBC paid $1.1 million in aggregate FDIC deposit insurance premiums.

FICO Assessments. In addition to paying basic deposit insurance assessments, insured depository institutions must pay Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments. FICO is a mixed-ownership governmental corporation chartered by the former Federal Home Loan Bank Board to recapitalize of the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. FICO issued 30-year noncallable bonds of approximately $8.1 billion that mature in 2017 through 2019. Since 1996, federal legislation requires that all FDIC-insured depository institutions pay assessments to cover interest payments on FICO’s outstanding obligations. During the year ended December 31, 2017, HBC paid $127,000 in aggregate FICO assessments.

Supervisory Assessments. California-chartered banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the DBO to fund its operations. The amount of the assessment paid by a California bank to the DBO is calculated on the basis of the institution’s total assets, including consolidated subsidiaries, as reported to the DBO. During the year ended December 31, 2017, HBC paid supervisory assessments to the DBO totaling $162,000.

Capital Requirements. Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “—Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Dividend Payments. The primary source of funds for HCC is dividends from HBC. Under the California Financial Code, HBC is permitted to pay a dividend in the following circumstances: (i) without the consent of either the DBO or HBC’s shareholders, in an amount not exceeding the lesser of (a) the retained earnings of HBC; or (b) the net income of HBC for its last three fiscal years, less the amount of any distributions made during the prior period; (ii) with the prior approval of the DBO, in an amount not exceeding the greatest of: (a) the retained earnings of HBC; (b) the net income of HBC for its last fiscal year; or (c) the net income for HBC for its current fiscal year; and (iii) with the prior approval of the DBO and HBC’s shareholders (i.e., HCC) in connection with a reduction of its contributed capital.

The payment of dividends by any financial institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and a financial institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. In addition, in order to pay a dividend, the Basel III Capitals Rules’ capital conservation buffer generally requires that an institutions maintain 2.5% in CET1, which is to be phased in over a three-year period that began on January 1, 2016. See “—Regulatory Capital Requirements” above. As described above, HBC exceeded its minimum capital requirements under applicable regulatory guidelines as of December 31, 2017.

Transactions with Affiliates. HBC is subject to certain restrictions imposed by federal law on “covered transactions” between HBC and its “affiliates.” HCC is an affiliate of HBC for purposes of these restrictions, and covered transactions subject to the restrictions include extensions of credit to HCC, investments in the stock or other securities of HCC and the acceptance of the stock or other securities of HCC as collateral for loans made by HBC. The Dodd-Frank Act enhances the requirements for certain transactions with affiliates, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered transactions must be maintained.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders. The authority of HBC to extend credit to its directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under the Federal Reserve’s Regulation O, as well as the Sarbanes Oxley Act. These statutes and regulations impose limits the amount of loans HBC may make to directors and other insiders and require that the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with HCC or HBC, that HBC must follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with HCC or HBC; and that the loans must not involve a greater than normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to HBC. Furthermore, HBC must periodically report all loans made to directors and other insiders to the bank regulators.

Safety and Soundness Standards/Risk Management. The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines establishing operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of federally insured depository institutions. The guidelines set forth standards for internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality and earnings.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the financial institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If a financial institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the financial institution’s rate of growth, require the financial institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

During the past decade, the bank regulatory agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of sound risk management processes and strong internal controls when evaluating the activities of the financial institutions they supervise. Properly managing risks has been identified as critical to the conduct of safe and sound banking activities and has become even more important as new technologies, product innovation, and the size and speed of financial transactions have changed the nature of banking markets. The agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking institution including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal, and reputational risk. In particular, recent regulatory pronouncements have focused on operational risk, which arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. New products and services, third-party risk management and cybersecurity are critical sources of operational risk that financial institutions are expected to address in the current environment. HBC is expected to have active board and senior management oversight; adequate policies, procedures, and limits; adequate risk measurement, monitoring, and management information systems; and comprehensive internal controls.

Branching Authority. California law permits California banks, such as HBC, to establish an additional banking office with notice to the DBO. Deposit-taking banking offices must be also be approved by the FDIC, which considers a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate power. The Dodd-Frank Act permits insured state banks to engage in interstate branching if the laws of the state where the new banking office is to be established would permit the establishment of the banking office if it were chartered by a bank in such state.

Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA is intended to encourage insured depository institutions, while operating safely and soundly, to help meet the credit needs of their communities. The CRA specifically directs the federal bank regulatory agencies, in examining insured depository institutions, to assess their record of helping to meet the credit needs of their entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The CRA further requires the agencies to take a financial institution’s record of meeting its community credit needs into account when evaluating applications for, among other things, domestic branches, consummating mergers or acquisitions or holding company formations.

The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations which measure a bank’s compliance with its CRA obligations on a performance based evaluation system. This system bases CRA ratings on an institution’s actual lending service and investment performance rather than the extent to which the institution conducts needs assessments, documents community outreach or complies with other procedural requirements. The ratings range from “outstanding” to a low of “substantial noncompliance.” HBC had a CRA rating of “satisfactory” as of its most recent regulatory examination.

Anti-Money Laundering and the Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or the Patriot Act, is designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the U.S. financial system and has significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act, substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Financial institutions are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must use enhanced due diligence procedures in their dealings with certain types of high risk customers and implement a written customer identification program. Financial institutions must take certain steps to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and report certain types of suspicious transactions. Regulatory authorities routinely examine financial institutions for compliance with these obligations, and failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries and regimes under authority of various laws, including designated foreign countries, nationals and others. OFAC publishes lists of specially designated targets and countries. Financial Institutions are responsible for, among other things, blocking accounts of and transactions with such targets and countries, prohibiting unlicensed trade and financial transactions with them and reporting blocked transactions after their occurrence.

Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate anti-money laundering and OFAC programs, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

We are subject to a number of federal and state consumer protection laws that extensively govern our relationship with our customers. These laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Service Members Civil Relief Act, the Military Lending Act, and these laws’ respective state law counterparts, as well as state usury laws and laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices. These and other federal

laws, among other things, require disclosures of the cost of credit and terms of deposit accounts, provide substantive consumer rights, prohibit discrimination in credit transactions, regulate the use of credit report information, provide financial privacy protections, prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive practices, restrict our ability to raise interest rates and subject us to substantial regulatory oversight. Violations of applicable consumer protection laws can result in significant potential liability from litigation brought by customers, including actual damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees. Federal bank regulators, state attorneys general and state and local consumer protection agencies may also seek to enforce consumer protection requirements and obtain these and other remedies, including regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by the state and local attorneys general in each jurisdiction in which we operate and civil money penalties. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in our failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions we may wish to pursue or our prohibition from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

Many states and local jurisdictions have consumer protection laws analogous, and in addition, to those listed above. These federal, state and local laws regulate the manner in which financial institutions deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans or conducting other types of transactions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could give rise to regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by state and local attorneys general and civil or criminal liability.

The structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services changed significantly on July 21, 2011, when the CFPB commenced operations to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws.

The consumer protection provisions of the Dodd Frank Act and the examination, supervision and enforcement of those laws and implementing regulations by the CFPB have created a more intense and complex environment for consumer finance regulation. The CFPB has significant authority to implement and enforce federal consumer protection laws and new requirements for financial services products provided for in the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as the authority to identify and prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices. The review of products and practices to prevent such acts and practices is a continuing focus of the CFPB, and of banking regulators more broadly. The ultimate impact of this heightened scrutiny is uncertain but could result in changes to pricing, practices, products and procedures. It could also result in increased costs related to regulatory oversight, supervision and examination, additional remediation efforts and possible penalties. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act provides the CFPB with broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over various consumer financial products and services, including the ability to require reimbursements and other payments to customers for alleged legal violations and to impose significant penalties, as well as injunctive relief that prohibits lenders from engaging in allegedly unlawful practices. The CFPB also has the authority to obtain cease and desist orders providing for affirmative relief or monetary penalties. The Dodd-Frank Act does not prevent states from adopting stricter consumer protection standards. State regulation of financial products and potential enforcement actions could also adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over providers with more than $10 billion in assets. Banks and savings institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like HBC, will continue to be examined by their applicable bank regulators.

Mortgage and Mortgage-Related Products, Generally. Because abuses in connection with home mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the financial crisis, many new rules issued by the CFPB and required by the Dodd-Frank Act address mortgage and mortgage-related products, their underwriting, origination, servicing and sales. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property and augmented federal law combating predatory lending practices. In addition to numerous disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposed new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including banks and savings associations, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay, while also establishing a presumption of compliance for certain “qualified mortgages.” The Dodd-Frank Act generally required lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans that the lender sells, and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues, if the loans do not comply with the ability-to-repay standards described below. The risk retention requirement generally is 5%, but could be increased or decreased by regulation. HBC does not currently expect the CFPB’s rules to have a significant impact on its operations, except for higher compliance costs.

Ability-to-Repay Requirement and Qualified Mortgage Rule. On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s ability-to-repay requirements. Under the final rule, lenders, in assessing a borrower’s

ability to repay a mortgage-related obligation, must consider eight underwriting factors:  (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) monthly payment on the subject transaction; (iv) monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) monthly payment for all mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. The final rule also includes guidance regarding the application of and methodology for evaluating these factors.

Further, the final rule clarified that qualified mortgages do not include “no-doc” loans and loans with negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, terms in excess of 30 years, or points and fees paid by the borrower that exceed 3% of the loan amount, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, for qualified mortgages, the rule mandated that the monthly payment be calculated on the highest payment that will occur in the first five years of the loan, and required that the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio generally may not be more than 43%. The final rule also provided that certain mortgages that satisfy the general product feature requirements for qualified mortgages and that also satisfy the underwriting requirements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture or the Rural Housing Service are also considered to be qualified mortgages. This second category of qualified mortgages will phase out as the aforementioned federal agencies issue their own rules regarding qualified mortgages, the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ends, and, in any event, after seven years.

As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, subprime (or higher-priced) mortgage loans are subject to the ability-to-repay requirement, and the final rule provided for a rebuttable presumption of lender compliance for those loans. The final rule also applied the ability-to-repay requirement to prime loans, while also providing a conclusive presumption of compliance (i.e., a safe harbor) for prime loans that are also qualified mortgages. Additionally, the final rule generally prohibits prepayment penalties (subject to certain exceptions) and sets forth a 3-year record retention period with respect to documenting and demonstrating the ability-to-repay requirement and other provisions.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have issued comprehensive guidance intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of those organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The incentive compensation guidance sets expectations for banking organizations concerning their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk-management, control and governance processes. The incentive compensation guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon three primary principles: (i) balanced risk-taking incentives; (ii) compatibility with effective controls and risk management; and (iii) strong corporate governance. Any deficiencies in compensation practices that are identified may be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or take other actions. In addition, under the incentive compensation guidance, a banking organization’s federal supervisor may initiate enforcement action if the organization’s incentive compensation arrangements pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the organization. Further, Basel III limits discretionary bonus payments to bank executives if the institution’s regulatory capital ratios fail to exceed certain thresholds starting January 1, 2016. The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a non-affiliated third party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through financial services companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In addition, consumers may also prevent disclosure of certain information among affiliated companies that is assembled or used to determine eligibility for a product or service, such as that shown on consumer credit reports and asset and income information from applications. Consumers also have the option to direct banks and other financial institutions not to share information about transactions and experiences with affiliated companies for the purpose of marketing products or services.

The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has a significant effect on the operating results of financial or bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the tools available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market transactions in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

Other legislative and regulatory initiatives which could affect HCC, HBC and the banking industry in general may be proposed or introduced before the United States Congress, the California legislature and other governmental bodies in the future. Such proposals, if enacted, may further alter the structure, regulation and competitive relationship among financial institutions, and may subject HCC or HBC to increased regulation, disclosure and reporting requirements. In addition, the various banking regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulations may be enacted or the extent to which the business of HCC or HBC would be affected thereby.

On February 3, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order calling for his administration to review existing U.S. financial laws and regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act, in order to determine their consistency with a set of “core principles” of financial policy. The core financial principles identified in the executive order include the following: (i) empowering Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace, save for retirement, and build individual wealth; (ii) preventing taxpayer-funded bailouts; (iii) fostering economic growth and vibrant financial markets through more rigorous regulatory impact analysis that addresses systemic risk and market failures, such as moral hazard and information asymmetry; (iv) enabling American companies to be competitive with foreign firms in domestic and foreign markets; (v) advancing American interests in international financial regulatory negotiations and meetings; and (vi) restoring public accountability within Federal financial regulatory agencies and “rationalizing” the Federal financial regulatory framework.

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to continued rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us. Although the reforms primarily target systemically important financial service providers, the Dodd-Frank Act’s influence has and is expected to continue to filter down in varying degrees to smaller institutions over time. We will continue to evaluate the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act; however, in many respects, the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act will not be fully known for years, and no current assurance may be given that the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other new legislative changes, will not have a negative impact on the results of operations and financial condition of HCC and HBC.

ITEM 1A — RISK FACTORS

Our business, financial condition and results of operations are subject to various risks, including those discussed below. The risks discussed below are those that we believe are the most significant risks, although additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem less significant may also adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, perhaps materially.

Risks Relating to Our Industry

Our business and operations are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States, generally, and particularly the state of California and our market area. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions could lead to credit quality concerns related to borrower repayment ability and collateral protection as well as reduced demand for the products and services we offer. In recent years, there has been a gradual improvement in the U.S. economy as evidenced by a rebound in the housing market, lower unemployment and higher valuations in the equities markets; however, economic growth has been uneven, and opinions vary on the strength and direction of the economy. Uncertainties also have arisen regarding the potential for a reversal or renegotiation of international trade agreements and

for comprehensive tax reform under the administration of U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and the impact such actions and other policies of the new administration may have on economic and market conditions. In addition, concerns about the performance of international economies, especially in Europe and emerging markets, and economic conditions in Asia, can impact the economy and financial markets here in the United States. If the national, regional and local economies experience worsening economic conditions, including high levels of unemployment, our growth and profitability could be constrained. Weak economic conditions are characterized by, among other indicators, deflation, elevated levels of unemployment, fluctuations in debt and equity capital markets, increased delinquencies on mortgage, commercial and consumer loans, residential and commercial real estate price declines, and lower home sales and commercial activity. All of these factors are generally detrimental to our business. Our business is significantly affected by monetary and other regulatory policies of the U.S. federal government, its agencies and government-sponsored entities. Changes in any of these policies are influenced by macroeconomic conditions and other factors that are beyond our control, are difficult to predict and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects.

Shifts in short-term interest rates may reduce net interest income, which is the principal component of our earnings. Net interest income is the difference between the amounts received by us on our interest-earning assets and the interest paid by us on our interest-bearing liabilities. When interest rates rise, the rate of interest we receive on our assets, such as loans, rises more quickly than the rate of interest that we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits, which may cause our profits to increase. When interest rates decrease, the rate of interest we receive on our assets, such as loans, declines more quickly than the rate of interest that we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits, which may cause our profits to decrease. The impact on earnings is more adverse when the slope of the yield curve flattens, that is, when short-term interest rates increase more than long-term interest rates or when long-term interest rates decrease more than short-term interest rates.

Changes in interest rates, could influence our ability to originate loans and deposits. Historically, there has been an inverse correlation between the demand for loans and interest rates. Loan origination volume usually declines during periods of rising or high interest rates and increases during periods of declining or low interest rates. For example, mortgage production historically, including refinancing activity, declines in rising interest rate environments. Changes in interest rates also have a significant impact on the carrying value of certain of our assets, including loans, real estate and investment securities, on our balance sheet.

Interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers, which increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of any underlying property that serves as collateral for such loans may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates.

Changes in interest rates can also affect the level of loan refinancing activity, which impacts the amount of prepayment penalty income we receive on loans we hold. Because prepayment penalties are recorded as interest income when received, the extent to which they increase or decrease during any given period could have a significant impact on the level of net interest income and net income we generate during that time. A decrease in our prepayment penalty income resulting from any change in interest rates or as a result of regulatory limitations on our ability to charge prepayment penalties could therefore adversely affect our net interest income, net income or results of operations.

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

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. Rising interest rates will result in a decline in value of the fixed-rate debt securities we hold in our investment securities portfolio. The unrealized losses resulting from holding these securities would be recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and reduce total shareholders’ equity. Unrealized losses do not negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios; however,

tangible common equity and the associated ratios would be reduced. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and will reduce our regulatory capital ratios.

If short-term interest rates remain at their historically low levels for a prolonged period, and if longer term interest rates fall, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest-bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem. This would have a material adverse effect on our net interest income and our results of operations.

As of December 31, 2017, the fair value of our securities portfolio was approximately $786.1 million. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. For example, fixed-rate securities acquired by us are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities or our own analysis of the value of the security, defaults by the issuer or individual mortgagors with respect to the underlying securities, and continued instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause other-than-temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, we may recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and/or investment securities and from other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our most important source of funds consists of our customer deposits. Such deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market, as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into other investments, we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, which would require us to seek wholesale funding alternatives in order to continue to grow, thereby increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

Other primary sources of funds consist of cash from operations and mortgage-backed securities prepayments. Additional liquidity is provided by our ability to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. We also may borrow from third-party lenders from time to time. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities on terms that are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry.

Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to continue to implement our strategic plan, including our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses, or to fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Competition among U.S. banks for customer deposits is intense, may increase the cost of retaining current deposits or procuring new deposits, and may otherwise negatively affect our ability to grow our deposit base. Any changes we make to the rates offered on our deposit products to remain competitive with other financial institutions may adversely affect our profitability and liquidity. Interest-bearing accounts earn interest at rates established by management based on competitive market factors. Maintaining and attracting new deposits is integral to our business and a major decline in deposits or failure to attract deposits in the future, including any such decline or failure related to an increase in interest rates paid by our competitors on interest-bearing accounts, could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and

financial condition. The demand for the deposit products we offer may also be reduced due to a variety of factors, such as demographic patterns, changes in customer preferences, reductions in consumers’ disposable income, regulatory actions that decrease customer access to particular products, or the availability of competing products. An inability to grow, or any material decrease in, our deposits could have a material adverse effect on our cost of funds and our ability to satisfy our liquidity needs.

The operation of our business requires us to manage credit risk. As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our borrowers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms, and that the collateral securing repayment of their loans, if any, may not be sufficient to ensure repayment. In addition, there are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions and risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers. In order to successfully manage credit risk, we must, among other things, maintain disciplined and prudent underwriting standards and ensure that our bankers follow those standards. The weakening of these standards for any reason, such as an attempt to attract higher yielding loans, a lack of discipline or diligence by our employees in underwriting and monitoring loans, the inability of our employees to adequately adapt policies and procedures to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting borrowers and the quality of our loan portfolio, may result in loan defaults, foreclosures and additional charge-offs and may necessitate that we significantly increase our allowance for loan losses, each of which could adversely affect our net income. As a result, our inability to successfully manage credit risk could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

An important feature of our credit risk management system is our use of an internal credit risk rating and control system through which we identify, measure, monitor and mitigate existing and emerging credit risk of our customers. As this process involves detailed analysis of the customer or credit risk, taking into account both quantitative and qualitative factors, it is subject to human error. In exercising their judgment, our employees may not always be able to assign an accurate credit rating to a customer or credit risk, which may result in our exposure to higher credit risks than indicated by our risk rating and control system. Although our management seeks to address possible credit risk proactively, it is possible that the credit risk rating and control system will not identify credit risk in our loan portfolio and that we may fail to manage credit risk effectively.

Some of our tools and metrics for managing credit risk and other risks are based upon our use of observed historical market behavior and assumptions. We rely on quantitative models to measure risks and to estimate certain financial values. Models may be used in such processes as determining the pricing of various products, grading loans and extending credit, measuring interest rates and other market risks, predicting losses, assessing capital adequacy and calculating regulatory capital levels, as well as estimating the value of financial instruments and balance sheet items. Poorly designed or implemented models present the risk that our business decisions based on information incorporating such models will be adversely affected due to the inadequacy of that information. Moreover, our models may fail to predict future risk exposures if the information used in the model is incorrect, obsolete or not sufficiently comparable to actual events as they occur, or if our model assumptions prove incorrect. We seek to incorporate appropriate historical data in our models, but the range of market values and behaviors reflected in any period of historical data is not at all times predictive of future developments in any particular period and the period of data we incorporate into our models may turn out to be inappropriate for the future period being modeled. In such case, our ability to manage risk would be limited and our risk exposure and losses could be significantly greater than our models indicated.

Real estate lending (including commercial, land development and construction, and purchased residential mortgage loans) is a large portion of our loan portfolio. At December 31, 2017, approximately $997.5 million, or 63% of our loan portfolio, was secured by various forms of real estate, including residential and commercial real estate. Included in the loans secured by real estate were $450.1 million or 45% of owner occupied loans. The real estate securing our loan portfolio is concentrated in California. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the geographic area in which the real estate is located.

As a result, adverse developments affecting real estate values in our market areas could increase the credit risk associated with our real estate loan portfolio. The market value of real estate can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the geographic area in which the real estate is located. Real estate values and real estate markets are generally affected by changes in national, regional or local economic conditions, the rate of unemployment, fluctuations in interest rates and the availability of loans to potential purchasers, changes in tax laws and other governmental statutes, regulations and policies and acts of nature, such as earthquakes and natural disasters. Adverse changes affecting real estate values and the liquidity of real estate in one or more of our markets could increase the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio, significantly impair the value of property pledged as collateral on loans and affect our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure without a loss or additional losses, which could result in losses that would adversely affect profitability. Such declines and losses would have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and growth prospects. In addition, if hazardous or toxic substances are found on properties pledged as collateral, the value of the real estate could be impaired. If we foreclose on and take title to such properties, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses to address unknown liabilities and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property.

At December 31, 2017, land and construction loans, including land acquisition and development totaled $100.9 million or 6% of our loan portfolio. This amount was comprised of 13% owner occupied and 87% non-owner occupied construction and land loans. Risk of loss on a construction loan depends largely upon whether our initial estimate of the property’s value at completion of construction equals or exceeds the cost of the property construction (including interest) and the availability of permanent take out financing. During the construction phase, a number of factors can result in delays and cost overruns. Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs, as well as the market value of the completed project, it is relatively difficult to evaluate accurately the total funds required to complete a project and the related loan to value ratio. As a result, construction loans often involve the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent primarily on the completion of the project and the ability of the borrower to sell the property, rather than the ability of the borrower or guarantor to repay principal and interest. If estimates of value are inaccurate or if actual construction costs exceed estimates, the value of the property securing the loan may be insufficient to ensure full repayment. If our appraisal of the value of the completed project proves to be overstated, our collateral may be inadequate for the repayment of the loan upon completion of construction of the project. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to or at completion due to a default, there can be no assurance that we will be able to recover all of the unpaid balance of and accrued interest on the loan as well as related foreclosure and holding costs. In addition, we may be required to fund additional amounts to complete the project and may have to hold the property for an unspecified period of time.

As a part of their regulatory oversight, the federal regulators have issued the CRE Concentration Guidance on sound risk management practices with respect to a financial institution’s concentrations in commercial real estate lending activities. These guidelines were issued in response to the agencies’ concerns that rising commercial real estate, or CRE, concentrations might expose institutions to unanticipated earnings and capital volatility in the event of adverse changes in the commercial real estate market. Existing guidance reinforces and enhances existing regulations and guidelines for safe and sound real estate lending by providing supervisory criteria, including numerical indicators to assist in identifying institutions with potentially significant commercial real estate loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny. The guidance does not limit banks’ commercial real estate lending, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their commercial real estate concentrations. The CRE Concentration Guidance identifies certain concentration levels that, if exceeded, will expose the institution to additional supervisory analysis with regard to the institution’s CRE concentration risk. The CRE Concentration Guidance is designed to promote appropriate levels of capital and sound loan and risk management practices for institutions with a concentration of CRE loans. In general, the CRE Concentration Guidance establishes the following supervisory criteria as preliminary indications of possible CRE concentration risk: (i) the institution’s total construction, land development and other land loans represent 100% or more of total risk-based capital; or (ii) total CRE loans as defined in the regulatory guidelines represent 300% or more of total risk-based capital, and the institution’s CRE loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the prior 36-month period. Pursuant to the CRE Concentration Guidelines, loans secured by owner occupied commercial real estate are not included for purposes of CRE Concentration calculation. We

believe that the CRE Concentration Guidance is applicable to us. We believe that our underwriting policies, management information systems, independent credit administration process, and monitoring of real estate loan concentrations are currently sufficient to address the CRE Concentration Guidance.

In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property we generally require an appraisal of the property. However, an appraisal is only an estimate of the value of the property at the time the appraisal is conducted, and an error in fact or judgment could adversely affect the reliability of an appraisal. In addition, events occurring after the initial appraisal may cause the value of the real estate to decrease. As a result of any of these factors the value of collateral securing a loan may be less than estimated, and if a default occurs we may not recover the outstanding balance of the loan.

At December 31, 2017, commercial loans totaled $573.3 million or 36% of our loan portfolio, (including SBA guaranteed loans and factored receivables). Commercial lending involves risks that are different from those associated with residential and commercial real estate lending. Real estate lending is generally considered to be collateral based lending with loan amounts based on predetermined loan to collateral values and liquidation of the underlying real estate collateral being viewed as the primary source of repayment in the event of borrower default. Our commercial loans are primarily made based on the cash flows of the borrowers and secondarily on any underlying collateral provided by the borrowers. A borrower’s cash flows may be unpredictable, and collateral securing those loans may fluctuate in value. Although commercial loans are often collateralized by equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, or other business assets, the liquidation of collateral in the event of default is often an insufficient source of repayment because accounts receivable may be uncollectible and inventories may be obsolete or of limited use, among other things.

We target our business development and marketing strategy primarily to serve the banking and financial services needs of small to medium-sized businesses. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities, frequently have smaller market shares than their competition, may be more vulnerable to economic downturns, often need substantial additional capital to expand or compete and may experience substantial volatility in operating results, any of which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan. In addition, the success of a small and medium-sized business often depends on the management talents and efforts of one or two people or a small group of people, and the death, disability or resignation of one or more of these people could have a material adverse impact on the business and its ability to repay its loan. If general economic conditions negatively impact the markets in which we operate and small to medium-sized businesses are adversely affected or our borrowers are otherwise affected by adverse business developments, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We mitigate the risks inherent in our loan portfolio by adhering to sound and proven underwriting practices, managed by experienced and knowledgeable credit professionals. These practices include analysis of a borrower’s prior credit history, financial statements, tax returns, and cash flow projections, valuations of collateral based on reports of independent appraisers and verifications of liquid assets. Although we believe that our underwriting criteria is appropriate for the various kinds of loans we make, we may incur losses on loans that meet our underwriting criteria, and these losses may exceed the amounts set aside as reserves in our allowance for loan loss.

Our SBA lending program is dependent upon the U.S. federal government. As an approved participant in the SBA Preferred Lender’s Program (an “SBA Preferred Lender”), we enable our clients to obtain SBA loans without being subject to the potentially lengthy SBA approval process necessary for lenders that are not SBA Preferred Lenders. The SBA periodically reviews the lending operations of participating lenders to assess, among other things, whether the lender exhibits prudent risk management. When weaknesses are identified, the SBA may request corrective actions or impose enforcement actions, including revocation of the lender’s SBA Preferred Lender status. If we lose our status as an SBA Preferred Lender, we may lose some or all of our customers to lenders who are SBA Preferred Lenders, and as a result we could experience a material adverse effect to our financial results. Any changes to the SBA program, including but not limited to changes to the level of guarantee provided by the federal government on SBA loans, changes to program specific rules impacting volume eligibility under the guaranty program, as well as changes to the program amounts authorized by Congress may also have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, any default by the U.S. government on its obligations or any prolonged government shutdown could, among other things, impede our ability to originate SBA loans or sell such loans in the secondary market, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The SBA’s 7(a) Loan Program is the SBA’s primary program for helping start-up and existing small businesses, with financing guaranteed for a variety of general business purposes. Generally, we sell the guaranteed portion of our SBA 7(a) loans in the secondary market. These sales result in premium income for us at the time of sale and create a stream of future servicing income, as we retain the servicing rights to these loans. For the reasons described above, we may not be able to continue originating these loans or sell them in the secondary market. Furthermore, even if we are able to continue to originate and sell SBA 7(a) loans in the secondary market, we might not continue to realize premiums upon the sale of the guaranteed portion of these loans or the premiums may decline due to economic and competitive factors. When we originate SBA loans, we incur credit risk on the non-guaranteed portion of the loans, and if a customer defaults on a loan, we share any loss and recovery related to the loan pro-rata with the SBA. If the SBA establishes that a loss on an SBA guaranteed loan is attributable to significant technical deficiencies in the manner in which the loan was originated, funded or serviced by us, the SBA may seek recovery of the principal loss related to the deficiency from us. Generally, we do not maintain reserves or loss allowances for such potential claims and any such claims could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The laws, regulations and standard operating procedures that are applicable to SBA loan products may change in the future. We cannot predict the effects of these changes on our business and profitability. Because government regulation greatly affects the business and financial results of all commercial banks and bank holding companies and especially our organization, changes in the laws, regulations and procedures applicable to SBA loans could adversely affect our ability to operate profitably.

We expect that gains on the sale of U.S. government guaranteed loans will contribute to noninterest income. The gains on such sales recognized for the year ended December 31, 2017 was $1.1 million. The determination of these gains is based on assumptions regarding the value of unguaranteed loans retained, servicing rights retained and deferred fees and costs, and net premiums paid by purchasers of the guaranteed portions of U.S. government guaranteed loans. The value of retained unguaranteed loans and servicing rights are determined based on market derived factors such as prepayment rates, current market conditions and recent loan sales. Deferred fees and costs are determined using internal analysis of the cost to originate loans. Significant errors in assumptions used to compute gains on sale of loans or servicing asset valuations could result in material revenue misstatements, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and profitability. In addition, while we believe these valuations reflect fair value and such valuations are subject to validation by an independent third party, if such valuations are not reflective of fair market value then our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially and adversely affected.

We originated $19.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 of SBA loans. We sold $13.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 of the guaranteed portion of our SBA loans. We generally retain the non-guaranteed portions of the SBA loans that we originate. Consequently, as of December 31, 2017, we held $66.9 million of SBA loans on our balance sheet, $47.1 million of which consisted of the non-guaranteed portion of SBA loans and $3.4 million, or 5.1%, consisted of the guaranteed portion of SBA loans which we intend to sell later in 2018. The non-guaranteed portion of SBA loans have a higher degree of credit risk and risk of loss as compared to the guaranteed portion of such loans. To the extent the borrowers of such loans experience financial difficulties, our financial condition and results of operations would be adversely impacted.

When we sell the guaranteed portion of SBA loans in the ordinary course of business, we are required to make certain representations and warranties to the purchaser about the SBA loans and the manner in which they were originated. Under these agreements, we may be required to repurchase the guaranteed portion of the SBA loan if we have breached any of these representations or warranties, in which case we may record a loss. In addition, if repurchase and indemnity demands increase on loans that we sell from our portfolios, our liquidity, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

As of December 31, 2017, our nonperforming loans (which consist of nonaccrual loans, loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest and loans modified under troubled debt restructurings) totaled $2.5 million, or 0.16% of our loan portfolio, and our nonperforming assets (which include nonperforming loans plus other real estate owned) totaled $2.5 million, or 0.09% of total assets. In addition, we had $5.3 million in accruing loans that were 30-89 days delinquent as of December 31, 2017.

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

We maintain an allowance for loan losses for probable incurred losses in our loan portfolio. The allowance is established through a provision for loan losses based on management’s evaluation of the risks inherent in the loan portfolio and the general economy. The allowance is also appropriately increased for new loan growth. The allowance is based upon a number of factors, including the size of the loan portfolio, asset classifications, economic trends, industry experience and trends, industry and geographic concentrations, estimated collateral values, management’s assessment of the credit risk inherent in the portfolio, historical loan loss experience and loan underwriting policies. The allowance is only an estimate of the probable incurred losses in the loan portfolio and may not represent actual losses realized over time, either of losses in excess of the allowance or of losses less than the allowance.

In addition, we evaluate all loans identified as impaired loans and allocate an allowance based upon our estimation of the potential loss associated with those problem loans. While we strive to carefully manage and monitor credit quality and to identify loans that may be deteriorating, at any time there are loans included in the portfolio that may result in losses, but that have not yet been identified as non-performing or potential problem loans. Through established credit

practices, we attempt to identify deteriorating loans and adjust the allowance for loan losses accordingly. However, because future events are uncertain and because we may not successfully identify all deteriorating loans in a timely manner, there may be loans that deteriorate in an accelerated time frame. We cannot be sure that we will be able to identify deteriorating loans before they become nonperforming assets, or that we will be able to limit losses on those loans that have been so identified. Changes in economic, operating and other conditions which are beyond our control, including interest rate fluctuations, deteriorating values in underlying collateral (most of which consists of real estate), and changes in the financial condition of borrowers, may cause our estimate of probable losses or actual loan losses to exceed our current allowance. As a result, future additions to the allowance may be necessary. Further, because the loan portfolio contains a number of commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, deterioration in the credit quality of one or more of these loans may require a significant increase to the allowance for loan losses.

As of December 31, 2017, our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans was 1.24% and as a percentage of total nonperforming loans was 791.07%. Although management believes that the allowance for loan losses is adequate to absorb losses on any existing loans that may become uncollectible, we may be required to take additional provisions for loan losses in the future to further supplement the allowance for loan losses, either due to management’s decision to do so or because our banking regulators require us to do so. Our bank regulatory agencies will periodically review our allowance for loan losses and the value attributed to nonaccrual loans or to real estate acquired through foreclosure and may require us to adjust our determination of the value for these items. These adjustments may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the aftermath of the 2007-2008 financial crisis, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, decided to review how banks estimate losses in the allowance for loan loss calculation, and it issued the final Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL, standard on June 16, 2016. Currently, the impairment model used by financial institutions is based on incurred losses, and loans are recognized as impaired when there is no longer an assumption that future cash flows will be collected in full under the originally contracted terms. This model will be replaced by the CECL model that will become effective for HBC for the fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2019 in which financial institutions will be required to use historical information, current conditions and reasonable forecasts to estimate the expected loss over the life of the loan. Management established a task force to begin the implementation process. The transition to the CECL model will require significantly greater data requirements and changes to methodologies to accurately account for expected loss. It is likely that HBC will be required to increase its reserves and allowance for loan loss as a result of the implementation of CECL.

We plan to continue to grow our business organically. However, from time to time, we may consider potential acquisition opportunities that we believe support our business strategy and may enhance our profitability. We face significant competition from numerous other financial services institutions, many of which will have greater financial resources than we do, when considering acquisition opportunities. Accordingly, attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying or completing any future acquisitions.

Acquisitions of financial institutions involve operational risks and uncertainties and acquired companies may have unforeseen liabilities, exposure to asset quality problems, key employee and customer retention problems and other problems that could negatively affect our organization. We may not be able to complete future acquisitions and, if we do complete such acquisitions, we may not be able to successfully integrate the operations, management, products and services of the entities that we acquire and eliminate redundancies. The integration process could result in the loss of key employees or disruption of the combined entity’s ongoing business or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures, and policies that adversely affect our ability to maintain relationships with customers and employees or achieve the anticipated benefits of the transaction. The integration process may also require significant time and attention from our management that they would otherwise direct at servicing existing business and developing new business. We may not be able to realize any projected cost savings, synergies or other benefits associated with any such acquisition we complete.

While our management is experienced in acquisition strategy and implementation, acquisitions involve inherent uncertainty and we cannot determine all potential events, facts and circumstances that could result in loss or give assurances that our investigation or mitigation efforts will be sufficient to protect against any such loss.

In addition, we must generally satisfy a number of meaningful conditions prior to completing any acquisition, including, in certain cases, federal and state bank regulatory approval. Bank regulators consider a number of factors when determining whether to approve a proposed transaction, including the effect of the transaction on financial stability and the ratings and compliance history of all institutions involved, including the CRA, examination results and anti money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act compliance records of all institutions involved. The process for obtaining required regulatory approvals has become substantially more difficult as a result of the financial crisis, which could affect our future business. We may fail to pursue, evaluate or complete strategic and competitively significant business opportunities as a result of our inability, or our perceived inability, to obtain any required regulatory approvals in a timely manner or at all.

In connection with our growth strategy, we have issued, and may issue in the future, shares of our common stock to acquire additional banks or bank holding companies that may complement our organizational structure. Resales of substantial amounts of common stock in the public market and the potential of such sales could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock and impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of equity securities. We usually must pay an acquisition premium above the fair market value of acquired assets for the acquisition of banks or bank holding companies. Paying this acquisition premium, in addition to the dilutive effect of issuing additional shares, may also adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common stock.

If our estimates of segment fair value change due to changes in our businesses or other factors, we may determine that impairment charges on goodwill recorded as a result of acquisitions are necessary. Estimates of fair value are determined based on a complex model using cash flows, the fair value of our Company as determined by our stock price, and company comparisons. If management’s estimates of future cash flows are inaccurate, fair value determined could be inaccurate and impairment may not be recognized in a timely manner. If the fair value of the Company declines, we may need to recognize goodwill impairment in the future which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and capital levels.

In business combinations, we acquire significant portfolios of loans that are marked to their estimated fair value. There is no assurance that the acquired loans will not suffer deterioration in value. The fluctuations in national, regional and local economic conditions, including those related to local residential, commercial real estate and construction markets, may increase the level of charge offs in the loan portfolio that we acquire and correspondingly reduce our net income. These fluctuations are not predictable, cannot be controlled and may have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition, even if other favorable events occur.

We seek to expand our franchise safely and consistently. A successful growth strategy requires us to manage multiple aspects of our business simultaneously, such as following adequate loan underwriting standards, balancing loan and deposit growth without increasing interest rate risk or compressing our net interest margin, maintaining sufficient capital, maintaining proper system and controls, and recruiting, training and retaining qualified professionals. We also may experience a lag in profitability associated with new branch openings. As part of our general growth strategy we may expand into additional communities or attempt to strengthen our position in our current markets by opening new offices, subject to any regulatory constraints on our ability to open new offices. To the extent that we are able to open additional offices, we are likely to experience the effects of higher operating expenses relative to operating income from the new operations for a period of time which would have an adverse effect on our levels of reported net income, return on average equity and return on average assets.

From time to time, we may implement or may acquire new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and new products and services we may invest significant time and resources. We may not achieve target timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and new products or services and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as regulatory compliance obligations, competitive alternatives, and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

In July 2013, the U.S. federal banking authorities approved the implementation of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms, or Basel III, and issued rules effecting certain changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Basel III is applicable to all U.S. banks that are subject to minimum capital requirements as well as to bank and saving and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies” (generally bank holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $1.0 billion). Basel III not only increases most of the required minimum regulatory capital ratios, it introduces a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio and the concept of a capital conservation buffer. Basel III also expands the current definition of capital by establishing additional criteria that capital instruments must meet to be considered additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital. In order to be a “well-capitalized” depository institution under the new regime, an institution must maintain a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5% or more; a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% or more; a total capital ratio of 10% or more; and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% or more. The Basel III capital rules became effective as applied to HBC on January 1, 2015 with a phase-in period that generally extends through January 1, 2019 for many of the changes.

The failure to meet applicable regulatory capital requirements could result in one or more of our regulators placing limitations or conditions on our activities, including our growth initiatives, or restricting the commencement of new activities, and could affect customer and investor confidence, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to pay dividends on our common stock, our ability to make acquisitions, and our business, results of operations and financial conditions, generally.

We face significant capital and other regulatory requirements as a financial institution.  We may need to raise additional capital in the future to provide us with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet our commitments and business needs, which could include the possibility of financing acquisitions. In addition, the Company, on a consolidated basis, and HBC, on a stand-alone basis, must meet certain regulatory capital requirements and maintain sufficient liquidity. Importantly, regulatory capital requirements could increase from current levels, which could require us to raise additional capital or contract our operations. Our ability to raise additional capital depends on conditions in the capital markets, economic conditions and a number of other factors, including investor perceptions regarding the banking industry, market conditions and governmental activities, and on our financial condition and performance. Any occurrence that may limit our access to the capital markets may adversely affect our capital costs and our ability to raise capital. Moreover, if we need to raise capital in the future, we may have to do so when many other financial institutions are also seeking to raise capital and would have to compete with those institutions for investors. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital if needed or on terms acceptable to us. If we fail to maintain capital to meet regulatory requirements, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.

Our success depends, in large degree, on the skills of our management team and our ability to retain, recruit and motivate key officers and employees. Our senior management team has significant industry experience, and their knowledge and relationships would be difficult to replace. Leadership changes will occur from time to time, and we cannot predict whether significant resignations will occur or whether we will be able to recruit additional qualified personnel. Competition for senior executives and skilled personnel in the financial services and banking industry is intense, which means the cost of hiring, incenting and retaining skilled personnel may continue to increase. We need to continue to attract and retain key personnel and to recruit qualified individuals to succeed existing key personnel to ensure the continued growth and successful operation of our business. In addition, as a provider of relationship-based commercial banking services, we must attract and retain qualified banking personnel to continue to grow our business, and competition for such personnel can be intense. Our ability to effectively compete for senior executives and other qualified personnel by offering competitive compensation and benefit arrangements may be restricted by applicable banking laws and regulations as discussed in “Supervision and Regulation—Incentive Compensation.” The loss of the services of any senior executive and, in particular our President and Chief Executive Officer, or other key personnel, or the inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in the future, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, to attract and retain personnel with appropriate skills and knowledge to support our business, we may offer a variety of benefits, which could reduce our earnings or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

We face substantial competition in all phases of our operations from a variety of different competitors. Our competitors, including larger commercial banks, community banks, savings and loan associations, mutual savings banks, credit unions, consumer finance companies, insurance companies, securities dealers, brokers, mortgage bankers, investment advisors, money market mutual funds and other financial institutions, compete with lending and deposit gathering services offered by us. Many of these competing institutions have much greater financial and marketing resources than we have. Due to their size, many competitors can achieve larger economies of scale and may offer a broader range of products and services than we can. If we are unable to offer competitive products and services, our business may be negatively affected. Some of the financial services organizations with which we compete are not subject to the same degree of regulation as is imposed on bank holding companies and federally insured financial institutions or are not subject to increased supervisory oversight arising from regulatory examinations. As a result, these non-bank competitors have certain advantages over us in accessing funding and in providing various services.

We anticipate intense competition will continue for the coming year due to the recent consolidation of many financial institutions and more changes in legislature, regulation and technology. Further, we expect loan demand to continue to be challenging due to the uncertain economic climate and the intensifying competition for creditworthy borrowers, both of which could lead to loan rate concession pressure and could impact our ability to generate profitable loans. We expect we may see tighter competition in the industry as banks seek to take market share in the most profitable customer segments, particularly the small business segment and the mass affluent segment, which offers a rich source of deposits as well as more profitable and less risky customer relationships. Further, with the rebound of the equity markets our deposit customers may perceive alternative investment opportunities as providing superior expected returns. Technology and other changes have made it more convenient for bank customers to transfer funds into alternative investments or other deposit accounts such as online virtual banks and non-bank service providers. The current low interest rate environment could increase such transfers of deposits to higher yielding deposits or other investments. Efforts and initiatives we undertake to retain and increase deposits, including deposit pricing, can increase our costs. When our customers move money into higher yielding deposits or in favor of alternative investments, we can lose a relatively inexpensive source of funds, thus increasing our funding costs.

New technology and other changes are allowing parties to effectuate financial transactions that previously required the involvement of banks. For example, consumers can maintain funds in brokerage accounts or mutual funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and access to lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Increased competition in our markets may result in reduced loans, deposits and commissions and brokers’ fees, as well as reduced net interest margin and profitability. Ultimately, we may not be able to compete successfully against current and future competitors. If we are unable to attract and retain banking and mortgage loan customers and expand our sales market for such loans, then we may be unable to continue to grow our business and our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We may be involved from time to time in a variety of litigation, investigations or similar matters arising out of our business. It is inherently difficult to assess the outcome of these matters, and we may not prevail in any proceedings or litigation. Our insurance may not cover all claims that may be asserted against us and indemnification rights to which we are entitled may not be honored, and any claims asserted against us, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, may harm our reputation. Should the ultimate judgments or settlements in any litigation or investigation significantly exceed our insurance coverage, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, premiums for insurance covering the financial and banking sectors are rising. We may not be able to obtain appropriate types or levels of insurance in the future, nor may we be able to obtain adequate replacement policies with acceptable terms or at historic rates, if at all.

In the course of our business, we may foreclose and take title to real estate, and could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or may be required to investigate or clear up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, as the owner or former owner of any contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages, and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity, and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

At December 31, 2017, we held company-owned life insurance (“COLI”) on current and former senior employees and executives, with a cash surrender value of $60.8 million, as compared with a cash surrender value of $59.1 million at December 31, 2016. The eventual repayment of the cash surrender value is subject to the ability of the various insurance companies to pay death benefits or to return the cash surrender value to us if needed for liquidity purposes. We continually monitor the financial strength of the various companies with whom we carry these policies. However, any one of these companies could experience a decline in financial strength, which could impair its ability to pay benefits or return our cash surrender value. If we need to liquidate these policies for liquidity purposes, we would be subject to taxation on the increase in cash surrender value and penalties for early termination, both of which would materially impact earnings adversely.

Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services companies are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, and other relationships. We have exposure to different industries and counterparties, and through transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, and other institutional clients. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services

companies, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. These losses or defaults could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Additionally, if our competitors were extending credit on terms we found to pose excessive risks, or at interest rates which we believed did not warrant the credit exposure, we may not be able to maintain our business volume and could experience deteriorating financial performance.

Severe weather, natural disasters (including earthquakes), acts of war or terrorism and other adverse external events could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct business. Such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue and/or cause us to incur additional expenses. For example, our primary market areas in California are subject to earthquakes, fires, and droughts. Operations in our market could be disrupted by both the evacuation of large portions of the population as well as damage to and/or lack of access to our banking and operation facilities. While we have not experienced such events to date, other severe weather or natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism or other adverse external events may occur in the future. Although management has established disaster recovery policies and procedures, the occurrence of any such events could have a material adverse effect on our business financial condition and results of operations.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to better serving customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions 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 as we continue to grow and expand our market area. We may experience operational challenges as we implement these new technology enhancements, or seek to implement them across all of our offices and business units, which could result in us not fully realizing the anticipated benefits from such new technology or require us to incur significant costs to remedy any such challenges in a timely manner.

Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. As a result, they may be able to offer additional or superior products to those that we will be able to offer, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, a risk exists that we will not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing such products and services to our customers.

We are a community bank, and our reputation is one of the most valuable components of our business. Threats to our reputation can come from many sources, including adverse sentiment about financial institutions generally, unethical practices, employee misconduct, failure to deliver minimum standards of service or quality, compliance deficiencies, and questionable or fraudulent activities of our customers. Negative publicity regarding our business, employees, or customers, with or without merit, may result in the loss of customers, investors and employees, costly litigation, a decline in revenues and increased governmental regulation. If our reputation is negatively affected, by the actions of our employees or otherwise, our business and, therefore, our operating results and the value of our common stock may be materially adversely affected.

Our risk management framework is comprised of various processes, systems and strategies, and is designed to manage the types of risk to which we are subject, including, among others, credit, market, liquidity, interest rate and compliance. Our framework also includes financial or other modeling methodologies that involve management

assumptions and judgment. Our risk management framework may not be effective under all circumstances and may not adequately mitigate any risk or loss to us. If our risk management framework is not effective, we could suffer unexpected losses and our business, financial condition, results of operations or growth prospects could be materially and adversely affected. We may also be subject to potentially adverse regulatory consequences.

The computer systems and network infrastructure we use could be vulnerable to hardware and cyber security issues. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer equipment against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event. We could also experience a breach by intentional or negligent conduct on the part of employees or other internal or external sources, including our third-party vendors. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect the computer systems and network infrastructure utilized by us, including our internet banking activities, against damage from physical break-ins, cyber security breaches and other disruptive problems caused by the internet or other users. Such computer break-ins and other disruptions would jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability, damage our reputation and inhibit the use of our internet banking services by current and potential customers, any of which may result in a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operation or market price of our common stock.

We rely heavily on communications, information systems (both internal and provided by third parties) and the internet to conduct our business. Our business is dependent on our ability to process and monitor large numbers of daily transactions in compliance with legal, regulatory and internal standards and specifications. In addition, a significant portion of our operations relies heavily on the secure processing, storage and transmission of personal and confidential information, such as the personal information of our customers and clients.

In addition, several U.S. financial institutions have recently experienced significant distributed denial-of-service attacks, some of which involved sophisticated and targeted attacks intended to disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems. Other potential attacks have attempted to obtain unauthorized access to confidential information or destroy data, often through the introduction of computer viruses or malware, cyber-attacks and other means. To date, none of these types of attacks have had a material effect on our business or operations. However, no assurances can be provided that we may not suffer from such an attack in the future that may cause us material harm. Such security attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources, including persons who are involved with organized crime or who may be linked to terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments. Those same parties may also attempt to fraudulently induce employees, customers or other users of our systems to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our data or that of our customers or clients. We are also subject to the risk that our employees may intercept and transmit unauthorized confidential or proprietary information. An interception, misuse or mishandling of personal, confidential or proprietary information being sent to or received from a customer or third party could result in legal liability, remediation costs, regulatory action and reputational harm to us.

Although we regularly add additional security measures to our computer systems and network infrastructure to mitigate the possibility of cyber security breaches, including firewalls and penetration testing. However, it is difficult or impossible to defend against every risk being posed by changing technologies as well as criminal intent on committing cyber-crime. Increasing sophistication of cyber criminals and terrorists make keeping up with new threats difficult and could result in a data security breach. Controls employed by our information technology department and cloud vendors could prove inadequate. A breach of our security that results in unauthorized access to our data could expose us to a disruption or challenges relating to our daily operations, as well as to data loss, litigation, damages, fines and penalties, significant increases in compliance costs and reputational damage, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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

We rely heavily on third-party service providers. Specifically, we receive core systems processing, essential web hosting and other internet systems, deposit processing and other processing services from third-party service providers. If these third-party service providers experience financial, operational, or technological difficulties or terminate their services and we are unable to replace them with other service providers, our operations could be interrupted. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period of time, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected, perhaps materially. Even if we are able to replace our service providers, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We offer various internet-based services to our clients, including online banking services. The secure transmission of confidential information over the Internet is essential to maintain our clients’ confidence in our online services. In certain cases, we are responsible for protecting customers’ proprietary information as well as their accounts with us. We have security measures and processes in place to defend against these cybersecurity risks but these cyber attacks are rapidly evolving (including computer viruses, malicious code, phishing or other information security breaches), and we may not be able to anticipate or prevent all such attacks, which could result in the unauthorized release, gathering, monitoring, misuse, loss or destruction of our or our customers’ confidential, proprietary and other information. Advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the technology we use to protect client transaction data. In addition, individuals, groups or sovereign countries may seek to intentionally disrupt our online banking services or compromise the confidentiality of customer information with criminal intent. Although we have developed systems and processes that are designed to recognize and assist in preventing security breaches (and periodically test our security), failure to protect against or mitigate breaches of security could adversely affect our ability to offer and grow our online services, constitute a breach of privacy or other laws, result in costly litigation and loss of customer relationships, negatively impact our reputation, and could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. We may not be insured against all types of losses as a result of breaches and insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all losses resulting from breaches of security. We may also incur substantial increases in costs in an effort to minimize or mitigate cyber security risks and to respond to cyber incidents.

In deciding whether to extend credit or to enter into other transactions with customers and counterparties, we rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of such customers and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. Some of the information regarding customers provided to us is also used in our proprietary credit decisioning and scoring models, which we use to determine whether to do business with customers and the risk profiles of such customers which are subsequently utilized by counterparties who lend us capital to fund our operations. We also rely on representations of customers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. While we have a practice of seeking to independently verify some of the customer information that we use in deciding whether to extend credit or to agree to a loan modification, including employment, assets, income and credit score, not all customer information is independently verified, and if any of the information that is independently verified (or any other information considered in the loan review process) is misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than expected. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the applicant, another third party or one of our employees, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. We may not detect all misrepresented information in our originations or from service providers we engage to assist in the approval process. Any such misrepresented information could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We obtain borrower credit information from consumer reporting agencies, such as TransUnion, Experian or Equifax, and assign loan grades to loan requests based on our credit decisioning that takes into account reported credit

score, other information reported by the consumer reporting agencies and the requested loan amount, in addition to a variety of other factors. A credit score or loan grade assigned to a borrower may not reflect that borrower’s actual creditworthiness because the credit score may be based on outdated, incomplete, fraudulent or inaccurate consumer reporting data, and we do not independently verify the information obtained from the borrower’s credit report. Additionally, there is a risk that, following the date of the credit report that we obtain and review, a borrower may have:

If borrowers default on loans that are not priced correctly, our reputation may be harmed and we may suffer other adverse effects.

Employee errors and employee and customer misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our customers or improper use of confidential information. It is not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Because the nature of the financial services business involves a high volume of transactions, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and successfully rectified. Our necessary dependence upon processing systems to record and process transactions and our large transaction volume may further increase the risk that employee tampering or manipulation of those systems will result in losses that are difficult to detect. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence.

Processes that management uses to estimate our probable credit losses and to measure the fair value of financial instruments, as well as the processes used to estimate the effects of changing interest rates and other market measures on our financial condition and results of operations, depend upon the use of analytical and forecasting models. These models reflect assumptions that may not be accurate, particularly in times of market stress or other unforeseen circumstances. Even if these assumptions are accurate, the models may prove to be inadequate or inaccurate because of other flaws in their design or their implementation.

If the models that management uses for interest rate risk and asset liability management are inadequate, we may incur increased or unexpected losses upon changes in market interest rates or other market measures. If the models that management uses for determining our probable credit losses are inadequate, the allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to support future charge offs. If the models that management uses to measure the fair value of financial instruments are inadequate, the fair value of such financial instruments may fluctuate unexpectedly or may not accurately reflect what we could realize upon sale or settlement of such financial instruments. Any such failure in management’s analytical or forecasting models could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

From time to time, the FASB or the SEC, may change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. Such changes may result in us being subject to new or changing accounting and reporting standards. In addition, the bodies that interpret the accounting standards (such as banking regulators or

outside auditors) may change their interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. These changes may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently, also retrospectively, in each case resulting in our needing to revise or restate prior period financial statements. Restating or revising our financial statements may result in reputational harm or may have other adverse effects on us.

We are required to comply with the SEC’s rules implementing Sections 302 and 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which will require management to certify financial and other information in our quarterly and annual reports and provide an annual management report on the effectiveness of controls over financial reporting. In particular, we are required to certify our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which requires us to furnish annually a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and our independent registered public accounting firm is required to report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

If we identify any material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting or are unable to comply with the requirements of Section 404 in a timely manner or assert that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, or if our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors, counterparties and customers may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial statements and reports; our liquidity, access to capital markets and perceptions of our creditworthiness could be adversely affected; and the market price of our common stock could decline. In addition, we could become subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the DBO or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources. These events could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Management regularly reviews and updates our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met.

Deferred tax assets and liabilities are the expected future tax amounts for the temporary differences between the carrying amounts and tax basis of assets and liabilities computed using enacted tax rates. We regularly assess available positive and negative evidence to determine whether it is more likely than not that our net deferred tax assets will be realized. Realization of a deferred tax asset requires us to apply significant judgment and is inherently speculative because it requires estimates that cannot be made with certainty. At December 31, 2017, we had a net deferred tax assets of $16.2 million. If we were to determine at some point in the future that we will not achieve sufficient future taxable income to realize our net deferred tax asset, we would be required, under generally accepted accounting principles, to establish a full or partial valuation allowance which would require us to incur a charge to operations for the period in which the determination was made.

We operate in a highly regulated environment and are subject to supervision and regulation by a number of governmental regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the DBO and the FDIC. Regulations adopted by these agencies, which are generally intended to provide protection for depositors and customers rather than for the benefit of shareholders, govern a comprehensive range of matters relating to ownership and control of our shares, our acquisition of other companies and businesses, permissible activities for us to engage in, maintenance of adequate capital levels, and other aspects of our operations. These bank regulators possess broad authority to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound

practices or violations of law. The laws and regulations applicable to the banking industry could change at any time and we cannot predict the effects of these changes on our business, profitability or growth strategy. Increased regulation could increase our cost of compliance and adversely affect profitability. Moreover, certain of these regulations contain significant punitive sanctions for violations, including monetary penalties and limitations on a bank’s ability to implement components of its business plan, such as expansion through mergers and acquisitions or the opening of new branch offices. In addition, changes in regulatory requirements may add costs associated with compliance efforts. Furthermore, government policy and regulation, particularly as implemented through the Federal Reserve System, significantly affect credit conditions. Negative developments in the financial industry and the impact of new legislation and regulation in response to those developments could negatively impact our business operations and adversely impact our financial performance.

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

Current and recent-past economic conditions, particularly in the financial markets, have resulted in government regulatory agencies and political bodies placing increased focus and scrutiny on the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly changed the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations thereunder affect large and small financial institutions, including several provisions that will affect how community banks, thrifts and small bank and thrift holding companies will be regulated in the future.

The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, imposed new capital requirements on bank holding companies; changed the base for FDIC insurance assessments to a bank’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, rather than upon its deposit base; and permanently raised the current standard deposit insurance limit to $250,000 and expanded the FDIC’s authority to raise insurance premiums. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve, which has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, home mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards, and contains provisions on mortgage-related matters, such as steering incentives, determinations as to a borrower’s ability to repay and prepayment penalties. Although the applicability of certain elements of the Dodd-Frank Act is limited to institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, there can be no guarantee that such applicability will not be extended in the future or that regulators or other third parties will not seek to impose such requirements on institutions with less than $10 billion in assets, such as HBC. Compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations has and will continue to result in additional operating and compliance costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

New proposals for legislation continue to be introduced in the U.S. Congress that could substantially increase regulation of the financial services industry, impose restrictions on the operations and general ability of firms within the industry to conduct business consistent with historical practices, including in the areas of compensation, interest rates, financial product offerings and disclosures, and have an effect on bankruptcy proceedings with respect to consumer residential real estate mortgages, among other things. Federal and state regulatory agencies also frequently adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. In addition, President Donald Trump has issued an executive order directing the review of existing financial regulations. The Trump administration has also indicated in public statements that the Dodd-Frank Act will be under scrutiny and that some of its provisions and the rules promulgated thereunder may be revised, repealed or amended. In June 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Financial Choice Act, which would revise, repeal and amend various provisions of and rules promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act. However, it has been indicated that the Financial Choice Act is not expected to be passed by the U.S. Senate in its current form. These statements and actions have created uncertainty regarding changes to the Dodd-Frank Act that could apply to us in the future.

Certain aspects of current or proposed regulatory or legislative changes, including to laws applicable to the financial industry, if enacted or adopted, may impact the profitability of our business activities, require more oversight or change certain of our business practices, including the ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory interest spreads, and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs. These changes also may require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to operations to comply, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, any proposed legislative or regulatory changes, including those that could benefit our business, financial condition and results of operations, may not occur on the timeframe that is proposed, or at all, which could result in additional uncertainty for our business.

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

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

The Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the DBO periodically examine our business, including our compliance with laws and regulations. If, as a result of an examination, a banking agency were to determine that our financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity or other aspects of any of our operations had become unsatisfactory, or that we were in violation of any law or regulation, they may take a number of different remedial actions as they deem appropriate. These actions include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative action to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital, to restrict our growth, to assess civil money penalties, to fine or remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate our deposit insurance and place us into receivership or conservatorship. Any regulatory action against us could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Community Reinvestment Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations prohibit discriminatory lending practices by financial institutions. The U.S. Department of Justice, federal banking agencies, and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A challenge to an institution’s compliance with fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, restrictions on expansion, and restrictions on entering new business lines. Private parties may also challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

The federal government has initiated a number of actions against mortgage lenders and servicers alleging violations of FIRREA and the FCA. Some of the actions against lenders allege that the lenders sold defective loans to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while representing that the loans complied with the government-sponsored enterprise’s

underwriting guidelines. The federal government has also brought actions against lenders asserting that they submitted claims for loans insured by the Fair Housing Administration, or FHA, that the lender falsely certified to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development met FHA underwriting requirements that resulted in FHA paying out millions of dollars in insurance claims to cover the defaulted loans. Other allegations involve the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), which is a federal program established to help eligible homeowners impacted by financial hardship by offering them loan modifications on their mortgages. HAMP requires participating mortgage servicers to file annual certifications that they have been truthful and accurate in their HAMP-related activities, including reports they submitted to the government in which they acknowledged that providing false or fraudulent information may violate the FCA. Actions have also been filed against certain banks alleging they improperly denied borrowers access to HAMP services, and submitted fraudulent certifications and accepted financial incentives for HAMP participation. Because these actions carry the possibility for treble damages, many have resulted in settlements totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as well as required lenders and servicers to make significant changes in their practices.

Various U.S. federal, state and local laws have been enacted that are designed to discourage predatory lending practices. The U.S. Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”) prohibits inclusion of certain provisions in mortgages that have interest rates or origination costs in excess of prescribed levels and requires that borrowers be given certain disclosures prior to origination. Some states have enacted, or may enact, similar laws or regulations, which in some cases impose restrictions and requirements greater than those in HOEPA. In addition, under the anti-predatory lending laws of some states, the origination of certain mortgages, including loans that are not classified as “high-cost” loans under applicable law, must satisfy a net tangible benefit test with respect to the related borrower. Such tests may be highly subjective and open to interpretation. As a result, a court may determine that a home mortgage, for example, does not meet the test even if the related originator reasonably believed that the test was satisfied. If any of our mortgages are found to have been originated in violation of predatory or abusive lending laws, we could incur losses, which could adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition and business.

We are subject to various privacy, information security and data protection laws, including requirements concerning security breach notification, and we could be negatively impacted by these laws. For example, our business is subject to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 which, among other things: (i) imposes certain limitations on our ability to share nonpublic personal information about our customers with nonaffiliated third parties; (ii) requires that we provide certain disclosures to customers about our information collection, sharing and security practices and afford customers the right to “opt out” of any information sharing by us with nonaffiliated third parties (with certain exceptions); and (iii) requires we develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program containing safeguards appropriate based on our size and complexity, the nature and scope of our activities, and the sensitivity of customer information we process, as well as plans for responding to data security breaches. Various state and federal banking regulators and states have also enacted data security breach notification requirements with varying levels of individual, consumer, regulatory or law enforcement notification in certain circumstances in the event of a security breach. Moreover, legislators and regulators in the United States are increasingly adopting or revising privacy, information security and data protection laws that potentially could have a significant impact on our current and planned privacy, data protection and information security-related practices, our collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer or employee information, and some of our current or planned business activities. This could also increase our costs of compliance and business operations and could reduce income from certain business initiatives. This includes increased privacy-related enforcement activity at the federal level, by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as at the state level, such as with regard to mobile applications.

Compliance with current or future privacy, data protection and information security laws (including those regarding security breach notification) affecting customer or employee data to which we are subject could result in higher compliance and technology costs and could restrict our ability to provide certain products and services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions or results of operations. Our failure to comply with privacy, data protection and information security laws could result in potentially significant regulatory or governmental investigations or actions, litigation, fines, sanctions and damage to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and to file reports such as suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports. We are required to comply with these and other anti-money laundering requirements. The federal banking agencies and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and have recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts against banks and other financial services providers with the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. We are also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions, which may include restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans.

Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

As a matter of policy, the Federal Reserve expects a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. The Dodd-Frank Act codified the Federal Reserve’s policy on serving as a source of financial strength. Under the “source of strength” doctrine, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to a subsidiary bank. A capital injection may be required at times when the bank holding company may not have the resources to provide it and therefore may be required to borrow the funds or raise capital. Any loans by a bank holding company to its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the institution’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be incurred by us to make a required capital injection to HBC becomes more difficult and expensive and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

An investment in our common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund or by any other public or private entity. Investment in our common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described herein, and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company. As a result, if you acquire our common stock, you could lose some or all of your investment.

The stock market and, in particular, the market for financial institution stocks, has experienced significant volatility. In some cases, the markets have produced downward pressure on stock prices for certain issuers without regard to those issuers’ underlying financial strength. As a result, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate more than usual and cause significant price variations to occur.

The trading price of the shares of our common stock will depend on many factors, which may change from time to time and which may be beyond our control, including, without limitation, our financial condition, performance, creditworthiness and prospects, future sales or offerings of our equity or equity related securities, and other factors identified above under “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” contained in this

report. These broad market fluctuations have adversely affected and may continue to adversely affect the market price of our common stock some of which are out of our control. Among the factors that could affect our stock price are:

Although our common stock is listed for trading on the Nasdaq, its trading volume is generally less than that of other, larger financial services companies, and investors are not assured that a liquid market will exist at any given time for our common stock. A public trading market having the desired characteristics of depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the marketplace at any given time of willing buyers and sellers of our common stock. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control. Given the lower trading volume of our common stock, significant sales of our common stock, or the expectation of these sales, could cause our stock price to fall.

Dodd-Frank requires federal banking agencies to establish more stringent risk-based capital guidelines and leverage limits applicable to banks and bank holding companies. In July 2013, the federal banking regulators issued final rules, which, among other things, are intended to implement in the United States the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s regulatory capital guidelines, including the reforms known as Basel III. The Basel III capital rules issued by the Federal Reserve provide that distributions (including dividend payments and redemptions) on additional Tier 1 capital instruments may only be paid out of net income, retained earnings, or surplus related to other additional Tier 1 capital

instruments. The Basel III capital rules also introduced a new capital conservation buffer on top of the minimum risk-based capital ratios. Failure to maintain a capital conservation buffer above certain levels will result in restrictions on HCC’s ability to make dividend payments, redemptions or other capital distributions. These requirements, and any other new regulations or capital distribution constraints, could adversely affect the ability of HBC to pay dividends to HCC and, in turn, affect HCC’s ability to pay dividends on the HCC common stock.

The Federal Reserve may also, as a supervisory matter, otherwise limit HCC’s ability to pay dividends on the HCC common stock.

We have included in our articles of incorporation a provision to eliminate the liability of directors for monetary damages to the maximum extent permitted by California law. The effect of this provision will be to reduce the situations in which we or our shareholders will be able to seek monetary damages from our directors.

Our bylaws also have a provision providing for indemnification of our directors and executive officers and advancement of litigation expenses to the fullest extent permitted or required by California law, including circumstances in which indemnification is otherwise discretionary. Also, we have entered into agreements with our officers and directors in which we similarly agreed to provide indemnification that is otherwise discretionary. Such indemnification may be available for liabilities arising in connection with future offerings.

We are generally not restricted from issuing additional shares of our common stock, up to the 60 million shares of voting common stock and 10 million shares of preferred stock authorized in our articles of incorporation (subject to Nasdaq shareholder approval rules), which in each case could be increased by a vote of a majority of our shares. We may issue additional shares of our common stock in the future pursuant to current or future equity compensation plans, upon conversions of preferred stock or debt, upon exercise of warrants or in connection with future acquisitions or financings. If we choose to raise capital by selling shares of our common stock for any reason, the issuance would have a dilutive effect on the holders of our common stock and could have a material negative effect on the market price of our common stock.

Although there are currently no shares of our preferred stock issued and outstanding, our articles of incorporation authorize us to issue up to 10 million shares of one or more series of preferred stock. The board also has the power, without shareholder approval (subject to Nasdaq shareholder approval rules), to set the terms of any series of preferred stock that may be issued, including voting rights, dividend rights, preferences over our common stock with respect to dividends or in the event of a dissolution, liquidation or winding up and other terms. In the event that we issue preferred stock in the future that has preference over our common stock with respect to payment of dividends or upon our liquidation, dissolution or winding up, or if we issue preferred stock with voting rights that dilute the voting power of our common stock, the rights of the holders of our common stock or the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected. In addition, the ability of our board of directors to issue shares of preferred stock without any action on the part of our shareholders may impede a takeover of us and prevent a transaction perceived to be favorable to our shareholders.

Provisions of our charter documents and the California General Corporation Law, or the CGCL, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial by our shareholders. Furthermore, with certain limited exceptions, federal regulations prohibit a person or company or a group of persons deemed to be “acting in concert” from, directly or indirectly, acquiring more than 10% (5% if the acquirer is a bank holding company) of any class of our voting stock or obtaining the ability to control in any manner the election of a majority of our directors or otherwise direct the management or policies of our company without prior notice or application to and the approval of the Federal Reserve. Under the California Financial Code, no person may, directly or indirectly, acquire control of a California state bank or its holding company unless the DBO has approved such acquisition of control. A person

would be deemed to have acquired control of HBC if such person, directly or indirectly, has the power: (i) to vote 25% or more of the voting power of HBC; or (ii) to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of HBC. For purposes of this law, a person who directly or indirectly owns or controls 10% or more of our outstanding common stock would be presumed to control HBC. Accordingly, prospective investors need to be aware of and comply with these requirements, if applicable, in connection with any purchase of shares of our common stock. Moreover, the combination of these provisions effectively inhibits certain mergers or other business combinations, which, in turn, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

On December 20, 2017, we entered into an into an agreement and plan of merger and reorganization with Tri-Valley Bank providing for the merger of Tri-Valley Bank with and into HBC, with HBC as the surviving entity, and on January 11, 2018, we entered into an agreement and plan of merger and reorganization with United American Bank and ATBancorp (its 83% percent shareholder) (collectively, the “Mergers”). The transactions are expected to be completed in the second quarter of 2018 pending the shareholder and regulatory approvals and the satisfaction of other customary closing conditions. We have incurred substantial expenses in connection with the negotiation and preparations for completion of the transactions contemplated by the Mergers. If either merger is not completed, we will have incurred these expenses without realizing the expected benefits of the respective merger. If the Mergers are not consummated for any reason, our ongoing business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected and the market price of our common stock may decline significantly, particularly to the extent that the current market price reflects a market assumption that the Mergers will be consummated. If the consummation of the Mergers is delayed, including by the receipt of a competing acquisition proposal or by reason of litigation, our business, financial condition and results of operations may also be materially adversely affected. In addition, our business may have been impacted adversely by the failure to pursue other beneficial opportunities due to the focus of management on the Mergers, without realizing any of the anticipated benefits of completing the Mergers.

The success of the Mergers will depend on, among other things, our ability to combine our business with those of Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank. If we are not able to successfully achieve this objective, the anticipated benefits of the Mergers may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. Each of HBC, and Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank have operated and, until the consummation of the Mergers, will continue to operate independently. It is possible that the integration process or other factors could result in the loss or departure of key employees, the disruption of our ongoing business or inconsistencies in standards, controls, procedures and policies. It is also possible that clients, customers, depositors and counterparties of Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank could choose to discontinue their relationships with the combined company post-merger, which would adversely affect the future performance of the combined company. These transition matters could have an adverse effect on us, Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank during the pre-merger period and for an undetermined time after the consummation of the Mergers.

The parties’ efforts to complete the Mergers could cause substantial disruptions in Heritage’s, HBC’s, Tri-Valley Bank’s and/or United American Bank’s respective businesses, which could have an adverse effect on their respective financial results. Among other things, uncertainty as to whether the Mergers will be completed may affect the ability of each of the parties to recruit prospective employees or to retain and motivate existing employees. Employee retention may be particularly challenging while the merger is pending because employees may experience uncertainty about their future roles with the combined company.

Uncertainty as to the future could adversely affect Heritage’s, HBC’s, Tri-Valley’s and/or United American Bank’s respective businesses, reputation and relationships with potential depositors, borrowers and vendors. For example, vendors, customers and others who deal with Heritage, HBC, Tri-Valley Bank or United American Bank could defer decisions concerning working with such company, or seek to change existing business relationships with such company.

Further, a substantial amount of the attention of management and employees of each company is being directed toward the completion of the Mergers and thus is being diverted from such company’s day-to-day operations because matters related to the Mergers (including integration planning) require substantial commitments of time and resources.

In addition, the merger agreements restrict Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank from taking certain actions without Heritage’s consent while the Mergers are pending. These restrictions may, among other matters, prevent Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank from pursuing otherwise attractive business opportunities, selling assets, changing the capital structure, entering into other transactions or making other changes to its respective business prior to consummation of the merger or termination of the respective merger agreements. These restrictions could have a material adverse effect on Tri-Valley Bank’s and United American Bank’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Before the transactions contemplated in the merger agreements may be completed, various approvals must be obtained from the bank regulatory and other governmental authorities. These governmental entities may impose conditions on the granting of such approvals. Such conditions or changes and the process of obtaining regulatory approvals could have the effect of delaying completion of the Mergers or of imposing additional costs or limitations on us following the Mergers. The regulatory approvals may not be received at any time, may not be received in a timely fashion, or may contain conditions on the completion of the Mergers that are not anticipated or cannot be met. It is a condition to closing of each merger that no regulatory approval shall contain or shall have resulted in, or reasonably be expected to result in the imposition of, any burdensome condition on the combined company following the merger.

The merger agreements with Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank are subject to a number of conditions which must be fulfilled in order to complete each respective merger. Those conditions include: approval of the merger agreement by the respective shareholders of Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank, receipt of requisite regulatory approvals subject to certain limitations set forth in the merger agreements, absence of orders prohibiting completion of the mergers, effectiveness of SEC the registration statements relating to our common stock to be issued in each merger and listing of such shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, the continued accuracy of the representations and warranties by the parties, the absence of a material adverse effect on the parties, the satisfaction of certain financial tests by Tri-Valley Bank and United American Bank and the performance by the parties of their covenants and agreements. These conditions to the closing of the Mergers may not be fulfilled and, accordingly, the Mergers may not be completed. Under each merger agreement, if the merger is not completed by October 1, 2018, either party to the respective merger agreement may choose not to proceed with the merger, and the parties can mutually decide to terminate the merger agreement at any time, before or after shareholder approval. In addition, under each merger agreement the Company and Tri-Valley or United American Bank, as applicable may elect to terminate the merger agreement in certain other circumstances. If the merger agreement is terminated under certain circumstances, Tri-Valley Bank or United American Bank may be required to pay a termination fee of $1.5 million or $2.0 million to us, respectively.

If either merger agreement is terminated and the merger is not completed, our ongoing businesses may be adversely affected. The market price of our common stock may decline to the extent that the current market price reflects a market assumption that either merger will be completed. In addition, we may experience negative reactions to the termination of either merger from customers, depositors, investors, vendors and others with whom they deal, and we would not realize any of the anticipated benefits of having completed either merger. The expenses we have incurred in connection with each the merger, such as legal and accounting fees, must be paid even if either merger is not completed and may not be recovered from the other party.

We expect to incur substantial expenses in connection with consummation of the Mergers and combining the business, operations, networks, systems, technologies, policies and procedures of Tri-Valley Bank, United American Bank

and HBC. Although we have assumed that a certain level of transaction and combination expenses would be incurred, there are a number of factors beyond our control that could affect the total amount or the timing of our expenses. Many of the expenses that will be incurred, by their nature, are difficult to estimate accurately at the present time. Due to these factors, the transaction and combination expenses associated with the Mergers could, particularly in the near term, exceed the savings that we expect to achieve from the elimination of duplicative expenses and the realization of economies of scale and cost savings related to the combination of the businesses following the consummation of the Mergers. As a result of these expenses, we expect to take charges against our earnings before and after the completion of the Mergers. The charges taken in connection with the Mergers are expected to be significant, although the aggregate amount and timing of such charges are uncertain at present.

The merger agreements provides that each Tri-Valley Bank common share and each United American Bank common stock and common stock equivalent will be converted into the right to receive a fixed exchange ratio of shares of our common stock upon completion of each respective merger. The exchange ratios are fixed. No adjustments to the exchange ratios will be made based on changes in the price of Tri-Valley Bank, United American Bank common stock or our common stock prior to the completion of the respective merger. Changes in stock prices may result from a variety of factors, including, among others, general market and economic conditions, changes in our, Tri-Valley Bank’s or United American Bank’s respective businesses, operations and prospects, market assessment of the likelihood that the respective merger will be completed as anticipated or at all, and regulatory considerations. Many of these factors are uncertain and beyond the parties control.

ITEM 1B — UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2 — PROPERTIES

The main and executive offices of HCC and HBC are located at 150 Almaden Boulevard in San Jose, California 95113, with branch offices located at 15575 Los Gatos Boulevard in Los Gatos, California 95032, at 387 Diablo Road in Danville, California 94526, at 3137 Stevenson Boulevard in Fremont, California 94538, at 300 Main Street in Pleasanton, California 94566, at 101 Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek, California 94596, at 18625 Sutter Boulevard in Morgan Hill, California 95037, at 7598 Monterey Street in Gilroy, California 95020, at 419 S. San Antonio Road in Los Altos, California 94022, at 333 W. El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, California 94087, and at 351 Tres Pinos Road in Hollister, California 95023. Bay View Funding’s administrative offices are located at 2933 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054.

Main Offices

The main office of HBC is located at 150 Almaden Boulevard in San Jose, California on the first three floors in a fifteen‑story Class‑A type office building. All three floors, consisting of approximately 35,547 square feet, are subject to a direct lease dated April 13, 2000, as amended, which expires on May 31, 2020. The current monthly rent payment is $111,262, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In January of 1997, the Company leased approximately 1,255 square feet (referred to as the “Kiosk”) located next to the primary operating area at 150 Almaden Boulevard in San Jose, California to be used for meetings, staff training and marketing events. The current monthly rent payment is $3,928, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on May 31, 2020. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In June of 2015, the Company amended its primary lease at 150 Almaden Boulevard in San Jose, California to include 4,484 square feet of expansion space in a five‑story Class‑B type office building located at 100 W. San Fernando Street, San Jose, California, adjacent to the main office. The current monthly rent payment is $11,389, subject to annual

increases of 3% until the lease expires on May 31, 2020. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

Branch Offices

In June of 2007, as part of the acquisition of Diablo Valley Bank, the Company took ownership of an 8,285 square foot one‑story commercial office building, including the land, located at 387 Diablo Road in Danville, California.

In June of 2008, the Company leased approximately 5,213 square feet on the first floor in a two‑story multi‑tenant office building located at 419 S. San Antonio Road in Los Altos, California. The current monthly rent payment is $28,403 until the lease expires on April 30, 2018. In July of 2017, the Company renewed the lease for an additional five years, beginning on May 1, 2018. The starting rent for the renewal term is $28,403, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on April 30, 2023. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In September of 2012, the Company leased, effective March 1, 2013, approximately 3,172 square feet in an one‑story multi‑tenant multi‑use building located at 3137 Stevenson Boulevard in Fremont, California. The monthly rent payment is $7,906, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on February 29, 2020. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of four years and another additional period of three years.

In June of 2013, the Company leased approximately 3,022 square feet on the first floor of a three‑story multi‑tenant office building located at 333 West El Camino Real in Sunnyvale, California. The current monthly rent payment is $12,755, until the lease expires on May 31, 2018. In March of 2018, the Company intends to renew the lease for an additional five years, beginning on June 1, 2018. The starting rent for the renewal term is $16,168, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on May 31, 2023.

In October of 2013, the Company extended its lease for approximately 1,920 square feet in a one story stand‑alone building located in an office complex at 15575 Los Gatos Boulevard in Los Gatos, California. The current monthly rent payment is $6,375, until the lease expires on November 30, 2018. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In April of 2014, the Company leased approximately 3,391 square feet in a multi‑tenant commercial center located at 351 Tres Pinos in Hollister, CA. The current monthly rent payment is $4,632, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on June 30, 2019. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In May of 2014, the Company extended its lease for approximately 3,850 square feet on the first floor in a four story multi‑tenant office building located at 101 Ygnacio Valley Road in Walnut Creek, California. The current monthly rent payment is $14,724, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on August 15, 2021. In addition, the Company modified its lease to include 1,461 square feet of expansion space. The current monthly rent for the expansion space is $4,543, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In August of 2014, the Company amended and extended its lease for approximately 4,716 square feet in a one story multi‑tenant office building located at 18625 Sutter Boulevard in Morgan Hill, California. The current monthly rent payment is $6,256, subject to annual increases of 2% until the lease expires on October 31, 2021. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

In September of 2016, the Company extended its lease for approximately 2,505 square feet on the first floor in a three‑story multi‑tenant multi‑use building located at 7598 Monterey Street in Gilroy, California. The current monthly rent payment is $5,411, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires September 30, 2019. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of two years.

In October of 2017, the Company extended its lease for approximately 4,096 square feet in an one‑story stand‑alone office building located at 300 Main Street in Pleasanton, California. The current monthly rent payment is $20,480, until 90 days after the landlord delivers possession of new premises, to be built adjacent to the existing premises,

consisting of approximately 4,800 square feet and subject to a new lease dated November 30, 2017. The monthly rent payment for the new premises is $21,600, subject to 3% annual increases until the lease expires ten years after the date on which it becomes effective. If the landlord in unable to obtain the necessary permits and approvals from the City of Pleasanton for construction of the new premises by April 30, 2019, then a new seven year lease for the existing premises will become effective as of May 1, 2019 with a monthly rent payment of $20,480, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires.  

Bay View Funding Office

Since July 15, 2016, Bay View Funding has leased approximately 7,440 square feet in a two‑story multi‑tenant office building located at 2933 Bunker Hill Lane, Santa Clara, CA 95054. The current monthly rent payment is $26,055, subject to annual increases of 3% until the lease expires on February 29, 2020. The Company has reserved the right to extend the term of the lease for one additional period of five years.

For additional information on operating leases and rent expense, refer to Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements following “Item 15 — Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.”

ITEM 3 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company is involved in certain legal actions arising from normal business activities. Management, based upon the advice of legal counsel, believes the ultimate resolution of all pending legal actions will not have a material effect on the financial statements of the Company.

ITEM 4 — MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not Applicable.

PART II

ITEM 5 — MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Market Information

The Company’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “HTBK.”

The information in the following table for 2017 and 2016 indicates the high and low closing prices for the common stock, based upon information provided by the NASDAQ Global Select Market and cash dividend payment for each quarter presented.

 

The closing price of our common stock on February 28, 2018 was $15.78 per share as reported by the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

As of February 28, 2018, there were approximately 625 holders of record of common stock. There are no other classes of common equity outstanding.

Dividend Policy

The amount of future dividends will depend upon our earnings, financial condition, capital requirements and other factors, and will be determined by our board of directors on a quarterly basis. It is Federal Reserve policy that bank holding companies generally pay dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. It is also Federal Reserve policy that bank holding companies not maintain dividend levels that undermine the holding company’s ability to be a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. Additionally, in consideration of the current financial and economic environment, the Federal Reserve has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policy and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels unless both asset quality and capital are very strong. Under the federal Prompt Corrective Action regulations, the Federal Reserve or the FDIC may prohibit a bank holding company from paying any dividends if the holding company’s bank subsidiary is classified as undercapitalized.

As a holding company, our ability to pay cash dividends is affected by the ability of our bank subsidiary, HBC, to pay cash dividends. The ability of HBC (and our ability) to pay cash dividends in the future and the amount of any such cash dividends is and could be in the future further influenced by bank regulatory requirements and approvals and capital guidelines.

The decision whether to pay dividends will be made by our board of directors in light of conditions then existing, including factors such as our results of operations, financial condition, business conditions, regulatory capital requirements and covenants under any applicable contractual arrangements, including agreements with regulatory authorities.

For information on the statutory and regulatory limitations on the ability of the Company to pay dividends and on HBC to pay dividends to HCC see “Item 1 — Business — Supervision and Regulation — Heritage Commerce Corp – Dividend Payments, Stock Redemptions, and Repurchases and – Heritage Bank or Commerce – Dividend Payments.”

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2017 regarding equity compensation plans under which equity securities of the Company were authorized for issuance:

(1)Consists of 561,131 options to acquire shares under the Company’s Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Plan and 1,041,601 options to acquire shares under the Company’s 2013 Equity Incentive Plan.

(2)Available under the Company’s 2013 Equity Incentive Plan.

 

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the stock performance of the Company from December 31, 2012 to February 28, 2018, to the performance of several specific industry indices. The performance of the S&P 500 Index, NASDAQ Stock Index and NASDAQ Bank Stocks were used as comparisons to the Company’s stock performance. Management believes that a performance comparison to these indices provides meaningful information and has therefore included those comparisons in the following graph.

The following chart compares the stock performance of the Company from December 31, 2012 to February 28, 2018, to the performance of several specific industry indices. The performance of the S&P 500 Index, NASDAQ Stock Index and NASDAQ Bank Stocks were used as comparisons to the Company’s stock performance.

*Source: SNL Financial Bank Information Group — (434) 977‑1600

 

ITEM 6 — SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following table presents a summary of selected financial information that should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto following Item 15 — Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA