Item 1A. Risk Factors

Any of the following risks could harm our strategic plan, business, results of operations, liquidity and financial condition and the value of an investment in our stock. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements, and our actual results may differ substantially from those discussed in such forward-looking statements.

Risks Related to Our Business

Our strategic plan and growth strategy may not be achieved as quickly or as fully as we seek.

We have adopted and are in the early stages of implementing our strategic plan to simplify our business model and focus our activities as a community bank serving our domestic customers and select foreign depositors and wealth management customers. Our plan includes a focus on profitable growth, cross selling to gain a larger share of our respective customers' business, core deposit generation, loan growth in our local markets, changes in loan mix to higher margin loans, and improving our customer experience, improving our processes, and achieving operating efficiencies and cost reductions. Our strategic plan includes significant changes, which may require certain changes in our culture and personnel. We seek to identify and serve our customers' needs better and more broadly, including our valued foreign customers. We have significantly reduced our Corporate LATAM lending businesses, while seeking higher margin domestic lending opportunities in our markets. We are in the process of reviewing our business segmentation for management reporting purposes.

The strategic plan's technology changes and systems conversions involve execution and other risks. Market interest rates may not continue to increase as we have assumed, and all our market and customer initiatives are being made in highly competitive markets. Our plans may take longer than we anticipate to implement, and the results we achieve may not be as successful as we seek, all of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Many of these factors, including interest rates, are not within our control. Additionally, the results of our strategic plan are subject to the other risks described herein that affects our business, which include:

We may determine that our internal controls and disclosure controls could have deficiencies or weaknesses.

We regularly review our internal controls for deficiencies and weaknesses. We have had no material weaknesses, but we have had deficiencies in the past. 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 our financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Although we seek to prevent, discover and promptly cure any deficiencies or weaknesses in internal controls, as a relatively new public company, we may have material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the future. If we are unable to remediate such weaknesses or deficiencies, we may be unable to accurately report our financial results, or report them within the timeframes required by law or Nasdaq rules. Failure to comply with the SEC internal controls regulations could also potentially subject us to investigations or enforcement actions by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. If we fail to implement and maintain effective internal controls over financial reporting, our ability to accurately and timely report our financial results could be impaired, which could result in late filings of our periodic reports under the Exchange Act, restatements of our consolidated financial statements, suspension or delisting of our common stock from the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Such events could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, the trading price of our shares of common stock could decline and our access to the capital markets or other financing sources could be limited.

Operational risks are inherent in our businesses.

Operational risks and losses can result from internal and external fraud; gaps or weaknesses in our risk management or internal audit procedures; errors by employees or third-parties; failure to document transactions properly or to obtain proper authorization; failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and conduct of business rules in the various jurisdictions where we do business or have customers; failures in the models we generate and rely on; equipment failures, including those caused by natural disasters or by electrical, telecommunications or other essential utility outages; business continuity and data security system failures, including those caused by computer viruses, cyberattacks, unforeseen problems encountered while implementing major new computer systems, upgrades to existing systems or inadequate access to data or poor response capabilities in light of such business continuity and data security system failures; or the inadequacy or failure of systems and controls, including those of our suppliers or counterparties. Additionally, providing services outside the U.S. to non-U.S. persons may involve greater complexity and risks than providing such services in our primary U.S. markets. Although we have implemented risk controls and loss mitigation actions, and substantial resources are devoted to developing efficient procedures, identifying and rectifying weaknesses in existing procedures and training staff, there is no assurance that such actions will be effective in controlling all of the operational risks faced by us. See “—-The Bank continues to provide certain services to MSF’s subsidiaries, even after the Spin-off, which could present additional regulatory and operational risks to us.”

Market conditions and economic cyclicality may adversely affect our industry.

We are exposed to downturns in the U.S. economy and market conditions generally. We believe the following, among other things, may affect us in 2019 and beyond:

Our profitability and liquidity may be affected by changes in interest rates and interest rate levels, the shape of the yield curve and economic conditions.

Our profitability depends upon net interest income, which is the difference between interest earned on assets, such as loans and investments, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Net interest income will be adversely affected by market interest rates changes where the interest we pay on deposits and borrowings increases faster than the interest earned on loans and investments. Interest rates, and consequently our results of operations, are affected by general economic conditions (domestic and international) and fiscal and monetary policies, as well as expectations of these rates and policies, and the shape of the yield curve.

Our balance sheet is asset sensitive. Therefore, a decrease in interest rates or a flattening or inversion of the yield curve could adversely affect us, generally.

Our income is primarily driven by the spread between these rates. As a result, a steeper yield curve, meaning long-term interest rates are significantly higher than short-term interest rates, would provide the Bank with a better opportunity to increase net interest income. Conversely, a flattening or inversion of the U.S. yield curve could pressure our NIM as our cost of funds increases relative to the spread we can earn on our assets. In addition, net interest income could be affected by asymmetrical changes in the different interest rate indexes, given that not all of our assets or liabilities are priced with the same index. Prior to its pause in the first quarter of 2019, the Federal Reserve Normalization Policy resulted in a gradual increase of the Federal Reserve’s target Federal Funds rates and a decrease in the Federal Reserve’s holdings of securities. In March 2019, the Federal Reserve announced plans to reduce its sales of Treasury securities 50% to $15 billion per month beginning in May 2019 until it stops such sales at the end of September 2019, as well as reduce its holdings of MBS by reinvesting $20 billion per month of MBS principal repayments in Treasury securities. These plans may have unpredictable effects on the shape of the yield curve and longer term interest rates. See “Supervision and Regulation—Fiscal and Monetary Policy.”

The production of mortgages and other loans and the value of collateral securing our loans, are dependent on demand within the markets we serve, as well as interest rates. Increases in interest rates generally decrease the market values of fixed-rate, interest-bearing investments and loans held, the value of mortgage and other loans produced, including long term fixed-rate loans and the value of loans sold, mortgage loan activities and the collateral securing our loans, and therefore may adversely affect our liquidity and earnings, to the extent not offset by potential increases in our NIM.

The 2017 Tax Act, including its fiscal stimulus, limitations on the deductibility of residential mortgage interest and business interest expenses and other changes, could have mixed effects on economic activity and reduce the demand for loans and increase competition among lenders for loans. The 2017 Tax Act could also promote inflation and higher interest rates.

Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates, inflation and competitive pressures.

The Federal Reserve raised the target Federal Funds rate nine times between December 2015 and December 2018, after which the Federal Reserve paused its Normalization Policy. In March 2019, the Federal Reserve announced that it was reducing its monthly sales of Treasury securities 50% to $15 billion per month beginning in May 2019 and ending such sales at the end of September 2019, and announced that it was reducing its holdings of MBS by reinvesting $20 billion per month of MBS principal repayments in Treasury securities, while reserving the flexibility to sell MBS over the longer run. The Federal Reserve has kept interest rates low over recent years, and the Federal government continues large deficit spending. Our costs of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, interest rates and competitive pressures, and potential inflation resulting from government deficit spending and the effects of the 2017 Tax Act and monetary policies. Traditionally, we have obtained funds principally through deposits, including deposits from foreign persons, and borrowings from other institutional lenders. Generally, we believe deposits are a cheaper and more stable source of funds than borrowings because interest rates paid for deposits are typically lower than interest rates charged for borrowings from other institutional lenders. We expect that our future growth will depend on our ability to retain and grow a strong, low-cost deposit base from U.S. domiciled persons. Increases in interest rates could also cause consumers to further shift their funds to more interest bearing instruments and to increase the competition for funds. While the Federal Reserve’s Normalization Polucy contemplated gradually increasing interest rates, the Normalization Policy is currently paused. Interest rates could increase more or less quickly than anticipated, after the resumption of the Normalization Policy, and the competition for deposits could increase. If customers reduce the mix of their interest bearing and noninterest bearing deposits, or move money to higher rate deposits or other interest bearing assets offered by competitors or from transaction deposits to higher interest bearing time deposits, we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income. Additionally, any such loss of funds could result in lower loan originations and growth, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, including liquidity. See “Supervision and Regulation—Fiscal and Monetary Policy.”

Many of our loans and our obligations for borrowed money are priced based on variable interest rates tied to the London Interbank Offering Rate, or LIBOR. We are subject to risks that LIBOR may no longer be available as a result of the United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority ceasing to require the submission of LIBOR quotes in 2021.

The potential cessation of LIBOR quotes in 2021 creates substantial risks to the banking industry, including us. Unless alternative rates can be negotiated and determined, our floating rate loans, funding and derivative obligations that specify the use of a LIBOR index, will no longer adjust and may become fixed rate instruments at the time LIBOR ceases to exist. This would adversely affect our asset/liability management and could lead to more asset and liability mismatches and interest rate risk unless appropriate LIBOR alternatives are developed . It could also cause confusion that could disrupt the capital and credit markets as a result of confusion or uncertainty.

The Federal Reserve has sponsored the Alternative Reference Rates Committee, or ARRC, which serves as a forum to coordinate and track planning as market participants currently using LIBOR consider (a) transitioning to alternative reference rates where it is deemed appropriate and (b) addressing risks in legacy contracts language given the possibility that LIBOR might stop. On April 3, 2018, the Federal Reserve began publishing three new reference rates, including the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or SOFR. ARRC has recommended SOFR as the alternative to LIBOR, and published fallback interest rate consultations for public comment and a Paced Transition Plan to SOFR use. The Financial Stability Board has taken an interest in LIBOR and possible replacement indices as a matter of risk management. The International Organisation of Securities Commissions, or IOSCO, has been active in this area and is expected to call on market participants to have backup options if a reference rate, such as LIBOR, ceases publication. The International Swap Dealers Association has published guidance on interest rate bench marks and alternatives in July and August 2018. It cannot be predicted whether SOFR or another index or indices will become a market standard that replaces LIBOR, and if so, the effects on our customers, or our future results of operations or financial condition.

The expected discontinuance in LIBOR may also affect interest rate hedges and result in certain of these becoming ineffective and ineligible for hedge accounting.

Our derivative instruments may expose us to certain risks.

We use, from time to time, derivative instruments to offset current or future changes in cash flows of certain of our FHLB advances. In addition, we enter into matched offsetting derivative transactions in order to manage credit exposure arising from derivative transactions with customers. We may enter into a variety of derivative instruments, including options, futures, forwards, and interest rate and credit default swaps, with a number of counterparties. Amounts that we expect to collect under current and future derivatives are subject to counterparty risk. Our obligations under our borrowings are not changed by our hedging activities and we are liable for our obligations even if our derivative counterparties do not pay us. Such defaults could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Substantially all of our derivatives require us to pledge or receive collateral or make payments related to any decline in the net estimated fair value of such derivatives executed through a specific broker at a clearinghouse or entered into with a specific counterparty on a bilateral basis. In addition, ratings downgrades or financial difficulties of derivative counterparties may require us to utilize additional capital with respect to the impacted businesses.

Our valuation of securities and investments and the determination of the amount of impairments taken on our investments are subjective and, if changed, could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

Fixed maturity securities, as well as short-term investments that are reported at estimated fair value, represent the majority of our total investments. We define fair value generally as the price that would be received in the sale of an asset or paid to transfer a liability. Considerable judgment is often required in interpreting market data to develop estimates of fair value, and the use of different assumptions or valuation methodologies may have a material effect on the estimated fair value amounts. During periods of market disruption, including periods of significantly rising or high interest rates, rapidly widening credit spreads or illiquidity, it may be difficult to value certain of our securities if trading becomes less frequent or market data becomes less observable. In addition, in times of financial market disruption, certain asset classes that were in active markets with significant observable data may become illiquid. In those cases, the valuation process includes inputs that are less observable and require more subjectivity and management judgment. Valuations may result in estimated fair values which vary significantly from the amount at which the investments may ultimately be sold. Further, rapidly changing and unprecedented credit and equity market conditions could materially affect the valuation of securities in our financial statements and the period-to-period changes in estimated fair value could vary significantly. Decreases in the estimated fair value of securities we hold may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.”

The determination of the amount of impairments varies by investment type and is based upon our periodic evaluation and assessment of known and inherent risks associated with the respective asset class. Such evaluations and assessments are revised as conditions change and new information becomes available. We reflect any changes in impairments in earnings as such evaluations are revised. However, historical trends may not be indicative of future impairments. In addition, any such future impairments or allowances could have a materially adverse effect on our earnings and financial position. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.”

Our success depends on our ability to compete effectively in highly competitive markets.

The banking markets in which we do business are highly competitive and our future growth and success will depend on our ability to compete effectively in these markets. We compete for deposits, loans, and other financial services in our markets with other local, regional and national commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions, mortgage lenders, trust services providers and securities advisory and brokerage firms. Marketplace lenders operating nationwide over the internet are also growing rapidly. Many of our competitors offer products and services different from us, and have substantially greater resources, name recognition and market presence than we do, which benefits them in attracting business. In addition, larger competitors may be able to price loans and deposits more aggressively than we are able to and have broader and more diverse customer and geographic bases to draw upon. The Dodd-Frank Act allows others to branch into our markets more easily from other states. Failures of other banks with offices in our markets and small institutions wishing to sell or merge due to cost pressures could also lead to the entrance of new, stronger competitors in our markets.

Our success depends on general and local economic conditions where we operate.

Our success depends on economic conditions, generally, especially in the geographic markets we serve. The local economic conditions in our markets have a significant effect on our commercial, real estate and construction loans, the ability of borrowers to repay our loans and the value of the collateral securing our loans. Adverse changes in economic conditions in the regions where our loans are originated, primarily South Florida, the greater Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas areas, and the greater New York City area, and secondarily in Brazil, Panama, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru where we have trade financing and financial institution credits, could negatively affect our results of operations and our profitability. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017 , we had $157.2 million and $182.7 million of consumer loans and residential mortgage loans secured by properties in the U.S. outstanding to Venezuelan persons, respectively. This exposure to Venezuelan borrowers includes $28.2 million and $37.6 million of consumer and other loans at December 31, 2018 and 2017 , respectively. Further, our loan production, generally, is subject to seasonality, with the lowest volume typically in the first quarter of each year. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Financial Condition.”

Severe weather, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism, theft, civil unrest, government expropriation or other external events could have significant effects on our business.

Severe weather and natural disasters, including hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, fires, droughts and floods, acts of war or terrorism, theft, civil unrest, government expropriation, condemnation or other external events in our markets where we operate or where our customers live (including Venezuela, which is experiencing civil unrest, a depreciated currency and hyperinflation estimated by the International Monetary Fund at 1,370,000% in 2018) could have a significant effect on our ability to conduct business. Such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue and/or cause us to incur additional expenses. Although management has established disaster recovery and business continuity policies and procedures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Our business is concentrated in three markets—South Florida, the greater Houston, Texas area and the greater New York City area, which may increase our risks from the weather. For example, in Fall 2017, both the greater Houston, Texas area and South Florida were struck by major hurricanes within days of each other.

Defaults by or deteriorating asset quality of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.

We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, central clearinghouses, commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and investment funds, our correspondent banks and other financial institutions, especially those in the Latin American countries where we make such loans. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of the default of our counterparty. In addition, with respect to secured transactions, credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices insufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due to us. We also may have exposure to these financial institutions in the form of unsecured debt instruments, derivatives and other securities. Further, potential action by governments and regulatory bodies in response to financial crises affecting the global banking system and financial markets, such as nationalization, conservatorship, receivership and other intervention, whether under existing legal authority or any new authority that may be created, or lack of action by governments and central banks, as well as deterioration in the banks’ creditworthiness, could adversely affect the value and/or liquidity of these instruments, securities, transactions and investments or limit our ability to trade with them. Any losses or impairments to the carrying value of these investments or other changes may materially and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

In addition we maintain credit relationships with large financial institutions that we believe are of high quality, primarily in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru. In addition to the risks posed by relationships with U.S. counterparty financial institutions, transactions with foreign financial institutions may be subject to currency and exchange rate controls, regulation, inflation or deflation, and fiscal and monetary policies in the foreign countries that are significantly different than in the U.S.

Nonperforming and similar assets take significant time to resolve and may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

At December 31, 2018 and 2017 , our nonperforming loans totaled $ 17.8 million and $ 26.9 million , respectively, or 0.30% and 0.44% of total loans, respectively. In addition, we had OREO of $0.4 million and $0.3 million at December 31, 2018 and 2017 . Our non-performing assets may adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or OREO, and these assets require higher loan administration and other costs, thereby adversely affecting our income. Decreases in the value of these assets, or the underlying collateral, or in the related borrowers’ performance or financial condition, whether or not due to economic and market conditions beyond our control, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires commitments of time from management, which can be detrimental to their other responsibilities. There can be no assurance that we will not experience increases in nonperforming loans, OREO and similar nonperforming assets in the future.

Changes in the real estate markets, including the secondary market for residential mortgage loans, may adversely affect us.

Notwithstanding changes made in the 2018 Growth Act, the effects of the CFPB changes to mortgage and servicing rules effective at the beginning of 2014, the CFPB’s unified Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, rules for closed end credit transactions secured by real property that became effective in October 2015, often called TRID rules, enforcement actions, reviews and settlements, changes in the securitization rules under the Dodd-Frank Act, including the risk retention rules that became effective December 24, 2016, and the Basel III Capital Rules (see “Supervision and Regulation—Basel III Capital Rules”) could have serious adverse effects on the mortgage markets and our mortgage operations.

The TRID rules have affected our current and proposed mortgage business and have increased our costs as a result of our compliance efforts. In addition, the CFPB’s final regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, which require that lenders determine whether a consumer has the ability to repay a mortgage loan, which became effective in January 2014, have limited the secondary market for and liquidity of many mortgage loans that are not “qualified mortgages.”

Increasing interest rates and the 2017 Tax Act’s limitations on the deductibility of residential mortgage interest and state and local property and other taxes could adversely affect consumer behaviors and the volumes of housing sales, mortgage and home equity loan originations, as well as the value and liquidity of residential property held as collateral by lenders such as the Bank, and the secondary markets for residential loans. Acquisition, construction and development loans for residential development may be similarly adversely affected.

The Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, have been in conservatorship since September 2008. Minimal capital at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the levels of risky assets at the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, and the FHA’s relatively low capital and reserves for losses, the current levels of home sales, and the risks of interest rates increasing materially from historically low levels, as well as the 2017 Tax Act, could also have serious adverse effects on the mortgage markets and our mortgage operations. Such adverse effects could include, among other things, price reductions in single family home values, further adversely affecting the liquidity and value of collateral securing commercial loans for residential acquisition, construction and development, as well as residential mortgage loans that we hold, mortgage loan originations and gains on sale of mortgage loans. In the event our allowance for loan losses is insufficient to cover such losses, if any, our earnings, capital and liquidity could be adversely affected.

Our allowance for loan losses may prove inadequate or we may be negatively affected by credit risk exposures.

We periodically review our allowance for loan losses for adequacy considering economic conditions and trends, collateral values and credit quality indicators, including past charge-off experience and levels of past due loans and nonperforming assets. We cannot be certain that our allowance for loan losses will be adequate over time to cover credit losses in our portfolio because of unanticipated adverse changes in the economy, market conditions or events adversely affecting specific customers, industries or markets, and changes in borrower behaviors. Differences between our actual experience and assumptions and the effectiveness of our models may adversely affect our business, financial condition, including liquidity and capital, and results of operations. The Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued ASU No. 2016-13 “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” or CECL, on June 16, 2016, which changed the loss model to take into account current expected credit losses. As an emerging growth company, CECL will be effective for our fiscal year beginning January 1, 2021. However, absent changes in current bank regulatory requirements, we may be required to apply CECL beginning January 1, 2020 for bank regulatory purposes and all other reporting purposes. CECL substantially changes how we calculate our allowance for loan losses. We are evaluating CECL and when we will be required to adopt it. We cannot predict when and how it will affect our results of operations and the volatility of such results, our financial condition, including our regulatory capital.

If our business does not perform well, we may be required to recognize an impairment of our goodwill or other long-lived assets or to establish a valuation allowance against the deferred income tax asset, which could adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

We had goodwill of $ 19.2 million on December 31, 2018 and 2017 , respectively, which represents the excess of consideration paid over the fair value of the net assets of a savings bank acquired in 2006. We perform our goodwill impairment testing annually using a process, which requires the use of estimates and judgment. The estimated fair value of the reporting unit is affected by the performance of the business, which may be especially diminished by prolonged market declines. If it is determined that the goodwill has been impaired, we must write down the goodwill by the amount of the impairment, with a corresponding charge to net income. Although we have had no goodwill write-downs historically, any such write-downs could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

Long-lived assets, including assets such as real estate, also require impairment testing. This testing is done to determine whether changes in circumstances indicate that we will be unable to recover the carrying amount of these assets. Such write-downs could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position.

Deferred income tax represents the tax effect of the timing differences between financial accounting and tax reporting. Deferred tax assets, or DTAs, are assessed periodically by management to determine whether they are realizable. Factors in management’s determination include the performance of the business, including the ability to generate future taxable income. If, based on available information, it is more likely than not that the deferred income tax asset will not be realized, then a valuation allowance must be established with a corresponding charge to net income. Such charges could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. In addition, changes in the corporate tax rates could affect the value of our DTAs and may require a write-off of some of those assets. The 2017 Tax Act reduced the U.S. corporate income tax rate to 21% effective for periods starting January 1, 2018, from a prior rate of 35%. At December 31, 2018 , we had net DTAs with a book value of $16.3 million , based on a U.S. corporate income tax rate of 21%. In December 2017, we remeasured our net DTAs and recorded $9.6 million in additional tax expense and a corresponding reduction in net income as a result of the 2017 Tax Act. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.”

Mortgage Servicing Rights, or MSRs, requirements may change and require us to incur additional costs and risks.

The CFPB adopted new residential mortgage servicing standards in January 2014 that add additional servicing requirements, increase our required servicer activities and delay foreclosures, among other things. These may adversely affect our costs to service residential mortgage loans, and together with the Basel III Capital Rules, may decrease the returns on MSRs. Declines in interest rates tend to reduce the value of MSRs as refinancings may reduce serviced mortgages.

The CFPB and the bank regulators continue to bring enforcement actions and develop proposals, rules and practices that could increase the costs of providing mortgage servicing. Historically, we have not serviced mortgage loans for others. However, if we were to provide servicing in the future, regulation of mortgage servicing could make it more difficult and costly to timely realize the value of collateral securing such loans upon a borrower default.

We may be contractually obligated to repurchase mortgage loans we sold to third-parties on terms unfavorable to us.

As a routine part of our business, we originate mortgage loans that we subsequently sell to investors. We do not currently originate mortgage loans for direct sale to any governmental agencies and government sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but expect to make such direct sales in the future. In connection with the sale of these loans to private investors and GSEs, we make customary representations and warranties, the breach of which may result in our being required to repurchase the loan or loans. Furthermore, the amount paid may be greater than the fair value of the loan or loans at the time of the repurchase. No mortgage loan repurchase requests have been made to us; however, if repurchase requests were made to us, we may have to establish reserves for possible repurchases, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our concentration of CRE loans could result in further increased loan losses, and adversely affect our business, earnings, and financial condition.

CRE is cyclical and poses risks of possible loss due to concentration levels and risks of the assets being financed, which include loans for the acquisition and development of land and residential construction. The federal bank regulators released guidance in 2006 on “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending.” The guidance defines CRE loans as exposures secured by raw land, land development and construction (including 1-4 family residential construction), multi-family property, and non-farm nonresidential property, where the primary or a significant source of repayment is derived from rental income associated with the property (that is, loans for which 50% or more of the source of repayment comes from third-party, non-affiliated, rental income) or the proceeds of the sale, refinancing, or permanent financing of the property. Loans to real-estate investment trusts, or REITs, and unsecured loans to developers that closely correlate to the inherent risks in CRE markets would also be considered CRE loans under the guidance. Loans on owner occupied CRE are generally excluded.

The Bank’s portfolio of CRE loans was 344.6% of its risk-based capital, or 51.44% % of its total loans, as of December 31, 2018 compared to 334.11% of its risk-based capital, or 48.79% of its total loans, as of December 31, 2017 . Our CRE loans included approximately $1.8 billion and $1.6 billion of fixed rate loans at December 31, 2018 and 2017 , respectively. These may adversely affect our margins in a rising interest rate environment and present asset/liability mismatches and risks since our liabilities are generally floating rate or have shorter maturities.

The banking regulators continue to scrutinize CRE lending and further addressed their concerns over CRE activity in December 2016, requiring banks with higher levels of CRE loans to implement more robust underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as higher levels of allowances for possible losses and capital levels as a result of CRE lending growth and exposures. Lower demand for CRE, and reduced availability of, and higher costs for, CRE lending could adversely affect our CRE loans and sales of our OREO, and therefore our earnings and financial condition, including our capital and liquidity.

As of December 31, 2018 , approximately 55% of total CRE loans were in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, Florida, 18% were in the greater Houston, Texas area, and 22% were in the greater New York City area, including all five boroughs. The remainder were in other Florida, Texas and New York/New Jersey markets. Our CRE loans are affected by economic conditions in those markets.

Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our financial condition.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, proceeds from loan repayments or sales, and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity . Our funding sources include Federal Funds purchased, securities sold under repurchase agreements, core and non-core deposits (domestic and foreign), and short-and long-term debt. We maintain a portfolio of securities that can be used as a source of liquidity. We are also members of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, or FHLB, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, where we can obtain advances collateralized with eligible assets. There are other sources of liquidity available to us or the Bank should they be needed, including our ability to acquire additional non-core deposits (such as reciprocal deposit programs such as the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service, or CDARS, and brokered deposits). We may be able, depending upon market conditions, to otherwise borrow money or issue and sell debt and preferred or common securities in public or private transactions. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities on terms which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or the economy in general. Our ability to borrow or obtain funding, if needed, could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry.

The Company is an entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Federal Reserve Act, Section 23A, limits our ability to borrow from the Bank, and the Company generally relies on dividends paid from the Bank for funds to meet its obligations, including under its outstanding trust preferred securities. The Bank’s ability to pay dividends is limited by law, and may be limited by regulatory action to preserve the Bank’s capital adequacy. Any such limitations could adversely affect the Company’s liquidity.

Certain funding sources may not be available to us and our funding sources may prove insufficient and/or costly to replace.

Although we have historically been able to replace maturing deposits and advances, we may not be able to replace these funds in the future if our financial condition or general market conditions change. The use of brokered deposits has been particularly important for the funding of our operations. If we are unable to issue brokered deposits, or are unable to maintain access to other funding sources, our results of operations and liquidity would be adversely affected. Our ability to accept, renew or replace brokered deposits without prior regulatory approval will be limited if the Bank does not remain well-capitalized.

Alternative funding to deposits may carry higher costs than sources currently utilized. If we are required to rely more heavily on more expensive and potentially less stable funding sources, profitability and liquidity could be adversely affected. We may determine to seek debt financing in the future to achieve our long-term business objectives. Any Company or Bank debt that is to be treated as capital for bank regulatory purposes requires prior Federal Reserve approval, which the Federal Reserve may not grant. Additional borrowings, if sought, may not be available to us, or if available, may not be on acceptable terms. The availability of additional financing will depend on a variety of factors such as market conditions, the general availability of credit, our credit ratings and our credit capacity. In addition, the Bank may seek to sell loans as an additional source of liquidity. If additional financing sources are unavailable or are not available on acceptable terms, our profitability and future prospects could be adversely affected.

Our Venezuelan deposit concentration means conditions in Venezuela could adversely affect our operations.

At December 31, 2018 , 44.67% of our deposits, or approximately $2.7 billion , were from Venezuelan residents. The Bank’s Venezuelan deposits declined 31.32% from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2018 and continue to decline. These declines were due in part to actions by the Company to reduce its compliance costs and from economic conditions in Venezuela that adversely affected our Venezuelan customers’ wealth and use of deposits to fund living expenses. All of the Bank’s deposits are denominated in Dollars. Adverse economic conditions in Venezuela may continue to adversely affect our Venezuelan deposit base and our ability to retain and grow these relationships, as customers rely on their Dollar deposits to spend without being able to earn additional Dollars. Venezuela’s currency controls and its official currency exchange rates for converting Bolivars into Dollars diverge widely from open market exchange rates, generally. According to the International Monetary Fund’s World Economic Outlook, Venezuela’s annual inflation rate is estimated to be 1,370,000% in 2018 and projected to be 10,000,000% in 2019. All of these factors greatly influence our Venezuelan customers’ access to Dollars and their ability to replenish the Dollars they consume.

Although foreign depositors may not seek as high yielding deposits as domestic customers, foreign deposits require additional scrutiny and higher costs to originate and maintain than domestic deposits in the U.S. The Bank has adopted strategies to manage and retain its foreign deposits consistent with U.S. anti-money laundering laws and its profit and risk objectives. If these strategies are unsuccessful, or economic conditions or other conditions worsen in Venezuela or our regulators restrict the Bank from taking its customers’ deposits, our volume of deposits from Venezuelan sources may decline further. A significant or sudden decline in our deposits from Venezuelan customers could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, including liquidity.

Our investment advisory and trust businesses could be adversely affected by conditions affecting our Venezuelan customers.

Although we seek to increase our trust, brokerage and investment advisory business from our customers in our markets, substantially all our revenue from these services currently is from Venezuelan customers. Economic and other conditions in Venezuela may adversely affect the amounts of assets we manage or custody, and the trading volumes of our Venezuelan customers, reducing fees and commissions we earn from these businesses.

Our brokered deposits and wholesale funds increase our liquidity risks, and could increase our deposit insurance costs.

Our brokered deposits at December 31, 2018 were 10.6% of total deposits. Wholesale funding, including FHLB advances and brokered deposits, represented 26.3% of our funding at December 31, 2018 . Our wholesale funding has increased 7.61% since 2016. The FDIC adjusts its deposit insurance assessments by up to 10 basis points annually for $10 billion and larger institutions that have brokered deposits exceeding 10% of total deposits where the bank also exceeds a certain risk level. More rigorous standards may also apply to banks with more than $10 billion in assets. In addition, excessive reliance on brokered deposits and wholesale funding is viewed by the regulators as potentially risky for all institutions, and may adversely affect our liquidity and the regulatory views of our liquidity. Institutions that are less than well-capitalized may be unable to raise or renew brokered deposits under the prompt corrective action rules. See “Supervision and Regulation—Capital.”

Technological changes affect our business, and we may have fewer resources than many competitors to invest in technological improvements.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services, and a growing demand for mobile and other phone and computer banking applications. In addition to allowing us to service our clients better, the effective use of technology may increase efficiency and may enable financial institutions to reduce costs and the risks associated with fraud and other operational risks. Largely unregulated “fintech” businesses have increased their participation in the lending and payments businesses, and have increased competition in these businesses. This trend is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to use technology to provide products and services that meet our customers’ preferences and which create additional efficiencies in operations, while avoiding cyberattacks and disruptions, and data breaches. Our strategic plan contemplates simplifying and improving our information technology, and making significant additional capital investments in technology. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services as quickly or at the costs anticipated. Such technology may prove less effective than anticipated, and conversion issues may increase the costs of the new technology and delay its use. Many larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements and, increasingly, non-banking firms are using technology to compete with traditional lenders for loans and other banking services. See “-Operational risks are inherent in our businesses.”

The fair value of our investment securities can fluctuate due to market conditions out of our control.

As of December 31, 2018 , the fair value of the Company’s available for sale investment securities portfolio was approximately $1.6 billion and we had accumulated unrealized losses on those securities of $33.1 million . Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. These factors include but are not limited to increases in interest rates, rating agency downgrades of the securities and defaults.

Potential gaps in our risk management policies and internal audit procedures may leave us exposed to unidentified or unanticipated risk, which could negatively affect our business.

Our enterprise risk management and internal audit program is designed to mitigate material risks and loss to us. We have developed and continue to develop risk management and internal audit policies and procedures to reflect ongoing reviews of our risks and expect to continue to do so in the future. Nonetheless, our policies and procedures may not identify every risk to which we are exposed, and our internal audit process may fail to detect such weaknesses or deficiencies in our risk management framework. Many of our methods for managing risk and exposures are based upon the use of observed historical market behavior to model or project potential future exposure. Models used by our business are based on assumptions and projections. These models may not operate properly or our inputs and assumptions may be inaccurate, or may not be adopted quickly enough to reflect changes in behavior, markets or technology. As a result, these methods may not fully predict future exposures, which can be significantly different and greater than historical measures indicate. Other risk management methods depend upon the evaluation of information regarding markets, customers, or other matters that are publicly available or otherwise accessible to us. This information may not always be accurate, complete, up-to-date or properly evaluated. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that we can effectively review and monitor all risks or that all of our employees will closely follow our risk management policies and procedures, nor can there be any assurance that our risk management policies and procedures will enable us to accurately identify all risks and limit timely our exposures based on our assessments. In addition, we may have to implement more extensive and perhaps different risk management policies and procedures under pending regulations, including regulations and policies applicable to U.S. commercial banks. All of these could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Any failure to protect the confidentiality of customer information could adversely affect our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Various federal, state and foreign laws enforced by the bank regulators and other agencies protect the privacy and security of customers’ non-public personal information. Many of our employees have access to, and routinely process, sensitive personal customer information, including through information technology systems. We rely on various internal processes and controls to protect the confidentiality of client information that is accessible to, or in the possession of, us and our employees. It is possible that an employee could, intentionally or unintentionally, disclose or misappropriate confidential client information or our data could be the subject of a cybersecurity attack. Such personal data could also be compromised by third-party hackers via intrusions into our systems or those of service providers or persons we do business with such as credit bureaus, data processors and merchants who accept credit or debit cards for payment. If we are subject to a successful cyberattack or fail to maintain adequate internal controls, or if our employees fail to comply with our policies and procedures, misappropriation or intentional or unintentional inappropriate disclosure or misuse of client information could occur. Such cyberattacks internal control inadequacies or non-compliance could materially damage our reputation, lead to civil or criminal penalties, or both, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our information systems may experience interruptions and security breaches, and are exposed to cybersecurity threats.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems, including those provided by third-party service providers, to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption, or security breach of these systems could result in failures or disruptions which could affect our customers’ privacy and our customer relationships, generally. Our systems and networks, as well as those of our third-party service providers, are subject to security risks and could be susceptible to cyberattacks, such as denial of service attacks, hacking, terrorist activities or identity theft. Financial institutions and their service providers are regularly attacked, some of which have involved sophisticated and targeted attack methods, including use of stolen access credentials, malware, ransomware, phishing, structured query language injection attacks, and distributed denial-of-service attacks, among others. Such cyberattacks may also be directed at disrupting the operations of public companies or their business partners, which are intended to effect unauthorized fund transfers, obtain unauthorized access to confidential information, destroy data, disable or degrade service, or sabotage systems, often through the introduction of computer viruses or malware, cyberattacks and other means. Denial of service attacks have been launched against a number of large financial services institutions, and we may be subject to these types of attacks in the future. Hacking and identity theft risks, in particular, could cause serious reputational harm. Cyber threats are rapidly evolving and we may not be able to anticipate or prevent all such attacks and could be held liable for any security breach or loss.

Despite our cybersecurity policies and procedures and our efforts to monitor and ensure the integrity of our and our service providers’ systems, we may not be able to anticipate all types of security threats, nor may we be able to implement preventive measures effective against all such security threats. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched and can originate from a wide variety of sources, including outside groups such as external service providers, organized crime affiliates, terrorist organizations or hostile foreign governments or agencies. These risks may increase in the future as the use of mobile banking and other internet-based products and services continues to grow.

Security breaches or failures may have serious adverse financial and other consequences, including significant legal and remediation costs, disruption of operations, misappropriation of confidential information, damage to systems operated by us or our third-party service providers, as well as damaging our customers and our counterparties. Such losses and claims may not be covered by our insurance. In addition to the immediate costs of any failure, interruption or security breach, including those at our third-party service providers, these events could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Future acquisitions and expansion activities may disrupt our business, dilute shareholder value and adversely affect our operating results.

While we seek continued organic growth, we may consider the acquisition of other businesses. To the extent that we grow through acquisitions, we cannot assure you that we will be able to adequately or profitably manage this growth. Acquiring other banks, banking centers, or businesses, as well as other geographic (domestic and international) and product expansion activities, involve various risks, including:

Attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us in the future.

We expect that other banking and financial companies, many of which have significantly greater resources, will compete with us to acquire financial services businesses. This competition could increase prices for potential acquisitions that we believe are attractive. Also, acquisitions are subject to various regulatory approvals. If we fail to receive the appropriate regulatory approvals, we will not be able to consummate an acquisition that we may believe is in our best interests. Additionally, regulatory approvals could contain conditions that reduce the anticipated benefits of a contemplated transaction. Among other things, our regulators consider our capital levels, liquidity, profitability, regulatory compliance, including anti-money laundering efforts, levels of goodwill and intangibles, management and integration capacity when considering acquisition and expansion proposals. Any acquisition could be dilutive to our earnings and shareholders’ equity per share of our common stock.

Certain provisions of our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, Florida law, and U.S. banking laws could have anti-takeover effects by delaying or preventing a change of control that you may favor.

Certain provisions of our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, as well as Florida law, and the BHC Act, and Change in Bank Control Act, could delay or prevent a change of control that you may favor.

Our amended and restated articles of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws include certain provisions that could delay a takeover or change in control of us, including: 

The Florida Business Corporation Act contains a control-share acquisition statute that provides that a person who acquires shares in an “issuing public corporation,” as defined in the statute, in excess of certain specified thresholds generally will not have any voting rights with respect to such shares, unless such voting rights are approved by the holders of a majority of the votes of each class of securities entitled to vote separately, excluding shares held or controlled by the acquiring person.

The Florida Business Corporation Act also provides that an “affiliated transaction” between a Florida corporation with an “interested shareholder,” as those terms are defined in the statute, generally must be approved by the affirmative vote of the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding voting shares, other than the shares beneficially owned by the interested shareholder. The Florida Business Corporation Act defines an “interested shareholder” as any person who is the beneficial owner of 10% or more of the outstanding voting shares of the corporation.

Furthermore, the BHC Act and the Change in Bank Control Act impose notice, application and approvals and ongoing regulatory requirements on any shareholder or other party that seeks to acquire direct or indirect “control” of bank holding companies, such as ourselves.

We may be unable to attract and retain key people to support our business.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain key people. We compete with other financial services companies for people primarily on the basis of compensation, support services and financial position. Intense competition exists for key employees with demonstrated ability, and we may be unable to hire or retain such employees, including those needed to implement our business strategy. Effective succession planning is also important to our long-term success. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel and failure to effectively transfer knowledge and smooth transitions involving key personnel could have material adverse effects on our business due to loss of their skills, knowledge of our business, their years of industry experience and the potential difficulty of timely finding qualified replacement employees. We do not currently anticipate any significant changes to our senior management team as a result of the recent Spin-off. However, there may be new positions which we may need to fill as we operate as an independent public company. We may not be able to attract and retain qualified people to fill these open positions or replace or succeed members of our senior management team or other key personnel. Rules implementing the executive compensation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act may limit the type and structure of compensation arrangements into which we may enter with certain of our employees and officers. In addition, proposed rules under the Dodd-Frank Act would prohibit the payment of “excessive compensation” to our executives. Our regulators may also restrict compensation through rules and practices intended to avoid risks. These restrictions could negatively affect our ability to compete with other companies in recruiting and retaining key personnel.

Our associates may take excessive risks which could negatively affect our financial condition and business.

As a banking enterprise, we are in the business of accepting certain risks. The associates who conduct our business, including executive officers and other members of management, sales intermediaries, investment professionals, product managers, and other associates, do so in part by making decisions and choices that involve risks. We endeavor, in the design and implementation of our compensation programs and practices, to avoid giving our associates incentives to take excessive risks; however, associates may take such risks regardless of the structure of our compensation programs and practices. Similarly, although we employ controls and procedures designed to monitor associates’ business decisions and prevent them from taking excessive risks, and to prevent employee misconduct, these controls and procedures may not be effective. If our associates take excessive risks or avoid our policies and internal controls, their actions could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, financial condition and business operations.

We are subject to extensive regulation that could limit or restrict our activities and adversely affect our earnings.

We and our subsidiaries are regulated by several regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, the SEC, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., or FINRA. Our success is affected by regulations affecting banks and bank holding companies, and the securities markets, and our costs of compliance could adversely affect our earnings. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors and the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund, or DIF, not shareholders. The financial services industry also is subject to frequent legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes. In addition, the interpretations of regulations by regulators may change and statutes may be enacted with retroactive impact. From time to time, regulators raise issues during examinations of us which, if not determined satisfactorily, could have a material adverse effect on us. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations is time consuming and costly and may affect our profitability.

The nature, effects and timing of administrative and legislative change, including the 2018 Growth Act, and possible changes in regulations or regulatory approach resulting from the midterm 2018 elections, cannot be predicted. The federal bank regulators and the Treasury Department, as well as the Congress and the President, are evaluating the regulation of banks, other financial services providers and the financial markets and such changes, if any, could require us to maintain more capital and liquidity, and restrict our activities, which could adversely affect our growth, profitability and financial condition. Our consumer finance products, including residential mortgage loans, are subject to CFPB regulations and evolving standards reflecting CFPB releases, rule-making and enforcement actions. If our assets grow to $10 billion or more, we will become subject to direct CFPB examination.

Litigation and regulatory investigations are increasingly common in our businesses and may result in significant financial losses and/or harm to our reputation.

We face risks of litigation and regulatory investigations and actions in the ordinary course of operating our businesses, including the risk of class action lawsuits. Plaintiffs in class action and other lawsuits against us may seek very large and/or indeterminate amounts, including punitive and treble damages. Due to the vagaries of litigation, the outcome of a litigation matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time may normally be difficult to ascertain. We do not have any material pending litigation or regulatory matters affecting us.

A substantial legal liability or a significant federal, state or other regulatory action against us, as well as regulatory inquiries or investigations, could harm our reputation, result in material fines or penalties, result in significant legal costs, divert management resources away from our business, and otherwise have a material adverse effect on our ability to expand on our existing business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we ultimately prevail in the litigation, regulatory action or investigation, our ability to attract new customers, retain our current customers and recruit and retain employees could be materially and adversely affected. Regulatory inquiries and litigation may also adversely affect the prices or volatility of our securities specifically, or the securities of our industry, generally.

We are subject to capital adequacy and liquidity standards, and if we fail to meet these standards our financial condition and operations would be adversely affected.

We are regulated as a bank holding company and are subject to consolidated regulatory capital requirements and liquidity requirements administered by the Federal Reserve. The Bank is subject to similar capital and liquidity requirements, administered by the OCC. The Basel III Capital Rules have increased capital requirements for banking organizations such as us. The Basel III Capital Rules include a new minimum ratio of common equity tier 1 capital, or CET1, to risk-weighted assets of 4.5% and a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. The Basel III Capital Rules became fully effective on January 1, 2019. See “Supervision and Regulation—Basel III Capital Rules.” We have established capital ratio targets that align with U.S. regulatory expectations under the fully phased-in Basel III Capital Rules. Although we have capital ratios that exceed all these minimum levels currently and on a fully phased-in basis and a strategic plan to maintain these levels, we or the Bank may be unable to continue to satisfy the capital adequacy requirements for the following reasons:

Any failure to remain “well capitalized,” for bank regulatory purposes, including meeting the Basel III Capital Rule’s conservation buffer, could affect customer confidence, and our:

The 2018 Growth Act provides that qualifying banks with less than $10 billion in consolidated assets that satisfy the “Community Bank Leverage Ratio” of between 8% and 10% are deemed to satisfy applicable risk based capital requirements necessary to be considered “well capitalized.” Though this provision may provide us relief from certain capital adequacy requirements in the future, we may be unable to qualify for such relief if our total consolidated assets exceed $10 billion or the federal banking agencies determine that our risk profile disqualifies us from such relief.

Our operations are subject to risk of loss from unfavorable fiscal, monetary and political developments in the U.S. and other countries where we do business.

Our businesses and earnings are affected by the fiscal, monetary and other policies and actions of various U.S. and non-U.S. governmental and regulatory authorities. Changes in these are beyond our control and are difficult to predict and, consequently, changes in these policies could have negative effects on our activities and results of operations.

Our Corporate LATAM segment is subject to risks inherent in making loans and executing transactions with counterparties located in Latin America. Our domestic business, including loans, deposits and wealth management, services persons from or dependent upon businesses or wealth from Venezuela and other Latin American countries, and are, therefore, subject to risk inherent to those countries. These risks include, among others, effects from slow or negative growth or recessionary or worse economic conditions, inflation and hyperinflation, currency controls and volatility, and the risk of loss from unfavorable political, legal or other developments, including social or political instability, in the countries or regions in which such counterparties operate, as well as the other risks and considerations as described further below.

Various countries or regions in which we, our counterparties or our customers operate or invest have in the past experienced severe economic disruptions particular to those countries or regions. In some cases, concerns regarding the fiscal condition of one or more countries and currency and exchange controls and other measures adopted by one country could cause other countries in the same region or beyond to experience a contraction of available credit, market and price volatility, illiquidity and reduced cross-border trading and financing activity.

Our results of operations from international activities and customers from other countries may be subject to adverse changes as a result of the above considerations, as well as possible governmental actions, including expropriation, nationalization, confiscation of assets, price controls, capital controls, exchange controls, changes in laws and regulations and civil unrest and changes in government. The effects of these changes could be magnified in smaller, less liquid and more volatile foreign markets.

Conducting business and having customers in countries with less developed legal and regulatory regimes, or with currency controls, often requires devoting significant additional resources to understanding, and monitoring changes in, local laws and regulations, as well as compliance with local laws and regulations and implementing and administering related risk policies and procedures. We can also incur higher costs, and face greater compliance risks, in structuring and operating our businesses outside the U.S. to comply with U.S. anti-corruption, anti-money laundering and other laws, regulations and sanctions. Failure to comply with such rules in our international activities could adversely affect our results of operations and regulatory relations in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Changes in accounting rules applicable to banks could adversely affect our financial conditions and results of operations.

From time to time, the FASB and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes can be difficult to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in us restating prior period financial statements. For example, the FASB’s new requirements under CECL include significant changes to the manner in which banks’ allowance for loan losses will be calculated at the effective date for such guidance for us. See Note 1 to our audited consolidated financial statements, “Allowance for Loan Losses.” Instead of using historical losses, the new guidance will require forward looking analysis with respect to expected losses over the life of loans and other instruments, and could materially affect our results of operations, the volatility of such results and our financial condition.

The 2017 Tax Act may have adverse effects on certain of our customers and our businesses.

The 2017 Tax Act will benefit us by reducing the maximum U.S. corporate income tax rate on our taxable income from 35% to 21%. This benefit may be diminished by the complexity, uncertainty and possible adverse effects of this legislation on certain of our borrowers, including limitations on the deductibility of:

These changes may adversely affect borrowers’ cash flows and the values and liquidity of collateral we hold to secure our loans. Fewer borrowers may be able to meet the CFPB’s “ability to repay” standards, which include the borrower’s ability to pay taxes and assessments. Demand for loans by qualified borrowers could be reduced, and therefore competition among lenders could increase. Customer behaviors toward incurring and repaying debt could also change as a result of the 2017 Tax Act. As a result, the 2017 Tax Act could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations, at least before taking into account our lower U.S. corporate income tax rate.

The Dodd-Frank Act currently restricts our future issuance of trust preferred securities and cumulative preferred securities as eligible Tier 1 risk-based capital for purposes of the regulatory capital guidelines for bank holding companies.

Bank holding companies with assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, including us, are permitted to include trust preferred securities that were issued before May 19, 2010 as Tier 1 capital under the Dodd-Frank Act. As of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, we had $114.1 million of trust preferred securities outstanding that were issued before May 19, 2010, and that have maturity dates between 2028 and 2036.

Should we determine it is advisable, or should our regulators require us, to raise additional capital, we would not be able to issue additional trust preferred securities, as only bank holding companies with assets of less than $500 million are permitted to continue to issue trust preferred securities and include them as Tier 1 capital. Instead, we would have to issue non-cumulative preferred stock or common equity, which are Tier 1 capital. Subordinated notes meeting Basel III Capital Rules may be issuable as Tier 2 capital. To the extent we issue new equity or securities convertible into Company Shares, it could dilute our existing shareholders. Dividends on any preferred stock we may issue, unlike distributions paid on trust preferred securities, would not be tax deductible, and the preferred stock would have a preference in liquidation and in dividends to our common stock. See “Supervision and Regulation.”

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, but that capital may not be available when it is needed or on favorable terms.

We anticipate that our current capital resources will satisfy our capital requirements for the foreseeable future under currently effective regulatory capital rules. We may, however, need to raise additional capital to support our growth or currently unanticipated losses, or to meet the needs of the communities we serve. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend, among other things, on conditions in the capital markets at that time, which may be limited by events outside our control, and on our financial performance. If we cannot raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be limited.

We will be subject to heightened regulatory requirements if our total assets grow and exceed $10 billion.

As of December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, our total assets were $8.1 billion and $8.4 billion , respectively. Based on our current total assets and growth strategy, we anticipate our total assets may exceed $10 billion within the next five years. In addition to our current regulatory requirements, banks with $10 billion or more in total assets are:

Compliance with these additional ongoing requirements may necessitate additional personnel, the design and implementation of additional internal controls, or the incurrence of other significant expenses, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Our regulators requested us to engage in stress testing similar to DFAST before the Bank reached $10 billion in total assets, and we expect to continue such testing notwithstanding changes to the DFAST test thresholds by the 2018 Growth Act. Our regulators may also consider our preparation for compliance with these regulatory requirements in the course of examining our operations generally or when considering any request from us or the Bank. It is unclear whether these expectations may change as a result of the 2018 Growth Act.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

As a matter of policy, the Federal Reserve, which examines us, expects a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to a subsidiary bank and to commit resources to support such subsidiary bank. The Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to require that all companies that control a FDIC-insured depository institution serve as a source of financial strength to the depository institution. Under this requirement, we could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank should it experience financial distress, even if further investment was not otherwise warranted. See “Supervision and Regulation.”

We may face higher risks of noncompliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations than other financial institutions.

The U.S. Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or the USA PATRIOT Act, and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, which was established as part of the Treasury Department to combat money laundering, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of anti-money laundering rules. FinCEN has engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, or DOJ, Drug Enforcement Administration, and U.S. Internal Revenue Service, which we refer to as the IRS.

There is also regulatory scrutiny of compliance with the rules of the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, or OFAC. OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on U.S. foreign policy and national security goals, including sanctions against foreign countries, regimes and individuals, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, and those involved in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Executive Orders have sanctioned the Venezuelan government and entities it owns, and certain Venezuelan persons. In addition, the OCC has broad authority to bring enforcement action and to impose monetary penalties if it determines that there are deficiencies in the Bank’s compliance with anti-money laundering laws.

Monitoring compliance with anti-money laundering and OFAC rules is complex and expensive. The risk of noncompliance with such rules can be more acute for financial institutions like us that have a significant number of customers from, or which do business in, Latin America. As of December 31, 2018 , $ 2.7 billion , or 44.67% , of our total deposits were from residents of Venezuela. Our total loan exposure to international markets, primarily individuals in Venezuela and corporations in other Latin American countries, was $299.8 million or 5.06% , of our total loans, at December 31, 2018 .

In recent years, we have expended significant management and financial resources to further strengthen our anti-money laundering compliance program. Although we believe our anti-money laundering and OFAC compliance programs, and our current policies and procedures and staff dedicated to these activities, are sufficient to comply with applicable rules and regulations, continued enhancements are ongoing and we cannot guarantee that our program will prevent all attempts by customers to utilize the Bank in money laundering or financing impermissible under current sanctions and OFAC rules, or sanctions against Venezuela, and certain persons there. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient or fail to prevent violations of law or the policies, procedures and systems of the financial institutions that we may acquire in the future are deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and formal regulatory enforcement actions, including possible cease and desist orders, restrictions on our ability to pay dividends, regulatory limitations on implementing certain aspects of our business plan, including acquisitions or banking center relocation or expansion, and require us to expend additional resources to cure any deficiency, which could materially and adversely affect us.

Failures to comply with the fair lending laws, CFPB regulations or the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, could adversely affect us.

The Bank is subject to, among other things, the provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA, and the Fair Housing Act, both of which prohibit discrimination based on race or color, religion, national origin, sex and familial status in any aspect of a consumer, commercial credit or residential real estate transaction. The DOJ and the federal bank regulatory agencies have issued an Interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending to provide guidance to financial institutions in determining whether discrimination exists and how the agencies will respond to lending discrimination, and what steps lenders may take to prevent discriminatory lending practices. Failures to comply with ECOA, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations, including CFPB regulations, could subject us to enforcement actions or litigation, and could have a material adverse effect on our business financial condition and results of operations. Our Bank is also subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) and periodic CRA examinations by the OCC. The CRA requires us to serve our entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Our CRA ratings could be adversely affected by actual or alleged violations of the fair lending or consumer financial protection laws. Even though we have maintained an “outstanding” CRA rating since 2000, we cannot predict our future CRA ratings. Violations of fair lending laws or if our CRA rating falls to less than “satisfactory” could adversely affect our business, including expansion through branching or acquisitions.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac restructuring and changes in FHA mortgage guarantee program may adversely affect the mortgage markets and our sales of mortgages we originate.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain in conservatorship, and although legislation has been introduced at various times to restructure Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to take them out of conservatorship and substantially change the way they conduct business in the future, no proposal has been enacted. Through 2017, all of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s earnings above a specified capital reserve have been swept into the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or the Treasury Department, and have not been available to build Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s capital. At the end of 2017, the capital reserve was $3 billion for each of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In February 2018, Fannie Mae reported that the 2017 Tax Act had reduced its DTAs, and that it had a net worth deficit of $3.7 billion as of December 31, 2017. To eliminate its net worth deficit, the Treasury Department provided Fannie Mae with $3.7 billion of capital in the first quarter of 2018. Fannie Mae reported that it had a new worth of $6.2 billion as of December 31, 2018. Freddie Mac had a net worth deficit of $312 million at December 31, 2017, and the Treasury Department provided Freddie Mac with $312 million of capital in the first quarter of 2018. Freddie Mac reported that it had a net worth of $4.5 billion as of December 31, 2018.

Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dominate the residential mortgage markets, any changes in their structure and operations, as well as their respective capital, could adversely affect the primary and secondary mortgage markets, and our residential mortgage businesses, our results of operations and the returns on capital deployed in these businesses.

The Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, recently announced that it would strengthen its underwriting standards, which reduce the number of borrowers and mortgages eligible for FHA guarantees.

Risks Related to Our Separation from MSF

We are changing our brand from “Mercantil” to “Amerant,” which could adversely affect our business and profitability.

Since 2007, we have marketed our products and services using variations of MSF’s “Mercantil” brand name and logo. We are rebranding our businesses as Amerant to distinguish our organization from our former parent company.

We believe our association with MSF has provided us with greater name recognition among our customers from Latin America, including those with homes or businesses in the U.S. MSF’s reputation and financial strength have benefited us historically. The use of our new brand will result in additional costs, such as signage, and may result in potential loss of customer recognition and business. We are redesigning our internet webpage, mobile application and email addresses as part of our transition to a new name, which could cause some customer confusion even when customers are redirected automatically to new websites and email addresses. See “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions” and “Supervision and Regulation.”

We will incur incremental costs as a separate, public company.

Although we maintained separate systems and conducted operations largely with our own staff separate from MSF and its other affiliates prior to the Spin-off, the Spin-off required us to incur additional personnel and other expenses as a standalone public company. Such expenses include, but are not limited to, SEC reporting, additional internal controls testing and reporting, and investor relations. These initiatives involve additional management time and costs, including the hiring and integration of certain new employees and changes in the manner of conducting certain functions. We may be unable to make the changes required in a timely manner and without unexpected costs, including possible diversion of management from our day-to-day operations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

As a separate, public company, we will expend additional time and resources to comply with rules and regulations that previously did not apply to us.

As a separate, public company, the various rules and regulations of the SEC, as well as the listing standards of the Nasdaq Global Select Market, where the Company Shares are listed, require us to implement additional corporate governance practices and adhere to a variety of reporting requirements. Compliance with these public company obligations increases our legal and financial compliance costs and places additional demands on our finance, legal and accounting staff and on our financial, accounting and information systems.

In particular, as a separate, public company, our management is now required to conduct an annual evaluation of our internal controls over financial reporting and include a report of management on our internal controls starting with our second annual report filed with the SEC on Form 10-K. For as long as we are an emerging growth company, we will not be required to have our independent registered public accounting firm attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting pursuant to Auditing Standard No. 5. If we are unable to conclude that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could adversely affect market prices for our Company Shares.

Our historical consolidated financial data are not necessarily representative of the results we would have achieved as a separate company and may not be a reliable indicator of our future results.

Because we completed the Spin-off in August of 2018, our historical consolidated financial data included herein does not necessarily reflect the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows we would have achieved as a standalone company during the periods presented or those we will achieve in the future. In addition, significant increases may occur in our cost structure as a result of the Spin-off, including costs related to public company reporting, investor relations and compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Also, we anticipate incurring material expenses in connection with rebranding our business. We recently completed a comprehensive strategic planning process to evaluate how we conduct business, including how to focus on our domestic U.S. business while better serving our valued foreign customers, reducing costs, and increasing core deposits, fee income, margins, and the number of services we provide per household and our profitability. As a result of these matters, among others, it may be difficult for investors to compare our future results to historical results or to evaluate our relative performance or trends in our business.

We expect to incur additional shareholder communication and maintenance expenses, even if our expense reduction measures are completed.

We expect to incur additional shareholder reporting, communication and maintenance expenses related to the large number of shareholders, most of whom reside outside the U.S. Our foreign shareholders will cause these expenses to be higher than desirable, except to the extent we can reduce these expenses through various measures, including electronic delivery consistent with SEC rules and shareholder consents.

The Bank continues to provide certain services to MSF’s subsidiaries, even after the Spin-off, which could present additional regulatory and operational risks to us.

The Bank, Amerant Trust and Amerant Investments have historically provided certain services to MSF’s international subsidiaries, including accounting and financial reporting, administration, operations and technology, planning and budgeting, human resources, vendor administration and management, trust administration, market risk assessment, operational risk and physical security, credit risk, loan review, technology infrastructure, treasury, and customer referral services. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, the Bank continues to provide certain of these services on a transitional basis, following the Spin-off, on the same terms (including pricing) in effect as of the Spin-off, and which are compliant with Federal Reserve Regulation W. This contractual obligation could present future regulatory and operational risks to us, including with respect to compliance with U.S. anti-money laundering laws and Federal Reserve Regulation W. The terms of these arrangements may also be changed if the Federal Reserve or OCC view these arrangements as inappropriate, including under their policy statement on parallel-owned banking organizations.

Certain of our directors may have actual or potential conflicts of interest because of their MSF equity ownership or their positions with MSF and us.

MSF and the Company have one common director. This individual beneficially owns approximately 6.70% of the total outstanding shares of our Class A common stock, as of December 31, 2018. This person’s family controls additional Company Shares. This individual, our former Chairman, who also is MSF’s Chairman, resigned as our Chairman effective December 31, 2018 but continues as a Company director. This relationship and financial interest may create actual or perceived conflicts of interest when this person is faced with decisions that could have different implications for MSF and us. For example, potential conflicts of interest could arise in connection with the resolution of any dispute that may arise between MSF and us.

Risks Related to Ownership of Our Common Stock

A limited market exists for Company Shares on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. An active trading market may not develop or continue for the Company Shares, which could adversely affect the market price and market volatility of those shares.

There is currently a limited market for shares of our Class A and Class B common stock and there is no assurance that an active market will develop or be sustained. Although our Class A common stock and our Class B common stock are listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the trading symbols “AMTB” and “AMTBB,” respectively, trading volumes remain limited. If more active trading markets do not develop, you may be unable to sell or purchase shares of our common stock at the volume, price and time that you desire.

Whether or not the purchase or sale prices of our common stock reflect a reasonable valuation of our common stock may depend on an active trading market developing, and thus the price you receive for our common stock, may not reflect its true or intrinsic value. Limited trading in our common stock may cause fluctuations in the market value of our common stock to be exaggerated from time to time, leading to price volatility in excess of that which would occur in a more active trading market.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our common stock, including our Class A common stock, and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock, including our Class A common stock, depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If few securities or industry analysts cover us, the trading price for our common stock may be adversely affected. If one or more of the analysts who covers us downgrades our common stock or publishes incorrect or unfavorable research about our business, the price of our common stock would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of the Company or fails to publish reports on us regularly, or downgrades our common stock, demand for our common stock could decrease, which could cause the price of our common stock or trading volume to decline.

Our stock price may fluctuate significantly.

We cannot predict the prices at which our Company Shares will continue to trade. The market prices of our Company Sha res may fluctuate widely, depending on many factors, some of which may be beyond our control, including: 

Stock markets in general have experienced volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of a particular company or industry. These broad market fluctuations could also adversely affect the trading price of our Company Shares.

Certain of our existing stockholders could exert significant control over the Company.

As of March 8, 2019, each of our executive officers, directors and greater than 5% holders of our Class A common stock beneficially owns outstanding shares representing, in the aggregate, approximately 28.86% of the outstanding shares of our Class A common stock as of March 8, 2019 (without giving effect to the broad family holdings of the Marturet and Vollmer families). As a result, these stockholders, if they act individually or together, may exert a significant degree of influence over our management and affairs and over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. Furthermore, the interests of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with the interests of other stockholders and, accordingly, they could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements which we might not otherwise consider. This concentration of ownership of the Company’s Class A common stock may delay or prevent a merger or acquisition or other transaction resulting in a change in control of the Company even when other stockholders may consider the transaction beneficial, and might adversely affect the market price of our Class A common stock.

We have the ability to issue additional equity securities, which would lead to dilution of our issued and outstanding Company Shares.

The issuance of additional equity securities or securities convertible into equity securities would result in dilution of our existing shareholders’ equity interests. In addition, we are authorized to issue up to 400 million shares of our Class A common stock and up to 100 million shares of our Class B common stock. We are authorized to issue, without shareholder approval, up to 50 million shares of preferred stock in one or more series, which may give other shareholders dividend, conversion, voting, and liquidation rights, among other rights, that may be superior to the rights of holders of our common stock. We are authorized to issue, without shareholder approval, except as required by law or the Nasdaq Global Select Market, securities convertible into either common stock or preferred stock. Furthermore, we have adopted an equity compensation program for our employees, which also could result in dilution of our existing shareholders’ equity interests.

We expect to issue more Class A common stock in the future which may dilute holders of Class A common stock.

Federal Reserve policy requires bank holding companies’ capital to be comprised predominantly of voting common stock. Class B common stock is not voting common stock for Federal Reserve purposes, therefore, we expect future issuances of Company Shares will be Class A common stock. These new issuances of Class A common stock, as well as their voting rights, may dilute the interests of our Class A shareholders, and increase the market for, and liquidity of, our Class A common stock generally, as compared to the market for, and liquidity of, our Class B common stock.

Holders of Class B common stock have limited voting rights. As a result, holders of Class B common stock will have limited ability to influence shareholder decisions.

Generally, holders of our Class B common stock will be entitled to one-tenth of a vote, and vote together with holders of our Class A common stock on a combined basis, on approval of our auditors for a given fiscal year, if we present such a proposal for shareholder consideration. As a result, virtually all matters submitted to our shareholders will be decided by the vote of holders of our Class A common stock and the market price of our Class B common stock could be adversely affected. Our Class B common stock has no other voting rights, except as required by the Florida Business Corporation Act to vote as a voting group on any amendment, alteration or repeal of our amended and restated articles of incorporation, including any such events as a result of a merger, consolidation or otherwise that significantly and adversely affects the rights or voting powers of our Class B common stock.

Our dual classes of Company Shares may limit investments by investors using index-based strategies.

Certain major providers of securities indices have determined to exclude shares of companies with classes of common stock with different voting rights. These actions may limit investment in Company Shares by mutual funds, exchange traded funds, or ETFs, and other investors basing their strategies on such securities indices, which could adversely affect the value and liquidity of Company Shares.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and, as a result of the reduced disclosure and governance requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock may be less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of some of the exemptions from reporting requirements that are afforded to emerging growth companies including, but not limited to, exemption from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we intend to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock prices may become more volatile. We may take advantage of these exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company.

We do not currently intend to pay dividends on our common stock, including our Class A common stock.

We do not intend to pay any dividends to holders of our common stock for the foreseeable future. We currently intend to invest our future earnings, if any, to fund our growth or improve our costs and capital structure, including by redemption of high cost trust preferred securities. Therefore, you are not likely to receive any dividends on your common stock for the foreseeable future, and the performance of an investment in our common stock will depend upon any future appreciation in its value. Our common stock could decline or increase in value.

Our ability to pay dividends to shareholders in the future is subject to profitability, capital, liquidity and regulatory requirements and these limitations may prevent us from paying dividends in the future.

Cash available to pay our expenses and dividends to our shareholders is derived primarily from dividends paid to us by the Bank. The Bank’s ability to pay dividends, as well as our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, will continue to be subject to and limited by the results of operations of the Bank and its subsidiaries and our need to maintain appropriate liquidity and capital at all levels of our business consistent with regulatory requirements and the needs of our businesses. See “Supervision and Regulation-Dividend Restrictions”

We face strategic risks as a newly independent company.

As a newly independent company, and our history as part of MSF, we face strategic risk. Strategic risk is the risk to current or anticipated earnings, capital, liquidity, or franchise or enterprise value arising from adverse business decisions, poor implementation of business decisions, or lack of responsiveness to changes in the competitive landscape that is the banking and financial services industries in which we operate. We may have insufficient capital and insufficiently qualified personnel or culture to implement, as quickly as we seek, our strategy changes, including core deposit and fee income growth, improved margins, broader service to our customers, cost reductions and profitability increases.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not Applicable.

Item 2. Properties

We conduct our business from our approximately 177,000 square foot headquarters in Coral Gables, Florida, located at 220 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, Florida 33134. We own the Coral Gables location and, as of December 31, 2018 , occupy approximately 72,000 square feet, or approximately 41%, of the building, with the remaining approximately 105,000 square feet, or approximately 59%, either leased to unrelated third-parties or available for lease. All of our business segments operate out of the headquarters. A significant portion of the employees included in the Institutional segment, primarily support services, operate out of our approximately 100,000 square feet operations center in the Beacon Industrial Park area of Doral, Florida. We own the operations center and occupy 100% of this building.

As of December 31, 2018 , we have 23 banking centers, including 15 in Florida and 8 in Texas. Thirteen banking centers are occupied under lease agreements, five owned banking centers are located on ground subject to long-term land leases of 20 to 30 years, each with an option to renew for an additional 5 years and one owned banking center is located on ground subject to a long-term land lease that expires in 2020. These banking centers host various parts of our PAC segment. Our banking centers range from approximately 2,800 square feet to approximately 6,700 square feet, average approximately 4,800 square feet and total approximately 106,000 square feet. The total monthly rent for the banking centers is approximately $411,000 and the total annual rental expense for the leased banking centers is approximately $4.9 million, including the long-term land leases.

In addition to the banking centers, we lease approximately 14,000 square feet in Houston, Texas, which we use as our Texas regional office. The Texas regional office is principally used by our PAC segment and the annual rent is approximately $600,000.

We lease approximately 6,000 square feet in New York City, which our PAC segment principally uses as a LPO for CRE loans. The annual rent is approximately $530,100. We also lease approximately 1,894 square feet in Dallas, Texas, which our PAC segment began using in 2019 as a LPO. The annual rent is approximately $77,000.

Our various leases have periodic escalation clauses, and may have options for extensions and other customary terms.