Merchants Bancorp - Annual Report: 2018 (Form 10-K)

 

 

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10‑K

Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018

Commission file number 001‑38258

MERCHANTS BANCORP

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (317) 569‑7420

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 Section 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, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S‑T  (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒  No ☐

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S‑K  (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of the 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,”  or “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b‑2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

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 ☒

At June 30, 2018,  the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant (assuming solely for the purposes of this calculation that all Directors and executive officers of the registrant are “affiliates”) was $460.9 million.    

As of March 8, 2019,  the Registrant had 28,704,163 shares of Common Stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Registrant’s Proxy Statement, for the 2019 Annual Meeting of its Shareholders to be held May 16, 2019,  to be filed within 120 days after December 31, 2018, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10‑K.

 

 

 

MERCHANTS BANCORP

Annual Report on Form 10‑K

For Year Ended December 31, 2018

Table of Contents

 

 

 

 

Information included in or incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and our press releases or other public statements, contain or may contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Please refer to a discussion of our forward-looking statements and associated risks in Item 1, “Business – Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995” and our discussion of risk factors in Item 1A, “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

 

PART I

 

Item 1. Business.

Company Overview

Merchants Bancorp (the “Company,” “Merchants,” “we,” “our,” or “us”), an Indiana corporation formed in 2006, is a diversified bank holding company headquartered in Carmel, Indiana and registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. We currently operate multiple lines of business, including multi‑family housing and healthcare facility financing and servicing, mortgage warehouse financing, retail and correspondent residential mortgage banking, agricultural lending and traditional community banking. As of December 31, 2018, we had $3.9 billion in assets, $3.2 billion of deposits and $421.2 million of shareholders’ equity.

We were founded in 1990 as a mortgage banking company, providing financing for multi‑family housing and senior living properties. The shared vision of our founders, Michael Petrie and Randall Rogers, was to create a diversified financial services company, which efficiently operates both nationally through mortgage banking and related services and locally through a community bank. We have grown both organically and through acquisitions focused on expanding our services. We have strategically built our business in a way that we believe offers insulation from cyclical economic and credit swings and provides synergies across our lines of business.

Merchants Bank of Indiana (“Merchants Bank”), one of our wholly-owned banking subsidiaries, operates under an Indiana charter and provides traditional community banking services, as well as retail and correspondent residential mortgage banking and agricultural lending. Merchants Bank has four depository branches located in Carmel, Indianapolis, and Lynn, Indiana. Farmers-Merchants Bank of Illinois (“FMBI”, formerly named Joy State Bank),  another wholly-owned banking subsidiary, acquired on January 2, 2018, operates under an Illinois charter and provides traditional community banking services and agricultural lending. Prior to its acquisition of Farmers-Merchants National Bank of Paxton (“FMNBP”) on October 1, 2018, FMBI had two depository branches, with one located in Joy, Illinois and the other located in New Boston, Illinois. FMBI’s acquisition of FMNBP,  which operated under a national charter and also provided traditional community banking services and agricultural lending, added three new depository branches, located in Paxton, Melvin, and Piper City, Illinois.

Our Business Segments 

We have several lines of business and provide various banking and financial services through our subsidiaries.  Our business segments are defined as multi-family mortgage banking, mortgage warehousing, and banking.

Multi-Family Mortgage Banking

Merchants Capital Corp. (“MCC”, formerly P/R Mortgage and Investment Corp.) and Merchants Capital Servicing, LLC (“MCS”, formerly RICHMAC Funding, LLC), subsidiaries of Merchants Bank, are primarily engaged in mortgage banking, specializing in originating and servicing loans for multi‑family rental housing and healthcare facility financing. In August 2017, MCC acquired MCS, a national multi‑family housing mortgage lender, to complement and expand the products and services offered by MCC.  Through the MCS acquisition, MCC gained the ability to originate and service Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) Affordable multi-family products. 

Through the Multi-Family Mortgage Banking segment, we primarily originate FHA loans that are sold as Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”) mortgage backed securities within approximately 30 days.    

The Company also originates loans sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae as mortgage backed securities. The loans are sold and servicing rights are retained. Other originations include bridge and permanent financing that are referred to the Banking segment. These loans eventually become permanent financings. In addition to the loans originated directly through Multi-Family Mortgage Banking, we also fund loans brought to us by non‑affiliated entities and service or sub-service loans for a fee. 

The segment’s primary source of funding is the national secondary mortgage market. Investors in the market are large financial institutions, brokerage companies, insurance companies and real estate investment trusts. MCC is an approved FHA lender and a Ginnie Mae issuer of mortgage backed securities. It is also an approved Multi-family Accelerated Processing and Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) section 232 LEAN lender and a Rural Housing Service (“RHS”) approved lender for their Section 538 program. MCC is an approved Freddie Mac Targeted Affordable Lender and Fannie Mae Affordable Lender. These programs facilitate secondary market activities in order to provide funding for the multi‑family mortgage market.

Multi-Family Mortgage Banking funds loans through the sale of participation interests to Merchants Bank, where they accrue interest for approximately 30 days before delivery to the end investor. Generally, these loans have 35-year fixed rates with 10 year call protection. The loans are predominantly insured by the FHA and RHS are rate locked as forward delivery Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities, who guarantees the timely payment of principal and interest to investors.

Mortgage Warehousing

Merchants Bank started our warehouse lending business in 2009 as a result of dislocation in the market. Merchants Bank currently has warehouse lines of credit and loan participations with some of the largest non‑depository financial institutions and mortgage bankers in the country.

Under its warehouse program, Merchants Bank provides warehouse financing arrangements to lenders for the origination and sale of residential mortgage loans. Merchants Bank structures its funding primarily as a loan participation and also offers secured lines of credit. Agency eligible (Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), governmental (FHA insured or Veterans Affairs (“VA”) or United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) guaranteed), and jumbo residential mortgage loans that are secured by mortgages placed on single and multi-family properties may be purchased and placed on each mortgage warehouse line.

Through Natty Mac Funding, Inc. (“NMF”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Merchants Bank, we have engaged in loan participations and warehouse financing with Home Point Financial Corporation (“Home Point”) and its subsidiaries and correspondent customers during 2018. We entered into a Revolving Loan and Subordinated Loan Agreement whereby Home Point invested $30 million in our subordinated debt.  In turn, we invested the proceeds into Merchants Bank and then to NMF. NMF provided $300 million of lending capacity to Home Point and its subsidiaries and correspondent customers. We earned net interest income and used Home Point custodial deposits to fund the loans. However, on December 31, 2018 the Company acquired the assets of NattyMac, LLC from Home Point and terminated their warehouse funding arrangement.  Additionally, the $30 million subordinated debt and related interest was repaid by the Company.  

In 2018, we entered into an arrangement similar to that between NMF and Home Point with another warehouse customer and may do so with additional mortgage warehouse customers in the future.

Banking

Commercial Lending and Retail Banking

Merchants Bank holds loans in its portfolio comprised of multi‑family construction and bridge loans referred by MCC, owner occupied commercial real estate loans, commercial & industrial loans, agricultural loans, residential mortgage loans and consumer loans. Merchants Bank receives deposits from customers located primarily in Hamilton, Marion, Randolph and surrounding counties in Indiana and from the escrows generated by the servicing activities of MCC and MCS.    FMBI receives deposits from customers located through multiple branches in Illinois.

Agricultural Lending

Merchants Bank’s Lynn office, located in Lynn, Randolph County, Indiana, primarily provides agricultural loans within its designated Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) area of Randolph and Wayne counties in Eastern Indiana and nearby Darke County, Ohio. FMBI primarily provides agricultural loans within its designated CRA area of Mercer County in Western Illinois and with the acquisition of FMNBP, in Ford County in East Central Illinois.  Merchants Bank and FMBI offer operating lines of credit for crop and livestock production, intermediate term financing to purchase agricultural equipment and breeding livestock and long‑term financing to purchase agricultural real estate. Merchants Bank is approved to sell agricultural loans in the secondary market through the Farmer Mac and uses this relationship to manage interest rate risk within the agricultural loan portfolio.    

Single Family Mortgage Lending, Correspondent Lending and Servicing

Merchants Mortgage is the branded arm and division of Merchants Bank that is a full service single‑family mortgage origination and servicing platform that we launched in February 2013. Merchants Mortgage is both a retail and correspondent mortgage lender. Merchants Mortgage offers agency eligible, jumbo fixed and hybrid adjustable rate mortgages for purchase or refinancing of single‑family residences. Other products include construction, bridge and lot financing, and first-lien home equity lines of credit (“HELOC”). Merchants Mortgage generates revenues from fees charged to borrowers, interest income during the warehouse period, and gain on sale of loans to investors. There are multiple investor outlets, including direct sale capability to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) of Indianapolis and Chicago, and other third-party investors to allow Merchants Mortgage a best execution at sale. Merchants Mortgage also originates loans held for investment and earns interest income over the life of the loan.

SBA Lending

Merchants Bank participates in the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) 7(a) program in order to meet the needs of our small business community, and help diversify our retail revenue stream.  In January of 2018, Merchants Bank was awarded Preferred Lender Program (“PLP”) status, the SBA’s highest level of approval that a lender can hold.  This designation provides us delegated loan approval, closing and servicing authority that enables loan decisions to be made more rapidly.

See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 24, “Segment Information,” in the notes to our Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion of our segments.

Competition

We compete in a number of areas, including commercial and retail banking, residential mortgages, and multi‑family FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac affordable loan originations in the multi‑family and health care sectors. These industries are highly competitive, and the Company faces strong direct competition for deposits, loans, and FHA loan originations and other financial‑related services. We compete with other non-depository financial institutions and community banks, thrifts and credit unions. Although some of these competitors are situated locally, others have statewide or regional presence. In addition, we compete with large banks and other financial intermediaries, such as consumer finance companies, brokerage firms, mortgage banking companies, business leasing and finance companies, insurance companies, multi-family loan origination businesses, securities firms, mutual funds and certain government agencies as well as major retailers, all actively engaged in providing various types of loans and other financial services. Additionally, we face growing competition from online businesses with few or no physical locations, including online banks, lenders and consumer and commercial lending platforms, as well as automated retirement and investment service providers. We believe that the range and quality of products that we offer, the knowledge of our personnel and our emphasis on building long‑lasting relationships sets us apart from our competitors.

Employees

As of December 31, 2018, we had approximately 259 employees. The Company has been named to the list of “Best Places to Work in Indiana” by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce every year since 2016. None of our employees are represented by any collective bargaining unit or are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe that our relations with employees are positive.

Corporate Information

Our principal executive offices are located at 11555 North Meridian Street, Suite 400, Carmel, Indiana 46032, and our telephone number at that address is (317) 569‑7420. Through our website at www.merchantsbankofindiana.com under “Investors,” we make available, free of charge, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as well as proxy statements, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”).  Those filings can also be obtained on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. The information contained on our website is not a part of, or incorporated by reference into, this report.

 

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

General

Insured banks, their holding companies and their affiliates are extensively regulated under federal and state law. As a result, our growth and earnings performance may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various bank regulatory agencies, including the Indiana Department of Financial Institutions (“IDFI”), Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (“IDFPR”), Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”), Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Furthermore, tax laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), anti‑money laundering laws enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) and mortgage related rules, including with respect to loan securitization and servicing by HUD and agencies such as Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, have an impact on our business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and rules are significant to our operations and results, and 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 financial institutions, their holding companies and affiliates that is intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC‑insured deposits and depositors of banks, rather than their shareholders. These federal and state laws, and the regulations of the bank regulatory agencies issued under them, 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 impact 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 generally have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on the operations of a regulated entity where the agencies determine, among other things, that such operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations 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 us. 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.

Merchants Bancorp

Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended

We, as the sole shareholder of Merchants Bank and FMBI, are a bank holding company (“BHC”) within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHC Act”). As a BHC, we are subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the BHC Act and the regulations of Federal Reserve. The BHC Act requires a BHC to file an annual report of its operations and such additional information as the Federal Reserve may require.

Acquisition of Banks

Generally, the BHC Act governs the acquisition and control of banks and nonbanking companies by BHCs.

A BHC’s acquisition of 5% or more of the voting shares of any other bank or BHC generally requires the prior approval of the Federal Reserve and is subject to applicable federal and state law. The Federal Reserve evaluates acquisition applications based on, among other things, competitive factors, supervisory factors, adequacy of financial and managerial resources, and banking and community needs considerations.

The BHC Act also prohibits, with certain exceptions, a BHC from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any “nonbanking” company unless the Federal Reserve finds the nonbanking activities be “so closely related to banking . . . as to be a proper incident thereto” or another exception applies. The BHC Act does not place territorial restrictions on the activities of a BHC or its nonbank subsidiaries.

The BHC Act and Change in Bank Control Act, together with related regulations, prohibit acquisition of “control” of a bank or BHC without prior notice to certain federal bank regulators. The BHC Act defines “control,” in certain cases, as the acquisition of as little as 10% of the outstanding shares of any class of voting stock. Furthermore, under certain circumstances, a BHC may not be able to purchase its own shares where the gross consideration will equal 10% or more of the Company’s net worth, without obtaining approval of the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve Act subjects banks and their affiliates to certain requirements and restrictions when dealing with each other (affiliate transactions include transactions between a bank and its BHC).

Permitted Activities

Under the BHC Act, a BHC and its nonbank subsidiaries are generally permitted to engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of the voting shares of companies engaged in, a wider range of nonbanking activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking, including:

•factoring accounts receivable;

•making, acquiring, brokering or servicing loans and usual related activities in connection with the foregoing;

•leasing personal or real property under certain conditions;

•operating a non‑bank depository institution, such as a savings association;

•engaging in trust company functions in a manner authorized by state law;

•financial and investment advisory activities;

•discount securities brokerage activities;

•underwriting and dealing in government obligations and money market instruments;

•providing specified management consulting and counseling activities;

•performing selected data processing services and support services;

•acting as an agent or broker in selling credit life insurance and other types of insurance in connection with credit transactions; and

•performing selected insurance underwriting activities.

The Federal Reserve may order a BHC or its subsidiaries to terminate any of these activities or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when it has reasonable cause to believe that the BHC’s continued ownership, activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness, or stability of it or any of its bank subsidiaries. A qualifying BHC that elects to be treated as a financial holding company may also engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of the voting shares of companies engaged in activities that are financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity or are complementary to a financial activity and do not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of the institution or the financial system generally. We have not elected, and presently do not intend to elect, to be treated as a financial holding company.

Support of Subsidiary Institutions

The Federal Reserve has issued regulations under the BHC Act requiring a BHC to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks. Pursuant to such regulations a BHC should stand ready to use its resources to provide adequate capital funds to its subsidiary banks during periods of financial stress or adversity.

Repurchase or Redemption of Shares

A BHC is generally required to give the Federal Reserve prior written notice of any purchase or redemption of its own then outstanding equity securities if the gross consideration for the purchase or redemption, when combined with the net consideration paid for all such purchases or redemptions during the preceding 12 months, is equal to 10% or more of the Company’s consolidated net worth. The Federal Reserve may disapprove such a purchase or redemption if it determines that the proposal would constitute an unsafe and unsound practice, or would violate any law, regulation, Federal Reserve order or directive, or any condition imposed by, or written agreement with, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve has adopted an exception to this approval requirement for well‑capitalized BHCs that meet certain conditions.

Merchants Bank and FMBI

Merchants Bank is an Indiana chartered, non-Federal Reserve member bank subject to supervision and regulation by the FDIC and IDFI.    FMBI is an Illinois chartered, non-Federal Reserve member bank subject to supervision and regulation by the FDIC and IDFPR.

Bank Secrecy Act and USA Patriot Act

The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”), enacted as the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, requires financial institutions to maintain records of certain customers and currency transactions and to report certain domestic and foreign currency transactions, which may have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings. This law requires financial institutions to develop a BSA compliance program.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“Patriot Act”), is comprehensive anti‑terrorism legislation. Title III of the Patriot Act requires financial institutions to help prevent and detect international money laundering and the financing of terrorism and prosecute those involved in such activities. The Treasury has adopted additional requirements to further implement Title III.

These regulations have established a mechanism for law enforcement officials to communicate names of suspected terrorists and money launderers to financial institutions, enabling financial institutions to promptly locate accounts and transactions involving those suspects. Financial institutions receiving names of suspects must search their account and transaction records for potential matches and report positive results to the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”). Each financial institution must designate a point of contact to receive information

requests. These regulations outline how financial institutions can share information concerning suspected terrorist and money laundering activity with other financial institutions under the protection of a statutory safe harbor if each financial institution notifies FinCEN of its intent to share information. The Treasury has also adopted regulations to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing through correspondent accounts that U.S. financial institutions maintain on behalf of foreign banks. These regulations also require financial institutions to take reasonable steps to ensure that they are not providing banking services directly or indirectly to foreign shell banks. In addition, banks must have procedures to verify the identity of their customers.

Merchants Bank and FMBI established an anti‑money laundering program pursuant to the BSA and a customer identification program pursuant to the Patriot Act. Merchants Bank and FMBI also maintain records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports of certain cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and reports suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities pursuant to the BSA. Merchants Bank and FMBI otherwise have implemented policies and procedures to comply with the foregoing requirements.

FDIC Improvement Act of 1991

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Act to require, among other things, federal bank regulatory authorities to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to banks which do not meet minimum capital requirements. The FDICIA established five capital tiers: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. The FDIC has adopted regulations to implement the prompt corrective action provisions of FDICIA.

“Undercapitalized” banks are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The bank’s BHC is required to guarantee that the bank will comply with the plan and provide appropriate assurances of performance. If an “undercapitalized” bank fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is significantly undercapitalized. “Significantly undercapitalized” banks are subject to one or more restrictions, including an order by the FDIC to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets and cease receipt of deposits from correspondent banks, and restrictions on compensation of executive officers. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions may not, beginning 60 days after becoming “critically undercapitalized,” make any payment of principal or interest on certain subordinated debt or extend credit for a highly leveraged transaction or enter into any transaction outside the ordinary course of business. In addition, “critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator. Any bank that is not “well capitalized” is subject to limitations, and a prohibition in the case of any bank that is “undercapitalized,” on the acceptance, renewal, or roll over of any brokered deposit.

Currently, a “well capitalized” institution is one that has a total risk‑based capital ratio of at least 10%, a Tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio of at least 8%, a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5%, a common equity Tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio of at least 6.5%, and is not subject to regulatory direction to maintain a specific level for any capital measure. An “adequately capitalized” institution is one that has ratios of at least 8%, 6%, 4% and 4.5%, respectively. An institution is “undercapitalized” if any of its respective ratios is less than 8%, 6%, 4% and 4.5%, as applicable. “Significantly undercapitalized” institutions have ratios of less than 6%, 4%, 3% and 3%, respectively. An institution is deemed to be “critically undercapitalized” if it has a ratio of tangible equity to total assets that is 2% or less.

At December 31, 2018, Merchants Bank and FMBI were well capitalized, as defined by the FDICIA and applicable FDIC regulations.

Deposit Insurance Fund and Financing Corporation Assessments

The Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC insures the deposits of Merchants Bank and FMBI up to $250,000 per depositor, qualifying joint accounts, and certain other accounts. The FDIC maintains the DIF by assessing depository institutions an insurance premium. The Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd‑Frank Act”) requires the FDIC to set a DIF reserve ratio of 1.35% of estimated insured deposits, which the FDIC achieved on September 30, 2018 and as a result, we expect to receive assessment credits for the portion of our assessments that contributed to the growth in the reserve ratio from between 1.15 percent and 1.35 percent, to be applied when the reserve ratio is at or above 1.38 percent.

The FDIC’s risk‑based assessment system requires insured institutions to pay deposit insurance premiums based on the risk that each institution poses to the DIF. The FDIC recently changed the methodology for determining assessment rates. Through the second quarter of 2016, the FDIC assigned each insured depository institution to one of four risk categories based on the institution’s regulatory capital levels, supervisory evaluations, and certain other factors. The institution’s risk category determines its assessment rate. Certain factors, such as brokered deposits in excess of a certain ceiling, could result in adjustments to an assessment rate. The rate is applied to the institution’s total average consolidated assets during the assessment period less average tangible equity (i.e., Tier 1 capital).

Beginning in the third quarter of 2016, which was the first quarter after the quarter the DIF reserve ratio exceeded 1.15%, a new assessment regulation took effect for banks with less than $10.0 billion in assets and that have been FDIC‑insured for at least five years, such as Merchants Bank and FMBI. The rule replaced the four risk categories with a financial ratios method based on a statistical model estimating the insured depository institution’s probability of failure over three years. The rule eliminates the adjustment factor for brokered deposits; lowered the range of assessment rates authorized to 0.015% per annum for an institution posing the least risk, to 0.40% per annum for an institution posing the most risk; and furthered lower the range of assessment rates if the reserve ratio of the Deposit Insurance Fund increases to 2% or more.

In addition to its risk‑based insurance assessments, the FDIC also imposes assessments to help make $780 million in annual interest payments on approximately $8 billion of bonds issued in the late 1980s by a government corporation, the Financing Corporation (“FICO”), to help finance the recovery of the thrift industry from the savings and loan crisis. Merchants Bank’s FICO assessment for the first quarter of 2018 was equal to .00110%, for the second and third quarters of 2018 was .00080%, and for the fourth quarter of 2018 was .00035%, per $100 of assessment base. FICO assessments will continue until all outstanding bonds mature in 2019. 

Dividends

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from Merchants Bank and FMBI. There are various legal limitations on the extent to which Merchants Bank or FMBI can supply funds to us. Our principal source of funds consists of dividends from Merchants Bank. State and federal law restrict the amount of dividends that banks may pay to its shareholders or BHC. The specific limits depend on a number of factors, including the bank’s type of charter, recent earnings, recent dividends, level of capital and regulatory status. The regulators are authorized, and under certain circumstances are required, to prohibit the payment of dividends or other distributions if the regulators determine that making such payments would be an unsafe or unsound practice. For example, the FDICIA generally prohibits an insured depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its BHC if the distribution would cause the bank to become undercapitalized.

In addition, under Indiana law, Merchants Bank must obtain the approval of the IDFI prior to the payment of any dividend if the total of all dividends declared by Merchants Bank during the calendar year, including any proposed dividend, would exceed the sum of its net income for the year to date combined with its retained net income for the previous two years.

As of 2016, the capital regulations began to limit a depository institution’s ability to make capital distributions if it does not hold a specified capital conservation buffer above the required minimum risk‑based capital ratios. There is a phase‑in period that began in 2016 and concludes in 2019 with a buffer requirement of 2.5%. For 2018, the requirement was 1.875%. Regulators also review and limit proposed dividend payments as part of the supervisory process and review of an institution’s capital planning. In addition to dividend limitations, Merchants Bank and FMBI are subject to certain restrictions on extensions of credit to us, on investments in our shares or other securities and in taking such shares or securities as collateral for loans.

Community Reinvestment Act

The CRA requires that the federal banking regulators evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. Regulators also consider these factors in evaluating mergers, acquisitions, and applications to open a branch or facility. Failure to adequately meet these criteria could result in the imposition of additional requirements and limitations on Merchants Bank and FMBI.

Capital Requirements and Basel III

Apart from the capital levels for insured depository institutions that were established by the FDICIA for the prompt corrective action regime discussed above, the federal regulators have issued rules that impose minimum capital requirements on both insured depository institutions and their holding companies (with the exception of BHCs with less than $1 billion in pro forma consolidated assets and that meet other prerequisites). Although the rules contain certain standards applicable only to large, internationally active banks, many of them apply to all banking organizations, including us,  Merchants Bank, and FMBI. The institutions and companies subject to the rules are referred to collectively herein as “covered” banking organizations. By virtue of a provision in the Dodd‑Frank Act known as the Collins Amendment, the requirements must be the same at both the institution level and the holding company level. The minimum capital rules have undergone several revisions over the years. The current requirements, which began to take effect in 2015, are based on the international Basel III capital framework. These requirements apply to all covered banking organizations (including us) with some requirements phasing in over time. However, on November 21, 2017, the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), and FDIC finalized a joint proposal and adopted a final rule (the “Transitions Rule”) pursuant to which the regulatory capital treatment then in place for mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”), certain temporary difference deferred tax assets, and significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions was indefinitely extended, while a separately proposed rule to simplify the regulatory capital treatment of such items is considered by such regulators (the “Simplification NPR”). The extension of the capital rules with respect to MSRs is the only portion of the Transitions Rule that was material to the us. If the Transitions Rule had not been enacted, beginning January 1, 2018,  we would have been required to make certain additional deductions and increases to its risk-weighting for the purposes of our capital calculations, which would have resulted in the us reporting a lower amount of capital. As a result of the Transitions Rule, there will be no such adjustments to our capital. 

The minimum capital requirements for all covered banking organizations (including holding companies) are the same as the “adequately capitalized” standards in the prompt corrective action regime: a common equity tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio of 4.5%, a tier 1 risk‑based capital ratio of 6%, a total risk‑based capital ratio of 8%, and a leverage ratio of 4%. Other requirements that apply to us and Merchants Bank are phasing in, including the following provisions that:

•limit to 10% of a bank’s common equity Tier 1 capital each of the MSRs, certain temporary difference deferred tax assets, and significant investments in the common stock of certain unconsolidated banking, financial and insurance entities (“unconsolidated financial institutions”). If any of these components exceeds the 10% threshold, the excess amount must be deducted from common equity;

•set a cumulative limit on MSRs, certain temporary difference deferred tax assets, and significant investments in the common stock of certain unconsolidated financial institutions of 15% of a bank’s common equity Tier 1 capital. If these combined components exceed the 15% threshold, the surplus amount must be deducted from common equity;

•require that 80% of the amount of non‑significant investments in the capital of an unconsolidated financial institution above the 10% threshold be deducted, and that significant investments in the capital stock of unconsolidated financial institutions not in the form of common stock be deducted from regulatory capital in their entirety by applying the corresponding deduction approach;

•set a new additional capital conservation buffer discussed above under Dividends of 2.5% of risk‑weighted assets over each of the required risk‑based capital ratios that must be met to avoid limitations in the ability of a bank to pay dividends, repurchase shares or pay discretionary bonuses; and

•raise the risk‑weights of certain assets for purposes of calculating the risk‑based capital ratios for high volatility commercial real estate (“HVCRE”) acquisition, development and construction (“ADC”) loans, certain past due non‑residential mortgage loans and certain mortgage‑backed and other securities exposures.

As of December 31, 2018, the Simplification NPR had not been finalized.  If the Simplification NPR is finalized in the form proposed, it would change the capital treatment of MSRs, temporary difference deferred tax assets, and investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions by (i) lifting the threshold at which any amount of these asset classes individually must be deducted from common equity Tier 1 capital from 10% to 25% of such capital

and (ii) for investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions that are not deducted from common equity Tier 1 capital, replacing the 250% risk weight with the relevant risk weight for the exposure category of the investment. The 250% risk weight would continue to apply to non‑deducted MSRs and temporary difference deferred tax assets. The Simplification NPR would eliminate (i) the aggregate 15% deduction threshold that applies collectively to MSRs, temporary difference deferred tax assets, and significant investments in the common stock of unconsolidated financial institutions; (ii) the 10% common equity Tier 1 capital deduction threshold for non‑significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions; (iii) the deduction treatment for significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions not in the form of common stock; and (iv) the distinct treatments for significant and non‑significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions.

The Simplification NPR also would revise the standardized risk‑based capital rules by replacing the exposure category of HVCRE loans, which are risk‑weighted at 150%, with a new category of high volatility acquisition, development or construction (“HVADC”) loans, which would be risk‑weighted at 130%. The definition of HVADC is intended to simplify and clarify the current definition of HVCRE loans. The regulators expect that, in the aggregate, the new definition would capture more loans than does the current definition.

In addition to modifications of the new capital rules, the Simplification NPR also would replace the current rules for the inclusion of minority interests in capital with a rule that would allow a non‑advance approaches banking organization to include common equity Tier 1, Tier 1, and total capital minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries up to and including 10% of the organization’s common equity Tier 1, Tier 1, and total capital (before the inclusion of any minority interest), respectively.

The capital treatment of the Transition will remain in effect until the Simplification NPR is finalized and becomes effective or until the Transitions NPR is otherwise superseded.

In May 2018, Congress enacted the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (“Regulatory Relief Act”) and, among other provisions, Section 201 thereof instructed the federal banking regulators to establish a single “Community Bank Leverage Ratio” (“CBLR”) of between 8 and 10%. On February 8, 2019, the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC published a proposed rule setting the CBLR at 9% of tangible equity to total assets for a qualifying bank to be well capitalized (the “CBLR NPR”). Under the CBLR NPR, a community banking organization would be eligible to elect the new framework if it has less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, limited amounts of certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures, and a CBLR greater than 9%. The electing institution would not be required to calculate the existing risk-based and leverage capital requirements of the Basel III framework described above and would not need to risk-weight its assets for purposes of capital calculations.

 

We are in the process of considering the CBLR NPR and will await any final regulation to determine whether we are eligible or will elect to follow such framework.

   

The Dodd‑Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd‑Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd‑Frank Act represented a sweeping reform of the U.S. supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions and capital markets in the wake of the global financial crisis, certain aspects of which are described below in more detail. In particular, and among other things, the Dodd‑Frank Act: (i) created a Financial Stability Oversight Council as part of a regulatory structure for identifying emerging systemic risks and improving interagency cooperation; (ii) created the CFPB, which is authorized to regulate providers of consumer credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services; (iii) narrowed the scope of federal preemption of state consumer laws enjoyed by national banks and federal savings associations and expanded the authority of state attorneys general to bring actions to enforce federal consumer protection legislation; (iv) imposed more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies and subjected certain activities, including interstate mergers and acquisitions, to heightened capital conditions; (v) with respect to mortgage lending, (a) significantly expanded requirements applicable to loans secured by 1‑4 family residential real property, (b) imposed strict rules on mortgage servicing, and (c) required the originator of a securitized loan, or the sponsor of a securitization, to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of securitized exposures unless the underlying exposures are qualified residential mortgages or meet certain underwriting standards; (vi) repealed the prohibition on the payment of interest on business checking accounts; (vii) restricted the interchange fees payable on debit card transactions for issuers with $10 billion in assets or greater; (viii) in the so‑called “Volcker Rule,” subject to numerous exceptions, prohibited depository

institutions and affiliates from certain investments in, and sponsorship of, hedge funds and private equity funds and from engaging in proprietary trading; (ix) provided for enhanced regulation of advisers to private funds and of the derivatives markets; (x) enhanced oversight of credit rating agencies; and (xi) prohibited banking agency requirements tied to credit ratings. These statutory changes shifted the regulatory framework for financial institutions, impacted the way in which they do business and have the potential to constrain revenues.

Numerous provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act were required to be implemented through rulemaking by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies. Many of the required regulations have been issued and others have been released for public comment, but are not final. Although the reforms primarily targeted systemically important financial service providers, their influence is expected to filter down in varying degrees to smaller institutions over time.

Privacy and Cybersecurity

Merchants Bank and FMBI are subject to many U.S. federal and state laws and regulations governing requirements for maintaining policies and procedures to protect non-public confidential information of their customers. These laws require banks to periodically disclose their privacy policies and practices relating to sharing such information and permitting customers to opt out of their ability to share information with unaffiliated third parties under certain circumstances. They also impact a bank’s ability to share certain information with affiliates and non-affiliates for marketing and/or non-marketing purposes, or to contact customers with marketing offers. In addition, banks are required to implement a comprehensive information security program that includes administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information. These security and privacy policies and procedures, for the protection of personal and confidential information, are in effect across all businesses and geographic locations.

Consumer Financial Services

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 oversee and enforce consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all providers of consumer products and services, including Merchants Bank, as well as the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over insured depository institutions and their holding companies with more than $10 billion in assets. (The CFPB has similar authority over certain nonbanking organizations.) Banks and savings institutions with $10 billion or less in assets, like Merchants Bank and FMBI, will continue to be examined by their primary federal regulators, which can be expected to nonetheless look to the rulings and enforcements actions of the CFPB as they carry out their supervision of larger institutions.

Because abuses in connection with residential mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the financial crisis, many new rules issued by the CFPB and required by the Dodd‑Frank Act 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.” In addition, 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. Merchants Bank does not currently expect the CFPB’s rules to have a significant impact on its operations, except for higher compliance costs.

S.A.F.E. Act

Regulations issued under the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (the “S.A.F.E. Act”) require residential mortgage loan originators who are employees of institutions regulated by the foregoing agencies, including national banks, to meet the registration requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act. The S.A.F.E. Act requires residential mortgage loan originators who are employees of regulated financial institutions to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, a database created by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors

and the American Association of Residential Mortgage Regulators to support the licensing of mortgage loan originators by the states. The S.A.F.E. Act generally prohibits employees of regulated financial institutions from originating residential mortgage loans unless they obtain and annually maintain registration as a registered mortgage loan originator.

Mortgage Origination

On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing the “ability to repay” requirement in the Dodd‑Frank Act. This rule, among other things, requires lenders to consider a consumer’s ability to repay a mortgage loan before extending credit to the consumer, and limits prepayment penalties. The rule also establishes certain protections from liability for mortgage lenders with regard to the “qualified mortgages” they originate. This rule includes within the definition of a “qualified mortgage” a loan with a borrower debt‑to‑income ratio of less than or equal to 43% or, alternatively, a loan eligible for purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership, and loans eligible for insurance or guarantee by the FHA, VA or USDA. Additionally, a qualified mortgage may not: (i) contain excess upfront points and fees; (ii) have a term greater than 30 years; or (iii) include interest−only or negative amortization payments. This rule became effective January 10, 2014, and it has not had a significant impact on our mortgage production operations since most of the loans Merchants Bank currently originates would constitute “qualified mortgages” under the rule.

Mortgage Servicing

On January 17, 2013, the CFPB issued a series of final rules as part of an ongoing effort to address mortgage servicing reforms and create uniform standards for the mortgage servicing industry. The rules increase requirements for communications with borrowers, address requirements around the maintenance of customer account records, govern procedural requirements for responding to written borrower requests and complaints of errors, and provide guidance around servicing of delinquent loans, foreclosure proceedings and loss mitigation efforts, among other measures. These rules became effective on January 10, 2014, and have increased the costs to service loans across the mortgage industry, including our mortgage servicing operations.

Several state agencies overseeing the mortgage industry have entered into settlements and enforcement consent orders with mortgage servicers regarding certain foreclosure practices. These settlements and orders generally require servicers, among other things, to: (i) modify their servicing and foreclosure practices, for example, by improving communications with borrowers and prohibiting dual‑tracking, which occurs when servicers continue to pursue foreclosure during the loan modification process; (ii) establish a single point of contact for borrowers throughout the loan modification and foreclosure processes; and (iii) establish robust oversight and controls of third party vendors, including outside legal counsel, that provide default management or foreclosure services. Although we are not a party to any of these settlements or consent orders, we, like many mortgage servicers, have voluntarily adopted these servicing and foreclosure standards due to competitive pressures.

Consumer Laws

Merchants Bank and FMBI must comply with a number of federal consumer protection laws, including, among others:

•the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act, which requires a bank to maintain privacy with respect to certain consumer data in its possession and to periodically communicate with consumers on privacy matters;

•the Right to Financial Privacy Act, which imposed a duty to maintain confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribes procedures for complying with administrative subpoenas of financial records;

•the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates the timing and content of debt collection communications;

•the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z thereunder, which requires certain disclosures to consumer borrowers regarding the terms of their loans;

•the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which regulates the use and reporting of information related to the credit history of consumers;

•the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B thereunder, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, race and certain other characteristics, in the extension of credit;

•the Homeowners Equity Protection Act, which requires, among other things, the cancellation of mortgage insurance once certain equity levels are reached;

•the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and Regulation C thereunder, which require mortgage lenders to report certain public loan data;

•the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing on the basis of race, sex, national origin, and certain other characteristics;

•the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Regulation X thereunder, which imposes conditions on the consummation and servicing of mortgage loans;

•the Truth in Savings Act and Regulation DD thereunder, which requires certain disclosures to depositors concerning the terms of their deposit accounts; and

•the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and Regulation E thereunder, which governs various forms of electronic banking. This statute and regulation often interact with Regulation CC of the Federal Reserve Board, which governs the settlement of checks and other payment system issues.

Future Legislation

In addition to the specific legislation described above, the current administration has signed a number of executive orders and memoranda that could directly impact the regulation of the banking industry. Congress is also considering legislation to reform certain GSEs, including ending the federal government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The orders and legislation may change banking statutes and our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways by increasing or decreasing the cost of doing business, limiting or expanding permissible activities, or affecting the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions.

SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain “forward‑looking statements” within the meaning of and are intended to be covered by the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  These forward looking statements reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, future events and our financial performance. These statements are often, but not always, made through the use of words or phrases such as “may,” “might,” “should,” “could,” “predict,” “potential,” “believe,” “expect,” “continue,” “will,” “anticipate,” “seek,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “projection,” “goal,” “target,” “outlook,” “aim,” “would,” “annualized” and “outlook,” or the negative version of those words or other comparable words or phrases of a future or forward‑looking nature. These forward‑looking statements are not historical facts, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, management’s beliefs and certain assumptions made by management, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control. Accordingly, we caution that any such forward‑looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, assumptions, estimates and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward‑looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, actual results may prove to be materially different from the results expressed or implied by the forward‑looking statements.

A number of important factors could cause our actual results to differ materially from those indicated in these forward‑looking statements, including those factors identified in “Item 1A - Risk Factors” or “Item 7 - Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” or the following:

•business and economic conditions, particularly those affecting the financial services industry and our primary market areas;

•our ability to successfully manage our credit risk and the sufficiency of our allowance for loan loss;

•factors that can impact the performance of our loan portfolio, including real estate values and liquidity in our primary market areas, the financial health of our commercial borrowers and the success of construction projects that we finance, including any loans acquired in acquisition transactions;

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

•our ability to maintain licenses required in connection with multi‑family mortgage origination, sale and servicing operations;

•our ability to identify and address cyber‑security risks, fraud and systems errors;

•our ability to effectively execute our strategic plan and manage our growth;

•changes in our senior management team and our ability to attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel;

•governmental monetary and fiscal policies, and changes in market interest rates;

•liquidity issues, including fluctuations in the fair value and liquidity of the securities we hold for sale and our ability to raise additional capital, if necessary;

•incremental costs and obligations associated with operating as a public company;

•effects of competition from a wide variety of local, regional, national and other providers of financial, investment and insurance services;

•the impact of any claims or legal actions to which we may be subject, including any effect on our reputation; and

•changes in federal tax law or policy.

The foregoing factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read together with the other cautionary statements included in this report. Any forward‑looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we do not undertake any obligation to update or review any forward‑looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

 

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The risks described below, together with all other information included in this report should be carefully considered. Any of the following risks, as well as risks that we do not know or currently deem immaterial, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

Risks Related to Our Business

Decreased residential and multi‑family mortgage origination, volume and pricing decisions of competitors, and changes in interest rates, may adversely affect our profitability.

We currently operate a residential and multi‑family mortgage origination, warehouse financing, and servicing business. Changes in interest rates and pricing decisions by our loan competitors may adversely affect demand for our mortgage loan products, the revenue realized on the sale of loans, revenues received from servicing such loans and the valuation of our mortgage servicing rights.

Our mortgage banking profitability could significantly decline if we are not able to originate and resell a high volume of mortgage loans.

Mortgage production, especially refinancing activity, declines in rising interest rate environments. Even with recent rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, interest rates have been historically low over the last few years and this environment likely will not continue indefinitely. Moreover, when interest rates increase further, there can be no assurance that our mortgage production will continue at current levels. Because we sell a substantial portion of the mortgage loans we originate and purchase, the profitability of our mortgage banking business also depends in large part on our ability to aggregate a high volume of loans and sell them at a gain in the secondary market. Thus, in addition to our dependence on the interest rate environment, we are dependent upon (i) the existence of an active secondary market and (ii) our ability to profitably sell loans or securities into that market. If our level of mortgage production declines, the profitability will depend upon our ability to reduce our costs commensurate with the reduction of revenue from our mortgage operations.

In addition, our ability to sell mortgage loans readily is dependent upon our ability to remain eligible for the programs offered by government sponsored entities (“GSE’s”) (e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae) and other institutional and non‑institutional investors. Any significant impairment of our eligibility with any of the GSEs could materially and adversely affect our operations. Further, the criteria for loans to be accepted under such programs may be changed from time to time by the sponsoring entity, which could result in a lower volume of corresponding loan originations. The profitability of participating in specific programs may vary depending on a number of factors, including our administrative costs of originating and purchasing qualifying loans and our costs of meeting such criteria.

The ability for us and our warehouse financing customers to originate and sell residential mortgage loans readily is dependent upon the availability of an active secondary market for single‑family mortgage loans, which in turn depends in part upon the continuation of programs currently offered by GSEs and other institutional and non‑institutional investors. These entities account for a substantial portion of the secondary market in residential mortgage loans. Because the largest participants in the secondary market are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, GSEs whose activities are governed by federal law, any future changes in laws that significantly affect the activity of these GSEs could, in turn, adversely affect our operations. In September 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were placed into conservatorship by the U.S. government. The federal government has for many years considered proposals to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the results of any such reform, and their impact on us, are difficult to predict. To date, no reform proposal has been enacted.

Fluctuations in interest rates may reduce net interest income and otherwise negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

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 pay on our liabilities, such as deposits, rises more quickly than the rate of interest that we receive on our interest‑bearing assets, such as loans, which may cause our profits to decrease. The impact on earnings is more adverse 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, leading to similar yields between short‑term and long‑term rates. Many factors impact interest rates, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply and international economic weaknesses and disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

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 the underlying property may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their mortgages and other indebtedness at lower rates.

Our mortgage servicing rights assets typically have a ten year call protection, but as interest rates decrease, the potential for prepayment increases and the fair market value of our mortgage servicing rights assets may decrease. Our ability to mitigate this decrease in value is largely dependent on our ability to be the refinancier and retain servicing rights. While we have previously been successful in our servicing retention, we may not be able to achieve the same level of retention in the future.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. 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.

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 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 assuming longer term interest rates fall further, 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.

Because a significant portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of real estate loans, negative changes in the economy affecting real estate values and liquidity could impair the value of collateral securing our real estate loans and result in loan and other losses.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of loans with real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. 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 area in which the real estate is located. 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.

Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our business, 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. A source of our funds consists of our customer deposits, including escrow deposits held in connection with our multi‑family mortgage servicing business. These deposits are subject to potentially dramatic fluctuations in availability or price due to certain factors that may be outside of our control, such as a loss of confidence by customers in us or the banking sector generally, customer perceptions of our financial health and general reputation, increasing competitive pressures from other financial services firms for consumer or corporate customer deposits, changes in interest rates and returns on other investment classes. 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.

A  significant portion of our total deposits, are concentrated in large mortgage non‑depository financial institutions. These concentration levels expose us to the risk that one of these depositors will experience financial difficulties, withdraw its deposits, or otherwise lose the ability to generate custodial funds due to business or regulatory realities. However, these institutions also have warehouse funding arrangements,  providing us the opportunity to mitigate this risk by electing not to participate or fund an institution’s loans in the event such institution removes its deposits. Nonetheless, failure to effectively manage this risk and subsequent reduction in the deposits of our customers

could have a material impact on our ability to fund lending commitments or increase cost of funds, thereby decreasing our revenues.

Additional liquidity is provided by brokered deposits and our ability to borrow from the FHLB. Brokered deposits may be more rate sensitive than other sources of funding. In the future, those depositors may not replace their brokered deposits with us as they mature, or we may have to pay a higher rate of interest to keep those deposits or to replace them with other deposits or other sources of funds. Not being able to maintain or replace those deposits as they mature would adversely affect our liquidity. Additionally, if Merchants Bank does not maintain its well‑capitalized position, it may not accept or renew any brokered deposits without a waiver granted by the FDIC. 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 or on terms that are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry.

Additionally, as a BHC we are dependent on dividends from our subsidiaries as our primary source of income. Our subsidiaries are subject to certain legal and regulatory limitations on their ability to pay us dividends. Any reduction or limitation on our subsidiaries abilities to pay us dividends could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and in particular, affect our ability to repay our borrowings.

Any decline in available funding, including a decrease in brokered deposits, could adversely impact our ability to continue to implement our strategic plan, including our ability to originate loans, fund warehouse financing commitments, meet our expenses, declare and pay dividends to our shareholders 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.

If we violate HUD lending requirements, our multi‑family FHA origination business could be adversely affected.

We originate, sell and service loans under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) programs, and make certifications regarding compliance with applicable requirements and guidelines. If we were to violate these requirements and guidelines, or other applicable laws, or if the FHA loans we originate show a high frequency of loan defaults, we could be subject to monetary penalties and indemnification claims, and could be declared ineligible for FHA programs. Any inability to engage in our multi‑family FHA origination and servicing business would lead to a decrease in our net income.

If the federal government shuts down or otherwise fails to fully fund the federal budget, our multi‑family FHA origination business could be adversely affected.

Disagreement over the federal budget has caused the U.S. federal government to shut down for periods of time in recent years. Federal governmental entities, such as HUD, that rely on funding from the federal budget, could be adversely affected in the event of a government shut‑down, which could have a material adverse effect on our multi‑family FHA origination business and our results of operations.

A decline in general business and economic conditions and any regulatory responses to such conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our business and operations are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States, generally, and particularly Indiana. If the national, regional or local economies experience worsening economic conditions, including high levels of unemployment, our growth and profitability could be constrained. Additionally, our ability to assess the credit worthiness of our customers is made more complex by uncertain business and economic conditions. 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, increases in nonperforming assets and foreclosures, lower home sales and commercial activity, and fluctuations in the multi‑family FHA financing sector. 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.

If we do not effectively manage our credit risk, we may experience increased levels of delinquencies, nonperforming loans and charge‑offs, which could require increases in our provision for loan losses.

There are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers, risks of nonpayment, risks resulting from uncertainties as to the future value of collateral and cash flows available to service debt and risks resulting from changes in economic and market conditions. We cannot guarantee that our credit underwriting, credit monitoring, and risk management procedures will adequately reduce these credit risks, and they cannot be expected to completely eliminate our credit risks. If the overall economic climate in the United States, generally, or our market areas, specifically, declines, our borrowers may experience difficulties in repaying their loans, and the level of nonperforming loans, charge‑offs and delinquencies could rise and require further increases in the provision for loan losses, which would cause our net income, return on equity and capital to decrease.

Nonperforming assets take significant time to resolve and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and could result in further losses in the future.

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 income and returns on assets and equity, increasing our loan administration costs and adversely affecting our efficiency ratio. When we take collateral in foreclosure and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the collateral to its then‑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 could have an adverse effect on our net income and related ratios, such as return on assets and equity.

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

We establish our allowance for loan losses and maintain it at a level that management considers adequate to absorb probable loan losses based on an analysis of our portfolio, the underlying health of our borrowers and general economic conditions. The allowance for loan losses represents our estimate of probable losses in the portfolio at each balance sheet date and is based upon relevant information available to us. The allowance contains provisions for probable losses that have been identified relating to specific borrowing relationships, as well as probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio and credit undertakings that are not specifically identified. Additions to the allowance for loan losses, which are charged to earnings through the provision for loan losses, are determined based on a variety of factors, including an analysis of the loan portfolio, historical loss experience and an evaluation of current economic conditions in our market areas. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses is inherently subjective and requires us to make significant estimates and assumptions regarding current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. The actual amount of loan losses is affected by changes in economic, operating and other conditions within our markets, which may be beyond our control, and such losses may exceed current estimates.

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.

The small to midsized businesses that we lend to may have fewer resources to weather adverse business developments, which may impair a borrower’s ability to repay a loan, and such impairment could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We target our business development and marketing strategy primarily to serve the banking and financial services needs of small to midsized 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 or 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.

Real estate construction loans are based upon estimates of costs and values associated with the complete project. These estimates may be inaccurate, and we may be exposed to significant losses on loans for these projects.

Real estate construction loans comprise a small portion of our total loan portfolio, and such lending involves additional risks because funds are advanced upon the security of the project, which is of uncertain value prior to its completion, and costs may exceed realizable values in declining real estate markets. Because of the uncertainties inherent in estimating construction costs and the realizable market value of the completed project and the effects of governmental regulation of real property, 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, in part, on the success of the ultimate project and the ability of the borrower to sell or lease the property, rather than the ability of the borrower or guarantor to repay principal and interest. If our appraisal of the value of the completed project proves to be overstated or market values or rental rates decline, we may have inadequate security for the repayment of the loan upon completion of construction of the project. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to or at completion due to a default, we may not be able to recover all of the unpaid balance of, and accrued interest on, the loan 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 while we attempt to dispose of it.

Our risk management framework may not be effective in mitigating risks and/or losses to us.

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 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.

We are highly dependent on our management team, and the loss of our senior executive officers or other key employees could harm our ability to implement our strategic plan, impair our relationships with customers and adversely affect our business, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our success is dependent, to a large degree, upon the continued service and skills of our executive management team, particularly Mr. Petrie, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Dunlap, our President and Chief Operating Officer and President of Merchants Bank.

Our business and growth strategies are built primarily upon our ability to retain employees with experience and business relationships within their respective market areas. We seek to manage the continuity of our executive management team through regular succession planning. As part of such succession planning, other executives and high performing individuals have been identified and are provided certain training in order to be prepared to assume particular management roles and responsibilities in the event of the departure of a member of our executive management team.

However, the loss of Mr. Petrie or Mr. Dunlap, or any of our other key personnel could have an adverse impact on our business and growth because of their skills, years of industry experience, and knowledge of our market areas, our failure to develop and implement a viable succession plan, the difficulty of finding qualified replacement personnel, or any difficulties associated with transitioning of responsibilities to any new members of the executive management team. With the exception of Mr. Dury, President of MCC, who is subject to an “at will” employment agreement that contains a 12 month non‑competition period, we do not have employment or non‑competition agreements with our executives or other employees who are important to our business. While our mortgage originators and loan officers are generally subject to non‑solicitation provisions as part of their employment, our ability to enforce such agreements may not fully mitigate the injury to our business from the breach of such agreements, as such employees could leave us and immediately begin soliciting our customers. The departure of any of our personnel who are not subject to enforceable non‑competition agreements could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and growth prospects.

System failure or breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other liabilities.

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. 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 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.

Our operations could be interrupted if our third‑party service providers experience difficulty, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking regulations.

We depend to a significant extent on a number of relationships with 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 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 them, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a continuing need for technological change, and we may not have the resources to effectively implement new technology or we may experience operational challenges when implementing new technology.

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 subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, customer or employee fraud and data processing system failures and errors.

Employee errors and employee and/or customer misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation or financial performance. Misconduct by our employees could include, but is not limited to, 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. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence.

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 may not be able to overcome the integration and other risks associated with acquisitions, which could have an adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy.

Although we plan to continue to grow our business organically, we also intend to pursue acquisition opportunities that we believe complement our activities and have the ability to enhance our profitability and provide attractive risk‑adjusted returns. Our future acquisition activities could be material to our business and involve a number of risks, including the following:

Depending on the condition of any institution or assets or liabilities that we may acquire, that acquisition may, at least in the near term, adversely affect our capital and earnings and, if not successfully integrated with our organization, may continue to have such effects over a longer period. We may not be successful in overcoming these risks or any other problems encountered in connection with pending or potential acquisitions, and any acquisition we may consider will be subject to prior regulatory approval. Our inability to overcome these risks could have an adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy, which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If the goodwill that we have recorded or may record in connection with a business acquisition becomes impaired, it could require charges to earnings.

Goodwill represents the amount by which the cost of an acquisition exceeded the fair value of net assets we acquired in connection with the purchase of another financial institution. We review goodwill for impairment at least annually, or more frequently if a triggering event occurs which indicates that the carrying value of the asset might be impaired.

Our goodwill impairment test involves a two‑step process. Under the first step, the estimation of fair value of the reporting unit is compared to its carrying value including goodwill. If step one indicates a potential impairment, the second step is performed to measure the amount of impairment, if any. If the carrying amount of the reporting unit goodwill exceeds the implied fair value of that goodwill, an impairment loss is recognized in an amount equal to that excess. Any such adjustments are reflected in our results of operations in the periods in which they become known. As of December 31, 2018, our goodwill totaled $17.5 million. While we have not recorded any impairment charges since we initially recorded the goodwill, there can be no assurance that our future evaluations of our existing goodwill or goodwill we may acquire in the future will not result in findings of impairment and related write‑downs, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, and if we fail to maintain sufficient capital, whether due to losses, an inability to raise additional capital or otherwise, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations, as well as our ability to maintain regulatory compliance, would be adversely affected.

We face significant capital and other regulatory requirements as a financial institution. Although we raised significant funds through our October 2017 initial public offering, 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, we, on a consolidated basis, and Merchants Bank and FMBI, 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. Accordingly, we cannot provide assurances 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 ability to maintain our reputation is critical to the success of our business, and the failure to do so may materially adversely affect our business and the value of our stock.

We are a community bank and known nationally for MCC and warehouse financing, and our reputation is one of the most valuable components of our business. As such, we strive to conduct our business in a manner that enhances our reputation. This is done, in part, by recruiting, hiring and retaining employees who share our core values of being an integral part of the communities we serve, delivering superior service to our customers and caring about our customers

and associates. 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 stock may be materially adversely affected.

We face strong competition from financial services companies and other companies that offer banking, mortgage, leasing, and providers of multi-family agency financing and servicing, which could harm our business.

The banking business is highly competitive, and we experience competition in our market from many other financial institutions. Our operations consist of offering banking and residential mortgage services, and we also offer multi‑family agency financing to generate noninterest income. Many of our competitors offer the same, or a wider variety of, banking and related financial services within our market areas. These competitors include national banks, regional banks and community banks. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including savings and loan institutions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, credit unions, mortgage banks and other financial intermediaries. In addition, a number of out‑of‑state financial intermediaries have opened production offices or otherwise solicit deposits in our market areas. Additionally, we face growing competition from online businesses with few or no physical locations, including online banks, lenders and consumer and commercial lending platforms. 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 customers, we may be unable to continue to grow our business, and our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Many of our non‑bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our activities and may have greater flexibility in competing for business. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. In addition, some of our current commercial banking customers may seek alternative banking sources as they develop needs for credit facilities larger than we may be able to accommodate. Our inability to compete successfully in the markets in which we operate could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in accounting standards could materially impact our financial statements.

From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“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. Additionally, as an emerging growth company we intend to take advantage of extended transition periods for complying with new or revised accounting standards affecting public companies.

Failure to maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock price.

        

We are required to comply with the SEC's rules implementing Sections 302 and 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which 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. While we are an emerging growth company and elect transitional relief available to emerging growth companies, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be 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 once we are no longer an emerging growth company, 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, Federal Reserve, FDIC, IDFI, IDFPR 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.

 

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information provided by customers and counterparties.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with customers and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of customers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. In deciding whether to extend credit, we may rely upon our customers’ representations that their financial statements conform to generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer. We also may rely on customer representations and certifications, or other audit or accountants’ reports, with respect to the business and financial condition of our clients. Our financial condition, results of operations, financial reporting and reputation could be negatively affected if we rely on materially misleading, false, inaccurate or fraudulent information.

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected if the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies are inaccurate.

The preparation of financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, which are included in the section captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this report, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that we consider “critical” because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially affect our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events or regulatory views concerning such analysis differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, those events or assumptions could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, in each case resulting in our needing to revise or restate prior period financial statements, cause damage to our reputation and the price of our common stock, and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we breach any of the representations or warranties we make to a purchaser of our mortgage loans, we may be liable to the purchaser for certain costs and damages.

When we sell or securitize mortgage loans in the ordinary course of business, we are required to make certain representations and warranties to the purchaser about the mortgage loans and the manner in which they were originated. Under these agreements, we may be required to repurchase mortgage loans 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.

We are dependent on the use of data and modeling in our management’s decision‑making, and faulty data or modeling approaches could negatively impact our decision‑making ability or possibly subject us to regulatory scrutiny in the future.

The use of statistical and quantitative models and other quantitative analyses is endemic to bank decision‑making, and the employment of such analyses is becoming increasingly widespread in our operations. Liquidity stress testing, interest rate sensitivity analysis, and the identification of possible violations of anti‑money laundering regulations are all examples of areas in which we are dependent on models and the data that underlies them. The use of statistical and quantitative models is also becoming more prevalent in regulatory compliance. While we are not currently subject to annual Dodd‑Frank Act stress testing (DFAST) and the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) submissions, we anticipate that model‑derived testing may become more extensively implemented by regulators in the future. We anticipate data‑based modeling will penetrate further into bank decision‑making, particularly risk management efforts, as the capacities developed to meet rigorous stress testing requirements are able to be employed more widely and in differing applications. While we believe these quantitative techniques and approaches improve our decision‑making, they also create the possibility that faulty data or flawed quantitative approaches could negatively impact our decision‑making ability or, if we become subject to regulatory stress‑testing in the future, adverse regulatory

scrutiny. Secondarily, because of the complexity inherent in these approaches, misunderstanding or misuse of their outputs could similarly result in suboptimal decision‑making.

Downgrades to the credit rating of the U.S. government or of its securities or any of its agencies by one or more of the credit ratings agencies could have a material adverse effect on general economic conditions, as well as our business.

On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s cut the credit rating of the U.S. federal government’s long‑term sovereign debt from AAA to AA+, while also keeping its outlook negative. Moody’s had lowered its own outlook for the same debt to “Negative” on August 2, 2011, and Fitch also lowered its outlook for the same debt to “Negative,” on November 28, 2011. In 2013, both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s revised their outlooks from “Negative” to “Stable,” and on March 21, 2014, Fitch revised its outlook from “Negative” to “Stable.” Further downgrades of the U.S. federal government’s sovereign credit rating, and the perceived creditworthiness of U.S. government‑backed obligations, could affect our ability to obtain funding that is collateralized by affected instruments and our ability to access capital markets on favorable terms. Such downgrades could also affect the pricing of funding, when funding is available. A downgrade of the credit rating of the U.S. government, or of its agencies, GSEs or related institutions or instrumentalities, may also adversely affect the market value of such instruments and, further, exacerbate the other risks to which we are subject and any related adverse effects on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Severe weather, natural disasters, pandemics, acts of war or terrorism or other external events could significantly impact our business.

Severe weather, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, acts of war or terrorism or other adverse external events could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct business. In addition, such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue or cause us to incur additional expenses. The occurrence of any of these events in the future could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to the Regulation of Our Industry

Legislative and regulatory actions taken now or in the future may increase our costs and impact our business, governance structure, financial condition or results of operations.

The Dodd‑Frank Act, among other things, imposed new capital requirements on bank holding companies; changed the base for the FDIC insurance assessments to a bank’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, rather than upon its deposit base; 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  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, residential 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 Merchants Bank and FMBI.

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.

In addition, new proposals for legislation may be introduced in the U.S. Congress that could further substantially increase regulation of the bank and non‑bank financial services industries and impose restrictions on the operations and general ability of firms within the industry to conduct business consistent with historical practices. Federal and state regulatory agencies also frequently adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. Certain aspects of current or proposed regulatory or legislative changes 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 an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

New regulations, increased regulatory reviews, and/or changes in the structure of the secondary mortgage markets which we would utilize to sell mortgage loans may be introduced and may increase costs and make it more difficult to operate a residential and multi‑family mortgage origination and servicing business.

As a result of the Dodd‑Frank Act and recent rulemaking, we are subject to more stringent capital requirements.

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 leverage ratio of 5% or more. Institutions must also maintain a capital conservation buffer consisting of common equity Tier 1 capital. The Basel III capital rules became effective as applied to us,  Merchants Bank, and FMBI on January 1, 2015 with a phase‑in period that generally extended through January 1, 2019 for many of the changes. Although the Regulatory Relief Act was enacted and our regulators have proposed certain rules to ease and/or simplify our capital requirements, such rules have not been finalized. Further, any finalized rules ultimately may not affect our capital requirements or provide sufficient relief.

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.

Monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

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.

Federal and state regulators periodically examine our business, and we may be required to remediate adverse examination findings. 

The Federal Reserve, FDIC, IDFI, IDFPR, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, RHS, and Ginnie Mae 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.

We are subject to numerous laws designed to protect consumers, including the CRA and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

The CRA, 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.

Additionally, the CFPB was created under the Dodd‑Frank Act to centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection with broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of federal consumer financial laws with respect to all financial institutions that offer financial products and services to consumers. The CFPB is also authorized to prescribe rules applicable to any covered person or service provider, identifying and prohibiting acts or practices that are “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. The ongoing broad rulemaking powers of the CFPB have potential to have a significant impact on the operations of financial institutions offering consumer financial products or services. The CFPB may propose new rules on consumer financial products or services, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations if any such rules limit our ability to provide such financial products or services.  The Company currently has an approved CRA strategic plan.

We face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti‑money laundering statutes and regulations.

The BSA, the 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 FinCEN 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.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support Merchants Bank or FMBI.

As a matter of policy, the Federal Reserve expects a BHC 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 BHC to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the BHC 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 BHC may not have the resources to provide it and therefore may be required to borrow the funds or raise capital. Any loans by a BHC 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 BHC bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the 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 BHC’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by us to make a required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

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.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Item 2. Properties.

Our principal executive offices are located at 11555 North Meridian Street, Suite 400, Carmel, Indiana 46032. With the acquisition of FMBI and FMNBP and the assets of NattyMac, including our principal executive offices, we operate a total of fourteen offices. We plan to relocate our principal executive offices in 2019 to a site we own in downtown Carmel, Indiana and operate a Merchants Bank branch at that location. We believe that our facilities are in good condition and are adequate to meet our operating needs for the foreseeable future. The following table summarizes pertinent details of our principal executive offices, branches and new offices:

 

 

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings.

There are no material pending legal proceedings other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the business which we operate.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

None.

 

PART II

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

Our common stock began trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market (“Nasdaq”) under the symbol “MBIN” on October 27, 2017. Prior to that date, there was no public market for our common stock. On March 8, 2019, the closing price of our common stock was $19.95.  As of March 8, 2019, there were 28,704,163 shares of our common stock outstanding and 53 shareholders of record.  A substantially greater number of holders of our common stock are “street name” or beneficial holders, whose shares are held by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

Dividend Policy

It has been our policy to pay quarterly dividends to holders of our common stock, and we intend to continue paying dividends. Our dividend policy and practice may change in the future, however, and our board of directors may change or eliminate the payment of future dividends at its discretion, without notice to our shareholders. Any future determination to pay dividends to holders of our common stock will depend on our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, banking regulations, payment of dividends on our preferred stock, contractual restrictions and any other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant.

Dividend Restrictions

Under the terms of our 8% Non‑Cumulative, Perpetual Preferred Stock, we are not permitted to declare or pay any dividends on our common stock unless the dividends have been declared and paid on the shares of our 8% Non‑Cumulative, Perpetual Preferred Stock for the period since the last payment of dividends

As a BHC, our ability to pay dividends is affected by the policies and enforcement powers of the Federal Reserve. In addition, because we are a BHC, we are dependent upon the payment of dividends by subsidiaries, and primarily Merchants Bank, to us as our principal source of funds to pay dividends in the future, if any, and to make other payments. Merchants Bank is also subject to various legal, regulatory and other restrictions on its ability to pay dividends and make other distributions and payments to us. See Part I, Item 1 - “Supervision and Regulation—Merchants Bank and FMBI—Dividends.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph compares the cumulative total shareholder return on our common stock from October 27, 2017 (the date of our initial public offering and listing on Nasdaq) through December 31, 2018. The graph compares our common stock with the Nasdaq Composite Index and the Nasdaq Bank Index. The graph assumes an investment of $100.00 in our common stock and each index on October 27, 2017 and reinvestment of all quarterly dividends. Measurement points are October 27, 2017 and the last trading day of each subsequent quarter through December 31, 2018. There is no assurance that our common stock performance will continue in the future with the same or similar results as shown in the graph.

         

Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans

See Item 12 of this report for disclosure regarding securities authorized for issuance and equity compensation plans required by Item 201(d) of Regulation S-K.

Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities

None.

 

Item 6. Selected Financial Data.

The following consolidated selected financial data is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements as of and for the five years ended December 31, 2018.  This information should be read in connection with our audited consolidated financial statements, related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” appearing elsewhere in the report. We have derived the selected financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 from our audited financial statements not included in this report. 

 

NON‑GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES 

Some of the financial measures included in this report are not measures of financial performance recognized by GAAP. Our management uses these non‑GAAP financial measures in its analysis of our performance. These non‑GAAP financial measures include presentation of tangible common shareholders’ equity, tangible book value per share, tangible common shareholders’ equity to tangible assets, return on average tangible common equity, efficiency ratio, and pro‑forma tax effects related to our conversion from a Subchapter S corporation to a C corporation for income tax purposes.

The reconciliation from shareholders’ equity per GAAP to tangible common shareholders’ equity is comprised solely of goodwill and intangibles totaling $21.0 million at December 31, 2018, $5.4 million at December 31, 2017, and $523,000 in all periods from December 31, 2013 through December 31, 2016.

The reconciliation from consolidated assets per GAAP to tangible assets is comprised solely of consolidated assets less goodwill and intangibles totaling $21.0 million at December 31, 2018, $5.4 million at December 31, 2017, and $523,000 in all periods from December 31, 2014 through December 31, 2016.

The efficiency ratio represents noninterest expense divided by the sum of net interest income and noninterest income.

Tangible book value represents tangible common shareholders’ equity divided by ending common shares.

Return on average tangible common equity represents net income available to common shareholders divided by average shareholders’ equity, less average goodwill, average intangibles, and average preferred stock.

We converted from a Subchapter S corporation to a C corporation in 2014. In connection with this conversion, we recorded a charge to net income in 2014 for the recognition of deferred tax liabilities totaling $16.4 million. To facilitate comparison of the years ended December 31, 2014, with subsequent years, we have presented a reversal of the charge for deferred tax liabilities in 2014.

We believe that these non‑GAAP financial measures provide useful information to management and investors that is supplementary to our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows computed in accordance with GAAP; however, we acknowledge that the non‑GAAP financial measures have a number of limitations. As such, you should not view these disclosures as a substitute for results determined in accordance with GAAP, and these disclosures are not necessarily comparable to non‑GAAP financial measures that other companies use.

A reconciliation of GAAP to non‑GAAP financial measures is as follows:

 

 

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

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with “Selected Consolidated Financial Data” and our audited consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes included elsewhere in this report. This discussion and analysis contains forward‑looking statements that are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause our results to differ materially from our expectations. Actual results and the timing of events may differ significantly from those expressed or implied by such forward‑looking statements due to a number of factors, including those set forth under Item 1 - “Safe Harbor Statement Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,” Item 1A - “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report. We assume no obligation to update any of these forward‑looking statements.