The following table presents the composition of the Company’s loans held-for-sale as of the dates indicated:

For commercial property loans, the maturities are generally up to seven years with payments determined on the basis of principal amortization schedules of up to 25 years with a balloon payment due at maturity. SBA property loans and residential property loans are typically fully amortized with terms up to 25 years and 30 years respectively. Terms for construction loans vary depending on the complexity and size of the project. On average, construction loans have a term of 18 months.

Satisfactory repayments of loans secured by CRE are often dependent on the successful operation of the underlying businesses (in the case of owner occupied) or management of the properties (in the case of non-owner occupied). Accordingly, repayment of these loans may be subject to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the economy to a greater extent than other types of loans. In underwriting loans secured by CRE, the Company seeks to minimize these risks in a variety of ways, including giving careful consideration to the property’s age, condition, operating history, future operating projections, current and projected market rental rates, vacancy rates, location and physical condition. The underwriting analysis may also include credit verification, reviews of appraisals, environmental hazard reports, the borrower’s liquidity and leverage, management experience of the owners or principals, economic conditionconditions and industry trends. Also, tertiary sources of repayment in the form of personal guarantees from responsible parties are generally required on loans secured by CRE. The Company believes that its management team has extensive knowledge of the market areas where the Company operates and takes a conservative approach to CRE lending. The Company focuses on what it believes to be high quality credits with low loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio income-producing properties with strong cash flow characteristics and strong collateral profiles. The Company requires its loan secured by CRE to be secured by what it believes to be well-managed properties with adequate margins.

Residential property loans are typically collateralized by primary residential properties located in the Company’s market areas to enable borrowers to purchase or refinance existing homes. The Company offers adjustable-rate mortgage (“ARM”) loans with the interest rate fixed for the first five or seven years followed by rate adjustments each year with terms up to 30 years. The relative amount of ARM loans that can be originated at any time is largely determined by the demand for each in a competitive environment and the effect each has on interest rate risk. Loans collateralized by residential property generally are originated in amounts of no more than 70% of appraised value.

In connection with such loans, the Company retains a valid lien on the real estate, obtains a title insurance policy that insures that the property is free from encumbrances, and requires hazard insurance. Loan fees on these products, interest rates and other provisions of residential property loans are determined by the Company on the basis of its own pricing criteria and competitive market conditions. Interest rates and payments on ARM loans generally are adjusted annually based on the one-year London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) or one-year Constant Maturity Treasury (“CMT”). The spreads are fixed and thus the interest rate on these loans change in parallel with any changes in the applicable selected rates. While residential property loans are normally originated with up to 30-year terms, such loans typically remain outstanding for substantially shorter periods because borrowers often prepay their loans in full upon sale of the property pledged as security or upon refinancing the original loan. In addition, all residential property loans contain due-on-sale clauses providing that the Bank may declare the unpaid amount due and payable upon the sale of the property securing the loan. As of December 31, 20192022 and 2018,2021, approximately 56.6%90.8% and 65.6%85.3%, respectively, of totalresidential property loans were adjustable rateARM loans.

Construction loans are comprised of residential construction and commercial construction. Interest reserves are generally established on construction loans. These loans are typically prime rate-based and have maturities of less than 18 months. The policy maximum LTV for construction loans is 70% and for land development loans is 50%.

Commercial term loans (usually five to seven years) normally provide for monthly payments of both principal and interest. Commercial lines of credit (payable(generally payable within one year) typically provide for periodic interest payments, with principal payable at maturity. SBA commercial term loans usually have a longer maturity (seven to ten years). These C&I loans are reviewed on a periodic basis with the review frequencies commensurate with the size and complexity of the loans. Most C&I loans are collateralized by perfected security interests on business assets.

In general, C&I loans may involve increased credit risk and, therefore, typically yield a higher return. The increased risk in C&I loans derives from the expectation that such loans generally are serviced principally from the operations of the business, and those operations may not be successful.

Any interruption or discontinuance of operating cash flows from the business, which may be influenced by events not under the control of the borrower such as economic events and changes in governmental regulations, could materially affect the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. In addition, the collateral securing C&I loans generally includes moveable properties such as equipment and inventory, which may decline in value more rapidly than anticipated exposing us to increased credit risks. As a result of these additional complexities, variables and risks, C&I loans require extensive underwriting and servicing.

SBA 7(a) loans are typically term loans with maturities up to 10 years for loans not secured by real estate and up to 25 years for real estate secured loans. SBA loans are fully amortizing with monthly payments of principal and interest. SBA 7(a) loans are typically floating rate loans that are secured by business assets and/or real estate. Depending on the loan amount, each loan is typically guaranteed 75% to 85% by the SBA, with a maximum gross loan amount to any one small business borrower of $5.0 million and a maximum SBA guaranteed amount of $3.75 million. On December 27, 2020, and through September 30, 2021, the guaranty percentage provided by the SBA was temporarily increased to 90% under the Economic Aid Act.

The Bank is generally able to sell the guaranteed portion of the SBA 7(a) loans in the secondary market at a premium. In addition to the interest yield earned on the unguaranteed portion of the SBA 7(a) loans that are not sold, the Bank recognizes income from gains on sales and from loan servicing on the SBA 7(a) loans that are sold.

SBA 504 loans are typically extended for the purpose of purchasing owner-occupied CRE or long-term capital equipment. SBA 504 loans are typically extended for up to 20 years or the life of the asset being financed. SBA 504 loans are financed as a participation loan between the Bank and the SBA through a Certified Development Company (“CDC”). Generally, the loans are structured to give the Bank a 50% first deed of trust (“T/D”), the CDC a 40% second T/D, and the remaining 10% is funded by the borrower. Interest rates for the first T/D loans are subject to normal bank commercial rates and terms and the second T/D CDC loans are fixed for the life of the loans based on certain indices.

All of SBA loan underwriting is centralized and processed through the Company’s Los Angeles headquarters SBA Loan Department. The SBA Loan Department is staffed by loan officers who provide assistance to qualified businesses. The Bank has been designated as an SBA Preferred Lender, which is the highest designation awarded by the SBA. This designation generally facilitates a more efficient marketing and approval process for SBA loans. The Bank has attained SBA Preferred Lender status nationwide. SBA loans are originated through the branch staff, lending officers, LPO managers, marketing officers, and brokers.

The Company does not participate in syndicated loans (loans made by a group of lenders who share or participate in a specific loan) with a larger regional financial institution as the lead lender.

For additional information on loans, see Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Investment Activities

The Company manages its investment securities portfolio and cash to maintain adequate liquidity and to ensure the safety and preservation of invested principal, with a secondary focus on yield and returns. Specific goals for the investment portfolio are as follows:

The investment securities portfolio is comprised primarily of SBA loan pools securities, mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations backed by U.S. government agency and U.S government sponsored enterprise (“GSE”), and tax-exempt municipal securities.

The Company’s Board of Directors is responsible for the oversight of investment activities and has delegated the responsibility to the Asset Liability Committee of the Board of Directors (“Board ALCO”). Investment policy is reviewed and approved annually by Board ALCO and ratified by the Board of Directors. Board ALCO establishes risk limits and policy for conducting investment activities and approves investment strategies and meets quarterly to review investment reports and monitor investment activities.

Limits for investment transactions are based on total transaction amount and require approval if they exceed designated thresholds. Investment transactions up to $10 million require the approval of two chief officers. Investment transactions between $10 million and $20 million require Management ALCO approval and investment transactions that exceed $20 million require Board ALCO approval.

For additional information, see Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Deposits Activities

The Company offers customers traditional retail deposit products through its branch network and the ability to access their accounts through online and mobile banking platforms. The Company offers a variety of deposit accounts with a wide range of interest rates and terms including demand, savings, money market and time deposits with the goal of attracting a wide variety of customers, including small to medium-sized businesses. Core deposits, defined as all deposits except for time deposits exceeding $250,000 and internet or brokered deposits, are the primary and most valuable low-cost funding source for the lending business, and represented 74.2%75.5% of total deposits as of December 31, 2019.2022.

The Company strives to retain an attractive deposit mix from both large and small customers as well as a broad market reach. As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Company’s top 10 customers, excluding wholesale deposits, accounted for 7.8%15.1% of total deposits. The Company believes the competitive pricing and products, convenient branch locations, and quality personal customer service enable the Company to attract and retain deposits. The Company employs conventional marketing initiatives and advertising and in addition leverages its community and board relationships to generate new accounts. The Company offers deposit products to its loan customers by encouraging, depending on the circumstances and the type of relationship, them to maintain deposit accounts as a condition of granting loans. To enhance the relationships with customers and to identify and meet their particular needs, each customer is assigned a relationship officer, including SBA loan borrowers.

Interest rates, maturity terms, service fees and withdrawal penalties are established on a periodic basis. Deposit rates and terms are based primarily on current operating strategies, rates offered by other Korean-American focused banks, general market interest rates, liquidity requirements, and the Company’s deposit growth goals. Wholesale deposits are also utilized to supplement core retail deposits for funding purposes, including brokered accounts and State California Treasurer’s time deposits. As of December 31, 2019,2022, wholesale deposits totaled $182.4$147.0 million, or 12.3%7.2% of total deposits.

As of December 31, 2019,2022, total deposits totaled $1.48$2.05 billion, and the average cost of deposits was 1.62%0.62% for the year ended December 31, 2019.2022. For additional information, see Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Borrowings Activities

Although deposits are the Company’s primary source of funds, the Company may also borrow funds from the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (“FHLB”), Federal Reserve Bank’s Discount Window (“Federal Reserve Discount Window”), or its correspondent banking relationships. In addition, the Company may borrow from FHLB on a longer term basis to provide funding for certain loan or investment securities strategies, as well as asset-liability management strategies.

FHLB functions as a reserve credit capacity for qualifying financial institutions. As a member, the Company is required to own capital stock in FHLB and may apply for advances from FHLB by utilizing qualifying loans and securities as collateral. FHLB offers a full range of borrowing programs with terms ranging from one day to 30 years, at competitive rates. A prepayment penalty is usually imposed for early repayment of these advances. As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Company had outstanding overnight FHLB advances of $20.0 million and maintained additional borrowing capacity of $404.8$561.7 million. For additional information, see Note 10 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Other Products and Services

The Company offers banking products and services that are competitively priced with a focus on convenience and accessibility. A full suite of online banking solutions is available, which includes access to account balances, online transfers, online bill payment and electronic delivery of customer statements, mobile banking solutions, including remote check deposit and mobile bill pay. The Company also offers automated teller machines (“ATMs”) and banking by telephone, mail, personal appointment, debit cards, direct deposit, cashier’s checks, as well as treasury management, wire transfer and automated clearing house (“ACH”) services.

The Company offers a full array of commercial treasury management services designed to be competitive with banks of all sizes. Treasury management services include balance reporting (including current day and previous day activity), transfers between accounts, purchase rewards, finance works, wire transfer initiation, ACH origination and stop payments. Cash management deposit products consist of remote deposit capture, courier deposit services, positive pay, zero balance accounts and sweep accounts.

The Company evaluates its services on an ongoing basis, and will add or remove services based upon the perceived needs and financial requirements of customers, competitive factors and its financial and other capabilities. Future services may also be significantly influenced by improvements and developments in technology and evolving state and federal laws and regulations.

Market Area and Competition

The Company is headquartered in Los Angeles, California and operates 11 full-service branches in Los Angeles and Orange counties,Counties, California, onethree full-service branchbranches in each ofon the East Coast (Bayside, New York; and Englewood Cliffs and Palisade Park, New JerseyJersey), two full-service branches in Texas (Carrollton and Bayside, New York,Dallas), and 10 LPOsseven loan production offices (“LPOs”) located in Irvine, Artesia and Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California; Annandale, Virginia; Chicago, Illinois; Atlanta, Georgia; Aurora, Colorado; Bellevue, Washington; Aurora, Colorado;and Carrollton, Texas; and New York, New York.Texas.

The Company operates in highly competitive market areas. The Company faces strong competition among the banks servicing the Korean-American community, as well as other commercial banks, savings and loan associations, securities and brokerage companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies, marketplace finance platforms, money market funds, credit unions, and other alternative investments. Competition is based on a number of factors including, among others, customer service, quality and range of products and services offered, reputation, interest rates on loans and deposits, lending limits and customer convenience. While the Company believes it is well positioned within this highly competitive industry, the industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory, economic, and technological changes, as well as continued consolidation within the industry.

As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Company had a total of 252267 full-time employees and 47 part-time employees. The Company’s employees are not represented by any collective bargaining group. Management considers its employee relations to be satisfactory.

Supervision and Regulation

General

Financial institutions, their holding companies and their affiliates are extensively regulated under U.S. federal and state law. As a result, the growth and earnings performance of the Company and its subsidiaries may be affected not only by management decisions and general economic conditions, but also by the requirements of federal and state statutes and by the regulations and policies of various bank regulatory agencies, including the California Department of Business OversightFinancial Protection and Innovation (“CDBO”CDFPI”), the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFPB”). Furthermore, tax laws administered by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and state taxing authorities, accounting rules developed by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), securities laws administered by the SEC and state securities authorities, Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and Anti-Money Laundering (“AML”) laws enforced by the U.S. Treasury, and mortgage related rules, including with respect to loan securitization and servicing by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), and agencies such as Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), have an impact on the Company’s business. The effect of these statutes, regulations, regulatory policies and rules are significant to the financial condition and results of operations of the Company and its subsidiary, and the nature and extent of future legislative, regulatory or other changes affecting financial institutions are impossible to predict with any certainty.

Federal and state banking laws impose a comprehensive system of supervision, regulation and enforcement on the operations of financial institutions, their holding companies and affiliates intended primarily for the protection of the FDIC-insured deposits and depositors of banks, rather than their shareholders. These federal and state laws, and the related regulations of the bank regulatory agencies, affect, among other things, the scope of business, the kinds and amounts of investments banks may make, reserve requirements, capital levels relative to operations, the nature and amount of collateral for loans, the establishment of branches, the ability to merge, consolidate and acquire, dealings with insiders and affiliates and the payment of dividends.

This supervisory and regulatory framework subjects banks and bank holding companies to regular examination by their respective regulatory agencies, which results in examination reports and ratings that, while not publicly available, can affect the conduct and growth of their businesses. These examinations consider not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also capital levels, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, liquidity, and various other factors. The regulatory agencies generally have broad discretion to impose restrictions and limitations on the operations of a regulated entity where the agencies determine, among other things, that such operations are unsafe or unsound, fail to comply with applicable law or are otherwise inconsistent with laws and regulations or with the supervisory policies of these agencies.

The following is a summary of the material elements of the supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to the Company and its subsidiary, the Bank. It does not describe all of the statutes, regulations and regulatory policies that apply, nor does it restate all of the requirements of those that are described. The descriptions are qualified in their entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provision.

Financial Regulatory Reform

The Dodd-Frank Act implemented sweeping reform across the U.S. financial regulatory framework, including, among other changes:

Many aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company. Although the reforms primarily target systemically important financial service providers, the Dodd-Frank Act’s influence has and is expected to continue to filter down in varying degrees to smaller institutions over time. The Company will continue to evaluate the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act; however, in many respects, the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act will not be fully known for years, and no current assurance may be given that the Dodd-Frank Act, or any other new legislative changes, will not have a negative impact on the results of operations and financial condition of the Company and the Bank.

On August 24, 2018, President Trump signed the Economic Growth Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, (the “Economic Growth Act”), which repealsrepealed or modifiesmodified certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and easeseased regulations on all but the largest banks. The Economic Growth Act’s highlights includeincluded improving consumer access to mortgage credit that, among other things, (i) exempt banks with less than $10 billion in assets from the ability-to-repay requirements for certain qualified residential mortgage loans; (ii) not require appraisals for certain transactions valued at less than $400,000 in rural areas; (iii) exempt banks and credit unions that originate fewer than 500 open-end and 500 closed-end mortgages from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act’s (“HMDA”) expanded data disclosures (the provision would not apply to non-banks and would not exempt institutions from HMDA reporting altogether); (iv) amend the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act by providing registered mortgage loan originators in good standing with 120 days of transitional authority to originate loans when moving from a federal depository institution to a non-depository institution or across state lines; (v) require the CFPB to clarify how TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”) applies to mortgage assumption transactions and construction-to-permanent home loans as well as outline certain liabilities related to model disclosure use, and (vi) provide that federal banking regulators may not impose higher capital standards on High Volatility Commercial Real Estate exposures unless they are for acquisition, development or construction (“ADC”), and clarifies ADC status.

In addition, the Economic Growth Act’s highlights also includeincluded regulatory relief for certain institutions, whereby among other things, it simplifiessimplified capital calculations by requiring regulators to adopt a threshold for a community bank leverage ratio of between 8% to 10%, institutions under $10 billion in assets that meet such community bank leverage ratio will automatically be deemed to be well-capitalized, although regulators retain the flexibility to determine that a depository institution may not qualify for the community bank leverage ratio test based on the institution’s risk profile, and exempts community banks from Section 13 of the BHCA if they have less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets; and exempts banks with less than $10 billion in assets, and total trading assets and liabilities not exceeding more than 5% of their total assets, from the Volcker Rule restrictions on trading with their own capital. The Economic Growth Act also addsadded certain protections for consumers, including veterans and active duty military personnel, expanded credit freezes and creation of an identity theft protection database.

On June 17, 2019, the federal bank regulatory agencies jointly issued a final rule to streamline regulatory reporting requirements and committed to further review of reporting burdens for smaller institutions. The rule permits insured depository institutions with total assets of less than $5 billion that do not engage in certain complex or international activities to file the most streamlined version of the call report, the FFIEC 051 Call Report. This streamlined reporting reduces the data items required to be reported in the first and third quarters by approximately 37% and became effective July 22, 2019. This rule has decreased the reporting obligations for the Bank in its first and third quarter call reports.

Other legislative and regulatory initiatives which could affect the Company, the Bank and the banking industry in general may be proposed or introduced before the U.S. Congress, the California legislature and other governmental bodies in the future. In addition, the various banking regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulations may be enacted or the extent to which the business of the Company or the Bank would be affected thereby.

Regulatory Capital Requirements

The federal banking agencies have risk-based capital adequacy guidelines intended to provide a measure of capital adequacy that reflects the degree of risk associated with a banking organization’s operations, both for transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets and for transactions, such as letters of credit and recourse arrangements, that are recorded as off-balance sheet items. In 2013, the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) issued final rules (the “Basel III Capital Rules”) establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. The rules implement the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework, commonly referred to as Basel III, for strengthening international capital standards, as well as implementing certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Basel III Capital Rules became effective for the Company and the Bank on January 1, 2015 (subject to phase-in periods for some of their components). However, based on recent changes to the Federal Reserve’s definition of a “Small Bank Holding Company” that increased the threshold to remain as such to $3 billion in assets, the Company is not currently subject to separate minimum capital measurements. At such time as the Company reaches the $3 billion asset level, it will again be subject to capital measurements independent of the Bank.

The Basel III Capital Rules: (i) introduce a new capital measure called Common Equity Tier 1 (“CET1”), and a related regulatory capital ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets; (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments, which are instruments treated as Tier 1 instruments under the prior capital rules that meet certain revised requirements; (iii) mandate that most deductions or adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital; and (iv) expand the scope of the deductions from and adjustments to capital, as compared to existing regulations. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, for most banking organizations, the most common form of additional Tier 1 capital is noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and the most common form of Tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allowance for loan and lease losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Capital Rules’ specific requirements.

Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the following are the initial minimum capital ratios applicable to the Bank:

The Basel III Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that (i) mortgage servicing rights, (ii) deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks, and (iii) significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such items, in the aggregate, exceed 15% of CET1. Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 began on January 1, 2015 and would be phased-in over a four-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter).

Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive income or loss items are not excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios; however, non-advanced approaches banking organizations (i.e., banking organizations with less than $250 billion in total consolidated assets or with less than $10 billion of on-balance sheet foreign exposures), including the Company and the Bank, may make a one-time permanent election to exclude these items. The Company and the Bank made this election in the first quarter of 2015’s call reports in order to avoid significant variations in the level of capital depending upon the impact of interest rate fluctuations on the fair value of its available-for-sale investment securities portfolio.

The Basel III Capital Rules prescribe a new standardized approach for risk weightings that expands the risk weighting categories from the previous four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. Government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, depending on the nature of the assets. The new capital rules generally result in higher risk weights for a variety of asset classes, including certain CRE mortgages. Additional aspects of the Basel III Capital Rules that are relevant to the Company and the Bank include:

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms, which standards are commonly referred to as Basel IV. Among other things, these standards revise the Basel Committee’s standardized approach for credit risk (including the recalibration of the risk weights and the introduction of new capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments,” such as unused credit card lines of credit) and provides a new standardized approach for operational risk capital. Under the Basel framework, these standards will generally bebecame effective on January 1, 2022, with an aggregate output floor phasing in through January 1, 2027. Under the current U.S. capital rules, operational risk capital requirements and a capital floor apply only to advanced approaches institutions, and not to the Bank. The impact of Basel IV on us will depend on how it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Bank’s capital ratios exceeded the minimum capital adequacy guideline percentage requirements of the federal banking agencies for “well capitalized” institutions under the Basel III capital rules on a fully phased-in basis. With respect to the Bank, the Basel III Capital Rules also revise the prompt corrective action (“PCA”), regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action.”

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (“FDIA”), requires federal banking agencies to take PCA in respect of depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. The FDIA includes the following five capital tiers: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon how its capital levels compare with various relevant capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation. The Basel III Capital Rules, revised the PCA requirements effective January 1, 2015. Under the revised PCA provisions of the FDIA, an insured depository institution generally will be classified in the following categories based on the capital measures indicated:

An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios, if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying PCA regulations and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

The FDIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company, if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit capital restoration plans. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” “Significantly undercapitalized” depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator. The capital classification of a bank holding company and a bank affects the frequency of regulatory examinations, the bank holding company’s and the bank’s ability to engage in certain activities and the deposit insurance premium paid by the bank. As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Bank met the requirements to be “well-capitalized” based upon the aforementioned ratios for purposes of the PCA regulations, as currently in effect.

On November 4, 2019, the federal banking agencies jointly issued a final rule that provides for an optional, simplified measure of capital adequacy, the community bank leverage ratio (“CBLR”) framework, for qualifying community banking organizations consistent with Section 201 of the Economic Growth Act. The CBLR framework is designed to reduce burden by removing the requirements for calculating and reporting risk-based capital ratios for qualifying community banking organizations that opt into the framework. The final rule became effective on January 1, 2020.

In order to qualify for the CBLR framework, a community banking organization must have a tier 1 leverage ratio of greater than 9%, less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, off-balance-sheet exposures of 25% or less of total consolidated assets, and trading assets and liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets. A qualifying community banking organization that opts into the CBLR framework and meets all requirements under the framework will be considered to have met the well-capitalized ratio requirements under the PCA regulations. Such a community banking organization would not be subject to other risk-based and leverage capital requirements (including the Basel III and Basel IV requirements). The CBLR is determined by dividing a financial institution’s tangible equity capital by its average total consolidated assets.

The rule proscribes what is included in tangible equity capital and average total consolidated assets. The CBLR framework will be available for banks to use in their March 31, 2020, call report. A CBLR bank that ceases to meet any of the qualifying criteria in a future period but maintains a leverage ratio greater than 8% will be allowed a grace period of two reporting periods to satisfy the CBLR qualifying criteria or to otherwise comply with the generally applicable capital requirements. Further, a CBLR may opt out of the framework at any time, without restriction, by reverting to the generally applicable capital requirements. Presently, the Bank does not intend to opt into the CBLR framework.

The Company

General

The Company, as the sole shareholder of the Bank, is a registered bank holding company under the BHCA. As a registered bank holding company, the Company is subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve. In accordance with Federal Reserve policy, and as now codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Company is legally obligated to act as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances where the Company might not otherwise do so. For a discussion of the source of strength requirements, see “Supervision and Regulation - The Company - Source of Strength Doctrine” below. Under the BHCA, the Company is subject to periodic examination by the Federal Reserve. The Company is required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports of the Company’s operations and such additional information regarding the Company and the Bank as the Federal Reserve may require.

The Company is also a bank holding company within the meaning of Section 1280 of the California Financial Code. Consequently, the Company is subject to examination by, and may be required to file reports with, the CDBO.CDFPI.

Acquisitions, Activities and Change in Control

The primary purpose of a bank holding company is to control and manage banks. The BHCA generally requires the prior approval by the Federal Reserve for any merger involving a bank holding company, any bank holding company’s acquisition of more than 5% of a class of voting securities of any additional bank or bank holding company or the acquisition of all or substantially all the assets of any additional bank or bank holding company. In reviewing applications seeking approval of merger and acquisition transactions, the Federal Reserve considers, among other things, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position and managerial resources of the combined organization, the risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system, the applicant’s performance record under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (“CRA”), the applicant’s compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws and the effectiveness of all organizations involved in combating money laundering activities. In addition, failure to implement or maintain adequate compliance programs could cause bank regulators not to approve an acquisition where regulatory approval is required or to prohibit an acquisition even if approval is not required.

Subject to certain conditions (including deposit concentration limits established by the BHCA and the Dodd-Frank Act), the Federal Reserve may allow a bank holding company to acquire banks located in any state of the U.S. In approving interstate acquisitions, the Federal Reserve is required to give effect to applicable state law limitations on the aggregate amount of deposits that may be held by the acquiring bank holding company and its insured depository institution affiliates in the state in which the target bank is located (provided that those limits do not discriminate against out-of-state depository institutions or their holding companies) and state laws that require that the target bank have been in existence for a minimum period of time (not to exceed five years) before being acquired by an out-of-state bank holding company. Furthermore, in accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies must be well-capitalized and well-managed in order to effect interstate mergers or acquisitions. For a discussion of the capital requirements, see “Supervision and Regulation - Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

The BHCA generally prohibits the Company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company that is not a bank and from engaging in any business other than that of banking, managing and controlling banks or furnishing services to banks and their subsidiaries. This general prohibition is subject to a number of exceptions. The principal exception allows bank holding companies to engage in, and to own shares of companies engaged in, certain businesses found by the Federal Reserve prior to November 11, 1999 to be “so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto.” This authority would permit the Company to engage in a variety of banking-related businesses, including the ownership and operation of a savings association, or any entity engaged in consumer finance, equipment leasing, the operation of a computer service bureau (including software development) and mortgage banking and brokerage. The BHCA generally does not place territorial restrictions on the domestic activities of non-bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies. Additionally, bank holding companies that meet certain eligibility requirements prescribed by the BHCA and elect to operate as financial holding companies may engage in, or own shares in companies engaged in, a wider range of non-banking activities, including securities and insurance underwriting and sales, merchant banking and any other activity that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, determines by regulation or order is financial in nature or incidental to any such financial activity or that the Federal Reserve determines by order to be complementary to any such financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. The Company has not elected to be a financial holding company.

If the Company should elect to become a financial holding company, in order to maintain the Company’s status as a financial holding company, the Company and the Bank must be well-capitalized, well-managed, and have at least a satisfactory CRA rating. If the Company should elect to become a financial holding company and the Federal Reserve subsequently determines that the Company, a financial holding company, is not well-capitalized or well-managed, the Company would have a period of time during which to achieve compliance, but during the period of noncompliance, the Federal Reserve may place any limitations on the Company it believes to be appropriate. Furthermore, if the Company should elect to become a financial holding company and the Federal Reserve subsequently determines that the Bank, as a financial holding company subsidiary, has not received a satisfactory CRA rating, the Company would not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities.

Federal law also prohibits any person or company from acquiring “control” of an FDIC-insured depository institution or its holding company without prior notice to the appropriate federal bank regulator. “Control” is conclusively presumed to exist upon the acquisition of 25% or more of the outstanding voting securities of a bank or bank holding company, but may arise under certain circumstances between 5% and 24.99% ownership.

Under the California Financial Code, any proposed acquisition of “control” of the Bank by any person (including a company) must be approved by the Commissioner of the CDBO.CDFPI. The California Financial Code defines “control” as the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the Bank’s management or policies or to vote 25% or more of any class of the Bank’s outstanding voting securities. Additionally, a rebuttable presumption of control arises when any person (including a company) seeks to acquire, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of any class of the Bank’s outstanding voting securities.

Capital Requirements

Bank holding companies are required to maintain capital in accordance with Federal Reserve capital adequacy requirements, as affected by the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III, and now CBLR framework. However, the Economic Growth Act mandated a change to Federal Reserve’s definition of a Small Bank Holding Company, and until such time as the Company has at least $3 billion in assets, it will not be subject to separate minimum capital measurements. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “Supervision and Regulation - Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Source of Strength Doctrine

The Federal Reserve policy historically required bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. The Dodd-Frank Act codified this policy as a statutory requirement. Under this requirement the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when the Company may not be in a financial position to provide it. The Company must stand ready to use its available resources to provide adequate capital to the subsidiary bank during periods of financial stress or adversity. The Company must also maintain the financial flexibility and capital raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting the Bank. The Company’s failure to meet its source of strength obligations may constitute an unsafe and unsound practice or a violation of the Federal Reserve’s regulations or both. The source of strength doctrine most directly affects bank holding companies where a bank holding company’s subsidiary bank fails to maintain adequate capital levels. In such a situation, the subsidiary bank will be required by the bank’s federal regulator to take “prompt corrective action.” Any capital loans by a bank holding company to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such bank. The BHCA provides that in the event of the bank holding company’s bankruptcy any commitment by a bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Dividend Payments, Stock Redemptions and Stock Repurchases

The Company’s ability to pay dividends to its shareholders may be affected by both general corporate law considerations and the policies of the Federal Reserve applicable to bank holding companies. As a California corporation, the Company is subject to the limitations of California law, which allows a corporation to distribute cash or property to shareholders, including a dividend or repurchase or redemption of shares, if the corporation meets either a retained earnings test or a “balance sheet” test. Under the retained earnings test, the Company may make a distribution from retained earnings to the extent that its retained earnings exceed the sum of (a) the amount of the distribution plus (b) the amount, if any, of dividends in arrears on shares with preferential dividend rights. The Company may also make a distribution if, immediately after the distribution, the value of its assets equals or exceeds the sum of (a) its total liabilities plus (b) the liquidation preference of any shares which have a preference upon dissolution over the rights of shareholders receiving the distribution. Indebtedness is not considered a liability if the terms of such indebtedness provide that payment of principal and interest thereon are to be made only if, and to the extent that, a distribution to shareholders could be made under the balance sheet test. A California corporation may specify in its articles of incorporation that distributions under the retained earnings test or balance sheet test can be made without regard to the preferential rights amount.

The Company’s articles of incorporation do not address distributions under either the retained earnings test or the balance sheet test. As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce dividends to shareholders if: (i) the bank holding company’s net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends; (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention is inconsistent with the bank holding company’s capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition; or (iii) the bank holding company will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. If the Company’s fails to adhere to these policies, the Federal Reserve could find that the Company is operating in an unsafe and unsound manner. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek to pay dividends must maintain 2.5% in CET1 attributable to the capital conservation buffer, which is to bewas phased in over a three-year period that began on January 1, 2016. See “Supervision and Regulation - Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Subject to exceptions for well-capitalized and well-managed holding companies, the Federal Reserve regulations also require approval of holding company purchases and redemptions of its securities if the gross consideration paid exceeds 10% of consolidated net worth for any 12-month period. In addition, the Federal Reserve policy requires that bank holding companies consult with and inform the Federal Reserve in advance of (i) redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments when experiencing financial weakness and (ii) redeeming or repurchasing common stock and perpetual preferred stock if the result will be a net reduction in the amount of such capital instruments outstanding for the quarter in which the reduction occurs.

The Bank

General

The Bank is a California-chartered bank but is not a member of the Federal Reserve (a “non-member bank”). The deposit accounts of the Bank are insured by the FDIC’s DIF to the maximum extent provided under federal law and FDIC regulations. As a California-chartered non-member bank, the Bank is subject to examination, supervision, and regulation by the CDBO,CDFPI, the chartering authority for California banks, and by the FDIC.

Depositor Preference

In the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution, including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors, and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors including the parent bank holding company with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Brokered Deposit Restrictions

Well capitalized institutions are not subject to limitations on brokered deposits, while adequately capitalized institutions are able to accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits only with a waiver from the FDIC and subject to certain restrictions on the yield paid on such deposits. Undercapitalized institutions are generally not permitted to accept, renew, or roll over brokered deposits. As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Bank was eligible to accept brokered deposits without a waiver from FDIC.

Loans to One Borrower

With certain limited exceptions, the maximum amount that a California bank may lend to any borrower at any one time (including the obligations to the bank of certain related entities of the borrower) may not exceed 25% (and unsecured loans may not exceed 15%) of the bank’s shareholders’ equity, allowance for loan loss, and any capital notes and debentures of the bank.

Tie in Arrangements

Federal law prohibits a bank holding company and any subsidiary banks from engaging in certain tie in arrangements in connection with the extension of credit. For example, the Bank may not extend credit, lease or sell property, or furnish any service, or fix or vary the consideration for any of the foregoing on the condition that (i) the customer must obtain or provide some additional credit, property or service from or to the Bank other than a loan, discount, deposit or trust service, (ii) the customer must obtain or provide some additional credit, property or service from or to the Company, or (iii) the customer must not obtain some other credit, property or service from competitors, except reasonable requirements to assure soundness of credit extended.

Deposit Insurance

As an FDIC-insured institution, the Bank is required to pay deposit insurance premium assessments to the FDIC. The premiums fund the DIF. The FDIC assesses a quarterly deposit insurance premium on each insured institution based on risk characteristics of the institution and may also impose special assessments in emergency situations. Effective July 1, 2016, the FDIC changed the deposit insurance assessment system for banks, such as the Bank, with less than $10 billion in assets that have been federally insured for at least five years. Among other changes, the FDIC eliminated risk categories for such banks and now uses the “financial ratios method” to determine assessment rates for all such banks. Under the financial ratios method, the FDIC determines assessment rates based on a combination of financial data and supervisory ratings that estimate a bank’s probability of failure within three years. The assessment rate determined by considering such information is then applied to the amount of the institution’s average assets minus average tangible equity to determine the institution’s insurance premium.

The Dodd-Frank Act requiresrequired the FDIC to ensure that the DIF reserve ratio, which is the amount in the DIF as a percentage of all DIF-insured deposits, reachesreached 1.35% by September 3, 2020. The Dodd-Frank Act also altered the minimum designated reserve ratio for the DIF, increasing the minimum from 1.15% to 1.35%, and eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. At least semi-annually, the FDIC updates its loss and income projections for the DIF and, if needed, may increase or decrease the assessment rates, following notice and comment on proposed rulemaking if required. As a result, the Bank’s FDIC deposit insurance premiums could increase. During the year ended December 31, 2019,2022, the Bank paid $778$597 thousand in aggregate FDIC deposit insurance premiums. The FDIC may terminate insurance of deposits of any insured institution if the FDIC finds that the insured institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC or any other regulatory agency.

Supervisory Assessments

California-chartered banks are required to pay supervisory assessments to the CDBOCDFPI to fund its operations. The amount of the assessment paid by a California bank to the CDBOCDFPI is calculated on the basis of the institution’s total assets in California, including consolidated subsidiaries, as reported to the CDBO.CDFPI. During the year ended December 31, 2019,2022, the Bank paid supervisory assessments to the CDBOCDFPI totaling $136$158 thousand.

Capital Requirements

Banks are generally required to maintain capital levels in excess of other businesses. For a discussion of capital requirements, see “Supervision and Regulation - Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

Dividend Payments

The primary source of funds for the Company is dividends from the Bank. Under the California Financial Code, the Bank is permitted to pay a dividend in the following circumstances: (i) without the consent of either the CDBOCDFPI or the Bank’s shareholders, in an amount not exceeding the lesser of (a) the retained earnings of the Bank; or (b) the net income of the Bank for its last three fiscal years, less the amount of any distributions made during the prior period; (ii) with the prior approval of the CDBO,CDFPI, in an amount not exceeding the greatest of: (a) the retained earnings of the Bank; (b) the net income of the Bank for its last fiscal year; or (c) the net income for the Bank for its current fiscal year; and (iii) with the prior approval of the CDBOCDFPI and the Bank’s shareholders (i.e., the Company) in connection with a reduction of its contributed capital.

The payment of dividends by any financial institution is affected by the requirement to maintain adequate capital pursuant to applicable capital adequacy guidelines and regulations, and a financial institution generally is prohibited from paying any dividends if, following payment thereof, the institution would be undercapitalized. In addition, under the Basel III Rule, institutions that seek to pay dividends must maintain over 2.5% in CET1 attributable to the capital conservation buffer, which was phased in over a three-year period that ended on January 1, 2019. See “Supervision and Regulation - Regulatory Capital Requirements” above. As described above, the Bank exceeded its minimum capital requirements under applicable regulatory guidelines as of December 31, 2019.2022.

Transactions with Affiliates

Transactions between depository institutions and their affiliates, including transactions between the Bank and the Company, are governed by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve’s Regulation W promulgated thereunder. Generally, Section 23A limits the extent to which a depository institution and its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of the depository institution’s capital stock and surplus, and contains an aggregate limit on all such transactions with all affiliates of an amount equal to 20% of the depository institution’s capital stock and surplus. Section 23A also establishes specific collateral requirements for loans or extensions of credit to, or guarantees, acceptances or letters of credit issued on behalf of, an affiliate. Section 23B requires that covered transactions and a broad list of other specified transactions be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the depository institution and its subsidiaries, as those for similar transactions with non-affiliates.

Loans to Directors, Executive Officers and Principal Shareholders

The authority of the Bank to extend credit to its directors, executive officers and principal shareholders, including their immediate family members and corporations and other entities that they control, is subject to substantial restrictions and requirements under the Federal Reserve’s Regulation O, as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. These laws and regulations impose limits on the amount of loans the Bank may make to directors and other insiders and require, among other things, that: (i) the loans must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with the Company or the Bank; (ii) the Bank follow credit underwriting procedures at least as stringent as those applicable to comparable transactions with persons who are not affiliated with the Company or the Bank; and (iii) the loans not involve a greater-than-normal risk of non-payment or include other features not favorable to the Bank. A violation of these restrictions may result in the assessment of substantial civil monetary penalties on the affected bank or any officer, director, employee, agent or other person participating in the conduct of the affairs of that bank, the imposition of a cease and desist order, and other regulatory sanctions.

Safety and Soundness Standards/Risk Management

The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines that establish operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of federally insured depository institutions. The guidelines set forth standards for internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality and earnings.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the financial institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If a financial institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan, or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the financial institution’s rate of growth, require the financial institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

During the past decade, the bank regulatory agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of sound risk management processes and strong internal controls when evaluating the activities of the financial institutions they supervise. Properly managing risks has been identified as critical to the conduct of safe and sound banking activities and has become even more important as new technologies, product innovation, and the size and speed of financial transactions have changed the nature of banking markets. The agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking institution including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal, and reputational risk. In particular, recent regulatory pronouncements have focused on operational risk, which arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud, or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. New products and services, third-party risk management and cyber-security are critical sources of operational risk that financial institutions are expected to address in the current environment. The Bank is expected to have active board and senior management oversight; adequate policies, procedures, and limits; adequate risk measurement, monitoring, and management information systems; and comprehensive internal controls.

Branching Authority

California banks, such as the Bank, may, under California law, establish a banking office so long as the bank’s board of directors approves the banking office and the CDBOCDFPI is notified of the establishment of the banking office. Deposit-taking banking offices must be approved by the FDIC, which considers a number of factors, including financial history, capital adequacy, earnings prospects, character of management, needs of the community and consistency with corporate power. The Dodd-Frank Act permits insured state banks to engage in de novo interstate branching if the laws of the state where the new banking office is to be established would permit the establishment of the banking office if it were chartered by such state. Finally, the Bank may also establish banking offices in other states by merging with banks or by purchasing banking offices of other banks in other states, subject to certain restrictions.

Community Reinvestment Act Requirements

The CRA is intended to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. The regulators examine banks and assign each bank a public CRA rating. The CRA then requires bank regulators to take into account the bank’s record in meeting the needs of its community when considering certain applications by a bank, including applications to establish a banking center or to conduct certain mergers or acquisitions. The Federal Reserve is required to consider the CRA records of a bank holding company’s controlled banks when considering an application by the bank holding company to acquire a bank or to merge with another bank holding company. When the Bank apply for regulatory approval to make certain investments, the regulators will consider the CRA record of the target institution and the Bank. An unsatisfactory CRA record could substantially delay approval or result in denial of an application. The Bank received a “satisfactory” rating on its most recent CRA performance evaluation, dated April 23, 2018.July 6, 2021.

On December 12, 2019, the FDIC and the OCC announced a proposal to modernize the agencies’ regulations under the CRA that have not been substantively updated for nearly 25 years. On May 20, 2020, the OCC issued a CRA final rule, which was later rescinded by final rule on December 15, 2021. Subsequently, on May 5, 2022, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC issued a joint notice of proposed rulemaking to strengthen and modernize the CRA regulatory framework. The proposal will clarifyclarifies what qualifies for credit under the CRA, enabling banks and their partners to better implement reinvestment and other activities that can benefit communities. The agencies also propose additional definitions for community development activities, an evaluation framework tailored for differences in bank size and business model, and to revise data collection and reporting requirements to increase the clarity, consistency, and transparency of the evaluation process through the use of standard metrics and benchmarks. It is expected that there will also create an additional definition of “assessment areas” tiedbe inter-agency efforts to where deposits are located, in part to address changes that have occurred due to the rise in digital banking, ensuring that banks continue to provide loansupdate and other services to low- and moderate-income persons in those areas.finalize a rule soon.

Anti-Money Laundering and Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (“Patriot Act”), is designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the U.S. financial system and has significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act mandates financial services companies to have policies and procedures with respect to measures designed to address any or all of the following matters: (i) customer identification programs; (ii) money laundering; (iii) terrorist financing; (iv) identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions; (v) currency crimes; and (vi) cooperation between financial institutions and law enforcement authorities. Regulatory authorities routinely examine financial institutions for compliance with these obligations, and failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.

U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries and regimes under authority of various laws, including designated foreign countries, nationals and others. OFAC publishes lists of specially designated targets and countries. Financial Institutions are responsible for, among other things, blocking accounts of and transactions with such targets and countries, prohibiting unlicensed trade and financial transactions with them and reporting blocked transactions after their occurrence. Banking regulators examine banks for compliance with the economic sanctions regulations administered by OFAC and failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate OFAC programs, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate

Concentration risk exists when financial institutions deploy too many assets to any one industry or segment. Concentration stemming from CRE is one area of regulatory concern. The CRE Concentration Guidance provides supervisory criteria, including the following numerical indicators, to assist bank examiners in identifying banks with potentially significant CRE loan concentrations that may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny: (i) CRE loans exceeding 300% of capital and increasing 50% or more in the preceding three years; or (ii) construction and land development loans exceeding 100% of capital. The CRE Concentration Guidance does not limit banks’ levels of CRE lending activities, but rather guides institutions in developing risk management practices and levels of capital that are commensurate with the level and nature of their CRE concentrations.

Banks and other financial institutions are subject to numerous laws and regulations intended to protect consumers in their transactions with banks. These laws include, among others, laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices and usury laws, as well as the following consumer protection statutes: Truth in Lending Act, Truth in Savings Act, Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Expedited Funds Availability Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, Fair Housing Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Military Lending Act and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Many states and local jurisdictions have consumer protection laws analogous, and in addition, to those listed above. These federal, state and local laws regulate the manner in which financial institutions deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans or conducting other types of transactions. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations could give rise to regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by state and local attorneys general and civil or criminal liability. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in the Bank’s failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions the Bank may wish to pursue or its prohibition from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

The structure of federal consumer protection regulation applicable to all providers of consumer financial products and services changed significantly on July 21, 2011, when the CFPB commenced operations to supervise and enforce consumer protection laws. The consumer protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the examination, supervision and enforcement of those laws and implementing regulations by the CFPB have created a more intense and complex environment for consumer finance regulation. The CFPB has significant authority to implement and enforce federal consumer protection laws and new requirements for financial services products provided for in the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as the authority to identify and prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices.

The review of products and practices to prevent such acts and practices is a continuing focus of the CFPB, and of banking regulators more broadly. The ultimate impact of this heightened scrutiny is uncertain but could result in changes to pricing, practices, products and procedures. It could also result in increased costs related to regulatory oversight, supervision and examination, additional remediation efforts and possible penalties. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act provides the CFPB with broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over various consumer financial products and services, including the ability to require reimbursements and other payments to customers for alleged legal violations and to impose significant penalties, as well as injunctive relief that prohibits lenders from engaging in allegedly unlawful practices. The CFPB also has the authority to obtain cease and desist orders providing for affirmative relief or monetary penalties. The Dodd-Frank Act does not prevent states from adopting stricter consumer protection standards. State regulation of financial products and potential enforcement actions could also adversely affect the business, financial condition or results of operations.

The CFPB is authorized to issue rules for both bank and non-bank companies that offer consumer financial products and services, subject to consultation with the prudential banking regulators. In general, however, banks with assets of $10 billion or less, such as the Bank, will continue to be examined for consumer compliance by their primary bank regulator.

Mortgage and Mortgage-Related Products, Generally

Because abuses in connection with residential mortgages were a significant factor contributing to the financial crisis, many new rules issued by the CFPB and required by the Dodd-Frank Act address mortgage and mortgage-related products, their underwriting, origination, servicing and sales. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expanded underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by SFR real property and augmented federal law combating predatory lending practices.

In addition to numerous disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposed new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including banks and savings associations, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay, while also establishing a presumption of compliance for certain “qualified mortgages.” The Dodd-Frank Act generally required lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans that the lender sells, and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues, if the loans do not comply with the ability-to-repay standards described below. The risk retention requirement generally is 5%, but could be increased or decreased by regulation. The CFPB’s mortgage rules have not had a significant impact on the Bank’s operations, except for higher compliance costs.

Ability-to-Repay Requirement and Qualified Mortgage Rule

On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s ability-to-repay requirements. Under the final rule, lenders, in assessing a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage-related obligation, must consider eight underwriting factors: (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) monthly payment on the subject transaction; (iv) monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) monthly payment for all mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. The final rule also includes guidance regarding the application of, and methodology for evaluating, these factors.

Further, the final rule clarified that qualified mortgages do not include “no-doc” loans and loans with negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, terms in excess of 30 years, or points and fees paid by the borrower that exceed 3% of the loan amount, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, for qualified mortgages, the rule mandated that the monthly payment be calculated on the highest payment that will occur in the first five years of the loan, and required that the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio generally may not be more than 43%.

The final rule also provided that certain mortgages that satisfy the general product feature requirements for qualified mortgages and that also satisfy the underwriting requirements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership), HUD, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture or the Rural Housing Service are also considered to be qualified mortgages. This second category of qualified mortgages will phasephased out as the aforementioned federal agencies issue their own rules regarding qualified mortgages and the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ends, and,was eliminated in any event, will sunset in January 2021.2021 through an additional final rule described below.

As set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, subprime (or higher-priced) mortgage loans are subject to the ability-to-repay requirement, and the final rule provided for a rebuttable presumption of lender compliance for those loans. The final rule also applied the ability-to-repay requirement to prime loans, while also providing a conclusive presumption of compliance (i.e., a safe harbor) for prime loans that are also qualified mortgages.

Additionally, the final rule generally prohibits prepayment penalties (subject to certain exceptions) and sets forth a 3-year record retention period with respect to documenting and demonstrating the ability-to-repay requirement and other provisions.

Mortgage Loan Originator Compensation

As a part of the overhaul of mortgage origination practices, mortgage loan originators’ compensation has been limited such that they may no longer receive compensation based on a mortgage transaction’s terms or conditions other than the amount of credit extended under the mortgage loan. Further, the total points and fees that a bank and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans has been limited to 3.0% of the total loan amount. Mortgage loan originators may receive compensation from a consumer or from a lender, but not both. These rules contain requirements designed to prohibit mortgage loan originators from “steering” consumers to loans that provide mortgage loan originators with greater compensation. In addition, the rules contain other requirements concerning recordkeeping.

Residential Mortgage Servicing

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB has implemented certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act relating to mortgage servicing through rulemaking. The servicing rules require servicers to meet certain benchmarks for loan servicing and customer service in general. Servicers must provide periodic billing statements and certain required notices and acknowledgments, promptly credit borrowers’ accounts for payments received and promptly investigate complaints by borrowers. Servicers also are required to take additional steps before purchasing insurance to protect the lender’s interest in the property. The servicing rules call for additional notice, review and timing requirements with respect to delinquent borrowers, including early intervention, ongoing access to servicer personnel and specific loss mitigation and foreclosure procedures. The rules provide for an exemption from most of these requirements for “small servicers,” which are defined as loan servicers that service 5,000 or fewer mortgage loans and service only mortgage loans that they or an affiliate originated or own.

Incentive Compensation Guidance

In 2010, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued comprehensive guidance intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of those organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The incentive compensation guidance sets expectations for banking organizations concerning their incentive compensation arrangements and related risk-management, control and governance processes. The incentive compensation guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon three primary principles: (i) balanced risk-taking incentives; (ii) compatibility with effective controls and risk management; and (iii) strong corporate governance.

Any deficiencies in compensation practices that are identified may be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or take other actions. In addition, under the incentive compensation guidance, a banking organization’s federal supervisor may initiate enforcement action if the organization’s incentive compensation arrangements pose a risk to the safety and soundness of the organization.

In 2016, several federal financial agencies (including the Federal Reserve and FDIC) re-proposed restrictions on incentive-based compensation pursuant to Section 956 of the Dodd-Frank Act for financial institutions with $3 billion or more in total consolidated assets. For institutions with at least $3 billion but less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets, the proposal would impose principles-based restrictions that are broadly consistent with existing interagency guidance on incentive-based compensation. Such institutions would be prohibited from entering into incentive compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risks by the institution (i) by providing an executive officer, employee, director, or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits, or (ii) that could lead to material financial loss to the institution. The comment period for these proposed regulations has closed, but a final rule has not been published. Depending upon the outcome of the rule making process, the application of this rule could require the Bank to revise the compensation strategy, increase the administrative costs and adversely affect the ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.

Further, as discussed above, the Basel III Capital Rules limit discretionary bonus payments to bank executives if the institution’s regulatory capital ratios fail to exceed certain thresholds that started being phased in on January 1, 2016. See “Regulatory Capital Requirements” above.

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the near future.

Enforcement Powers of Federal and State Banking Agencies

The federal bank regulatory agencies have broad enforcement powers, including the power to terminate deposit insurance, impose substantial fines and other civil and criminal penalties, and appoint a conservator or receiver for financial institutions. Failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations could subject the Bank and its officers and directors to administrative sanctions and potentially substantial civil money penalties. The CDBOCDFPI also has broad enforcement powers over the Bank, including the power to impose orders, remove officers and directors, impose fines and appoint supervisors and conservators.

Financial Privacy

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

Monetary Policy

The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve has a significant effect on the operating results of financial or bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. Among the tools available to the Federal Reserve to affect the money supply are open market transactions in U.S. government securities, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These means are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distribution of bank loans, investments and deposits, and their use may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits.

The Volcker Rule

The Volcker Rule generally prohibits banking entities, such as the Bank, the Company and their affiliates and subsidiaries, from engaging in short-term proprietary trading of financial instruments and from owning, sponsoring or having certain relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds (collectively, “covered funds”). The regulations implementing the Volcker Rule provide exemptions for certain activities, including market making, underwriting, hedging, trading in certain government obligations and organizing and offering a covered fund, among others. Although the Volcker Rule has significant implications for many large financial institutions, it does not currently have a material effect on the operations of the Company or the Bank. The Company and the Bank may, however, incur costs if they are required to adopt additional policies and systems to ensure compliance with certain provisions of the Volcker Rule in the future.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Investing in our common stock involves a high degree of risk. Before you decide to invest, you should carefully consider the risks described below, together with all other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Any of the following risks, as well as risks that we do not know or currently deem immaterial, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. As a result, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could experience a partial or complete loss of your investment. Further, to the extent that any of the information in this Annual Report on Form 10-K constitutes forward-looking statements, the risk factors below also are cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by us or on our behalf. See “Forward-Looking Statements” immediately preceding Part I of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to Ourour Business

Our business depends on our ability to successfully manage credit risk.

The operation of our business requires us to manage credit risk. As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our borrowers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms, and that the collateral securing repayment of their loans, if any, may not be sufficient to ensure repayment. In addition, there are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions and risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers.

In order to successfully manage credit risk, we must, among other things, maintain disciplined and prudent underwriting standards and ensure that our bankers (“management” or “employees”) follow those standards. The weakening of these standards for any reason, such as an attempt to attract higher yielding loans, a lack of discipline or diligence by our employees in underwriting and monitoring loans, the inability of our employees to adequately adapt policies and procedures to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting borrowers and the quality of our loan portfolio, may result in loan defaults, foreclosures and additional charge-offs and may necessitate that we significantly increase our allowance for loan losses, each of which could adversely affect our net income. As a result, our inability to successfully manage credit risk could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and/or results of operations.

An important feature of our credit risk management system is our use of an internal credit risk rating and control system through which we identify, measure, monitor and mitigate existing and emerging credit risk of our borrowers. As this process involves detailed analysis of the borrower or credit risk, taking into account both quantitative and qualitative factors, it is subject to human error. In exercising their judgment, our employees may not always be able to assign an accurate credit rating to a borrower or credit risk, which may result in our exposure to higher credit risks than indicated by our risk rating and control system. The credit risk rating and control system may not identify credit risk in our loan portfolio and we may fail to manage credit risk effectively.

Shifts in short-term interest rates may reduce net interest income, which is the principal component of our earnings. Net interest income is the difference between the amounts received by us on our interest-earning assets and the interest paid by us on our interest-bearing liabilities. When interest rates rise, the rate of interest we earn on our assets, such as loans, typically rises more quickly than the rate of interest that we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits, which may cause our profits to increase. However, when deposit competition is strong, the rate of increase in our deposit costs may exceed the rate of increase in the yields on our loans, placing pressure on our net interest margins. When interest rates decrease, the rate of interest we earn on our assets, such as loans, typically declines more quickly than the rate of interest that we pay on our interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits, which may cause our profits to decrease.

The impact on earnings is more adverse when the slope of the yield curve flattens or inverts, that is, when short-term interest rates increase more than long-term interest rates or when long-term interest rates decrease more than short-term interest rates. Many factors impact interest rates, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply and international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

Interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers, which increases the potential for default. At the same time, the marketability of the underlying property may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their mortgages and other indebtedness at lower rates. For the year ended December 31, 2019,2022, total loans were 82.4%85.1% of our average interest-earning assets. Our net interest income exhibited a positive 10.4%3.6% sensitivity to rising interest rates and a negative 4.6% sensitivity to declining interest rates in a twelve-month 100 basis point parallel shock at December 31, 2019.2022.

Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to an increase in nonperforming assets (“NPAs”) and a reduction of income recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. Subsequently, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of nonperforming assetsNPAs would have an adverse impact on net interest income.

Rising interest rates will result in a decline in value of the fixed-rate debt securities we hold in our investment securities portfolio. The unrealized losses resulting from holding these securities would be recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and reduce total shareholders’ equity. Unrealized losses do not negatively impact our regulatory capital ratios; however, tangible common equity and the associated ratios would be reduced. If debt securities in an unrealized loss position are sold, such losses become realized and will reduce our regulatory capital ratios. If short-term interest rates decline, and assuming longer term interest rates fall faster, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest-earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest-bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem. This would have a material adverse effect on our net interest income and our results of operations.

Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and/or investment securities, and from other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our most important source of funds consists of our customer deposits, a significant portion of which are time deposits. Such deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive they can earn higher interest on their interest-bearing deposits elsewhere, or alternative investments, such as the stock market, provide a better risk/return tradeoff. If customers move money to other financial institutions, or out of bank deposits and into other investments, we could lose a relatively low cost source of funds, which would require us to seek wholesale funding alternatives in order to continue to grow, thereby increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

Other primary sources of funds consist of cash from operations, investment maturities and sales and proceeds from the issuance and sale of our equity and debt securities to investors. Additional liquidity is provided by the ability to borrow from the Federal Reserve Discount Window and the FHLB. We also may borrow from third-party lenders from time to time. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities or on terms that are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry. Any decline in available funding could adversely impact our ability to continue to implement our strategic plan, including originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses, pay dividends to our shareholders or to fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.

The BSA, the Patriot Act and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective AML program and to file reports such as suspicious activity reports and currency transaction reports. We are required to comply with these and other AML requirements. The federal banking agencies and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network are authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and have recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts against banks and other financial services providers with the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and IRS. We are also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the OFAC. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient, we would be subject to liabilities, including fines and regulatory actions, which may include restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans.

Failures to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us. Any of these results could reduce the Company’s ability to receive any necessary regulatory approvals for acquisitions or new branch openings. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects. The Bank stipulated to the issuance of a consent order in April 2019, which replaced an informal agreement in January 2018 with the FDIC and CDBO that requires the Bank to take certain steps and improve processes and training relating to BSA and AML laws and regulations, and to improve its monitoring of high rate deposits. While we do not expect this enforcement action to change our business strategy, our failure to comply with the consent order could have a negative impact on our business, including our ability to establish new branches or LPOs.