PART I

investment and insurance companies. Increased competition within the Bank’s market areas may limit growth and profitability.  Additionally, as the Bank’s market area expands westward, competitive pressure in new markets is expected to be strong. The title insurance abstract subsidiary also faces competition from other title insurance brokers as well as directly from the companies that underwrite title insurance. In New York State, title insurance is obtained on most transfers of real estate and mortgage transactions.

The Bank’s principal market areas are Suffolk and Nassau Counties on Long Island and the New York City boroughs, with its legacy markets being primarily in Suffolk County and its newer expansion markets being primarily in Nassau County, Queens and Manhattan. Long Island has a population of approximately 3 million and both counties are relatively affluent and well-educated enjoying above average median household incomes. In total, Long Island has a sizable industry base with a majority of Suffolk County tending towards high tech manufacturing and Nassau County favoring wholesale and retail trade.  Suffolk County, particularly Eastern Long Island, is semi-rural and also the point of origin for the Bank. Surrounded by water and including the Hamptons and North Fork, the region is a recreational destination for the New York metropolitan area, and a highly regarded resort locale worldwide. While the local economy flourishes in the summer months as a result of the influx of tourists and second homeowners, the year-round population has grown considerably in recent years, resulting in a reduction of the seasonal fluctuations in the economy which has boosted the Bank’s legacy market opportunities. The Bank’s opportunities in Nassau County are vast as there is a deposit base totaling approximately $17 billion across the zip codes in which the Bank operates. As the Bank had $423.6 million, or 3%, of this Nassau County deposit base at December 31, 2018, there is much room for growth in these expansion markets. Industries represented across the principal market area include retail establishments; construction and trades; restaurants and bars; lodging and recreation; professional entities; real estate; health services; passenger transportation; high-tech manufacturing; and agricultural and related businesses. Given its proximity, Long Island’s economy is closely linked with New York City’s and major employers in the area include municipalities, school districts, hospitals, and financial institutions.

The Company, the Bank and its subsidiaries, with the exception of the real estate investment trust, which files its own federal and state income tax returns, report their income on a consolidated basis using the accrual method of accounting and are subject to federal and state income taxation. In general, banks are subject to federal income tax in the same manner as other corporations. However, gains and losses realized by banks from the sale of available for sale securities are generally treated as ordinary income, rather than capital gains or losses. The Bank is subject to the New York State Franchise Tax on Banking Corporations based on certain criteria. The taxation of net income is similar to federal taxable income subject to certain modifications. On December 22, 2017, the President signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“Tax Act”), resulting in significant changes to existing tax law, including a lower federal statutory tax rate of 21%.  The Tax Act was generally effective as of January 1, 2018.  In the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a charge of $7.6 million, which consisted primarily of the deferred tax asset remeasurement from the previous 35% federal statutory rate to the new 21% federal statutory tax rate.

DeNovo Branch Expansion

Since 2010, the Bank has opened 15 branches in New York, including eight branches over the last five years, to continue expansion into new markets and strengthen the Bank’s position in existing markets. In 2014, the Bank opened three branches in Suffolk County in Bay Shore, Port Jefferson and Smithtown. In 2017, the Bank opened three branches in Suffolk County:  one in Riverhead, capitalizing on a market opportunity presented by the sale of Suffolk County National Bank to People’s United Bank in the second quarter, one in East Moriches, and a drive-up facility located in Sag Harbor. The Bank also opened a branch in Astoria, Queens in 2017. In 2018, the Bank opened a limited service branch in Suffolk County located in Melville.

Branch Rationalization

During 2017, the Bank conducted a branch rationalization study analyzing branch performance and market opportunities. As a result of the study, and in an effort to increase efficiency and remove branch redundancy, the Bank closed six locations in the first quarter of 2018. The branches closed in Suffolk County, New York were located in Cutchogue, Center

Moriches, and Melville. The branches closed in Nassau County, New York were located in Massapequa, New Hyde Park and Hewlett.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Hamptons State Bank (“HSB”)

In May 2011, the Bank acquired HSB, which increased the Bank’s presence in an existing market with a branch located in the Village of Southampton.

First National Bank of New York

In  February 2014, the Company acquired FNBNY Bancorp and its wholly-owned subsidiary, the First National Bank of New York (collectively “FNBNY”) at a purchase price of $6.1 million and issued an aggregate of 240,598 of the Company’s shares in exchange for all the issued and outstanding stock of FNBNY. The purchase price was subject to certain post-closing adjustments equal to 60 percent of the net recoveries on $6.3 million of certain identified problem loans over a two-year period after the acquisition. As of February 14, 2016, a net recovery of $0.4 million was realized and $0.3 million has been distributed to the former FNBNY shareholders. At acquisition, FNBNY had total acquired assets on a fair value basis of $211.9 million, with loans of $89.7 million, investment securities of $103.2 million and deposits of $169.9 million. The transaction expanded the Company’s geographic footprint into Nassau County, complemented the existing branch network and enhanced asset generation capabilities.

Community National Bank (“CNB”)

In  June 2015, the Company acquired CNB at a purchase price of $157.5 million, issued an aggregate of 5.647 million of the Company’s common shares in exchange for all the issued and outstanding common stock of CNB and recorded goodwill of $96.5 million, which is not deductible for tax purposes.  At acquisition, CNB had total acquired assets on a fair value basis of $895.3 million, with loans of $729.4 million, investment securities of $90.1 million and deposits of $786.9 million.  The transaction expanded the Company’s geographic footprint across Long Island including Nassau County, Queens and into New York City. The transaction complemented the Bank’s existing branch network and enhanced asset generation capabilities.

Management will continue to seek opportunities to expand its reach into other contiguous markets by network expansion, or through the addition of professionals with established customer relationships. The Bank routinely adds to its menu of products and services, continually meeting the needs of consumers and businesses. Management believes positive outcomes in the future will result from the expansion of the Company’s geographic footprint, investments in infrastructure and technology and continued focus on placing customers first.

Regulation and Supervision 

BNB Bank

The Bank is a New York chartered commercial bank and a member of the Federal Reserve System (a “member bank”). The lending, investment, and other business operations of the Bank are governed by New York and federal laws and regulations, and the Bank is prohibited from engaging in any operations not specifically authorized by such laws and regulations. The Bank is subject to extensive regulation by the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”) and, as a member bank, by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“FRB”).  The Bank’s deposit accounts are insured up to applicable limits by the FDIC under its Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) and the FDIC has certain regulatory authority as deposit insurer. A summary of the primary laws and regulations that govern the operations of the Bank are set forth below.

The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) made extensive changes in the regulation of insured depository institutions. Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to delayed effective dates and/or require the issuance of implementing regulations. The regulatory process is ongoing and the impact

on operations cannot yet be fully assessed. However, the Dodd-Frank Act has resulted in increased regulatory burden, compliance costs and interest expense for the Company and the Bank.

Loans and Investments

The powers of a New York commercial bank are established by New York law and applicable federal law. New York commercial banks have authority to originate and purchase any type of loan, including commercial, commercial real estate, residential mortgages or consumer loans. Aggregate loans by a state commercial bank to any single borrower or group of related borrowers are generally limited to 15% of the Bank’s capital and surplus, plus an additional 10% if secured by specified readily marketable collateral.

Federal and state law and regulations limit the Bank’s investment authority. Generally, a state member bank is prohibited from investing in corporate equity securities for its own account other than the equity securities of companies through which the bank conducts its business. Under federal and state regulations, a New York state member bank may invest in investment securities for its own account up to specified limit depending upon the type of security. “Investment Securities” are generally defined as marketable obligations that are investment grade and not predominantly speculative in nature. Applicable regulations classify investment securities into five different types and, depending on its type, a state member bank may have the authority to deal in and underwrite the security. New York-chartered state member banks may also purchase certain non-investment securities that can be reclassified and underwritten as loans.

Lending Standards

The federal banking agencies adopted uniform regulations prescribing standards for extensions of credit that are secured by liens on interests in real estate or made for the purpose of financing the construction of a building or other improvements to real estate. Under these regulations, all insured depository institutions, such as the Bank, adopted and maintain written policies that establish appropriate limits and standards for extensions of credit that are secured by liens or interests in real estate or are made for the purpose of financing permanent improvements to real estate. These policies must establish loan portfolio diversification standards, prudent underwriting standards (including loan-to-value limits) that are clear and measurable, loan administration procedures, and documentation, approval and reporting requirements. The real estate lending policies must reflect consideration of the Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Lending Policies that have been adopted by the federal bank regulators.

Federal Deposit Insurance

The Bank is a member of the DIF, which is administered by the FDIC. Deposit accounts at the Bank are insured by the FDIC. Effective July 22, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act permanently raised the deposit insurance available on all deposit accounts to $250,000 with a retroactive effective date of January 1, 2008.

The FDIC assesses insured depository institutions to maintain the DIF.  Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, institutions deemed less risky pay lower assessments.  Assessments for institutions of less than $10 billion of assets are now based on financial measures and supervisory ratings derived from statistical modeling estimating the probability of an institution’s failure within three years. That system, effective July 1, 2016, replaced the previous system under which institutions were placed into risk categories.

The Dodd-Frank Act required the FDIC to revise its procedures to base assessments upon each insured institution’s total assets less tangible equity instead of deposits.  The FDIC finalized a rule, effective April 1, 2011, that set the assessment range at 2.5 basis points to 45 basis points of total assets less tangible equity.  In conjunction with the DIF’s reserve ratio achieving 1.15%, the assessment range (inclusive of possible adjustments) was reduced for insured institutions of less than $10 billion of total assets to 1.5 basis points to 30 basis points, effective July 1, 2016.

The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum target DIF ratio from 1.15% of estimated insured deposits to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits.  The FDIC must seek to achieve the 1.35% ratio by September 30, 2020.  The Dodd-Frank Act requires insured institutions with assets of $10 billion or more to fund the increase from 1.15% to 1.35% and, effective July 1, 2016, such institutions are subject to a surcharge to achieve that goal.  The Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the 1.5% maximum fund ratio, instead leaving it to the discretion of the FDIC, and the FDIC has exercised that discretion by establishing a long-range fund ratio of 2%.

Insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that an institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC. The Company does not know of any practice, condition or violation that might lead to termination of deposit insurance.

In addition to the FDIC assessments, the Financing Corporation (FICO) is authorized to impose and collect, with the approval of the FDIC, assessments for anticipated payments, issuance costs and custodial fees on bonds issued by the FICO in the 1980s to recapitalize the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. The bonds issued by the FICO are maturing beginning in 2017 and continuing through September 2019. For the quarter ended December 31, 2018, the annualized FICO assessment was equal to 0.32 basis points of average consolidated total assets less average tangible equity.

Capitalization

Federal regulations require FDIC insured depository institutions, including state member banks, to meet several minimum capital standards:  a common equity tier 1 capital to risk-based assets ratio of 4.5%, a tier 1 capital to risk-based assets ratio of 6.0%, a total capital to risk-based assets ratio of 8.0%, and a tier 1 capital to total assets leverage ratio of 4.0%.  The existing capital requirements were effective January 1, 2015 and are the result of a final rule implementing regulatory amendments based on recommendations of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act. Common equity tier 1 capital is generally defined as common stockholders’ equity and retained earnings.  Tier 1 capital is generally defined as common equity tier 1 and additional tier 1 capital.  Additional tier 1 capital generally includes certain noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus and minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries.  Total capital includes tier 1 capital (common equity tier 1 capital plus additional tier 1 capital) and tier 2 capital.  Tier 2 capital is comprised of capital instruments and related surplus meeting specified requirements, and may include cumulative preferred stock and long-term perpetual preferred stock, mandatory convertible securities, intermediate preferred stock and subordinated debt.  Also included in tier 2 capital is the allowance for loan and lease losses limited to a maximum of 1.25% of risk-weighted assets and, for institutions that have exercised an opt-out election regarding the treatment of accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”), up to 45% of net unrealized gains on available-for-sale equity securities with readily determinable fair market values.  Institutions that have not exercised the AOCI opt-out have AOCI incorporated into common equity tier 1 capital (including unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale-securities).   Calculation of all types of regulatory capital is subject to deductions and adjustments specified in the regulations.

In determining the amount of risk-weighted assets for purposes of calculating risk-based capital ratios, assets, including certain off-balance sheet assets (e.g., recourse obligations, direct credit substitutes, residual interests) are multiplied by a risk weight factor assigned by the regulations based on the risks believed inherent in the type of asset.  Higher levels of capital are required for asset categories believed to present greater risk.  For example, a risk weight of 0% is assigned to cash and U.S. government securities, a risk weight of 50% is generally assigned to prudently underwritten first lien one-to-four family residential mortgages, a risk weight of 100% is assigned to commercial and consumer loans, a risk weight of 150% is assigned to certain past due loans and a risk weight of between 0% to 600% is assigned to permissible equity interests, depending on certain specified factors.

In addition to establishing the minimum regulatory capital requirements, the regulations limit capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments to management if the institution does not hold a “capital conservation buffer” consisting of 2.5% of common equity tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets above the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements.  The capital conservation buffer requirement was phased in beginning January 1, 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and increasing each year until fully implemented at 2.5% on January 1, 2019.  

Community Bank Leverage Ratio

Legislation enacted in 2018 requires the federal banking agencies, including the FRB, to amend the regulatory capital regulations to establish a “Community Bank Leverage Ratio” (the ratio of a bank’s tangible equity capital to average total consolidated assets) of between 8% and 10% of average total consolidated assets.  Banking organizations of less than $10 billion of assets that have capital meeting the specified level and satisfying other criteria could elect to follow this alternative framework and be deemed in compliance with all applicable capital requirements, including the risk-based

requirements and would be considered “well capitalized” under “prompt corrective action” statutes.  The federal banking agencies may consider a financial institution’s risk profile when evaluating whether it qualifies as a community bank for purposes of the capital ratio requirement. The agencies have issued a proposed rule that, if finalized, would set the Community Bank Leverage Ratio at 9%.

Safety and Soundness Standards

Each federal banking agency, including the FRB, has adopted guidelines establishing general standards relating to internal controls, information and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings and compensation, fees, and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risks and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder.

On April 26, 2016, the federal regulatory agencies approved a second proposed joint rulemaking to implement Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which prohibits incentive-based compensation that encourages inappropriate risk taking. In addition, the NYSDFS issued guidance applicable to incentive compensation in October 2016.

Prompt Corrective Regulatory Action

Federal law requires, among other things, that federal bank regulatory authorities take “prompt corrective action” with respect to institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. For these purposes, the statute establishes five capital tiers: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized.

The FRB may order member banks which have insufficient capital to take corrective actions. For example, a bank, which is categorized as “undercapitalized” would be subject to other growth limitations, would be required to submit a capital restoration plan, and a holding company that controls such a bank would be required to guarantee that the bank complies with the restoration plan. A “significantly undercapitalized” bank would be subject to additional restrictions. Member banks deemed by the FRB to be “critically undercapitalized” would be subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

The final rule that increased regulatory capital standards adjusted the prompt corrective action tiers as of January 1, 2015. The various categories have been revised to incorporate the new common equity tier 1 capital requirement, the increase in the tier 1 to risk-based assets requirement and other changes.  Under the revised prompt corrective action requirements, insured depository institutions are required to meet the following in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (1) a common equity tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5% (new standard); (2) a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% (increased from 6.0%); (3) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% (unchanged); and (4) a tier 1 leverage ratio of 5.0% (unchanged). Under the proposed rulemaking discussed above, an institution would be deemed to be “well capitalized” if it meets the “Community Bank Leverage Ratio.”

Dividends

Under federal law and applicable regulations, a New York member bank may generally declare a dividend, without prior regulatory approval, in an amount equal to its year-to-date retained net income plus the prior two years’ retained net income that is still available for dividend. Dividends exceeding those amounts require application to and approval by the

NYSDFS and FRB. In addition, a member bank may be limited in paying cash dividends if it does not maintain the capital conservation buffer described previously.

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders

Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act govern transactions between a member bank and its affiliates, which includes the Company. The FRB has adopted Regulation W, which comprehensively implements and interprets Sections 23A and 23B, in part by codifying prior FRB interpretations under Sections 23A and 23B.

An affiliate of a bank is any company or entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the bank. A subsidiary of a bank that is not also a depository institution or a “financial subsidiary” under federal law is not treated as an affiliate of the bank for the purposes of Sections 23A and 23B; however, the FRB has the discretion to treat subsidiaries of a bank as affiliates on a case-by-case basis. Sections 23A and 23B limit the extent to which a bank or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of such bank’s capital stock and surplus, and limit all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20% of such capital stock and surplus. The statutory sections also require that all such transactions be on terms that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans, purchase of assets, issuance of guarantees and other similar types of transactions. Further, most loans by a bank to any of its affiliates must be secured by collateral in amounts ranging from 100 to 130 percent of the loan amounts. In addition, any covered transaction by an association with an affiliate and any purchase of assets or services by an association from an affiliate must be on terms that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the bank as those that would be provided to a non-affiliate.

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

Examinations and Assessments

The Bank is required to file periodic reports with and is subject to periodic examination by the NYSDFS and the FRB. Applicable laws and regulations generally require periodic on-site examinations and annual audits by independent public accountants for all insured institutions. The Bank is required to pay an annual assessment to the NYSDFS to fund its supervision.

Community Reinvestment Act

Under the federal Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), the 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 FRB in connection with its examination of the Bank, to assess its record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take that record into account in its evaluation of certain

applications by the Bank. For example, the regulations specify that a bank’s CRA performance will be considered in its expansion (e.g., branching or mergers) proposals and may be the basis for approving, denying or conditioning the approval of an application. As of the date of its most recent CRA examination, which was conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the NYSDFS, the Bank’s CRA performance was rated “satisfactory”.

New York law imposes a similar obligation on the Bank to serve the credit needs of its community. New York law contains its own CRA provisions, which are substantially similar to federal law.

USA PATRIOT Act

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 gave the federal government new powers to address terrorist threats through enhanced domestic security measures, expanded surveillance powers, increased information sharing and broadened anti-money laundering requirements. The USA PATRIOT Act also required the federal banking agencies to take into consideration the effectiveness of controls designed to combat money-laundering activities in determining whether to approve a merger or other acquisition application of a member institution. Accordingly, if the Bank engages in a merger or other acquisition, the Bank’s controls designed to combat money laundering would be considered as part of the application process. The Bank has established policies, procedures and systems designed to comply with these regulations.

Bridge Bancorp, Inc.

The Company, as a bank holding company controlling the Bank, is subject to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”), and the rules and regulations of the FRB under the BHCA applicable to bank holding companies. The Company is required to file reports with, and otherwise comply with the rules and regulations of the FRB.

The FRB previously adopted consolidated capital adequacy guidelines for bank holding companies structured similarly, but not identically, to those applicable to the Bank. The Dodd-Frank Act directed the FRB to issue consolidated capital requirements for depository institution holding companies that are no less stringent, both quantitatively and in terms of components of capital, than those applicable to institutions themselves. The previously discussed final rule regarding regulatory capital requirements implements the Dodd-Frank Act as to bank holding company capital standards.  Consolidated regulatory capital requirements identical to those applicable to the subsidiary banks applied to bank holding companies as of January 1, 2015.  As is the case with institutions themselves, the capital conservation buffer was phased-in between 2016 and 2019.  The new capital rule eliminated from tier 1 capital the inclusion of certain instruments, such as trust preferred securities, that were previously includable by bank holding companies. However, the final rule grandfathered trust preferred issuances prior to May 19, 2010 in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act. The Company issued trust preferred securities that qualified for grandfathering. These securities were redeemed as of January 18, 2017 and the Trust was cancelled effective April 24, 2017. The Company met all capital adequacy requirements under the new capital rules on December 31, 2018.

The policy of the FRB is that a bank holding company must serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary banks by providing capital and other support in times of distress. The Dodd-Frank Act codified the source of strength policy.

Under the prompt corrective action provisions of federal law, a bank holding company parent of an undercapitalized subsidiary bank is required to guarantee, within specified limits, the capital restoration plan that is required of an undercapitalized bank. If an undercapitalized bank fails to file an acceptable capital restoration plan or fails to implement an accepted plan, the FRB may prohibit the bank holding company parent of the undercapitalized bank from paying dividends or making any other capital distribution.

As a bank holding company, the Company is required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB to acquire more than 5% of a class of voting securities of any additional bank or bank holding company or to acquire all, or substantially all, the assets of any additional bank or bank holding company. In addition, the bank holding companies may generally only engage in activities that are closely related to banking as determined by the FRB. Bank holding companies that meet certain criteria may opt to become a financial holding company and thereby engage in a broader array of financial activities.

FRB policy is that a bank holding company should pay cash dividends only to the extent that the company’s net income for the past two years is sufficient to fund the dividends and the prospective rate of earnings retention is consistent with the company’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition.  In addition, FRB guidance sets forth the

supervisory expectation that bank holding companies will inform and consult with FRB staff in advance of issuing a dividend that exceeds earnings for the quarter and should inform the FRB and should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends if (i) net income available to stockholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends, (ii) prospective rate of earnings retention is not consistent with the bank holding company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition, or (iii) the bank holding company will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios.

Current FRB regulations provide that a bank holding company that is not well capitalized or well managed, as such terms are defined in the regulations, or that is subject to any unresolved supervisory issues, is required to give the FRB prior written notice of any repurchase or redemption of its outstanding equity securities if the gross consideration for repurchase or redemption, when combined with the net consideration paid for all such repurchases or redemptions during the preceding 12 months, will be equal to 10% or more of the company’s consolidated net worth. The FRB may disapprove such a repurchase or redemption if it determines that the proposal would constitute an unsafe and unsound practice or violate a law or regulation. FRB guidance generally provides for bank holding company consultation with Federal Reserve Bank staff prior to engaging in a repurchase or redemption of a bank holding company’s stock, even if a formal written notice is not required. However, it has recently come to the attention of the Company that the FRB staff is interpreting the capital regulations as requiring a bank holding company to secure FRB approval prior to redeeming or repurchasing any capital stock that is included in regulatory capital.

The NYSDFS and FRB have extensive enforcement authority over the institutions and holding companies that they regulate to prohibit or correct activities that violate law, regulation or a regulatory agreement or which are deemed to be unsafe or unsound banking practices. Enforcement actions may include: the appointment of a conservator or receiver for an institution; the issuance of a cease and desist order; the termination of deposit insurance; the imposition of civil money penalties on the institution, its directors, officers, employees and institution-affiliated parties; the issuance of directives to increase capital; the issuance of formal and informal agreements; the removal of or restrictions on directors, officers, employees and institution-affiliated parties; and the enforcement of any such mechanisms through restraining orders or other court actions. Any change in applicable New York or federal laws and regulations could have a material adverse impact on the Bank and the Company and their operations and stockholders.

During 2008, the Company received approval and began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “BDGE”. Equity incentive plan grants of stock options and stock awards are recorded directly to the holding company. The Company’s sources of funds are dependent on dividends from the Bank, its own earnings, additional capital raised and borrowings. The information in this report reflects principally the financial condition and results of operations of the Bank. The Bank’s results of operations are primarily dependent on its net interest income. The Bank also generates non-interest income, such as fee income on deposit accounts and merchant credit and debit card processing programs, investment services, income from its title insurance abstract subsidiary, and net gains on sales of securities and loans. The level of its non-interest expenses, such as salaries and benefits, occupancy and equipment costs, other general and administrative expenses, expenses from its title insurance abstract subsidiary, and income tax expense, further affects the Bank’s net income.

The Company had nominal results of operations for 2018, 2017, and 2016 on a parent-only basis.  The Company’s capital strength is paralleled by the solid capital position of the Bank, as reflected in the excess of its regulatory capital ratios over the risk-based capital adequacy ratio levels required for classification as a “well capitalized” institution by the FDIC (see Note 18 of the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements). Since 2013, the Company has actively managed its capital position in response to its growth and has raised $261.2 million in capital.

The Company files certain reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) under the federal securities laws. The Company’s operations are also subject to extensive regulation by other federal, state and local governmental authorities and it is subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on part or all of its operations. Management believes that the Company is in substantial compliance, in all material respects, with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. Because the Company’s business is highly regulated, the laws, rules and regulations applicable to it are subject to regular modification and change. There can be no assurance that these proposed laws, rules and regulations, or any other laws, rules or regulations, will not be adopted in the future, which could make compliance more difficult or expensive or otherwise adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or prospects.

Other Information

Through a link on the Investor Relations section of the Bank’s website of www.bnbbank.com , copies of the Company’s Annual Reports on Form 10‑K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10‑Q and Current Reports on Form 8‑K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) for 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are made available, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing such material with, or furnishing it to, the SEC. Copies of such reports and other information also are available at no charge to any person who requests them or at www.sec.gov . Such requests may be directed to Bridge Bancorp, Inc., Investor Relations, 2200 Montauk Highway, PO Box 3005, Bridgehampton, NY 11932, (631) 537‑1000.

and the interest expense that the Bank pays on its interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. The Bank’s profitability depends on its ability to manage its assets and liabilities during periods of changing market interest rates.

In a period of rising interest rates, the interest income earned on the Bank’s assets may not increase as rapidly as the interest paid on its liabilities. In an increasing interest rate environment, the Bank’s cost of funds is expected to increase more rapidly than interest earned on its loan and investment portfolio as its primary source of funds is deposits with generally shorter maturities than those on its loans and investments. This makes the balance sheet more liability sensitive in the short term.

A sustained decrease in market interest rates could adversely affect the Bank’s earnings. When interest rates decline, borrowers tend to refinance higher-rate, fixed-rate loans at lower rates. Under those circumstances, the Bank would not be able to reinvest those prepayments in assets earning interest rates as high as the rates on those prepaid loans or in investment securities. In addition, the majority of the Bank’s loans are at variable interest rates, which would adjust to lower rates.

Changes in interest rates also affect the fair value of the securities portfolio.  Generally, the value of securities moves inversely with changes in interest rates.  As of December 31, 2018, the securities portfolio totaled $865.1 million.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the federal prohibition on paying interest on demand deposits effective July 21, 2011, thus allowing businesses to have interest-bearing checking accounts.  Depending on competitive responses, this change to existing law could increase the Bank’s interest expense.

Strong competition within the Bank’s market area may limit its growth and profitability.

The Bank’s primary market area is located in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island and the New York City boroughs. Competition in the banking and financial services industry remains intense.  The profitability of the Bank depends on the continued ability to successfully compete. The Bank competes with commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, insurance companies, and brokerage and investment banking firms. Many of the Bank’s competitors have substantially greater resources and lending limits than the Bank and may offer certain services that the Bank does not provide. In addition, competitors may offer deposits at higher rates and loans with lower fixed rates, more attractive terms and less stringent credit structures than the Bank has been willing to offer.

The Company’s future success depends on the success and growth of BNB Bank.

The Company’s primary business activity for the foreseeable future will be to act as the holding company of the Bank. Therefore, the Company’s future profitability will depend on the success and growth of this subsidiary.  The continued and successful implementation of the Company’s growth strategy will require, among other things that the Bank increases its market share by attracting new customers that currently bank at other financial institutions in the Bank’s market area.  In addition, the Company’s ability to successfully grow will depend on several factors, including favorable market conditions, the competitive responses from other financial institutions in the Bank’s market area, and the Bank’s ability to maintain high asset quality.  While the Company believes it has the management resources, market opportunities and internal systems in place to obtain and successfully manage future growth, growth opportunities may not be available and the Company may not be successful in continuing its growth strategy.  In addition, continued growth requires that the Company incurs additional expenses, including salaries, data processing and occupancy expense related to new branches and related support staff.  Many of these increased expenses are considered fixed expenses.  Unless the Company can successfully continue its growth, its results of operations could be negatively affected by these increased costs.

The loss of key personnel could impair the Company’s future success.

The Company’s future success depends in part on the continued service of its executive officers, other key management, and staff, as well as its ability to continue to attract, motivate, and retain additional highly qualified employees. The loss of services of one or more of the Company’s key personnel or its inability to timely recruit replacements for such personnel,

or to otherwise attract, motivate, or retain qualified personnel could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, operating results and financial condition.

Increases to the allowance for credit losses may cause the Bank’s earnings to decrease.

Customers may not repay their loans according to the original terms, and the collateral securing the payment of those loans may be insufficient to pay any remaining loan balance. Hence, the Bank may experience significant loan losses, which could have a material adverse effect on its operating results. The Bank makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of its loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of loans. In determining the amount of the allowance for credit losses, the Bank relies on loan quality reviews, past loss experience, and an evaluation of economic conditions, among other factors. If its assumptions prove to be incorrect, the allowance for credit losses may not be sufficient to cover probable incurred losses in the loan portfolio, resulting in additions to the allowance. Material additions to the allowance through charges to earnings would materially decrease the Bank’s net income.

Bank regulators periodically review the allowance for credit losses and may require the Bank to increase its provision for credit losses or loan charge-offs. Any increase in the allowance for credit losses or loan charge-offs as required by these regulatory authorities could have a material adverse effect on the Bank’s results of operations and/or financial condition.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has adopted a new accounting standard that will be effective for the Company for the first fiscal year beginning after December 15, 2019.  This standard, referred to as Current Expected Credit Loss, will require that the Bank determine periodic estimates of lifetime expected credit losses on loans, and recognize the expected credit losses as allowances for loan losses.  This will change the current method of providing allowances for loan losses that are probable, which may require the Bank to increase its allowance for loan losses, and will greatly increase the types of data the Bank would need to collect and review to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses.

The Company’s business may be adversely affected by fraud and other financial crimes.

The Company’s loans to businesses and individuals and its deposit relationships and related transactions are subject to exposure to the risk of loss due to fraud and other financial crimes.   While the Company has policies and procedures designed to prevent such losses, losses may still occur. 

The Company has recently experienced losses due to fraud.  In 2018, the Company incurred a pre-tax charge, net of recovery, of $8.9 million relating to the fraudulent conduct of a business customer through its deposit accounts.  The Company has filed a claim for the loss with its insurance carrier, however, the extent and amount of coverage is not yet certain. 

The subordinated debentures the Company issued have rights that are senior to those of the Company’s common shareholders.

In 2015, the Company issued $40.0 million of 5.25% fixed-to-floating rate subordinated debentures due 2025 and $40.0 million of 5.75% fixed-to-floating rate subordinated debentures due 2030. Because these subordinated debentures rank senior to the Company’s common stock, if the Company fails to timely make principal and interest payments on the subordinated debentures, the Company may not pay any dividends on its common stock. Further, if the Company declares bankruptcy, dissolves or liquidates, it must satisfy all of its subordinated debenture obligations before it may pay any distributions on its common stock.

The Company may be required to transition from the use of LIBOR in the future. 

On July 27, 2017, the Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit rates for the calibration of LIBOR to the administrator of LIBOR after 2021.  The continuation of LIBOR cannot be guaranteed after 2021.  At this time, no consensus exists as to what rate or rates may become acceptable alternatives to LIBOR and it is impossible to predict the effect of any such alternatives on the value of LIBOR-based securities and variable rate loans, subordinated debentures,

or other securities or financial arrangements, given LIBOR's role in determining market interest rates globally. Uncertainty as to the nature of alternative reference rates and as to potential changes or other reforms to LIBOR may adversely affect LIBOR rates and the value of LIBOR-based loans and securities in the Company’s portfolio and may impact the availability and cost of hedging instruments and borrowings. The Company has material contracts that are indexed to LIBOR and is monitoring this activity and evaluating the related risks. If LIBOR rates are no longer available and the Company is required to implement substitute indices for the calculation of interest rates, the Company may incur expenses in effecting the transition, and may be subject to disputes or litigation with customers and security holders over the appropriateness or comparability to LIBOR of the substitute indices, which could have an adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations.

The Company operates in a highly regulated environment, Federal and state regulators periodically examine the Company’s business, and it may be required to remediate adverse examination findings.

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

New and future rulemaking from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) may have a material effect on the Company’s operations and operating costs.

The CFPB has the authority to issue new consumer finance regulations and is authorized, individually or jointly with bank regulatory agencies, to conduct investigations to determine whether any person is, or has, engaged in conduct that violates new and existing consumer financial laws or regulations. However, because the Bank has less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, the FRB and NYSDFS, not the CFPB, are responsible for examining and supervising the Bank’s compliance with these consumer protection laws and regulations. In addition, in accordance with a memorandum of understanding entered into between the CFPB and U.S. Department of Justice, the two agencies have agreed to coordinate efforts related to enforcing the fair lending laws, which includes information sharing and conducting joint investigations, and have done so on a number of occasions.

In addition, the CFPB has issued a final rule on arbitration that, among other things, prohibits class action waivers in certain consumer financial services contracts. The rule, which became effective on September 18, 2017, applies to contracts entered into on or after March 19, 2018 (and will not apply to prior contracts with class action waivers or arbitration agreements unless such accounts or debts are sold after that date). This rule could increase the likelihood that the Bank becomes subject to class action litigation concerning consumer banking products and services and could result in increased litigation costs.

The Bank is subject to the CRA and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to material penalties.

The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. With respect to the Bank, the NYSDFS, FRB, the United States Department of Justice and other federal and state agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. A successful regulatory challenge to an institution’s performance under the CRA or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity and restrictions on expansion. Private parties may

also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation.  Such actions could have a material adverse effect on the Bank’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Bank faces a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the federal Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA”) and other anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing statutes and regulations.

The BSA, the USA PATRIOT Act and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among others, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering compliance program and to file reports such as suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports. The Bank’s products and services, including its debit card issuing business, are subject to an increasingly strict set of legal and regulatory requirements intended to protect consumers and to help detect and prevent money laundering, terrorist financing and other illicit activities. The Banks is required to comply with these and other anti-money laundering requirements. The federal banking agencies and the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and have recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts against banks and other financial services providers with the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service. The Bank is also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the regulations administered and enforced by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. If the Bank violates these laws and regulations, or its policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient, the Bank would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions, which may include restrictions on its ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of the Bank’s business plan, including its acquisition plans.

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

The short-term and long-term impact of the changing regulatory capital requirements and anticipated new capital rules are uncertain.

In July 2013, federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that revised their leverage and risk-based capital requirements and the method for calculating risk-weighted assets to make them consistent with agreements that were reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.  Among other things, the rule established a new common equity tier 1 minimum capital requirement of 4.5% of risk-weighted assets, set the leverage ratio at a uniform 4.0% of total assets, increased the minimum tier 1 capital to risk-based assets requirement from 4.0% to 6.0% of risk-weighted assets and assigned a higher risk weight of 150% to exposures that are more than 90 days past due or are on non-accrual status and to certain commercial real estate facilities that finance the acquisition, development or construction of real property.  The rule also requires unrealized gains and losses on certain “available-for-sale” securities holdings to be included for purposes of calculating regulatory capital requirements unless a one-time opt-out is exercised.  The rule limits a banking organization’s capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments to executive officers if the banking organization does not hold a “capital conservation buffer” consisting of 2.5% of common equity tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets in addition to the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements.  The final rule became effective January 1, 2015.  The “capital conservation buffer’ was phased in from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2019.

The application of more stringent capital requirements could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions if the Company was unable to comply with such requirements.  Furthermore, the imposition of liquidity requirements in connection with the implementation of Basel III could result in the Company having to lengthen the terms of funding, restructure business models, and/or increase holdings of liquid assets. Implementation of changes to asset risk weightings for risk based capital calculations, items included or deducted in calculating regulatory capital or additional capital conservation buffers, could result in management modifying the Company’s business strategy and could limit its ability to make distributions, including paying dividends or buying back shares.

Risks associated with system failures, interruptions, or breaches of security could negatively affect the Company’s operations and earnings.

Information technology systems are critical to the Company’s business.  The Company collects, processes and stores sensitive customer data by utilizing computer systems and telecommunications networks operated by it and third party service providers. The Company has established policies and procedures to prevent or limit the impact of system failures, interruptions, and security breaches, but such events may still occur or may not be adequately addressed if they do occur.  In addition, any compromise of the Company’s systems could deter customers from using the Bank’s products and services.  Although the Company takes numerous protective measures and otherwise endeavors to protect and maintain the privacy and security of confidential data, these systems may be vulnerable to unauthorized access, computer viruses, other malicious code, cyberattacks, including distributed denial of service attacks, cyber-theft and other events that could have a security impact. If one or more of such events were to occur, this potentially could jeopardize confidential and other information processed and stored in, and transmitted through, the Company’s systems or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in the Company’s or the Company’s customers' operations.

In addition, the Company maintains interfaces with certain third-party service providers.  If these third-party service providers encounter difficulties, or if the Company has difficulty communicating with them, the Company’s ability to adequately process and account for transactions could be affected, and business operations could be adversely affected.  Threats to information security also exist in the processing of customer information through various other vendors and their personnel.

The occurrence of any system failures, interruption, or breach of security could damage the Company’s reputation and result in a loss of customers and business thereby subjecting it to additional regulatory scrutiny or could expose it to litigation and possible financial liability. The Company may be required to expend significant additional resources to modify its protective measures or to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures, and it may be subject to litigation and financial losses that are not fully covered by the Company’s insurance. Any of these events could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company is exposed to cyber-security risks, including denial of service, hacking, and identity theft.

There have been well-publicized distributed denials of service attacks on large financial services companies.  Distributed denial of service attacks are designed to saturate the targeted online network with excessive amounts of network traffic, resulting in slow response times, or in some cases, causing the site to be temporarily unavailable. Hacking and identity theft risks, in particular, could cause serious reputational harm. Cyber threats are rapidly evolving and the Company may not be able to anticipate or prevent all such attacks. The Company may incur increasing costs in an effort to minimize these risks and could be held liable for any security breach or loss.

Severe weather, acts of terrorism and other external events could impact the Company’s ability to conduct business.

In the past, weather-related events have adversely impacted the Company’s market area, especially areas located near coastal waters and flood prone areas. Such events that may cause significant flooding and other storm-related damage may become more common events in the future. Financial institutions have been, and continue to be, targets of terrorist threats aimed at compromising operating and communication systems and the metropolitan New York area remains a central target for potential acts of terrorism.  Such events could cause significant damage, impact the stability of the Company’s facilities and result in additional expenses, impair the ability of borrowers to repay their loans, reduce the value of collateral securing repayment of loans, and result in the loss of revenue. While the Company has established and regularly tests disaster recovery procedures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, operations and financial condition.

Acquisitions involve integrations and other risks.

Acquisitions involve a number of risks and challenges including:  the Bank’s ability to integrate the branches and operations acquired, and the associated internal controls and regulatory functions, into the Bank’s current operations; the Bank’s ability to limit the outflow of deposits held by the Bank’s new customers in the acquired branches and to

successfully retain and manage the loans acquired; and the Bank’s ability to attract new deposits and to generate new interest-earning assets in geographic areas not previously served.  Additionally, no assurance can be given that the operation of acquired branches would not adversely affect the Bank’s existing profitability; that the Bank would be able to achieve results in the future similar to those achieved by the Bank’s existing banking business; that the Bank would be able to compete effectively in the market areas served by acquired branches; or that the Bank would be able to manage any growth resulting from the transaction effectively.  The Bank faces the additional risk that the anticipated benefits of the acquisition may not be realized fully or at all, or within the time period expected. Finally, acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and trading values and therefore, may result in dilution of the Company’s book and tangible book value per share.

The Company may incur impairment to its goodwill.

Goodwill arises when a business is purchased for an amount greater than the fair value of the net assets acquired.  The Company recognized goodwill as an asset on its balance sheet in connection with the CNB, FNBNY and HSB acquisitions.  The Company evaluates goodwill for impairment at least annually.  Although the Company determined that goodwill was not impaired during 2018, a significant and sustained decline in the Company’s stock price and market capitalization, a significant decline in its expected future cash flows, a significant adverse change in the business climate, slower growth rates or other factors could result in impairment of goodwill.  If the Company were to conclude that a future write-down of the goodwill was necessary, then it would record the appropriate charge to earnings, which could be materially adverse to the Company’s consolidated financial statements.