CATHAY GENERAL BANCORP

The table below sets forth the names, ages, and positions at the Bancorp and the Bank of all executive officers of the Company as of February 15, 2024.

Available Information

We invite you to visit our website at www.cathaygeneralbancorp.com, to access free of charge the Bancorp's Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports, all of which are made available as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with or furnish it to the SEC. The content of our website is not incorporated into and is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, to obtain a free copy of any of those reports, you can write to us at Cathay General Bancorp, 9650 Flair Drive, El Monte, California 91731, Attn: Investor Relations. The SEC also maintains a website at http://www.sec.gov that contains the reports, proxy and information statements and other information we file with or furnish to them.

Regulation and Supervision

The Bancorp and its bank and non-bank subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state statutes and regulations that, among other things, may affect our cost of doing business and financial performance, limit permissible activities and expansion or impact the competitive balance between us and other financial services providers. These statutes and regulations are intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, and secondarily for the stability of the U.S. banking system and are not intended for the benefit of stockholders of financial institutions.

The following discussion of certain statutes and regulations to which the Bancorp and the Bank are subject is a summary and does not purport to be complete nor does it address all applicable statutes and regulations. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full statutes and regulations.

Bank Holding Company and Bank Regulation

The Bancorp is a bank holding company within the meaning of the Bank Holding Company Act and is registered as such with the Federal Reserve. The Bancorp is also a bank holding company within the meaning of Section 3700 of the California Financial Code. Therefore, the Bancorp and any of its subsidiaries are subject to examination by, and may be required to file reports with, the DFPI. DFPI approvals are also required for bank holding companies to acquire control of banks. As a California commercial bank, the deposits of which are insured by the FDIC, the Bank is subject to regulation, supervision, and regular examination by the DFPI and by the FDIC, as the Bank’s primary federal regulator, and must additionally comply with certain applicable regulations of the Federal Reserve.

The wide range of requirements and restrictions contained in federal and state banking laws include:

Specific federal and state laws and regulations which are applicable to banks regulate, among other things, the scope of their business, their investments, their reserves against deposits, the timing of the availability of deposited funds, their activities relating to dividends, the nature and amount of and collateral for certain loans, servicing and foreclosing on loans, borrowings, capital requirements, certain check-clearing activities, branching, and mergers and acquisitions. California banks are also subject to statutes and regulations including Federal Reserve Regulation O and Federal Reserve Act Sections 23A and 23B and Regulation W, which restrict or limit loans or extensions of credit to “insiders,” including officers, directors, and principal shareholders, and affiliates, and purchases of assets from affiliates, including parent bank holding companies, except pursuant to certain exceptions and only on terms and conditions at least as favorable to those prevailing for comparable transactions with unaffiliated parties. The Dodd-Frank Act expanded definitions and restrictions on transactions with affiliates and insiders under Sections 23A and 23B, and also lending limits for derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending, and borrowing transactions.

The Bank operates branches and/or loan production offices in California, New York, Washington, Illinois, Texas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New Jersey. While the DFPI remains the Bank’s primary state regulator, the Bank’s operations in these jurisdictions are subject to examination and supervision by local bank regulators, and transactions with clients in those jurisdictions are subject to local laws, including consumer protection laws. The Bank also operates a branch in Hong Kong and a representative office in Beijing, Shanghai, and Taipei. The operations of these foreign offices and branches (and limits on the scope of their activities) are subject to local law and regulatory authorities in addition to regulation and supervision by the DFPI and the Federal Reserve.

The Dodd-Frank Act and the Growth Act

The Dodd-Frank Act financial reform legislation, adopted in July 2010, significantly revised and expanded the rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority of the federal bank regulatory agencies by implementing the following changes, among others:

On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Growth Act”) was signed into law. Among other relief, the Growth Act:

On October 15, 2019, the FDIC adopted a final rule that revised the FDIC’s requirements for stress testing by FDIC supervised institutions, such as the Bank, to conform with the Growth Act by raising the minimum threshold for applicability from $10.0 billion to $250.0 billion. The final rule became effective on November 25, 2019. Notwithstanding these amendments to the stress testing requirements, the federal banking agencies indicated through interagency guidance that the capital planning and risk management practices of institutions with total assets less than $100.0 billion would continue to be reviewed through the regular supervisory process.

Notwithstanding the regulatory relief provided for mid-size financial institutions such as the Company that has resulted from the Growth Act, many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations remain in place and will continue to result in additional operating and compliance costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operation. In addition to the Growth Act, various pending bills in Congress may offer some regulatory relief for mid-sized banking organizations of our size. We are uncertain about the scope, nature and timing of any regulatory relief, and its effect on us.

Capital Adequacy Requirements

Bank holding companies and banks are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by state and federal banking agencies. Capital adequacy guidelines and, additionally for banks, prompt corrective action regulations (see “Prompt Corrective Action Provisions” below), involve quantitative measures of assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Capital amounts and classifications are also subject to qualitative judgments by regulators about components, risk weighting, and other factors. The risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and banks require capital ratios that vary based on the perceived degree of risk associated with a banking organization’s operations for both transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets, such as loans, and those recorded as off-balance sheet items, such as commitments, letters of credit and recourse arrangements. The risk-based capital ratio is determined by classifying assets and certain off-balance sheet financial instruments into weighted categories, with higher levels of capital being required for those categories perceived as representing greater risks and dividing its qualifying capital by its total risk-adjusted assets and off-balance sheet items. Bank holding companies and banks engaged in significant trading activity may also be subject to the market risk capital guidelines and be required to incorporate additional market and interest rate risk components into their risk-based capital standards.

The federal bank regulatory agencies adopted final regulations in July 2013, which revised their risk-based and leverage capital requirements for banking organizations to meet requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act and to implement Basel III international agreements reached by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.

The following are among the requirements under the Basel III Capital Rules that became effective on January 1, 2015:

Under the Basel III Capital Rules, after taking into account the capital conservation buffer, the Bancorp and the Bank must maintain the following minimum ratios: (i) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4.0%, (ii) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.5%, plus the capital conservation buffer, effectively resulting in a minimum common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 7.0%, (iii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer, effectively resulting in a minimum common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.5%, and (iv) a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer, effectively resulting in a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of 10.5%. To be considered “well capitalized,” a bank holding company or bank must have the following minimum ratios: (i) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5.0%, (ii) a common equity Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.5%, (iii) a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 8.0%, and (iv) a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0%.

Failure to meet statutorily mandated capital guidelines or more restrictive ratios separately established for a financial institution could subject a bank or bank holding company to a variety of enforcement remedies, including issuance of a capital directive, the termination of deposit insurance by the FDIC, a prohibition on accepting or renewing brokered deposits, limitations on the rates of interest that the institution may pay on its deposits and other restrictions on its business. Significant additional restrictions can be imposed on FDIC-insured depository institutions that fail to meet applicable capital requirements under the regulatory agencies’ prompt corrective action authority.

At December 31, 2023, (i) the Bancorp’s and the Bank’s common equity Tier 1 capital ratios were 12.84% and 13.23%, respectively; (ii) their total risk-based capital ratios were 14.31% and 14.09% respectively; (iii) their Tier 1 risk-based capital ratios were, 12.84% and 13.23% respectively; and (iv) their leverage capital ratios were, respectively, 10.55% and 10.87% respectively all of which exceeded the minimum percentage requirements to be deemed “well-capitalized” for regulatory purposes.

Bank regulators may also continue their past policies of expecting banks to maintain additional capital beyond the requirements of the Basel III Capital Rules. The federal banking agencies may also require banks and bank holding companies subject to enforcement actions to maintain capital ratios in excess of the minimum ratios otherwise required to be deemed “well-capitalized. The implementation of the Basel III Capital Rules or more stringent requirements to maintain higher levels of capital or to maintain higher levels of liquid assets could adversely impact the Bancorp’s net income and return on equity, restrict the ability of the Bank and/or the Bancorp to pay dividends or executive bonuses and require the raising of additional capital.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published “Basel IV” standards to finalize the Basel III regulatory reforms. According to the Basel Committee, Basel IV is intended to, among other things, reduce variability in risk weighted assets by implementing a standardized approach for operation risk and credit risk to replace model-based approaches for certain categories of risk weighted assets, and by reducing the scope of model-based parameters and implementing exposure-level parameter floors where model-based approaches remain available. Under the Basel framework, these standards were effective on January 1, 2023, with an aggregate output floor phasing in through January 1, 2028. The impact of Basel IV on us will depend on the manner in which it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

Prompt Corrective Action Provisions

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDI Act”) requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards, including requiring the prompt submission of an acceptable capital restoration plan. Depending on the bank’s capital ratios, the agencies’ regulations define five categories in which an insured depository institution will be placed: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. At each successive lower capital category, an insured bank is subject to more restrictions, including restrictions on the bank's activities, operational practices or the ability to pay dividends. Based upon its capital levels, a bank that is classified as well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, or undercapitalized may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if the appropriate federal banking agency, after notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that an unsafe or unsound condition, or an unsafe or unsound practice, warrants such treatment. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying the prompt corrective action regulations and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

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

As of December 31, 2023, the Bancorp and the Bank met all requirements to be considered well-capitalized under the Basel III Capital Rules.

Volcker Rule

In December 2013, the federal bank regulatory agencies adopted final rules that implement a part of the Dodd-Frank Act commonly referred to as the “Volcker Rule.” In the fall of 2019, the federal banking regulatory agencies adopted revised rules to simplify and tailor the Volcker Rules. The revised rules became effective on January 1, 2020, with a compliance date of January 1, 2021. The revised rules continue to restrict banking entities subject to the Volcker Rule, including the Bancorp and the Bank and its subsidiaries, from engaging in activities that are considered proprietary trading and from sponsoring or investing in certain entities, including hedge or private equity funds that are considered “covered funds,” subject to certain exceptions. The revised rules provide regulatory relief by tailoring application of the Volcker Rule based on the level of trading assets and liabilities, simplifying certain standards and requirements, and reducing compliance burden. Effective October 1, 2020, the amendments to the Volcker Rule modified the provisions for certain existing covered fund exclusions, including loan securitizations and public welfare and small business funds, and added certain additional covered fund exclusions, including credit funds and venture capital funds. In June 2020, the federal agencies adopted new regulations that exempted venture capital funds from the definition of “covered funds” under the Volcker Rule, so the Bancorp’s remaining venture capital funds can be held indefinitely.

We believe that the Volcker Rule will not require any material changes in our operations or business or security holdings.

CFPB Actions

The Dodd-Frank Act provided for the creation of the CFPB as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve with broad rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. The CFPB’s functions include investigating consumer complaints, conducting market research, rulemaking, supervising and examining bank consumer transactions, and enforcing rules related to consumer financial products and services. CFPB regulations and guidance apply to all financial institutions and banks with $10.0 billion or more in assets, which are also subject to examination by the CFPB. As the Bank has more than $10.0 billion in assets, it is examined for compliance with CFPB regulation by the CFPB in addition to examinations of the Bank by the FDIC and the DFPI.

The CFPB has enforcement authority over unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices (“UDAAP”). UDAAP is considered one of the most far reaching new enforcement tools at the disposal of the CFPB and covers all consumer and small business financial products or services such as deposit and lending products or services such as overdraft programs and third-party payroll card vendors. It is a wide-ranging regulatory net that potentially picks up the gaps not included in other consumer laws, rules and regulations. Violations of UDAAP can be found in many areas and can include advertising and marketing materials, the order of processing and paying items in a checking account or the design of client overdraft programs. The scope of coverage includes not only direct interactions with clients and prospects but also actions by third-party service providers. The Dodd-Frank Act does not prevent states from adopting stricter consumer protection standards. State regulation of financial products and potential enforcement actions could also adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

Additionally, in 2014, the CFPB adopted revisions to Regulation Z, which implement the Truth in Lending Act, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, and apply to all consumer mortgages (except home equity lines of credit, timeshare plans, reverse mortgages, or temporary loans). The revisions mandate specific underwriting criteria for home loans in order for creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's ability to repay and establish certain protections from liability under this requirement for “qualified mortgages” meeting certain standards. In particular, it will prevent banks from making “no doc” and “low doc” home loans, as the rules require that banks determine a consumer’s ability to pay based in part on verified and documented information. We do originate certain “low doc” loans that meet specific underwriting criteria. Given the small volume of such loans, we do not believe that this regulation will have a significant impact on our operations.

Risk Committee Framework

Pursuant to Federal Reserve Board regulations promulgated under authority of the Dodd-Frank Act, as originally adopted, as a publicly traded bank holding company with $10.0 billion in assets, we were required and have established and maintained a risk committee responsible for enterprise-wide risk management practices, comprised of an independent chairman and at least one risk management expert. We expect to maintain our risk committee, although we are no longer required to have a risk committee under the Growth Act unless and until we reach $50.0 billion in assets. The risk committee approves and periodically reviews the risk-management policies of the Bancorp’s global operations and oversees the operations of its risk-management framework. The bank holding company’s risk-management framework must be commensurate with its structure, risk profile, complexity, activities and size. At a minimum, the framework must include policies and procedures establishing risk-management governance and providing for adequate risk-control infrastructure for the bank holding company’s operations. In addition, the framework must include processes and systems to monitor compliance with the foregoing policies and procedures, including processes and systems designed to identify and report risk-management risks and deficiencies; ensure effective implementation of actions to address emerging risks and risk-management deficiencies; designate managerial and staff responsibility for risk management; ensure the independence of the risk-management function; and integrate risk-management and associated controls with management goals and the management compensation structure.

Interchange Fees

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

Interchange fees, or “swipe” fees, are charges that merchants pay to us and other card-issuing banks for processing electronic payment transactions. Under the final rules, the maximum permissible interchange fee is equal to no more than 21 cents plus 5 basis points of the transaction value for many types of debit interchange transactions. The Federal Reserve also adopted a rule to allow a debit card issuer to recover 1 cent per transaction for fraud prevention purposes if the issuer complies with certain fraud-related requirements required by the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve also has rules governing routing and exclusivity that require issuers to offer two unaffiliated networks for routing transactions on each debit or prepaid product.

Anti-Money Laundering and OFAC Regulations

A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing through AML and OFAC regulations. AML laws and regulations, including the Bank Secrecy Act and the U.S.A. Patriot Act, require us to assist U.S. government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and other illegal acts by maintaining policies, procedures and controls designed to detect and report money laundering, terrorist financing, and other suspicious activity. The AML program must include, at a minimum, a designated compliance officer, written policies, procedures and internal controls, training of appropriate personnel and independent testing of the program, and a client identification program.

OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries and regimes, under authority of various laws, including designated foreign countries, nationals and others. OFAC publishes lists of specially designated targets and countries. We and our bank are responsible for, among other things, blocking accounts of, and transactions with, such targets and countries, prohibiting unlicensed trade and financial transactions with them and reporting blocked transactions after their occurrence.

Regulatory authorities routinely examine financial institutions for compliance with these obligations, and any failure by us to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.

Additional Restrictions on Bancorp and Bank Activities

Subject to prior notice or Federal Reserve approval, bank holding companies may generally engage in, or acquire shares of companies engaged in, activities determined by the Federal Reserve to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. Bank holding companies which elect and retain “financial holding company” status pursuant to the GLB Act may engage in these nonbanking activities and broader securities, insurance, merchant banking and other activities that are determined to be “financial in nature” or are incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature without prior Federal Reserve approval. Pursuant to the GLB Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, in order to elect and retain financial holding company status, a bank holding company and all depository institution subsidiaries of a bank holding company must be well capitalized and well managed, and, except in limited circumstances, depository subsidiaries must be in satisfactory compliance with the CRA. Failure to sustain compliance with these requirements or correct any non-compliance within a fixed time period could lead to divestiture of subsidiary banks or require all activities to conform to those permissible for a bank holding company. The Bancorp has not elected financial holding company status and does not believe it has engaged in any activities determined by the Federal Reserve to be financial in nature or incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature, which would, in the absence of financial holding company status, require notice or Federal Reserve approval.

Pursuant to the FDI Act and the California Financial Code, California state chartered commercial banks may generally engage in any activity permissible for national banks. Therefore, the Bank may form subsidiaries to engage in the many so-called “closely related to banking” or “nonbanking” activities commonly conducted by national banks in operating subsidiaries or subsidiaries of bank holding companies. Further, pursuant to the GLB Act, California banks may conduct certain “financial” activities in a subsidiary to the same extent as a national bank, provided the bank is and remains “well-capitalized,” “well-managed” and in satisfactory compliance with the CRA. The Bank currently has no financial subsidiaries.

Source of Strength

Federal Reserve policy and federal law require bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. Under this requirement, Bancorp is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when Bancorp may not be in a financial position to provide such resources, and it may not be in Bancorp’s, or Bancorp’s stockholders’ or creditors’, best interests to do so. In addition, any capital loans Bancorp makes to the Bank are subordinate in right of payment to depositors and to certain other indebtedness of the Bank. In the event of Bancorp’s bankruptcy, any commitment by Bancorp to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of the Bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Enforcement Authority

The federal and California regulatory structure gives the bank regulatory agencies extensive discretion in connection with their supervisory and enforcement activities and examination policies, including policies with respect to the classification of assets and the establishment of adequate loan loss reserves for regulatory purposes. The regulatory agencies have adopted guidelines to assist in identifying and addressing potential safety and soundness concerns before an institution’s capital becomes impaired. The guidelines establish operational and managerial standards generally relating to: (i) internal controls, information systems, and internal audit systems; (ii) loan documentation; (iii) credit underwriting; (iv) interest-rate exposure; (v) asset growth and asset quality; (vi) loan concentration; and (vii) compensation, fees, and benefits. Further, the regulatory agencies have adopted safety and soundness guidelines for asset quality and for evaluating and monitoring earnings to ensure that earnings are sufficient for the maintenance of adequate capital and reserves.

The federal and California regulatory structure subjects the Bancorp and the Bank to regular examination by their respective regulatory agencies, which results in examination reports and ratings that, although not publicly available, can affect the conduct and growth of our businesses. These examinations consider not only compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but also capital levels, asset quality and risk, management ability and performance, earnings, liquidity, and various other factors. If, as a result of an examination, the DFPI or the FDIC should determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, or other aspects of the Bank’s operations are unsatisfactory or that the Bank or its management is violating or has violated any law or regulation, the DFPI and the FDIC have residual authority to:

The Federal Reserve has similar enforcement authority over bank holding companies and commonly takes parallel action in conjunction with actions taken by a subsidiary bank’s regulators.

In the exercise of their supervisory and examination authority, the regulatory agencies have recently emphasized corporate governance, stress testing, enterprise risk management and other board responsibilities; anti-money laundering compliance and enhanced high-risk client due diligence; vendor management; cyber security and fair lending and other consumer compliance obligations.

Deposit Insurance

The FDIC is an independent federal agency that insures deposits, up to prescribed statutory limits, of federally insured banks and savings institutions and safeguards the safety and soundness of the banking and savings industries. The FDIC insures our client deposits through the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) up to prescribed limits of $250 thousand for each depositor pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. The amount of FDIC assessments paid by each DIF member institution is based on its relative risk of default as measured by regulatory capital ratios and other supervisory factors. As an institution with $10.0 billion or more in assets, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss-severity score to calculate an initial assessment rate for the Bank. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses the Bank’s capital level and regulatory supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess the Bank’s ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations. In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has established 2.0% as the designated reserve ratio (DRR), that is, the ratio of the DIF to insured deposits. The FDIC adopted a plan under which it met the statutory minimum DRR of 1.35% (formerly 1.15%) before September 30, 2020, the deadline imposed by the Dodd-Frank Act. According to the FDIC, the DRR reached 1.36% of total deposits as of September 30, 2018.

We are generally unable to control the amount of assessments that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures or if the FDIC otherwise determines, we may be required to pay even higher FDIC assessments than the recently increased levels. These increases in FDIC insurance assessments may have a material and adverse effect on our earnings and could have a material adverse effect on the value of, or market for, our common stock.

Under the FDI Act, the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

In 2023, the FDIC Board of Directors approved a final rule to implement a special assessment to recover the loss to the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) associated with protecting uninsured depositors following the closures of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act) requires the FDIC to take this action in connection with the systemic risk determination announced on March 12, 2023. See further discussion under Operation Risks.

Dividends

Holders of the Bancorp’s common stock are entitled to receive dividends as and when declared by the board of directors out of funds legally available therefore under the laws of the State of Delaware. Delaware corporations such as the Bancorp may make distributions to their stockholders out of their surplus, or in case there is no surplus, out of their net profits for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared and/or the preceding fiscal year. However, dividends may not be paid out of a corporation’s net profits if, after the payment of the dividend, the corporation’s capital would be less than the capital represented by the issued and outstanding stock of all classes having a preference upon the distribution of assets.

It is the Federal Reserve’s policy that bank holding companies should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. It is also the Federal Reserve’s policy that bank holding companies should not maintain dividend levels that undermine their ability to be a source of strength to their banking subsidiaries. The Federal Reserve also discourages dividend policy payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

The terms of our Junior Subordinated Notes also limit our ability to pay dividends on our common stock. If we are not current on our payment of interest on our Junior Subordinated Notes, we may not pay dividends on our common stock. The amount of future dividends by the Bancorp will depend on our earnings, financial condition, capital requirements and other factors, and will be determined by our board of directors in accordance with the capital management and dividend policy.

The Bank is a legal entity that is separate and distinct from its holding company. The Bancorp is dependent on the performance of the Bank for funds which may be received as dividends from the Bank for use in the operation of the Bancorp and the ability of the Bancorp to pay dividends to stockholders. Future cash dividends by the Bank will also depend upon management’s assessment of future capital requirements, contractual restrictions, and other factors. The Basel III Capital Rules restrict dividends by the Bank if the capital conservation buffer is not achieved.

The power of the board of directors of the Bank to declare cash dividends to the Bancorp is subject to California law, which restricts the amount available for cash dividends to the lesser of a bank’s retained earnings or net income for its last three fiscal years (less any distributions to stockholders made during such period). Where the above test is not met, cash dividends may still be paid, with the prior approval of the DFPI, in an amount not exceeding the greatest of (i) retained earnings of the Bank; (ii) the net income of the Bank for its last fiscal year; or (iii) the net income of the Bank for its current fiscal year. Future cash dividends by the Bank will also depend upon management’s assessment of future capital requirements, contractual restrictions, and other factors.

Operations, Consumer and Privacy Compliance Laws

The Bank must comply with numerous federal and state anti-money laundering and consumer protection statutes and implementing regulations, including the USA Patriot Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, the CRA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the National Flood Insurance Act, the California Homeowner Bill of Rights and various federal and state privacy protection laws. The Bank and the Company are also subject to federal and state laws prohibiting unfair or fraudulent business practices, untrue or misleading advertising, and unfair competition. Some of these laws are further discussed below:

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) generally prohibits discrimination in any credit transaction, whether for consumer or business purposes, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, receipt of income from public assistance programs, or good faith exercise of any rights under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.

The Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) is designed to ensure that credit terms are disclosed in a meaningful way so that consumers may compare credit terms more readily and knowledgeably. As a result of the TILA, all creditors must use the same credit terminology to express rates and payments, including the annual percentage rate, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total of payments and the payment schedule, among other things.

The Fair Housing Act (“FH Act”) regulates many practices, including making it unlawful for any lender to discriminate in its housing-related lending activities against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or familial status. A number of lending practices have been found by the courts to be, or may be considered, illegal under the FH Act, including some that are not specifically mentioned in the FH Act itself.

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”) grew out of public concern over credit shortages in certain urban neighborhoods and provides public information that will help show whether financial institutions are serving the housing credit needs of the neighborhoods and communities in which they are located. The HMDA also includes a “fair lending” aspect that requires the collection and disclosure of data about applicant and borrower characteristics as a way of identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.

Finally, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) requires lenders to provide borrowers with disclosures regarding the nature and cost of real estate settlements. Also, RESPA prohibits certain abusive practices, such as kickbacks, and places limitations on the amount of escrow accounts. Penalties under the above laws may include fines, reimbursements and other civil money penalties.

Due to heightened regulatory concern related to compliance with the CRA, TILA, FH Act, ECOA, HMDA and RESPA generally, the Bank may incur additional compliance costs or be required to expend additional funds for investments in its local community.

The Federal Reserve and other bank regulatory agencies also have adopted guidelines for safeguarding confidential, personal client information. These guidelines require financial institutions to create, implement and maintain a comprehensive written information security program designed to ensure the security and confidentiality of client information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such information and protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any client. Financial institutions are also required to implement policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of nonpublic personal information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties. In general, financial institutions must provide explanations to consumers on policies and procedures regarding the disclosure of such nonpublic personal information and, except as otherwise required by law, prohibits disclosing such information. The Bank has adopted a client information security and privacy program to comply with such requirements.

Operations, consumer and privacy compliance laws and regulations also mandate certain disclosure and reporting requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with clients when taking deposits, making loans, collecting loans, and providing other services. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations can subject the Bank to lawsuits and penalties, including enforcement actions, injunctions, fines or criminal penalties, punitive damages to consumers, and the loss of certain contractual rights.

In addition, privacy and data protection are areas of increasing state legislative focus, and several states have recently enacted consumer privacy laws that impose compliance obligations with respect to personal information. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (the “CCPA”), which became effective on January 1, 2020, applies to for-profit businesses that conduct business in California and meet certain revenue or data collection thresholds. The CCPA gives consumers the right to request disclosure of information collected about them, and whether that information has been sold or shared with others, the right to request deletion of personal information (subject to certain exceptions), the right to opt out of the sale of the consumer’s personal information, and the right not to be discriminated against for exercising these rights. The CCPA contains several exemptions, including for information that is collected, processed, sold or disclosed pursuant to the GLB Act. In November 2020, California voters approved the California Privacy Rights Act (“CPRA”), a ballot measure that amends and supplements the CCPA by creating the California Privacy Protection Agency, a watchdog privacy agency to be appointed shortly after the CPRA’s enactment. The CPRA also modifies the CCPA by expanding both the scope of businesses covered by the law and certain rights relating to personal information and its use, collection, and disclosure by covered businesses.

In May 2018, the European Union ("EU") adopted a comprehensive general data privacy regulation ("GDPR") that, among other things, implements greater review of data processing activities and higher fines and sanctions for non-compliance with data protection legislation. The GDPR also extends the territory of EU privacy rules to non-EU organizations that offer goods or services to or monitor EU citizen behaviors and sets forth compliance obligations and penalties for non-compliance. We believe the applicability of the GDPR to us is minimal since we do not offer good or services to EU residents or monitor their behaviors. Other foreign, federal, state or local governments, including in states and countries which we do business, may try to implement similar or other privacy legislation, which, among other effects, could result in different privacy standards for different geographical regions, restrict our ability to do business and increase our costs of doing business.

Environmental Regulations

In the course of the Bank’s business, the Bank may foreclose and take title to real estate and could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to these properties. The Bank may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination or may be required to investigate or clear up hazardous or toxic substances, or chemical releases at a property. In some cases, environmental laws ascribe liability without respect to contribution to the contamination in question or the lawfulness of disposal at the time it occurred. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition to existing regulations, federal and state-level regulation regarding certain environmental and social disclosures are emerging and compliance with future regulation will likely increase our compliance-related costs. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for a further discussion of risks related to regulations and liabilities.

Federal Home Loan Bank System

The Bank is a member of the FHLB of San Francisco. Among other benefits, each FHLB serves as a reserve or central bank for its members within its assigned region. Each FHLB is financed primarily from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB system. Each FHLB makes available loans or advances to its members in compliance with the policies and procedures established by the board of directors of the individual FHLB. Each member of the FHLB of San Francisco is required to own stock in an amount equal to the greater of (i) a membership stock requirement with an initial cap of $15.0 million (100% of “membership asset value” as defined), or (ii) an activity based stock requirement (based on a percentage of outstanding advances). There can be no assurance that the FHLB will pay dividends at the same rate it has paid in the past, or that it will pay any dividends in the future.

Impact of Monetary Policies

The earnings and growth of the Bank are largely dependent on its ability to maintain a favorable differential or spread between the yield on its interest-earning assets and the rates paid on its deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities. As a result, the Bank’s performance is influenced by general economic conditions, both domestic and foreign, the monetary and fiscal policies of the federal government, and the policies of the regulatory agencies. The Federal Reserve implements national monetary policies (with objectives such as seeking to curb inflation and combat recession) by its open-market operations in U.S. government securities, by adjusting the required level of reserves for financial institutions subject to its reserve requirements, and by varying the discount rate applicable to borrowings by banks from the Federal Reserve Banks. The actions of the Federal Reserve in these areas influence the growth of bank loans, investments and deposits, and also affect interest rates charged on loans and deposits. The nature and impact of any future changes in monetary policies cannot be predicted.

Securities and Corporate Governance

The Bancorp is subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, both as administered by the SEC. As a company listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, the Company is subject to NASDAQ listing standards for listed companies. The Bancorp is also subject to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, and other federal and state laws and regulations which address, among other matters, required executive certification of financial presentations, corporate governance requirements for board and its audit and compensation committees and their members, and disclosure of controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting, auditing and accounting, executive compensation, and enhanced and timely disclosure of corporate information. NASDAQ has also adopted corporate governance rules, which are intended to allow stockholders and investors to more easily and efficiently monitor the performance of companies and their directors. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, management and the Bancorp’s independent registered public accounting firm are required to assess the effectiveness of the Bancorp’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2023. These assessments are included in Part II — Item 9A — “Controls and Procedures.”

Federal Banking Agency Compensation Guidelines

Guidelines adopted by the federal banking agencies pursuant to the FDI Act prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. Federal banking agencies have also issued comprehensive guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting certain incentive-based payment arrangements. These regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The agencies proposed such regulations in April 2011, but the regulations have not been finalized. In April 2016, the agencies published a notice of proposed rulemaking further revising the incentive-based compensation standards originally proposed in 2011. Similar to the 2011 proposed rule, the 2016 proposed rule would prohibit financial institutions with at least $1.0 billion in consolidated assets from establishing or maintaining incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk by providing any executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder who is a covered person with excessive compensation, fees or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the covered institution. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such proposed compensation rules may be enacted.

The scope, content and application of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on incentive compensation continue to evolve. Depending upon the outcome of the rule making process, the application of any final compensation-related regulations to us could require us to revise our compensation strategy, increase our administrative costs and adversely affect our ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.

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

Audit Requirements

The Bank is required to have an annual independent audit, alone or as a part of the Bancorp’s audit, and to prepare all financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The Bank and the Bancorp are also each required to have an audit committee comprised entirely of independent directors. As required by NASDAQ, the Bancorp has certified that its audit committee has adopted formal written charters and meets the requisite number of directors, independence, and other qualification standards. As such, among other requirements, the Bancorp must maintain an audit committee that includes members with banking or related financial management expertise, has access to its own outside counsel, and does not include members who are large clients of the Bank. In addition, because the Bank has more than $3.0 billion in total assets, it is subject to the FDIC requirements for audit committees of large institutions.

Regulation of Non-Bank Subsidiaries

Non-bank subsidiaries are subject to additional or separate regulation and supervision by other state, federal and self-regulatory bodies. Additionally, any foreign-based subsidiaries would also be subject to foreign laws and regulations.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (“Tax Reform Act”) was signed into law. The Tax Reform Act included a number of provisions that impact us, including the following:

Pending Legislation and Future Initiatives

Certain pending legislation, and future initiatives that may be proposed or introduced before Congress, the California Legislature, and other governmental bodies, if enacted, may further alter the structure, regulation, and competitive relationship among financial institutions and may subject us to increased supervision and disclosure and reporting requirements. In addition, the various bank regulatory agencies often adopt new rules and regulations and policies to implement and enforce existing legislation. It cannot be predicted whether, or in what form, any such legislation or regulatory changes in policy may be enacted or the extent to which the business of the Bank would be affected thereby. The outcome of examinations, any litigation, or any investigations initiated by state or federal authorities also may result in necessary changes in our operations and increased compliance costs.