The disclosures set forth in this item are qualified by Item 1A. Risk Factors and the section captioned “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.

Sterling Bancorp

Sterling Bancorp (“Sterling” or the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation that owns all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Sterling National Bank (the “Bank”), which is the Company’s principal subsidiary. At September 30, 2014 , the Company had, on a consolidated basis, $7.3 billion in assets, $5.3 billion in deposits, stockholders’ equity of $961.1 million and 83,628,267 shares of common stock outstanding. Our financial condition and results of operations are discussed herein on a consolidated basis with the Bank.

On October 31, 2013, Provident New York Bancorp (“Legacy Provident”) and the former Sterling Bancorp (“Legacy Sterling”) merged.

In connection with the merger, the Company completed the following corporate actions:

We refer to the transactions detailed above collectively as the “Merger”.

The Merger was a stock-for-stock transaction valued at $457.8 million based on the closing price of Legacy Provident’s common stock on October 31, 2013. Under the terms of the Merger, each share of Legacy Sterling was converted into the right to receive 1.2625 shares of Legacy Provident’s common stock. Consistent with our strategy of expanding in the greater New York metropolitan region, we believe the Merger has created a larger, more diversified company and accelerated the build-out of our differentiated strategy targeting small-to-middle market commercial clients and consumers. See additional disclosure regarding the Merger in Note 2. “Acquisitions” to the consolidated financial statements.

Pending Acquisition of Hudson Valley Holding Corp.

On November 5, 2014, the Company announced it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Hudson Valley Holding Corp. (NYSE: HVB) (the “HVB Merger”). In the HVB Merger, which is a stock-for-stock transaction valued at approximately $539 million based on the closing price of Company common stock on November 4, 2014, Hudson Valley Holding Corp. shareholders will receive a fixed ratio of 1.92 shares of Company common stock for each share of Hudson Valley Holding Corp. common stock. Upon closing, the Company’s shareholders will own approximately 69% of stock in the combined company and Hudson Valley Holding Corp. shareholders will own approximately 31%.

On a pro forma combined basis, for the twelve months ended September 30, 2014, the companies had revenue of $363 million and $22 million in net income. Upon completion of the HVB Merger, the combined company is expected to have approximately $10.7 billion in assets, $6.6 billion in gross loans, and deposits of $8.1 billion. The HVB Merger will further the Company’s strategy of expanding in the greater New York metropolitan region by providing the Company with a significant presence and deposit market share in Westchester County, New York, and will create an opportunity to realize significant operating expense savings. The transaction is expected to be accretive to earnings per share in fiscal 2015 and 2016.

The transaction is subject to approval by shareholders from both companies, regulatory approval and other customary closing conditions, and is expected to close in the second calendar quarter of 2015.

Senior Notes Capital Raise

In connection with the Merger, the Company completed the offering of $100 million of its senior notes due 2018 (the “Senior Notes”) on July 2, 2013. The Senior Notes, which bear interest at 5.50% annually, were issued under an indenture dated July 2, 2013 (the “Indenture”) between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. The Senior Notes were sold in a private placement

and resold by the initial purchasers to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”).

The Senior Notes are unsecured obligations of the Company and rank equally with all other unsecured unsubordinated indebtedness, and will be effectively subordinated to any secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the collateral securing such indebtedness, and structurally subordinated to the existing and future indebtedness of the Company’s subsidiaries. Interest on the Senior Notes is payable on January 2 and July 2 and began January 2, 2014. Interest is calculated on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. The Senior Notes will mature on July 2, 2018.

Acquisition of Gotham Bank of New York

On August 10, 2012, the Company acquired Gotham Bank of New York (“Gotham”), a New York state-chartered banking corporation with approximately $431.5 million in assets, $205.5 million in loans, and $368.9 million in deposits and one branch location in midtown Manhattan. At the closing, Gotham was merged with and into the Bank, with the Bank as the surviving entity. The shareholders of Gotham received cash equal to 125% of adjusted tangible net worth, subject to fair value adjustments. The aggregate cash consideration to Gotham shareholders and option holders was approximately $41 million.

Common Equity Capital Raise

On August 7, 2012, the Company sold directly to several institutional investors an aggregate of 6,258,504 shares of its common stock at a price of $7.35 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $46 million, which were used to fund the acquisition of Gotham and for general corporate purposes.

Sterling National Bank

The Bank is a growing full-service regional bank founded in 1888. Headquartered in Montebello, New York, the Bank specializes in the delivery of services and solutions to business owners, their families and consumers within the communities we serve through teams of dedicated and experienced relationship managers. Sterling National Bank offers a complete line of commercial, business, and consumer banking products and services. As of September 30, 2014, the Bank had $7.3 billion in assets, $5.3 billion in deposits and 836 full-time equivalent employees.

Subsidiaries

The Company and the Bank maintain a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries, including a real estate investment trust that holds real estate mortgage loans, several subsidiaries that hold foreclosed properties acquired by the Bank, a Vermont captive insurance company and other subsidiaries that have an immaterial impact on the financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

Additional Information

The Company’s website (www.sterlingbancorp.com) contains a direct link to the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), including copies of annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to these filings, registration statements on Form S-4, as well as ownership reports on Forms 3, 4 and 5 filed by the Company’s directors and executive officers. Copies may also be obtained, without charge, by written request to Sterling Bancorp, 400 Rella Boulevard, Montebello, New York 10901, Attention: Investor Relations. Sterling’s website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Strategy

Through its subsidiary Sterling National Bank, the Company operates as a regional bank providing a broad offering of deposit, lending and wealth management products to commercial, consumer and municipal clients in its market area. The Bank seeks to differentiate itself by focusing on the following principles:

 

Our strategic objectives include generating sustainable growth in revenues and earnings by expanding client acquisitions, improving asset quality and increasing operating efficiency. To achieve these goals we are: 1) focusing on high value client segments; 2) expanding our

delivery and distribution channels; 3) creating a high productivity and performance culture; 4) controlling our operating costs; and 5) proactively managing enterprise risk.

 

We focus on delivering products and services to small and middle market commercial businesses and affluent consumers.  We believe that this is a client segment that is underserved by larger bank competitors in our market area.

The Bank targets the following geographic markets: the New York Metro Market, which includes Manhattan and Long Island; and the New York Suburban Market, which consists of Rockland, Orange, Sullivan, Ulster, Putnam and Westchester counties in New York and Bergen County in New Jersey. We believe the Bank operates in an attractive footprint that presents us with significant opportunities to execute our strategy. Based on data from Oxxford Information Technology, we estimate the total number of small and middle market businesses in our footprint exceeds 550 thousand.

We deploy a team-based distribution strategy in which clients are served by a focused and experienced group of relationship managers that are responsible for all aspects of the client relationship and delivery of our products and services. A significant portion of the Bank’s organic growth in 2014 was driven by the recruitment of new teams. As of September 30, 2014, the Bank had 21 commercial banking teams. We expect to continue to grow deposits and loan balances through the addition of new teams.

The Bank focuses on building client relationships that allow us to gather low cost, core deposits and originate high quality loans. The Bank maintains a disciplined pricing strategy on deposits that allows us to compete for loans while maintaining an appropriate spread over funding costs. We offer diverse loan products to commercial businesses, real estate owners, real estate developers and consumers. In 2014, we continued to emphasize growth in our commercial loan balances;  as a result, we believe that we have a high quality, diversified loan portfolio with a favorable mix of loan types, maturities and yields. 

 

The Company augments organic growth with opportunistic acquisitions. Between fiscal 2002 and October 2013, the Company completed seven acquisitions, including: National Bank of Florida in 2002; Ellenville National Bank in 2004; Warwick Community Bancorp in 2005; a branch office of HSBC Bank USA in 2005; Hudson Valley Investment Advisors in 2007; Gotham Bank of New York in August 2012; and Legacy Sterling on October 31, 2013. These acquisitions have supported the expansion of the Company into attractive markets and diversified businesses. See additional disclosure of our acquisitions in Note 2. “Acquisitions” to the consolidated financial statements.

On November 5, 2014, the Company announced its pending acquisition of Hudson Valley Holding Corp. which is detailed previously in this section.

Competition

The greater New York metropolitan region is a highly competitive market area with a concentration of financial institutions, many of which are significantly larger institutions with greater financial resources than us, and many of which are our competitors to varying degrees. Our competition for loans comes principally from commercial banks, savings banks, mortgage banking companies, credit unions, insurance companies and other financial services companies. Our most direct competition for deposits has historically come from commercial banks, savings banks and credit unions. We face additional competition for deposits from non-depository competitors such as mutual funds, securities and brokerage firms and insurance companies. We have emphasized relationship banking and the advantage of local decision-making in our banking business. We do not rely on any individual, group, or entity for a material portion of our deposits. Net interest income could be adversely affected should competitive pressures cause us to increase the interest rates paid on deposits in order to maintain our market share.

Employees

As of September 30, 2014 , we had 836 full-time equivalent employees. The employees are not represented by a collective bargaining unit and we consider our relationship with our employees to be good.

Supervision and Regulation

General

Sterling Bancorp and Sterling National Bank are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state laws. The regulatory framework is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole and not for the protection of stockholders and creditors.

Significant elements of the laws and regulations applicable to the Company and the Bank are described below. The description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes, regulations and policies that are described. Also, such statutes, regulations and

policies are continually under review by Congress and state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to Sterling and its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the business, financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  While the Bank currently has less than $10 billion in assets, after the completion of the HVB Merger, the Bank’s total assets could exceed $10 billion, thus subjecting it to additional supervision and regulation, including by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), with such additional supervision and regulation discussed throughout this section.

Regulatory Reforms

The Dodd-Frank Act significantly restructures the financial regulatory regime in the United States, and will continue to affect, into the immediate future, the lending and investment activities and general operations of depository institutions and their holding companies. This will particularly be the case for the Company and the Bank if, as anticipated, the Bank’s total assets exceed $10 billion as a result of the HVB Merger.

The Dodd-Frank Act made many changes in banking regulation, including:

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires that the FRB establish minimum consolidated capital requirements for bank holding companies that are as stringent as those required for insured depository institutions, and that the components of Tier 1 capital be restricted to capital instruments that are currently considered to be Tier 1 capital for insured depository institutions. In addition, the proceeds of trust preferred securities will be excluded from Tier 1 capital unless (i) such securities are issued by bank holding companies with assets of less than $500 million, or (ii) such securities were issued prior to May 19, 2010 by bank or savings and loan holding companies with assets of less than $15 billion .

Many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are not yet effective. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to promulgate numerous and extensive implementing regulations over the next several years. Although it is difficult to predict at this time what impact the Dodd-Frank Act and the implementing regulations will have on the Company and the Bank, they may have a material impact on operations through, among other things, heightened regulatory supervision and increased compliance costs. The Company continues to analyze the impact of rules adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act on the Company’s business. However, the full impact will not be known until the rules, and other regulatory initiatives that overlap with the rules, are finalized and their combined impacts can be understood.

Regulatory Agencies

Sterling Bancorp is a legal entity separate and distinct from Sterling National Bank and its other subsidiaries. As bank and a financial holding company, Sterling Bancorp is regulated under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHC Act”), and its subsidiaries are subject to inspection, examination and supervision by the FRB as its primary federal regulator.

As a national bank, the Bank is principally subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the “OCC”), as its primary federal regulator, as well as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”). Insured banks, including the Bank, are subject to extensive regulations that relate to, among other things: (a) the nature and amount of loans that may be made by the Bank and the rates of interest that may be charged; (b) types and amounts of other investments; (c) branching; (d) permissible activities; (e) reserve requirements; and (f) dealings with officers, directors and affiliates. 

Bank Holding Company Activities

In general, the BHC Act limits the business of bank holding companies to banking, managing or controlling banks and other activities that the FRB has determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. In addition, bank holding companies that qualify and elect to be financial holding companies such as the Company, may engage in any activity, or acquire and retain the shares of a company engaged in any activity, that is either (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity (as determined by the FRB in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) or (ii) complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally (as solely determined by the FRB), without prior approval of the FRB.

To maintain financial holding company status, a financial holding company and all of its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” A depository institution subsidiary is considered to be “well capitalized” if it satisfies the requirements for this status discussed in the section captioned “Prompt Corrective Action.” A depository institution subsidiary is considered “well

managed” if it received a composite rating and management rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination. A financial holding company’s status will also depend upon it maintaining its status as “well capitalized” and “well managed” under applicable FRB regulations. If a financial holding company ceases to meet these capital and management requirements, the FRB’s regulations provide that the financial holding company must enter into an agreement with the FRB to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. Until the financial holding company returns to compliance, the FRB may impose limitations or conditions on the conduct of its activities, and the company may not commence any of the broader financial activities permissible for financial holding companies or acquire a company engaged in such financial activities without prior approval of the FRB. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the FRB may require divestiture of the holding company’s depository institutions.

In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity permitted by the BHC Act or to acquire a company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHC Act, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the Community Reinvestment Act.

The FRB has the power to order any bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when the FRB has reasonable grounds to believe that continuation of such activity or such ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness, safety or stability of any bank subsidiary of the bank holding company.

The BHC Act, the Bank Merger Act, and other federal and state statutes regulate acquisitions of banks and banking companies. The BHC Act requires the prior approval of the FRB for the direct or indirect acquisition by the Company of more than 5% of the voting shares or substantially all of the assets of a bank or bank holding company. Under the Bank Merger Act, the prior approval of the FRB or other appropriate bank regulatory authority is required for the Bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In reviewing applications seeking approval of merger and acquisition transactions, the bank regulatory authorities will consider, among other things, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position of the combined organization, the risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system, the applicant’s performance record under the Community Reinvestment Act and fair housing laws and the effectiveness of the subject organizations in combating money laundering activities.

Capital Requirements

As a bank holding company, the Company is subject to consolidated regulatory capital requirements administered by the FRB. The Bank is subject to similar capital requirements administered by the OCC. The federal regulatory authorities’ risk-based capital guidelines are based upon the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee, which are intended to ensure that banking organizations have adequate capital given the risk levels of assets and off-balance sheet financial instruments. Under the requirements, banking organizations are required to maintain minimum ratios for Tier 1 capital and total capital to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance sheet items, such as letters of credit). For purposes of calculating the ratios, a banking organization’s assets and some of its specified off-balance sheet commitments and obligations are assigned to various risk categories. A banking organization’s capital, in turn, is classified in tiers, depending on type:

Core Capital (Tier 1)

Currently, Tier 1 capital includes common equity, retained earnings, qualifying noncumulative perpetual preferred stock, minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries, and, under existing standards, a limited amount of qualifying trust preferred securities, and qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock at the holding company level, less goodwill, most intangible assets and certain other assets.

Supplementary Capital (Tier 2)

Currently, Tier 2 capital includes, among other things, perpetual preferred stock not meeting the Tier 1 definition, qualifying mandatory convertible debt securities, qualifying subordinated debt, and allowances for loan and lease losses, subject to limitations.

Under the existing risk-based capital rules, the Company and the Bank are currently required to maintain Tier 1 capital and total capital (the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) equal to at least 4.0% and 8.0%, respectively, of its total risk-weighted assets (including various off-balance-sheet items, such as standby letters of credit). For a depository institution to be considered “well capitalized,” its Tier 1 and total capital ratios must be at least 6.0% and 10.0% on a risk-adjusted basis, respectively.

The elements currently comprising Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital and the minimum Tier 1 capital and total capital ratios may in the future be subject to change, as discussed in more detail below.

  

Bank holding companies and banks are also required to comply with minimum leverage ratio requirements. The leverage ratio is the ratio of a banking organization’s Tier 1 capital to its total adjusted quarterly average assets (as defined for regulatory purposes). The requirements

necessitate a minimum leverage ratio of 3.0% for financial holding companies and banking organizations that have the highest supervisory rating. All other banking organizations are required to maintain a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, unless a different minimum is specified by an appropriate regulatory authority. For a depository institution to be considered “well capitalized,” its leverage ratio must be at least 5.0%. The bank regulatory agencies have encouraged banking organizations to operate with capital ratios substantially in excess of the stated ratios required to maintain “well capitalized” status. In light of the foregoing, the Company and the Bank expect that they will maintain capital ratios in excess of well capitalized requirements.

Prompt Corrective Action

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) requires, among other things, the federal banking agencies to take “prompt corrective action” in respect of depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The FDIA includes the following five capital tiers: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon how its capital levels compare with various relevant capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation. The relevant capital measures are the total capital ratio, the Tier 1 capital ratio and the leverage ratio.

Currently, a depository institution will be (i) “well capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, and is not subject to any regulatory order agreement or written directive to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure; (ii) “adequately capitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and is not “well capitalized”; (iii) “undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%; (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if the institution has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%; and (v) “critically undercapitalized” if the institution’s tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of total assets. An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

The FDIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The agencies may not accept such a plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The bank holding company must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5.0% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all capital standards applicable with respect to such institution as of the time it fails to comply with the plan. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.”

“Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

The appropriate federal banking agency may, under certain circumstances, reclassify a well-capitalized insured depository institution as adequately capitalized. The FDIA provides that an institution may be reclassified if the appropriate federal banking agency determines (after notice and opportunity for hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or deems the institution to be engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice.

The appropriate agency is also permitted to require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with the supervisory provisions as if the institution were in the next lower category (but not treat a significantly undercapitalized institution as critically undercapitalized) based on supervisory information other than the capital levels of the institution.

Sterling believes that, as of September 30, 2014, its bank subsidiary, Sterling National Bank, was “well capitalized” based on the aforementioned ratios. For further information regarding the capital ratios and leverage ratio of the Company and the Bank, see the discussion under the section captioned “Capital and Liquidity” included in Item 7. “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial

Condition and Results of Operations” and Note 14. “Stockholder’s Equity - Regulatory Capital Requirements” in the notes to consolidated financial statements included in Item 8. “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, elsewhere in this report.

Basel III Capital Rules

In July 2013, the Company’s and the Bank’s primary federal regulators, the FRB and the OCC, respectively, approved final rules known as the “Basel III Capital Rules” that substantially revise the risk-based capital and leverage capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and depository institutions with total consolidated assets of $500 million or more, including the Company and the Bank. The Basel III Capital Rules address the components of capital and other issues affecting the numerator in banking institutions’ regulatory capital ratios. Basel III Capital Rules also implement the requirements of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act to remove references to credit ratings from the federal banking agencies’ rules. The Basel III Capital Rules will come into effect for the Company and the Bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to a phase-in period).

 

The Basel III Capital Rules, among other things, (i) introduce as a new capital measure “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) define 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) expand the scope of the adjustments as compared to existing regulations. CET1 capital consists of common stock instruments that meet the eligibility criteria in the final rules, retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income and common equity Tier 1 minority interest.

 

When fully phased-in on January 1, 2019, Basel III Capital Rules require banking organizations to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5% CET1 ratio as that buffer is phased-in, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7.0% upon full implementation), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio as that buffer is phased-in, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5% upon full implementation), (iii) a minimum ratio of total capital (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2 capital) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio as that buffer is phased-in, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% upon full implementation) and (iv) as a newly adopted international standard, a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to adjusted average consolidated assets.

  

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 will face limitations on the payment of dividends, common stock repurchases and discretionary cash payments to executive officers based on the amount of the shortfall.

With respect to the Bank, the Basel III Capital Rules also revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, by (i) introducing a CET1 ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8.0% (as compared to the current 6.0%); and (iii) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0% leverage ratio and still be well-capitalized.

    

Management believes that, as of September 30, 2014, the Company and the Bank would meet all capital adequacy requirements under the Basel III Capital Rules on a fully phased-in basis if such requirements were currently effective. Requirements to maintain higher levels of capital or to maintain higher levels of liquid assets could adversely impact the Company’s net income.

Dividend Restrictions

The Company depends on funds maintained or generated by its subsidiaries, principally the Bank, for its cash requirements. Various legal restrictions limit the extent to which the Bank can pay dividends or make other distributions to the Company. All national banks are limited in the payment of dividends without the approval of the OCC to an amount not to exceed the net profits (as defined by OCC regulations) for that year-to-date combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. Federal law also prohibits national banks from paying dividends that would be greater than the bank’s undivided profits after deducting statutory bad debt in excess of the bank’s allowance for loan losses. Under the foregoing restrictions, and while maintaining its “well capitalized” status, as of September 30, 2014, the Bank could pay dividends of approximately $47.9 million to the Company, without obtaining regulatory approval. This is not necessarily indicative of amounts that may be paid or are available to be paid in future periods.

 

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), a depository institution, such as the Bank, may not pay dividends if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it is already undercapitalized. The payment of dividends by the Company and the Bank may also be affected or limited by other factors, such as the requirement to maintain adequate capital. The appropriate federal regulatory authority is authorized to determine under certain circumstances relating to the financial condition of a bank holding company or a bank that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit such payment. The appropriate federal regulatory authorities have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a banking organization’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice and that banking organizations should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.

Source of Strength Doctrine

FRB policy and federal law require bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. Under this requirement, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when the Company may not be in a financial position to provide such resources. Any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to depositors and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks.

Deposit Insurance

Substantially all of the deposits of the Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC and the Bank is subject to deposit insurance assessments to maintain the DIF. Due to the decline in economic conditions, the deposit insurance provided by the FDIC per account owner was raised to $250,000 for all types of accounts. That change, initially intended to be temporary, was made permanent by the Dodd-Frank Act.

As insurer, the FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of, and to require reporting by, DIF-insured institutions. It also may prohibit any DIF-insured institution from engaging in any activity the FDIC determines by regulation or order to pose a serious threat to the DIF. The FDIC also has the authority to take enforcement actions against insured institutions. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (“FDIA”), the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and 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.

Under the FDIC’s risk-based assessment system, insured institutions are assigned to one of four risk categories based upon supervisory evaluations, regulatory capital level, and certain other factors, with less risky institutions paying lower assessments. An institution’s assessment rate depends upon the category to which it is assigned and certain other factors. Historically, assessment rates ranged from seven to 77.5 basis points of each institution’s deposit assessment base. On February 7, 2011, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC published a final rule to revise the deposit insurance assessment system. The rule, which took effect April 1, 2011, changed the assessment base used for calculating deposit insurance assessments from deposits to total assets less tangible (Tier 1) capital. Since the new base is larger than the previous base, the FDIC also lowered assessment rates so that the rule would not significantly alter the total amount of revenue collected from the industry. The range of adjusted assessment rates is now 2.5 to 45 basis points of the new assessment base.

As the DIF reserve ratio grows, the rate schedule will be adjusted downward. Additionally, an institution must pay an additional premium equal to 50 basis points on every dollar (above 3% of an institution’s Tier 1 capital) of long-term, unsecured debt held that was issued by another insured depository institution (excluding debt guaranteed under the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program). The FDIC has the authority to raise or lower assessment rates, subject to limits, and to impose special additional assessments.

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. Insured institutions with assets of $10 billion or more, as expected the Bank will reach after the completion of the HVB Merger, are supposed to fund the increase. The Dodd-Frank Act eliminated the 1.5% maximum fund ratio, leaving it, instead, to the discretion of the FDIC. The FDIC has recently exercised that discretion by establishing a long-range fund ratio of 2%, which could result in our paying higher deposit insurance premiums in the future.

FDIC deposit insurance expense totaled $5.0 million, $2.4 million and $2.5 million in fiscal 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. FDIC deposit insurance expense includes deposit insurance assessments and Financing Corporation (“FICO”) assessments related to outstanding bonds issued by FICO in the late 1980s to recapitalize the now defunct Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation. The FICO assessments will continue until the bonds mature in 2017 to 2019.

Safety and Soundness Regulations

In accordance with the FDIA, the federal banking agencies adopted guidelines establishing general standards relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, 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. In addition, regulations adopted by the federal banking agencies authorize the agencies to require that an institution that has been given notice that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, the institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an accepted compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing corrective actions and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject under the “prompt corrective action” provisions of FDIA. If the institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

Incentive Compensation

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

In June 2010, the FRB, OCC and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. These three principles are incorporated into the proposed joint compensation regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act, discussed above.

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

Loans to One Borrower

The Bank generally may not make loans or extend credit to a single or related group of borrowers in excess of 15% of unimpaired capital and surplus. An additional amount may be loaned, up to 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus, if the loan is secured by readily marketable collateral, which generally does not include real estate. As of September 30, 2014, the Bank was in compliance with the loans-to-one-borrower limitations.

Community Reinvestment Act  

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”) requires depository institutions to assist in meeting the credit needs of their market areas consistent with safe and sound banking practice. Under the CRA, each depository institution is required to help meet the credit needs of its market areas by, among other things, providing credit to low- and moderate-income individuals and communities. Depository institutions are periodically examined for compliance with the CRA and are assigned ratings that must be publicly disclosed. In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity permitted by the BHC Act, or to acquire any company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHC Act, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company must have received

a rating of at least “satisfactory” in its most recent examination under the CRA. Furthermore, banking regulators take into account CRA ratings when considering approval of certain applications. The Bank received a rating of “satisfactory” in its most recent CRA exam.

Financial Privacy

The federal banking regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

The Bank is also subject to regulatory guidelines establishing standards for safeguarding customer information. These guidelines describe the federal banking agencies’ expectations for the creation, implementation and maintenance of an information security program, which would include administrative, technical and physical safeguards appropriate to the size and complexity of the institution and the nature and scope of its activities.

Anti-Money Laundering and the USA Patriot Act    

A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations of financial institutions, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required.

Stress Testing

On October 9, 2012, the FDIC and the FRB issued final rules requiring certain large insured depository institutions and bank holding companies to conduct annual capital-adequacy stress tests. Recognizing that banks and their parent holding companies may have different primary federal regulators, the FDIC and FRB have attempted to ensure that the standards of the final rules are consistent and comparable in the areas of scope of application, scenarios, data collection, reporting, and disclosure. To implement section 165(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act, the rules would apply to FDIC-insured state non-member banks and bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion (“covered institutions”). While the Bank currently has less than $10 billion in assets, after completion of the HVB Merger, the Bank’s total assets could exceed $10 billion. The final rule requirement for public disclosure of a summary of the stress testing results for $10 billion to $50 billion covered institutions is being implemented starting with the 2014 stress test, with the disclosure occurring by June 30, 2015. The final rules define a stress test as a process to assess the potential impact of economic and financial scenarios on the consolidated earnings, losses and capital of the covered institution over a set planning horizon, taking into account the current condition of the covered institution and its risks, exposures, strategies and activities.

Under the rules, each covered institution with between $10 billion and $50 billion in assets would be required to conduct annual stress tests using the bank’s and the bank holding company’s financial data as of September 30 of that year to assess the potential impact of different scenarios on the consolidated earnings and capital of that bank and its holding company and certain related items over a nine-quarter forward-looking planning horizon, taking into account all relevant exposures and activities. On or before March 31 of each year, each covered institution, including the Bank and the Company, would be required to report to the FDIC and the FRB, respectively, in the manner and form prescribed in the rules, the results of the stress tests conducted by the covered institution during the immediately preceding year. Based on the information provided by a covered institution in the required reports to the FDIC and the FRB, as well as other relevant information, the FDIC and FRB would conduct an analysis of the quality of the covered institution’s stress test processes and related results. The FDIC and FRB envision that feedback concerning such analysis would be provided to a covered institution through the supervisory process. Consistent with the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the rule would require each covered institution to publish a summary of the results of its annual stress tests within 90 days of the required date for submitting its stress test report to the FDIC and the FRB.

Volcker Rule

The Dodd-Frank Act amended the BHC Act to require the federal bank regulatory agencies to adopt rules that prohibit banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment   companies (defined as hedge funds and private equity funds), commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule.”  The Volcker Rule also requires covered banking entities to implement certain compliance programs, and the complexity and rigor of such programs is determined based on the asset size of the covered company. Upon completion of the HVB Merger, we will be subject to heightened compliance requirements as a covered

banking entity with over $10 billion in assets. The rules were effective April 1, 2014, but the conformance period has been extended from its statutory end date of July 21, 2014 until July 21, 2015. We continue to evaluate the impact of the Volcker Rule and the final rules adopted by the Federal Reserve thereunder, and whether it will require the Bank to divest any securities in its portfolio as a result of the Volcker Rule. The Bank may incur costs to adopt additional policies and systems to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule.

Durbin Amendment

The Dodd-Frank Act included provisions which restrict interchange fees to those which are “reasonable and proportionate” for certain debit card issuers and limits the ability of networks and issuers to restrict debit card transaction routing. This statutory provision is known as the “Durbin Amendment.”  The Federal Reserve issued final rules implementing the Durbin Amendment on June 29, 2011.  In the final rules, interchange fees for debit card transactions were capped at $0.21 plus five basis points in order to be eligible for a safe harbor such that the fee is conclusively determined to be reasonable and proportionate.  The interchange fee restrictions contained in the Durbin Amendment, and the rules promulgated thereunder, only apply to debit card issuers with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets, which we expect the Bank will reach after the completion of the HVB Merger.

Transactions with Affiliates

Transactions between the Bank and its affiliates are regulated by the FRB under sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and related FRB regulations. These regulations limit the types and amounts of covered transactions engaged in by the Bank and generally require those transactions to be on an arm’s-length basis. The term “affiliate” is defined to mean any company that controls or is under common control with the Bank and includes the Company and its non-bank subsidiaries. “Covered transactions” include a loan or extension of credit, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the FRB) from the affiliate, certain derivative transactions that create a credit exposure to an affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate. In general, these regulations require that any such transaction by the Bank (or its subsidiaries) with an affiliate must be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral and must be limited to certain thresholds on an individual and aggregate basis.

Federal law also limits the Bank’s authority to extend credit to its directors, executive officers and 10% shareholders, as well as to entities controlled by such persons. Among other things, extensions of credit to insiders are required to 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. Also, the terms of such extensions of credit may not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features and may 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.

Federal Home Loan Bank System

The Bank is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank System, which consists of 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks. The Federal Home Loan Bank System provides a central credit facility primarily for member institutions. As a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York (“FHLBNY”), the Bank is required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock of the FHLBNY in an amount at least equal to the sum of the membership stock purchase requirement, determined on an annual basis at the end of each calendar year, and the activity-based stock purchase requirement, determined on a daily basis. For the Bank, the membership stock purchase requirement is 0.15% of the Mortgage-Related Assets, as defined by the FHLBNY, which consists principally of residential mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities, held by the Bank. The activity-based stock purchase requirement is equal to the sum of: (1) a specified percentage ranging from 4.0% to 5.0%, which for the Bank is 4.5%, of outstanding borrowings from the FHLBNY; (2) a specified percentage ranging from 4.0% to 5.0%, which for the Bank is inapplicable, of the outstanding principal balance of Acquired Member Assets, as defined by the FHLBNY, and delivery commitments for Acquired Member Assets; (3) a specified dollar amount related to certain off-balance sheet items, which for the Bank is inapplicable; and (4) a specified percentage ranging from 0% to 5%, which for the Bank is inapplicable, of the carrying value on the FHLBNY’s balance sheet of derivative contracts between the FHLBNY and the Bank. The FHLBNY can adjust the specified percentages and dollar amount from time to time within the ranges established by the FHLBNY capital plan. As of September 30, 2014, the Bank was in compliance with the minimum stock ownership requirement.

Federal Reserve System

FRB regulations require depository institutions to maintain cash reserves against their transaction accounts (primarily NOW and demand deposit accounts). A reserve of 3% is to be maintained against aggregate transaction accounts between $13.3 million and $89.0 million (subject to adjustment by the FRB) plus a reserve of 10% (subject to adjustment by the FRB between 8% and 14%) against that portion of total transaction accounts in excess of $89.0 million. The first $13.3 million of otherwise reservable balances (subject to adjustment by the FRB) is exempt from the reserve requirements. The Bank is in compliance with the foregoing requirements.

Consumer Protection Regulations

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

Deposit operations are also subject to:

In addition, the Bank may be subject to certain state laws and regulations designed to protect consumers.

Many of the foregoing laws and regulations are subject to change resulting from the provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act, which in many cases calls for revisions to implementing regulations. In addition, oversight responsibilities of these and other consumer protection laws and regulations will, in large measure, transfer from the Bank’s primary regulators to the CFPB, which will have supervisory authority over the Bank if, as anticipated, the Bank’s assets exceed $10 billion after the completion of the HVB Merger. We cannot predict the effect that being regulated by the CFPB, or any new or revised regulations that may result from its establishment, will have on our businesses.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Created under the Dodd-Frank Act, and given extensive implementation and enforcement powers over all banks with over $10 billion in assets, which the Bank expects to reach with the HVB Merger, the CFPB has broad rulemaking authority for a wide range of consumer financial laws that apply to all banks including, among other things, the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” acts and practices. Abusive acts or practices are defined as those that (1) materially interfere with a consumer’s ability to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service, or (2) take unreasonable advantage of a consumer’s (a) lack of financial savvy, (b) inability to protect himself in the selection or use of consumer financial products or services, or (c) reasonable reliance on a covered entity to act in the consumer’s interests. The CFPB has the authority to investigate possible violations of federal consumer financial law, hold hearings and commence civil litigation. The CFPB can issue cease-and-desist orders against banks and other entities that violate consumer financial laws. The CFPB may also institute a civil action against an entity in violation of federal consumer financial law in order to impose a civil penalty or an injunction.