Signature Bank
Annual Report 2013

Plain-text annual report

565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 866-SIG-LINE (866-744-5463) www.signatureny.com S I G N A T U R E B A N K 2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T 2013 ANNUAL REPORT C O M PA N Y P R O F I L E C O R P O R AT E I N F O R M AT I O N Signature Bank (NASDAQ:SBNY), member FDIC, is a full-service commercial bank with 27 private client offi ces located throughout the New York metropolitan area. Th e Bank primarily serves privately owned businesses, their owners and senior managers. Signature Bank off ers a broad range of business and personal banking products and services as well as investment, brokerage, asset management and insurance products and services through its subsidiary, Signature Securities Group Corporation, a licensed broker-dealer, investment adviser and member FINRA/SIPC. In addition, Signature Bank’s wholly owned specialty fi nance subsidiary, Signature Financial LLC, provides equipment fi nance and leasing along with taxi medallion and transportation fi nancing. F I N A N C I A L H I G H L I G H T S (in thousands) Total assets Total loans Total deposits 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 $ 9,146,112 11,673,089 14,666,120 17,456,057 22,376,663 4,376,098 5,244,664 6,850,726 9,771,770 13,519,471 7,222,546 9,441,227 11,754,138 14,082,652 17,057,097 Shareholders’ equity 803,659 944,547 1,408,116 1,650,327 1,799,939 Net interest income after provision for loan losses Non-interest income Non-interest expense 219,680 298,486 34,632 42,648 407,911 42,038 508,379 36,239 149,885 164,896 182,724 218,243 Income before income taxes 104,427 176,238 267,225 326,375 606,700 32,011 247,177 391,534 Net income available to common shareholders $ 50,523 102,051 149,526 185,483 228,744 BOARD OF DIRECTORS LOCATIONS STOCKHOLDER INFORMATION Manhattan 261 Madison Avenue 300 Park Avenue 71 Broadway 565 Fifth Avenue 950 Th ird Avenue 200 Park Avenue South 1020 Madison Avenue 50 West 57th Street 2 Penn Plaza 111 Broadway (Accommodation Offi ce) Brooklyn 26 Court Street 6321 New Utrecht Avenue 97 Broadway 84 Broadway (Accommodation Offi ce) Queens 36-36 33rd Street, Long Island City 78-27 37th Avenue, Jackson Heights 8936 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica Bronx 421 Hunts Point Avenue Staten Island 2066 Hylan Boulevard 1688 Victory Boulevard 1C Quaker Ridge Road, New Rochelle 360 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains Long Island 1225 Franklin Avenue, Garden City 53 North Park Avenue, Rockville Centre 68 South Service Road, Melville 923 Broadway, Woodmere 40 Cuttermill Road, Great Neck 100 Jericho Quadrangle, Jericho 360 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge Signature Securities Group Institutional Trading (Services limited to institutional clients) 9 Greenway Plaza, Houston, TX 77046 Signature Bank 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 646-822-1500 866-SIG-LINE (866-744-5463) www.signatureny.com Counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3000 Independent Auditors KPMG LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154-0102 212-758-9700 American Stock Transfer 6201 15th Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11219 718-921-8200 Stock Transfer Agent & Registrar Stock Trading Information Th e Bank’s common stock is traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol SBNY. Annual Meeting Th e annual meeting of stockholders will be held on April 24, 2014, 9:00 AM at: Th e Roosevelt Hotel 45 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 212-661-9600 Form 10-K A copy of Signature Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K fi led with the FDIC is available without charge by download from www.signatureny.com, or by written request to: Signature Bank Attention: Investor Relations 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 Certain statements in this Annual Report that are not historical facts constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”). Such forward- looking statements are based on the Bank’s current expectations, speak only as of the date on which they are made and are susceptible to a number of risks, un- certainties and other factors. Th e Bank’s actual results, performance and achievements may diff er materially from any future results, performance or achieve- ments expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. For those statements, the Bank claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking state- ments contained in the Reform Act. See “Private Securi- ties Litigation Reform Act Safe Harbor Statement” and “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors,” appearing in the Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fi scal year ended December 31, 2013, included herein. Scott A. Shay Chairman of the Board Signature Bank Kathryn A. Byrne, CPA Partner WeiserMazars LLP Alfonse M. D’Amato Managing Director Park Strategies, LLC Former U.S. Senator Alfred B. DelBello Partner DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP Former New York State Lieutenant Governor Joseph J. DePaolo President & Chief Executive Offi cer Signature Bank Judith A. Huntington President Th e College of New Rochelle Jeff rey W. Meshel Founder, President and Chief Executive Offi cer Paradigm Capital Corp. Michael V. Pappagallo President & Chief Financial Offi cer Brixmor Property Group John Tamberlane Vice Chairman Signature Bank Scott A. Shay Chairman of the Board of Directors Joseph J. DePaolo President & Chief Executive Offi cer John Tamberlane Vice Chairman Mark T. Sigona Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Offi cer Michael J. Merlo Executive Vice President & Chief Credit Offi cer Eric R. Howell Executive Vice President - Corporate & Business Development Peter S. Quinlan Executive Vice President & Treasurer Michael Sharkey Senior Vice President & Chief Technology Offi cer Vito Susca Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Offi cer SENIOR MANAGEMENT Westchester T O O U R S H A R E H O L D E R S Strength in Numbers takes on many meanings. 2013 commemorated Signature Bank’s sixth consecutive year of record earnings, where we achieved record-setting deposit and loan growth. Our unrelenting commitment to clients is the fundamental factor contributing to our success, thereby allowing us to standout in the marketplace. (Left to right) Joseph J. DePaolo, President and Chief Executive Officer and Scott A. Shay, Chairman of the Board The consistent, significant growth Signature Bank delivered across key metrics throughout 2013 We successfully compete against the mega, too-big-to- generated an increased return on equity for our valued fail banks by firmly adhering to this model. Throughout shareholders. Over the years, our shareholders have the years, groups of experienced bankers have brought witnessed the Bank’s overall conservative approach to their business relationships to the Bank, where they risk, which has been both appreciated and rewarded can operate with autonomy typically alien to the by our depositors. THE SECRET TO OUR STRENGTH Since 2001, our founding philosophy has been based on placing our clients at the forefront of all we do. Our commitment to the depositor is derived from our proven abilities to continually attract some of the industry’s most talented bankers who join our network as teams. They provide unrivaled service through our distinctive single-point-of-contact approach. Our highly focused business model limits both bureaucracy and red tape and removes long, drawn out processes. This enables the experienced bankers who join Signature Bank with solid relationships to simply get the job done, and our senior management team to devote their time to serving the needs of clients. This is the secret to our strength. mega banks. During 2013, we added 10 private client banking teams to the Signature Bank network. Our pipeline for attracting banking professionals remains solid as our reputation grows. Furthermore, the ongoing chaos at the too-big-to-fail banks also continues to contribute to our growth. Signature Bank’s network, which we built from the ground up, spans 89 private client banking teams, led by 124 Group Directors who work from 27 banking offices – indicative of our Strength in Numbers. Our Group Directors control the client experience; whether its cash management, specialty lending or investments, our teams bring our expertise to the client, which has enabled us to achieve extraordinary growth. 1 2013 ANNUAL REPORT2 2 EMBRACING DIVERSITY Just like Lady Liberty welcomed new immigrants to our great country almost 130 years ago, Signature Bank welcomes seasoned banking professionals and clients frustrated by the never-ending turmoil at the mega institutions. Signature Bank offers a better banking alternative to these mega-banks amid a highly competi-tive landscape. In fact, the Bank continually outperforms its peers and the industry sector. For example, in only 13 years, Signature Bank ranks among the top 1 percent of commercial banks in the U.S., based on assets, according to the FDIC Market Share Report. We are extremely diligent and prudent as we seek ways to diversify through the careful and methodical addition of complementary business offerings. In late 2007, we embarked on a path to expand our commer-cial real estate lending efforts, and appointed a commercial real estate banking team who we believe possesses the best track record in the metropolitan New York area. Over the past six years, this expert commercial real estate banking team has helped fuel the Bank’s loan portfolio growth, which increased 515 percent since they joined. Signature Financial LLC, our specialty finance subsidiary dedicated to equipment finance and leasing, transportation financing and taxi medallion financing, was responsible for growing loans in this division by more than $800 million during 2013. Since this team of 45 professionals joined in the spring of 2012 when we launched Signature Financial, the subsidiary has added approximately 30 sales and operations colleagues who work from 16 locations throughout the country. Signature Financial ended the year with a portfolio in excess of $1.6 billion. To further broaden our client offerings and diversify revenue streams, in keeping with Signature Bank’s philosophy, we added a team strictly focused on asset-based lending in 2013, marking our entry into that arena. They are already on their way to enhancing the Bank’s presence in this specialized area. Despite the tumultuous economic environment in which we operated during the past several years, we maintained strong disciplines in our lending efforts, which resulted in a very low non-performing loan-to-asset ratio of 0.16 percent for 2013 – among the lowest ratio of any bank in the nation. Additionally, net charge-offs to average loans for 2013 was an extremely low 0.12 percent, and the allowance for loan and lease losses to non-accrual loans was a strong 431 percent – another Strength in Numbers example.In 2013, we grew top-line revenue while maintaining stellar credit quality, contributing to our sixth consecu-tive year of record earnings. The premise of our model – to hire experienced bankers who act as a magnet for on-boarding clients that are already known to them – is a key driver to our success, not just as it relates to growth but also as it aids in maintaining strong credit metrics. And, to further elaborate, even our most seasoned banking teams who have already brought their clients over to us, continue to expand at a rapid pace as they attract new clients under the Signature Bank banner.Our financial performance is solid across all facets of Signature Bank, and we continue to invest heavily in the future of our institution, again demonstrating our Strength in Numbers. DE P OSITS (in billions) 17.1 14.1 11.8 9.4 7.2 LOANS (in billions) 13.5 9.8 6.9 5.2 4.4 N ET INCOM E (in millions) 228.7 185.5 149.5 102.1 50.5 09 10 11 YEAR 12 13 09 10 11 YEAR 12 13 09 10 11 YEAR 12 13 3 2013 ANNUAL REPORTFINANCIAL FREEDOMSignature Bank again set records in terms of financial performance during 2013, delivering unprecedented results across various key metrics. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, net income reached a record $228.7 million, or $4.76 diluted earnings per share, an increase of $43.3 million, or 23.3 percent, versus $185.5 million, or $3.91 diluted earnings per share reported in 2012 – showing our Strength in Numbers. The record net income for the year is primarily attributed to an increase in net interest income, fueled by both record growth in deposits and loans. Deposits in 2013 reached a high as well, totaling $17.06 billion at December 31, 2013. Deposits were up a record $2.97 billion, or 21.1 percent, for the year. Excluding short-term escrow and brokered deposits of $1.66 billion at year-end 2013 and $994.8 million at year-end 2012, core deposits increased a record $2.31 billion, or 17.6 percent, during 2013. This extraordinary deposit growth is a direct reflection of the efforts and relationships of our growing network of private client banking teams.The Bank’s loan portfolio grew to $13.52 billion at year-end 2013, compared with $9.77 billion in 2012, a record increase of $3.75 billion, or 38.4 percent. The considerable increase in loans for the year was primarily driven by growth in commercial real estate and multi-family loans as well as contributions from Signature Financial. At December 31, 2013, loans accounted for 60.4 percent of total assets, compared with 56.0 percent at the end of 2012. In the past five years, loans to assets grew from 48.3 to 60.4 percent, on top of more than $15 billion, or 211 percent, of balance sheet growth.The Bank maintains one of the best capital positions industrywide. At the end of 2013, Tier 1 leverage, Tier 1 risk-based and total risk-based capital ratios were approximately 8.54 percent, 14.07 percent and 15.10 percent, respectively. Our strong risk-based capital ratios reflect the relatively low-risk profile of the Bank’s balance sheet. Furthermore, the Bank’s tangible common equity ratio remained strong at 8.04 percent.We have always carefully managed a pristine balance sheet, maintained stellar credit quality and delivered solid financial performance. Our stringent disciplines have contributed to the leadership position we hold today and will help to lead us forward. EXCELLING IN ASSET GROWTH AND MIX $ 5.8 billion 12% 34% 54% $ 22.4 billion 5% 35% 2007 60% Total Loans, net Investment Securities Other Assets STANDING TALL 2013 The foundation we have created is built to last. We have demonstrated our Strength in Numbers by our financial performance, our growing network of banking Bank the #1 Attorney Escrow Provider, the #2 Business Bank and the #2 Private Bank. We were gratified to be recognized by this important sector teams and our sizable client base. We are confident that within our client base. we are well positioned for success in the years ahead, and through discipline and readiness, are able to adapt to economic down- turns by placing depositor safety first and foremost. We are extremely proud of all these acknowledge- ments, which are purely reflective of how our clients feel about us and how appreciative we are of them. We built this institution for them, and are grateful for each and every client’s loyalty to and confidence in Many third parties and banking Signature Bank. industry observers are also taking notice of our model and ability to execute. In 2013, Forbes named Signature Bank the second Best Bank in America in its annual listing, having ranked in the top 10 for the past four years. The Bank also was named the 7th Top Performing Big Bank domestically by the ABA Banking Journal, a trade publication, on their annual list. In another trade magazine, Bank Director, Signature Bank placed fifth on its 2013 Bank Each year at this time we thank our Board for their guidance and our shareholders for their continued investment in our business and support of our management team. We also want to highlight the hard work and efforts put forth by our dedicated colleagues – all 945 of them – because of the integral role they play collectively in helping us stand tall by delivering exceptional and unparalleled financial care to our clients. It is our Strength in Numbers – our people, our leadership, our clients and our performance – that gives Ending the year on another high note was the fact that American Banker named Joseph J. DePaolo, President and CEO, Community Banker of the Year, a well-deserved honor that exemplifies the reputation he has garnered throughout the industry during his distinguished banking career. Performance Scorecard among mid-sized banks (those us confidence as we look out to successful years ahead. between $5 billion and $50 billion in assets), based on profitability, asset quality and capital strength. Respectfully, Perhaps most importantly, we value what our clients are saying about us. They said their piece in the New York Law Journal’s annual reader survey, when members of the legal community named Signature 4 Scott A. Shay Chairman of the Board Joseph J. DePaolo President and Chief Executive Officer UNITED STATES FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20429 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 Or TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to FDIC Certificate Number 57053 SIGNATURE BANK (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) NEW YORK (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) 565 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York (Address of principal executive offices) 13-4149421 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) 10017 (Zip Code) Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (646) 822-1500 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, $0.01 par value NASDAQ Global Select Market Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. £Yes T No Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. T Yes £ No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. T Yes £ No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes £ No £ Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10 K or any amendment to this Form 10 K. T Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one): Large accelerated filer T Accelerated filer £ Non-accelerated filer £ Smaller reporting company £ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). £ Yes T No The aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing sales price of the registrant’s Common Stock as quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market on June 30, 2013 was $3.87 billion. As of February 27, 2014, the Registrant had outstanding 47,295,412 shares of Common Stock. Portions of the registrant’s definitive Proxy Statement for Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 24, 2014. (Part III) DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE SIGNATURE BANK ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013 INDEX PART I Item 1. Item 1A. Item 1B. Item 2. Item 3. Item 4. Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unresolved Staff Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Legal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mine Safety Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART II Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Item 6. Item 7. Item 7A. Item 8. Item 9. Item 9A. Item 9B. Item 10. Item 11. Item 12. Item 13. Selected Financial Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations . Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Statements and Supplementary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure . Controls and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART III Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Executive Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PART IV Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SIGNATURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index to Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 6 25 39 40 40 40 41 43 45 79 80 81 81 83 83 83 83 83 83 84 86 F-1 2 PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT This Annual Report on Form 10-K and oral statements made from time-to-time by our representatives contain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You should not place undue reliance on such statements because they are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties relating to our operations and the business environment in which we operate, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond our control. Forward-looking statements include information concerning our possible or assumed future results of operations, including descriptions of our business strategy, expectations, beliefs, projections, anticipated events or trends, growth prospects, financial performance, and similar expressions concerning matters that are not historical facts. These statements often include words such as “may,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “opportunity,” “intend,” “plan,” “estimate,” “could,” “project,” “seek,” “should,” “will,” or “would,” or the negative of these words and phrases or similar words and phrases. All forward-looking statements may be impacted by a number of risks and uncertainties. These statements are based on assumptions that we have made in light of our industry experience as well as our perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors we believe are appropriate under the circumstances including, without limitation, those related to: • earnings growth; • revenue growth; • net interest margin; • deposit growth, including short-term escrow deposits and off-balance sheet deposits; • future acquisitions; • performance, credit quality and liquidity of investments made by us, including our investments in certain mortgage- backed and similar securities; • loan and lease origination volume; • the interest rate environment; • non-interest income levels, including fees from product sales; • credit performance on loans made by us; • monetary and fiscal policies of the U.S. Government, including policies of the U.S. Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; • our ability to maintain, generate and/or raise capital; • changes in the regulatory environment and government intervention in the banking industry; including the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act; • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation insurance assessments; • margins on sales or securitizations of loans; • market share; • expense levels; • hiring of new private client banking teams; • results from new business initiatives; • other business operations and strategies; and • the impact of new accounting pronouncements. As you read and consider forward-looking statements, you should understand that these statements are not guarantees of performance or results. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions and can change as a result of many possible events or factors, not all of which are known to us or in our control. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, beliefs and expectations, if a change occurs or our beliefs, assumptions or expectations were incorrect, our business, financial condition, liquidity or results of operations may vary materially from those expressed in our forward-looking statements. You should be aware that many factors could affect our actual financial results or results of operations and could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. See “Part I, Item 1A. – Risk Factors” for a discussion of the most significant risks that we face, including, without limitation, the following factors: • disruption and volatility in global financial markets; • difficult market conditions adversely affecting our industry; • monetary and currency fluctuations; 3 • our inability to successfully implement our business strategy; • our inability to successfully integrate new business lines into our existing operations; • our vulnerability to changes in interest rates; • our vulnerability to changes in inflation; • competition with many larger financial institutions which have substantially greater financial and other resources than we have; • government intervention in the banking industry, new legislation and government regulation; • illiquid market conditions and downgrades in credit ratings; • continued adverse developments in the residential mortgage market; • inability of U.S. agencies or U.S. government-sponsored enterprises to pay or to guarantee payments on their securities in which we invest; • material risks involved in commercial lending; • a downturn in the economy of the New York metropolitan area; • a downturn in the economy of the U.S.; • under-collateralization of our loan portfolio due to a material decline in the value of real estate; • risks associated with our loan portfolio growth; • our failure to effectively manage our credit risk; • lack of seasoning of mortgage loans underlying our investment portfolio; • our allowance for loan and lease losses may not be sufficient to absorb actual losses; • our reliance on the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York for secondary and contingent liquidity sources; • our dependence upon key personnel; • our inability to acquire suitable private client banking teams or manage our growth; • our charter documents and regulatory limitations may delay or prevent our acquisition by a third party; • curtailment of government guaranteed loan programs could affect our SBA business; • our extensive reliance on outsourcing to provide cost-effective operational support; • system failures or breaches of our network security; • decreases in trading volumes or prices; • potential responsibility for environmental claims; • our inability to raise additional funding needed for our operations; • misconduct of employees or their failure to abide by regulatory requirements; • fraudulent or negligent acts on the part of our clients or third parties; • failure of our brokerage clients to meet their margin requirements; • severe weather; • acts of war or terrorism; • technological changes; • work stoppages, financial difficulties, fire, earthquakes, flooding or other natural disasters; • changes in the federal or state tax laws; • changes in accounting standards or interpretation in new or existing standards; • increases in FDIC insurance premiums; • regulatory net capital requirements that constrain our brokerage business; • our ability to enter new markets successfully and capitalize on growth opportunities; • our ability to successfully integrate acquired entities, if any; • changes in consumer spending, borrowing and savings habits; • changes in accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the bank regulatory agencies, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; • changes in our organization, compensation and benefit plans; • changes in our financial condition or results of operations that reduce capital available to pay dividends; and • changes in the financial condition or future prospects of issuers of securities that we own. See “Part I, Item 1A. – Risk Factors” for a full discussion of these risks. 4 You should keep in mind that any forward-looking statement made by us speaks only as of the date on which we make it. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and it is impossible for us to predict these events or how they may affect us. We have no duty to, and do not intend to, and disclaim any obligation to, update or revise any industry information or forward-looking statements after the date on which they are made. In light of these risks and uncertainties, you should keep in mind that any forward-looking statement made in this document or elsewhere might not reflect actual results. 5 ITEM 1. BUSINESS PART I In this annual report filed on Form 10-K, except where the context otherwise requires, the “Bank,” the “Company,” “Signature,” “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to Signature Bank and its subsidiaries, including Signature Securities Group Corporation (“Signature Securities”) and Signature Financial, LLC (“Signature Financial”). Introduction We are a New York-based full-service commercial bank with 27 private client offices located in the New York metropolitan area, offering a wide variety of business and personal banking products and services. The Bank’s growing network of private client banking teams serves the needs of privately owned businesses, their owners and senior managers. Through our Signature Securities subsidiary, a licensed broker-dealer and investment adviser, we offer brokerage, asset management and insurance products and services. Additionally, through Signature Securities, we purchase, securitize and sell the guaranteed portions of U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans. During March 2012, the Bank established a new wholly-owned subsidiary, Signature Financial, a specialty finance company based in Melville, Long Island. Signature Financial is focused on equipment finance and leasing, transportation financing and taxi medallion financing provided to clients located throughout the United States. Signature Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports, Proxy Statement for its Annual Meeting of Stockholders and Annual Report to Stockholders are made available, free of charge, on our website at www.signatureny.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports have been filed with or furnished to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). You may also obtain any materials that we file with the FDIC at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s offices located at 550 17th Street N.W., Washington, DC 20429. Since commencing operations in May 2001, we have grown to $22.38 billion in assets, $17.06 billion in deposits, $13.52 billion in loans, $1.80 billion in equity capital and $2.24 billion in other assets under management as of December 31, 2013. We intend to continue our growth and maintain our position as a premier relationship-based financial services organization in the New York metropolitan area, guided by our Chairman and senior management team who have extensive experience developing, managing and growing financial service organizations. Recent Highlights Core Deposit Growth During 2013, our deposits grew $2.97 billion, or 21.1%, to $17.06 billion. Deposits at December 31, 2013 included $404.2 million of brokered deposits and approximately $1.26 billion of short-term escrow deposits, which due to their nature and as expected, have been or will be released in early 2014. At year end 2012, deposits included $108.5 million of brokered deposits and approximately $886.3 million of short-term escrow deposits. Core deposits, which exclude brokered deposits and short-term escrow deposits, increased $2.31 billion, or 17.6%, during 2013. This growth in our core deposits can be attributed to the addition of new private client banking teams, who assist us in growing our client base, as well as additional deposits raised by our existing private client banking teams. We primarily focus our deposit gathering efforts in the greater New York metropolitan area market with money center banks, regional banks and community banks as our primary competitors. We distinguish ourselves from competitors by focusing on our target market: privately owned businesses and their owners and senior managers. This niche approach, coupled with our relationship-banking model, provides our clients with a personalized service, which we believe gives us a competitive advantage. Our deposit mix has remained favorable, with non-interest-bearing and NOW deposits accounting for 36.6% of our total deposits and time deposits accounting for only 7.2% of our total deposits as of December 31, 2013. Our average cost for total deposits was 0.51% for the year ended December 31, 2013. 6 Short-Term Escrow Deposits At December 31, 2013 and 2012, approximately $1.26 billion and $886.3 million, respectively, of short-term escrow deposits were included in the Bank’s deposits. We have developed a core competency in catering to the needs of law firms, claims administrators, accounting firms, and title companies, which allows us to obtain from our clients short-term escrow deposits. Strategic Hires During 2013, we increased our network of seasoned banking professionals by adding ten new private client banking teams and 18 new banking group directors. Our full-time equivalent number of employees grew from 844 to 945 during 2013. Private Client Banking Teams and Offices As of December 31, 2013, we had 89 private client banking teams located throughout the New York metropolitan area. With the on-going consolidation of financial institutions in our marketplace and market segmentation by our competitors, we continue to actively recruit experienced private client banking teams with established client relationships that fit our niche market of privately owned businesses, their owners and their senior managers. Our typical group director joins us with 20 years of experience in financial services and an established team of two to four additional professionals to assist with business development and client services. Each additional private client banking team brings client relationships that allow us to grow our core deposits as well as expand our lending opportunities. To facilitate our growth, we opened one additional private client office during 2013 located in Staten Island, New York. We currently operate 27 private client offices located in the New York metropolitan area. While our strategy does not call for us to have an expansive office presence, we will continue to add offices to meet the needs of the private client banking teams that we recruit. Asset-based Lending To further broaden our client offerings and diversify revenue streams, during September 2013, the Bank added a team strictly focused on asset-based lending, marking our entry into that arena. The appointment of this complementary asset-based lending practice strengthens the Bank’s product offerings to our middle market commercial clients. Our Business Strategy We intend to increase our presence as a premier relationship-based financial services organization serving the needs of privately owned business clients, their owners and senior managers in the New York metropolitan area by continuing to: Focus on our niche market of privately owned businesses, their owners and their senior managers We generally target closely held commercial clients with revenues of less than $200 million and fewer than 1,000 employees. Our business clients are representative of the New York metropolitan area economy and include real estate owners/operators, real estate management companies, law firms, accounting firms, entertainment business managers, medical professionals, retail establishments, money management firms and not-for-profit philanthropic organizations. We also target the owners and senior management of these businesses who typically have a net worth of between $500,000 and $20 million. Provide our clients a wide array of high quality banking, brokerage and insurance products and services through our private client group structure and a seamless financial services solution We offer a broad array of financial products and services with a seamless financial services solution through our private client banking team structure. Most of our competitors that sell banking products as well as investment and insurance products do so based on a “silo” approach. In this approach, different sales people from different profit centers within the bank, brokerage firm or insurance company separately offer their particular products to the client. This approach creates client confusion as to who is servicing the relationship. Because no single relationship manager considers all of the 7 needs of a client in the “silo” approach, some products and services may not be presented at all to the client. We market our banking, investment and insurance services seamlessly, thus avoiding the “silo” approach of many of our competitors in the New York metropolitan area. Our cash management, investment and insurance products and services are presented to clients by the private client banking team professional but provided or underwritten by others. Our business is built around banking and investment private client groups. We believe that our ability to hire and retain top-performing relationship group directors is our major competitive advantage. Our group directors have primary responsibility for attracting client relationships and, on an on-going basis, through them and their groups, servicing those relationships. Our group directors are experienced financial service professionals who come from the following disciplines: private banking, middle market banking, high-end retail banking, investment and insurance and institutional brokerage. Our group directors each have their own private client banking team (typically two to four professionals) who assists the group director in business development and client service. Recruit experienced, talented and motivated private client group directors who are top producers and who believe in our banking model A key to our success in developing a relationship-based bank is our ability to recruit and retain experienced and motivated financial services professionals. We recruit group directors and private client banking teams who we believe are top performers. While recruitment channels differ and our recruitment efforts are largely opportunistic in nature, the continuing merger and acquisition activity in the New York financial services marketplace provides an opportunity to selectively target and recruit qualified teams. We believe the current market to be a favorable environment for locating and recruiting qualified private client banking teams. Our experience has been that such displacement and change leads select private client banking teams to smaller, less bureaucratic organizations such as Signature. Offer progressive incentive-based compensation that rewards private client banking teams for developing their business and retaining their clients Our private client banking team variable compensation model adds to the foundation for our relationship-based banking discipline. A key part of our strategy for growing our business is the progressive incentive-based compensation that we employ to help us retain our group directors while ensuring that they continue to develop their business and retain their clients. Under our private client banking team variable compensation model, annual bonuses are paid to members of the client relationship team based upon the profit generated from their business. In order to mitigate the inherent risk in our incentive-based compensation model, we have in place an internal control structure that includes segregation of duties. For example, the underwriting and ultimate approval of any loan is performed by loan officers who are separate from the private client banking teams and report to our Chief Credit Officer. Maintain a flat organization structure that allows our clients and group directors to interface with, and our group directors to report directly to, senior management Another key element of our strategy is our organizational structure. We operate with a flat organizational and reporting structure, which allows our group directors to interface with, and report directly to, senior management. More importantly, it gives our clients direct access to senior management. Develop and maintain operations support that is client-centric and service oriented We have made a significant investment in our infrastructure, including our support staff. Although we have centralized many of our critical operations, such as finance, information technology, client services, cash management services, loan administration and human resources, we have located some functions within the private client offices so they are closer to the group directors and our clients. For example, most of our private client offices have a senior lender on location, who is part of our credit group, to assist the private client banking teams with the lending process. In addition, most of our private client offices have an investment group director or team that provides brokerage and/or insurance services, as necessary. We believe that our existing infrastructure (physical and systems infrastructure, as well as people) can accommodate additional growth without substantial additional support area personnel or significant spending on technology and operations in the medium term. 8 Be committed to a sound risk management process while focusing on profitability Risk management is an important element of our business. We evaluate the inherent risks that affect our business, including interest rate risk, credit risk, operational risk, regulatory risk, and reputation risk. We have a Director of Risk Management whose responsibility is the oversight of our risk management processes. Additionally, members of our senior management group have significant experience in risk management, credit, operations, finance and auditing. We have put internal controls in place that help to mitigate the risks that affect our business. In addition, we have policies and procedures that further help mitigate risk and regulatory requirements that mandate that we evaluate, test and opine on the effectiveness of internal controls. No system of internal control or policies and procedures will ever totally eliminate risk, however, we believe that our risk management processes will help keep our risks to a manageable level. Maintain an appropriate balance between cost control, incentive compensation and business expansion initiatives We have established an internal approval process for capital and operating expenses. We maintain cost control practices and policies to increase efficiency of operations. A key expense for financial service companies is compensation. Controlling this expense is an important element in keeping overall expenses down. Our group directors and their teams receive base salaries and benefits; however, a significant portion of their compensation is variable and based upon the profit generated from the business they create. This variable compensation model helps us control expenses as employees do not receive variable compensation unless revenue is generated. Virtually all expenditures (both current and capital) in excess of certain thresholds must be approved by a member of senior management, and are reviewed and approved by our Purchasing and Capital Expenditures Committee, which includes our Chief Operating Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. We make extensive use of outsourcing to provide cost-effective operational support with service levels consistent with large-bank operations. We focus on our financial services business and have outsourced many of our key banking and brokerage systems to third-party providers. This has several advantages for an institution like ours, including the ability to cost-effectively utilize the latest technology to better serve, and stay focused on, the needs of our clients. Some of our key outsourcing partners include Fidelity Information Services and National Financial Services (the brokerage and investments systems division of Fidelity Investments). We maintain management oversight of these providers. Each of these providers was the subject of a due diligence investigation prior to their selection and continues to be reviewed on an on-going basis. Historical Development We were incorporated as a New York State-chartered bank in September 2000. On April 5, 2001, our date of inception, we received approval to commence operations from the New York State Banking Department (known as the New York State Department of Financial Services as of October 3, 2011). Since commencing operations on May 1, 2001, the following subsequent historical developments have occurred in relation to our ownership and capital structure:  We completed our initial public offering in March 2004 and a follow-on offering in September 2004. Our common stock trades on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol “SBNY.”     In March 2005, Bank Hapoalim B.M. sold its controlling stake in us in a secondary offering. After the offering, Bank Hapoalim beneficially owned 5.7% of our common stock on a fully diluted basis. Bank Hapoalim no longer owns any shares of our stock. In September 2008, we completed a public offering of 5,400,000 shares of our common stock generating net proceeds of $148.1 million. In December 2008, we issued 120,000 shares of senior preferred stock (with an aggregate liquidation preference of $120.0 million) and a warrant to purchase 595,829 common shares to the U.S. Treasury in the Troubled Asset Relief Program Capital Purchase Program (the “TARP Capital Purchase Program”), for an aggregate purchase price of $120.0 million. In light of the restrictions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, on March 31, 2009, we repurchased the 120,000 shares of preferred stock we issued to the U.S. Treasury for $120.0 million plus accrued and unpaid dividends of $767,000. 9    In June 2009, we completed a public offering of 5,175,000 shares of our common stock generating net proceeds of $127.3 million. In March 2010, the U.S. Treasury sold, in a public offering, a warrant to purchase 595,829 shares of our common stock that was received from us in the TARP Capital Purchase Program. In July 2011, we completed a public offering of 4,715,000 shares of our common stock generating net proceeds of approximately $253.3 million.  During the third quarter of 2013, 25,513 warrants that were issued through the TARP Capital Purchase Program were exercised. The exercise resulted in the creation of 8,652 shares of treasury stock, which were subsequently reissued in connection with the exercise of options granted under the Bank’s equity incentive plan. Products and Services Business Clients We offer a full range of products and services oriented to the needs of our business clients, including:  Deposit products such as non-interest-bearing checking accounts, money market accounts and time deposits;  Escrow deposit services;  Cash management services;  Commercial loans and lines of credit for working capital and to finance internal growth, acquisitions and leveraged buyouts;  Equipment finance and leasing, transportation financing, and taxi medallion financing;  Asset-based lending;  Permanent real estate loans;  Letters of credit;  Investment products to help better manage idle cash balances, including money market mutual funds and short-term money market instruments;  Business retirement accounts such as 401(k) plans; and  Business insurance products, including group health and group life products. Personal Clients We offer a full range of products and services oriented to the needs of our high net worth personal clients, including:  Interest-bearing and non-interest-bearing checking accounts, with optional features such as debit/ATM cards and overdraft protection and, for our top clients, rebates of certain charges, including ATM fees;  Money market accounts and money market mutual funds;  Time deposits;  Personal loans, both secured and unsecured;  Mortgages, home equity loans and credit card accounts;  Investment and asset management services; and  Personal insurance products, including health, life and disability. Deposit Products The market for deposits continues to be very competitive. We primarily focus our deposit gathering efforts in the greater New York metropolitan area with money center banks, regional banks and community banks as our primary competitors. We distinguish ourselves from competitors by focusing on our target market: privately owned businesses and their owners and senior managers. This niche approach, coupled with our relationship-banking model, provides our clients with a personalized service, which we believe gives us a competitive advantage. We offer a variety of deposit products to our clients at interest rates that are competitive with other banks. Our business deposit products include commercial checking accounts, money market accounts, escrow deposit 10 accounts, cash concentration accounts and other cash management products. Our personal deposit products include checking accounts, money market accounts and certificates of deposit. We also allow our personal and business deposit clients to access their accounts, transfer funds, pay bills and perform other account functions over the internet and through automated teller machines. The following table presents the composition of our deposit accounts as of December 31, 2013 and 2012: (dollars in thousands) Amount Percentage Amount Percentage December 31, 2013 2012 Personal demand deposit accounts (1) Business demand deposit accounts (1) Rent security Personal NOW Business NOW Personal money market accounts Business money market accounts Personal time deposits Business time deposits Brokered time deposits Total Demand deposit accounts (1) NOW Money market accounts Time deposits Brokered time deposits Total Personal Business Brokered time deposits Total (1) Non-interest bearing. Lending Activities $ 511,911 4,879,572 98,987 38,797 812,100 3,172,224 6,318,277 415,040 405,959 404,230 17,057,097 5,391,483 850,897 9,589,488 820,999 404,230 17,057,097 4,137,972 12,514,895 404,230 17,057,097 $ $ $ $ $ 3.00% 28.61% 0.58% 0.23% 4.76% 18.60% 37.04% 2.43% 2.38% 2.37% 100.00% 31.61% 4.99% 56.22% 4.81% 2.37% 100.00% 24.26% 73.37% 2.37% 100.00% 501,577 3,943,387 90,766 38,478 752,843 2,747,746 5,061,632 473,442 364,276 108,505 14,082,652 4,444,964 791,321 7,900,144 837,718 108,505 14,082,652 3,761,243 10,212,904 108,505 14,082,652 3.56% 28.00% 0.64% 0.27% 5.35% 19.52% 35.94% 3.36% 2.59% 0.77% 100.00% 31.56% 5.62% 56.10% 5.95% 0.77% 100.00% 26.71% 72.52% 0.77% 100.00% Our traditional commercial and industrial lending is generally limited to existing clients with whom we have or expect to have deposit and/or brokerage relationships in order to assist in monitoring and controlling credit risk. We target our lending to privately owned businesses, their owners and senior managers, generally high net worth individuals who meet our credit standards. The credit standards are set by the Credit Committee of our Board of Directors (the “Credit Committee”) with the assistance of our Chief Credit Officer, who is charged with ensuring that credit standards are met by loans in our portfolio. In addition, we have a credit authorization policy under which no single individual is authorized to approve a loan regardless of dollar amount. Smaller loans may be approved by concurring authorized officers. Larger loans require the approval of the Credit Committee. Our largest loan category requires the approval of our Board of Directors. Our credit standards for commercial borrowers reference numerous criteria with respect to the borrower, including historical and projected financial information, the strength of management, acceptable collateral and associated advance rates, and market conditions and trends in the borrower’s industry. In addition, prospective loans are analyzed based on current industry concentrations in our loan portfolio to prevent an unacceptable concentration of loans in any particular industry. We believe our credit standards are similar to the standards generally employed by large nationwide banks in the markets we serve. We seek to differentiate ourselves from our competitors by focusing on and aggressively marketing to our core clients and accommodating, to the extent permitted by our credit standards, 11 their individual needs. We generally limit unsecured lending for consumer loans to private banking clients who we believe demonstrate ample net worth, liquidity and repayment capacity. We make loans that are appropriately collateralized under our credit standards. Approximately 99% of our funded loans are secured by collateral. Unsecured loans are typically made to individuals with substantial net worth. Commercial and Industrial Loans Our commercial and industrial (“C&I”) loan portfolio is comprised of lines of credit for working capital and term loans to finance equipment, company-owned real estate and other business assets, along with commercial overdrafts. Our lines of credit for working capital are generally renewed on an annual basis and our term loans generally have terms of two to five years. Our lines of credit and term loans typically have floating interest rates, and as of December 31, 2013, approximately 37% of our outstanding C&I loans were variable rate loans. C&I loans can be subject to risk factors unique to the business of each client. In order to mitigate these risks and better serve our clients, we seek to gain an understanding of the business of each client and the reliability of their cash flow, so that we can place appropriate value on collateral taken and structure the loan to maintain collateral values at appropriate levels. In analyzing credit risk, we generally focus on the business experience of our borrowers’ management. We prefer to lend to borrowers with an established track record of loan repayment and predictable growth and cash flow. We also rely on the experience of our bankers and their relationships with our clients to aid our understanding of the client and its business. Our lines of credit typically are limited to a percentage of the value of the assets securing the line. Lines of credit are generally reviewed annually and are typically supported by accounts receivable, inventory and equipment. Depending on the risk profile of the borrower, we may require periodic aging of receivables, as well as borrowing base certificates representing current levels of inventory, equipment, and accounts receivable. Our term loans are typically also secured by the assets of our clients’ businesses. Commercial borrowers are required to provide updated personal and corporate financial statements at least annually. At December 31, 2013, funded C&I loans totaled approximately 18% of our total funded loans. Loans extended to borrowers within the services industries include loans to finance working capital and equipment, as well as loans to finance investment and owner-occupied real estate. 12 The following table presents information regarding the distribution of our C&I loans among select industries in which we had the largest concentration of loans outstanding at December 31, 2013. (dollars in thousands) Taxi Medallions Transportation Services Real Estate and Real Estate Management Manufacturing Building and Construction Contractors Wholesale Trade Professional Services Financial Services Health Services Retail Trade Business Services Legal Services Special Trade Contractors Mining Recreational Services Accomodation and Food Services Membership Organizations Educational Services Audio/Video Services Other Industries Total December 31, 2013 Loan Amount $ 596,713 369,194 239,859 208,723 160,122 154,612 113,865 95,059 66,424 47,796 43,136 41,224 40,545 29,384 26,972 24,140 14,363 12,387 11,949 268,549 2,565,016 $ Percentage 23.26% 14.39% 9.35% 8.14% 6.24% 6.03% 4.44% 3.71% 2.59% 1.86% 1.68% 1.61% 1.58% 1.15% 1.05% 0.94% 0.56% 0.48% 0.47% 10.47% 100.00% As of December 31, 2013, the largest component of our C&I portfolio consisted of loans to finance taxi medallions, which are the licenses required to operate taxicabs. We conduct this business in stable, well-regulated markets, such as New York City, where the supply of these medallions is limited. Accordingly, these loans have historically had strong credit performance. “Other Industries” include a diverse range of industries, including service-oriented firms that provide introductions to new client relationships and private households. Real Estate Loans Our real estate loan portfolio includes loans secured by commercial and residential properties. We also provide temporary financing for commercial and residential property. Our permanent real estate loans generally have fixed terms of five years. We generally avoid longer term loans for commercial real estate held for investment. Our permanent real estate loans have both floating and fixed rates. Depending on the financial status of the borrower, we may require periodic appraisals of the property to verify the ongoing adequacy of the collateral. At December 31, 2013, funded real estate loans totaled approximately $10.93 billion, representing approximately 79% of our total funded loans. 13 The following table shows the distribution of our real estate loans as of December 31, 2013 by collateral type: (dollars in thousands) Multi-family residential property Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Total December 31, 2013 Loan Amount 6,637,353 $ 3,651,538 346,795 170,441 125,334 10,931,461 $ Percentage 60.72% 33.40% 3.17% 1.56% 1.15% 100.00% We occasionally make personal residential real estate loans. These loans consist of first and second mortgage loans for residential properties. These loans are typically made to high net worth individuals as part of our private client services. We generally do not retain long-term, fixed rate residential real estate loans in our portfolio due to interest rate and collateral risks and low levels of profitability. We do not consider personal residential real estate loans a core part of our business. Substantially all of the collateral for our real estate loans is located within the New York metropolitan area. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be affected by changes in the economy and the real estate market of the New York metropolitan area. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our allowance for loan and lease losses (“ALLL”). Letters of Credit We issue standby or performance letters of credit, and can service the international needs of our clients through correspondent banks. At December 31, 2013, our commitments under letters of credit totaled approximately $229.7 million. Consumer Loans Our personal loan portfolio consists of personal lines of credit and loans to acquire personal assets. Our personal lines of credit generally have terms of one year and our term loans usually have terms of three to five years. Our lines of credit typically have floating interest rates. If the financial situation of the client is sufficient, we will grant unsecured lines of credit. We also examine the personal liquidity of our individual borrowers, in some cases requiring agreements to maintain a minimum level of liquidity, to insure that the borrower has sufficient liquidity to repay the loan. Due to low levels of profitability, interest rate risks and collateral risks, we do not consider secured personal loans, such as automobile loans, a core part of our business. At December 31, 2013, our consumer loans totaled $11.5 million, representing less than 1% of our total funded loans. Investment and Asset Management Products and Services Investment and asset management products and services are provided through our subsidiary, Signature Securities. Signature Securities is a licensed broker-dealer and is a member of the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”). Signature Securities is an introducing firm and, as such, clears its trades through National Financial Services, Inc., a wholly- owned subsidiary of Fidelity Investments. Signature Securities is also registered as an investment adviser in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Florida. Our investment group directors work with our clients to define objectives, goals and strategies for their investment portfolios, whether our clients are looking for a relationship based provider or are looking for assistance with a particular transaction. We offer a wide array of asset management and investment products, including the ability to purchase and sell all types of individual securities such as equities, options, fixed income securities, mutual funds and annuities. We offer transactional, “cash management” type brokerage accounts with check writing and daily sweep capabilities. We offer our clients an asset management program whereby we work with our clients to tailor their asset allocation according to their risk profile and then invest the client’s assets either directly with a select group of high quality money managers, no load mutual funds or a combination of both. We contract with a third party to perform investment manager due diligence for us on these money managers and mutual funds. We have entered into an 14 agreement and strategic alliance with American Stock Transfer & Trust Company and utilize this firm to provide our corporate and personal clients with trust, custody and estate planning products and services. We offer no proprietary products or services. We do not perform and we do not provide our clients with our own branded investment research. Instead, we have contracted with a number of third-party research providers and are able to provide our clients with traditional Wall Street research from a number of sources. We also offer retirement products such as individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) and administrative services for retirement vehicles such as pension, profit sharing, and 401(k) plans to our clients. These products are not proprietary products. Signature Securities offers wealth management services to our high net worth personal clients. Together with our client and their other professional advisors, including attorneys and certified public accountants, we develop a sophisticated financial plan that can include estate planning, business succession planning, asset protection, investment management, family office advisory services, bill payment, art and collectible advisory services and concentrated stock services. SBA Loans and Pools We are an active participant in the SBA loan and SBA pool secondary market by purchasing, securitizing, and selling the guaranteed portions of SBA Section 7(a) loans. Most SBA Section 7(a) loans have adjustable rates and float at a spread to the prime rate and reset monthly or quarterly. SBA loans consist of a guaranteed portion of the loan and an un-guaranteed balance, which typically represents 25% of the original balance that is retained by the originating lender. The guaranteed portions of SBA loans are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and, therefore, have minimal credit risk and carry a 0% risk weight for capital purposes. At December 31, 2013, we had $420.8 million in SBA loans held for sale, representing approximately 3.0% of our total funded loans, compared to $369.5 million at December 31, 2012. Signature Securities acts as an agent and as a consultant to the Bank on the purchase, sale and assembly of SBA loans and pools. Signature Securities is one of the largest SBA pool assemblers in the United States. The primary business of the group is to be an active market maker in the SBA loan and pool secondary market by purchasing, securitizing and selling the government guaranteed portions of the SBA loans. Signature Bank is approved by the SBA as a pool assembler and is approved by the FDIC to engage in government securities dealer activities. We purchase the guaranteed portion of SBA loans from various SBA lender clients. Once purchased, we typically warehouse the guaranteed loan for approximately 30 to 180 days. From this warehouse, we aggregate like SBA loans by similar characteristics into pools for securitization and sale to the secondary market. In order to meet the SBA’s rate requirement, we may strip excess servicing from loans with different coupons to create a pool at a common rate. This has resulted in the creation of two assets: a par pool and excess servicing strips. Excess servicing represents the portion of the coupon stripped from a loan. At December 31, 2013, the carrying amount of our SBA excess servicing strip assets was $89.4 million. Colson Services Corp. (“Colson”) is the third party government appointed fiscal and transfer agent for the SBA’s Secondary Market Program. As the designated servicer, Colson provides transaction processing, record keeping and loan servicing functions, including document review and custody, payment collection and disbursement, and data collection and exchange for us. Insurance Services We offer our business and private clients a wide array of individual and group insurance products, including health, life, disability and long-term care insurance products through our subsidiary, Signature Securities. We do not underwrite insurance policies. We only act as an agent in offering insurance products and services underwritten by insurers that we believe are the best for our clients in each category. Competition There is significant competition among commercial banking institutions in the New York metropolitan area. We compete with other bank holding companies, national and state-chartered commercial banks, savings and loan associations, consumer finance companies, credit unions, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, 15 mortgage banking companies, money market mutual funds, asset-based non-bank lenders, and other financial institutions. Many of these competitors have substantially greater financial resources, lending limits and larger office networks than we do and are able to offer a broader range of products and services than we can. Because we compete against larger institutions, our failure to compete effectively for deposit, loan, and other clients in our markets could cause us to lose market share, slow our growth rate and may have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The market for banking and brokerage services is extremely competitive and allows consumers to access financial products and compare interest rates and services from numerous financial institutions located across the United States. As a result, clients of all financial institutions, including those within our target market, are sensitive to competitive interest rate levels and services. Our future success in attracting and retaining client deposits depends, in part, on our ability to offer competitive rates and services. Our clients are particularly attracted to the level of personalized service we provide. Our business could be impaired if our clients believe other banks provide better service or if they come to believe that higher rates are more important to them than better service. Finally, over the past several years there has been significant government intervention in the banking industry, including equity investments, liquidity facilities and guarantees. These actions have changed and have the potential to change the competitive landscape significantly. For example, clients may view some of our competitors as “too big to fail” and such competitors may thereby benefit from an implicit U.S. government guarantee beyond those provided to all banks and their clients. In addition, some of these government programs have, or may have, the ability to give rise to new competitors. For instance, the FDIC has introduced a bidding process for institutions that have been or will be placed into receivership by federal or state regulators. This process is open to existing financial institutions, as well as groups without pre-existing operations. The impact of ongoing government intervention is difficult to predict and could adversely affect our competitive standing and profitability. The New York Market Substantially all of our business is located in the New York metropolitan area. We believe the New York metropolitan area economy presents an attractive opportunity to further grow an independent financial services company oriented to the needs of the New York metropolitan area economic marketplace. The New York Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”) is, by far, the largest market in the United States for bank deposits. The MSA of New York, Long Island and Northern New Jersey is – with approximately $1.3 trillion in total deposits, as of June 30, 2013 – more than two and a half times larger than the second largest MSA in the U.S. (Philadelphia, Camden, Wilmington). The New York MSA is also home to the largest number of businesses with fewer than 500 employees in the nation. As of December 31, 2013, we operated 27 private client offices located in the New York metropolitan area. These 27 offices housed a total of 89 private client banking teams. As part of the continuing development of our business strategy, we expect to open additional offices in 2014. We believe these private client offices will allow us to expand our current operations in the New York metropolitan area. Information Technology and System Security We rely on industry leading technology companies to deliver software, support and certain disaster recovery services. Our core banking application software (Demand Deposit, Savings, Commercial Loans, Compliance, General Ledger, Teller, and Internet Banking) is provided by Fidelity Information Services. Our core brokerage systems are provided by and run at our clearing firm, National Financial Services, a subsidiary of Fidelity Financial Services Corp. Our personnel connect to the system via both dedicated and Internet based connections to Fidelity Financial Services in Boston, Massachusetts. Our information technology environment uses Fidelity Information Services’ technology center in Little Rock, Arkansas. This technology center includes dedicated “lights out” computer raised-floor space, as well as designated office space for information technology support personnel. A combination of backup power generation, uninterruptible power systems and 24 hour a day monitoring of the facility perimeters, hardware, operating system software, network connectivity, and building environmental systems minimizes the risk of any serious outage or 16 security breach. For disaster recovery purposes, full redundancy of the Little Rock technology center is provided through a separate facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. Employees As of December 31, 2013, we had 945 full-time equivalent employees, 581 of whom were officers. None of our employees is represented by a collective bargaining agreement. We consider our relations with our employees to be good. Regulation and Supervision The following is a general summary of the material aspects of certain statutes and regulations applicable to Signature Bank and its subsidiaries. These summary descriptions are not complete, and you should refer to the full text of the statutes, regulations, and corresponding guidance for more information. These statutes and regulations are subject to change, and additional statutes, regulations, and corresponding guidance may be adopted. We are unable to predict these future changes or the effects, if any, that these changes could have on the business, revenues, and results of Signature Bank and its subsidiaries. As a state-chartered bank, the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, we and our subsidiaries are subject to a comprehensive system of bank supervision administered by federal and state banking agencies. Because we are chartered under the laws of the State of New York, the New York State Department of Financial Services is our primary regulator. We are also subject to the regulations of the other states in which we do business. The FDIC is our primary federal banking regulator because we are not a member of the Federal Reserve System. These regulators oversee our compliance with applicable federal and New York laws and regulations governing our activities, operations, and business. The primary purpose of the U.S. system of bank supervision is to ensure the safety and soundness of banks in order to protect depositors, the FDIC insurance fund, and the financial system generally. It is not primarily intended to protect the interest of shareholders. Thus, if we were to violate banking law and regulations, including engaging in unsafe or unsound practices, we could be subject to enforcement actions and other sanctions that could be detrimental to shareholders. The federal government has recently implemented and announced programs designed to bolster the capital of U.S. banks. Some of these programs have, and any future programs may, impose additional rules and regulations on us, some of which may affect the way we conduct our business and/or limit our ability to compete effectively. See “Risk Factors – We are subject to significant government regulation.” Safety and Soundness Regulation New York law governs our authority to engage in deposit-taking, lending, investing, and other activities. New York law also imposes restrictions intended to ensure our safety and soundness, including limitations on the amount of money we can lend to a single borrower (generally, 15% of capital; 25% if the loan is secured by certain types of collateral), prohibitions on engaging in activities such as investing in equity securities or non-financial commodities, and prohibitions on making loans secured by our own capital stock. We are subject to comprehensive capital adequacy requirements intended to protect against losses that we may incur. FDIC regulations require that we maintain a minimum ratio of qualifying total capital to total risk-weighted assets (including off-balance sheet items) of 8.0%, at least one-half of which must be in the form of Tier 1 capital, and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.0%. Tier 1 capital is generally defined as the sum of core capital elements less goodwill and certain other deductions. Core capital includes common shareholders’ equity, non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, and minority interests in equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries. Supplementary capital, which qualifies as Tier 2 capital and counts towards total capital subject to certain limits, includes allowances for loan and lease losses, perpetual preferred stock, subordinated debt, and certain hybrid instruments. At December 31, 2013, our total risk-based capital ratio was 15.10%, and our Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 14.07%. We are also required to maintain a minimum leverage capital ratio - the ratio of Tier 1 capital (net of intangibles) to adjusted total assets. Banks that have received the highest rating of five categories used by regulators to rate 17 banks and are not anticipating or experiencing any significant growth must maintain a leverage capital ratio of at least 3.0%. All other institutions must maintain a leverage capital ratio of 4.0%. At December 31, 2013, our leverage capital ratio was 8.54%. On July 9, 2013, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved final rules that substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to Signature Bank. The final rules were adopted following the issuance of proposed rules by the federal banking regulators in June 2012, and implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. “Basel III” refers to two consultative documents released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2009, the rules text released in December 2010, and loss absorbency rules issued in January 2011, which include significant changes to bank capital, leverage and liquidity requirements. The rules include new risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which would be phased in from 2015 to 2019, and would refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The new minimum capital level requirements applicable to Signature Bank under the final rules would be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The final rules also establish a “capital conservation buffer” above the new regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of common equity Tier 1 capital. Common equity Tier 1 capital consists of common stock instruments that meet the eligibility criteria in the final rules, retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income and common equity Tier 1 minority interest. The capital conservation buffer will be phased-in over four years beginning on January 1, 2016, as follows: the maximum buffer will be 0.625% of risk-weighted assets for 2016, 1.25% for 2017, 1.875% for 2018, and 2.5% for 2019 and thereafter, resulting in the following minimum ratios beginning in 2019: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under the final rules, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if their capital levels fall below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions. Basel III provided discretion for regulators to impose an additional buffer, the “countercyclical buffer,” of up to 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to take into account the macro-financial environment and periods of excessive credit growth. However, the final rules permit the countercyclical buffer to be applied only to “advanced approach banks” ( i.e., banks with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures), which currently excludes Signature Bank. The final rules also implement revisions and clarifications consistent with Basel III regarding the various components of Tier 1 capital, including common equity, unrealized gains and losses, as well as certain instruments that will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, some of which will be phased out over time. The final rules also contain revisions to the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including Signature Bank, if their capital levels begin to show signs of weakness. These revisions take effect January 1, 2015. Under the prompt corrective action requirements, which are designed to complement the capital conservation buffer, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following increased capital level requirements in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (increased from 4%). The final rules set forth certain changes for the calculation of risk-weighted assets, which we will be required to utilize beginning January 1, 2015. The standardized approach final rule utilizes an increased number of credit risk exposure categories and risk weights, and also addresses: (i) an alternative standard of creditworthiness consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation; (iii) rules for risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans; (iv) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo- style transactions; and (v) disclosure requirements for top-tier banking organizations with $50 billion or more in total assets that are not subject to the “advance approach rules” that apply to banks with greater than $250 billion in consolidated assets. Based on our current capital composition and levels, we believe that we would be in compliance with the requirements as set forth in the final rules if they were presently in effect. The federal banking agencies in 2013 also proposed a new “liquidity coverage ratio” rule (“LCR Rule”) based upon Basel III requirements that will for the first time regulate bank liquidity in detail. As proposed, however, the LCR 18 Rule will not apply to depository institutions, including Signature Bank, with less than $50 billion in consolidated assets. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that the LCR rule will impact our operations or financial condition. The federal banking agencies have also adopted guidelines establishing safety and soundness standards for all insured depository institutions. The safety and soundness guidelines relate to our internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan underwriting and documentation, compensation, and interest rate exposure. The standards assist the federal banking agencies with early identification and resolution of problems at insured depository institutions. If we were to fail to meet these standards, the FDIC could require us to submit a compliance plan and take enforcement action if an acceptable compliance plan were not submitted. Federal law generally limits the equity investments of state-chartered banks insured by the FDIC to those that are permissible for national banks. Under regulations dealing with equity investments, an insured state bank generally may not, directly or indirectly, acquire or retain any equity investment of a type, or in an amount, that is not permissible for a national bank. An insured state bank is not prohibited from, among other things: (i) acquiring or retaining a majority interest in a subsidiary that is engaged in permissible activities; (ii) investing as a limited partner in a partnership the sole purpose of which is direct or indirect investment in the acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of a qualified housing project, provided that such limited partnership investments may not exceed 2% of the bank’s total assets; (iii) acquiring up to 10% of the voting stock of a company that solely provides or reinsures liability insurance for directors, trustees or officers, or blanket bond group insurance coverage for insured depository institutions; and (iv) acquiring or retaining the voting shares of a depository institution if certain requirements are met. The direct or indirect activities of a state bank are similarly generally limited to those of a national bank. Exceptions include where approval is received for the activity from the FDIC. In addition, payments of dividends on our common stock may be subject to the prior approval of the New York State Department of Financial Services, and the FDIC. Under New York law, we are prohibited from declaring a dividend so long as there is any impairment of our capital stock. In addition, we would be required to obtain the approval of the New York State Department of Financial Services if the total of all our dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of our net profits for that year combined with retained net profits of the preceding two years, less any required transfer to surplus or a fund for the retirement of any preferred stock. We would also be required to obtain the approval of the FDIC prior to declaring a dividend if after paying the dividend we would be undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized. Prompt Corrective Action and Enforcement Powers We are also subject to FDIC regulations that apply to every FDIC-insured commercial bank and thrift institution, a system of mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions that generally become more severe as the capital levels of an individual institution decline. The regulations establish five capital categories for purposes of determining our treatment under these prompt corrective action provisions. We would be categorized as “well capitalized” under the regulations if (i) we have a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10.0%; (ii) we have a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.0%; (iii) we have a leverage capital ratio of at least 5.0%; and (iv) we are not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the FDIC to meet and maintain a specific capital level. We would be categorized as “adequately capitalized” if (i) we have a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 8.0%; (ii) we have a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 4.0%; and (iii) we have a leverage capital ratio of at least 4.0% (3.0% if we are rated in the highest supervisory category). We would be categorized as “undercapitalized” if (i) we have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%; (ii) we have a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio that is less than 4.0%; or (iii) we have a leverage capital ratio that is less than 4.0% (3.0% if we are rated in the highest supervisory category). We would be categorized as “significantly undercapitalized” if (i) we have a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 6.0%; (ii) we have a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio that is less than 3.0%; or (iii) we have a leverage capital ratio that is less than 3.0%. We would be categorized as “critically undercapitalized” and subject to provisions mandating appointment of a conservator or receiver if we have a ratio of “tangible equity” to total assets that is 2.0% or less. “Tangible equity” generally includes core capital plus cumulative perpetual preferred stock. 19 At December 31, 2013, our total risk-based capital ratio was 15.10%; our Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 14.07%; and our leverage capital ratio was 8.54%. Each of these ratios exceeds the minimum ratio established for a “well capitalized” institution. In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, insured banks may be subject to potential actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their businesses or for violations of any law, rule, regulation or any condition imposed in writing by the agency or any written agreement with the agency. Enforcement actions may include the issuance of cease and desist orders, the imposition of civil money penalties, the issuance of directives to increase capital, formal and informal agreements, or removal and prohibition orders against “institution-affiliated” parties, and termination of insurance of deposits. The New York State Department of Financial Services also has broad powers to enforce compliance with New York laws and regulations. The New York State Department of Financial Services and/or the FDIC examine us periodically for safety and soundness and for compliance with applicable laws. Dodd-Frank Act The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), signed into law on July 21, 2010, makes extensive changes to the laws regulating financial services firms. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires significant rulemaking and mandates multiple studies that have resulted and are likely to continue to result in additional legislative and regulatory actions that will impact the operations of the Bank. Under the Dodd- Frank Act, federal bank regulatory agencies are required to draft and implement enhanced supervision, examination and capital and liquidity standards for depository institutions. The capital provisions of the Dodd- Frank Act include, among other things, changes to capital, leverage limits and limitations on the use of hybrid capital instruments. The Dodd-Frank Act also imposes new restrictions on investments and other activities by depository institutions, particularly with respect to derivatives activities and proprietary trading. The Dodd-Frank Act also gives federal bank regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Reserve and the FDIC, additional latitude to monitor the systemic safety of the financial system and take responsive action, which could include imposing restrictions on the business activities of the Bank. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes the federal regulators to impose various new assessments and fees, which could increase the Bank’s operational costs. The Dodd-Frank Act requires banks with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion to conduct annual stress tests. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires the FDIC, in coordination with federal financial regulatory agencies, to issue regulations establishing methodologies for stress testing that provide for at least three different sets of conditions, including baseline, adverse, and severely adverse. The regulations must also require banks to publish a summary of the results of the stress tests. In October 2012, the FDIC issued a final rule regarding annual stress tests requiring a bank subject to the rule to assess the quarterly impact of stress scenarios on the bank’s capital over a horizon of nine quarters. For institutions, such as Signature Bank, with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion, the final rule delayed the implementation of stress testing until September 2013, with initial results to be submitted by March 31, 2014. The final rule also delayed the initial public disclosure requirement of stress test results until 2015 (disclosing the 2014 stress test results). The Bank has developed a process to comply with the stress testing requirements, which involves Senior Management, Risk Management and Finance, along with third-party consultants who assist in this process. The Risk Committee of the Board of Directors receives quarterly updates as to the progress and challenges in complying with this new regulatory requirement. We believe the stress testing results will affirm the adequacy of the Bank’s capital, even under severe economic conditions. As the related methodologies and best practices for banks of Signature’s size continue to evolve, the stress testing process requires significant investment and we continue to seek ways to maximize shareholder value from the process while complying with regulatory requirements. In addition, in December 2013 federal regulators adopted a final rule implementing the “Volcker Rule” enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Volcker Rule prohibits (subject to certain exceptions) banks and their affiliates from engaging in short-term proprietary trading in securities and derivatives and from investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (including not only such things as hedge funds, commodity pools and private equity funds, but also a range of asset securitization structures that do not meet exemptive criteria in the final rules). The new rules also require banks to develop compliance and control programs, including board of directors oversight, appropriate for the size of the bank and the types and complexity of its activities. The rules are complex and it is not clear how they will be implemented over time. In January 2014, the federal regulators adopted an exemptive rule on an emergency basis to address the unanticipated impact of the new rules on bank ownership of certain trust preferred securities. It is possible that as the requirements of the Volcker Rule as applied to other assets become more clear, there will be additional similar situations in which ownership by 20 depository institutions of pooled, securitized or participated loans and credit products (or other assets) will be determined to be prohibited by the Volcker Rule and, absent exemptive relief, required to be divested and (pending divestment) accounted for as assets “held for sale” that are marked to market. Signature Bank, however, does not currently anticipate that the Volcker Rule will have a material effect on the bank, because it does not have material exposure to the prohibited activities. All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on demand deposit accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result, beginning on July 21, 2011, financial institutions could commence offering interest on demand deposits to compete for clients. As of December 31, 2013, $5.39 billion, or 31.6%, of our total deposits were held in non-interest bearing demand deposit accounts. Our interest expense will increase and our net interest margin will decrease if we have to offer higher rates of interest than we currently offer on demand deposits to attract additional clients or maintain current clients, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Thus far, the change has not had a meaningful effect on our business. The Dodd-Frank Act also established the new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). This agency is responsible for interpreting and enforcing a broad range of consumer protection laws (“Federal Consumer Financial Laws”) that govern the provision of deposit accounts and the making of loans, including the regulation of mortgage lending and servicing. This includes laws such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In 2012, the CFPB proposed an integrated disclosure in connection with mortgage origination that incorporates disclosure requirements under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the Truth-in-Lending Act. The CFPB issued a final rule regarding the integrated disclosure in December 2013, and the disclosure requirement will become effective in August 2015. In accordance with deadlines set by the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB issued final rules in January 2013 related to new mortgage servicing standards, and mortgage lending requirements that establish a “qualified mortgage” which will fulfill the Dodd-Frank Act requirement that mortgages be provided to borrowers with an ability to repay. These mortgage servicing and lending rules became effective in January 2014. These and other CFPB regulations will increase the Bank’s compliance expenses, and limit the terms under which the Bank can provide consumer financial products. Additionally the CFPB will have the authority to take enforcement action against banks and other financial services companies that fail to satisfy the standards imposed by it. As an insured depository institution with total assets of more than $10 billion, the Bank is subject to CFPB supervision and examination of compliance with Federal Consumer Financial Laws. The Dodd-Frank Act also permits states to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and state attorneys general to enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. As a result of these aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bank will be operating in a consumer compliance environment that will be far less certain. Therefore, the Bank is likely to incur additional costs related to consumer protection compliance, including but not limited to potential costs associated with CFPB examinations, regulatory and enforcement actions and consumer-oriented litigation, which is likely to increase as a result of the consumer protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. At this time, it is difficult to predict the full extent to which the Dodd-Frank Act or the resulting regulations will impact the Bank’s business. However, compliance with certain of these new laws and regulations could result in restraints on, and additional costs to, our business. It is also difficult to predict the impact the Dodd-Frank Act will have on our competitors and on the financial services industry as a whole. In addition to the recent legislative and regulatory initiatives described above, competitive and industry factors could also adversely impact our results, the cost of our operations, our financial condition and our liquidity. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 addresses, among other issues, corporate governance, auditing and accounting, executive compensation, and enhanced and timely disclosure of corporate information. As directed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are required to certify that our quarterly and annual reports do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact. The rules adopted by the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act have several requirements, including having these officers certify that: they are responsible for establishing, maintaining and regularly evaluating the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; they have made certain disclosures to our auditors and the audit committee of the Board of Directors about our internal control over financial reporting; and they have included information in our quarterly 21 and annual reports about their evaluation and whether there have been changes in our internal control over financial reporting or in other factors that could materially affect internal control over financial reporting. Other Regulatory Requirements We are subject to certain requirements and reporting obligations under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”). The CRA generally requires federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a financial institution in meeting the credit needs of its local communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA further requires the agencies to take into account our record of meeting community credit needs when evaluating applications for, among other things, new branches or mergers. We are also subject to analogous state CRA requirements in New York and other states in which we may establish branch offices. The performance standards and examination frequency of CRA evaluations differ depending on whether a bank falls into the small or large bank categories. The FDIC’s most recent CRA examination concluded as of August 24, 2009 and the New York State Department of Financial Services’ most recent examination concluded on December 31, 2010. Signature Bank was evaluated under the large bank standards. In measuring our compliance with these CRA obligations, the regulators rely on a performance-based evaluation system that bases our CRA rating on our actual lending service and investment performance. In connection with their assessments of CRA performance, the FDIC and New York State Department of Financial Services assign a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve,” or “substantial noncompliance.” Signature Bank received a “satisfactory” CRA Assessment Rating from both regulatory agencies in its most recent examinations. Federal and state banking laws also require us to take steps to protect consumers. Bank regulatory agencies are increasingly focusing attention on compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations. These laws include disclosures regarding truth in lending, truth in savings, funds availability, privacy protection under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, and prohibitions on discrimination in the provision of banking services. In addition, the CFPB is responsible for interpreting and enforcing a broad range of consumer protection laws governing the provision of deposit accounts and the making of loans, including the regulation of mortgage lending and servicing. For further discussion on consumer protection and the role of the CFPB, see “- Dodd-Frank Act.” We have incurred and may in the future incur additional costs in complying with these requirements. We must also comply with the anti-money laundering provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, and implementing regulations issued by the FDIC and the U.S. Department of the Treasury. As a result, we must obtain and maintain certain records when opening accounts, monitor account activity for suspicious transactions, impose a heightened level of review on private banking accounts opened by non-U.S. persons and, when necessary, make certain reports to law enforcement or regulatory officials that are designed to assist in the detection and prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing activities. To this end, we are also required to maintain an anti-money laundering compliance program that includes policies, procedures, and internal controls; the appointment of an anti-money laundering compliance officer; an internal training program; and internal audits. Under FDIC regulations, we are required to pay premiums to the Deposit Insurance Fund to insure our deposit accounts. The FDIC utilizes a risk-based premium system in which an institution pays premiums for deposit insurance on the institution’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. For large insured depository institutions, generally defined as those with at least $10 billion in total assets, the assessment rate schedules combine regulatory ratings and financial measures into two scorecards, one for most large insured depository institutions and another for highly complex insured depository institutions, to calculate assessment rates. A highly complex institution is generally defined as an insured depository institution with more than $50 billion in total assets that is controlled by a parent company with more than $500 billion in total assets. Under the assessment rate schedules, the total base assessment rates range from two and one-half to forty-five basis points. In addition, all FDIC-insured institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation (“FICO”), an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation. The FICO assessment rates, which are determined quarterly, averaged 0.64 basis points of insured deposits on an annualized basis in fiscal year 2013. These assessments will continue until the FICO bonds mature in 2017. We must maintain reserves on transaction accounts. The maintenance of reserves increases our cost of funds because reserves must generally be maintained in cash balances maintained directly or indirectly with a Federal Reserve Bank. 22 The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, as amended by Section 613 of the Dodd-Frank Act, regulates interstate banking activities by establishing a framework for nationwide interstate banking and branching. As amended, this interstate banking and branching authority generally permits a bank in one state to establish a de novo branch in another host state if state banks chartered in such host state would also be permitted to establish a branch in that state. Under these amendments, Signature Bank is permitted to establish branch offices in other states in addition to our existing New York branch offices. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 eliminated most of the barriers to affiliations among banks, securities firms, insurance companies, and other financial companies previously imposed under federal banking laws if certain criteria are satisfied. Certain subsidiaries of well-capitalized and well-managed banks may be treated as “financial subsidiaries,” which are generally permitted to engage in activities that are financial in nature, including securities underwriting, dealing, and market making; sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies; and activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be closely related to banking. Signature Securities is registered as a broker-dealer with and subject to supervision by the SEC. The SEC is the federal agency primarily responsible for the regulation of broker-dealers. Signature Securities is also subject to regulation by one of the brokerage industry’s self-regulatory organizations, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). As a registered broker-dealer, Signature Securities is subject to the SEC’s uniform net capital rule. The purpose of the net capital rule is to require broker-dealers to have at all times enough liquid assets to satisfy promptly the claims of clients if the broker-dealer goes out of business. If Signature Securities fails to maintain the required net capital, the SEC and FINRA may impose regulatory sanctions including suspension or revocation of its broker-dealer license. A change in the net capital rules, the imposition of new rules, or any unusually large charge against Signature Securities’ net capital could limit its operations. As a subsidiary of Signature Bank, Signature Securities is also subject to regulation and supervision by the New York State Department of Financial Services. Signature Securities currently is permitted to act as a broker and as a dealer in certain bank eligible securities. Signature Securities is also subject to state insurance regulation. In July 2004, Signature Securities received approval from the New York State Banking Department and the New York State Department of Insurance (collectively known as the New York State Department of Financial Services as of October 3, 2011) to act as an agent in the sale of insurance products. Signature Securities’ insurance activities are subject to extensive regulation under the laws of the various states where its clients are located. The applicable laws and regulations vary from state to state, and, in every state of the United States, an insurance broker or agent is required to have a license from that state. These licenses may be denied or revoked by the appropriate governmental agency for various reasons, including the violation of state regulations and conviction for crimes. Transactions with Related Parties Transactions between banks and their related parties or affiliates are limited by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. An affiliate of a bank is any company or entity that controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the bank. In a holding company context, the parent bank holding company and any companies which are controlled by such parent holding company are affiliates of the bank. Generally, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W (i) limit the extent to which the bank or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10.0% of such institution’s capital stock and surplus, and contain an aggregate limit on all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20.0% of such institution’s capital stock and surplus and (ii) require that all such transactions be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the institution or subsidiary as those provided to non-affiliates. The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans, purchase of assets, issuance of a guarantee and other similar transactions. In addition, loans or other extensions of credit by the financial institution to the affiliate are required to be collateralized in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 generally prohibits loans by a company to its executive officers and directors. However, the law contains a specific exception for loans by a depository institution to its executive officers and directors in compliance with federal banking laws, assuming such loans are also permitted under the law of the institution’s chartering state. Under such laws, Signature Bank’s authority to extend credit to executive officers, directors and 10% shareholders (“insiders”), as well as entities under such person’s control, is limited. The law limits both the individual and aggregate amount of loans Signature Bank may make to insiders based, in part, on 23 Signature Bank’s capital position and requires certain Board approval procedures to be followed. Such loans are required to be made on terms substantially the same as those offered to unaffiliated individuals and not involve more than the normal risk of repayment. There is an exception for loans made pursuant to a benefit or compensation program that is widely available to all employees of the institution and does not give preference to insiders over other employees. Loans to executive officers are further limited to specific categories. Change in Control The approval of the New York State Banking Board is required before any person may acquire “control” of a banking institution, which includes Signature Bank and any company controlling Signature Bank. “Control” is defined as the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management and policies of a banking institution through ownership of stock or otherwise and is presumed to exist if, among other things, any company owns, controls, or holds the power to vote 10% or more of the voting stock of a banking institution. As a result, any person or company that seeks to acquire 10% or more of our outstanding common stock must obtain prior regulatory approval. In addition to the New York requirements, the Bank Holding Company Act prohibits a company from, directly or indirectly, acquiring 25% or more (5% if the acquirer is a bank holding company) of any class of our voting stock or obtaining the ability to control in any manner the election of a majority of our directors or otherwise directing the management or policies of our company without prior application to and the approval of the Federal Reserve. Moreover, under the Change in Bank Control Act, any individual who intends to acquire 10% or more of any class of our voting stock or otherwise obtain control over us could be required to provide prior notice to and obtain the non-objection of the FDIC. 24 ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or operating results could be materially adversely affected. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial may also impair our business operations. As a result, we cannot predict every risk factor, nor can we assess the impact of all of the risk factors on our businesses or to the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may impact our financial condition and results of operations. Risks Relating to Our Business Current disruption and volatility in global financial markets might continue and the federal government has and may continue to take measures to intervene. Since late 2007, global financial markets have experienced periods of extraordinary disruption and volatility following adverse changes in the global economy and, in particular, the credit markets. The federal government has taken significant measures in response to these events, such as enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and other regulatory actions applicable to financial institutions. We cannot predict the federal government’s responses to any further dislocation and instability and potential future government responses and changes in law or regulation, may affect our business, results of operations and financial conditions. Economic conditions in Europe remain uncertain, particularly with respect to the sovereign debt of certain countries within the European Union. Although we are not directly exposed to risk associated with European sovereign debt and are not materially exposed to risk associated with European non-sovereign debt, we do hold corporate debt securities issued by U.S. financial institutions that have material exposure to European sovereign and non-sovereign debt. As such, further deterioration of the economic conditions in Europe could have an adverse effect on the issuers of corporate debt that we hold. If such an effect were to negatively impact the ability of such issuers to pay their debts, it could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Difficult market conditions have adversely affected our industry. Volatility in the housing market over the past several years, together with persistent unemployment and under- employment, have negatively impacted the credit performance of mortgage loans and resulted in significant write- downs of asset values by financial institutions. The market for commercial loans (including commercial and industrial loans and loans secured by commercial real estate) and multi-family mortgage loans has also been adversely affected. Fragile conditions could lead to a return of the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us. In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with these events:  Commercial loans (including commercial and industrial loans and loans secured by commercial real estate) and multi-family mortgage loans constitute a substantial portion of our loan activity and loan portfolio. If the difficult market conditions that we have faced over the last several years continue, losses on such loans could increase significantly, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.  Market developments may affect confidence levels and may cause declines in credit usage and adverse changes in payment patterns, causing increases in delinquencies and default rates, which we expect would impact our provision for loan and lease losses.  The process we use to estimate losses inherent in our credit exposure requires difficult, subjective, and complex judgments, including forecasts of economic conditions and how these economic predictions might impair the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans, which may no longer be capable of accurate estimation which may, in turn, impact the reliability of the process. We may be unable to successfully implement our business strategy. We intend to continue to pursue our strategy for growth. In order to execute this strategy successfully, we must, among other things:  assess market conditions for growth;  build our client base;  maintain credit quality; 25  properly manage risks, including operational risks, credit risks and interest rate risks;  attract sufficient core deposits to fund our anticipated loan growth;  identify and attract new banking group directors;  identify and pursue suitable opportunities for opening new banking locations; and  maintain sufficient capital to satisfy regulatory requirements. Failure to manage our growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, future prospects, financial condition or results of operations and could adversely affect our ability to successfully implement our growth strategy. We may be unable to successfully integrate new business lines into our existing operations. During 2012, we established Signature Financial, a specialty finance company focused on equipment finance and leasing, transportation financing and taxi medallion financing. Although we have expended substantial managerial, operating and financial resources to integrate Signature Financial, we may be unable to successfully continue the integration of Signature Financial, and we may be unable to realize the expected revenue contributions. We will be required to employ and maintain qualified personnel, and as Signature Financial expands into new and existing markets, we may be required to install additional operational and control systems. Our failure to successfully manage the integration into our existing operations may adversely affect our future financial condition and results of operations. Our operations are significantly affected by interest rate levels and we are especially vulnerable to changes in interest rates. We incur interest rate risk. Our income and cash flows and the value of our assets depend to a great extent on the difference between the interest rates we earn on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest rates we pay on interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowings. These rates are highly sensitive to many factors which are beyond our control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, in particular, the Federal Reserve. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, significantly influence the interest we earn on our loans and investment securities and the amount of interest we pay on deposits. In addition, such changes can significantly affect our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits and our costs in doing so. If the rate of interest we pay on our deposits and other borrowings increases more than the rate of interest we earn on our loans and other investments, our net interest income and, therefore, our earnings could be materially adversely affected. Our earnings could also be materially adversely affected if the interest rates on our loans and other investments fall more quickly than those on our deposits and other borrowings or if they remain low relative to the rates on our deposits and other borrowings. Furthermore, an increase in interest rates may negatively affect the market value of securities in our investment portfolio. Our fixed-rate securities, generally, are more negatively affected by these increases. A reduction in the market value of our portfolio will increase the unrealized loss position of our available-for-sale investments. Any of these events could materially adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition. We compete with many larger financial institutions which have substantially greater financial and other resources than we have. There is significant competition among commercial banking institutions in the New York metropolitan area. We compete with bank holding companies, national and state-chartered commercial banks, savings and loan associations, consumer finance companies, credit unions, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, mortgage banking companies, money market mutual funds, asset-based non-bank lenders, and other financial institutions. Many of these competitors have substantially greater financial resources, lending limits and larger office networks than we do, and are able to offer a broader range of products and services than we can. Because we compete against larger institutions, our failure to compete effectively for deposit, loan and other clients in our markets could cause us to lose market share or slow our growth rate and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. The market for banking and brokerage services is extremely competitive and allows consumers to access financial products and compare interest rates and services from numerous financial institutions located across the United States. As a result, clients of all financial institutions, including those within our target market, are sensitive to 26 competitive interest rate levels and services. Our future success in attracting and retaining client deposits depends, in part, on our ability to offer competitive rates and services. Competition with respect to the rates we pay on deposits relative to the rates we obtain on our loans and other investments may put pressure on our profitability. Our clients are also particularly attracted to the level of personalized service we can provide. Our business could be impaired if our clients believe other banks provide better service or if they come to believe that higher rates are more important to them than better service. In addition, the financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to improving the ability to serve clients, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. In addition, these technological advancements have made it possible for non-financial institutions to offer products and services that have traditionally been offered by financial institutions. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our clients by using technology, including the use of the Internet, to provide products and services that will satisfy client demands for convenience, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Because many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements than we do, these institutions could pose a significant competitive threat to us. Government intervention in the banking industry has the potential to change the competitive landscape. There has been significant government intervention in the banking industry recently, including equity investments, liquidity facilities and guarantees. Given the recent state of the global economy, it is possible that the government will take further steps to intervene in the banking industry. These actions have changed and have the potential to further change the competitive landscape significantly. For example, clients may view some of our competitors as being “too big to fail” and such competitors may thereby benefit from an implicit U.S. government guarantee beyond that provided to banks generally. Any such intervention could adversely affect our competitive standing and profitability. In addition, certain government programs introduced during the economic crisis may give rise to new competitors. For instance, the FDIC has introduced a bidding process for institutions that have been or will be placed into receivership by federal or state regulators. This process is open to existing financial institutions, as well as groups without pre-existing operations. This program and others like it that exist now or that may be developed in the future could give rise to a significant number of new competitors, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. We are vulnerable to downgrades in credit ratings for securities within our investment portfolio. Although over 97% of our portfolio of investment securities was rated investment grade as of December 31, 2013, we remain exposed to potential investment rating downgrades by credit rating agencies of the issuers and guarantors of securities in our investment portfolio. A significant volume of downgrades would negatively impact the fair value of our securities portfolio, resulting in a potential increase in the unrealized loss in our investment portfolio, which could negatively affect our earnings. Rating downgrades of securities below investment grade level and other events may result in impairment of such securities, requiring recognition of the credit component of the other-than-temporary impairment as a charge to current earnings. We are vulnerable to illiquid market conditions, resulting in potential significant declines in the fair value of our investment portfolio. In cases of illiquid or dislocated marketplaces, there may not be an available market for certain securities in our portfolio. For example, mortgage-related assets have experienced, and are likely to continue to experience, periods of illiquidity, caused by, among other things, an absence of a willing buyer or an established market for these assets, or legal or contractual restrictions on sale. In addition, recent market conditions have created dislocations in the market for bank-collateralized pooled trust preferred securities and limited other securities that we hold. Continued adverse market conditions, including continued bank failures, could result in a significant decline in the fair value of these securities. We have in the past, and depending on the probability of a near-term market recovery, may in the future be required to recognize the credit component of the additional other-than- temporary impairments as a charge to current earnings resulting from the decline in the fair value of these securities. 27 We primarily invest in mortgage-backed obligations and such obligations have been, and are likely to continue to be, impacted by market dislocations, declining home values and prepayment risk, which may lead to volatility in cash flow and market risk and declines in the value of our investment portfolio. Our investment portfolio largely consists of mortgage-backed obligations primarily secured by pools of mortgages on single-family residences. The value of mortgage-backed obligations in our investment portfolio may fluctuate for several reasons, including (i) delinquencies and defaults on the mortgages underlying such obligations, due in part to high unemployment rates, (ii) falling home prices, (iii) lack of a liquid market for such obligations, (iv) uncertainties in respect of government-sponsored enterprises such as the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), which guarantee such obligations, and (v) the expiration of government stimulus initiatives. Home values have declined significantly over the last several years. Although home prices appear to have leveled off, if the value of homes were to further materially decline, the fair value of the mortgage-backed obligations in which we invest may also decline. Any such decline in the fair value of mortgage-backed obligations, or perceived market uncertainty about their fair value, could adversely affect our financial position and results of operations. In addition, when we acquire a mortgage-backed security, we anticipate that the underlying mortgages will prepay at a projected rate, thereby generating an expected yield. Prepayment rates generally increase as interest rates fall and decrease when rates rise, but changes in prepayment rates are difficult to predict. In light of historically low interest rates, many of our mortgage-backed securities have a higher interest rate than prevailing market rates, resulting in a premium purchase price. In accordance with applicable accounting standards, we amortize the premium over the expected life of the mortgage-backed security. If the mortgage loans securing the mortgage-backed security prepay more rapidly than anticipated, we would have to amortize the premium on an accelerated basis, which would thereby adversely affect our profitability. Continued adverse developments in the residential mortgage market may adversely affect the value of our investment portfolio. Over the last several years, the residential mortgage market in the United States has experienced a variety of difficulties resulting from changed economic conditions, including increased unemployment rates, heightened defaults, credit losses and liquidity concerns. These disruptions have adversely affected the performance and fair value of many of the types of financial instruments in which we invest and may continue to do so. Many residential mortgage-backed securities have been downgraded by rating agencies over the past several years, and rating agencies may further downgrade these securities in the future if conditions do not continue to improve. As a result of these difficulties and changed economic conditions, many companies operating in the mortgage sector have failed and others are facing serious operating and financial challenges. While the Federal Reserve has taken certain actions in an effort to ameliorate the current market conditions, its efforts may be ineffective. As a result of these factors, among others, the market for these securities may be adversely affected for a significant period of time. Adverse conditions in the residential mortgage market have also negatively impacted other sectors in which the issuers of securities in which we invest operate, which has adversely affected, and may continue to adversely affect, the fair value of such securities, including private collateralized mortgage obligations and bank- collateralized pooled trust preferred securities, in our investment portfolio. If the U.S. agencies or U.S. government-sponsored enterprises were unable to pay or to guarantee payments on their securities in which we invest, our results of operations would be adversely affected. A large portion of our investment portfolio consists of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and debentures issued by the Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks are U.S. government-sponsored enterprises but their guarantees and debt obligations are not backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The economic crisis, especially as it relates to the residential mortgage market, adversely affected the financial results and stock values of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and resulted in the value of the debt securities issued or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac becoming unstable and relatively illiquid compared to prior periods. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have reported substantial losses in recent years and continue to experience significant difficulties stemming from recent market disruptions, including significant increases in credit-related expenses and credit losses. If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue to suffer significant losses and their stock 28 values continue to decline, investors may perceive these entities as financially unstable, which may decrease the liquidity of debt securities issued or guaranteed by them, further exacerbate declines in the fair value of such securities, threaten such entities’ financial stability, and adversely affect their ability to honor their respective guarantees and debt obligations. Further, any actual or perceived financial challenges at either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac could cause rating agencies to downgrade the corporate credit ratings of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. Moody’s Investor Services (“Moody’s”) Bank Financial Strength Rating (“BFSR”), measures the likelihood that a financial institution will require financial assistance. In 2008, Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s BFSRs were downgraded substantially. While both the Federal Reserve and the federal regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have taken actions to back the safety and soundness of these entities and to improve liquidity in the financial markets, there is still much concern in the marketplace about these entities. In July 2008, the U.S. Congress enacted a law granting the U.S. Treasury Department the authority to extend additional credit to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in order to prevent their failure and creating the Federal Housing Finance Agency to regulate the government-sponsored enterprises. On September 7, 2008, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that the U.S. government would place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into conservatorship, purchase senior preferred equity shares in each entity, establish a new secured lending credit facility available to both entities and purchase mortgage-backed securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On August 8, 2011, Standard and Poor’s downgraded the credit rating of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac citing the downgrade of the federal government’s AAA status, and there is no guarantee that these entities will not suffer further downgrades and negative results in the future. Should the U.S. government contain, reduce or eliminate support for the financial stability of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, the ability for those entities to operate as independent entities is questionable. Any failure by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks to honor their guarantees of mortgage-backed securities, debt or other obligations will have severe ramifications for the capital markets and financial industry. Any failure by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or the Federal Home Loan Banks to pay principal or interest on their mortgage guarantee and debentures when due could also materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. In February 2011, the U.S. Treasury released a proposal to gradually dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and reduce the government’s involvement in the mortgage system. We are unable to predict whether this or another proposal will be adopted, and, if so, what the effect of such proposal may be. There are material risks involved in commercial lending that could adversely affect our business. Commercial loans represented approximately 95% of our total loan portfolio as of December 31, 2013 and primarily consist of loans to our privately-owned business clients. Our credit-rated commercial loans include commercial and industrial loans along with loans to commercial borrowers that are secured by real estate (commercial property, multi-family residential property, 1-4 family residential property, and construction and land). Commercial loans generally involve a higher degree of credit risk than residential mortgage loans due, in part, to their larger average size and less readily-marketable collateral. In addition, unlike residential mortgage loans, commercial loans generally depend on the cash flow of the borrower’s business to service the debt. A significant portion of our commercial loans depend primarily on the liquidation of assets securing the loan for repayment, such as inventory and accounts receivable. These loans carry incrementally higher risk, because their repayment is often dependent solely on the financial performance of the borrower’s business. Adverse economic conditions or other factors adversely affecting our target market segment may have a greater adverse effect on us than on other financial institutions that have a more diversified client base. Our business plan calls for continued efforts to increase our assets invested in commercial loans. For all of these reasons, increases in non-performing commercial loans could result in operating losses, impaired liquidity and the erosion of our capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Credit market tightening could adversely affect our commercial borrowers through declines in their business activities and adversely impact their overall liquidity through the diminished availability of other borrowing sources or otherwise. Our business and substantially all of our real estate collateral is concentrated in the New York metropolitan area and a downturn in the economy of the New York metropolitan area may adversely affect our business. A large portion of our business is located in the New York metropolitan area. In addition, as of December 31, 2013, substantially all of the real estate collateral for the loans in our portfolio was located within the New York metropolitan area. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be affected by changes in the economy and the real estate market of the New York metropolitan area, including policy changes enacted by local 29 governments affecting multi-family borrowers, such as rent freezes on stabilized apartments and escalation of real estate taxes. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic and political conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our ALLL. In addition, our geographic concentration in the New York metropolitan area heightens our exposure to future terrorist attacks or other disasters, which may adversely affect our business and that of our clients and result in a material decrease in our revenues. Future terrorist attacks or other disasters cannot be predicted, and their occurrence can be expected to further negatively affect the U.S. economy generally and specifically the regional market in which we operate. If the value of real estate were to decline materially, a significant portion of our loan portfolio could become under-collateralized, which would have a material adverse effect on us. As of December 31, 2013, approximately 79% of the collateral for the loans in our portfolio consisted of real estate. The market value of real estate, particularly real estate held for investment, can fluctuate significantly in a short period of time as a result of market conditions in the geographic area in which the real estate is located. If the value of the real estate serving as collateral for our loan portfolio were to decline materially, a portion of our loan portfolio could become under-collateralized. If the loans that are collateralized by real estate become troubled during a time when market conditions are declining or have declined, we may not be able to realize the value of the collateral that we anticipated at the time of originating the loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our provision for loan and lease losses and our financial condition and results of operations. As the size of our loan portfolio grows, the risks associated with our loan portfolio may be exacerbated. As we grow our business and hire additional banking teams, the size of our loan portfolio grows, which can exacerbate the risks associated with that portfolio. Although we attempt to minimize our credit risk through certain procedures, including monitoring the concentration of our loans within specific industries, we cannot assure you that these procedures will remain as effective when the size of our loan portfolio increases. This may result in an increase in charge-offs or underperforming loans, which could adversely affect our business. Our failure to effectively manage our credit risk could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. There are risks inherent in making any loan, including repayment risks associated with, among other things, the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, changes in economic and industry conditions, dealings with individual borrowers and uncertainties as to the future value of collateral. Although we attempt to minimize our credit risk by monitoring the concentration of our loans within specific industries and through what we believe to be prudent loan application approval procedures, we cannot assure you that such monitoring and approval procedures will reduce these lending risks. In addition, we are subject to credit risk in our investment portfolio. Our investments include debentures, mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations issued or guaranteed by U.S. government- sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, as well as collateralized mortgage obligations, bank-collateralized pooled trust preferred securities and other debt securities issued by private issuers. The issuers of our trust preferred securities include several depositary institutions that have suffered significant losses since the onset of the economic crisis. We are exposed to credit risks associated with the issuers of the debt securities in which we invest. Further, with respect to the mortgage-backed securities in which we invest, we also are affected by the credit risk associated with the borrowers of the loans underlying these securities. Lack of seasoning of the mortgage loans underlying our investment portfolio may increase the risk of credit defaults in the future. The mortgage loans underlying certain mortgage-backed obligations in which we invest also may not begin to show signs of credit deterioration until they have been outstanding for some period of time. Because the mortgage loans underlying certain of the mortgage-backed obligations in our investment portfolio are relatively new, the level of delinquencies and defaults on such loans may increase in the future, thus adversely affecting the mortgage-backed obligations we hold. 30 Our ALLL may not be sufficient to absorb actual losses. Experience in the banking industry indicates that a portion of our loans will become delinquent, and that some of these loans may be only partially repaid or may never be repaid at all. Despite our underwriting criteria, we experience losses for reasons beyond our control, including general economic conditions. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our ALLL. Although we believe that our ALLL is maintained at a level adequate to absorb any inherent losses in our loan portfolio, these estimates of loan losses are necessarily subjective and their accuracy depends on the outcome of future events, some of which are beyond our control. We may need to make significant and unanticipated increases in our loss allowances in the future, which would materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, bank regulators, as an integral part of their supervisory functions, periodically review our loan portfolio and related ALLL. These regulatory agencies may require us to increase our provision for loan and lease losses or to recognize further loan charge-offs based upon their judgments, which may be different from ours. An increase in the ALLL required by these regulatory agencies could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. We rely on the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York for secondary and contingent liquidity sources. We utilize the Federal Home Loan Bank (or “FHLB”) of New York for secondary and contingent sources of liquidity. Also, from time to time, we utilize this borrowing source to capitalize on market opportunities to fund investment and loan initiatives. Our FHLB borrowings were approximately $2.31 billion at December 31, 2013. Because we rely on the FHLB for liquidity, if we were unable to borrow from the FHLB, we would need to find alternative sources of liquidity, which may be available only at a higher cost and on terms that do not match the structure of our liabilities as well as FHLB borrowings do. As a member of the FHLB, we are required to purchase capital stock of the FHLB as partial collateral and to pledge marketable securities or loans for this borrowing. At December 31, 2013, we held $130.8 million of FHLB stock. We are dependent upon key personnel. Our success depends to a significant extent upon the performance of certain key executive officers and employees, the loss of any of whom could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our key executive officers and employees include our Chairman, Scott Shay, our President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph DePaolo, and our Vice-Chairman, John Tamberlane. Although we have entered into agreements with Messrs. Shay and DePaolo, we have not entered into an agreement with Mr. Tamberlane and we generally do not have employment agreements with our key personnel. We adopted an equity incentive plan and a change of control plan for key personnel in connection with the consummation of our initial public offering. Even though we are party to these agreements and sponsor these plans, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in retaining any of our key executive officers and employees. Our business is built around group directors, who are principally responsible for our client relationships. A principal component of our strategy is to increase market penetration by recruiting and retaining experienced group directors, their groups, loan officers and other management professionals. Competition for experienced personnel within the commercial banking, brokerage and insurance industries is strong and we may not be successful in attracting and retaining the personnel we require. We cannot assure you that our recruiting efforts will be successful or that they will enhance our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, our group directors may leave us at any time for any reason. They are not under contractual restrictions to remain with us and would not be bound by non-competition agreements or non-solicitation agreements if they were to leave us. If even a small number of our key group directors were to leave, our business could be materially adversely affected. We cannot assure you that such losses of group directors or other professionals will not occur. Our SBA division is also dependent upon relationships our SBA professionals have developed with clients from whom we purchase loans and upon relationships with investors in pooled securities. The loss of a key member of our SBA division team may lead to the loss of existing clients. We cannot assure you that we will be able to recruit qualified replacements with a comparable level of expertise and relationship base. 31 We may not be able to acquire suitable client relationship groups or manage our growth. A principal component of our growth strategy is to increase market penetration and product diversification by recruiting group directors and their teams. However, we believe that there are a limited number of potential group directors and teams that will meet our development strategy and other recruiting criteria. As a result, we cannot assure you that we will identify potential group directors and teams that will contribute to our growth. Even if suitable candidates are identified, we cannot assure you that we will be successful in attracting them, as they may opt instead to join our competitors. Even if we are successful in attracting these group directors and teams, we cannot assure you that they will be successful in bringing additional clients and business to us. Furthermore, the addition of new teams involves several risks including risks relating to the quality of the book of business that may be contributed, adverse personnel relations and loss of clients because of a change of institutional identity. In addition, the process of integrating new teams could divert management time and resources from attention to existing clients. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully integrate any new team that we may acquire or that any new team that we acquire will enhance our business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Provisions in our charter documents may delay or prevent our acquisition by a third party. Our restated Certificate of Organization (as amended) and By-laws contain provisions that may make it more difficult for a third party to acquire control of us without the approval of our Board of Directors. For example, our Certificate of Organization authorizes our Board of Directors to determine the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions of unissued series of common stock and preferred stock, without any vote or action by our stockholders. As a result, our Board of Directors can authorize and issue shares of preferred stock with voting or conversion rights that could adversely affect the voting or other rights of holders of our common stock. Additionally, our By-laws contain provisions that separate our Board of Directors into three separate classes with staggered terms of office and provisions that restrict the ability of shareholders to take action without a meeting. These provisions could delay, prevent or deter a merger, acquisition, tender offer, proxy contest or other transaction that might otherwise result in our stockholders receiving a premium over the market price for their common stock. There are substantial regulatory limitations on changes of control. Federal law prohibits a company or a group of persons deemed to be “acting in concert” from, directly or indirectly, acquiring 25% or more (5% if the acquirer is a bank holding company) of any class of our voting stock or obtaining the ability to control in any manner the election of a majority of our directors or otherwise to direct the management or policies of our company without prior application to and the approval of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Moreover, any individual who acquires 10% or more of our voting stock or otherwise obtains control over Signature Bank would be required to notify, and could be required to obtain the non-objection of, the FDIC. Finally, any person acquiring 10% or more of our voting stock would be required to obtain approval of the New York State Department of Financial Services. Accordingly, prospective investors need to be aware of and comply with these requirements, if applicable, in connection with any purchase of shares of our common stock. This may effectively reduce the number of investors who might be interested in investing in our stock and also limits the ability of investors to purchase us or cause a change in control. Curtailment of government guaranteed loan programs could affect our SBA business. Our SBA business relies on the purchasing, pooling and selling of government guaranteed loans, in particular those guaranteed by the SBA. From time to time, the government agencies that guarantee these loans reach their internal limits and cease to guarantee loans for a period of time. In addition, these agencies may change their rules for loans or Congress may adopt legislation that would have the effect of discontinuing or changing the programs. If changes occur, the volumes of loans that qualify for government guarantees could decline. Lower volumes of origination of government guaranteed loans may reduce the profitability of our SBA business. We rely extensively on outsourcing to provide cost-effective operational support. We make extensive use of outsourcing to provide cost-effective operational support with service levels consistent with large bank operations, including key banking, brokerage and insurance systems. For example, under the clearing agreement Signature Securities has entered into with National Financial Services (a Fidelity Investments company), National Financial Services processes all securities transactions for the account of Signature Securities and the accounts of its clients. Services of the clearing firm include billing and credit extension and control, receipt, custody and delivery of securities. Signature Securities is dependent on the ability of its clearing firm to 32 process securities transactions in an orderly fashion. In addition, Fidelity Information Services provides us with all our core banking applications. Our outsourcing agreements can generally be terminated by either party upon notice. The termination of some of our outsourcing agreements, including the agreements with National Financial Services and Fidelity Information Services, could result in a disruption of service that could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. System failures or breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other liabilities. The computer systems and network infrastructure we use could be vulnerable to unforeseen problems. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer equipment against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or other similar catastrophic events. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer systems and network infrastructure against damage from physical break-ins, security breaches, hackers, viruses and other malware and other disruptive problems. Such computer break-ins, whether physical or electronic, and other disruptions could jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability to us and deter potential clients. Although we, with the help of third-party service providers, have and intend to continue to implement security technology and establish operational procedures to prevent such damage, there can be no assurance that these security measures will be successful. In addition, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the algorithms we and our third- party service providers use to protect client transaction data. A failure of such security measures could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Although we carry specific “cyber” insurance coverage, which would apply in the event of various breach scenarios, the amount of coverage may not be adequate in any particular case. In addition, cyber threat scenarios are inherently difficult to predict and can take many forms, some of which may not be covered under our cyber insurance coverage. Furthermore, the occurrence of a cyber threat scenario could cause interruptions in our operations, which could in turn have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Decreases in trading volumes or prices could harm the business and profitability of Signature Securities. Declines in the volume of securities trading and in market liquidity generally result in lower revenues from our brokerage and related activities. The profitability of our Signature Securities business would be adversely affected by a decline in revenues because a significant portion of its costs are fixed. For these reasons, decreases in trading volume or securities prices could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have not historically paid, and do not presently intend to pay, cash dividends. Furthermore, our ability to pay cash dividends is restricted. We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock to date and do not intend to pay cash dividends on our common stock in the near future. We intend to retain earnings to finance operations and the expansion of our business. Therefore, any return on your investment in our common stock must come from an increase in its market price. In addition, payments of dividends will be subject to the prior approval by the FDIC if, after having paid a dividend, we would be undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized, and by the New York State Department of Financial Services under certain conditions. Our ability to pay dividends will also depend upon the amount of cash available to us from our subsidiaries. Restrictions on our subsidiaries’ ability to make dividends or advances to us will tend to limit our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. We may be responsible for environmental claims. There is a risk that hazardous or toxic waste could be found on the properties that secure our loans. In such event, we could be held responsible for the cost of cleaning up or removing such waste, and such cost could significantly exceed the value of the underlying properties and adversely affect our profitability. Additionally, even if we are not held responsible for these cleanup and removal costs, the value of the collateralized property could be significantly lower than originally projected, thus adversely affecting the value of our security interest. Although we have policies and procedures that require us to perform environmental due diligence prior to accepting a 33 property as collateral and an environmental review before initiating any foreclosure action on real property, there can be no assurance that this will be sufficient to protect us from all potential environmental liabilities associated with collateralized properties. We may not be able to raise the additional funding needed for our operations. If we are unable to generate profits and cash flow on a consistent basis, we may need to arrange for additional financing to support our business. Although we have completed a number of successful capital raising transactions, including the July 2011 public offering of 4,715,000 shares of our common stock, we cannot assure you that, if needed or desired, we would be able to obtain additional capital or financing on commercially reasonable terms or at all, especially in light of current capital and credit market conditions. Our failure to obtain sufficient capital or financing could have a material adverse effect on our growth, on our ability to compete effectively and on our financial condition and results of operations. The misconduct of employees or their failure to abide by regulatory requirements are difficult to detect and deter. Employee misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. It is not always possible to deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of clients or improper use of confidential information. Employee errors in recording or executing transactions for clients could cause us to enter into transactions that clients may disavow and refuse to settle. These transactions expose us to risks of loss, which can be material, until we detect the errors in question and unwind or reverse the transactions. As with any unsettled transaction, adverse movements in the prices of the securities involved in these transactions before we unwind or reverse them can increase these risks. All of our securities professionals are required by law to be licensed with our subsidiary, Signature Securities, a licensed securities broker-dealer. Under these requirements, these securities professionals are subject to our supervision in the area of compliance with federal and applicable state securities laws, rules and regulations, as well as the rules and regulations of self-regulatory organizations such as FINRA. The violation of any regulatory requirements by us or our securities professionals could jeopardize Signature Securities’ broker-dealer license or other licenses and could subject us to liability to clients. We are subject to losses resulting from fraudulent or negligent acts on the part of our clients or other third parties. We rely heavily upon information supplied by our clients and by third parties, including the information included in loan applications, property appraisals, title information, and employment and income documentation, in deciding which loans we will originate, as well as the terms of those loans. If any of the information upon which we rely is misrepresented, either fraudulently or inadvertently, and the misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, the value of the loan may be significantly lower than we had expected, or we may fund a loan that we would not have funded or on terms that we would not have extended. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the loan applicant, a mortgage broker, or another third party, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. A loan subject to a material misrepresentation is typically unable to be sold or subject to repurchase if sold prior to the detection of the misrepresentation. The sources of the misrepresentation are often difficult to locate and it is often difficult to recover any of the monetary losses we have suffered. Although we maintain a system of internal controls to mitigate against such occurrences and maintain insurance coverage for such risks that are insurable, we cannot assure you that we have detected or will detect all misrepresented information in our loan originations operations. The failure of our brokerage clients to meet their margin requirements may cause us to incur significant liabilities. The brokerage business of Signature Securities, by its nature, is subject to risks related to potential defaults by our clients in paying for securities they have agreed to purchase and for securities they have agreed to sell and deliver. National Financial Services provides clearing services to our brokerage business, including the confirmation, receipt, execution, settlement, and delivery functions involved in securities transactions, as well as the safekeeping of clients’ securities and assets and certain client record keeping, data processing, and reporting functions. National Financial Services makes margin loans to our clients to purchase securities with funds they 34 borrow from National Financial Services. We must indemnify National Financial Services for, among other things, any loss or expense incurred due to defaults by our clients in failing to repay margin loans or to maintain adequate collateral for those loans. We are subject to risks inherent in extending margin credit, especially during periods of rapidly declining markets. Our business may be adversely impacted by severe weather as well as acts of war or terrorism and other external events. Our primary markets are located near coastal waters, which could generate naturally occurring severe weather that could have a significant impact on our business. In addition, New York City remains a central target for potential acts of war or terrorism against the United States and our operations and the operations of our vendors, suppliers and clients may be subject to disruption from a variety of causes, including work stoppages, financial difficulties, fire, earthquakes, flooding or other natural disasters. Such events could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct our business and could affect the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans, impair the value of the collateral securing our loans, and could cause significant property damage, thus increasing our expenses and/or reducing our revenues. In addition, such events could affect the ability of our depositors to maintain their deposits with us and adverse consequences may also result with regard to the disruption in the operations of our vendors, suppliers and clients, which could have a material effect upon our business. Although we have established disaster recovery policies and procedures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Changes in the federal or state tax laws may negatively impact our financial performance. We are subject to changes in tax law that could increase our effective tax rates. These law changes may be retroactive to previous periods and as a result could negatively affect our current and future financial performance. Changes in accounting standards or interpretation in new or existing standards could materially affect our financial results. From time to time the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) and the SEC change accounting regulations and reporting standards that govern our preparation of financial statements. In addition, the FASB, SEC, bank regulators and the outside independent auditors may revise their previous interpretations regarding existing accounting regulations and the application of these accounting standards. These revisions in their interpretations are out of our control and may have a material impact on our financial statements. We depend upon the accuracy and completeness of information about clients. In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions with clients, we may rely on information provided to us by clients, including financial statements and other financial information. We may also rely on representations of clients as to the accuracy and completeness of that information and, with respect to financial statements, on reports of independent auditors. For example, in deciding whether to extend credit to a business, we may assume that the client’s audited financial statements conform with generally accepted accounting principles and present fairly, in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the customer, and we may also rely on the audit report covering those financial statements. Our financial condition and results of operations could be negatively impacted to the extent we rely on financial statements that do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles or that are materially misleading. Risks Related to Our Industry We are subject to regulatory capital requirements. As a state-chartered bank, we are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by state and federal regulatory agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory—and possible additional discretionary—actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material adverse effect on our financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Our capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. We are required by FDIC regulations to maintain a minimum ratio of qualifying total capital to total risk-weighted assets (including off-balance sheet items) of 8.0%, at least one-half of which must be 35 in the form of Tier 1 capital, and a ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4.0%. We are also required to maintain a minimum leverage capital ratio—the ratio of Tier 1 capital (net of intangibles) to adjusted total assets. Banks that have received the highest rating of five categories used by regulators to rate banks and are not anticipating or experiencing any significant growth must maintain a leverage capital ratio of at least 3.0%. All other institutions must maintain a minimum leverage capital ratio of 4.0%. In addition, new risk-based capital and leverage ratios will be phased in over time. See – Regulation and Supervision – Safety and Soundness Regulation. In addition, we are subject to the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, which imposes a number of mandatory supervisory measures. Among other matters, this Act established five capital categories ranging from “well capitalized” to “critically under capitalized.” Such classifications are used by regulatory agencies to determine a bank’s deposit insurance premium and the approval of applications authorizing institutions to increase their asset size or otherwise expand their business activities or acquire other institutions. To be categorized as “well capitalized” under the Act and, thus, subject to the fewest restrictions, a bank must have a leverage capital ratio of at least 5.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of at least 6.0%, and a total risk- based capital ratio of at least 10.0%, and must not be subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action directive issued by the FDIC to meet and maintain a specific capital level. These capital requirements may limit asset growth opportunities and restrict our ability to increase earnings. Our failure to comply with our minimum capital requirements would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. We will become subject to more stringent capital requirements, which may adversely impact our return on equity, require us to raise additional capital, or constrain us from paying dividends or repurchasing shares. In July 2013, the FDIC approved a new rule that will substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to Signature Bank. The final rule implements the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The final rule includes new minimum risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which will be effective for Signature Bank on January 1, 2015, and refines the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating these ratios. The new minimum capital requirements will be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4%. The final rule also establishes a “capital conservation buffer” of 2.5%, and will result in the following minimum ratios; (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 to risk-based assets capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. The new capital conservation buffer requirement would be phased in beginning in January 2016 at 0.625% of risk-weighted assets and would increase each year until fully implemented in January 2019. An institution will be subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if its capital level falls below the buffer amount. These limitations will establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that can be utilized for such actions. The application of more stringent capital requirements for Signature Bank could, among other things, result in lower returns on equity, require the raising of additional capital, and result in regulatory actions such as the inability to pay dividends or repurchase shares if we were to be unable to comply with such requirements. The impact of these requirements could also change the competitive landscape in which we seek deposits, lending opportunities, clients, banking professionals and otherwise conduct our business. FDIC insurance premiums fluctuate materially, which could negatively affect our profitability. The FDIC insures deposits at FDIC insured financial institutions, including Signature Bank. The FDIC charges the insured financial institutions premiums to maintain the Deposit Insurance Fund at a certain level. During 2008 and 2009, there were higher levels of bank failures, which dramatically increased resolution costs of the FDIC and depleted the deposit insurance fund. The FDIC collected a special assessment in 2009 to replenish the Deposit Insurance Fund and also required a prepayment of an estimated amount of future deposit insurance premiums. In accordance with the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC adopted new rules that redefined how deposit insurance assessments are calculated. The new rate schedule and other revisions to the assessment rules became effective April 1, 2011, and had the effect of reducing the assessment that we would otherwise pay. As the new 36 assessment rules currently stand, we expect the rules will have a continued positive impact on our future FDIC deposit insurance assessment fees compared to the assessment rules in effect prior to the changes. However, the FDIC’s rules could be subject to future changes, especially if there are additional bank or financial institution failures or the government or FDIC develop new regulatory goals with respect to the banking sector. Any increase in assessment fees could have a materially adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. We are subject to significant government regulation. We operate in a highly regulated environment and are subject to supervision and regulation by a number of governmental regulatory agencies, including, among others, the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the Federal Reserve, the New York State Insurance Department, the CFPB, and FINRA. As we expand our operations, we will become subject to regulation by additional states. Regulations adopted by these agencies, which are generally intended to provide protection for depositors and clients rather than shareholders, govern a comprehensive range of matters relating to ownership and control of our shares, our acquisition of other companies and businesses, the activities in which we are permitted to engage, maintenance of adequate capital levels, and other aspects of our operations. These regulatory agencies possess broad authority to prevent or remedy unsafe or unsound practices or violations of law. For example, bank regulators view certain types of clients as “high risk” clients under the Bank Secrecy Act, and other laws and regulations, and require enhanced due diligence and enhanced monitoring with respect to such clients. While we believe that we adequately perform such enhanced due diligence and monitoring with respect to our clients that fall within this category, if the regulators believe that our efforts are not adequate or that we have failed to identify suspicious transactions in such accounts, they could bring an enforcement action against us, which could result in bad publicity, fines and other penalties, and could have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, laws and regulations enacted over the last several years have had, and are expected to continue to have, a significant impact on the financial services industry. Some of these laws and regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have increased and may in the future further increase our costs of doing business, particularly personnel and technology expenses necessary to maintain compliance with the expanded regulatory requirements. Future legislation and government policy could adversely affect the banking industry as a whole, including our results of operations. The securities markets and the brokerage industry in which Signature Securities operates are also highly regulated. Signature Securities is subject to regulation as a securities broker and investment adviser, and many of the regulations applicable to Signature Securities may have the effect of limiting its activities, including activities that might be profitable. Signature Securities is registered with and subject to supervision by the SEC and FINRA and is also subject to state insurance regulation. As a subsidiary of Signature Bank, Signature Securities is also subject to regulation and supervision by the New York State Department of Financial Services. The securities industry has been subject to several fundamental regulatory changes, including changes in the rules of self- regulatory organizations such as the NYSE and FINRA. In the future, the industry may become subject to new regulations or changes in the interpretation or enforcement of existing regulations. We cannot predict the extent to which any future regulatory changes may adversely affect our business. In addition, we are subject to periodic examination by the FDIC, the New York State Department of Financial Services, the SEC, the CFPB, self-regulatory organizations, and various state authorities. Our banking operations, sales practice operations, trading operations, record-keeping, supervisory procedures, and financial position may be reviewed during such examinations to determine if they comply with the rules and regulations designed to protect clients and protect the solvency of banks and broker-dealers. Examinations may result in the issuance of a letter to us noting perceived deficiencies and requesting us to take corrective action. Deficiencies could lead to further investigation and the possible institution of administrative proceedings, which may result in the issuance of an order imposing sanctions upon us and/or our personnel, including our investment professionals. Sanctions against us may include a censure, cease and desist order, monetary penalties, or an order suspending us for a period of time from conducting certain or all of our operations. Sanctions against individuals may include a censure, cease and desist order, monetary penalties, or an order restricting the individual’s activities or suspending the individual from association with us. In egregious cases, either we, our personnel, or both, could be expelled from a self-regulatory organization or barred from the banking industry or the securities industry. The Dodd-Frank Act may affect our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. The Dodd-Frank Act, signed into law on July 21, 2010, makes extensive changes to the laws regulating financial services firms. The Dodd-Frank Act also requires significant rulemaking and mandates multiple studies which could result in additional legislative or regulatory action. 37 Under the Dodd-Frank Act, federal banking regulatory agencies are required to draft and implement enhanced supervision, examination and capital standards for depository institutions and their holding companies. The enhanced requirements include, among other things, changes to capital, leverage and liquidity standards and numerous other requirements. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act (i) requires the establishment of minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements for insured depository institutions such as us, (ii) places restrictions on investment and other activities by depository institutions, including significant increases in the regulation of mortgage lending and servicing and prohibitions on proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies, (iii) provides for a new risk-based approach to financial services regulation giving federal bank regulatory agencies new authority to monitor the systemic safety of the financial system and (iv) authorizes various new assessments and fees. The Dodd-Frank Act also establishes the CFPB with broad authority and permits states to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and enforce consumer protection rules issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In December 2013, federal regulators adopted a final rule implementing the Volcker Rule enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Volcker Rule prohibits (subject to certain exceptions) banks and their affiliates from engaging in short-term proprietary trading in securities and derivatives and from investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (including not only such things as hedge funds, commodity pools and private equity funds, but also a range of asset securitization structures that do not meet exemptive criteria in the final rules). We hold certain securities in our available-for-sale investment portfolio that do not meet these exemptive criteria and, therefore, must be divested on or before July 21, 2015. These securities, which are predominantly collateralized mortgage obligations, had a fair value totaling $254.7 million and an amortized cost of $250.1 million as of December 31, 2013. Although these securities had an unrealized gain as of December 31, 2013, future market illiquidity or other adverse market conditions could negatively impact the fair value of these securities. Accordingly, it is possible that we will be required to recognize additional other-than-temporary impairments as a charge to current earnings if the fair value of these securities declines in the future. It remains difficult to predict the full extent to which the Dodd-Frank Act or the resulting regulations will impact our business. However, compliance with these new laws and regulations will likely result in additional costs to our business. It is also difficult to predict the impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our competitors and on the financial services industry as a whole. Competitive and industry factors could also adversely impact our results of operations, financial condition or liquidity. New regulations could restrict our ability to originate and sell mortgage loans. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has issued a rule designed to clarify for lenders how they can avoid monetary damages under the Dodd-Frank Act, which would hold lenders accountable for ensuring a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage. Loans that meet this “qualified mortgage” definition will be presumed to have complied with the new ability-to-repay standard. Under the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule, a “qualified mortgage” loan must not contain certain specified features, including:  excessive upfront points and fees (those exceeding 3% of the total loan amount, less “bona fide discount points” for prime loans);  interest-only payments;  negative-amortization; and  Terms longer than 30 years. Also, to qualify as a “qualified mortgage,” a borrower’s total monthly debt-to-income ratio may not exceed 43%. Lenders must also verify and document the income and financial resources relied upon to qualify the borrower for the loan and underwrite the loan based on a fully amortizing payment schedule and maximum interest rate during the first five years, taking into account all applicable taxes, insurance and assessments. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule on qualified mortgages could limit our ability or desire to make certain types of loans or loans to certain borrowers, or could make it more expensive and time consuming to make these loans, which could limit our growth or profitability. The financial services industry may be subject to new legislation. The regulatory environment in which we operate is constantly undergoing change. Legislation is pending before Congress that would further increase regulation of the financial services industry and impose restrictions on the ability of firms within the industry to conduct business consistent with historical practices, including aspects such 38 as compensation, consumer protection regulations and mortgage regulation, among others. Federal and state regulatory agencies also propose and adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. We cannot predict the substance or impact of pending or future legislation or regulation, or the application thereof, and any such future regulation can adversely affect our business. Regulatory net capital requirements significantly affect and often constrain our brokerage business. The SEC, FINRA, and various other regulatory bodies in the United States have rules with respect to net capital requirements for broker-dealers that affect Signature Securities. These rules require that at least a substantial portion of a broker-dealer’s assets be kept in cash or highly liquid investments. Signature Securities must comply with these net capital requirements, which limit operations that require intensive use of capital, such as trading activities. These rules could also restrict our ability to withdraw capital from our broker-dealer subsidiary, even in circumstances where this subsidiary has more than the minimum amount of required capital. This, in turn, could limit our ability to pay dividends, implement our business strategies and pay interest on and repay the principal of our debt. A change in these rules, or the imposition of new rules, affecting the scope, coverage, calculation, or amount of net capital requirements could have material adverse effects. Significant operating losses or any unusually large charge against net capital could also have a material negative impact on our business. The repeal of federal prohibitions on the payment of interest on demand deposits could increase our interest expense. All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on demand deposit accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd−Frank Act beginning on July 21, 2011. As a result, some financial institutions have commenced offering interest on demand deposits to compete for clients. Currently, market interest rates are at near-historic lows. We do not yet know what interest rates other institutions may offer as market interest rates increase. Our interest expense will increase and our net interest margin will decrease if we begin offering interest on demand deposits to attract new customers or maintain current customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, particularly as interest rates return to higher levels. ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS None. 39 ITEM 2. PROPERTIES Our principal executive offices are located at 565 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, 10017, in space leased by the Bank. In addition, we conduct our business at the following locations in facilities that are leased for various terms and rates. Many of the lease contracts include modest annual escalation agreements. Location Private Client Offices Manhattan Long Island Queens Brooklyn Westchester Bronx Staten Island Private Client Accomodation Offices Manhattan Brooklyn Bank and Brokerage Operations and Support Manhattan Long Island SBA & Institutional Trading Houston, TX Signature Financial Sales Littleton, CO Milton, GA Norwell, MA Prairie, MN Redmond, WA Total Locations Number of Offices 9 7 3 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 38 For additional information on our lease commitments, see Note 19 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS We are subject to various pending and threatened legal actions relating to the conduct of our normal business activities. In the opinion of management, the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, arising out of any such pending or threatened legal actions will not be material to our Consolidated Financial Statements. ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES None. 40 PART II ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES Our common stock is listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market under the symbol “SBNY.” As of December 31, 2013, 47,293,162 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding. The following table lists, on a quarterly basis, the range of high and low intra-day sale prices per share of our common stock in U.S. dollars: 2013 Fourth quarter Third quarter Second quarter First quarter 2012 Fourth quarter Third quarter Second quarter First quarter Common Stock High Low $ 110.40 95.29 84.47 79.25 $ 72.80 69.28 66.90 65.98 90.71 83.42 70.58 71.81 65.57 57.79 57.40 56.76 On December 31, 2013, the last reported sale price of our common stock was $107.42 and there were 16 holders of record of our common stock, including record holders on behalf of an indeterminate number of beneficial holders. Performance Graph The following graph compares the performance of our common stock with the performance of the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index and the Nasdaq Bank Stocks Index: 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 December 31, 2008 December 31, 2009 December 31, 2010 December 31, 2011 December 31, 2012 December 31, 2013 Signature Bank Standard & Poor's 500 Index Nasdaq Bank Stocks Index 41 The performance period reflected below assumes that $100 was invested in our common stock and each of the indexes listed below on December 31, 2008. The performance of our common stock reflected below is not indicative of our future performance. Company Name/Index Signature Bank Standard & Poor's 500 Index Nasdaq Bank Stocks Index 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 $ 100.00 100.00 100.00 111.19 123.45 83.79 174.49 139.23 99.12 209.10 139.23 88.58 248.66 157.90 105.45 374.42 204.63 150.95 December 31, The Performance Graph does not constitute soliciting material and should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any Signature Bank filing under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent we specifically incorporate the Performance Graph therein by reference. DIVIDEND POLICY We have never declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock. For the near future, we intend to retain any earnings to finance our operations and the expansion of our business and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will be dependent upon then existing conditions, including our financial condition and results of operations, capital requirements, contractual restrictions, business prospects and other factors that the Board of Directors considers relevant. In addition, payments of dividends may be subject to the prior approval of the New York State Department of Financial Services and the FDIC. Under New York law, we are prohibited from declaring a dividend so long as there is any impairment of our capital stock. In addition, we would be required to obtain the approval of the New York State Department of Financial Services if the total of all our dividends declared in any calendar year would exceed the total of our net profits for that year combined with retained net profits of the preceding two years, less any required transfer to surplus or a fund for the retirement of any preferred stock. We would also be required to obtain the approval of the FDIC prior to declaring a dividend if after paying the dividend we would be undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized. Our ability to pay dividends also depends upon the amount of cash available to us from our subsidiaries. Restrictions on our subsidiaries’ ability to make dividends and advances to us will tend to limit our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders. 42 ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA The information set forth below should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” each of which is included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) SELECTED OPERATING DATA Interest income Interest expense Net interest income before provision for loan and lease losses Provision for loan and lease losses Net interest income after provision for loan and lease losses Non-interest income: Non-interest income excluding net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings (1) Total non-interest income Non-interest expense Income before income taxes Income tax expense Net income Dividends on preferred stock and related discount accretion PER COMMON SHARE DATA Earnings per share - basic (2) Earnings per share - diluted (2) BALANCE SHEET DATA Total assets Securities available-for-sale Securities held-to-maturity Loans held for sale 2013 At or for the years ended December 31, 2010 2011 2012 $ 755,150 106,807 648,343 41,643 606,700 38,160 (6,149) 32,011 247,177 391,534 162,790 228,744 660,556 110,750 549,806 41,427 508,379 39,312 (3,073) 36,239 218,243 326,375 140,892 185,483 580,516 120,729 459,787 51,876 407,911 44,127 (2,089) 42,038 182,724 267,225 117,699 149,526 466,530 121,672 344,858 46,372 56,824 (14,176) 42,648 164,896 176,238 74,187 102,051 298,486 219,680 2009 386,135 123,740 262,395 42,715 35,954 (1,322) 34,632 149,885 104,427 41,701 62,726 12,203 50,523 1.32 1.30 $ 4.84 $ 4.76 3.98 3.91 3.43 3.37 2.49 2.46 $ 22,376,663 17,456,057 14,666,120 11,673,089 9,146,112 5,632,233 6,130,356 6,512,855 5,249,286 3,837,583 2,175,844 420,759 739,835 369,468 556,044 392,025 447,896 382,463 295,984 293,207 Net income available to common shareholders $ 228,744 185,483 149,526 102,051 - - - - Loans, net of allowance for loan and lease losses 13,384,400 9,664,337 6,764,564 5,177,268 4,320,978 Allowance for loan and lease losses 135,071 107,433 86,162 67,396 55,120 Deposits Borrowings Shareholders' equity 17,057,097 14,082,652 11,754,138 9,441,227 7,222,546 3,370,313 1,585,000 1,425,800 1,222,200 1,008,900 1,799,939 1,650,327 1,408,116 944,547 803,659 (1) (2) On April 1, 2009, we adopted new accounting requirements related to other-than-temporary impairment of debt securities. As a result of this change in accounting, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 other-than-temporary impairment losses of $3.1 million, $8.5 million, $10.2 million, $24.4 million, and $22.4 million ($1.8 million, $4.9 million, $5.7 million, $13.7 million, and $12.5 million net of tax), respectively, were recognized in other comprehensive income rather than in net income. Refer to Note 4 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion. The year ended December 31, 2009 includes the negative effect of the $10.2 million deemed dividend associated with the difference between the redemption payment and the carrying value of the preferred stock repurchased from the United States Department of the Treasury. (Continued on the next page) 43 (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) 2013 At or for the years ended December 31, 2010 2011 2012 2009 OTHER DATA Assets under management Average interest-earning assets Full-time employee equivalents Private client offices SELECTED FINANCIAL RATIOS Performance Ratios: Return on average assets Return on average shareholders' equity Return on average common shareholders' equity Yield on average interest-earning assets Average rate on deposits and borrowings Net interest margin Efficiency ratio (1) Efficiency ratio excluding net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings (1) (2) (3) Efficiency ratio excluding net gains on sales of securities and net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings (1) (2) (3) Asset Quality Ratios: Net charge-offs to average loans ALLL to total loans ALLL to non-accrual loans Non-accrual loans to total loans Non-performing assets to total assets Capital and Liquidity Ratios: Tier 1 Leverage Capital Ratio Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio Average equity to average assets Average tangible equity to average assets (3) Per common share data: Number of weighted average common shares outstanding Book value per common share $ 2,240,723 $ 1,741,054 $ 1,674,206 $ 1,856,653 $ 1,911,811 $ 19,324,652 $ 15,556,626 $ 12,889,784 $ 10,000,270 $ 7,692,249 945 27 844 26 720 25 660 24 614 23 1.16% 13.26% 13.26% 3.91% 0.60% 3.36% 1.17% 12.13% 12.13% 4.25% 0.78% 3.53% 1.14% 12.71% 12.71% 4.50% 1.01% 3.57% 0.99% 11.67% 11.67% 4.67% 1.30% 3.45% 0.79% 8.35% 7.26% 5.02% 1.71% 3.41% 36.33% 37.24% 36.41% 42.55% 50.46% 36.01% 37.05% 36.26% 41.05% 50.24% 36.33% 37.48% 37.33% 43.82% 51.74% 0.12% 1.00% 0.25% 1.10% 0.55% 1.26% 0.73% 1.29% 0.64% 1.26% 430.96% 395.12% 204.09% 197.45% 118.27% 0.23% 0.16% 8.54% 14.07% 15.10% 8.76% 8.76% 0.28% 0.19% 9.51% 15.32% 16.35% 9.64% 9.64% 0.62% 0.33% 9.67% 17.08% 18.17% 8.94% 8.94% 0.65% 0.34% 8.62% 14.21% 15.21% 8.47% 8.47% 1.07% 0.61% 9.39% 13.57% 14.47% 9.40% 9.40% 47,267 46,633 43,622 40,923 38,306 $ 38.06 $ 34.94 $ 30.49 $ 22.84 $ 19.79 (1) (2) The efficiency ratio is calculated by dividing non-interest expense by the sum of net interest income before provision for loan and lease losses and non-interest income. On April 1, 2009, we adopted new accounting requirements related to other-than-temporary impairment of debt securities. As a result of this change in accounting, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 other-than-temporary impairment losses of $3.1 million, $8.5 million, $10.2 million, $24.4 million, and $22.4 million ($1.8 million, $4.9 million, $5.7 million, $13.7 million, and $12.5 million net of tax), respectively, were recognized in other comprehensive income rather than in net income. Refer to Note 4 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for further discussion. (3) These ratios are considered to be non-GAAP financial measures and should be considered in addition to, not as a substitute for or superior to, financial measures determined in accordance with GAAP. We believe these non-GAAP ratios, when viewed together with the corresponding ratios calculated in accordance with GAAP, provide meaningful supplemental information regarding our performance. 44 ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS You should read the following discussion in conjunction with “Selected Financial Data” and our Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes, each of which is included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Some of the statements in the following discussion are forward-looking statements. See “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” Overview We have grown to $22.38 billion in assets, $17.06 billion in deposits, $13.52 billion in loans, $1.80 billion in equity capital and $2.24 billion in other assets under management as of December 31, 2013. We believe the growth in our profitability is based on several key factors, including:  the significant growth of our interest-earning asset base each year;  our ability to maintain and grow core deposits, a key funding source, which has resulted in increased net interest income from 2001 onward; and  our ability to control non-interest expense, which has contributed to our low efficiency ratio of 36.3% for the year ended December 31, 2013. An important aspect of our growth strategy is the ability to provide personalized, high quality service and to effectively manage a large number of client relationships throughout the New York metropolitan area. Since the commencement of our operations, we have successfully recruited and retained more than 400 experienced private client banking team professionals. We believe that our existing operations infrastructure will allow us to grow our business over the next few years both geographically within the New York metropolitan area and with respect to the size and number of client relationships without substantial additional capital expenditures. Critical Accounting Policies We follow financial accounting and reporting policies that are in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). Some of these significant accounting policies require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments. The policies noted below, however, are deemed to be our “critical accounting policies” under the definition given to this term by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) - those policies that are most important to the presentation of a company’s financial condition and results of operations, and require management’s most difficult, subjective or complex judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. The judgments used by management in applying the critical accounting policies may be affected by a further and prolonged deterioration in the economic environment, which may result in changes to future financial results. Specifically, subsequent evaluations of the loan portfolio, in light of the factors then prevailing, may result in significant changes in the ALLL in future periods, and the inability to collect on outstanding loans could result in increased loan losses. In addition, the valuation and management’s projected cash flows for certain securities in our investment portfolio could be negatively impacted by deteriorating collateral performance and illiquidity or dislocation in marketplaces resulting in significantly depressed market prices thus leading to further impairments. Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses We consider our policies related to the ALLL as critical to our financial statement presentation. The ALLL is established through a provision for loan and lease losses charged to current earnings. The ALLL is maintained at a level estimated by management to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio and is based on management’s continuing evaluation of the portfolio, the related risk characteristics, and the overall economic conditions affecting the portfolio. This estimation is inherently subjective as it requires measures that are susceptible to significant revision as more information becomes available. 45 Our methodology to determine the ALLL includes segmenting the loan portfolio into various components and applying various loss factors to estimate the amount of probable losses. The largest segment of our loan portfolio is comprised of credit-rated commercial loans, comprising 97.0% of our total loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, as of December 31, 2013. Our credit-rated commercial loans include commercial and industrial loans along with loans to commercial borrowers that are secured by real estate (commercial property, multi-family residential property, 1-4 family residential property, and construction and land). For each loan within this segment, a credit rating is assigned based on a review of specific risk factors including (i) historical and projected financial results of the borrower, (ii) market conditions of the borrower’s industry that may affect the borrower’s future financial performance, (iii) business experience of the borrower’s management, (iv) nature of the underlying collateral, if any, and (v) borrower’s history of payment performance. When assigning a credit rating to a loan, we use an internal nine-level rating system in which a rating of one carries the lowest level of credit risk and is used for borrowers exhibiting the strongest financial condition. Loans rated one through six are deemed to be acceptable quality and are considered “Pass.” Loans that are deemed to be of questionable quality are rated seven (special mention). Loans with adverse classifications (substandard or doubtful) are rated eight or nine, respectively. A loan is considered substandard if it is inadequately protected by the current net worth and paying capacity of the borrower, or by the collateral pledged. Substandard loans are characterized by the distinct possibility that the Bank will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. Loans classified as doubtful have all of the weaknesses inherent in those classified substandard with the added characteristic that the weaknesses present make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions, and values, highly questionable and improbable. The outstanding amounts of credit-rated commercial loans are aggregated by credit rating, and we estimate the allowance for losses for each credit rating using loss factors based on historical loss experience and qualitative adjustments reflecting the current economic conditions and outlook for housing, employment, manufacturing, and consumer spending. The economic adjustments reflect the imprecision that is inherent in the estimates of probable loan losses, and are intended to ensure adequacy of the overall allowance amount. The loss factors assigned to each credit rating are adjusted based on management’s judgment, along with certain qualitative factors such as the trend and severity of problem loans that can cause the estimation of inherent losses to differ from historical experience. Any change to an individual credit rating affects the amount of the related allowance. Our internal review process results in the periodic review of assigned credit ratings to reflect changes in specific risk factors. Commercial lines of credit are generally issued with terms of one year, and upon annual renewal our lenders perform a full review of the specific risk factors to assess the appropriateness of the assigned credit ratings. Furthermore, loans classified as special mention, substandard or doubtful are placed on our internal watch list, and our lenders perform a credit rating review on a quarterly basis (special mention loans) or monthly basis (substandard and doubtful loans). In addition, our Risk Management function performs periodic credit reviews that provide an independent evaluation of the assigned credit ratings. These reviews focus on those loans with higher-risk attributes, such as lines of credit with higher utilization percentages and loan facilities with delinquencies, and generally cover, in aggregate, between 40-50% of the commercial loan portfolio, including all commercial loans over $500,000 with adverse credit ratings, on an annual basis. The results of these credit reviews are presented to both the Risk and the Credit Committees of the Board of Directors. Our methodology to determine the ALLL for the non-rated segments of our loan portfolio is based on historical loss experience and qualitative factors. Non-rated loans include commercial loans with outstanding principal balances below $100,000, overdrafts, residential mortgages, and consumer loans. The outstanding amounts of loans in each of these segments are aggregated, and we apply percentages based on historical losses and qualitative factors by segment to estimate the required allowance. Non-rated loans comprise 3.0% of our total loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, as of December 31, 2013. We consider all non-accrual loans to be impaired loans, and the related specific allowances for losses are determined on an individual (non-homogeneous) basis. Factors contributing to the determination of specific allowances on impaired loans include the creditworthiness of the borrower and, more specifically, changes in the expected future receipt of principal and interest payments or, for collateral-dependent loans, the value of pledged collateral. For impaired loans in excess of $300,000, that are collateral-dependent, we generally record a charge- off when the carrying amount of the loan exceeds the fair value of collateral less estimated selling costs, if appropriate. For non-collateral dependent loans in excess of $300,000, a specific allowance is recorded when the carrying amount of the loan exceeds the discounted estimated cash flows using the loan’s initial effective interest rate. For smaller impaired loans, in the absence of other factors affecting the collectability of the loan, we 46 generally determine the amount of specific allowance using estimated loss percentages based on the amount of time the loan has been delinquent. The methodology used in the periodic review of reserve adequacy, which is performed at least quarterly, is designed to be responsive to changes in portfolio credit quality and inherent credit losses. The changes are reflected in both the pooled formula reserve and in specific reserves as the collectability of larger classified loans is regularly recalculated with new information as it becomes available. As our portfolio matures, historical loss ratios are closely monitored. Currently, the review of reserve adequacy is performed by our senior management, assessed by a credit review function, and presented to our Board of Directors for their review and consideration on a quarterly basis. In addition, bank regulators, as an integral part of their supervisory functions, periodically review our loan portfolio and related ALLL. These regulatory agencies may require us to increase our provision for loan and lease losses or to recognize further loan charge-offs based upon their judgments, which may be different from ours. An increase in the ALLL required by these regulatory agencies could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. For economic reasons and to maximize the recovery of loans, we may work with borrowers experiencing financial difficulties and will consider modifications to a borrower’s existing loan terms and conditions that we would not otherwise consider, commonly referred to as troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”). We record a provision for impairment loss associated with TDRs, if any, based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the original loan’s effective interest rate or, if the loan is collateral dependent, based on the fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell. At the time of restructuring, we determine whether a TDR loan should accrue interest based on the accrual status of the loan immediately prior to modification. A non-accrual TDR loan will be returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured. Additionally, there should be a sustained period of repayment performance (generally a period of six months) by the borrower in accordance with the modified contractual terms. In years after the year of restructuring, the loan is not reported as a TDR loan if it was restructured at a market interest rate and it is performing in accordance with its modified terms. Other TDRs are reported as such for as long as the loan remains outstanding. Valuation and Impairment of Investment Securities We consider our policies related to the valuation of investment securities to be critical to our financial statement presentation. The Bank uses various inputs to determine the fair value of its investment portfolio, which are classified within a three-level fair value hierarchy based on the transparency and reliability of inputs to valuation methodologies. To the extent they are available, we use quoted market prices (Level 1) to determine fair value. If quoted market prices are not available, we use valuation techniques such as matrix pricing to determine fair value (Level 2). In cases where there is little, if any, related market activity, fair value estimates are based upon internally-developed valuation techniques that use inputs such as discount rates, credit spreads, default and delinquency rates, and prepayment speeds (Level 3). A significant degree of judgment is involved in valuing investments using Level 3 inputs, and the use of different assumptions could have a positive or negative effect on our financial condition or results of operations. See Note 3 to our Consolidated Financial Statements for more details on our security valuation techniques. We regularly evaluate our securities to identify declines in fair value that are considered other-than-temporary. Our evaluation of securities for impairments is a quantitative and qualitative process, which is subject to risks and uncertainties. If the amortized cost of an investment exceeds its fair value, we evaluate, among other factors, general market conditions, the duration and extent to which the fair value is less than amortized cost, the probability of a near-term recovery in value, whether we intend to sell the security and whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before full recovery of our investment or maturity. We also consider specific adverse conditions related to the financial health, projected cash flow and business outlook for the investee, including industry and sector performance, operational and financing cash flow factors and rating agency actions. Once a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, for equity securities, an impairment charge is recorded through current earnings based upon the estimated fair value of the security at time of impairment and a new cost basis in the investment is established. For debt investment securities deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired, the investment is written down to fair value with the estimated credit loss charged to current earnings and the noncredit-related impairment loss charged to other comprehensive income. 47 Securities are reviewed at least quarterly to determine if an other-than-temporary impairment is present based on certain quantitative and qualitative factors. For securities other than securitized financial assets, the primary factors considered in evaluating whether a decline in value is other-than-temporary include: (a) the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost or amortized cost and the expected recovery period of the security, (b) the financial condition, credit rating, and future prospects of the issuer, (c) whether the debtor is current on contractually-obligated interest and principal payments, and (d) whether we intend to sell or whether we will be required to sell these instruments before recovery of their cost basis. In performing our other-than-temporary impairment analysis for securitized financial assets with contractual cash flows (asset-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities and mortgage-backed securities), we estimate future cash flows for each security based upon our best estimate of future delinquencies, estimated defaults, loss severity, and prepayments. We review the estimated cash flows to determine whether we expect to receive all originally expected cash flows. Projected credit losses are compared to the current level of credit enhancement to assess whether the security is expected to incur losses in any future period and therefore would be deemed other-than-temporarily impaired. New Accounting Standards In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-03, Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements, which amends the provisions of ASC Topic 860 (Transfers and Servicing) related to whether or not the transferor has maintained effective control over the transferred assets that affects the determination of whether the transaction is accounted for as a sale or a secured borrowing. In the assessment of effective control, ASU 2011-03 removed the criterion that requires transferors to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee. Other criteria applicable to the assessment of effective control have not been changed. This guidance is effective for prospective periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is prohibited. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2011-03 on January 1, 2012 with no material impact to our Consolidated Financial Statements. In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, which expands existing disclosure requirements found in ASC Topic 820 (Fair Value Measurement and Disclosures). This ASU is the result of efforts to converge GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) and provides guidance on how fair value should be measured and disclosed. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is prohibited. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2011-04 on January 1, 2012 and have provided the related disclosures as required. In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income, which amends ASC Topic 220 (Comprehensive Income). The new guidance requires entities to report components of comprehensive income in either (1) a single financial statement, where total net income and its components, total other comprehensive income (OCI) and its components, and total comprehensive income are presented in a continuous format, or (2) in two consecutive financial statements, where net income is reported in one statement, immediately followed by a statement presenting OCI and its components and a total for comprehensive income. The earnings per share computation is not affected by the new guidance. This guidance is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and should be applied retrospectively, with deferral of presenting the reclassification adjustments based on ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05. We adopted these requirements on January 1, 2012 and have provided the related disclosures as required. In January 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-01, Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities, which addresses implementation issues about the scope of ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet: Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (Topic 210). The ASU 2013-01 limits the scope of the new balance sheet offsetting disclosures to derivatives, repurchase agreements, and securities lending transactions to the extent that they are (1) offset in the financial statements or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. An entity is required to apply the ASU for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2013-01 on January 1, 2013 with no impact to our Consolidated Financial Statements. 48 In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02, Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, which amends Accounting Standards Codification Topic 220 (Comprehensive Income). The new amendment requires entities to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. In addition, an entity is required to present, either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income, but only if the amount reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. For other amounts that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under U.S. GAAP that provide additional detail about those amounts. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2012. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2013-02 on January 1, 2013 and have provided the applicable disclosures in Note 17 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. In November 2013, the FASB’s Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) reached a final consensus on Issue 13-B, Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects. The final consensus allows investors in Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) programs that meet specified conditions to present the net tax benefits (net of the amortization of the cost of the investment) within income tax expense. The cost of the investments that meet the specified conditions will be amortized in proportion to (and over the same period as) the total expected tax benefits, including the tax credits and other tax benefits, as they are realized on the tax return. The amortization of the cost of the investments will be presented in income tax expense along with the related tax benefits. If the investors do not qualify for the proportional amortization method or do not elect it, they would account for their investments under the equity or cost method based on current U.S. GAAP. This guidance will be effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. The final consensus will be applied retrospectively if investors elect the proportional amortization method. Early adoption is permitted. 49 Results of Operations The following is a discussion and analysis of our results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to the year ended December 31, 2012 and for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. Year Ended December 31, 2013 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2012 Net Income Net income for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $228.7 million, or $4.76 diluted earnings per share, compared to $185.5 million, or $3.91 diluted earnings per share, for year ended December 31, 2012. The return on average shareholders’ equity for the year ended December 31, 2013 was 13.26% compared to 12.13% for the year ended December 31, 2012. The return on average assets was 1.16% for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 1.17% for the year ended December 31, 2012. (in thousands) Interest income Interest expense Net interest income before provision for loan and lease losses Provision for loan and lease losses Non-interest income: Non-interest income excluding net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Total non-interest income Non-interest expense Income tax expense Net income Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 $ 755,150 106,807 648,343 41,643 38,160 (6,149) 32,011 247,177 162,790 228,744 $ 660,556 110,750 549,806 41,427 39,312 (3,073) 36,239 218,243 140,892 185,483 50 Net Interest Income Net interest income is the difference between interest earned on assets and interest incurred on liabilities. The following table presents an analysis of net interest income by each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012: Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 Average Balance Interest Income/ Expense Average Yield/ Rate Average Balance Interest Income/ Expense Average Yield/ Rate (dollars in thousands) INTEREST-EARNING ASSETS Short-term investments Investment securities Commercial loans, mortgages and leases (1) (2) Residential mortgages and consumer loans (1) (2) Loans held for sale Total interest-earning assets Non-interest-earning assets Total assets INTEREST-BEARING LIABILITIES Interest-bearing deposits NOW and interest-bearing demand Money market Time deposits Non-interest-bearing demand deposits Total deposits Borrowings Total deposits and borrowings Other non-interest-bearing liabilities 446 235,430 500,712 14,224 4,338 755,150 $ 126,995 7,549,126 10,907,825 374,938 365,768 19,324,652 362,127 19,686,779 $ 819,164 8,959,324 1,065,139 4,782,428 15,626,055 2,192,788 17,818,843 3,081 64,095 13,033 - 80,209 26,598 106,807 and shareholders' equity Total liabilities and shareholders' equity 1,867,936 19,686,779 $ OTHER DATA Net interest income / interest rate spread Net interest margin Ratio of average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities 0.35% 3.12% 4.59% 3.79% 1.19% 3.91% 0.38% 0.72% 1.22% - 0.51% 1.21% 0.60% 338 238,873 402,019 15,818 3,508 660,556 3,145 66,696 14,322 - 84,163 26,587 110,750 100,289 7,114,310 7,699,659 384,659 257,709 15,556,626 299,368 15,855,994 705,604 7,874,582 925,267 3,569,645 13,075,098 1,161,784 14,236,882 1,619,112 15,855,994 0.34% 3.36% 5.22% 4.11% 1.36% 4.25% 0.45% 0.85% 1.55% - 0.64% 2.29% 0.78% 648,343 3.31% 3.36% 108.45% 549,806 3.47% 3.53% 109.27% (1) Average loan balances include non-accrual loans along with deferred fees and costs. (2) Loan interest income includes net accretion of deferred fees and costs of approximately $1.6 million and $4.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. 51 Interest income and interest expense are affected both by changes in the volume of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and by changes in yields and interest rates. The table below analyzes the impact of changes in volume (changes in average outstanding balances multiplied by the prior period’s rate) and changes in interest rate (changes in interest rates multiplied by the current period’s average balance). Changes that are caused by a combination of interest rate and volume changes are allocated proportionately to both changes in volume and changes in interest rate. For purposes of calculating the changes in our net interest income, the effect of non-performing assets is included in the change due to rate. (in thousands) INTEREST INCOME Short-term investments Investment securities Commercial loans, mortgages and leases Residential mortgages and consumer loans Loans held for sale Total interest income INTEREST EXPENSE Interest-bearing deposits NOW and interest-bearing demand Money market Time deposits Total interest-bearing deposits Borrowings Total interest expense Net interest income Year ended December 31, 2013 vs. 2012 Change Due to Rate Change Due to Volume Total Change $ 18 (18,043) (68,814) (1,194) (641) (88,674) 90 14,600 167,507 (400) 1,471 183,268 108 (3,443) 98,693 (1,594) 830 94,594 (570) (11,789) (3,454) (15,813) (23,583) (39,396) (49,278) $ 506 9,188 2,165 11,859 23,594 35,453 147,815 (64) (2,601) (1,289) (3,954) 11 (3,943) 98,537 Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2013 was $648.3 million, an increase of $98.5 million, or 17.9%, over the year ended December 31, 2012. The increase in net interest income for 2013 was largely driven by increases in average interest-earning assets and average deposits, which increased $3.77 billion and $2.55 billion, respectively, compared to the previous year. Although net interest income for 2013 was positively impacted by lower rates paid on deposits, the impact of lower deposit rates was more than offset by the negative effects of the ongoing low interest rate environment on asset yields. Net interest margin for the year ended December 31, 2013 decreased to 3.36%, compared to 3.53% for the previous year, primarily due to the continued effect of the prolonged low interest rate environment. Total investment securities averaged $7.55 billion for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $7.11 billion for the year ended December 31, 2012. The overall yield on the securities portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2013 was 3.12%, down 24 basis points from the previous year. The decline in yield was predominantly due to the reinvestment of principal pay-downs from higher-yielding securities in the current low interest rate environment. Our portfolio primarily consists of high quality and highly-rated mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations issued by government agencies, government-sponsored enterprises, and private issuers. We mitigate extension risk through our overall strategy of purchasing relatively stable duration securities that, by their nature, have lower yields. At December 31, 2013, the baseline average duration of our investment securities portfolio was approximately 4.13 years, compared to 2.75 years at December 31, 2012. 52 Total commercial loans, mortgages and leases averaged $10.91 billion for the year ended December 31, 2013, an increase of $3.21 billion or 41.7% over the year ended December 31, 2012. The average yield on this portfolio decreased 63 basis points to 4.59% when compared to the year ended December 31, 2012. The decrease in average yield reflects the impact of the low prevailing interest rate environment on recent loan origination and refinancing activity. The average yield for 2013 reflects the benefit of a $6.5 million increase in prepayment penalty income, compared to the previous year. Our commercial real estate loans (including multi-family loans) normally have a term of ten years, with a fixed rate of interest for the first five years and a rate that either adjusts annually or is fixed for the five years that follow. Loans that prepay in the first five years generate prepayment penalties ranging from one to five percentage points of the then-current loan balance, depending on the remaining term of the loan. If a loan is still outstanding in the sixth year and the borrower selects the fixed rate option, the prepayment penalties typically reset to a range of one to five percentage points over years six through ten. The current low prevailing interest rate environment, coupled with borrowers’ expectations of higher rates in future periods, contributed to the increase in prepayment activity during 2013. It is difficult to predict the level of prepayment activity in future periods as it depends on market conditions, real estate values, the actual or perceived direction of market interest rates and the contractual repricing and maturity dates of commercial real estate loans. We are an active participant in the SBA loan and SBA pool secondary market by purchasing, securitizing, and selling the guaranteed portions of SBA loans, most of which have adjustable rates and float at a spread to the prime rate. Once purchased, we typically warehouse the guaranteed loan for approximately 30 to 180 days and classify them as loans held for sale. From this warehouse, we aggregate like SBA loans by similar characteristics into pools for securitization to the secondary market. The timing of the purchase and sale of such loan pools drives the quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in average balances of loans held for sale, which averaged $365.8 million and $257.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. Average total deposits and borrowings increased $3.58 billion, or 25.2%, to $17.82 billion during the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $14.24 billion for the previous year. Overall cost of funding was 0.60% during 2013, decreasing 18 basis points from 0.78% in 2012. For the year ended December 31, 2013, average non-interest-bearing demand deposits were $4.78 billion, compared to $3.57 billion for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of $1.21 billion, or 34.0%. Non- interest-bearing demand deposits continue to comprise a significant component of our deposit mix, representing 31.6% of all deposits at December 31, 2013. Additionally, average NOW and interest-bearing checking and money market accounts totaled $9.78 billion for the year ended December 31, 2013, an increase of $1.20 billion, or 14.0%, over the year ended December 31, 2012. Core deposits have provided us with a source of stable, low cost funding, which has positively affected our net interest margin and income. Furthermore, short-term escrow deposits have provided us with an additional low cost funding alternative. As a result of lower short-term interest rates, our funding cost for money market accounts and NOW accounts decreased to 0.72% and 0.38%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2013 compared to 0.85% and 0.45%, respectively, for the prior year. Average time deposits, which are relatively short-term in nature, totaled $1.07 billion for the year ended December 31, 2013 and carried an average cost of 1.22% in 2013, down 33 basis points from 1.55% in 2012. Time deposits are offered to supplement our core deposit operations for existing or new client relationships, and are not marketed through retail channels. For the year ended December 31, 2013, average total borrowings were $2.19 billion, compared to $1.16 billion for the previous year, an increase of $1.03 billion, or 88.7%. The increase in our average total borrowings for 2013, when compared to the previous year, reflects funding needs for increased loan growth along with purchases of investment securities as a result of advantageous interest rates. At December 31, 2013, total borrowings represent approximately 16.5% of all funding liabilities, compared to 10.1% at December 31, 2012. The average cost of total borrowings was 1.21% and 2.29% for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. The decrease in the average cost of borrowings reflects the replacement of matured borrowings with lower cost short-term borrowing positions. 53 Provision and Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses Our provision for loan and lease losses was $41.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $41.4 million for the prior year, an increase of 216,000, or 0.5%. The increase in our provision was driven by our 2013 loan growth, which was partially offset by a reduction in charge-off activity. Our ALLL increased $27.6 million to $135.1 million at December 31, 2013 from $107.4 million at December 31, 2012, primarily as a result of our loan growth during the year. The following table allocates the ALLL based on our judgment of inherent losses in each respective lending area according to our methodology for allocating reserves. (dollars in thousands) Mortgage loans: Multi-family residential property Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Other loans: Commercial and industrial Consumer Total 2013 2012 December 31, Loan Amount Allowance Amount Allowance as a % of Loan Amount Loan Amount Allowance Amount Allowance as a % of Loan Amount $ 6,637,353 3,651,538 346,795 170,441 125,334 2,565,016 11,479 13,507,956 $ 47,814 44,415 3,600 1,406 1,323 35,745 768 135,071 0.72% 1.22% 1.04% 0.82% 1.06% 1.39% 6.69% 1.00% 4,380,453 2,919,708 307,158 190,782 99,475 1,860,866 10,291 9,768,733 31,292 38,292 4,794 1,099 1,127 30,176 653 107,433 0.71% 1.31% 1.56% 0.58% 1.13% 1.62% 6.35% 1.26% In determining the ALLL, management considers the imprecision inherent in the process of estimating credit losses. A portion of the allowance is based on management’s review of factors affecting the determination of probable losses inherent in the portfolio that are not necessarily captured by the application of historical loss experience factors, such as the current regional economic environment. Commercial loans (including commercial and industrial loans along with loans to commercial borrowers that are secured by real estate) constitute a significant portion of our loan activity and loan portfolio. As of December 31, 2013, substantially all of the real estate collateral for the loans in our portfolio is located within the New York metropolitan area. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be affected by changes in the economy and the real estate market of the New York metropolitan area. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our ALLL. For additional information about the provision and ALLL, see the related discussions of asset quality later in this report. Non-Interest Income For the year ended December 31, 2013, non-interest income was $32.0 million, a decrease of $4.2 million, or 11.7%, when compared with 2012. The decrease in non-interest income was driven by an increase in net other- than-temporary impairment losses on securities recognized through earnings and reductions in the amounts of net gains on sales of loans, which were partially offset by an increase in commissions and fees and service charges. We recognized through earnings net other-than-temporary impairment losses on securities totaling $6.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $3.1 million for the prior year. The increase in other- than-temporary impairment losses on securities for 2013 reflects $2.1 million of write-downs that were recorded due to the effects of the final Volcker rule. For further discussion of our other-than-temporary impairment losses, see Note 4 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. 54 During the year ended December 31, 2013, net gains on sales of loans totaled $6.3 million, compared to $9.3 million recorded during the prior year. The decrease in net gains on sales of loans was primarily due to reduced client demand driven by the current interest rate environment. Commissions increased $1.2 million, or 14.1%, to $9.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 from $8.2 million for 2012. Additionally, fees and service charges increased $1.8 million, or 11.6%, to $17.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, compared to $15.5 million for 2012. The increases in both commissions and fees and service charges were driven by increased client activity as a result of our growth. Non-Interest Expense Non-interest expense increased $28.9 million, or 13.3%, to $247.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2013 from $218.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. This increase was primarily driven by a $16.9 million increase in salaries and benefits mostly attributable to the addition of ten private client banking teams, the addition of an asset-based lending team, and our continued hiring for Signature Financial. The increase also reflects a $2.4 million increase in occupancy and equipment expenses, resulting from the expansion of existing offices, along with a $9.7 million increase in other general and administrative expenses, reflecting increased expenses mostly resulting from additional client activity as a result of our growth. Stock-Based Compensation We recognize compensation expense in our Consolidated Statement of Income for all stock-based compensation awards over the requisite service period with a corresponding credit to equity, specifically additional paid-in capital. Compensation expense is measured based on grant date fair value and is included in salaries and benefits (non- interest expense). As of December 31, 2013, our total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested restricted shares was $39.9 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.91 years. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we recognized compensation expense of $15.6 million and $17.6 million, respectively, for restricted shares. Included in compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $3.2 million from the December 10, 2012 accelerated vesting of 276,016 restricted shares originally scheduled to vest on March 22, 2013. The total fair value of restricted shares that vested during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $2,600 and $34.1 million, respectively. Income Taxes We recognized income tax expense for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 of $162.8 million and $140.9 million, respectively. The components of our income tax expense are reflected in the following table: (in thousands) Current expense Deferred income tax expense (benefit) Total income tax expense Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 $ $ 155,273 7,517 162,790 149,949 (9,057) 140,892 The increase in current income tax expense for the year ended December 31, 2013, when compared to the previous year, was primarily driven by an increase in our pre-tax income, which was partially offset by the benefits of increased low income housing tax credits recognized during 2013. Our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2013 decreased to 41.6%, compared to 43.2% for the prior year as a result of low income housing tax credits recognized. 55 Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared to Year Ended December 31, 2011 Net Income Net income for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $185.5 million, or $3.91 diluted earnings per share, compared to $149.5 million, or $3.37 diluted earnings per share, for year ended December 31, 2011. The return on average shareholders’ equity for the year ended December 31, 2012 was 12.1% compared to 12.7% for the year ended December 31, 2011. The return on average assets was 1.17% for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 1.14% for the year ended December 31, 2011. (in thousands) Interest income Interest expense Net interest income before provision for loan and lease losses Provision for loan and lease losses Non-interest income: Non-interest income excluding net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Total non-interest income Non-interest expense Income tax expense Net income Years ended December 31, 2012 2011 $ 660,556 110,750 549,806 41,427 39,312 (3,073) 36,239 218,243 140,892 185,483 $ 580,516 120,729 459,787 51,876 44,127 (2,089) 42,038 182,724 117,699 149,526 56 Net Interest Income Net interest income is the difference between interest earned on assets and interest incurred on liabilities. The following table presents an analysis of net interest income by each major category of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011: Years ended December 31, 2012 2011 Average Balance Interest Income/ Expense Average Yield/ Rate Average Balance Interest Income/ Expense Average Yield/ Rate (dollars in thousands) INTEREST-EARNING ASSETS Short-term investments Investment securities Commercial loans, mortgages and leases (1) (2) Residential mortgages and consumer loans (1) (2) Loans held for sale Total interest-earning assets Non-interest-earning assets Total assets INTEREST-BEARING LIABILITIES Interest-bearing deposits NOW and interest-bearing demand Money market Time deposits Non-interest-bearing demand deposits Total deposits Borrowings Total deposits and borrowings Other non-interest-bearing liabilities 338 238,873 402,019 15,818 3,508 660,556 $ 100,289 7,114,310 7,699,659 384,659 257,709 15,556,626 299,368 15,855,994 $ 705,604 7,874,582 925,267 3,569,645 13,075,098 1,161,784 14,236,882 3,145 66,696 14,322 - 84,163 26,587 110,750 and shareholders' equity Total liabilities and shareholders' equity 1,619,112 15,855,994 $ OTHER DATA Net interest income / interest rate spread Net interest margin Ratio of average interest-earning assets to average interest-bearing liabilities 0.34% 3.36% 5.22% 4.11% 1.36% 4.25% 0.45% 0.85% 1.55% - 0.64% 2.29% 0.78% 355 242,994 316,856 16,539 3,772 580,516 3,269 71,557 16,274 - 91,100 29,629 120,729 119,393 6,455,877 5,664,412 388,455 261,647 12,889,784 273,106 13,162,890 632,804 6,611,992 916,992 2,702,236 10,864,024 1,073,430 11,937,454 1,225,436 13,162,890 0.30% 3.76% 5.59% 4.26% 1.44% 4.50% 0.52% 1.08% 1.77% - 0.84% 2.76% 1.01% 549,806 3.47% 3.53% 109.27% 459,787 3.49% 3.57% 107.98% (1) Average loan balances include non-accrual loans along with deferred fees and costs. (2) Loan interest income includes net accretion of deferred fees and costs of approximately $4.2 million and $4.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. 57 Interest income and interest expense are affected both by changes in the volume of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and by changes in yields and interest rates. The table below analyzes the impact of changes in volume (changes in average outstanding balances multiplied by the prior period’s rate) and changes in interest rate (changes in interest rates multiplied by the current period’s average balance). Changes that are caused by a combination of interest rate and volume changes are allocated proportionately to both changes in volume and changes in interest rate. For purposes of calculating the changes in our net interest income, the effect of non-performing assets is included in the change due to rate. (in thousands) INTEREST INCOME Short-term investments Investment securities Commercial loans, mortgages and leases Residential mortgages and consumer loans Loans held for sale Total interest income INTEREST EXPENSE Interest-bearing deposits NOW and interest-bearing demand Money market Time deposits Total interest-bearing deposits Borrowings Total interest expense Net interest income Year ended December 31, 2012 vs. 2011 Change Due to Rate Change Due to Volume Total Change $ 40 (28,904) (28,685) (559) (207) (58,315) (57) 24,783 113,848 (162) (57) 138,355 (17) (4,121) 85,163 (721) (264) 80,040 (500) (18,525) (2,099) (21,124) (5,481) (26,605) (31,710) $ 376 13,664 147 14,187 2,439 16,626 121,729 (124) (4,861) (1,952) (6,937) (3,042) (9,979) 90,019 Net interest income for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $549.8 million, an increase of $90.0 million, or 19.6%, over the year ended December 31, 2011. The increase in net interest income over the twelve month period was largely driven by increases in average earning assets and average deposits of $2.67 billion and $2.21 billion, respectively. Net interest margin for the year ended December 31, 2012 decreased to 3.53%, compared to 3.57% for the previous year, primarily due to the continued effect of the prolonged low interest rate environment. Total investment securities averaged $7.11 billion for the year ended December 31, 2012, compared to $6.46 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011. The overall yield on the securities portfolio for the year ended December 31, 2012 was 3.36%, down 40 basis points from the previous year. The decline in yield was predominantly due to the reinvestment of principal pay-downs from higher-yielding securities in the current low interest rate environment. Our portfolio primarily consists of high quality and highly-rated mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, and collateralized mortgage obligations issued by government agencies, government-sponsored enterprises, and private issuers. We mitigate extension risk through our overall strategy of purchasing relatively stable duration securities that, by their nature, have lower yields. At December 31, 2012, the baseline average duration of our investment securities portfolio was approximately 2.75 years, compared to 3.13 years at December 31, 2011. Total commercial loans, mortgages and leases averaged $7.70 billion for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of $2.04 billion or 35.9% over the year ended December 31, 2011. The average yield on this portfolio decreased 37 basis points to 5.22% when compared to the year ended December 31, 2011. The decrease in average yield reflects the impact of the low prevailing interest rate environment on recent loan originations. This decrease, however, was partially offset by a $10.8 million increase in prepayment penalty income, which added 27 58 basis points to the yield of our commercial loans, mortgages and leases portfolio. Our commercial real estate loans (including multi-family loans) normally have a term of ten years, with a fixed rate of interest in years one through five and a rate that either adjusts annually or is fixed for the five years that follow. Loans that prepay in the first five years generate prepayment penalties ranging from one to five percentage points of the then-current loan balance, depending on the remaining term of the loan. If a loan is still outstanding in the sixth year and the borrower selects the fixed rate option, the prepayment penalties typically reset to a range of one to five percentage points over years six through ten. During 2012, the low prevailing interest rate environment, coupled with borrowers’ expectations of higher rates in future periods, contributed to the increase in prepayment activity. It is difficult to predict the level of prepayment activity in future periods as it depends on market conditions, real estate values, the actual or perceived direction of market interest rates and the contractual repricing and maturity dates of commercial real estate loans. We are an active participant in the SBA loan and SBA pool secondary market by purchasing, securitizing, and selling the guaranteed portions of SBA loans, most of which have adjustable rates and float at a spread to the prime rate. Once purchased, we typically warehouse the guaranteed loan for approximately 30 to 180 days and classify them as loans held for sale. From this warehouse, we aggregate like SBA loans by similar characteristics into pools for securitization to the secondary market. The timing of the purchase and sale of such loan pools drives the quarter-to-quarter fluctuations in average balances of loans held for sale, which averaged $257.7 million and $261.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Average total deposits and borrowings grew $2.30 billion, or 19.3%, to $14.24 billion during the year ended December 31, 2012 from $11.94 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011. Overall cost of funding was 0.78% during 2012, decreasing 23 basis points from 1.01% in 2011. For the year ended December 31, 2012, average non-interest-bearing demand deposits were $3.57 billion as compared to $2.70 billion for the year ended December 31, 2011, an increase of $867.4 million, or 32.1%. Non- interest-bearing demand deposits continue to comprise a significant component of our deposit mix, representing 31.6% of all deposits at December 31, 2012. Additionally, average NOW and interest-bearing checking and money market accounts totaled $8.58 billion for the year ended December 31, 2012, an increase of $1.36 billion, or 18.4%, over the year ended December 31, 2011. Core deposits have provided us with a source of stable, low cost funding, which has positively affected our net interest margin and income. Additionally, short-term escrow deposits have provided us with low cost funding. As a result of lower short-term interest rates as well as a continued decrease due to easing of competitors, our funding cost for money market accounts and NOW accounts decreased to 0.85% and 0.45%, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to 1.08% and 0.52%, respectively, for the prior year. Average time deposits, which are relatively short-term in nature, totaled $925.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 and carried an average cost of 1.55% in 2012, down 23 basis points from 1.77% in 2011. Time deposits are offered to supplement our core deposit operations for existing or new client relationships, and are not marketed through retail channels. For the year ended December 31, 2012, average total borrowings were $1.16 billion compared to $1.07 billion for the previous year, an increase of $88.4 million, or 8.2%. The average cost of total borrowings was 2.29% and 2.76% for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. At December 31, 2012, total borrowings represent approximately 10.1% of all funding compared to 10.8% at December 31, 2011. The decrease in the average cost of borrowings reflects the replacement of matured borrowings with lower cost short-term borrowing positions. Provision and Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses Our ALLL increased $21.2 million to $107.4 million at December 31, 2012 from $86.2 million at December 31, 2011, primarily as a result of our loan growth during 2012. The provision for loan and lease losses was $41.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 compared to $51.9 million for the prior year, a decrease of $10.4 million, or 20.1%. The decrease in the provision was primarily driven by a reduction in the level of charge-offs and stabilized levels of non-accrual loans, partially offset by growth in the loan portfolio. 59 The following table allocates the ALLL based on our judgment of inherent losses in each respective lending area according to our methodology for allocating reserves. (dollars in thousands) Mortgage loans: Multi-family residential property Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Other loans: Commercial and industrial Consumer Total 2012 2011 December 31, Loan Amount Allowance Amount Allowance as a % of Loan Amount Loan Amount Allowance Amount Allowance as a % of Loan Amount $ 4,380,453 2,919,708 307,158 190,782 99,475 1,860,866 10,291 9,768,733 $ 31,292 38,292 4,794 1,099 1,127 30,176 653 107,433 0.71% 1.31% 1.56% 0.58% 1.13% 1.62% 6.35% 1.10% 3,003,428 2,218,053 259,418 198,375 63,775 1,098,805 11,837 6,853,691 25,160 23,844 3,096 818 4,836 27,622 786 86,162 0.84% 1.07% 1.19% 0.41% 7.58% 2.51% 6.64% 1.29% In determining the ALLL, management considers the imprecision inherent in the process of estimating credit losses. A portion of the allowance is based on management’s review of factors affecting the determination of probable losses inherent in the portfolio that are not necessarily captured by the application of historical loss experience factors, such as the current regional economic environment. Commercial loans (including commercial and industrial loans along with loans to commercial borrowers that are secured by real estate) constitute a significant portion of our loan activity and loan portfolio. Substantially all of the real estate collateral for the loans in our portfolio is located within the New York metropolitan area. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be affected by changes in the economy and the real estate market of the New York metropolitan area. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our ALLL. For additional information about the provision and ALLL, see the related discussions of asset quality later in this report. Non-Interest Income For the year ended December 31, 2012, non-interest income was $36.2 million, a decrease of $5.8 million, or 13.8%, when compared with 2011. The decrease in non-interest income was driven by an increase in net other- than-temporary impairment losses on securities recognized through earnings and reductions in the amounts of net gains on sales of securities and other income, which were partially offset by an increase in net gains on sales of loans. During 2012, we recognized through earnings net other-than-temporary impairment losses on securities totaling $3.1 million, compared to $2.1 million during the prior year. During 2012, 11 securities were determined to be other-than-temporarily impaired, including ten private collateralized mortgage obligations and one collateralized debt obligation. During 2011, ten securities were determined to be other-than-temporarily impaired, including seven private collateralized mortgage obligations, one collateralized debt obligation, and two securities classified as other. For further discussion of our other-than-temporary impairment losses, see Note 4 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Net gains on sales of securities totaled $6.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012, a decrease of $7.5 million when compared to the prior year. The decrease in net gains on sales of securities was driven by a $5.3 million gain on sale of SBA interest-only securities reported in the first quarter of 2011. Other income totaled $(1.3 million) for the year ended December 31, 2012, a decrease of $2.6 million when compared to the prior year. The decrease was due to a scheduled amortization of low income housing tax credit 60 investments totaling $3.1 million recorded during 2012, the offset to which was related to low income housing tax credits that helped to reduce our effective tax rate. During the year ended December 31, 2012, net gains on sales of loans totaled $9.3 million, compared to $4.1 million recorded during the prior year. The increase in net gains on sales of loans was primarily due to an increase in client demand for SBA loan and pool products. Non-Interest Expense Non-interest expense increased $35.5 million, or 19.4%, to $218.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 from $182.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2011. This increase was primarily driven by a $32.2 million increase in salaries and benefits mostly attributable to the addition of four private client banking teams and the hiring of employees for our newly-formed subsidiary, Signature Financial. The increase also reflects a $991,000 increase in occupancy and equipment expenses, resulting from the expansion of existing offices, along with a $2.4 million increase in other general and administrative expenses, reflecting increased expenses due to additional client activity. Stock-Based Compensation We recognize compensation expense in our Consolidated Statement of Income for all stock-based compensation awards over the requisite service period with a corresponding credit to equity, specifically additional paid-in capital. Compensation expense is measured based on grant date fair value and is included in salaries and benefits (non- interest expense). As of December 31, 2012, there was $28.3 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested restricted shares that is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.99 years. During the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, we recognized compensation expense of $17.6 million and $8.5 million, respectively, for restricted shares. Included in compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $3.2 million from the December 10, 2012 accelerated vesting of 276,016 restricted shares originally scheduled to vest on March 22, 2013. The total fair value of restricted shares that vested during the year ended December 31, 2012 was $34.1 million. No restricted shares vested during the year ended December 31, 2011. Income Taxes We recognized income tax expense for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 of $140.9 million and $117.7 million, respectively. The components of income tax expense for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 are reflected in the following table: (in thousands) Current expense Deferred income tax benefit Total income tax expense Years ended December 31, 2012 2011 $ $ 149,949 (9,057) 140,892 128,831 (11,132) 117,699 The increase in current income tax expense was primarily driven by an increase in our pre-tax income, which was partially offset by benefits from low income housing tax credits recognized during the twelve months ended December 31, 2012, totaling $4.8 million. Accordingly, our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2012 decreased to 43.2%, compared to 44.0% for the prior year as a result of the low income housing tax credits recognized. 61 Financial Condition Securities Portfolio Securities in our investment portfolio are designated as either available-for-sale (“AFS”) or held-to-maturity (“HTM”) based upon various factors, including asset/liability management strategies, liquidity and profitability objectives and regulatory requirements. AFS securities may be sold prior to maturity, based upon asset/liability management decisions and are carried at fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on AFS securities are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax, in shareholders’ equity. HTM securities are carried at cost and adjusted for amortization of premiums or accretion of discounts. Other-than-temporary impairment losses on AFS and HTM debt securities attributable to credit losses are recorded in current earnings, while losses attributable to noncredit factors are recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income. Amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts on mortgage-backed securities are periodically adjusted for estimated prepayments. At December 31, 2013, our total securities portfolio was $7.80 billion, compared to $6.87 billion at December 31, 2012. Our portfolio primarily consists of mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”) and collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”) issued by U.S. Government agencies ($916.5 million), government-sponsored enterprises ($5.24 billion) and private issuers ($497.8 million). As of December 31, 2013, 86.7% of our securities portfolio had a AAA credit rating, 94.1% had a credit rating of A or better, and 97.2% was rated investment grade or better. Also, we did not hold sovereign debt of Euro-zone countries currently experiencing financial difficulty. Overall, our securities portfolio had a weighted average duration of 4.13 years and a weighted average life of 5.16 years as of December 30, 2013. For further discussion of our investment securities and the related determination of fair value, see Notes 3 and 4 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. During the second quarter of 2013, we transferred $806.3 million of AFS securities to HTM due to expected market volatility. The securities transferred consisted primarily of CMOs, MBSs, and corporate bonds. The securities were transferred at fair value, which became the cost basis for the HTM securities. The net unrealized loss, net of tax, on these securities at the date of transfer was $19.2 million, and continues to be reported, net of tax, as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income. This net unrealized loss will be accreted to interest income over the remaining life of the securities, and will be offset by the amortization of the net discount created by the transfer, resulting in no current or future impact to our net interest income as a result of this transfer. Also, there were no gains or losses recognized as a result of this transfer. During the fourth quarter of 2013, federal regulators adopted a final rule implementing the “Volcker Rule” enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. Per the rule, banking organizations and their affiliates are restricted from investing in and sponsoring covered funds. Such investments must be divested by the end of a conformance period (July 21, 2015). In order to comply with the Volcker Rule, we transferred one collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) that may be deemed as a covered fund from HTM to AFS, resulting in $2.1 million of other-than-temporary impairment losses charged to earnings. The agency MBS portfolio primarily consists of adjustable rate hybrid securities, fixed rate balloon, and seasoned 15-year structures. The agency CMO portion of our portfolio primarily consists of short duration planned amortization and sequential structures, collateralized by conforming first lien residential mortgages. The private CMO portfolio consists of prime borrowers with seasoned underlying mortgages and supportive credit enhancement. The weighted average age of the underlying collateral is approximately 100 months with a weighted average loan to value ratio of approximately 58% of original appraised values. The weighted average FICO score of the borrowers was approximately 728 at origination of the loan. The Private CMO sector is diversified with an average holding of $1.8 million per issue. Our asset-backed portfolio primarily consists of intermediate term fixed rate AAA and floating rate AA/A rated credit card, auto and home equity collateralized securities and collateralized debt obligations. At December 31, 2013, the net unrealized loss on AFS securities, net of tax effect, was $51.7 million as reflected in accumulated other comprehensive income, compared to a net unrealized gain of $43.8 million at December 31, 2012. The fair value of our AFS securities is affected by several factors, including (i) credit spreads, (ii) the interest rate environment, (iii) unemployment rates, (iv) delinquencies and defaults on the mortgages underlying such obligations, (v) changes in interest rates resulting from expiration of the fixed rate portion of adjustable rate mortgages (“ARMs”), (vi) changing home prices, (vii) market liquidity for such obligations, and (viii) uncertainties 62 with respect to government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which guarantee many of the debt securities we own. The estimated effect of possible changes in interest rates on our earnings and equity is discussed in “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.” We continue to closely monitor the securities in our investment portfolio, and other than those securities for which we have recorded other-than-temporary impairment losses, we believe the declines in fair value are temporary. We have no intent to sell these securities, and we believe it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell these investments before recovery of their amortized cost basis. In the event these securities demonstrate an adverse change in expected cash flows and we no longer expect to recover the amortized cost basis or if we change our intent to hold these securities, we would recognize additional other-than-temporary impairment losses through earnings. The following table summarizes the components of our AFS and HTM securities portfolios at the dates indicated: (in thousands) AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE U.S. Treasury securities Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: 2013 December 31, 2012 2011 Amortized Cost Fair Value Amortized Cost Fair Value Amortized Cost Fair Value $ 500 501 - - - - 24,171 1,049,867 25,004 1,050,217 32,456 844,503 34,315 878,385 36,437 1,103,380 38,649 1,141,619 578,012 2,451,274 494,920 576,738 2,408,166 491,319 576,709 2,872,130 696,593 586,825 2,900,066 694,986 681,869 2,902,349 818,904 697,542 2,968,904 792,514 Commercial mortgage-backed securities 345,560 348,707 373,750 392,637 315,573 322,026 Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Pooled trust preferred securities Collateralized debt obligations Other Equity securities (1) Total available-for-sale HELD-TO-MATURITY Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: 399,214 26,735 4,926 300,420 16,724 5,692,323 $ 401,733 13,093 4,926 296,060 15,769 5,632,233 418,918 27,863 5,282 186,478 16,290 6,050,972 426,855 8,601 2,952 188,539 16,195 6,130,356 345,324 28,216 6,487 204,002 15,708 6,458,249 336,623 7,116 2,757 189,506 15,599 6,512,855 $ 2,358 493,979 2,452 478,462 3,010 67,904 3,156 68,648 3,286 20,013 3,431 20,859 312,405 1,288,749 6,525 310,599 1,241,417 5,473 142,358 485,918 8,852 148,130 498,277 7,192 122,560 358,859 11,419 128,185 375,661 7,972 Commercial mortgage-backed securities 18,260 19,119 - - 358 359 Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Collateralized debt obligations Other Total held-to-maturity 43,650 - 9,918 2,175,844 $ 42,911 - 9,857 2,110,290 - 4,739 27,054 739,835 - 2,739 27,327 755,469 - 5,309 34,240 556,044 - 2,710 32,803 571,980 (1) Equity securities represent Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) qualifying closed-end bond fund investments. 63 The following table presents the credit rating distribution of our securities portfolio at December 31, 2013: Credit Rating AAA AA A BBB Below BBB Total Percentage of Portfolio 86.65% 2.21% 5.21% 3.13% 2.80% 100.00% The following table provides the estimated change in fair value of our debt securities for various interest rate shocks at December 31, 2013: Interest Rate Shock +100 basis points +200 basis points +300 basis points +400 basis points Estimated Fair Value Change (4.33%) (9.27%) (14.06%) (19.01%) 64 The following table presents the contractual maturity distribution and the weighted average yields of our combined AFS and HTM securities portfolio as of December 31, 2013. Due to prepayments of collateral underlying the securities, actual maturity may differ from contractual maturity. (dollars in thousands) Less than one year U.S. Treasury securities Mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Other securities (1) Total One year to less than five years U.S. Treasury securities Mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Other securities Total Five years to less than 10 years U.S. Treasury securities Mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Other securities Total 10 years and longer U.S. Treasury securities Mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Other securities Total All maturities U.S. Treasury securities Mortgage-backed securities Collateralized mortgage obligations Other securities Total Amortized Cost Fair Value Average Yield $ - 6 - 4,096 4,102 $ $ 500 5,132 8,766 109,229 123,627 $ - $ 1,066 58,650 290,340 350,056 $ $ - 1,564,171 5,064,469 745,018 7,373,658 $ $ 500 1,570,375 5,131,885 1,148,683 7,851,443 $ - 6 - 4,025 4,031 501 5,456 8,969 114,458 129,384 - 1,143 59,570 291,580 352,293 - 1,549,530 4,965,173 726,343 7,241,046 501 1,556,135 5,033,712 1,136,406 7,726,754 0.00% 4.50% 0.00% 4.35% 4.35% 0.33% 5.01% 5.19% 3.81% 3.94% 0.00% 5.12% 3.53% 3.24% 3.29% 0.00% 3.16% 3.16% 4.69% 3.32% 0.33% 3.17% 3.17% 4.24% 3.33% (1) Excludes equity securities, which do not have maturities. 65 Loan Portfolio The following table presents information regarding the composition of our loan portfolio, including loans held for sale, as of the dates indicated: (dollars in thousands) Mortgage loans: 2013 2012 December 31, 2011 2010 2009 Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Multi-family residential property $ 6,637,353 47.81% 4,380,453 43.38% 3,003,428 41.68% 1,716,248 30.68% 1,153,610 24.78% Commercial property 3,651,538 26.30% 2,919,708 28.90% 2,218,053 30.78% 1,799,162 32.16% 1,492,877 32.06% 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land 346,795 170,441 125,334 2.50% 1.23% 0.90% 307,158 190,782 99,475 3.04% 1.89% 0.98% 259,418 198,375 63,775 3.60% 2.75% 0.88% 266,011 192,027 115,195 4.76% 3.43% 2.06% 260,986 170,891 178,740 5.61% 3.67% 3.84% Other loans: Commercial and industrial 2,565,016 18.48% 1,860,866 18.42% 1,098,805 15.24% 1,146,110 20.49% 1,107,850 23.79% Commercial - SBA guaranteed portion Consumer Sub-total / Total Premiums, deferred fees and costs Total 375,501 11,479 2.70% 0.08% 332,430 10,291 3.29% 0.10% 354,060 11,837 4.91% 0.16% 346,454 13,086 6.19% 0.23% 276,802 14,208 5.95% 0.31% 13,883,457 100.00% 10,101,163 100.00% 7,207,751 100.00% 5,594,293 100.00% 4,655,964 100.00% 56,773 $ 13,940,230 40,075 10,141,238 35,000 7,242,751 32,834 5,627,127 13,341 4,669,305 Total loans increased by $3.80 billion to $13.94 billion at December 31, 2013 from $10.14 billion at December 31, 2012. Our total loan-to-deposit ratio, excluding loans held for sale, increased to 79.3% at December 31, 2013 from 69.4% at December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2013, substantially all of the real estate collateral for the loans in our portfolio was located within the New York metropolitan area. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be affected by changes in the economy and the real estate market of the New York metropolitan area. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our ALLL. We only securitize the U.S. Government guaranteed portion of SBA loans, and we have not securitized any of our loans secured by real estate. As a result, we have not made any representations to, and do not have obligations to, third-party purchasers regarding any such loans. At December 31, 2013, loans fully secured by cash and marketable securities represented 0.8% of outstanding loan balances. The SBA portfolio, consisting only of the guaranteed portion of the SBA loans, represented 2.7% of outstanding loan balances. Our fully unsecured loan portfolio represented 1.3% of our total outstanding loan portfolio at December 31, 2013. We generally limit unsecured lending for consumer loans to private clients who we believe possess ample net worth, liquidity and repayment capacity. The remainder of our loans is secured by real estate, company assets, personal assets and other forms of collateral. In order to assist in managing credit quality, we view the Bank’s loan portfolio by various segments and classes of loans. For commercial loans, we assign individual credit ratings ranging from 1 (lowest risk) to 9 (highest risk) as an indicator of credit quality. These ratings are based on specific risk factors, including (i) historical and projected financial results of the borrower, (ii) market conditions of the borrower’s industry that may affect the borrower’s future financial performance, (iii) business experience of the borrower’s management, (iv) nature of the underlying collateral, if any, and (v) the borrower’s history of payment performance. 66 The following table summarizes the recorded investment of our portfolio of commercial loans by credit rating as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 pass Rating 1-6 special mention Rating 7 substandard Rating 8 doubtful Rating 9 Non-rated Total Commercial loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 6,619,472 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land Commercial and industrial loans Total commercial loans December 31, 2012 3,593,283 166,917 123,171 2,487,590 12,990,433 $ Commercial loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 4,359,957 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land Commercial and industrial loans Total commercial loans 2,861,078 109,144 96,746 1,769,505 9,196,430 $ 5,159 27,375 3,706 - 3,661 39,901 9,154 20,661 767 - 9,114 39,696 11,161 30,791 5,623 2,163 19,282 69,020 9,476 37,969 12,010 2,729 27,599 89,783 - 89 - - - - 65 - 6,635,792 3,651,538 176,311 125,334 8,343 8,432 46,140 46,205 2,565,016 13,153,991 - - 400 - 7,723 8,123 - - 34 - 46,925 46,959 4,378,587 2,919,708 122,355 99,475 1,860,866 9,380,991 For consumer loans, including residential mortgages and home equity lines of credit, we consider the borrower’s payment history and current payment performance as leading indicators of credit quality. A consumer loan is considered non-performing generally when it becomes 90 days delinquent based on contractual terms, at which time the accrual of interest income is discontinued. In the case of residential mortgages and home equity lines of credit, exceptions may be made if the loan has sufficient collateral value, based on a current appraisal, and is in process of collection. The following table summarizes the recorded investment of our portfolio of consumer loans by performance status as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total consumer loans December 31, 2012 Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total consumer loans Performing Nonperforming Total $ $ $ $ 168,557 167,701 11,337 347,595 182,862 189,990 9,951 382,803 3,488 2,740 142 6,370 3,807 792 340 4,939 172,045 170,441 11,479 353,965 186,669 190,782 10,291 387,742 67 The following table presents commercial and industrial loans and construction and land loans at fixed and variable rates, by maturity for the period indicated: As of December 31, 2013 Within One Year One to Five Years After Five Years $ 959,040 92,917 1,051,957 $ 1,381,363 32,417 1,413,780 1,291,129 122,651 1,413,780 224,613 - 224,613 222,108 2,505 224,613 Total 2,565,016 125,334 2,690,350 (in thousands) Loan Type Commercial and industrial Construction and land Total Loans at fixed interest rates Loans at variable interest rates Total Asset Quality Non-performing Assets Non-performing assets include non-accrual loans and investment securities as well as other real estate owned and other repossessed assets. Loans are generally placed on non-accrual status upon becoming 90 days past due, or three months delinquent for single family property loans, based on contractual terms. In the case of commercial loans and loans secured by real estate, exceptions may be made if the loan has sufficient collateral value, based on a current appraisal, and is in process of collection. Consumer loans that are not secured by real estate, however, are generally placed on non-accrual status when deemed uncollectible; such loans are generally charged off when they reach 180 days past due. At the time a loan is placed on non-accrual status, the accrued but uncollected interest receivable is reversed and accounted for on a cash basis or cost recovery basis, until qualifying for return to accrual status. Management’s classification of a loan as non-accrual does not necessarily indicate that the principal of the loan is uncollectible in whole or in part. The following table summarizes our non-performing assets, troubled debt restructured loans, accruing loans that were 90 days past due as to principal or interest, and certain asset quality indicators as of the dates indicated: (dollars in thousands) Non-accrual assets: Loans Troubled debt restructured loans Investment securities, at fair value Other real estate owned Other repossessed assets Total non-performing assets Accruing troubled debt restructured loans Accruing loans past due 90 days or more: Loans Loans held for sale Asset Quality Ratios: Total non-accrual loans to total loans Total non-performing assets to total assets ALLL to non-accrual loans ALLL to total loans Net charge-offs to average loans 2013 2012 December 31, 2011 2010 2009 $ 21,414 9,928 4,778 - 800 36,920 $ $ 33,098 $ 1,288 $ 1,151 24,001 3,189 5,927 - - 33,117 52,554 27,176 1,579 0.23% 0.16% 0.28% 0.19% 40,432 31,155 46,606 1,786 5,772 566 - 48,556 44,685 9,000 1,307 0.62% 0.33% 2,979 4,445 1,667 - 40,246 8,530 15,740 1,778 - 8,216 700 - 55,522 - 12,494 3,883 0.65% 0.34% 1.07% 0.61% 430.96% 395.12% 204.09% 197.45% 118.27% 1.00% 0.12% 1.10% 0.25% 1.26% 0.55% 1.29% 0.73% 1.26% 0.64% 68 The following table summarizes the delinquency and accrual status of our loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, as of the dates indicated: Past Due 30-89 Days Past Due 90+ Days Total Past Due Current Total Loans Accruing Loans Past Due 90+ Days Non-accruing Loans (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Commercial loans Loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 15,105 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land 16,462 - - - 7,308 4,973 2,162 15,105 23,770 4,973 2,162 6,620,687 6,635,792 3,627,768 3,651,538 171,338 123,172 176,311 125,334 Commercial and industrial loans 18,229 10,529 28,758 2,536,258 2,565,016 Consumer loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Consumer loans Total December 31, 2012 Commercial loans 2,441 2,558 76 54,871 $ Loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 8,504 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land Commercial and industrial loans Consumer loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Consumer loans Total 15,740 2,769 - 18,260 2,704 676 61 48,714 $ 4,276 3,240 142 32,630 - 11,596 13,787 2,729 14,254 7,940 3,720 340 54,366 6,717 5,798 218 87,501 165,328 164,643 172,045 170,441 11,261 13,420,455 11,479 13,507,956 8,504 4,370,083 4,378,587 27,336 16,556 2,729 2,892,372 2,919,708 105,799 96,746 122,355 99,475 32,514 1,828,352 1,860,866 10,644 4,396 401 103,080 176,025 186,386 9,890 9,665,653 186,669 190,782 10,291 9,768,733 - - - - - 788 500 - 1,288 - 8,767 8,049 - 3,299 4,133 2,928 - 27,176 - 7,308 4,973 2,162 10,529 3,488 2,740 142 31,342 - 2,829 5,738 2,729 10,955 3,807 792 340 27,190 Non-accrual loans at December 31, 2013 included four commercial and industrial loans totaling $8.0 million, three commercial real estate loans totaling $6.9 million, one construction and land loan for $2.2 million, two residential mortgages totaling $6.4 million, and three home equity lines of credit totaling $1.7 million. Each of these non- accrual loans is being actively managed by the Bank, and the ALLL includes a specific allocation for each of these loans. If all non-accrual loans outstanding at December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 had been performing in accordance with their original terms, we would have recorded interest income with respect to such loans of approximately $2.2 million, $2.2 million, and $4.2 million for the years then ended, respectively. This compares to actual payments recorded as interest income with respect to such loans of $282,000 and $363,000 for the years ended December 31, 2012, and 2011, respectively. There was no interest income recorded on non-accrual loans during the year ended December 31, 2013. Non-accrual investment securities at December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 consisted of bank-collateralized pooled trust preferred securities and one collateralized debt obligation. These securities were classified as non- performing because of a deferral of their interest payments. At December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, the fair value of our non-accrual pooled trust preferred securities totaled $4.1 million, $4.6 million, and $4.5 million, respectively. The fair value of our non-accrual collateralized debt obligation was $654,000 at December 31, 2013 and $1.3 million at both December 31, 2012 and 2011. Accruing loans past due 90 days or more, which are not included in the non-performing category, are presented in the above tables. At December 31, 2013, accruing loans past due 90 days or more include $1.3 million of residential mortgages that are well secured and in process of collection. At December 31, 2012, accruing loans past due 90 days or more include matured performing loans in the normal process of renewal ($878,000) and loans that are well secured and in process of collection ($16.2 million of commercial loans secured by real estate, 69 $6.6 million of residential mortgages, and $2.6 million of commercial and industrial loans). Accruing loans held for sale past due 90 days or more at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 are comprised of U.S. Government guaranteed SBA loans. For economic reasons and to maximize the recovery of loans, we may work with borrowers experiencing financial difficulties and will consider modifications to a borrower’s existing loan terms and conditions that we would not otherwise consider, commonly referred to as TDRs. Our TDR loans consist of those loans where we modify the contractual terms of the loan, such as (i) a deferral of the loan’s principal amortization through either interest-only or reduced principal payments, (ii) a reduction in the loan’s contractual interest rate or (iii) an extension of the loan’s contractual term. For a summary of our accounting methodologies relating to TDRs, see the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses section of our Critical Accounting Policies. Additionally, for a discussion of our TDR loans and the related financial effects, see Note 8 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses The ALLL is maintained at a level estimated by management to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio and is based on management’s continuing evaluation of the portfolio, the related risk characteristics, and the overall economic conditions affecting the loan portfolio. The estimation is inherently subjective as it requires measurements that are susceptible to significant revision as more information becomes available. At December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, our ALLL totaled $135.1 million, $107.4 million, and $86.2 million, respectively, which represents 1.00%, 1.10%, and 1.26% of total loans and leases (excluding loans held for sale) at December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. For a summary of our accounting methodologies relating to the ALLL, see the Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses section of our Critical Accounting Policies. The provision for loan and lease losses is a charge to earnings to maintain the ALLL at a level consistent with management’s assessment of the loan portfolio in light of current economic conditions and market trends. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, we recorded provisions of $41.6 million, $41.4 million, and $51.9 million, respectively. These provisions were made to reflect management’s assessment of the inherent and specific risk of loan and lease losses relative to the growth of the portfolio. The following table presents our ALLL and outstanding loan balances by segment of our loan portfolio, based on the methodology followed in determining the ALLL: (in thousands) As of December 31, 2013 ALLL: Credit-rated Commercial Loans Commercial Loans Non-rated Residential Mortgages Consumer Loans Total Individually evaluated for impairment $ 9,628 Collectively evaluated for impairment 118,564 Recorded investment in loans: Individually evaluated for impairment Collectively evaluated for impairment As of December 31, 2012 ALLL: 56,676 13,051,110 Individually evaluated for impairment $ 6,803 Collectively evaluated for impairment 93,289 Recorded investment in loans: Individually evaluated for impairment Collectively evaluated for impairment 71,918 9,262,114 399 2,398 813 45,392 654 3,615 1,389 45,570 1,250 2,064 71 697 11,348 123,723 6,809 335,677 142 11,337 64,440 13,443,516 269 2,150 6,097 371,354 154 499 340 9,951 7,880 99,553 79,744 9,688,989 70 The following table allocates our ALLL to the respective portfolio categories as of the dates indicated: (dollars in thousands) Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % Amount % 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 December 31, Mortgage Loans: Multi-family residential property $ 47,814 35.40% 31,292 29.13% 25,160 29.20% 7,401 10.98% 5,088 9.23% Commercial property 44,415 32.88% 38,292 35.64% 23,844 27.67% 14,521 21.55% 10,778 19.55% 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Other loans: 3,600 1,406 1,323 2.67% 1.04% 0.98% 4,794 1,099 1,127 4.46% 1.02% 1.05% 3,096 818 4,836 3.59% 0.95% 5.61% 3,352 831 2,386 4.97% 1.23% 3.54% 1,576 631 4,027 2.86% 1.14% 7.31% Commercial and industrial 35,745 26.46% 30,176 28.09% 27,622 32.06% 37,545 55.71% 32,279 58.57% Consumer Total 768 0.57% 653 0.61% 786 0.91% 1,360 2.02% 741 1.34% $ 135,071 100.00% 107,433 100.00% 86,162 100.00% 67,396 100.00% 55,120 100.00% Summary of Loan Loss Experience The following table presents the changes in the ALLL for the years indicated: (in thousands) Beginning balance - ALLL Charge-offs and recoveries: Loans charged-off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Net charge-offs Provision for loan and lease losses Ending balance - ALLL 2013 Years ended December 31, 2011 2012 2010 2009 $ 107,433 86,162 67,396 55,120 36,987 16,681 2,676 14,005 41,643 135,071 $ 22,156 2,000 20,156 41,427 107,433 35,393 2,283 33,110 51,876 86,162 35,583 1,487 34,096 46,372 67,396 25,451 869 24,582 42,715 55,120 The following table presents a summary by loan portfolio segment of our ALLL, loan loss experience, and provision for loan and lease losses for the periods indicated: (in thousands) For the year ended December 31, 2013 Beginning balance - ALLL Provision for loan and lease losses Loans charged off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Ending balance - ALLL For the year ended December 31, 2012 Beginning balance - ALLL Provision for loan and lease losses Loans charged off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Ending balance - ALLL Credit-rated Commercial Loans Commercial Loans Non-rated Residential Mortgages Consumer Loans Total $ 100,092 40,928 (14,137) $ 1,309 128,192 $ 78,853 39,634 (18,657) $ 262 100,092 4,269 (1,254) (1,384) 1,166 2,797 4,954 214 (2,439) 1,540 4,269 2,419 1,615 (753) 33 3,314 1,569 1,481 (635) 4 2,419 653 354 (407) 168 768 786 98 (425) 194 653 107,433 41,643 (16,681) 2,676 135,071 86,162 41,427 (22,156) 2,000 107,433 Our net charge-offs during 2013 decreased to $14.0 million compared to $20.2 million for the prior year. Significant charge-offs during 2013 consisted of seven commercial and industrial loans totaling $11.0 million, three commercial loans secured by 1-4 family residential property totaling $1.5 million, and one construction loan for $382,000. The remainder of the 2013 charge-offs were primarily comprised of small business and overdraft line of credit relationships, for which the individual charge-off did not exceed $300,000. 71 Deferred Tax Asset/Liability At December 31, 2013, after considering all available positive and negative evidence, management concluded that a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets was not necessary because it is more likely than not that these tax benefits will be fully realized. While we will continue to monitor the need for a valuation allowance going forward, we do not expect a valuation allowance will be required based upon projected profitability and taxable income in the carry-back period. Net deferred tax assets are included in other assets in our Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. The following table presents the components of our net deferred tax asset as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) DEFERRED TAX ASSETS Allowance for loan losses Depreciation Unearned compensation - restricted shares Non-accrual interest Write-down for other-than-temporary impairment of securities Other Total deferred tax assets recognized in earnings Net unrealized losses on securities available-for-sale Net unrealized losses on securities transferred to held-to-maturity Total deferred tax assets DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES Depreciation Prepaid expenses Other Total deferred tax liabilities recognized in earnings Net unrealized gains on securities available-for-sale Total deferred tax liabilities Net deferred tax asset December 31, 2013 2012 $ 59,078 1,220 8,900 1,834 18,273 2,128 91,433 26,236 13,815 131,484 - 674 22,690 23,364 - 23,364 108,120 $ 47,154 - 2,103 1,455 18,643 8,782 78,137 - - 78,137 138 660 1,753 2,551 34,284 36,835 41,302 Deferred tax assets arise from expected future tax benefits attributable to temporary differences and carry- forwards. Deferred tax liabilities arise from expected future tax expense attributable to temporary differences. Temporary differences are defined as differences between the tax basis of an asset or liability and its reported amount in the financial statements that will result in taxable or deductible amounts in future years. Carry-forwards are defined as deductions or credits that cannot be currently utilized for tax purposes that may be carried forward to reduce taxable income or taxes payable in a future year. Deposits Excluding brokered deposits, total deposits at December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $16.65 billion and $13.97 billion, respectively. Included in deposits at December 31, 2013 and 2012 were approximately $1.26 billion and $886.3 million, respectively, of short-term escrow deposits. We have developed a core competency in catering to the needs of law firms, accounting firms, claims administrators and title companies, which allows us to obtain from our clients short-term escrow deposits. The majority of short-term escrows outstanding at December 31, 2013, due to their nature, are expected to be released during the first quarter of 2014. Excluding the short-term escrow deposits and brokered CDs, our total core deposits increased approximately $2.31 billion during 2013 as a result 72 of the addition of new private client banking teams, as well as additional deposits raised by our existing private client banking teams. The following table presents the composition of our deposit accounts as of the dates indicated: (dollars in thousands) Personal demand deposit accounts (1) Business demand deposit accounts (1) Rent security Personal NOW Business NOW Personal money market accounts Business money market accounts Personal time deposits Business time deposits Brokered time deposits Total Demand deposit accounts (1) NOW Money market accounts Time deposits Brokered time deposits Total Personal Business Brokered time deposits Total (1) Non-interest bearing. December 31, 2013 2012 Amount Percentage Amount Percentage $ 511,911 4,879,572 98,987 38,797 812,100 3,172,224 6,318,277 415,040 405,959 404,230 17,057,097 5,391,483 850,897 9,589,488 820,999 404,230 17,057,097 4,137,972 12,514,895 404,230 17,057,097 $ $ $ $ $ 3.00% 28.61% 0.58% 0.23% 4.76% 18.60% 37.04% 2.43% 2.38% 2.37% 100.00% 31.61% 4.99% 56.22% 4.81% 2.37% 100.00% 24.26% 73.37% 2.37% 100.00% 501,577 3,943,387 90,766 38,478 752,843 2,747,746 5,061,632 473,442 364,276 108,505 14,082,652 4,444,964 791,321 7,900,144 837,718 108,505 14,082,652 3,761,243 10,212,904 108,505 14,082,652 3.56% 28.00% 0.64% 0.27% 5.35% 19.52% 35.94% 3.36% 2.59% 0.77% 100.00% 31.56% 5.62% 56.10% 5.95% 0.77% 100.00% 26.71% 72.52% 0.77% 100.00% The following table presents our average deposits and average interest rates accrued for the periods indicated: (dollars in thousands) NOW and interest-bearing demand Money market Time deposits Brokered time deposits Non-interest-bearing demand deposits Total deposits Years ended December 31, 2013 Average Balance Average Rate 2012 Average Balance Average Rate $ 819,164 8,959,324 827,389 237,750 4,782,428 15,626,055 $ 0.38% 0.72% 0.15% 0.45% - 0.51% 705,604 7,874,582 849,121 76,146 3,569,645 13,075,098 0.45% 0.85% 1.64% 0.55% - 0.64% 73 The following table presents time deposits of $100,000 or more by their maturity as of December 31, 2013: (dollars in thousands) Three months or less Over three months through six months Over six months through one year Over one year Total December 31, 2013 $ 221,525 150,578 154,710 169,202 696,015 $ Borrowings The following table presents information regarding our borrowings: At or for the year ended December 31, 2013 2012 2011 (dollars in thousands) Amount Federal Home Loan Bank advances $ 2,305,313 Repurchase agreements Federal funds purchased Other short-term borrowings 695,000 370,000 - Total borrowings $ 3,370,313 Maximum total outstanding at any month-end Average balance Average rate $ 3,370,313 $ 2,192,788 Weighted Average Rate 0.60% 2.43% 0.28% 0.00% 0.95% Weighted Average Rate 0.88% 2.86% 0.33% 0.00% 1.57% Amount 590,000 645,000 350,000 - 1,585,000 1,585,000 1,161,784 Weighted Average Rate 0.92% 3.23% 0.17% 0.00% 2.02% Amount 675,000 695,000 55,800 - 1,425,800 1,425,800 1,073,430 1.21% 2.29% 2.76% At December, 2013, our borrowings were $3.37 billion, or 16.5% of our funding liabilities, compared to $1.59 billion, or 10.1% of our funding liabilities, at December 31, 2012. The increase in our borrowings, when compared to December 31, 2012, reflects funding needs for increased loan growth along with purchases of investment securities as a result of advantageous interest rates. These borrowings are collateralized by our mortgage-backed and collateralized mortgage obligation securities. We also hold $103.7 million in Federal Home Loan Bank of New York (“FHLB”) capital stock as required collateral for our outstanding borrowing position with the FHLB. Based on our financial condition, our asset size, the available capacity under our repurchase agreement lines and our FHLB line, and the amount of securities available for pledging, we estimate our available consolidated capacity for additional borrowings to be approximately $2.12 billion at December 31, 2013. The following table shows the maturity or re-pricing of our borrowings at December 31, 2013. Maturity or repricing period (in thousands) 3 months or less 3 - 12 months 1 - 3 years Over 3 years Total $ 1,410,000 670,150 959,263 330,900 3,370,313 Fair Value of Financial Instruments Our AFS securities, which represent $5.63 billion of our total assets at December 31, 2013, are carried at fair value. Held-for-sale loans totaling $420.8 million at December 31, 2013, are carried at the lower of cost or fair value. 74 U.S. GAAP establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes techniques used to measure the fair value of assets and liabilities, based on the transparency and reliability of inputs to valuation methodologies. An instrument’s categorization within the hierarchy is based upon the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Therefore, for assets classified in Levels 1 and 2 of the hierarchy where inputs are principally based on observable market data, there is less judgment applied in arriving at a fair value measurement. For instruments classified within Level 3 of the hierarchy, judgments are more significant. Where available, the fair value of AFS securities is based upon valuations obtained from third-party pricing sources. In order to ensure the fair valuations obtained are appropriate, we typically compare data from two or more independent third-party pricing sources. If there is a large price discrepancy between the two pricing sources for an individual security, we utilize industry market spread data to assist in determining the most appropriate valuation. The valuations provided by the pricing services are derived from quoted market prices or using matrix pricing. Matrix pricing is a valuation technique consistent with the market approach of determining fair value. The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets. Matrix pricing is a mathematical technique used principally to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices of specific securities, but rather on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities. Most of our securities portfolio is priced using this method, and such securities are classified as Level 2. Securities are classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy in cases where there is limited activity or less transparency around inputs to the valuation. In these cases, we determine fair value based upon in-depth analysis of the cash flow structure and credit analysis for each position. Relative market spreads are utilized to discount the cash flow to determine current market values, as well as analysis of relative coverage ratios, credit enhancements, and collateral characteristics. SBA interest-only strip securities, pooled trust preferred securities, and private CMOs are all included in the Level 3 fair value hierarchy. Our held-for-sale loans predominantly consist of variable rate SBA loans, which are fully guaranteed by the U.S. Government. Accordingly, the cost of these loans typically approximates fair value. We validate the fair value of these loans through our active market participation in the SBA secondary market, where we are one of the top market makers in the industry. We believe our valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with other market participants; however, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date. For further discussion of the determination of fair value, see Note 3 to our Consolidated Financial Statements. Contractual Obligations The following table presents our significant contractual obligations as of December 31, 2013: Less than 1 year $ 3,271 2,080,150 15,005 2,098,426 $ Payments due by period 1 - 3 years 5,879 959,263 26,922 992,064 3 - 5 years - 330,900 21,147 352,047 More than 5 years - - 47,379 47,379 Total 9,150 3,370,313 110,453 3,489,916 (in thousands) Information technology contract Borrowings Operating leases Total contractual cash obligations Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements In the normal course of business, we have various outstanding commitments and contingent liabilities that are not reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. 75 We enter into transactions that involve financial instruments with off-balance sheet risks in the ordinary course of business to meet the financing needs of our clients. Such financial instruments include commitments to extend credit, standby letters of credit, and unused balances under confirmed letters of credit, all of which are primarily variable rate. Such instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk. Our exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party with regard to financial instruments is represented by the contractual notional amount of those instruments. Financial instrument transactions are subject to our normal credit policies and approvals, financial controls and risk limiting and monitoring procedures. We generally require collateral or other security to support financial instruments with credit risk. The following table presents a summary of our commitments and contingent liabilities: (in thousands) Unused commitments to extend credit Financial standby letters of credit Commercial and similar letters of credit Other Total December 31, 2013 2012 $ $ 578,771 209,136 20,516 1,135 809,558 445,444 184,181 24,094 1,021 654,740 Commitments to extend credit consist of agreements having fixed expiration or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Total commitment amounts may not necessarily represent future cash requirements. We evaluate each client's creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. Upon the extension of credit, we will obtain collateral, if necessary, based on our credit evaluation of the counterparty. Collateral held varies but may include deposits held in financial institutions, commercial properties, residential properties, accounts receivable, property, plant and equipment and inventory. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, our reserves for losses on unused commitments to extend credit totaled $825,000 and $575,000, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. We recognize a liability at the inception of the guarantee that is equivalent to the fee received from the guarantor. This liability is amortized over the life of the guarantee on a straight-line basis. At December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had deferred revenue for commitment fees paid for the issuance of standby letters of credit in the amounts of $809,000 and $676,000, respectively. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by us to guarantee the performance of a client’s obligation to a third party. Standby letters of credit are primarily used to support clients' business trade transactions and may require payment of a fee. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to clients. We had reserves for credit losses on standby letters of credit totaling $130,000 and $106,000 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had commitments to sell residential mortgage loans and the U.S. government-guaranteed portion of SBA loans totaling $920,000 and $8.7 million, respectively. Capital Resources As a New York state-chartered bank, we are required to maintain minimum levels of regulatory capital. These standards generally are as stringent as the comparable capital requirements imposed on national banks. The FDIC is also authorized to impose capital requirements in excess of these standards on individual banks on a case-by-case basis. We are required by FDIC regulations to maintain a minimum ratio of qualifying total capital to total risk-weighted assets (including off-balance sheet items) of 8%, at least one-half of which must be in the form of Tier 1 capital, and a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total risk-weighted assets of 4%. Tier 1 capital is generally defined as the sum of core capital elements less goodwill and certain other deductions. Core capital includes common shareholders’ equity, non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock and minority interests in equity accounts of 76 consolidated subsidiaries. Supplementary capital, which qualifies as Tier 2 capital and counts towards total capital subject to certain limits, includes allowances for loan and lease losses, perpetual preferred stock, subordinated debt and certain hybrid instruments. We are also required to maintain a certain leverage capital ratio - the ratio of Tier 1 capital (net of intangibles) to adjusted total assets. Banks that have received the highest rating of five categories used by regulators to rate banks and are not anticipating or experiencing any significant growth must maintain a leverage capital ratio of at least 3.0%. All other institutions must maintain a minimum leverage capital ratio of 4.0%. For an institution to be considered “well capitalized” by the FDIC, it must maintain a minimum leverage capital ratio of 5.0% and a minimum risk-based capital ratio of 10.0%, of which at least 6.0% must be Tier 1 capital. The actual capital amounts and ratios presented in the following table demonstrate that we are “well capitalized” under the capital adequacy guidelines outlined above: (dollars in thousands) As of December 31, 2013: Total capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 leverage capital (to average assets) As of December 31, 2012: Total capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 leverage capital (to average assets) Basel III Actual Amount Ratio Required for Capital Adequacy Purposes Ratio Amount Required to be Well Capitalized Amount Ratio $ 1,986,694 1,850,668 1,850,668 15.10% 14.07% 8.54% 1,052,562 526,281 866,469 $ 1,714,519 1,606,405 1,606,405 16.35% 15.32% 9.51% 838,788 419,394 675,639 8.00% 4.00% 4.00% 8.00% 4.00% 4.00% 1,315,702 789,421 1,083,087 10.00% 6.00% 5.00% 1,048,484 629,091 844,549 10.00% 6.00% 5.00% On July 9, 2013, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved final rules that substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to Signature Bank. The final rules were adopted following the issuance of proposed rules by the federal banking regulators in June 2012, and implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. “Basel III” refers to two consultative documents released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2009, the rules text released in December 2010, and loss absorbency rules issued in January 2011, which include significant changes to bank capital, leverage and liquidity requirements. The rules include new risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which would be phased in from 2015 to 2019, and would refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The new minimum capital level requirements applicable to Signature Bank under the final rules would be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The final rules also establish a “capital conservation buffer” above the new regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of common equity Tier 1 capital. Common equity Tier 1 capital consists of common stock instruments that meet the eligibility criteria in the final rules, retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income and common equity Tier 1 minority interest. The capital conservation buffer will be phased-in over four years beginning on January 1, 2016, as follows: the maximum buffer will be 0.625% of risk-weighted assets for 2016, 1.25% for 2017, 1.875% for 2018, and 2.5% for 2019 and thereafter, resulting in the following minimum ratios beginning in 2019: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under the final rules, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if their capital levels fall below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions. Basel III provided discretion for regulators to impose an additional buffer, the “countercyclical buffer,” of up to 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to take into account the macro-financial environment and periods of excessive 77 credit growth. However, the final rules permit the countercyclical buffer to be applied only to “advanced approach banks” ( i.e., banks with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures), which currently excludes Signature Bank. The final rules also implement revisions and clarifications consistent with Basel III regarding the various components of Tier 1 capital, including common equity, unrealized gains and losses, as well as certain instruments that will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, some of which will be phased out over time. The final rules also contain revisions to the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including Signature Bank, if their capital levels begin to show signs of weakness. These revisions take effect January 1, 2015. Under the prompt corrective action requirements, which are designed to complement the capital conservation buffer, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following increased capital level requirements in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (increased from 4%). The final rules set forth certain changes for the calculation of risk-weighted assets, which we will be required to utilize beginning January 1, 2015. The standardized approach final rule utilizes an increased number of credit risk exposure categories and risk weights, and also addresses: (i) an alternative standard of creditworthiness consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation; (iii) rules for risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans; (iv) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo- style transactions; and (v) disclosure requirements for top-tier banking organizations with $50 billion or more in total assets that are not subject to the “advance approach rules” that apply to banks with greater than $250 billion in consolidated assets. Based on our current capital composition and levels, we believe that we would be in compliance with the requirements as set forth in the final rules if they were presently in effect. Liquidity Liquidity is the measurement of our ability to meet our cash needs. Our objective in managing liquidity is to maintain our ability to meet loan commitments and deposit withdrawals, purchase investments and pay other liabilities in accordance with their terms, without an adverse impact on our current or future earnings. Our liquidity management is guided by policies developed and monitored by our asset/liability management committee and approved by our Board of Directors. The asset/liability management committee consists of, among others, our Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vice-Chairman, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. These policies take into account the marketability of assets, the source and stability of deposits, our wholesale borrowing capacity and the amount of our loan commitments. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, our primary source of liquidity has been core deposit growth. Additionally, we have borrowing sources available to supplement deposit flows, including the FHLB and repurchase agreement lines with other financial institutions. We also have access to the brokered deposit market, through which we have numerous alternatives and significant capacity, if needed. Credit availability at the FHLB is based on our financial condition, our asset size and the amount of collateral we hold at the FHLB. At December 31, 2013, our FHLB borrowings consisted of $2.31 billion in advances with an average rate of 0.60% that mature by December 2017. We also have repurchase agreement lines with several leading financial institutions totaling $2.23 billion. At December 31, 2013, we had $695.0 million of securities sold under repurchase agreements to five of these institutions. Based on our financial condition, our asset size, the available capacity under our repurchase agreement lines and our FHLB line, and the amount of securities available for pledging, we estimate our available consolidated capacity for additional borrowings to be approximately $2.12 billion as of December 31, 2013. The federal banking agencies in 2013 also proposed a new “liquidity coverage ratio” rule (“LCR Rule”) based upon Basel III requirements that will for the first time regulate bank liquidity in detail. As proposed, however, the LCR Rule will not apply to depository institutions, including Signature Bank, with less than $50 billion in consolidated assets. Accordingly, we do not anticipate that the LCR rule will impact our operations or financial condition. 78 ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK Market risk is defined as the sensitivity of income, fair values and capital to changes in interest rates, foreign currency exchange rates, commodity prices and other relevant market prices and rates. The primary risk to which we are exposed is interest rate movement inherent in our lending, investment management, deposit taking and borrowing activities. Substantially all of our interest rate risk arises from these activities, which are entered into for purposes other than trading. The principal objective of asset/liability management is to manage the sensitivity of net income to changes in interest rates. Asset/liability management is governed by policies approved by our Board of Directors. Day-to-day oversight of this function is performed by our asset/liability management committee. Senior management and our Board of Directors, on an ongoing basis, review our overall interest rate risk position and strategies. Interest Rate Risk Management Our asset/liability management committee seeks to manage our interest rate risk by structuring our balance sheet to maximize net interest income while maintaining an acceptable level of risk exposure to changes in market interest rates. The achievement of this goal requires a balance among liquidity, interest rate risk, and profitability considerations. The committee meets regularly to review the sensitivity of assets and liabilities to interest rate changes, deposit rates and trends, the book and market values of assets and liabilities, unrealized gains and losses, purchase and sales activities, and the maturities of investments and borrowings. We use various asset/liability strategies to manage and control the interest rate sensitivity of our assets and liabilities. These strategies include pricing of loans and deposit products, adjusting the terms of loans and borrowings and managing the deployment of our securities and short-term assets to manage mismatches in interest rate re-pricing. To effectively measure and manage interest rate risk, we use simulation analysis to determine the impact on net interest income under various hypothetical interest rate scenarios. Based on these simulations, we quantify interest rate risk and develop and implement appropriate strategies. At December 31, 2013, we used a simulation model to analyze net interest income sensitivity to both (i) a parallel shift in interest rates, in which the base market interest rate forecast was increased in quarterly increments over the first twelve months, followed by rates holding constant thereafter (“ramp scenario”) and (ii) a parallel and sustained shift in interest rates, in which the base market interest rate forecast was immediately increased by 100, 200, 300 and 400 basis points (“shock scenario”). Given the exceptionally low interest rate environment, including the Federal Funds rate and other short-term interest rates, we did not analyze net interest income sensitivity to a downward market interest rate forecast. 79 The following table indicates the sensitivity of projected annualized net interest income to the interest rate movements described above at December 31, 2013: (dollars in thousands) Ramp scenario: Base Up 100 basis points Up 200 basis points Up 300 basis points Up 400 basis points Shock scenario: Base Up 100 basis points Up 200 basis points Up 300 basis points Up 400 basis points Adjusted Net Interest Income Change from Base $ 718,488 726,309 724,097 716,851 710,560 $ 718,488 721,510 708,868 687,528 664,799 - 1.1% 0.8% (0.2)% (1.1)% - 0.4% (1.3)% (4.3)% (7.5)% We also use a simulation model to measure the impact that hypothetical market interest rate changes will have on the net present value of assets and liabilities, which is defined as market value of equity. At December 31, 2013, we used a simulation model to analyze the market value of equity sensitivity to a parallel and sustained shift in interest rates, in which the base market interest rate forecast was immediately increased by 100, 200, 300 and 400 basis points. Given the current low interest rate environment, including the Federal Funds rate and other short-term interest rates, we did not analyze the market value of equity sensitivity to a downward market interest rate forecast. The following table indicates the sensitivity of market value of equity at December 31, 2013 to the interest rate movements described above (base case market value of equity is $3.11 billion): (dollars in thousands) Up 100 basis points Up 200 basis points Up 300 basis points Up 400 basis points Sensitivity $ (247,833) (461,117) (656,859) (1,045,247) Change from Base (8.0)% (14.9)% (21.2)% (33.7)% The market value of equity sensitivity analysis assumes an immediate parallel shift in interest rates and yield curves. The computation of prospective effects of hypothetical interest rate changes is based on numerous assumptions, including relative levels of interest rates, asset prepayments, deposit decay and changes in re- pricing levels of deposits to general market rates, and should not be relied upon as indicative of actual results. Further, the computations do not take into account any actions that we may undertake in response to future changes in interest rates. ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA For our Consolidated Financial Statements, see index on page F-1. 80 ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE None. ITEM 9A. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES The Company’s management, with the participation of the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures (as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the ‘‘Exchange Act’’)) as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that, as of the end of such period, the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures are effective to ensure that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act, including this report, is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms and that information required to be disclosed by the Company in the reports that it files or submits under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to the Company’s management, including the Company’s principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding the required disclosure. a) Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting The management of Signature Bank (the “Company”) is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. Our system of internal control is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Internal control over financial reporting includes procedures that pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately reflect transactions and dispositions of assets; provide reasonable assurances that transactions are recorded to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures are made only in accordance with the authorization of management and the Board of Directors; and provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on our consolidated financial statements. All internal control systems, no matter how well designed, have inherent limitations, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention of controls. Furthermore, because of changes in conditions, the effectiveness of internal control may vary over time. Accordingly, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. Since these limitations are known features of the financial reporting process, however, it is possible to design into the process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk. As of December 31, 2013, management evaluated the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Based on this evaluation, management believes that the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013 is effective using these criteria. The Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013 has been audited by KPMG LLP, the independent registered public accounting firm that has also audited the Company’s consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013. The report of KPMG LLP on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting is included below. 81 b) Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors and Stockholders Signature Bank: We have audited Signature Bank and subsidiaries’ (the Company) internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, and testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk. Our audit also included performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated statements of financial condition of the Company as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, and our report dated February 28, 2014 expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. New York, New York February 28, 2014 82 ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION None. PART III ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 24, 2014. ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 24, 2014. ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 24, 2014. ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS, AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 24 2014. ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Proxy Statement for the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held April 24, 2014. 83 ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES A. Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules PART IV (1) The Consolidated Financial Statements of the Registrant are listed and filed as part of this report on pages F-1 to F-47. The Index to the Consolidated Financial Statements appears on page F-1. (2) Financial Statement Schedules: All schedule information is included in the notes to the Audited Consolidated Financial Statements or is omitted because it is either not required or not applicable. B. Exhibit Listing Exhibit No. Exhibit 3.1 Restated Organization Certificate. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005.) 3.2 Certificate of Amendment, dated December 5, 2008, to the Bank's Restated Organization Certificate with respect to Signature Bank’s Fixed Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, par value $0.01 per share. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2008.) 3.3 Amended and Restated By-laws of the Registrant. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 17, 2007.) 4.1 Specimen Common Stock Certificate. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 4.2 Specimen Warrant (Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Bank’s Form 8-A filed on March 10, 2010.) 10.1 Signature Bank Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan. (Incorporated by reference from Appendix A to the 2013 Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 18, 2013.) 10.2 Amended and Restated Signature Bank Change of Control Plan. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on September 19, 2007.) 10.4 Networking Agreement, effective as of April 18, 2001, between Signature Securities and Signature Bank. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 10.7 Brokerage and Consulting Agreement, dated August 6, 2001, by and between Signature Bank and Signature Securities. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 10.13 Employment Agreement, dated March 22, 2004, between Signature Bank and Joseph J. DePaolo. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 10.14 Master Agreement for the provision of Hardware Software and/or Services, dated as of September 9, 2005, between Fidelity Information Services, Inc. and Signature Bank. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005.) 10.15 Warrant Agreement, dated March 10, 2010, between Signature Bank and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as warrant agent (Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Bank’s Form 8-A filed on March 10, 2010.) 14.1 Code of Ethics (Incorporated by reference from Signature Bank’s 2004 Form 10-K, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 16, 2005.) 84 Exhibit No. Exhibit 21.1 Subsidiaries of Signature Bank. 31.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 31.2 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 32.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 85 Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. SIGNATURES SIGNATURE BANK By: /s/ JOSEPH J. DEPAOLO Joseph J. DePaolo President, Chief Executive Officer and Director Date: February 28, 2014 Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below on February 28, 2014 by the following persons on behalf of the registrant in the capacities indicated. Signature Title /s/ SCOTT A. SHAY (Scott A. Shay) /s/ JOHN TAMBERLANE (John Tamberlane) Chairman of the Board of Directors Vice Chairman, Director /s/ VITO SUSCA (Vito Susca) Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer) /s/ KATHRYN A. BYRNE (Kathryn A. Byrne) /s/ ALFONSE M. D’AMATO (Alfonse M. D’Amato) /s/ ALFRED B. DELBELLO (Alfred B. DelBello) /s/ JUDITH HUNTINGTON (Judith Huntington) /s/ JEFFREY W. MESHEL (Jeffrey W. Meshel) /s/ MICHAEL PAPPAGALLO (Michael Pappagallo) Director Director Director Director Director Director 86 INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . F-2 F-3 F-4 Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 . . . . . . Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-6 F-7 F-8 F-1 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors and Stockholders Signature Bank: We have audited the accompanying consolidated statements of financial condition of Signature Bank and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2013, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. We also have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2013, based on criteria established in Internal Control – Integrated Framework (1992) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), and our report dated February 28, 2014 expressed an unqualified opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. New York, New York February 28, 2014 F-2 SIGNATURE BANK CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) ASSETS Cash and due from banks Short-term investments Total cash and cash equivalents Securities available-for-sale (pledged $3,227,828 and $2,467,409 at December 31, 2013 2012 $ 119,479 24,498 143,977 86,186 7,779 93,965 December 31, 2013 and 2012) 5,632,233 6,130,356 Securities held-to-maturity (fair value $2,110,290 and $755,469 at December 31, 2013 and 2012; pledged $1,886,753 and $543,351 at December 31, 2013 and 2012) Federal Home Loan Bank stock Loans held for sale Loans and leases, net Premises and equipment, net Accrued interest and dividends receivable Other assets Total assets LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY Deposits Non-interest-bearing Interest-bearing Total deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Federal Home Loan Bank advances Accrued expenses and other liabilities Total liabilities Shareholders’ equity Preferred stock, par value $.01 per share; 61,000,000 shares authorized; 2,175,844 130,785 420,759 13,384,400 36,331 71,668 380,666 22,376,663 $ 739,835 50,012 369,468 9,664,337 32,192 64,367 311,525 17,456,057 5,391,483 11,665,614 17,057,097 4,444,964 9,637,688 14,082,652 1,065,000 2,305,313 149,314 20,576,724 995,000 590,000 138,078 15,805,730 none issued at December 31, 2013 and 2012 - - Common stock, par value $.01 per share; 64,000,000 shares authorized; 47,293,162 and 47,230,266 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2013 and 2012 Additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Net unrealized (losses) gains on securities available-for-sale, net of tax Total shareholders' equity Total liabilities and shareholders' equity 473 1,013,900 837,250 (51,684) 1,799,939 22,376,663 $ 472 997,517 608,511 43,827 1,650,327 17,456,057 See accompanying notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. F-3 SIGNATURE BANK CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) INTEREST AND DIVIDEND INCOME Loans held for sale Loans and leases, net Securities available-for-sale Securities held-to-maturity Other short-term investments Total interest income INTEREST EXPENSE Deposits Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase Federal Home Loan Bank advances Total interest expense Net interest income before provision for loan and lease losses Provision for loan and lease losses Net interest income after provision for loan and lease losses NON-INTEREST INCOME Commissions Fees and service charges Net gains on sales of securities Net gains on sales of loans Other-than-temporary impairment losses on securities: Total impairment losses on securities Portion recognized in other comprehensive income (before taxes) Net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Net trading income Other (loss) income Total non-interest income NON-INTEREST EXPENSE Salaries and benefits Occupancy and equipment Other general and administrative Total non-interest expense Income before income taxes Income tax expense Net income PER COMMON SHARE DATA Earnings per share – basic Earnings per share – diluted Years ended December 31, 2012 2013 2011 $ 4,338 514,936 186,170 46,198 3,508 755,150 3,508 417,837 216,974 20,158 2,079 660,556 3,772 333,395 223,129 18,403 1,817 580,516 80,209 84,163 91,100 19,217 7,381 106,807 648,343 41,643 606,700 9,367 17,299 6,228 6,287 (9,208) 3,059 (6,149) 1,638 (2,659) 32,011 163,554 19,681 63,942 247,177 391,534 162,790 228,744 $ 22,132 4,455 110,750 549,806 41,427 508,379 8,210 15,503 6,887 9,273 (11,593) 8,520 (3,073) 759 (1,320) 36,239 146,696 17,294 54,253 218,243 326,375 140,892 185,483 22,324 7,305 120,729 459,787 51,876 407,911 9,058 15,022 14,387 4,054 (12,272) 10,183 (2,089) 319 1,287 42,038 114,537 16,303 51,884 182,724 267,225 117,699 149,526 $ $ 4.84 4.76 3.98 3.91 3.43 3.37 See accompanying notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. F-4 SIGNATURE BANK CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (in thousands) Net income Other comprehensive income, net of tax: Net change in unrealized (losses) gains on securities Tax effect Net of tax Reclassification adjustment for net gains on sales of securities included in net income Tax effect Net of tax Amortization of net unrealized loss on securities transferred to held-to-maturity Tax effect Net of tax Other-than-temporary impairment on securities related to noncredit factors Tax effect Net of tax Reclassification adjustment for other-than-temporary impairment on securities related to credit factors included in net income Tax effect Net of tax Total other comprehensive income, net of tax Comprehensive income, net of tax At or for the years ended December 31, 2012 2011 2013 $ 228,744 185,483 149,526 (162,973) 67,765 (95,208) (6,228) 2,585 (3,643) 2,599 (1,063) 1,536 (3,059) 1,261 (1,798) 6,149 (2,547) 3,602 (95,511) 133,233 $ 36,980 (15,905) 21,075 (6,887) 2,953 (3,934) - - - (8,520) 3,666 (4,854) 3,073 (1,322) 1,751 14,038 199,521 108,770 (48,013) 60,757 (14,387) 6,351 (8,036) - - - (10,183) 4,496 (5,687) 2,089 (922) 1,167 48,201 197,727 See accompanying notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. F-5 Additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Accumulated other comprehensive income Total shareholders' equity 273,511 (18,412) - - - - - 48,201 29,789 - - - - - 14,038 43,827 - - - - - (95,511) (51,684) 944,547 253,347 4,004 8,496 (5) 149,526 48,201 1,408,116 45 20,677 21,972 (4) 185,483 14,038 1,650,327 1,420 14,193 771 (5) 228,744 (95,511) 1,799,939 SIGNATURE BANK CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY (in thousands) Common stock Balance at December 31, 2010 $ 413 Common stock issued Stock options activity, net Restricted stock activity, net Other Net income Other comprehensive income, net of tax 47 2 - - - - 689,035 253,300 4,002 8,496 - - - - - - (5) 149,526 - Balance at December 31, 2011 $ 462 954,833 423,032 Common stock issued Stock options activity, net Restricted stock activity, net Other Net income Other comprehensive income, net of tax 5 5 - - - - Balance at December 31, 2012 $ 472 Stock options activity, net Restricted stock activity, net Stock warrant activity, net Other Net income 1 - - - - Other comprehensive income, net of tax Balance at December 31, 2013 - $ 473 45 20,672 21,967 - - - 997,517 1,419 14,193 771 - - - 1,013,900 - - - (4) 185,483 - 608,511 - - - (5) 228,744 - 837,250 See accompanying notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. F-6 SIGNATURE BANK CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (in thousands) CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net income Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization Provision for loan and lease losses Net impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Net amortization/accretion of premium/(discount) Stock-based compensation expense Net gains on sales of securities and loans Purchases and originations of loans held for sale Years ended December 31, 2012 2013 2011 $ 228,744 185,483 149,526 8,220 41,643 6,149 117,417 15,565 6,931 41,427 3,073 118,175 17,609 6,111 51,876 2,089 90,712 8,496 (12,515) (16,160) (18,441) (1,416,265) (1,035,761) (1,023,633) Proceeds from sales and principal repayments of loans held for sale 1,204,420 1,065,038 947,198 Net increase in accrued interest and dividends receivable Deferred income tax expense (benefit) Net increase in other assets Net increase in accrued expenses and other liabilities Net cash provided by operating activities CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Purchases of securities available-for-sale ("AFS") Proceeds from sales of securities AFS (7,301) 7,517 (2,324) 11,236 202,506 (3,834) (9,057) (51,990) 60,012 380,946 (7,322) (11,132) (39,243) 12,951 169,188 (2,106,010) (1,636,034) (2,791,800) 308,346 391,301 480,399 Maturities, redemptions, calls and principal repayments on securities AFS 1,388,967 1,546,005 1,130,447 Purchases of securities held-to-maturity ("HTM") Maturities, redemptions, calls and principal repayments on securities HTM Net purchases of Federal Home Loan Bank stock Net increase in loans and leases Net purchases of premises and equipment Net cash used in investing activities CASH FLOWS FROM FINANCING ACTIVITIES Net increase in non-interest-bearing deposits Net increase in interest-bearing deposits Proceeds from the issuance of Federal Home Loan Bank advances Repayment of Federal Home Loan Bank advances Proceeds from the issuance of other borrowings Repayment of other borrowings Tax (expense) benefit from stock-based compensation Issuance of common stock and exercise of options Other Net cash provided by financing activities Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year Cash and cash equivalents at end of year Supplemental disclosures of cash flow information: Interest paid during the year Income taxes paid during the year Non-cash investing activities: Transfer of securities from AFS to HTM, at fair value Transfer of securities from HTM to AFS, at fair value Transfer of loans to repossessed assets, at fair value (829,303) (305,866) (166,843) 179,399 (80,773) 116,266 (1,860) 54,792 (9,713) (3,761,333) (2,941,193) (1,639,172) (12,359) (8,549) (7,300) (4,913,066) (2,839,930) (2,949,190) 946,519 2,027,926 2,155,313 1,296,528 1,031,986 698,468 1,614,443 475,000 555,000 (440,000) (560,000) (438,000) 520,000 450,000 255,800 (450,000) (205,800) (169,200) (175) 994 (5) 15,839 9,246 (4) 2,118 255,233 (5) 4,760,572 2,512,795 2,773,857 50,012 93,965 143,977 $ 53,811 40,154 93,965 (6,145) 46,299 40,154 $ 105,876 151,663 111,676 133,376 120,995 126,550 806,338 654 800 - - - - - - See accompanying notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. F-7 SIGNATURE BANK Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (1) Organization Signature Bank (the “Bank” and together with its subsidiaries, the “Company,” “we,” or “us”) is a New York State chartered bank. On April 5, 2001, the Bank received its charter from the New York State Banking Department (now known as the New York State Department of Financial Services) and commenced business on May 1, 2001. The Bank currently operates 27 private client offices located in the New York metropolitan area, from which private client banking teams serve the needs of privately owned businesses, their owners and senior managers. The Bank operates Signature Financial, a specialty finance subsidiary focused on equipment finance and leasing, transportation financing and taxi medallion financing. The Bank also operates Signature Securities (“SSG”), a licensed broker-dealer and investment advisor offering investment, brokerage, asset management and insurance products and services. (2) Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (a) Basis of Presentation and Consolidation The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) and practices within the banking industry. In the opinion of management, these financial statements have been prepared to reflect all adjustments necessary to present fairly the financial condition and results of operations as of the dates and for the periods shown. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. (b) General Accounting Policy The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements are presented on the accrual basis of accounting. (c) Management’s Use of Estimates The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results may differ from those estimates. The most significant estimates include the adequacy of the allowance for loan and lease losses (“ALLL” or the “allowance”), valuation of securities, and the evaluation of other-than-temporary impairment of securities. Current market conditions increase the risk and complexity of the judgments involved in these estimates. (d) Cash and Cash Equivalents For the purpose of presentation in the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows, we have defined cash and cash equivalents to include cash and due from banks and short-term investments with original maturities of 90 days or less. Short-term investments consist of Federal funds sold, interest-bearing deposits with banks and money market mutual funds. Cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2013 consisted of cash and due from banks of $119.5 million, interest-bearing deposits with banks of $2.8 million and money market mutual funds of $21.7 million. Cash and cash equivalents at December 31, 2012 consisted of cash and due from banks of $86.2 million, interest-bearing deposits with banks of $2.1 million and money market mutual funds of $5.7 million. F-8 We are required by the Federal Reserve System to maintain non-interest bearing cash reserves equal to a percentage of certain deposits. The reserve requirement amounted to $135.4 million and $131.1 million for the periods that included December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. (e) Securities Available-for-Sale and Securities Held-to-Maturity The designation of a security as held-to-maturity (“HTM”) is made at the time of acquisition. Securities that we have the positive intent and ability to hold to maturity are classified as HTM and carried at amortized cost. Amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts are recognized using the level yield method. Securities classified as available-for-sale (“AFS”) include debt and equity securities that are carried at estimated fair value. Unrealized gains or losses on securities available-for-sale are included as a separate component of shareholders’ equity, net of tax effect. Amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts are recognized using the level yield method. Realized gains and losses on sales of securities are computed using the specific identification method and are reported in non-interest income. The Bank uses various inputs to determine the fair value of its investment portfolio, which are classified within a three-level fair value hierarchy based on the transparency and reliability of inputs to valuation methodologies. To the extent they are available, we use quoted market prices (Level 1) to determine fair value. If quoted market prices are not available, we use valuation techniques such as matrix pricing to determine fair value (Level 2). In cases where there is little, if any, related market activity, fair value estimates are based upon internally-developed valuation techniques that use inputs such as discount rates, credit spreads, default and delinquency rates, and prepayment speeds (Level 3). A significant degree of judgment is involved in valuing investments using Level 3 inputs, and the use of different assumptions could have a positive or negative effect on our financial condition or results of operations. See Note 3 for more details on our security valuation techniques. One of the significant estimates related to securities is the evaluation of securities for other-than-temporary impairment. We regularly evaluate our securities to identify declines in fair value that are considered other-than- temporary. Our evaluation of securities for impairments is a quantitative and qualitative process, which is subject to risks and uncertainties. If the amortized cost of an investment exceeds its fair value, we evaluate, among other factors, general market conditions, the duration and extent to which the fair value is less than amortized cost, the probability of a near-term recovery in value, whether we intend to sell the security and whether it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before full recovery of our investment or maturity. We also consider specific adverse conditions related to the financial health, projected cash flow and business outlook for the investee, including industry and sector performance, operational and financing cash flow factors and rating agency actions. Once a decline in fair value is determined to be other-than-temporary, for equity securities, an impairment charge is recorded through current earnings based upon the estimated fair value of the security at time of impairment and a new cost basis in the investment is established. For debt investment securities deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired, the investment is written down to fair value with the estimated credit loss charged to current earnings and the noncredit-related impairment loss charged to other comprehensive income. Securities are reviewed at least quarterly to determine if an other-than-temporary impairment is present based on certain quantitative and qualitative factors. For securities other than securitized financial assets, the primary factors considered in evaluating whether a decline in value is other-than-temporary include: (a) the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost or amortized cost and the expected recovery period of the security, (b) the financial condition, credit rating, and future prospects of the issuer, (c) whether the debtor is current on contractually-obligated interest and principal payments, and (d) whether we intend to sell or whether we will be required to sell these instruments before recovery of their cost basis. In performing our other-than-temporary impairment analysis for securitized financial assets with contractual cash flows (asset-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, commercial mortgage-backed securities and mortgage-backed securities), we estimate future cash flows for each security based upon our best estimate of future delinquencies, estimated defaults, loss severity, and prepayments. We review the estimated cash flows to determine whether we expect to receive all originally expected cash flows. Projected credit losses are compared to the current level of credit enhancement to assess whether the security is expected to incur losses in any future period and therefore would be deemed other-than-temporarily impaired. Equity securities, including FHLB stock, that are not quoted on an exchange and not considered to be readily marketable are recorded at cost, less impairment (if any). F-9 (f) Loans Held for Sale Loans originated and held for sale in the secondary market are carried at the lower of cost or estimated fair value. Net unrealized losses, if any, are recognized through a valuation allowance by charges to current earnings. Gains or losses resulting from sales of loans held for sale, net of unamortized deferred fees and costs, are recognized at the time of sale and are included in net gains on sales of loans on the Consolidated Statements of Income. (g) Loans and Leases, Net Loans are carried at the principal amount outstanding, less unearned discounts, net of deferred loan origination fees and costs and the ALLL. Unearned income and net deferred loan fees and costs are accreted into interest income over the loan term on a basis that approximates the level yield method. The accrual of interest income is generally discontinued at the time a loan becomes 90 days delinquent based on contractual terms. In the case of commercial loans, residential mortgages, and home equity lines of credit, exceptions may be made if the loan has sufficient collateral value, based on a current appraisal, and is in process of collection. In all cases, loans are placed on non-accrual status or charged-off at an earlier date if collection of principal or interest is considered doubtful. Once a loan is placed on non-accrual status, our accounting policies are applied consistently, regardless of loan type. All interest previously accrued but not collected for loans that are placed on non-accrual status is reversed against interest income. Payments received on non-accrual loans are applied against the outstanding loan principal. Loans are returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured. Impaired loans include non-accrual loans and troubled debt restructured loans. Loans classified as troubled debt restructurings include those loans where a borrower experiences financial difficulty and the Bank makes certain concessionary modifications to contractual terms, such as a reduction of the stated interest rate or face amount of the loan, a reduction of accrued interest, or an extension of the maturity date(s) at a stated interest rate lower than the current market rate for a new loan with similar risk. (h) Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses The ALLL is established through a provision for loan and lease losses charged to current earnings. The ALLL is maintained at a level estimated by management to absorb probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio and is based on management’s continuing evaluation of the portfolio, the related risk characteristics, and the overall economic conditions affecting the loan portfolio. This estimation is inherently subjective as it requires measures that are susceptible to significant revision as more information becomes available. Our methodology to determine the ALLL includes segmenting the loan portfolio into various components and applying various loss factors to estimate the amount of probable losses. The largest segment of our loan portfolio is comprised of credit-rated commercial loans, comprising 97.0% of our total loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, as of December 31, 2013. Our credit-rated commercial loans include commercial and industrial loans along with loans to commercial borrowers that are secured by real estate (commercial property, multi-family residential property, 1-4 family residential property and construction and land). For each loan within this segment, a credit rating is assigned based on a review of specific risk factors including (i) historical and projected financial results of the borrower, (ii) market conditions of the borrower’s industry that may affect the borrower’s future financial performance, (iii) business experience of the borrower’s management, (iv) nature of the underlying collateral, if any, and (v) borrower’s history of payment performance. When assigning a credit rating to a loan, we use an internal nine-level rating system in which a rating of one carries the lowest level of credit risk and is used for borrowers exhibiting the strongest financial condition. Loans rated one through six are deemed to be acceptable quality and are considered “Pass.” Loans that are deemed to be of questionable quality are rated seven (special mention). Loans with adverse classifications (substandard or doubtful) are rated eight or nine, respectively. A loan is considered substandard if it is inadequately protected by the current net worth and paying capacity of the borrower, or by the collateral pledged. Substandard loans are characterized by the distinct possibility that the Bank will sustain some loss if the deficiencies are not corrected. Loans classified as doubtful have all of the weaknesses inherent in those classified substandard with the added F-10 characteristic that the weaknesses present make collection or liquidation in full, on the basis of currently existing facts, conditions, and values, highly questionable and improbable. The outstanding amounts of credit-rated commercial loans are aggregated by credit rating, and we estimate the allowance for losses for each credit rating using loss factors based on historical loss experience and qualitative adjustments reflecting the current economic conditions and outlook for housing, employment, manufacturing, and consumer spending. The economic adjustments reflect the imprecision that is inherent in the estimates of probable loan losses, and are intended to ensure adequacy of the overall allowance amount. The loss factors assigned to each credit rating are adjusted based on management’s judgment, along with certain qualitative factors such as the trend and severity of problem loans that can cause the estimation of inherent losses to differ from historical experience. Any change to an individual credit rating affects the amount of the related allowance. Our internal review process results in the periodic review of assigned credit ratings to reflect changes in specific risk factors. Commercial lines of credit are generally issued with terms of one year, and upon annual renewal our lenders perform a full review of the specific risk factors to assess the appropriateness of the assigned credit ratings. Furthermore, loans classified as special mention, substandard or doubtful are placed on our internal watch list, and our lenders perform a credit rating review on a quarterly basis (special mention loans) or monthly basis (substandard and doubtful loans). In addition, our Risk Management function performs periodic credit reviews that provide an independent evaluation of the assigned credit ratings. These reviews focus on those loans with higher-risk attributes, such as lines of credit with higher utilization percentages and loan facilities with delinquencies, and generally cover, in aggregate, between 40-50% of the commercial loan portfolio, including all commercial loans over $500,000 with adverse credit ratings, on an annual basis. The results of these credit reviews are presented to both the Risk and the Credit Committees of the Board of Directors. Our methodology to determine the ALLL for the non-rated segments of our loan portfolio is based on historical loss experience and qualitative factors. Non-rated loans include commercial loans with outstanding principal balances below $100,000, overdrafts, residential mortgages, and consumer loans. The outstanding amounts of loans in each of these segments are aggregated, and we apply percentages based on historical losses and qualitative factors by segment to estimate the required allowance. Non-rated loans comprise 3.0% of our total loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, as of December 31, 2013. We consider all non-accrual loans to be impaired loans, and the related specific allowances for losses are determined on an individual (non-homogeneous) basis. Factors contributing to the determination of specific allowances on impaired loans include the creditworthiness of the borrower and, more specifically, changes in the expected future receipt of principal and interest payments or, for collateral-dependent loans, the value of pledged collateral. For impaired loans in excess of $300,000, that are collateral-dependent, we generally record a charge- off when the carrying amount of the loan exceeds the fair value of the collateral less estimated selling costs, if appropriate. For non-collateral dependent loans in excess of $300,000, a specific allowance is recorded when the carrying amount of the loan exceeds the discounted estimated cash flows using the loan’s initial effective interest rate. For smaller impaired loans, in the absence of other factors affecting the collectability of the loan, we generally determine the amount of specific allowance using estimated loss percentages based on the amount of time the loan has been delinquent. The methodology used in the periodic review of reserve adequacy, which is performed at least quarterly, is designed to be responsive to changes in portfolio credit quality and inherent credit losses. The changes are reflected in both the pooled formula reserve and in specific reserves as the collectability of larger classified loans is regularly recalculated with new information as it becomes available. As our portfolio matures, historical loss ratios are closely monitored. Currently, the review of reserve adequacy is performed by our senior management, assessed by a credit review function, and presented to our Board of Directors for their review and consideration on a quarterly basis. In addition, bank regulators, as an integral part of their supervisory functions, periodically review our loan portfolio and related ALLL. These regulatory agencies may require us to increase our provision for loan and lease losses or to recognize further loan charge-offs based upon their judgments, which may be different from ours. An increase in the ALLL required by these regulatory agencies could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. For economic reasons and to maximize the recovery of loans, we may work with borrowers experiencing financial difficulties and will consider modifications to a borrower’s existing loan terms and conditions that we would not F-11 otherwise consider, commonly referred to as troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”). We record a provision for impairment loss associated with TDRs, if any, based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the original loan’s effective interest rate or, if the loan is collateral dependent, based on the fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell. At the time of restructuring, we determine whether a TDR loan should accrue interest based on the accrual status of the loan immediately prior to modification. A non-accrual TDR loan will be returned to accrual status when all the principal and interest amounts contractually due are brought current and future payments are reasonably assured. Additionally, there should be a sustained period of repayment performance (generally a period of six months) by the borrower in accordance with the modified contractual terms. In years after the year of restructuring, the loan is not reported as a TDR loan if it was restructured at a market interest rate and it is performing in accordance with its modified terms. Other TDRs are reported as such for as long as the loan remains outstanding. (i) Charge-off of Uncollectible Loans Loan losses are charged-off in the period the loans, or a portion thereof, are deemed uncollectible. For collateral dependent risk-rated commercial loans, charge-offs are generally recorded when the collateral value is less than the carrying value and in all cases no later than when we take possession of collateral. Charge-offs are generally measured as the excess of the loan carrying value over the estimated fair value of the collateral, net of selling costs. Fair value is estimated based on credible, verifiable indicators of value such as appraisals, evaluations, documented discussions with brokers, or recent sales or market listings of comparable properties. In the case of other loan segments, including non-rated commercial loans, consumer loans, and residential mortgages, charge- offs are generally recorded when a loan reaches 180 days of delinquency unless there are extenuating circumstances that can be clearly evidenced. Such circumstances include loans that are well secured and in process of collection along with loans undergoing extensive restructuring/settlement discussions with the borrower. (j) Loan Origination and Commitment Fees Loan origination and commitment fees are deferred and amortized into interest income on a basis that approximates the level yield method. Net commitment fees on revolving lines of credit are recognized in interest income on the straight-line method over the period the revolving line is active. Any fees that are unamortized at the time a loan is paid off or a commitment is closed are recognized into income immediately. (k) Securitizations The Bank purchases, securitizes and sells the government-guaranteed portions of U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans. When the Bank securitizes SBA loans, we may retain interest-only strips, which are generally considered residual interests in the securitized assets. These SBA interest-only strips are accounted for and classified as AFS securities. Gains and losses upon sale of the securitized SBA loans depend, in part, on our allocation of the previous carrying amount of the loans to the retained interests. Previous carrying amounts are allocated in proportion to the relative fair values of the loans sold and interests retained. The Bank uses an internal valuation process to determine the fair value of its SBA interest-only strip securities. The excess of cash flows expected to be received over the amortized cost of the retained interests is recognized as interest income using the effective yield method. If the fair value of the retained interest has declined below its carrying amount and there has been an adverse change in estimated cash flows of the underlying loans, then the decline in fair value is considered to be other-than-temporary and the retained interest is written down to fair value with a corresponding charge to earnings. (l) Premises and Equipment Premises and equipment are stated at cost less accumulated depreciation and amortization. Depreciation of furniture, fixtures, and equipment is computed by the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets. Furniture and fixtures are normally amortized over seven years and equipment; computer hardware and computer software are normally amortized over five years. Amortization of leasehold improvements is computed by the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives or the terms of the leases, whichever is shorter. F-12 (m) Bank-owned Life Insurance The Bank has purchased life insurance policies on certain employees. These Bank-owned life insurance (“BOLI”) policies are carried at the amount that could be realized under our BOLI policies as of the date of the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition and are included in other assets. Increases in the carrying value are recorded as “Other Income” in the Consolidated Statements of Income and insurance proceeds received are generally recorded as a reduction of the carrying value. The carrying value consists of cash surrender value of $63.0 million at December 31, 2013, and $61.9 million at December 31, 2012, and deferred acquisition costs of $187,000 at December 31, 2013, and $311,000 at December 31, 2012. Our investment in BOLI generated income of $1.6 million, $2.4 million, and $1.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. (n) Repossessed Assets Repossessed assets are comprised of any property (“other real estate” or “ORE”) or other asset acquired through loan restructurings, foreclosure proceedings, or acceptance of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Repossessed assets are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated selling costs, and are included in other assets. Any write-downs at the date of acquisition are charged to the ALLL. Expenses incurred to maintain repossessed assets, unrealized losses resulting from write-downs after the date of acquisition, and realized gains and losses upon sale of the assets are included in other non-interest expense and other non-interest income, as appropriate. As of December 31, 2013, our repossessed assets totaled $800,000. We did not hold any repossessed assets as of December 31, 2012. (o) Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase When we maintain effective control over the underlying securities, securities sold under agreements to repurchase are accounted for as financings (rather than as sales) and the obligations to repurchase securities sold are reflected as liabilities in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition at the amounts at which the securities will be subsequently repurchased. All of our agreements have been accounted for as financings through December 31, 2013. The dollar amount of securities underlying the agreements remains in the asset accounts, although the securities underlying the agreements are delivered to the counterparties who arranged the transactions. In certain instances, the counterparties may have sold, loaned, or disposed of the securities to other parties in the normal course of their operations, and have agreed to resell to us substantially similar securities at the maturity of the agreements. (p) Income Taxes Signature Bank files consolidated Federal and combined New York State and New York City income tax returns with its subsidiaries, with the exception of Signature Preferred Capital, Inc. which files separately as a real estate investment trust. Additionally, Signature Financial and SSG files other state and local returns on a separate basis. Income tax expense consists of current and deferred income tax expense (benefit). Deferred income tax expense (benefit) is determined by recognizing deferred tax assets and liabilities for future tax consequences attributable to differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases and certain unused carry-forward deductions and credits. The realization of deferred tax assets is assessed and if necessary, a valuation allowance is provided to reduce the asset to the amount that will more likely than not be realized. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the year in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled and carry-forward deductions and credits are expected to be utilized. The effect on deferred tax assets and liabilities of a change in tax laws or rates is recognized in income tax expense in the period that includes the enactment date of the change. (q) Stock-Based Compensation We recognize compensation expense in our Consolidated Statement of Income for all stock-based compensation awards over the requisite service period with a corresponding credit to equity, specifically additional paid-in capital. Compensation expense is measured based on grant date fair value and is included in salaries and benefits (non- interest expense). F-13 (r) Earnings Per Common Share Basic earnings per common share is computed by dividing net income available to common shareholders by the weighted-average common shares outstanding during the year. Diluted earnings per common share is computed using the same method as basic earnings per share, but includes the potential dilutive effect of stock options outstanding and the unvested portions of restricted stock awards. The dilutive effect is calculated using the treasury stock method. (s) New Accounting Standards In April 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) 2011-03, Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements, which amends the provisions of ASC Topic 860 (Transfers and Servicing) related to whether or not the transferor has maintained effective control over the transferred assets that affects the determination of whether the transaction is accounted for as a sale or a secured borrowing. In the assessment of effective control, ASU 2011-03 removed the criterion that requires transferors to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee. Other criteria applicable to the assessment of effective control have not been changed. This guidance is effective for prospective periods beginning on or after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is prohibited. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2011-03 on January 1, 2012 with no material impact to our Consolidated Financial Statements. In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement: Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, which expands existing disclosure requirements found in ASC Topic 820 (Fair Value Measurement and Disclosures). This ASU is the result of efforts to converge GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) and provides guidance on how fair value should be measured and disclosed. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. Early adoption is prohibited. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2011-04 on January 1, 2012 and have provided the related disclosures as required. In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Presentation of Comprehensive Income, which amends ASC Topic 220 (Comprehensive Income). The new guidance requires entities to report components of comprehensive income in either (1) a single financial statement, where total net income and its components, total other comprehensive income (OCI) and its components, and total comprehensive income are presented in a continuous format, or (2) in two consecutive financial statements, where net income is reported in one statement, immediately followed by a statement presenting OCI and its components and a total for comprehensive income. The earnings per share computation is not affected by the new guidance. This guidance is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011 and should be applied retrospectively, with deferral of presenting the reclassification adjustments based on ASU 2011-12, Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05. We adopted these requirements on January 1, 2012 and have provided the related disclosures as required. In January 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-01, Clarifying the Scope of Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities, which addresses implementation issues about the scope of ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet: Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities (Topic 210). The ASU 2013-01 limits the scope of the new balance sheet offsetting disclosures to derivatives, repurchase agreements, and securities lending transactions to the extent that they are (1) offset in the financial statements or (2) subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement. An entity is required to apply the ASU for annual reporting periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013, and interim periods within those annual periods. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2013-01 on January 1, 2013 with no impact to our Consolidated Financial Statements. In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02, Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, which amends Accounting Standards Codification Topic 220 (Comprehensive Income). The new amendment requires entities to provide information about the amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by component. In addition, an entity is required to present, either on the face of the statement where net income is presented or in the notes, significant amounts reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income by the respective line items of net income, but only if the amount reclassified is required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified to net income in its entirety in the same reporting period. For other amounts F-14 that are not required under U.S. GAAP to be reclassified in their entirety to net income, an entity is required to cross-reference to other disclosures required under U.S. GAAP that provide additional detail about those amounts. This guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2012. We adopted the applicable requirements for ASU 2013-02 on January 1, 2013 and have provided the applicable disclosures in Note 17. In November 2013, the FASB’s Emerging Issues Task Force (“EITF”) reached a final consensus on Issue 13-B, Accounting for Investments in Qualified Affordable Housing Projects. The final consensus allows investors in Low Income Housing Tax Credit (“LIHTC”) programs that meet specified conditions to present the net tax benefits (net of the amortization of the cost of the investment) within income tax expense. The cost of the investments that meet the specified conditions will be amortized in proportion to (and over the same period as) the total expected tax benefits, including the tax credits and other tax benefits, as they are realized on the tax return. The amortization of the cost of the investments will be presented in income tax expense along with the related tax benefits. If the investors do not qualify for the proportional amortization method or do not elect it, they would account for their investments under the equity or cost method based on current U.S. GAAP. This guidance will be effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2014. The final consensus will be applied retrospectively if investors elect the proportional amortization method. Early adoption is permitted. (3) Fair Value Measurements The Bank uses fair value measurements to record fair value adjustments to certain assets and liabilities and to determine fair value disclosures. Fair value measurements are recorded on a recurring basis for certain assets and liabilities when fair value is the measure for accounting purposes, such as investment securities classified as available-for-sale and derivatives. Certain other assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a non- recurring basis and are subject to fair value adjustments in certain circumstances, such as when there is evidence of impairment. U.S. GAAP establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes techniques used to measure the fair value of assets and liabilities, based on the transparency and reliability of inputs to valuation methodologies. The three levels are defined as follows:    Level 1 – Valuations are based on quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. Accordingly, valuation of these assets and liabilities does not entail a significant degree of judgment. Examples include most U.S. Government securities and exchange-traded equity securities. Level 2 – Valuations are based on either quoted prices in markets that are not considered to be active or significant inputs to the methodology that are observable, either directly or indirectly. Examples include U.S. Government Agency securities, municipal bonds, corporate bonds, certain residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, deposits, and most structured notes. Level 3 – Valuations are based on inputs to the methodology that are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement. These inputs reflect management’s own judgments about the assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the assets and liabilities. Examples include certain commercial loans, certain residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, private equity investments, and complex over-the-counter derivatives. Valuation Methodology The Bank has an established and well documented process for determining fair values. The Bank uses quoted market prices, when available, to determine fair value and classifies such items as Level 1. In many cases, the Bank utilizes valuation techniques, such as matrix pricing, to determine fair value, in which case the items are classified as Level 2. Fair value estimates may also be based upon internally-developed valuation techniques that use current market-based inputs such as discount rates, credit spreads, default and delinquency rates, and prepayment speeds. Items valued using internal valuation techniques are classified according to the lowest level input that is significant to the valuation, and are typically classified as Level 3. F-15 We utilize independent third-party pricing sources to value most of our investment securities. Two independent third-party pricing sources are employed to value positions and validate market values. If there is a large price discrepancy between the two pricing services for an individual security, we utilize industry market spread data to assist in determining the most appropriate fair value. In addition, the third-party pricing sources have an established challenge process in place for all security valuations, which facilitates identification and resolution of potentially erroneous prices. We believe that the prices received from our pricing sources are representative of prices that would be received to sell the assets at the measurement date (exit prices) and are classified appropriately in the hierarchy. The valuations provided by the pricing services are derived from quoted market prices or using matrix pricing. Matrix pricing is a valuation technique consistent with the market approach of determining fair value. The market approach uses prices and other relevant information generated by market transactions involving identical or comparable assets. Matrix pricing is a mathematical technique used principally to value debt securities without relying exclusively on quoted prices of specific securities, but rather on the securities’ relationship to other benchmark quoted securities. Most of our securities portfolio is priced using this method, and such securities are classified as Level 2. Securities are classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy in cases where there is limited activity or less transparency around inputs to the valuation. In these cases, the valuations are determined based upon an analysis of the cash flow structure and credit analysis for each position. Relative market spreads are utilized to discount the cash flow to determine current market values, as well as analysis of relative coverage ratios, credit enhancements, and collateral characteristics. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) interest-only strip securities, pooled trust preferred securities, and private collateralized mortgage obligations (“CMOs”) are all included in the Level 3 fair value hierarchy. Markets for SBA interest-only strip securities are relatively inactive, with limited observable secondary market transactions. Our SBA interest-only strip securities are classified as other debt securities available-for-sale (“AFS”) and reported at fair value, with changes in fair value recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income. The securities are valued using Level 3 inputs and had fair values of $89.4 million at December 31, 2013 and $72.3 million at December 31, 2012. Since the cash flows of the SBA interest-only strip securities are guaranteed by the U.S. Government, there is limited credit risk involved in the cash flows. Therefore, the primary assumption built into the pricing model to generate the projected cash flows used to compute the fair values of the SBA interest-only strip securities is the discount yield. If the discount yield were to change by 100 basis points, the fair values of our SBA interest-only strip securities would increase or decrease accordingly by approximately 10%. The Bank determined the inputs to the discounted cash flow model based on historical performance and information provided by brokers. Our pooled trust preferred securities are classified as AFS and had fair values of $13.1 million at December 31, 2013 and $8.6 million at December 31, 2012. Due to a relatively inactive market for pooled trust preferred securities with limited observable secondary market transactions, the fair values of these securities are determined using a discounted cash flow analysis. Unobservable inputs are used in the discounted cash flow model, the most significant of which is the market risk premium. If this assumption were to change by 300 basis points, the fair values of our Level 3 pooled trust preferred securities would increase or decrease accordingly by approximately 40%. Level 3 private CMOs classified as AFS had fair values of $8.3 million at December 31, 2013 and $6.7 million at December 31, 2012. The fair values for these securities are determined based upon a discounted cash flow model, with the market risk premium as the most significant unobservable input. If this assumption were to change by 300 basis points, the fair values of our Level 3 private CMOs would increase or decrease accordingly by approximately 25%. F-16 Financial Instruments Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis The following tables present the assets and liabilities carried at fair value as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, classified according to the three-level valuation hierarchy: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 ASSETS Securities available-for-sale: U.S. Treasury securities Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: Commercial mortgage-backed securities Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Pooled trust preferred securities Collateralized debt obligations Other Equity securities (1) Total securities available-for-sale Derivatives Total assets LIABILITIES Derivatives Total liabilities December 31, 2012 ASSETS Securities available-for-sale: Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: Commercial mortgage-backed securities Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Pooled trust preferred securities Collateralized debt obligations Other Equity securities (1) Total securities available-for-sale Total assets LIABILITIES Derivatives Total liabilities Quoted Prices in Active Markets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2) Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) Total Carrying Value $ 501 - - - - - - - - - - - - 501 - 25,004 1,050,217 576,738 2,408,166 482,970 348,707 401,733 - - 206,625 14,549 5,514,709 57 $ 501 5,514,766 $ - $ - 59 59 $ - - - - - - - - - - - - $ - $ - $ - 34,315 878,385 586,825 2,900,066 688,257 392,637 426,855 - - 116,274 14,941 6,038,555 6,038,555 - - - - - - - 8,349 - - 13,093 4,926 89,435 1,220 117,023 - 117,023 50 50 - - - - 6,729 - - 8,601 2,952 72,265 1,254 91,801 91,801 - - 501 25,004 1,050,217 576,738 2,408,166 491,319 348,707 401,733 13,093 4,926 296,060 15,769 5,632,233 57 5,632,290 109 109 34,315 878,385 586,825 2,900,066 694,986 392,637 426,855 8,601 2,952 188,539 16,195 6,130,356 6,130,356 - - (1) Equity securities represent Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) qualifying closed-end bond fund investments. F-17 Changes in Level 3 Fair Value Measurements We recognize transfers between levels of the valuation hierarchy at the end of reporting periods. There were no transfers of assets between Level 1 and Level 2 for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. Additionally, the following table presents information for AFS securities measured at fair value on a recurring basis and classified by the Bank within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy for the periods indicated: (in thousands) Beginning balance Transfers into Level 3 Transfers out of Level 3 Total gains or (losses) (realized/unrealized): Included in earnings Included in other comprehensive income Sales Ending balance 2013 Years ended December 31, 2012 2011 $ 91,801 - - (3,065) 28,287 - $ 117,023 87,051 - - 2,588 12,309 (10,147) 91,801 105,761 1,384 - 7,433 40,452 (67,979) 87,051 Assets Measured at Fair Value on a Non-recurring Basis Certain assets are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis. These assets are not measured at fair value on an on-going basis but are subject to fair value adjustments only in certain circumstances, such as when there is impairment or when an adjustment is required to reduce the carrying value to the lower of cost or fair value. These assets may include collateral-dependent impaired loans, securities held-to-maturity (“HTM”) that are other- than-temporarily impaired, loans held-for-sale, reposessed assets, and certain long-lived assets. The following tables present the assets measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, classified according to the three-level valuation hierarchy: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Collateral-dependent impaired loans: Multi-family residential property Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Commercial and industrial Other repossessed assets Total assets December 31, 2012 Collateral-dependent impaired loans: Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Commercial and industrial Total assets Quoted Prices in Active Markets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2) Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) Total Carrying Value - - - - - - - $ - - - - - - $ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,589 8,357 6,975 1,058 2,101 7,884 800 37,764 5,225 6,426 607 2,760 9,401 24,419 10,589 8,357 6,975 1,058 2,101 7,884 800 37,764 5,225 6,426 607 2,760 9,401 24,419 HTM securities for which other-than-temporary impairment losses were recognized during the current period are reflected at their fair values based on the valuation methodology for investment securities, as previously described. In accordance with FASB requirements, when debt securities are determined to be other-than- temporarily impaired and management believes it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell the F-18 security before recovery of its amortized cost, the investment is written down through current earnings for the impairment related to the estimated credit loss, while the noncredit related impairment loss is recognized in other comprehensive income. We did not recognize other-than-temporary losses on any HTM securities during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we recognized other- than-temporary impairment totaling $1.7 million on one HTM debt security, for which we recognized the credit component ($503,000) in earnings and the noncredit component ($1.2 million) in other comprehensive income. Collateral-dependent impaired loans are reported at the fair value of the underlying collateral, which is determined based on individual appraisals that may be discounted by management for unobservable factors resulting from its knowledge of the property. Fair value adjustments for collateral-dependent impaired loans are recorded through a specific allocation of the ALLL. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, we recorded fair value adjustments totaling $17.2 million, $16.2 million and $24.5 million, respectively, on collateral-dependent impaired loans. Repossessed assets are comprised of any property (“other real estate” or “ORE”) or other asset acquired through loan restructurings, foreclosure proceedings, or acceptance of a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. Repossessed assets are carried at the lower of cost or fair value, less estimated selling costs. Fair value is determined through current appraisals, and fair value adjustments are reported through a valuation allowance against the asset. There were no fair value adjustments on repossessed assets during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we recorded a fair value adjustment of $476,000 on ORE. Other Fair Value Disclosures The preparation of financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP requires disclosure of the fair value of financial assets and liabilities, including those items that are not measured and reported at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis. The methodologies for estimating the fair value of financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring or non-recurring basis are discussed above. The methodologies for estimating the fair value of other items, which are carried on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition at cost or amortized cost, are discussed below. Fair value estimates for our financial instruments are made at a specific point in time, based on relevant market information and information about the financial instrument. Fair value estimates are not necessarily representative of our total enterprise value. The carrying amounts for cash and cash equivalents are reasonable estimates of fair value. The redemption (par) value of Federal Home Loan Bank stock is a reasonable estimate of fair value. Our loans held for sale consist of the government-guaranteed portion of SBA loans. The fair value of our loans held for sale approximates cost, as these loans have adjustable rates and are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. The estimated fair value of our loans and leases, net, was based on the discounted value of contractual cash flows using interest rates that approximated those offered for loans with similar maturities and collateral requirements to borrowers of comparable credit worthiness. Since this method of estimating fair value is based on a comparison to current market rates for similar loans, it does not fully incorporate an exit-value approach to estimating fair value, which would also consider adjustments for other factors such as liquidity and credit quality. The fair value estimate could be affected significantly by these other factors. Deposits are mostly non-interest-bearing or NOW and money market deposits that bear floating interest rates that are re-priced based on market considerations and the Bank’s strategy. Therefore, the carrying value approximates fair value. The carrying and fair values do not include the intangible fair value of core deposit relationships, which comprise a significant portion of our deposit base. Management believes that the Bank’s core deposit relationships represent a relatively stable, low-cost source of funding that has a substantial intangible value separate from the deposit balances. Time deposits, 71.4% of which mature within one year, had a carrying value of $1.23 billion and an estimated fair value of $1.23 billion at December 31, 2013. The estimated fair value is based on the discounted value of contractual cash flows using interest rates that approximated those offered for time deposits with similar maturities and terms. F-19 The estimated fair value of borrowings is based on the discounted value of contractual cash flows using interest rates that approximate those offered for borrowings with similar maturities and collateral requirements. The following table summarizes the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of our financial assets and liabilities: Carrying Amount Total Estimated Fair Value Measurements Quoted Prices in Active Markets (Level 1) Significant Other Observable Inputs (Level 2) Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3) (in thousands) December 31, 2013 FINANCIAL ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Securities available-for-sale Securities held-to-maturity Federal Home Loan Bank stock Loans held for sale Loans and leases, net (1) Derivatives Total financial assets FINANCIAL LIABILITIES Deposits (2) Repurchase agreements Federal funds purchased Federal Home Loan Bank advances Derivatives Total financial liabilities December 31, 2012 FINANCIAL ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents Securities available-for-sale Securities held-to-maturity Federal Home Loan Bank stock Loans held for sale Loans and leases, net (1) Derivatives Total financial assets FINANCIAL LIABILITIES Deposits (2) Repurchase agreements Federal funds purchased $ 143,977 5,632,233 2,175,844 130,785 420,759 13,384,400 57 21,888,055 $ 143,977 5,632,233 2,110,290 130,785 420,759 13,589,108 57 22,027,209 $ 17,057,097 17,063,751 695,000 370,000 2,305,313 109 20,427,519 $ 716,782 370,000 2,306,871 109 20,457,513 143,977 501 - - - - - 144,478 - - - - - - $ 93,965 93,965 93,965 6,130,356 6,130,356 739,835 50,012 369,468 9,664,337 - 755,469 50,012 369,468 9,833,931 - $ 17,047,973 17,233,201 $ 14,082,652 14,093,384 645,000 350,000 680,500 350,000 - - - - - - 93,965 - - - - - - 5,514,709 2,110,290 130,785 420,759 - 57 8,176,600 17,063,751 716,782 370,000 2,306,871 59 20,457,463 - 6,038,555 752,729 50,012 369,468 - - 7,210,764 14,093,384 680,500 350,000 595,235 15,719,119 - 117,023 - - - 13,589,108 - 13,706,131 - - - - 50 50 - 91,801 2,740 - - 9,833,931 - 9,928,472 - - - - - Federal Home Loan Bank advances Total financial liabilities 590,000 15,667,652 $ 595,235 15,719,119 (1) The estimated fair value measurements for loans and leases include adjustments related to market interest rates. No adjustments are made to the related allowances for loan and lease losses. (2) The carrying and fair values of deposits do not include the intangible fair value of core deposit relationships. (4) Securities We generally invest in U.S. Government agency obligations, securities guaranteed by U.S. Government- sponsored enterprises, and other investment grade securities. The fair value of these investments fluctuates based on several factors, including general interest rate changes. For collateralized mortgage obligations and certain other debt securities, fair value fluctuates based on credit quality, changes in credit spreads, and the degree of market liquidity, among other factors. F-20 The following table summarizes the components of our securities portfolios as of the dates indicated: 2013 Gross Gross 2012 Gross Gross December 31, (in thousands) AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE U.S. Treasury securities Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: Amortized Cost Unrealized Unrealized Gains Losses Fair Value Amortized Unrealized Unrealized Gains Losses Cost Fair Value $ 500 1 - 501 - - - - 24,171 1,049,867 578,012 2,451,274 494,920 882 14,497 8,187 20,358 6,484 (49) 25,004 (14,147) 1,050,217 32,456 844,503 (9,461) 576,738 576,709 (63,466) 2,408,166 2,872,130 (10,085) 491,319 696,593 1,861 34,454 19,002 62,654 15,232 (2) (572) 34,315 878,385 (8,886) 586,825 (34,718) 2,900,066 (16,839) 694,986 Commercial mortgage-backed securities 345,560 7,502 (4,355) 348,707 373,750 19,105 (218) 392,637 Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Pooled trust preferred securities Collateralized debt obligations Other Equity securities (1) Total available-for-sale HELD-TO-MATURITY Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: 399,214 26,735 4,926 300,420 16,724 5,692,323 $ $ 2,358 493,979 312,405 1,288,749 6,525 - - 2,258 - 70,188 94 459 5,438 5,902 - 10,019 (7,500) 401,733 418,918 14,604 (6,667) 426,855 (13,642) - 13,093 4,926 (6,618) 296,060 (955) (130,278) 15,769 5,632,233 27,863 5,282 186,478 16,290 6,050,972 - - 14,005 216 181,133 (19,262) (2,330) 8,601 2,952 (11,944) 188,539 (311) (101,749) 16,195 6,130,356 - 2,452 (15,976) 478,462 (7,244) 310,599 (53,234) 1,241,417 (1,052) 5,473 3,010 67,904 142,358 485,918 8,852 - - 4,739 27,054 739,835 146 1,004 5,876 14,623 1 - - - 417 22,067 - (260) 3,156 68,648 (104) (2,264) (1,661) 148,130 498,277 7,192 - - - - (2,000) (144) (6,433) 2,739 27,327 755,469 Commercial mortgage-backed securities 18,260 859 - 19,119 Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Collateralized debt obligations Other Total held-to-maturity 43,650 - - - (739) 42,911 - - 9,918 2,175,844 $ 84 12,836 (145) (78,390) 9,857 2,110,290 (1) Equity securities represent Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) qualifying closed-end bond fund investments. During the second quarter of 2013, we transferred $806.3 million of AFS securities to HTM due to expected market volatility. The securities transferred consisted primarily of CMOs, mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”), and corporate bonds. The securities were transferred at fair value, which became the cost basis for the HTM securities. The net unrealized loss, net of tax, on these securities at the date of transfer was $19.2 million, and continues to be reported, net of tax, as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income. This net unrealized loss will be accreted to interest income over the remaining life of the securities, and will be offset by the amortization of the net discount created by the transfer, resulting in no current or future impact to our net interest income as a result of this transfer. Also, there were no gains or losses recognized as a result of this transfer. During the fourth quarter of 2013, federal regulators adopted a final rule implementing the “Volcker Rule” enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. Per the rule, banking organizations and their affiliates are restricted from investing in and sponsoring covered funds. Such investments must be divested by the end of a conformance period (July 21, 2015). In order to comply with the Volcker Rule, we transferred one collateralized debt obligation (“CDO”) that may be deemed as a covered fund from HTM to AFS, resulting in $2.1 million of other-than-temporary impairment losses charged to earnings. Gross realized gains on sales of AFS securities for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 were $11.5 million, $9.3 million, and $14.6 million, respectively. Gross realized losses on sales of AFS securities for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 were $5.3 million, $2.4 million, and $185,000, respectively. F-21 We use securities as collateral for debtor-in-possession deposit accounts in excess of FDIC insurance limits, clients’ treasury tax and loan deposits, public deposits, securities sold under agreements to repurchase and advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank of New York. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, the total amount of collateral we were required to pledge was $4.84 billion and $2.87 billion, respectively. In order to readily facilitate future borrowing needs, we typically pledge securities in excess of our required collateral obligation. If necessary, the excess collateral can be returned. At December 31, 2013, our total pledged securities had a fair value of $5.48 billion and a carrying value of $5.53 billion. At December 31, 2012, our total pledged securities had a fair value of $4.00 billion and a carrying value of $3.98 billion. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recognized other-than-temporary impairment totaling $9.2 million on 16 debt securities, which we do not intend to sell and for which it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security prior to recovery. We recognized the credit component of the other-than-temporary impairment in earnings ($6.1 million) and the noncredit component in other comprehensive income ($3.1 million). During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, we recorded other-than-temporary impairment on debt securities as follows: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Available-for-sale Collateralized Debt Obligations Pooled Trust Preferred Securities Private CMOs Government- sponsored Enterprises CMOs Other Held-to-maturity Collateralized Debt Obligations - - - - - - - - - - - - Total (9,208) 3,059 (6,149) (11,593) 8,520 (3,073) (1,226) 1,000 (226) (1,718) (12,272) 1,215 (503) 10,183 (2,089) Total other-than-temporary impairment losses Less: Portion of loss recognized in OCI (1) Net impairment losses recognized in earnings (2) $ (3,348) (1,571) 21 (3,327) $ 873 (698) December 31, 2012 Total other-than-temporary impairment losses Less: Portion of loss recognized in OCI (1) Net impairment losses recognized in earnings (2) December 31, 2011 Total other-than-temporary impairment losses Less: Portion of loss recognized in OCI (1) Net impairment losses recognized in earnings (2) $ (3,312) 2,567 (745) $ $ - - $ - - - - - - - (1,666) 542 (1,124) (8,281) 5,953 (2,328) (9,328) 7,968 (1,360) (2,623) 1,623 (1,000) - - - - - - (1) (2) Represents the noncredit component of the other-than-temporary impairment on debt securities. Represents the credit component of the other-than-temporary impairment on debt securities. F-22 The following table presents a rollforward of activity related to the credit component of other-than-temporary impairments recognized in pre-tax earnings on debt securities held at period-end for which a portion of the impairment was recognized in other comprehensive income at period-end: (in thousands) Year ended December 31, 2013 Cumulative credit component of other-than-temporary impairment losses at beginning of period Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment was not previously recognized Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment was previously recognized Reduction for realized losses on debt securities sold Cumulative credit component of other-than-temporary impairment losses at end of period Year ended December 31, 2012 Cumulative credit component of other-than-temporary impairment losses at beginning of period Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment was not previously recognized Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment was previously recognized Cumulative credit component of other-than-temporary impairment losses at end of period Year ended December 31, 2011 Cumulative credit component of other-than-temporary impairment losses at beginning of period Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment was not previously recognized Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which other-than-temporary impairment was previously recognized Cumulative credit component of other-than-temporary impairment losses at end of period $ 42,475 1,217 4,932 (6,821) $ 41,803 $ 39,402 519 2,554 $ 42,475 $ 37,313 1,286 803 $ 39,402 For the periods ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, our securities for which other-than-temporary impairment has been recorded, where a portion of the loss was specifically related to credit, consisted of CDOs, CMOs and pooled trust preferred securities. When estimating the portion of loss attributable to credit, we use a discounted cash flow model that considers credit enhancement and structural protection. The estimation of cash flow incorporates numerous assumptions including default rates, severity estimates, recovery rates, prepayment speeds and structural enhancement characteristics. Assumptions will vary based upon the specific underlying characteristics and collateral profiles of the underlying securities. Specifically, assumptions are determined based upon collateral vintage, borrower characteristics, geographical data and payment performance. Market data and third-party inputs are utilized to validate assumptions. Subsequent assessments may result in additional estimated credit losses on previously impaired securities. These additional estimated credit losses are recorded as reclassifications from the portion of other-than-temporary impairment previously recognized in other comprehensive income to earnings in the period of such assessments. In our review of CDOs, CMOs, and other debt securities for other-than-temporary impairment, we evaluated the collateral performance and structural credit enhancement assumptions, along with other market considerations, for each security. In our review of bank-collateralized pooled trust preferred securities for other-than-temporary impairment, we considered various annual default scenarios. Additionally, the collateral was reviewed to determine if additional bank issuers should be assumed to be an immediate default or would cure (resume paying interest) based on Fitch credit scoring, participation in the U.S. Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, ratio of non-performing assets to tangible common equity and loan loss reserves, capital levels, and FDIC quarterly F-23 trends. Based on this review, we assumed that certain bank issuers on our watch list will default and others will cure in the future. Utilizing our assumptions, we then discounted the cash flows to assess the amount of credit loss. The following table presents our securities for which other-than-temporary impairment has been recorded during the periods ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011: Total other-than- temporary impairment loss Impairment recognized in OCI Credit-related impairment recognized in earnings Number of securities (dollars in thousands) December 31, 2013 AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE Collateralized debt obligations $ 3,348 Single issuer trust preferred securities Collateralized mortgage obligations 1,571 4,289 Total other-than-temporarily impaired securities $ 9,208 December 31, 2012 AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE Collateralized debt obligations $ 3,312 Single issuer trust preferred securities Collateralized mortgage obligations - 8,281 Total other-than-temporarily impaired securities $ 11,593 December 31, 2011 AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE Collateralized mortgage obligations $ 9,328 Other debt securities HELD-TO-MATURITY Collateralized debt obligations 1,226 1,718 Total other-than-temporarily impaired securities $ 12,272 21 873 2,165 3,059 2,567 - 5,953 8,520 7,968 1,000 1,215 10,183 3,327 698 2,124 6,149 745 - 2,328 3,073 1,360 226 503 2,089 3 1 12 13 1 - 10 11 7 2 1 10 F-24 The following table presents information regarding AFS securities, categorized by type of security and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position at the dates indicated. Unrealized losses on other-than-temporarily impaired securities include noncredit impairments recorded in other comprehensive income. (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Temporarily-impaired securities Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: Less than 12 months 12 months or longer Total Fair Value Unrealized Losses Fair Value Unrealized Losses Fair Value Unrealized Losses $ 3,611 (49) - - 3,611 (49) 466,183 (13,400) 18,213 (747) 484,396 (14,147) 224,610 1,263,546 67,628 (4,854) (39,385) (2,110) 28,347 175,358 33,183 (4,607) 252,957 (22,745) 1,438,904 (2,325) 100,811 (9,461) (62,130) (4,435) Commercial mortgage-backed securities 131,796 (4,121) 6,891 (234) 138,687 (4,355) Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Pooled trust preferred securities Other Equity securities (1) 86,154 (4,007) - 10,313 - - (274) - Total temporarily-impaired securities 2,253,841 (68,200) 94,453 3,348 142,059 15,769 517,621 (3,493) (3,256) (2,910) (955) 180,607 3,348 152,372 15,769 (7,500) (3,256) (3,184) (955) (41,272) 2,771,462 (109,472) Other-than-temporarily impaired securities Collateralized mortgage obligations: Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: Pooled trust preferred securities Collateralized debt obligations Other - 4,196 - (108) 2,470 29,859 (1,336) (5,542) 2,470 34,055 (1,336) (5,650) 519 (863) 9,226 (9,523) 9,745 (10,386) - - - - - 16,004 57,559 - (3,434) (19,835) - 16,004 62,274 - (3,434) (20,806) Total other-than-temporarily impaired securities 4,715 (971) Total temporarily-impaired and other-than- temporarily impaired securities $ 2,258,556 (69,171) 575,180 (61,107) 2,833,736 (130,278) December 31, 2012 Temporarily-impaired securities Residential mortgage-backed securities: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: $ 3,827 38,027 (2) (570) - 113 - (2) 80,744 794,133 24,573 (3,715) (19,999) (489) 35,345 187,425 97,651 (5,171) (14,719) (5,406) 3,827 38,140 116,089 981,558 122,224 (2) (572) (8,886) (34,718) (5,895) Commercial mortgage-backed securities 24,351 (152) 4,988 (66) 29,339 (218) Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Pooled trust preferred securities Other Equity securities (1) 102,006 (3,115) - 21,567 - - (291) - 80,250 3,276 41,428 8,851 (3,552) (3,358) (4,269) (311) 182,256 3,276 62,995 8,851 (6,667) (3,358) (4,560) (311) Total temporarily-impaired securities 1,089,228 (28,333) 459,327 (36,854) 1,548,555 (65,187) Other-than-temporarily impaired securities Collateralized mortgage obligations: Private Other debt securities: Pooled trust preferred securities Collateralized debt obligations Other 5,683 (666) 36,138 (10,278) 41,821 (10,944) - - - - - - 5,325 2,951 13,802 58,216 (15,904) (2,330) (7,384) (35,896) 5,325 2,951 13,802 63,899 (15,904) (2,330) (7,384) (36,562) Total other-than-temporarily impaired securities 5,683 (666) Total temporarily-impaired and other-than- temporarily impaired securities $ 1,094,911 (28,999) 517,543 (72,750) 1,612,454 (101,749) (1) Equity securities represent Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) qualifying closed-end bond fund investments. F-25 The following table presents information regarding HTM securities, categorized by type of security and length of time that individual securities have been in a continuous unrealized loss position at the dates indicated. Unrealized losses on other-than-temporarily impaired securities include noncredit impairments recorded in other comprehensive income. (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Temporarily-impaired securities Mortgage-backed securities: Less than 12 months 12 months or longer Total Fair Value Unrealized Losses Fair Value Unrealized Losses Fair Value Unrealized Losses Government-sponsored enterprises $ 428,532 (14,515) 22,114 (1,461) 450,646 (15,976) Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Private Other debt securities: Single issuer trust preferred & corporate debt securities Other Total temporarily-impaired securities Other-than-temporarily impaired securities Total temporarily-impaired and other-than- temporarily impaired securities December 31, 2012 Temporarily-impaired securities Mortgage-backed securities: 168,994 902,463 - (7,244) (42,690) - - - 168,994 100,823 (10,545) 1,003,286 5,473 (1,052) 5,473 (7,244) (53,234) (1,052) 42,911 5,077 1,547,977 - (739) (51) (65,239) - - 2,788 131,198 - - (94) (13,152) - 42,911 7,865 1,679,175 - (739) (145) (78,390) - $ 1,547,977 (65,239) 131,198 (13,152) 1,679,175 (78,390) Government-sponsored enterprises $ 25,401 (260) Collateralized mortgage obligations: U.S. Government Agency Government-sponsored enterprises Other debt securities: Other Total temporarily-impaired securities Other-than-temporarily impaired securities Collateralized mortgage obligations - private Collateralized debt obligations Total other-than-temporarily impaired securities Total temporarily-impaired and other-than- temporarily impaired securities 8,004 106,984 (104) (2,264) - - 140,389 (2,628) - - - - - - - - - 7,321 7,321 6,631 2,740 9,371 - - - (144) (144) (1,661) (2,000) (3,661) 25,401 (260) 8,004 106,984 7,321 147,710 6,631 2,740 9,371 (104) (2,264) (144) (2,772) (1,661) (2,000) (3,661) $ 140,389 (2,628) 16,692 (3,805) 157,081 (6,433) The unrealized losses in our securities portfolio are primarily due to the prevailing interest rate environment and reduced levels of liquidity in the mortgage and credit markets. The prolonged weakness in the residential housing market, coupled with elevated unemployment levels, among other factors, led to decreased market liquidity for certain assets and increased credit risk for certain securities in our portfolio. Continued deterioration in general market conditions could have a negative effect on the projected cash flows and ultimate recoverability of our securities. If a security is deemed to be other-than-temporarily impaired, we are required to write down the security to fair value. Losses on securities that become other-than-temporarily impaired (where we do not intend to sell the security and it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell before recovery of the security’s amortized cost) are bifurcated with the credit portion of the loss recognized in earnings and the noncredit loss portion of the impairment recognized in other comprehensive income, net of tax. Our private CMOs and other debt securities, with total temporary unrealized losses of $5.5 million and $3.3 million, respectively, at December 31, 2013, are the securities in our portfolio that are the most exposed to impairment losses. In performing our other-than-temporary impairment analysis for private CMOs and other debt securities, we estimated future cash flows for each security based upon our best estimate of future delinquencies, estimated defaults, loss severity, and prepayments. We reviewed the estimated cash flows to determine whether we expect to receive all originally scheduled cash flows. Projected credit losses were compared to the current level of credit F-26 enhancement to assess whether the security is expected to incur losses in any future period and therefore would be deemed other-than-temporarily impaired at December 31, 2013. Based on our review, we have determined that the estimated future cash flows were not less than amortized cost; therefore, the decline in fair value of these securities is attributable to a substantial widening of interest rate spreads across market sectors related to the continued illiquidity and uncertainty of the securities markets. Since we have no intent to sell and we believe it is not more likely than not that we will be required to sell these investments before recovery of their amortized cost basis, we do not consider these securities to be other-than-temporarily impaired as of December 31, 2013. It is reasonably possible that the underlying collateral of these securities may perform at a level below our current expectations, which may result in adverse changes in cash flows for these securities and potential other-than- temporary impairment losses in the future. Events that may cause material declines in fair values for these securities include, but are not limited to, the deterioration of credit metrics, higher default levels, further illiquidity, or increased levels of losses in underlying collateral. The contractual maturities of investments in AFS and HTM debt securities are summarized in the following table. Expected maturities will differ from contractual maturities since borrowers may have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties. (in thousands) AVAILABLE-FOR-SALE Due in one year or less Due after one year through five years Due after five years through ten years Due after ten years Total available-for-sale debt securities HELD-TO-MATURITY Due in one year or less Due after one year through five years Due after five years through ten years Due after ten years Total held-to-maturity debt securities (5) Federal Home Loan Bank Stock December 31, 2013 Amortized Cost Fair Value $ 4,096 122,294 314,268 5,234,941 5,675,599 $ $ 6 1,333 35,788 2,138,717 2,175,844 $ 4,025 127,983 315,595 5,168,861 5,616,464 6 1,401 36,698 2,072,185 2,110,290 As a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) of New York, Signature Bank is required to maintain a specified minimum investment in the FHLB’s Class B capital stock. The minimum stock investment requirement is the sum of the membership stock purchase requirement, determined on an annual basis at the end of each calendar year, and the activity-based stock purchase requirement, determined on a daily basis. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, Signature Bank was in compliance with the FHLB’s minimum investment requirement with stock investments of $130.8 million and $50.0 million, respectively, carried at cost on the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. Collateral pledged for outstanding FHLB borrowings at December 31, 2013 and 2012 included $103.7 million and $26.6 million, respectively, of FHLB capital stock. In performing our other-than-temporary impairment analysis of FHLB stock, we evaluated, among other things, (i) the FHLB’s earnings performance, including the significance of any decline in net assets of the FHLB as compared to the regulatory capital amount of the FHLB, (ii) the commitment by the FHLB to make dividend payments, and (iii) the liquidity position of the FHLB. We do not consider this security to be other-than-temporarily impaired at December 31, 2013. F-27 (6) Loans Held for Sale Loans held for sale at December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $420.8 million and $369.5 million, respectively. Gains on sales associated with the securitization of pooled loans and sale of mortgage loans for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 amounted to $6.3 million, $9.3 million and $4.1 million, respectively. We are an active participant in the SBA loan and SBA pool secondary market by purchasing, securitizing, and selling the guaranteed portions of SBA loans. Most SBA loans have adjustable rates and float at a spread over prime and reset monthly or quarterly. The guaranteed portions of SBA loans are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government and therefore carry a 0% risk weight for regulatory capital purposes. We utilize the services of SSG to act as agent for and consultant to the Bank on the purchase, assembly, and sale of SBA loans and pools. We warehouse loans for generally up to 180 days until there are sufficient loans with similar characteristics to securitize the pool. We may strip excess servicing from loans with different coupons to create a pool at a common rate. This process results in the creation of two assets: a par pool, which is sold to accredited investors, and an interest-only strip, which we retain as an available-for-sale security. The interest-only strip represents the portion of the coupon stripped from a loan. (7) Loans and Leases, Net The following table summarizes our loan portfolio as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) Mortgage loans: Multi-family residential property Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Home equity lines of credit Construction and land Total mortgage loans Other loans: Commercial and industrial Consumer Total other loans Less: Net deferred fees and costs ALLL Net loans December 31, 2013 December 31, 2012 $ 6,637,353 3,651,538 346,795 170,441 125,334 10,931,461 2,565,016 11,479 2,576,495 11,515 (135,071) 13,384,400 $ 4,380,453 2,919,708 307,158 190,782 99,475 7,897,576 1,860,866 10,291 1,871,157 3,037 (107,433) 9,664,337 As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, commercial and industrial loans include overdrafts of commercial deposit accounts totaling $32.4 million and $28.4 million, respectively, and other consumer loans include overdrafts of personal deposit accounts totaling $4.4 million and $2.3 million, respectively. In order to assist us in managing credit quality, we view the Bank’s loan portfolio by various segments and classes of loans. For commercial loans, we assign individual credit ratings ranging from 1 (lowest risk) to 9 (highest risk) as an indicator of credit quality (“credit-rated commercial loans”). These ratings are based on specific risk factors including (i) historical and projected financial results of the borrower, (ii) market conditions of the borrower’s industry that may affect the borrower’s future financial performance, (iii) business experience of the borrower’s management, (iv) nature of the underlying collateral, if any, and (v) borrower’s history of payment performance. F-28 Non-rated loans include commercial loans with outstanding principal balances below $100,000, commercial overdrafts, residential mortgages, and consumer loans. The following table summarizes the recorded investment of our portfolio of commercial loans by credit rating as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 pass Rating 1-6 special mention Rating 7 substandard Rating 8 doubtful Rating 9 Non-rated Total Commercial loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 6,619,472 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land Commercial and industrial loans Total commercial loans December 31, 2012 3,593,283 166,917 123,171 2,487,590 12,990,433 $ Commercial loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 4,359,957 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land Commercial and industrial loans Total commercial loans 2,861,078 109,144 96,746 1,769,505 9,196,430 $ 5,159 27,375 3,706 - 3,661 39,901 9,154 20,661 767 - 9,114 39,696 11,161 30,791 5,623 2,163 19,282 69,020 9,476 37,969 12,010 2,729 27,599 89,783 - 89 - - - - 65 - 6,635,792 3,651,538 176,311 125,334 8,343 8,432 46,140 46,205 2,565,016 13,153,991 - - 400 - 7,723 8,123 - - 34 - 46,925 46,959 4,378,587 2,919,708 122,355 99,475 1,860,866 9,380,991 For consumer loans, including residential mortgages and home equity lines of credit, we consider the borrower’s payment history and current payment performance as lead indicators of credit quality. A consumer loan is considered non-performing generally when it becomes 90 days delinquent based on contractual terms, at which time the accrual of interest income is discontinued. In the case of residential mortgages and home equity lines of credit, exceptions may be made if the loan has sufficient collateral value, based on a current appraisal, and is in process of collection. The following table summarizes the recorded investment of our portfolio of consumer loans by performance status as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total consumer loans December 31, 2012 Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total consumer loans Performing Nonperforming Total $ $ $ $ 168,557 167,701 11,337 347,595 182,862 189,990 9,951 382,803 3,488 2,740 142 6,370 3,807 792 340 4,939 172,045 170,441 11,479 353,965 186,669 190,782 10,291 387,742 Loans to related parties include loans to directors and their related companies and our executive officers. Such loans are made in the ordinary course of business on substantially the same terms as loans to other individuals and businesses of comparable risks. Related party loans totaled $1.6 million and $4.9 million at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, and all related party loans are current as to payments. F-29 The following table summarizes the delinquency and accrual status of our loan portfolio, excluding loans held for sale, as of the dates indicated: Past Due 30-89 Days Past Due 90+ Days Total Past Due Current Total Loans Accruing Loans Past Due 90+ Days Non-accruing Loans (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Commercial loans Loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 15,105 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land 16,462 - - - 7,308 4,973 2,162 15,105 23,770 4,973 2,162 6,620,687 6,635,792 3,627,768 3,651,538 171,338 123,172 176,311 125,334 Commercial and industrial loans 18,229 10,529 28,758 2,536,258 2,565,016 Consumer loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Consumer loans Total December 31, 2012 Commercial loans 2,441 2,558 76 54,871 $ Loans secured by real estate: Multi-family residential property $ 8,504 Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Construction and land Commercial and industrial loans Consumer loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Consumer loans Total 15,740 2,769 - 18,260 2,704 676 61 48,714 $ 4,276 3,240 142 32,630 - 11,596 13,787 2,729 14,254 7,940 3,720 340 54,366 6,717 5,798 218 87,501 165,328 164,643 172,045 170,441 11,261 13,420,455 11,479 13,507,956 8,504 4,370,083 4,378,587 27,336 16,556 2,729 2,892,372 2,919,708 105,799 96,746 122,355 99,475 32,514 1,828,352 1,860,866 10,644 4,396 401 103,080 176,025 186,386 9,890 9,665,653 186,669 190,782 10,291 9,768,733 - - - - - 788 500 - 1,288 - 8,767 8,049 - 3,299 4,133 2,928 - 27,176 - 7,308 4,973 2,162 10,529 3,488 2,740 142 31,342 - 2,829 5,738 2,729 10,955 3,807 792 340 27,190 Non-accrual loans at December 31, 2013 and 2012 totaled $31.3 million and $27.2 million, respectively. If all non- accrual loans outstanding at December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 had been performing in accordance with their original terms, we would have recorded interest income with respect to such loans of approximately $2.2 million, $2.2 million, and $4.2 million for the years then ended, respectively. This compares to actual payments recorded as interest income with respect to such loans of $282,000 and $363,000 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. There was no interest income recorded on non-accrual loans during the year ended December 31, 2013. As of December 31, 2013, there were no commitments to lend additional funds on non- accrual loans. Accruing loans past due 90 days or more at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 totaled $1.3 million and $27.2 million, respectively, excluding loans held for sale. At December 31, 2013, accruing loans past due 90 days or more include $1.3 million of residential mortgages that are well secured and in process of collection. At December 31, 2012, accruing loans past due 90 days or more include matured performing loans in the process of renewal ($878,000) and loans that are well secured and in process of collection ($16.2 million of commercial loans secured by real estate, $6.6 million of residential mortgages, and $2.6 million of commercial and industrial loans). Commercial loans (including commercial and industrial loans and loans to commercial borrowers that are secured by real estate) constitute a substantial portion of our loan portfolio. Substantially all of the real estate collateral for the loans in our portfolio is located within the New York metropolitan area. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be affected by changes in the economy and the real estate market of the New York metropolitan area. A prolonged period of economic recession or other adverse economic conditions in the New York metropolitan area may result in an increase in nonpayment of loans, a decrease in collateral value, and an increase in our ALLL. F-30 (8) Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses Changes in the ALLL for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 are as follows: (in thousands) Beginning balance - ALLL Provision for loan and lease losses Loans charged off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Ending balance - ALLL December 31, 2012 86,162 41,427 (22,156) 2,000 107,433 2013 107,433 41,643 (16,681) 2,676 135,071 $ $ 2011 67,396 51,876 (35,393) 2,283 86,162 The table below presents a summary by loan portfolio segment of our ALLL, loan loss experience, and provision for loan and lease losses for the periods indicated: (in thousands) For the year ended December 31, 2013 Beginning balance - ALLL Provision for loan and lease losses Loans charged off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Ending balance - ALLL For the year ended December 31, 2012 Beginning balance - ALLL Provision for loan and lease losses Loans charged off Recoveries of loans previously charged off Ending balance - ALLL Credit-rated Commercial Loans Commercial Loans Non-rated Residential Mortgages Consumer Loans Total $ 100,092 40,928 (14,137) $ 1,309 128,192 $ 78,853 39,634 (18,657) $ 262 100,092 4,269 (1,254) (1,384) 1,166 2,797 4,954 214 (2,439) 1,540 4,269 2,419 1,615 (753) 33 3,314 1,569 1,481 (635) 4 2,419 653 354 (407) 168 768 786 98 (425) 194 653 107,433 41,643 (16,681) 2,676 135,071 86,162 41,427 (22,156) 2,000 107,433 The following table presents our ALLL and outstanding loan balances by loan portfolio segment, based on the methodology followed in determining the allowance: (in thousands) As of December 31, 2013 ALLL: Credit-rated Commercial Loans Commercial Loans Non-rated Residential Mortgages Consumer Loans Total Individually evaluated for impairment $ 9,628 Collectively evaluated for impairment 118,564 Recorded investment in loans: Individually evaluated for impairment Collectively evaluated for impairment As of December 31, 2012 ALLL: 56,676 13,051,110 Individually evaluated for impairment $ 6,803 Collectively evaluated for impairment 93,289 Recorded investment in loans: Individually evaluated for impairment Collectively evaluated for impairment 71,918 9,262,114 399 2,398 813 45,392 654 3,615 1,389 45,570 1,250 2,064 71 697 11,348 123,723 6,809 335,677 142 11,337 64,440 13,443,516 269 2,150 6,097 371,354 154 499 340 9,951 7,880 99,553 79,744 9,688,989 F-31 In determining whether a loan is impaired, we review the payment performance and we consider a loan to be impaired once it is placed on non-accrual status. In addition, if a loan is restructured as troubled debt at a market rate at the TDR date, we consider the loan as impaired during the year of restructuring. If that loan is performing in accordance with the modified terms, we do not consider the loan as impaired in subsequent years. The following table summarizes the recorded investment, unpaid principal balance, and related allowance for our impaired loans as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) With no related allowance recorded: Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property Construction and land Multi-family residential property 1-4 family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans With an allowance recorded: Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property Construction and land Multi-family residential property 1-4 family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total: Commercial loans secured by real estate Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total impaired loans December 31, 2013 Unpaid Principal Balance Recorded Investment Related Allowance December 31, 2012 Unpaid Principal Balance Recorded Investment Related Allowance $ 9,600 9,600 - - 5,623 2,638 2,235 2,074 - 11,829 2,162 11,161 - 14,476 1,834 666 142 40,375 17,114 4,069 2,740 142 - - 5,623 2,800 2,235 2,074 - 11,829 2,545 11,161 - 18,023 2,345 894 142 40,758 20,823 4,580 2,968 142 - - - - - - - - 3,428 62 572 - 5,965 917 333 71 4,062 5,965 917 333 71 5,903 5,903 - - 5,304 9,237 4,425 607 - 14,093 2,729 14,293 434 21,315 880 184 340 42,756 30,552 5,305 791 340 - - 6,800 12,913 4,661 838 - 14,177 2,729 14,293 434 22,986 880 304 340 44,336 35,899 5,541 1,142 340 - - - - - - - - 1,232 148 933 109 5,035 177 92 154 2,422 5,035 177 92 154 $ 64,440 69,271 11,348 79,744 87,258 7,880 F-32 The following table summarizes the average recorded investment of impaired loans and interest income recognized on impaired loans for the periods indicated: (in thousands) With no related allowance recorded: Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property Construction and land Multi-family residential property 1-4 family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans With an allowance recorded: Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property Construction and land Multi-family residential property 1-4 family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total: Commercial loans secured by real estate Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Home equity lines of credit Other consumer loans Total Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 Average Recorded Investment Interest Income Recognized Average Recorded Investment Interest Income Recognized $ 8,727 - - 4,437 5,867 3,494 1,232 - 13,448 2,565 11,946 1,167 17,821 1,608 790 243 42,290 23,688 5,102 2,022 243 165 - - 22 262 - - - 133 - 419 - 307 4 - - 739 569 4 - - $ 73,345 1,312 19,771 752 392 1,315 14,914 4,046 243 - 12,173 2,798 8,258 296 16,862 722 221 315 45,755 31,776 4,768 464 315 83,078 266 - - - 322 3 - - 414 - 423 - 469 - - - 1,103 791 3 - - 1,897 For economic reasons and to maximize the recovery of loans, we may work with borrowers experiencing financial difficulties, and will consider modifications to a borrower’s existing loan terms and conditions that we would not otherwise consider, commonly referred to as TDR loans. Our TDR loans consist of those loans where we modify the contractual terms of the loan, such as (i) a deferral of the loan’s principal amortization through either interest- only or reduced principal payments, (ii) a reduction in the loan’s contractual interest rate or (iii) an extension of the loan’s contractual term. F-33 During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we recorded TDR loans as follows: (dollars in thousands) Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property Multi-family residential property 1-4 family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Total December 31, 2013 Pre- Modification Balance Post- Modification Balance Number of Loans December 31, 2012 Pre- Modification Balance Post- Modification Balance Number of Loans 1 - 1 4 1 7 $ 7,703 - 650 6,143 325 $ 14,821 4,400 - 650 6,308 290 11,648 6 4 - 11 1 22 18,309 11,577 - 22,735 315 52,936 12,527 11,534 - 21,576 298 45,935 The following table summarizes how the TDR loans recorded for the years ended December 2013 and 2012 were modified: Rate Reduction Deferred Principal Amortization Deferred Principal Amortization with other concession (1) Term Extension Term Extension with Other Concession (1) Total (in thousands) December 31, 2013 Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property 1-4 family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Total December 31, 2012 $ - - - - $ - Commercial loans secured by real estate: Commercial property $ 2,759 Multi-family residential property Commercial and industrial loans Residential mortgages Total - - - $ 2,759 - - - - - - - 5,101 - 5,101 - - - 290 290 3,865 4,156 2,329 298 10,648 4,400 650 3,653 - 8,703 5,903 7,378 14,146 - 27,427 - 2,655 - 2,655 - - - - - 4,400 650 6,308 290 11,648 12,527 11,534 21,576 298 45,935 (1) Other concessions may include a reduction of the loan's interest rate and/or extension of the loan's contractual maturity date. Our impaired loans at December 31, 2013 and 2012 include TDR loans totaling $43.0 million and $55.7 million, respectively. During the year of restructuring, we consider a TDR loan as impaired. In subsequent years, we do not consider the loan as impaired if it was restructured at a market rate and continues to perform in accordance with its modified terms. Other TDRs are reported as such for as long as the loan remains outstanding. For all loans classified as a TDR, we record an impairment loss, if any, based on the present value of expected future cash flows discounted at the original loan’s effective interest rate, or, if the loan is collateral dependent, based on the fair value of the collateral less estimated costs to sell. As of December 31, 2013, there were no loans that were modified as a TDR within the previous 12 months that subsequently defaulted on payments. As of December 31, 2012, we had eight loans modified as TDRs within the previous 12 months that subsequently defaulted on payments, including three commercial and industrial loans for $8.1 million, four commercial property loans for $5.9 million, and one residential mortgage loan for $300,000. For the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, we recorded interest income on impaired loans during the period of impairment totaling $1.3 million, $1.9 million and $892,000 respectively. If all impaired loans had been performing in accordance with their original terms, we would have recorded interest income, with respect to such loans, of approximately $4.9 million, $5.2 million, and $5.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. Average impaired loans for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 totaled $73.3 million, $83.1 million, and $58.1 million, respectively. F-34 (9) Premises and Equipment Premises and equipment are summarized as follows as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) Leasehold improvements Furniture, fixtures and equipment Less accumulated depreciation and amortization Premises and equipment, net December 31, 2013 2012 $ 50,618 32,804 83,422 (47,091) 36,331 $ 45,407 25,656 71,063 (38,871) 32,192 Depreciation and amortization expense totaled $8.2 million, $6.9 million and $6.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively. (10) Deposits The types of deposits are summarized as follows as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) Non-interest-bearing demand NOW and interest-bearing demand Money market Time deposits Brokered time deposits Total deposits December 31, 2013 2012 $ 5,391,483 850,897 9,589,488 820,999 404,230 17,057,097 $ 4,444,964 791,321 7,900,144 837,718 108,505 14,082,652 The aggregate amounts of time deposits in denominations of $100,000 or more at December 31, 2013 and 2012 were $696.0 million and $701.8 million, respectively. The related interest expense on these types of deposits for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 amounted to $11.1 million and $12.0 million, respectively. At December 31, 2013, the scheduled maturities of time deposits are as follows: (in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total time deposits December 31, 2013 $ 875,261 243,523 87,646 13,316 5,483 1,225,229 $ At December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had approximately $28.9 million and $39.7 million, respectively, in deposits held by our directors and their related interests. F-35 (11) Incentive Savings Plan We have a 401(k) program under which employees may make personal contributions of up to 60% of their pretax earnings by means of payroll deductions. We match 100% of the first 3% of compensation contributed to the plan and 50% of the next 4% of compensation contributed. Our contributions, included in salaries and benefits expense, were $3.7 million, $3.1 million and $3.8 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. (12) Federal Funds Purchased and Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase The following is a summary of Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase at or for the years ended: (dollars in thousands) Federal Funds Purchased Year-end balance Maximum amount outstanding at any month-end Average outstanding balance Weighted-average interest rate paid Weighted-average interest rate at year-end Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase Year-end balance Maximum amount outstanding at any month-end Average outstanding balance Weighted-average interest rate paid Weighted-average interest rate at year-end December 31, 2013 2012 $ $ $ 370,000 529,000 415,849 0.29% 0.28% $ $ $ 350,000 350,000 128,525 0.25% 0.33% $ $ $ 695,000 695,000 665,753 2.70% 2.43% $ $ $ 645,000 745,000 703,333 3.10% 2.86% During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, interest expense recorded on Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase totaled $19.2 million, $22.1 million, and $22.3 million, respectively. At December 31, 2013, securities with a fair value of $891.7 million and a carrying value of $907.4 million were pledged to meet our collateral requirement of $729.9 million on repurchase agreements. At December 31, 2012, securities with a fair value of $819.4 million and a carrying value of $817.6 million were pledged to meet our collateral requirement of $677.3 million on repurchase agreements. The Federal funds purchased at December 31, 2013 were overnight transactions, while the securities sold under repurchase agreements at December 31, 2013 have contractual maturities as follows: (in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total F-36 Amount $ 145,000 255,000 70,000 175,000 50,000 695,000 $ (13) Federal Home Loan Bank Advances As a member of the FHLB of New York, we are required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLB in an amount at least equal to 1% of the aggregate principal amount of our unpaid residential mortgage loans and similar obligations at the beginning of each year, 4.5% of our borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank, or 0.3% of assets, whichever is greater. As of December 31, 2013, we were in compliance with this requirement. The following table provides a summary of Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances at or for the years ended: (dollars in thousands) Year-end balance Maximum amount outstanding at any month-end Average outstanding balance Weighted-average interest rate paid Weighted-average interest rate at year-end December 31, $ $ $ 2013 2,305,313 2,305,313 1,111,144 0.66% 0.60% 2012 $ $ $ 590,000 590,000 329,926 1.35% 0.88% During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, interest expense recorded on FHLB advances totaled $7.4 million, $4.5 million, and $7.3 million, respectively. At December 31, 2013, securities with a fair value of $2.56 billion and a carrying value of $2.57 billion were available to meet our collateral requirement of $2.42 billion on FHLB advances. At December 31, 2012, securities with a fair value of $1.34 billion and a carrying value of $1.33 billion were available to meet our collateral requirement of $619.5 million on FHLB advances. FHLB advances at December 31, 2013 have contractual maturities as follows: (in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total advances Amount $ 1,565,150 340,000 294,263 105,900 - $ 2,305,313 Certain of the long-term FHLB advances are callable by the FHLB for redemption prior to their scheduled maturity date. The table above includes $35.0 million in advances that are callable in 2014, which have interest rates ranging from 3.87% to 3.92% and a weighted average interest rate of 3.88%. F-37 (14) Other Short-Term Borrowings The following table summarizes our Federal Reserve Treasury Tax and Loan borrowings at or for the years ended: (dollars in thousands) Year-end balance Maximum amount outstanding at any month-end Average outstanding balance Weighted-average interest rate paid Weighted-average interest rate at year-end December 31, 2013 2012 $ - $ - $ 41 0.75% 0.00% $ - $ - $ - 0.00% 0.00% (15) Income Taxes The following table presents the components of income tax expense for the periods indicated: (in thousands) FEDERAL Current expense Deferred income tax expense (benefit) Total federal STATE AND LOCAL Current expense Deferred income tax expense (benefit) Total state and local TOTAL Current expense Deferred income tax expense (benefit) Total Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 2011 $ $ 100,939 8,851 109,790 $ $ 54,334 (1,334) 53,000 $ $ 155,273 7,517 162,790 100,636 (6,020) 94,616 49,313 (3,037) 46,276 86,403 (5,969) 80,434 42,428 (5,163) 37,265 149,949 (9,057) 140,892 128,831 (11,132) 117,699 Management has concluded that a valuation allowance for deferred tax assets is not necessary at December 31, 2013 based on the Bank’s historical and anticipated future pre-tax earnings. We will continue to monitor the need for a valuation allowance in future periods. Net deferred tax assets are reflected in other assets in the Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. F-38 The following table presents the components of our net deferred tax asset as of the dates indicated: (in thousands) DEFERRED TAX ASSETS Allowance for loan losses Depreciation Unearned compensation - restricted shares Non-accrual interest Write-down for other-than-temporary impairment of securities Other Total deferred tax assets recognized in earnings Net unrealized losses on securities available-for-sale Net unrealized losses on securities transferred to held-to-maturity Total deferred tax assets DEFERRED TAX LIABILITIES Depreciation Prepaid expenses Other Total deferred tax liabilities recognized in earnings Net unrealized gains on securities available-for-sale Total deferred tax liabilities Net deferred tax asset December 31, 2013 2012 $ 59,078 1,220 8,900 1,834 18,273 2,128 91,433 26,236 13,815 131,484 - 674 22,690 23,364 - 23,364 108,120 $ 47,154 - 2,103 1,455 18,643 8,782 78,137 - - 78,137 138 660 1,753 2,551 34,284 36,835 41,302 The increases in current income tax expense were primarily driven by increases in our pre-tax income, which were partially offset by the benefits of increased low income housing tax credits recognized. Our effective tax rate for the year ended December 31, 2013 decreased to 41.6%, compared to 43.2% for the prior year as a result of low income housing tax credits recognized. The following table presents a reconciliation of statutory federal income tax expense to combined effective income tax expense for the periods indicated: (in thousands) Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 2011 Expense (Benefit) Rate Expense (Benefit) Rate Expense (Benefit) Rate Statutory federal income tax expense $ 137,037 35% 114,231 35% 93,529 35% State and local income taxes, net of federal income tax benefit Tax exempt income Other items, net Effective income tax expense * - Less than 1%. 34,451 (351) (8,347) 162,790 $ 9% * (2)% 42% 30,080 (618) (2,801) 140,892 9% * (1)% 43% 24,222 (443) 391 117,699 9% * * 44% We have not recognized any liabilities for unrecognized tax benefits related to uncertain tax positions. Our policy is to recognize interest and penalties on income taxes in income tax expense. F-39 We file U.S. federal and various state income tax returns. The following are the more significant tax filings that are subject to examination:  Federal income tax returns for tax years 2011 through the present;  New York State income tax returns for tax years 2011 through the present; and,  New York City income tax returns for tax years 2010 through the present. (16) Equity Incentive Plan We have an equity incentive plan designed to assist us in attracting, retaining and motivating officers, employees, directors and/or consultants and to provide us and our subsidiaries and affiliates with incentives directly related to increases in our shareholder value. Activity related to the equity incentive plan for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 is summarized as follows: Shares available for future awards at beginning of the year Additional shares approved at the 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders Options Years ended December 31, 2013 1,417,517 1,082,483 2012 1,247,238 - Granted Forfeited or expired Shares sold to cover minimum tax withholding and/or option price upon exercise - - - - 332,839 24,803 Restricted stock Granted Forfeited Shares sold to cover minimum tax withholding upon vesting Shares available for future awards at end of the year (348,093) (366,786) 2,311 1,275 201,915 15 1,417,517 2,178,000 Stock Options As of December 31, 2013, all outstanding options were fully vested and exercisable. Accordingly, no additional compensation cost will be expensed for these options. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, we recognized no compensation expense with respect to stock options. All options granted under the equity incentive plan expire ten years from the date of grant. At the time of grant, all options vested in whole or in part over three years from the date of issuance. The following table summarizes information regarding the stock option component of the 2004 equity incentive plan for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012: Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 Shares Underlying Options Weighted Average Exercise Price Shares Underlying Options Weighted Average Exercise Price Outstanding at beginning of the year Granted Exercised Forfeited or expired Outstanding at end of the year $ 22.57 62,750 - - 21.61 (46,000) - - $ 25.20 16,750 604,400 $ 17.57 - - 16.99 (541,650) - - $ 22.57 62,750 F-40 The total intrinsic value of stock options exercised during the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 was $2.7 million and $26.1 million, respectively, and the cash received from those exercises during the respective periods totaled $994,000 and $9.2 million. Available authorized common shares are issued for stock options that are exercised. The following table presents a summary of outstanding and exercisable stock options as of December 31, 2013: Exercise Price $ 15.50 24.98 26.11 26.87 At December 31, 2013 Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Life in Years 1,750 1,750 6,250 7,000 16,750 0.22 1.80 1.22 1.55 As of December 31, 2013, the intrinsic value of outstanding and exercisable options was $1.4 million. Restricted Stock The following table summarizes information regarding outstanding grants of restricted stock for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012: Years ended December 31, 2013 2012 Weighted Average Grant Price Shares Weighted Average Grant Price Shares Outstanding at beginning of the year Granted Vested Forfeited Outstanding at end of the year 764,230 348,093 (35) (1,275) 1,111,013 $ 43.25 78.12 63.55 67.42 $ 54.15 906,481 366,786 (506,726) (2,311) 764,230 $ 37.55 63.34 47.59 41.97 $ 43.25 As of December 31, 2013, our total unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested restricted shares was $39.9 million, which is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 2.91 years. During the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, we recognized compensation expense of $15.6 million, $17.6 million, and $8.5 million, respectively, for restricted shares. Included in the compensation expense for the year ended December 31, 2012 was $3.2 million from the December 10, 2012 accelerated vesting of 276,016 restricted shares, originally scheduled to vest on March 22, 2013. The total fair value of restricted shares that vested during the year ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 were $2,600 and $34.1 million. No restricted shares vested during the year ended December 31, 2011. F-41 (17) Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income The following table presents information regarding items reclassified out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”) for the year ended December 31, 2013: (in thousands) Details About AOCI Amount Reclassified Out of AOCI Affected Line Item in the Consolidated Statement of Income Net unrealized gains on AFS securities $ 6,228 Net gains on sales of securities Total reclassifications, before tax Total reclassifications, net of tax (6,149) 79 (38) $ 41 Net other-than-temporary impairment losses on securities recognized in earnings Income tax expense The following table presents changes in AOCI, net of tax, for the year ended December 31, 2013: (in thousands) Balance at December 31, 2012 Net change in unrealized gain (loss) Net unrealized loss on securities transferred from AFS to HTM Amortization of net unrealized loss on securities transferred to HTM Amounts reclassified out of AOCI Net current period other comprehensive income Balance at December 31, 2013 (18) Earnings Per Share AFS Securities HTM Securities transferred from AFS $ 43,827 (97,006) 19,213 - (41) (77,834) (34,007) $ - - (19,213) 1,536 - (17,677) (17,677) Total 43,827 (97,006) - 1,536 (41) (95,511) (51,684) The following table shows the computation of basic and diluted earnings per common and common equivalent share for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011: (in thousands, except per share amounts) Net income Common and common equivalent shares: Weighted average common shares outstanding Weighted average common equivalent shares Weighted average common and common equivalent shares Basic earnings per share Diluted earnings per share Years ended December 31, 2012 2013 2011 $ 228,744 185,483 149,526 47,267 762 48,029 4.84 4.76 $ $ 46,633 753 47,386 3.98 3.91 43,622 796 44,418 3.43 3.37 There were no options or warrants excluded from the computation of diluted earnings per share for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011. F-42 (19) Commitments and Contingent Liabilities In the normal course of business, we have various outstanding commitments and contingent liabilities that are not reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. (a) Lease Commitments We have entered into noncancelable operating lease agreements for premises and equipment with expiration dates through the year 2026. Our premises are used principally for private client offices and administrative operations. Rental expense for our premises for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011 totaled $16.3 million, $14.1 million and $13.3 million, respectively. The required minimum rental payments under the terms of the noncancelable leases at December 31, 2013 are summarized as follows: (in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thereafter Total December 31, 2013 15,005 $ 14,355 12,567 11,143 10,004 47,379 110,453 $ (b) Information Technology Services Contract On September 9, 2005, we entered into a Master Agreement for the Provision of Hardware, Software and/or Services (the “Agreement”) with Fidelity Information Services, Inc. (“Fidelity”). Under the terms of the agreement, Fidelity provides us with hardware, software and account processing services related to our core banking applications. Particularly, Fidelity supplies us with enterprise banking services, core data processing services and managed operations services. Fidelity also provides implementation and training services for the software and hardware provided under the Agreement. We began making monthly payments on July 1, 2006, and during the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, and 2011, we incurred contractual costs of $3.3 million, $3.4 million, and $3.4 million, respectively. During 2010, the original 84 month contractual term was extended by 38 months, and the Agreement now terminates in August 2016. We have the right to terminate the Agreement upon a change of control of us, or a failure by Fidelity to meet the terms of the Agreement, subject to certain penalties. The required payments under the terms of the Agreement at December 31, 2013 are as follows: (in thousands) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Thereafter Total F-43 December 31, 2013 $ 3,271 3,463 2,416 - - - 9,150 $ (c) Financial Instruments with Off-Balance Sheet Risks In the normal course of business, we have various outstanding commitments and contingent liabilities that are not reflected in the accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements. We enter into transactions that involve financial instruments with off-balance sheet risks in the ordinary course of business to meet the financing needs of our clients. Such financial instruments include commitments to extend credit, standby letters of credit, and unused balances under confirmed letters of credit, all of which are primarily variable rate. Such instruments involve, to varying degrees, elements of credit and interest rate risk. Our exposure to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by the other party with regard to financial instruments is represented by the contractual notional amount of those instruments. Financial instrument transactions are subject to our normal credit policies and approvals, financial controls and risk limiting and monitoring procedures. We generally require collateral or other security to support financial instruments with credit risk. The following table presents a summary of our commitments and contingent liabilities: (in thousands) Unused commitments to extend credit Financial standby letters of credit Commercial and similar letters of credit Other Total December 31, 2013 2012 $ $ 578,771 209,136 20,516 1,135 809,558 445,444 184,181 24,094 1,021 654,740 Commitments to extend credit consist of agreements having fixed expiration or other termination clauses and may require payment of a fee. Total commitment amounts may not necessarily represent future cash requirements. We evaluate each client's creditworthiness on a case-by-case basis. Upon the extension of credit, we will obtain collateral, if necessary, based on our credit evaluation of the counterparty. Collateral held varies but may include deposits held in financial institutions, commercial properties, residential properties, accounts receivable, property, plant and equipment and inventory. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, our reserves for losses on unused commitments to extend credit totaled $825,000 and $575,000, respectively, and are included in accrued expenses and other liabilities in our Consolidated Statements of Financial Condition. We recognize a liability at the inception of the guarantee that is equivalent to the fee received from the guarantor. This liability is amortized over the term of the guarantee on a straight-line basis. At December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, we had deferred revenue for commitment fees paid for the issuance of standby letters of credit in the amounts of $809,000 and $676,000, respectively. Standby letters of credit are conditional commitments issued by us to guarantee the performance of our clients’ obligations to third parties. Standby letters of credit are primarily used to support clients' business trade transactions and may require payment of a fee. The credit risk involved in issuing letters of credit is essentially the same as that involved in extending loan facilities to clients. We had reserves for credit losses on standby letters of credit totaling $130,000 and $106,000 at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. We had provisions for losses related to standby letters of credit totaling $24,000 and $(333,000) at December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, there were no charge-offs recorded on standby letters of credit. At December 31, 2013 and 2012, we had commitments to sell residential mortgage loans and the U.S. government-guaranteed portion of SBA loans totaling $920,000 and $8.7 million, respectively. (d) Litigation In the normal course of business, the Bank has been named as a defendant in various legal actions. In the opinion of management, after reviewing such claims with legal counsel, resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. F-44 (20) Regulatory Capital We are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by state and Federal regulatory agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory—and possible additional discretionary—actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material adverse effect on our financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities, and certain off- balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Our capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings, and other factors. In addition, we are subject to the provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”) which imposes a number of mandatory supervisory measures. Among other matters, FDICIA established five capital categories ranging from “well capitalized” to “critically undercapitalized.” Such classifications are used by regulatory agencies to determine a bank’s deposit insurance premium, approval of applications authorizing institutions to increase their asset size or otherwise expand business activities or acquire other institutions. Under the provisions of FDICIA, a “well capitalized” bank must maintain minimum leverage, Tier 1 and Total Capital ratios of 5%, 6% and 10%, respectively. Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require us to maintain minimum amounts and ratios of total and Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets (as defined), and of Tier 1 capital (as defined) to average assets (as defined). As of December 31, 2013 and 2012, we met all capital adequacy requirements to which we were subject. The most recent notification from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation categorized us as well capitalized under the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action. There are no conditions or events since that notification that management believes have changed the Bank’s category. Our actual capital amounts and ratios are presented in the table below. (dollars in thousands) As of December 31, 2013: Total capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 leverage capital (to average assets) As of December 31, 2012: Total capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 capital (to risk-weighted assets) Tier 1 leverage capital (to average assets) Actual Amount Ratio Required for Capital Adequacy Purposes Amount Ratio Required to be Well Capitalized Amount Ratio $ 1,986,694 1,850,668 1,850,668 15.10% 14.07% 8.54% 1,052,562 526,281 866,469 $ 1,714,519 1,606,405 1,606,405 16.35% 15.32% 9.51% 838,788 419,394 675,639 8.00% 4.00% 4.00% 8.00% 4.00% 4.00% 1,315,702 789,421 1,083,087 10.00% 6.00% 5.00% 1,048,484 629,091 844,549 10.00% 6.00% 5.00% On July 9, 2013, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation approved final rules that substantially amend the regulatory risk-based capital rules applicable to Signature Bank. The final rules were adopted following the issuance of proposed rules by the federal banking regulators in June 2012, and implement the “Basel III” regulatory capital reforms and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act. “Basel III” refers to two consultative documents released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision in December 2009, the rules text released in December 2010, and loss absorbency rules issued in January 2011, which include significant changes to bank capital, leverage and liquidity requirements. The rules include new risk-based capital and leverage ratios, which would be phased in from 2015 to 2019, and would refine the definition of what constitutes “capital” for purposes of calculating those ratios. The new minimum capital level requirements applicable to Signature Bank under the final rules would be: (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% (increased from 4%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 8% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4% for all institutions. The final rules also establish a “capital conservation buffer” above the new regulatory minimum capital requirements, which must consist entirely of common equity Tier 1 capital. Common equity Tier 1 capital consists of common stock instruments that meet the eligibility criteria in the final rules, retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive F-45 income and common equity Tier 1 minority interest. The capital conservation buffer will be phased-in over four years beginning on January 1, 2016, as follows: the maximum buffer will be 0.625% of risk-weighted assets for 2016, 1.25% for 2017, 1.875% for 2018, and 2.5% for 2019 and thereafter, resulting in the following minimum ratios beginning in 2019: (i) a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 7.0%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iii) a total capital ratio of 10.5%. Under the final rules, institutions are subject to limitations on paying dividends, engaging in share repurchases, and paying discretionary bonuses if their capital levels fall below the buffer amount. These limitations establish a maximum percentage of eligible retained income that could be utilized for such actions. Basel III provided discretion for regulators to impose an additional buffer, the “countercyclical buffer,” of up to 2.5% of common equity Tier 1 capital to take into account the macro-financial environment and periods of excessive credit growth. However, the final rules permit the countercyclical buffer to be applied only to “advanced approach banks” ( i.e., banks with $250 billion or more in total assets or $10 billion or more in total foreign exposures), which currently excludes Signature Bank. The final rules also implement revisions and clarifications consistent with Basel III regarding the various components of Tier 1 capital, including common equity, unrealized gains and losses, as well as certain instruments that will no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, some of which will be phased out over time. The final rules also contain revisions to the prompt corrective action framework, which is designed to place restrictions on insured depository institutions, including Signature Bank, if their capital levels begin to show signs of weakness. These revisions take effect January 1, 2015. Under the prompt corrective action requirements, which are designed to complement the capital conservation buffer, insured depository institutions will be required to meet the following increased capital level requirements in order to qualify as “well capitalized:” (i) a new common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%; (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8% (increased from 6%); (iii) a total capital ratio of 10% (unchanged from current rules); and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5% (increased from 4%). The final rules set forth certain changes for the calculation of risk-weighted assets, which we will be required to utilize beginning January 1, 2015. The standardized approach final rule utilizes an increased number of credit risk exposure categories and risk weights, and also addresses: (i) an alternative standard of creditworthiness consistent with Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act; (ii) revisions to recognition of credit risk mitigation; (iii) rules for risk weighting of equity exposures and past due loans; (iv) revised capital treatment for derivatives and repo- style transactions; and (v) disclosure requirements for top-tier banking organizations with $50 billion or more in total assets that are not subject to the “advance approach rules” that apply to banks with greater than $250 billion in consolidated assets. Based on our current capital composition and levels, we believe that we would be in compliance with the requirements as set forth in the final rules if they were presently in effect. A depository institution, under federal law, is prohibited from paying a dividend if such dividend would cause the depository institution to be “undercapitalized” as determined by federal bank regulatory agencies. The relevant federal regulatory agencies and the state regulatory agency, the New York State Department of Financial Services, also have the authority to prohibit a bank from engaging in what, in the opinion of such regulatory body, constitutes an unsafe or unsound practice in conducting its business. We would require the approval of the Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services if the dividends we declared in any calendar year were to exceed net profit for that year combined with retained net profits of the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfer to paid-in capital. The term “net profit” is defined as the remainder of all earnings from current operations plus actual recoveries on loan and investment and other assets, after deducting from the total thereof all current operating expenses, actual losses, if any, and all federal and local taxes. The payment of dividends could, depending upon our financial condition, be deemed to constitute such an unsafe or unsound practice. F-46 (21) Quarterly Data (unaudited) (dollars in thousands, except per share amounts) March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31 2013 QUARTER Interest income Interest expense Net interest income Provision for loan and lease losses Net interest income after provision for loan and lease losses Non-interest income Other-than-temporary impairment losses on securities, net Non-interest income excluding other-than- temporary impairment losses on securities Non-interest expense Income before taxes Income tax expense Net income Basic earnings per common share Diluted earnings per common share 2012 QUARTER Interest income Interest expense Net interest income Provision for loan and lease losses Net interest income after provision for loan and lease losses Non-interest income Other-than-temporary impairment losses on securities, net Non-interest income excluding other-than- temporary impairment losses on securities Non-interest expense Income before taxes Income tax expense Net income Basic earnings per common share Diluted earnings per common share $ 173,631 25,523 148,108 9,926 138,182 8,836 180,286 25,755 154,531 9,669 144,862 9,287 194,639 27,244 167,395 11,005 156,390 7,854 206,594 28,285 178,309 11,043 167,266 6,034 (1,272) (893) (1,400) (2,584) 10,108 58,930 88,088 37,454 $ 50,634 $ $ 1.07 1.06 $ 155,699 28,897 126,802 10,664 116,138 9,114 10,180 61,446 92,703 39,101 53,602 1.13 1.12 162,272 28,082 134,190 10,303 123,887 9,886 9,254 62,339 101,905 41,737 60,168 1.27 1.25 169,102 27,431 141,671 10,072 131,599 8,340 8,618 64,462 108,838 44,498 64,340 1.36 1.34 173,483 26,340 147,143 10,388 136,755 8,899 (714) (1,400) (434) (525) 9,828 50,350 74,902 32,533 $ 42,369 $ $ 0.92 0.90 11,286 54,850 78,923 33,641 45,282 0.97 0.96 8,774 54,939 85,000 37,302 47,698 1.02 1.00 9,424 58,104 87,550 37,416 50,134 1.07 1.05 F-47 (This page has been left blank intentionally.) Exhibit No. Exhibit Index Exhibit 3.1 Restated Organization Certificate. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005.) 3.2 Certificate of Amendment, dated December 5, 2008, to the Bank's Restated Organization Certificate with respect to Signature Bank’s Fixed Rate Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A, par value $0.01 per share. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December 17, 2008.) 3.3 Amended and Restated By-laws of the Registrant. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 17, 2007.) 4.1 Specimen Common Stock Certificate. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 4.2 Specimen Warrant (Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 of the Bank’s Form 8-A filed on March 10, 2010.) 10.1 Signature Bank Amended and Restated 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan. (Incorporated by reference from Appendix A to the 2013 Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 18, 2013.) 10.2 Amended and Restated Signature Bank Change of Control Plan. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on September 19, 2007.) 10.4 Networking Agreement, effective as of April 18, 2001, between Signature Securities and Signature Bank. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 10.7 Brokerage and Consulting Agreement, dated August 6, 2001, by and between Signature Bank and Signature Securities. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 10.13 Employment Agreement, dated March 22, 2004, between Signature Bank and Joseph J. DePaolo. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Registration Statement on Form 10 or amendments thereto, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 17, 2004.) 10.14 Master Agreement for the provision of Hardware Software and/or Services, dated as of September 9, 2005, between Fidelity Information Services, Inc. and Signature Bank. (Incorporated by reference to Signature Bank’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005.) 10.15 Warrant Agreement, dated March 10, 2010, between Signature Bank and American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, LLC, as warrant agent (Incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 of the Bank’s Form 8-A filed on March 10, 2010.) 14.1 Code of Ethics (Incorporated by reference from Signature Bank’s 2004 Form 10-K, filed with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on March 16, 2005.) 21.1 Subsidiaries of Signature Bank. 31.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 31.2 Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. 32.1 Certification of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. EXHIBIT 21.1 As of February 28, 2014, Signature Bank has the following significant subsidiary: SUBSIDIARIES OF SIGNATURE BANK Subsidiary Signature Preferred Capital, Inc. State or Jurisdiction Under Which Organized New York EXHIBIT 31.1 I, Joseph J. DePaolo, certify that: CERTIFICATION 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Signature Bank for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the Examining Committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 28, 2014 /s/ JOSEPH J. DEPAOLO Joseph J. DePaolo President, Chief Executive Officer and Director CERTIFICATION EXHIBIT 31.2 I, Vito Susca, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Signature Bank for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the Examining Committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting. Date: February 28, 2014 /s/ VITO SUSCA Vito Susca Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 EXHIBIT 32.1 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Signature Bank, a New York bank (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: February 28, 2014 Dated: February 28, 2014 /s/ JOSEPH J. DEPAOLO Joseph J. DePaolo President, Chief Executive Officer and Director /s/ VITO SUSCA Vito Susca Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document. (This page has been left blank intentionally.) Signature Bank (NASDAQ:SBNY), member FDIC, is a full-service commercial bank with 27 private client offi ces located throughout the New York metropolitan area. Th e Bank primarily serves privately owned businesses, their owners and senior managers. Signature Bank off ers a broad range of business and personal banking products and services as well as investment, brokerage, asset management and insurance products and services through its subsidiary, Signature Securities Group Corporation, a licensed broker-dealer, investment adviser and member FINRA/SIPC. In addition, Signature Bank’s wholly owned specialty fi nance subsidiary, Signature Financial LLC, provides equipment fi nance and leasing along with taxi medallion and transportation fi nancing. F I N A N C I A L H I G H L I G H T S (in thousands) Total assets Total loans Total deposits 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 $ 9,146,112 11,673,089 14,666,120 17,456,057 22,376,663 4,376,098 5,244,664 6,850,726 9,771,770 13,519,471 7,222,546 9,441,227 11,754,138 14,082,652 17,057,097 Shareholders’ equity 803,659 944,547 1,408,116 1,650,327 1,799,939 Net interest income after provision for loan losses Non-interest income Non-interest expense Net income available to common shareholders 219,680 298,486 34,632 42,648 407,911 42,038 508,379 36,239 149,885 164,896 182,724 218,243 606,700 32,011 247,177 391,534 $ 50,523 102,051 149,526 185,483 228,744 Income before income taxes 104,427 176,238 267,225 326,375 C O M PA N Y P R O F I L E C O R P O R AT E I N F O R M AT I O N BOARD OF DIRECTORS LOCATIONS STOCKHOLDER INFORMATION Scott A. Shay Chairman of the Board Signature Bank Kathryn A. Byrne, CPA Partner WeiserMazars LLP Alfonse M. D’Amato Managing Director Park Strategies, LLC Former U.S. Senator Alfred B. DelBello Partner DelBello Donnellan Weingarten Wise & Wiederkehr, LLP Former New York State Lieutenant Governor Joseph J. DePaolo President & Chief Executive Offi cer Signature Bank Judith A. Huntington President Th e College of New Rochelle Jeff rey W. Meshel Founder, President and Chief Executive Offi cer Paradigm Capital Corp. Michael V. Pappagallo President & Chief Financial Offi cer Brixmor Property Group John Tamberlane Vice Chairman Signature Bank Manhattan 261 Madison Avenue 300 Park Avenue 71 Broadway 565 Fifth Avenue 950 Th ird Avenue 200 Park Avenue South 1020 Madison Avenue 50 West 57th Street 2 Penn Plaza 111 Broadway (Accommodation Offi ce) Brooklyn 26 Court Street 6321 New Utrecht Avenue 97 Broadway 84 Broadway (Accommodation Offi ce) Queens 36-36 33rd Street, Long Island City 78-27 37th Avenue, Jackson Heights 8936 Sutphin Boulevard, Jamaica Bronx 421 Hunts Point Avenue Staten Island 2066 Hylan Boulevard 1688 Victory Boulevard SENIOR MANAGEMENT Westchester 1C Quaker Ridge Road, New Rochelle 360 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains Long Island 1225 Franklin Avenue, Garden City 53 North Park Avenue, Rockville Centre 68 South Service Road, Melville 923 Broadway, Woodmere 40 Cuttermill Road, Great Neck 100 Jericho Quadrangle, Jericho 360 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge Signature Securities Group Institutional Trading (Services limited to institutional clients) 9 Greenway Plaza, Houston, TX 77046 Scott A. Shay Chairman of the Board of Directors Joseph J. DePaolo President & Chief Executive Offi cer John Tamberlane Vice Chairman Mark T. Sigona Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Offi cer Michael J. Merlo Executive Vice President & Chief Credit Offi cer Eric R. Howell Executive Vice President - Corporate & Business Development Peter S. Quinlan Executive Vice President & Treasurer Michael Sharkey Senior Vice President & Chief Technology Offi cer Vito Susca Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Offi cer Signature Bank 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 646-822-1500 866-SIG-LINE (866-744-5463) www.signatureny.com Counsel Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212-373-3000 Independent Auditors KPMG LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154-0102 212-758-9700 Stock Transfer Agent & Registrar American Stock Transfer 6201 15th Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11219 718-921-8200 Stock Trading Information Th e Bank’s common stock is traded on the NASDAQ National Market under the symbol SBNY. Annual Meeting Th e annual meeting of stockholders will be held on April 24, 2014, 9:00 AM at: Th e Roosevelt Hotel 45 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 212-661-9600 Form 10-K A copy of Signature Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K fi led with the FDIC is available without charge by download from www.signatureny.com, or by written request to: Signature Bank Attention: Investor Relations 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 Certain statements in this Annual Report that are not historical facts constitute “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Reform Act”). Such forward- looking statements are based on the Bank’s current expectations, speak only as of the date on which they are made and are susceptible to a number of risks, un- certainties and other factors. Th e Bank’s actual results, performance and achievements may diff er materially from any future results, performance or achieve- ments expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. For those statements, the Bank claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking state- ments contained in the Reform Act. See “Private Securi- ties Litigation Reform Act Safe Harbor Statement” and “Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors,” appearing in the Bank’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fi scal year ended December 31, 2013, included herein. 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 866-SIG-LINE (866-744-5463) www.signatureny.com S I G N A T U R E B A N K 2 0 1 3 A N N U A L R E P O R T 2013 ANNUAL REPORT 

Continue reading text version or see original annual report in PDF format above