Sterling Bancorp, Inc. - Annual Report: 2021 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

Empv

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

​

​

For the year ended December 31, 2021

​

OR

​

​

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number 001-38290

​

Sterling Bancorp, Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

​

​

One Towne Square, Suite 1900

Southfield, Michigan 48076

(248) 355-2400

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of registrant’s principal executive offices)

​

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

​

​

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes ☒ No ☐

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

​

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☐

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

The aggregate market value of the registrant's outstanding voting common stock held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2021, based on last sale price as reported on the NASDAQ Stock Market on that date, was approximately $ 70.6 million.

At March 18, 2022, 50,502,069 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock were outstanding.

Documents Incorporated by Reference:

Certain portions, as expressly described in this report, of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the 2022 Annual Meeting of the Shareholders, to be filed within 120 days of December 31, 2021, are incorporated by reference into Part III, Items 10-14 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

STERLING BANCORP, INC.

2021 ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

INDEX

​

​

​

1

Table of Contents

Unless we state otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “Sterling,” “we,” “our,” “us” or “the Company” refer to Sterling Bancorp, Inc., a Michigan corporation, and its subsidiaries, including Sterling Bank and Trust, F.S.B., which we sometimes refer to as “Sterling Bank,” “the Bank” or “our Bank.”

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain statements that are, or may be deemed to be, “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, regarding the Company’s plans, expectations, thoughts, beliefs, estimates, goals and outlook for the future that are intended to be covered by the protections provided under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements reflect our current views with respect to, among other things, future events and our financial performance. These statements are often, but not always, made through the use of words or phrases such as “may,” “might,” “should,” “could,” “predict,” “potential,” “believe,” “expect,” “attribute,” “continue,” “will,” “anticipate,” “seek,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan,” “projection,” “goal,” “target,” “outlook,” “aim,” “would “ and “annualized,” or the negative versions of those words or other comparable words or phrases of a future or forward-looking nature. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts, and they are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, management’s beliefs and certain assumptions made by management, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control. Accordingly, we caution you that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, assumptions, estimates and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, actual results may prove to be materially different from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. Accordingly, you should not place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements.

The risks, uncertainties and other factors identified in our filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), and others, may cause actual future results to differ materially from the anticipated results or other expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements. A summary of these factors is below, under the heading “Risk Factors Summary.” For additional information on factors that could materially affect the forward-looking statements included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, see the risk factors set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should carefully consider the factors discussed below, and in our Risk Factors and other disclosures, in evaluating these forward-looking statements.

Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made, and we do not undertake any obligation to publicly update or review any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise except as required by law. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict those events or how they may affect us. In addition, we cannot assess the impact of any particular risk, uncertainty or other factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements.

Risk Factors Summary

The following is a summary of the material risks we are exposed to in the course of our business activities. The below summary does not contain all of the information that may be important to you, and you should read the below summary together with the more detailed discussion of risks set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors,” as well as under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

Risks Related to the Advantage Loan Program

2

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Risks Related to the Economy and Financial Markets

Risks Related to Credit

Risks Related to Our Highly Regulated Industry

Risks Related to Competition

Risks Related to Interest Rates

3

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Liquidity

Other Risks Related to Our Business

Risks Related to Governance Matters

The foregoing risk factors should not be construed as an exhaustive list and should be read in conjunction with the cautionary statements that are included under “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as well as the items set forth under “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

​

4

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

OVERVIEW

General

We are a unitary savings and loan holding company incorporated in 1989 and headquartered in Southfield, Michigan. Our primary business is the operation of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Sterling Bank, through which we offer a range of loan products to the residential and commercial markets, as well as retail banking services.

Sterling Bank has 28 branches, including 20 branches in the San Francisco area, six in greater Los Angeles, one branch in New York City and our headquarters branch in Michigan.

Our results of operations are dependent primarily on our net interest income, which is the difference between the interest earned on our assets, primarily our loan and securities portfolios, and the interest paid on our deposits and borrowings. Our net income is also affected by our provision for loan losses, non-interest income, non-interest expense (general and administrative expense) and income tax expense. Non-interest income includes service charges and fees; net gain on sales of loans and securities; mortgage servicing fee income, net; income from bank owned life insurance, or BOLI; and other non-interest income. General and administrative expense consists of salaries and employee benefits expense; occupancy and equipment expense; federal deposit insurance assessments; advertising and marketing expense; data processing expense; professional fees; and other non-interest expenses. Our net income is also significantly affected by general economic and competitive conditions, particularly changes in market interest rates and U.S. Treasury yield curves, government policies and actions of regulatory authorities.

Internal Review, Investigations and Regulatory Matters Related to the Advantage Loan Program

On December 9, 2019, the Company announced it had voluntarily suspended its Advantage Loan Program in connection with the Internal Review. The primary focus of the Internal Review, which has been led by outside legal counsel under the direction of a special committee of independent directors (the “Special Committee”), has involved the origination of residential real estate loans under the Advantage Loan Program and related matters. The Internal Review has indicated that certain employees engaged in misconduct in connection with the origination of a significant number of such loans, including with respect to verification of income and employment, the amount of income reported for borrowers, reliance on third parties, and related documentation. As a result, the Company permanently discontinued the Advantage Loan Program, and a significant number of officers and employees have been terminated or resigned, including the top loan producers within the Advantage Loan Program. While the Internal Review is substantially complete, the Company expects it to remain open during the pendency of the government investigations discussed below, and it is possible additional work will be required in connection with the Internal Review.

The Bank is currently under formal investigation by the OCC, is responding to grand jury subpoenas from the DOJ and is responding to a formal investigation by the SEC, all of which are related to the Advantage Loan Program and related issues, including residential lending practices and public disclosures about that program contained in the Company’s filings with the SEC. The Bank also continues to be subject to the OCC Agreement, which relates primarily to certain aspects of the Bank’s BSA/AML compliance program as well as its credit administration. The OCC Agreement requires the Bank to: (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor and oversee the Bank’s compliance with the provisions of the OCC Agreement; (ii) develop a revised customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence program; (iii) develop a revised suspicious activity monitoring program; (iv) engage an independent, third-party consultant to review and provide a written report on the Bank’s suspicious activity monitoring; (v) develop revised policies and procedures to ensure effective BSA/AML model risk management for the Bank’s automated suspicious activity monitoring system, which must be validated by a qualified, independent third party; (vi) ensure that the Bank’s BSA Department maintains sufficient personnel; and (vii) develop revised policies and procedures to ensure effective controls over loan underwriting. In addition to these requirements, while the OCC Agreement remains in effect, the Bank is subject to certain restrictions on expansion activities, such as growth through acquisition or branching to supplement organic growth of the Bank.

​

5

Table of Contents

The Company has incurred and continued to incur significant legal, consulting and other third-party expenses in 2021 in connection with the Internal Review, the government investigations, compliance with the OCC Agreement and defending litigation and threatened litigation related to the Advantage Loan Program.

For further information regarding these matters, see “Part I, Item 3. Legal Proceedings” and “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Our Strategy

Our historical lending strategy has been to offer a range of loan products to the residential and commercial markets. The majority of our loan portfolio consists of residential real estate mortgages, which accounted for 85% of our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2021. The balance of our loan portfolio consists of commercial real estate loans, construction loans, and commercial lines of credit.

Although we discontinued originating loans under the Advantage Loan Program at the end of 2019, we continued to originate residential real estate loans in 2021, primarily conforming loans, for portfolio or for sale to the secondary market. Our focus for 2021, which will continue for 2022, was to continue to work hard to resolve our outstanding compliance issues and re-establish strong credit metrics for new lending initiatives, and to focus on the diversification of our overall loan production. For example, the Company underwent a conversion of its core IT system in 2021 to capitalize on advanced technologies to better achieve regulatory compliance. However, the implementation of any new loan products takes time and may be subject to the prior review and approval of applicable bank regulatory authorities. In addition, we will continue to explore exiting unproductive or ancillary businesses and aggressively resolve problem loans. For example, the Company completed the sale of its Bellevue, Washington branch office in the second quarter of 2021 and closed its Brooklyn, New York branch and consolidated its operations into its larger branch in Flushing, New York.

Subsidiaries

In addition to the Bank, the Company has one subsidiary, which is inactive.

OUR BUSINESS

Lending Activities

One- to-Four Family Residential Loans. The origination of mortgage loans to enable borrowers to purchase or refinance existing homes comprises our most significant loan origination activity and such loans continue to comprise the largest portion of our loan portfolio. We offer fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgage loans with terms of up to 30 years. Historically, our most significant product was our Advantage Loan Program but as a result of the discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program at the end of 2019, our total residential loan production continues to be significantly below historical levels. To avoid the uncertainty of audits and inquiries by third-party investors in Advantage Loan Program loans sold to the secondary market, beginning at the end of the second quarter of 2020, we commenced making offers to each of those investors to repurchase 100% of our previously sold Advantage Loan Program loans. As of December 31, 2021, we had repurchased such loans with an aggregate principal balance of $243.5 million and had outstanding commitments to repurchase an additional $73.0 million over the next 18 months. At December 31, 2021, the unpaid principal balance of residential mortgage loans sold under the Advantage Loan Program that were subject to potential repurchase obligations for breach of representations and warranties, including loans subject to binding repurchase commitments, totaled $142.8 million.

6

Table of Contents

Among the residential loan products we continue to offer are our tenant-in-common, or TIC loans, which are similar to traditional co-op loans. Our primary market areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles contain a substantial number of two- to six-unit residential buildings and a large amount of condominium conversions. Through our TIC loan program, we lend to owners of individual units within the building based on their relative ownership share. Our TIC loans generally consist of three-, five- and seven-year adjustable-rate mortgages, with an average balance of approximately $0.5 million and total outstanding loans of $488.3 million as of December 31, 2021. We also offer conventional conforming fixed-rate loans with terms of either 15, 20, or 30 years for mortgages at the Federal Housing Finance Agency limits for those markets where we originate loans. The bulk of our conforming mortgage loans are originated with the intent to sell, after which we typically retain servicing rights. In addition, we have a jumbo loan program for residential real estate loans of up to $2.5 million, for which we offer both fixed and adjustable rates. Across our portfolio, our adjustable-rate mortgage loans are based on a 30-year amortization schedule and generally interest rates and payments adjust annually after a one-, three-, five- or seven-year initial fixed period. Interest rates on our adjustable-rate loans originated prior to March 8, 2021 adjust to a rate typically equal to 350 to 450 basis points above the one-year LIBOR, and those that were originated after March 8, 2021 adjust to a rate based on U.S. Treasury rates.

Across our residential portfolio, our loan-to-value ratio (defined as current loan amount compared to appraised value at the time of loan origination) was 62% as of December 31, 2021. For discussion regarding risks particular to our residential real estate loans, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Credit—Changes in economic conditions could cause an increase in delinquencies and nonperforming assets, including loan charge offs, which could depress our net income and growth.”

Commercial Loans. We offer a variety of commercial loan products, consisting primarily of commercial real estate loans, construction loans and commercial lines of credit. The majority of our commercial loans are secured by real estate or other business assets. Our commercial loans are almost exclusively recourse loans, as we endeavor to secure personal guarantees on each loan we underwrite.

Commercial Real Estate Loans. Our commercial real estate loan portfolio includes loans secured by single-room occupancy hotels (“SROs”), hotels and office, industrial, retail, multifamily and mixed-use properties. We focus almost exclusively on projects within or contiguous to our branch footprint, focusing on credits with income-producing properties, strong cash flow characteristics and strong collateral profiles. At December 31, 2021, approximately 53% of our commercial real estate loan portfolio consisted of adjustable-rate loans with an average reset of 30 months. Our loan-to-value policy limits are 75% for commercial real estate loans and 80% for multifamily mortgage loans. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, commercial real estate loans totaled $254.9 million and $260.0 million, respectively, of which $2.1 million and $2.8 million, respectively, were secured by owner occupied properties. Included in our commercial real estate loan portfolio are $53.6 million of primarily SRO properties that are reflected as held for sale at December 31, 2021 and were written down to their fair value. On February 27, 2022, the Bank sold substantially all of this same pool of loans to a third-party purchaser. The remainder of our commercial real estate loan portfolio is secured by SROs, hotels and office, industrial, retail, multifamily and mixed-use properties, where 48% of our commercial real estate loans are for multifamily properties. For discussion regarding the risks particular to our commercial real estate loans, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Credit—Our commercial real estate loans are subject to credit risks, including changes in operating cash flows from the underlying properties or businesses, that may adversely impact our results of operation and financial condition.”

Construction Loans. Our construction loans are comprised primarily of residential construction, commercial construction and mixed-use development loans. Interest reserves are generally established on construction loans. These loans are typically based on the prime rate of interest and have maturities of up to 36 months. Until recently, our loan-to-value policy limits were 80% for commercial construction loans and 65% for land loans, but in December 2020, we reduced these limits to 70% and 40%, respectively. The total construction loan portfolio totaled $106.8 million and $206.6 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. For discussion regarding the risks particular to our construction loans, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to Credit—Our construction loans are subject to a variety of risks that may adversely impact our results of operation and financial condition.” We have stopped actively originating construction loans.

Commercial Lines of Credit. We also offer commercial lines of credit to businesses and individuals for business purposes. These lines of credit are typically secured by real estate, inventory, equipment, accounts receivable and other assets. The total commercial lines of credit portfolio totaled $0.4 million and $6.7 million at December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

7

Table of Contents

Investment Portfolio

As of December 31, 2021, the fair value of our investment portfolio totaled $313.9 million, with an average effective yield of 0.82%, and the estimated duration on the fixed income portion of our investment portfolio (fair value of $308.7 million) is 2.2 years. The primary objectives of the investment portfolio are to provide liquidity, generate economic value, be responsive to cash needs and assist in managing interest rate risk. As of December 31, 2021, 39% of our investment portfolio consists of U.S. treasuries and agency notes, with the balance in mortgage-backed securities, collateralized mortgage and debt obligations and equity securities. We regularly evaluate the composition of our investment portfolio as the interest rate yield curve changes and may sell investment securities from time to time to adjust our exposure to interest rates or to provide liquidity.

Our investment policy is reviewed at least annually by our board of directors. Overall investment goals are established by our board, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and members of our Asset and Liability Committee (“ALCO”). Our board of directors has delegated the responsibility of monitoring our investment activities to our management and ALCO. Day-to-day activities pertaining to the securities portfolio are conducted under the supervision of the Bank’s Chief Financial Officer. We actively monitor our investments on an ongoing basis to identify any material changes in the securities.

Deposits

We offer traditional depository products, including checking, savings, money market, IRAs and certificates of deposits, to individuals and businesses throughout our market areas. Deposits at the Bank are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”) up to statutory limits. We offer customers traditional retail deposit products through our branch network and the ability to access their accounts through online and mobile banking platforms. We seek to grow our deposits through use of competitive rates, a focused marketing campaign, and multi-product clubs in which we offer varying benefits depending on the overall relationship with the customer. Our bankers are incentivized to acquire and maintain quality, core deposits as we depend on deposits to fund the majority of our loans. Brokered deposits are obtained when needed to build liquidity at favorable rates.

Market Area

The primary markets in which we operate are San Francisco and greater Los Angeles, and our 26-branch network in these areas is our core distribution channel. In addition, we have one branch in New York City and our headquarters branch in Michigan. We strive to take advantage of our core footprint and deep-rooted relationships to target local customers with a diversified product offering. Our local branch network enables us to gather deposits, promote the Sterling brand and customer loyalty, originate loans and other products and maintain relationships with our customers through regular community involvement.

Competition

The financial services industry is highly competitive as we compete for loans, deposits and customer relationships in our market. Competition involves efforts to retain current clients, make new loans and obtain new deposits, increase the scope and sophistication of services offered and offer competitive interest rates paid on deposits and charged on loans. Within our branch footprint, we primarily face competition from national, regional and other local financial institutions that have established branch networks throughout the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas as well as the New York City market, giving them visible retail presence to customers.

In mortgage banking, we face competition from a wide range of national financial institutions, regional and local community banks, as well as credit unions and national mortgage underwriters. In commercial banking, we face competition to underwrite loans to sound, stable businesses and real estate projects at competitive price levels that make sense for our business and risk profile. Our major commercial bank competitors include larger national, regional and local financial institutions that may have the ability to make loans on larger projects than we can or provide a larger mix of product offerings. We also compete with smaller local financial institutions that may have aggressive pricing and unique terms on various types of loans and, increasingly, financial technology platforms that offer their products exclusively through web-based portals.

8

Table of Contents

In retail banking, we primarily compete with national and local banks that have visible retail presence and personnel in our market areas. The primary factors driving competition in consumer banking are customer service, interest rates, fees charged, branch location and hours of operation and the range of products offered. We compete for deposits by advertising, offering competitive interest rates and seeking to provide a higher level of personal service. We also face competition from non-traditional alternatives to banks such as credit unions, internet-based banks, money centers, money market mutual funds and cash management accounts.

For further discussion regarding the competitive factors and uncertainties impacting our business, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to Competition.”

HUMAN CAPITAL RESOURCES

Overview

Understanding that our talent is at the heart of our business, we continue to focus on initiatives to recruit and retain high potential and performing employees. Our culture promotes engagement, development and diversity that leads to a positive employee experience. We know that having an engaged workforce contributes significantly to the health and growth of the Company. This allows us to continue to give back to our shareholders, employees, and the communities we serve. As of December 31, 2021, we had 295 full-time and three part-time employees, located predominately in California, Michigan and New York. None of our employees are represented by any collective bargaining unit or are parties to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe our relations with our employees are good.

Culture and Engagement

Community, service, integrity and employee collaborations are at the core of our culture. We strive to provide a culture that aims to engage and retain the talent of the Bank. We encourage our employees to be involved in their local communities by providing them with paid volunteer time off on a yearly basis. We focus on supporting our employees and strive to provide a work experience and environment that celebrates them and the good they do within our Sterling community. We have repositioned our human capital efforts and expanded the human resources team to provide more support for employees, culture and engagement initiatives.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging

We continue to promote diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEI&B) within our culture and make improvements to our human resources programs to support related initiatives. As of December 31, 2021, 56% of our employees were female, and 44% of our employees were ethnically diverse. In the group of employees at the level of assistant vice president or higher, 64% were female, and 36% were ethnically diverse. Over the past year, we have continued to support and provide diversity training to all employees. We continue with our commitment to providing a workplace that is free of harassment and discrimination by taking proactive measures and providing all employees with non-discrimination and sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. The DEI&B initiatives will continue to be supported and promoted to provide all employees a place where they feel welcomed, appreciated and valued.

Talent Acquisition, Retention and Development

It is our goal to attract high potential and retain high performing talent that contribute their knowledge, skills and abilities towards our success. We strive to offer competitive pay, benefits and services to meet the needs of our employees. Compensation and benefits include bonuses and incentives, restricted stock and stock options, health benefits, a 401(k) plan, financial education and counseling, partial tuition reimbursement, wellness initiatives (including programs designed to help our employees meet their health goals) and paid time off. We annually review benefits to ensure that a competitive and valuable benefit package is available to meet the well-being of our employees and their families.

9

Table of Contents

Our ability to retain our customers and develop relationships with them depends on the capabilities and knowledge of our employees. In 2021, we offered employees various amounts of training courses based on department and the skills required to complete their specific job functions. The Bank offered over 50 required training courses and provided access to more than 600 technical and professional development courses that employees may take voluntarily. Our management trainees learn different aspects of the Bank’s business by rotating through various departments. In addition, the Bank identifies high potential and performing employees to mentor and coach for succession planning purposes. It is our goal to invest in the internal talent for development and growth purposes while ensuring the transfer of knowledge for business continuity and to minimize disruption to the Bank’s operations.

Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we have provided support to all of our employees, including a transition into work-from-home status without a reduction in salaries or any other benefits during such transition period. Our return to the office protocols have remained fluid based on the changing conditions caused by the COVID-19 variants that emerged throughout 2021. We decided to continue to allow employees whose jobs could be conducted remotely to continue to do so throughout 2021. In addition, we continue to monitor the changing landscape and guide employees through the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is, to the extent possible, to continue to provide the safest working conditions for all employees of the Bank.

​

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

General

As a federal savings bank, Sterling Bank is subject to primary examination and regulation by the OCC and, as an insured depository institution, the FDIC. The federal system of regulation and supervision establishes a comprehensive framework of activities in which Sterling Bank may engage and is intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) rather than our shareholders. Sterling Bank also is a member of, and owns stock in, the Federal Home Loan Bank (the “FHLB”) of Indianapolis, which is one of the 11 regional banks in the FHLB system.

As a unitary thrift holding company, Sterling Bancorp is required to comply with the rules and regulations of the FRB. We are required to file certain reports with the FRB and are subject to examination by and the enforcement authority of the FRB. Sterling Bancorp is also subject to the rules and regulations of the SEC under the federal securities laws.

Under this system of regulation, the regulatory authorities have extensive discretion in connection with their supervisory, enforcement, rulemaking and examination activities and policies, including rules or policies that: establish minimum capital levels; restrict the timing and amount of dividend payments; govern the classification of assets; determine the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses for regulatory purposes; and establish the timing and amounts of assessments and fees. Moreover, as part of their examination authority, the banking regulators assign numerical ratings to banks and savings institutions relating to capital, asset quality, management, liquidity, earnings and other factors. These ratings are inherently subjective and the receipt of a less than satisfactory rating in one or more categories may result in enforcement action by the banking regulators against a financial institution. A less than satisfactory rating may also prevent a financial institution, such as Sterling Bank or Sterling Bancorp, from obtaining necessary regulatory approvals to access the capital markets, pay dividends, acquire other financial institutions or establish new branches.

In addition, we must comply with significant AML and anti-terrorism laws and regulations, the CRA and regulations implemented thereunder, and fair lending laws and regulations. Government agencies have the authority to impose monetary penalties and other sanctions on institutions that fail to comply with these laws and regulations, which could significantly affect our business activities, including our ability to expand our branch network or acquire other financial institutions.

Finally, we are also subject to the laws and regulations of the State of Michigan, in which our main office is located, and other states in which we do business, including California and New York.

Any change in applicable laws or regulations, whether by the OCC, the FDIC, the FRB, the SEC, state regulators, or Congress, could have a material adverse impact on the operations and financial performance of Sterling Bancorp and Sterling Bank.

10

Table of Contents

Set forth below is a brief description of material regulatory requirements that are or will be applicable to Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancorp. The description is limited to certain material aspects of the statutes and regulations addressed, and is not intended to be a complete description of such statutes and regulations and their effects on Sterling Bank and Sterling Bancorp.

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act of 2018

On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (the “EGRRCPA”) was enacted, which repeals or modifies certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and eases regulations on all but the largest banks. The EGRRCPA’s provisions—for which banking agencies have now issued certain corresponding guidance documents and implementing regulations—include, among other things: (i) creating a new category of qualified mortgages (“QMs”) presumed to satisfy ability-to-repay (“ATR”) requirements of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (the “CFPB”) ATR/QM rule under Regulation Z for loans that meet certain criteria and are held in portfolio by banks with less than $10 billion in assets; (ii) not requiring appraisals for certain transactions valued at less than $400,000 in rural areas; (iii) exempting banks that originate fewer than 500 open-end and 500 closed-end mortgages from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act’s expanded data disclosures; (iv) clarifying that, subject to various conditions, reciprocal deposits of another depository institution obtained using a deposit broker through a deposit placement network for purposes of obtaining maximum deposit insurance would not be considered brokered deposits subject to the FDIC’s brokered-deposit regulations; and (v) simplifying capital calculations by requiring regulators to establish for institutions under $10 billion in assets a community bank leverage ratio (the “CBLR”), which is the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average consolidated assets, at a percentage not less than 8% and not greater than 10% that such institutions may elect to replace the general applicable risk-based capital requirements for determining well capitalized status.

Federal Banking Regulation

Business Activities. A federal savings bank derives its lending and investment powers from the Home Owners’ Loan Act, as amended (“HOLA”), and applicable federal regulations. Under these laws and regulations, Sterling Bank may invest in mortgage loans secured by residential and commercial real estate, commercial business and consumer loans, certain types of debt securities and certain other assets, subject to applicable limits. Sterling Bank may also establish subsidiaries that may engage in certain activities not otherwise permissible for Sterling Bank, including wealth and investment management.

Capital Requirements. As long as we do not elect the CBLR, as discussed further below, federal regulations will continue to require Sterling Bancorp and Sterling Bank to meet several minimum capital standards under the risk-based capital rules implemented by the federal banking agencies pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. In the case of Sterling Bank, minimum capital standards include a common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 4.5%, a Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 6.0%, a total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio of 8.0%, and a Tier 1 capital to adjusted average total assets leverage ratio of 4.0%.

In determining the amount of risk-weighted assets for purposes of calculating risk-based capital ratios, all assets, including certain off-balance sheet assets (for example, recourse obligations, direct credit substitutes and residual interests) are multiplied by a risk-weight factor assigned by the regulations based on the risks believed inherent in the type of asset. Higher levels of capital are required for asset categories believed to present greater risk. Common equity Tier 1 capital is generally defined as common shareholders’ equity and retained earnings. Tier 1 capital is generally defined as common equity Tier 1 and additional Tier 1 capital. Additional Tier 1 capital includes certain noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus and minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. Total capital includes Tier 1 capital (common equity Tier 1 capital plus additional Tier 1 capital) and Tier 2 capital. Tier 2 capital is comprised of capital instruments and related surplus, meeting specified requirements, and may include cumulative preferred stock and long-term perpetual preferred stock, mandatory convertible securities, intermediate preferred stock and subordinated debt. Also included in Tier 2 capital is the allowance for loan losses limited to a maximum of 1.25% of risk-weighted assets. Calculation of all types of regulatory capital is subject to deductions and adjustments specified in the regulations. In assessing an institution’s capital adequacy, the OCC takes into consideration not only these numeric factors, but qualitative factors as well, and has the authority to establish higher capital requirements for individual institutions where deemed necessary.

11

Table of Contents

After further internal analysis, including evaluation of the results from the Internal Review, and consultation with the OCC regarding the risk weighting requirements set forth under the Basel III capital rules for first-lien residential mortgage exposures, we have determined that a risk-weighting of 100% is appropriate for our Advantage Loan Program loans, and the Bank will begin applying that risk weight category to such loans in our March Call Report. We are applying this approach to all of the Advantage Loan Program loans as a homogeneous pool rather than evaluating each loan individually. Further, in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2022, we will disclose our risk-weighted assets as of March 31, 2022 pursuant to the above determination, and we will disclose our risk-weighted assets as of December 31, 2021 using the same risk-weighting approach for purposes of comparison only. Had we applied the 100% risk weight as of December 31, 2021, the Bank’s total adjusted capital to risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 (core) capital to risk-weighted assets would have been 20.55% and 19.28%, respectively, and our total adjusted capital to risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 (core) capital to risk-weighted assets would have been 21.24% and 17.34%, respectively, and we would have remained well capitalized and exceeded all capital buffers for all regulatory purposes.

In addition to establishing the minimum regulatory capital requirements, the capital rules limit capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments to management if the institution does not hold a capital conservation buffer (“CCB”) consisting of 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets above the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements.

In November 2019, the federal banking agencies published a final rule, effective as of January 1, 2020, that introduced an optional simplified measure of capital adequacy for qualifying community banking organizations (that is, the CBLR framework), as required by the EGRRCPA. The CBLR framework is designed to reduce burden by removing the requirements for calculating and reporting risk-based capital ratios for qualifying community banking organizations that opt into the framework. In order to qualify for the CBLR framework, a community banking organization must have (i) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of greater than 9.0%, (ii) less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, and (iii) limited amounts of off-balance-sheet exposures and trading assets and liabilities. A qualifying community banking organization that opts into the CBLR framework and meets all requirements under the framework will be considered to have met the well capitalized ratio requirements under prompt corrective action regulations and will not be required to report or calculate risk-based capital.

Sterling Bank has not elected to use the CBLR framework, but may make such an election in the future. As discussed below under the subsection titled “Government and Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Congress and the federal banking agencies, through legislation and subsequent rulemaking initiatives, have provided financial institutions that have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with greater flexibility with which to make CBLR elections.

At December 31, 2021, the Company and the Bank met all regulatory capital requirements to which they are subject.

Loans-to-One Borrower. Generally, a federal savings bank may not make a loan or extend credit to a single or related group of borrowers in excess of 15% of unimpaired capital and surplus. An additional amount may be loaned, equal to 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus, if the loan is secured by readily marketable collateral, which generally includes certain financial instruments (but not real estate). As of December 31, 2021, Sterling Bank was in compliance with the loans-to-one borrower limitations.

QTL Test. Federal law requires savings associations to meet a QTL test. Under the test, a savings bank is required to either qualify as a “domestic building and loan association” under the Internal Revenue Code or maintain at least 65% of its portfolio assets (total assets less: (i) specified liquid assets up to 20% of total assets; (ii) intangibles, including goodwill; and (iii) the value of property used to conduct business) in certain qualified thrift investments (primarily multifamily residential mortgages and related investments, including certain mortgage-backed securities but also including education, credit card and small business loans) in at least nine months out of each 12-month period.

12

Table of Contents

A savings association that fails the QTL test is subject to certain operating restrictions, including a prohibition against dividends, and the Dodd-Frank Act also specifies that failing the QTL test is a violation of law that could result in an enforcement action and dividend limitations. At December 31, 2021, Sterling Bank satisfied the QTL test.

Capital Distributions. Federal regulations impose limitations on capital distributions by a federal savings bank, which include cash dividends, stock repurchases and other transactions charged to the savings bank’s capital account. A federal savings bank must file an application with the OCC for approval of a capital distribution under various circumstances, including, for example, if the savings bank’s total capital distributions for the applicable calendar year exceed the sum of its net income for that year to date plus its retained net income for the preceding two years; the savings bank would not be at least adequately capitalized or otherwise would not remain an "eligible savings association" under applicable OCC regulations following the distribution; or the distribution would violate any applicable law, regulation or agreement with, or order or notice approved by, the OCC.

Even if an application is not otherwise required, every savings bank that is a subsidiary of a unitary thrift holding company, such as Sterling Bank, must still file a notice with the FRB at least 30 days before its board of directors declares a dividend or approves a capital distribution. FRB approval is also required for any repurchase of capital stock by a financial institution with over $3 billion in assets, unless an exception applies.

A notice or application related to a capital distribution or share repurchase may be disapproved if:

In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act provides that an insured depository institution may not make any capital distribution if, after making such distribution, the institution would fail to meet any applicable regulatory capital requirement.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on March 17, 2020, the federal banking agencies issued an interim final rule revising the definition of “eligible retained income” for banking organizations subject to the capital rules. To reduce the likelihood of significant limitations on banking organizations’ capital distributions in light of COVID-19-related reductions in capital ratios, the interim final rule amends the definition of “eligible retained income” as the greater of (1) a banking organization’s net income for the four preceding calendar quarters, net of any distributions and associated tax effects not already reflected in net income, and (2) the average of a banking organization’s net income over the preceding four quarters. A final rule making this interim rule permanent was adopted on August 26, 2020. Despite the more relaxed rule, banking organizations are still expected to manage their capital actions and liquidity risk prudently and in a safe and sound manner.

CRA and Fair Lending Laws. Under the CRA, as implemented by federal regulations, all federal savings banks have a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with its safe and sound operation, to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate- income borrowers. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions, nor does it limit an institution’s discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community, consistent with the CRA. The CRA requires the OCC, in connection with its examination of a federally chartered savings association, to assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take such record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by such institution. A savings bank’s failure to comply with the provisions of the CRA could, at a minimum, result in denial of certain corporate applications such as branch expansion or mergers, or in restrictions on its activities. The CRA requires a written evaluation of an institution’s CRA performance utilizing a four-tiered descriptive rating system. All institutions insured by the FDIC must publicly disclose their rating. Sterling Bank received a satisfactory CRA rating in its most recent federal examination.

13

Table of Contents

The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The fair lending laws prohibit discrimination in the provision of banking services on the basis of prohibited factors including, among others, race, color, national origin, gender, and religion. The enforcement of these laws has been an increasing focus for the CFPB, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) and other regulators. Under the fair lending laws, a lender may be liable for policies that result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of applicants or borrowers. If a pattern or practice of lending discrimination is alleged by a regulator, then that agency may refer the matter to the DOJ for investigation. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the DOJ and CFPB, the agencies have agreed to share information and coordinate investigations, and have also generally committed to strengthen their coordination efforts, including in respect of fair lending investigations. A successful challenge to an institution’s performance under the CRA or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity and restrictions on expansion activity. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation.

The OCC, the FRB and the FDIC have expressed interest in CRA reform, and the OCC has taken certain steps through proposed rulemaking to advance this effort; however, the agencies have not yet agreed upon a common approach to CRA reform and the prospects and timing for any additional rulemaking activity cannot be predicated at this time.

ATR/QM Rules. The CFPB’s ATR/QM rules require, in connection with the origination of residential real estate loans within its scope, that a mortgage lender must make a reasonable and good faith determination at or before consummation that the consumer will have a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Among other requirements, a creditor must verify the information on which it bases its repayment ability determination by using reasonably reliable, written third-party records. These rules prohibit creditors, such as Sterling Bank, from extending residential real estate loans without regard for the consumer’s ability to repay and add restrictions and requirements to residential mortgage origination and servicing practices. In addition, these rules restrict the imposition of prepayment penalties and compensation practices relating to residential real estate loan origination. Mortgage lenders are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the mortgage lender to consider eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision. The mortgage lender may also originate QMs, which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ATR requirements. In general, a QM is a residential real estate loan that does not have certain high-risk features, such as negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments or a term exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a QM loan, the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount, and the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio must be no higher than 43% (subject to certain limited exceptions for loans eligible for purchase, guarantee or insurance by a government sponsored enterprise or a federal agency). Our residential real estate loans originated under our TIC program and our former Advantage Loan Program are not QMs, as our underwriting processes for those programs do not follow applicable regulatory guidance required for such qualification; however, our remaining conforming residential real estate loans originated in 2021 were QMs.

On December 10, 2020, the CFPB issued two final rules related to QM loans. The first rule replaces the strict 43 percent debt-to-income threshold for QM loans and provides that, in addition to existing requirements, a loan receives a conclusive presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay if the annual percentage rate (“APR”) does not exceed the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more as of the date the interest rate is set. Further, a loan receives a rebuttable presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay if the APR exceeds the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more but by less than 2.25 percentage points. The second rule creates a new category of seasoned QMs for loans that satisfy a 3-year seasoning period and meet certain other performance requirements. Seasoned loans qualify for a safe harbor under the ATR/QM rule. The mandatory compliance date under the first final rule was July 1, 2021, but subsequently was delayed by the CFPB to October 1, 2022. The second final rule will apply to covered transactions for which institutions receive an application after the compliance date for the first final rule. See “Item 1A. Risk Factors––Risks Related to Our Highly Regulated Industry––The Company faces risks related to the adoption of future legislation and potential changes in federal regulatory agency leadership, policies and priorities.”

14

Table of Contents

Transactions with Related Parties. A federal savings bank’s authority to engage in transactions with its affiliates is limited by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and federal regulation. An affiliate is generally a company that controls, or is under common control with, an insured depository institution such as Sterling Bank. Sterling Bancorp is an affiliate of Sterling Bank because of its control of Sterling Bank. A subsidiary of a bank that is not also a depository institution or a financial subsidiary under federal law is not treated as an affiliate of the bank for the purposes of Sections 23A and 23B; however, the OCC has the discretion to treat subsidiaries of a bank as affiliates on a case-by-case basis. Section 23A limits the extent to which a bank or its subsidiaries may engage in covered transactions with any one affiliate to 10% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus. The amount of covered transactions with all affiliates is limited of 20% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus. “Covered transactions” include, among other things, the making of a loan to an affiliate, a purchase of assets from an affiliate, the issuance of a guarantee on behalf of an affiliate and the acceptance of securities of an affiliate as collateral for a loan. All such transactions are required to be on terms and conditions that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices and no transaction may involve the acquisition of any low-quality asset from an affiliate. Certain covered transactions, such as loans to or guarantees on behalf of an affiliate, must be secured by collateral in amounts ranging from 100 to 130 percent of the loan amount, depending upon the type of collateral. In addition, Section 23B requires that any covered transaction (and specified other transactions) between a bank and an affiliate must be on terms and conditions that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the bank, as those that would be provided to a non-affiliate.

A bank’s loans to its executive officers, directors, any owner of more than 10% of its stock (each, an “insider”) and certain entities affiliated with any such person (an insider’s “related interest”) are subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and the FRB’s Regulation O. The aggregate amount of a bank’s loans to any insider and the insider’s related interests may not exceed the loans-to-one-borrower limit applicable to national banks. Aggregate loans by a bank to its insiders and insiders’ related interests may not exceed the bank’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. With certain exceptions, such as education loans and certain residential mortgages, a bank’s loans to its executive officers, may not exceed the greater of $25,000 or 2.5% of the bank’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus, but in no event more than $100,000. Regulation O also requires that any loan to an insider or a related interest of an insider be approved in advance by a majority of the board of directors of the bank, with any interested director not participating in the voting, if the loan, when aggregated with any existing loans to that insider or the insider’s related interests, would exceed the lesser or $500,000 or 5% of the bank’s unimpaired capital and surplus. Generally, such loans must (i) be made on substantially the same terms as and follow credit underwriting procedures that are no less stringent than, those that are prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with unaffiliated persons and that do not present more than a normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features, and (ii) not exceed certain limitations on the amount of credit extended to such persons, individually and in the aggregate, which limits are based, in part, on the amount of Sterling Bank’s capital. An exception is made for extensions of credit made pursuant to a benefit or compensation plan of a bank that is widely available to employees of the bank and that does not give any preference to insiders of the bank over other employees of the bank.

Enforcement. The OCC has primary enforcement responsibility over federal savings banks and has authority to bring enforcement action against all institution-affiliated parties, including directors, officers, shareholders, attorneys, appraisers and accountants who knowingly or recklessly participate in wrongful action likely to have an adverse effect on a federal savings bank. Formal enforcement action by the OCC may range from the issuance of a capital directive, formal agreement (such as the agreement described below) or cease and desist order to removal of officers and/or directors of the institution and the appointment of a receiver or conservator. Civil penalties cover a wide range of violations and actions, and range up to $25,000 per day, unless a finding of reckless disregard is made, in which case penalties may be as high as $1 million per day. The FDIC also has the authority to terminate deposit insurance or recommend to the OCC that enforcement action be taken with respect to a particular savings bank. If such action is not taken, the FDIC has authority to take the action under specified circumstances. As discussed above under “Executive Summary” and in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” the Bank entered into the OCC Agreement on June 18, 2019 and is under formal investigation.

15

Table of Contents

Standards for Safety and Soundness. The federal banking agencies have adopted the Interagency Guidelines for Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines establish certain safety and soundness standards for all depository institutions. The operational and managerial standards in the Guidelines relate to the following: (1) internal controls and information systems; (2) internal audit systems; (3) loan documentation; (4) credit underwriting; (5) interest rate exposure; (6) asset growth; (7) compensation, fees and benefits; (8) asset quality; and (9) earnings. Rather than providing specific rules, the Guidelines set forth basic compliance considerations and guidance with respect to a depository institution. Failure to meet the standards in the Guidelines, however, could result in a request by the OCC to one of the federal savings banks to provide a written compliance plan to demonstrate its efforts to come into compliance with such Guidelines. Failure to provide a plan or to implement a provided plan requires the appropriate federal banking agency to issue an order to the institution requiring compliance.

As discussed in greater detail below, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has in certain respects impacted Sterling Bank’s operations and its risk management and safety and soundness regulation. For instance, since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal banking agencies encouraged banking organizations to work constructively and prudently with borrowers impacted by the pandemic in order to meet the borrowers’ financial needs. Specifically, the agencies, including the OCC, encouraged banking organizations to consider undertaking a variety of efforts during a major disaster or national emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic, including: waiving ATM, overdraft, and late fees, as well as early withdrawal penalties on time deposits; increasing ATM daily cash withdrawal limits; easing credit terms for new loans; increasing credit limits for creditworthy customers; offering payment accommodations such as allowing loan customers to defer or skip some payments or extending payment due dates, which would avoid delinquencies and negative credit bureau reporting caused by disaster-related disruptions; and conducting a review of an affected borrower’s financial condition in an effort to implement a prudent loan workout arrangement. The agencies also stated that they would not criticize a banking organization that implemented prudent loan workouts for affected customers even if the restructured loans result in adverse classifications or credit risk downgrades. In addition, the agencies revised examination guidance to require examiners to consider, in conducting supervisory assessments, whether banking organizations have taken appropriate actions in response to the stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and managed associated risk appropriately in accordance with safety and soundness standards.

Interstate Banking and Branching. Federal law permits well capitalized and well managed holding companies to acquire banks in any state, subject to FRB approval, certain concentration limits and other specified conditions. Interstate mergers of banks are also authorized, subject to regulatory approval and other specified conditions. In addition, among other things, certain amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act permit banks to establish de novo branches on an interstate basis provided that branching is authorized by the law of the host state for the banks chartered by that state.

Prompt Corrective Action. Federal law requires, among other things, that federal bank regulators take prompt corrective action with respect to institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. For this purpose, the law establishes five capital categories: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. An institution is deemed to be well capitalized if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater and a common equity Tier 1 ratio of 6.5% or greater. An institution is adequately capitalized if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and a common equity Tier 1 ratio of 4.5% or greater. An institution is undercapitalized if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a leverage ratio of less than 4.0% or a common equity Tier 1 ratio of less than 4.5%. An institution is deemed to be significantly undercapitalized if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0%, a leverage ratio of less than 3.0% or a common equity Tier 1 ratio of less than 3.0%. An institution is considered to be critically undercapitalized if it has a ratio of tangible equity (as defined in the regulations) to total assets that is equal to or less than 2.0%.

16

Table of Contents

At each successive lower capital category, an insured depository institution is subject to more restrictions and prohibitions, including restrictions on growth, restrictions on interest rates paid on deposits, restrictions or prohibitions on payment of dividends, and restrictions on the acceptance of brokered deposits. Furthermore, if an insured depository institution is classified in one of the undercapitalized categories, it is required to submit a capital restoration plan to the appropriate federal banking agency, and the holding company must guarantee the performance of that plan. Based upon its capital levels, a bank that is classified as well capitalized, adequately capitalized or undercapitalized may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if the appropriate federal banking agency, after notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that an unsafe or unsound condition, or an unsafe or unsound practice, warrants such treatment. An undercapitalized bank’s compliance with a capital restoration plan is required to be guaranteed by any company that controls the undercapitalized institution in an amount equal to the lesser of 5.0% of the institution’s total assets when deemed undercapitalized or the amount necessary to achieve the status of adequately capitalized. If an undercapitalized bank fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is significantly undercapitalized. Significantly undercapitalized banks must comply with one or more of a number of additional restrictions, including but not limited to an order by the applicable regulatory authority to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, cease receipt of deposits from correspondent banks or dismiss directors or officers, and restrictions on interest rates paid on deposits, compensation of executive officers and capital distributions by the parent holding company. Critically undercapitalized institutions are subject to additional measures including, subject to a narrow exception, the appointment of a receiver or conservator within 270 days after it obtains such status.

At December 31, 2021, Sterling Bank was considered well capitalized.

Federal Insurance of Deposit Accounts. The DIF insures deposits at FDIC-insured financial institutions such as Sterling Bank. Deposit accounts at Sterling Bank are insured by the FDIC generally up to a maximum of $250,000 per separately insured depositor. The FDIC charges insured depository institutions premiums to maintain the DIF.

Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, insured institutions are assigned to one of four risk categories based on supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital levels and certain other risk factors. Rates are based on each institution’s risk category and certain specified risk adjustments. Institutions deemed to be less risky pay lower rates while institutions deemed riskier pay higher rates. Assessment rates (inclusive of possible adjustments) currently range from 2¹/₂ to 45 basis points of each institution’s total assets less tangible capital. The FDIC may increase or decrease the scale uniformly, except that no adjustment can deviate more than two basis points from the base scale without notice and comment rulemaking. The FDIC’s current system represents a change, required by the Dodd-Frank Act, from its prior practice of basing the assessment on an institution’s deposits.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum target DIF ratio from 1.15% of estimated insured deposits to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits. Insured institutions with assets of $10 billion or more were given the responsibility for funding the increase. The Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the prior 1.5% maximum fund ratio, instead leaving the target fund ratio to the discretion of the FDIC, which has exercised that discretion by establishing a long-term target fund ratio of 2%.

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

Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that an institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or regulatory condition imposed by the FDIC. We do not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of our deposit insurance. In addition to the FDIC assessments, the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) is authorized to impose and collect, with the approval of the FDIC, assessments for anticipated payments, issuance costs and custodial fees on bonds issued by the FICO in the 1980s to recapitalize the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. The bonds issued by the FICO matured on December 31, 2019. For the expense paid in the year ended December 31, 2019, the total FDIC assessment was equal to 3.14 basis points of total assets less tangible capital, and the FICO assessment was equal to 0.03 basis points of total assets less total tangible capital. The last FICO assessment was collected in March 2019.

Regulation of Brokered Deposits. Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act establishes, among other things, a general prohibition on the acceptance by any insured depository institution that is not well capitalized of any deposit obtained, directly or indirectly, by or through any deposit broker. This statutory prohibition is further implemented through the regulations of the FDIC and, historically, numerous published and unpublished FDIC staff interpretations of the statute and the FDIC’s regulation.

17

Table of Contents

On December 15, 2020, the FDIC adopted a final rule substantially amending its brokered deposits regulation. The final rule sought to clarify and modernize the FDIC’s existing regulatory framework for brokered deposits. Notable aspects of the rule include (1) the establishment of bright-line standards for determining whether an entity meets the statutory definition of deposit broker; (2) the identification of a number of business relationships in which the agent or nominee of the depositor is not deemed to be a "deposit broker" because the primary purpose of the agent or nominee is not the placement of funds with depository institutions; (3) the establishment of a more transparent application process for entities that seek to rely upon a “primary purpose” exception, but do not qualify as one of the enumerated business relationships to which the exception is deemed to apply; and (4) the clarification that third parties that have an exclusive deposit-placement arrangement with only one bank is not considered a deposit broker.

The final rule took effect on April 1, 2021; however, full compliance with the final rule was not required until January 1, 2022. Under the amended brokered deposits regulation, the range of activities viewed as deposit brokerage has been modified, which could have an impact on the Bank’s deposit premiums, capital and liquidity risk management planning and regulatory monitoring and reporting obligations.

Supervisory Assessments. OCC-chartered banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the OCC to fund its operations. The amount of the assessment paid by a federally-chartered bank to the OCC is calculated on the basis of the institution’s total assets, including consolidated subsidiaries, as reported to the OCC. On December 1, 2020, due to increased operating efficiencies, the OCC announced that it will reduce the rates in all fee schedules by 3 percent for the 2021 calendar year. This reduction is in addition to the OCC’s final rule issued on June 22, 2020, which reduced the assessments paid to the OCC on September 30, 2020 in response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. On December 1, 2021, the OCC published its assessment rates for the 2022 calendar year, maintaining the rates from 2021.

Data Privacy and Cybersecurity. Under the privacy protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and related regulations, we are limited in our ability to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. Federal banking agencies, including the OCC, have adopted guidelines for establishing information security standards and cybersecurity programs for implementing safeguards under the supervision of the board of directors. These guidelines, along with related regulatory materials, increasingly focus on risk management and processes related to information technology and the use of third parties in the provision of financial services.

Certain states have adopted cybersecurity and data privacy laws and regulations may expose the Company to risk and result in certain risk management costs. Notably, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which became effective on January 1, 2020 and was amended on November 1, 2020 by a ballot initiative titled the California Privacy Rights Act ("CPRA"), gives California residents the right to request access to personal information we have collected about them, and whether that information has been sold or shared with others, the right to request deletion of personal information (subject to certain exceptions), the right to opt out of the sale of personal information, and the right not to be discriminated against for exercising these rights. The CCPA also created a private right of action with statutory damages for data security breaches, thereby increasing potential liability associated with a data breach, which has triggered a number of class actions against other companies since January 1, 2020. The CPRA both modified the CCPA substantially through amendments that will take effect on January 1, 2023, and created the California Privacy Protection Agency, a government agency with the authority to issue regulations and guidance and to enforce the CCPA. Although the CPRA expanded the scope of the CCPA, it did not alter the CCPA’s exemption for financial institutions with respect to personal information that is protected under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which means the CCPA will not apply to our practices with respect to personal information of customers seeking or obtaining products for personal, family, or household purposes. Although Sterling Bank may enjoy several fairly broad exemptions from the CCPA’s privacy requirements, those exemptions do not extend to the private right of action for a data security breach. The CCPA, including any amendments thereto or final regulations implemented thereunder, as well as other similar federal and state data privacy laws and regulations, may require the establishment by Sterling Bank of certain regulatory compliance and risk management controls.

18

Table of Contents

In addition, Congress and federal regulatory agencies may enact similar laws, or promulgate regulations, that could create new individual privacy rights and impose increased obligations on companies handling personal data. On November 23, 2021, the federal banking agencies published a final rule that will impose upon banking organizations and their service providers new notification requirements for significant cybersecurity incidents. Specifically, the final rule requires banking organizations to notify their primary federal regulator promptly, and no later than 36 hours after, the discovery of a “computer-security incident” that rises to the level of a “notification incident” within the meanings attributed to those terms by the final rule. Banks’ service providers are required under the final rule to notify any affected bank to or on behalf of which they provide services "as soon as possible" after determining that they have experienced any incident that materially disrupts, degrades, or is reasonably likely to disrupt or degrade, covered services provided to a bank for four or more hours. The final rule will take effect on April 1, 2022, and banks and their service providers must be in compliance with the requirements of the rule by May 1, 2022.

BSA/AML Regulation, USA PATRIOT Act and National Defense Authorization Act. The BSA, the USA PATRIOT Act and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective AML program and to file timely reports such as suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports. We are required to comply with these and other AML requirements. The federal banking agencies and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) are authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and have recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts against banks and other financial services providers with the DOJ, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. We are also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

The USA PATRIOT Act gives federal agencies additional powers to address terrorist threats through enhanced domestic security measures, expanded surveillance powers, increased information sharing, and broadened AML requirements. The USA PATRIOT Act mandates that financial service companies implement additional policies and procedures and take heightened measures designed to address any or all of the following matters: customer identification programs, money laundering, terrorist financing, identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions, currency crimes, and cooperation between financial institutions and law enforcement authorities.

On January 1, 2021, Congress enacted the National Defense Authorization Act, which enacted the most significant overhaul of the BSA and related AML laws since the USA PATRIOT Act. Notable amendments include (1) significant changes to the collection of beneficial ownership information and the establishment of a beneficial ownership registry, which requires corporate entities (generally, any corporation, limited liability company or other similar entity with 20 or fewer employees and annual gross income of $5 million or less) to report beneficial ownership information to FinCEN (which information will be maintained by FinCEN and made available upon request to financial institutions); (2) enhanced whistleblower provisions, which provide that one or more whistleblowers who voluntarily provide original information leading to the successful enforcement of violations of the AML laws in any judicial or administrative action brought by the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney General resulting in monetary sanctions exceeding $1 million (including disgorgement and interest but excluding forfeiture, restitution, or compensation to victims) will receive not more than 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected and will receive increased protections; (3) increased penalties for violations of the BSA; (4) improvements to existing information sharing provisions that permit financial institutions to share information relating to suspicious activity reports with foreign branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates (except those located in China, Russia, or certain other jurisdictions) for the purpose of combating illicit finance risks; and (5) expanded duties and powers of FinCEN. On December 8, 2021, FinCEN issued proposed regulations that would implement the amendments regarding beneficial ownership if adopted as proposed. We expect to incur transition and ongoing costs to comply with the amendments.

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

19

Table of Contents

Climate-Related Regulation and Risk Management. In recent years the federal banking agencies have increased their focus on climate-related risks impacting the operations of banks, the communities they serve and the broader financial system. Accordingly, the agencies have begun to enhance their supervisory expectations regarding the climate risk management practices of larger banking organizations, including by encouraging such banks to: ensure that management of climate-related risk exposures has been incorporated into existing governance structures; evaluate the potential impact of climate-related risks on the bank’s financial condition, operations and business objectives as part of its strategic planning process; account for the effects of climate change in stress testing scenarios and systemic risk assessments; revise expectations for credit portfolio concentrations based on climate-related factors; consider investments in climate-related initiatives and lending to communities disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change; evaluate the impact of climate change on the bank’s borrowers and consider possible changes to underwriting criteria to account for climate-related risks to mortgaged properties; incorporate climate-related financial risk into the bank’s internal reporting, monitoring and escalation processes; and prepare for the transition risks to the bank associated with the adjustment to a low-carbon economy and related changes in laws, regulations, governmental policies, technology, and consumer behavior and expectations.

On October 21, 2021, the Financial Stability Oversight Council published a report identifying climate-related financial risks as an “emerging threat” to financial stability. On December 16, 2021, the OCC issued proposed principles for climate-related financial risk management for national banks with more than $100 billion in total assets. Although these risk management principles, if adopted as proposed, would not apply to the Bank directly based upon our current size, the OCC has indicated that all banks, regardless of their size, may have material exposures to climate-related financial and other risks that require prudent management. The federal banking agencies, either independently or on an interagency basis, are expected to adopt a more formal climate risk management framework for larger banking organizations in the coming months. As climate-related supervisory guidance is formalized, and relevant risk areas and corresponding control expectations are further refined, we may be required to expend significant capital and incur compliance, operating, maintenance and remediation costs in order to conform to such requirements.

In addition, states in which we conduct business have taken, or are considering taking, similar actions on climate-related financial risks. For example, the California legislature has considered a bill related to climate-related financial risk for banks and other financial institutes, which would require an annual climate-related risk report. Also, the California legislature has considered a bill that would require publicly-traded domestic companies with an annual revenue of greater than $1 billion that do business in California to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. Further, in 2019 the New York legislature enacted the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (“CLCPA”), which, among other things, aims to reduce carbon emissions over a thirty-year period with the goal of obtaining net zero emissions in New York State. State-level legislative initiatives such as those mentioned above may require us to expend capital to conform to any requirements that apply to us.

Incentive Compensation Policies and Restrictions. In July 2010, the federal banking agencies issued guidance on sound incentive compensation policies that applies to all banking organizations supervised by the agencies (thereby including both Sterling Bancorp and the Bank). Pursuant to the guidance, to be consistent with safety and soundness principles, a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should: (1) provide employees with incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (2) be compatible with effective controls and risk management; and (3) be supported by strong corporate governance including active and effective oversight by the banking organization’s board of directors. Monitoring methods and processes used by a banking organization should be commensurate with the size and complexity of the organization and its use of incentive compensation.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal banking agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines for specified regulated entities, such as us, having at least $1 billion in total assets, to prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk-taking 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 have not yet finalized these rules; however, on October 14, 2021, the SEC signaled a renewed interest in this rulemaking initiative by re-opening the comment period on a proposed rule issued originally in 2015 regarding “clawbacks” of incentive-based executive compensation.

20

Table of Contents

The FRB will review, as part of its standard, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as Sterling Bancorp, 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.

The scope and content of the federal banking agencies’ policies on executive compensation may continue to evolve in the near future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect our ability to hire, retain and motivate its key employees.

Government and Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause extensive disruptions to the global economy, to businesses, and to the lives of individuals throughout the world. There have been a number of regulatory actions intended to help mitigate the adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on borrowers, including several mandates from the bank regulatory agencies, requiring financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers affected by COVID-19.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress, through the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act and, more recently, the Economic Aid to Hard-Hit Small Businesses, Nonprofits and Venues Act (the "Economic Aid Act'), and the federal banking agencies, though rulemaking, interpretive guidance and modifications to agency policies and procedures, have taken a series of actions to address regulatory capital, liquidity risk management, financial management and reporting, and operational considerations for banking organizations. As noted above, the bank regulatory agencies have given adequate flexibility to financial institutions who work with borrowers affected by COVID-19 and indicated that they would not criticize institutions who do so in a safe and sound manner. Further, the bank regulatory agencies have encouraged financial institutions to report accurate information to credit bureaus regarding relief provided to borrowers and have urged the importance of financial institutions to continue to assist those borrowers impacted by COVID-19.

Notable developments include the following.

21

Table of Contents

For additional information regarding actions taken by regulatory agencies to provide relief to consumers who have been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, see the discussion below under “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.”

Other Regulations

Interest and other charges collected or contracted for by Sterling Bank are subject to state usury laws and federal laws concerning interest rates. Loan operations are also subject to state and federal laws applicable to credit transactions, such as the:

22

Table of Contents

The deposit operations of Sterling Bank also are subject to, among others, the:

Federal Reserve System

Historically, FRB regulations have required Sterling Bank to maintain reserves at the Federal Reserve Bank against its transaction accounts (primarily Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (“NOW”) and regular checking accounts). Until recently, FRB regulations generally required that reserves be maintained against aggregate transaction accounts as follows: Transaction accounts aggregating $127.5 million or less (subject to adjustment by the FRB) were subject to a reserve requirement of 3.0% and the amounts greater than $127.5 million require a 10.0% reserve (subject to adjustment by the FRB). The first $16.9 million of otherwise reservable balances (subject to adjustment by the FRB) were exempted from the reserve requirements. However, on March 15, 2020, the FRB issued an interim final rule reducing the reserve requirement ratio to 0% effective as of March 26, 2020, which eliminated reserve requirements for all depository institutions. On December 22, 2020, the FRB adopted the interim final rule as a final rule without modification. Accordingly, although the Bank historically has maintained compliance with the reserve requirements for transaction accounts, such requirements do not currently apply.

23

Table of Contents

Federal Home Loan Bank System

Sterling Bank is a member of the FHLB system, which consists of 11 regional FHLBs. The FHLB provides a central credit facility primarily for member institutions. Sterling Bank is required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLB of Indianapolis and was in compliance with this requirement at December 31, 2021. Based on redemption provisions of the FHLB of Indianapolis, the stock has no quoted market value and is carried at cost. Sterling Bank reviews for impairment, based on the ultimate recoverability, the cost basis of the FHLB of Indianapolis stock. As of December 31, 2021, no impairment has been recognized.

Business Continuity Management

The Company is required to implement and maintain business continuity and disaster recovery plans to ensure its resilience and continued operations in the event of significant business disruptions related to cybersecurity events, natural disasters and other potentially catastrophic events. Such plans are intended to be aligned with banking organizations’ risk profiles and roles within the overall financial services sector. Plans must contain proactive measures to safeguard banking organizations’ employees, customers and products and establish response procedures in the event of significant business disruptions.The Federal Financial Institution Examination Council (the “FFIEC”) (comprising the FRB, the FDIC, the OCC, the National Credit Union Administration and the CFPB) updated its business continuity planning guidance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic to include additional considerations related to pandemic planning. The guidance identifies actions beyond a traditional business continuity planning that should be taken to address certain unique challenges posed by pandemics. Specifically, a financial institution's planning should provide for, among other things; a preventative program (including monitoring of potential outbreaks, educating employees, providing appropriate hygiene training and tools, and coordinating with critical service providers); a documented strategy that provides for scaling the institution's pandemic efforts to be consistent with the effects of a particular stage of a pandemic outbreak; a comprehensive framework of facilities, systems, or procedures that provide the firm with the capability to continue critical operations during prolonged staff shortages; and a testing program to ensure that the planning practices and capabilities are effective and will allow critical operations to continue.

LIBOR Discontinuation

The Company has entered into certain financial contracts that utilize the soon-to-be-discontinued LIBOR. On July 1, 2020, the FFIEC published guidance for financial institutions on the supervisory, risk management and planning considerations relating to the transition away from LIBOR as a reference rate for a variety of financial contracts. On November 30, 2020, the federal banking agencies published a joint statement on the LIBOR transition in which the agencies expressed their view that any financial institution which enters into new financial contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate after December 31, 2021 would create safety and soundness risks. Accordingly, the banking agencies encouraged institutions to cease entering into new contracts that use LIBOR as a reference rate as soon as practicable and in any event by December 31, 2021. The joint statement also provided that financial contracts entered into before December 31, 2021 should either utilize a reference rate other than LIBOR or have robust fallback language that includes a clearly defined alternative reference rate after LIBOR’s discontinuation. In accordance with recent developments and the interagency guidance described above, the Bank has ceased using LIBOR for new originations on March 8, 2021 and began originating U.S. Treasury rate based loans thereafter; however, the Company’s adjustable-rate loan products that are LIBOR-indexed currently continue to reset based on LIBOR. On April 6, 2021, legislation was adopted in New York State that provides for the use of a statutory replacement for USD LIBOR in certain New York law legacy contracts. On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, which, among other things, provides for the use of interest rates based on the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”) in certain contracts currently based on LIBOR and a safe harbor from liability for utilizing SOFR-based interest rates as a replacement for LIBOR. Pursuant to the new federal legislation as well as the New York State legislation, upon the cessation of the publication of the three-month LIBOR rate, the Company’s subordinated notes and our LIBOR-based loans will bear interest at a rate based on SOFR.

Holding Company Regulation

Sterling Bancorp is a unitary thrift holding company subject to regulation and supervision by the FRB. The FRB has enforcement authority over Sterling Bancorp and its non-savings institution subsidiaries. Among other things, this authority permits the FRB to restrict or prohibit activities that are determined to be a risk to Sterling Bancorp.

24

Table of Contents

As a unitary thrift holding company, Sterling Bancorp’s activities are limited to those activities permissible by law for financial holding companies. A financial holding company may engage in activities that are financial in nature, incidental to financial activities or complementary to a financial activity. Such activities include lending and other activities permitted for bank holding companies under Section 4(c)(8) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the "BHCA"), insurance and underwriting equity securities.

Federal law prohibits a unitary thrift holding company, directly or indirectly, or through one or more subsidiaries, from acquiring more than 5% of another savings institution or unitary thrift holding company without prior written approval of the FRB, and from acquiring or retaining control of any depository institution. In evaluating applications by holding companies to acquire savings institutions, the FRB must consider such things as the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the company and institution involved, the effect of the acquisition on and the risk to the DIF, the convenience and needs of the community and competitive factors. A unitary thrift holding company may not acquire a savings institution in another state and hold the target institution as a separate subsidiary unless it is a supervisory acquisition under Section 13(k) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or the law of the state in which the target is located authorizes such acquisitions by out-of-state companies.

Capital Requirements. As a unitary thrift holding company, Sterling Bancorp is subject to consolidated regulatory capital requirements that are similar to those that apply to Sterling Bank. See”—Federal Banking Regulation—Capital Requirements.”

The Dodd-Frank Act extended the source of strength doctrine to unitary thrift holding companies. The FRB has promulgated regulations implementing the source of strength policy that require holding companies to act as a source of strength to their subsidiary depository institutions by providing capital, liquidity and other support in times of financial stress.

The FRB has issued a policy statement regarding the payment of dividends and the repurchase of shares of common stock by bank holding companies and unitary thrift holding companies. In general, the policy provides that dividends should be paid only out of current earnings and only if the prospective rate of earnings retention by the holding company appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Regulatory guidance provides for prior regulatory consultation with respect to capital distributions in certain circumstances such as where the company’s net income for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid over that period, is insufficient to fully fund the dividend or the company’s overall rate of earnings retention is inconsistent with the company’s capital needs and overall financial condition. The ability of a holding company to pay dividends may be restricted if a subsidiary bank becomes undercapitalized. The policy statement also states that a holding company should inform the FRB supervisory staff prior to redeeming or repurchasing common stock or perpetual preferred stock if the holding company is experiencing financial weaknesses or if the repurchase or redemption would result in a net reduction, as of the end of a quarter, in the amount of such equity instruments outstanding compared with the beginning of the quarter in which the redemption or repurchase occurred. We are currently required to obtain the approval of the FRB prior to declaring any cash dividend on our capital stock or engaging in any repurchase of our common stock. We are also required to obtain the approval of the FRB prior to issuing any debt.

In order for Sterling Bancorp to be regulated as a unitary thrift holding company by the FRB, rather than as a bank holding company, Sterling Bank must qualify as a QTL under federal regulations or satisfy the domestic building and loan association test under the Internal Revenue Code. Under the QTL test, a savings institution is required to maintain at least 65% of its portfolio assets (total assets less: (i) specified liquid assets up to 20% of total assets; (ii) intangible assets, including goodwill; and (iii) the value of property used to conduct business) in certain qualified thrift investments (primarily residential mortgages and related investments, including certain mortgage-backed and related securities) in at least nine out of each 12-month period. At December 31, 2021, Sterling Bank maintained 77% of its portfolio assets in qualified thrift investments and was in compliance with the QTL requirement.

25

Table of Contents

Change in Control Regulations

Under the Change in Bank Control Act, no person may acquire control of a unitary thrift holding company such as Sterling Bancorp unless the FRB has been given 60 days prior written notice and has not issued a notice disapproving the proposed acquisition, taking into consideration certain factors, including the financial and managerial resources of the acquirer and the competitive effects of the acquisition. Control, as defined under federal law, means ownership, control of or holding irrevocable proxies representing more than 25% of any class of voting stock, control in any manner of the election of a majority of the institution’s directors, or a determination by the regulator that the acquirer has the power, directly or indirectly, to exercise a controlling influence over the management or policies of the institution. Acquisition of more than 10% of any class of a unitary thrift holding company’s voting stock constitutes a rebuttable determination of control under the regulations under certain circumstances including where, as in our case, the company has registered securities under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In addition, federal regulations provide that no company may acquire control of a unitary thrift holding company without the prior approval of the FRB. Any company that acquires such control becomes subject to registration, examination and regulation by the FRB.

Effective as of September 30, 2020, the FRB adopted a final rule for control and divestiture proceedings under the BHCA and the HOLA. The final rule does not apply to control determinations under the Change in Bank Control Act, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and its implementing Regulation W or Regulation O. Under the final rule, control determinations are to be made according to a more rules-based methodology. Presumptions of control generally are based on ownership of voting equity and total equity in a company, director representation and ability to elect directors, director and management interlocks, contractual rights to determine management or operational decisions, and business relationships. The final rule establishes a general three-prong test for determining whether a company controls a bank or savings association. Pursuant to this test, a company controls another company if the first company, directly or indirectly or acting through one or more other persons, (i) owns, controls or has power to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities of the second company, (ii) controls in any manner the election of a majority of the directors of the other company, or (iii) based on the facts and circumstances of the investment, directly or indirectly exercises a controlling influence over the management or policies of the other company.

The final rule includes rebuttable presumptions of control based on a tiered framework focused on equity ownership, business relationships, control over the election of directors, director and senior management interlocks, as well as business terms and contractual arrangements. In addition to the rebuttable presumptions under the tiered framework, the final rule includes other rebuttable presumptions of control and non-control focused on prior control relationships, management agreements, investment adviser arrangements, consolidation under generally accepted accounting principles, and equity ownership levels. As a general matter, the tiers will vary based on percentage of voting ownership with additional requirements to qualify for the rebuttable presumption at voting ownership levels of 5% or greater, 10% or greater, and 15% or greater.

The final rule has had, and will likely continue to have, a meaningful impact on control determinations related to investments in banking institutions and bank holding companies and investments by bank holding companies in nonbank companies implicating the BHCA or HOLA.

Emerging Growth Company Status

The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), which was enacted in April 2012, has made numerous changes to the federal securities laws to facilitate access to capital markets. Under the JOBS Act, a company with total annual gross revenues of less than $1.07 billion during its most recently completed fiscal year qualifies as an “emerging growth company.” Sterling Bancorp, Inc. qualifies as an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act.

26

Table of Contents

An “emerging growth company” may choose not to hold shareholder votes to approve annual executive compensation (more frequently referred to as say-on-pay votes) or executive compensation payable in connection with a merger (more frequently referred to as say-on-golden parachute votes). An emerging growth company also is not subject to the requirement that its auditors attest to the effectiveness of the company’s internal control over financial reporting and can provide scaled disclosure regarding executive compensation. Finally, an emerging growth company may elect to comply with new or amended accounting pronouncements in the same manner as a private company but must make such election when the company is first required to file a registration statement. Such an election is irrevocable during the period a company is an emerging growth company. Sterling Bancorp, Inc. has elected to comply with new or amended accounting pronouncements in the same manner as a non-emerging growth public company.

A company loses emerging growth company status on the earlier of: (i) the last day of the fiscal year of the company during which it had total annual gross revenues of $1.07 billion or more; (ii) the last day of the fiscal year of the issuer following the fifth anniversary of the date of the first sale of common equity securities of the company pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Securities Act of 1933; (iii) the date on which such company has, during the previous three-year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt; or (iv) the date on which such company is deemed to be a “large accelerated filer” under SEC regulations (generally, at least $700 million of voting and non-voting equity held by non-affiliates). We expect to lose our emerging growth company status on December 31, 2022.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

Our Internet address is www.sterlingbank.com. We will make available free of charge in the investor relations section of our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are electronically filed with (or furnished to) the SEC. Information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, the SEC maintains an Internet site, sec.gov, that includes filings of and information about issuers that file electronically with the SEC.

​

​

ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

We face a number of significant risks and uncertainties in connection with our operations. Our business and the results of our operations could be materially adversely affected by the factors described below. The risks described below are not the only risks facing our operations. Risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem to be immaterial also could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Advantage Loan Program

The Internal Review results indicate numerous instances of misconduct by employees in connection with the origination of residential real estate loans in our Advantage Loan Program.

The primary focus of the Internal Review has involved the origination of residential real estate loans under the Advantage Loan Program and related matters. The Internal Review has indicated that certain employees engaged in misconduct in connection with the origination of a significant number of such loans, including with respect to verification of income, the amount of income reported for borrowers, reliance on third parties, and related documentation. As a result, the Company permanently discontinued the Advantage Loan Program, and a significant number of officers and employees have been terminated or resigned, including the top loan producers within the Advantage Loan Program. These terminations and resignations, and the discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program, have materially and adversely affected our loan production and may continue to do so. In addition, if we are unable to replace terminated and departed loan producers’ production through other loan officers and loan products, hire new producers or implement new loan products, our results of operation will be materially and adversely affected.

While the Internal Review is substantially complete, the Company expects it to remain open during the pendency of the government investigations discussed below, and it is possible additional work will be required in connection with the Internal Review. If further work is required in connection with the Internal Review, management’s time and resources could be diverted, and we may incur significant legal and other expenses in connection with such additional work.

27

Table of Contents

The misconduct of employees discovered during the Internal Review has resulted in a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations through significant expenditures on third parties and the expenditure of significant internal resources for the conduct of the Internal Review, damage to our reputation, termination of a core part of our operating model and a number of additional material risks identified in the Risk Factors set forth below.

Pending government investigations may result in adverse findings, reputational damage, the imposition of sanctions and other negative consequences that could adversely affect our financial condition and future operating results.

The Bank is currently under formal investigation by the OCC relating primarily to certain aspects of its BSA/AML compliance program as well as the Bank’s credit administration, including its Advantage Loan Program. The Bank also has received grand jury subpoenas from the DOJ beginning in 2020 requesting the production of documents and information in connection with an investigation that is focused on the Bank’s Advantage Loan Program and related issues, including residential lending practices and public disclosures about that program contained in the Company’s filings with the SEC. During 2021, the DOJ charged by criminal information the former managing director of residential lending and senior loan officer of the Bank and two other former loan officers with conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud in connection with the Advantage Loan Program, and each individual has pled guilty to that charge. The criminal information and plea agreement with respect to the former managing director of residential lending asserts that the individual acted with the knowledge and encouragement of certain former members of senior management. In addition, the Company is responding to a formal investigation initiated by the SEC in the first quarter of 2021. This investigation appears to be focused on accounting, financial reporting and disclosure matters, as well as the Company’s internal controls, related to the Advantage Loan Program. The Bank and the Company are fully cooperating with these government investigations. The outcome of the pending government investigations is uncertain. There can be no assurance (i) that we will not incur material losses due to damages, penalties, costs and/or expenses imposed on the Company as a result of such investigations, (ii) that the liability we have established will be sufficient to cover such losses or (iii) that such losses will not materially exceed such liabilities and have a material adverse effect on our future operations, financial condition, growth or results of operations or other aspects of our business. Adverse findings in any of these investigations could also result in additional regulatory scrutiny, constraints on the Bank’s business or other formal enforcement action. Such adverse findings could also have collateral consequences for the Company and the Bank, such as creating breaches of representation in certain third party agreements and loss of eligibility to participate in certain government programs and programs of government sponsored entities. Any of those events could have a material adverse effect on our future operations, financial condition, growth or other aspects of our business. In addition, management’s time and resources have been and will continue to be diverted to address the investigations and any related litigation, and we have incurred, and expect to continue to incur, significant legal and other costs and expenses in our defense of the investigations.

The permanent discontinuation of our Advantage Loan Program has materially and adversely affected our results of operations and will continue to do so.

On December 9, 2019, we voluntarily suspended our Advantage Loan Program in connection with the Internal Review, and we subsequently determined to permanently discontinue the Advantage Loan Program. While the Company will continue to work on initiatives to diversify its overall loan production and to review new residential loan products, the implementation of any new loan products takes time and may be subject to the prior review and approval of applicable bank regulatory authorities. We therefore have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, adverse effects on our residential loan production as a result of the permanent discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program. In addition, repayments from our loan portfolio will need to continue to be invested in lower yielding assets until new loan programs can commence. Accordingly, we expect that the permanent discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program will continue to materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

Failure to comply with the OCC Agreement regarding our BSA/AML compliance program and credit administration, or with BSA/AML laws and regulations generally, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

The Bank continues to be subject to the OCC Agreement, which relates primarily to certain aspects of the Bank’s BSA/AML compliance program as well as its credit administration. The BSA, the USA PATRIOT ACT and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective AML program and to file timely reports such as suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports.

28

Table of Contents

The OCC Agreement generally requires that the Bank enhance its policies and procedures to ensure compliance with BSA/AML laws and regulations and ensure effective controls over residential loan underwriting. Specifically, the OCC Agreement requires the Bank to: (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor and oversee the Bank’s compliance with the provisions of the OCC Agreement; (ii) develop a revised customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence program; (iii) develop a revised suspicious activity monitoring program; (iv) engage an independent, third-party consultant to review and provide a written report on the Bank’s suspicious activity monitoring; (v) develop revised policies and procedures to ensure effective BSA/AML model risk management for the Bank’s automated suspicious activity monitoring system, which must be validated by a qualified, independent third party; (vi) ensure that the Bank’s BSA Department maintains sufficient personnel; and (vii) develop revised policies and procedures to ensure effective controls over loan underwriting. In addition to these requirements, while the OCC Agreement remains in effect, the Bank is subject to certain restrictions on expansion activities, such as growth through acquisition or branching to supplement organic growth of the Bank.

Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. Further, any failure to comply with the requirements of the OCC Agreement , or a finding by the OCC that the Bank has failed to comply, could result in additional regulatory scrutiny, further enforcement actions, the imposition of material restrictions on the activities of the Bank or the assessment of fines or penalties. Also, due to the existence of the OCC Agreement, some counterparties may not be permitted to, due to their internal policies, or may choose not to, do business with the Bank. Should counterparties upon which the Bank relies for the conduct of its business become unwilling to do business with the Bank, the Bank’s results of operations and/or financial condition could be materially adversely affected. There is no assurance as to how long the OCC Agreement will remain in effect.

The Bank has incurred significant costs in its efforts to comply with the OCC Agreement and its BSA/AML compliance obligations. Additional expenses and investments have been incurred as the Bank has expanded its hiring of personnel and use of outside professionals, such as consulting and legal services, and capital investments in operating systems to comply with the OCC Agreement and to strengthen and support the BSA/AML compliance program, as well as the Bank’s broader compliance and risk management infrastructures. The costs, expenses and capital investments associated with all of these efforts, including in connection with the OCC Agreement, have had an adverse effect on the Bank’s results of operations and is expected to continue to have a material adverse effect on the Bank’s results of operations.

The Internal Review has revealed instances of the Bank’s failure to comply with federal regulations governing the origination of residential real estate loans, including rules governing the verification of a borrower’s ability to repay a loan.

Among the many federal regulations with which we must comply in connection with the origination of residential real estate loans are rules issued by the CFPB that require, for loans within its scope, that a mortgage lender must make a reasonable and good faith determination at or before consummation that the consumer will have a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Among other requirements, a creditor must verify the information on which it bases its repayment ability determination by using reasonably reliable, written third-party records. The rule also provides that loans that meet a QM definition will be presumed to have complied with the ATR standard. See “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation—Federal Banking Regulation—ATR/QM Rules” for additional details regarding these ATR/QM rules and their effects on our business, as well as recent, related regulatory developments.

Our residential real estate loans originated under our former Advantage Loan Program are not QMs, as our underwriting processes for this program did not follow applicable regulatory guidance required for such qualification. The Internal Review has identified numerous instances of noncompliance with the income verification requirements under the ATR/QM rules. We could be subject to statutory claims for violations of the ATR standard, as well as other laws and regulations governing the origination of residential real estate loans. Any such claims could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

29

Table of Contents

We may incur future losses in connection with certain representations and warranties we have made with respect to residential mortgages originated under our Advantage Loan Program, as well as other residential mortgages, that we have sold into the secondary market.

From time to time, we package residential mortgages for sale into the secondary market while retaining the servicing rights with respect to such loans. In connection with such sales, we make representations and warranties, which, if breached, may require us to repurchase such loans, substitute other loans or indemnify the purchasers of such loans for actual losses incurred in respect of such loans. To avoid the uncertainty of audits and inquiries by third-party investors in Advantage Loan Program loans sold to the secondary market, beginning at the end of the second quarter of 2020, we commenced making offers to each of those investors to repurchase 100% of our previously sold Advantage Loan Program loans. A substantial portion of these loans were sold to the secondary market at a slight premium to their principal balances, and, as a result, we are required to repurchase such loans at that same premium. In the past two years, we have successfully repurchased Advantage Loan Program loans with an aggregate principal balance of $243.5 million, at an aggregate loss of $6.2 million, which has been recorded against the mortgage repurchase liability. We currently have outstanding commitments to repurchase Advantage Loan Program loans with an aggregate principal balance of $73.0 million as of December 31, 2021 over the next 18 months. We anticipate these repurchases, if completed, will also be at a loss and there can be no assurance as to the extent of any further repurchases we may complete as a result of our repurchase offers or that the liability we have previously established with respect to such repurchase risk will be sufficient to cover potential losses we may incur in connection with such repurchases. Accordingly, it is possible that additional requests to repurchase loans could occur in the future, and such requests may have a negative financial impact on us.

Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The economic disruptions created by the COVID-19 pandemic have adversely impacted, and may continue to adversely impact, our business and results of operations.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to create extensive disruptions to U.S. and global economic conditions and financial markets and to businesses and the lives of individuals throughout the world. Federal and state governments have taken unprecedented actions to contain the spread of the disease, including quarantines, travel bans, shelter-in-place orders, closures of businesses and schools, fiscal stimulus, and legislation designed to deliver monetary aid and other relief to businesses and individuals impacted by the pandemic. In many locations throughout the United States, the spread of COVID-19 decreased substantially throughout the spring and summer of 2021, and, as a result, certain activity restrictions were lifted in whole or in part. However, due in large part to the increased spread of new, more transmissible coronavirus variants, the number of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 has increased substantially at the end of 2021 and early 2022.

The widespread availability of multiple COVID-19 vaccines and corresponding rates of vaccination generally have been effective in curtailing rates of infection in many parts of the United States, mitigating many of the adverse social and economic effects of the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccinations have continued to increase, including as a result of the approval of vaccine boosters, access to the vaccine for school-aged children, and the implementation of vaccine requirements by certain public sector and private sector employers. However, there remains significant resistance to vaccination in certain geographies and among certain groupings of people. Additionally, regulators have approved oral antiviral treatment pills, which have proven effective in reducing severe illness from COVID-19. Variant strains of the COVID-19 virus have appeared, notably the “delta” and “omicron” variants, further complicating efforts of the medical community and federal, state and local governments in response to the pandemic. The ultimate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including the scope and duration of the pandemic and actions taken currently or in the future by governmental authorities in response to the pandemic. Accordingly, the pandemic, and related efforts to contain it, continue to disrupt global economic activity and functioning of the financial markets, impact interest rates and monetary policy decisions, increase economic and market uncertainty, and disrupt trade and supply chains. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rapidly evolve, and the ongoing impact will depend on future developments, which are highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including the scope and duration of the pandemic and actions taken currently or in the future by governmental authorities in response to the pandemic. While there have been trillions of dollars in economic stimulus packages initiated by the FRB and the federal government, in efforts to counteract the significant economic disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, some of which have expired or are due to expire in 2022, additional governmental stimulus and related interventions may be needed. There can be no assurance that any such additional stimulus will be forthcoming or that the previous stimulus packages will have been sufficient to counteract the adverse economic impact of the pandemic. Accordingly, the Company will continue to be operating under uncertain economic conditions.

30

Table of Contents

Certain industries have been particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the travel and hospitality industry, the restaurant industry and the retail industry. Although we do not have a material concentration in the restaurant and retail industries, at December 31, 2021, we had $14.2 million of loans secured by SROs and hotels in our commercial real estate loan portfolio. In addition, the spread of COVID-19 also has caused us to modify our business practices, including curtailing employee travel, changing employee work locations and cancelling physical participation in meetings, events and conferences. We have many employees working remotely, and we may take further actions as may be required by government authorities or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees, customers and business partners. Our ability to attract and retain employees may also be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, including changing workforce concerns, expectations, practices and preferences (including remote work), and increasing labor shortages and competition for labor, which could increase labor costs. Our goal is, to the extent possible, to continue to provide the safest working conditions for all employees of the Bank.

Our loan portfolio has been significantly affected by the economic disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, which contributed to our loan losses and delinquencies increasing in 2020, and we may need to increase our allowance for loan losses.

The economic disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in a significant increase in delinquencies and loans on nonaccrual status across our commercial real estate loan, construction loan and residential real estate loan portfolios as certain industries have been particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has adversely affected the ability of many of our borrowers to repay their loans. The unemployment rate has improved in recent months from the 14.7% national unemployment rate observed in April 2020 to the 3.8% observed as of February 2022; however, disruptions in the labor markets caused by or relating to the pandemic, the Great Resignation (where record numbers of Americans quit their jobs during the second half of 2021) and associated fluctuations in rates of employment may have a significant adverse impact on the ability of our residential and multi-family borrowers to repay their loans. In addition, as of December 31, 2021, our commercial real estate loan portfolio includes loans secured by SROs, hotels, retail properties and offices totaling $201.2 million, representing 10% of total loans, including $14.2 million of loans secured by SROs and hotels. According to data from an independent real estate services firm, the office vacancy rate in San Francisco rose 3.2 percentage points from the fourth quarter of 2020, to 19.9% in the fourth quarter of 2021, partially as a result of changes in work patterns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, operating cash flows from tenants have decreased as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and decreased travel as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic has affected our SRO borrowers by reducing demand from tourists for travel accommodations in San Francisco.

As a result of our evaluation of the current and expected impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy and our loan portfolio, we may continue to experience similar loan losses and delinquencies in the current environment. Although our allowance for loan losses decreased by $15.9 million to $56.5 million at December 31, 2021, compared to $72.4 million at December 31, 2020, this decrease is primarily due to the reduction in our total loan portfolio, and our allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans at December 31, 2021 was 2.81% compared to 2.89% at December 31, 2020. As the economic disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic continue and there are no assurances as to how long it will be before the COVID-19 pandemic abates and economic activity can begin to resume to pre-COVID-19 pandemic levels, we may need to increase our allowance for loan losses in future periods. Risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic are in addition to the credit risks to our portfolio set forth under “—Risks Related to Credit.” See also “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation—Allowance for Loan Losses” for further discussion regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our allowance for loan losses, including that on our qualitative factors comprising our allowance for loan losses.

31

Table of Contents

The expiration of governmental and regulatory actions intended to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic could result in a material decline in our net income.

Congress and various state governments and federal agencies have taken actions to require lenders to provide forbearance and other relief to borrowers (for example, waiving late payment and other fees). The federal banking agencies have encouraged financial institutions to work constructively with affected borrowers and recently passed legislation has provided relief from reporting loan classifications due to modifications related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these governmental and regulatory actions have expired or are set to decrease or expire in 2022. These actions consisted of eviction moratoria, loan repayment forbearances and other subsidies. Specifically, the federal eviction moratorium ended in August 2021; the California legislature responded by enacting some statewide eviction protections (which are in some cases supplemented by local ordinances), while the New York legislature extended the state’s eviction moratorium until January 2022. Similarly, the Bank terminated its loan forbearance program in July 2021. We do not yet know what the impact of the discontinuation or mitigation of these actions will be on our customers and their ability to repay loans; however, should the expiration or decrease of such regulatory actions adversely affect our customers’ ability to repay loans, then such may also adversely affect our net income or operating results. See “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation—Government and Regulatory Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic” for further discussion of the status of the regulatory actions taken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021 and continuing into early 2022, the “omicron” variant of the coronavirus has spread substantially and rapidly throughout the United States and globally. As a result, social and economic activity has been disrupted in many parts of the country. In response, members of Congress have begun to evaluate the prospects of approving additional stimulus payments, principally for businesses that have been most impacted by the recent increase in COVID-19 infections; however, the prospects and timing for any additional COVID-19 relief measures are not clear at this time.

Risks Related to the Economy and Financial Markets

As a business operating in the financial services industry, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected in numerous and complex ways by weak economic conditions and fiscal and monetary policies and regulations of the federal government and the FRB.

Our business and operations, which primarily consist of lending money to customers in the form of loans, borrowing money from customers 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 characterized by deflation or elevated inflation, fluctuations in debt and equity capital markets, a lack of liquidity and/or depressed or inflated 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 net income through our investment portfolio, as well as elevated inflation, supply chain disruptions, a sensitive and evolving labor market and market volatility resulting from the recent military invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces, including the economic sanctions imposed by the U.S. and other nations on Russia, Belarus and certain Russian organizations and individuals. 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.

32

Table of Contents

Notably, our net income and growth are affected by the policies of the FRB. An important function of the FRB is to regulate the money supply and credit conditions. Among the instruments used by the FRB to implement these objectives are open market purchases and sales of U.S. government securities, adjustments of the federal discount rate and changes in banks’ reserve requirements against bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall economic growth and the distribution of credit, bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use also affects interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. The monetary policies and regulations of the FRB have had a significant effect on the operating results of banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The FRB has announced it will be reducing the pace of its open market purchases as well as monitoring interest rates in light of elevated inflation, labor market conditions and public health considerations, among other things. The effects of such policies upon our business, financial condition and results of operations cannot be predicted.

Our customer activity is affected by changes in the state of the general economy and the financial markets, a slowdown or downturn of which could adversely affect demand for our loan services and our results of operations.

Our customer activity is intrinsically linked to the health of the economy generally and of the financial markets specifically. In addition to the economic factors discussed above, a downturn in the real estate or commercial markets generally, which might occur as a result of, among other things, an increase in unemployment, further disruptions to the supply chain, a decrease in real estate values or a slowdown in housing demand, could cause our customers and potential customers to exit the market for real estate or commercial loans. As a result, we believe that fluctuations, disruptions, instability or downturns in the general economy and the financial markets could disproportionately affect demand for our residential and commercial loan services. If such conditions occur and persist, our business and financial results, including our liquidity and our ability to fulfill our debt obligations, could be materially adversely affected.

Fiscal challenges facing the U.S. government could negatively impact financial markets which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

Recent federal budget deficit concerns and political conflict over legislation to raise the U.S. government’s debt limit have increased the possibility of a default by the U.S. government on its debt obligations, related credit-rating downgrades, or an economic recession in the United States. Many of our investment securities are issued by the U.S. government and government agencies and sponsored entities. As a result of uncertain domestic political conditions, including the possibility of the federal government defaulting on its obligations for a period of time due to debt ceiling limitations or other unresolved political issues, investments in financial instruments issued or guaranteed by the federal government pose liquidity risks. In connection with prior political disputes over U.S. fiscal and budgetary issues leading to the U.S. government shutdown in 2011, S&P lowered its long-term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from AAA to AA+. A further downgrade, or a similar downgrade by other rating agencies, in response to current political dynamics, as well as sovereign debt issues facing the governments of other countries, could have a material adverse impact on financial markets and economic conditions in the U.S. and worldwide.

Increases to the federal corporate tax rate would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations in future periods.

We are subject to changes in tax law that could increase our effective tax rates. These law changes may be retroactive to previous periods and as a result could negatively affect our current and future financial performance. For example, legislation enacted in 2017 resulted in a reduction in our federal corporate tax rate from 35% in 2017 to 21% in 2018, which had a favorable impact on our earnings and capital generation abilities. However, this legislation also enacted limitations on certain deductions, such as the deduction of FDIC deposit insurance premiums, which partially offset the anticipated increase in net earnings from the lower tax rate. During 2021, Congress debated various proposals for increases in the corporate tax rate and possible surcharges on corporate share repurchases as part of the funding for various spending initiatives. Any such increase in the corporate tax rate or surcharges would adversely affect our results of operations in future periods.

In addition, the Bank’s customers experienced and likely will continue to experience varying effects from both the individual and business tax provisions of the U.S. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and other future changes in tax law and such effects, whether positive or negative, may have a corresponding impact on our business and the economy as a whole.

33

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Credit

Changes in economic conditions could cause an increase in delinquencies and nonperforming assets, including loan charge offs, which could depress our net income and growth.

Our loan portfolio includes primarily real estate secured loans, demand for which may decrease during economic downturns as a result of, among other things, an increase in unemployment, a decrease in real estate values and a slowdown in housing. Significant ongoing financial risk continues to affect economic conditions in the United States as a whole and in the markets that we serve. The OCC recently reported that although U.S. economic activity was strong throughout much of 2021 and banks remain in strong condition with sound capital and liquidity levels and financial market conditions are favorable, U.S. economic activity is expected to moderate in 2022 due to factors including elevated levels of inflation and the corresponding upward pressure on interest rates, high levels of commercial debt and uncertainty in both the commercial and residential real estate markets. As a result, we could experience higher delinquencies and loan charge offs, as well as nonaccrual loans and troubled debt restructurings, which would reduce our net income and adversely affect our financial condition. In addition, a decline in real estate values as a result of adverse developments in the markets we serve could reduce the value of the real estate collateral securing our real estate loans, which could cause some of our real estate loans to be inadequately collateralized or affect our ability to sell such collateral upon foreclosure without a loss or additional losses. Furthermore, to the extent that real estate collateral is obtained through foreclosure, the costs of holding and marketing the real estate collateral, as well as the ultimate values obtained from disposition, could reduce our net income and adversely affect our financial condition.

Our concentration in residential real estate loans exposes us to risks.

At December 31, 2021 and 2020, one-to-four family residential real estate loans amounted to $1.7 billion and $2.1 billion, or 83% and 81%, respectively, of our total gross loans, and we intend to continue this type of lending in the foreseeable future. Our nonperforming residential real estate loans increased from $20.8 million at December 31, 2020 to $45.7 million at December 31, 2021. Residential mortgage lending is generally sensitive to regional and local economic conditions that significantly impact the ability of borrowers to meet their loan payment obligations, making loss levels difficult to predict. For example, in our residential lending markets in California, the current unemployment rate is higher than the national average. If borrowers are unable to meet their loan repayment obligations, our results of operations would be materially and adversely affected. In addition, a decline in residential real estate values as a result of an economic downturn in the markets we serve would reduce the value of the real estate collateral securing these types of loans. Such declines in real estate values could cause some of our residential mortgages to be inadequately collateralized, which would expose us to a risk of loss if we sought to recover on defaulted loans by selling the real estate collateral.

Our commercial real estate loans are subject to credit risks, including changes in operating cash flows from the underlying properties or businesses, that may adversely impact our results of operation and financial condition.

At December 31, 2021, our commercial real estate loans totaled $254.9 million, or 12% of our total gross loans. Commercial real estate loans generally have more risk than residential real estate loans and generally have a larger average size compared to other types of loans, so losses incurred on a small number of commercial loans could have a disproportionate and material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. The repayment of commercial real estate loans is often more sensitive than other types of loans to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the general business climate and economy because it is dependent on the successful operation or development of the property or business involved. In addition, the collateral for commercial real estate loans is generally less readily marketable than for residential real estate loans, and its value may be more difficult to determine. A primary repayment risk for commercial real estate loans is the interruption or discontinuation of operating cash flows from the properties or businesses involved, which may be influenced by economic events, changes in governmental regulations or other events not under the control of the borrower. Adverse developments affecting commercial real estate values in our market areas could increase the credit risk associated with these loans, impair the value of property pledged as collateral for these loans and affect our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure without a loss or additional losses.

34

Table of Contents

Our construction loans are subject to a variety of risks that may adversely impact our results of operation and financial condition.

At December 31, 2021, our construction loans totaled $106.8 million, or 5% of our total gross loans. In addition to the risks generally applicable to commercial real estate loans, the risks inherent in construction lending include, among other things, the possibility that contractors may fail to complete—or complete on an untimely basis—construction of the relevant properties, substantial cost overruns in excess of original estimates and financing, market deterioration during construction and lack of permanent take-out financing of presold properties. Loans secured by such properties also involve additional risk because of the relatively limited operating history available for them. In these loans, loan funds are advanced upon the security of the project under construction (which is of uncertain value prior to completion of construction) and the estimated operating cash flow or sale proceeds to be generated by the completed project. To compete for construction loans, in prior years we generally originated loans where the borrowers’ relative investment and value-at-risk in an underlying construction project were either at our policy limits for such exposures or constituted approved exceptions to these limits. As a result, changes in the expected value of a completed project may reduce those borrowers’ economic incentives to complete a delayed construction project expediently. With many commercial construction projects requiring an extended time to market in the current COVID-19 environment, some of our borrowers have exhausted their liquidity. While we seek personal or affiliate guarantees for construction loans to provide alternative sources of repayment in the event that a project underperforms or fails to be completed, our assessments of guarantors’ financial capacity to support repayment of these loans in light of their other commitments may not be correct, and guarantors’ wealth and liquidity may be correlated with borrowers’ business or economic conditions generally, which could make these guarantees less valuable as loan collateral when most needed.

A substantial majority of our loans and operations are in California, and therefore our business is particularly vulnerable to a downturn in the local economies in which we operate.

Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, a large portion of our business is concentrated primarily in the state of California, specifically in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. As of December 31, 2021, 85% of our loan portfolio was based in California with concentrations in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas of 54% and 31%, respectively. If the local economies, and particularly local real estate markets, decline, the rates of delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, bankruptcies and losses in our loan portfolio would likely increase. Notably, the COVID-19 pandemic has had, and likely will continue to have, a significant effect on the California real estate market. In response to this crisis, California lawmakers have made funds available to borrowers in need of mortgage relief who have experienced a COVID-19-related financial hardship. Similarly, catastrophic natural events such as earthquakes or wildfires could have a disproportionate effect on our financial condition. As a result of this lack of geographic diversification in our loan portfolio, a downturn in the local economies generally and in real estate markets specifically could significantly reduce our profitability and growth and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

Our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover losses in our loan portfolio, and any resulting increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge offs could decrease our net income.

Loan customers may not repay their loans according to the terms of their loans, and the collateral securing the payment of their loans may be insufficient to assure repayment. We may experience significant credit losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. In determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses, management periodically assesses various quantitative and qualitative factors affecting the loan portfolio. The determination of the appropriate level of allowance for loan losses is subject to various assumptions and judgments and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and the collectability of loans, the value of real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of loans and future trends, all of which are subject to material changes. If our assumptions and estimates prove to be incorrect, the allowance for loan losses may not cover incurred losses in the loan portfolio at the date of the financial statements. Significant additions to the allowance for loan losses would materially decrease net income. Nonperforming loans may increase, and nonperforming or delinquent loans may adversely affect future performance. In addition, federal regulators periodically review the allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the allowance for loan losses or the recognition of further loan charge offs. Any significant increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge offs as required by these regulatory agencies could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

35

Table of Contents

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has issued an accounting standard update that will significantly change how we account for current expected credit losses and may have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, which replaces the current incurred loss model for recognizing credit losses with an expected loss model referred to as the Current Expected Credit Loss (“CECL”) model. Under the CECL model, we will be required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement will take place at the time the financial asset is first added to the balance sheet and periodically thereafter. This differs significantly from the current incurred loss model, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. Accordingly, we expect that the adoption of the CECL model will materially affect how we determine our allowance for loan losses and may require us to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in the level of our allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. We are currently evaluating the impact the CECL model will have on our accounting. At this time, a cross-functional implementation team consisting of individuals from accounting, finance, servicing and information systems is working with the Bank’s loan system vendor, and they have developed an application to create credit loss estimation models and processes. The historical data set for model development has been finalized, and the credit loss estimation models have been developed and tested. Once the credit loss estimation models are finalized, the Bank will run the new credit loss estimation models in parallel with the current allowance for loan losses model to understand the differences in the models and assess the impact of the change. We expect to recognize an adjustment to our allowance for loan losses and a cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of January 1, 2023, the beginning of the first reporting period in which the new standard is effective. We have not yet determined the magnitude of any such one-time cumulative adjustment or of the overall impact of the new standard on our financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to Our Highly Regulated Industry

Our business is limited by the highly regulated environment in which we operate and could be adversely affected by the extensive laws and regulations that govern our activities, operations, corporate governance and accounting principles, or changes in any of them.

As a unitary thrift holding company, we are subject to extensive examination, supervision and comprehensive regulation by various federal agencies that govern almost all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations, among other things, prescribe minimum capital requirements, impose limitations on the business activities in which we can engage, limit the dividend or distributions that Sterling Bank can pay to us, restrict the ability of institutions to guarantee our debt and impose certain specific accounting requirements on us. These laws and regulations are not intended to protect our shareholders. Rather, these laws and regulations are intended to protect customers, depositors, the DIF and the overall financial stability of the United States. Compliance with these laws and regulations is difficult and costly, and changes to these laws and regulations often impose additional compliance costs. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, even if the failure follows good faith effort or reflects a difference in interpretation, could subject us to restrictions on our business activities, fines and other penalties, any of which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, capital base and the price of our securities. Further, any new laws, rules and regulations could make compliance more difficult or expensive.

36

Table of Contents

Failure to satisfy the QTL test may subject us to regulatory enforcement actions and restrict our ability to pay dividends.

As a federal savings bank, Sterling Bank must satisfy the QTL test. Under the QTL test, Sterling Bank is required to maintain at least 65% of its portfolio assets (that is, total assets less (1) specified liquid assets up to 20% of total assets, (2) intangibles, including goodwill, and (3) the value of property used to conduct business) in certain qualified thrift investments (primarily mortgage loans secured by one-to-four family and multifamily residential properties and related investments, including certain mortgage-backed securities, credit card loans, student loans, and small business loans) on a monthly basis during at least 9 out of every 12 months. A savings association that fails the QTL test immediately will be prohibited from: (1) making any new investment or engaging in any new activity not permissible for a national bank, (2) paying dividends, unless such payment would be permissible for a national bank, is necessary to meet the obligations of a company that controls the savings association, and is specifically approved by the OCC and the FRB, and (3) establishing any new branch office in a location not permissible for a national bank in the association’s home state. A savings association that fails to meet the QTL test is deemed to have violated the Home Owners’ Loan Act and, as discussed further below, may be subject to OCC enforcement action. In addition, if a savings association does not requalify under the QTL test within three years after failing the test, the association would be prohibited from retaining any investment or engaging in any activity not permissible for a national bank.

The Dodd-Frank Act made noncompliance with the QTL test subject to agency enforcement action for a violation of law. At December 31, 2021, Sterling Bank satisfied the QTL test. However, if our commercial portfolio continues to grow and we are unable to replace the lost residential loan production resulting from the permanent discontinuation of our Advantage Loan Program, we may fail to maintain our QTL status in future periods. In such event, we could be forced to buy mortgage-backed securities or other qualifying assets at times when the terms of such investments may not be attractive. Alternatively, we may find it necessary to pursue different structures, including converting the Bank’s savings bank charter to a commercial bank charter. Absent such strategies, if we fail to satisfy the QTL test, we could become subject to regulatory enforcement actions and our ability to pay dividends may be severely restricted.

The Dodd-Frank Act may continue to affect our business, governance structure, financial condition or results of operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, imposed new capital requirements on thrift holding companies; changed the base for FDIC insurance assessments to a bank’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, rather than upon its deposit base; permanently raised the current standard deposit insurance limit to $250,000; and expanded the FDIC’s authority to raise insurance premiums. The Dodd-Frank Act also established the CFPB as an independent entity within the FRB, which has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards and contains provisions on mortgage-related matters, such as steering incentives, determinations as to a borrower’s ability to repay and prepayment penalties. Although the applicability of certain elements of the Dodd-Frank Act is limited to institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, there can be no guarantee that such applicability will not be extended in the future or that regulators or other third parties will not seek to impose such requirements on institutions with less than $10 billion in assets, such as the Company. The Dodd-Frank Act has had and may continue to have a material impact on our operations, particularly through increased regulatory burden and compliance costs.

We are subject to stringent capital requirements.

We are subject to the regulatory capital rules implemented by the U.S. federal banking agencies in accordance with Basel III regulatory capital reforms and the Dodd-Frank Act. The regulatory capital rules are generally applicable to all U.S. banks as well as to unitary thrift holding companies with assets over $1 billion, such as the Company. The regulatory capital rules establish minimum regulatory capital ratios, including a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio, and require maintenance of a CCB. The rules prescribe criteria that capital instruments must meet in order to be considered additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital for the purposes of the above requirements.

37

Table of Contents

In order to be a well capitalized depository institution under the regulatory capital rules, an institution must maintain a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5% or more; a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% or more; a total capital ratio of 10% or more; and a leverage ratio of 5% or more. Institutions must also maintain a CCB consisting of common equity Tier 1 capital. Further, qualifying community banking organizations may elect to utilize the CBLR framework, which provides a simplified measure of capital adequacy. In order to qualify for the CBLR framework, a community banking organization must have (i) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of greater than 9.0%, (ii) less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, and (iii) limited amounts of off-balance-sheet exposures and trading assets and liabilities. The Bank is eligible to utilize the CBLR framework but has not yet determined to do so.

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

The Company faces risks related to the adoption of future legislation and potential changes in federal regulatory agency leadership, policies and priorities.

Congress may enact legislation from time to time that affects the regulation of the financial services industry, and state legislatures may enact legislation from time to time affecting the regulation of financial institutions chartered by or operating in those states. Federal and state regulatory agencies also periodically propose and adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. The substance or impact of pending or future legislation or regulation, or the application thereof, cannot be predicted, although enactment of the proposed legislation could impact the regulatory structure under which we operate and may significantly increase our costs, impede the efficiency of our internal business processes, require us to increase our regulatory capital and modify our business strategy, and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner.

Democrats assumed control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in 2021, albeit with a Senate majority found only in the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. With control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, Democrats are now able to set the policy agenda both legislatively and in the regulatory agencies that have rulemaking and supervisory authority over the financial services industry, which includes Sterling Bancorp and the Bank. Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the financial services sector have pursued oversight and legislative initiatives in a variety of areas, including addressing climate-related risks, promoting diversity and equality within the banking industry and addressing other Environmental, Social and Governance or “ESG” matters, improving competition in the banking sector and increasing oversight of bank mergers and acquisitions, establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets and markets and overseeing the COVID-19 pandemic response and economic recovery. The prospects for the enactment of major banking reform legislation under the current Congress are unclear at this time.

Moreover, the turnover of the Administration has resulted in certain changes in the leadership and senior staffs of the federal banking agencies, the CFPB, CFTC, SEC, and the Treasury Department, with certain significant leadership positions yet to be filled, including the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chair of the FDIC and three vacancies on the FRB, including the Vice Chair for Supervision. These changes have impacted the rulemaking, supervision, examination and enforcement priorities and policies of the agencies and likely will continue to do so over the next several years. The potential impact of any changes in agency personnel, policies and priorities on the financial services sector, including Sterling Bancorp and the Bank, cannot be predicted at this time.

38

Table of Contents

We are subject to the CRA and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.

The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CRA requires the OCC, in connection with its examination of a federally chartered savings association, to assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take such record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by such institution. All institutions insured by the FDIC must publicly disclose their rating. The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The fair lending laws prohibit discrimination in the provision of banking services on the basis of prohibited factors including, among others, race, color, national origin, gender, and religion. The enforcement of these laws has been an increasing focus for the CFPB, HUD and other regulators. Under the fair lending laws, we may be liable if our policies result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of applicants or borrowers and may also be subject to investigation by the DOJ. A successful challenge to our institution’s performance under the CRA or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity and restrictions on expansion activity. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge our performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation.

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

The FRB and the OCC periodically examine our business operations, including our sales practices, supervisory procedures and internal controls, recordkeeping practices and financial position, to determine our compliance with applicable laws and regulations and to protect the solvency and safety and soundness of our organization. If, as a result of an examination, a federal banking agency were to determine that our financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, interest rate risk and liquidity or other aspects of any of our operations had become unsatisfactory, or that we were in violation of any law or regulation, it may take a number of different remedial actions as it deems appropriate. These actions include, among others, the power to enjoin unsafe or unsound practices, to require affirmative action to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital, to restrict our growth, to assess civil monetary penalties against our officers or directors, to remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate our deposit insurance and place us into receivership or conservatorship. If we become subject to any regulatory actions, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and growth prospects.

The FRB or OCC may require us to commit capital resources to support Sterling Bank.

As a matter of policy, the FRB expects a unitary thrift holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength for a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. The Dodd-Frank Act codified the FRB’s policy on serving as a source of financial strength. Under the source of strength doctrine, the FRB may require a unitary thrift holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank and may charge the unitary thrift holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to a subsidiary bank. A capital injection may be required at times when the holding company may not have the resources to provide it and therefore may be required to borrow the funds or raise capital. Any loans by a holding company to its subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of the subsidiary bank. In the event of a unitary thrift’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the institution’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of its note obligations. Thus, any borrowing that must be done by the Company to make a required capital injection becomes more difficult and expensive and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The requirement that we serve as a source of strength to our Bank may be exacerbated by OCC requirements to maintain certain capital requirements at the bank level and we may not be able to access the necessary funds to do so, which would further materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

39

Table of Contents

Recent actions by the Biden Administration regarding competition in the financial services and technology sectors may adversely impact our business.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy (the “Executive Order”). Among other initiatives, the Executive Order (i) encourages the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, and the Bank Merger Act and, within 180 days of the date of the Executive Order, adopt a plan for revitalization of such practices; and (ii) directs the CFPB to commence or continue a rulemaking to facilitate the portability of consumer financial transaction data for the purpose of providing consumers with greater flexibility in switching financial institutions and using innovative financial products. In addition, the Director of the CFPB has publicly sought a greater role for the CFPB in the evaluation of proposed bank mergers. Any enhanced regulatory scrutiny of bank mergers and acquisitions and the revision of the framework for merger application review may adversely affect the marketplace for such transactions. Any such enhanced scrutiny or new rules that possibly limit the size of financial institutions may adversely impact certain strategic alternatives that may be available to us, including possibly combining with a larger financial institution.

Similarly, although the CFPB has published principles for consumer-authorized financial data sharing and aggregation, we cannot predict the scope, substance or timing of any future CFPB rulemaking regarding the portability of financial transaction data in response to the Executive Order. The impact of any such rulemaking on the conduct of our customers also cannot be predicted. However, the adoption of any such rule could result in increased volatility of consumer accounts and expose the Company to additional operational, strategic, regulatory and compliance risks.

Risks Related to Competition

Strong competition within our market areas or with respect to our products and pricing may limit our growth and profitability.

Competition in the banking and financial services industry is intense. In our market area, we compete with commercial banks, savings institutions, mortgage brokerage firms, credit unions, finance companies, mutual funds, insurance companies, brokerage and investment banking firms and unregulated or less regulated non-banking entities, operating locally and elsewhere. Many of these competitors have substantially greater resources and higher lending limits than we have and offer certain services that we do not or cannot provide.In addition, some of our competitors offer loans with lower interest rates on more attractive terms than loans we offer.Competition also makes it increasingly difficult and costly to attract and retain qualified employees.Our profitability depends upon our continued ability to successfully compete in our market areas. If we must raise interest rates paid on deposits or lower interest rates charged on our loans, our net interest margin and profitability could be adversely affected.

Our strategy for future growth relies in part on growth in the communities we serve and our ability to develop relationships in particular locations, and we expect to continue to face strong competition from competitors in all of our markets. In addition, our competitors may seek to benefit from the recent negative publicity surrounding our permanent discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program and target our customers. If we fail to compete effectively against our competitors, we may be unable to expand our market share in our existing markets, and we may be unable to retain our existing market share in key growth markets or in those markets in which we have traditionally had a strong presence. Failure to protect our market share on a regional level or to grow our market share in key growth markets and product categories could have a material adverse effect on our overall market share and on our profitability.

Our modest size makes it more difficult to compete with other financial institutions, which are generally larger and able to achieve economies of scale and can more easily afford to invest in the marketing and technologies needed to attract and retain customers and to offer better pricing for the type of products and services we provide. Because our principal source of income is the net interest income we earn on our loans and investments after deducting interest paid on deposits and other sources of funds, our ability to generate the revenues needed to cover our expenses and finance such investments is limited by the size of our loan and investment portfolios. Accordingly, we are not always able to offer new products and services as quickly as our competitors. As a smaller institution, we are also disproportionately affected by the continually increasing costs of compliance with new banking and other regulations.

In addition, we believe that we have historically faced less competition for customers of our former Advantage Loan Program compared to the competition we face in the market for QMs. Due to the permanent discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program,

40

Table of Contents

we may face significant pricing pressure and may experience a negative effect on our net interest margin. Should competition over the type of loans we underwrite increase, our profitability could be materially and adversely affected.

Consumers may decide not to use banks to complete their financial transactions.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions, such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks.

Transactions utilizing digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and other similar assets have increased substantially. Certain characteristics of digital asset transactions, such as the speed with which such transactions can be conducted, the ability to transact without the involvement of regulated intermediaries and the ability to engage in transactions across multiple jurisdictions are appealing to certain consumers, notwithstanding the various risks posed by such transactions. Accordingly, digital asset service providers—which, at present, are not subject to the extensive regulation as banking organizations and other financial institutions—have become active competitors for our customers’ banking business. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income and the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are a community bank, and our reputation is critical to the success of our business but may continue to be affected by negative publicity.

We are a community bank, and our reputation is one of the most valuable components of our business. Recent negative publicity regarding the Advantage Loan Program has caused substantial damage to our reputation in the communities we serve and the outcome of the pending government investigations may further damage our reputation. Significant harm to our reputation can arise from various other sources, including officer, director or employee misconduct; actual or perceived unethical behavior; conflicts of interest; security breaches; litigation or regulatory outcomes; compensation practices; failing to deliver minimum or required standards of service and quality; failing to address customer and agency complaints; compliance failures; unauthorized release of personal, proprietary or confidential information due to cyberattacks or otherwise; perception of our environmental, social and governance practices and disclosures; and the activities of our clients, customers and counterparties, including vendors. Actions by the financial services industry generally or by institutions or individuals in the industry also can adversely affect our reputation indirectly, by association. In addition, adverse publicity or negative information posted on social media, whether or not factually correct, may affect our business prospects. All of these could adversely affect our growth, results of operation and financial condition.

We must keep pace with technological change to remain competitive and introduce new products and services.

Financial products and services have become increasingly technologically driven. Our ability to meet the needs of our customers competitively and introduce new products in a cost-efficient manner is dependent on the ability to keep pace with technological advances, to invest in new technology as it becomes available, and to obtain and maintain related essential personnel. Many of our competitors have already implemented critical technologies and have greater resources to invest in technology than we do and may be better equipped to market new technologically driven products and services. In addition, we may not have the same ability to rapidly respond to technological innovations as our competitors do. Furthermore, the introduction of new technologies and products by financial technology companies and financial technology platforms, including the potential utilization of blockchain technology to provide alternative high speed payment systems, may adversely affect our ability to obtain new customers and successfully grow our business. The increased demand for, and availability of, alternative payment systems and currencies not only increases competition for such services, but has created a more complex operating environment that, in certain cases, may require additional or different controls to manage fraud, operational, legal and compliance risks. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes and continued consolidation. In July 2018, the OCC announced that it will begin accepting applications from financial technology companies to become special purpose national banks. Although the OCC’s authority to issue special purpose bank charters to nonbank financial technology companies continues to be subject to ongoing litigation, similar developments are likely to result in even greater competition within all areas of our operations. The ability to keep pace with technological change is important, and the failure to do so, due to cost, proficiency or otherwise, could have a material adverse impact on our business and therefore on our financial condition and results of operations.

41

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Interest Rates

Future changes in interest rates could reduce our net interest income and otherwise negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

The majority of our banking assets are monetary in nature and subject to risk from changes in interest rates. Like most financial institutions, our net income and cash flows depend to a great extent upon the level of our net interest income, or the difference between the interest income we earn on loans, investments and other interest earning assets and the interest we pay on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Changes in interest rates can increase or decrease our net interest income, which makes up a majority of our income, because different types of assets and liabilities may react differently, and at different times, to market interest rate changes.

The rates we earn on our assets and the rates we pay on our liabilities are generally fixed for a contractual period of time. Like many savings institutions, our liabilities generally have shorter contractual maturities than our assets. When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest earning assets in a period, an increase in interest rates could reduce net interest income. Similarly, when interest earning assets mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce net interest income. Additionally, an increase in interest rates may, among other things, reduce the demand for residential mortgage and other loans and our ability to originate loans and decrease loan repayment rates. A decrease in the general level of interest rates may affect us through, among other things, increased prepayments on our loan portfolio and mortgage-backed securities as borrowers refinance their debt to reduce their borrowing costs. This creates reinvestment risk, which is the risk that we may not be able to reinvest prepayments at rates that are comparable to the rates we earned on the prepaid loans or securities. Furthermore, an inverted interest rate yield curve, where short-term interest rates (which are usually the rates at which financial institutions borrow funds) are higher than long-term interest rates (which are usually the rates at which financial institutions lend funds for fixed-rate loans) can reduce our net interest margin and create financial risk for financial institutions like ours. Also impacting our net interest income and net interest rate spread is the level of prepayment activity on our mortgage-related assets. Mortgage prepayment rates will vary due to a number of factors, including the regional economy where the mortgage loan or the underlying mortgages of the mortgage-backed security were originated, seasonal factors and demographic variables. However, the major factors affecting prepayment rates are the prevailing market interest rates, related mortgage refinancing opportunities and competition. Generally, the level of prepayment activity directly affects the yield earned on those assets, as the payments received on the interest-earning assets will be reinvested at the prevailing market interest rate. In a rising interest rate environment, prepayment rates tend to decrease and, therefore, the yield earned on our existing mortgage-related assets will remain constant instead of increasing. This would adversely affect our net interest margin and, therefore, our net interest income.

The interest we earn on our assets is primarily from our residential real estate loans, which comprises 83% of our total gross loans at December 31, 2021 and 77% of the interest earned from all of our interest-earning assets for the year ended December 31, 2021.

We offer fixed-rate and adjustable-rate mortgage loans with terms of up to 30 years; however, across our loan portfolio, interest rates and payments adjust annually after a one-, three-, five- or seven-year initial fixed period. At December 31, 2021, 99% of our residential real estate loan portfolio and 94% of our total loan portfolio were adjustable-rate loans. To that end, 62% of our adjustable-rate residential real estate loans’ repricing dates are currently scheduled to occur within the next 12 months, 35% within the next 60 months, and 3% thereafter. That is, in addition to the risk that the demand for residential mortgage and other loans may be reduced in an environment where interest rates are rising, our existing loan portfolio may be locked into an interest rate that is less than the prevailing market rates in an increasing interest rate environment. This likewise creates reinvestment risk, as we may not be able to originate new loans fast enough for our entire loan portfolio to keep up with prevailing interest rates and we are not yet able to offer new loan products to the market with interest rate terms more favorable to us, as we remain subject to the OCC Agreement. To help address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy and financial markets, in March 2020 the Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) reduced the benchmark federal funds rate to a target range of 0% to 0.25%, and the yields on 10- and 30-year Treasury notes declined to historic lows. In January 2022, the FOMC announced that it will be slowing down its relief programs, including reducing the pace of its bond purchases, and that it expects that it may soon be appropriate to raise the target range for the federal funds rate in light of elevated inflation and the strong labor market, though still acknowledging that the path of the economy continues to depend on the course of the COVID-19 virus.

42

Table of Contents

Accordingly, changes in the level of market interest rates affect our net yield on interest earning assets, loan origination volume and our overall results. We expect the operating environment to remain very challenging as the FRB continues to focus their efforts on the economy. We cannot predict future FRB actions or other factors that will cause rates to change. If we were to experience a rising interest rate environment where our cost of funds increased faster than the yields on our loan portfolio, it may adversely affect our net interest income, net interest spread and net interest margin, and may cause us to change our operating leverage model or portfolio mix to compensate. Although our asset-liability management strategy is designed to control and mitigate exposure to the risks related to changes in market interest rates, those rates are affected by many factors outside of our control, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, deflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets. Such changes in interest rates could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and overall profitability.

Increasing interest rates could reduce our net interest income and otherwise negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Over the past several years, the FRB’s policy has been to maintain interest rates at historically low levels through its targeted federal funds rate and the purchase of mortgage-backed securities. After steadily increasing the target federal funds rate in 2017 and 2018, the FRB in 2019 decreased the target federal funds rate by 75 basis points, and in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, decreased the target federal funds rate by an additional 150 basis points to a range of 0.0% to 0.25% as of March 31, 2020. However, in light of elevated inflation and a strong labor market, the FOMC indicated it would be slowing down its relief programs and that it expects to raise the target range for the federal funds rate. If the FRB increases the target federal funds rate, overall interest rates will likely rise, which may negatively impact the housing markets and the U.S. economic recovery. Our ability to reduce our interest expense may be limited at current interest rate levels while the average yield on our interest-earning assets may continue to decrease, and our interest expense may increase as we access non-core funding sources or increase deposit rates to fund our operations. If we were to experience a rising interest rate environment where our cost of funds increased faster than the yields on our loan portfolio, it may adversely affect our net interest income, net interest spread and net interest margin, and may cause us to change our operating leverage model or portfolio mix to compensate.

Uncertainty relating to the LIBOR discontinuation and replacement may adversely affect our results of operations.

LIBOR has historically been the reference rate used for many of our transactions, including our lending and borrowing and our purchase and sale of securities that we use to manage risk related to such transactions. However, a reduced volume of interbank unsecured term borrowing coupled with recent legal and regulatory proceedings related to rate manipulation by certain financial institutions led to international reconsideration of LIBOR as a financial benchmark. The United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), which regulates the process for establishing LIBOR, announced in July 2017 that the sustainability of LIBOR cannot be guaranteed. The administrator for LIBOR permanently ceased to publish most LIBOR settings on January 1, 2022 and will cease to publish the overnight, one-month, three-month, six-month and 12-month USD LIBOR settings on July 1, 2023. Accordingly, the FCA stopped persuading, or compelling, banks to submit to LIBOR after 2021. To that end, the FRB, the OCC and the FDIC encouraged banks to cease entering into new contracts that reference LIBOR by December 31, 2021. In addition, banks have been encouraged to identify contracts that extend beyond June 30, 2023 and implement plans to identify and address insufficient contingency provisions in those contracts.

On April 6, 2021, legislation was adopted in New York State that provides for the use of a statutory replacement for USD LIBOR in certain New York law legacy contracts. On March 15, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, which among other things, provides for the use of interest rates based on SOFR in certain contracts currently based on LIBOR and a safe harbor from liability for utilizing SOFR-based interest rates as a replacement for LIBOR. The Alternative Reference Rates Committee (“ARRC”), a group of private-market participants convened by the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (the “FRBNY”) to help ensure a successful transition from LIBOR, also selected the SOFR as an alternative to LIBOR.

The FRBNY has published SOFR since May 2018, which is intended to be a broad measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities. The FRBNY reports that SOFR includes all trades in the Broad General Collateral Rate, plus bilateral U.S. Treasury repurchase agreement transactions cleared through the delivery-versus-payment service offered by the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, a subsidiary of the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. The FRBNY currently publishes SOFR daily on its website at https://apps.newyorkfed.org/markets/autorates/sofr and states on its publication page

43

Table of Contents

for SOFR that use of SOFR is subject to important disclaimers, limitations and indemnification obligations, including that the FRBNY may alter the methods of calculation, publication schedule, rate revision practices or availability of SOFR at any time without notice.

Pursuant to the federal and New York State legislation, we have determined that our LIBOR-based loans and outstanding subordinated notes will convert to SOFR-based rates. We ceased originating loans referencing LIBOR on March 8, 2021 and began originating U.S. Treasury rate based loans thereafter; however, our adjustable-rate loan products that are LIBOR-indexed currently continue to reset based on LIBOR. In addition, we have established a LIBOR Review Committee to review the risks associated with its LIBOR transition, including reviewing the Bank’s loan portfolios for contract remediation and is preparing the Bank’s operational readiness to support rate fallback and conversion mechanisms across all loans that currently reference LIBOR, as applicable.

There can be no assurances as to whether other market participants will adopt SOFR or what the relevant spread adjustments that the FRB may select for financial instruments that are currently referencing LIBOR will be. The discontinuation of LIBOR may result in uncertainty or differences in the calculation of the applicable interest rate or payment amount depending on the terms of the governing instruments and may also increase operational and other risks to us and the industry.

Because SOFR is published by the FRBNY based on data received from other sources, the Bank has no control over its determination, calculation or publication. There can be no assurance that SOFR will not be discontinued or fundamentally altered in a manner that is materially adverse to the parties that utilize SOFR as the reference rate for transactions.

There is no assurance that SOFR-based rates will be sufficient to produce the economic equivalent of LIBOR, either at the replacement date or over the life of the applicable financial instrument. Further, if SOFR-based rates have not achieved sufficient market acceptance when the publication of the principal tenors of LIBOR is discontinued, or if market participants have not otherwise implemented effective transitional arrangements to address that discontinuation, widespread dislocation in the financial markets, volatility in the pricing of securities and other financial instruments, and the suppression of capital markets activity may ensue. In addition, financial instruments referencing SOFR may have additional legal, financial, tax, operational, market, compliance, reputational, competitive or other risks to us, our customers and other market participants. To that end, banking regulators in the U.S. have increased regulatory scrutiny and intensified supervisory focus of financial institution LIBOR transition plans, preparations and readiness, which may result in a regulatory action, litigation or the need to change the products we offer.

The market transition away from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate, including SOFR, is complex and could have a range of adverse effects on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. In particular, any such transition could:

44

Table of Contents

In addition, the implementation of LIBOR reform proposals may result in increased compliance costs and operational costs, including costs related to continued participation in LIBOR and the transition to SOFR-based rates. We cannot reasonably estimate the expected cost.

Risks Related to Liquidity

A lack of liquidity could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and result in regulatory limits being placed on the Company.

Liquidity is essential to our business. We rely on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans to ensure that we have adequate liquidity to fund our operations. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our most important source of funds is deposits. Deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money out of deposits such as money market funds, we will lose a relatively low-cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income. In addition, should secondary market investors accept our offers to repurchase Advantage Loan Program loans with respect to the remaining portion of such outstanding loans, the cash required to fund these repurchases will reduce our excess liquidity. Moreover, depending on the capitalization and regulatory treatment of depository institutions, including whether an institution is subject to a supervisory prompt corrective action directive, certain additional regulatory restrictions and prohibitions may apply, including restrictions on growth, restrictions on interest rates paid on deposits, restrictions or prohibitions on payment of dividends and restrictions on the acceptance of brokered deposits. In the event such restrictions on interest rates paid on deposits become applicable to us, we will likely need to reduce our interest rates paid on a large segment of our deposits, which could result in significant deposit withdrawals. In addition, as of December 31, 2021, approximately 19% of our total deposits are not FDIC-insured, and a significant portion of those deposits could be withdrawn in the event of volatile economic conditions. Significant deposit withdrawals could materially reduce our liquidity, and, in such an event, we may be required to replace such deposits with higher-costing borrowings.

Other primary sources of funds consist of cash flows from operations and sales of investment securities, and proceeds from the issuance and sale of our equity securities. Additional liquidity is provided by our ability to borrow from the FHLB of Indianapolis or our ability to sell portions of our loan portfolio. We also may borrow funds from third-party lenders, such as other financial institutions. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities, or on terms that are acceptable to us, could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry. Our access to funding sources could also be affected by a decrease in the ability to sell mortgage portfolios as a result of a downturn in our markets or by one or more adverse regulatory actions against us. A lack of liquidity could also attract increased regulatory scrutiny and potential restraints imposed on us by regulators.

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

We rely on external financing to fund our operations, and the failure to obtain such financing on favorable terms, or at all, in the future could materially and adversely impact our growth strategy and prospects.

We rely in part on advances from the FHLB and brokered deposits to fund our operations. Although we consider such sources of funds adequate for our current needs, we may need to seek additional debt or equity capital in the future to restore capital that may be depleted due to losses related to adverse results from government investigations and ligations, adverse economic conditions due to COVID-19 and other risks identified herein, as well as to fund future growth. The sale of equity or equity-related securities in the future may be dilutive to our shareholders, and debt financing arrangements may require us to pledge some of our assets and enter into various affirmative and negative covenants, including limitations on operational activities and financing alternatives. Future financing sources, if sought, might be unavailable to us or, if available, could be on terms unfavorable to us and may require regulatory approval. In addition, we currently are required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB in order for the Company to issue any new debt. If financing sources are unavailable or are not available on favorable terms or we are unable to obtain regulatory approval, our capital base, growth strategy and future prospects could be materially and adversely impacted.

45

Table of Contents

If the market for the sale of our mortgage loans to the secondary market were to significantly contract, or if purchasers were to lose confidence in the quality of our loans, our net income would be negatively affected and our ability to manage our balance sheet would be materially and adversely affected.

From time to time, we manage our liquidity and balance sheet risk by selling loans in our mortgage portfolio into the secondary market. If the market for our mortgages were to contract or our counterparties were to lose confidence in our asset quality, we would lose a key piece of our liquidity strategy and would need to find alternative means to manage our liquidity that may be less effective. In addition, in connection with residential mortgages packaged for sale in the secondary market, we make representations and warranties, which, if breached, may require us to repurchase such loans, substitute other loans or indemnify the purchasers of such loans for actual losses incurred in respect of such loans. To avoid the uncertainty of audits and inquiries by third-party investors in Advantage Loan Program loans sold to the secondary market, beginning at the end of the second quarter of 2020, we commenced making offers to each of those investors to repurchase 100% of our previously sold Advantage Loan Program loans. As of December 31, 2021, we had repurchased such loans with an aggregate principal balance of $243.5 million and had outstanding commitments to repurchase an additional $73.0 million over the next 18 months. At December 31, 2021, the unpaid principal balance of residential mortgage loans sold under the Advantage Loan Program that were subject to potential repurchase obligations for breach of representations and warranties totaled $142.8 million. If we experience loan repurchase demands in excess of what we have anticipated, our liquidity, capital ratios and financial condition may be materially and adversely affected.

The debt service obligations related to our subordinated notes will reduce the funds available for other business purposes, and the terms and covenants relating thereto, and to any future indebtedness, could adversely impact our financial performance and liquidity.

We have outstanding $65.0 million in aggregate principal amount on our subordinated notes due April 15, 2026. Our subordinated notes bear interest at a variable interest rate of the three-month LIBOR rate plus a margin of 5.82%. For 2021, the average interest rate was 6.31%, and the interest rate was 5.94% at December 31, 2021. Pursuant to recent federal and New York State legislation, upon the cessation of the publication of the three-month LIBOR rate, currently expected in June 2023, the subordinated notes will bear interest at a rate based on SOFR. As a result of our subordinated notes, we are currently, and to the extent we incur significant debt in the future, we will be, subject to risks typically associated with debt financing, such as insufficient cash flow to meet required debt service payment obligations, which may increase if the benchmark rate for any of our floating rate notes increases, and the inability to refinance existing indebtedness. See Note 9—Subordinated Notes, net to our consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding the economic terms of our subordinated notes.

In addition, our subordinated notes and the related subordinated note purchase agreements contain customary covenants, which under certain circumstances place restrictions on our ability to pay dividends or make other distributions and enter into certain transactions, including acquisition activity. If we fail to satisfy one or more of the covenants under our subordinated notes, we would be in default under such notes, and may be required to repay such debt with capital from other sources. Under such circumstances, other sources of capital may not be available to us on reasonable terms or at all.

46

Table of Contents

Other Risks Related to Our Business

Our senior management has undergone a significant transition, and our future success depends on our ability to identify, attract and retain key employees and other qualified personnel.

The Company experienced significant executive transitions in late 2019 continuing through the first half of 2020. Since October 1, 2019, more than 150 officers and employees have been terminated or have resigned, including more than 45 loan officers, whether in connection with the Internal Review or otherwise. As a result, beginning in 2020 and continuing through 2021, we have undergone significant effort to hire new employees and retain existing employees, which effort is continuing in 2022. However, we may not be successful in retaining our key employees, or replacing recently terminated or departed employees, and the unexpected loss of services of one or more of our officers or directors could have a material adverse effect on our business because of their skills, knowledge of our market and financial products, years of industry experience and the difficulty of finding qualified replacement personnel. We recognize that the banking industry is competitive and replacing executive officers and key employees may be difficult and may take an extended period of time because of the limited number of individuals in our industry with the breadth of skills and experience required to successfully manage, develop and grow in the banking industry. If we fail to identify and develop or recruit successors, we are at risk of being harmed by the departures of key employees.

We face risks related to our operational, technological and organizational infrastructure.

Our ability to grow and compete, including to develop and deliver new products that meet the needs of our existing customers and attract new ones, is dependent on our ability to build or acquire the necessary operational and technological infrastructure and to manage the cost of that infrastructure as we expand. Our ability to run our business in compliance with applicable laws and regulations is also dependent on that infrastructure. Operational risk can manifest itself in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or outside persons and exposure to external events, and we are dependent on our operational infrastructure to help manage these risks. In addition, we are heavily dependent on the strength and capability of our technology systems, which we use both to interface with our customers and to manage our internal financial records and other systems. Any shortcomings in our technology systems subjects us to risk of misconduct by our employees that may go undetected.

We monitor our operational and technological capabilities and make modifications and improvements when we believe it will be cost effective to do so. If we experience difficulties, fail to comply with banking regulations or keep up with increasingly sophisticated technologies, our operations could be interrupted. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period of time, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected, perhaps materially. Even if we are able to replace them, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Third-party vendors provide key components of our business infrastructure and our technology framework, such as internet connections, network access and core application processing. While we have selected these third party vendors carefully in accordance with supervisory requirements, we do not control their actions. Any problems caused by these third parties, including as a result of their not providing us their services for any reason or their performing their services poorly, could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to our customers and otherwise to conduct our business. Replacing these third party vendors could also entail significant delay and expense. These third-party vendors are also subject to the same cyber risks and other risks that we encounter. These third-party risks continue to be an area of supervisory focus, so we will need to ensure the proper framework is in place to address them.

If our enterprise risk management framework is not effective at mitigating risk and loss to us, we could suffer unexpected losses and our results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

Our enterprise risk management framework seeks to achieve an appropriate balance between risk and return, which is critical to optimizing shareholder value. We have established processes and procedures intended to identify, measure, monitor, report and analyze the types of risk to which we are subject, including credit, liquidity, operational, regulatory, compliance and reputational risks. However, as with any risk management framework, there are inherent limitations to our risk management strategies as there may exist, or develop in the future, risks that we have not appropriately anticipated or identified. If our risk management framework proves ineffective, we could suffer unexpected losses and our business and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

47

Table of Contents

We face significant operational risks because the financial services business involves a high volume of transactions and increased reliance on technology, including risk of loss related to cybersecurity or privacy breaches.

We operate in diverse markets and rely on the ability of our employees and systems to process a high number of transactions and to collect, process, transmit and store significant amounts of confidential information regarding our customers, employees and others, as well as our own business, operations, plans and strategies. Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from our operations, including but not limited to, the risk of fraud by employees or persons outside our company, the execution of unauthorized transactions, errors relating to transaction processing and technology, systems failures or interruptions, breaches of our internal control systems and compliance requirements, and business continuation and disaster recovery. We face an increasing number of regulations and regulatory scrutiny related to our information technology systems, and security or privacy breaches with respect to our data could result in regulatory fines, reputational harm and customer losses, any of which would significantly impact our financial condition. As cybersecurity threats are inherently difficult to predict and can take many forms, insurance coverage may not be available for losses associated with cyberattacks or information security breaches, or where available, such losses may exceed insurance limits. In addition, we may not be able to rely on indemnification or another source of third-party recovery in the event of a breach of such functions.

In addition, we outsource some of our data processing to certain third-party providers. If these third-party providers encounter difficulties, including as a result of cyberattacks or information security breaches, or if we have difficulty communicating with them, our ability to adequately process and account for transactions could be affected, and our business operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Although we have implemented and intend to continue to implement and enhance security technology and establish operational procedures to prevent such damage, there can be no assurance that these security measures will be successful in deterring or mitigating the effects of every cyberthreat that we face. In addition, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the algorithms we and our third-party service providers use to protect client transaction data, other customer data and employee data. Any successful cyber-attack or other information security breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information or that compromises our ability to function could severely damage our reputation, erode confidence in the security of our systems, products and services, expose us to the risk of litigation and liability, disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business. Any successful cyber-attack may also subject the Company to regulatory investigations, litigation or enforcement, or require the payment of regulatory fines or penalties or undertaking costly remediation efforts with respect to third parties affected by a cybersecurity incident, all or any of which could adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations and damage its reputation.

Cyberattacks, including those targeting critical infrastructure sectors, have become more frequent and sophisticated.

Critical infrastructure sectors, including financial services, increasingly have been the targets of cyberattacks, including attacks emanating from foreign countries such as the attack on the information technology company SolarWinds, which affected many Fortune 500 companies as well as U.S. government agencies. Cyberattacks involving large financial institutions, including denial of service attacks designed to disrupt external customer-facing services, nation state cyberattacks and ransomware attacks designed to deny organizations access to key internal resources or systems, and targeted social engineering and email attacks designed to allow unauthorized persons to obtain access to an institution’s information systems and data or that of its customers are becoming more common and increasingly sophisticated and can be difficult to prevent. Reports of ransomware incidents specifically have increased by approximately 300% since the start of 2020 and information technology software supply chain attacks, including those involving financial institutions, also have increased during this period, some of which have resulted in temporary, but impactful, disruptions to the functioning of critical infrastructure sectors or the operations of specific financial institutions. Threat actors are increasingly seeking to target vulnerabilities in software systems used by large numbers of banking organizations to conduct malicious cyber activities. These types of attacks have resulted in increased supply chain and third-party risk. In addition, cybersecurity risks for financial institutions have evolved as a result of the use of new technologies, devices and delivery channels to transmit data and conduct financial transactions. The adoption of new products, services and delivery channels contribute to a more complex operating environment, which increases operational risk and presents the potential for additional structural vulnerabilities. In addition, the ongoing and widespread remote work environment necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic has subjected institutions to additional cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks.

48

Table of Contents

Any successful cyberattack or other security breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information or that compromises our ability to function could severely damage our reputation, erode confidence in the security of our systems, products and services, expose us to the risk of litigation and liability, disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business. Any successful cyberattack may also subject us to regulatory investigations, litigation or enforcement, or require the payment of regulatory fines or penalties or undertaking of costly remediation efforts with respect to third parties affected by a cybersecurity incident, all or any of which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations and damage its reputation. Additionally, any failure by us to communicate cyberattacks or other security breaches appropriately to relevant parties could result in regulatory and reputational risk.

Other potential attacks have attempted to obtain unauthorized access to confidential information or destroy data, often through the introduction of computer viruses or malware, cyber-attacks and other means. To date and to the best of our knowledge, none of these types of attacks have had a material effect on our business or operations. Such security attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources, including persons who are involved with organized crime or who may be linked to terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments. Those same parties may also attempt to fraudulently induce employees, customers or other users of our systems to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to our data or that of our customers or clients. We are also subject to the risk that our employees may intercept and transmit unauthorized confidential or proprietary information. An interception, misuse or mishandling of personal, confidential or proprietary information being sent to or received from a customer or third party could result in legal liability, remediation costs, regulatory action and reputational harm.

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

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with customers and counterparties, we may rely on information furnished to us by, or on behalf of, customers and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information. We also may rely on representations of customers and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. In deciding whether to extend credit, we may rely upon our customers’ representations that their financial statements are accurate. We also may rely on customer representations and certifications, or other audit or accountants’ reports, with respect to the business and financial condition of our commercial clients. Our financial condition, results of operations, financial reporting and reputation could be materially adversely affected if we rely on materially misleading, false, inaccurate or fraudulent information.

We could be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions and other third parties we rely on.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks and other institutional entities. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when our collateral cannot be foreclosed upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit due.

Adherence to our internal policies and procedures by our employees is critical to our performance.

Our internal policies and procedures are a critical component of our corporate governance and, in some cases, compliance with applicable regulations. We adopt internal policies and procedures to guide management and employees regarding the operation and conduct of our business. Any deviation or non-adherence to these internal policies and procedures, such as the conduct leading to the permanent discontinuation of the Advantage Loan Program, whether intentional or unintentional, could have a detrimental effect on our management, operations or financial condition.

We and our borrowers in our California communities may be adversely affected by earthquakes or other natural disasters, and our business continuity and disaster recovery plans may not adequately protect us from a serious disaster.

The majority of our branches are located in the San Francisco and Los Angeles, California areas, which in the past have experienced both severe earthquakes and wildfires. We do not carry earthquake insurance on our properties. Earthquakes, wildfires or other natural disasters could severely disrupt our operations, and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, our customers and loan collateral may be severely impacted by such events, resulting in losses.

49

Table of Contents

If a natural disaster, power outage or other event occurred that prevented us from using all or a significant portion of our branches, that damaged critical infrastructure or that otherwise disrupted operations, it may be difficult or, in certain cases, impossible, for us to continue our business for a substantial period of time in the San Francisco and/or Los Angeles, California areas. The disaster recovery and business continuity plan that we have in place currently is limited and is unlikely to prove adequate in the event of a serious disaster or similar event. We may incur substantial expenses as a result of the limited nature of our disaster recovery and business continuity plans, which, particularly when taken together with our lack of earthquake insurance, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We are subject to environmental, social and governance risks that could adversely affect our reputation and the market price of our securities.

We are subject to a variety of risks arising from ESG matters. ESG matters include climate risk, hiring practices, the diversity of our work force, and racial and social justice issues involving our personnel, customers and third parties with whom we otherwise do business. Risks arising from ESG matters may adversely affect, among other things, our reputation and the market price of our securities.

We may be exposed to negative publicity based on the identity and activities of those to whom we lend and with which we otherwise do business and the public's view of the approach and performance of our customers and business partners with respect to ESG matters. Any such negative publicity could arise from adverse news coverage in traditional media and could also spread through the use of social media platforms.Our relationships and reputation with our existing and prospective customers and third parties with which we do business could be damaged if we were to become the subject of any such negative publicity. This, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our ability to attract and retain customers and employees and could have a negative impact on the market price for securities.

Investors have begun to consider the steps taken and resources allocated by financial institutions and other commercial organizations to address ESG matters when making investment and operational decisions. Certain investors are beginning to incorporate the business risks of climate change and the adequacy of companies’ responses to the risks posed by climate change and other ESG matters into their investment theses. These shifts in investing priorities may result in adverse effects on the market price of our securities to the extent that investors determine that the Company has not made sufficient progress on ESG matters.

Climate change and related legislative and regulatory initiatives may materially affect the Company’s business and results of operations.

The current and anticipated effects of climate change are creating an increasing level of concern for the state of the global environment. As a result, political and social attention to the issue of climate change has increased. In recent years, governments across the world have entered into international agreements to attempt to reduce global temperatures, in part by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Congress, state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies have continued to propose and advance numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change. Such initiatives have been pursued with rigor under the current Administration.

50

Table of Contents

U.S. financial regulatory authorities recently have sharpened their focus on the risks posed by climate change to the financial sector and the institutions within it. On October 21, 2021, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (“FSOC”), whose members include the federal banking agencies (including the OCC), published a report on climate-related financial risk. In that report the FSOC concluded, for the first time, that climate change represents an emerging and increasing threat to U.S. financial stability. Accordingly, FSOC has recommended that its member agencies accelerate their existing efforts to further assess climate-related risks to financial stability, enhance financial institutions’ climate-related disclosure obligations, improve upon the availability of and access to actionable climate-related data for use in measuring and assessing climate-related financial risk, and expand upon existing capacity and expertise to ensure that climate-related financial risks are identified and managed properly. Further, on November 3, 2021, the leadership of the OCC and FRB announced their support for the Glasgow Declaration issued by the Network of Central Banks and Supervisors for Greening the Financial System (the “NGFS”), which is comprised of over 100 central banks and supervisors from across the global financial system, in which the NGFS expressed its members’ commitment to improve the resilience of the financial system to climate-related and environmental risks and set forth a number of targeted workstreams to be undertaken in the coming years in order to do so.

Consistent with the objectives outlined above, the leadership of each of the OCC, FRB and the U.S. Treasury Department has emphasized that climate-related risks are faced by banking organizations of all types and sizes, specifically including physical and transition risks; is in the process of enhancing supervisory expectations regarding banks’ risk management practices; and has indicated increased expectations for larger financial institutions to measure, monitor and manage climate-related risk as part of their enterprise risk management processes. The OCC currently is engaged in multiple collaborative initiatives with other governmental authorities to assess the physical and transition risk posed by climate change and the appropriate corresponding expectations for bank risk management. The OCC also has appointed its first ever Climate Change Risk Officer to assist with these initiatives and to support the agency's efforts to enhance its supervision of climate change risk management. To that end, in December 2021, the OCC published proposed principles for climate risk management by larger banking organizations. The largest banks are being encouraged by their regulators to address the climate-related risks that they face by accounting for the effects of climate change in stress testing scenarios and systemic risk assessments, revising expectations for credit portfolio concentrations based on climate-related factors, evaluating the impact of climate change on their borrowers, considering possible changes to underwriting criteria to account for climate-related risks to mortgaged properties, incorporating climate-related financial risk into their internal reporting and monitoring and escalation processes, planning for transition risk posed by the adjustments to a low-carbon economy and investing in climate-related initiatives and lending to communities disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. Further, the FRB has signaled that it is in the process of developing scenario analysis to model the possible financial risks associated with climate change. When developed, the resilience of large banking organizations, as well as the broader financial system, will be evaluated against these climate change-related scenarios as part of the stress testing process. Although these requirements would not apply to a banking organization of our size, our regulators generally will expect us to enhance our internal control and risk management programs and processes. To the extent that these initiatives lead to the promulgation of new regulations or supervisory guidance applicable to us, we would expect to experience increased compliance costs and other compliance-related risks.

The effects of climate change continue to create an alarming level of concern for the state of the global environment. As a result, the global community has increased its political and social awareness surrounding the issue and have entered into international agreements in an attempt to reduce global temperatures such as the Paris Agreement, which the United States re-joined as of February 19, 2021. Further, the U.S. Congress, state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies continue to propose numerous initiatives to supplement the global effort to combat climate change. Similar initiatives are expected under the Biden administration, including potentially increasing supervisory expectations with respect to banks’ risk management practices, accounting for the effects of climate change in stress testing scenarios and systemic risk assessments, revising expectations for credit portfolio concentrations based on climate-related factors and encouraging investment by banks in climate-related initiatives and lending to communities disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change. Such measures may also result in the imposition of taxes and fees, the required purchase of emission credits and the implementation of significant operational changes, each of which may require the Company to upend significant capital and incur compliance, operating, maintenance and remediation costs. The lack of empirical data surrounding the credit and other financial risks posed by climate change render it impossible to predict how specifically climate change may impact our financial condition and results of operations; however, the physical effects of climate change may also directly impact and present certain unique risks to us. Specifically, unpredictable and more frequent weather disasters may adversely impact the value of real property securing the loans in our portfolios. Further, the effects of climate change may negatively impact regional and local economic activity, which could lead to an adverse effect on our customers and impact our ability to raise and invest capital in potentially impacted communities. Overall, climate change, its effects and the resulting, unknown impact could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

51

Table of Contents

Adverse conditions internationally could adversely affect our customers and business.

Many of our customers are recent immigrants or foreign nationals. U.S. and global economic policies, military tensions, and unfavorable global economic conditions may adversely impact the economies in which our customers have family or business ties. A significant deterioration of economic conditions internationally, and in Asia in particular, could expose us to, among other things, economic and transfer risk, and we could experience an outflow of deposits by those of our customers with connections to Asia. In addition, foreign currency restrictions, particularly on the movement of cash from abroad, could adversely affect many of our customers, including with respect to their ability to make down payments or repay loans. Adverse economic conditions abroad, and in China or Taiwan in particular, may also negatively impact the profitability and liquidity of our customers with ties to these regions.

Changes in the valuation of our securities portfolio could hurt our profits and reduce our shareholders’ equity.

Our securities portfolio may be impacted by fluctuations in market value, potentially reducing accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and/or net income. Fluctuations in market value may be caused by changes in market interest rates, lower market prices for securities and limited investor demand. Management evaluates securities for other-than-temporary impairment on a quarterly basis, with more frequent evaluation for selected issues. In analyzing a debt issuer’s financial condition, management may consider whether the securities are issued by the federal government or its agencies, whether downgrades by bond rating agencies have occurred and industry analysts’ reports. In analyzing an equity issuer’s financial condition, management may consider industry analysts’ reports, financial performance and projected target prices of investment analysts. If this evaluation shows impairment to the actual or projected cash flows associated with one or more securities, a potential loss to net income may occur. Changes in interest rates can also have an adverse effect on our financial condition, as our available-for-sale securities are reported at their estimated fair value and therefore are impacted by fluctuations in interest rates. We increase or decrease our shareholders’ equity by the amount of change in the estimated fair value of the available-for-sale securities, net of taxes. Declines in market value could result in other-than-temporary impairments of these assets, which would lead to accounting charges that could have a material adverse effect on our net income and capital levels.

The value of our mortgage servicing rights can be volatile.

We sell in the secondary market residential real estate loans that we originate, which provides a meaningful portion of our non-interest income in the form of gains on the sale of mortgage loans. We also earn revenue from fees we receive for servicing mortgage loans. As a result of our mortgage servicing business, we have a portfolio of mortgage servicing rights. A mortgage servicing right is the right to service a mortgage loan—collect principal, interest, and escrow amounts—for a fee. We acquire mortgage servicing rights when we keep the servicing rights in connection with the sale of loans we have originated.

Changes in interest rates may impact our mortgage servicing revenues, which could negatively impact our non-interest income. When rates rise, net revenue from our mortgage servicing activities can increase due to slower prepayments, which reduces our amortization expense for mortgage servicing rights. When rates fall, the value of our mortgage servicing rights usually tends to decline as a result of a higher volume of prepayments, resulting in a decline in our net revenue. It is possible that, because of economic conditions and/or a weak or deteriorating housing market, even if interest rates were to fall or remain low, mortgage originations may also fall or any increase in mortgage originations may not be enough to offset the decrease in the mortgage servicing rights value caused by the lower rates. Because the value of our mortgage servicing rights is recorded on our balance sheet and evaluated on a quarterly basis, any significant decline in value could adversely affect our income, our capital ratios or require us to raise additional capital, which may not be available on favorable terms.

Our critical accounting policies and estimates, risk management processes and controls rely on analytical and forecasting techniques and models, management judgments and assumptions about matters that are uncertain and may not accurately predict future events.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Our management must exercise judgment in selecting and applying many of these accounting policies and methods, so they comply with U.S. GAAP and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner in which to report our financial condition and results. In some cases, management must select the accounting policy or method to apply from two or more alternatives, any of which may be reasonable under the circumstances, yet which may result in our reporting materially different results than would have been reported under a different alternative.

52

Table of Contents

Certain accounting policies are critical to presenting our financial condition and results of operations. They require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. Materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions or estimates. These critical accounting policies include the allowance for loan losses, the fair value of financial instruments and the valuation of mortgage servicing rights. Because of the uncertainty of estimates involved in these matters, we may be required to significantly increase the allowance for loan losses or sustain loan losses that are significantly higher than the reserve provided or reduce the carrying value of an asset measured at fair value. Any of these could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our internal controls, disclosure controls, processes and procedures and corporate governance policies and procedures are 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, processes and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls, processes and procedures could necessitate changes in those controls, processes and procedures, which may increase our compliance costs, divert management attention from our business or subject us to regulatory actions and increased regulatory scrutiny. Any of these could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Risks Related to Governance Matters

The Seligman family, directly and through the family’s trusts, has influenced and has the ability to continue to influence Company operations and to control the outcome of matters submitted for shareholder approval and may have interests that differ from those of our other shareholders.

Scott J. Seligman and others of his family were the original founders of the Bank, and Mr. Seligman has had a variety of senior roles and positions over the course of many years. Prior to 2000, he served as a member of the Bank’s board and as chief executive officer of the Bank. After 2000 and through December 31, 2019, he served as a consulting director to the board of the Bank and retained the title of vice president of the Company. In these roles, Mr. Seligman participated in the conduct of the affairs of the Bank and had a significant influence over the Bank’s operations. In addition, Mr. Seligman caused the Bank to engage in various transactions with other Seligman-controlled businesses. For example, the Bank has a sublease agreement with one such business, Seligman & Associates, for office space, and, until October 31, 2020, the Bank provided monthly data processing and programming services to entities controlled by the Company’s controlling shareholders. Mr. Seligman resigned from his positions as consulting director to the board of the Bank and as vice president of the Company effective December 31, 2019.

Prior to August 2020, more than 50% of our outstanding voting power was held by the same trustee utilized by Scott J. Seligman and Sandra Seligman for their respective family trusts. Due to a change in the trustee for certain of those trusts established by Sandra Seligman, effective as of August 19, 2020, no one trustee has voting and dispositive power over more than 50% of our voting stock. Accordingly, trustees of the trusts for the benefit of Scott J. Seligman have voting and dispositive power over approximately 48% of our common stock, effectively giving such trusts control over the outcome of the shareholder votes on most matters. The trustee of the trusts created by Sandra Seligman has voting and dispositive power over approximately 18% of our common stock, and Seth Meltzer has voting and dispositive power, individually or through trust, over approximately 3% of our common stock. Minority stockholders, therefore, cannot decide the outcome of a stockholder vote without the support of any of Scott J. Seligman, Sandra Seligman, and/or Seth Meltzer.

Certain provisions of our corporate governance documents and Michigan law could discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition at a premium price.

Our second amended and restated articles of incorporation contain provisions that may make the acquisition of our Company more difficult without the approval of our board of directors. These include provisions that, among other things:

53

Table of Contents

These provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our shareholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for shareholders to replace members of the board of directors, which is responsible for appointing members of our management. Any matters requiring the approval of our shareholders will require the approval of the Seligman family and their trustees, which may have interests that differ from those of our other shareholders.

In addition, the 2017 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan and the 2020 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan each provide that restricted stock awards become fully vested in the event of a change in control and permit the board of directors or a committee thereof to accelerate, vest or cause the restrictions to lapse with respect to other outstanding awards including stock options, in the event of, or immediately prior to, a change in control. Such vesting or acceleration could discourage the acquisition of our Company.

We could also become subject to certain anti-takeover provisions under Michigan law which may discourage, delay or prevent someone from acquiring us or merging with us, whether or not an acquisition or merger is desired by or beneficial to our shareholders. If a corporation’s board of directors chooses to opt-in to certain provisions of Michigan Law, such corporation may not, in general, engage in a business combination with any beneficial owner, directly or indirectly, of 10% of the corporation’s outstanding voting shares unless the holder has held the shares for five years or more or, among other things, the board of directors has approved the business combination. Our board of directors has not elected to be subject to this provision but could do so in the future. Any provision of our second amended and restated articles of incorporation or amended and restated bylaws or Michigan law that has the effect of delaying or deterring a change in control could limit the opportunity for our shareholders to receive a premium for their shares and could also affect the price that some investors are willing to pay for our common stock otherwise.

54

Table of Contents

The exclusive forum provision in our second amended and restated articles of incorporation could limit our shareholders’ ability to obtain a favorable judicial forum for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees.

Our second amended and restated articles of incorporation provides that the courts of the State of Michigan located in Oakland County and the U.S. District for the Eastern District of Michigan shall be the sole and exclusive forum for (i) any action or proceeding brought on our behalf, (ii) any derivative action asserting a claim of breach of a fiduciary duty owed by any of our directors, officers, or employees to us or our shareholders, (iii) any action asserting a claim arising pursuant to any provision of the Michigan Business Corporation Act (as it may be amended from time to time), or (iv) any action asserting a claim against us governed by the State of Michigan’s internal affairs doctrine. Any person or entity purchasing or otherwise acquiring any interest in shares of our common stock shall be deemed to have notice of and consented to the provisions of our second amended and restated articles of incorporation described above. This choice of forum provision may limit a shareholder’s ability to bring a claim in a judicial forum that it finds favorable for disputes with us or our directors, officers or other employees, which may discourage such lawsuits against us and our directors, officers and other employees. Alternatively, if a court were to find these provisions of our second amended and restated articles of incorporation inapplicable to, or unenforceable in respect of, one or more of the specified types of actions or proceedings, we may incur additional costs associated with resolving such matters in other jurisdictions, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Our ability to pay dividends is restricted by applicable law and regulations and the terms of our subordinated notes and depends on the success of both Sterling Bancorp, Inc. and the Bank.

Our ability to pay cash dividends is restricted by the terms of our subordinated notes as well as applicable provisions of Michigan law and the rules and regulations of the OCC and the FRB. Under the terms of the subordinated notes, as long as the subordinated notes are outstanding, the Company is permitted to pay dividends if prior to such dividends, the Bank is considered well capitalized under applicable regulatory capital requirements. In addition, under Michigan law, Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is prohibited from paying cash dividends if, after giving effect to the dividend, (i) it would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the usual course of business or (ii) its total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders with preferential rights on dissolution that are superior to those receiving the dividend, and we are currently required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB in order to pay any dividends to our shareholders.

Sterling Bancorp, Inc. is a separate and distinct legal entity from the Bank that receives substantially all of its revenue through the Bank. Dividends from the Bank are the principal source of funds used by Sterling Bancorp, Inc. to pay cash dividends and interest on our subordinated notes. Any future determination to pay dividends to holders of our common stock will depend on our results of operations, financial condition, capital requirements, banking regulations and contractual restrictions, at both Sterling Bancorp, Inc. and the Bank and on a consolidated basis, and any other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant, and we can provide no assurance that we will pay any dividends to our shareholders in the future. The Bank is currently required to obtain the prior approval of the OCC in order to pay dividends to the Company due to the existence of the OCC Agreement.

​

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

Not applicable.

​

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

Our corporate headquarters is located at One Towne Square, Suite 1900, Southfield, Michigan 48076. In addition to our corporate headquarters, we operate 20 branch offices located in the San Francisco metropolitan area, six branch offices in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and one branch office located in New York City. We lease our corporate headquarters and each of our retail branch offices at what we believe to be market rates.

​

55

Table of Contents

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

On July 28, 2020, the Company received a demand for a derivative action brought by Raymond Cahnman, a purported shareholder of the Company set forth in a demand letter (the “Shareholder Demand”). Such demand was later reflected in a shareholder derivative complaint that was filed against the Company and certain current and former directors of the Company, styled Cahnman v. Allen, et al., No. 2:22-cv-10124 (E.D. Mich.). Both the previously disclosed Shareholder Demand and the complaint allege that members of the Company’s Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties of oversight and disclosure based on allegations concerning the Bank’s residential lending practices and disclosures concerning those practices that were made in the Company’s registration statement and prospectus for its initial public offering, in subsequent press releases, in periodic and other filings with the SEC and during earnings calls. The complaint seeks to (1) recover damages the Company has purportedly sustained as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by certain of its officers and directors; (2) recover for the benefit of the Company the amounts by which certain of its officers and directors purportedly were unjustly enriched; and (3) correct alleged deficiencies in the Company’s internal controls.

Following receipt of the Shareholder Demand, the Company’s Board of Directors established a Demand Review Committee consisting of independent directors, none of whom were named in the Shareholder Demand. During the course of an ongoing investigation conducted by the Demand Review Committee, the Demand Review Committee, on behalf of the Company, engaged in discussions with Mr. Cahnman’s counsel resulting in an agreement in the form of a definitive stipulation of settlement (the “Settlement”), which was entered into on January 21, 2022. In entering into the Settlement, the Company and the individual defendants named in the complaint deny any and all allegations of wrongdoing. However, the Demand Review Committee and the Board of Directors believe that the Settlement is the most efficient manner for resolving this matter.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the Company has agreed to adopt and implement substantial corporate governance reforms (the “Corporate Governance Enhancements”), many of which are already in progress, and pay attorneys’ fees and expenses in exchange for the release of all defendants from all alleged claims therein. The Corporate Governance Enhancements include, among other things, making certain amendments to both the Company’s Second Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and Amended and Restated Bylaws to end the staggered term of the Company’s Board of Directors, establishing certain Board-level and management-level committees and making updates to the Company’s internal policies and practices. The Settlement provides customary releases of certain individuals and entities, including the current Board of Directors and certain former board members, and reserves for the Company’s Board of Directors the exclusive right to continue to evaluate and pursue claims against non-released individuals based on their conduct concerning, related to, or arising from the matters raised in the Shareholder Demand. The Settlement remains subject to court approval and other customary conditions. The full amount of the attorneys’ fees and expenses due under the settlement will be paid by the Company’s insurance carriers under applicable insurance policies.

In the event final court approval is not received or the settlement is not finalized for any other reason, the Company intends to vigorously defend this action; but there can be no assurance that we will be successful in any defense. We will continue to incur legal fees in connection with this and potentially other cases, including expenses for the reimbursement of legal fees of present and former officers and directors under indemnification obligations.

For additional information regarding risks related to the Internal Review, the government investigations and the OCC Agreement, as well as other aspects of and consequences arising from the Advantage Loan Program, see the risk factors under “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Advantage Loan Program.”

​

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

​

56

Table of Contents

PART II

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

Market Information

Our common stock has been listed on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “SBT” since November 17, 2017. Prior to that date, there was no public trading market for our common stock.

On March 18, 2022, we had 62 holders of record of our common stock. A substantially greater number of holders are beneficial owners whose shares are held of record banks, brokers and other nominees. The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Computershare Trust Company, N.A.

Dividend Policy

Although as a private company, we had only recently paid dividends to our shareholders, we intend to consider conservative and appropriate dividend levels. Our dividend policy and practice may change at any time, and our board of directors may change or eliminate the payment of future dividends at its discretion, without notice to our shareholders. In March 2020, in connection with the issues giving rise to the Internal Review, we announced the suspension of the payment of any dividends for at least the near term. Any future determination to pay dividends to holders of our common stock will depend on our future net income, capital requirements, restrictions imposed by our subordinated notes, funds needed to pay the interest cost on any debt, financial condition, future prospects, regulatory restrictions and any other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant. Refer to “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation—Federal Banking Regulation—Capital Requirements” for a discussion of our dividend payment restrictions.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

On December 24, 2018, the board of directors approved the repurchase of up to $50.0 million of the Company’s outstanding shares of common stock. The stock repurchase program permits the Company to acquire shares of common stock from time to time in the open market or in privately negotiated transactions. The Company received regulatory approval of the stock repurchase program and publicly announced the program on January 28, 2019. The program does not have an expiration date. Under the stock repurchase program, the Company is not obligated to repurchase shares of its common stock, and there is no assurance that it will continue to do so. Any shares repurchased under this program will be canceled and returned to authorized but unissued status. In March 2020, in connection with the issues giving rise to the Internal Review, the Company suspended the stock repurchase program. There were no purchases of shares of the Company’s common stock made by or on behalf of us or any “affiliated purchaser” (as defined in Rule 10b-18(a)(3) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) during the three months ended December 31, 2021.

​

​

​

​

ITEM 6. [RESERVED]

​

​

ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This Management’s Discussion and Analysis should be read in conjunction with the accompanying consolidated financial statements and notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis are not guarantees of future performance and may involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” above and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” for discussions of these risks and uncertainties. A comparative discussion of results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019 is provided in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020 and is incorporated by reference herein.

57

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

Internal Review, Investigations and Regulatory Matters Related to the Advantage Loan Program

On December 9, 2019, the Company announced it had voluntarily suspended its Advantage Loan Program in connection with the Internal Review. The primary focus of the Internal Review, which has been led by outside legal counsel under the direction of the Special Committee, has involved the origination of residential real estate loans under the Advantage Loan Program and related matters. The Internal Review has indicated that certain employees engaged in misconduct in connection with the origination of a significant number of such loans, including with respect to verification of income and employment, the amount of income reported for borrowers, reliance on third parties, and related documentation. As a result, the Company permanently discontinued the Advantage Loan Program, and a significant number of officers and employees have been terminated or resigned, including the top loan producers within the Advantage Loan Program. While the Internal Review is substantially complete, the Company expects it to remain open during the pendency of the government investigations discussed below, and it is possible additional work will be required in connection with the Internal Review.

The Bank is currently under formal investigation by the OCC, is responding to grand jury subpoenas from the DOJ and is responding to a formal investigation by the SEC, all of which are related to the Advantage Loan Program and, with respect to the DOJ and the SEC, the related disclosures of that program in the Company’s federal securities law filings. The Bank also continues to be subject to the OCC Agreement, which relates primarily to certain aspects of the Bank’s BSA/AML compliance program as well as its credit administration. The OCC Agreement requires the Bank to: (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor and oversee the Bank’s compliance with the provisions of the OCC Agreement; (ii) develop a revised customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence program; (iii) develop a revised suspicious activity monitoring program; (iv) engage an independent, third-party consultant to review and provide a written report on the Bank’s suspicious activity monitoring; (v) develop revised policies and procedures to ensure effective BSA/AML model risk management for the Bank’s automated suspicious activity monitoring system, which must be validated by a qualified, independent third party; (vi) ensure that the Bank’s BSA Department maintains sufficient personnel; and (vii) develop revised policies and procedures to ensure effective controls over loan underwriting. In addition to these requirements, while the OCC Agreement remains in effect, the Bank is subject to certain restrictions on expansion activities, such as growth through acquisition or branching to supplement organic growth of the Bank.

The Company incurred significant legal, consulting and other third-party expenses during the years 2020 and 2021 in connection with the Internal Review; the OCC, DOJ and SEC investigations; compliance with the OCC Agreement; and defending litigation related to the Advantage Loan Program. For additional information regarding risks related to the Internal Review, the government investigations and the OCC Agreement, as well as other aspects of and consequences arising from the Advantage Loan Program, see the risk factors under “Item 1A. Risk Factors—Risks Related to the Advantage Loan Program.”

Impact of COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to create extensive disruptions to U.S. and global economic conditions and financial markets and to businesses and the lives of individuals throughout the world. Federal and state governments have taken unprecedented actions to contain the spread of the disease, including quarantines, travel bans, shelter-in-place orders, closures of businesses and schools, fiscal stimuli, and legislation designed to deliver monetary aid and other relief to businesses and individuals impacted by the pandemic. During the third quarter of 2021, the Company determined it qualified for the employee retention credit (“ERC”) under the CARES Act for the first three quarters of 2021 because the Company’s gross receipts in 2021 decreased more than 20% from each of the respective quarters of 2019. The Company recorded an ERC of $6.5 million, resulting in a net reduction of salaries and employee benefits for the third quarter of 2021. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which was signed into law by President Biden during the fourth quarter of 2021, terminated the availability of the ERC for periods following the third quarter of 2021.

The spread of COVID-19 has caused us to modify our business practices, including curtailing employee travel, changing employee work locations and cancelling in-person participation in meetings, events and conferences. We have many employees working remotely, and we may take further actions as may be required by government authorities or that we determine are in the best interests of our employees, customers and business partners. We continue to actively monitor developments related to COVID-19 and its impact on our business, customers, employees, counterparties, vendors, and service providers. For further discussion regarding risks related to the COVID-19 pandemic, see “Item 1A. Risk Factors-Risks Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.”

58

Table of Contents

Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth our financial information for the years indicated.

​

​

59

Table of Contents

​

(1)(2) Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform with the current period presentation. The Company has (1) reclassified custodial escrow balances maintained with serviced loans of $6,051 and $7,688 from accrued expenses and other liabilities to noninterest-bearing deposits in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and (2) reclassified accrued interest on outstanding time deposits of $25,496 and $27,560 from accrued expenses and other liabilities to interest-bearing deposits in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

(3) Efficiency ratio is computed as the ratio of non-interest expense divided by the sum of net interest income and non-interest income.

(4) Nonperforming loans include nonaccrual loans and loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest.

(5) Troubled debt restructurings exclude those loans presented as nonaccrual or past 90 days or more and still accruing interest.

(6) Nonperforming assets include nonperforming loans, nonaccrual loans held for sale, loans modified under troubled debt restructurings and other repossessed assets.

60

Table of Contents

Overview of 2021 Performance

In 2021, we returned to profitability while completing several major undertakings. These major undertakings include making significant progress on our credit risk exposure, completing the lookback project pursuant to the OCC Agreement, completing an IT platform conversion and an entire AML monitoring system installation, settling the class action lawsuit and laying the groundwork for the settlement of the derivative action in early 2022, selling the Bellevue, Washington branch office and making significant progress in repurchasing Advantage Loan Program loans previously sold to third-party investors. In addition to these undertakings, during 2021, we continued to manage our excess liquidity and ultimately used a substantial portion of that liquidity to allow higher cost deposits to run-off and reduce our FHLB borrowings as we continued to experience significant repayments in our loan portfolio. This resulted in an overall significant decline of our balance sheet, with total assets declining 26% from $3.9 billion at December 31, 2020 to $2.9 billion at December 31, 2021. While remaining subject to the OCC Agreement and under government investigation, we continue to be unable to launch any new loan origination initiatives. Accordingly, absent the ability to replace higher yielding loans as they pay off with an acceptable interest earning asset, we felt it prudent to allow the balance sheet to reduce while we built capital from earnings and utilized a significant portion of our excess liquidity. Total shareholders’ equity increased by $24.0 million, or 8%, to $343.6 million at December 31, 2021.

Net income was $23.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2021 compared to a net loss of $(13.0) million for the year ended December 31, 2020. The increase was driven by our improved credit metrics helping to result in a recovery for loan losses as compared to the significant provision taken during 2020, as well as improved non-interest income and a reduction in non-interest expense driven in part by the realization of employee retention credits enabled by the CARES Act and reduced professional fees. These improvements were offset in part by a reduction in net interest income reflecting our reduced balance sheet and a narrowing of our net interest margin for the year. Although our average net interest margin of 2.71% for the year ended December 31, 2021 decreased from that of 2.94% for the year ended December 31, 2020, our average net interest margins for the three months ended September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2021 were 2.83% and 2.94%, respectively, reflecting a stronger net interest margin during the second half of 2021.

Our improved credit metrics during 2021 include a decrease in our nonaccrual commercial real estate loans from $20.0 million at December 31, 2020 to $4.4 million at December 31, 2021, and a decrease in our nonaccrual construction loans from $41.9 million at December 31, 2020 to $12.5 million at December 31, 2021, although our nonaccrual residential real estate loans have increased from $20.7 million at December 31, 2020 to $45.7 million at December 31, 2021. Further, our loans classified as Special Mention, Substandard and Doubtful decreased from $198.2 million at December 31, 2020 to $117.2 million at December 31, 2021. Our ratio of the allowance for loan losses to our loan portfolio decreased slightly from 2.89% at December 31, 2020 to 2.81% at December 31, 2021.

On September 23, 2021, the final settlement agreement for the class action lawsuit, entered into on April 16, 2021, was granted approval by the court. The settlement provided for a single cash payment of $12.5 million, which was fully funded by our insurance carriers, in exchange for the release of all defendants from all alleged claims. Also, in early 2022, we completed the negotiations that begun in 2021 and entered into a settlement agreement for the derivative action originally threatened by a demand letter received in 2020. The settlement agreement, which remains subject to court approval and other customary conditions, provides for a number of corporate governance enhancements, many of which have been implemented, and a $650,000 cash payment for the reimbursement of the plaintiff’s legal fees. See “Item 3. Legal Proceedings.”

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and with general practices within the financial services industry. Application of these principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under current circumstances. These assumptions form the basis for our judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily available from independent, objective sources. We evaluate our estimates on an ongoing basis. Use of alternative assumptions may have resulted in significantly different estimates. Actual results may differ from these estimates.

61

Table of Contents

We have identified the following accounting policies and estimates that, due to the difficult, subjective or complex judgments and assumptions inherent in those policies and estimates, and the potential sensitivity of our consolidated financial statements to those judgments and assumptions, are critical to an understanding of our financial condition and results of operations. We believe that the judgments, estimates and assumptions used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements are appropriate.

​

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance for probable incurred credit losses, increased or decreased by the provision for loan losses and decreased by charge offs less recoveries. Loan losses are charged against the allowance for loan losses when a loan is considered partially or fully uncollectible or has such little value that continuance as an asset is not warranted. Subsequent recoveries, if any, are credited to the allowance for loan losses. Management estimates the allowance for loan losses balance using past loan loss experience, the nature and volume of the portfolio, information about specific borrower situations, estimated collateral values, economic conditions and other factors. Allocations of the allowance for loan losses may be made for specific loans, but the entire allowance for loan losses is available for any loan that, in management’s judgment, should be charged off.

The allowance for loan losses consists of specific and general components. The specific component relates to loans that are individually classified as impaired. The general component covers all other loans and is based on historical loss experience adjusted for general economic conditions and other qualitative factors by portfolio segment. The historical loss experience is determined by portfolio segment and is based on the actual loss history experienced over the most recent three-year period. This actual loss experience is supplemented with economic and other factors based on the risks present for each portfolio segment. These economic and other risk factors include consideration of the following: levels of and trends in delinquencies and impaired loans; levels of and trends in charge offs and recoveries; trends in portfolio volume; effects of any changes in underwriting standards; other changes in lending policies, procedures and practices; experience, ability and depth of lending management and other relevant staff; national and local economic trends and conditions; industry conditions; and effects of changes in credit concentrations.

Commercial real estate loans, construction loans and commercial lines of credit that are classified loans, including all nonaccrual loans and troubled debt restructurings, are individually evaluated for impairment. See “Asset Quality—Classified Loans” for a discussion of our classified loans. These evaluations are based upon a quarterly systematic review utilizing, among other components, our internal risk rating system, similar to those employed by banking regulators. If a loan is impaired, a portion of the allowance for loan losses is allocated so that the loan is reported, net, at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan’s existing rate or at the fair value of collateral if repayment is expected solely from the collateral or operations of collateral. Large groups of homogeneous loans, including residential real estate loans with an aggregate principal balance representing the vast majority of our loan portfolio, are collectively evaluated for impairment and, accordingly, are not separately identified for impairment disclosures. Loans with aggregate principal balances representing 99% and 97% of our loan portfolio were collectively evaluated for impairment as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively.

Loans that have been modified resulting in a concession, and for which the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties, are considered troubled debt restructurings. Troubled debt restructurings are separately identified for impairment disclosures and are measured at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan’s effective rate at inception. If a troubled debt restructuring is considered a collateral-dependent loan, the loan is reported, net, at the fair value of the collateral. For loans that are considered troubled debt restructurings that subsequently go into default, the Bank determines the amount of the allowance for loan losses in accordance with the accounting policy for the allowance for loan losses on loans individually identified as impaired.

The degree of risk in residential real estate lending depends primarily on the loan amount in relation to collateral value, the interest rate and the borrower’s ability to repay in an orderly fashion. Economic trends determined by unemployment rates and other key economic indicators are closely correlated to the credit quality of these loans. Weak economic trends indicate that the borrowers’ capacity to repay their obligations may be deteriorating. The classes in the residential real estate portfolio segment consist of residential first mortgages and residential second mortgages.

62

Table of Contents

Adverse economic developments or an overbuilt market impact commercial real estate projects and may result in troubled loans. Trends in vacancy rates of commercial properties impact the credit quality of these loans. High vacancy rates reduce operating revenues and the ability for the properties to produce sufficient cash flow to service debt obligations. The segmentation classes in the commercial real estate portfolio consist of retail, multifamily, offices, hotels/SROs, industrial and other.

The construction loan portfolio is comprised of loans to builders and developers primarily for residential, commercial and mixed-use development. In addition to general commercial real estate risks, construction loans have additional risk of cost overruns, market deterioration during construction, lack of permanent financing and no operating history.

The commercial lines of credit portfolio is comprised of loans to businesses such as sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited liability companies and corporations for the daily operating needs of the business. The risk characteristics of these loans vary based on the borrowers’ business and industry as repayment is typically dependent on cash flows generated from the underlying business. These loans may be secured by real estate or other assets or may be unsecured. The segmentation classes in the commercial lines of credit portfolio consist of private banking loans and commercial & industrial lending.

Our allowance for loan losses is sensitive to management's assessment of various quantitative and qualitative factors affecting the loan portfolio, including portfolio composition, net charge-offs, delinquent and nonaccrual loans, foreclosures, Bank-specific factors (e.g., staff experience, underwriting guidelines etc.), national and local business conditions, historical loss experience, an overall evaluation of the quality of the underlying collateral and other external factors. Management utilizes significant professional judgment in assessing the foregoing qualitative factors, as they are inherently subjective, and changes in management's assumptions and forecasts of economic conditions could significantly affect its estimate of our allowance for loan losses. Further, certain qualitative components within our allowance for loan losses methodology have taken on increased significance as a result of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is difficult to estimate or predict how potential changes in management's assessment of any of our qualitative factors may affect our overall allowance for loan losses, as changes in such qualitative factors may not occur at the same rate or be consistent across different loan types, and changes may also be directionally inconsistent, such that improvement in one qualitative factor may offset deterioration in others.

See Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies—Allowance for Loan Losses to our consolidated financial statements for further information on how we recognize and measure our allowance for loan losses.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Fair value is defined as the exit price, the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for an asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement date under current market conditions.

We use fair value measurements to record fair value adjustments to certain financial instruments and to determine fair value disclosures. For example, debt securities available for sale are carried at fair value each period. Other financial instruments, including substantially all of our loans held for sale, are not carried at fair value each period but may require nonrecurring fair value adjustments due to application of lower-of-cost-or-market accounting. We also disclose our estimate of fair value for financial instruments not recorded at fair value, such as loans held for investment or issuances of long-term debt.

The degree of management judgment involved in determining the fair value of a financial instrument is dependent upon the availability of quoted market prices or observable market inputs. For financial instruments that are traded actively and have quoted market prices or observable market inputs, there is nominal subjectivity involved in measuring fair value. However, when quoted market prices or observable market inputs are not fully available, significant management judgment may be necessary to estimate fair value.

When developing fair value measurements, we maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. When available, we use quoted prices in active markets to measure fair value. If quoted prices in active markets are not available, fair value measurement is based upon models that use primarily market-based or independently sourced market parameters, such as interest rate yield curves and prepayment speeds.

63

Table of Contents

In certain cases, when market observable inputs for model-based valuation techniques are not readily available, we are required to make judgments about assumptions market participants would use to estimate fair value.

Significant judgment is also required to determine whether certain assets measured at fair value are classified as Level 2 or Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy. When making this judgment, we consider available information, including observable market data, indications of market liquidity and orderliness, and our understanding of the valuation techniques and significant inputs used. The classification of Level 2 or Level 3 is based upon the specific facts and circumstances of each instrument or instrument category and judgments are made regarding the significance of the Level 3 inputs to the instruments’ fair value measurement in its entirety. If Level 3 inputs are considered significant, the instrument is classified as Level 3.

See Note 15—Fair Value of Financial Instruments to our consolidated financial statements for more information on our use of fair value estimates.

Valuation of Mortgage Servicing Rights

Mortgage servicing rights are recognized separately when residential real estate loans are sold with servicing rights retained by the Bank. Mortgage servicing rights are initially recorded at fair value, which is determined based on an internal valuation model that calculates the present value of estimated future net servicing income based on an analysis of future cash flows, incorporating estimates of assumptions market participants would use in determining fair value, including market discount rates, prepayment speeds, servicing income, servicing costs and default rates. Mortgage servicing rights are subsequently measured using the amortization method, which requires mortgage servicing rights to be amortized into non-interest income in the consolidated statements of operations in proportion to, and over the period of, the estimated future net servicing income of the underlying loans.

On a quarterly basis, mortgage servicing rights are evaluated for impairment based upon the fair value of the mortgage servicing rights compared to their carrying amount. Impairment is determined by stratifying rights into groupings based on predominant risk characteristics, such as interest rate, loan type and investor type. If the carrying amount of an individual grouping exceeds fair value, impairment is recorded on that grouping so that the mortgage servicing rights is carried at fair value. Impairment is recognized through an addition to a valuation allowance for an individual grouping. If it is later determined that all or a portion of the impairment no longer exists for a particular grouping, a reduction of the valuation allowance may be recorded as an increase to income.

At December 31, 2021, our mortgage servicing rights had a carrying value of $2.7 million, which is net of a valuation allowance of $0.6 million, and an estimated fair value of $2.9 million based on expected future cash flows considering a weighted average discount rate of 10.8%, a weighted average constant prepayment rate on mortgages of 17.6% and a weighted average life of 4.3 years. At December 31, 2020 our mortgage servicing rights had a carrying value of $5.7 million, which is net of a valuation allowance of $2.2 million, and an estimated fair value of $5.8 million based on expected future cash flows considering a weighted average discount rate of 11.2%, a weighted average constant prepayment rate on mortgages of 22.5% and a weighted average life of 3.6 years.

The fair value of mortgage servicing rights is highly sensitive to changes in assumptions. Changes in prepayment speed assumptions generally have the most significant impact on the fair value of our mortgage servicing rights. Generally, as interest rates decline, mortgage loan prepayments accelerate due to increased refinance activity, which results in a decrease in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights. As interest rates rise, mortgage loan prepayments slowdown, which results in an increase in the fair value of mortgage servicing rights. Thus, any measurement of the fair value of our mortgage servicing rights is limited by the conditions existing and the assumptions utilized as of a particular point in time, and those assumptions may not be appropriate if they are applied at a different point in time.

64

Table of Contents

Mortgage Repurchase Liability

In connection with portfolio loans sold in the secondary market, we make customary representations and warranties about certain characteristics of each loan. We establish a liability which may result from breaches in such representations and warranties. The mortgage repurchase liability reflects management’s estimate of such losses based on a combination of factors. Our estimation process requires management to make subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain, such as expectations of future repurchase demands, economic factors, and findings from the Internal Review. The actual losses on repurchases could vary significantly from the recorded repurchase liability, depending on the outcome of various factors.

See Note 2—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies—Mortgage Repurchase Liability to our consolidated financial statements for further information on how we recognize and measure our mortgage repurchase liability.

Legal Contingencies and Litigation Accruals

We are involved in several material legal proceedings, as described in more detail in Note 19—Commitments and Contingencies to our consolidated financial statements. On a quarterly basis, we assess potential losses in relation to these and other pending or threatened legal matters. If a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated, we recognize an expense for the estimated loss. Estimates of any such loss are subjective in nature and require the evaluation of numerous facts and assumptions as to future events, including the application of legal precedent that may be conflicting. To the extent these estimates are more or less than the actual liability resulting from the resolution of these matters, our net income will be increased or decreased accordingly. If the differences are material, our consolidated financial statements could be materially impacted.

Financial Condition

As of December 31, 2021, the Company had total assets of $2.9 billion, which reflected a decrease of $1.0 billion, or 26%, from $3.9 billion as of December 31, 2020. The Company’s assets declined due in part to its utilization of excess liquidity during 2021. The Company also completed several major undertakings that were a goal of the Company for the year. Cash and due from banks decreased to $411.7 million at December 31, 2021 from $998.5 million at December 31, 2020. This decrease is in part the result of Company’s continued repurchase of Advantage Loan Program loans and reflects our efforts to restructure the balance sheet to better manage net interest margin. Total loans, net of allowance for loan losses, decreased $478.1 million, or 20%, to $2.0 billion at December 31, 2021, as compared to $2.4 billion at December 31, 2020. The investment securities portfolio increased $8.9 million, or 3%, to $313.9 million at December 31, 2021 from $305.0 million at December 31, 2020. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had total deposits of $2.3 billion, which reflected a decrease of $868.8 million, or 28%, from December 31, 2020. The decrease in deposits is due in part to the Company’s reduction of its cost of interest-bearing liabilities. Borrowings, excluding subordinated notes, decreased $168.0 million, or 53%, to $150.0 million at December 31, 2021. This decrease in borrowings reflects the Company’s repayment of $168.0 million in FHLB borrowings. As of December 31, 2021, the Company had total shareholders’ equity of $343.6 million, compared to $319.6 million as of December 31, 2020.

65

Table of Contents

Loan Portfolio Composition. The following table sets forth the composition of our loan portfolio by type of loan at the dates indicated.

​

​

During the year ended December 31, 2021, the balances for each of our loan types decreased from the year ended December 31, 2020, as we look to improve our overall credit profile. We engaged in a concerted effort to work-out, sell or write-down problem assets in the commercial and construction loan portfolios, while ceasing to eliminate construction lending and bringing a new discipline to the commercial real estate loans we are willing to originate. We continue to experience accelerated paydowns of our residential real estate portfolio.

Maturities and Sensitivities of Loans to Changes in Interest Rates. The following table sets forth the contractual maturities of our loan portfolio at December 31, 2021. Overdraft loans are reported as being due in one year or less. The table does not include any estimate of prepayments that could significantly shorten the average life of all loans and may cause our actual repayment experience to differ from that shown below.

​

​

The following table sets forth fixed and adjustable-rate loans in our loan portfolio at December 31, 2021 that are contractually due after December 31, 2022:

​

​

66

Table of Contents

The table set forth below contains the repricing dates of the adjustable-rate loans included within our loan portfolio at December 31, 2021:

​

​

At December 31, 2021, we have adjustable-rate loans totaling $1.3 billion, or 71%, in our loan portfolio that are LIBOR-indexed currently and will reprice to an interest rate based on LIBOR. At December 31, 2021, $215.8 million, or 11%, of our adjustable-rate loans were at their interest rate floor.

Asset Quality

Nonperforming Assets. Nonperforming assets include nonaccrual loans, loans that are past due 90 days or more and still accruing interest, troubled debt restructurings, nonaccrual loans held for sale and other loan collateral acquired through foreclosures and repossessions. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had $39 thousand and $46 thousand, respectively, of accruing loans that were past due 90 or more days. For nonaccrual loans, interest previously accrued but not collected is reversed and charged against income at the time a loan is placed on nonaccrual status. Loans are returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured.

Troubled debt restructurings are modified loans in which a borrower demonstrated financial difficulties and for which a concession has been granted. However, not all troubled debt restructurings are placed on nonaccrual status. At December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had troubled debt restructurings totaling $18.4 million and $28.3 million, respectively. Troubled debt restructurings on nonaccrual status at such dates totaled $15.8 million and $20.1 million, respectively, and are included in the nonaccrual loan categories in the following table. See Note 4—Loans—Troubled Debt Restructurings to our consolidated financial statements for additional information about our troubled debt restructurings.

67

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth information regarding our nonperforming assets at the dates indicated. In addition to the exclusions and presentation conventions described in the footnotes to the table, the categories of nonperforming assets in the following table do not include COVID-19-related loan forbearances that may be excluded from troubled debt restructurings under the CARES Act.

​

At December 31, 2021, nonperforming assets totaled $83.3 million, reflecting a decrease of $31.0 million, from $114.3 million at December 31, 2020. This decrease is attributable primarily to nonaccrual loans, which totaled $62.6 million at December 31, 2021, reflecting a decrease of $23.8 million, from a balance of $86.4 million at December 31, 2020. Our ratio of nonaccrual loans to total loans decreased from 3.45% at December 31, 2020 to 3.11% at December 31, 2021. This decrease is partially due to the decrease in total loans, but also due to the greater decrease in nonaccrual loans.

The decrease in nonaccrual loans is driven, in part, by decreases in nonaccrual commercial real estate loans and nonaccrual construction loans. Nonaccrual commercial real estate loans totaled $4.4 million at December 31, 2021, reflecting a decrease of $15.6 million from $20.0 million at December 31, 2020. The decrease in nonaccrual commercial real estate loans occurred primarily as a result of four loans totaling $12.4 million that were paid in full and three loans totaling $8.5 million that were reclassified to held for sale, which was partially offset by a loan of $4.4 million that was transferred from construction loans. Nonaccrual construction loans totaled $12.5 million at December 31, 2021, reflecting a decrease of $29.4 million from $41.9 million at December 31, 2020. The decrease in nonaccrual construction loans occurred primarily as a result of ten construction loans totaling $21.2 million which were paid in full and two construction loans totaling $6.8 million were modified as commercial real estate loans, with one loan of $2.4 million then classified as nonaccrual loans held for sale and the remaining loan of $4.4 million classified as a nonaccrual commercial real estate loan.

Nonaccrual residential real estate loans totaled $45.7 million at December 31, 2021, reflecting an increase of $25.0 million from $20.7 million at December 31, 2020. The increase in nonaccrual residential real estate loans occurred primarily as a result of loans becoming 90 days past due, which we believe reflects the uncertain economic environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic, partially offset by loans that were paid in full and loans that returned to accrual status. The increase is also partially due to the eviction moratorium mandate imposed by the government related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed the foreclosure process of certain nonaccrual loans. At December 31, 2021, residential real estate loans with an aggregate unpaid balance totaling $6.6 million are waiting to commence the foreclosure process. Nonaccrual residential real estate loans include $16.9 million of contractually current loans that will return to accrual status if maintained for six consecutive months.

68

Table of Contents

Other troubled debt restructurings also decreased, totaling $2.7 million at December 31, 2021, a decrease of $5.5 million from $8.2 million at December 31, 2020. Other troubled debt restructurings decreased primarily as a result of two loans classified as troubled debt restructurings at December 31, 2020 that were paid in full in 2021.

Nonaccrual loans held for sale include residential real estate loans of $8,671 and commercial real estate loans of $9,355 at December 31, 2021 and residential real estate loans of $19,375 at December 31, 2020.

The total amount of additional interest income on nonaccrual loans that would have been recognized for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020 if interest on all such loans had been recorded based upon original contract terms was approximately $2.9 million and $2.3 million, respectively.

Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, a large portion of our business is concentrated primarily in the state of California, specifically in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. As of December 31, 2021, 85% of our loan portfolio was based in California with concentrations in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas of 54% and 31%, respectively. Nonaccrual loans related to the California market comprise 90% of total nonaccrual loans as of December 31, 2021.

COVID-19-Related Forbearances. Under the CARES Act, COVID-19-related loan forbearances could be excluded from treatment as a troubled debt restructuring if such forbearances met certain criteria. Further, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we had offered forbearance under the CARES Act to customers facing COVID-19-related financial difficulties. The principal balance of loans modified due to the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and still in forbearance declined in 2021 from peak levels in 2020. The Bank terminated its COVID-19 Hardship Forbearance Program in July 2021 and, therefore any forbearance loans held at that time remained in forbearance until January 1, 2022, the date the national CARES Act program terminated. The remaining forbearance loans at December 31, 2021 were not significant. The following table sets forth such loans in forbearance at selective period-ends indicated:

​

​

Delinquent Loans. The following table sets forth our loan delinquencies, including nonaccrual loans but excluding loan forbearances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, by type and amount at the dates indicated.

​

​

Total loans 90 days or more past due, including nonaccrual loans but excluding loan forbearances related to the COVID-19 pandemic, decreased $23.8 million, or 28%, from $86.5 million at December 31, 2020 to $62.7 million at December 31, 2021. This decrease is primarily attributable to the reduced levels of past due amounts in our construction and commercial real estate loan portfolios.

69

Table of Contents

Five construction loans that were 30 days or more past due totaled $23.0 million at December 31, 2021, compared to 21 loans totaling $53.0 million at December 31, 2020. This improvement is primarily due to 15 loans with balances that totaled $32.2 million, which were paid in full during the year ending December 31, 2021, two loan modifications to commercial real estate bridge loans of $6.8 million and a partial loan charge off of $2.0 million. These decreases in our construction loan portfolio were partially offset by the addition of $10.5 million related to two matured loans. There was one commercial real estate loan totaling $4.4 million that was 30 days or more past due at December 31, 2021, compared to nine loans totaling $24.8 million at December 31, 2020. This decrease is primarily due to four loans totaling $12.5 million which paid in full during the year, three loans totaling $8.5 million reclassified as held for sale and two loans totaling $3.8 million entering current status. This decrease was partially offset by the modification of a nonaccrual construction loan to a commercial real estate bridge loan of $4.4 million.

While total past due residential real estate loans were relatively stable compared to the prior year, there was an increase in those loans past due 90 days or more from $20.8 million at December 31, 2020 to $45.7 million at December 31, 2021. The residential real estate loans at December 31, 2021 include $16.9 million in contractually current loans that will return to accrual status if maintained for six consecutive months.

Classified Loans. We categorize loans into risk categories based on relevant information about the ability of borrowers to service their debt such as current financial information, historical payment experience, credit documentation, public information and current economic trends, among other factors. The four risk categories utilized are Pass, Special Mention, Substandard and Doubtful. Loans in the Pass category are considered to be of satisfactory quality, while the remaining three categories indicate varying levels of credit risk. See Note 4—Loans-Credit Quality to our consolidated financial statements for additional information about our risk categories.

Loans classified as Special Mention, Substandard and Doubtful were as follows at the dates indicated:

​

​

Total Special Mention, Substandard and Doubtful loans were $117.2 million, or 5.8% of total loans, at December 31, 2021, compared to $198.2 million, or 7.9% of total loans, at December 31, 2020. All of the three loan classifications decreased from the prior year. The decrease of $31.9 million in special mention loans was primarily attributable to 11 commercial real estate loans totaling $21.4 million that were reclassified as loans held for sale, seven loans totaling $12.3 million that were paid in full during the year, two loans totaling $3.4 million that were upgraded and two loans totaling $10.3 million that were downgraded. This decrease was offset in part by the addition of seven loans totaling $14.6 million and net advances on existing special mention loans totaling $0.9 million.

70

Table of Contents

The decrease in substandard loans of $48.2 million was primarily attributable to 22 loans totaling $53.5 million that were paid in full during the year, 11 commercial real estate loans totaling $35.9 million that were reclassified to loans held for sale, 14 loans totaling $15.1 million that were upgraded and net payments of $1.7 million. These decreases were offset in part by the addition of 56 residential real estate loans of $36.8 million, one commercial real estate loan of $3.8 million and two construction loans of $7.1 million, totaling $47.7 million and the aforementioned two downgrades of $10.3 million.

Impaired Loans. A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Bank will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. If a loan is impaired, a portion of the allowance for loan losses is allocated so that the loan is reported, net, at the present value of estimated future cash flows using the loan's existing rate or at the fair value of collateral if repayment is expected solely from the collateral or operations of collateral. See Note 4—Loans to our consolidated financial statements for tables presenting additional data regarding the allowance for loan losses and impaired loans.

At December 31, 2021 and 2020, we had 10 and 31 impaired loans with recorded investments of $19.9 million and $74.0 million, respectively. Total impaired loans decreased $54.1 million, or 73%, from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021, primarily due to a $33.9 million decrease in total impaired construction loans, a $16.5 million decrease in total impaired commercial real estate loans and a $3.9 million decrease in total impaired commercial lines of credit. Impaired construction loans as a percentage of total impaired loans increased from 66% as of December 31, 2020 to 75% as of December 31, 2021, while impaired commercial real estate loans as a percentage of total impaired loans decreased from 28% as of December 31, 2020 to 22% as of December 31, 2021. As of December 31, 2021, $19.6 million of impaired loans, or 99% of total impaired loans, did not have any related allowance for loan losses recorded. Of total impaired loans with no related allowance for loan losses recorded as of December 31, 2021, $15.0 million, or 76%, comprised of four construction loans, of which two loans, representing $7.8 million, were for residential construction, one loan, representing $5.9 million, was for commercial construction and one loan, representing $1.3 million, was secured by commercial land.

Allowance for Loan Losses

The allowance for loan losses is maintained at levels considered adequate by management to provide for probable loan losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the consolidated balance sheet reporting dates. The allowance for loan losses is based on management’s assessment of various quantitative and qualitative factors affecting the loan portfolio, including portfolio composition, net charge-offs, delinquent and nonaccrual loans, foreclosures, Bank-specific factors (e.g., staff experience, underwriting guidelines etc.), national and local business conditions, historical loss experience, an overall evaluation of the quality of the underlying collateral and other external factors. Certain qualitative components within our allowance for loan losses methodology have taken on increased significance as a result of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. These qualitative components include increased unemployment, commercial property vacancy rates, uncertainty in property values and deterioration in the overall macro-economic environment. See “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Allowance for Loan Losses” for additional discussion of our allowance for loan losses policy.

71

Table of Contents