Table of Contents

​

​

​

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

​

​

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

​

☐TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

​

​

Commission file number: 0-20293

1051 East Cary Street, Suite 1200, Richmond, Virginia 23219

​

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

​

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (804) 633-5031

​

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

​

​

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

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

​

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

​

​

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

​

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

​

The aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 28, 2019, the last business day of the second fiscal quarter of 2019, was approximately $2,850,450,474 based on the closing share price on that date of $35.33 per share.

​

The number of shares of common stock outstanding as of February 19, 2020 was 79,216,981.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

​

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement to be used in conjunction with the registrant’s 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

ATLANTIC UNION BANKSHARES CORPORATION

FORM 10-K

INDEX

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements in this report may constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are statements that include, without limitation, projections, predictions, expectations, or beliefs about future events or results or otherwise are not statements of historical fact, are based on certain assumptions as of the time they are made, and are inherently subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified. Such statements are often characterized by the use of qualified words (and their derivatives) such as “expect,” “believe,” “estimate,” “plan,” “project,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “will,” “may,” “view,” “opportunity,” “potential,” or words of similar meaning or other statements concerning opinions or judgment of the Company and its management about future events. Although the Company believes that its expectations with respect to forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions within the bounds of its existing knowledge of its business and operations, there can be no assurance that actual future results, performance, or achievements of, or trends affecting, the Company will not differ materially from any projected future results, performance, achievements or trends expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Actual future results, performance, achievements or trends may differ materially from historical results or those anticipated depending on a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the effects of or changes in:

More information on risk factors that could affect the Company’s forward-looking statements is included under the section entitled “Risk Factors” set forth herein. All risk factors and uncertainties described herein should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. The actual results or developments anticipated may not be realized or, even if substantially realized, they may not have the expected consequences to or effects on the Company or its businesses or operations. Readers are cautioned not to rely too heavily on the forward-looking statements in this Annual Report. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are

Table of Contents

made. The Company does not intend or assume any obligation to update, revise or clarify any forward-looking statements that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the Company, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Product Offerings and Market Distribution

The Company is a financial holding company and bank holding company organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. The Company provides a full range of financial services through its bank subsidiary, Atlantic Union Bank (formerly, Union Bank & Trust), throughout Virginia and in portions of Maryland and North Carolina. The Bank is a commercial bank chartered under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia that provides banking, trust, and wealth management services. As of February 1, 2020, the Bank had 149 branches and approximately 170 ATMs located throughout Virginia, and portions of Maryland and North Carolina. Middleburg Financial is a brand name used by Atlantic Union Bank and certain affiliates when providing trust, wealth management, private banking, and investment advisory products and services. Certain non-bank affiliates of the Company include: Old Dominion Capital Management, Inc., and its subsidiary Outfitter Advisors, Ltd., Dixon, Hubard, Feinour & Brown, Inc., and Middleburg Investment Services LLC, which provide investment advisory and/or brokerage services; and Union Insurance Group, LLC, which offers various lines of insurance products.

The Bank is a full-service bank offering consumers and businesses a wide range of banking and related financial services, including checking, savings, certificates of deposit, and other depository services, as well as loans for commercial, industrial, residential mortgage, and consumer purposes. The Bank offers credit cards through an arrangement with Elan Financial Services and delivers ATM services through the use of reciprocally shared ATMs in the major ATM networks as well as remote ATMs for the convenience of customers and other consumers. The Bank also offers mobile and internet banking services and online bill payment for all customers, whether retail or commercial. Additionally, the Bank’s wealth management division offers a wide variety of financial planning, wealth management and trust services.

Middleburg Investment Services, LLC offers brokerage services and executes securities transactions through Raymond James, Inc., an independent broker dealer.

The Bank has loan production offices in North Carolina and Maryland.

In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Bank completed a wind-down of the operations of UMG, the reportable mortgage segment. As a result of the acquisition of Access, the Bank now operates a mortgage business as a division of the Bank under the Atlantic Union Bank Home Loans Division brand. The Atlantic Union Bank Home Loans Division business lends to borrowers nationwide.

On June 29, 2018, the Bank entered into an agreement to sell substantially all of the assets and certain specific liabilities of Shore Premier.

UIG, an insurance agency, is owned by the Bank. This agency operates in an agreement with Bankers Insurance, LLC, a large insurance agency owned by community banks across Virginia and managed by the Virginia Bankers Association. UIG generates revenue through sales of various insurance products through Bankers Insurance LLC, including long-term care insurance and business owner policies. UIG also maintains ownership interests in four title agencies owned by community banks across Virginia and generates revenues through sales of title policies in connection with the Bank’s lending activities.

ODCM is a registered investment advisory firm with offices in Charlottesville and Alexandria, Virginia. ODCM and its subsidiary, OAL, offer investment management and financial planning services primarily to families and individuals. Securities are offered through a third-party contractual agreement with Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., an independent broker dealer.

DHFB is a Roanoke, Virginia based investment advisory firm.

Following the Company’s acquisition of Access, (i) Capital Fiduciary Advisors, L.L.C., formerly a registered investment advisor, provided wealth management services to high net worth individuals, businesses, and institutions; and (ii) Middleburg Trust Company provided trust services to high net worth individuals, businesses and institutions. Capital Fiduciary Advisors, L.L.C. ceased operations in 2019. During the second quarter of 2019, the business of Middleburg Trust Company, which had provided trust services, was combined into the trust division of the Bank. Middleburg Trust Company was subsequently dissolved.

Table of Contents

Additionally, on October 22, 2019, the Bank announced a new division of the Bank, Atlantic Union Equipment Finance, which provides equipment financing to commercial and corporate customers. This business includes providing financing for a wide array of equipment types, including marine, tractors, trailers, buses, construction, manufacturing and medical, among others. Effective January 1, 2020, the Bank transferred this equipment finance business to Atlantic Union Equipment Finance, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank.

SEGMENTS

The Company has one reportable segment: its traditional full-service community banking business. For more financial data and other information about the Company’s operating segment, refer to Note 19 “Segment Reporting & Discontinued Operations” in the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Effective May 23, 2018, the Bank began winding down the operations of UMG, the reportable mortgage segment. The decision to exit the UMG mortgage business was based on a number of strategic priorities and other factors, including the additional investment in the business required to achieve the necessary scale to be competitive.

EXPANSION AND STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS

The Company expands its market area and increases its market share through organic growth (internal growth and de novo expansion) and strategic acquisitions. Strategic acquisitions by the Company to date have included whole bank acquisitions, branch and deposit acquisitions, purchases of existing branches from other banks, and registered investment advisory firms. The Company generally considers acquisitions of companies in strong growth markets or with unique products or services that will benefit the entire organization. Targeted acquisitions are priced to be economically feasible with expected minimal short-term drag to achieve positive long-term benefits. These acquisitions may be paid for in the form of cash, stock, debt, or a combination thereof. The amount and type of consideration and deal charges paid could have a short-term dilutive effect on the Company’s earnings per share or book value. However, management anticipates that the cost savings and revenue enhancements in such transactions will provide long-term economic benefit to the Company.

On May 31, 2016, the Bank acquired ODCM, which currently operates as a stand-alone direct subsidiary of the Bank from its offices in Charlottesville and Alexandria, Virginia. On July 1, 2018, ODCM completed its acquisition of OAL, a McLean, Virginia based investment advisory firm. Together, ODCM and OAL have an aggregate of approximately $817.8 million in assets under management at December 31, 2019.

On January 1, 2018, the Company acquired Xenith, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement dated May 19, 2017. Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Xenith’s common shareholders received 0.9354 shares of the Company’s common stock in exchange for each share of Xenith’s common stock, resulting in the Company issuing 21,922,077 shares of common stock. As a result of the transaction, Xenith Bank, Xenith’s wholly-owned bank subsidiary, was merged with and into the Bank.

On April 1, 2018, the Bank completed its acquisition of DHFB, a Roanoke, Virginia based investment advisory firm with approximately $615.4 million in assets under management at December 31, 2019.

On February 1, 2019, the Company acquired Access, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization dated as of October 4, 2018, as amended December 7, 2018, including a related Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Access’s common shareholders received 0.75 shares of the Company’s common stock in exchange for each share of Access’s common stock, with cash paid in lieu of fractional shares, resulting in the Company issuing 15,842,026 shares of common stock. In connection with the transaction, Access National Bank, Access’s wholly-owned bank subsidiary, was merged with and into the Bank.

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2019, the Company had 1,989 full-time equivalent employees, including executive officers, loan and other banking officers, branch personnel, and operations and other support personnel. None of the Company’s employees are represented by a union or covered under a collective bargaining agreement. The Company provides employees with a comprehensive employee benefit program which includes the following: group life, health and dental

Table of Contents

insurance, paid time off, educational opportunities, a cash incentive plan, stock incentive plans, deferred compensation plans for officers and key employees, an ESOP, and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

Table of Contents

​

COMPETITION

The financial services industry remains highly competitive and is constantly evolving. The Company experiences strong competition in all aspects of its business. In its market areas, the Company competes with large national and regional financial institutions, credit unions, other independent community banks, as well as consumer finance companies, mortgage companies, loan production offices, mutual funds, and life insurance companies. Competition for deposits and loans is affected by various factors including interest rates offered, the number and location of branches and types of products offered, and the reputation of the institution. Credit unions increasingly have been allowed to expand their membership definitions, and because they enjoy a favorable tax status, they have been able to offer more attractive loan and deposit pricing. The Company’s non-bank affiliates also operate in highly competitive environments. The Company believes its community bank framework and philosophy provide a competitive advantage, particularly with regard to larger national and regional institutions, allowing the Company to compete effectively. The Company has a strong market share within the markets it serves. The Company’s deposit market share in Virginia was 7.0% of total bank deposits as of June 30, 2019, making it the largest regional bank headquartered in Virginia at that time.

ECONOMY

The economies in the Company’s market areas are widely diverse and include local and federal government, military, agriculture, and manufacturing. Based on Virginia Employment Commission data, the state’s seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate is 2.6% as of December 31, 2019 compared to 2.8% at year-end 2018, and continues to be below the national rate of 3.5% at year-end 2019. The Company’s management continues to consider future economic events and their impact on the Company’s performance while focusing attention on managing nonperforming assets, controlling costs, and working with borrowers to mitigate and protect against risk of loss.

SUPERVISION AND REGULATION

The Company and the Bank are extensively regulated under both federal and state laws. The following description briefly addresses certain historic and current provisions of federal and state laws and certain regulations, proposed regulations, and the potential impacts on the Company and the Bank. To the extent statutory or regulatory provisions or proposals are described in this report, the description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory or regulatory provisions or proposals.

The Company

General. As a financial holding company and a bank holding company registered under the BHCA, the Company is subject to supervision, regulation, and examination by the Federal Reserve. The Company elected to be treated as a financial holding company by the Federal Reserve in September 2013. The Company is also registered under the bank holding company laws of Virginia and is subject to supervision, regulation, and examination by the SCC.

Enacted in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act has significantly changed the financial regulatory regime in the United States. Since the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, U.S. banks and financial services firms, such as the Company and the Bank, have been subject to enhanced regulation and oversight. Several provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act remain subject to further rulemaking, guidance, and interpretation by the federal banking agencies.

The current administration and its appointees to the federal banking agencies have expressed interest in reviewing, revising, and perhaps repealing portions of the Dodd-Frank Act and certain of its implementing regulations. On May 14,

Table of Contents

2018, the President signed into law the EGRRCPA which, among other things, amended certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act as well as statutes administered by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and changes thereto resulting from the enactment of EGRRCPA that may affect the Company and the Bank are discussed below in more detail.

Permitted Activities. The permitted activities of a bank holding company are limited to managing or controlling banks, furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, and engaging in other activities that the Federal Reserve determines by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks 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 Federal Reserve 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), without prior approval of the Federal Reserve. Activities that are financial in nature include but are not limited to 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.” A depository institution subsidiary is considered to be “well capitalized” if it satisfies the requirements for this status under applicable Federal Reserve capital requirements. 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 Federal Reserve regulations. If a financial holding company ceases to meet these capital and management requirements, the Federal Reserve’s regulations provide that the financial holding company must enter into an agreement with the Federal Reserve to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. Until the financial holding company returns to compliance, the Federal Reserve 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 Federal Reserve. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the Federal Reserve may require the financial holding company to divest its depository institution subsidiaries or to cease engaging in any activity that is financial in nature (or incident to such financial activity) or complementary to a financial activity.

In order for a financial holding company to commence any new activity permitted by the BHCA or to acquire a company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHCA, 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. See below under “The Bank – Community Reinvestment Act.”

Despite prior approval, the Federal Reserve may order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate ownership or control of any subsidiary when the Federal Reserve has reasonable cause to believe that a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness, or stability of any bank subsidiary of that bank holding company may result from such an activity.

Banking Acquisitions; Changes in Control. The BHCA and related regulations require, among other things, the prior approval of the Federal Reserve in any case where a bank holding company proposes to (i) acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the outstanding voting stock of any bank or bank holding company (unless it already owns a majority of such voting shares), (ii) acquire all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or bank holding company, or (iii) merge or consolidate with any other bank holding company. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, the Federal Reserve will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, any outstanding regulatory compliance issues of any institution that is a party to the transaction, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, the financial condition of each institution that is a party to the transaction and of the combined institution after the transaction, the parties’ managerial resources and risk management and governance processes and systems, the parties’ compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements, and the acquiring institution’s performance under the CRA and its compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws.

Subject to certain exceptions, the BHCA and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with the applicable regulations, require Federal Reserve approval (or, depending on the circumstances, no notice of disapproval) prior to any person or

Table of Contents

company’s acquiring “control” of a bank or bank holding company. A conclusive presumption of control exists if an individual or company acquires the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of an insured depository institution or to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities of any insured depository institution. A rebuttable presumption of control exists if a person or company acquires 10% or more but less than 25% of any class of voting securities of an insured depository institution and either the institution has registered its securities with the SEC under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or no other person will own a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the acquisition. The Company’s common stock is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

In addition, Virginia law requires the prior approval of the SCC for (i) the acquisition by a Virginia bank holding company of more than 5% of the voting shares of a Virginia bank or a Virginia bank holding company, or (ii) the acquisition by any other person of control of a Virginia bank holding company or a Virginia bank.

Source of Strength. Federal Reserve policy has historically required bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including 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. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Safety and Soundness. There are a number of obligations and restrictions imposed on bank holding companies and their subsidiary banks by law and regulatory policy that are designed to minimize potential loss to the depositors of such depository institutions and the DIF in the event of a depository institution insolvency, receivership, or default. For example, under the FDICIA, to avoid receivership of an insured depository institution subsidiary, a bank holding company is required to guarantee the compliance of any subsidiary bank that may become “undercapitalized” with the terms of any capital restoration plan filed by such subsidiary with its appropriate federal bank regulatory agency up to the lesser of (i) an amount equal to 5% of the institution’s total assets at the time the institution became undercapitalized, or (ii) the amount that is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the institution into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time the institution fails to comply with such capital restoration plan.

Under the FDIA, the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards. These guidelines establish general standards relating to capital management, internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, information systems, data security, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure and risk management, vendor management, corporate governance, asset growth and compensation, fees, and benefits. In general, the guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines.

Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve imposes certain capital requirements on bank holding companies under the BHCA, including a minimum leverage ratio and a minimum ratio of “qualifying” capital to risk-weighted assets. These requirements are described below under “The Bank – Capital Requirements”. Subject to its capital requirements and certain other restrictions, the Company is able to borrow money to make a capital contribution to the Bank, and such loans may be repaid from dividends paid by the Bank to the Company.

Limits on Dividends and Other Payments. The Company is a legal entity, separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. A significant portion of the revenues of the Company result from dividends paid to it by the Bank. There are various legal limitations applicable to the payment of dividends by the Bank to the Company and to the payment of dividends by the Company to its shareholders. The Bank is subject to various statutory and regulatory restrictions on its ability to pay dividends to the Company. Under current regulations, prior approval from the Federal Reserve is required if cash dividends declared by the Bank in any given year exceed net income for that year, plus retained net profits of the two preceding years. The payment of dividends by the Bank or the Company may be limited by other factors, such as requirements to maintain capital above regulatory guidelines. Bank regulatory agencies have the authority to prohibit the Bank or the Company from engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its respective business. The payment of dividends, depending on the financial condition of the Bank, or the Company, could be deemed to constitute such an unsafe or unsound practice.

Table of Contents

Under the FDIA, insured depository institutions such as the Bank, are prohibited from making capital distributions, including the payment of dividends, if, after making such distributions, the institution would become “undercapitalized” (as such term is used in the statute). Based on the Bank’s current financial condition, the Company does not expect that this provision will have any impact on its ability to receive dividends from the Bank. The Company’s non-bank subsidiaries pay dividends to the Company periodically, subject to certain statutory restrictions.

In addition to dividends it receives from the Bank, the Company receives management fees from its affiliated companies for expenses incurred related to corporate actions. The fees are eliminated from the financial statements in the consolidation process.

The Bank

General. The Bank is supervised and regularly examined by the Federal Reserve and the SCC. The various laws and regulations administered by the bank regulatory agencies affect corporate practices, such as the payment of dividends, incurrence of debt, and acquisition of financial institutions and other companies; they also affect business practices, such as the payment of interest on deposits, the charging of interest on loans, types of business conducted, and location of offices. Certain of these law and regulations are referenced above under “The Company.”

Interchange Fees. Under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve adopted rules establishing standards for assessing whether the interchange fees that may be charged with respect to certain electronic debit transactions are “reasonable and proportional” to the costs incurred by issuers for processing such transactions.

Interchange fees, or “swipe” fees, are charges that merchants pay to the Bank and other card-issuing banks for processing electronic payment transactions. Under the final rules, which are applicable to financial institutions that have assets of $10.0 billion or more, the maximum permissible interchange fee is equal to the sum of 21 cents plus 5 bps of the transaction value for many types of debit interchange transactions. The rules permit an upward adjustment to an issuer’s debit card interchange fee of no more than one cent per transaction if the issuer develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve certain fraud-prevention standards. The Federal Reserve also has rules governing routing and exclusivity that require issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product.

As the Bank exceeded $10.0 billion in assets on January 1, 2018, effective July 1, 2019 the Bank became subject to the interchange fee cap, and no longer qualifies for the small issuer exemption from the cap. The small issuer exemption applies to any debit card issuer that, together with its affiliates, has total assets of less than $10 billion as of the end of the previous calendar year.

Capital Requirements. The Federal Reserve and the other federal banking agencies have issued risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to U.S. banking organizations. Those regulatory agencies may from time to time require that a banking organization maintain capital above the minimum levels because of its financial condition or actual or anticipated growth.

The Federal Reserve has adopted final rules regarding capital requirements and calculations of risk-weighted assets to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

Under these updated risk-based capital requirements of the Federal Reserve, the Company and the Bank are required to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of total capital (which is defined as core capital and supplementary capital less certain specified deductions from total capital such as reciprocal holdings of depository institution capital instruments and equity investments) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0% (unchanged from the prior requirement), (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital (which consists principally of common and certain qualifying preferred shareholders’ equity (including grandfathered trust preferred securities) as well as retained earnings, less certain intangibles and other adjustments) to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0% (increased from the prior requirement of 4.0%), and (iii) a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5% (a new requirement). These rules provide that “Tier 2 capital” consists of cumulative preferred stock, long-term perpetual preferred stock, a limited amount of subordinated and other qualifying debt (including certain hybrid capital instruments), and a limited amount of the general loan loss allowance.

Table of Contents

The Tier 1, common equity Tier 1, and total capital to risk-weighted asset ratios of the Company were 10.24%, 10.24% and 12.63%, respectively, as of December 31, 2019, thus exceeding the minimum requirements for "well capitalized" status. The Tier 1, common equity Tier 1, and total capital to risk-weighted asset ratios of the Bank were 12.18%, 12.18% and 12.48%, respectively, as of December 31, 2019, also exceeding the minimum requirements for "well capitalized" status.

Each of the federal bank regulatory agencies also has established a minimum leverage capital ratio of Tier 1 capital to average adjusted assets (“Tier 1 leverage ratio”). The guidelines require a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3.0% for advanced approach banking organizations; all other banking organizations are required to maintain a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4.0%. In addition, for a depository institution to be considered “well capitalized” under the regulatory framework for PCA, its Tier 1 leverage ratio must be at least 5.0%. Banking organizations that have experienced internal growth or made acquisitions are expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. The Federal Reserve has not advised the Company or the Bank of any specific minimum leverage ratio applicable to either entity. As of December 31, 2019, the Tier 1 leverage ratios of the Company and the Bank were 8.79% and 10.45%, respectively, well above the minimum requirements.

The Federal Reserve’s final rules also imposed a capital conservation buffer requirement that began to be phased in beginning January 1, 2016, at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets, and increased by the same amount each year until fully implemented at 2.5% on January 1, 2019. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases, and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

The final rules became fully phased in on January 1, 2019, and require the Company and the Bank to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer” (which is added to the 4.5% common equity Tier 1 ratio, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of common equity Tier 1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7.0%); (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 6.0% Tier 1 capital ratio, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%); (iii) a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer (which is added to the 8.0% total capital ratio, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5%); and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4.0%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets.

With respect to the Bank, the Federal Reserve’s final rules also revised the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA by (i) introducing a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum ratio for well-capitalized status being 8.0% (as compared to the prior ratio of 6.0%); and (iii) eliminating the provision that provided that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0% Tier 1 leverage ratio and still be well-capitalized. These new thresholds were effective for the Bank as of January 1, 2015. The minimum total capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (10.0%) and minimum leverage ratio (5.0%) for well-capitalized status were unchanged by the final rules.

The Federal Reserve’s final rules also included changes in the risk weights of assets to better reflect credit risk and other risk exposures. These include a 150% risk weight (up from 100%) for certain high volatility commercial real estate acquisition, development, and construction loans and nonresidential mortgage loans that are 90 days past due or otherwise on nonaccrual status, a 20% (up from 0%) credit conversion factor for the unused portion of a commitment with an original maturity of one year or less that is not unconditionally cancellable, a 250% risk weight (up from 100%) for mortgage servicing rights and deferred tax assets that are not deducted from capital, and increased risk-weights (from 0% to up to 600%) for equity exposures.

The Federal Reserve’s regulatory capital rules also provide that in some circumstances trust preferred securities may not be considered Tier 1 capital of a bank holding company with total consolidated assets of greater than $15 billion, and instead will qualify as Tier 2 capital. The Company has $155.2 million of trust preferred securities outstanding and approximately $17.6 billion in assets as of December 31, 2019.

Table of Contents

Deposit Insurance. The deposits of the Bank are insured up to applicable limits by the DIF of the FDIC and are subject to deposit insurance assessments based on average total assets minus average tangible equity to maintain the DIF. The basic limit on FDIC deposit insurance coverage is $250,000 per depositor. Under the FDIA, the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations as an insured depository institution, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC, subject to administrative and potential judicial hearing and review processes.

As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has adopted a large-bank pricing assessment structure, set a target “designated reserve ratio” of 2 percent for the DIF, in lieu of dividends, provides for a lower assessment rate schedule, when the reserve ratio reaches 2 percent and 2.5 percent. An institution’s assessment rate is based on a statistical analysis of financial ratios that estimates the likelihood of failure over a three-year period, which considers the institution’s weighted average CAMELS component rating, and is subject to further adjustments including related to levels of unsecured debt and brokered deposits (not applicable to banks with less than $10 billion in assets). At December 31, 2019, total base assessment rates for institutions that have been insured for at least five years with assets of $10 billion range from 1.5 to 40 bps. In addition, institutions with assets over $10 billion are subject to a surcharge equal to 4.5 bps of assets that exceed $10 billion, and will apply until the reserve ratio reaches 1.35 percent. In 2019 and 2018, the Company paid $5.4 million and $5.0 million, respectively, in deposit insurance assessments. In 2019, the Company received a $3.8 million FDIC small bank assessment expense credit as the deposit insurance fund reserve ratio exceeded 1.38%.

In addition, all FDIC insured institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC at an annual rate of approximately one basis point of insured deposits to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the Savings Association Insurance Fund. These assessments will continue until the FICO bonds mature, with such maturities beginning in 2017 and continuing through 2019.

Transactions with Affiliates. Pursuant to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W, the authority of the Bank to engage in transactions with related parties or “affiliates,” or to make loans to insiders, is limited. Loan transactions with an affiliate generally must be collateralized and certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates, including the sale of assets, the payment of money or the provision of services, must be on terms and conditions that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing for comparable nonaffiliated transactions. In addition, the Bank generally may not purchase securities issued or underwritten by affiliates.

Loans to executive officers, directors, or to any person who directly or indirectly, or acting through or in concert with one or more persons, owns, controls, or has the power to vote more than 10% of any class of voting securities of a bank (“10% Shareholders”), are subject to Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and their corresponding regulations (Regulation O) and Section 13(k) of the Exchange Act relating to the prohibition on personal loans to executives (which exempts financial institutions in compliance with the insider lending restrictions of Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act). Among other things, these loans must be made on terms substantially the same as those prevailing on transactions made to unaffiliated individuals and certain extensions of credit to those persons must first be approved in advance by a disinterested majority of the entire Board of Directors. Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act prohibits loans to any of those individuals where the aggregate amount exceeds an amount equal to 15% of an institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus plus an additional 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus in the case of loans that are fully secured by readily marketable collateral, or when the aggregate amount on all of the extensions of credit outstanding to all of these persons would exceed the Bank’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Section 22(g) of the Federal Reserve Act identifies limited circumstances in which the Bank is permitted to extend credit to executive officers.

Prompt Corrective Action. Federal banking regulators are authorized and, under certain circumstances, required to take certain actions against banks that fail to meet their capital requirements. The federal bank regulatory agencies have additional enforcement authority with respect to undercapitalized depository institutions. “Well capitalized” institutions may generally operate without additional supervisory restriction. With respect to “adequately capitalized” institutions, such banks cannot normally pay dividends or make any capital contributions that would leave it undercapitalized, they cannot pay a management fee to a controlling person if, after paying the fee, it would be undercapitalized, and they

Table of Contents

cannot accept, renew, or roll over any brokered deposit unless the bank has applied for and been granted a waiver by the FDIC.

Immediately upon becoming “undercapitalized,” a depository institution becomes subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the FDIA, which: (i) restrict payment of capital distributions and management fees; (ii) require that the appropriate federal banking agency monitor the condition of the institution and its efforts to restore its capital; (iii) require submission of a capital restoration plan; (iv) restrict the growth of the institution’s assets; and (v) require prior approval of certain expansion proposals. The appropriate federal banking agency for an undercapitalized institution also may take any number of discretionary supervisory actions if the agency determines that any of these actions is necessary to resolve the problems of the institution at the least possible long-term cost to the DIF, subject in certain cases to specified procedures. These discretionary supervisory actions include: (i) requiring the institution to raise additional capital; (ii) restricting transactions with affiliates; (iii) requiring divestiture of the institution or the sale of the institution to a willing purchaser; and (iv) any other supervisory action that the agency deems appropriate. These and additional mandatory and permissive supervisory actions may be taken with respect to significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized institutions. The Bank met the definition of being “well capitalized” as of December 31, 2019.

As described above in “The Bank – Capital Requirements,” the Federal Reserve’s final rules to implement the Basel III regulatory capital reforms incorporate new requirements into the PCA framework.

Community Reinvestment Act. The Bank is subject to the requirements of the CRA. The CRA imposes on financial institutions an affirmative and ongoing obligation to meet the credit needs of the local communities, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. If the Bank receives a rating from the Federal Reserve of less than “satisfactory” under the CRA, restrictions on operating activities would be imposed. In addition, in order for a financial holding company, like the Company, to commence any new activity permitted by the BHCA, or to acquire any company engaged in any new activity permitted by the BHCA, 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. The Bank received a “satisfactory” CRA rating in its most recent examination.

FHLB. The Bank is a member of the FHLB of Atlanta, which is one of 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks that provide funding to their members for making housing loans as well as for affordable housing and community development loans. Each Federal Home Loan Bank serves as a reserve, or central bank, for the members within its assigned region, and makes loans to its members in accordance with policies and procedures established by the Board of Directors of the applicable Federal Home Loan Bank. As a member, the Bank must purchase and maintain stock in the FHLB. At December 31, 2019, the Bank owned $63.9 million of FHLB stock.

Confidentiality of Customer Information. The Company and the Bank are subject to various laws and regulations that address the privacy of nonpublic personal financial information of customers. A financial institution must provide to its customers information regarding its policies and procedures with respect to the handling of customers’ personal information. Each institution must conduct an internal risk assessment of its ability to protect customer information. These privacy laws and regulations generally prohibit a financial institution from providing a customer’s personal financial information to unaffiliated parties without prior notice and approval from the customer.

In August 2018, the CFPB published its final rule to update Regulation P pursuant to the amended Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Under this rule, certain qualifying financial institutions are not required to provide annual privacy notices to customers. To qualify, a financial institution must not share nonpublic personal information about customers except as described in certain statutory exceptions which do not trigger a customer’s statutory opt-out right. In addition, the financial institution must not have changed its disclosure policies and practices from those disclosed in its most recent privacy notice. The rule sets forth timing requirements for delivery of annual privacy notices in the event that a financial institution that qualified for the annual notice exemption later changes its policies or practices in such a way that it no longer qualifies for the exemption.

Although these laws and regulations impose compliance costs and create privacy obligations and, in some cases, reporting obligations, and compliance with all of the laws, regulations, and privacy and reporting obligations may require significant resources of the Company and the Bank, these laws and regulations do not materially affect the Bank’s products, services or other business activities.

Table of Contents

Required Disclosure of Customer Information. The Company and the Bank are also subject to various laws and regulations that attempt to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. The Bank Secrecy Act requires all financial institutions to, among other things, create a system of controls designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and imposes recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The USA Patriot Act added additional regulations to facilitate information sharing among governmental entities and financial institutions for the purpose of combating terrorism and money laundering, imposes standards for verifying customer identification at account opening, and requires financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs. The OFAC, which is a division of the Treasury, is responsible for helping to ensure that United States entities do not engage in transactions with “enemies” of the United States, as defined by various Executive Orders and Acts of Congress. If the Bank finds a name of an “enemy” of the United States on any transaction, account, or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, it must freeze such account or place transferred funds into a blocked account, and report it to OFAC.

Volcker Rule. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits insured depository institutions and their holding companies from engaging in proprietary trading except in limited circumstances and prohibits them from owning equity interests in excess of 3% of Tier 1 capital in private equity and hedge funds (known as the “Volcker Rule”). On December 10, 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies adopted final rules implementing the Volcker Rule. These final rules prohibit banking entities from (i) engaging in short-term proprietary trading for their own accounts, and (ii) having certain ownership interests in and relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds. The final rules are intended to provide greater clarity with respect to both the extent of those primary prohibitions and of the related exemptions and exclusions. The final rules also require each regulated entity to establish an internal compliance program that is consistent with the extent to which it engages in activities covered by the Volcker Rule, which must include (for the largest entities) making regular reports about those activities to regulators. Although the final rules provide some tiering of compliance and reporting obligations based on size, the fundamental prohibitions of the Volcker Rule apply to the Company and the Bank. The EGRRCPA and subsequent promulgation of inter-agency final rules have aimed at simplifying and tailoring requirements related to the Volcker Rule. In August 2019, the FDIC modified the rule to, among other things, eliminate the collection of certain metrics and reduce the compliance burdens associated with the remaining metrics requirements, depending on the banking entity’s total consolidated trading assets and liabilities. In October 2019, the Federal Reserve and the SEC approved the Volcker Rule changes. Due to the changing regulatory landscape, the Company will continue to evaluate the implications of the Volcker Rules on its investments, including new impacts as a result of the changes, but does not expect any material financial implications.

Consumer Financial Protection. The Bank is subject to a number of federal and state consumer protection laws that extensively govern its relationship with its customers. These laws include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Service Members Civil Relief Act, laws governing flood insurance, federal and state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive business practices, foreclosure laws, and various regulations that implement some or all of the foregoing. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans, collecting loans, and providing other services. If the Bank fails to comply with these laws and regulations, it may be subject to various penalties. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions the Bank may wish to pursue or being prohibited from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

The Dodd-Frank Act centralized responsibility for consumer financial protection by creating a new agency, the CFPB, and giving it responsibility for implementing, examining, and enforcing compliance with federal consumer protection laws. The CFPB focuses on (i) risks to consumers and compliance with the federal consumer financial laws, (ii) the markets in which firms operate and risks to consumers posed by activities in those markets, (iii) depository institutions that offer a wide variety of consumer financial products and services, and (iv) non-depository companies that offer one or more consumer financial products or services. The CFPB is responsible for implementing, examining and enforcing compliance with federal consumer financial laws for institutions with more than $10 billion of assets, including, beginning April 1, 2018, the Company and the Bank. The Company and the Bank are subject to federal consumer protection rules enacted by the CFPB.

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 materially interfere with a consumer’s ability to understand a term or condition of a consumer

Table of Contents

financial product or service or take unreasonable advantage of a consumer’s (i) lack of financial savvy, (ii) inability to protect himself in the selection or use of consumer financial products or services, or (iii) reasonable reliance on a covered entity to act in the consumer’s interests. 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 injunction. Further, regulatory positions taken by the CFPB may influence how other regulatory agencies apply the subject consumer financial protection laws and regulations.

Mortgage Banking Regulation. In connection with making mortgage loans, the Company and the Bank are subject to rules and regulations that, among other things, establish standards for loan origination, prohibit discrimination, provide for inspections and appraisals of property, require credit reports on prospective borrowers, in some cases restrict certain loan features and fix maximum interest rates and fees, require the disclosure of certain basic information to mortgagors concerning credit and settlement costs, limit payment for settlement services to the reasonable value of the services rendered and require the maintenance and disclosure of information regarding the disposition of mortgage applications based on race, gender, geographical distribution and income level. The Company and the Bank are also subject to rules and regulations that require the collection and reporting of significant amounts of information with respect to mortgage loans and borrowers.

The Company’s and the Bank’s mortgage origination activities are subject to Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act. Certain provisions of Regulation Z require creditors to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Creditors are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the creditor to consider the following eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision: (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) the monthly payment on the covered transaction; (iv) the monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) the monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. Alternatively, the creditor can originate “qualified mortgages,” which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ability-to-repay requirements. In general, a “qualified mortgage” is a mortgage loan without negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or terms exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a qualified mortgage, the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount. Qualified mortgages that are “higher-priced” (e.g., subprime loans) garner a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the ability-to-repay rules, while qualified mortgages that are not “higher-priced” (e.g., prime loans) are given a safe harbor of compliance. To meet the mortgage credit needs of a broader customer base, the Company is predominantly an originator of mortgages that are intended to be in compliance with the ability-to-pay requirements. On November 15, 2019, the CFPB issued an interpretive rule providing that loan originators with temporary authority may act as a loan originator for a temporary period of time, as specified in the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, in a state while that state considers their application for a loan originator license, if they meet certain screening and training requirements. The rule was effective November 24, 2019.

Brokered Deposits. Section 29 of the FDIA and FDIC regulations generally limit the ability of any bank to accept, renew or roll over any brokered deposit unless it is “well capitalized” or, with the FDIC’s approval, “adequately capitalized.” However, as a result of EGRRCPA, the FDIC undertook a comprehensive review of its regulatory approach to brokered deposits, including reciprocal deposits, and interest rate caps applicable to banks that are less than “well capitalized.” On December 12, 2019, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to modernize its brokered deposit regulations. At this time, it is difficult to predict what changes, if any, to the brokered deposit regulations will actually be implemented or the effect of such changes on the Company.

Cybersecurity. The federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted guidelines for establishing information security standards and cybersecurity programs for implementing safeguards under the supervision of a financial institution’s board of directors. These guidelines, along with related regulatory materials, increasingly focus on risk management and processes related to information technology and the use of third parties in the provision of financial products and services. The federal bank regulatory agencies expect financial institutions to establish lines of defense and to ensure that their risk management processes address the risk posed by compromised customer credentials, and also expect financial institutions to maintain sufficient business continuity planning processes to ensure rapid recovery, resumption and maintenance of the institution’s operations after a cyberattack. If the Company or the Bank fails to meet the expectations set forth in this regulatory guidance, the Company or the Bank could be subject to various regulatory actions and any remediation efforts may require significant resources of the Company or the Bank.

Table of Contents

In October 2016, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued proposed rules on enhanced cybersecurity risk-management and resilience standards that would apply to very large financial institutions and to services provided by third parties to these institutions. The comment period for these proposed rules has closed and a final rule has not been published. Although the proposed rules would apply only to bank holding companies and banks with $50 billion or more in total consolidated assets, these rules could influence the federal bank regulatory agencies’ expectations and supervisory requirements for information security standards and cybersecurity programs of financial institutions with less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets.

Incentive Compensation. In 2010, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of financial institutions do not undermine the safety and soundness of such institutions by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Interagency Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Policies, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of financial institutions, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a financial institution’s incentive compensation arrangements should: (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the institution’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 financial institution’s Board of Directors.

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

In 2016, the SEC and the federal banking agencies proposed rules that prohibit covered financial institutions (including bank holding companies and banks) from establishing or maintaining incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by providing covered persons (consisting of senior executive officers and significant risk takers, as defined in the rules) with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits that could lead to material financial loss to the financial institution. The proposed rules outline factors to be considered when analyzing whether compensation is excessive and whether an incentive-based compensation arrangement encourages inappropriate risks that could lead to material loss to the covered financial institution, and establishes minimum requirements that incentive-based compensation arrangements must meet to be considered to not encourage inappropriate risks and to appropriately balance risk and reward. The proposed rules also impose additional corporate governance requirements on the boards of directors of covered financial institutions and impose additional record-keeping requirements. The comment period for these proposed rules has closed and a final rule has not yet been published.

Heightened Requirements for Bank Holding Companies with $10 Billion or More in Assets

Various federal banking laws and regulations, including rules adopted by the Federal Reserve pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, impose heightened requirements on certain large banks and bank holding companies. Most of these rules apply primarily to bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets, but certain rules also apply to banks and bank holding companies with at least $10 billion in total consolidated assets. As of January 1, 2018, the Company and the Bank each have total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion.

EGRRCPA. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, institutions with assets that exceed $10 billion, were required among other things to: perform annual stress tests and establish a dedicated risk committee of the board of directors responsible for overseeing enterprise-wide risk management policies, which must be commensurate with capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, size, and other appropriate risk-related factors, and must include as a member at least one risk management expert. In addition, such institutions (i) may be examined for compliance with federal consumer protection laws primarily by the CFPB; (ii) are subject to increased FDIC deposit insurance assessment requirements; (iii) are subject to a cap on debit card interchange fees; and (iv) may be subject to higher regulatory capital requirements.

Table of Contents

However, the amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act made by EGRRCPA provide limited regulatory relief for certain financial institutions and additional tailoring of banking and consumer protection laws, which preserve the existing framework under which U.S. financial institutions are regulated, including the discretionary authority of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC to supervise bank holding companies and insured depository institutions, such as the Company and the Bank.

In particular, following the enactment of EGRRCPA, bank holding companies with less than $100 billion in assets, such as the Company, are exempt from the enhanced prudential standards imposed under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act (including but not limited to resolution planning and enhanced liquidity and risk management requirements). Nonetheless, the capital planning and risk management practices of the Company and the Bank will continue to be reviewed through the regular supervisory processes of the Federal Reserve.

Furthermore, EGRRCPA increased the asset threshold for requiring a bank holding company to establish a separate risk committee of independent directors from $10 billion to $50 billion. Notwithstanding the changes implemented by EGRRCPA increasing this asset threshold, the Company has retained its separate risk committee of independent directors.

In addition to amendments and changes to the Dodd-Frank Act set forth in the interagency statement regarding the impact of EGRRCPA released by the federal banking agencies on July 6, 2018, EGRRCPA includes certain other banking-related, consumer protection, and securities laws-related provisions. Many of EGRRCPA’s changes must be implemented through rules adopted by federal agencies, and certain changes remain subject to their substantial regulatory discretion. As a result, the full impact of EGRRCPA will remain unclear for the immediate future. The Company and the Bank expect to continue to evaluate the potential impact of EGRRCPA as it is further implemented by the regulators.

Future Regulation

From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in 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 Company and the Bank in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities, or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. The Company 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 Company or the Bank.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies

The Company’s operations are affected not only by general economic conditions but also by the policies of various regulatory authorities. In particular, the Federal Reserve uses monetary policy tools to impact money market and credit market conditions and interest rates to influence general economic conditions. These policies have a significant impact on overall growth and distribution of loans, investments, and deposits; they affect market interest rates charged on loans or paid for time and savings deposits. Federal Reserve monetary policies have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks, including the Company, in the past and are expected to do so in the future.

Filings with the SEC

The Company files annual, quarterly, and other reports under the Exchange Act with the SEC. These reports and this Form 10-K are posted and available at no cost on the Company’s investor relations website, http://investors.atlanticunionbank.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company files such documents with the SEC. The information contained on the Company’s website is not a part of this Form 10-K or of any other filing with the SEC. The Company’s filings are also available through the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, the Company may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate protective measures.

There can be no assurance that the Company will not suffer cyber-attacks or other information security breaches or be impacted by losses from such events in the future. The Company’s risk and exposure to these matters remain heightened because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats, current use of internet banking and mobile banking channels, expanded operations and third-party information systems. Recent instances of attacks specifically targeting financial services businesses indicate that the risk to the Company’s systems remains significant.

A breach of any kind could compromise systems, and the information stored there could be accessed, damaged, or disclosed. A breach in security or other failure could result in legal claims, regulatory penalties, disruption in operations, remediation expenses, costs associated with customer notification and credit monitoring services, increased insurance premiums, fines and costs associated with civil litigation, loss of customers and business partners, loss of confidence in the security of our systems, products and services, and damage to the Company’s reputation, which could adversely affect its business and financial condition. Furthermore, as cyber threats continue to evolve and increase, the Company may be required to expend significant additional financial and operational resources to modify or enhance its protective measures, or to investigate and remediate any identified information security vulnerabilities.

The inability of the Company to successfully manage its growth or to implement its growth strategy may adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial conditions.

The Company may not be able to successfully implement its growth strategy if it is unable to identify and compete for attractive markets, locations, or opportunities to expand in the future. In addition, the ability to manage growth successfully depends on whether the Company can maintain adequate capital levels, maintain cost controls, effectively manage asset quality, and successfully integrate any businesses acquired into the organization.

As consolidation within the financial services industry continues, the competition for suitable strategic acquisition candidates may increase. The Company will compete with other financial services companies for acquisition and expansion opportunities, and many of those competitors will have greater financial resources than the Company does and may be able to pay more for an acquisition than the Company is able or willing to pay. The Company cannot assure that it will have opportunities to acquire other financial institutions, or acquire or establish new branches on attractive terms or at all, or that the Company will be able to negotiate, finance, and complete any opportunities available to it.

If the Company is unable to effectively implement its strategies for organic growth and strategic acquisitions (if any), the business, results of operations, and financial condition may be materially adversely affected.

Difficulties in combining the operations of acquired entities with the Company’s own operations may prevent the Company from achieving the expected benefits from acquisitions.

The Company may not be able to fully achieve the strategic objectives and operating efficiencies expected in an acquisition. Inherent uncertainties exist in integrating the operations of an acquired entity. In addition, the markets and industries in which the Company and its potential acquisition targets operate are highly competitive. The Company may lose its customers and/or key personnel, or those of acquired entities, as a result of an acquisition. The Company may also not be able to control the incremental increase in noninterest expense arising from an acquisition in a manner that improves its overall operating efficiencies. These factors could contribute to the Company not achieving the expected benefits from its acquisitions within desired time frames, if at all. Future business acquisitions (if any) could be material to the Company and it may issue additional shares of common stock to pay for those acquisitions, which would dilute current shareholders’ ownership interests. Acquisitions also could require the Company to use substantial cash, other liquid assets, or to incur debt; the Company could therefore become more susceptible to economic downturns and competitive pressures. Further, acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values and, therefore, some dilution of the Company’s tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any future acquisitions.

Changes in interest rates could adversely affect the Company’s income and cash flows.

The Company’s income and cash flows depend to a great extent on the difference between the interest rates earned on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities,

Table of Contents

such as deposits and borrowings. These rates are highly sensitive to many factors beyond the Company’s control, including general economic conditions and the policies of the Federal Reserve and other governmental and regulatory agencies. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, will influence the origination of loans, the prepayment of loans, the fair value of existing assets and liabilities, the purchase of investments, the retention and generation of deposits, the rates received on loans and investment securities, and the rates paid on deposits or other sources of funding. The impact of these changes may be magnified if the Company does not effectively manage the relative sensitivity of its assets and liabilities to changes in market interest rates. In addition, the Company’s ability to reflect such interest rate changes in pricing its products is influenced by competitive pressures. Fluctuations in these areas may adversely affect the Company and its shareholders.

The Company generally seeks to maintain a neutral position in terms of the volume of assets and liabilities that mature or re-price during any period so that it may reasonably maintain its net interest margin; however, interest rate fluctuations, loan prepayments, loan production, deposit flows, and competitive pressures are constantly changing and influence the ability to maintain a neutral position. Generally, the Company’s earnings will be more sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates depending upon the variance in volume of assets and liabilities that mature and re-price in any period. The extent and duration of the sensitivity will depend on the cumulative variance over time, the velocity and direction of changes in interest rates, shape and slope of the yield curve, and whether the Company is more asset sensitive or liability sensitive. Accordingly, the Company may not be successful in maintaining a neutral position and, as a result, the Company’s net interest margin may be affected.

The Company’s ALL may prove to be insufficient to absorb credit losses in its loan portfolio.

Like all financial institutions, the Company maintains an allowance for loan losses to provide for loans that its borrowers may not repay in their entirety. The Company believes that it maintains an allowance for loan losses at a level adequate to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio as of the corresponding balance sheet date and in compliance with applicable accounting and regulatory guidance. However, the allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover actual loan losses and future provisions for loan losses could materially and adversely affect the Company’s operating results. Accounting measurements related to impairment and the loan loss allowance requires significant estimates that are subject to uncertainty and changes relating to new information and changing circumstances. The significant uncertainties surrounding the ability of the Company’s borrowers to execute their business models successfully through changing economic environments, competitive challenges, and other factors complicate the Company’s estimates of the risk of loss and amount of loss on any loan. Due to the degree of uncertainty and susceptibility of these factors to change, the actual losses may vary from current estimates. The Company expects possible fluctuations in the loan loss provisions due to the uncertain economic conditions.

The Company’s banking regulators, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review the allowance for loan losses and may require the Company to increase its allowance for loan losses by recognizing additional provisions for loan losses charged to expense, or to decrease the allowance for loan losses by recognizing loan charge-offs, net of recoveries. Any such required additional provisions for loan losses or charge-offs could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, the measure of the Company’s ALL is dependent on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” Under this ASU, the current incurred loss credit impairment methodology will be replaced with the CECL model, a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. Accordingly, the implementation of the CECL model will change the Company’s current method of providing ALL and may result in material changes in the Company’s accounting for credit losses on financial instruments. The CECL model may create more volatility in the Company’s level of ALL. If the Company is required to materially increase its level of ALL for any reason, such increase could adversely affect its business, financial condition, and results of operations. The amendment is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019. Refer to Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section “Recent Accounting Pronouncements (Issued But Not Adopted)” of this Form 10-K for information regarding the Company’s implementation of CECL.

Table of Contents

The Bank’s concentration in loans secured by real estate may adversely affect earnings due to changes in the real estate markets.

The Bank offers a variety of secured loans, including commercial lines of credit, commercial term loans, real estate, construction, home equity, consumer, equipment financing, and other loans. Many of the Bank’s loans are secured by real estate (both residential and commercial). A major change in the real estate markets or in the local or national economy, resulting in deterioration in the value of this collateral or rental or occupancy rates, could adversely affect borrowers’ ability to pay these loans, which in turn could negatively affect the Bank. The Bank tries to limit its exposure to these risks by monitoring extensions of credit carefully; however, risks of loan defaults and foreclosures are unavoidable in the banking industry. As the Bank cannot fully eliminate credit risk; credit losses will occur in the future. Additionally, changes in the real estate market also affect the value of foreclosed assets, and therefore, additional losses may occur when management determines it is appropriate to sell the assets.

The Bank has significant credit exposure in commercial real estate, and loans with this type of collateral are viewed as having more risk of default.

The Bank’s commercial real estate portfolio consists primarily of non-owner-operated properties and other commercial properties. These types of loans are generally viewed as having more risk of default than residential real estate loans. They are also typically larger than residential real estate loans and consumer loans and depend on cash flows from the owner’s business or the property’s tenants to service the debt. Cash flows may be affected significantly by general economic conditions, and a downturn in the local economy or in occupancy rates in the local economy where the property is located could increase the likelihood of default. The Bank’s loan portfolio contains a number of commercial real estate loans with relatively large balances, and thus the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in the percentage of non-performing loans. An increase in non-performing loans could result in a loss of earnings from these loans, an increase in the provision for loan losses and an increase in charge-offs, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Bank’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Bank’s banking regulators generally give commercial real estate lending greater scrutiny and may require banks with higher levels of commercial real estate loans to implement enhanced risk management practices, which could have a material adverse effect on the Bank’s results of operations. Such practices include underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies, more granular reporting and portfolio stress testing, as well as possibly higher levels of allowances for losses and capital levels as a result of commercial real estate lending growth and exposures.

The Bank’s loan portfolio contains construction and development loans, and a decline in real estate values or economic conditions could adversely affect the value of the collateral securing the loans and have an adverse effect on the Bank’s financial condition.

Construction and development loans are generally viewed as having more risk than residential real estate loans because repayment is often dependent on completion of the project and the subsequent financing of the completed project as a commercial real estate or residential real estate loan and, in some instances, on the rent or sale of the underlying project.

Although the Bank’s construction and development loans are primarily secured by real estate, the Bank believes that, in the case of the majority of these loans, the real estate collateral by itself may not be a sufficient source for repayment of the loan if real estate values decline. If the Bank is required to liquidate the collateral securing a construction and development loan to satisfy the debt, its earnings and capital may be adversely affected. A period of reduced real estate values may continue for some time, resulting in potential adverse effects on the Bank’s earnings and capital.

The Bank has increasing reliance on commercial and industrial loans to fund its loan growth. A weakening of economic conditions could adversely affect the collectability of the loans and underlying collateral.

Commercial & industrial loans are generally made to support the Bank’s borrowers’ need for short-term or seasonal cash flow and equipment/vehicle purchases. These loans are typically based on the borrowers’ ability to repay the loans from the cash flow of their businesses. The assets securing these loans may depreciate over time or can be difficult to appraise and liquidate, and may fluctuate in value based on the success of the business. This type of collateral may not yield substantial recovery in the event a default occurs and the Bank needs to liquidate the business.

Table of Contents

The Bank relies upon independent appraisals to determine the value of the real estate which secures a significant portion of its loans, and the values indicated by such appraisals may not be realizable if the Bank is forced to foreclose upon such loans.

A significant portion of the Bank’s loan portfolio consists of loans secured by real estate. The Bank relies upon independent appraisers to estimate the value of such real estate. Appraisals are only estimates of value and the independent appraisers may make mistakes of fact or judgment that adversely affect the reliability of their appraisals. In addition, events occurring after the initial appraisal may cause the value of the real estate to increase or decrease. As a result of any of these factors, the real estate securing some of the Bank’s loans may be more or less valuable than anticipated at the time the loans were made. If a default occurs on a loan secured by real estate that is less valuable than originally estimated as evidenced by an updated appraisal, the Bank may not be able to recover the outstanding balance of the loan.

The Company’s credit standards and its on-going credit assessment processes might not protect it from significant credit losses.

The Company assumes credit risk by virtue of making loans and extending loan commitments and letters of credit. The Company manages credit risk through a program of underwriting standards, heightened review of certain credit decisions, and a continuous quality assessment process of credit already extended. The Company’s exposure to credit risk is managed through the use of consistent underwriting standards that emphasize local lending while avoiding highly leveraged transactions and excessive industry and other concentrations. The Company’s credit administration function employs risk management techniques to help ensure that problem loans are promptly identified. While these procedures are designed to provide the Company with the information needed to implement policy adjustments where necessary and to take appropriate corrective actions, there can be no assurance that such measures will be effective in avoiding undue credit risk.

The Company’s focus on lending to small to mid-sized community-based businesses may increase its credit risk.

Most of the Company’s commercial business and commercial real estate loans are made to small business or middle market customers. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities and have a heightened vulnerability to economic conditions. If general economic conditions in the market areas in which the Company operates negatively impact this important customer sector, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected. Moreover, a portion of these loans have been made by the Company in recent years, and the borrowers may not have experienced a complete business or economic cycle. Any deterioration of the borrowers’ businesses may hinder their ability to repay their loans with the Company, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Nonperforming assets take significant time to resolve and adversely affect the Company’s results of operations and financial condition.

The Company’s nonperforming assets adversely affect its net income in various ways. The Company does not record interest income on nonaccrual loans, which adversely affects its income and increases loan administration costs. When the Company receives collateral through foreclosures and similar proceedings, it is required to mark the related loan to the then fair market value of the collateral less estimated selling costs, which may result in a loss. An increase in the level of nonperforming assets also increases the Company’s risk profile and may affect the minimum capital levels regulators believe are appropriate for the Company in light of such risks. The Company utilizes various techniques such as workouts, restructurings, and loan sales to manage problem assets. Increases in or negative adjustments in the value of these problem assets, the underlying collateral, or in the borrowers’ performance or financial condition, could adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, and financial condition. In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant commitments of time from management and staff, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities, including origination of new loans. There can be no assurance that the Company will avoid further increases in nonperforming assets in the future.

Table of Contents

The Company faces substantial competition that could adversely affect the Company’s growth and/or operating results.

The Company operates in a competitive market for financial services and faces intense competition from other financial institutions both in making loans and attracting deposits which can greatly affect pricing for its products and services. The Company’s primary competitors include community, regional, and national banks as well as credit unions and mortgage companies. Many of these financial institutions are significantly larger and have established customer bases, greater financial resources, and higher lending limits. In addition, credit unions are exempt from corporate income taxes, providing a significant competitive pricing advantage compared to banks. Accordingly, some of the Company’s competitors in its market have the ability to offer products and services that it is unable to offer or to offer such products and services at more competitive rates.

The Company’s consumers may increasingly decide not to use the Bank to complete their financial transactions, which would have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial condition and operations.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that have historically involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds, or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as “disintermediation,” could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s mortgage revenue is cyclical and is sensitive to the level of interest rates, changes in economic conditions, decreased economic activity, and slowdowns in the housing market, any of which could adversely impact the Company’s profits.

As a result of the acquisition of Access, the Bank now operates a mortgage business as a division of the Bank under the Atlantic Union Bank Home Loans Division brand. The Atlantic Union Bank Home Loans Division business lends to borrowers nationwide. The success of the Company’s mortgage business is dependent upon its ability to originate loans and sell them to investors, in each case at or near current volumes. Loan production levels are sensitive to changes in the level of interest rates and changes in economic conditions. Loan production levels may suffer if the Company experiences a slowdown in the local housing market or tightening credit conditions. Any sustained period of decreased activity caused by fewer refinancing transactions, higher interest rates, housing price pressure, or loan underwriting restrictions would adversely affect the Company’s mortgage originations and, consequently, could significantly reduce its income from mortgage activities. As a result, these conditions would also adversely affect the Company’s results of operations.

Deteriorating economic conditions may also cause home buyers to default on their mortgages. In certain cases where the Company has originated loans and sold them to investors, the Company may be required to repurchase loans or provide a financial settlement to investors if it is proven that the borrower failed to provide full and accurate information on, or related to, their loan application, if appraisals for such properties have not been acceptable or if the loan was not underwritten in accordance with the loan program specified by the loan investor. In the ordinary course of business, the Company records an indemnification reserve relating to mortgage loans previously sold based on historical statistics and loss rates. If such reserves were insufficient to cover claims from investors, such repurchases or settlements would adversely affect the Company’s results of operations.

The carrying value of goodwill and other intangible assets may be adversely affected.

When the Company completes an acquisition, goodwill and other intangible assets are often recorded on the date of acquisition as an asset. Current accounting guidance requires goodwill to be tested for impairment, and the Company performs such impairment analysis at least annually. A significant adverse change in expected future cash flows or sustained adverse change in the Company’s common stock could require the asset to become impaired. If impaired, the Company would incur a charge to earnings that would have a significant impact on the results of operations. The Company’s carrying value of goodwill was approximately $935.6 million at December 31, 2019.

Table of Contents

The Company’s risk-management framework may not be effective in mitigating risk and loss.

The Company maintains an enterprise risk management program that is designed to identify, assess, mitigate, monitor, and report the risks that it faces. These risks include: interest-rate, credit, liquidity, operational, reputation, compliance, and legal. While the Company assesses and improves this program on an ongoing basis, there can be no assurance that its approach and framework for risk management and related controls will effectively mitigate all risk and limit losses in its business. If conditions or circumstances arise that expose flaws or gaps in the Company’s risk-management program, or if the Company’s controls break down, the Company’s results of operations and financial condition may be adversely affected.

The Company’s exposure to operational, technological, and organizational risk may adversely affect the Company.

Similar to other financial institutions, the Company is exposed to many types of operational and technological risks, including reputation, legal, and compliance risks. The Company’s ability to grow and compete is dependent on its ability to build or acquire the necessary operational and technological infrastructure and to manage the cost of that infrastructure while it expands and integrates acquired businesses. Operational risk can manifest itself in many ways, such as errors related to failed or inadequate processes, faulty or disabled computer systems, fraud by employees or persons outside of the Company, and exposure to external events. The Company is dependent on its operational infrastructure to help manage these risks. From time to time, it may need to change or upgrade its technology infrastructure. The Company may experience disruption, and it may face additional exposure to these risks during the course of making such changes. As the Company acquires other financial institutions, it faces additional challenges when integrating different operational platforms. Such integration efforts may be more disruptive to the Company’s business and/or more costly or time-intensive than anticipated.

The Company continually encounters technological change which could affect its ability to remain competitive.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. The Company continues to invest in technology and connectivity to automate functions previously performed manually, to facilitate the ability of customers to engage in financial transactions, and otherwise to enhance the customer experience with respect to its products and services. The Company’s continued success depends, in part, upon its ability to address the needs of its customers by using technology to provide products and services that satisfy customer demands and create efficiencies in its operations. A failure to maintain or enhance a competitive position with respect to technology, whether because of a failure to anticipate customer expectations, substantially fewer resources to invest in technological improvements than larger competitors, or because the Company’s technological developments fail to perform as desired or are not rolled out in a timely manner, may cause the Company to lose market share or incur additional expense.

New lines of business or new products and services may subject the Company to additional risk.

From time to time, the Company may implement new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, the Company may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as competitive alternatives and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business and/or a new product or service. Furthermore, strategic planning remains important as the Company adopts innovative products, services, and processes in response to the evolving demands for financial services and the entrance of new competitors, such as out-of-market banks and financial technology firms. Any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the Company’s system of internal controls, so the Company must responsibly innovate in a manner that is consistent with sound risk management and is aligned with the Bank’s overall business strategies. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business and/or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations and financial condition.

Table of Contents

The operational functions of business counterparties over which the Company may have limited or no control may experience disruptions that could adversely impact the Company.

Multiple major U.S. retailers and a major consumer credit reporting agency have experienced data systems incursions in recent years reportedly resulting in the thefts of credit and debit card information, online account information, and other personal and financial data of hundreds of millions of individuals. Retailer incursions affect cards issued and deposit accounts maintained by many banks, including the Bank. Although neither the Company’s nor the Bank’s systems are breached in retailer incursions, such incursions can still cause customers to be dissatisfied with the Bank and otherwise adversely affect the Company’s and the Bank’s reputation. These events can also cause the Bank to reissue a significant number of cards and take other costly steps to avoid significant theft loss to the Bank and its customers. In some cases, the Bank may be required to reimburse customers for the losses they incur. Credit reporting agency intrusions affect the Bank’s customers and can require these customers and the Bank to increase account monitoring and take remedial action to prevent unauthorized account activity or access. Other possible points of intrusion or disruption not within the Company’s nor the Bank’s control include internet service providers, electronic mail portal providers, social media portals, distant-server (“cloud”) service providers, electronic data security providers, telecommunications companies, and smart phone manufacturers.

The Company and the Bank rely on other companies to provide key components of their business infrastructure.

Third parties provide key components of the Company’s (and the Bank’s) business operations such as data processing, recording and monitoring transactions, online banking interfaces and services, internet connections, and network access. While the Company has selected these third-party vendors carefully, it does not control their actions. Any problem caused by these third parties, such as poor performance of services, failure to provide services, disruptions in communication services provided by a vendor, and failure to handle current or higher volumes could adversely affect the Company’s ability to deliver products and services to its customers and otherwise conduct its business, and may harm its reputation. Financial or operational difficulties of a third-party vendor could also hurt the Company’s operations if those difficulties affect the vendor’s ability to serve the Company. Replacing these third-party vendors could also create significant delay and expense. Accordingly, use of such third parties creates an unavoidable inherent risk to the Company’s business operations.

The Company depends on the accuracy and completeness of information about clients and counterparties, and its financial condition could be adversely affected if it relies on misleading information.

In deciding whether to extend credit or to enter into other transactions with clients and counterparties, the Company may rely on information furnished to it by or on behalf of clients and counterparties, including financial statements and other financial information, which the Company does not independently verify. The Company also may rely on representations of clients and counterparties as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to clients, the Company may assume that a customer’s audited financial statements conform to GAAP and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the customer. The Company’s financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent it relies on financial statements that do not comply with GAAP or are materially misleading.

Negative perception of the Company through social media may adversely affect the Company’s reputation and business.

The Company’s reputation is critical to the success of its business. The Company believes that its brand image has been well received by customers, reflecting the fact that the brand image, like the Company’s business, is based in part on trust and confidence. The Company’s reputation and brand image could be negatively affected by rapid and widespread distribution of publicity through social media channels. The Company’s reputation could also be affected by the Company’s association with clients affected negatively through social media distribution, or other third parties, or by circumstances outside of the Company’s control. Negative publicity, whether true or untrue, could affect the Company’s ability to attract or retain customers, or cause the Company to incur additional liabilities or costs, or result in additional regulatory scrutiny.

Table of Contents

The Company’s dependency on its management team and the unexpected loss of any of those personnel could adversely affect operations.

The Company is a customer-focused and relationship-driven organization. Future growth is expected to be driven in large part by the relationships maintained with customers. While the Company has assembled an experienced management team, is building the depth of that team, and has management development plans in place, the unexpected loss of key employees could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business and may result in lower revenues or greater expenses.

Failure to maintain effective systems of internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operation and financial condition.

Effective internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures are necessary for the Company to provide reliable financial reports, to effectively prevent fraud, and to operate successfully as a public company. If the Company cannot provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud, its reputation and operating results would be harmed. As part of the Company’s ongoing monitoring of internal control, it may discover material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in its internal control that require remediation. A “material weakness” is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of a company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

The Company has in the past discovered, and may in the future discover, specific areas of its internal controls that need improvement. In addition, the Company continually works to improve the overall operation of its internal controls. The Company cannot, however, be certain that these measures will ensure that it implements and maintains adequate controls over its financial processes and reporting in the future. Any failure to maintain effective controls or to timely implement any necessary improvement of the Company’s internal and disclosure controls could, among other things, result in losses from fraud or error, harm the Company’s reputation, or cause investors to lose confidence in the Company’s reported financial information, all of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operation and financial condition and the trading price of the Company’s securities.

Limited availability of financing or inability to raise capital could adversely impact the Company.

The amount, type, source, and cost of the Company’s funding directly impacts the ability to grow assets. In addition, the Company could need to raise additional capital in the future to provide it with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet its commitments and business needs, particularly if the Company’s asset quality or earnings were to deteriorate significantly, or if the Company develops an asset concentration that requires the support of additional capital. The ability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, and other sources could become more difficult, more expensive, or altogether unavailable. A number of factors, many of which are outside the Company’s control, could make such financing more difficult, more expensive or unavailable including: the financial condition of the Company at any given time; rate disruptions in the capital markets; the reputation for soundness and security of the financial services industry as a whole; and competition for funding from other banks or similar financial service companies, some of which could be substantially larger or have stronger credit ratings.

The Company is a defendant in a variety of litigation and other actions, which may have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operation.

The Company may be involved from time to time in a variety of litigation arising out of its business. The Company’s insurance may not cover all claims that may be asserted against it, and any claims asserted against it, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, may harm the Company’s reputation. Should the ultimate judgments or settlements in any litigation exceed the Company’s insurance coverage, they could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operation for any period. In addition, the Company may not be able to obtain appropriate types or levels of insurance in the future, nor may the Company be able to obtain adequate replacement policies with acceptable terms, if at all.

Table of Contents

The Company may not be able to generate sufficient taxable income to fully realize its deferred tax assets.

The Company has NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes that relate to its deferred tax assets. The Company’s management currently believes that it is more likely than not that the Company will realize its deferred tax assets, based on management’s expectation that the Company will generate taxable income in future years sufficient to absorb substantially all of its NOL carryforwards and other tax attributes. If the Company is unable to generate sufficient taxable income, it may not be able to fully realize its deferred tax assets and would be required to record a valuation allowance against these assets. A valuation allowance would be recorded as income tax expense and would adversely affect the Company’s net income.

Sales of the Company’s common stock in connection with merger or acquisition activity, or other capital transactions may result in an ownership change of control, thus limiting the Company’s ability to realize its deferred tax assets.

The Company’s ability to utilize its NOLs is subject to the rules of Section 382 of the Code, which generally restricts the use of NOLs after an “ownership change.” An ownership change occurs if, among other things, there is a cumulative increase of more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of stock ownership by the shareholders (or specified groups of shareholders) who own or have owned, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of a corporation’s common stock or are otherwise treated as 5% shareholders under Section 382 and U.S. Department of Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder because of an increase of these shareholders over a rolling three-year period. In the event of an ownership change, Section 382 imposes an annual limitation on the amount of taxable income a corporation may offset with NOL carryforwards. This annual limitation is generally equal to the product of the value of the corporation’s stock on the date of the ownership change multiplied by the long-term tax-exempt rate published monthly by the Internal Revenue Service. This annual limitation may be increased for five years after an ownership change by any “built-in gain,” which is the amount of a hypothetical intangible calculated as the value of the corporation less the fair value of tangible assets at the time of the ownership change. Any unused annual limitation may be carried over to later years until the applicable expiration date for the respective NOLs.

Any merger or acquisition activity in which the Company may engage would require it to evaluate whether an ownership change would occur. Given the level of merger and acquisition activity in the Company’s target markets, the Company cannot ensure that its ability to use its NOLs to offset income will not become limited in the future. As a result, the Company could pay taxes earlier and in larger amounts than would be the case if its NOLs were available to reduce its income taxes without restriction. If the utilization of the Company’s NOLs is restricted, it would be required to record a valuation allowance on its deferred tax assets, which could materially and adversely affect the Company’s net income.

The phasing out and ultimate replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate and changes in the manner of calculating other reference rates may adversely impact the value of loans and other financial instruments the Company holds that are linked to LIBOR or other reference rates in ways that are difficult to predict and could adversely impact the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced in July 2017 that it will no longer persuade or require banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. Given LIBOR’s extensive use across financial markets, the transition away from LIBOR presents various risks and challenges to financial markets and institutions, including to the Company. It is not possible to predict the effect of these changes, other reforms or the establishment of alternative reference rates in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. While Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., the company that administers LIBOR, currently plans to continue publishing LIBOR after 2021, liquidity in the interbank markets that those LIBOR estimates are based upon has been declining. Accordingly, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the publication of such rates beyond 2021. Efforts in the United States to identify a set of alternative U.S. dollar reference rates include a proposal by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the market to transition from LIBOR to the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or SOFR. Whether or not the SOFR attains market acceptance as a LIBOR replacement remains in question and the future of LIBOR at this time is uncertain. The Company has a significant amount of loans and other financial obligations or extensions of credit that may be adversely affected by the discontinuation of LIBOR and uncertainty regarding its replacement. In addition, uncertainty regarding the nature of such potential changes, alternative reference rates or other reforms may adversely affect the trading market for securities on which the interest or dividend is determined by reference to LIBOR, including the Company’s outstanding fixed-to-floating rate subordinated notes and trust preferred securities. The discontinuation of LIBOR could also result in operational, legal and compliance

Table of Contents

risks, and if the Company is unable to adequately manage such risks, they could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s reputation and on its business, financial condition, results of operations or future prospects.

Changes in U.S. trade policies and other factors beyond the Company’s control, including the imposition of tariffs and retaliatory tariffs, may adversely impact the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

There have been changes and discussions with respect to U.S. trade policies, legislation, treaties and tariffs, including trade policies and tariffs affecting other countries, including China, the European Union, Canada and Mexico and retaliatory tariffs by such countries. Tariffs and retaliatory tariffs have been imposed, and additional tariffs and retaliation tariffs have been proposed. Such tariffs, retaliatory tariffs or other trade restrictions on products and materials that our customers import or export could cause the prices of our customers’ products to increase which could reduce demand for such products, or reduce our customer’s margins, and adversely impact their revenues, financial results and ability to service debt; which, in turn, could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, to the extent changes in the political environment have a negative impact on the Company or on the markets in which the Company operates, results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely impacted in the future. It remains unclear what the U.S. administration or foreign governments will or will not do with respect to tariffs already imposed, additional tariffs that may be imposed, or international trade agreements and policies. On October 1, 2018, the United States, Canada and Mexico agreed to a new trade deal – the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or the USMCA – to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement. While ratified by Mexico and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, the trade deal is subject to ratification by Canada. The full impact of the USMCA on the Company, its customers and on the economic conditions in the Company’s markets is currently unknown. A trade war or other governmental action related to tariffs or international trade agreements or policies has the potential to negatively impact the Company’s and its customers' costs, demand for the Company’s customers' products, and the U.S. economy or certain sectors thereof and, thus, adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to the Company’s Regulatory Environment

Due to the Company’s increased asset size and as a result of recent acquisitions, the Company is subject to additional regulation, increased supervision and increased costs.

Various federal banking laws and regulations, including rules adopted by the Federal Reserve pursuant to the requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act impose additional regulatory requirements on institutions with $10 billion or more in assets. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had $17.6 billion in total assets. As a result, the Company is subject to the additional regulatory requirements, increased supervision and increased costs, including the following: (i) supervision, examination and enforcement by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with respect to consumer financial protection laws; (ii) regulatory stress testing requirements, whereby the Company is required to conduct an annual stress test (using assumptions for baseline, adverse and severely adverse scenarios); (iii) a modified methodology for calculating FDIC insurance assessments and potentially higher assessment rates; (iv) enhanced supervision as a larger financial institution; and (v) under the Durbin Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, is subject to a cap on the interchange fees that may be charged in certain electronic debit and prepaid card transactions.

In the Company’s acquisition of Access, the Company acquired the mortgage division of Access National Bank, which before the acquisition operated on a nationwide basis and subject to federal preemption of certain state laws. This mortgage division is now operating as a division of the Bank and, as a result, is not entitled to any such federal preemption. The Company and the Bank may incur increased costs in order to comply with state laws that apply to the mortgage division’s nationwide operations.

The imposition of these regulatory requirements and increased supervision may require commitment of additional financial resources to regulatory compliance, may increase the Company’s cost of operations, and may otherwise have a significant impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, the results of the stress testing process may lead the Company to retain additional capital or alter the mix of its capital components as compared to the Company’s current capital management strategy.

Table of Contents

Current and proposed regulation addressing consumer privacy and data use and security could increase the Company’s costs and impact its reputation.

The Company is subject to a number of laws concerning consumer privacy and data use and security, including information safeguard rules under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. These rules require that financial institutions develop, implement, and maintain a written, comprehensive information security program containing safeguards that are appropriate to the financial institution’s size and complexity, the nature and scope of the financial institution’s activities, and the sensitivity of any customer information at issue. The United States has experienced a heightened legislative and regulatory focus on privacy and data security, including requiring consumer notification in the event of a data breach. In addition, most states have enacted security breach legislation requiring varying levels of consumer notification in the event of certain types of security breaches. New regulations in these areas may increase compliance costs, which could negatively impact earnings. In addition, failure to comply with the privacy and data use and security laws and regulations to which the Company is subject, including by reason of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, could result in fines, sanctions, penalties, or other adverse consequences and loss of consumer confidence, which could materially adversely affect the Company’s results of operations, overall business, and reputation.

Legislative or regulatory changes or actions, or significant litigation, could adversely affect the Company or the businesses in which the Company is engaged.

The Company is subject to extensive state and federal regulation, supervision, and legislation that govern almost all aspects of its operations. These regulations affect the Company’s lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy, and growth, among other things. Laws and regulations change from time to time and are primarily intended for the protection of consumers, depositors, the FDIC’s DIF, and the banking system of the whole, rather than shareholders. The impact of any changes to laws and regulations or other actions by regulatory agencies are unpredictable, but may negatively affect the Company or its ability to increase the value of its business. Such changes could include higher capital requirements, increased insurance premiums, increased compliance costs, reductions of noninterest income, limitations on services and products that can be provided, or the increased ability of nonbanks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, and policies could result in actions by regulatory agencies or significant litigation against the Company, which could cause the Company to devote significant time and resources to defend itself and may lead to liability, penalties, reputational damage, or regulatory restrictions that materially adversely affect the Company and its shareholders. Future legislation, regulation, and government policy could affect the banking industry as a whole, including the Company’s business and results of operations, in ways that are difficult to predict. In addition, the Company’s results of operations also could be adversely affected by changes in the way in which existing statutes and regulations are interpreted or applied by courts and government agencies.

The Company is subject to more stringent capital and liquidity requirements as a result of the Basel III regulatory capital reforms and the Dodd-Frank Act, which could adversely affect its return on equity and otherwise affect its business.

The Company and the Bank are each subject to capital adequacy guidelines and other regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital which each must maintain. From time to time, regulators implement changes to these regulatory capital adequacy guidelines. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, the federal banking agencies have established stricter capital requirements and leverage limits for banks and bank holding companies that are based on the Basel III regulatory capital reforms. These stricter capital requirements were fully-implemented on January 1, 2019. See “Business – Supervision and Regulation – The Bank - Capital Requirements” for further information about the requirements.

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

Table of Contents

guidelines and/or other regulatory requirements, the Company’s financial condition would be materially and adversely affected.

Regulations issued by the CFPB could adversely impact the Company’s earnings.

The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to financial institutions that offer covered financial products and services to consumers. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued a final rule effective January 10, 2014, requiring mortgage lenders to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms, or to originate “qualified mortgages” that meet specific requirements with respect to terms, pricing, and fees. The rule also contains additional disclosure requirements at mortgage loan origination and in monthly statements. These requirements could limit the Company’s ability to make certain types of loans or loans to certain borrowers, or could make it more expensive and/or time consuming to make these loans, which could adversely impact the Company’s profitability.

Changes in accounting standards could impact reported earnings.

The authorities that promulgate accounting standards, including the FASB, SEC, and other regulatory authorities, periodically change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements. These changes are difficult to predict and can materially impact how the Company records and reports its financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, the Company could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively to financial statements for prior periods. Such changes could also require the Company to incur additional personnel or technology costs.

Risks Related to the Company’s Securities

The Company relies on dividends from its subsidiaries for substantially all of its revenue.

The Company is a financial holding company and a bank holding company that conducts substantially all of its operations through the Bank and other subsidiaries. As a result, the Company relies on dividends from its subsidiaries, particularly the Bank, for substantially all of its revenues. There are various regulatory restrictions on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends or make other payments to the Company. Also, the Company’s right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event the Bank is unable to pay dividends to the Company, the Company may not be able to service debt, pay obligations, or pay a cash dividend to the holders of its common stock and the Company’s business, financial condition, and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. Further, although the Company has historically paid a cash dividend to the holders of its common stock, holders of the common stock are not entitled to receive dividends, and regulatory or economic factors may cause the Company’s Board of Directors to consider, among other things, the reduction of dividends paid on the Company’s common stock even if the Bank continues to pay dividends to the Company.

The Company’s common stock has less liquidity than stocks for larger publicly-traded companies.

The trading volume in the Company’s common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market has been relatively low when compared with larger companies listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market or other stock exchanges. There is no assurance that a more active and liquid trading market for the common stock will exist in the future. Consequently, shareholders may not be able to sell a substantial number of shares for the same price at which shareholders could sell a smaller number of shares. In addition, the Company cannot predict the effect, if any, that future sales of its common stock in the market, or the availability of shares of common stock for sale in the market, will have on the market price of the common stock. Sales of substantial amounts of common stock in the market, or the potential for large amounts of sales in the market, could cause the price of the Company’s common stock to decline, or reduce the Company’s ability to raise capital through future sales of common stock.

Table of Contents

Future issuances of the Company’s common stock could adversely affect the market price of the common stock and could be dilutive.

The Company is not restricted from issuing additional shares of common stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, shares of common stock. Issuances of a substantial number of shares of common stock, or the expectation that such issuances might occur, including in connection with acquisitions by the Company, could materially adversely affect the market price of the shares of common stock and could be dilutive to shareholders. Because the Company’s decision to issue common stock in the future will depend on market conditions and other factors, it cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing, or nature of possible future issuances of its common stock. Accordingly, the Company’s shareholders bear the risk that future issuances of common stock will reduce the market price of the common stock and dilute their stock holdings in the Company.

Common stock is equity and is subordinate to the Company’s existing and future indebtedness and preferred stock and effectively subordinated to all the indebtedness and other non-common equity claims against the Bank and the Company’s other subsidiaries.

Shares of the Company’s common stock are equity interests and do not constitute indebtedness. As such, shares of the common stock will rank junior to all of the Company’s indebtedness and to other non-equity claims against the Company and its assets available to satisfy claims against it, including in the event of the Company’s liquidation. Additionally, holders of the Company’s common stock are subject to prior dividend and liquidation rights of holders of outstanding preferred stock, if any. The Company’s Board of Directors is authorized to issue classes or series of preferred stock without any action on the part of the holders of the Company’s common stock, and the Company is permitted to incur additional debt. Upon liquidation, lenders and holders of the Company’s debt securities and preferred stock would receive distributions of the Company’s available assets prior to holders of the Company’s common stock. Furthermore, the Company’s right to participate in a distribution of assets upon any of its subsidiaries’ liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of that subsidiary’s creditors, including holders of any preferred stock of that subsidiary.

The Company’s governing documents and Virginia law contain anti-takeover provisions that could negatively affect its shareholders.

The Company’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws and the Virginia Stock Corporation Act contain certain provisions designed to enhance the ability of the Company’s Board of Directors to respond to attempts to acquire control of the Company. These provisions and the ability to set the voting rights, preferences, and other terms of any series of preferred stock that may be issued, may be deemed to have an anti-takeover effect and may discourage takeovers (which certain shareholders may deem to be in their best interest). To the extent that such takeover attempts are discouraged, temporary fluctuations in the market price of the Company’s common stock resulting from actual or rumored takeover attempts may be inhibited. These provisions also could discourage or make more difficult a merger, tender offer, or proxy contest, even though such transactions may be favorable to the interests of shareholders, and could potentially adversely affect the market price of the Company’s common stock.

Economic conditions may cause volatility in the Company’s common stock value.

The value of publicly traded stocks in the financial services sector can be volatile, including due to declining or sustained weak economic conditions, which may make it more difficult for a holder to sell the Company’s common stock when the holder wants and at prices that are attractive. However, even in a stable economic environment the value of the Company’s common stock can be affected by a variety of factors such as expected results of operations, actual results of operations, actions taken by shareholders, news or expectations based on the performance of others in the financial services industry, and expected impacts of a changing regulatory environment. These factors not only impact the value of the Company’s common stock but could also affect the liquidity of the stock given the Company’s size, geographical footprint, and industry.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Information on Common Stock, Market Prices and Dividends

The Company’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and is traded under the symbol “AUB.” There were 80,001,185 shares of the Company’s common stock outstanding at the close of business on December 31, 2019. The shares were held by 6,722 shareholders of record. The closing price of the Company’s common stock on December 31, 2019 was $37.55 per share compared to $28.23 on December 31, 2018.

Regulatory restrictions on the ability of the Bank to transfer funds to the Company at December 31, 2019 are set forth in Note 21 “Parent Company Financial Information,” contained in the “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements” in Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this Form 10-K. A discussion of certain limitations on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to the Company and the ability of the Company to pay dividends on its common stock, is set forth in Part I, Item 1 “Business” of this Form 10-K under the headings “Supervision and Regulation – The Company - Limits on Dividends and Other Payments.”

It is anticipated that dividends will continue to be paid on a quarterly basis. In making its decision on the payment of dividends on the Company’s common stock, the Board of Directors considers operating results, financial condition, capital adequacy, regulatory requirements, shareholder returns, and other factors.

Stock Repurchase Program

On July 8, 2019, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized a share repurchase program to purchase up to $150 million worth of the Company’s common stock in open market transactions or privately negotiated transactions, including pursuant to a trading plan in accordance with Rule 10b5-1 and/or Rule 10b-18 under the Exchange Act. The repurchase program is authorized through June 30, 2021.

The following information provides details of the Company’s common stock repurchases for the three months ended December 31, 2019:

​

(1) For the three months ended December 31, 2019, 5,807 shares were withheld upon the vesting of restricted shares granted to employees of the Company in order to satisfy tax withholding obligations.

​

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

​

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Specific Reserve Component

The specific reserve component relates to impaired loans. A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Upon being identified as impaired, for loans not considered to be collateral-dependent, an ALL is then established when the discounted cash flows of the impaired loan are lower than the carrying value of that loan. The impairment of significant collateral-dependent loans is measured based on the fair value of the underlying collateral, less selling costs, compared to the carrying value of the loan. If the Company determines that the value of an impaired collateral dependent loan is less than the recorded investment in the loan, it charges off the deficiency if it is determined that such amount represents a confirmed loss.

The Company obtains independent appraisals from a pre-approved list of independent, third party appraisers located in the market in which the collateral is located. The Company’s approved appraiser list is continuously maintained to ensure the list only includes such appraisers that have the experience, reputation, character, and knowledge of the respective real estate market. At a minimum, it is ascertained that the appraiser is currently licensed in the state in which the property is located, experienced in the appraisal of properties similar to the property being appraised, has knowledge of current real estate market conditions and financing trends, and is reputable. The Company’s internal REVG, which reports to the Enterprise Risk Management group, performs either a technical or administrative review of all appraisals obtained in accordance with the Company’s Appraisal Policy. The Appraisal Policy mirrors the Federal Regulations governing appraisals, specifically the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines and FIRREA. A technical review will ensure the overall quality of the appraisal, while an administrative review ensures that all of the required components of an appraisal are present. External appraisals are the primary source to value collateral dependent loans; however, the Company may also utilize values obtained through other valuation sources if it is deemed to be better aligned with the collateral resolution. Independent appraisals or valuations are updated every 12 months for all impaired loans. The Company’s impairment analysis documents the date of the appraisal used in the analysis. Adjustments to appraised values are only permitted to be made by the REVG. The impairment analysis is reviewed and approved by senior Credit Administration officers and the Special Assets Loan Committee. Impairment analyses are updated, reviewed, and approved on a quarterly basis at or near the end of each reporting period.

General Reserve Component

The general reserve component covers non-impaired loans and is quantitatively derived from an estimate of credit losses adjusted for various qualitative factors applicable to both commercial and consumer loan segments. The estimate of credit losses is a function of the net charge-off historical loss experience to the average loan balance of the portfolio averaged during a period that management has determined to be adequately reflective of the losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The Company has implemented a rolling 24-quarter look back period, which is re-evaluated on a periodic basis to ensure the reasonableness of the period being used.

The following table shows the types of qualitative factors management considers:

​

Impaired Loans- A loan is considered impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Company will be unable to collect the scheduled payments of principal or interest when due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement. Factors considered in determining impairment include payment status, collateral value, and the probability of collecting scheduled principal and interest payments when due. Loans that experience insignificant

Table of Contents

payment delays and payment shortfalls generally are not classified as impaired. Management determines the significance of payment delays and payment shortfalls on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the circumstances surrounding the loan and the borrower, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the borrower’s prior payment record, and the amount of the shortfall in relation to the principal and interest owed.

For the consumer loan segment, large groups of smaller balance homogeneous loans are collectively evaluated for impairment. This evaluation subjects each of the Company’s homogenous pools to a historical loss factor derived from net charge-offs experienced over the preceding 24 quarters. The Company applies payments received on impaired loans to principal and interest based on the contractual terms until they are placed on nonaccrual status. All payments received are then applied to reduce the principal balance and recognition of interest income is terminated, as discussed in Note 1 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in the “Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements” contained in Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Business Combinations and Divestitures - Business combinations are accounted for under ASC 805, Business Combinations, using the acquisition method of accounting. The acquisition method of accounting requires an acquirer to recognize the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the acquisition date measured at their fair values as of that date. To determine the fair values, the Company utilizes third party valuations, appraisals, and internal valuations based on discounted cash flow analysis or other valuation techniques. Under the acquisition method of accounting, the Company will identify the acquiree and the closing date and apply applicable recognition principles and conditions. If they are necessary to implement its plan to exit an activity of an acquiree, costs that the Company expects, but is not obligated, to incur in the future are not liabilities at the acquisition date, nor are costs to terminate the employment or relocate an acquiree’s employees. The Company does not recognize these costs as part of applying the acquisition method. Instead, the Company recognizes these costs as expenses in its post-combination financial statements in accordance with other applicable GAAP.

Merger-related costs are costs the Company incurs to effect a business combination. Those costs include advisory, legal, accounting, valuation, and other professional or consulting fees. Some other examples of costs to the Company include systems conversions, integration planning consultants, contract terminations, and advertising costs. The Company will account for merger-related costs as expenses in the periods in which the costs are incurred and the services are received. Except for the costs to issue debt or equity securities in connection with a merger, which will be recognized in accordance with other applicable accounting guidance. These merger-related costs are included on the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Income classified within the noninterest expense caption.

Goodwill and Intangible Assets - The Company follows ASC 350, Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, which prescribes the accounting for goodwill and intangible assets subsequent to initial recognition. Goodwill resulting from business combinations prior to January 1, 2009 represents the excess of the purchase price over the fair value of the net assets of businesses acquired. Goodwill resulting from business combinations after January 1, 2009 is generally determined as the excess of the fair value of the consideration transferred, plus the fair value of any noncontrolling interests in the acquiree, over the fair value of the net assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the acquisition date. Goodwill and intangible assets acquired in a purchase business combination and determined to have an indefinite useful life are not amortized, but tested for impairment at least annually or more frequently if events and circumstances exists that indicate that a goodwill impairment test should be performed. The Company has selected April 30th as the date to perform the annual impairment test. Intangible assets with definite useful lives are amortized over their estimated useful lives, which range from 4 to 10 years, to their estimated residual values. Goodwill is the only intangible asset with an indefinite life on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Long-lived assets, including purchased intangible assets subject to amortization, such as the core deposit intangible asset, are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. Recoverability of assets to be held and used is measured by a comparison of the carrying amount of an asset to estimated undiscounted future cash flows expected to be generated by the asset. If the carrying amount of an asset exceeds its estimated future cash flows, an impairment charge is recognized in the amount by which the carrying amount of the asset exceeds the fair value of the asset. Assets to be disposed of would be separately presented in the balance sheet and reported at the lower of the carrying amount or fair value less costs to sell and are no longer depreciated. Management concluded that no circumstances indicating an impairment of these assets existed as of the balance sheet date.

​

Table of Contents

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS (ISSUED BUT NOT ADOPTED)

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, “Financial Instruments - Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments.” This ASU contains significant differences from existing GAAP and is effective for the Company on January 1, 2020. This ASU updates the existing guidance to provide financial statement users with more decision-useful information about the expected credit losses on financial instruments and other commitments to extend credit held by a reporting entity at each reporting date. This ASU replaces the incurred loss impairment methodology in current GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss estimates. The CECL model will replace the Company’s current accounting for PCI and impaired loans. This ASU also amends the debt securities OTTI model. The lifetime expected credit losses will be determined using macroeconomic forecast assumptions and management judgements applicable to and through the expected lives of the portfolios. While the implementation of the standard changes the measurement of the allowance for credit losses, it does not change the credit risk of the Company’s lending portfolios or the losses of these portfolios.

​

The Company has established a cross-functional governance structure for the implementation of CECL. The final Day 1 allowance for credit losses is subject to completion of the Company’s governance and control processes, but is estimated to be within a reasonable range of $95 million.  A large portion of the increase from the incurred loss model allowance is driven by the acquired loans portfolio and the consumer loan portfolio.  Future estimates of the allowance for credit losses will depend on the characteristics of the Company’s portfolios, as well as the macroeconomic conditions and forecasts, changes and enhancements to models and methodologies, and other management judgements.

In December 2019, the FASB issued ASU No. 2019-12, “Income Taxes (Topic 740): Simplifying the Accounting for Income Taxes.” This guidance was issued to simplify accounting for income taxes by removing specific technical exceptions that often produce information investors have a hard time understanding. The amendments also improve consistent application of and simplify GAAP for other areas of Topic 740 by clarifying and amending existing guidance. The amendments are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2020, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early adoption is permitted. The Company is still evaluating the impacts from this standard.

Table of Contents

Balance Sheet

Net Income

2019 compared to 2018

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2019 increased $47.3 million or 32.3% from $146.2 million to $193.5 million and represented earnings per share of $2.41, compared to $2.22 for the year ended December 31, 2018. The increase was primarily due to the acquisition of Access. Net operating earnings (non-GAAP) totaled $220.9 million and operating earnings per share (non-GAAP) were $2.75 for the year ended December 31, 2019, which excludes $22.3 million in after-tax merger-related costs and $5.1 million in after-tax rebranding-related costs. For reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures, refer to section “Non-GAAP Measures” included within this Item 7. Included in net income for the year ended December 31, 2019 was a net loss from discontinued operations of $170,000 and approximately $1.0 million in after-tax expenses related to branch closure costs, compared to a net loss from discontinued operations of $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2018. Refer to Note 19 "Segment Reporting & Discontinued Operations" in Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this Form 10-K for further discussion regarding discontinued operations.

Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2019 increased $111.2 million from the prior year, primarily due to higher average loan balances and the acquisition of Access. The provision for credit losses increased $7.4 million from $13.7 million in 2018 to $21.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 primarily due to loan growth.

Noninterest income increased $28.6 million from $104.2 million in 2018 to $132.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. The increase was primarily driven by the acquisition of Access, a recovery of a Xenith-acquired loan charged off prior to being acquired, and proceeds from the sale of investment securities, which were partially offset by the net gain on Shore Premier sale recognized in 2018.

Noninterest expense increased $80.6 million or 23.9% from $337.8 million in 2018 to $418.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2019. Excluding $34.3 million in merger-related and rebranding costs in 2019 and $39.7 million in merger-related costs in 2018, operating noninterest expense (non-GAAP) increased $86.0 million or 28.9% compared to the year ended December 31, 2018. This increase was primarily driven by the acquisition of Access and losses on debt extinguishment of $16.4 million.

2018 compared to 2017

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2018 increased $73.3 million or 100.6% from $72.9 million to $146.2 million and represented earnings per share of $2.22, compared to $1.67 for the year ended December 31, 2017. The increase was primarily due to the acquisition of Xenith. Excluding $32.1 million in after-tax merger-related costs, net operating earnings (non-GAAP) were $178.3 million and operating earnings per share (non-GAAP) were $2.71 for the year ended December 31, 2018. For reconciliation of the non-GAAP measures, refer to section “Non-GAAP Measures” included within this Item 7. Included in net income for the year ended December 31, 2018 was a net loss from discontinued operations of $3.2 million, compared to net income from discontinued operations of $747,000 for the year ended December 31, 2017. Refer to Note 19 "Segment Reporting & Discontinued Operations" in Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this Form 10-K for further discussion regarding discontinued operations.

Net interest income in 2018 increased $147.7 million from 2017, primarily driven by higher average loan balances and the acquisition of Xenith. The provision for credit losses increased $2.9 million from $10.8 million in 2017 to $13.7 million in 2018, mainly due to loan growth.

Table of Contents

Noninterest income increased $41.8 million from $62.4 million in 2017 to $104.2 million in 2018. The increase was driven by the acquisition of Xenith and the Shore Premier sale.

Noninterest expense increased $112.1 million or 49.7% from $225.7 million in 2017 to $337.8 million in 2018. Excluding $39.7 million and $5.4 million in merger-related costs in 2018 and 2017, respectively, operating noninterest expense (non-GAAP) increased $77.8 million or 35.3% compared to the year ended December 31, 2017. This increase was primarily due to the acquisition of Xenith.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income, which represents the principal source of revenue for the Company, is the amount by which interest income exceeds interest expense. The net interest margin is net interest income expressed as a percentage of average earning assets. Changes in the volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, as well as their respective yields and rates, have a significant impact on the level of net interest income, the net interest margin, and net income.

The information presented excludes discontinued operations. Refer to Note 19 "Segment Reporting & Discontinued Operations" in Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data" of this Form 10-K for further discussion regarding discontinued operations.

The following tables show interest income on earning assets and related average yields, as well as interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities and related average rates paid for the periods indicated:

​

For the year ended December 31, 2019, net interest income was $537.9 million, an increase of $111.2 million from 2018. For the year ended December 31, 2019, net interest income (FTE) was $549.0 million, an increase of $114.1 million from the prior year. The increase in both net interest income and net interest income (FTE) were primarily the result of a $3.3 billion increase in average interest-earning assets and a $2.2 billion increase in average interest-bearing liabilities from the impact of the Access acquisition during the first quarter of 2019. Net accretion related to acquisition accounting increased $6.1 million from $19.2 million in 2018 to $25.3 million in 2019. For the year ended December 31, 2019, net interest margin decreased 6 bps and net interest margin (FTE) decreased 5 bps compared to 2018. The net decline in net interest margin and net interest margin (FTE) measures were primarily driven by an increase in the cost of funds, partially offset by a smaller increase in interest-earning asset yields. The increase in cost of funds was primarily

Table of Contents

attributable to the increase in short-term market interest rates and the composition of interest-bearing liabilities. The increase in interest-earning asset yields was primarily due to the increase in short-term market interest rates.

​

​

⁽¹⁾ Refer to the "Non-GAAP Measures" section within this Item 7 for more information about these measures, including a reconciliation of these measures to the most directly comparable financial measures calculated in accordance with GAAP.

For the year ended December 31, 2018, net interest income was $426.7 million, an increase of $147.7 million from 2017. For the year ended December 31, 2018, net interest income (FTE) was $434.9 million, an increase of $144.1 million from the prior year. The increase in both net interest income and net interest income (FTE) were primarily the result of a $3.6 billion increase in average interest-earning assets and a $2.8 billion increase in average interest-bearing liabilities from the impact of the Xenith acquisition. Net accretion related to acquisition accounting increased $12.2 million from $7.0 million in 2017 to $19.2 million in 2018. For the year ended December 31, 2018, net interest margin increased 19 bps and net interest margin (FTE) increased 11 bps compared to 2017. The net increases in net interest margin and net interest margin (FTE) measures were primarily driven by an increase in the yield on earnings assets, partially offset by a smaller increase in cost of funds. The increase in the yield on earning assets was primarily attributable to higher loan portfolio yields due to increased short term market interest rates on variable rate loans and higher accretion income. The increase in cost of funds was primarily due to increased interest-bearing deposits and short-term borrowing rates resulting from increased short-term market interest rates.

Table of Contents

​

The following table shows interest income on earning assets and related average yields as well as interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities and related average rates paid for the years indicated (dollars in thousands):