Bancorp, Inc.

te 1. Organization and Nature of Operations

The Bancorp, Inc. (the “Company”) is a Delaware corporation and a registered financial holding company. Its primary, wholly owned subsidiary is The Bancorp Bank, National Association (the “Bank”). The Bank is a nationally chartered commercial bank located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) insured institution. As a nationally chartered bank, its primary regulator is the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”). The Bank hastwo primary lines of business consisting of its national specialty finance segment and its fintech segment.

In the national specialty finance segment, the Bank makes the following types of loans: securities-backed lines of credit (“SBLOCs”), cash value of insurance-backed lines of credit (“IBLOCs”) and investment advisor financing; leases (direct lease financing); small business loans (“SBLs”), consisting primarily of Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans; and non-SBA commercial real estate bridge loans (“REBLs”). Consumer fintech lending is reflected in the fintech segment.

While the national specialty finance segment generates the majority of the Company’s revenues, the fintech segment also contributes significant revenues. In its fintech segment, the Company provides payment and deposit services nationally, which include prepaid and debit card accounts, affinity group banking, deposit accounts to investment advisors’ customers, card payments and other payment processing services. Fintech segment deposits fund the majority of the Company’s loans and securities and may produce lower costs than other funding sources. Most of the fintech segment’s revenues and deposits, and SBLOC and IBLOC loans, result from relationships with third parties which market such products. Concentrations of loans and deposits are based upon the cumulative account balances generated by those third parties. Similar concentrations result in revenues in prepaid, debit card and related fees. These concentrations may also be reflected in a lower cost of funds compared to other funding sources. The Company sweeps certain deposits off its balance sheet to other institutions through intermediaries. Such sweeps are utilized to optimize diversity within its funding structure by managing the percentage of individual client deposits to total deposits. The Company offers loans through credit sponsorship with third parties, in its fintech segment.

Certain reclassifications and updates have been made to the prior periods’ financial statements and notes to conform to the current period’s presentation.

The Company and the Bank are subject to regulation by certain state and federal agencies and, accordingly, they are examined periodically by those regulatory authorities. As a consequence of the extensive regulation of commercial banking activities, the Company’s and the Bank’s businesses are affected by state and federal legislation and regulations.

Note 2. Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

The financial statements of the Company, as of June 30, 2025 and for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, are unaudited. Certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) have been condensed or omitted in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). However, in the opinion of management, these interim financial statements include all necessary adjustments to fairly present the results of the interim periods presented. The unaudited interim consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 2024 (the “2024 Form 10-K, as amended”). The results of operations for the six-month period ended June 30, 2025 may not necessarily be indicative of the results of operations anticipated for the full year ending December 31, 2025.

There have been no significant changes as of June 30, 2025 from the Company’s significant accounting policies as described in the 2024 Form 10-K, as amended.

Note 3. Stock-based Compensation

The Company recognizes compensation expense for stock options and restricted stock units (“RSUs”) in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”)Accounting Standards Codification 718 Stock Compensation (“ASC 718”). The fair value of the option or RSU is generally measured at fair value at the grant date with compensation expense recognized over the service period, which is typically the stated vesting period. For option grants subject to a service condition, the Company utilizes the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of such options on the date of grant. The Black-Scholes model takes into consideration the exercise price and expected life of the options, the current price of the underlying stock and its expected volatility, the expected dividends on the stock and the current risk-free interest rate for the expected life of the option. The Company’s estimate of the fair value of a stock option is based on expectations derived from historical experience and may not necessarily equate to its market value when fully vested. In accordance with ASC 718, the Company estimates the number of options for which the requisite service is expected to be rendered. At June 30, 2025, the Company hadthree active stock-based compensation plans.

During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company granted 32,624 stock options with a vesting period offour years and a weighted average grant-date fair value of $30.65. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, the Company granted 45,616 stock options with a vesting period offour years and a weighted average grant-date fair value of $21.92. There wereno common stock options exercised in the six-month periods ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024.

A summary of the Company’s stock options is presented below.

The Company granted 358,348 RSUs in the first six months of 2025, of which 330,839 have a vesting period ofthree years and 27,509 have a vesting period ofone year. At issuance, the 358,348 RSUs granted in the first six months of 2025 had a weighted average fair value of $59.60 per unit. The Company granted 390,305 RSUs in the first six months of 2024, of which 355,965 have a vesting period ofthree years and 34,340 have a vesting period ofone year. At issuance, the 390,305 RSUs granted in the first six months of 2024 had a weighted average fair value of $42.87 per unit.

A summary of the Company’s RSUs is presented below.

As of June 30, 2025, there was a total of $30.9 million of unrecognized compensation cost related to unvested awards under stock-based compensation plans. This cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted average period of approximately 1.5 years. Related compensation expense for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024 was $5.2 million and $3.8 million, respectively. Related compensation expense for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024 was $9.8 million and $7.1 million, respectively. The total issuance date fair value of RSUs vested and options exercised during thesix months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, was $14.4 million and $10.3 million, respectively. The total intrinsic value of the options exercised and RSUs vested in those respective periods was $23.7 million and $14.6 million, respectively.

For thesix-month periods ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, the Company estimated the fair value of each stock option grant on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes options pricing model with the following weighted average assumptions:

Expected volatility is based on the historical volatility of the Company’s stock and peer group comparisons over the expected life of the option. The risk-free rate for periods within the expected life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury Separate Trading of Registered Interest and Principal of Securities (“STRIPS”) rate in effect at the time of the grant. The life of the option is based on historical factors which include the contractual term, vesting period, exercise behavior and employee terminations. In accordance with ASC 718, stock- based compensation expense for the period ended June 30, 2025 is based on awards that are ultimately expected to vest. As only one individual has outstanding options, the Company estimates outstanding lives utilizing acceptable expedients in lieu of forfeiture history.

Note 4. Earnings Per Share

The Company calculates earnings per share in accordance with ASC 260, Earnings Per Share. Basic earnings per share excludes dilution and is computed by dividing income available to common shareholders by the weighted average common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per share takes into account the potential dilution that could occur if securities, including stock options and RSUs or other contracts to issue common stock were exercised and converted into common stock. Stock options are dilutive if their exercise prices are less than the current stock price. RSUs are dilutive because they represent grants over vesting periods which do not require employees to pay exercise prices. The dilution shown in the tables below includes the potential dilution from both stock options and RSUs.

The following tables show the Company’s earnings per share for the periods presented:

Stock options for 622,677 shares, exercisable at prices between $6.87 and $35.17 per share, were outstanding at June 30, 2025, and included in the diluted earnings per share computation because their exercise price per share was less than the average market price for the three-month period ended June 30, 2025. Stock options for 78,240 shares were anti-dilutive and not included in the earnings per share calculation.

Stock options for 622,677 shares, exercisable at prices between $6.87 and $35.17 per share, were outstanding at June 30, 2025, and included in the diluted earnings per share computation because their exercise price per share was less than the average market price for the six-month period ended June 30, 2025. Stock options for 78,240 shares were anti-dilutive and not included in the earnings per share calculation.

Stock options for 465,104 shares, exercisable at prices between $6.87 and $18.81 per share, were outstanding at June 30, 2024, and included in the diluted earnings per share computation because their exercise price per share was less than the average market price for the three-month period ended June 30, 2024. Stock options for 203,189 shares were anti-dilutive and not included in the earnings per share calculation.

Stock options for 465,104 shares, exercisable at prices between $6.87 and $18.81 per share, were outstanding at June 30, 2024, and included in the diluted earnings per share computation because their exercise price per share was less than the average market price for the six-month period ended June 30, 2024. Stock options for 203,189 shares were anti-dilutive and not included in the earnings per share calculation.

Note 5. Investment Securities

Fair values of available-for-sale securities are based on the fair market values supplied by a third-party market data provider, or where such third-party market data is not available, fair values are based on discounted cash flows. The third-party market data provider uses a pricing matrix which it creates daily, taking into consideration actual trade data, projected prepayments, and when relevant, projected credit defaults and losses.

The amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and losses, and fair values of the Company’s investment securities classified as available-for-sale at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 are summarized as follows (dollars in thousands):

‎

Investments in Federal Home Loan Bank (“FHLB”) stock, Atlantic Central Bankers Bank (“ACBB”) stock, and Federal Reserve Bank stock are recorded at cost and amounted to $16.3 million at June 30, 2025, and $15.6 million at December 31, 2024. The amount of FHLB stock required to be held is based on the amount of borrowings, and after repayment thereof, the stock may be redeemed.

The amortized cost and fair value of the Company’s investment securities at June 30, 2025, by contractual maturity, are shown below (dollars in thousands). Expected maturities may differ from contractual maturities because borrowers have the right to call or prepay obligations with or without call or prepayment penalties.

The Company pledges loans to collateralize its line of credit with the FHLB, as described in “Note 6. Loans.” The Company hadno securities pledged at June 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024. There wereno gross realized gains on sales of securities for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024. There wereno realized losses on securities sales/calls for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024. There were no realized losses on securities sales/calls for the six months ended June 30, 2025. Realized losses on securities sales/calls were $2,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2024.

The table below indicates the length of time individual securities had been in a continuous unrealized loss position at June 30, 2025 (dollars in thousands):

(1) At June 30, 2025 there were 212 securities in a loss position.

The table below indicates the length of time individual securities had been in a continuous unrealized loss position at December 31, 2024 (dollars in thousands):

(1) At December 31, 2024 there were 267 securities in a loss position.

The Company has evaluated the securities in the above tables as of June 30, 2025 and has concluded that none of these securities required an allowance for credit loss (“ACL”).

The Company evaluates whether an ACL is required by considering primarily the following factors: (a) the extent to which the fair value is less than the amortized cost of the security, (b) changes in the financial condition, credit rating and near-term prospects of the issuer, (c) whether the issuer is current on contractually obligated interest and principal payments, (d) changes in the financial condition of the security’s underlying collateral and (e) the payment structure of the security. The Company’s determination of the best estimate of expected future cash flows, which is used to determine the credit loss amount, is a quantitative and qualitative process that incorporates information received from third-party sources along with internal assumptions and judgments regarding the future performance of the security. The Company concluded that the securities that are in an unrealized loss position are in a loss position because of changes in market interest rates after the securities were purchased. The severity of the impact of fair value in relation to the carrying amounts of the individual investments is consistent with market developments. The Company’s analysis of each investment is performed at the security level. The Company does not have the intent to sell these securities, and it is likely that it will not be required to sell the securities before their anticipated recovery.

Note 6. Loans

The Company has several lending lines of business including: SBLs, comprised primarily of SBA loans; direct lease financing primarily for commercial vehicles and to a lesser extent equipment; SBLOC collateralized by marketable securities; IBLOC collateralized by the cash value of eligible life insurance policies; and investment advisor financing for purposes of debt refinance, acquisition of another firm or internal succession. Prior to 2020, the Company also originated non-SBA commercial real estate bridge loans, primarily collateralized by multifamily properties (apartment buildings), and to a lesser extent, by hotel and retail properties, for sale into securitizations. At origination, the Company elected fair value treatment for these loans as they were originally held-for-sale, to better reflect the economics of the transactions. In 2020, the Company decided to retain these loans on its balance sheet as interest-earning assets and currently intends to continue doing so. Therefore, these loans are no longer accounted for as held-for-sale, but the Company continues to present them at fair value. At June 30, 2025, such loans comprised $108.7 million of the $185.5 million of commercial loans, at fair value, with the balance comprised of the guaranteed portion of certain SBA loans also previously held for sale. Theamortized cost of the $185.5 million commercial loans at fair valuewas $185.8 million. Included in net realized and unrealized gains (losses) on commercial loans, at fair value in the consolidated statements of operations are changes in the estimated fair value of such loans. For the six months ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024, there wereno related net unrealized losses or gains recognized for changes in fair value. In the third quarter of 2021, the Company resumed the origination of non-SBA commercial real estate bridge loans which it also intends to hold for investment and which are accounted for at amortized cost. They are captioned as REBLs as they are transitional commercial mortgage loans which are made to improve and rehabilitate existing properties which already have cash flow.

The Bank has pledged the majority of its loans held for investment at amortized cost and commercial loans at fair value to either the FHLB or the Federal Reserve Bank for lines of credit with those institutions. The FHLB and FRB lines are periodically utilized to manage liquidity. The amount of loans pledged varies and the collateral may be unpledged at any time to the extent the collateral exceeds advances. The lines maintained are consistent with the Bank’s liquidity policy which maximizes potential liquidity. At June 30, 2025, $2.54 billion of loans were pledged to the Federal Reserve Bank and $2.16 billion of loans were pledged to the FHLB against lines of credit which provide a source of liquidity to the Bank. There wereno amounts drawn against these lines at June 30, 2025.

Prior to 2020, the Company sponsored the structuring of commercial mortgage loan securitizations, and in 2020, the Company decided not to pursue additional securitizations. The loans previously sold to the commercial mortgage-backed securitizations were transitional commercial mortgage loans made to improve and rehabilitate existing properties which already had cash flow. Servicing rights were not retained. Each of the securitizations is considered a variable interest entity of which the Company is not the primary beneficiary. Further, true sale accounting has been applicable to each of the securitizations, as supported by a review performed by an independent third-party consultant. In each of the securitizations, the Company obtained a tranche of certificates which are accounted for as available-for-sale debt securities. The securities were recorded at fair value at acquisition, which was determined by an independent third-party based on the discounted cash flow method using unobservable (level 3) inputs.

The Company analyzes credit risk prior to making loans on an individual loan basis. The Company considers relevant aspects of the borrowers’ financial position and cash flow, past borrower performance, management’s knowledge of market conditions, collateral and the ratio of loan amounts to estimated collateral value in making its credit determinations. For SBLOC, the Company relies on the market value of the underlying securities collateral as adjusted by margin requirements, generally 50% for equities and 80% for investment grade securities. For IBLOC, the Company relies on the cash value of insurance policy collateral. Of the total $680.5 million of consumer fintech loans at June 30, 2025, $346.9 million consisted of secured credit card loans, with the balance consisting of other short-term extensions of credit. Consumers do not pay interest on the majority of consumer fintech loan balances, including secured credit card loans. The majority of the income on those loans is reflected in non-interest income under “Consumer credit fintech fees” and originate with the marketers and servicers for those loans. The secured credit card balances were collateralized with deposits at the Bank, with related income statement impact reflected both in a lower cost of funds and fee income. The lower cost of funds results from deposits required to be maintained to collateralize related card use. Related fee income is reflected in the “Consumer credit fintech fees” line of the income statement.

Major classifications of loans, excluding commercial loans at fair value, are as follows (dollars in thousands):

(1)SBLOC are collateralized by marketable securities, while IBLOC are collateralized by the cash surrender value of insurance policies. At June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, IBLOC loans amounted to $513.9 million and $548.1 million, respectively.

(2)At June 30, 2025, consumer fintech loans consisted of $346.9 million of secured credit card loans, with the balance comprised of other short-term extensions of credit.

(3)Includes demand deposit overdrafts reclassified as loan balances totaling $6.4 million and $1.2 million at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively. Estimated overdraft charge-offs and recoveries are reflected in the ACL and are immaterial. The June 30, 2025 balance included $122.5 million of warehouse financing related to loan sales to third party purchasers. Weighted average look through loan to values (“LTVs”) based on our most recent appraisals for the related mortgaged properties were less than 60% as-is and less than 55% as-stabilized.

(4)The SBLs held at fair value are comprised of the government guaranteed portion of 7(a) Program (as defined below) loans at the dates indicated.

The loanr eview department recommends non-accrual status for loans to the surveillance committee, in those situations where interest income appears to be uncollectible or a protracted delay in collection becomes evident. The surveillance committee further vets and approves the non-accrual status.

The following table summarizes non-accrual loans with and without an ACL as of the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

The Company had $66.1 million of other real estate owned (“OREO”) at June 30, 2025, and $62.0 million of OREO at December 31, 2024. The following table summarizes the Company’s non-accrual loans, loans past due 90 days or more, and OREO at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively:

(1)In the second quarter of 2025, a $26.9 million loan balance was transferred to non-accrual status. The loan is secured by an apartment building with an “as is” LTV of 75% and an “as stabilized” LTV of 65%, based on a December 2024 appraisal. On July 31, 2025, a purchase and sale agreement for the property was executed with a new counterparty possessing greater financial capacity and experience. The sale is expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, and a new loan is anticipated in connection with the transaction.

Interest which would have been earned on loans classified as non-accrual for the six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, was $1.1 million and $497,000, respectively. No income on non-accrual loans was recognized during the six months ended June 30, 2025. During the six months ended June 30, 2025,$1.2 million of REBL, $59,000 of direct leasing, $307,000 of SBL commercial real estate, and $137,000 of SBL non-real estate were reversed from interest income, which represented interest accrued on loans placed into non-accrual status during the period. During the six months ended June 30, 2024, $222,000 of REBL, $63,000 of direct leasing, $109,000 of SBL commercial real estate, and $33,000 of SBL non-real estate were reversed from interest income, which represented interest accrued on loans placed into non-accrual status during the period.

Loans which are experiencing financial stress are reviewed by the loan review department, which is independent of the lending lines. The review includes an analysis for a potential specific reserve allocation in the ACL. For REBLs, updated appraisals are generally obtained in conjunction with modifications.

During the three-month and year-to-date periods ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024, loans modified and related information are as follows (dollars in thousands):

(1)In the second quarter of 2025, a $26.9 million loan was transferred to non-accrual status. The related $26.9 million loan was modified twice in 2024. The loan is secured by an apartment building with an “as is” LTV of 75% and an “as stabilized” LTV of 65%, based on a December 2024 appraisal. On July 31, 2025, a purchase and sale agreement for the property was executed with a new counterparty possessing greater financial capacity and experience. The sale is expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, and a new loan is anticipated in connection with the transaction.

The following table shows an analysis of loans that were modified during the three-month and year-to-date periods ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024 presented by loan classification (dollars in thousands):

The following table describes the financial effect of the modifications made during the three-month and year-to-date periods ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024 (dollars in thousands):

There wereno loans that received a term extension modification which had a payment default during the period and were modified in the twelve months before default.

The Company hadno commitments to extend additional credit to loans classified as modified for the periods ended June 30, 2025 or December 31, 2024.

There were $1.3 million and $2.6 million of total loans classified as modified for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2024, respectively, withno specific reserves.

For the six months ended June 30, 2025, there were $9.1 million of total loans classified as modified with specific reserves of $168,000, while there were $67.0 million of total loans classified as modified for the six months ended June 30, 2024 with specific reserves of $7,000.

Management estimates the ACL quarterly and for most loan categories uses relevant available internal and external historical loan performance information to determine the quantitative component of the reserve and current economic conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts and other factors to determine the qualitative component of the reserve. Reserves on specific credit-deteriorated loans comprise the third and final component of the reserve. Historical credit loss experience provides the quantitative basis for the estimation of expected credit losses over the estimated remaining life of the loans. The qualitative component of the ACL is designed to be responsive to changes in portfolio credit quality and the impact of current and future economic conditions on loan performance, and is subjective. The review of the appropriateness of the ACL is performed by the Chief Credit Officer and presented to the Audit Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors for review. With the exception of SBLOC, IBLOC, and consumer fintech loans, which utilize probability of default/loss given default, and the other loan category, which uses discounted cash flow to determine a reserve, the quantitative components for remaining categories are determined by establishing reserves on loan pools with similar risk characteristics based on a lifetime loss-rate model, or vintage analysis, as described in the following paragraph. Loans that do not share risk characteristics are evaluated on an individual basis. If foreclosure is believed to be probable or repayment is expected from the sale of collateral, a reserve for deficiency is established within the ACL. Those reserves are estimated based on the difference between loan principal and the estimated fair value of the collateral, adjusted for estimated disposition costs.

Below are the portfolio segments used to pool loans with similar risk characteristics and align with the Company’s methodology for measuring expected credit losses. These pools have similar risk and collateral characteristics, and certain of these pools are broken down further in determining and applying the vintage loss estimates previously discussed. For instance, within the direct lease financing pool, government and public institution leases are considered separately. Additionally, the Company evaluates its loans under an internal loan risk rating system as a means of identifying problem loans. The special mention classification indicates weaknesses that may, if not cured, threaten the borrower’s future repayment ability. A substandard classification reflects an existing weakness indicating the possible inadequacy of net worth and other repayment sources. These classifications are used both by regulators and peers, as they have been correlated with an increased probability of credit losses. A summary of the Company’s primary portfolio pools and loans accordingly classified, by year of origination, at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 are as follows (dollars in thousands):

‎

(1) For the special mention and substandard real estate bridge loans, appraisals performed within the past twelve months reflect a respective weighted average “as is” LTV of 80% and a further estimated 72% “as stabilized” LTV.“As stabilized” LTVs represent additional potential collateral value as rehabilitation progresses, and units are re-leased at stabilized rental rates. The substandard real estate bridge loans shown in 2024 reflected loans to new borrowers with greater financial capacity, with their original financing in the 2021 and 2022 vintages.

(2)Included in Other loans are $7.4 million of SBA loans purchased for Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) purposes as of June 30, 2025. These loans are classified as SBL in the Company’s loan table, which classifies loans by type, as opposed to risk characteristics.

(1) For the special mention and substandard real estate bridge loans, recent appraisals reflect a respective weighted average “as is” LTV of 77% and a further estimated 68% “as stabilized” LTV.“As stabilized” LTVs represent additional potential collateral value as rehabilitation progresses, and units are re-leased at stabilized rental rates. The special mention and substandard real estate bridge loans shown in 2024 reflected loans to new borrowers with greater financial capacity, with their original financing in the 2021 and 2022 vintages.

(2)Included in Other loans are $8.6 million of SBA loans purchased for CRA purposes as of December 31, 2024. These loans are classified as SBL in the Company’s loan table, which classifies loans by type, as opposed to risk characteristics.

SBL. Substantially all SBLs consist of SBA loans. The Bank participates in loan programs established by the SBA, including the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program (the “7(a) Program”), the 504 Fixed Asset Financing Program (the “504 Program”), andthe discontinued PPP. The 7(a) Program is designed to help small business borrowers start or expand their businesses by providing partial guarantees of loans made by banks and non-bank lending institutions for specific business purposes, including long or short-term working capital; funds for the purchase of equipment, machinery, supplies and materials; funds for the purchase, construction or renovation of real estate; and funds to acquire, operate or expand an existing business or refinance existing debt, all under conditions established by the SBA. The 504 Program includes the financing of real estate and commercial mortgages. In 2020 and 2021, the Company also participated in the PPP, which provided short-term loans to small businesses. PPP loans are fully guaranteed by the U.S. government. This program was a specific response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the majority of these loans have been reimbursed by the U.S. government, with $15,000 remaining to be reimbursed as of June 30, 2025. The Company segments the SBL portfolio into four pools: non-real estate, commercial mortgage and construction to capture the risk characteristics of each pool, and the PPP loans discussed above. PPP loans are not included in the risk pools because they have inherently different risk characteristics due to the U.S. government guarantee. In the table above, the PPP loans are included in non-rated SBL non-real estate. The qualitative factors for SBL loans focus on pool loan performance, underlying collateral for collateral dependent loans and changes in economic conditions. Additionally, the construction segment adds a qualitative factor for general construction risk, such as construction delays resulting from labor shortages or availability/pricing of construction materials.

Direct lease financing. The Company provides lease financing for commercial and government vehicle fleets and, to a lesser extent, provides lease financing for other equipment. Leases are either open-end or closed-end. An open-end lease is one in which, at the end of the lease term, the lessee must pay the difference between the amount at which the Company sells the leased asset and the stated termination value. Termination value is a contractual value agreed to by the parties at the inception of a lease as to the value of the leased asset at the end of the lease term. A closed-end lease is one for which no such payment is due on lease termination. In a closed-end lease, the risk that the amount received on a sale of the leased asset will be less than the residual value is assumed by the Bank, as lessor. The qualitative factors for direct lease financing focus on underlying collateral for collateral dependent loans, portfolio loan performance, loan concentrations and changes in economic conditions.

SBLOC. SBLOC loans are made to individuals, trusts and entities and are secured by a pledge of marketable securities maintained in one or more accounts for which the Company obtains a securities account control agreement. The securities pledged may be either debt or equity securities or a combination thereof, but all such securities must be listed for trading on a national securities exchange or automated inter-dealer quotation system. SBLOCs are typically payable on demand. Maximum SBLOC line amounts are calculated by applying a standard “advance rate” calculation against the eligible security type depending on asset class: typically, up to 50% for equity securities and mutual fund securities and 80% for investment grade (Standard & Poor’s rating of BBB- or higher, or Moody’s rating of Baa3 or higher) municipal or corporate debt securities. Substantially all SBLOCs have full recourse to the borrower. The underlying securities collateral for SBLOC loans is monitored on a daily basis to confirm the composition of the client portfolio and its daily market value. The primary qualitative factor in the SBLOC analysis is the ratio of loans outstanding to market value. This factor has been maintained at low levels, which has remained appropriate as losses have not materialized despite the historic declines in the equity markets during 2020, during which there wereno losses. Significant losses have not been incurred since inception of this line of business. Additionally, the advance rates noted above were established to provide the Company with protection from declines in market conditions from the origination date of the lines of credit.

IBLOC. IBLOC loans are collateralized by the cash surrender value of eligible insurance policies. Should a loan default, the primary risks for IBLOCs are if the insurance company issuing the policy were to become insolvent, or if that company would fail to recognize the Bank’s assignment of policy proceeds. To mitigate these risks, insurance company ratings are periodically evaluated for compliance with Bank standards. Additionally, the Bank utilizes assignments of cash surrender value, which legal counsel has concluded are enforceable. Significant losses have not been incurred since inception of this line of business. The qualitative factors for IBLOC primarily focus on the concentration risk with insurance companies.

Investment advisor financing. The Bank originates loans to investment advisors for purposes of debt refinancing, acquisition of another firm or internal succession. Maximum loan amounts are subject to loan-to-value ratios of 70%, based on third-party business appraisals, but may be increased depending upon the debt service coverage ratio. Personal guarantees and blanket business liens are obtained asappropriate. Loan repayment is highly dependent on fee streams from advisor clientele. Accordingly, loss of fee-based investment advisory clients or negative market performance may reduce fees and pose a risk to these credits. As credit losses have not been experienced, the ACL is determined byqualitative factors. The qualitative factors for investment advisor financing focus on historical industry losses, changes in lending policies and procedures, portfolio performance and economic conditions.

Real estate bridge loans. Real estate bridge loans are transitional commercial mortgage loans which are made to improve and rehabilitate existing properties which already have cash flow, and which are collateralized by those properties. Prior to 2020, such loans were originated for securitization and loans which had been originated but not securitized continue to be accounted for at fair value in “Commercial loans, at fair value”, on the balance sheet. In 2021, originations resumed and are being held for investment in “Loans, net of deferred fees and costs”, on the balance sheet. The Bank has minimal exposure to non-multifamily commercial real estate such as office buildings, and instead has a portfolio largely comprised of rehabilitation bridge loans for apartment buildings. These loans generally have three-year terms withtwo one-year extensions to allow for the rehabilitation work to be completed and rentals stabilized for an extended period, before being refinanced at lower rates through U.S. Government Sponsored Entities or other lenders. The rehabilitation real estate lending portfolio consists primarily of workforce housing, which the Company considers to be working class apartments at more affordable rental rates. As charge-offs have generally not been experienced for multifamily (apartment building loans) which comprise the REBL portfolio, the ACL is determined by qualitative factors. Qualitative factors focus on historical industry losses, changes in classified loan balances, changes in economic conditions and underlying collateral and portfolio performance. In the third quarter of 2024, as a result of increased levels of loans classified as special mention or substandard, a new qualitative factor related to the level of such classified loans was added.

Consumer fintech loans. Consumer fintech loans consist of short-term extensions of credit including secured credit card loans made in conjunction with marketers and servicers. The majority of secured credit card balances are collateralized with deposits at the Bank, with related income statement impact reflected both in a lower cost of funds and fee income. The lower cost of funds results from balances required to be maintained to collateralize related card use. Fee income for consumer fintech loans is reflected in the “Consumer credit fintech fees” line of the income statement.

Other loans. Other loans include commercial and home equity lines of credit which the Company generally no longer offers. Qualitative factors focus on changes in the underlying collateral for collateral dependent loans, portfolio loan performance, loan concentrations and changes in economic conditions.

Expected credit losses are estimated over the estimated remaining lives of loans. The estimate excludes possible extensions, renewals and modifications unless either of the following applies: management has a reasonable expectation that a loan will be restructured, or the extension or renewal options are included in the borrower contract and are not unconditionally cancellable by us.

The Company does not measure an ACL on accrued interest receivable balances, because these balances are written off in a timely manner as a reduction to interest income when loans are placed on non-accrual status.

ACL on off-balance sheet credit exposures. The Company estimates expected credit losses over the contractual period in which the Company is exposed to credit risk via a contractual obligation to extend credit, unless that obligation is unconditionally cancellable by the Company. The ACL on such off-balance sheet credit exposures, also referred to as loan commitments, is adjusted through the provision for credit losses. The estimate considers the likelihood that funding will occur over the estimated life of the commitment. The amount of the ACL on such exposures as of June 30, 2025 and as of December 31, 2024 was $1.8 million and $2.0 million, respectively.

A detail of the changes in the ACL by loan category and summary of loans evaluated individually and collectively for credit deterioration is as follows (in thousands):

(1) Lending agreements related to consumer fintech loans resulted in the Company recording a $30.7 million provision for credit losses and a correlated amount in non-interest income resulting in no impact to net income.

A summary of the Company’s net charge-offs accordingly classified, by year of origination, at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 are as follows (dollars in thousands):

The Company didnot have loans acquired with deteriorated credit quality at either June 30, 2025 or December 31, 2024. In the first six months of 2025, the Company purchased $19.8 million of SBLs, none of which were credit deteriorated. Additionally, inthe first six months of 2025, the Company participated in SBLs with other institutions in the amount of $4.7 million.

The non-accrual loans in the following table are treated as collateral dependent to the extent they have resulted from borrower financial difficulty (and not from administrative delays or other mitigating factors) and are not brought current. For non-accrual loans, the Company establishes a reserve in the allowance for credit losses for deficiencies between estimated collateral and loan carrying values. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company did not have any significant changes to the extent to which collateral secures its collateral dependent loans due to general collateral deterioration or from other factors. SBL non-real estate are collateralized by business assets, which may include certain real estate. SBL commercial mortgage and construction are collateralized by real estate for small businesses, while real estate bridge lending is primarily collateralized by apartment buildings, or other commercial real estate. SBLOC is collateralized by marketable investment securities while IBLOC is collateralized by the cash value of life insurance. Advisor financing is collateralized by investment advisors’ business franchises. Direct lease financing is collateralized primarily by vehicles or equipment.

A detail of the Company’s delinquent loans by loan category is as follows (dollars in thousands):

(1)In the second quarter of 2025, a $26.9 million loan balance was transferred to non-accrual status. The loan is secured by an apartment building with an “as is” LTV of 75% and an “as stabilized” LTV of 65%, based on a December 2024 appraisal. On July 31, 2025, a purchase and sale agreement for the property was executed with a new counterparty possessing greater financial capacity and experience. The sale is expected to close in the third quarter of 2025, and a new loan is anticipated in connection with the transaction. The table above does not include an $11.2 million loan accounted for at fair value, and, as such, not reflected in delinquency tables. In third quarter 2024, the borrower notified the Company that he would no longer be making payments on the loan, which is collateralized by a vacant retail property. Based upon a July 2024 appraisal, the “as is” LTV is 84% and the “as stabilized” LTV is 62%. The borrower is attempting to sell the property as the source of repayment for the loan. However, there can be no assurance that any such sale will be consummated. Since 2021, real estate bridge lending originations have consisted of apartment buildings, while this loan was originated previously.

The scheduled maturities of the direct financing leases reconciled to the total lease receivables in the consolidated balance sheet, are as follows (dollars in thousands):

(1)Of the $217,357,000, $46,186,000 is not guaranteed by the lessee or other guarantors.

Note 7. Transactions with Affiliates

The Bank didnot maintain any deposits for various affiliated companies as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively.

The Bank has entered into lending transactions in the ordinary course of business with directors, executive officers, principal stockholders and affiliates of such persons. All loans were made on substantially the same terms, including interest rate and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable loans with persons not related to the lender. At June 30, 2025, these loans were current as to principal and interest payments and did not involve more than normal risk of collectability. Loans to these related parties amounted to $5.8 million at June 30, 2025 and $6.9 million at December 31, 2024.

Mr. Hersh Kozlov, a director of the Company, is a partner at Duane Morris LLP, an international law firm. The Company didnot pay Duane Morris LLP for legal services for the six months ended June 30, 2025. The Company paid Duane Morris LLP $4,800 for legal services for the six months ended June 30, 2024.

Note 8. Fair Value Measurements

ASC 825, Financial Instruments, requires disclosure of the estimated fair value of an entity’s assets and liabilities considered to be financial instruments. For the Company, as for most financial institutions, the majority of its assets and liabilities are considered to be financial instruments. However, many such instruments lack an available trading market as characterized by a willing buyer and willing seller engaging in an exchange transaction. Accordingly, estimated fair values are determined by the Company using the best available data and an estimation methodology it believes to be suitable for each category of financial instruments. Also, it is the Company’s general practice and intent to hold its financial instruments to maturity whether or not categorized as available-for-sale and not to engage in trading or sales activities although it has sold loans and securities in the past and may do so in the future. For fair value disclosure purposes, the Company utilized certain value measurement criteria required in accordance with ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (“ASC 820”), as discussed below. In addition, ASC 820 establishes a common definition for fair value to be applied to assets and liabilities. It clarifies that fair value is an exit price, representing the amount that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. It also establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosures concerning fair value measurements. ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to 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). Level 1 valuation is based on quoted market prices for identical assets or liabilities to which the Company has access at the measurement date. Level 2 valuation is based on other observable inputs for the asset or liability, either directly or indirectly. This includes quoted prices for similar assets in active or inactive markets, inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset or liability such as yield curves, volatilities, prepayment speeds, credit risks, default rates, or inputs that are derived principally from, or corroborated through, observable market data by market-corroborated reports. Level 3 valuation is based on “unobservable inputs” which the Company believes is the best information available in the circumstances. A financial instrument’s level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement.

Changes in the assumptions or methodologies used to estimate fair values may materially affect the estimated amounts. Also, there may not be reasonable comparability between institutions due to the wide range of permitted assumptions and methodologies in the absence of active markets. This lack of uniformity gives rise to a high degree of subjectivity in estimating financial instrument fair values.

Cash and cash equivalents, which are comprised of cash and due from banks and the Company’s balance at the Federal Reserve Bank, had recorded values of $340.3 million and $570.1 million as of June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, respectively, which approximated fair values.

The estimated Level 2 fair values of investment securities are based on quoted market prices, if available, or estimated independently by a third-party pricing service based upon their matrix pricing technique. Level 3 investment security fair values are based on the present valuing of cash flows, which discounts expected cash flows from principal and interest using yield to maturity, or yield to call as appropriate, at the measurement date. In the second quarter of 2025 and 2024, there wereno transfers between the three levels.

Federal Reserve, FHLB, and ACBB stock, are held as required by those respective institutions and are carried at cost. Each of these institutions require their members to hold stock as a condition of membership. While a fixed stock amount is required by each of these institutions, the FHLB stock requirement periodically increases or decreases with varying levels of borrowing activity.

Commercial loans held at fair value are comprised primarily of commercial real estate bridge loans and SBA loans which had been originated for sale or securitization in the secondary market, and which are now being held on the balance sheet. Commercial real estate bridge loans and SBA loans are valued using a discounted cash flow analysis based upon pricing for similar loans where market indications of the sales price of such loans are not available. SBA loans are valued on a pooled basis and commercial real estate bridge loans are valued individually.

Loans, net have an estimated fair value using the present value of future cash flows. The discount rate used in these calculations is the estimated current market rate adjusted for credit risk. Accrued interest receivable has a carrying value that approximates fair value.

Loan fair values are based on “unobservable inputs” that are based on available information. Level 3 fair values are based on the present value of cash flows by unit of measurement.

The credit enhancement asset has a carrying value that approximates fair value.

For OREO, market value is based upon appraisals of the underlying collateral by third-party appraisers, reduced by 7% to 10% for estimated selling costs.

The estimated fair values of demand deposits (comprised of interest and non-interest-bearing checking accounts, savings accounts, and certain types of money market accounts) are equal to the amount payable on demand at the reporting date (generally, their carrying amounts). The fair values of securities sold under agreements to repurchase and short-term borrowings, when outstanding, are equal to their carrying amounts as they are short-term borrowings.

Time deposits, when outstanding, senior debt and subordinated debentures have a fair value estimated using a discounted cash flow calculation that applies current interest rates to discount expected cash flows. The carrying amount of accrued interest payable approximates its fair value. Long term borrowings resulting from sold loans which did not qualify for true sale accounting are presented in the amount of the principal of such loans.

The fair values of interest rate swaps, recorded in other assets or other liabilities, are determined using models that use readily observable market inputs and a market standard methodology applied to the contractual terms of the derivatives, including the period to maturity and interest rate indices.

The fair value of commitments to extend credit is estimated based on the amount of unamortized deferred loan commitment fees. The fair value of letters of credit is based on the amount of unearned fees plus the estimated cost to terminate the letters of credit. Fair values of unrecognized financial instruments, including commitments to extend credit, and the fair value of letters of credit are considered immaterial.

The following tables provide information regarding carrying amounts and estimated fair values (dollars in thousands) as of the dates indicated:

Other assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis, segregated by fair value hierarchy, are summarized below (dollars in thousands) as of the dates indicated:

The Company’s year-to-date Level 3 asset activity for the categories shown are summarized below (dollars in thousands):

The Company’s year-to-date OREO activity is summarized below (dollars in thousands) as of the dates indicated:

Information related to fair values of Level 3 balance sheet categories is as follows(dollars in thousands):

The valuations for each of the instruments above, as of the balance sheet date, are subject to judgments, assumptions and uncertainties, changes in which could have a significant impact on such valuations. Weighted averages were calculated by using the discount rate for each individual security or loan weighted by its market value, except for SBA loans. For SBA loans, the yield derived from market pricing indications for comparable pools determined by date of loan origination. For commercial loans recorded at fair value, changes in fair value are reflected in the income statement. Changes in the fair value of securities which are unrelated to credit are recorded through equity. Changes in the fair value of loans recorded at amortized cost which are unrelated to credit are a disclosure item, without impact on the financial statements. The notes below refer to the June 30, 2025 table.

(1) Commercial – SBA Loans are comprised of the government guaranteed portion of SBA-insured loans. Their valuation is based upon the yield derived from dealer pricing indications for guaranteed pools, adjusted for seasoning and prepayments. A limited number of broker-dealers originate the pooled securities for which the loans are purchased and as a result, prices can fluctuate based on such limited market demand, although the government guarantee has resulted in consistent historical demand. Valuations are impacted by prepayment assumptions resulting from both voluntary payoffs and defaults. Such assumptions for these seasoned loans are based on a seasoning vector for constant prepayment rates from 3% to 30% over life.

(2) Non-SBA commercial real estate – These loans are primarily bridge loans designed to provide property owners time and funding for property improvements. They are fair valued by a third party, based upon discounting at market rates for similar loans. Discount rates used inapplying discounted cash flow analysis utilize input based upon loan terms, the general level of interest rates and the quality of the credit. Deterioration in loan performance or other credit weaknesses could result in fair value ranges which would be dependent upon potential buyers’ tolerance for such weaknesses and are difficult to estimate.

(3) For OREO, fair value is based upon appraisals of the underlying collateral by third-party appraisers, reduced by 7% to 10% for estimated selling costs. Such appraisals reflect estimates of amounts realizable upon property sales based on the sale of comparable properties and other factors. Actual sales prices may vary based upon the identification of potential purchasers, changing conditions in local real estate markets and the level of interest rates required to finance purchases.

Assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, segregated by fair value hierarchy, during the periods shown are summarized below (dollars in thousands). The non-accrual loans in the following table are treated as collateral dependent to the extent they have resulted from borrower financial difficulty (and not from administrative delays or other mitigating factors) and are not brought current. For non-accrual loans, the Company establishes a reserve in the allowance for credit losses for deficiencies between estimated collateral and loan carrying values.

(1)The method of valuation approach for the loans evaluated for an allowance for credit losses on an individual loan basis and also for OREO was the market approach based upon appraisals of the underlying collateral by external appraisers, reduced by 7% to 10% for estimated selling costs.

At June 30, 2025, principal on collateral dependent loans, which is accounted for on the basis of the value of underlying collateral, is shown at an estimated fair value of $13.0 million. To arrive at that fair value, related loan principal of $17.8 million was reduced by specific reserves of $4.8 million within the ACL as of that date, representing the deficiency between principal and estimated collateral values, which were reduced by estimated costs to sell. When the deficiency is deemed uncollectible, it is charged off by reducing the specific reserve and decreasing principal. Valuation techniques consistent with the market and/or cost approach were used to measure fair value and primarily included observable inputs for the individual loans being evaluated such as recent sales of similar collateral or observable market data for operational or carrying costs. In cases where such inputs were unobservable, the loan balance is reflected within the Level 3 hierarchy.

Note 9. Other Identifiable Intangible Assets

In May 2016, the Company purchased approximately $60.0 million of lease receivables which resulted in a customer list intangible of $3.4 million that is being amortized over aten-year period. Amortization expense is $340,000 per year ($284,000 over the next two years). The gross carrying amount of the customer list intangible is $3.4 million, and as of June 30, 2025, and December 31, 2024, respectively, the accumulated amortization expense was $3.1 million and $3.0 million.

In January 2020, the Company purchased McMahon Leasing and subsidiaries for approximately $8.7 million which resulted in $1.1 million of intangibles. The gross carrying value of $1.1 million of intangibles was comprised of a customer list intangible of $689,000, goodwill of $263,000 and a trade name valuation of $135,000. The customer list intangible is being amortized over atwelve-year period and accumulated amortization expense was $316,000 at June 30, 2025 and $287,000 at December 31, 2024. Amortization expense is $57,000 per year ($287,000 over the next five years). The gross carrying value and accumulated amortization related to the Company’s intangibles at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 are presented below:

Note 10. Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2023, the FASB issued ASU 2023-09, Income Taxes (Topic 740), Improvements to Income Tax Disclosures. ASU 2023-09, effective January 1, 2025, adds annual disclosures for the amount of income taxes paid, net of refunds, shown separately for federal, state and foreign taxes. Total tax paid, net of refunds, for any jurisdictions which exceed 5% of total net taxes paid, will also be shown separately. The Company is currently evaluating these disclosures.

In November 2024, the FASB issued ASU 2024-03, which requires entities to disclose disaggregated information about certain income statement expense line items in the notes to their financial statements on an annual and interim basis. Subsequently, in January 2025, the FASB issued ASU 2025-01—Income Statement—Reporting Comprehensive Income—Expense Disaggregation Disclosures (Subtopic 220-40): Clarifying the Effective Date, making ASU 2024-03 effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2026, and interim periods within annual reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2027, on a retrospective or prospective basis, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating this update to determine the impact on the Company’s disclosures.

Note 11. Shareholders’ Equity

On October 26, 2023, the Board approved a common stock repurchase program for the 2024 fiscal year (the “2024 Repurchase Program”). Under the 2024 Repurchase Program, the Company repurchased $250.0 million in value of the Company’s common stock in 2024.

On October 23, 2024, the Board approved a common stock repurchase program for the 2025 fiscal year (the “2025 Repurchase Program”), which authorizes the Company to repurchase $37.5 million in value of the Company’s common stock per fiscal quarter in 2025, for a maximum amount of $150.0 million. Under the 2025 Repurchase Program, the Company intends to repurchase shares through open market purchases, privately-negotiated transactions, block purchases or otherwise in accordance with applicable federal securities laws, including Rule 10b-18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The 2025 Repurchase Program may be modified or terminated at any time. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2025, the Company repurchased 753,898 and 1,438,343 shares of its common stock in the open market under the 2025 Repurchase Program at an average price of $49.75 per share and $52.15 per share, respectively. On July 7, 2025, the Board of the Company authorized the increase of the capacity of the Company’s existing share repurchase program for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 to $300 million and $200 million for 2026 (the “Repurchase Plan”). This increase cumulatively represents up to $500 million in share repurchases through year-end 2026.

As a means of returning capital to shareholders, the Company implemented the stock repurchase programs described above. The planned amounts of repurchases are generally determined in the fourth quarter of the preceding year by assessing the impact of budgetary earnings projections on regulatory capital requirements. The excess of projected earnings over amounts required to maintain capital requirements is the maximum available for capital return to shareholders, barring any need to retain capital for other purposes. A significant portion of such excess earnings has been utilized for stock repurchases in the amounts noted above, while cash dividends have not been paid. In determining whether capital is returned through stock repurchases or cash dividends, the Company calculates a maximum share repurchase price, based upon comparisons with what it concludes to be other exemplar peer share price valuations, with further consideration of internal growth projections. As these share prices, which are updated at least annually, have not been reached, capital return has consisted solely of stock repurchases. Exemplar share price comparisons are based upon multiples of earnings per share over time, with further consideration of returns on equity and assets. While repurchase amounts are planned in the fourth quarter of the preceding year, repurchases may be modified or terminated at any time, should capital need to be conserved.

Note 12. Regulatory Matters

It is the policy of the Federal Reserve that financial holding companies should pay cash 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. The policy provides that a financial holding company should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the financial holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries.

Various federal and state statutory provisions limit the amount of dividends that subsidiary banks can pay to their holding companies without regulatory approval. Without the prior approval of the OCC, a dividend may not be paid if the total of all dividends declared by a bank in any calendar year is in excess of the current year’s net income combined with the retained net income of the two preceding years. Additionally, a dividend may not be paid in excess of a bank’s retained earnings. Moreover, an insured depository institution may not pay a dividend if the payment would cause it to be less than “adequately capitalized” under the prompt corrective action framework as defined in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or if the institution is in default in the payment of an assessment due to the FDIC. Similarly, a banking organization that fails to satisfy regulatory minimum capital conservation buffer requirements will be subject to certain limitations, which include restrictions on capital distributions.

In addition to these explicit limitations, federal and state regulatory agencies are authorized to prohibit a banking subsidiary or financial holding company from engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice. Depending upon the circumstances, the agencies could take the position that paying a dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice.

The Company and the Bank are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements can initiate certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have a direct material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action, the Company and the Bank must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of their assets, liabilities and certain off-balance-sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting practices. The capital amounts and classification of the Company and the Bank are also subject to qualitative judgments by the regulators about components, risk weightings and other factors. Moreover, capital requirements may be modified based upon regulatory rules or by regulatory discretion at any time reflecting a variety of factors including deterioration in asset quality.

The following table sets forth our regulatory capital amounts and ratios for the periods indicated:

Note 13. Legal

The Delaware FCRA Matter. On June 12, 2019, the Bank was served with a qui tam lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, New Castle County. The Delaware Department of Justice intervened in the litigation. The case is titled The State of Delaware, Plaintiff, Ex rel. Russell S. Rogers, Plaintiff-Relator v. The Bancorp Bank, Interactive Communications International, Inc., and InComm Financial Services, Inc., Defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated the Delaware False Claims and Reporting Act by not paying balances on certain open-loop “Vanilla” prepaid cards to the State of Delaware as unclaimed property. The complaint seeks actual and treble damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys’ fees. The Bank has filed an answer denying the allegations and continues to vigorously defend against the claims. The Bank and other defendants previously filed a motion to dismiss the action, but that motion to dismiss was denied and the parties were engaged in the first phase of discovery. On March 25, 2025, the State of Delaware filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice, purportedly due to a related administrative proceeding commenced by or on behalf of the State of Delaware Office of Unclaimed Property. Briefing on the State of Delaware’s motion to dismiss without prejudice is ongoing and the first phase of discovery is currently stayed pending a decision on that motion to dismiss. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

The Cachet Matter. On September 14, 2021, Cachet Financial Services (“Cachet”) filed an adversary proceeding against the Bank in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, titled Cachet Financial Services, Plaintiff v. The Bancorp Bank, et al., Defendants. The case was filed within the context of Cachet’s pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The Bank previously served as the

Originating Depository Financial Institution (“ODFI”) for ACH transactions in connection with Cachet’s payroll services business. The matter arises from the Bank’s termination of its Payroll Processing ODFI Agreement with Cachet on October 23, 2019, for safety and soundness reasons. The initial complaint alleges eight causes of action: (i) breach of contract; (ii) negligence; (iii) intentional interference with contract; (iv) conversion; (v) express indemnity; (vi) implied indemnity; (vii) accounting; and (viii) objection to the Bank’s proof of claim in the bankruptcy case. On November 4, 2021, the Bank filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to withdraw the reference of the adversary proceeding to the bankruptcy court, which was denied in February 2023. On August 3, 2022, Cachet served the Bank with a first amended complaint wherein Cachet, among other things, withdrew its implied indemnity claim against the Bank and added several defendants unaffiliated with the Bank and causes of action related to those parties. The Bank is vigorously defending against these claims. On September 28, 2022, the Bank filed a partial motion to dismiss, seeking to dispose of the majority of Cachet’s claims against the Bank. On September 12, 2024, the Bank’s partial motion to dismiss, seeking to dispose of the majority of Cachet’s claims, was denied on procedural grounds and without reaching the issues the Bank raised in its partial motion to dismiss. On October 31, 2024, Cachet filed its second amended complaint, which as related to the Bank, is substantially similar to the first amended complaint; however, the second amended complaint seeks only “damages in amount to be proven at trial” whereas the first amended complaint sought “damages in amount to be proven but in no event less than $150 million.” The Bank is vigorously defending against the second amended complaint. In furtherance of such a defense, on December 17, 2024, the Bank filed its partial motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on May 2, 2025. Specifically, Cachet’s negligence claim, conversion claim, and accounting claim were dismissed with prejudice. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or operations.

The CFPB CID Matter. On March 27, 2023, the Bank received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) seeking documents and information related to the Bank’s escheatment practices in connection with certain accounts offered through one of the Bank’s program partners. The Bank continues to cooperate with the CFPB, including by responding to the CID. While the Company remains confident in the Bank’s escheatment practices, it cannot predict the timing or final outcome of the investigation. Future costs related to this matter may be material and could continue to be material at least through the completion of the investigation.

The City Attorney of San Francisco Matter. On November 21, 2023, TBBK Card Services, Inc. (“TBBK Card”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank, was served with a complaint filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, captioned People of the State of California, acting by and through San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, Plaintiff v. InComm Financial Services, Inc., TBBK Card Services, Inc., Sutton Bank, Pathward, N.A., and Does 1-10, Defendants. The complaint principally alleges that the defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and practices related to the packaging of “Vanilla” prepaid cards and the refund process for unauthorized transactions that occurred due to card draining practices. On December 14, 2023, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On March 26, 2024, the case was remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California. TBBK Card is vigorously defending against the claims. On May 6, 2024, TBBK Card filed a motion to quash service of summons as to TBBK Card for lack of personal jurisdiction. On April 22, 2025, the Superior Court issued an order denying TBBK Card’s motion to quash service of the summons and also denying the other defendants’ motions to quash service of the summons. On May 6, 2025, TBBK Card filed its petition for writ of mandate in the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division One of the State of California in order to appeal the Superior Court’s decision to deny the motion to quash the summons. As of June 30, 2025, briefing on the petition for writ of mandate had been completed and a decision remained pending. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or operations.

The Oxygen Matter. On November 25, 2024, the Bank commenced arbitration through the American Arbitration Association seeking approximately $1.808 million from Oxygen, Inc. (“Oxygen”) owed under the Private Label Account Program Agreement related to unpaid invoices and indemnification obligations owed by Oxygen. On January 13, 2025, Oxygen answered the Bank’s arbitration demand, generally denying the allegation made by the Bank, and filed its Counterclaim against the Bank. The Counterclaim alleges (i) that the termination of the Private Label Account Program Agreement was pretextual, (ii) the Bank breached its notification obligations in terminating Private Label Account Program Agreement, (iii) the Bank breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (iv) conversion of $1.2 million by the Bank. Thead damnum clause of the Counterclaim also seeks compensatory damages not less than $40 million. The Bank believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend against the Counterclaim. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial conditions or operations.

The Putative Securities Class Action Matter. On March 14, 2025, Nathan Linden filed a putative securities class action complaint captioned Nathan Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and purports to assert a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants made false statements and omissions about the Company’s business, prospects, and operations, with focus on the Company’s commercial real estate bridge loan portfolio and related provision for credit losses. The named plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, fees, interest, and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in the complaint. The

Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

The OREO Escrow Dispute. As previously disclosed in prior filed current reports of Form 8-K, the majority of the Bank’s “Other Real Estate Owned” property is comprised of an apartment complex. The underlying balance for this property is $42.9 million as of June 30, 2025. As previously disclosed, the property was under an agreement of sale. On June 24, 2025, the relevant Bank subsidiary, TBB Crescent Park Drive, LLC (“TBB Crescent”), terminated the agreement of sale for the property and demanded the escrow agent release to TBB Crescent all earnest money deposits received to date, totaling $3.0 million. On June 26, 2025, without providing any legal or contractual basis to do so, the purchaser objected to the release of the earnest money deposits. On July 11, 2025, TBB Crescent filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking a declaratory judgment that it is the party entitled to the earnest money deposits. The Company, through TBB Crescent, intends to vigorously pursue this litigation and to defend against any allegations or claims that may be brought through a counterclaim or otherwise. The Company is not yet able to determine whether the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or operations.

In addition, we are a party to various routine legal proceedings arising out of the ordinary course of our business. Management believes that none of these actions, individually or in the aggregate, will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operations.

Note 14. Segment Financials

The Company’s operations can be classified under three segments: fintech, specialty finance (three sub-segments) and corporate. The chief operating decision maker for these segments is the Chief Executive Officer. The fintech segment includes the deposit balances and non-interest income generated by prepaid, debit and other card accessed accounts, ACH proccessing and other payments related processing. It also includes loan balances and interest and non-interest income from credit products generated through payment relationships. Specialty finance includes: (i) REBL (real estate bridge lending) comprised primarily of apartment building rehabilitation loans (ii) institutional banking comprised primarily of security-backed lines of credit, cash value insurance policy-backed lines of credit and advisor financing and (iii) commercial loans comprised primarily of SBA loans and direct lease financing. It also includes deposits generated by those business lines. Corporate includes the Company’s investment securities, corporate overhead and expenses which have not been allocated to segments. Expenses not allocated include certain management, board oversight, administrative, legal, IT and technology infrastructure, human resouces, audit, regulatory and CRA, finance and accounting, marketing and other corporate expenses.

In the segment reporting below, a non-GAAP subtotal is shown, captioned “Income before non-interest expense allocation”. That subtotal presents an income subotal before consideration of allocated corporate expenses which might be fixed, semi-fixed or otherwise resist changes without regard to a particular line of business. It also reflects a market-based allocation of interest expense to financing segments which utilize funding from deposits generated by the fintech segment, which earns offsetting interest income. That allocation is shown in the “Interest allocation” line item. The rate utilized for the allocation corresponds to an estimated average of the three year FHLB rate. The fintech segment interest expense line item consists of interest expense actually incurred to generate its deposits, which is the Company’s actual cost of funds. That actual cost is allocated to the corporate segment which requires funding for the Company’s investment securities portfolio.

The more significant non-interest expense categories correspond to the Company’s consolidated statements of operations and include salaries and employee benefits, data processing and software expenses that are incurred directly by those segments. Expenses incurred by departments which provide support services to the segments also include those categories of expense and others which are allocated to segments based on estimated usage. Those support department allocations are reflected in the “Risk, financial crimes and compliance” and “Information technology and operations” line items. Other expenses not shown separately are monitored for purposes of expense management, but, unless atypically high, are ordinarily of lesser significance than the categories noted above.

For the fintech segment, deposit growth and the cost thereof and non-interest income growth, are factors in the decision making process and are respectively reported in the consolidated statemens of operations. For specialty finance, loan growth and related yields are factors in decision making. Comparative loan balance information measuring loan growth is presented in “Note 6. Loans.” In addition to consideration of the above profitability and growth aspects of its operations, decision making is focused on the management of current and future potential risks. Such risks include, but are not limited to, credit, interest rate, liquidity, regulatory, and reputation. The loan committee provides support and oversight for credit risk, while the asset liability committee provides support and oversight over pricing, duration and liquidity. The risk committee provides further oversight over those areas in addition to regulatory, reputation and other risks.

The following tables provide segment information for the periods indicated (dollars in thousands):

Note 15. Subsequent Events

The Company evaluated its June 30, 2025 consolidated financial statements for subsequent events through the date the consolidated financial statements were issued.

On July 7, 2025, the Board of the Company authorized the increase of the capacity of the Company’s existing share repurchase program for the third and fourth quarters of 2025 to $300 million and $200 million for 2026 (the “Repurchase Plan”). This increase cumulatively represents up to $500 million in share repurchases through year-end 2026.