UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

þ       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                      to                     .

Commission File No. 001-12647

OFG Bancorp

Incorporated in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

IRS Employer Identification No. 66-0538893

Principal Executive Offices:

254 Muñoz Rivera Avenue

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918

Telephone Number: (787) 771-6800

Securities Registered Pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Common Stock ($1.00 par value per share)

7.125% Noncumulative Monthly Income Preferred Stock, Series A  ($25.00 liquidation preference per share)

7.0% Noncumulative Monthly Income Preferred Stock, Series B  ($25.00 liquidation preference per share)

8.75% Noncumulative Convertible Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series C  ($1,000.00 liquidation preference per share)

7.125% Noncumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series D  ($25.00 liquidation preference per share)

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  þ        No  ¨   

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

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

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filings pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K 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.    ¨   

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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

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

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of OFG Bancorp (the “Company”) was approximately $826.5 million as of June 30, 2013 based upon 45,640,105 shares outstanding and the reported closing price of $18.11 on the New York Stock Exchange on that date.

As of January 31, 2014, the Company had  45,676,922 shares of common stock outstanding.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Company’s definitive proxy statement relating to the 2014 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated herein by reference in response to Items 10 through 14 of Part III, except for certain information set forth herein under Item 12.

 

OFG Bancorp

FORM 10-K

For the Year Ended December 31, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

 

The information included in this annual report on Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements may relate to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of OFG Bancorp (“we,” “our,” “us” or the “Company”), including, but not limited to, statements with respect to the adequacy of the allowance for loan losses, delinquency trends, market risk and the impact of interest rate changes, capital markets conditions, capital adequacy and liquidity, and the effect of legal proceedings and new accounting standards on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations. All statements contained herein that are not clearly historical in nature are forward-looking, and the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “continues,” “expect,” “estimate,” “intend,” “project” and similar expressions and future or conditional verbs such as “will,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “might,” “can,” “may,” or similar expressions are generally intended to identify forward-looking statements.

 

These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties, estimates and assumptions by management that are difficult to predict. Various factors, some of which by their nature are beyond the Company’s control, could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, such forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to:

 

·      the rate of growth in the economy and employment levels, as well as general business and economic conditions;

·      changes in interest rates, as well as the magnitude of such changes;

·      the fiscal and monetary policies of the federal government and its agencies;

·      a credit default by the U.S. or Puerto Rico governments or a downgrade in the credit ratings of the U.S. or Puerto

Rico governments;

·      changes in federal bank regulatory and supervisory policies, including required levels of capital;

·      the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) on the

Company’s businesses, business practices and cost of operations;

·      the relative strength or weakness of the consumer and commercial credit sectors and of the real estate market in

Puerto Rico;

·      the performance of the stock and bond markets;

·      competition in the financial services industry;

·      additional Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) assessments; and

·      possible legislative, tax or regulatory changes.

 

Other possible events or factors that could cause results or performance to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements include the following: negative economic conditions that adversely affect the general economy, housing prices, the job market, consumer confidence and spending habits which may affect, among other things, the level of non-performing assets, charge-offs and provision expense; changes in interest rates and market liquidity which may reduce interest margins, impact funding sources and affect the ability to originate and distribute financial products in the primary and secondary markets; adverse movements and volatility in debt and equity capital markets; changes in market rates and prices which may adversely impact the value of financial assets and liabilities; liabilities resulting from litigation and regulatory investigations; changes in accounting standards, rules and interpretations; increased competition; the Company’s ability to grow its core businesses; decisions to downsize, sell or close units or otherwise change the Company’s business mix; and management’s ability to identify and manage these and other risks.

All forward-looking statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K are based upon information available to the Company as of the date of this report, and other than as required by law, including the requirements of applicable securities laws, the Company assumes no obligation to update or revise any such forward-looking statements to reflect occurrences or unanticipated events or circumstances after the date of such statements.

 

ITEM 1.      BUSINESS 

 

General

The Company is a publicly-owned financial holding company incorporated on June 14, 1996 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, providing a full range of banking and financial services through its subsidiaries. The Company is subject to the provisions of the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, (the “BHC Act”) and accordingly, subject to the supervision and regulation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve Board”).

The Company provides comprehensive banking and financial services to its clients through a complete range of banking and financial solutions, including commercial, consumer and mortgage lending; leasing; checking and savings accounts; financial planning, insurance, financial service, and investment brokerage; and corporate and individual trust and retirement services. The Company operates through three major business segments: Banking, Financial Services, and Treasury, and distinguishes itself based on quality service and marketing efforts focused on mid and high net worth individuals and families, including professionals and owners of small and mid-sized businesses, primarily in Puerto Rico.  The Company provides these services through various subsidiaries including, a commercial bank, Oriental Bank, a securities broker-dealer, Oriental Financial Services Corp. (“Oriental Financial Services”), an insurance agency, Oriental Insurance, Inc. (“Oriental Insurance”) and a retirement plan administrator, Caribbean Pension Consultants, Inc. (“CPC”).  All of our subsidiaries are based in San Juan, Puerto Rico, except for CPC which is based in Boca Raton, Florida.  The Company has 55 branches in Puerto Rico.  The Company’s long-term goal is to strengthen its banking and financial services franchise by expanding its lending businesses, increasing the level of integration in the marketing and delivery of banking and financial services, maintaining effective asset-liability management, growing non-interest revenue from banking and financial services, and improving operating efficiencies.

The Company’s strategy involves:

·         Strengthening its banking and financial services franchise by expanding its ability to attract deposits and build relationships with individual customers and professionals and mid-market commercial businesses through aggressive marketing and expansion of its sales force;

·         Focusing on greater growth in commercial, consumer and mortgage lending, trust and financial services and insurance products; and increasing the level of integration in the marketing and delivery of banking and financial services;

·         Matching its portfolio of investment securities with the related funding to achieve favorable spreads, and primarily investing in U.S. government sponsored agency obligations.

·         Improving operating efficiencies, and continuing to maintain effective asset-liability management; and

·         Implementing a broad ranging effort to instill in employees and make customers aware of the Company’s determination to effectively serve and advise its customer base in a responsive and professional manner.

Together with a highly experienced group of senior and mid level executives and the benefits from the acquisitions of Eurobank Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico operations of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A.(“BBVA”), this strategy has resulted in sustained growth in the Company’s deposit-taking activities, commercial, consumer and mortgage lending and financial service activities, allowing the Company to distinguish itself in a highly competitive industry. The Company is not immune from general and local financial and economic conditions. Past experience is not necessarily indicative of future performance, especially given market uncertainties, but based on a reasonable time horizon of three to five years, the strategy is expected to maintain its steady progress towards the Company’s long-term goal.

 

The Company’s principal funding sources are branch deposits, securities sold under agreements to repurchase, Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) advances, Federal Reserve Bank (“FRB”) advances, wholesale deposits, and subordinated capital notes. Through its branch network, Oriental Bank offers personal non-interest and interest-bearing checking accounts, savings accounts, certificates of deposit, individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) and commercial non-interest bearing checking accounts. The FDIC insures Oriental Bank’s deposit accounts up to applicable limits. Management makes retail deposit pricing decisions periodically, adjusting the rates paid on retail deposits in response to general market conditions and local competition. Pricing decisions take into account the rates being offered by other local banks, the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), and mainland U.S. market interest rates.

 

 

 

Significant Transactions During 2013 – The BBVAPR Integration

 

The Company has completed the conversion of all former BBVAPR businesses to our state-of-the-art technology platform in line with our original integration plan. This will enable us to roll out new, technology-enhanced products and services to our current and target customer base.

On December 18, 2012, the Company purchased from BBVA, all of the outstanding common stock of each of (i) BBVAPR Holding Corporation (“BBVAPR Holding”), the sole shareholder of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria Puerto Rico (“BBVAPR Bank”), a Puerto Rico chartered commercial bank, and BBVA Seguros, Inc. (“BBVA Seguros”), an insurance agency, and (ii) BBVA Securities of Puerto Rico, Inc. (“BBVA Securities”), a registered broker-dealer. The acquired businesses are collectively referred to herein as “BBVAPR”, and this transaction is referred to as the “BBVAPR Acquisition.”

 

The Company acquired all of the outstanding common stock of BBVAPR Holding and BBVA Securities for an aggregate purchase price of $500 million. In 2013, the Company completed the integration of the BBVAPR Companies with its various subsidiaries.  Immediately following the closing of the BBVAPR  Acquisition, the Company merged BBVAPR Bank with and into Oriental Bank, with Oriental Bank continuing as the surviving entity. Shortly thereafter, BBVAPR Holding was merged with and into the Company, with the Company continuing as the surviving entity. In January, 2013 BBVA Seguros (then known as Oriental Seguros) was liquidated and its assets were contributed by the Company to Oriental Insurance, and in August 2013, upon receipt of the required approval of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), the Company merged BBVA Securities (then known as OFS Securities) with and into Oriental Financial Services, with Oriental Financial Services continuing as the surviving entity. The audited consolidated financial statements contemplate the effect of the BBVAPR Acquisition.

Segment Disclosure

The Company has three reportable segments: Banking, Financial Services, and Treasury. Management established the reportable segments based on the internal reporting used to evaluate performance and to assess where to allocate resources. Other factors such as the Company’s organizational structure, nature of products, distribution channels and economic characteristics of the products were also considered in the determination of the reportable segments. The Company measures the performance of these reportable segments based on pre-established goals involving different financial parameters such as net income, interest rate spread, loan production, and fees generated. 

For detailed information regarding the performance of the Company’s operating segments, please refer to Note 23 in the Company’s accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Banking Activities

Oriental Bank (the “Bank”), the Company’s main subsidiary, is a full-service Puerto Rico commercial bank with its main office located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The Bank has 55 branches throughout Puerto Rico and was incorporated in October 1964 as a federal mutual savings and loan association. It became a federal mutual savings bank in July 1983 and converted to a federal stock savings bank in April 1987. Its conversion from a federally-chartered savings bank to a commercial bank chartered under the banking law of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, on June 30, 1994, allowed the Bank to more effectively pursue opportunities in its market and obtain more flexibility in its businesses. As a Puerto Rico-chartered commercial bank, it is subject to examination by the FDIC and the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico (the “OCFI”). The Bank offers banking services such as commercial, leasing and consumer lending, savings and time deposit products, financial planning, and corporate and individual trust services, and capitalizes on its commercial banking network to provide mortgage lending products to its clients. The Bank operates two international banking entities (“IBE”) pursuant to the International Banking Center Regulatory Act of Puerto Rico, as amended (the “IBE Act”), one is a unit operating within the Bank named Oriental Overseas (the “IBE Unit”), and the other is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Bank, named Oriental International Bank, Inc. (the “IBE Subsidiary”).  The IBE Unit and IBE Subsidiary offer the Bank certain Puerto Rico tax advantages, and their services are limited under Puerto Rico law to persons and assets/liabilities located outside of Puerto Rico.

Banking activities include the Bank’s branches and mortgage banking activities with traditional retail banking products such as deposits, commercial, consumer and mortgage loans, and leasing. The Bank’s significant lending activities are with consumers located in Puerto Rico. The Bank’s lending and leasing transactions include a diversified number of industries and activities, all of which are encompassed within four main categories: commercial, consumer, mortgage and auto.

 

 

The Company’s mortgage banking activities are conducted through a division of the Bank. The mortgage banking activities include the origination of mortgage loans for the Bank’s own portfolio, and the sale of loans directly into the secondary market or the securitization of conforming loans into mortgage-backed securities. The Bank originates Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”)-insured mortgages, Veterans Administration (“VA”)-guaranteed mortgages, and Rural Housing Service (“RHS”)-guaranteed loans that are primarily securitized for issuance of Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”) mortgage-backed securities which can be resold to individual or institutional investors in the secondary market. Conventional loans that meet the underwriting requirements for sale or exchange under standard Federal National Mortgage Association (the “FNMA”) or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (the “FHLMC”) programs are referred to as conforming mortgage loans and are also securitized for issuance of FNMA or FHLMC mortgage-backed securities. The Bank is an approved seller of FNMA, as well as FHLMC, mortgage loans for issuance of FNMA and FHLMC mortgage-backed securities. The Bank is also an approved issuer of GNMA mortgage-backed securities. The Company outsources the servicing of the GNMA, FNMA and FHLMC pools that it issues, and its residential mortgage loan portfolio.

 

Loan Underwriting

Residential mortgage loans:  All loan originations, regardless of whether originated through the Company’s retail banking network or purchased from third parties, must be underwritten in accordance with the Company’s underwriting criteria, including loan-to-value ratios, borrower income qualifications, debt ratios and credit history, investor requirements, and title insurance and property appraisal requirements. The Company’s mortgage underwriting standards comply with the relevant guidelines set forth by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), VA, FNMA, FHLMC, federal and Puerto Rico banking regulatory authorities, as applicable. The Company’s underwriting personnel, while operating within the Company’s loan offices, make underwriting decisions independent of the Company’s mortgage loan origination personnel. 

 

Commercial loans:  Commercial loans include lines of credit and term facilities to finance business operations and to provide working capital for specific purposes, such as to finance the purchase of assets, equipment or inventory. Since a borrower’s cash flow from operations is generally the primary source of repayment, the Company’s analysis of the credit risk focuses heavily on the borrower’s debt repayment capacity. Commercial term loans generally have terms from one to five years, may be collateralized by the asset being acquired, real estate, or other available assets, and bear interest rates that float with the prime rate, LIBOR or another established index, or are fixed for the term of the loan. Lines of credit are extended to businesses based on an analysis of the financial strength and integrity of the borrowers and are generally secured primarily by real estate, accounts receivable or inventory, and have a maturity of one year or less. Such lines of credit bear an interest rate that floats with a base rate, the prime rate, LIBOR, or another established index. 

 

Auto loans:  The Company provides financing for the purchase of new or used motor vehicles. These loans are granted mainly through dealers authorized and approved by the auto credit department committee of the Company. The auto credit department has the specialized structure and resources to provide the service required for this product according to market demands. The auto loan credit policy establishes specific guidance and parameters for the underwriting and origination process. Underwriting procedures, lending limits, interest rate approval, insurance coverage, and automobile brand restrictions are some parameters and internal controls implemented to ensure the quality and profitability of the auto loan portfolio. The credit scoring system is a fundamental part of the decision process.

 

Consumer loans:   Consumer loans include personal loans, credit cards, home equity lines of credit (“HELOCs”) and other loans made by banks to individual borrowers. All loan originations must be underwritten in accordance with the Company’s underwriting criteria, and include an assessment of each borrower’s personal financial condition, including verification of income, assets, FICO score, and credit reports.

Sale of Loans and Securitization Activities

The Company may engage in the sale or securitization of a portion of the residential mortgage loans that it originates and purchases and utilizes various channels to sell its mortgage products. The Company is an approved issuer of GNMA-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities which involves the packaging of FHA loans, RHS loans or VA loans into pools of mortgage-backed securities for sale primarily to securities broker-dealers and other institutional investors. The Company can also act as issuer in the case of conforming conventional loans in order to group them into pools of FNMA or FHLMC-issued mortgage-backed securities which the Company then sells to securities broker-dealers. The issuance of mortgage-backed securities provides the Company with flexibility in selling the mortgage loans that it originates or purchases and also provides income by increasing the value and marketability of such loans. In the case of conforming conventional loans, the Company also has the option to sell such loans through the FNMA and FHLMC cash window programs.

 

Financial Service Activities

Financial service activities are generated by such businesses as securities brokerage, trust services, retirement planning, insurance, pension administration, and other financial services.

Oriental Financial Services is a Puerto Rico corporation and the Company’s subsidiary engaged in securities brokerage and investment banking activities in accordance with the Company’s strategy of providing fully integrated financial solutions to the Company’s clients.  Oriental Financial Services, member of FINRA and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, is a registered securities broker-dealer pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The broker-dealer does not carry customer accounts and is, accordingly, exempt from the Customer Protection Rule (SEC Rule 15c3-3) pursuant to subsection (k)(2)(ii) of such rule. It clears securities transactions through Pershing LLC, a clearing agent that carries the accounts of their customers on a “fully disclosed” basis.

The broker-dealers offers securities brokerage services covering various investment alternatives such as tax-advantaged fixed income securities, mutual funds, stocks, and bonds to retail and institutional clients. It also offer separately managed accounts and mutual fund asset allocation programs sponsored by unaffiliated professional asset managers. These services are designed to meet each client’s specific needs and preferences, including transaction-based pricing and asset-based fee pricing.

Oriental Financial Services also manages and participates in public offerings and private placements of debt and equity securities in Puerto Rico and engages in municipal securities business with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its instrumentalities, municipalities, and public corporations. Investment banking revenue from such activities includes gains, losses, and fees, net of syndicate expenses, arising from securities offerings in which it acts as an underwriter or agent. Investment banking revenue also includes fees earned from providing merger-and-acquisition and financial restructuring advisory services.

As a result of the BBVAPR Acquisition, the Bank acquired a municipal securities division (the “MSD”) and succeeded to the registration as a municipal securities dealer of BBVAPR División de Valores Municipales. The MSD was a separately identifiable division of the Bank and the registration with the SEC was voluntarily withdrawn by the Bank effective November 25, 2013. The FDIC was the appropriate regulatory agency of the MSD’s municipal securities activities.  

Oriental Insurance is a Puerto Rico corporation and the Company’s subsidiary engaged in insurance agency services. It was established by the Company to take advantage of the cross-marketing opportunities provided by financial modernization legislation. Oriental Insurance currently earns commissions by acting as a licensed insurance agent in connection with the issuance of insurance policies by unaffiliated insurance companies and anticipates continued growth as it expands the products and services it provides and continues to cross market its services to the Company’s existing customer base.

CPC, a Florida corporation, is the Company’s subsidiary engaged in the administration of retirement plans in the U.S., Puerto Rico, and the Caribbean.

Treasury Activities

Treasury activities encompass all of the Company’s treasury-related functions. The Company’s investment portfolio consists of mortgage-backed securities, obligations of U.S. government- sponsored agencies, Puerto Rico government and agency obligations and money market instruments. Agency mortgage-backed securities, the largest component, consist principally of pools of residential mortgage loans that are made to consumers and then resold in the form of pass-through certificates in the secondary market, the payment of interest and principal of which is guaranteed by GNMA, FNMA or FHLMC.

Market Area and Competition

The main geographic business and service area of the Company is in Puerto Rico, where the banking market is highly competitive. Puerto Rico banks are subject to the same federal laws, regulations and supervision that apply to similar institutions in the United States of America. The Company also competes with brokerage firms with retail operations, credit unions, savings and loan cooperatives, small loan companies, insurance agencies, and mortgage banks in Puerto Rico. The Company encounters intense competition in attracting and retaining deposits and in its consumer and commercial lending activities. Management believes that the Company has been able to compete effectively for deposits and loans by offering a variety of transaction account products and loans with competitive terms, by emphasizing the quality of its service, by pricing its products at competitive interest rates, by offering convenient branch locations, and by offering financial planning and financial services at most of its branch locations. The consolidations of three Puerto Rico banks during 2010, created an environment for more rational loan and deposit pricing. The Company’s ability to originate loans depends primarily on the services that it provides to its borrowers, in making prompt credit decisions, and on the rates and fees that it charges.

 

 

 Regulation and Supervision

General

The Company is a financial holding company subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve Board under the BHC Act, as amended by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Dodd-Frank Act. The qualification requirements and the process for a bank holding company that elects to be treated as a financial holding company requires that a bank holding company and all of the subsidiary banks controlled by it at the time of election must be and remain at all times “well capitalized” and “well managed.”

The Company elected to be treated as a financial holding company as permitted by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, if the Company fails to meet the requirements for being a financial holding company and is unable to correct such deficiencies within certain prescribed time periods, the Federal Reserve Board could require the Company to divest control of its depository institution subsidiary or alternatively cease conducting activities that are not permissible for bank holding companies that are not financial holding companies.

Financial holding companies may engage, directly or indirectly, in any activity that is determined to be (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity, or (ii) complementary to a financial activity provided it does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act specifically provides that the following activities have been determined to be “financial in nature”: (a) lending, trust and other banking activities; (b) insurance activities; (c) financial, investment or economic advisory services; (d) securitization of assets; (e) securities underwriting and dealing; (f) existing bank holding company domestic activities; (g) existing bank holding company foreign activities; and (h) merchant banking activities. A financial holding company may generally commence any activity, or acquire any company, that is financial in nature without prior approval of the Federal Reserve Board. As provided by the Dodd-Frank Act, a financial holding company may not acquire a company, without prior Federal Reserve Board approval, in a transaction in which the total consolidated assets to be acquired by the financial holding company exceed $10 billion.

In addition, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act specifically gives the Federal Reserve Board the authority, by regulation or order, to expand the list of financial or incidental activities, but requires consultation with the U.S. Treasury Department and gives the Federal Reserve Board authority to allow a financial holding company to engage in any activity that is complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system.

The Company is required to file with the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC periodic reports and other information concerning its own business operations and those of its subsidiaries. In addition, Federal Reserve Board approval must also be obtained before a bank holding company acquires all or substantially all of the assets of another bank or merges or consolidates with another bank holding company. The Federal Reserve Board also has the authority to issue cease and desist orders against bank holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries.

The Bank is regulated by various agencies in the United States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Its main regulators are the OCFI and the FDIC. The Bank is subject to extensive regulation and examination by the OCFI and the FDIC, and is subject to the Federal Reserve Board’s regulation of transactions between the Bank and its affiliates. The federal and Puerto Rico laws and regulations which are applicable to the Bank regulate, among other things, the scope of its business, its investments, its reserves against deposits, the timing of the availability of deposited funds, and the nature and amount of and collateral for certain loans. In addition to the impact of such regulations, commercial banks are affected significantly by the actions of the Federal Reserve Board as it attempts to control the money supply and credit availability in order to control inflation in the economy.

The Company’s mortgage banking business is subject to the rules and regulations of FHA, VA, RHS, FNMA, FHLMC, HUD and GNMA with respect to the origination, processing and selling of mortgage loans and the sale of mortgage-backed securities. Those rules and regulations, among other things, prohibit discrimination and establish underwriting guidelines which include provisions for inspections and appraisal reports, require credit reports on prospective borrowers and fix maximum loan amounts, and, with respect to VA loans, fix maximum interest rates. Mortgage origination activities are subject to, among others, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder which, among other things, prohibit discrimination and require the disclosure of certain basic information to mortgagors concerning credit terms and settlement costs. The Company is also subject to regulation by the OCFI with respect to, among other things, licensing requirements and maximum origination fees on certain types of mortgage loan products.

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to the rules and regulations of certain other regulatory agencies. Oriental Financial Services, as a registered broker-dealer, is subject to the supervision, examination and regulation of FINRA, the SEC, and the OCFI in matters relating to the conduct of  its securities business, including record keeping and reporting requirements, supervision and licensing of employees, and obligations to customers.

 

Oriental Insurance is subject to the supervision, examination and regulation of the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance of Puerto Rico in matters relating to insurance sales, including but not limited to, licensing of employees, sales practices, charging of commissions and reporting requirements.

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

The Dodd-Frank Act implements a variety of far-reaching changes and has been described as the most sweeping reform of the financial services industry since the 1930’s.  It has a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes, such as: (i) enhanced resolution authority of troubled and failing banks and their holding companies; (ii) enhanced lending limits strengthening the existing limits on a depository institution’s credit exposure to one borrower; (iii) increased capital and liquidity requirements; (iv) increased regulatory examination fees; (v) changes to assessments to be paid to the FDIC for federal deposit insurance; (vi) prohibiting bank holding companies, such as the Company, from including in regulatory Tier 1 capital future issuances of trust preferred securities or other hybrid debt and equity securities; and (vii) numerous other provisions designed to improve supervision and oversight of, and strengthening safety and soundness for, the financial services sector. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a new framework for systemic risk oversight within the financial system to be distributed among new and existing federal regulatory agencies, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act addresses many corporate governance and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies, including the Company. A few provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are effective immediately, while various provisions are becoming effective in stages. Many of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act are being implemented over time and most are subject to implementing regulations.

The Dodd-Frank Act also created a new consumer financial services regulator, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “CFPB”), which assumed most of the consumer financial services regulatory responsibilities previously exercised by federal banking regulators and other agencies. The CFPB’s primary functions include the supervision of “covered persons” (broadly defined to include any person offering or providing a consumer financial product or service and any affiliated service provider) for compliance with federal consumer financial laws. It has primary authority to enforce the federal consumer financial laws, as well as exclusive authority to require reports and conduct examinations for compliance with such laws, in the case of any insured depository institution with total assets of more than $10 billion and any affiliate thereof.  The CFPB also has broad powers to prescribe rules applicable to a covered person or service provider identifying as unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service.  

Holding Company Structure

The Bank is subject to restrictions under federal laws that limit the transfer of funds to its affiliates (including the Company), whether in the form of loans, other extensions of credit, investments or asset purchases, among others. Such transfers are limited to 10% of the transferring institution’s capital stock and surplus with respect to any affiliate (including the Company), and, with respect to all affiliates, to an aggregate of 20% of the transferring institution’s capital stock and surplus. Furthermore, such loans and extensions of credit are required to be secured in specified amounts, carried out on an arm’s length basis, and consistent with safe and sound banking practices.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a bank holding company, such as the Company, must serve as a source of financial strength for any subsidiary depository institution. The term “source of financial strength” is defined as the ability of a company to provide financial assistance to its insured depository institution subsidiaries in the event of financial distress at such subsidiaries. This support may be required at times when, absent such requirement, the bank holding company might not otherwise provide such support. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and be entitled to a priority of payment. In addition, any capital loans by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. The Bank is currently the only depository institution subsidiary of the Company.

Since the Company is a financial holding company, its right to participate in the assets of any subsidiary upon the latter’s liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors (including depositors in the case of the Bank) except to the extent that the Company is a creditor with recognized claims against the subsidiary.

Dividend Restrictions

The principal source of funds for the Company’s holding company is the dividends from the Bank. The ability of the Bank to pay dividends on its common stock is restricted by the Puerto Rico Banking Act of 1933, as amended (the “Banking Act”), the Federal

 

Deposit Insurance Act, as amended (the “FDIA”) and FDIC regulations. In general terms, the Banking Act provides that when the expenditures of a bank are greater than receipts, the excess of expenditures over receipts shall be charged against the undistributed profits of the bank and the balance, if any, shall be charged against the required reserve fund of the bank. If there is no sufficient reserve fund to cover such balance in whole or in part, the outstanding amount shall be charged against the bank’s capital account. The Banking Act provides that until said capital has been restored to its original amount and the reserve fund to 20% of the original capital, the bank may not declare any dividends. In general terms, the FDIA and the FDIC regulations restrict the payment of dividends when a bank is undercapitalized, when a bank has failed to pay insurance assessments, or when there are safety and soundness concerns regarding a bank.

The payment of dividends by the Bank may also be affected by other regulatory requirements and policies, such as maintenance of adequate capital. If, in the opinion of the regulatory authority, a depository institution under its jurisdiction is engaged in, or is about to engage in, an unsafe or unsound practice (that, depending on the financial condition of the depository institution, could include the payment of dividends), such authority may require, after notice and hearing, that such depository institution cease and desist from such practice. The Federal Reserve Board has a policy statement that provides that an insured bank or bank holding company should not maintain its existing rate of cash dividends on common stock unless (i) the organization’s net income available to common shareholders over the past year has been sufficient to fully fund the dividends and (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality, and overall financial condition.  In addition, all insured depository institutions are subject to the capital-based limitations required by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”).

Federal Home Loan Bank System

The FHLB-NY system, of which the Bank is a member, consists of 12 regional FHLBs governed and regulated by the Federal Housing Finance Agency. The FHLB-NY serves as a credit facility for member institutions within their assigned regions. They are funded primarily from proceeds derived from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB-NY system. They make loans (i.e., advances) to members in accordance with policies and procedures established by the FHLB-NY and the boards of directors of each regional -NY.

As a system member, the Bank is entitled to borrow from the FHLB of New York (the “FHLB-NY”) and is required to invest in FHLB-NY membership and activity-based stock.  The Bank must purchase membership stock equal to the greater of $1,000 or 0.20% of certain mortgage-related assets held by the Bank.  The Bank is also required to purchase activity-based stock equal to 4.50% of outstanding advances to the Bank by the FHLB-NY. The Bank is in compliance with the membership and activity-based stock ownership requirements described above. All loans, advances and other extensions of credit made by the FHLB-NY to the Bank are secured by a portion of the Bank’s mortgage loan portfolio, certain other investments, and the capital stock of the FHLB-NY held by the Bank. The Bank is required to maintain a minimum amount of qualifying collateral with a fair value of at least 110% of the outstanding advances

Prompt Corrective Action Regulations

 

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, federal banking agencies have adopted new capital rules that became effective January 1, 2014 for advanced approaches banking organizations (i.e., those with consolidated assets greater than $250 billion or consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposures of at least $10 billion) and January 1, 2015 for all other covered organizations (subject to certain phase-in periods through January 1, 2019) and that will replace their general risk-based capital rules, advanced approaches rule, market risk rule, and leverage rules.

 

The new capital rules provide certain changes to the prompt corrective action regulations adopted by the agencies under Section 38 of the FDIA, as amended by FDICIA.  These regulations are designed to place restrictions on U.S. insured depository institutions if their capital levels begin to show signs of weakness.  The five capital categories established by the agencies under their prompt corrective action framework are: “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized”.  

 

The new capital rules expand such categories by introducing a common equity tier 1 capital requirement for all depository institutions, revising the minimum risk-based capital ratios and, beginning in 2018, the proposed supplementary leverage requirement for advanced approaches banking organizations.  The common equity tier 1 capital ratio is a new minimum requirement designed to ensure that banking organizations hold sufficient high-quality regulatory capital that is available to absorb losses on a going-concern basis.  Under the new rules, an insured depository institution is:

 

 

(i) “well capitalized,” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or more, a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8% or more, a common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5% or more, and a tier 1 leverage capital ratio of 5% or more, and is not subject to any written capital order or directive;

 

(ii) “adequately capitalized,” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% or more, a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6% or more, a common equity tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5% or more, and a tier 1 leverage capital ratio of 4% or more;

 

(iii) “undercapitalized,” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8%, a tier 1 risk-based ratio that is less than 6%, a common equity tier 1 capital ratio that is less than 4.5%, or a tier 1 leverage capital ratio that is less than 4%;

 

(iv) “significantly undercapitalized,” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 6%, a tier 1 risk-based capital ratio that is less than 4%, a common equity tier 1 capital ratio that is less than 3%, or a tier 1 leverage capital ratio that is less than 3%; and

 

(v) “critically undercapitalized,” if it has a ratio of tangible equity (defined as tier capital plus non-tier 1 perpetual preferred stock) to total assets that is equal to or less than 2%.

 

The new capital rules also include a policy statement by the agencies that all banking organizations should maintain capital commensurate with their risk profiles,  which may entail holding capital significantly above the minimum requirements.  They also provide a reservation of authority permitting examiners to require that such organizations hold additional regulatory capital. 

FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fees to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. Undercapitalized depository institutions are subject to restrictions on borrowing from the Federal Reserve System. In addition, undercapitalized depository institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit capital restoration plans. A depository institution’s holding company must guarantee the capital plan, up to an amount equal to the lesser of 5% of the depository institution’s assets at the time it becomes undercapitalized or the amount of the capital deficiency when the institution fails to comply with the plan. The federal banking agencies may not accept a capital plan without determining, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the depository institution’s capital. Significantly undercapitalized depository institutions may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately capitalized, requirements to reduce total assets, and cessation of receipt of deposits from corresponding banks. Critically undercapitalized depository institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

FDIC Insurance Assessments

The Bank is subject to FDIC deposit insurance assessments. The Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005 (the “Reform Act”) merged the Bank Insurance Fund (“BIF”) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (“SAIF”) into a single Deposit Insurance Fund, and increased the maximum amount of the insurance coverage for certain retirement accounts, and possible “inflation adjustments” in the maximum amount of coverage available with respect to other insured accounts. In addition, it granted a one-time initial assessment credit (of approximately $4.7 billion) to recognize institutions’ past contributions to the fund. As a result of the merger of the BIF and the SAIF, all insured institutions are subject to the same assessment rate schedule.

The Dodd-Frank Act contains several important deposit insurance reforms, including the following: (i) the maximum deposit insurance amount was permanently increased to $250,000; (ii) the deposit insurance assessment is now based on the insured depository institution’s average consolidated assets minus its average tangible equity, rather than on its deposit base; (iii) the minimum reserve ratio for the Deposit Insurance Fund was raised from 1.15% to 1.35% of estimated insured deposits by September 30, 2020; (iv) the FDIC is required to “offset the effect” of increased assessments on insured depository institutions with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion; (v) the FDIC is no longer required to pay dividends if the Deposit Insurance Fund’s reserve ratio is greater than the minimum ratio; and (vi) the FDIC temporarily insured the full amount of qualifying “noninterest-bearing transaction accounts” for 2011 and 2012.  As defined in the Dodd-Frank Act, a “noninterest-bearing transaction account” is a deposit or account maintained at a depository institution with respect to which interest is neither accrued nor paid, on which the depositor or account holder is permitted to make withdrawals by negotiable or transferrable instrument, payment orders of withdrawals, telephone or other electronic media transfers, or other similar items for the purpose of making payments or transfers to third parties or others, and on which the insured depository institution does not reserve the right to require advance notice of an intended withdrawal.

 

Effective April 1, 2011, the FDIC amended its regulations under the FDIA, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, to modify the definition of a depository institution’s insurance assessment base; to revise the deposit insurance assessment rate schedules in light of

 

the new assessment base and altered adjustments; to implement the dividend provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act; and to revise the large insured depository institution assessment system to better differentiate for risk and better take into account losses from large institution failures that the FDIC may incur. Since the new assessment base under the Dodd-Frank Act is larger than the current assessment base, the new assessment rates adopted by the FDIC are lower than the former rates.

  

Brokered Deposits

FDIC regulations adopted under the FDIA govern the receipt of brokered deposits by banks. Well capitalized institutions are not subject to limitations on brokered deposits, while adequately capitalized institutions are able to accept, renew or rollover brokered deposits only with a waiver from the FDIC and subject to certain restrictions on the interest paid on such deposits. Undercapitalized institutions are not permitted to accept brokered deposits. As of December 31, 2013, the Bank is a well capitalized institution and is therefore not subject to these limitations on brokered deposits.

Regulatory Capital Requirements

The Federal Reserve Board has risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies. Under the guidelines, the minimum ratio of qualifying total capital to risk-weighted assets is 8%. At least half of the total capital is to be comprised of qualifying common stockholders’ equity, qualifying noncumulative perpetual preferred stock (including related surplus), minority interests related to qualifying common or noncumulative perpetual preferred stock directly issued by a consolidated U.S. depository institution or foreign bank subsidiary, and restricted core capital elements (collectively, “Tier 1 Capital”). Banking organizations are expected to maintain at least 50 percent of their Tier 1 Capital as common equity. Except as otherwise discussed below in light of the Dodd-Frank Act in connection with certain debt or equity instruments issued on or after May 19, 2010, not more than 25% of qualifying Tier 1 Capital may consist of qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock, trust preferred securities or other so called restricted core capital elements. “Tier 2 Capital” may consist, subject to certain limitations, of allowance for loan and lease losses; perpetual preferred stock and related surplus; hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt, and mandatory convertible debt securities; term subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock, including related surplus; and unrealized holding gains on equity securities. “Tier 3 Capital” consists of qualifying unsecured subordinated debt. The sum of Tier 2 and Tier 3 Capital may not exceed the amount of Tier 1 Capital.

The Federal Reserve Board has regulations with respect to risk-based and leverage capital ratios that require most intangibles, including goodwill and core deposit intangibles, to be deducted from Tier 1 Capital. The only types of identifiable intangible assets that may be included in, that is, not deducted from, an organization’s capital are readily marketable mortgage servicing assets, nonmortgage servicing assets, and purchased credit card relationships. In addition, the Federal Reserve Board has established minimum leverage ratio (Tier 1 Capital to total assets) guidelines for bank holding companies and member banks. These guidelines provide for a minimum leverage ratio of 3% for bank holding companies and member banks that meet certain specified criteria including that they have the highest regulatory rating. All other bank holding companies and member banks are required to maintain a minimum ratio of Tier 1 Capital to total assets of 4%. However, although the new capital rules adopted by the federal banking agencies in July 2013 retain the existing minimum leverage ratio requirement of 4%, they remove the 3% leverage ratio exception as of January 1, 2014 for advanced approaches banking organizations and as of January 1, 2015 for all other banking organizations. The guidelines also provide that banking organizations experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions are expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. Furthermore, the guidelines state that the Federal Reserve Board will continue to consider a “tangible tier 1 leverage ratio” and other indicators of capital strength in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activities.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, federal banking regulators are required to establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements, on a consolidated basis, for insured institutions, depository institution holding companies, and non-bank financial companies supervised by the Federal Reserve Board. The minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements are to be determined based on the minimum ratios established for insured depository institutions under prompt corrective action regulations. In effect, such provision of the Dodd-Frank Act, which is commonly known as the Collins Amendment, applies to bank holding companies the same leverage and risk-based capital requirements that will apply to insured depository institutions. Because the capital requirements must be the same for insured depository institutions and their holding companies, the Collins Amendment generally excludes certain debt or equity instruments, such as cumulative perpetual preferred stock and trust preferred securities, from Tier 1 Capital, subject to a three-year phase-out from Tier 1 qualification for such instruments issued before May 19, 2010, with the phase-out commencing on January 1, 2014 for advanced approaches banking organizations and January 1, 2015 for other bank holding companies with consolidated assets of $15 billion or more as of December 31, 2009. However, such instruments issued before May 19, 2010 by a bank holding company, such as the Company, with a total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009, are not affected by the Collins Amendment are “grand fathered “ under the new capital rules, and may continue to be included in tier 1 Capital as a restricted core capital element.

 

The new capital rules revise the agencies’ risk-based and leverage capital requirements for banking organizations, and consolidate three separate notices of proposed rulemaking that the OCC, Federal Reserve Board and FDIC published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2012, with selected changes. These rules implement a revised definition of regulatory capital, a new common equity tier 1 minimum capital requirement, a higher minimum tier 1 capital requirement, and, for banking organizations subject to the advanced approaches risk-based capital rules, a supplementary leverage ratio that incorporates a broader set of exposures in the denominator.  The rules incorporate these new requirements into the agencies’ prompt corrective action framework.  In addition, the rules establish limits on a banking organization’s capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if the banking organization does not hold a specified amount of common equity tier 1 capital in addition to the amount necessary to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements.  Further, the rules amend the methodologies for determining risk-weighted assets for all banking organizations; introduce disclosure requirements that would apply to top-tier banking organizations domiciled in the United States with $50 billion or more in total assets; and adopt changes to the agencies’ regulatory capital requirements that meet the requirements of Section 171 and Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act.  These rules also codify the agencies’ current capital rules, which have previously resided in various appendices to their respective regulations, into a harmonized integrated regulatory framework.

Failure to meet the capital guidelines could subject an institution to a variety of enforcement actions including the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC and to certain restrictions on its business. At December 31, 2013, the Company was in compliance with all capital requirements. For more information, please refer to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

Safety and Soundness Standards

Section 39 of the FDIA, as amended by FDICIA, requires each federal banking agency to prescribe for all insured depository institutions standards relating to internal control, information systems, and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, and such other operational and managerial standards as the agency deems appropriate. In addition, each federal banking agency also is required to adopt for all insured depository institutions standards relating to asset quality, earnings and stock valuation that the agency determines to be appropriate. Finally, each federal banking agency is required to prescribe standards for the employment contracts and other compensation arrangements of executive officers, employees, directors and principal stockholders of insured depository institutions that would prohibit compensation, benefits and other arrangements that are excessive or that could lead to a material financial loss for the institution. If an institution fails to meet any of the standards described above, it will be required to submit to the appropriate federal banking agency a plan specifying the steps that will be taken to cure the deficiency. If the institution fails to submit an acceptable plan or fails to implement the plan, the appropriate federal banking agency will require the institution to correct the deficiency and, until it is corrected, may impose other restrictions on the institution, including any of the restrictions applicable under the prompt corrective action provisions of FDICIA.

The FDIC and the other federal banking agencies have adopted Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness that, among other things, set forth standards relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit, underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and employee compensation.

Activities and Investments of Insured State-Chartered Banks

Section 24 of the FDIA, as amended by FDICIA, generally limits the activities and equity investments of FDIC-insured, state-chartered banks to those that are permissible for national banks. Under FDIC regulations of 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, such as the Bank, is not prohibited from, among other things, (i) acquiring or retaining a majority interest in a subsidiary engaged in permissible activities, (ii) investing as a limited partner in a partnership, or as a non-controlling interest holder of a limited liability company, 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 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 directors’, trustees’ and officers’ liability insurance coverage or bankers’ blanket bond group insurance coverage for insured depository institutions, and (iv) acquiring or retaining the voting stock of an insured depository institution if certain requirements are met, including that it is owned exclusively by other banks. Under the FDIC regulations governing the activities and investments of insured state banks which further implemented Section 24 of the FDIA, as amended by FDICIA, an insured state-chartered bank may not, directly, or indirectly through a subsidiary, engage as “principal” in any activity that is not permissible for a national bank unless the FDIC has determined that such activities would pose no risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund and the bank is in compliance with applicable regulatory capital requirements.

 

Transactions with Affiliates and Related Parties

Transactions between the Bank and any of its affiliates are governed by sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. These sections are important statutory provisions designed to protect a depository institution from transferring to its affiliates the subsidy arising from the institution’s access to the Federal safety net. An affiliate of a bank is any company or entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the bank, including investment funds for which the bank or any of its affiliates is an investment advisor. Generally, sections 23A and 23B (i) limit the extent to which a bank or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of the bank’s capital stock and surplus, and limit such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20% of such capital stock and surplus, and (ii) require that all such transactions be on terms that are consistent with safe and sound banking practices. The term “covered transactions” includes the making of loans, purchase of or investment in securities issued by the affiliate, purchase of assets, acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan or extension of credit, issuance of guarantees and other similar types of transactions. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of transactions treated as “covered transactions” to include credit exposure to an affiliate on derivatives transactions, credit exposure resulting from a securities borrowing or lending transaction, or derivative transaction, and acceptances of affiliate-issued debt obligations as collateral for a loan or extension of credit. Most loans by a bank to any of its affiliates must be secured by collateral in amounts ranging from 100% to 130%  of the loan amount, depending on the nature of the collateral. In addition, any covered transaction by a bank with an affiliate and any sale of assets or provision of services to an affiliate must be on terms that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with nonaffiliated companies. Regulation W of the Federal Reserve Board comprehensively implements sections 23A and 23B. The regulation unified and updated staff interpretations issued over the years prior to its adoption, incorporated several interpretative proposals (such as to clarify when transactions with an unrelated third party will be attributed to an affiliate), and addressed issues arising as a result of the expanded scope of non-banking activities engaged in by banks and bank holding companies and authorized for financial holding companies under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act place restrictions on loans by a bank to executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders. Regulation O of the Federal Reserve Board implements these provisions. Under Section 22(h) and Regulation O, loans to a director, an executive officer and to greater-than-10% shareholders of a bank and certain of their related interests (“insiders”), and insiders of its affiliates, may not exceed, together with all other outstanding loans to such person and his related interests, the bank’s single borrower limit (generally equal to 15% of the institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus). Section 22(h) and Regulation O also require that loans to insiders and to insiders of affiliates be made on terms substantially the same as offered in comparable transactions to other persons, unless the loans are made pursuant to a benefit or compensation program that (i) is widely available to employees of the bank and (ii) does not give preference to insiders over other employees of the bank. Section 22(h) and Regulation O also require prior board of directors’ approval for certain loans, and the aggregate amount of extensions of credit by a bank to all insiders cannot exceed the institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus. Furthermore, Section 22(g) and Regulation O place additional restrictions on loans to executive officers.

Community Reinvestment Act

Under the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), a financial institution has a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with its safe and sound operation, to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate income neighborhoods. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions nor does it limit an institution’s discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community, consistent with the CRA. The CRA requires federal examiners, in connection with the examination of a financial institution, to assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take such record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by such institution. The CRA also requires all institutions to make public disclosure of their CRA ratings. The Company has a Compliance Department that oversees the planning of products and services offered to the community, especially those aimed to serve low and moderate income communities.

USA Patriot Act

Under Title III of the USA Patriot Act, also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act of 2001, all financial institutions, including the Company, Oriental Financial Services, and the Bank, are required in general to identify their customers, adopt formal and comprehensive anti-money laundering programs, scrutinize or prohibit altogether certain transactions of special concern, and be prepared to respond to inquiries from U.S. law enforcement agencies concerning their customers and their transactions.

The U.S. Treasury Department (the “US Treasury”) has issued a number of regulations implementing the USA Patriot Act that apply certain of its requirements to financial institutions. The regulations impose obligations on financial institutions to maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls to detect, prevent and report money laundering and terrorist financing.

 

Failure of a financial institution to comply with the USA Patriot Act’s requirements could have serious legal consequences for the institution. The Company and its subsidiaries, including the Bank, have adopted policies, procedures and controls to address compliance with the USA Patriot Act under existing regulations, and will continue to revise and update their policies, procedures and controls to reflect changes required by the USA Patriot Act and the US Treasury’s regulations.

Privacy Policies

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, all financial institutions are required to adopt privacy policies, restrict the sharing of nonpublic customer data with nonaffiliated parties at the customer’s request, and establish procedures and practices to protect customer data from unauthorized access. The Company and its subsidiaries have established policies and procedures to assure the Company’s compliance with all privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) implemented a range of corporate governance and accounting measures to increase corporate responsibility, to provide for enhanced penalties for accounting and auditing improprieties at publicly traded companies, and to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of disclosures under federal securities laws. In addition, SOX established membership requirements and responsibilities for the audit committee, imposed restrictions on the relationship between the Company and external auditors, imposed additional responsibilities for the external financial statements on the chief executive officer and the chief financial officer, expanded the disclosure requirements for corporate insiders, required management to evaluate its disclosure controls and procedures and its internal control over financial reporting, and required the auditors to issue a report on the internal control over financial reporting.

The Company has included in this annual report on Form 10-K management’s assessment regarding the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The internal control report includes a statement of management’s responsibility for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the Company; management’s assessment as to the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on management’s evaluation as of year-end; and the framework used by management as criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. As of December 31, 2013, the Company’s management concluded that its internal control over financial reporting was effective.

Puerto Rico Banking Act

As a Puerto Rico-chartered commercial bank, the Bank is subject to regulation and supervision by the OCFI under the Banking Act, which contains provisions governing the incorporation and organization, rights and responsibilities of directors, officers and stockholders, as well as the corporate powers, savings, lending, capital and investment requirements and other aspects of the Bank and its affairs. In addition, the OCFI is given extensive rulemaking power and administrative discretion under the Banking Act. The OCFI generally examines the Bank at least once every year.

The Banking Act requires that a minimum of 10% of the Bank’s net income for the year be transferred to a reserve fund until such fund (legal surplus) equals the total paid-in capital on common and preferred stock. At December 31, 2013, legal surplus amounted to $62.0 million (December 31, 2012 — $52.1 million). The amount transferred to the legal surplus account is not available for the payment of dividends to shareholders.

The Banking Act also provides that when the expenditures of a bank are greater than the receipts, the excess of the former over the latter must be charged against the undistributed profits of the bank, and the balance, if any, must be charged against the reserve fund. If there is no reserve fund sufficient to cover such balance in whole or in part, the outstanding amount must be charged against the capital account and no dividend may be declared until said capital has been restored to its original amount and the reserve fund to 20% of the original capital.

The Banking Act further requires every bank to maintain a legal reserve which cannot be less than 20% of its demand liabilities, except government deposits (federal, commonwealth and municipal), which are secured by actual collateral.

The Banking Act also requires change of control filings. When any person or entity will own, directly or indirectly, upon consummation of a transfer, 5% or more of the outstanding voting capital stock of a bank, the acquiring parties must inform the OCFI of the details not less than 60 days prior to the date said transfer is to be consummated. The transfer will require the approval of the OCFI if it results in a change of control of the bank. Under the Banking Act, a change of control is presumed if an acquirer who did not own more than 5% of the voting capital stock before the transfer exceeds such percentage after the transfer.

The Banking Act permits Puerto Rico commercial banks to make loans to any one person, firm, partnership or corporation, up to an aggregate amount of 15% of the sum of: (i) the bank’s paid-in capital; (ii) the bank’s reserve fund; (iii) 50% of the bank’s retained earnings, subject to certain limitations; and (iv) any other components that the OCFI may determine from time to time. If such loans

 

are secured by collateral worth at least 25% more than the amount of the loan, the aggregate maximum amount will include 33.33% of 50% of the bank’s retained earnings. There are no restrictions under the Banking Act on the amount of loans that are wholly secured by bonds, securities and other evidence of indebtedness of the governments of the United States or of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or by bonds, not in default, of municipalities or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The Puerto Rico Finance Board is composed of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions of Puerto Rico; the Presidents of the Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, the Economic Development Bank for Puerto Rico and the Planning Board; the Puerto Rico Secretaries of Commerce and Economic Development, Treasury and Consumer Affairs; the Commissioner of Insurance; and the President of the Public Corporation for Insurance and Supervision of Puerto Rico Credit Unions. It has the authority to regulate the maximum interest rates and finance charges that may be charged on loans to individuals and unincorporated businesses in the Commonwealth. The current regulations of the Puerto Rico Finance Board provide that the applicable interest rate on loans to individuals and unincorporated businesses is to be determined by free competition. The Puerto Rico Finance Board also has the authority to regulate maximum finance charges on retail installment sales contracts and for credit card purchases. There is presently no maximum rate for retail installment sales contracts and for credit card purchases.

Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code

On June 30, 2013 the Governor signed Act No. 40-2013, known as “Ley de Redistribución y Ajuste de la Carga Contributiva” (Act of Redistribution and Adjustment of Tax Burden), as amended. The main purpose of the Act is to increase government collections in order to alleviate the structural deficit. The most relevant provisions of the Act, as applicable to the Company, and effective for taxable years beginning after December 31,2012 are as follows: (1) the maximum Corporate Income Tax rate was  increased from 30% to 39%; (2) the deduction allowed for determining the income subject to surtax was reduced from $750,000 to $25,000 (which must be allocated among the members of a controlled group of corporations); (3) the allowable Net Operating Loss (“NOL”) deduction was reduced to (i) 90% of the corporation’s net income subject to regular tax for purposes of computing the regular income tax and  (ii)  80% of the alternative minimum taxable income for purposes of computing the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”); (4) the NOL carryover period was extended from 10 to 12 years  for NOLs incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004 and before January 1, 2013, and from 7 to 10 years for losses incurred in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012;  (5) a new special tax based on gross income (the “Special Tax”) was added to the Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Code of 2011, as further described below; and (6) a special tax of 1%  was imposed on insurance premiums earned after June 30, 2013.

 In the case of non-financial institutions, the Special Tax is paid as part of the AMT and thus is accounted for under the provisions of ASC 740. The applicable Special Tax rate for non-financial institutions increases gradually from 0.2% for gross income equal to or in excess of $1.0 million up to 0.85% for gross income in excess of $1.5 billion. In the case of a controlled group of corporations, the tax rate for all members of the group is determined by the aggregate gross income of all members in the group. In the case of financial institutions, the Special Tax is not part of the AMT calculation thus is accounted for as other tax not subject to the provisions of ASC 740 since the same is based on gross income. The applicable Special Tax rate for financial institutions is 1% of its gross income of a taxable year, of which fifty percent (50%) may be claimed as a credit against the financial institution’s applicable income tax of that year.

International Banking Center Regulatory Act of Puerto Rico

The business and operations of the Bank’s IBE Unit and Subsidiary are subject to supervision and regulation by the OCFI. Under the IBE Act, no sale, encumbrance, assignment, merger, exchange or transfer of shares, interest or participation in the capital of an IBE may be initiated without the prior approval of the OCFI, if by such transaction a person would acquire, directly or indirectly, control of 10% or more of any class of stock, interest or participation in the capital of the IBE. The IBE Act and the regulations issued thereunder by the OCFI (the “IBE Regulations”) limit the business activities that may be carried out by an IBE. Such activities are limited in part to persons and assets/liabilities located outside of Puerto Rico. The IBE Act provides further that every IBE must have not less than $300 thousand of unencumbered assets or acceptable financial guarantees.  

 

Pursuant to the IBE Act and the IBE Regulations, the Bank’s IBE Unit and Subsidiary have to maintain books and records of all their transactions in the ordinary course of business. They are also required to submit quarterly and annual reports of their financial condition and results of operations to the OCFI, including annual audited financial statements.

  

The IBE Act empowers the OCFI to revoke or suspend, after notice and hearing, a license issued thereunder if, among other things, the IBE fails to comply with the IBE Act, the IBE Regulations or the terms of its license, or if the OCFI finds that the business or affairs of the IBE are conducted in a manner that is not consistent with the public interest.

 

 

In 2012, the IBE Act was amended to prohibit new license applications to organize and operate an IBE.  Any newly organized entity (now called an “international financial entity”) must be licensed under a new law, and such entity (as opposed to existing IBEs organized under the IBE Act, including the Bank’s IBE Unit and Subsidiary, which are “grandfathered”) will generally be subject to a 4% Puerto Rico income tax rate.

 

Volcker Rule

 

The so-called “Volcker Rule” adopted by the federal banking regulatory agencies under Section 619 of the Dodd-Frank Act generally prohibits insured depository institutions and their affiliates from (i) engaging in short-term proprietary trading of securities, derivatives, commodities futures and options on these instruments for their own account; and (ii) owning, sponsoring or having certain relationships with hedge funds or private equity funds.  However, it exempts certain activities, including market making, underwriting, hedging, trading in government and municipal obligations, and organizing and offering a hedge fund or private equity fund, among others.  A banking entity that engages in any such covered activity (i.e., proprietary trading or investment activities in hedge funds or private equity funds) is generally required to establish an internal compliance program reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with the Volcker Rule. 

      Employees

At December 31, 2013, the Company had 1,534 employees. None of its employees is represented by a collective bargaining group. The Company considers its employee relations to be good.

       Internet Access to Reports

The Company’s annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any and all amendments to such reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, are available free of charge on or through the “Investor Relations” link of the Company’s internet website at www.orientalbank.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after the Company electronically files such material with, or furnishes it to, the SEC.

 

The Company’s corporate governance principles and guidelines, code of business conduct and ethics, and the charters of its audit and compliance committee, compensation committee, and corporate governance and nominating committee are available free of charge on the Company’s website at www.orientalbank.com  in the investor relations section under the corporate governance link. The Company’s code of business conduct and ethics applies to its directors, officers, employees and agents, including its principal executive, financial and accounting officers.

 

ITEM 1A.      RISK FACTORS  

 

In addition to other information set forth in this report, you should carefully consider the following risk factors, as updated by other filings the Company makes with the SEC under the Exchange Act.  Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us at this time or that the Company currently deems immaterial may also adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Most of our business is conducted in Puerto Rico, which in recent years has experienced a downturn in the economy and in the real estate market.

 

Because most of our business activities are conducted in Puerto Rico and a significant portion of our credit exposure on our loan portfolio, which is the largest component of our interest-earning assets, is concentrated in Puerto Rico, our profitability and financial condition may be adversely affected by an extended economic slowdown, adverse political or economic developments in Puerto Rico or the effects of a natural disaster, all of which could result in a reduction in loan originations, an increase in non-performing assets, an increase in foreclosure losses on mortgage loans, and a reduction in the value of our loans and loan servicing portfolio. The Puerto Rico economy has been in a recession since the fourth quarter of the Commonwealth’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2006. 

 

A period of reduced economic growth or a recession has historically resulted in a reduction in lending activity and an increase in the rate of default in commercial loans, consumer loans and residential mortgages.  A recession may have a significant adverse impact on our net interest income and fee income.  We may also experience significant losses on the loan portfolio due to a higher level of defaults on commercial loans, consumer loans and residential mortgages.  For a discussion of the impact of the economy on our loan portfolios, see “—A prolonged economic downturn or recession or a continuing decline in the real estate market would likely result in

 

an increase in delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures and in a reduction in loan origination activity, which would adversely affect our financial results.”

 

The prolonged recessionary economic environment accelerated the devaluation of properties and increased portfolio delinquency when compared with previous periods.  Additional economic weakness in Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland could further pressure residential property values, loan delinquencies, foreclosures and the cost of repossessing and disposing of real estate collateral.

 

As a result of the BBVAPR Acquisition and the deleveraging of our balance sheet in the last quarter of 2012, our loan portfolio has become the largest component of our interest-earning assets.  Consequently, the BBVAPR Acquisition has increased the risk we face in the event of a continued downturn in the Puerto Rico economy.

 

A credit default or ratings downgrade on the Puerto Rico government’s debt obligations could adversely affect the value of our loans to the government of Puerto Rico and our investment portfolio of Puerto Rico government bonds.

 

Even though the economy of Puerto Rico is closely related to the economy of the rest of the United States, prevailing economic conditions and the fiscal situation of the government of Puerto Rico led Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch to downgrade general obligations and  certain other bonds of the Puerto Rico government below investment grade.

 

Despite the Commonwealth’s progress in addressing its persistent budget deficits and underfunded government retirement plans, Puerto Rico continues to face significant economic and fiscal challenges, including a protracted economic recession, sizable debt-service obligations, high unemployment and a shrinking population.   The recent Commonwealth credit downgrades by three leading rating agencies reflect only the views of such agencies, an explanation of which may be obtained from each such rating agency.  Generally, below-investment-grade securities present greater risks and can be less liquid than investment-grade securities.

 

The reduction in the credit ratings of Puerto Rico government debt obligations could severely weaken the demand for such securities and the Commonwealth’s access to capital markets, which may affect its ability to obtain the financing that it needs.  This may in turn increase the Commonwealth’s risk of default.

 

It is uncertain how capital markets may react to any future ratings downgrade in Puerto Rico government debt obligations.  However, a further deterioration of economic or fiscal conditions in Puerto Rico, with possible negative ratings implications, could adversely affect the value of our loans to the government of Puerto Rico and the value of our investment portfolio of Puerto Rico government bonds.

 

At December 31, 2013, we had approximately $763.4 million of credit facilities granted to the Puerto Rico government, including its instrumentalities, public corporations and municipalities, of which $696.0 million was outstanding as of such date. A substantial portion of our credit exposure to the government of Puerto Rico consists of collateralized loans or obligations that have a specific source of income or revenues identified for its repayment.  Some of these obligations consist of senior and subordinated loans to public corporations that obtain revenues from rates charged for services or products, such as water and electric power utilities. Public corporations have varying degrees of independence from the central government and many receive appropriations or other payments from it.  We also have loans to various municipalities for which the good faith, credit and unlimited taxing power of the applicable municipality has been pledged to their repayment.  These municipalities are required by law to levy special property taxes in such amounts as required for the payment of all of its general obligation bonds and notes.  Another portion of these loans consists of special obligations of various municipalities that are payable from the basic real and personal property taxes collected within such municipalities. The good faith and credit obligations of the municipalities have a first lien on the basic property taxes.

 

Furthermore, as of December 31, 2013, we had approximately $146.3 million in obligations issued and guaranteed by the Puerto Rico government, including certain instrumentalities or public corporations, as part of our investment securities portfolio. We continue to closely monitor the economic and fiscal situation of Puerto Rico and evaluate the portfolio for any declines in value that management may consider being other-than-temporary.

 

Approximately 43% of our Puerto Rico government loans and obligations mature in the next 12 months or less. At December 31, 2013, we also had deposits of approximately $328.6 million from the government of Puerto Rico.

 

 

 

Our decisions regarding credit risk and the allowance for loan and lease losses may materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations.

 

Making loans is an essential element of our business, and there is a risk that the loans will not be repaid. This default risk is affected by a number of factors, including:

·          the duration of the loan;

·          credit risks of a particular borrower;

·          changes in economic or industry conditions; and

·          in the case of a collateralized loan, risks resulting from uncertainties about the future value of the collateral.

 

We strive to maintain an appropriate allowance for loan and lease losses to provide for probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio. We periodically determine the amount of the allowance based on consideration of several factors such as default frequency, internal risk ratings, expected future cash collections, loss recovery rates and general economic factors, among others. Our methodology for measuring the adequacy of the allowance relies on several key elements, which include a specific allowance for identified problem loans, a general systematic allowance, and an unallocated allowance.

 

We believe our allowance for loan and lease losses is currently sufficient given the constant monitoring of the risk inherent in the loan portfolio. However, there is no precise method of predicting loan losses and therefore we always face the risk that charge-offs in future periods will exceed the allowance for loan and lease losses and that additional increases in the allowance for loan and lease losses will be required. In addition, the FDIC as well as the OCFI may require us to establish additional reserves. Additions to the allowance for loan and lease losses would result in a decrease of net earnings and capital and could hinder our ability to pay dividends.

 

Given the economic conditions in Puerto Rico, we may continue to experience increased credit costs or need to take greater than anticipated markdowns and make greater than anticipated provisions to increase the allowances for loan losses on the loans acquired that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations in the future.

 

We are subject to default and other risks in connection with mortgage loan originations.

 

From the time that we fund the mortgage loans originated to the time that they are sold, we are generally at risk for any mortgage loan defaults. Once we sell the mortgage loans, the risk of loss from mortgage loan defaults and foreclosures passes to the purchaser or insurer of the mortgage loans. However, in the ordinary course of business, we make representations and warranties to the purchasers and insurers of mortgage loans relating to the validity of such loans. If there is a breach of any of these representations or warranties, we may be required to repurchase the mortgage loan and bear any subsequent loss on the mortgage loan. We also may be required to repurchase mortgage loans in the event that there was improper underwriting or fraud or in the event that the loans become delinquent shortly after they are originated. For the year ended December 31, 2013, we repurchased $21.4 million of loans from GNMA and FNMA. Any such repurchases in the future may negatively impact our liquidity and operating results. Termination of our ability to sell mortgage products to the U.S government-sponsored entities would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, we may be required to indemnify certain purchasers and others against losses they incur in the event of breaches of representations and warranties and in various other circumstances, including securities fraud claims, and the amount of such losses could exceed the purchase amount of the related loans. Consequently, we may be exposed to credit risk associated with sold loans. In addition, we incur higher liquidity risk with respect to mortgage loans not eligible to be purchased or  insured by FNMA, GNMA or FHLMC, due to a lack of secondary market in which to sell these loans.

 

We have established reserves in our consolidated financial statements for potential losses that are considered to be both probable and reasonably estimable related to the mortgage loans sold by us. The adequacy of the reserve and the ultimate amount of losses incurred will depend on, among other things, the actual future mortgage loan performance, the actual level of future repurchase and indemnification requests, the actual success rate of claimants, developments in litigation related to us and the industry, actual recoveries on the collateral and macroeconomic conditions (including unemployment levels and housing prices). Due to uncertainties relating to these factors, there can be no assurance that our reserves will be adequate or that the total amount of losses incurred will not have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition or results of operations. For additional information related to our allowance for loan and lease losses, see “Note 7—Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses” to our audited consolidated financial statements included in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013.

 

 

 

Our earnings could decrease due to increases to the provision for credit losses

 

Our customers might not repay their loans according to the original terms, and the collateral securing the payment of those loans might be insufficient to pay any remaining loan balance. Hence, we may experience significant loan losses, which could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results. We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of loans. In determining the amount of the allowance for loan losses, we rely on loan quality reviews, past loss experience, and an evaluation of economic conditions, among other factors. If our assumptions prove to be incorrect, our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to cover losses inherent in our loan portfolio, resulting in additions to the allowance. Material additions to the allowance would materially decrease our net income.

 

Our emphasis on the origination of commercial real estate and business loans is one of the more significant factors in evaluating our allowance for loan losses. As we continue to increase the amount of these loans, additional or increased provisions for credit losses may be necessary and as a result would decrease our earnings.

 

Bank regulators periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require us to increase our provision for credit losses or loan charge-offs.  Any increase in our allowance for loan losses or loan charge-offs as required by these regulatory authorities could have a materially adverse effect on our results of operations and/or financial condition.

 

Our intangible assets could be determined to be impaired in the future and could decrease the Company’s earnings

 

As a result of the BBVAPR Acquisition, we are required to test our goodwill, core deposit and customer relationship intangible assets for impairment on a periodic basis. The impairment testing process considers a variety of factors, including the current market price of our common shares, the estimated net present value of our assets and liabilities, and information concerning the terminal valuation of similarly situated insured depository institutions.  If an impairment determination is made in a future reporting period, our earnings and the book value of these intangible assets will be reduced by the amount of the impairment. If an impairment loss is recorded, it will have little or no impact on the tangible book value of our common shares or our regulatory capital levels, but such an impairment loss could significantly restrict the Company’s ability to make dividend payments without prior regulatory approval.

 

Our financial results are constantly exposed to market risk, in particular to changes in interest rates.

Market risk refers to the probability of variations in the net interest income or the fair value of assets and liabilities due to changes in interest rates, currency exchange rates or equity prices.

 

Changes in interest rates are one of the principal market risks affecting us. Our income and cash flows depend to a great extent on the difference between the interest rates earned on interest-earning assets such as loans and investment securities and the interest rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowings. Net interest income is the difference between the revenue generated on interest-earning assets and the interest cost of funding those assets. Depending on the duration and repricing characteristics of the assets, liabilities and off-balance sheet items, changes in interest rates could either increase or decrease the level of net interest income. For any given period, the pricing structure of the assets and liabilities is matched when an equal amount of such assets and liabilities mature or reprice in that period.

 

We use an asset-liability management software program to project future movements in the balance sheet and income statement. The starting point of the projections generally corresponds to the actual values of the balance sheet on the date of the simulations. These simulations are highly complex and use many simplifying assumptions. In addition, the interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including general economic conditions and the policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, in particular, the Federal Reserve Board. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, will influence the origination of loans, the prepayment speed of loans, the value of loans and investment securities, the purchase of investments, the generation of deposits and the rates received on loans and investment securities and paid on deposits or other sources of funding.

 

We are subject to interest rate risk because of the following factors:

 

·          Assets and liabilities may mature or reprice at different times. For example, if assets reprice slower than liabilities and interest rates are generally rising, earnings may initially decline.

 

·          Assets and liabilities may reprice at the same time but by different amounts. For example, when the general level of interest rates is rising, we may increase rates charged on loans by an amount that is less than the general increase in market interest rates because of intense pricing competition. Also, basis risk occurs when assets and liabilities have similar repricing frequencies but are tied to different market interest rate indices that may not move in tandem.

·          Short-term and long-term market interest rates may change by different amounts, i.e., the shape of the yield curve may affect new loan yields and funding costs differently.

·          The remaining maturity of various assets and liabilities may shorten or lengthen as interest rates change. For example, if long-term mortgage interest rates decline sharply, our mortgage-backed securities portfolios may prepay significantly earlier than anticipated, which could reduce portfolio income. If prepayment rates increase, we would be required to amortize net premiums into income over a shorter period of time, thereby reducing the corresponding asset yield and net interest income. Prepayment risk also has a significant impact on mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations since prepayments could shorten the weighted average life of these portfolios.

·          Interest rates may have an indirect impact on loan demand, credit losses, loan origination volume, the value of financial assets and financial liabilities, gains and losses on sales of securities and loans, the value of mortgage servicing rights and other sources of earnings.

In limiting interest rate risk to an acceptable level, management may alter the mix of floating and fixed rate assets and liabilities, change pricing schedules, adjust maturities through sales and purchases of investment securities, and enter into derivative contracts, among other alternatives. We may suffer losses or experience lower spreads than anticipated in initial projections as management implements strategies to reduce future interest rate exposure.

 

The hedging transactions that we enter into may not be effective in managing our exposure to market risk, including interest rate risk.

We use over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivatives, such as interest rate swaps and options on interest rate swaps, to manage part of our exposure to market risk caused by changes in interest rates. We have also offered certificates of deposit with an option tied to the performance of the Standard & Poor 500 stock market index and use derivatives, such as option agreements with major broker-dealer companies, to manage our exposure to changes in the value of the index. The OTC derivative instruments that we may utilize also have their own risks, which include: (i) basis risk, which is the risk of loss associated with variations in the spread between the asset yield and the funding and/or hedge cost; (ii) credit or default risk, which is the risk of insolvency or other inability of the counterparty to a particular transaction to perform its obligations thereunder; and (iii) legal risk, which is the risk that we are unable to enforce certain terms of such instruments. All or any of such risks could expose us to losses. Further, as a result of the new regulatory regime for OTC derivatives enacted under the Dodd-Frank Act, and the regulations issued thereunder by the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, we are subject to additional reporting, recordkeeping and other requirements in connection with our use of OTC derivatives.

 

If the counterparty to an OTC derivative contract fails to perform, our credit risk is equal to the net fair value of the contract. We deal with counterparties that have high quality credit ratings at the time we enter into the counterparty relationships. However, there can be no assurances that the counterparties will have the ability to perform under their contracts. If the counterparty fails to perform, including as a result of the bankruptcy or insolvency of such counterparty, we would incur losses as a result.

 

We may incur a significant impairment charge in connection with a decline in the market value of our investment securities portfolio.

A substantial part of our earnings come from the treasury business segment, which encompasses the investment securities portfolio. The determination of fair value for investment securities involves significant judgment due to the complexity of factors contributing to the valuation, many of which are not readily observable in the market. In addition, we utilize and review information obtained from third-party sources to measure fair values. Third-party sources also use assumptions, judgments and estimates in determining securities values, and different third parties may provide different prices for securities. Moreover, depending upon, among other things, the measurement date of the security, the subsequent sale price of the security may be different from its recorded fair value. These differences may be significant, especially if the security is sold during a period of illiquidity or market disruption.

  

When the fair value of a security declines, management must assess whether the decline is “other-than-temporary.” When the decline in fair value is deemed “other-than-temporary,” the amortized cost basis of the investment security is reduced to its then current fair

 

value. The term “other-than-temporary impairment” is not intended to indicate that the decline is permanent, but indicates that the prospect for a near-term recovery of value is not necessarily favorable, or that there is a lack of evidence to support a realizable value equal to or greater than the carrying value of the investment. Any portion of a decline in value associated with credit loss is recognized in income with the remaining noncredit-related component being recognized in other comprehensive income. A credit loss is determined by assessing whether the amortized cost basis of the security will be recovered, by comparing the present value of cash flows expected to be collected from the security, computed using original yield as the discount rate, to the amortized cost basis of the security. The shortfall of the present value of the cash flows expected to be collected in relation to the amortized cost basis is considered to be the “credit loss.” Such impairment charges reflect non-cash losses at the time of recognition. Subsequent disposition or sale of such assets could further affect our future results of operations, as they are based on the difference between the sale prices received and the adjusted amortized cost of such assets at the time of sale. We consider numerous factors in our review of whether a decline in fair value is other-than-temporary, many of which involve complex judgment.

 

 A decline in the market value of our investment securities portfolio could adversely impact our regulatory capital ratios.

Under the new capital rules adopted by the federal banking regulatory agencies to implement the so-called “Basel III” capital framework in the United States, banking organizations will generally be required to include gains and losses on their securities holdings classified as available-for-sale (“AFS”) in common equity tier 1 capital (“CET1”). This aspect of the rules will be phased in over several years with full gain and loss flow-through to capital starting in 2018.  Currently, unrealized losses on AFS equity securities are counted against Tier 1 Capital, unrealized gains on AFS equity securities are partially included in Tier 2 Capital and unrealized gains and losses on AFS debt securities are excluded from regulatory capital.  However, these unrealized gains and losses are reflected in stockholders’ equity under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (“GAAP”).  As part of the new capital rules, the agencies introduced the concept of CET1, which is comprised of qualifying common stock instruments, retained earnings, accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”), certain qualifying minority interests in consolidated subsidiaries and other adjustments, and establish a new minimum ratio of CET1 to total risk-weighted assets of 4.5% beginning in 2015 and a capital conservation buffer of 2.5% to be phased in over several years through 2018.  Because of the inclusion of AOCI, unlike the current general risk-based capital rules, unrealized gains and losses on all AFS-classified securities would flow through to CET1 capital, after the transition period. 

However, under the new capital rules, a banking organization, such as us, that is not subject to the advanced approaches rule may make a one-time election not to include most elements of AOCI in regulatory capital and instead effectively use the existing treatment under general risk-based capital rules that excludes most AOCI elements from regulatory capital.  Any such banking organization must make its AOCI opt-out election in its first Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) or FR Y–9 series report that is filed after it becomes subject to the new rules.  If we do not make a timely AOCI opt-out election, we will be required to recognize AOCI (excluding accumulated net gains and losses on cash-flow hedges that relate to the hedging of items that are not recognized at fair value on the balance sheet) in regulatory capital as of the first quarter of 2015 and continuing thereafter.  In such case, our CET1 levels would likely be significantly more volatile under the new capital rules than previously because unrealized gains and losses on AFS classified securities recognized in stockholders’ equity on the balance sheet for accounting purposes would also be incorporated for regulatory capital purposes.  Accordingly, a decline in the market value of our investment securities portfolio could adversely impact our regulatory capital ratios.

Market conditions and actions by governmental authorities may upset the historical relationship between interest rate changes and prepayment trends, which would make it more difficult for us to analyze our investment portfolio.

Our success depends in part on our ability to analyze the relationship of changing interest rates on prepayments of the mortgage loans that underlie our mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) portfolio. Changes in interest rates and prepayments affect the market price of MBS that we may purchase and any MBS that we may hold at a given time. As part of our overall portfolio risk management, we analyze interest rate changes and prepayment trends separately and collectively to assess their effects on our investment portfolio. In conducting this analysis, we depend on certain assumptions based upon historical trends with respect to the relationship between interest rates and prepayments under normal market conditions. U.S. government programs aimed at assisting homeowners, including the Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan , the Home Affordable Refinancing Program (“HARP”) , and the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) , could cause an increase in prepayment rates. On February 1, 2012, President Obama proposed legislation to expand HARP in order to allow a greater number of homeowners to refinance their mortgages at historically low interest rates. If the dislocations in the residential mortgage market, recent or future government actions, or other developments change the way that prepayment trends have historically responded to interest rate changes, it would significantly affect our ability to (i) assess the market value of our investment portfolio, (ii) implement our hedging strategies, and (iii) adopt techniques to reduce our prepayment rate volatility. This could adversely affect our results of operations or financial position .

 

 

A prolonged economic downturn or recession or a continuing decline in the real estate market would likely result in an increase in delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures and in a reduction in loan origination activity, which would adversely affect our financial results.

 

The residential mortgage loan origination business has historically been cyclical, enjoying periods of strong growth and profitability followed by periods of lower volumes and industry-wide losses. The market for residential mortgage loan originations is currently in decline, and this trend could also reduce the level of mortgage loans that we may originate in the future and may adversely impact our business. During periods of rising interest rates, refinancing originations for many mortgage products tend to decrease as the economic incentives for borrowers to refinance their existing mortgage loans are reduced. In addition, the residential mortgage loan origination business is impacted by home values. A significant trend of decreasing values in certain housing segments in Puerto Rico has also been noted. There is a risk that a reduction in housing values could negatively impact our loss levels on the mortgage portfolio because the value of the homes underlying the loans is a primary source of repayment in the event of foreclosure.

 

The decline in Puerto Rico’s economy has had an adverse effect in the credit quality of our loan portfolios. Among other things, during the recession, we have experienced an increase in the level of non-performing assets and loan loss provision, which adversely affected our profitability. Although the delinquency rates have decreased in the short term, they may increase if the economy falls back into a recession. If there is another decline in economic activity, additional increases in the allowance for loan and lease losses could be necessary with further adverse effects on our profitability.

 

Any sustained period of increased delinquencies, foreclosures or losses could harm our ability to sell loans, the price received on the sale of such loans, and the value of the mortgage loan portfolio, all of which could have a negative impact on our results of operations and financial condition. In addition, any material decline in real estate values would weaken our collateral loan-to-value ratios and increase the possibility of loss if a borrower defaults. For a discussion of the impact of the Puerto Rico economy on our business operations, see “—Most of our business is conducted in Puerto Rico, which in recent years has experienced a downturn in the economy and in the real estate market.”

 

A continuing decline in the real estate market in the U.S. mainland and ongoing disruptions in the capital markets may harm our investment securities and wholesale funding portfolios.

 

The housing market in the U.S. went through a correction of historic proportions. After a period of several years of booming housing markets, fueled by liberal credit conditions and rapidly rising property values, the sector  entered a substantial correction in early 2007. The general level of property values in the U.S. as measured by several indices widely followed by the market declined. These declines were the result of ongoing market adjustments that  aligned property values with income levels and home inventories. The U.S. residential real estate market has shown signs of recovery driven by lower interest rates, fewer foreclosures, high affordability of home ownership, and satisfying demand that has built up during a period of economic uncertainty. However, we cannot predict whether the recovery will continue or if and when the market and related economic forces will return the U.S. residential real estate industry to a period of sustained growth. Diverse macroeconomic developments could also slow or impair a housing recovery and if the real estate market or the economy as a whole does not improve, we may experience material adverse effects on our business or financial condition and liquidity, including our investment securities and wholesale funding portfolios. Furthermore, any concern regarding the long-term sovereign credit rating of the United States, including due to concerns related to U.S. federal fiscal policy or difficulties in addressing federal debt levels, could stress the capital markets in the United States and globally and could have a negative impact on our investment securities and wholesale funding portfolios.

 

Our business could be adversely affected if we cannot maintain access to stable funding sources.

 

Our business requires continuous access to various funding sources. We are able to fund our operations through deposits as well as through advances from the FHLB-NY and other alternative sources; however, our business is significantly dependent upon other wholesale funding sources, such as repurchase agreements and brokered deposits, which consisted of approximately 30% of our total interest-bearing liabilities as of December 31, 2013.

 

Brokered deposits are typically sold through an intermediary to small retail investors. Our ability to continue to attract brokered deposits is subject to variability based upon a number of factors, including volume and volatility in the global securities markets, our credit rating and the relative interest rates that we are prepared to pay for these liabilities. Brokered deposits are generally considered a less stable source of funding than core deposits obtained through retail bank branches. Investors in brokered deposits are generally

 

more sensitive to interest rates and will generally move funds from one depository institution to another based on small differences in interest rates offered on deposits.

  

We expect to have continued access to credit from the foregoing sources of funds. However, there can be no assurance that such financing sources will continue to be available or will be available on favorable terms. In a period of financial disruption, or if negative developments occur with respect to us, the availability and cost of funding sources could be adversely affected. In that event, our cost of funds may increase, thereby reducing the net interest income, or we may need to dispose of a portion of the investment portfolio, which, depending upon market conditions, could result in realizing a loss or experiencing other adverse accounting consequences upon the dispositions. The interest rates that we pay on our securities are also influenced by, among other things, applicable credit ratings from recognized rating agencies. A downgrade to any of these credit ratings could affect our ability to access the capital markets, increase our borrowing costs and have a negative impact on our results of operations. Our efforts to monitor and manage liquidity risk may not be successful to deal with dramatic or unanticipated changes in the global securities markets or other reductions in liquidity driven by us or market related events. In the event that such sources of funds are reduced or eliminated and we are not able to replace them on a cost-effective basis, we may be forced to curtail or cease our loan origination business and treasury activities, which would have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition.

 

Our risk management policies, procedures and systems may be inadequate to mitigate all risks inherent in our various businesses.

A comprehensive risk management function is essential to the financial and operational success of our business. The types of risk we monitor and seek to manage include, but are not limited to, operational risk, technological and organizational risk, market risk, fiduciary risk, legal and compliance risk, liquidity risk and credit risk. We have adopted various policies, procedures and systems to monitor and manage these risks. There can be no assurance that those policies, procedures and systems are adequate to identify and mitigate all risks inherent in our various businesses. Our businesses and the markets in which we operate are also continuously evolving. If we fail to fully understand the implications of changes in our business or the financial markets and to adequately or timely enhance the risk framework to address those changes, we could incur losses. In addition, in a difficult or less liquid market environment, our risk management strategies may not be effective because other market participants may be attempting to use the same or similar strategies to deal with the challenging market conditions. In such circumstances, it may be difficult for us to reduce our risk positions due to the activity of such other market participants.

Competition with other financial institutions could adversely affect our profitability.

We face substantial competition in originating loans and in attracting deposits and assets to manage. The competition in originating loans and attracting assets comes principally from other U.S., Puerto Rico and foreign banks, investment advisors, broker-dealers, mortgage banking companies, consumer finance companies, credit unions, insurance companies, and other institutional lenders and purchasers of loans. We will encounter greater competition as we expand our operations. Increased competition may require us to increase the rates paid on deposits or lower the rates charged on loans which could adversely affect our profitability.

Our ability to receive dividends from our subsidiaries could affect our liquidity and ability to pay dividends.

 

We are a separate and distinct legal entity from our subsidiaries. Dividends to us from our subsidiaries have represented a major source of funds for us to pay dividends on our common and preferred stock, make payments on corporate debt securities and meet other obligations. There are various U.S. federal and Puerto Rico law limitations on the extent to which Oriental Bank, our main subsidiary, can finance or otherwise supply funds to us through dividends and loans. These limitations include minimum regulatory capital requirements, U.S. federal and Puerto Rico banking law requirements concerning the payment of dividends out of net profits or surplus, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and Regulation W of the Federal Reserve Board governing transactions between an insured depository institution and its affiliates, as well as general federal regulatory oversight to prevent unsafe or unsound practices. Further, under the new capital rules adopted by the federal banking regulatory agencies, a banking organization will need to hold a capital conservation buffer (composed of common equity tier 1 capital) greater than 2.5% of total risk-weighted assets to avoid limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments.  Compliance with the capital conservation buffer is determined as of the end of the calendar quarter prior to any such capital distribution or discretionary bonus payment, and is subject to a three-year transition period beginning in 2016.    

 

 

If our subsidiaries’ earnings are not sufficient to make dividend payments while maintaining adequate capital levels, our liquidity may be affected, and we may not be able to make dividend payments to our holders of common and preferred stock or payments on

 

outstanding corporate debt securities or meet other obligations, each of which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position or perception of financial health.

 

In addition, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors.

 

Loans that we acquired in the FDIC-assisted acquisition of Eurobank may not be covered by the shared-loss agreements if the FDIC determines that we have not adequately performed under these agreements or if the shared-loss agreements have ended.

Although the FDIC has agreed to reimburse us for 80% of qualifying losses on covered loans, we are not protected from all losses resulting from charge-offs with respect to such loans. Also, the FDIC has the right to refuse or delay payment for loan and lease losses if the shared-loss agreements are not performed by us in accordance with their terms. Additionally, the shared-loss agreements have limited terms, and therefore, any charge-offs that we experience after the terms of the shared-loss agreements have ended would not be recoverable from the FDIC.

 

Certain provisions of the shared-loss agreements entered into with the FDIC may have anti-takeover effects and could limit our ability to engage in certain strategic transactions that our board of directors believes would be in the best interests of shareholders.

  

The FDIC’s agreement to bear 80% of qualifying losses on single family residential loans for ten years and commercial loans for five years is one of our significant assets and a feature of the FDIC-assisted acquisition without which we would not have entered into such transaction. Our agreement with the FDIC requires that we receive prior FDIC consent, which may be withheld by the FDIC in its sole discretion, prior to us or our shareholders engaging in certain transactions. If any such transaction is completed without prior FDIC consent, the FDIC would have the right to discontinue the loss-sharing arrangement.

 

Among other things, prior FDIC consent is required for: (i) a merger or consolidation of us with or into another company if our shareholders will own less than 2/3 of the combined company and (ii) a sale of shares by one or more of our shareholders that will effect a change in control of Oriental Bank, as determined by the FDIC with reference to the standards set forth in the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978 (generally, the acquisition of between 10% and 25% of our voting securities where the presumption of control is not rebutted, or the acquisition of more than 25% of our voting securities). Such a sale by shareholders may occur beyond our control. If we or any shareholder desires to enter into any such transaction, there can be no assurances that the FDIC would grant its consent in a timely manner, without conditions, or at all. If one of these transactions were to occur without prior FDIC consent and the FDIC withdrew its loss-share protection, there could be a material adverse impact on us.

 

Loans that we acquired in the FDIC-assisted acquisition may be subject to impairment.

  

Although the covered loan portfolios acquired by us were initially accounted for at fair value, certain of such loans have become impaired and we have recorded $52.7 million in allowance for loan losses related to this portfolio. There is no assurance that loans in this portfolio will not become impaired or further impaired, which may result in additional provision for loan and lease losses related to these portfolios. The fluctuations in economic conditions, including those related to the Puerto Rico residential and commercial real estate and construction markets may increase the level of provision for credit losses that we make to our loan portfolio and portfolios acquired in the FDIC-assisted acquisition, and consequently, reduce our net income. These fluctuations are not predictable, cannot be controlled, and may have a material adverse impact on our operations and financial condition even if other favorable events occur.

 

We operate in a highly regulated environment and may be adversely affected by changes in federal and local laws and regulations.

 

Our operations are subject to extensive regulation by federal, state and local governmental authorities and are subject to various laws and judicial and administrative decisions imposing requirements and restrictions on part or all of our operations. Because our business is highly regulated, the laws, rules and regulations applicable to us are subject to regular modification and change. For example, the Dodd-Frank Act has a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes, such as: (i) enhanced resolution authority of troubled and failing banks and their holding companies; (ii) enhanced lending limits strengthening the existing limits on a depository institution’s credit exposure to one borrower and to affiliates; (iii) increased capital and liquidity requirements; (iv) increased regulatory examination fees; (v) changes to assessments to be paid to the FDIC for federal deposit insurance; (vi) prohibiting bank holding companies, such as us, from including in regulatory tier 1 capital future issuances of trust preferred securities or other hybrid debt and equity securities; (vii) caps on the interchange fees that banks are able to charge merchants for debit card transactions pursuant to the “Durbin Amendment”; and (viii) numerous other provisions designed to improve supervision and oversight of the financial services industry. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act established a new framework for

 

systemic risk oversight within the financial system to be distributed among new and existing federal regulatory agencies, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the FDIC. It also creates a new consumer financial protection regulator, the CFPB, which assumed most of the consumer financial protection regulatory responsibilities that were exercised by federal banking regulators and other agencies. Further, the Dodd-Frank Act addresses many corporate governance and executive compensation matters that affect most U.S. publicly-traded companies, including us.

 

Certain recent regulatory changes under the Dodd-Frank Act apply only to depository institutions with more than $10 billion in total assets, including requirements to undergo regular “stress testing” of capital under hypothetical adverse economic scenarios, “large bank” adjustments to assessments paid to the FDIC for deposit insurance, supervision and examination by the  CFPB, and requirements to establish a risk committee on a company’s board of directors. In addition, financial institutions with more than $10 billion in assets will not be eligible for the “commercial end user” exemption to Dodd-Frank Act’s mandatory clearing requirements for swaps and security-based swaps transactions used to hedge commercial risk. If we grow to have more than $10 billion in assets through additional acquisitions or organic growth, our costs of doing business would be likely to increase permanently as a result of these requirements.

 

Given that many of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are being implemented over time and are subject to implementing regulations, the full extent of the impact that such requirements, and other legislative and regulatory developments, will have on our operations is unclear. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage ratio requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. In particular, the potential impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on our operations and activities, both currently and prospectively, include, among others:

·          a reduction in our ability to generate or originate revenue-producing assets as a result of compliance with heightened capital standards;

·          increased cost of operations due to greater regulatory oversight, supervision and examination of banks and bank holding companies, and higher deposit insurance premiums;

·          the limitation on our ability to raise capital through the use of trust preferred securities as these securities will no longer be included as tier 1 capital going forward; and

·          the limitation on our ability to expand consumer product and service offerings due to anticipated stricter consumer protection laws and regulations.

Further, we may be required to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes in order to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. While we cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on us, these changes could be materially adverse to our investors.

Legislative and other measures that may be taken by Puerto Rico governmental authorities could materially increase our tax burden or otherwise adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

We operate the IBE Unit and Subsidiary pursuant to the IBE Act that provide us with significant tax advantages. An IBE has the benefits of exemptions from Puerto Rico income taxes on interest earned on, or gain realized from the sale of, non-Puerto Rico assets, including U.S. government obligations and certain mortgage-backed securities. This exemption has allowed us to have effective tax rates significantly below the maximum statutory tax rates. In the past, the Legislature of Puerto Rico has considered proposals to curb the tax benefits afforded to IBEs. In 2012, a new Puerto Rico law was enacted in this area. Although it did not repeal the IBE Act, the new law does not allow new license applications under the IBE Act to organize and operate an IBE. Any newly organized entity (now called an “international financial entity”) must be licensed under the new law and such entity (as opposed to existing IBEs organized under the IBE Act, including the Bank’s IBE Unit and Subsidiary, which are “grandfathered”) will generally be subject to a 4% Puerto Rico income tax rate. In the event other legislation is passed in Puerto Rico to eliminate or modify the tax exemption enjoyed by IBEs, the consequences could have a materially adverse impact on us, including increasing the tax burden or otherwise adversely affecting our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

Changes in accounting standards issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) or other standard-setting bodies may adversely affect our financial statements.

 

 

Our financial statements are subject to the application of GAAP, which are periodically revised and/or expanded. Accordingly, from time to time we are required to adopt new or revised accounting standards issued by FASB. Market conditions have prompted accounting standard setters to promulgate new guidance which further interprets or seeks to revise accounting pronouncements related to financial instruments, structures or transactions as well as to issue new standards expanding disclosures. See “Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” to our consolidated financial statements included herein for a discussion of any accounting developments that have been issued but not yet implemented. An assessment of proposed standards is not provided as such proposals are subject to change through the exposure process and, therefore, the effects on our financial statements cannot be meaningfully assessed. It is possible that future accounting standards that we are required to adopt could change the current accounting treatment that applies to the consolidated financial statements and that such changes could have a material effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

Competition in attracting talented people could adversely affect our operations.

 

We depend on our ability to attract and retain key personnel and we rely heavily on our management team. The inability to recruit and retain key personnel or the unexpected loss of key managers may adversely affect our operations. Our success to date has been influenced strongly by the ability to attract and retain senior management experienced in banking and financial services. Retention of senior managers and appropriate succession planning will continue to be critical to the successful implementation of our strategies.

 

Reputational risk and social factors may impact our results.

 

Our ability to originate loans and to attract deposits and assets is highly dependent upon the perceptions of consumer, commercial and funding markets of our business practices and our financial health. Negative public opinion could result from actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities or circumstances, including lending practices, regulatory compliance, inadequate protection of customer information, or sales and marketing, and from actions taken by regulators in response to such conduct. Adverse perceptions regarding us could lead to difficulties in originating loans and generating and maintaining accounts as well as in financing them.

 

In addition, a variety of social factors may cause changes in borrowing activity, including credit card use, payment patterns and the rate of defaults by account holders and borrowers. If consumers develop or maintain negative attitudes about incurring debt, or if consumption trends decline, our business and financial results will be negatively affected.

 

We could incur increased costs or reductions in revenue or suffer reputational damage in the event of misuse of information.

 

Our operations rely on the secure processing, transmission and storage of confidential information in our computer systems and networks regarding our customers and their accounts. To provide these products and services, we use information systems and infrastructure that we and third party service providers operate. As a financial institution, we also are subject to and examined for compliance with an array of data protection laws, regulations and guidance, as well as to our own internal privacy and information security policies and programs.

 

Information security risks for financial institutions like us have generally increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers and other external parties. Our technologies and systems may become the target of cyber-attacks or other attacks that could result in the misuse or destruction of our or our customers’ confidential, proprietary or other information or that could result in disruptions to the business operations of us or our customers or other third parties. Further, a breach or attack affecting one of our third-party service providers or partners could impact us through no fault of our own. In addition, because the methods and techniques employed by perpetrators of fraud and others to attack systems and applications change frequently and often are not fully recognized or understood until after they have been launched, we and our third-party service providers and partners may be unable to anticipate certain attack methods in order to implement effective preventative measures.

 

While we have policies and procedures designated to prevent or limit the effect of the possible security breach of our information systems, if unauthorized persons were somehow to get access to confidential or proprietary information in our possession or to our proprietary information, it could result in significant legal and financial exposure, damage to our reputation or a loss of confidence in the security of our systems that could adversely affect our business. Though we have insurance against some cyber-risks and attacks, it may not be sufficient to offset the impact of a material loss event.

 

ITEM 1B.      UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

 

None.

 

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES   

The Company owns a fifteen-story office building the property located at 254 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, San Juan Puerto Rico, known as Oriental Center. The Company operates a full service branch at the plaza level and our centralized units and subsidiaries occupy approximately 66% of the office floor space. Approximately 34% of the office space is leased to outside tenants .The Company also leases offices at 997 San Roberto Street, Professional Offices Park, San Juan, Puerto Rico, known as Oriental Tower. 

The Bank owns ten branch premises and leases forty-five branch commercial offices throughout Puerto Rico. The Bank’s management believes that each of its facilities is well maintained and suitable for its purpose and can readily obtain appropriate additional space as may be required at competitive rates by extending expiring leases or finding alternative space.

At December 31, 2013, the aggregate future rental commitments under the terms of the leases, exclusive of taxes, insurance and maintenance expenses payable by the Company, was $57.8 million.

The Company’s investment in premises and equipment, exclusive of leasehold improvements at December 31, 2013, was $106.4 million, gross of accumulated depreciation.

 

ITEM 3.      LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 

The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants in a number of legal proceedings incidental to their business. The Company is vigorously contesting such claims. Based upon a review by legal counsel and the development of these matters to date, management is of the opinion that the ultimate aggregate liability, if any, resulting from these claims will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

 

ITEM 4.     MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE

 

Not applicable.

 

PART II

ITEM 5.        MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES  

The Company’s common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “OFG”. Information concerning the range of high and low sales prices for the Company’s common stock for each quarter in the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, as well as cash dividends declared for such periods are set forth under the sub-heading “Stockholders’ Equity” in the “Analysis of Financial Condition” caption in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”).

Information concerning legal or regulatory restrictions on the payment of dividends by the Company and the Bank is contained under the sub-heading “Dividend Restrictions” in Item 1 of this report.

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately 3,896 holders of record of its common stock, including all directors and officers of the Company, and beneficial owners whose shares are held in “street” name by securities broker-dealers or other nominees.

 

 

 

Stock Performance Graph

The graph below compares the percentage change in the Company’s cumulative total stockholder return during the measurement period with the cumulative total return, assuming reinvestment of dividends, of the Russell 2000 Index and the SNL Bank Index.

The cumulative total stockholder return was obtained by dividing the sum of (i) the cumulative amount of dividends per share, assuming dividend reinvestment, for the measurement period beginning December 31, 2009, and (ii) the difference between the share price at the beginning and the end of the measurement period, by the share price at the beginning of the measurement period.

Comparison of 5 Year Cumulative Total Return

Assumes Initial Investment of $100

 

 

ITEM 6.         SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA  

 

The following selected financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” under Item 7 and “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” under Item 8 of this report.

 

 

 

 

The ratios shown below demonstrate the Company’s ability to generate sufficient earnings to pay the fixed charges or expenses of its debt and preferred stock dividends. The Company’s consolidated ratios of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends were computed by dividing earnings by combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends, as specified below, using two different assumptions, one excluding interest on deposits and the second including interest on deposits:

 

 

For purposes of computing these consolidated ratios, earnings represent income before income taxes plus fixed charges and amortization of capitalized interest, less interest capitalized. Fixed charges consist of interest expensed and capitalized, amortization of debt issuance costs, and the Company’s estimate of the interest component of rental expense. The term “preferred stock dividends” is the amount of pre-tax earnings that is required to pay dividends on the Company’s outstanding preferred stock. As of the dates presented above, the Company had noncumulative perpetual preferred stock issued and outstanding amounting to $176.0 million, as follows: (i) Series A amounting to $33.5 million or 1,340,000 shares at a $25 liquidation value; (ii) Series B amounting to $34.5 million or 1,380,000 shares at a $25 liquidation value; (iii) Series C amounting to $84.0 million or 84,000 shares at a $1,000 liquidation value; and (iv) Series D amounting to $24.0 million or 960,000 shares at a $25 liquidation value.

 

ITEM 7.        MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS  

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013

 

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

The accounting and reporting policies followed by the Company conform with generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) in the United States of America and general practices within the financial services industry. The Company’s significant accounting policies are described in detail in Note 1 to the audited consolidated financial statements and should be read in conjunction with this section.

Critical accounting policies require management to make estimates and assumptions, which involve significant judgment about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain and that involve a high degree of subjectivity. These estimates are made under facts and circumstances at a point in time and changes in those facts and circumstances could produce actual results that differ from those estimates. The following MD&A section is a summary of what management considers the Company’s critical accounting policies.

Business Combinations

The Company accounted for the BBVAPR Acquisition and the FDIC-assisted acquisition of Eurobank under the accounting guidance of ASC Topic No. 805, Business Combinations, which requires the use of the purchase method of accounting. All identifiable assets and liabilities acquired were initially recorded at fair value. No allowance for loan losses related to the acquired loans was recorded on the acquisition date. Loans acquired were recorded at fair value in accordance with the fair value methodology prescribed in ASC Topic 820, exclusive of the shared-loss agreements with the FDIC applicable to the FDIC-assisted acquisition. These fair value estimates associated with the loans included estimates related to expected prepayments and the amount and timing of expected principal, interest and other cash flows. Because the FDIC has agreed to reimburse the Company for losses related to the acquired loans in the FDIC-assisted acquisition, subject to certain provisions specified in the agreements, an indemnification asset was recorded at fair value at the acquisition date. The indemnification asset was recognized at the same time as the loans covered under FDIC shared-loss agreements, and is measured on the same basis, subject to collectability or contractual limitations. The loss share indemnification asset on the acquisition date reflected the reimbursements expected to be received from the FDIC, using an appropriate discount rate, which reflected counterparty credit risk and other uncertainties. The initial valuation of these loans and related indemnification asset required management to make subjective judgments concerning estimates about how the acquired loans would perform in the future using valuation methods, including discounted cash flow analyses and independent third-party appraisals. Factors that may significantly affect the initial valuation include, among others, market-based and industry data related to expected changes in interest rates, assumptions related to probability and severity of credit losses, estimated timing of credit losses including the timing of foreclosure and liquidation of collateral, expected prepayment rates, the specific terms and provisions of any shared-loss agreements, and specific industry and market conditions that may impact independent third-party appraisals. The Company applied the guidance of ASC Subtopic 310-30 – “Loans and Debt Securities Acquired with Deteriorated Credit Quality” (“ASC 310-30”) to most of the loans acquired in the FDIC-assisted acquisition (including applying  ASC 310-30 by analogy to loans that do not meet the scope of ASC 310-30 but meet certain other criteria as outlined below), except for credit cards. Also, the Company applied the guidance of ASC 310-30 to most of the loans from the BBVAPR Acquisition, except for credit cards, retail and commercial lines of credits, floor plans and performing auto loans with Fair Isaac Corporation (“FICO”) scores over 660 which were acquired at a premium.

ASC 310-30 provides two specific criteria that have to be met in order for a loan to be within its scope: (1) credit deterioration on the loan from its inception until the acquisition date and (2) that it is probable that not all of the contractual cash flows will be collected on the loan. Once in the scope of ASC 310-30, the credit portion of the fair value discount on an acquired loan cannot be accreted into income until the acquirer has assessed that it expects to receive more cash flows on the loan than initially anticipated. Acquired loans that meet the definition of nonaccrual status fall within the Company’s definition of impaired loans under ASC 310-30. Performing loans would generally not meet either criteria and, therefore , not fall within the scope of ASC 310-30. Many of the acquired loans that did not meet the Company’s definition of non-accrual status also resulted in the recognition of a discount attributable to credit quality.

 

The Company elected to analogize to ASC 310-30 and only accrete the portion of the fair value discount unrelated to credit pursuant to the provisions of the AICPA letter dated December 18, 2009, where the AICPA summarized the SEC Staff’s view regarding the accounting in subsequent periods for discount accretion associated with loan receivables acquired in a business combination or asset purchase. The Company adopted an accounting policy coincident with the Eurobank acquisition to consistently apply by analogy the expected cash flow approach under 310-30 to acquired loan portfolios. ASC 310-30 allows the grouping of loans with common risk characteristics for purposes of accounting of the purchased assets and accretable yield. The criteria followed for the pooling of loans with common risk characteristics was based on the line of business, default risk, collateral type, and size. Loans with expected cash flows over certain amount were placed in single loan pools.

Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses for Non-covered Loans and Leases

During the third quarter of 2013, management changed the methodology of the general reserve calculation for originated and other loans and for loans acquired and accounted for under ASC 310-20 in order to adapt the calculation to the new Company structure after the BBVAPR Acquisition, and better capture the risk characteristics of the different portfolio segments. Principal changes are concentrated in the commercial, consumer and auto and leasing portfolios. Commercial loan portfolio was further segmented by business line (corporate, institutional, middle market, commercial retail, floor plan, and real estate), by collateral type (secured by real estate and other commercial and industrial), and by risk rating/classification (pass, special mention, substandard, doubtful, and individually measured for impairment). The loss factor used for the general reserve of these loans is established considering the Bank's past twelve-month historical loss experience and the consideration of environmental factors. Environmental factors considered are: change in non-performing loans; migration in classification; trends in charge offs; trends in volume of loans; changes in collateral values; changes in risk selections and underwriting standards, and other changes in lending policies, procedures and practices; experience, ability and depth of lending management and other relevant staff, including the Company’s loan review system; national and local economic trends and industry conditions; and effect of external factors such as competition and regulatory requirements on the level of estimated credit losses. The sum of the loss experience factors and the environmental factors will be the GVA factor to be used for the determination of the allowance for loan and lease losses on each category. Consumer consists of smaller retail loans such as retail credit cards, overdrafts, unsecured personal lines of credit, and personal unsecured loans.  The allowance factor of consumer loans, consisting of the historical loss factors and the environmental risk factors will be calculated for each group of loans by delinquency bucket. Auto and leasing factor on these loans is impacted by the historical losses, the environmental risk factors and by delinquency buckets.  For the determination of the allowance factor, the auto and leasing portfolio will be segmented by FICO score at origination.  

 

Originated and Other Loans and Leases Held for Investment and Acquired Loans Accounted for under ASC 310-20 (Loans with revolving feature and/or acquired at a premium)

 

The Company determined the allowance for loan and lease losses by portfolio segment, which consist of mortgage loans, commercial loans, consumer loans and auto and leasing, as follows:

 

Mortgage loans: These loans are divided into four classes: traditional mortgages, non-traditional mortgages, loans in loan modification programs and home equity secured personal loans. Traditional mortgage loans include loans secured by a dwelling, fixed coupons and regular amortization schedules. Non-traditional mortgages include loans with interest-first amortization schedules and loans with balloon considerations as part of their terms. Mortgages in loan modification programs are loans that are being serviced under such programs. Home equity loans are mainly equity lines of credit. The allowance factor on these loans is impacted by the historical loss factors on the sub-segments, vintages, the environmental risk factors described above and by delinquency buckets.  The traditional mortgage loan portfolio is further segregated by vintages.

 

Commercial loans:  The commercial portfolio is segmented by collateral type (secured by real estate and other commercial and industrial assets). During the third quarter of 2013, the commercial portfolio was further segmented by business line (corporate, institutional, middle market, corporate retail, floor plan, and real estate). The loss factor used for the general valuation reserve (“GVA”) of these loans is established considering the Bank's past twelve-month historical loss experience of each segment and the consideration of environmental factors. The sum of the loss experience factors and the environmental factors is the GVA factor  used for the determination of the allowance for loan and lease losses on each category.

 

Consumer loans: The consumer portfolio consists of smaller retail loans such as retail credit cards, overdrafts, unsecured personal lines of credit, and personal unsecured loans. The allowance factor, consisting of the historical loss factors and the environmental risk factors will be calculated for each sub-class of loans by delinquency bucket.

 

 

Auto and Leasing: The financing for the purchase of new or used motor vehicles for private or public use. These loans are granted mainly through dealers authorized and approved by the auto department credit committee of the Bank. In addition, this segment includes personal loans guaranteed by vehicles in the form of lease financing. The allowance factor on auto and leasing portfolio is impacted by the historical losses, the environmental risk factors and by delinquency buckets. For the determination of the allowance factor, the portfolio is segmented by FICO score at origination. 

  

The Company establishes its allowance for loan losses through a provision for credit losses based on our evaluation of the credit quality of the loan portfolio. This evaluation, which includes a review of loans on which full collectability may not be reasonably assured, considers, among other matters, the estimated fair value of the underlying collateral, economic conditions, historical net loan loss experience, and other factors that warrant recognition in determining our allowance for loan losses. The Company continues to monitor and modify the level of the allowance for loan losses to ensure it is adequate to cover losses inherent in our loan portfolio.

 

Our allowance for loan losses consists of the following elements: (i) specific valuation allowances based on probable losses on specifically identified impaired loans; and (ii) valuation allowances based on net historical loan loss experience for similar loans with similar inherent risk characteristics and performance trends, adjusted, as appropriate, for qualitative risk factors specific to respective loan types.

 

When current information and events indicate that it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts of principal and interest due under the original terms of a business or commercial real estate loan greater than $250 thousand, such loan will be classified as impaired. Additionally, all loans modified in a TDR are considered impaired. The need for specific valuation allowances are determined for impaired loans and recorded as necessary. For impaired loans, we consider the fair value of the underlying collateral, less estimated costs to sell, if the loan is collateral dependent, or we use the present value of estimated future cash flows in determining the estimates of impairment and any related allowance for loan losses for these loans. Confirmed losses are charged off immediately. Prior to a loan becoming impaired, we typically would obtain an appraisal through our internal loan grading process to use as the basis for the fair value of the underlying collateral.

 

Loan loss ratios and credit risk categories are updated at least quarterly and are applied in the context of GAAP as prescribed by ASC and the importance of depository institutions having prudent, conservative, but not excessive loan allowances that fall within an acceptable range of estimated losses. While management uses current available information in estimating possible loan and lease losses, factors beyond the Company’s control, such as those affecting general economic conditions, may require future changes to the allowance.

 

Acquired Loans Accounted for under ASC 310-30 (including those accounted for under ASC 310-30 by analogy)

 

For our acquired loans accounted for under ASC 310-30, our allowance for loan losses is estimated based upon our expected cash flows for these loans. To the extent that we experience a deterioration in borrower credit quality resulting in a decrease in our expected cash flows (which are used as a proxy to identify probable incurred losses) subsequent to the acquisition of the loans, an allowance for loan losses is established based on our estimate of future credit losses over the remaining life of the loans.

 

Acquired loans accounted for under ASC Subtopic 310-30 are not considered non-performing and continue to have an accretable yield as long as there is a reasonable expectation about the timing and amount of cash flows expected to be collected. Also, loans charged-off against the non-accretable difference established in purchase accounting are not reported as charge-offs. Charge-offs on loans accounted under ASC Subtopic 310-30 are recorded only to the extent that losses exceed the non-accretable difference established with purchase accounting.

 

Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses for Covered Loans and Leases

 

Covered loans are accounted for under ASC Subtopic 310-30 and our policy is consistent with our policy for non-covered acquired loans. For covered loans, the portion of the loss on covered loans reimbursable from the FDIC is recorded as an offset to the provision for credit losses and increases the FDIC shared-loss indemnification asset.

 

 

 

Financial Instruments

 

Certain financial instruments, including derivatives, trading securities and investment securities available-for-sale, are recorded at fair value and unrealized gains and losses are recorded in other comprehensive income or as part of non-interest income, as appropriate. Fair values are based on listed market prices, if available. If listed market prices are not available, fair value is determined based on other relevant factors, including price quotations for similar instruments. The fair values of certain derivative contracts are derived from pricing models that consider current market and contractual prices for the underlying financial instruments as well as time value and yield curve or volatility factors underlying the positions.

 

The Company determines the fair value of its financial instruments based on the fair value measurement framework, which establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs of valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below:

 

Level 1 — Level 1 assets and liabilities include equity securities that are traded in an active exchange market, as well as certain U.S. Treasury and other U.S. government agency securities that are traded by dealers or brokers in active markets. Valuations are obtained from readily available pricing sources for market transactions involving identical assets or liabilities.

 

Level 2 — Observable inputs other than Level 1 prices, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted prices in markets that are not active, or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the full term of the assets or liabilities. Level 2 assets and liabilities include (i) mortgage-backed securities for which the fair value is estimated based on valuations obtained from third-party pricing services for identical or comparable assets, (ii) debt securities with quoted prices that are traded less frequently than exchange-traded instruments and (iii) derivative contracts and financial liabilities whose value is determined using a pricing model with inputs that are observable in the market or can be derived principally from or corroborated by observable market data.

 

Level 3 — Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. Level 3 assets and liabilities include financial instruments whose value is determined using pricing models for which the determination of fair value requires significant management judgment or estimation.

 

 

 

OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE

 

The following discussion of the Company’s financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the foregoing “Selected Financial Data” and the Company’s consolidated financial statements and related notes. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements. Please see “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” for discussion of the uncertainties, risks and assumptions associated with these statements.

 

The Company is a publicly-owned financial holding company that provides a full range of banking and financial services through its subsidiaries. It provides comprehensive banking and financial services through a complete range of banking and financial solutions, including mortgage, commercial and consumer lending; checking and savings accounts; financial planning, insurance, financial service, and investment brokerage; and corporate and individual trust and retirement services. The Company operates through three major business segments: Banking, Financial Services, and Treasury, and distinguishes itself based on quality service and marketing efforts focused on mid and high net worth individuals and families, including professionals and owners of small and mid-sized businesses, primarily in Puerto Rico. The Company has 55 branches in Puerto Rico and a subsidiary in Boca Raton, Florida. The Company’s long-term goal is to strengthen its banking and financial services franchise by expanding its lending businesses, increasing the level of integration in the marketing and delivery of banking and financial services, maintaining effective asset-liability management, growing non-interest revenue from banking and financial services, and improving operating efficiencies.

 

The Company’s diversified mix of businesses and products generates both the interest income traditionally associated with a banking institution and non-interest income traditionally associated with a financial services institution (generated by such businesses as securities brokerage, fiduciary services, investment banking, insurance agency, and retirement plan administration). Although all of these businesses, to varying degrees, are affected by interest rate and financial market fluctuations and other external factors, the Company’s commitment is to continue producing a balanced and growing revenue stream.

 

In December 18, 2012, the Company completed the BBVAPR Acquisition. By acquiring the BBVAPR companies, we accelerated our long-standing goal of creating a more stable balance sheet, with a larger and more diversified loan portfolio, a greater retail deposit funding base, and a smaller investment securities portfolio, thereby improving earnings stability.

 

During 2013, we focused on two main initiatives: continuing to grow our banking operations, and successfully completing the integration of the BBVAPR Acquisition before the end of the year.  Operating revenue for 2013 increased 132.7%, or $243.6 million, to $427.2 million when compared to the same period in 2012.

 

The table below presents the Company’s operating revenue for 2013, 2012, and 2011:

 

 

Interest Income

 

Total interest income for 2013 increased 89.3% to $493.6 million, as compared to 2012. This was a result of an increase in interest income from loans of $278.5 million, or 168.4% when compared to 2012. This increase was partially offset by a decrease in interest income from investments of $45.7 million, or 47.9%, compared to 2012.  This result was mostly due to the increase in non-covered loan portfolio with the BBVAPR Acquisition on December 18, 2012.  In addition, the yield on covered loans increased from 19.02% for 2012 to 24.64% for 2013. Interest income from covered loans benefitted from an additional $18.6 million due to higher recoveries than previously expected. This increase in yield is the result of higher projected cash flows on certain pools of covered loans, as credit losses have been lower than initially estimated for these loan pools. The covered portfolio is beginning to have cost recoveries on pools with lower carrying amounts, and these recoveries have the effect of increasing net interest income. The accretable yield amounted to $163.0 million at December 31, 2013 compared to $188.0 million at December 31, 2012. 

 

 

Interest income from investments reflects a 47.9% decrease for 2013, as compared to 2012, primarily related to the lower balance in the investment securities portfolio due to the sale of investments securities as part of the deleverage executed during the third and fourth quarters of 2012 in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

Interest Expense

 

Total interest expense for 2013 decreased 18.9% to $84.0 million, as compared to 2012. This reflects the lower cost of deposits (0.73% vs. 1.24%) for 2013 as compared to 2012, partially offset by higher costs of securities sold under agreements to repurchase (2.16% vs. 2.09%). Such lower cost reflects continuing progress in the repricing of the Company’s core retail deposits. This decrease in expense is also affected by the reduction in the repurchase agreements as a result of the deleverage executed during the third and fourth quarters of 2012 in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

Net Interest Income

 

Net interest income for  2013 was $409.7 million, an increase of 160.5% when compared with 2012, as OFG transformed its revenue profile, with investment securities producing only 10.1% of interest income in 2013 versus 36.6% in 2012.

 

Net interest margin of 5.46% for 2013, increased 279 basis points when compared to 2012.

 

Provision for Loan and Lease Losses

 

Provision for non-covered loans losses for 2013 increased $53.7 million when compared to 2012. The increase during the year is mostly due to the net impact of $21.0 million in additional provision for loan and lease losses due to reclassification to held-for-sale of non-performing residential mortgage loans with a book value of $55.2 million, which were sold later during the year, and the increase in loan average balances in 2013. Provision for covered loans losses for 2013 decreased $4.5 million when compared to 2012 mainly driven by required provisions during 2012 for construction and development and commercial real estate loan pools that underperformed or whose workout periods extended from original estimates.

 

Non-Interest Income

 

During 2013, core banking and financial services revenues increased 74.6% to $85.3 million as compared to 2012, primarily reflecting a $30.9 million increase in banking services revenue to $44.7 million for 2013, due to more products and services and a larger customer base.

 

The FDIC shared-loss expense of $69.3 million for 2013 compared to $28.0 million for 2012, resulted from the ongoing evaluation of expected cash flows of the covered loan portfolio, which resulted in reduced projected losses expected to be collected from the FDIC and the improved accretable yield on the covered loans. During 2013, the net amortization included $16.6 million of additional amortization of the FDIC indemnification asset from stepped up cost recoveries on certain construction and leasing loan pools. 

 

There was no gain or loss on the sale of securities in 2013 as compared to gains of $74.2 million in 2012. Losses from derivative activities were only $220 thousand in 2013, compared to losses of $43.0 million in 2012. Gain on extinguishment of debt of $1.1 million in 2013, compared to losses of $26.1 million in 2012. The 2012 results reflect $12.9 million in net costs for deleveraging the balance sheet.

 

Non-Interest Expense

 

Non-interest expense increased to $264.6 million for 2013 compared to $132.0 million in 2012, due to the Company’s expanded operations as a result of the BBVAPR Acquisition, including merger and restructuring costs of $17.5 million for 2013. The 2013 results reflect the integration of BBVAPR, with the successful conversion of technology platforms and consolidation of other resources.

Also, the 2013 reflects a $5.3 million impact of the new 1.0% tax on gross revenues, recently enacted as part of certain amendments to the Puerto Rico tax code.

 

The efficiency ratio for 2013 was 53.45%  compared to 64.05% for 2012.

 

 

Income Tax Expense

 

Income tax benefit of $8.7 million for 2013 compared to an income tax expense of $3.3 million for 2012. The income tax benefit of $8.7 million for 2013 was due to the recent amendments to the Puerto Rico tax code that resulted in a $38.1 million benefit from an increase in the Company’s deferred tax asset as a result of the increase in the corporate income tax rate to 39% from 30% partially offset by the Company’s resulting higher effective rate of 33%. 

 

Income Available to Common Shareholders

 

For 2013, the Company’s income available to common shareholders amounted to $84.6 million compared to $14.6 million for 2012. Income per basic common share and fully diluted common share were $1.85 and $1.73, respectively, for 2013, compared to income per basic and fully diluted common share of $0.35 for 2012. 

 

Interest Earning Assets

 

The loan portfolio declined to $5.019 billion at December 31, 2013 compared to $5.158 billion at December 31, 2012 primarily due to the early pay down of some commercial loans and the sale in 2013 of non-performing residential mortgage loans with a book value of $55.2 million. The investment portfolio of $1.615 billion at December 31, 2013 decreased 27.7% compared to $2.233 billion at December 31, 2012. The decrease in the investments portfolio is mainly due to redemptions and maturities of investment securities available for sale.

 

Interest Bearing Liabilities

 

Total deposits decreased to $5.383 billion at December 31, 2013, compared to $5.691 billion at December 31, 2012. Non-maturing deposit balances increased 4.9%, to $3.2 billion, while higher-priced time deposits declined 21.4% as part of efforts to reduce the cost of deposits, which averaged 0.73% in 2013 compared to 1.24% in 2012. Securities sold under agreements to repurchase decreased 25.2%, or $427.6 million, as the Company used available cash to pay off $427.9 million of repurchase agreements at maturity. During 2013, the Company settled, prior to maturity, a former BBVAPR subordinated note of $50 million.

 

Stockholders’ Equity

 

Stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2013 was $884.9 million compared to $863.6 million at December 31, 2012, an increase of 2.5%. This increase reflects the net income for 2013, partially offset by the change in other comprehensive income.

 

Book value per share was $15.74 at December 31, 2013 compared to $15.31 at December 31, 2012.

 

The Company maintains capital ratios in excess of regulatory requirements. At December 31, 2013, Tier 1 Leverage Capital Ratio was 9.11%, Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio was 14.35%, and Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio was 16.14%.

 

Return on Average Assets and Common Equity

 

Return on average common equity (“ROE”) for 2013 was 12.03% compared to 2.29% for 2012. Return on average assets (“ROA”) for 2013 was 1.15% compared to 0.37% for 2012. The increases in ROE and ROA are mostly due to 300.9% increase in net income from $24.6 million in 2012 to $98.4 million in 2013.

 

Assets under Management

 

At December 31, 2013, total assets managed by the Company’s trust division and CPC increased 11.24% to $2.797 billion, compared to $2.514 billion at December 31, 2012. At December 31, 2013, total assets managed by the securities-broker-dealer subsidiary from its customer investment accounts decreased 8.4% to $2.493 billion, compared to $2.722 billion at December 31, 2012. Changes in trust and broker-dealer related assets primarily reflect a reduction in portfolio and differences in market values.

 

 

 

Lending

 

Total loan production of $1.484 billion for 2013 increased 222.1% year over year. Total commercial loan production of $700.8 million for 2013, increased 266.9% from 2012. These increases are directly related to the BBVAPR Acquisition as the Company continues building a strong institutional pipeline.

 

Mortgage loan production of $306.6 million for 2013 increased 51.2% from 2012. The Company sells most of its conforming mortgage loans in the secondary market and retains the servicing rights. The increase in mortgage loan production is the result of the integration the mortgage operations of BBVAPR into Oriental Bank. 

 

Consumer loan production for 2013 totaled $101.4 million, up 218.7% when compared with 2012. The increase in consumer lending is the result of the benefits of a larger branch network and origination platform following the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

Auto and leasing production for 2013 totaled $375.2 million, up from $35.2 million in 2012. The increase is mainly attributed to the significant auto loan business newly acquired by the Company in the BBVAPR Acquisition. 

 

While the loan portfolio remains greater than it was a year ago and loan production for 2013 has increased considerably from 2012, total loan portfolio  declined by $138.2 million from $5.158 billion at December 31, 2012 to $5.019 billion at December 31, 2013, mostly as the result of scheduled pay downs and maturities in both the non-covered and covered loan portfolios, scheduled pay downs of Puerto Rico government obligations of approximately $168.0 million, and the sale of residential non-performing loans to held-for-sale.

  

Credit Quality on Non-Covered Loans

 

Net credit losses, excluding acquired loans, increased from $10.9 million to $46.4 million during 2013, representing 2.69% of average non-covered loans outstanding versus 0.93% in 2012. The credit losses for 2013 include a $27 million charge-off from nonperforming mortgage loans transferred into the loan held-for-sale category which were later sold during the year. The allowance for loan and lease losses on non-covered loans increased to $54.3 million. The allowances for loan and leases, excluding acquired loans, increased to $49.1 million (2.04% of total non-covered loans, excluding acquired loans) at December 31, 2013, compared to $39.9 million (3.22% of total non-covered loans, excluding acquired loans) at December 31, 2012. The increase reflects higher loan balances, particularly in the auto and consumer portfolios, partially offset by the reduction in residential non-performing loans from the aforementioned sale of these assets during the year.

 

Non-performing loans (“NPLs”), which exclude loans covered under shared-loss agreements with the FDIC and loans acquired in the BBVAPR Acquisition accounted under ASC 310-30, decreased to $86.2 million at December 31, 2013 compared to $146.6 million at December 31, 2012 primarily due to the reclassification of certain non-performing residential mortgage loans with a net book value of $55.2 million, to the loan held-for-sale category which most of them were later sold during the year.

 

Non-GAAP Measures

 

The Company uses certain non-GAAP measures of financial performance to supplement the consolidated financial statements presented in accordance with GAAP.  The Company presents non-GAAP measures that management believes are useful and meaningful to investors. Non-GAAP measures do not have any standardized meaning, are not required to be uniformly applied, and are not audited.  Therefore, they are unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other companies. The presentation of non-GAAP measures is not intended to be a substitute for, and should not be considered in isolation from, the financial measures reported in accordance with GAAP.

 

The Company’s management has reported and discussed the results of operations herein both on a GAAP basis and on a pre-tax pre-provision operating income basis (defined as net interest income, plus banking and financial services revenue, less non-interest expenses, as calculated on the table below). The Company’s management believes that, given the nature of the items excluded from the definition of pre-tax pre-provision operating income, it is useful to state what the results of operations would have been without them so that investors can see the financial trends from the Company’s continuing business.

 

Net Interest Income

 

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012

 

Net interest income is a function of the difference between rates earned on the Company’s interest-earning assets and rates paid on its interest-bearing liabilities (interest rate spread) and the relative amounts of its interest earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities (interest rate margin). The Company constantly monitors the composition and re-pricing of its assets and liabilities to maintain its net interest income at adequate levels. Table 1 above shows the major categories of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, their respective interest income, expenses, yields and costs, and their impact on net interest income due to changes in volume and rates for 2013 and 2012.

 

Net interest income amounted to $409.7 million for 2013, a 160.05% increase from $157.3 million for 2012. These changes reflect a decrease of 18.9% in interest expense and an increase of 168.4% in interest income from loans, partially offset by a 47.9% decrease in interest income from investments when comparing the years 2013 and 2012.

 

Interest rate spread for 2013 increased 287 basis points to 5.46% from 2.59% in 2012. This increase is mainly due to the net effect of a 71 basis point decrease in the average cost of funds from 1.83% to 1.12%, and a 216 basis point increase in the average yield of interest-earning assets from 4.42% to 6.58%.

 

The increase in interest income for the year was primarily the result of an increase of  $174.0 million in interest-earning assets volume variance, and a $58.8 million increase in interest rate variance. Interest income from loans increased 168.4% to $443.9 million for 2013, mainly due to the loan portfolio acquired as part of the BBVAPR Acquisition. This was mitigated by the fact that interest income on investments decreased 47.9% to $49.7 million in 2013, compared to 2012, reflecting a lower balance in the investment securities portfolio due to the sale of investments securities as part of the deleverage executed during the third and fourth quarters of 2012 in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

Interest expense decreased 18.9% to $84.0 million for 2013. The decrease was primarily the result of  a $33.0 million decrease in interest rate variance, partially offset by a $13.4 million increase in interest-bearing liabilities volume variance. The decrease in interest rate variance is due to a reduction in the cost of funds and the increase in the volume variance is due to the increase in the balance of deposits, which reflected a decrease in cost of funds of 71 basis points to 1.12% for 2013, compared to 2012.  The cost of deposits decreased 51 basis points to 0.73% for 2013, compared to 1.24% for 2012, primarily due to continuing progress in repricing core deposits and to the maturity of higher cost brokered deposits and time deposits during 2013. The cost of borrowings increased  2 basis points to 2.28% in 2013, compared to 2.26% for 2012. 

 

For 2013, the average balance of total interest-earning assets was $7.500 billion, an increase of 27.1% compared to 2012. The increase in average balance of interest-earning assets was mainly attributable to an increase of 181.6% in average loans for 2013, resulting from the acquisition of the BBVAPR loan portfolio, mitigated by a reduction of 41.1% in the average investments for 2013 as a result of the aforementioned sale of investments as part of the deleverage plan in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition. For 2013, the average yield on interest-earning assets was 6.58% compared to 4.42% for 2012. This was mainly due to the increase in average balance and higher average yields in the non-covered loan portfolio, which their average yield increased to 7.46% for 2013 from  5.88% for 2012.

 

 

 

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011

 

Table 1/A above shows the major categories of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, their respective interest income, expenses, yields and costs, and their impact on net interest income due to changes in volume and rates for 2012 and 2011.

 

Net interest income amounted to $157.3 million for 2012, an 11.6% increase from $140.9 million in 2011. These changes reflect a decrease of 33.8% in interest expense and an increase of 21.4% in interest income from loans, partially offset by a 40.8% decrease in interest income from investments for 2012 compared to 2011.

 

Interest rate spread for 2012 increased 48 basis points from 2.13% in 2011 to 2.59% in 2012. This increase is mainly due to the net effect of a 65 basis points decrease in the average cost of funds from 2.48% to 1.83%, and a 19 basis points decrease in the average yield of interest-earning assets from 4.61% to 4.42%.

 

The decrease in interest income was primarily the result of a decrease of $23.9 million in interest-earning assets volume variance, and a $12.6 million decrease in interest rate variance.  Interest income on investments decreased 40.8% to $95.4 million in 2012, compared to 2011, reflecting a lower balance in the investment securities portfolio, a lower yield on investment securities and an increase in premium amortization due to increased prepayment speeds.  Interest income from loans increased 21.4% to $165.4 million for 2012.  In 2012, interest income from covered loans increased 26.2% to $85.4 million, compared to 2011, mainly due to the re-yielding of various pools of covered loans during the second half of 2011.

 

Interest expense decreased 33.8% to $103.5 million for 2012. This decrease was primarily the result of a $34.9 million decrease in interest rate variance, and a $18.0 million decrease in interest-bearing liabilities volume variance. These decreases are due to a reduction in the balance of interest bearing liabilities and the cost of funds.  Interest-bearing liabilities interest rate spread decreased 65 basis points to 1.83% for 2012, compared to 2011. The cost of deposits decreased 60 basis points to 1.24% for 2012, compared to 1.84% for 2011, primarily due to continuing progress in repricing core deposits and to the maturity of higher cost wholesale deposits during the period. The cost of borrowings decreased by 63 basis points to 2.26% in 2012, compared to 2.89% for 2011. The decrease in the cost of borrowings is attributable to the fact that in December 2011, as previously reported, $600 million in repurchase agreements, with an average cost of 4.23%, matured. The Company paid off $300 million of these repurchase agreements, and the remaining balance of $300 million was renewed for an average period of approximately three and a half years at an effective fixed rate of 2.36%. To further reduce cost of borrowings, in May 2012, the Company renewed $350 million in repurchase agreements, with an average cost of 4.26%, at a new effective rate of approximately 1.90%.  In addition, during the second half of 2012, the Company terminated repurchase agreements amounting to $1.357 billion with an average cost of 1.31%. Also, interest bearing liabilities decreased due to the repayment in March 2012 of the TLGP notes at maturity.

 

For 2012, the average balance of total interest-earning assets was $5.899 billion, a decrease of  8.5% from 2011. The decrease in average balance of interest-earning assets was mainly attributable to a 13.3% decrease for 2012, in average investments, in addition to a 4.3% decrease in average loans compared to 2011 resulting from normal pay downs of covered loans and to the re-yielding of various pools of covered loans mainly during the second half of 2011.  The decrease in the investment portfolio reflects a reduction in the available-for-sale portfolio, due to the sale of approximately $1.403 billion in investment securities during 2012 as part of the deleverage plan in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition.  As of December 31, 2012, the Company had $868.7 million in cash and cash equivalents and $80.0 million in securities purchased under agreements to resell, compared to $591.5 million in cash and cash equivalents and no securities purchased under agreements to resell as of December 31, 2011.

 

For 2012, the average yield on interest-earning assets was 4.42% compared to 4.61% for 2011. This was mainly due to a decrease in the investment portfolio yield from 3.42% to 2.33% for 2012.  However, such decrease was partially offset by the higher average yields in the loan portfolio, mainly due to the covered loans that had an average yield of 19.02% for 2012, compared to 12.13% for 2011.

 

During  2013, the Company’s pre-tax pre-provision operating income was approximately $248.1 million, an increase of 213.6% from $79.1 million in the same period of last year. Pre-tax pre-provision operating income is calculated as follows:

 

 

Tangible common equity consists of common equity less goodwill, core deposit intangibles and customer relationship intangible. Tier 1 common equity consists of common equity less goodwill, core deposit intangibles, net unrealized gains on available for sale securities, net unrealized losses on cash flow hedges, and disallowed deferred tax asset and servicing assets.  Ratios of tangible common equity to total assets, tangible common equity to risk-weighted assets, total equity to risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 common equity to risk-weighted assets are non-GAAP measures.

 

At December 31, 2013, tangible common equity to total assets and tangible common equity to risk-weighted assets increased to 7.63% and 12.10%, respectively, from 6.49% and 11.75% at December 31, 2012.  Total equity to risk-weighted assets and Tier 1 common equity to risk-weighted assets at December 30, 2013 increased to 17.23% and 10.44%, respectively, from 16.45% and 8.76% at December 31, 2012.

 

Ratios calculated based upon Tier 1 common equity have become a focus of regulators and investors, and management believes ratios based on Tier 1 common equity assist investors in analyzing the Company’s capital position.  Furthermore, management and many stock analysts use tangible common equity in conjunction with more traditional bank capital ratios to compare the capital adequacy of banking organizations. Neither Tier 1 common equity nor tangible common equity or related measures should be considered in isolation or as a substitute for stockholders’ equity, total assets or any other measure calculated in accordance with GAAP.

 

Comparison of the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011  

 

Interest Income

 

Total interest income for 2012 decreased 12.3% to $260.8 million, as compared to the same period in 2011. Such decrease primarily reflects a 40.8% decrease on interest income from investments for 2012, primarily related to lower yields and a lower balance in the investment securities portfolio as a result of the sale of $1.510 billion in mortgage-backed securities. Also, there was an increase in premium amortization due to increased prepayment speeds. The yield on investments decreased from 3.42% for 2011 to 2.33% for 2012.

 

The decrease in interest income on investments was mitigated by an increase in interest income from covered loans from $67.7 million for 2011 to $85.4 million in 2012.  The yield on covered loans increased from 12.13% in 2011 to 19.2% in 2012.  This increase in yield is the result of higher projected cash flows on certain pools of covered loans, as credit losses have been lower than initially estimated for these loan pools. The accretable yield amounted to $188.0 million at December 31, 2012 compared to $188.8 million at December 31, 2011.  In addition, interest income from non-covered loans increased from $68.6 million for 2011 to $80.0 million for 2012.

 

 

 

Interest Expense

 

Total interest expense for 2012 decreased 33.8% to $103.5 million as compared to 2011.  This reflects the lower cost of both, securities sold under agreements to repurchase (2.09% vs. 2.74%) and deposits (1.24% vs. 1.84%) for 2012 as compared to 2011, which reflects continuing progress in the repricing of the Company’s core retail deposits and further reductions in its cost of funds.

 

In December 2011, $600 million in repurchase agreements, with an average cost of 4.23%, matured. The Company paid off $300 million of these repurchase agreements. The remaining balance of $300 million was renewed for an average period of approximately 3.5 years at an effective fixed rate of 2.36%. To further reduce its cost of borrowings, in May 2012, the Company renewed $350 million in repurchase agreements, with an average cost of 4.26%, at a new effective rate of approximately 1.90%.  During the second half of 2012, the Company terminated repurchase agreements amounting to $1.357 billion with an average cost of 1.31%.  As a result of the aforementioned transactions, total interest expense on securities sold under agreements to repurchase declined 35.1% in 2012 as compared to 2011.

 

Net Interest Income

 

Net interest income for 2012 was $157.3 million, an increase of 11.6% when compared with 2011.  The increase for 2012 was mostly due to the net effect of a 26.2% increase in interest income from covered loans as a result of higher yields and a 33.8% decrease in interest expense due to lower cost of funds, partially offset by a decrease of 40.8% on interest income from investments, related to lower yields and a lower balance in the investment securities portfolio.

 

Net interest margin of 2.67% for 2012 increased 48 basis points when compared to 2011.

 

Provision for Loan and Lease Losses

 

Provision for non-covered loans and lease losses for 2012 decreased $1.3 million when compared to 2011, reflecting improvement in credit quality.  Provision for covered loans and lease losses for 2012 was $9.8 million, reflecting the Company’s revision to the expected cash flows in the covered loan portfolio considering actual experiences and changes in the Company’s expectations for the remaining terms of the loan pools. During the first quarter of 2012, some covered construction and development and commercial real estate loan pools underperformed, which required a provision amounting to $7.2 million, net of the estimated reimbursement from the FDIC. Additional net provisions of $1.5 million, $221 thousand and $982 thousand were recorded for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2012, respectively, as quarterly reviews of credit assumptions for covered loans  are reflecting some delays in the expected cash flows, mainly in pools of real estate collateralized loans. Significant judgement is made in timing the collection of nonperforming loans that are being actively worked out.

 

Non-Interest Income

 

In 2012, core banking and financial services revenue increased 13.3% to $48.9 million as compared to 2011, primarily reflecting $4.8 million increase in financial services revenue to $25.4 million, attributed to an increase of 26.4% in assets under management.

 

Net amortization of the FDIC shared-loss indemnification asset of $28.0 million for 2012 compared to a $3.4 million for 2011 resulted from the ongoing evaluation of expected cash flows of the loan portfolio acquired in the FDIC-assisted acquisition.  As a result of such evaluation, the Company expects a decrease in losses to be collected from the FDIC and the improved re-yielding of the accretable yield on the covered loans.  This reduction in claimable losses amortizes the shared-loss indemnification asset through the life of the shared-loss agreements.  This amortization is net of the accretion of the discount recorded to reflect the expected claimable loss at its net present value.

In 2012, the Company had a gain on the sale of investment securities of $74.2 million, as the Company took advantage of market opportunities and executed a balance sheet deleverage following the BBVAPR Acquisition. The purpose of the deleverage plan was to reduce the Company’s capital needs for the BBVAPR Acquisition; to enhance its returns going forward; and to have a more traditional bank balance sheet after the BBVAPR Acquisition.  As part of this deleverage, in 2012, the Company sold $1.403 billion of investment securities.  At the same time, the Company terminated prior to maturity $1.357 billion of repurchase agreements. In accordance with the terms of the repurchase agreements the Company had to pay cancellation fees amounting to $26.1 million.

 

 

 

Non-Interest Expense

 

Non-interest expense increased to $132.0 million for 2012 compared to $124.3 million in 2011 as a result of approximately $7.1 million in expenses related to the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

The efficiency ratio for 2012 was 64.05% compared to 67.52% for 2011.

 

Income Tax Expense

 

Income tax expense was $3.3 million for 2012 compared to $866 thousand for 2011.

At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the IBE Subsidiary had $504 thousand and $2.9 million, respectively, in income tax effect of unrecognized gain on available-for-sale securities included in other comprehensive income. Following the change in its applicable tax rate from 5% to 0% as a result of a Puerto Rico law adopted in 2011, this remaining tax balance will flow through income as these securities are repaid or sold in future period. During 2012, income tax expense included $2.4 million related to this residual tax effect from the IBE Subsidiary.  It had no effect during 2011.

 

Income Available to Common Shareholders

 

For 2012, the  Company’s income available to common shareholders amounted to $14.6 million compared to $29.2 million for 2011.  Income per basic common share and fully diluted common share was $0.35 for 2012 compared to income per basic and fully diluted common share of $0.67 for 2011.  Dividends declared on preferred stock for 2012 amounted to $9.9 million as compared to $4.8 million for 2011.

Interest Earning Assets

 

The loan portfolio increased 211.0% to $5.158 billion at December 31, 2012 compared to $1.666 billion at December 31, 2011.  The increase in the loan portfolio is mostly due to the acquisition of BBVAPR’s loan portfolio amounting to $3.574 billion at December 31, 2012. The investment portfolio amounted to $2.233 billion at December 31, 2012, a 42.3% decrease compared to $3.868 billion at December 31, 2011.  The decrease in the investment portfolio reflects a reduction of 25.9%, or $765.6 million, in the available-for-sale portfolio, due to the sale of approximately $1.403 billion in investment securities due to the aforementioned balance sheet deleverage in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition. The change in portfolio composition resulted in the transfer of all the securities in the held-to-maturity portfolio to the available-for-sale portfolio at a fair value of $797.5 million with net combined unrealized gains of $35.1 million in 2012.    

 

Interest Bearing Liabilities

 

Total deposits amounted to $5.691 billion at December 31, 2012, an increase of 133.4% compared to $2.438 billion at December 31, 2011, as a result of the deposits assumed as part of the BBVAPR Acquisition.  Core deposits, which exclude brokered deposits, increased $2.581 billion, or 118.3%, compared to December 31, 2011, while brokered deposits increased $671.6 million or 261.7% when compared to December 31, 2011.  Non-interest bearing deposits, interest-bearing deposits, individual retirement accounts, retail certificates of deposit and institutional deposits increased $598.9 million, $1.203 billion, $14.4 million, $230.7 and $533.9 million, respectively.

 

Using available cash, in March 2012, the Bank repaid at maturity $105.0 million in senior unsecured notes issued in March 2009 under the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLGP”) with an all-in cost of 3.75%.

 

In December 2011, $600 million in repurchase agreements, with an average cost of 4.23%, matured. The Company paid off $300 million of these repurchase agreements. The remaining balance of $300 million was renewed for an average period of approximately 3.5 years at an effective fixed rate of 2.36%. To further reduce its cost of borrowings, in May 2012, the Company renewed $350 million in repurchase agreements, with an average cost of 4.26%, at a new effective rate of approximately 1.90%.  During the second half of 2012, the Company terminated repurchase agreements amounting to $1.36 billion. Due to the repayment of the TLGP notes and the termination of the repurchase agreements, total borrowings decreased 28.6% to $2.487 billion at December 31, 2012, compared to $3.483 billion at December 31, 2011. This increase was partially offset by borrowings assumed as part of the BBVAPR Acquisition, which amounted to $315.1 million at December 31, 2012.

 

 

Stockholders’ Equity

 

Stockholders’ equity at December 31, 2012 was $863.6 million compared to $695.6 million at December 31, 2011, an increase of 24.2%. This increase is mainly due to the $160 million capital raise from the issuance of preferred stock and common stock during 2012 in connection with the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

Book value per share was $15.31 at December 31, 2012 compared to $15.28 at December 31, 2011.

 

The Company maintains capital ratios in excess of regulatory requirements. At December 31, 2012, Tier 1 Leverage Capital Ratio was 6.55% (1.64 times the requirement of 4.00%), Tier 1 Risk-Based Capital Ratio was 13.18% (3.29 times the requirement of 4.00%), and Total Risk-Based Capital Ratio was 15.40% (1.89 times the requirement of 8.00%).

 

Return on Average Assets and Common Equity

 

Return on average common equity (“ROE”) for 2012 was 2.29%, down from 4.50% for 2011.  The decrease in ROE is mainly due to the 27.8% decrease in net income combined with a 107.0% increase in dividends on preferred stock during 2012 when compared to 2011.  Return on average assets (“ROA”) for 2012 decreased to 0.37% from 0.48% for the same period in 2011, mainly due to the 27.8% decrease in net income during 2012 when compared to 2011.

 

Assets under Management

 

Assets managed by the Company’s trust division, the retirement plan administration subsidiary (CPC), and broker-dealer subsidiaries increased from $4.142 billion as of December 31, 2011 to $5.237 billion as of December 31, 2012. The trust division offers various types of individual retirement accounts (“IRA”) and manages 401(k) and Keogh retirement plans and custodian and corporate trust accounts, while CPC manages the administration of private retirement plans.  At December 31, 2012, total assets managed by the Company’s trust division and CPC increased to $2.514 billion, compared to $2.216 billion at December 31, 2011, mainly related to account contributions and capital market appreciation. At December 31, 2012, total assets managed by the Company’s broker-dealer subsidiaries from its customer investment accounts increased to $2.722 billion, compared to $1.926 billion at December 31, 2011, mainly because of the addition of $504.8 million in assets managed at December 31, 2012 by the broker-dealer subsidiary acquired as part of the BBVAPR Acquisition.

 

Lending

 

Total loan production of $460.8 million for 2012 increased 16.4% year over year. Total commercial loan production of $191.0 million for 2012 increased 36.7% from the year ago.

 

The Company sells most of its conforming mortgages in the secondary market and retains servicing rights. As a result, mortgage banking activities reflect originations as well as a growing servicing portfolio which is a source of recurring revenue.

 

Mortgage loan production and purchases of $202.7 million for 2012 decreased 4.7% from 2011.  Auto and consumer loans production for 2012 totalled $67.1 million, up 54.6% from 2011.

 

Credit Quality on Non-Covered Loans

 

Net credit losses increased $1.3 million to $10.9 million in 2012, representing 0.89% of average non-covered loans originated, versus 0.82% in 2011.  Our allowance coverage however, remained stable compared to prior year.  The allowance for loan and lease losses on non-covered loans increased to $39.9 million (3.17% of total non-covered originated loans) at December 31, 2012 compared to $37.0 million (3.12% of total non-covered loans) at December 31, 2011.

 

Non-performing loans (“NPLs”), which excludes loans covered under shared-loss agreements with the FDIC and loans acquired from BBVAPR Acquisition accounted under ASC 310-30, remained stable in 2012 compared to 2011.  The Company does not expect NPLs to result in significantly higher losses as most are well-collateralized with adequate loan-to-value ratios.