VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

For the transition period from             to             

Commission File Number 1-11277

VALLEY NATIONAL BANCORP

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

973-305-8800

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  þ    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  þ

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 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  þ    No  ¨

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $2.0 billion on June 30, 2012.

There were 199,049,210 shares of Common Stock outstanding at February 26, 2013.

Documents incorporated by reference:

Certain portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement (the “2013 Proxy Statement”) for the 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held April 17, 2013 will be incorporated by reference in Part III. The 2013 proxy statement will be filed within 120 days of December 31, 2012.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

PART I

The disclosures set forth in this item are qualified by Item 1A—Risk Factors and the section captioned “Cautionary Statement Concerning Forward-Looking Statements” in Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations of this report and other cautionary statements set forth elsewhere in this report.

Valley National Bancorp, headquartered in Wayne, New Jersey, is a New Jersey corporation organized in 1983 and is registered as a bank holding company with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“Holding Company Act”). The words “Valley,” “the Company,” “we,” “our” and “us” refer to Valley National Bancorp and its wholly owned subsidiaries, unless we indicate otherwise. At December 31, 2012, Valley had consolidated total assets of $16.0 billion, total loans of $11.0 billion, total deposits of $11.3 billion and total shareholders’ equity of $1.5 billion. In addition to its principal subsidiary, Valley National Bank (commonly referred to as the “Bank” in this report), Valley owns all of the voting and common shares of VNB Capital Trust I, GCB Capital Trust III, and State Bancorp Capital Trusts I and II through which trust preferred securities were issued. These trusts are not consolidated subsidiaries. See Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements.

Valley National Bank is a national banking association chartered in 1927 under the laws of the United States. Currently, the Bank has 210 branches in 146 communities serving 16 counties throughout northern and central New Jersey, the New York City boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as Long Island, New York. The Bank provides a full range of commercial, retail and wealth management financial services products. The Bank provides a variety of banking services including automated teller machines, telephone and internet banking, remote deposit capture, overdraft facilities, drive-in and night deposit services, and safe deposit facilities. The Bank also provides certain international banking services to customers including standby letters of credit, documentary letters of credit and related products, and certain ancillary services such as foreign exchange, documentary collections, foreign wire transfers and the maintenance of foreign bank accounts.

Valley National Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiaries are all included in the consolidated financial statements of Valley (See Exhibit 21 at Part IV, Item 15 for a list of subsidiaries). These subsidiaries include:

The Bank’s subsidiaries also include real estate investment trust subsidiaries (the “REIT” subsidiaries) which own real estate related investments and a REIT subsidiary, which owns some of the real estate utilized by the Bank and related real estate investments. Except for Valley’s REIT subsidiaries, all subsidiaries mentioned above are directly or indirectly wholly owned by the Bank. Because each REIT must have 100 or more shareholders to qualify as a REIT, each REIT has issued less than 20 percent of their outstanding non-voting

3

Table of Contents

preferred stock to individuals, most of whom are non-senior management Bank employees. The Bank owns the remaining preferred stock and all the common stock of the REITs.

Recent Acquisitions

Valley has grown significantly in the past five years primarily through bank acquisitions, including the recent bank transactions discussed further below, as well as some modest de novo branch expansion mostly in targeted areas in Brooklyn and Queens, New York.

On January 1, 2012, Valley acquired State Bancorp. Inc. (“State Bancorp”), the holding company for State Bank of Long Island, a commercial bank with approximately $1.7 billion in assets, $1.1 billion in loans, and $1.4 billion in deposits and 16 branches in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, and Manhattan at December 31, 2011. Of the acquired branch offices, 14 remain within our 44 branch network in New York and are located mostly in Long Island and Queens.The new locations complement Valley’s other New York City locations, including five branches in Queens, and provide a foundation for future expansion efforts into these attractive markets. The shareholders of State Bancorp received a fixed one- for- one exchange ratio for Valley National Bancorp common stock. The total consideration for the acquisition totaled $208 million. As a condition to the closing of the merger, State Bancorp redeemed $36.8 million of its outstanding Fixed Rate Cumulative Series A Preferred Stock from the U.S. Treasury. The stock redemption was funded by a $37.0 million short-term loan from Valley to State Bancorp. The outstanding loan, included in Valley’s consolidated financial statements at December 31, 2011, was subsequently eliminated as of the acquisition date.

Additionally, a warrant issued by State Bancorp (in connection with its preferred stock issuance) to the U.S. Treasury in December 2008 was assumed by Valley as of the acquisition date. The ten-year warrant to purchase up to 489 thousand of Valley common shares has an exercise price of $11.30 per share, and is exercisable on a net exercise basis. Valley has not negotiated the possible redemption of the warrant with the U.S. Treasury. However, the Treasury may request that we make an offer to redeem the warrant in the future, or request that warrant shares be individually sold at public auction. The entire warrant remained outstanding at December 31, 2012. See further details regarding the acquisition of State Bancorp in Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements.

In March 2010, the Bank acquired $688.1 million in certain assets, including loans totaling $412.3 million (primarily commercial and commercial real estate loans), and assumed all of the deposits totaling $654.2 million, excluding certain brokered deposits and borrowings, of The Park Avenue Bank and LibertyPointe Bank, both New York State chartered banks, from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The deposits from both FDIC-assisted transactions were acquired at a 0.15 percent premium. In addition, as part of the consideration for The Park Avenue Bank FDIC-assisted transaction, the Bank agreed to issue a cash-settled equity appreciation instrument to the FDIC. The valuation and settlement of the equity appreciation instrument did not significantly impact Valley’s consolidated financial statements.

In connection with both of the FDIC-assisted transactions, the Bank entered into loss-share agreements with the FDIC. Under the terms of the loss-sharing agreements, the Bank will share in the losses on assets and other real estate owned (referred to as “covered loans” and “covered OREO”, together “covered assets”). The Bank may sell the acquired loans (with or without recourse) but in such case, the FDIC loss-sharing agreements will cease to be effective for any losses incurred on such loans. Additionally, any related FDIC loss-share receivable would be uncollectable and written-off upon settlement of the sale. The commercial and single-family (residential) loan loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC expire in March of 2015 and 2020, respectively. The Company expects approximately 75 percent of the covered loans to mature, substantially paydown under contractual loan terms or work through our collection process on or before the expiration of the related loss-sharing agreements. See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements for further details regarding these transactions. As of December 31, 2012, the Company had approximately $180.7 million in covered loans, which comprised 1.6 percent of its total loan portfolio.

4

Table of Contents

In July 2008, we acquired Greater Community Bancorp, the holding company of Greater Community Bank, a commercial bank with approximately $1.0 billion in assets, $812 million in loans (mostly commercial real estate loans), $715 million in deposits and 16 branches in northern New Jersey. The purchase price of $167.8 million was paid through a combination of Valley’s common stock (10.6 million shares) and 918 thousand warrants. Each warrant is entitled to 1.2155 Valley common shares issuable upon exercise at $15.64 per share. The warrants have an expiration date of June 30, 2015, and to date, all of the warrants issued remain outstanding.

Business Segments

Valley National Bank reports the results of its operations and manages its business through four business segments: commercial lending, consumer lending, investment management, and corporate and other adjustments. Valley’s Wealth Management Division comprised of trust, asset management and insurance services, is included in the consumer lending segment. See Note 20 to the consolidated financial statements for details of the financial performance of our business segments. We offer a variety of products and services within the commercial and consumer lending segments as described below.

Commercial Lending Segment

Commercial and Industrial Loans. Commercial and industrial loans, including $46.5 million of covered loans, totaled approximately $2.1 billion and represented 19.3 percent of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2012. We make commercial loans to small and middle market businesses most often located in the New Jersey and New York area. A significant proportion of Valley’s commercial and industrial loan portfolio is granted to long standing customers of proven ability, strong repayment performance, and high character. Underwriting standards are designed to assess the borrower’s ability to generate recurring cash flow sufficient to meet the debt service requirements of loans granted. While such recurring cash flow serves as the primary source of repayment, a significant number of the loans are collateralized by borrower assets intended to serve as a secondary source of repayment should the need arise. Anticipated cash flows of borrowers, however, may not be as expected and the collateral securing these loans may fluctuate in value, or in the case of loans secured by accounts receivable, the ability of the borrower to collect all amounts due from its customers. Our loan decisions will include consideration of a borrower’s standing in the community, willingness to repay debts, collateral coverage and other forms of support. Strong consideration is given to long-term existing customers that have maintained a favorable relationship. Commercial loan products offered consist of term loans for equipment purchases, working capital lines of credit that assist our customer’s financing of accounts receivable and inventory, and commercial mortgages for owner occupied properties. Working capital advances are generally used to finance seasonal requirements and are repaid at the end of the cycle by the conversion of short-term assets into cash. Short-term commercial business loans may be collateralized by a lien on accounts receivable, inventory, equipment and/or partly collateralized by real estate. Short-term loans may also be made on an unsecured basis based on a borrower’s financial strength and past performance. We, in most cases, will obtain the personal guarantee of the borrower’s principals to mitigate the risk. Unsecured loans, when made, are generally granted to the Bank’s most credit worthy borrowers. Unsecured commercial and industrial loans totaled approximately $307.0 million at December 31, 2012. In addition, through our subsidiaries we own and service general aviation aircraft loans, provide financing to the diamond and jewelry industry, the medical equipment leasing market, and engage in asset-based accounts receivable and inventory financing.

Commercial Real Estate Loans. Commercial real estate loans and construction loans, including $122.2 million of covered loans, totaled $5.0 billion and represented 45.1 percent of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2012. We originate commercial real estate loans that are secured by multi-unit residential property and non-owner occupied commercial, industrial, and retail property within New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. Loans are generally written on an adjustable basis with rates tied to a specifically identified market rate index. Adjustment periods generally range between five to ten years and repayment is structured on a fully amortizing basis for terms up to thirty years. Commercial real estate loans are subject to underwriting standards

5

Table of Contents

and processes similar to commercial and industrial loans but generally they involve larger principal balances and longer repayment periods as compared to commercial and industrial loans. Commercial real estate loans are viewed primarily as cash flow loans and secondarily as loans secured by real property. Repayment of most loans is dependent upon the cash flow generated from the property securing the loan or the business that occupies the property. Commercial real estate loans may be more adversely affected by conditions in the real estate markets or in the general economy and accordingly conservative loan to value ratios are required at origination, as well as stress tested to evaluate the impact of market changes relating to key underwriting elements. The properties securing the commercial real estate portfolio represent diverse types, with most properties located within Valley’s primary markets. With respect to loans to developers and builders, we originate and manage construction loans structured on either a revolving or a non-revolving basis, depending on the nature of the underlying development project. Our construction loans totaling $427.4 million at December 31, 2012 are generally secured by the real estate to be developed and may also be secured by additional real estate to mitigate the risk. Non-revolving construction loans often involve the disbursement of substantially all committed funds with repayment substantially dependent on the successful completion and sale, or lease, of the project. Sources of repayment for these types of loans may be from pre-committed permanent loans from other lenders, sales of developed property, or an interim loan commitment from Valley until permanent financing is obtained elsewhere. Revolving construction loans (generally relating to single-family residential construction) are controlled with loan advances dependent upon the presale of housing units financed. These loans are closely monitored by on-site inspections and are considered to have higher risks than other real estate loans due to their ultimate repayment being sensitive to interest rate changes, governmental regulation of real property, general economic conditions and the availability of long-term financing.

Consumer Lending Segment

Residential Mortgage Loans. Residential mortgage loans, including $9.7 million of covered loans, totaled $2.5 billion and represented 22.4 percent of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2012. We offer a full range of residential mortgage loans for the purpose of purchasing or refinancing one-to-four family residential properties. Residential mortgage loans are secured by 1-4 family properties generally located in counties where we have a branch presence and contiguous counties (including the State of Pennsylvania). We occasionally make mortgage loans secured by homes beyond this primary geographic area; however, lending outside this primary area is generally made in support of existing customer relationships. Underwriting policies that are based on underwriting standards that generally comply with Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac requirements. Appraisals and valuations of real estate collateral are contracted directly with independent appraisers or from valuation services and not through appraisal management companies. The Bank’s appraisal management policy and procedure is in accordance with regulatory requirements and guidance issued by the Bank’s primary regulator. Credit scoring, using FICO^® and other proprietary, credit scoring models is employed in the ultimate, judgmental credit decision by Valley’s underwriting staff. Valley does not use third party contract underwriting services. Residential mortgage loans include fixed and variable interest rate loans secured by one to four family homes generally located in northern and central New Jersey, the New York City metropolitan area, and eastern Pennsylvania. Valley’s ability to be repaid on such loans is closely linked to the economic and real estate market conditions in this region. In deciding whether to originate each residential mortgage, Valley considers the qualifications of the borrower as well as the value of the underlying property. Terms of first mortgages range from 10 years for interest only loans (which totaled approximately $21.4 million at December 31, 2012) to 30 years for fully amortizing loans. The small 10-year interest only loan portfolio is declining year over year as Valley generally does not originate this type of loan product. In deciding whether to make a residential real estate loan, we consider the qualifications of the borrower, the value and condition of the underlying property and other factors that we believe are predictive of future loan performance.

The Bank is also a servicer of residential mortgage portfolios, and it is compensated for loan administrative services performed for mortgage servicing rights purchased in the secondary market and loans originated and sold by the Bank. See Note 8 to the consolidated financial statements for further details.

6

Table of Contents

Other Consumer Loans. Other consumer loans, including $2.3 million of covered loans, totaled $1.5 billion and represented 13.2 percent of the total loan portfolio at December 31, 2012. Our other consumer loan portfolio is primarily comprised of direct and indirect automobile loans, home equity loans and lines of credit, loans secured by the cash surrender value of life insurance, and to a lesser extent, secured and unsecured other consumer loans (including credit card loans). Valley is an auto lender in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut offering indirect auto loans secured by either new or used automobiles. Automobile originations (including light truck and sport utility vehicles) are largely produced via indirect channels, originated through approved automobile dealers. Automotive collateral is generally a depreciating asset and there are times in the life of an automobile loan where the amount owed on a vehicle may exceed its collateral value. Home equity lending consists of both fixed and variable interest rate products. We mainly provide home equity loans to our residential mortgage customers or take a secondary position to another lender’s 1^st lien position within the footprint of our primary lending territory. We generally will not exceed a combined (i.e., first and second mortgage) loan-to-value ratio of 75 percent when originating a home equity loan. Other consumer loans include direct consumer term loans, both secured and unsecured. From time to time, the Bank will also purchase prime consumer loans originated by and serviced by other financial institutions based on several factors, including current secondary market rates, excess liquidity and other asset/liability management strategies. Unsecured consumer loans totaled approximately $126.8 million, including $8.6 million of credit card loans, at December 31, 2012.

Wealth Management. Our Wealth Management Division provides coordinated and integrated delivery of asset management advisory, trust, general insurance, title insurance, asset management advisory, and asset-based lending support services. Trust services include living and testamentary trusts, investment management, custodial and escrow services, and estate administration, primarily to individuals. Asset management advisory services include investment services for individuals and small to medium sized businesses, trusts and custom tailored investment strategies designed for various types of retirement plans.

Investment Management Segment

Although we are primarily focused on our lending and wealth management services, a large portion of our income is generated through investments in various types of securities, and depending on our liquid cash position, federal funds sold and interest-bearing deposits with banks (primarily the Federal Reserve Bank of New York), as part of our asset/liability management strategies. As of December 31, 2012, our total investment securities and interest bearing deposits with banks were $2.4 billion and $463.0 million, respectively. See the “Investment Securities Portfolio” section of “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” (MD&A) and Note 4 to the consolidated financial statements for additional information concerning our investment securities.

Changes in Loan Portfolio Composition

Approximately 71 percent of Valley’s $11.0 billion total loan portfolio consists of non-covered (i.e., loans which are not subject to loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC) commercial real estate (including construction loans), residential mortgage, and home equity loans at December 31, 2012. Of the remaining 29 percent, approximately 27 percent consists of different categories of non-covered loans and approximately 2 percent consists of loans covered by the FDIC loss-sharing agreements. Valley has no internally planned changes that will significantly impact the current composition of our loan portfolio by loan type. However, many external factors outlined in “Item 1A. Risk Factors”, the “Executive Summary” section of our MD&A, and elsewhere in this report may impact our ability to maintain the current composition of our loan portfolio. See the “Loan Portfolio” section of our MD&A in this report for further discussion of our loan composition and concentration risks.

7

Table of Contents

The following table presents the loan portfolio segments by state as an approximate percentage of each applicable segment and our percentage of total loans by state at December 31, 2012.

Credit Risk Management and Underwriting Approach

Credit risk management. For all loan types, we adhere to a credit policy designed to minimize credit risk while generating the maximum income given the level of risk. Management reviews and approves these policies and procedures on a regular basis with subsequent approval by the Board of Directors annually. Credit authority relating to a significant dollar percentage of the overall portfolio is centralized and controlled by the Credit Risk Management Division and by a Credit Committee. A reporting system supplements the review process by providing management with frequent reports concerning loan production, loan quality, concentrations of credit, loan delinquencies, non-performing, and potential problem loans. Loan portfolio diversification is an important factor utilized by us to manage the portfolio’s risk across business sectors and through cyclical economic circumstances.

Our historical and current loan underwriting practice prohibits the origination of payment option ARMs which allow for negative interest amortization and subprime loans. Our residential loan portfolio included approximately $17.5 million and $22.0 million of loans that could be identified by us as non-conforming loans commonly referred to as either “alt-A,” “stated income,” or “no doc” loans at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. These loans were mostly originated prior to 2008 and had a weighted average loan-to-value ratio of 70 percent at the date of origination. Virtually all of our loan originations in recent years have conformed to rules requiring documentation of income, assets sufficient to close the transactions and debt to income ratios that support the borrower’s ability to repay under the loan’s proposed terms and conditions. These rules are applied to all loans originated for retention in our portfolio or for sale in the secondary market.

Loan documentation. Loans are well documented in accordance with specific and detailed underwriting policies and verification procedures. General underwriting guidance is consistent across all loan types with variations in procedures and due diligence is dictated by the specifics of each loan request. Due diligence standards require acquisition and verification of sufficient financial information to determine a borrower’s or guarantor’s credit worthiness, capital support, capacity to repay, collateral support, and character. Credit worthiness is generally verified using personal or business credit reports from independent credit reporting agencies. Capital support is determined by acquisition of independent verifications of deposits, investments or other assets. Capacity to repay the loan is based on verifiable liquidity and earnings capacity as shown on financial statements and/or tax returns, banking activity levels, operating statements, rent rolls or independent verification of employment. Finally, collateral valuation is determined via appraisals from independent, bank-approved, certified or licensed property appraisers or readily available market resources.

8

Table of Contents

Types of collateral. Loan collateral, when required, may consist of any one or a combination of the following asset types depending upon the loan type and intended purpose: commercial or residential real estate; general business assets including working assets such as accounts receivable, inventory, or fixed assets such as equipment or rolling stock; marketable securities or other forms of liquid assets such as bank deposits or cash surrender value of life insurance; automobiles; or other assets wherein adequate protective value can be established and/or verified by reliable outside independent appraisers. In addition to these types of collateral, we, in many cases, will obtain the personal guarantee of the borrower’s principals to mitigate the risk of certain commercial and industrial loans and commercial real estate loans.

Many times, we will underwrite loans to legal entities formed for the limited purpose of the business which is being financed. Credit granted to these entities and the ultimate repayment of such loans is primarily based on the cash flow generated from the property securing the loan or the business that occupies the property. The underlying real property securing the loans is considered a secondary source of repayment, and normally such loans are also supported by guarantees of the legal entity members. Absent such guarantees or approval by our credit committee, our policy requires that the loan to value ratio (at origination) be 50 percent or less of the estimated market value of the property as established by an independent licensed appraiser.

Reevaluation of collateral values. Commercial loan renewals, refinancing and other subsequent transactions that include the advancement of new funds or result in the extension of the amortization period beyond the original term, require a new or updated appraisal. Renewals, refinancing and other subsequent transactions that do not include the advancement of new funds (other than for reasonable closing costs) or, in the case of commercial loans, the extension of the amortization period beyond the original term, do not require a new appraisal unless management believes there has been a material change in market conditions or the physical aspects of the property which may negatively impact collectability of our loan. In general, the period of time an appraisal continues to be relevant will vary depending upon the circumstances affecting the property and the marketplace. Examples of factors that could cause material changes to reported values include the passage of time, the volatility of the local market, the availability of financing, the inventory of competing properties, new improvements to, or lack of maintenance of, the subject or competing surrounding properties, changes in zoning and environmental contamination.

Certain impaired loans are reported at the fair value of the underlying collateral if repayment is expected solely from the collateral and are commonly referred to as “collateral dependent impaired loans.” Collateral values for such loans are typically estimated using individual appraisals performed, on average, every 12 months. Between scheduled appraisals, property values are monitored within the commercial portfolio by reference to recent trends in commercial property sales as published by leading industry sources. Property values are monitored within the residential mortgage portfolio by reference to available market indicators, including real estate price indices within Valley’s primary lending areas.

All refinanced residential mortgage loans require new appraisals for loans held in our loan portfolio and loans originated for sale. Additionally, all loan types are assessed for full or partial charge-off when they are between 90 and 120 days past due based upon their estimated net realizable value.

See Note 1 to our consolidated financial statements for additional information concerning our loan portfolio risk elements, credit risk management and our loan charge-off policy.

Loan Renewals and Modifications

In the normal course of our lending business, we may renew loans to existing customers upon maturity of the existing loan. These renewals are granted provided that the new loan meets our standard underwriting criteria for such loan type. While our traditional underwriting approach has always been conservative, the underwriting criteria for certain loan types are stricter in light of the current economic environment.

9

Table of Contents

Additionally, on a case-by-case basis, we may extend, restructure, or otherwise modify the terms of existing loans from time to time to remain competitive and retain certain profitable customers, as well as assist customers who may be experiencing financial difficulties. If the borrower is experiencing financial difficulties and a concession has been made at the time of such modification, the loan is classified as a troubled debt restructured loan (TDR).

The majority of the concessions made for TDRs involve lowering the monthly payments on loans through either a reduction in interest rate below a market rate, an extension of the term of the loan without a corresponding adjustment to the risk premium reflected in the interest rate, or a combination of these two methods. The concessions rarely result in the forgiveness of principal or accrued interest. In addition, Valley frequently obtains additional collateral or guarantor support when modifying such loans. If the borrower has demonstrated performance under the previous terms and Valley’s underwriting process shows the borrower has the capacity to continue to perform under the restructured terms, the loan will continue to accrue interest. Non-accruing restructured loans may be returned to accrual status when there has been a sustained period of repayment performance (generally six consecutive months of payments) and both principal and interest are deemed collectible.

Extension of Credit to Past Due Borrowers

Loans are placed on non-accrual status generally when they become 90 days past due and the full and timely collection of principal and interest becomes uncertain. Valley’s historic and current policy prohibits the advancement of additional funds on non-accrual and TDR loans, except under certain workout plans if such extension of credit is intended to mitigate losses.

Loans Originated by Third Parties

From time to time, the Bank purchases residential mortgage and automobile loans, and to a lesser extent other loan types (including commercial real estate loans totaling $110.0 million at December 31, 2012 that were acquired from another financial institution during the first quarter of 2012), originated by, and sometimes serviced by, other financial institutions based on several factors, including current secondary market rates, excess liquidity and other asset/liability management strategies. Purchased residential mortgage loans and automobile loans (excluding purchased credit-impaired loans acquired in business combinations or FDIC-assisted transactions) totaled approximately $162.8 million and $53.3 million, respectively, at December 31, 2012 representing 6.6 percent and 6.8 percent of our total residential mortgage and automobile loan portfolios, respectively. Of the $162.8 million in purchased residential mortgage loans, $119.0 million were originated by board-approved independent mortgage bankers. The underwriting documentation for such loans is carefully reviewed on an individual loan-by-loan basis by Valley prior to purchase to ensure each loan meets Valley’s normal credit underwriting standards. All of the purchased automobile loans are also selected using Valley’s normal underwriting criteria at the time of purchase. At December 31, 2012, the mortgage loans originated by independent mortgage bankers had loans past due 30 days or more totaling 4.1 percent of these loans as compared to 2.2 percent for our total residential mortgage portfolio, including all delinquencies. Overall, the purchased and serviced by Valley residential mortgage and automobile portfolios had loans past due 30 days or more totaling 7.7 percent and 0.4 percent of the total loans within each respective portfolio at December 31, 2012.

Competition

Valley National Bank is one of the largest commercial banks headquartered in New Jersey, with its primary markets located in northern and central New Jersey, the New York City boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as Long Island, New York. Valley ranked 16th in competitive ranking and market share based on the deposits reported by 231 FDIC-insured financial institutions in the New York, Northern New Jersey and Long Island deposit market as of June 30, 2012. The FDIC also ranked Valley 8th and 34th in the states of

10

Table of Contents

New Jersey and New York, respectively, based on deposits as of June 30, 2012. Despite our favorable FDIC rankings, the market for banking and bank-related services is highly competitive and we face substantial competition in all phases of our operations. In addition to the FDIC-insured commercial banks in our principal metropolitan markets, we also compete with other providers of financial services such as savings institutions, credit unions, mutual funds, mortgage companies, title agencies, asset managers, insurance companies and a growing list of other local, regional and national institutions which offer financial services. Many of these competitors may have fewer regulatory constraints, broader geographic service areas, greater capital, and, in some cases, lower cost structures.

In addition, competition has further intensified as a result of recent changes in regulation, advances in technology and product delivery systems, and bank failures. Web-based and other internet companies are providing non-traditional, but increasingly strong, competition for our borrowers, depositors, and other customers. Within our New Jersey and the New York metropolitan markets, we compete with some of the largest financial institutions in the world that are able to offer a large range of products and services at competitive rates and prices. Nevertheless, we believe we can compete effectively as a result of utilizing various strategies including our long history of local customer service and convenience as part of a relationship management culture, in conjunction with the pricing of loans and deposits. Our customers are influenced by the convenience, quality of service from our knowledgeable staff, personal contacts and attention to customer needs, as well as availability of products and services and related pricing. We provide such convenience through our banking network of 210 branches in 146 communities, an extensive ATM network, and our 24-hour telephone and on-line banking systems.

We continually review our pricing, products, locations, alternative delivery channels and various acquisition prospects and periodically engage in discussions regarding possible acquisitions to maintain and enhance our competitive position.

Personnel

At December 31, 2012, Valley National Bank and its subsidiaries employed 2,910 full-time equivalent persons. Management considers relations with its employees to be satisfactory.

11

Table of Contents

Executive Officers

All officers serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.

Available Information

We make our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments thereto available on our website at www.valleynationalbank.com without charge as soon as reasonably practicable after filing or furnishing them to the SEC. Also available on the website are Valley’s Code of Conduct and Ethics that applies to all of our employees including our executive officers and directors, Valley’s Audit Committee Charter, Valley’s Compensation and Human Resources Committee Charter, Valley’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter, and Valley’s Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Additionally, we will provide without charge, a copy of our Annual Report on Form 10-K or the Code of Conduct and Ethics to any shareholder by mail. Requests should be sent to Valley National Bancorp, Attention: Shareholder Relations, 1455 Valley Road, Wayne, NJ 07470.

12

Table of Contents

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The Banking industry is highly regulated. Statutory and regulatory controls increase a bank holding company’s cost of doing business and limit the options of its management to deploy assets and maximize income. The following discussion is not intended to be a complete list of all the activities regulated by the banking laws or of the impact of such laws and regulations on Valley or Valley National Bank. It is intended only to briefly summarize some material provisions.

Bank Holding Company Regulation

Valley is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Holding Company Act. As a bank holding company, Valley is supervised by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) and is required to file reports with the FRB and provide such additional information as the FRB may require.

The Holding Company Act prohibits Valley, with certain exceptions, from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than five percent of the voting shares of any company which is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to subsidiary banks, except that it may, upon application, engage in, and may own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the FRB to be so closely related to banking “as to be a proper incident thereto.” The Holding Company Act requires prior approval by the FRB of the acquisition by Valley of more than five percent of the voting stock of any other bank. Satisfactory capital ratios, Community Reinvestment Act ratings, and anti-money laundering policies are generally prerequisites to obtaining federal regulatory approval to make acquisitions. The policy of the FRB provides that a bank holding company is expected to act as a source of financial strength to its subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support the subsidiary bank in circumstances in which it might not do so absent that policy. Acquisitions through the Bank require approval of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the United States (OCC). The Holding Company Act does not place territorial restrictions on the activities of non-bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, discussed below, allows Valley to expand into insurance, securities, merchant banking activities, and other activities that are financial in nature if Valley elects to become a financial holding company.

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (“Interstate Banking and Branching Act”) enables bank holding companies to acquire banks in states other than its home state, regardless of applicable state law. The Interstate Banking and Branching Act also authorizes banks to merge across state lines, thereby creating interstate banks with branches in more than one state. Under the legislation, each state had the opportunity to “opt-out” of this provision. Furthermore, a state may “opt-in” with respect to de novo branching, thereby permitting a bank to open new branches in a state in which the Bank does not already have a branch. Without de novo branching, an out-of-state commercial bank can enter the state only by acquiring an existing bank or branch. States generally have not opted out of interstate banking by merger but several states have not authorized de novo branching.

New Jersey enacted legislation to authorize interstate banking and branching and the entry into New Jersey of foreign country banks. New Jersey did not authorize de novo branching into the state. However, under federal law, federal savings banks which meet certain conditions may branch de novo into a state, regardless of state law.

Regulation of Bank Subsidiary

Valley National Bank is subject to the supervision of, and to regular examination by, the OCC. Various laws and the regulations thereunder applicable to Valley and its bank subsidiary impose restrictions and requirements in many areas, including capital requirements, the maintenance of reserves, establishment of new offices, the making of loans and investments, consumer protection, employment practices, bank acquisitions and entry into new types of business. There are various legal limitations, including Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which govern the extent to which a bank subsidiary may finance or otherwise supply funds to its

13

Table of Contents

holding company or its holding company’s non-bank subsidiaries. Under federal law, no bank subsidiary may, subject to certain limited exceptions, make loans or extensions of credit to, or investments in the securities of, its parent or the non-bank subsidiaries of its parent (other than direct subsidiaries of such bank which are not financial subsidiaries) or take their securities as collateral for loans to any borrower. Each bank subsidiary is also subject to collateral security requirements for any loans or extensions of credit permitted by such exceptions.

Capital Requirements

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

The OCC’s regulations implementing these provisions of FDICIA provide that an institution will be classified as “well capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.0 percent, (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5.0 percent, and (iv) meets certain other requirements. An institution will be classified as “adequately capitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4.0 percent, (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of (a) at least 4.0 percent or (b) at least 3.0 percent if the institution was rated 1 in its most recent examination, and (iv) does not meet the definition of “well capitalized.” An institution will be classified as “undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0 percent, or (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of (a) less than 4.0 percent or (b) less than 3.0 percent if the institution was rated 1 in its most recent examination. An institution will be classified as “significantly undercapitalized” if it (i) has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0 percent, (ii) has a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0 percent, or (iii) has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of less than 3.0 percent. An institution will be classified as “critically undercapitalized” if it has a tangible equity to total assets ratio that is equal to or less than 2.0 percent. An insured depository institution may be deemed to be in a lower capitalization category if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating. Similar categories apply to bank holding companies. Valley National Bank’s capital ratios were all above the minimum levels required for it to be considered a “well capitalized” financial institution at December 31, 2012.

The U.S. federal banking agencies issued three notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRs) in June 2012 that would revise and/or replace the current regulatory capital rules outlined above with the Basel III final capital framework discussed further in the section below. The NPRs proposed, among other rules, to revise risk-based and leverage capital requirements for all insured banks and savings associations, and top-tier savings and loan holding companies domiciled in the United States. The proposals suggested an effective date of January 1, 2013, however on November 9, 2012 the U.S. federal banking agencies announced that they do not expect any of the Basel III proposed rules to be implemented by the suggested January 2013 date. The NPRs have not been revised or made final as of the filing of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Basel III

In December 2010, the Basel Committee released its final framework for strengthening international capital and liquidity regulation, now officially identified by the Basel Committee as “Basel III”. Basel III, when implemented by the U.S. banking agencies and fully phased-in, will require bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries to maintain substantially more capital, with a greater emphasis on common equity.

The Basel III final capital framework, among other things, (i) introduces as a new capital measure “Common Equity Tier 1” (CET1), (ii) specifies that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1

14

Table of Contents

capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) defines CET1 narrowly by requiring that most adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expands the scope of the adjustments as compared to existing regulations.

When first implemented (assuming no applicable changes in the currently proposed NPRs of the U.S. federal banking agencies), the Basel III final framework requires banking institutions to meet the following minimum capital ratios: 3.5 percent CET1 to risk-weighted assets, 4.5 percent Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets, and 8.0 percent Total (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) capital to risk-weighted assets. The Basel III final framework provides for a number of new deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10 percent of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15 percent of CET1.

Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2014 and will be phased-in over a five-year period (20 percent per year). The implementation of the capital conservation buffer will begin on January 1, 2016 at 0.625 percent and be phased in over a four-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5 percent on January 1, 2019).

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, Basel III requires banks to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5 percent, plus a 2.5 percent “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5 percent CET1 ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7 percent), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0 percent, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0 percent Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5 percent upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of Total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0 percent, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0 percent total capital ratio as that buffer is phased in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5 percent upon full implementation) and (iv) as a newly adopted international standard, a minimum leverage ratio of 3 percent, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to balance sheet exposures plus certain off-balance sheet exposures (computed as the average for each quarter of the month-end ratios for the quarter).

Basel III also provides for a “countercyclical capital buffer,” generally to be imposed when national regulators determine that excess aggregate credit growth becomes associated with a buildup of systemic risk, that would be a CET1 add-on to the capital conservation buffer in the range of 0 percent to 2.5 percent when fully implemented (potentially resulting in total buffers of between 2.5 percent and 5 percent). The aforementioned capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

On January 7, 2013, the Basel Committee released the revised Basel III Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR). The revised LCR standards allow banks to use a broader range of liquid assets to meet their liquidity buffer and reduce some of the run-off assumptions that banks must make in calculating their net cash outflows. The revised standards also clarify that banks may dip below the minimum LCR requirement during periods of stress. The Basel Committee expects national regulators to implement the LCR on a phased-in basis beginning on January 1, 2015. Though the FRB has expressed its intent to implement some version of the LCR and other Basel III liquidity standards in the United States, the scope and timing of U.S. implementation currently is unclear.

The Basel Committee is considering further amendments to Basel III, including the imposition of additional capital surcharges on globally systemically important financial institutions. In addition to Basel III, Dodd-Frank requires or permits the Federal banking agencies to adopt regulations affecting banking institutions’ capital requirements in a number of respects, including potentially more stringent capital requirements for systemically important financial institutions.

15

Table of Contents

The FRB and the FDIC were part of a joint proposal in June 2012 seeking comment on three NPRs that would revise and replace the agencies’ current capital rules in connection with the Basel accords. The two NPRs discussed below concern capital issues of significant importance to the Bank and, under certain circumstances, the Company. The third NPR, which relates to advanced approaches and market risk capital rules, is not applicable to the organization’s current operations.

The first NPR relates to Basel III and proposes to revise risk-based and leverage capital requirements, including the implementation of new common equity Tier 1 capital requirements and a higher minimum Tier 1 capital requirement. Also included in the NPR are proposed limitations on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments for any banking organization not holding a specified buffer of common equity Tier 1 capital in excess of its minimum risk-based capital requirement. Revisions to the prompt correction action framework and the tangible common equity definition are also included in the NPR. The other NPR applicable to the organization’s operations proposes a standardized approach for risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity and to address certain weaknesses identified over recent years, including methods for determining risk-weighted assets for residential mortgages, securitization exposures and counterparty credit risk. The proposed changes in the two NPRs would be applicable to the Bank and the Company (as long as the Company’s assets continue to exceed $500 million).

The comment period for these NPRs ended on October 22, 2012. Since Basel III is intended to be implemented beginning January 1, 2013, the regulators intended to finalize the rules by that date. However, on November 9, 2012, the federal agencies that proposed the NPRs announced that they do not expect that any of the proposed rules would become effective on January 1, 2013. Moreover, the announcement did not indicate the likely new effective date.

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

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was signed into law on July 21, 2010. Generally, the Act became effective the day after it was signed into law, but different effective dates apply to specific sections of the law. The Act, among other things:

16

Table of Contents

The Dodd-Frank Act authorized the FRB to adopt enhanced supervision and prudential standards for, among others, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more (often referred to as “systemically important financial institutions” or “SIFI”), and authorized the FRB to establish such standards either on its own or upon the recommendations of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), a new systemic risk oversight body created by the Dodd-Frank Act. In October 2012, FRB published two final rules with stress testing requirements in response to these provisions. Under the new rules, bank-holding companies with more than $50 billion in assets will have to undergo an annual supervisory stress test and semi-annual company-run stress tests, with the first test beginning in 2012. The summaries of the results of the company-run stress tests will be available to the public starting in March 2013. All banks with assets between $10 billion and $50 billion are required to conduct annual testing of capital beginning in the fall of 2013 and will not have to publicly disclose the results of that first stress test.

On June 20, 2012, the SEC adopted final rules regarding heightened independence requirements for Compensation Committee members. These rules require stock exchanges to adopt listing standards that address (i) independence of compensation committee members, (ii) the compensation committee’s authority to retain compensation advisers, (iii) the compensation committee’s consideration of the independence of any compensation advisers, and (iv) the compensation committee’s responsibility for the appointment, compensation and oversight of the work of any compensation adviser. On September 25, 2012, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ released proposed compensation committee and compensation committee adviser independence listing standards, and on January 11, 2013, the SEC approved these standards.

17

Table of Contents

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) continued to propose amendments to mortgage regulations in August and September of 2012, and in January 2013, the CFPB issued final rules for several of the regulations. On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule amending Regulation Z to implement certain amendments to the Truth in Lending Act. The rule implements statutory changes that lengthen the time for which a mandatory escrow account established for a higher-priced mortgage loan must be maintained. The rule also exempts certain transactions from the statute’s escrow requirement. The rule will become effective on June 1, 2013. Also on January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing amendments to the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. The rule amends Regulation Z by expanding the types of mortgage loans that are subject to the protections of the Home Ownership and Equity Protections Act of 1994 (HOEPA), revising and expanding the tests for coverage under HOEPA, and imposing additional restrictions on mortgages that are covered by HOEPA, including a pre-loan counseling requirement. The rule also amends Regulation Z and Regulation X by imposing other requirements related to homeownership counseling. The rule will become effective on January 10, 2014.

On January 18, 2013, the CFPB amended Regulation B to implement changes to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. The revisions to Regulation B require creditors to provide applicants with free copies of all appraisals and other written valuations developed in connection with an application for a loan to be secured by a first lien on a dwelling, and require creditors to notify applicants in writing that copies of appraisals will be provided to them promptly. The rule will become effective on January 18, 2014. On January 20, 2013, the CFPB amended Regulation Z to implement requirements and restrictions to the Truth in Lending Act concerning loan originator compensation, qualifications of, and registration or licensing of loan originators, compliance procedures for depository institutions, mandatory arbitration, and the financing of single-premium credit insurance. These amendments revise or provide additional commentary on Regulation Z’s restrictions on loan originator compensation, including application of these restrictions to prohibitions on dual compensation and compensation based on a term of a transaction or a proxy for a term of a transaction, and to recordkeeping requirements. This rule also establishes tests for when loan originators can be compensated through certain profits-based compensation arrangements. The amendments to § 1026.36(h) and (i) are effective on June 1, 2013, while the other provisions of the rule are effective on January 10, 2014.

Certain changes in the new mortgage rules promulgated by the CFPB would be applicable to the Bank and the Company. The CFPB is expected to issue additional final rules regarding mortgages in 2013.

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

Dividend Limitations

Valley is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. Valley’s revenues (on a parent company only basis) result in substantial part from dividends paid by the Bank. The Bank’s dividend payments, without prior regulatory approval, are subject to regulatory limitations. Under the National Bank Act, dividends may be declared only if, after payment thereof, capital would be unimpaired and remaining surplus would equal 100 percent of capital. Moreover, a national bank may declare, in any one year, dividends only in an amount aggregating not more than the sum of its net profits for such year and its retained net profits for the preceding two years. However, declared dividends in excess of net profits in either of the preceding two years can be offset by retained net profits in the third and fourth years preceding the current year when determining the Bank’s dividend limitation. In addition, the bank regulatory agencies have the authority to prohibit the Bank from paying dividends or otherwise supplying funds to Valley if the supervising agency determines that such payment would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

18

Table of Contents

Loans to Related Parties

Valley National Bank’s authority to extend credit to its directors, executive officers and 10 percent shareholders, as well as to entities controlled by such persons, is currently governed by the requirements of the National Bank Act, Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Regulation O of the FRB thereunder. Among other things, these provisions require that extensions of credit to insiders (i) be made on terms that are substantially the same as, and follow credit underwriting procedures that are not less stringent than, those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated persons and that do not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features and (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 the Bank’s capital. In addition, extensions of credit in excess of certain limits must be approved by the Bank’s Board of Directors. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Valley and its subsidiaries, other than the Bank, may not extend or arrange for any personal loans to its directors and executive officers.

Community Reinvestment

Under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), as implemented by OCC regulations, a national bank has 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 neighborhoods. 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 national bank, to assess the association’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 association. The CRA also requires all institutions to make public disclosure of their CRA ratings. Valley National Bank received a “satisfactory” CRA rating in its most recent examination.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 added new legal requirements for public companies affecting corporate governance, accounting and corporate reporting, to increase corporate responsibility and to protect investors. Among other things, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has:

Each of the national stock exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) where Valley common securities are listed and the NASDAQ Capital Market, where certain Valley warrants are listed, have corporate governance listing standards, including rules strengthening director independence requirements for boards, and requiring the adoption of charters for the nominating, corporate governance and audit committees.

19

Table of Contents

USA PATRIOT Act

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

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

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Supervision

As a financial institution with more than $10 billion in assets, Valley National Bank is supervised by the CFPB for consumer protection purposes. The CFPB’s regulation of Valley National Bank is focused on risks to consumers and compliance with the federal consumer financial laws and will include regular examinations of the bank.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

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

The OCC adopted rules to allow national banks to form subsidiaries to engage in financial activities allowed for financial holding companies. Electing national banks must meet the same management and capital standards as financial holding companies but may not engage in insurance underwriting, real estate development or merchant banking. Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act apply to financial subsidiaries and the capital invested by a bank in its financial subsidiaries will be eliminated from the Bank’s capital in measuring all capital ratios. Valley has not elected to become a financial holding company.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act modified other financial laws, including laws related to financial privacy and community reinvestment.

20

Table of Contents

Insurance of Deposit Accounts

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

In February 2011, as required by the Dodd Frank Act, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved a final rule that revised the assessment base to consist of average consolidated total assets during the assessment period minus the average tangible equity during the assessment period. In addition, the final revisions eliminated the adjustment for secured borrowings, including Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances, and made certain other changes to the impact of unsecured borrowings and brokered deposits on an institution’s deposit insurance assessment. The final rule also revised the assessment rate schedule to provide initial base assessment rates ranging from 5 to 35 basis points and total base assessment rates ranging from 2.5 to 45 basis points after adjustment. The final rule became effective on April 1, 2011.

As previously noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act made permanent a $250 thousand limit for federal deposit insurance and provided unlimited federal deposit insurance until January 1, 2013 for non-interest bearing demand transaction accounts at all insured depository institutions. On January 18, 2011, the FDIC issued a final rule to include Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTAs) in the temporary unlimited deposit coverage for non-interest bearing demand transactions accounts. Deposits held in noninterest-bearing transaction accounts are now aggregated with any interest-bearing deposits the owner may hold in the same ownership category, and the combined total will be insured up to at least $250 thousand.

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

Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program

The FDIC’s Transaction Account Guarantee (TAG) Program, one of two components of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, provides full federal deposit insurance coverage for non-interest bearing transaction deposit accounts, regardless of dollar amount. Valley National Bank opted to participate in this program, which was initially set to expire on December 31, 2009. On August 26, 2009, the FDIC extended the program until June 30, 2010, and revised the annualized assessment rate charged for the guarantee to between 15 and 25 basis points, depending on the institution’s risk category, on balances in non-interest bearing transaction accounts that exceed the existing deposit insurance limit of $250,000. On April 13, 2010, the FDIC announced a second extension of the program until December 31, 2010. We opted out of the second extension and ended our participation in the TAG Program effective June 30, 2010.

The Dodd Frank-Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act included a two-year extension of the TAG Program, though the extension does not apply to all accounts covered under the current program. The extension through December 31, 2012 applies only to non-interest bearing transaction accounts. Beginning January 1, 2011, low-interest consumer checking (NOW) accounts and IOLTAs are no longer eligible for the unlimited guarantee. Unlike the original TAG Program, which allowed banks to opt in, the extended program applies to all FDIC-insured institutions and is no longer funded by separate premiums. The FDIC accounts for the additional TAG insurance coverage in determining the amount of the general assessment it charges under the risk-based assessment system.

The second component of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, the Debt Guarantee Program, guarantees certain senior unsecured debt of participating organizations. Valley National Bank opted to participate in this component of the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. However, we have not issued debt under the TLG Program.

21

Table of Contents

An investment in our securities is subject to risks inherent to our business. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes may affect Valley are described below. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this report. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones facing Valley. Additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or that management currently believes are immaterial may also impair Valley’s business operations. The value or market price of our securities could decline due to any of these identified or other risks, and you could lose all or part of your investment. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors.

Our financial results and condition may be adversely impacted by weak economic conditions, particularly if unemployment does not improve or increases.

While the United States continues to experience modest economic growth, the rate of growth has been slow and unemployment remains at very high levels and is not expected to significantly improve in the near future. Much of Valley’s lending is in northern and central New Jersey, and Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island, New York. As a result of this geographic concentration, a further significant broad-based deterioration in economic conditions in New Jersey and the New York City metropolitan area could have a material adverse impact on the quality of Valley’s loan portfolio, results of operations and future growth potential. Prolonged weakened economic conditions and unemployment in our market area could restrict borrowers’ ability to pay outstanding principal and interest on loans when due, and, consequently, adversely affect the cash flows and results of operation of Valley’s business. Additionally, such weak conditions may also continue to adversely affect our ability to originate loans.

Lawmakers’ failure to resolve the so called Debt Ceiling or U.S. budgetary crisis in a timely manner, further downgrades of the U.S. credit rating and uncertain credit and financial market conditions may affect the stability of our $1.4 billion in securities issued or guaranteed by the federal government, which may affect the valuation or liquidity of our investment securities portfolio and may increase our future borrowing costs.

As a result of the uncertain domestic political, credit and financial market conditions, including the potential consequences of the federal government defaulting on its obligations for a period of time due to the debt ceiling limitations or other unresolved political issues, investments in financial instruments issued or guaranteed by the federal government pose credit default and liquidity risks. Given that future deterioration in the United States credit and financial markets is a possibility, no assurance can be made that losses or significant deterioration in the fair value of our U.S. government issued or guaranteed investments will not occur. At December 31, 2012, we had approximately $197.5 million, $45.8 million and $1.2 billion invested in U.S. Treasury securities, U.S. government agency securities, and residential mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by Ginnie Mae and government-sponsored enterprises, respectively. During 2011, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the United States credit rating from its AAA rating to AA+. Further downgrades in the future could also affect the stability of securities issued or guaranteed by the federal government. These factors could affect the valuation or liquidity of our portfolio of such investment securities, and could result in our counterparties requiring additional collateral for our borrowings. Further, unless and until the current United States political, credit and financial market conditions have been sufficiently resolved, it may increase our future borrowing costs.

Changes in interest rates or prolonged low levels of interest rates could reduce our net interest income and earnings.

Valley’s earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon its net interest income. Net interest income is the difference between interest income earned on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest expense paid on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowed funds. Interest rates are

22

Table of Contents

sensitive to many factors that are beyond Valley’s control, including general economic conditions, competition, and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, in particular, the policies of the FRB. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest Valley receives on loans and investment securities and the amount of interest it pays on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) Valley’s ability to originate loans and obtain deposits, (ii) the fair value of Valley’s financial assets and liabilities, including the held to maturity, available for sale, and trading securities portfolios, and (iii) the average duration of Valley’s interest-earning assets. This also includes the risk that interest-earning assets may be more responsive to changes in interest rates than interest-bearing liabilities, or vice versa (repricing risk), the risk that the individual interest rates or rate indices underlying various interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities may not change in the same degree over a given time period (basis risk), and the risk of changing interest rate relationships across the spectrum of interest-earning asset and interest-bearing liability maturities (yield curve risk). Any substantial or unexpected change in market interest rates or a prolonged period of historically low interest rates, such as those experienced in 2012 and projected by the FRB to continue beyond 2013, could have a material adverse effect on Valley’s financial condition and results of operations. Due, in part, to the low level of market interest rates on loans and investments and a large portion of our long-term borrowing costs that are fixed at interest rates above current market rates of similar new borrowings, our net interest margin on a tax equivalent basis declined 23 basis points to 3.52 percent for the year ended December 31, 2012 as compared to 2011. See additional information at the “Net Interest Income” and “Interest Rate Sensitivity” sections of our MD&A.

We could recognize other-than-temporary impairment charges on investment securities due to adverse economic and market conditions.

As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately $1.6 billion and $808.0 million in held to maturity and available for sale securities, respectively. We may be required to record impairment charges in earnings related to credit losses on these investment securities if they suffer a decline in value that is considered other-than-temporary. Additionally, (a) if we intend to sell a security or (b) it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security prior to recovery of its amortized cost basis, we will be required to recognize an other-than-temporary impairment charge in the statement of income equal to the full amount of the decline in fair value below amortized cost. Numerous factors, including lack of liquidity for re-sales of certain investment securities, absence of reliable pricing information for investment securities, adverse changes in business climate, adverse actions by regulators, or unanticipated changes in the competitive environment could have a negative effect on our investment portfolio and may result in other-than-temporary impairment on our investment securities in future periods.

If an impairment charge is significant enough it could affect the ability of the Bank to upstream dividends to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to shareholders and could also negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios.

Among other securities, our investment portfolio includes private label mortgage-backed securities, trust preferred securities principally issued by bank holding companies (including three pooled securities), perpetual preferred securities issued by banks, and bank issued corporate bonds. These investments pose a risk of future impairment charges by us as a result of the slow recovery in the U.S. economy and its negative effect on the performance of these issuers and/or the underlying mortgage loan collateral. Additionally, some bank trust preferred issuers may elect to defer future payments of interest on such securities either based upon requirements or recommendations by bank regulators or management decisions driven by potential liquidity needs. Such elections by issuers of securities within Valley’s investment portfolio could adversely affect securities valuations and result in future impairment charges if collection of deferred and accrued interest (or principal upon maturity) is deemed unlikely by management. We recognized other-than-temporary impairment charges on securities of $5.2 million, $20.0 million and $4.6 million in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, attributable to credit as a reduction of non-interest income on the consolidated statements of income mainly due to impaired trust preferred and private label mortgage-backed securities. See the “Investment Securities” section of this MD&A and Note 4

23

Table of Contents

to the consolidated financial statements for additional analysis and discussion of our other-than-temporary impairment charges.

We may reduce or eliminate the cash dividend on our common stock, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our common cash dividend payout per common share was approximately 89 percent of our earnings per share for the year ended December 31, 2012. Our high dividend rate and corresponding low retention rate resulted from earnings being negatively impacted by several factors, including, but not limited to net impairment losses on certain investment securities, the sustained low level of market interest rates for interest earning assets, and higher operating costs and lower fee income caused by increased banking regulation. A prolonged economic recovery or a downturn in the economy, an increase in our costs to comply with current and future changes in banking laws and regulations, and other factors may negatively impact our future earnings and ability to maintain our dividend at current levels.

Holders of our common stock are only entitled to receive such cash dividends, as our Board of Directors may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. Although we have historically declared cash dividends on our common stock, we are not required to do so and may reduce or eliminate our common stock cash dividend in the future. This could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Additionally, as a bank holding company, our ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on federal regulatory policies and regulations including the supervisory policies and guidelines of the OCC and the FRB regarding capital adequacy and dividends. Among other things, consultation of the FRB supervisory staff is required in advance of our declaration or payment of a dividend that exceeds our earnings for a period in which the dividend is being paid. New regulatory guidelines are expected to increase our minimum capital requirements in the future as outlined in the “Basel III” section of Item 1 above.

Future offerings of common stock, debt or other securities may adversely affect the market price of our stock and dilute the holdings of existing shareholders.

In the future, we may increase our capital resources or, if our or the Bank’s capital ratios fall below or near the current or proposed (Basel III) regulatory required minimums, we or the Bank could be forced to raise additional capital by making additional offerings of common stock, preferred stock and debt securities. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares of preferred stock, and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive distributions of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing shareholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate, and events that negatively impact the real estate market could adversely affect our asset quality and profitability for those loans secured by real property and increase the number of defaults and the level of losses within our loan portfolio.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate. As of December 31, 2012, over 72 percent of our total loans had real estate as a primary or secondary component of collateral. The real estate collateral in each case provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower and could deteriorate in value during the time the credit is extended. A downturn in the real estate market in our primary market areas could result in an increase in the number of borrowers who default on their loans and a reduction in the value of the collateral securing their loans, which in turn could have an adverse effect on our profitability and asset quality. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan to satisfy the debt during a period of reduced real estate values, our earnings and shareholders’ equity could be adversely affected. The declines in home prices in the New Jersey and New York metropolitan markets we serve, along with the reduced availability of mortgage credit, also may result in increases in delinquencies and losses in our loan

24

Table of Contents

portfolios. Unexpected decreases in home prices coupled with a prolonged economic recovery and elevated levels of unemployment could drive losses beyond that which is provided for in our allowance for loan losses. In that event, our earnings could be adversely affected.

The secondary market for residential mortgage loans, for the most part, is limited to conforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. The effects of this limited mortgage market, combined with another correction in residential real estate market prices and reduced levels of home sales, could result in price reductions in single family home values, adversely affecting the value of collateral securing mortgage loans held, mortgage loan originations and gains on sale of mortgage loans. Declines in real estate values and home sales volumes, and financial stress on borrowers as a result of job losses or other factors, could have further adverse effects on borrowers that result in higher delinquencies and greater charge-offs in future periods, which could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations. For additional risks related to our sales of residential mortgages in the secondary market, see the “We may incur future losses in connection with repurchases and indemnification payments related to mortgages that we have sold into the secondary market” risk section below.

Higher charge-offs and weak credit conditions could require us to increase our allowance for credit losses through a provision charge to earnings.

We maintain an allowance for credit losses based on our assessment of credit losses inherent in our loan portfolio (including unfunded credit commitments). The process for determining the amount of the allowance is critical to our financial results and conditions. It requires difficult, subjective and complex judgments about the future, including the impact of national and regional economic conditions on the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans. If our judgment proves to be incorrect, our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover losses inherent in our loan portfolio. Bank regulators review the classification of our loans in their examination of us and we may be required in the future to change the classification on certain of our loans, which may require us to increase our provision for loan losses or loan charge-offs. Valley’s management could also decide that the allowance for loan losses should be increased. If actual net charge-offs were to exceed Valley’s allowance, its earnings would be negatively impacted by additional provisions for loan losses. Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge-offs as required by the OCC or otherwise could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Further increases in our non-performing assets may reduce our interest income and increase our net loan charge-offs, provision for loan losses, and operating expenses.

As a result of the weak economic recovery, we continue to face historically high levels of delinquencies on our loans. Our non-accrual loans increased from 0.33 percent at December 31, 2008 to 0.98 percent, 1.12 percent, 1.27 percent and 1.20 of total loans at December 31, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Although the economy has gradually improved during 2012, a slowing or further downturn in economic or real estate market conditions could result in increased charge-offs to our allowance for loan losses and lost interest income relating to a higher level of non-performing loans. Non-performing assets (including non-accrual loans, other real estate owned, other repossessed assets, and non-accrual debt securities) totaled $195.5 million at December 31, 2012. These non-performing assets can adversely affect our net income mainly through decreased interest income and increased operating expenses incurred to maintain such assets or loss charges related to subsequent declines in the estimated fair value of foreclosed assets. Adverse changes in the value of our non-performing assets, or the underlying collateral, or in the borrowers’ performance or financial conditions could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. There can be no assurance that we will not experience further increases in non-performing loans in the future, or that our non-performing assets will not result in lower financial returns in the future.

25

Table of Contents

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

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law by the President of the United States. The Dodd-Frank Act requires significant changes in financial regulation that have impacted all financial institutions, including Valley and the Bank, and will continue to do so as new regulations are promulgated. Among the Dodd-Frank Act’s significant regulatory changes, it created the CFPB that is empowered to promulgate new consumer protection regulations and revise existing regulations in many areas of consumer protection. The CFPB has exclusive authority to issue regulations, orders and guidance to administer and implement the objectives of certain federal consumer protection laws. The CFPB also has exclusive supervision over examinations of our compliance with those specific laws, and implementing rules and regulations, supplementing the compliance examinations that will be made by the Comptroller of the Currency. Moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes states’ attorneys general to enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act also restricts the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency to preempt state consumer protection laws applicable to national banks, such as the Bank, impacts the preemption of state laws as they affect subsidiaries and agents of national banks, changes the scope of federal deposit insurance coverage, and increases the FDIC assessment payable by the Bank. The CFPB and certain other provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act have significantly increased our regulatory compliance burden and costs and may continue to increase in the future through additional restrictions on the financial products and services we offer to our customers.

The Dodd-Frank Act imposes more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies by, among other things, imposing leverage ratios on bank holding companies and prohibiting new issuances of trust preferred securities from counting as Tier 1 capital. These restrictions have placed greater limitations on our capital strategies. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, our outstanding trust preferred securities will continue to count as Tier 1 capital but we are unable to issue replacement or additional trust preferred securities which would count as Tier 1 capital. The Dodd-Frank Act also increases regulation of derivatives and hedging transactions, which could limit our ability to enter into, or increase the costs associated with, interest rate and other hedging transactions.

The Dodd-Frank Act also amended the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to, among other things, give the FRB the authority to establish rules regarding interchange fees charged for electronic debit transactions by payment card issuers, such as Valley National Bank. In June 2011, the FRB issued a final rule that establishes standards for determining whether an interchange fee received or charged by an issuer with respect to an electronic debit transaction is reasonable and proportionate to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction. Effective October 1, 2011, these new standards imposed debit card interchange fee limits which were largely responsible for a $880 thousand reduction in our debit card interchange fees recognized in other non-interest income for the fourth quarter of 2011 as compared to the third quarter of 2011 and a $1.8 million decrease in such fees for the year ended December 31, 2012 as compared to 2011. We can make no assurances that these rules and any new limitations imposed upon us will not continue to reduce such fee income in the future.

Because many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions still require future regulatory rulemaking, we are uncertain as to the impact that some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will have on Valley and the Bank and cannot provide assurance that the Dodd-Frank Act will not adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations for other reasons.

Extensive regulation and supervision may have a negative impact on our ability to compete in a cost effective manner and subject us to material compliance costs and penalties.

Valley, primarily through its principal subsidiary and certain non-bank subsidiaries, is subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole. Many laws and regulations affect

26

Table of Contents

Valley’s lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth, among other things. They encourage Valley to ensure a satisfactory level of lending in defined areas, and establish and maintain comprehensive programs relating to anti-money laundering and customer identification. Congress, state legislatures, and federal and state regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. Changes to statutes, regulations or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations or policies, could affect Valley in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject Valley to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products it may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on Valley’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Valley’s compliance with certain of these laws will be considered by banking regulators when reviewing bank merger and bank holding company acquisitions.

Changes in accounting policies or accounting standards could cause us to change the manner in which we report our financial results and condition in adverse ways and could subject us to additional costs and expenses.

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

From time to time, the FASB and the SEC change their guidance governing the form and content of Valley’s external financial statements. In addition, accounting standard setters and those who interpret U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“U.S. GAAP”), such as the FASB, SEC, banking regulators and Valley’s independent registered public accounting firm, may change or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. Such changes are expected to continue, and may accelerate dependent upon the FASB and International Accounting Standards Board commitments to achieving convergence between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. Changes in U.S. GAAP and changes in current interpretations are beyond Valley’s control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how Valley reports its financial results and condition. In certain cases, Valley could be required to apply a new or revised guidance retroactively or apply existing guidance differently (also retroactively) which may result in Valley restating prior period financial statements for material amounts. Additionally, significant changes to U.S. GAAP may require costly technology changes, additional training and personnel, and other expenses that will negatively impact our results of operations.

An increased valuation of our junior subordinated debentures issued to VNB Capital Trust I may adversely impact our net income and earnings per share.

Effective January 1, 2007, we elected to carry the junior subordinated debentures issued to VNB Capital Trust I at fair value. We measure the fair value of these junior subordinated debentures using exchange quoted prices in active markets for similar assets, specifically the trust preferred securities issued by VNB Capital Trust I, which contain identical terms as our junior subordinated debentures (see Note 11 to the consolidated financial statements). As a result, any increase in the market quoted price, or fair market value, of our trust preferred securities will result in a commensurate increase in the liability required to be recorded for the junior subordinated debentures with an offsetting non-cash charge against our earnings. Conversely, a decrease in the market quoted price of such securities will result in a decrease in the liability recorded for the debentures with an offsetting non-cash gain recognized in earnings. We recognized non-cash gains of $2.6 million ($1.7 million after taxes) and $1.3 million ($816 thousand after taxes) during 2012 and 2011, respectively, as compared to non-cash

27

Table of Contents

charges totaling $5.8 million ($3.8 million after taxes) during 2010 due to the change in the fair value of the junior subordinated debentures determined by the market price of the trust preferred securities. The non-cash gains and charges against our earnings do not impact our liquidity or our regulatory capital. We cannot predict whether or to what extent we would be required to take a non-cash charge against earnings related to the change in fair value of our junior subordinated debentures in future periods. Furthermore, changes in the law and regulations or other factors could require us to redeem the junior subordinated debentures at par value. If we are carrying the junior subordinated debentures at a fair value below par value when such redemption occurs, we will be required to record a charge against earnings in the period in which the redemption occurred.

Additional bank failures could increase our FDIC assessments and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The economic downturn since 2008 has caused a high level of bank failures, which has dramatically increased FDIC resolution costs and led to a significant reduction in the balance of the Deposit Insurance Fund. As a result, the FDIC has significantly increased the initial base assessment rates paid by financial institutions for deposit insurance. Increases in the base assessment rate have increased our deposit insurance costs dramatically since 2008 and negatively impacted our earnings (See the annual impact in Item 6. Selected Financial Data below). In addition, in May 2009, the FDIC imposed a special assessment on all insured institutions. Our special assessment, which was reflected in earnings for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, was $6.5 million. In lieu of imposing an additional special assessment, the FDIC required all institutions to prepay their assessments for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012 in December 2009. We prepaid estimated assessment fees totaling $45.5 million in December 2009. The FDIC could impose additional special assessments for future quarters or increase the FDIC standard assessments. Furthermore, the Dodd-Frank Act changed the FDIC assessment standards which may cause our assessments to increase. We cannot provide you with any assurances that we will not be required to pay additional FDIC insurance assessments, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

We may be required to recognize losses on certain financial transactions due to the credit default or liquidation of other financial institutions.

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 the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. 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 the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount due to us. Any such losses could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be unable to adequately manage our liquidity risk, which could affect our ability to meet our obligations as they become due, capitalize on growth opportunities, or pay regular dividends on our common stock.

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

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

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

28

Table of Contents

Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry in general. Factors that could have a detrimental impact our access to liquidity sources include a decrease in the level of our business activity due to persistent weakness, or downturn, in the economy or adverse regulatory action against us. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not necessarily specific to us, such as a severe disruption of the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole.

The loss of or decrease in lower-cost funding sources within our deposit base may adversely impact our net interest income and net income.

Checking and savings, NOW, and money market deposit account balances and other forms of customer deposits can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market or money market or fixed income mutual funds, as providing a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into other investments, Valley could lose a low cost source of funds, increasing its funding costs and reducing Valley’s net interest income and net income.

If our subsidiaries are unable to make dividends and distributions to us, we may be unable to make dividend payments to our common shareholders or interest payments on our junior subordinated debentures issued to capital trusts.

We are a separate and distinct legal entity from our banking and non-banking subsidiaries and depend on dividends, distributions, and other payments from the Bank and its non-banking subsidiaries to fund cash dividend payments on our common stock and to fund most payments on our other obligations. Regulations relating to capital requirements affect the ability of the Bank to pay dividends and other distributions to us and to make loans to us. Additionally, if our subsidiaries’ earnings are not sufficient to make dividend payments to us while maintaining adequate capital levels, we may not be able to make dividend payments to our common shareholders or interest payments on our junior subordinated debentures issued to capital trusts. Furthermore, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors.

Our market share and income may be adversely affected by our inability to successfully compete against larger and more diverse financial service providers.

Valley faces substantial competition in all areas of its operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources than Valley to deal with the potential negative changes in the financial markets and regulatory landscape. Valley competes with other providers of financial services such as commercial and savings banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, money market and mutual funds, mortgage companies, title agencies, asset managers, insurance companies and a large list of other local, regional and national institutions which offer financial services. Additional mergers and acquisitions of financial institutions within New Jersey and the New York Metro area may also occur given the current difficult banking environment and add more competitive pressure to Valley. If Valley is unable to compete effectively, it may lose market share and its income generated from loans, deposits, and other financial products may decline.

Potential acquisitions may disrupt Valley’s business and dilute shareholder value.

Valley regularly evaluates merger and acquisition opportunities, including FDIC-assisted transactions, and conducts due diligence activities related to possible transactions with other financial institutions and financial services companies. As a result, merger or acquisition discussions and, in some cases, negotiations may take place and future mergers or acquisitions involving cash, debt or equity securities may occur at any time. Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, and, therefore, some dilution of Valley’s tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any

29

Table of Contents

future transaction. Furthermore, mergers and acquisitions involve a number of additional risks and challenges, including:

The acquisition of assets and liabilities of financial institutions in FDIC-sponsored or assisted transactions involves risks similar to those faced when acquiring existing financial institutions, even though the FDIC might provide assistance to mitigate certain risks, e.g., entering into loss-sharing arrangements. However, because such transactions are structured in a manner that does not allow the time normally associated with evaluating and preparing for the integration of an acquired institution, we face the additional risk that the anticipated benefits of such an acquisition may not be realized fully or at all, or within the time period expected. Additionally, failure to realize the expected revenue increases, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on Valley’s financial condition and results of operations.

Loans acquired in our FDIC-assisted transactions may not be covered by the loss-sharing agreements if the FDIC determines that we have not adequately managed these agreements, which could require a reduction in the carrying value of these loans.

In connection with the acquisitions of certain assets and liabilities of LibertyPointe Bank and The Park Avenue Bank, we entered into loss-sharing agreements with the FDIC. Under the terms of the loss-sharing agreement with the FDIC in the LibertyPointe Bank transaction, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse us for: (i) 80 percent of any future losses on loans covered by the loss-sharing agreement up to $55.0 million, after we absorb such losses up to the first loss tranche of $11.7 million; and (ii) 95 percent of losses in excess of $55.0 million. Under the terms of the loss-sharing agreement with the FDIC in The Park Avenue Bank transaction, the FDIC is obligated to reimburse us for 80 percent of any future losses on covered assets of up to $66.0 million and 95 percent of losses in excess of $66.0 million. At December 31, 2012, our FDIC loss-share receivable totaled $45.0 million. Although the FDIC has agreed to reimburse us for the substantial portion of losses on covered loans, the FDIC has the right to refuse or delay payment for loan losses if the loss-sharing agreements are not managed in accordance with their terms. In addition, reimbursable losses are based on the book value of the relevant loans as determined by the FDIC as of the effective dates of the transactions. The amount that we realize on these loans could differ materially from the carrying value that will be reflected in our financial statements, based upon the timing and amount of collections on the covered loans in future periods.

Failure to successfully implement our growth strategies could cause us to incur substantial costs and expenses which may not be recouped and adversely affect our future profitability.

Although our de novo branching activities were insignificant in 2012, over the past several years we have implemented a conservative de novo branch strategy to expand our physical presence in Brooklyn and Queens, as well as add locations within our New Jersey and Manhattan markets. Valley has opened a combined total of 15 branch locations within Brooklyn and Queens since starting its initiative in these new markets during 2007.

30

Table of Contents

During 2012, we also expanded our branch network into markets outside of these areas through our acquisition of State Bancorp headquartered in Long Island effective January 1, 2012 (See Note 2 to the consolidated financial statements). The State Bancorp acquisition included 14 branches in Nassau, Suffolk, Queens, and Manhattan that currently remain open and represent approximately 32 percent of our total New York branch network. Valley’s ability to successfully execute in these markets depends upon a variety of factors, including its ability to attract and retain experienced personnel, the continued availability of desirable business opportunities and locations, the competitive responses from other financial institutions in the new market areas, and the ability to manage growth. These initiatives, specifically non-acquisition related de novo branch activity, could cause Valley’s expenses to increase faster than revenues. Valley can provide no assurances that it will successfully implement or continue such growth initiatives.

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

We may not keep pace with technological change within the financial services industry, negatively affecting our ability to remain competitive and profitable.

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

We rely on our systems, employees and certain service providers, and if our system fails or if our security measures are compromised, our operations could be disrupted or the data of our customers could be improperly divulged.

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

We may also be subject to disruptions of our systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control (including, for example, electrical or telecommunications outages), which may give rise to losses in

31

Table of Contents

service to customers and to financial loss or liability. Furthermore, many other financial institutions and companies engaged in data processing have reported significant breaches in the security of their websites or other systems, some of which have involved sophisticated and targeted attacks intended to obtain unauthorized access to confidential information, destroy data, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems, often through the introduction of computer viruses or malware, cyber attacks and other means. Although to date we have not experienced any material losses relating to such cyber attacks or other information security breaches, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer such losses in the future. Additionally, our risk exposure to security matters may remain elevated or increase in the future due to, among other things, the increasing size and prominence of Valley in the financial services industry, our expansion of Internet and mobile banking tools and products based on customer needs, and the system and customer account conversions associated with the integration of merger targets. We are further exposed to the risk that our external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations (or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their respective employees as us) and to the risk that our (or our vendors’) business continuity and data security systems prove to be inadequate. We maintain a system of comprehensive policies and a control framework designed to monitor vendor risks including, among other things, (i) changes in the vendor’s organizational structure or internal controls, (ii) changes in the vendor’s financial condition, (iii) changes in the vendor’s support for existing products and services and (iv) changes in the vendor’s strategic focus. While we believe these policies and procedures help to mitigate risk, the failure of an external vendor to perform in accordance with the contracted arrangements under service level agreements could be disruptive to our operations, which could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

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

Severe weather, acts of terrorism and other external events could significantly impact our ability to conduct our business.

A significant portion of our primary markets is located near coastal waters which could generate naturally occurring severe weather, or in response to climate change, that could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct business. Many areas in Northern New Jersey in which our branches operate are subject to severe flooding and significant weather related disruptions may become common events in the future. On October 29, 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the Northeast and caused severe property damage and many business closures throughout the New Jersey and New York Metropolitan areas. We believe the storm did not materially impact the vast majority of our borrowers’ ability to repay their loans or the collateral values securing their loans. However, the full extent of any adverse impact on our markets from the prolonged rebuilding efforts necessary in coastal areas of New Jersey and Long Island is unknown at this time.

Additionally, New York City and New Jersey remain central targets for potential acts of terrorism against the United States. Such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue and/or cause us to incur additional expenses. Although we have established and regularly test disaster recovery policies and procedures, the occurrence of any such event in the future could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to environmental liability risk associated with lending activities which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that

32

Table of Contents

hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase our exposure to environmental liability. Although we have policies and procedures to perform an environmental review prior to originating certain commercial real estate loans, as well as before initiating any foreclosure action on real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may incur future losses in connection with repurchases and indemnification payments related to mortgages that we have sold into the secondary market.

We engage in the origination of residential mortgages for sale into the secondary market. 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. The substantial decline in residential real estate values and the standards used by some originators has resulted in more repurchase requests to many secondary market participants from secondary market purchasers. Since January 1, 2006, we have originated and sold over 12,600 individual residential mortgages totaling approximately $2.4 billion. Over the past several years, we have experienced a nominal amount of repurchase requests (including only two requests in 2012). None of the loan repurchases resulted in loss. As of December 31, 2012, no reserves pertaining to loans sold were established on our financial statements. While we currently believe our repurchase risk remains low based upon our careful loan underwriting and documentation standards, it is possible that requests to repurchase loans could occur in the future and such requests may have a negative financial impact on us.

Claims and litigation pertaining to our fiduciary responsibility could result in losses and damage to our reputation.

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

None

33

Table of Contents

We conduct our business at 210 retail banking centers locations, with 166 in northern and central New Jersey and 44 in the New York City metropolitan area. We own 97 of our banking center facilities. The other facilities are leased for various terms.

The following table summarizes our retail banking centers in New Jersey and the New York City metropolitan area:

Our principal business office is located at 1455 Valley Road, Wayne, New Jersey. Including our principal business office, we own four office buildings in Wayne, New Jersey and one building in Chestnut Ridge, New York, which are used for various operations of Valley National Bank and its subsidiaries. During 2012, we opened our newly leased New York City corporate headquarters located at One Penn Plaza in Manhattan which is primarily used as a central hub for New York based lending activities of senior executives and other commercial lenders. We also lease a residential mortgage loan production office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

During October 2012, Hurricane Sandy caused major destruction along the East Coast, including damage that has temporarily closed four branches for renovations included in the New Jersey central and Brooklyn, New York locations in the table above. The branch customers from these locations are currently being served at other surrounding branch locations.

The total net book value of our premises and equipment (including land, buildings, leasehold improvements and furniture and equipment) was $279 million at December 31, 2012. We believe that all of our properties and equipment are well maintained, in good condition (except for those affected by Hurricane Sandy) and adequate for all of our present and anticipated needs.

In the normal course of business, we may be a party to various outstanding legal proceedings and claims. In the opinion of management, our financial condition, results of operations, and liquidity should not be materially affected by the outcome of such legal proceedings and claims.

34

Table of Contents

PART II

Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “VLY”. The following table sets forth for each quarter period indicated the high and low sales prices for our common stock, as reported by the NYSE, and the cash dividends declared per common share for each quarter. The amounts shown in the table below have been adjusted for all stock dividends and stock splits.

There were 8,541 shareholders of record as of December 31, 2012.

Restrictions on Dividends

The timing and amount of cash dividends paid depend on our earnings, capital requirements, financial condition and other relevant factors. The primary source for dividends paid to our common stockholders is dividends paid to us from Valley National Bank. Federal laws and regulations contain restrictions on the ability of national banks, like Valley National Bank, to pay dividends. For more information regarding the restrictions on the Bank’s dividends, see “Item 1. Business—Supervision and Regulation—Dividend Limitations” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors – We May Reduce or Eliminate the Cash Dividend on Our Common Stock” above, and the “Liquidity” section of our MD&A of this Annual Report. In addition, under the terms of the trust preferred securities issued by our capital trusts, we cannot pay dividends on our common stock if we defer payments on the junior subordinated debentures which provide the cash flow for the payments on the trust preferred securities.

35

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following graph compares the cumulative total return on a hypothetical $100 investment made on December 31, 2007 in: (a) Valley’s common stock; (b) the Standard and Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Stock Index; and (c) the Keefe, Bruyette & Woods’ KBW50 Bank Index. The graph is calculated assuming that all dividends are reinvested during the relevant periods. The graph shows how a $100 investment would increase or decrease in value over time based on dividends (stock or cash) and increases or decreases in the market price of the stock.

36

Table of Contents

Issuer Repurchase of Equity Securities

The following table presents the purchases of equity securities by the issuer and affiliated purchasers during the three months ended December 31, 2012:

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The information set forth in Item 12 of Part III of this Annual Report under the heading “Equity Compensation Plan Information” is incorporated by reference herein.

37

Table of Contents

The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with Valley’s consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes thereto presented herein in response to Item 8 of this Annual Report.

See Notes to the Selected Financial Data that follow.

38

Table of Contents

Notes to Selected Financial Data

Tangible book value per common share, which is a non-GAAP measure, is computed by dividing shareholders’ equity less preferred stock, and less goodwill and other intangible assets by common shares outstanding as follows:

39

Table of Contents