M&T Bank Corporation (“Registrant” or “M&T”) is a New York business corporation which is registered as a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”) and as a bank holding company (“BHC”) under Article III-A of the New York Banking Law (“Banking Law”). The principal executive offices of the Registrant are located at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203. The Registrant was incorporated in November 1969. The Registrant and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as the “Company.” As of December 31, 2012 the Company had consolidated total assets of $83.0 billion, deposits of $65.6 billion and shareholders’ equity of $10.2 billion. The Company had 13,640 full-time and 1,303 part-time employees as of December 31, 2012.

At December 31, 2012, the Registrant had two wholly owned bank subsidiaries: M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington Trust, N.A.”). The banks collectively offer a wide range of retail and commercial banking, trust and wealth management, and investment services to their customers. At December 31, 2012, M&T Bank represented 99% of consolidated assets of the Company.

The Company from time to time considers acquiring banks, thrift institutions, branch offices of banks or thrift institutions, or other businesses within markets currently served by the Company or in other locations that would complement the Company’s business or its geographic reach. The Company has pursued acquisition opportunities in the past, continues to review different opportunities, including the possibility of major acquisitions, and intends to continue this practice.

Subsidiaries

M&T Bank is a banking corporation that is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. M&T Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, and its deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) up to applicable limits. M&T acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of the capital stock of M&T Bank in December 1969. The stock of M&T Bank represents a major asset of M&T. M&T Bank operates under a charter granted by the State of New York in 1892, and the continuity of its banking business is traced to the organization of the Manufacturers and Traders Bank in 1856. The principal executive offices of M&T Bank are located at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Bank had 725 domestic banking offices located throughout New York State, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, a full-service commercial banking office in Ontario, Canada, and an office in George Town, Cayman Islands. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Bank had consolidated total assets of $82.1 billion, deposits of $66.4 billion and shareholder’s equity of $10.3 billion. The deposit liabilities of M&T Bank are insured by the FDIC through its Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). As a commercial bank, M&T Bank offers a broad range of financial services to a diverse base of consumers, businesses, professional clients, governmental entities and financial institutions located in its markets. Lending is largely focused on consumers residing in New York State, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware and Washington, D.C., and on small and medium-size businesses based in those areas, although loans are originated through lending offices in other states and in Ontario, Canada. In addition, the Company conducts lending activities in various states through other subsidiaries. Trust and other fiduciary services are offered by M&T Bank and through its wholly owned subsidiary, Wilmington Trust Company. M&T Bank and certain of its subsidiaries also offer commercial mortgage loans secured by income producing properties or properties used by borrowers in a trade or business. Additional financial services are provided through other operating subsidiaries of the Company.

Wilmington Trust, N.A., a national banking association and a member of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC, commenced operations on October 2, 1995. The deposit liabilities of Wilmington Trust, N.A. are insured by the FDIC through the DIF. The main office of Wilmington Trust, N.A. is located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19890. A second office is located in Oakfield, New York. Wilmington Trust, N.A. offers various trust and wealth management services. Historically, Wilmington Trust, N.A. offered selected deposit and loan products on a nationwide basis, through direct mail, telephone marketing techniques and the Internet. As of December 31, 2012, Wilmington Trust, N.A. had total assets of $1.8 billion, deposits of $1.2 billion and shareholder’s equity of $405 million.

Wilmington Trust Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a Delaware bank and trust company in March 1901 and amended its charter in July 2011 to become a nondepository trust company. Wilmington Trust Company provides a variety of Delaware based trust,

4

Table of Contents

fiduciary and custodial services to its clients. As of December 31, 2012, Wilmington Trust Company had total assets of $1.4 billion and shareholder’s equity of $543 million. Revenues of Wilmington Trust Company were $122 million in 2012. The headquarters of Wilmington Trust Company are located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890.

M&T Life Insurance Company (“M&T Life Insurance”), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T, was incorporated as an Arizona business corporation in January 1984. M&T Life Insurance is a credit reinsurer which reinsures credit life and accident and health insurance purchased by the Company’s consumer loan customers. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Life Insurance had assets of $17 million and shareholder’s equity of $16 million. M&T Life Insurance recorded revenues of $1 million during 2012. Headquarters of M&T Life Insurance are located at 101 North First Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85003.

M&T Insurance Agency, Inc. (“M&T Insurance Agency”), a wholly owned insurance agency subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a New York corporation in March 1955. M&T Insurance Agency provides insurance agency services principally to the commercial market. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Insurance Agency had assets of $52 million and shareholder’s equity of $36 million. M&T Insurance Agency recorded revenues of $27 million during 2012. The headquarters of M&T Insurance Agency are located at 285 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202.

M&T Mortgage Reinsurance Company, Inc. (“M&T Reinsurance”), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a Vermont business corporation in July 1999. M&T Reinsurance enters into reinsurance contracts with insurance companies who insure against the risk of a mortgage borrower’s payment default in connection with M&T Bank-related mortgage loans. M&T Reinsurance receives a share of the premium for those policies in exchange for accepting a portion of the insurer’s risk of borrower default. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Reinsurance had assets of $23 million and shareholder’s equity of $14 million. M&T Reinsurance recorded approximately $2 million of revenue during 2012. M&T Reinsurance’s principal and registered office is at 148 College Street, Burlington, Vermont 05401.

M&T Real Estate Trust (“M&T Real Estate”) is a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust that was formed through the merger of two separate subsidiaries, but traces its origin to the incorporation of M&T Real Estate, Inc. in July 1995. M&T Real Estate engages in commercial real estate lending and provides loan servicing to M&T Bank. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Real Estate had assets of $16.6 billion, common shareholder’s equity of $15.6 billion, and preferred shareholders’ equity, consisting of 9% fixed-rate preferred stock (par value $1,000), of $1 million. All of the outstanding common stock and 89% of the preferred stock of M&T Real Estate is owned by M&T Bank. The remaining 11% of M&T Real Estate’s outstanding preferred stock is owned by officers or former officers of the Company. M&T Real Estate recorded $760 million of revenue in 2012. The headquarters of M&T Real Estate are located at M&T Center, One Fountain Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203.

M&T Realty Capital Corporation (“M&T Realty Capital”), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a Maryland corporation in October 1973. M&T Realty Capital engages in multifamily commercial real estate lending and provides loan servicing to purchasers of the loans it originates. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Realty Capital serviced $10.6 billion of commercial mortgage loans for non-affiliates and had assets of $691 million and shareholder’s equity of $101 million. M&T Realty Capital recorded revenues of $98 million in 2012. The headquarters of M&T Realty Capital are located at 25 South Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

M&T Securities, Inc. (“M&T Securities”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank that was incorporated as a New York business corporation in November 1985. M&T Securities is registered as a broker/dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and as an investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Advisors Act”). M&T Securities is licensed as a life insurance agent in each state where M&T Bank operates branch offices and in a number of other states. It provides securities brokerage, investment advisory and insurance services. As of December 31, 2012, M&T Securities had assets of $56 million and shareholder’s equity of $36 million. M&T Securities recorded $95 million of revenue during 2012. The headquarters of M&T Securities are located at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203.

Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Inc. (“WT Investment Advisors”), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank and formerly known as MTB Investment Advisors prior to its name change on January 10, 2012, was incorporated as a Maryland corporation on June 30, 1995. WT Investment Advisors, a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act, serves as investment advisor to the Wilmington Funds, a family of proprietary mutual funds, and institutional clients. As of December 31, 2012, WT Investment Advisors had assets of $26 million and shareholder’s equity of $22 million. WT Investment

5

Table of Contents

Advisors recorded revenues of $38 million in 2012. The headquarters of WT Investment Advisors are located at 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

Wilmington Funds Management Corporation (“Wilmington Funds Management”), formerly known as Rodney Square Management Corporation, is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T that was incorporated in September 1981 as a Delaware corporation. Wilmington Funds Management is registered as an investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act and serves as the investment advisor to the Wilmington Funds. Wilmington Funds Management had assets of $7 million and shareholder’s equity of $6 million as of December 31, 2012. Wilmington Funds Management recorded revenues of $19 million in 2012. The headquarters of Wilmington Funds Management are located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890.

Wilmington Trust Investment Management, LLC (“WTIM”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T and was incorporated in December 2001 as a Georgia limited liability company. WTIM is a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act and provides investment management services to clients, including certain private funds. As of December 31, 2012, WTIM has assets of $22 million and shareholder’s equity of $21 million. WTIM recorded revenues of $7 million in 2012. WTIM’s headquarters is located at Terminus 27 ^th Floor, 3280 Peachtree Road N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30305.

On February 21, 2012, the shareholders of the Wilmington Funds approved the reorganization of twelve Wilmington Funds into the surviving MTB Group of Funds, a family of proprietary mutual funds, which were renamed as the Wilmington Funds. Following the reorganization, Rodney Square Management Corporation was renamed Wilmington Funds Management and continued as the investment advisor to the Wilmington Funds, and WT Investment Advisors became the primary sub-advisor to the Wilmington Funds.

The Registrant and its banking subsidiaries have a number of other special-purpose or inactive subsidiaries. These other subsidiaries did not represent, individually and collectively, a significant portion of the Company’s consolidated assets, net income and shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2012.

Segment Information, Principal Products/Services and Foreign Operations

Information about the Registrant’s business segments is included in note 22 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” and is further discussed in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The Registrant’s reportable segments have been determined based upon its internal profitability reporting system, which is organized by strategic business unit. Certain strategic business units have been combined for segment information reporting purposes where the nature of the products and services, the type of customer and the distribution of those products and services are similar. The reportable segments are Business Banking, Commercial Banking, Commercial Real Estate, Discretionary Portfolio, Residential Mortgage Banking and Retail Banking. The Company’s international activities are discussed in note 17 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

The only activities that, as a class, contributed 10% or more of the sum of consolidated interest income and other income in any of the last three years were interest on loans and fees for providing deposit account services. The amount of income from such sources during those years is set forth on the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Supervision and Regulation of the Company

M&T and its subsidiaries are subject to the comprehensive regulatory framework applicable to bank and financial holding companies and their subsidiaries. Regulation of financial institutions such as M&T and its subsidiaries is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the FDIC’s DIF and the banking and financial system as a whole, and generally is not intended for the protection of shareholders, investors or creditors other than insured depositors. Described below are material elements of selected laws and regulations applicable to M&T and its subsidiaries. The descriptions are not intended to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes and regulations described. Changes in applicable law or regulation, and in their application by regulatory agencies, cannot be predicted, but they may have a material effect on the business and results of M&T and its subsidiaries.

6

Table of Contents

Overview

M&T is registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board System (the “Federal Reserve Board”) as a BHC under the BHCA. As such, M&T and its subsidiaries are subject to the supervision, examination and reporting requirements of the BHCA and the regulations of the Federal Reserve Board.

In general, the BHCA limits the business of a BHC to banking, managing or controlling banks and other activities that the Federal Reserve Board 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 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 Federal Reserve Board, by regulation or order, 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 Federal Reserve Board). Activities that are financial in nature include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and making merchant banking investments.

To maintain financial holding company status, a financial holding company and all of its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” M&T became a financial holding company on March 1, 2011. If a financial holding company fails to continue to meet any of the prerequisites for financial holding company status, the company must enter into an agreement with the Federal Reserve Board to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. Under such agreement, the noncompliant financial holding company generally may not commence any additional activity or acquire shares of any company pursuant to the financial holding company provisions of the BHCA, without prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the Federal Reserve Board may order the company to divest its subsidiary banks or the company may discontinue or divest investments in companies engaged in activities permissible only for a BHC electing to be treated as a financial holding company. In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity or to acquire a company engaged in any activity pursuant to the financial holding company provisions of the BHCA, each insured depository institution subsidiary of the financial holding company also must have at least a “satisfactory” rating under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”). See the section captioned “Community Reinvestment Act” included elsewhere in this item.

Current federal law also establishes a system of functional regulation under which, in addition to the broad supervisory authority that the Federal Reserve Board has over both the banking and non-banking activities of bank holding companies, the federal banking agencies will regulate the banking activities of bank holding companies, banks and savings associations and subsidiaries of the foregoing, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) will regulate their securities activities, and state insurance regulators will regulate their insurance activities. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has broad regulatory rules developed by the federal financial institutions regulators that require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent the disclosure of certain personal information to nonaffiliated third parties.

Recent Developments

The events of the past few years have led to numerous new laws in the United States and internationally for financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act” or “Dodd-Frank”), which was enacted in July 2010, significantly restructures the financial regulatory regime in the United States and provides for enhanced supervision and prudential standards for, among other things, bank holding companies, like M&T, that have total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. The implications of the Dodd-Frank Act for the Company’s businesses will depend to a large extent on the manner in which rules adopted pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act are implemented by the primary U.S. financial regulatory agencies as well as potential changes in market practices and structures in response to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and financial reforms in other jurisdictions. Among other things:

7

Table of Contents

The Proposed SIFI Rules address a wide, diverse array of regulatory areas, each of which is highly complex. In some cases they would implement financial regulatory requirements being proposed for the first time, and in others over-lap with other regulatory reforms (including the Basel III capital and liquidity reforms discussed later in this section). The requirements generally will become effective on the first day of the fifth calendar quarter after the effective date of the final rule, although certain requirements have different transition periods. M&T is analyzing the impact of the Proposed SIFI Rules on its businesses. 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. In October 2012, the Federal Reserve Board implemented, with revisions, a portion of the Proposed SIFI Rules by issuing a final rule with respect to annual company-run stress test requirements for bank holding companies, like M&T, with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal financial 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). The statutory provision is commonly called the “Volcker Rule.” In October 2011, federal regulators proposed rules to implement the Volcker Rule. The proposed rules are highly complex, and many aspects of their application remain uncertain. Although the Volcker Rule became effective on July 21, 2012, final rules for its

8

Table of Contents

implementation have not yet been adopted. In April 2012, the Federal Reserve Board confirmed that banking institutions will have two years from the effective date to conform their activities to the requirements of the Volcker Rule. Based on the proposed rules, M&T does not currently anticipate that the Volcker Rule will have a material effect on the operations of M&T and its subsidiaries. Until a final rule is adopted, the precise financial impact of the rule on M&T, its customers or the financial industry more generally, cannot be determined.

New laws or regulations or changes to existing laws and regulations (including changes in interpretation or enforcement) could materially adversely affect M&T’s financial condition or results of operations. As discussed further throughout this section, many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to further rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on M&T and its subsidiaries or the financial services industry generally.

Dividends

M&T is a legal entity separate and distinct from its banking and other subsidiaries. Historically, the majority of M&T’s revenue has been from dividends paid to M&T by its subsidiary banks. M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. are subject, under one or more of the banking laws, to restrictions on the amount of dividends they may declare and pay. Future dividend payments to M&T by its subsidiary banks will be dependent on a number of factors, including the earnings and financial condition of each such bank, and are subject to the limitations referred to in note 23 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” and to other statutory powers of bank regulatory agencies.

An insured depository institution is prohibited from making any capital distribution to its owner, including any dividend, if, after making such distribution, the depository institution fails to meet the required minimum level for any relevant capital measure, including the risk-based capital adequacy and leverage standards discussed herein.

Dividend payments by M&T to its shareholders and stock repurchases by M&T are subject to the oversight of the Federal Reserve Board. As described below in this section under “Federal Reserve Board’s Capital Plan Review,” dividends and stock repurchases generally may only be paid or made under a capital plan as to which the Federal Reserve Board has not objected.

Supervision and Regulation of M&T Bank’s Subsidiaries

M&T Bank has a number of subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are subject to the laws and regulations of both the federal government and the various states in which they conduct business. For example, M&T Securities is regulated by the SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and state securities regulators.

Federal Reserve Board’s Capital Plan Review

In November 2011, the Federal Reserve Board published a final rule requiring bank holding companies (including M&T) with $50 billion or more of total consolidated assets to submit annual capital plans to the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank. Such bank holding companies will also be required to collect and report certain related data on a quarterly basis to allow the Federal Reserve Board to monitor the companies’ progress against their annual capital plans. The comprehensive capital plans, which are prepared using Basel I capital guidelines, include a view of capital adequacy under four scenarios – a BHC-defined baseline scenario, a baseline scenario provided by the Federal Reserve Board, at least one BHC-defined stress scenario, and a stress scenario provided by the Federal Reserve Board. Covered bank holding companies, including M&T, may pay dividends and repurchase stock only in accordance with a capital plan that has been reviewed by the Federal Reserve Board and as to which the Federal Reserve Board has not objected. The rules provide that the Federal Reserve Board may object to a capital plan if the plan does not show that the covered BHC will meet all minimum regulatory capital ratios and maintain a ratio of Tier 1 common equity to risk-weighted assets of at least 5% on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout the nine-quarter planning horizon covered by the capital plan. Even if such quantitative thresholds are met, the Federal Reserve Board could object to a capital plan for qualitative reasons, including inadequate assumptions in the plan, other unresolved supervisory issues or an insufficiently robust capital adequacy process, or if the capital plan would otherwise constitute an unsafe or unsound practice or violate law. The rules also require, among other things, that a covered BHC may not make a capital distribution unless after giving effect to the distribution it will meet all minimum regulatory capital ratios and have a ratio of Tier 1 common equity to risk-weighted assets of at least 5%. As part of this process, M&T also

9

Table of Contents

provides the Federal Reserve Board with projections covering the time period it will take M&T to fully comply with Basel III capital guidelines, including the 7% Tier 1 common equity, 8.5% Tier 1 capital and 3% leverage ratios as well as granular components of those elements. M&T’s most recent annual capital plan was filed with the Federal Reserve Board on January 7, 2013.

The purpose of the Federal Reserve Board’s capital plan review is to ensure that these bank holding companies have robust, forward-looking capital planning processes that account for each BHC’s unique risks and that permit continued operations during times of economic and financial stress. The capital plan review rule, consistent with prior Federal Reserve Board guidance, provides that capital plans contemplating dividend payout ratios exceeding 30% of projected after-tax net income will receive particularly close scrutiny.

Capital Requirements

M&T and its subsidiary banks are required to comply with the applicable capital adequacy standards established by the Federal Reserve Board. There are two basic measures of capital adequacy for bank holding companies that have been promulgated by the Federal Reserve Board: a risk-based measure and a leverage measure.

Risk-based Capital Standards. The risk-based capital standards are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in credit and market risk profiles among bank and financial holding companies, to account for off-balance sheet exposure, and to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets. Assets and off-balance sheet items are assigned to broad risk categories, each with appropriate weights. The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets and off-balance sheet items.

The minimum guideline for the ratio of total capital (“Total Capital”) to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance sheet items, such as standby letters of credit) is 8.0%. At least half of the Total Capital must be “Tier 1 Capital,” which currently consists of qualifying common equity, qualifying perpetual preferred stock (including related surplus), minority interests relating to qualifying common or non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued by a consolidated U.S. depository institution or foreign bank subsidiary, and certain “restricted core capital elements,” as discussed below, less goodwill and certain other intangible assets. Currently, “Tier 2 Capital” may consist of, among other things, qualifying subordinated debt, mandatorily convertible debt securities, preferred stock and trust preferred securities not included in the definition of Tier 1 Capital, and a limited amount of the allowance for loan losses. Non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, trust preferred securities and other so-called “restricted core capital elements” are currently limited to 25% of Tier 1 Capital. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, trust preferred securities will be phased-out of the definition of Tier 1 Capital of bank holding companies having consolidated assets exceeding $500 million, such as M&T, over a three-year period that began in January 2013.

The minimum guideline to be considered well-capitalized for Tier 1 Capital and Total Capital is 6.0% and 10.0%, respectively. At December 31, 2012, the Registrant’s consolidated Tier 1 Capital ratio was 10.22% and its Total Capital ratio was 13.39%. 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 greater detail below.

Basel I and II Standards. M&T currently calculates its risk-based capital ratios under guidelines adopted by the Federal Reserve Board based on the 1988 Capital Accord (“Basel I”) of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”). In 2004, the Basel Committee published a new set of risk-based capital standards (“Basel II”) in order to update Basel I. Basel II provides two approaches for setting capital standards for credit risk — an internal ratings-based approach tailored to individual institutions’ circumstances and a standardized approach that bases risk-weighting on external credit assessments to a much greater extent than permitted in the existing risk-based capital guidelines. Basel II also would set capital requirements for operational risk and refine the existing capital requirements for market risk exposures. A definitive final rule for implementing the advanced approaches of Basel II in the United States, which applies only to internationally active banking organizations, or “core banks” (defined as those with consolidated total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposures of $10 billion or more) became effective on April 1, 2008. Other U.S. banking organizations may elect to adopt the requirements of this rule (if they meet applicable qualification requirements), but are not required to comply. The rule also allows a banking organization’s primary federal supervisor to determine that application of the rule would not be appropriate in light of the bank’s asset size, level of complexity, risk profile or scope of operations. Neither M&T Bank nor Wilmington Trust, N.A. is currently required to comply with Basel II.

10

Table of Contents

In July 2008, the U.S. bank regulatory agencies issued a proposed rule that would provide banking organizations that do not use the advanced approaches with the option to implement a new risk-based capital framework. This framework would adopt the standardized approach of Basel II for credit risk, the basic indicator approach of Basel II for operational risk, and related disclosure requirements. Although this proposed rule generally parallels the relevant approaches under Basel II, it diverges where United States markets have unique characteristics and risk profiles, most notably with respect to risk weighting residential mortgage exposures. A definitive final rule has not been issued as of February 2013.

Leverage Requirements. Although neither Basel I nor Basel II includes a leverage requirement as an international standard, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio guidelines to be considered well-capitalized for bank holding companies. These guidelines provide for a minimum ratio of Tier 1 Capital to average total assets, less goodwill and certain other intangible assets (the “Leverage Ratio”), of 3.0% for bank holding companies that meet certain specified criteria, including having the highest regulatory rating. All other bank holding companies generally are required to maintain a Leverage Ratio of at least 4%. M&T’s Leverage Ratio at December 31, 2012 was 10.07%.

The guidelines also provide that bank holding companies experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Board has indicated that it will consider a “tangible Tier 1 Capital leverage ratio” (deducting all intangibles) and other indicators of capital strength in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activities.

Basel III Standards. In December 2010, the Basel Committee released its final framework for strengthening international capital and liquidity regulation, now officially identified by the Basel Committee as “Basel III.” Basel III, when implemented by the U.S. bank regulatory agencies as proposed in a joint notice of proposed rulemaking in June 2012 and fully phased-in, will require bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries to maintain substantially more capital, with a greater emphasis on common equity. The Basel III final capital framework, among other things:

The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

11

Table of Contents

In July 2011, the Basel Committee introduced a consultative document establishing a requirement for a capital surcharge on certain globally systemically important banks (“G-SIBs”), and in November 2011, the Basel Committee issued final provisions substantially unchanged from the previous proposal. An “indicator-based approach” will be used to determine whether a bank is a G-SIB and the appropriate level of the surcharge to be applied. The “indicator-based approach” consists of five broad categories: size, interconnectedness, lack of substitutability, cross-jurisdictional activity and complexity. Banks found to be G-SIBs will be subject to a progressive CET1 surcharge ranging from 1% to 3.5% over the Basel III 7% CET1 requirement. The surcharge will become fully effective on January 1, 2019.

The implementation of the Basel III final framework was originally contemplated to commence on January 1, 2013, but in November 2012, the U.S. bank regulatory agencies announced that implementation would not take effect on that date. As of February 2013, no new effective date had been announced. Upon effectiveness of the Basel III capital rules, banking institutions will be required to meet the following minimum capital ratios before the application of any buffer:

The Basel III final framework provides for a number of new deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1.

Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 are contemplated to begin on January 1, 2014 (which may be subject to delay given the delayed initial implementation of the Basel III framework) and will be phased-in over a five-year period (20% per year). The implementation of the capital conservation buffer will begin on January 1, 2016 (subject to potential delay) at 0.625% and be phased in over a four-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019, subject to potential delay).

In June 2012, the U.S. banking regulators requested comment on three sets of proposed rules that would implement Basel III in the U.S. These proposed rules, among other things, would revise the capital levels at which a banking institution would be subject to the prompt corrective action framework (including the establishment of a new Tier 1 common capital requirement), eliminate or reduce the ability of certain types of capital instruments to count as regulatory capital, eliminate the Tier 1 treatment of trust preferred securities (as required by the Dodd- Frank Act) following a phase-in period beginning in 2013, and require new deductions from capital for investments in unconsolidated financial institutions, mortgage servicing assets and deferred tax assets that exceed specified thresholds. The proposed rules also would establish a new capital conservation buffer and, for large or internationally active banks not currently including M&T, a supplemental leverage capital requirement that would take into account certain off-balance sheet exposures and a countercyclical capital buffer that would initially be set at zero. The proposed rules would also revise the Federal Reserve Board’s rules for calculating risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity.

The Dodd-Frank Act appears to require the Federal Reserve Board to adopt regulations imposing a continuing “floor” of the Basel I-based capital requirements in cases where the Basel II-based capital requirements and any changes in capital regulations resulting from Basel III otherwise would permit lower requirements. In 2011, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC and OCC jointly approved a final rule which requires a banking organization operating under the agencies’ advanced approaches risk-based capital rules to adhere to the higher of the minimum requirements under the general risk-based capital rules and the minimum requirements under the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules.

Liquidity Ratios under Basel III. Historically, regulation and monitoring of bank and BHC liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, both in the U.S. and internationally, without required formulaic measures. The Basel III final framework requires banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio (“LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30-day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (“NSFR”), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements will incent banking entities

12

Table of Contents

to increase their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. The Basel III liquidity framework contemplates that the LCR will be subject to an observation period continuing through mid-2013 and, subject to any revisions resulting from the analyses conducted and data collected during the observation period, implemented as a minimum standard on January 1, 2015. However, in January 2013, the governing body of the Basel Committee endorsed revisions to the LCR which include introducing the LCR as planned on January 1, 2015, but the minimum requirement will begin at 60%, raising in equal annual steps of ten percentage points each contemplated to reach 100% on January 1, 2019. Similarly, the Basel III liquidity framework contemplates that the NSFR will be subject to an observation period through mid-2016 and, subject to any revisions resulting from the analyses conducted and data collected during the observation period, implemented as a minimum standard by January 1, 2018. These new standards are subject to further rulemaking and their terms may well change before implementation. The U.S. bank regulatory agencies have not yet proposed rules to implement Basel III’s liquidity requirements.

The Proposed SIFI Rules address liquidity requirements for bank holding companies, including M&T, with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets. In the release accompanying those rules, the Federal Reserve Board states a general intention to incorporate the Basel III liquidity framework for the bank holding companies covered by the Proposed SIFI Rules or a “subset” of those bank holding companies. Although these rules do not include prescriptive ratios like the LCR and NSFR, they do include detailed liquidity-related requirements, including requirements for cashflow projections, liquidity stress testing (including, at a minimum, over time horizons that include an overnight time horizon, a 30-day time horizon, a 90-day time horizon and a 1-year time horizon), and a requirement that covered bank holding companies maintain a liquidity buffer of unencumbered highly liquid assets sufficient to meet projected net cash outflows and the projected loss or impairment of existing funding sources for 30 days over a range of liquidity stress scenarios.

Capital Requirements of Subsidiary Depository Institutions. M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. are subject to substantially similar capital requirements as those applicable to M&T. As of December 31, 2012, both M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. were in compliance with applicable minimum capital requirements. None of M&T, M&T Bank or Wilmington Trust, N.A. has been advised by any federal banking agency of a failure to meet any specific minimum capital ratio requirement applicable to it as of December 31, 2012. Failure to meet capital guidelines could subject a bank to a variety of enforcement remedies, including the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, and to certain restrictions on its business. See “Regulatory Remedies under the FDIA.”

Given that the Basel III rules are subject to change and the scope and content of capital regulations that U.S. federal banking agencies may adopt under the Dodd-Frank Act is uncertain, M&T cannot be certain of the impact new capital regulations will have on its capital ratios or those of its bank subsidiaries.

Safety and Soundness Standards

Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (the “FDIA”), establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, these guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. Additionally, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency 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 the FDIA. See “Regulatory Remedies under the FDIA” below. If an 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.

Regulatory Remedies under the FDIA

The FDIA establishes a system of regulatory remedies to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions, referred to as the prompt corrective action. The federal banking regulators have established five capital categories (“well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly

13

Table of Contents

undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized”) and must take certain mandatory supervisory actions, and are authorized to take other discretionary actions, with respect to institutions which are undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized. The severity of these mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the FDIA requires the banking regulator to appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized. The federal bank regulatory agencies have specified by regulation the relevant capital levels for each category:

For purposes of these regulations, the term “tangible equity” includes core capital elements counted as Tier 1 Capital for purposes of the risk-based capital standards plus the amount of outstanding cumulative perpetual preferred stock (including related surplus), minus all intangible assets with certain exceptions. An institution that is classified as well-capitalized based on its capital levels may be classified as adequately capitalized, and an institution that is adequately capitalized or undercapitalized based upon its capital levels may be treated as though it were undercapitalized or significantly undercapitalized, respectively, if the appropriate federal banking agency, after notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that an unsafe or unsound condition or an unsafe or unsound practice warrants such treatment.

An institution that is categorized as undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized is required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan to its appropriate federal banking regulator. Under the FDIA, in order for the capital restoration plan to be accepted by the appropriate federal banking agency, a BHC must guarantee that a subsidiary depository institution will comply with its capital restoration plan, subject to certain limitations. The BHC must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. The obligation of a controlling BHC under the FDIA to fund a capital restoration plan is limited to the lesser of 5.0% of an undercapitalized subsidiary’s assets or the amount required to meet regulatory capital requirements. An undercapitalized institution is also generally prohibited from increasing its average total assets, making acquisitions, establishing any branches or engaging in any new line of business, except in accordance with an accepted capital restoration plan or with the approval of the FDIC. Institutions that are significantly undercapitalized or undercapitalized and either fail to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fail to implement an approved capital restoration plan 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 depository institutions failing to submit or implement an acceptable capital restoration plan are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator.

Support of Subsidiary Banks

Under longstanding Federal Reserve Board policy which has been codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, M&T is expected to act as a source of financial strength to, and to commit resources to support, its subsidiary banks. This support may be required at times when M&T may not be inclined to provide it. In addition, any capital loans by a BHC to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the BHC to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

14

Table of Contents

Cross-Guarantee Provisions

Each insured depository institution “controlled” (as defined in the BHCA) by the same BHC can be held liable to the FDIC for any loss incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, by the FDIC due to the default of any other insured depository institution controlled by that holding company and for any assistance provided by the FDIC to any of those banks that is in danger of default. The FDIC’s claim under the cross-guarantee provisions is superior to claims of shareholders of the insured depository institution or its holding company and to most claims arising out of obligations or liabilities owed to affiliates of the institution, but is subordinate to claims of depositors, secured creditors and holders of subordinated debt (other than affiliates) of the commonly controlled insured depository institution. The FDIC may decline to enforce the cross-guarantee provisions if it determines that a waiver is in the best interest of the DIF.

Transactions with Affiliates

There are various legal restrictions on the extent to which M&T and its non-bank subsidiaries may borrow or otherwise obtain funding from M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. In general, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Board Act and Federal Reserve Board Regulation W require that any “covered transaction” by M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. (or any of their respective subsidiaries) with an affiliate must be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral and must be limited to (a) in the case of any single such affiliate, the aggregate amount of covered transactions of the insured depository institution and its subsidiaries may not exceed 10% of the capital stock and surplus of such insured depository institution, and (b) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of covered transactions of an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries may not exceed 20% of the capital stock and surplus of such insured depository institution. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded the coverage and scope of the limitations on affiliate transactions within a banking organization, including for example, the requirement that the 10% of capital limit on covered transactions begin to apply to financial subsidiaries. “Covered transactions” are defined by statute to include, among other things, 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 Federal Reserve Board) 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. All covered transactions, including certain additional transactions (such as transactions with a third party in which an affiliate has a financial interest), must be conducted on market terms.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

Deposit Insurance Assessments. M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. pay deposit insurance premiums to the FDIC based on an assessment rate established by the FDIC.

Since April 1, 2011, the FDIC, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, has mandated that the deposit insurance assessment be based on a depository institution’s average consolidated total assets minus its average tangible equity. Additionally, the FDIC’s deposit insurance assessment system has a two scorecard system for large institutions, one for most large institutions that have more than $10 billion in assets, such as M&T Bank, and another for “highly complex” institutions that have over $50 billion in assets and are fully owned by a parent with over $500 billion in assets. Each scorecard has a performance score and a loss-severity score that is combined to produce a total score, which is translated into an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC utilizes the bank’s capital level and supervisory ratings (its “CAMELS” ratings) and certain new forward-looking financial measures to assess an institution’s ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC’s current assessment rule does not use risk categories and long-term debt issuer ratings for calculating risk-based assessments for institutions having more than $10 billion in assets. The FDIC has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score, up or down, based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the scorecard. The total score is then translated to an initial base assessment rate on a non-linear, sharply-increasing scale.

For large institutions, including M&T Bank, the initial base assessment rate ranges from 5 to 35 basis points (hundredths of one percent) on an annualized basis. After the effect of potential base-rate adjustments, the total base assessment rate could range from 2.5 to 45 basis points on an annualized basis. The potential adjustments to an institution’s initial base assessment rate include (i) a potential decrease of up to 5 basis points for certain long-term unsecured debt and (ii) (except for well-capitalized institutions with a CAMELS rating of 1 or 2) a potential increase of up to 10 basis points for brokered deposits in excess of 10% of domestic deposits. As the DIF reserve ratio grows, the rate schedule will be adjusted downward.

15

Table of Contents

Additionally, there is an adjustment for depository institution debt whereby an institution will 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).

In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a new restoration plan to ensure the designated reserve ratio reaches 1.35% by September 2020. The FDIC will, at least semi-annually, update its income and loss projections for the DIF and, if necessary, propose rules to further increase assessment rates.

In November 2010, the FDIC issued a final rule to implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that provide for temporary unlimited coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts. The separate coverage for noninterest-bearing transaction accounts became effective on December 31, 2010 and terminated on December 31, 2012.

Under the FDIA, insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC 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.

FICO Assessments. In addition, the Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996 authorized the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) to impose assessments on DIF applicable deposits in order to service the interest on FICO’s bond obligations from deposit insurance fund assessments. The amount assessed on individual institutions by FICO is in addition to the amount, if any, paid for deposit insurance according to the FDIC’s risk-related assessment rate schedules. FICO assessment rates may be adjusted quarterly to reflect a change in assessment base. M&T Bank recognized $5 million of expense related to its FICO assessments and Wilmington Trust, N.A. recognized $70 thousand of such expense in 2012.

Acquisitions

The BHCA requires every BHC to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board before: (1) it may acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank or savings and loan association, if after such acquisition, the BHC will directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the voting shares of the institution; (2) it or any of its subsidiaries, other than a bank, may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank or savings and loan association; or (3) it may merge or consolidate with any other BHC. Since July 2011, financial holding companies and bank holding companies with consolidated assets exceeding $50 billion, such as M&T, have been required to (i) obtain prior approval from the Federal Reserve Board before acquiring certain nonbank financial companies with assets exceeding $10 billion and (ii) provide prior written notice to the Federal Reserve Board before acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any company having consolidated assets of $10 billion or more. Since July 2011, bank holding companies seeking approval to complete an acquisition have been required to be well-capitalized and well-managed.

The BHCA further provides that the Federal Reserve Board may not approve any transaction that would result in a monopoly or would be in furtherance of any combination or conspiracy to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the business of banking in any section of the United States, or the effect of which may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any section of the country, or that in any other manner would be in restraint of trade, unless the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed by the public interest in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served. The Federal Reserve Board is also required to consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding companies and banks concerned and the convenience and needs of the community to be served. Consideration of financial resources generally focuses on capital adequacy, and consideration of convenience and needs issues includes the parties’ performance under the CRA. The Federal Reserve Board must take into account the institutions’ effectiveness in combating money laundering. In addition, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the BHCA was amended to require the Federal Reserve Board, when evaluating a proposed transaction, to consider the extent to which the transaction would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the United States banking or financial system.

U.S. Treasury Capital Purchase Program

Pursuant to the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (“TARP”), on December 23, 2008, M&T issued and sold to the U.S. Treasury in a private offering (i) $600 million of Series A Preferred Stock and (ii) a warrant to purchase 1,218,522 shares of M&T Common Stock at an exercise price of $73.86 per share, subject to certain anti-dilution and other adjustments (the “M&T

16

Table of Contents

Warrant”). M&T elected to participate in the capital purchase program at an amount equal to approximately 1% of its risk-weighted assets at the time. On May 18, 2011, M&T redeemed and retired $370 million of the Series A Preferred Stock, on August 21, 2012, the U.S. Treasury completed its public offering of the remaining outstanding shares of Series A Preferred Stock and on December 17, 2012, the U.S. Treasury completed its public offering of the M&T Warrant. In connection with its acquisition of Provident on May 23, 2009, M&T issued $151.5 million of Series C Preferred Stock in exchange for the securities issued by Provident to the U.S. Treasury on November 14, 2008, and assumed a warrant issued by Provident to the U.S. Treasury, which, on a converted basis, provides for the purchase of 407,542 shares of M&T Common Stock at $55.76 per share. On August 21, 2012, the U.S. Treasury completed its public offering of the outstanding shares of Series C Preferred Stock. Following the completion of these public offerings, the U.S. Treasury does not hold any preferred shares of M&T.

Executive and Incentive Compensation

Guidelines adopted by the federal banking agencies pursuant to the FDIA 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 stockholder. In June 2010, the Federal Reserve Board issued comprehensive guidance on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Guidance”) 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 Incentive Compensation 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. Any deficiencies in compensation practices that are identified may be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or perform other actions. The Incentive Compensation Guidance provides that enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements or related risk-management control or governance processes pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities, such as M&T and M&T 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 and in December 2012, the Federal Reserve Board announced that it, along with other federal regulatory agencies, was continuing to work on developing final rules regarding incentive-based payment arrangements. If the final regulations are adopted in the form initially proposed, they will impose limitations on the manner in which M&T may structure compensation for its executives.

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on incentive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the ability of M&T and its subsidiaries to hire, retain and motivate their key employees.

Resolution Planning

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve Board and FDIC have jointly issued a final rule that requires certain organizations, including bank holding companies with consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, to report periodically to regulators a resolution plan for their rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure. M&T’s resolution plan must, among other things, ensure that its depository institution subsidiaries are adequately protected from risks arising from its other subsidiaries. The final rule sets specific standards for the resolution plans, including requiring a strategic analysis of the plan’s components, a description of the range of specific actions the company proposes to take in resolution,

17

Table of Contents

and a description of the company’s organizational structure, material entities, interconnections and interdependencies, and management information systems, among other elements. The initial plan of M&T is due on December 31, 2013.

In addition, the FDIC has issued a final rule that requires insured depository institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets, such as M&T Bank, to submit to the FDIC periodic plans for resolution in the event of the institution’s failure. The rule requires these insured institutions to submit a resolution plan that will enable the FDIC, as receiver, to resolve the bank in a manner that ensures that depositors receive access to their insured deposits within one business day of the institution’s failure, maximizes the net-present-value return from the sale or disposition of its assets, and minimizes the amount of any loss to be realized by the institution’s creditors. The final rule also sets specific standards for the resolution plans, including requiring a strategic analysis of the plan’s components, a description of the strategies for achieving the least costly resolution, and analyses of the financial company’s organization, material entities, interconnections and interdependencies, and management information systems, among other elements. The initial plan of M&T Bank is due on December 31, 2013.

Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company

If the FDIC is appointed as conservator or receiver for an insured depository institution such as M&T Bank or Wilmington Trust, N.A., upon its insolvency or in certain other events, the FDIC has the power:

In addition, under federal law, the claims of holders of domestic deposit liabilities and certain claims for administrative expenses against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution, including claims of debt holders of the institution, in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver. As a result, whether or not the FDIC ever sought to repudiate any debt obligations of M&T Bank or Wilmington Trust, N.A., the debt holders would be treated differently from, and could receive, if anything, substantially less than, the depositors of the bank. The Dodd-Frank Act created a new resolution regime (known as “orderly liquidation authority”) for systemically important non-bank financial companies, including bank holding companies and their affiliates. Under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver for the systemically important institution, and its failed non-bank subsidiaries, for purposes of liquidating the entity if, among other conditions, it is determined at the time of the institution’s failure that it is in default or in danger of default and the failure poses a risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system.

If the FDIC is appointed as receiver under the orderly liquidation authority, then the powers of the receiver, and the rights and obligations of creditors and other parties who have dealt with the institution, would be determined under the Dodd-Frank Act provisions, and not under the insolvency law that would otherwise apply. The powers of the receiver under the orderly liquidation authority were based on the powers of the FDIC as receiver for depository institutions under the FDIA. However, the provisions governing the rights of creditors under the orderly liquidation authority were modified in certain respects to reduce disparities with the treatment of creditors’ claims under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as compared to the treatment of those claims under the new authority. Nonetheless, substantial differences in the rights of creditors exist as between these two regimes, including the right of the FDIC to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances, the use of an administrative claims procedure to determine creditors’ claims (as opposed to the judicial procedure utilized in bankruptcy proceedings), and the right of the FDIC to transfer claims to a “bridge” entity.

The orderly liquidation authority provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act became effective upon enactment. However, a number of rulemakings are required under the terms of Dodd-Frank, and a number of provisions of the new authority require clarification. The FDIC has completed its initial phase of rulemaking under the orderly liquidation authority, but additional rules are under consideration.

18

Table of Contents

An orderly liquidation fund will fund such liquidation proceedings through borrowings from the Treasury Department and risk-based assessments made, first, on entities that received more in the resolution than they would have received in liquidation to the extent of such excess, and second, if necessary, on bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, such as M&T. If an orderly liquidation is triggered, M&T could face assessments for the orderly liquidation fund.

Depositor Preference

Under federal law, depositors and certain claims for administrative expenses and employee compensation against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors, including depositors whose deposits are payable only outside of the United States and the parent BHC, with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Financial Privacy

The federal banking regulators have adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to non-affiliated 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 non-affiliated third party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In addition, consumers may also prevent disclosure of certain information among affiliated companies that is assembled or used to determine eligibility for a product or service, such as that shown on consumer credit reports and asset and income information from applications. Consumers also have the option to direct banks and other financial institutions not to share information about transactions and experiences with affiliated companies for the purpose of marketing products or services.

Consumer Protection Laws

In connection with their respective lending and leasing activities, M&T Bank, Wilmington Trust, N.A. and certain of their subsidiaries, are each subject to a number of federal and state laws designed to protect borrowers and promote lending to various sectors of the economy. These laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and various state law counterparts.

In addition, federal law currently contains extensive customer privacy protection provisions. Under these provisions, a financial institution must provide to its customers, at the inception of the customer relationship and annually thereafter, the institution’s policies and procedures regarding the handling of customers’ nonpublic personal financial information. These provisions also provide that, except for certain limited exceptions, a financial institution may not provide such personal information to unaffiliated third parties unless the institution discloses to the customer that such information may be so provided and the customer is given the opportunity to opt out of such disclosure. Federal law makes it a criminal offense, except in limited circumstances, to obtain or attempt to obtain customer information of a financial nature by fraudulent or deceptive means.

Since July 1, 2010, a federal banking rule under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act prohibits financial institutions from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machines (“ATM”) and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those type of transactions. If a consumer does not opt in, any ATM transaction or debit that overdraws the consumer’s account will be denied. Overdrafts on the payment of checks and regular electronic bill payments are not covered by this new rule. Before opting in, the consumer must be provided a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service, and the consumer’s choices. Financial institutions must provide consumers who do not opt in with the same account terms, conditions and features (including pricing) that they provide to consumers who do opt in.

19

Table of Contents

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Supervision

In July 2011, M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. were notified that they will be supervised by the CFPB for certain consumer protection purposes. The CFPB will focus on:

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 implemented a broad range of corporate governance, accounting and reporting measures for companies that have securities registered under the Exchange Act, including publicly-held bank holding companies such as M&T. Specifically, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the various regulations promulgated thereunder, established, among other things: (i) requirements for audit committees, including independence, expertise, and responsibilities; (ii) responsibilities regarding financial statements for the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the reporting company; (iii) the forfeiture of bonuses or other incentive-based compensation and profits from the sale of the reporting company’s securities by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer in the twelve-month period following the initial publication of any financial statements that later require restatement; (iv) the creation of an independent accounting oversight board; (v) standards for auditors and regulation of audits, including independence provisions that restrict non-audit services that accountants may provide to their audit clients; (vi) disclosure and reporting obligations for the reporting company and their directors and executive officers, including accelerated reporting of stock transactions and a prohibition on trading during pension blackout periods; (vii) a prohibition on personal loans to directors and officers, except certain loans made by insured financial institutions on nonpreferential terms and in compliance with other bank regulatory requirements; and (viii) a range of civil and criminal penalties for fraud and other violations of the securities laws.

Community Reinvestment Act

M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. are subject to the provisions of the CRA. Under the terms of the CRA, each appropriate federal bank regulatory agency is required, in connection with its examination of a bank, to assess such bank’s record in assessing and meeting the credit needs of the communities served by that bank, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. During these examinations, the regulatory agency rates such bank’s compliance with the CRA as “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs to Improve” or “Substantial Noncompliance.” The regulatory agency’s assessment of the institution’s record is part of the regulatory agency’s consideration of applications to acquire, merge or consolidate with another banking institution or its holding company, or to open or relocate a branch office. Currently, M&T Bank has a CRA rating of “Outstanding” and Wilmington Trust, N.A. has a CRA rating of “Satisfactory.” In the case of a BHC applying for approval to acquire a bank or BHC, the Federal Reserve Board will assess the record of each subsidiary bank of the applicant BHC in considering the application, and such records may be the basis for denying the application. The Banking Law contains provisions similar to the CRA which are applicable to New York-chartered banks. Currently, M&T Bank has a CRA rating of “Outstanding” as determined by the New York State Department of Financial Services.

USA Patriot Act

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) imposes obligations on U.S. financial institutions, including banks and broker/dealer subsidiaries, to implement and maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls which are reasonably designed to prevent, detect and report instances of money laundering and the financing of terrorism and to verify the identity of their customers. In addition, provisions of the USA Patriot Act require the federal financial institution regulatory agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and BHC acquisitions. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution. The Registrant and its impacted subsidiaries have approved policies and procedures that are believed to be compliant with the USA Patriot Act.

20

Table of Contents

Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation

The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (i) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (ii) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (e.g. property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license from OFAC. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Regulation of Insurers and Insurance Brokers

The Company’s operations in the areas of insurance brokerage and reinsurance of credit life insurance are subject to regulation and supervision by various state insurance regulatory authorities. Although the scope of regulation and form of supervision may vary from state to state, insurance laws generally grant broad discretion to regulatory authorities in adopting regulations and supervising regulated activities. This supervision generally includes the licensing of insurance brokers and agents and the regulation of the handling of customer funds held in a fiduciary capacity. Certain of M&T’s insurance company subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulatory supervision and to insurance laws and regulations requiring, among other things, maintenance of capital, record keeping, reporting and examinations.

Governmental Policies

The earnings of the Company are significantly affected by the monetary and fiscal policies of governmental authorities, including the Federal Reserve Board. Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the Federal Reserve Board to implement these objectives are open-market operations in U.S. Government securities and federal funds, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These instruments of monetary policy are used in varying combinations to influence the overall level of bank loans, investments and deposits, and the interest rates charged on loans and paid for deposits. The Federal Reserve Board frequently uses these instruments of monetary policy, especially its open-market operations and the discount rate, to influence the level of interest rates and to affect the strength of the economy, the level of inflation or the price of the dollar in foreign exchange markets. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board have had a significant effect on the operating results of banking institutions in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. It is not possible to predict the nature of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies, or the effect which they may have on the Company’s business and earnings.

Competition

The Company competes in offering commercial and personal financial services with other banking institutions and with firms in a number of other industries, such as thrift institutions, credit unions, personal loan companies, sales finance companies, leasing companies, securities firms and insurance companies. Furthermore, diversified financial services companies are able to offer a combination of these services to their customers on a nationwide basis. The Company’s operations are significantly impacted by state and federal regulations applicable to the banking industry. Moreover, the provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Interstate Banking Act and the Banking Law have allowed for increased competition among diversified financial services providers.

Other Legislative and Regulatory Initiatives

Proposals may be introduced in the United States Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Registrant in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the

21

Table of Contents

cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. M&T cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any implementing regulations, would have on the financial condition or results of operations of the Registrant. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to M&T or any of its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the business of the Registrant.

Other Information

Through a link on the Investor Relations section of M&T’s website at www.mtb.com, copies of M&T’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) or 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 are also available at no charge to any person who requests them or at www.sec.gov. Such requests may be directed to M&T Bank Corporation, Shareholder Relations Department, One M&T Plaza, 13th Floor, Buffalo, NY 14203-2399 (Telephone: (716) 842-5138).

Corporate Governance

M&T’s Corporate Governance Standards and the following corporate governance documents are also available on M&T’s website at the Investor Relations link: Disclosure and Regulation FD Policy; Executive Committee Charter; Nomination, Compensation and Governance Committee Charter; Audit and Risk Committee Charter; Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures Policy; Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers; Code of Business Conduct and Ethics; and Employee Complaint Procedures for Accounting and Auditing Matters. Copies of such governance documents are also available, free of charge, to any person who requests them. Such requests may be directed to M&T Bank Corporation, Shareholder Relations Department, One M&T Plaza, 13th Floor, Buffalo, NY 14203-2399 (Telephone: (716) 842-5138).

Statistical Disclosure Pursuant to Guide 3

See cross-reference sheet for disclosures incorporated elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Additional information is included in the following tables.

22

Table of Contents

23

Table of Contents

24

Table of Contents