PEAPACK GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORP - Annual Report: 2015 (Form 10-K)

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

PEAPACK-GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant's telephone number (908) 234-0700

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 o  No x.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o  No x.

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the shares held by unaffiliated stockholders was approximately $326 million on June 30, 2015.

As of March 7, 2016, 16,347,750 shares of no par value Common Stock were outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Company’s Definitive Proxy Statement for the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2016 Proxy Statement”) are incorporated by reference into Part III. The Company will file the 2016 Proxy Statement within 120 days of December 31, 2015.

FORM 10-K

PEAPACK-GLADSTONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Table of Contents

PART I

The disclosures set forth in this Form 10-K are qualified by Item 1A-Risk Factors and the section captioned “Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements” in Item 7-Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this report. The terms “Peapack,” “the Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries unless otherwise indicated or the context requires otherwise.

The Corporation

Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation is a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Holding Company Act”). The Company was organized under the laws of New Jersey in August 1997 by the Board of Directors of Peapack-Gladstone Bank (the “Bank”), its principal subsidiary, to become a holding company for the Bank. The Bank is a state chartered commercial bank founded in 1921 under the laws of the State of New Jersey. The Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System. The Bank provides innovative private banking services to businesses, non-profits and consumers through its private banking locations in Bedminster, Morristown, Princeton and Teaneck, New Jersey, its wealth management division and its branch network in Somerset, Morris, Hunterdon, Middlesex and Union counties.

Our wealth management clients include individuals, families, foundations, endowments, trusts and estates. Our commercial loan clients are business people, including business owners, professionals, retailers, contractors and real estate investors. Most forms of commercial lending are offered, including working capital lines of credit, term loans for fixed asset acquisitions, commercial mortgages, multifamily mortgages and other forms of asset-based financing.

In addition to commercial lending activities, we offer a wide range of consumer banking services, including: checking and savings accounts, money market and interest-bearing checking accounts, certificates of deposit, and individual retirement accounts held in certificates of deposit. We also offer residential and construction mortgages, home equity lines of credit and other second mortgage loans. Automated teller machines are available at 22 locations. Internet banking, including an online bill payment option and mobile phone banking, is available to clients.

Employees

As of December 31, 2015, the Company employed 316 full-time equivalent persons. Management considers relations with employees to be satisfactory.

Peapack-Gladstone Bank’s Private Wealth Management Division

The Bank’s Private Wealth Management Division, is one of the largest New Jersey-based trust and investment businesses with $3.32 billion of assets under administration as of December 31, 2015. It is headquartered in Bedminster, with additional private banking locations in Morristown, Princeton and Teaneck, NJ, as well as at the Bank’s subsidiary, PGB Trust & Investments of Delaware, in Greenville, DE. The Bank’s Private Wealth Management Division is known for its integrity, client service and broad range of fiduciary, investment management and tax services, designed specifically to meet the needs of high net-worth individuals, families, foundations and endowments.

We believe our wealth management business differentiates us from our competition and adds significant value. We intend to grow this business further both in and around our market areas through our Delaware Trust subsidiary; through our existing wealth, loan and depository client base; and through our innovative private banking service model, which utilizes private bankers working together to provide fully integrated client solutions. Throughout the wealth management division and all other business lines, we will continue to provide the unparalleled personalized, high-touch service our valued clients have come to expect.

Our Markets

Our current market is defined as the NY-NJ-PA metropolitan statistical area. Our primary market areas are located in New Jersey and New York City, among the most attractive banking markets in the United States, each with a total population exceeding 8.4 million and a median household income of $72,062 for New Jersey and $52,737 for New York City as of 2010-2014, compared to the U.S. median household income of $53,482 as of 2010-2014, according to estimates from the United States Census Bureau. Somerset County, where we are headquartered, is among one of the wealthiest in New Jersey, with a 2010-2014 median household income of $100,903 according to estimates from the United States Census Bureau. We believe that these markets have economic and competitive dynamics that are consistent with our objectives and favorable to executing our growth strategy.

Our Business Strategy

We began our growth strategy – Expanding Our Reach – in 2013 to principally address three industry headwinds:

Through 2015 the key elements of our business strategy have included:

expansion of our wealth management business.  

In particular, we have focused on the following areas of our business:

Governmental Policies and Legislation

The banking industry is highly regulated. Statutory and regulatory controls increase a bank holding company’s cost of doing business and limit the options of its management to deploy assets and maximize income. Proposals to change the laws and regulations governing the operations and taxation of banks, bank holding companies and other financial institutions are frequently made in Congress, in state legislatures and before various bank regulatory agencies. The likelihood of any major changes and the impact such changes might have on the Company or the Bank is impossible to predict. The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of such laws and regulations on the Bank. It is intended only to briefly summarize some material provisions.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law on July 21, 2010. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly changed the bank regulatory landscape and has impacted and will continue to impact the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) took over responsibility over the principal federal consumer protection laws, such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth in Saving Act, among others, on July 21, 2011. Institutions that have assets of $10 billion or less, such as the Bank, will continue to be supervised in this area by their primary federal regulators (in the case of the Bank, the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”)). The Dodd-Frank Act also gave the CFPB expanded data collecting powers for fair lending purposes for both small business and mortgage loans, as well as expanded authority to prevent unfair, deceptive and abusive practices.

In January 2013, the CFPB issued a series of final rules related to mortgage loan origination and mortgage loan servicing. In particular, the CFPB issued a final rule amending Regulation Z to implement certain amendments to the Truth in Lending Act. The rule implemented statutory changes that lengthen the time for which a mandatory escrow account established for a higher-priced mortgage loan must be maintained.  The rule also exempted certain transactions from the statute’s escrow requirement. The CFPB issued a final rule implementing amendments to the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.  The rule amended Regulation Z by expanding the types of mortgage loans that are subject to the protections of the Home Ownership and Equity Protections Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”), revised and expanded the tests for coverage under HOEPA, and imposed additional restrictions on mortgages that are covered by HOEPA, including a pre-loan counseling requirement.  The rule also amended Regulation Z and Regulation X by imposing other requirements related to homeownership counseling.

In addition, the CFPB amended Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The revisions to Regulation B require creditors to provide applicants with free copies of all appraisals and other written valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling, and require creditors to notify applicants in writing that copies of appraisals will be provided to them promptly. The CFPB also amended Regulation Z to implement requirements and restrictions to the Truth in Lending Act concerning loan originator compensation, qualifications of, and registration or licensing of loan originators, compliance procedures for depository institutions, mandatory arbitration, and the financing of single-premium credit insurance.  These amendments revised or provided additional commentary on Regulation Z’s restrictions on loan originator compensation, including application of these restrictions to prohibitions on dual compensation and compensation based on a term of a transaction or a proxy for a term of a transaction, and to recordkeeping requirements.  This rule also established tests for when loan originators can be compensated through certain profits-based compensation arrangements. The amendments to § 1026.36(h) and (i) became effective on June 1, 2013, while the other provisions of the rule became effective on January 10, 2014.

The final rules also implemented the ability-to-repay and qualified mortgage (QM) provisions of the Truth in Lending Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act (the “QM Rule”). The ability-to-repay provision requires creditors to make reasonable, good faith determinations that borrowers are able to repay their mortgages before extending the credit based on a number of factors and consideration of financial information about the borrower from reasonably reliable third-party documents. Under the Dodd-Frank Act and the QM Rule, loans meeting the definition of “qualified mortgage” are entitled to a presumption that the lender satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. The presumption is a conclusive presumption/safe harbor for prime loans meeting the QM requirements, and a rebuttable presumption for higher-priced/subprime loans meeting the QM requirements. The definition of a “qualified mortgage” incorporates the statutory requirements, such as not allowing negative amortization or terms longer than 30 years. The QM Rule also added an explicit maximum 43 percent debt-to-income ratio for borrowers if the loan is to meet the QM definition, though some mortgages that meet GSE, FHA

and VA underwriting guidelines may, for a period not to exceed seven years, meet the QM definition without being subject to the 43 percent debt-to-income limits.

The CFPB may issue additional final rules regarding mortgages in the future. We cannot assure you that existing or future regulations will not have a material adverse impact on our residential mortgage loan business.

On December 10, 2013, the FRB, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the “CFTC”) and the SEC issued final rules to implement the Volcker Rule contained in section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which generally became effective on July 21, 2015. The Volcker Rule prohibits an insured depository institution and its affiliates (referred to as “banking entities”) from: (i) engaging in “proprietary trading” and (ii) investing in or sponsoring certain types of funds (“covered funds”) subject to certain limited exceptions. The rule also effectively prohibits short-term trading strategies by any U.S. banking entity if those strategies involve instruments other than those specifically permitted for trading and prohibits the use of some hedging strategies.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains numerous other provisions affecting financial institutions of all types, many of which may have an impact on our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. Consequently, the Dodd-Frank Act is likely to continue to increase our cost of doing business, it may limit or expand our permissible activities, and it may affect the competitive balance within our industry and market areas. The nature and extent of future legislative and regulatory changes affecting financial institutions, including as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, remains very unpredictable at this time.

Capital Requirements

Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), each federal banking agency has promulgated regulations, specifying the levels at which a financial institution would be considered “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” or “critically undercapitalized,” and to take certain mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions based on the capital level of the institution. To qualify to engage in financial activities under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, all depository institutions must be “well capitalized.” The financial holding company of a national bank will be put under directives to raise its capital levels or divest its activities if the depository institution falls from that level.

In July 2013, the FRB published final rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations, referred to herein as the Basel Rules. The FDIC and the OCC have adopted substantially identical rules (in the case of the FDIC, as interim final rules). The Basel Rules implemented the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework, commonly referred to as Basel III, for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, as discussed below. The Basel Rules substantially revised the risk-based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and depository institutions, including the Company and the Bank, compared to the existing U.S. risk-based capital rules. The Basel Rules defined the components of capital and addressed other issues affecting the numerator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios. The Basel Rules also addressed risk weights and other issues affecting the denominator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios and replaced the existing risk-weighting approach, which was derived from Basel I capital accords of the Basel Committee, with a more risk-sensitive approach based, in part, on the standardized approach in the Basel Committee’s 2004 Basel II capital accords. The Basel Rules also implemented the requirements of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act to remove references to credit ratings from the federal banking agencies’ rules. The Basel Rules became effective for us on January 1, 2015 (subject to phase-in periods for certain components).

The Basel Rules, among other things, (i) introduced a new capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1,” or CET1, (ii) specified that Tier 1 capital consist of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) applied most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures to CET1 and not to the other components of capital, thus potentially requiring higher levels of CET1 in order to meet minimum ratios, and (iv) expanded the scope of the reductions/adjustments from capital as compared to existing regulations.

Under the Basel Rules, the minimum capital ratios for the Company and the Bank as of January 1, 2015 are as follows:

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Basel Rules will also require the Company and the Bank to maintain a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer”, composed entirely of CET1, on top of the minimum risk-weighted asset ratios, effectively resulting in minimum ratios of (i) CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7.0%, (ii) Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.5%, and (iii) total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 10.5%. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of (i) CET1 to risk-weighted assets, (ii) Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets or (iii) total capital to risk-weighted assets above the respective minimum but below the capital conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers based on the amount of the shortfall. The implementation of the capital conservation buffer began on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and will increase by 0.625% on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019.

The Basel Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in common equity issued by nonconsolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1.

Under current capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in capital are excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under the Basel Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items are not excluded; however, non-advanced approaches banking organizations, including the Company and the Bank, may make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items effective as of January 1, 2015. This election was made by the Company. The deductions and other adjustments to CET1 are being phased in incrementally between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018.

With respect to the Bank, the Basel Rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, by (i) introducing a CET1 ratio requirement at each capital quality level (other than critically undercapitalized); (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category; and (iii) requiring a leverage ratio of 5% to be well-capitalized. An institution will be classified as “well capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of at least 6.5 percent, (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5.0 percent, and (v) meets certain other requirements. An institution will be classified as “adequately capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of at least 4.5 percent, (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 4.0 percent, and (v) does not meet the definition of “well capitalized.” An institution will be classified as “undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0 percent, (iii) has a CETI ratio of less than 4.5 percent or (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of less than 4.0 percent. An institution will be classified as “significantly undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0 percent, (iii) has a CET1 ratio of less than 3.0 percent or (iv) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of less than 3.0 percent. An institution will be classified as “critically undercapitalized” if it has a tangible equity to total assets ratio that is equal to or less than 2.0 percent. An insured depository institution may be deemed to be in a lower capitalization category if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. Similar categories apply to bank holding companies. When the capital conservation buffer is fully phased in, the capital ratios applicable to depository institutions under the Basel Rules will exceed the ratios to be considered well-capitalized under the prompt corrective action regulations.

The Basel Rules prescribe a standardized approach for calculating risk-weighted assets that expand the risk-weighting categories from the current four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. Government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. In addition, the Basel Rules also provide more advantageous risk weights for derivatives and repurchase-style transactions cleared through a qualifying central counterparty and increase the scope of eligible guarantors and eligible collateral for purposes of credit risk mitigation.

The Bank’s capital ratios were all above the minimum levels required for it to be considered a “well capitalized” financial institution at December 31, 2015 under the “prompt corrective action” regulations in effect as of such date.

Insurance Funds Legislation

The Bank’s deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). The Deposit Insurance Fund is the successor to the Bank Insurance Fund and the Savings Association Insurance Fund, which were merged in 2006. Under the FDIC’s risk-based system, insured institutions are assigned to one of four risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other factors with less risky institutions paying lower assessments on their deposits.

In February 2011, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC approved a final rule that revised the assessment base to consist of average consolidated total assets during the assessment period minus the average tangible equity during the assessment period. In addition, the final revisions eliminated the adjustment for secured borrowings, including Federal Home Loan Bank advances, and made certain other changes to the impact of unsecured borrowings and brokered deposits on an institution’s deposit insurance assessment. The final rule also revised the assessment rate schedule to provide initial base assessment rates ranging from 5 to 35 basis points and total base assessment rates ranging from 2.5 to 45 basis points after adjustment.

As previously noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act makes permanent the $250 thousand limit for federal deposit insurance. The FDIC has authority to further increase insurance assessments. A significant increase in insurance premiums may have an adverse effect on the operating expenses and results of operations of the Bank. Management cannot predict what insurance assessment rates will be in the future.

Restrictions on the Payment of Dividends

The holders of the Company’s common stock are entitled to receive dividends, when, as and if declared by the Board of Directors of the Company out of funds legally available. The only statutory limitation is that such dividends may not be paid when the Company is insolvent. Since the principal source of income for the Company will be dividends on Bank common stock paid to the Company by the Bank, the Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders will depend on whether the Bank pays dividends to it. As a practical matter, restrictions on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends act as restrictions on the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends by the Company. As a New Jersey chartered commercial bank, the Bank is subject to the restrictions on the payment of dividends contained in the New Jersey Banking Act of 1948, as amended (the “Banking Act”). Under the Banking Act, the Bank may pay dividends only out of retained earnings, and out of surplus to the extent that surplus exceeds 50% of stated capital. Under the Financial Institutions Supervisory Act, the FDIC has the authority to prohibit a state-chartered bank from engaging in conduct that, in the FDIC’s opinion, constitutes an unsafe or unsound banking practice. Under certain circumstances, the FDIC could claim that the payment of a dividend or other distribution by the Bank to the Company constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice. The Company is also subject to FRB policies, which may, in certain circumstances, limit its ability to pay dividends. The FRB policies require, among other things, that a bank holding company maintain a minimum capital base and serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary bank. The FRB by supervisory letters has advised holding corporations that it is has supervisory concerns when the level of dividends is too high and would seek to prevent dividends if the dividends paid by the holding company exceeded its earnings. The FRB would most likely seek to prohibit any dividend payment that would reduce a holding company’s capital below these minimum amounts.

Incentive Compensation

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities, such as the Company and the Bank, with at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The agencies proposed such regulations in April 2011, but the regulations have not been finalized. If the regulations are adopted in the form initially proposed, they will impose limitations on the manner in which the Company may structure compensation for its executives.

In June 2010, the FRB, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not

encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. These three principles are incorporated into the proposed joint compensation regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act, discussed in the immediately preceding paragraph.

The FRB will review, as part of its regular, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

Consumer Protection Regulations

The Bank is subject to federal consumer protection statutes and regulations promulgated under those laws, including, but not limited to the following:

The Bank’s deposit operations are also subject to the following federal statutes and regulations, among others:

Many of the foregoing laws and regulations are subject to change resulting from the provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, which in many cases calls for revisions to implementing regulations, such as the amendments described above in the discussion on the Dodd-Frank Act.

Holding Company Supervision

The Company is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Holding Company Act. As a bank holding company, the Company is supervised by the FRB and is required to file reports with the FRB and provide such additional information as the FRB may require.

The Holding Company Act prohibits the Company, with certain exceptions, from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than five percent of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to subsidiary banks, except that it may, upon application, engage in, and may own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the FRB to be so closely related to banking “as to be a proper incident thereto.” The Holding Company Act requires prior approval by the FRB of the acquisition by the Company of more than five percent of the voting stock of any additional bank. Satisfactory capital ratios, Community Reinvestment Act ratings and anti-money laundering policies are generally prerequisites to obtaining federal regulatory approval to make acquisitions. The policy of the FRB provides that a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support the subsidiary bank in circumstances in which it might not do so absent that policy. Acquisitions through the Bank require the approval of the FRB and the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance (“NJDOBI”).

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley Act”) added new legal requirements for public companies affecting corporate governance, accounting and corporate reporting.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides for, among other things:

Each of the national stock exchanges, including the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ) Global Select Market where the Company’s securities are listed, have implemented corporate governance listing standards, including rules strengthening director independence requirements for boards, and requiring the adoption of charters for the nominating and audit committees. As noted above, in 2012, the SEC adopted rules under the Dodd-Frank Act requiring the stock exchanges to adopt rules addressing the independence of Compensation Committee members and consideration of the independence of compensation advisers, and each of the exchanges, including the NASDAQ Global Select Market, have adopted such rules.

USA PATRIOT Act

As part of the USA PATRIOT Act, Congress adopted the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “Anti Money Laundering Act”). The Anti Money Laundering Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the heads of other government agencies, to adopt special measures applicable to financial institutions such as banks, bank holding companies, broker-dealers and insurance companies. Among its other provisions, the Anti Money Laundering Act requires each financial institution: (i) to establish an anti-money laundering program; (ii) to establish due diligence policies, procedures and controls that are reasonably designed to detect and report instances of money laundering in United States private banking accounts and correspondent accounts maintained for non-United States persons or their representatives; and (iii) to avoid establishing, maintaining, administering, or managing correspondent accounts in the United States for, or on behalf of, a foreign shell bank that does not have a physical presence in any country. In addition, the Anti Money Laundering Act expands the circumstances under which funds in a bank account may be forfeited and requires covered financial institutions to respond under certain circumstances to requests for information from federal banking agencies within 120 hours.

Regulations implementing the due diligence requirements, require minimum standards to verify customer identity and maintain accurate records, encourage cooperation among financial institutions, federal banking agencies, and law enforcement authorities regarding possible money laundering or terrorist activities, prohibit the anonymous use of “concentration accounts,” and requires all covered financial institutions to have in place an anti-money laundering compliance program. Federal and state banking agencies have strictly enforced various anti-money laundering and suspicious activity reporting requirements using formal and informal enforcement tools to cause banks to comply with these provisions.

The Anti Money Laundering Act amended the Holding Company Act and the Bank Merger Act to require the federal banking agencies to consider the effectiveness of any financial institution involved in a proposed merger transaction in combating money laundering activities when reviewing an application under these acts.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 1999 (“Modernization Act”) became effective in early 2000. The Modernization Act:

If a bank holding company elects to become a financial holding company, it files a certification, effective in 30 days, and thereafter may engage in certain financial activities without further approvals. The Company has not elected to become a financial holding company.

The Modernization Act modified other financial laws, including laws related to financial privacy and community reinvestment.

The material risks and uncertainties that Management believes affect the Company are described below. These risks and uncertainties are not the only ones affecting the Company. Additional risks and uncertainties that Management is not aware of or focused on or that Management currently deems immaterial may also impair the Company’s business operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. If any one or more of the following risks actually occur, the Company’s financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Risks Relating to Ownership of Our Common Stock

We may not be able to continue to grow our business, which may adversely impact our results of operations.  

Our business strategy calls for continued expansion. Our ability to continue to grow depends, in part, upon our ability to successfully attract deposits and identify favorable loan and investment opportunities. We expect to add personnel to assist in this growth. In the event that we do not continue to grow, or the new personnel do not produce sufficient new revenues, our results of operations could be adversely impacted.

We may not be able to manage our growth, which may adversely impact our financial results.  

As part of our expansion strategy, we plan to broaden and expand our commercial lending in both existing and new geographic markets. In addition, as part of our expansion strategy, we may add new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. We may invest significant time and resources to develop and market new lines of business and/or products and services. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives, and shifting customer preferences may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. Additionally, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our ability to implement our expansion strategy will depend upon a variety of factors, including our ability to attract and retain experienced personnel, the continued availability of desirable business opportunities and locations, the competitive responses from other financial institutions in the new market areas and our ability to manage growth. In order to implement our expansion strategy, we plan to hire new personnel in our existing and target markets. However, we may be unable to hire qualified management. In addition, the organizational and overhead costs may be greater than we anticipated. Moreover, we may not be able to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary. New business expansion efforts may take longer than expected to reach profitability, and we cannot assure that they will become profitable. The additional costs of adding new personnel may adversely impact our financial results.

Our ability to manage growth successfully will depend on whether we can continue to fund this growth while maintaining cost controls and asset quality, as well as on factors beyond our control, such as national and regional economic conditions and interest rate trends. If we are not able to control costs and maintain asset quality, such growth could adversely impact our earnings and financial condition.

The Company is required by Federal regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support its operations. The Company may at some point need to raise additional capital to support continued growth. The Company’s ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside the Company’s control, and on its financial performance. Accordingly, the Company cannot assure you of its ability to raise additional capital if needed or on terms acceptable to the Company. If the Company cannot raise additional capital when needed, the ability to further expand its operations could be materially impaired.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act may adversely affect our business activities, financial position and profitability by increasing our regulatory compliance burden and associated costs, placing restrictions on certain products and services, and limiting our future capital raising strategies. 

On July 21, 2010, the President signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act, which implements significant changes in the financial regulatory landscape and will impact all financial institutions, including the Company and the Bank.  The Dodd-Frank Act has and is likely to continue to increase our regulatory compliance burden.  

Among the Dodd-Frank Act’s significant regulatory changes, it created the CFPB that is empowered to promulgate new consumer protection regulations and revise existing regulations in many areas of consumer protection.   The CFPB has exclusive authority to issue regulations, orders and guidance to administer and implement the objectives of federal consumer protection laws.  Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and state attorney generals may enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB.  The Dodd-Frank Act also changes the scope of federal deposit insurance coverage, and increases the FDIC assessment payable by the Bank.  The CFPB and these other changes have increased, and will continue to increase, our regulatory compliance burden and costs and may restrict the financial products and services we offer to our clients.

The Dodd-Frank Act also imposed more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies by, among other things, imposing leverage ratios on bank holding companies and prohibiting new trust preferred issuances from counting as Tier I capital.  These restrictions may limit our future capital strategies.  The Dodd-Frank Act also increases regulation of derivatives and hedging transactions, which could limit our ability to enter into, or increase the costs associated with, interest rate and other hedging transactions.

Although certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, such as required direct supervision by the CFPB, will not apply to banking organizations with less than $10 billion of assets, such as the Company and the Bank, the changes resulting from the legislation will impact our business.  New consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB will apply to us. These changes will require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes.

Negative developments in the financial services industry and U.S. and global credit markets may adversely impact our operations and results.

Our businesses and operations, which primarily consist of lending money to clients in the form of loans, borrowing money from clients in the form of deposits and investing in securities, are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States. If the U.S. economy weakens, our growth and profitability from our lending, deposit and investment operations could be constrained. Uncertainty about the federal fiscal policymaking process, the medium and long-term fiscal outlook of the federal government and future tax rates is a concern for businesses, consumers and investors in the United States. In addition, economic conditions in foreign countries could affect the stability of global financial markets, which could hinder U.S. economic growth. Weak economic conditions are often characterized by deflation, fluctuations in debt and equity capital markets, a lack of liquidity and/or depressed prices in the secondary market for mortgage loans, increased delinquencies on mortgage, consumer and commercial loans, residential and commercial real estate price declines and lower home sales and commercial activity.

The current economic environment is also characterized by interest rates at historically low levels, which impacts our ability to attract deposits and to generate attractive earnings through our investment portfolio. All of these factors are detrimental to our business, and the interplay between these factors can be complex and unpredictable. Our business is also significantly affected by monetary and related policies of the U.S. federal government and its agencies. Changes in any of these policies are influenced by macroeconomic conditions and other factors that are beyond our control. Adverse economic conditions and government policy responses to such conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Uncertainty in the financial markets in general continued during 2015. Loan portfolio performances have deteriorated at many institutions resulting from, amongst other factors, a weak economy and a decline in the value of the collateral supporting their loans. The competition for our deposits has increased significantly due to liquidity concerns at many of these same institutions. Stock prices of bank holding companies, like ours, have been negatively affected by the current condition of the financial markets, as has our ability, if needed, to raise capital or borrow in the debt markets compared to recent years. As a result, there is potential for new federal or state laws and regulations regarding lending and funding practices and liquidity standards, and financial institution regulatory agencies are expected to be very aggressive in responding to concerns and trends identified in examinations, including the expected issuance of many formal enforcement actions. Negative developments in the financial services industry and the impact of new legislation in response to those

developments could negatively impact our operations by restricting our business operations, including our ability to originate or sell loans, and adversely impact our financial performance.

We are more sensitive than our more geographically diversified competitors to adverse changes in the local economy.

Much of our business is with clients located within Central and Northern New Jersey, as well as New York City. Our business loans are generally made to small to mid-sized businesses, most of whose success depends on the regional economy. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities. Adverse economic and business conditions in our market area could reduce our growth rate, affect our borrowers' ability to repay their loans and, consequently, adversely affect our financial condition and performance. Further, we place substantial reliance on real estate as collateral for our loan portfolio. A sharp downturn in real estate values in our market area could leave many of our loans under-secured, which could adversely affect our earnings.

If our allowance for loan losses were not sufficient to cover actual loan losses, our earnings would decrease.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses based on, among other things, the level of non-performing loans, loan growth, national and regional economic conditions, historical loss experience, delinquency trends among loan types and various qualitative factors. However, we cannot predict loan losses with certainty and we cannot assure you that charge-offs in future periods will not exceed the allowance for loan losses. In addition, regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, review our allowance for loan losses and may require additions to the allowance based on their judgment about information available to them at the time of their examination. Factors that require an increase in our allowance for loan losses could reduce our earnings.

Changes in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

Our net income depends primarily upon our net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on loans, investments and other interest-earning assets and the interest expense incurred on deposits and borrowed funds.

Different types of assets and liabilities may react differently, and at different times, to changes in market interest rates. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities. That means either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or vice versa. When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly than interest-earning assets, an increase in market rates of interest could reduce our net interest income. Likewise, when interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce our net interest income. We are unable to predict changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond our control, including inflation, recession, unemployment, money supply, domestic and international events and changes in the United States and other financial markets.

Our exposure to credit risk could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

There are certain risks inherent in making loans, including risks that the principal of or interest on the loan will not be repaid timely or at all or that the value of any collateral supporting the loan will be insufficient to cover our outstanding exposure. These risks may be affected by the strength of the borrower’s business sector and local, regional and national market and economic conditions. Our risk management practices, such as monitoring the concentration of our loans within specific industries and our credit approval practices, may not adequately reduce credit risk, and our credit administration personnel, policies and procedures may not adequately adapt to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting clients and the quality of the loan portfolio. Finally, many of our loans are made to small and medium-sized businesses that are less able to withstand competitive, economic and financial pressures than larger borrowers. A failure to effectively measure and limit the credit risk associated with our loan portfolio could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Competition from other financial institutions in originating loans and attracting deposits may adversely affect our profitability.

We face substantial competition in originating loans. This competition comes principally from other banks, savings institutions, mortgage banking companies and other lenders. Many of our competitors enjoy advantages, including greater financial resources and higher lending limits, a wider geographic presence, and more accessible branch office locations.

In attracting deposits, we face substantial competition from other insured depository institutions such as banks, savings institutions and credit unions, as well as institutions offering uninsured investment alternatives, including money market funds. Many of our competitors enjoy advantages, including greater financial resources, more aggressive marketing campaigns, better brand recognition and more branch locations. These competitors may offer higher interest rates than we do, which could decrease the deposits that we attract or require us to increase our rates to retain existing deposits or attract new deposits. Increased deposit competition could adversely affect our ability to generate the funds necessary for lending operations and increase our cost of funds.

We also compete with non-bank providers of financial services, such as brokerage firms, consumer finance companies, insurance companies and governmental organizations, which may offer more favorable terms. Some of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our operations. As a result, such non-bank competitors may have advantages over us in providing certain products and services. This competition may reduce or limit our margins on banking services, reduce our market share and adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

Limits on our ability to use brokered deposits as part of our funding strategy may adversely affect our ability to grow.

A “brokered deposit” is any deposit that is obtained from or through the mediation or assistance of a deposit broker, which includes larger correspondent banks and securities brokerage firms. These deposit brokers attract deposits from individuals and companies throughout the country and internationally whose deposit decisions are based almost exclusively on obtaining the highest interest rates. At December 31, 2015, brokered deposits represented approximately 24.2% of our total deposits and equaled $710.7 million, comprised of the following: interest-bearing demand-brokered of $200.0 million, brokered certificates of deposits of $93.7 million and reciprocal deposits of $417.0 million. There are risks associated with using brokered deposits. In order to continue to maintain our level of brokered deposits, we may be forced to pay higher interest rates than contemplated by our asset-liability pricing strategy. In addition, banks that become less than “well capitalized” under applicable regulatory capital requirements may be restricted in their ability to accept or prohibited from accepting brokered deposits. If this funding source becomes more difficult to access, we will have to seek alternative funding sources in order to continue to fund our growth. This may include increasing our reliance on Federal Home Loan Bank borrowings, attempting to attract non-brokered deposits, reducing our available for sale securities portfolio and selling loans. There can be no assurance that brokered deposits will be available, or if available, sufficient to support our continued growth.

Our commercial real estate loan portfolio exposes us to risks that may be greater than the risks related to our other mortgage loans.

Our loan portfolio includes non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans for individuals and businesses for various purposes, which are secured by commercial properties, as well as real estate construction and development loans. These loans typically involve repayment dependent upon income generated, or expected to be generated, by the property securing the loan in amounts sufficient to cover operating expenses and debt service. This may be adversely affected by changes in the economy or local market conditions. These loans expose a lender to greater credit risk than loans secured by residential real estate because the collateral securing these loans typically cannot be liquidated as easily as residential real estate. If we foreclose on these loans, our holding period for the collateral typically is longer than for a single or multifamily residential property because there are fewer potential purchasers of the collateral. Additionally, non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans generally involve relatively large balances to single borrowers or related groups of borrowers. Accordingly, charge-offs on non-owner-occupied commercial real estate loans may be larger on a per loan basis than those incurred with our residential or consumer loan portfolios. Unexpected deterioration in the credit quality of our commercial real estate loan portfolio would require us to increase our provision for loan losses, which would reduce our profitability and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are subject to environmental liability risk associated with our lending activities.

In the course of our business, we may purchase real estate, or we may foreclose on and take title to real estate. As a result, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination or may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. Any significant environmental liabilities could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Lack of seasoning of our loan portfolio could increase risk of credit defaults in the future.

A large portion of loans in our loan portfolio and of our lending relationships are of relatively recent origin. In general, loans do not begin to show signs of credit deterioration or default until they have been outstanding for some period of time, a process referred to as “seasoning.” As a result, a portfolio of older loans will usually behave more predictably than a newer portfolio. Because a large portion of our portfolio is relatively new, the current level of delinquencies and defaults may not represent the level that may prevail as the portfolio becomes more seasoned. If delinquencies and defaults increase, we may be required to increase our provision for loan losses, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Deterioration in the fiscal position of the U.S. federal government could adversely affect us and our banking operations.

The fiscal position of the U.S. federal government may become uncertain. In addition to causing economic and financial market disruptions, any deterioration in the fiscal outlook of the U.S. federal government, could, among other things, materially adversely affect the market value of the U.S. and other government and governmental agency securities that we hold, the availability of those securities as collateral for borrowing, and our ability to access capital markets on favorable terms. In particular, it could increase interest rates and disrupt payment systems, money markets, and long-term or short-term fixed income markets, adversely affecting the cost and availability of funding, which could negatively affect our profitability. Any of these developments could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Government regulation significantly affects our business.

The banking industry is extensively regulated. Banking regulations are intended primarily to protect depositors, and the FDIC deposit insurance funds, not the shareholders of the Company. We are subject to regulation and supervision by the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the Federal Reserve Bank. Regulatory requirements affect our lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth. The bank regulatory agencies possess broad authority to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law. We are subject to various regulatory capital requirements, which involve both quantitative measures of our assets and liabilities and qualitative judgments by regulators regarding risks and other factors. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements or comply with other regulations could result in actions by regulators that could adversely affect our ability to pay dividends or otherwise adversely impact operations. In addition, changes in laws, regulations and regulatory practices affecting the banking industry may limit the manner in which we conduct our business. Such changes may adversely affect us, including our ability to offer new products and services, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory spreads and may impose additional costs on us.

The Bank is also subject to a number of Federal laws, which, among other things, require it to lend to various sectors of the economy and population, and establish and maintain comprehensive programs relating to anti-money laundering and customer identification. The Bank's compliance with these laws will be considered by the Federal banking regulators when reviewing bank merger and bank holding company acquisitions or commencing new activities or making new investments in reliance on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As a public company, we are also subject to the corporate governance standards set forth in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as well as any rules or regulations promulgated by the SEC or the NASDAQ Stock Market.

The short-term and long-term impact of the newly proposed regulatory capital rules is uncertain and we may experience difficulty in transitioning to new rules.

In July 2013, the FRB published final rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations, referred to herein as the “Basel Rules”. For a detailed description of the Basel Rules, please refer to Part I, Item 1, Business – “Governmental Policies and Legislation – Capital Requirements” of this Annual Report. The FDIC and the OCC have adopted substantially identical rules (in the case of the FDIC, as interim final rules). The Rules implement the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework, commonly referred to as Basel III, for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Basel III creates a new regulatory capital standard based on Tier 1 common equity and increases the minimum leverage and risk-based capital ratios applicable to all banking organizations. Basel III also changes how a number of the regulatory capital components are calculated. A significant increase in our capital requirement could reduce our growth and profitability and materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

In January 2016 we announced the amendment to our FR Y-9C and the Bank’s amendment of its call report FFIEC 041 to correct three of the Company’s and the Bank’s regulatory capital ratios. The reason for the amendment is to correct an error in the Company’s and the Bank’s calculation of risk-weighting of certain of the Bank’s multifamily loans. It was determined by Management that the Bank was not compliant with the clarified regulatory guidance relating to the risk-weighting of multifamily loans for call report purposes. As a result, certain of the Bank’s loans were risk-weighted at a 50% level when they should have been risk-weighted at the 100% level. While we believe that there are no other such errors, we can provide no assurances that we will not experience further difficulties in transitioning to new Basel III requirements and interpretations.

Inability to fulfill minimum capital requirements could limit our ability to conduct or expand our business, pay a dividend, or result in termination of our FDIC deposit insurance, and thus impact our financial condition, our results of operations, and the market value of our stock.

We are subject to the comprehensive, consolidated supervision and regulation set forth by the FRB. Such regulation includes, among other matters, the level of leverage and risk-based capital ratios we are required to maintain. Depending on general economic conditions, changes in our capital position could have a materially adverse impact on our financial condition and risk profile, and also could limit our ability to grow through acquisitions or otherwise. Compliance with regulatory capital requirements may limit our ability to engage in operations that require the intensive use of capital and therefore could adversely affect our ability to maintain our current level of business or expand.

Furthermore, it is possible that future regulatory changes could result in more stringent capital or liquidity requirements, including increases in the levels of regulatory capital we are required to maintain and changes in the way capital or liquidity is measured for regulatory purposes, either of which could adversely affect our business and our ability to expand. For example, federal banking regulations adopted under Basel III standards require bank holding companies and banks to undertake significant activities to demonstrate compliance with higher capital requirements. Any additional requirements to increase our capital ratios or liquidity could necessitate our liquidating certain assets, perhaps on terms that are unfavorable to us or that are contrary to our business plans. In addition, such requirements could also compel us to issue additional securities, thus diluting the value of our common stock.

In addition, failure to meet established capital requirements could result in the FRB placing limitations or conditions on our activities and further restricting the commencement of new activities. The failure to meet applicable capital guidelines could subject us to a variety of enforcement remedies available to the federal regulatory authorities, including limiting our ability to pay dividends; issuing a directive to increase our capital; and terminating our FDIC deposit insurance.   See “Capital Requirements” under Item 1, “Business” for a further discussion of the various capital requirements to which we are, and in the future may be, subject.

We are subject to liquidity risk.

Liquidity risk is the potential that we will be unable to meet our obligations as they become due, capitalize on growth opportunities as they arise, or pay regular dividends because of an inability to liquidate assets or obtain adequate funding in a timely basis, at a reasonable cost and within acceptable risk tolerances.

Liquidity is required to fund various obligations, including credit commitments to borrowers, mortgage and other loan originations, withdrawals by depositors, repayment of borrowings, dividends to shareholders, operating expenses and capital expenditures.

Liquidity is derived primarily from retail deposit growth and retention; principal and interest payments on loans; principal and interest payments; sale, maturity and prepayment of investment securities; net cash provided from operations and access to other funding sources.

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity due to a market downturn or adverse regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a severe disruption of the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole as banking organizations face turmoil and domestic and worldwide credit markets deteriorate. Our ability to borrow from alternative sources, such as brokered deposits could also be impaired should the Bank’s regulatory capital falls below well capitalized.

Our information systems may experience a security breach, computer virus, or disruption of service.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business, and provide clients with various products and services, including the ability to bank online. Despite positioning our communications and information systems environment to be capable of controlling, monitoring and proactively preventing security breaches, our network could become vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses, phishing schemes and other security problems. We may be required to spend significant capital and other resources to protect against the threat of security breaches and computer viruses, or to alleviate problems caused by security breaches or viruses. To the extent that our activities or the activities of our client involve the storage and transmission of confidential information, security breaches and viruses could expose us to claims, litigation and other possible liabilities. Any failure, interruption, or breach in security or operational integrity of our systems could also result in failures or disruptions in our general ledger, deposit, loan, and other systems, and could subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny. Any inability to prevent security breaches or computer viruses could also cause existing clients to lose confidence in our systems and could adversely affect our reputation.

The price of our common stock may fluctuate.

The price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market constantly changes and recently, given the uncertainty in the financial markets, has fluctuated widely. We expect that the market price of our common stock will continue to fluctuate. Holders of our common stock will be subject to the risk of volatility and changes in prices.

Our common stock price can fluctuate as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. These factors include:

In addition, recently the stock market generally has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations, and industry factors and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes or credit loss trends, could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of our operating results.

Our ability to pay dividends to our common shareholders is limited.

Since the principal source of income for the Company is dividends paid to the Company by the Bank, the Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders will depend on whether the Bank pays dividends to it. As a practical matter, restrictions on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends act as restrictions on the amount of funds available for the payment of dividends by the Company. As a New Jersey-chartered commercial bank, the Bank is subject to the restrictions on the

payment of dividends contained in the New Jersey Banking Act of 1948, as amended. Under the Banking Act, the Bank may pay dividends only out of retained earnings, and out of surplus to the extent that surplus exceeds 50% of stated capital. The Company is also subject to FRB policies, which may, in certain circumstances, limit its ability to pay dividends. The FRB policies require, among other things, that a bank holding company maintain a minimum capital base and the FRB in supervisory guidance has cautioned bank holding companies about paying out too much of their earnings in dividends and has stated that banks should not pay out more in dividends than they earn. The FRB would most likely seek to prohibit any dividend payment that would reduce a holding company's capital below these minimum amounts.

We may lose lower-cost funding sources.

Checking, savings, and money market deposit account balances and other forms of client deposits can decrease when clients perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market, as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If clients move money out of bank deposits and into other investments, we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

There may be changes in accounting policies or accounting standards.

Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding our financial results and condition. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. We identified our accounting policies regarding the allowance for loan losses, goodwill and other intangible assets, and income taxes to be critical because they require Management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain. Under each of these policies, it is possible that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions, using different assumptions, or as new information becomes available.

From time to time the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the form and content of our external financial statements. In addition, accounting standard setters and those who interpret the accounting standards (such as the FASB, SEC, banking regulators and our independent auditors) may change or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. Changes in financial accounting and reporting standards and changes in current interpretations may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report our financial results and condition. In certain cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively or apply an existing standard differently (also retroactively) which may result in our restating prior period financial statements in material amounts.

We encounter continuous technological change.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve clients and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our clients by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy client demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our clients. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations. 

We are subject to operational risk.

We face the risk that the design of our controls and procedures, including those to mitigate the risk of fraud by employees or outsiders, may prove to be inadequate or are circumvented, thereby causing delays in detection of errors or inaccuracies in data and information. Management regularly reviews and updates our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may also be subject to disruptions of our systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages), which may give rise to losses in service to clients and to financial loss or liability. We are further exposed to the risk that our external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations (or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their respective employees as we are) and to the risk that our (or our vendors’) business continuity and data security systems prove to be inadequate.

Our performance is largely dependent on the talents and efforts of highly skilled individuals. There is intense competition in the financial services industry for qualified employees. In addition, we face increasing competition with businesses outside the financial services industry for the most highly skilled individuals. Our business operations could be adversely affected if we were unable to attract new employees and retain and motivate our existing employees.

There may be claims and litigation pertaining to fiduciary responsibility.

From time to time as part of the Company’s normal course of business, clients make claims and take legal action against the Company based on its actions or inactions. If such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to the Company, they may result in financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of the Company and its products and services. This may also impact client demand for the Company’s products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations.

None.

The Company owns 9 branches and leases 11 branches. The Company leases an administrative and operations office building in Bedminster, New Jersey, two private banking offices in Princeton and Teaneck, New Jersey and a trust office in Greenville, Delaware.

In the normal course of its business, lawsuits and claims may be brought against the Company and its subsidiaries. There is no currently pending or threatened litigation or proceedings against the Company or its subsidiaries, which assert claims that if adversely decided, we believe would have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Not applicable.

PART II

The Common Stock of Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation is traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol of PGC. The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the reported high and low sale prices on known trades and cash dividends declared per share by the Company.

Future dividends payable by the Company will be determined by the Board of Directors after consideration of earnings and financial condition of the Company, need for capital and such other matters as the Board of Directors deems appropriate. The payment of dividends is subject to certain restrictions, see Part I, Item 1, “Business - Restrictions on the Payment of Dividends.”

Performance

The following graph compares the cumulative total return on a hypothetical $100 investment made on December 31, 2010 in (a) the Company’s common stock; (b) the Russell 3000 Stock Index, and (c) the Keefe, Bruyette & Woods KBW 50 Index (top 50 U.S. banks). The graph is calculated assuming that all dividends are reinvested during the relevant periods. The graph shows how a $100 investment would increase or decrease in value over time, based on dividends (stock or cash) and increases or decreases in the market price of the stock.

Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation

On December 31, 2015, the last reported sale price of the Common Stock was $20.62. Also, on March 7, 2016, there were approximately 791 registered shareholders of record.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

None.

Sales of Unregistered Securities

None.

The following is selected consolidated financial data for the Company and its subsidiaries for the years indicated. This information is derived from the historical consolidated financial statements and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes.

* The Company discovered in late 2015 an error in its risk rating of multifamily loans, which was corrected for all periods in 2015. For periods prior to 2015, any adjustment due to the error in risk rating is not reflected and the capital ratios for those periods reflect the “as reported” ratios. See Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Capital Resources” for further explanation.

OVERVIEW: The following discussion and analysis is intended to provide information about the financial condition and results of operations of Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis and should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the related notes and supplemental financial information appearing elsewhere in this report.

Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corporation (the “Company”), formed in 1997, is the parent holding company for Peapack-Gladstone Bank (the “Bank”), formed in 1921, a commercial bank providing innovative private banking services to businesses, non-profits and consumers which help them to establish, maintain and expand their legacy. Through its private banking locations in Bedminster, Morristown, Princeton and Teaneck, its wealth management division, and its branch network in Somerset, Hunterdon, Morris, Middlesex and Union counties, the Bank offers a strong commitment to client service.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, the Company recorded net income of $19.97 million, and diluted earnings per share of $1.29 compared to $14.89 million and $1.22, respectively, for the same twelve month period last year, reflecting increases of $5.08 million or 34 percent and $0.07 per share or 6 percent, respectively. During the fourth quarter of 2015 the Company recorded $2.5 million of charges related to the closure of two branch offices, as previously announced. These charges reduced pretax income by $2.5 million, net income by $1.6 million, and earnings per share by approximately $0.10 per share. During 2015, the Company continued to focus on executing its Strategic Plan – known as “Expanding Our Reach” – which focuses on the client experience and organic growth across all lines of business. The Strategic Plan calls for expansion of existing lines of business, and establishment of a new commercial and industrial (“C&I”) lending platform, through the use of private bankers, who lead with deposit gathering and wealth management discussions.

In addition to continuing to execute the Strategic Plan, the following are additional highlights for 2015:

The Company’s common stock trades on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “PGC.”

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES: Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is based upon the Company’s consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The preparation of these financial statements requires the Company to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. Note 1 to the Company’s Audited Consolidated Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 2015, contains a summary of the Company’s significant accounting policies.

Management believes that the Company’s policy with respect to the methodology for the determination of the allowance for loan losses involves a higher degree of complexity and requires Management to make difficult and subjective judgments, which often require assumptions or estimates about highly uncertain matters. Changes in these judgments, assumption or estimates could materially impact results of operations. This critical policy and its application are periodically reviewed with the Audit Committee and the Board of Directors.

The provision for loan losses is based upon Management’s evaluation of the adequacy of the allowance, including an assessment of known and inherent risks in the portfolio, giving consideration to the size and composition of the loan portfolio, actual loan loss experience, level of delinquencies, detailed analysis of individual loans for which full collectability may not be assured, the existence and estimated fair value of any underlying collateral and guarantees securing the loans, and current economic and market conditions. Although Management uses the best information available, the level of the allowance for loan losses remains an estimate, which is subject to significant judgment and short-term change. Various regulatory agencies, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the Company’s allowance for loan losses. Such agencies may require the Company to make additional provisions for loan losses based upon information available to them at the time of their examination. Furthermore, the majority of the Company’s loans are secured by real estate in the State of New Jersey and to a lesser extent New York City. Accordingly, the collectability of a substantial portion of the carrying value of the Company’s loan portfolio is susceptible to changes in local market conditions and may experience continuing adverse economic conditions. Future adjustments to the provision for loan losses and allowance for loan losses may be necessary due to economic, operating, regulatory and other conditions beyond the Company’s control.

The Company accounts for its securities in accordance with “Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities,” which was codified into Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 320. Debt securities are classified as held to maturity and carried at amortized cost when Management has the positive intent and ability to hold them to maturity. Debt securities are classified as available for sale when they might be sold before maturity due to changes in interest rates, prepayment risk, liquidity or other factors. Securities available for sale are carried at fair value, with unrealized holding gains and losses reported in other comprehensive income, net of tax. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, all securities were classified as available for sale.

Securities are evaluated on at least a quarterly basis to determine whether a decline in value is other-than-temporary. To determine whether a decline in value is other-than-temporary, Management considers the reasons underlying the decline, the near-term prospects of the issuer, the extent and duration of the decline and whether it intends to sell, or it is more likely

than not that it will be required to sell, a security in an unrealized loss position before recovery of its amortized cost basis. If either of the criteria regarding intent or requirement to sell is met, the entire difference between amortized cost and fair value is recognized as impairment through earnings. “Other-than-temporary” is not intended to indicate that the decline is permanent, but indicates that the prospects for a near-term recovery of value is not necessarily favorable, or that there is a lack of evidence to support a realizable value equal to or greater than the carrying value of the investment. Once a decline in value is determined to be other-than-temporary, the amount of the impairment is split into two components – other-than-temporary impairment related to credit loss, which must be recognized through earnings. No impairment charges were recognized in 2015, 2014 or 2013. For equity securities, the entire amount of impairment is recognized through earnings.

EARNINGS SUMMARY:

The following table presents certain key aspects of our performance for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013.

2015 compared to 2014

The Company recorded net income $19.97 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.29 for the year ended December 31, 2015 compared to net income of $14.89 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.22 for the year ended December 31, 2014. These results produced a return on average assets of 0.64 percent and 0.63 percent in 2015 and 2014, respectively, and a return on average shareholders’ equity of 7.71 percent and 7.96 percent in 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The increase in net income for the 2015 year were due to higher net interest income and other income, offset by an increased provision for loan losses and other operating expenses when compared to 2014. Higher operating expenses were principally due to costs associated with the Strategic Plan and a branch restructuring charge, described in the “Overview” section above.

2014 compared to 2013

For the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded net income of $14.89 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.22 compared to net income of $9.26 million and diluted earnings per share of $1.01 for the year ended December 31, 2013. These results produced a return on average assets of 0.63 percent and 0.54 percent in 2014 and 2013, respectively, and a return on average shareholders’ equity of 7.96 percent and 7.37 percent in 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Earnings for the 2014 year were benefitted by higher net interest income, offset by a higher provision for loan losses and by higher other operating expenses when compared to 2013. Higher operating expenses were principally due to costs associated with the Strategic Plan, described in the “Overview” section above.

NET INTEREST INCOME AND NET INTEREST MARGIN

The primary source of the Company’s operating income is net interest income, which is the difference between interest and dividends earned on earning assets and fees earned on loans, and interest paid on interest-bearing liabilities. Earning assets include loans to individuals and businesses, investment securities, interest-earning deposits and federal funds sold. Interest-bearing liabilities include interest-bearing checking, money market, savings and time deposits, Federal Home Loan Bank advances and other borrowings. Net interest income is determined by the difference between the yields earned on earning assets and the rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities (“Net Interest Spread”) and the relative amounts of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. The Company’s net interest spread is affected by regulatory, economic and competitive factors that influence interest rates, loan demand and deposit flows and general levels of nonperforming assets.

The following table summarizes the Company’s net interest income and related spread and margin for the periods indicated:

The following table compares the average balance sheets, net interest spreads and net interest margins for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 (on a fully tax-equivalent basis-“FTE”):

Year Ended December 31, 2015

Year Ended December 31, 2014

Year Ended December 31, 2013

The effect of volume and rate changes on net interest income (on a tax-equivalent basis) for the periods indicated are shown below:

2015 compared to 2014

Net interest income, on a fully tax-equivalent basis, grew $16.6 million, or 24 percent, in 2015 to $85.0 million from net interest income of $68.4 million in 2014. The net interest margin was 2.80 percent and 3.01 percent for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, a decrease of 21 basis points year over year. Net interest income increased in 2015 due to an increase in loan volumes, especially multifamily mortgages and commercial loans, offset by declines in the average investment portfolios, as well as the effect of lower market rates on loans and investments. The net interest margin for 2015 was impacted by the effect of low market yields, competitive pressures in attracting new loans and deposits, and the maintenance of larger interest bearing deposit/cash balances. The Company expects continued loan growth, albeit at a much lower rate than in the past two years, in this lower market rate and competitive environment in future periods.

On a fully tax-equivalent basis, interest income on earning assets increased $23.6 million, or 31 percent, to $99.7 million in 2015 from $76.1 million in 2014. Average earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2015 totaled $3.04 billion compared to $2.27 billion for the same period of 2014, an increase of $762 million or 34 percent over 2014 average earning assets. The average rate earned on earning assets was 3.29 percent in 2015, compared to 3.35 percent in 2014, a decrease of 6 basis points.

Average interest-bearing liabilities for the year ended December 31, 2015, totaled $2.45 billion, an increase of $664 million, or 37 percent, over the average interest-bearing liabilities for 2014 of $1.79 billion. The average rate paid increased to 0.60 percent for 2015 from 0.43 percent for 2014. The increase in the average rate on interest-bearing liabilities was due to competitive pressures in attracting new deposits to support loan growth, as well as the growth of brokered certificates of deposits and the effect of interest rate swaps. The increase in the average rate paid on interest-bearing demand-brokered deposits is primarily due to interest paid on the $180.0 million notional principal in interest rate swaps that the Company is using to hedge against future rises in interest rates. These swaps resulted in an increase of approximately $1.6 million in interest expense, or an additional 0.59 percent in the average rate paid. Brokered certificates of deposit are generally medium/longer term and have been used in the Company’s interest rate risk management practices. The Company utilized a diverse funding mix to meet its funding needs to manage interest rate risk, as well as to retain a higher level of liquidity on its balance sheet.

The average balance of borrowings was $113.0 million for 2015 compared to $95.7 million during 2014, an increase of $17.3 million. Average overnight borrowings increased $16.7 million during 2015 to $29.3 million. The average rates paid on total borrowings was 1.42 percent during 2015 compared to 1.60 percent during 2014, a decrease of 18 basis points. The average rates paid on the Company’s overnight borrowings during 2015 was 0.36 percent compared to 0.38 percent during 2014, while the average rates paid on Federal Home Loan Bank advances was 1.78 percent in 2015 and 2014. The decrease in the overall rate on borrowings is a result of higher utilization of overnight borrowings.

The average balance on capital lease obligations was $10.5 million and $10.1 million during 2015 and 2014, respectively, while the average rate paid on capital lease obligations was 4.81 percent and 4.79 percent in 2015 and 2014, respectively.

2014 compared to 2013

On a fully tax-equivalent basis, net interest income was $68.4 million in 2014, an increase of $15.0 million or 28 percent over net interest income of $53.4 million in 2013. For 2014 and 2013, the Company’s net interest margin was 3.01 percent and 3.26 percent, respectively, a decrease of 25 basis points year over year. Net interest income increased from 2013 to 2014 due to an increase in loan volumes, especially multifamily mortgages, offset by declines in the average investment portfolios, as well as the effect of lower market rates on loans and investments. The net interest margin for 2014 was impacted by the effect of low market yields, competitive pressures in attracting new loans and deposits, and the maintenance of larger interest bearing deposit/cash balances. The Company expects continued loan growth in this lower market rate and competitive environment.

Interest income on earning assets, on a fully tax-equivalent basis, increased $18.4 million or 32 percent to $76.1 million in 2014 from $57.7 million in 2013. Average earning assets for 2014 and 2013 totaled $2.27 billion and $1.64 billion, respectively, an increase of $634 million or 39 percent over 2013 average earning assets. The average rate earned on earning assets was 3.35 percent in 2014, compared to 3.52 percent in 2013, a decrease of 17 basis points.

For the year ended December 31, 2014, average interest-bearing liabilities totaled $1.79 billion, an increase of $520 million or 41 percent over the average interest-bearing liabilities for 2013 of $1.27 billion. The average rate paid increased to 0.43 percent for 2014 from 0.34 percent for 2013. The increase in the average rate on interest-bearing liabilities was due to competitive pressures in attracting new deposits to support loan growth, as well as the growth of brokered certificates of deposits. Brokered certificates of deposit are generally medium/longer term and have been used in the Company’s interest rate risk management practices. Brokered interest-bearing demand deposits have been utilized in the Company’s liquidity management. These brokered deposits are more cost effective than other alternatives and do not require any pledging of collateral. The Company utilized alternative sources to meet its funding needs to manage interest rate risk, as well as to retain a higher level of liquidity on its balance sheet.

The average balance of borrowings was $95.7 million for 2014 compared to $32.9 million during 2013, an increase of $62.8 million. Average Federal Home Loan Bank advances increased during 2014 to $83.7 million as the Company utilized medium term, fixed rate FHLB advances, from time to time, as an interest rate risk management tool. Average overnight borrowings increased $7.3 million during 2014 to $12.7 million. The average rates paid on total borrowings was 1.60 percent during 2014 compared to 1.83 percent during 2013, a decrease of 23 basis points. The average rates paid on the Company’s overnight borrowings during 2014 was 0.38 percent compared to 0.35 percent during 2013, while the average rates paid on Federal Home Loan Bank advances was 1.78 percent and 2.28 percent in 2014 and 2013, respectively.

The average balance on capital lease obligations was $10.1 million and $8.9 million during 2014 and 2013, respectively, while the average rate paid on capital lease obligations was 4.79 percent and 4.75 percent in 2014 and 2013, respectively.

INVESTMENT SECURITIES AVAILABLE FOR SALE: Investment securities available for sale are purchased, sold and/or maintained as a part of the Company’s overall balance sheet management including liquidity and interest rate risk management strategies, and in response to changes in interest rates, liquidity needs, prepayment speeds and/or other factors. These securities are carried at estimated fair value, and unrealized changes in fair value are recognized as a separate component of shareholders’ equity, net of income taxes. Realized gains and losses are recognized in income at the time the securities are sold.

At December 31, 2015, the Company had investment securities available for sale with a fair value of $195.6 million compared with $332.7 million at December 31, 2014. Net unrealized gains (net of income tax) of $408 thousand and $1.3 million were included in shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The carrying value of investment securities available for sale for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013 are shown below:

The following table presents the contractual maturities and yields of debt securities available for sale, stated at fair value, as of December 31, 2015:

Federal funds sold and interest-earning deposits are an additional part of the Company’s liquidity and interest rate risk management strategies. The combined average balance of these investments during 2015 was $95.4 million compared to $111.7 million in 2014.

LOANS: The loan portfolio represents the largest portion of the Company’s earning assets and is the primary source of interest and fee income. Loans are primarily originated in the State of New Jersey and, the boroughs of New York City area and, to a lesser extent, Pennsylvania. Forty nine percent of the total loan portfolio is concentrated in multifamily mortgages and fourteen percent of the total loan portfolio is concentrated in commercial mortgages. The discussion below excludes $82.2 million of performing multifamily loans held for sale, as of December 31, 2015, at lower of cost or fair value.

Total loans were $2.91 billion and $2.25 billion at December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, an increase of $663.0 million, or 29 percent, over the previous year. During 2015, commercial mortgages and multifamily mortgages increased $441.1 million, or 32 percent, due to a company-wide focus on this type of business in both the New Jersey and the boroughs of New York City markets as well as continued demand from borrowers looking to refinance multifamily and other commercial mortgages held by other institutions. Commercial loans totaled $512.9 million at December 31, 2015, increasing $204.1 million, or 66 percent, from 2014, as the Company introduced a comprehensive C&I lending program in 2013 and added seasoned bankers focused on C&I lending in both 2014 and 2015, as well as a seasoned head of C&I lending in early 2015. This resulted in robust growth during the current year. Residential mortgage loans totaled $470.9 million at December 31, 2015, an increase of $4.1 million, or 1 percent, from 2014. Throughout 2015 and continuing a trend that began in the middle of 2013 with an increase in mortgage rates, the Company experienced continued low levels of residential mortgage loans originations for which Management had expected and planned. Additionally, a shift in the

Company’s strategy, emphasizing shorter duration mortgage loans for relationship purposes and de-emphasizing origination for sale, also contributed to lower levels of residential mortgages.

The following table presents an analysis of outstanding loans by loan type, net of unamortized discounts and deferred loan origination costs, as of December 31,

The following table presents the contractual repayments of the loan portfolio, by loan type, at December 31, 2015: