Item 1. Business
General
We are a bank holding company, incorporated in Florida in 1983, and registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”). Our principal subsidiary is Seacoast National Bank (“Seacoast National”). Seacoast National commenced its operations in 1933, and operated prior to 2006 as “First National Bank & Trust Company of the Treasure Coast”.
As a bank holding company, we are a legal entity separate and distinct from our subsidiaries, including Seacoast National. We coordinate the financial resources of the consolidated enterprise and maintain financial, operational and administrative systems that allow centralized evaluation of subsidiary operations and coordination of selected policies and activities. Our operating revenues and net income are derived primarily from Seacoast National through dividends and fees for services performed.
As of December 31, 2012, we had total consolidated assets of approximately $2,173.9 million, total deposits of approximately $1,759.0 million, total consolidated liabilities, including deposits, of approximately $2,008.4 million and consolidated shareholders’ equity of approximately $165.5 million. Our operations are discussed in more detail under “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Consolidated Financial Condition and Results of Operations” incorporated by reference from our 2012 Annual Report.
We and our subsidiaries offer a full array of deposit accounts and retail banking services, engage in consumer and commercial lending and provide a wide variety of trust and asset management services, as well as securities and annuity products to our customers. Seacoast National had 36 banking offices in 12 counties in Florida at year-end 2012. We have 21 branches in the “Treasure Coast of Florida,” including the counties of Martin, St. Lucie and Indian River on Florida’s southeastern coast.
Most of our banking offices have one or more automated teller machines (“ATMs”) providing customers with 24-hour access to their deposit accounts. We are a member of the “NYCE Payments Network,” an electronic funds transfer organization represented in all fifty states in the United States, which permits banking customers access to their accounts at 2.5 million participating ATMs and retail locations throughout the United States. Our debit cards are accepted wherever VISA is accepted.
Seacoast National’s “MoneyPhone” system allows customers to access information on their loan or deposit account balances, transfer funds between linked accounts, make loan payments, and verify deposits or checks that may have cleared, all over the telephone. This service is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In addition, customers may access information via Seacoast National’s Customer Service Center (“CSC”). From 7 A.M. to 7 P.M. (EST) Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M. (EST) our CSC staff is available to open accounts, take applications for certain types of loans, resolve account issues, and offer information on other bank products and services to existing and potential customers.
We also offer Internet banking. Our Internet service allows customers to access transactional information on their deposit accounts, review loan and deposit balances, transfer funds between linked accounts and make loan payments from a deposit account, all over the Internet, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Seacoast National also provides brokerage and annuity services. Seacoast National personnel involved with the sale of these services are dual employees with Invest Financial Corporation, the company through which Seacoast National presently conducts its brokerage and annuity services.
We have six indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries:
•
FNB Insurance Services, Inc. (“FNB Insurance”), an inactive subsidiary, which was formed to provide insurance agency services;
•
South Branch Building, Inc., which is a general partner in a partnership that constructed a branch facility of Seacoast National; and
•
TCoast Holdings, LLC, BR West, LLC, TC Stuart, LLC and TC Property Ventures, LLC, each of which was formed to own and operate certain properties acquired through foreclosure.
We directly own all the common equity in three statutory trusts relating to our trust preferred securities:
•
SBCF Capital Trust I, formed on March 31, 2005 for the purpose of issuing $20 million in trust preferred securities;
•
SBCF Statutory Trust II, formed on December 16, 2005, for the purpose of issuing $20 million in trust preferred securities; and
•
SBCF Statutory Trust III, formed on June 29, 2007, also for the purpose of issuing $12 million in trust preferred securities.
The operations of each of these direct and indirect subsidiaries represented less than 10% of our consolidated assets and contributed less than 10% to our consolidated revenues in 2012.
We have operated an office of Seacoast Marine Finance Division, a division of Seacoast National, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida since February 2000 and two offices in California since November 2002. Seacoast Marine Finance Division is staffed with experienced marine lending professionals with a marketing emphasis on marine loans of $200,000 and greater, with the majority of loan production sold to correspondent banks on a non-recourse basis.
Our principal offices are located at 815 Colorado Avenue, Stuart, Florida 34994, and the telephone number at that address is (772) 287-4000. We and our subsidiary Seacoast National maintain Internet websites at www.seacoastbanking.com and www.seacoastnational.com, respectively. We are not incorporating the information on our or Seacoast National’s website into this report, and none of these websites nor the information appearing on these websites is included or incorporated in, or is a part of, this report.
We make available, free of charge on our corporate website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with or furnish it to the SEC.
Employees
As of December 31, 2012, we and our subsidiaries employed 508 full-time equivalent employees. We consider our employee relations to be good, and we have no collective bargaining agreements with any employees.
Expansion of Business
Over the years, we have continued to expand our products and services to meet the changing needs of the various segments of our market, and we presently expect to continue this strategy. We have expanded geographically primarily through the addition of de novo branches. We also from time to time have acquired banks, bank branches and deposits, and have opened new branches and loan production offices.
In 2002, we entered Palm Beach County by establishing a new branch office. On April 30, 2005, we acquired Century National Bank, a commercial bank headquartered in Orlando, Florida. Century National Bank operated as our wholly owned subsidiary until August 2006 when it was merged with Seacoast National.
In April 2006, we acquired Big Lake National Bank (“Big Lake”), a commercial bank headquartered in Okeechobee, Florida, inland from our Treasure Coast markets, with nine offices in seven counties. Big Lake was merged with Seacoast National in June 2006.
Florida law permits statewide branching, and Seacoast National has expanded, and anticipates future expansion, by opening additional bank offices and facilities, as well as by acquisition of other financial institutions and branches. Since 2002, we have opened and acquired 17 new offices in 14 counties of Florida. Since 2007, we have closed and consolidated 9 offices in 6 counties of Florida with 3 offices consolidated during the last six months of 2012. Two additional offices have been closed and consolidated during January 2013. The Seacoast Marine Finance Division operates loan production offices, or “LPOs”, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, and Newport Beach and Alameda, California. For more information on our branches and offices see “Item 2. Properties”.
We regularly evaluate possible mergers, acquisitions and other expansion opportunities.
Seasonality; Cycles
We believe our commercial banking operations are somewhat seasonal in nature. Investment management fees and deposits often peak in the first and second quarters, and often are lowest in the third quarter. Transactional fees from merchants, and ATM and debit card use also typically peak in the first and second quarters. Public deposits tend to increase with tax collections in the first and fourth quarters and decline as a result of spending thereafter.
Deposits also tend to increase due to hurricanes as insurers disburse insurance proceeds more quickly than hurricane-related damage is repaired. No major hurricanes occurred between 2006 and 2012; as a result, deposit trends were more typical than during 2004 and 2005, when major hurricanes hit our coastal market areas, leading to an increase in deposits.
Commercial and residential real estate activity, demand, prices and sales volumes are less seasonal and vary based upon various factors, including economic conditions, interest rates and credit availability.
Competition
We and our subsidiaries operate in the highly competitive markets of Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, Brevard, Palm Beach and Broward Counties, in southeastern Florida and in the Orlando metropolitan statistical area. We also operate in six competitive counties in central Florida near Lake Okeechobee. Seacoast National not only competes with other banks of comparable or larger size in its markets, but also competes with various other nonbank financial institutions, including savings and loan associations, credit unions, mortgage companies, personal and commercial financial companies, investment brokerage and financial advisory firms and mutual fund companies. We compete for deposits, commercial, fiduciary and investment services and various types of loans and other financial services. Seacoast National also competes for interest-bearing funds with a number of other financial intermediaries and investment alternatives, including mutual funds, brokerage and insurance firms, governmental and corporate bonds, and other securities. Continued consolidation within the financial services industry will most likely change the nature and intensity of competition that we face, but can also create opportunities for us to demonstrate and exploit what we believe are our competitive advantages.
Our competitors include not only financial institutions based in the State of Florida, but also a number of large out-of-state and foreign banks, bank holding companies and other financial institutions that have an established market presence in the State of Florida, or that offer products by mail, telephone or over the Internet. Many of our competitors are engaged in local, regional, national and international operations and have greater assets, personnel and other resources. Some of these competitors are subject to less regulation and/or more favorable tax treatment than us. Many of these institutions have greater resources, broader geographic markets and higher lending limits than us and may offer services that we do not offer. In addition, these institutions may be able to better afford and make broader use of media advertising, support services, and electronic and other technology than us. To offset these potential competitive disadvantages, we depend on our reputation as an independent, “super” community bank headquartered locally, our personal service, our greater community involvement and our ability to make credit and other business decisions quickly and locally.
Supervision and Regulation
Bank holding companies and banks are extensively regulated under federal and state law. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the particular statutory and regulatory provisions below and is not intended to be an exhaustive description of the statutes or regulations applicable to us and Seacoast National’s business. As a bank holding company under federal law, we are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Federal Reserve. As a national bank, our primary bank subsidiary, Seacoast National, is subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”). In addition, as discussed in more detail below, Seacoast National and any other of our subsidiaries that offer consumer financial products could be subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Supervision, regulation, and examination of us, Seacoast National and our respective subsidiaries by the bank regulatory agencies are intended primarily for the protection of consumers, bank depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”) of the FDIC, rather than holders of our capital stock. The following summarizes certain of the more important statutory and regulatory provisions. Substantial changes to the regulatory framework applicable to us and our subsidiaries were recently passed by the U.S. Congress, and the majority of the recent legislative changes will be implemented over time by various regulatory agencies. For a discussion of such changes, see ‘‘Recent Regulatory Developments” below. The full effect of the changes in the applicable laws and regulations, as implemented by the regulatory agencies, cannot be fully predicted and could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
We are required to comply with various corporate governance and financial reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules and regulations adopted by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, and Nasdaq. In particular, we are required to include management and independent registered public accounting firm reports on internal controls as part of our annual report on Form 10-K in order to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We have evaluated our controls, including compliance with the SEC rules on internal controls, and have and expect to continue to spend significant amounts of time and money on compliance with these rules. Our failure to comply with these internal control rules may materially adversely affect our reputation, ability to obtain the necessary certifications to financial statements, and the values of our securities. The assessments of our financial reporting controls as of December 31, 2012 are included elsewhere in this report with no material weaknesses reported.
Recent Regulatory Developments
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010
On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act will have a broad impact on the financial services industry, imposing significant regulatory and compliance changes, the imposition of increased capital, leverage and liquidity requirements, and numerous other provisions designed to improve supervision and oversight of, and strengthen safety and soundness within, the financial services sector. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act establishes a new framework of authority to conduct systemic risk oversight within the financial system to be distributed among new and existing federal regulatory agencies, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, (the “Oversight Council”), the Federal Reserve, the OCC and the FDIC. Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that may affect our operations or the operations of Seacoast National include:
•
Creation of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (“CFPB”) with centralized authority, including examination and enforcement authority, for consumer protection in the banking industry.
•
New limitations on federal preemption.
•
New prohibitions and restrictions on the ability of a banking entity and nonbank financial company to engage in proprietary trading and have certain interests in, or relationships with, a hedge fund or private equity fund.
•
Application of new regulatory capital requirements, including changes to leverage and risk-based capital standards and changes to the components of permissible tiered capital.
•
Requirement that holding companies and their subsidiary banks be well capitalized and well managed in order to engage in activities permitted for financial holding companies.
•
Changes to the assessment base for deposit insurance premiums.
•
Permanently raising the FDIC’s standard maximum insurance amount to $250,000.
•
Repeal of the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, effective July 21, 2011, thereby permitting depository institutions to pay interest on business transaction and other accounts.
•
Restrictions on compensation, including a prohibition on incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by covered financial institutions that are deemed to be excessive, or that may lead to material losses.
•
Requirement that sponsors of asset-backed securities retain a percentage of the credit risk underlying the securities.
•
Requirement that banking regulators remove references to and requirements of reliance upon credit ratings from their regulations and replace them with appropriate alternatives for evaluating creditworthiness.
The following items provide a further description of certain relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and their potential impact on our operations and activities, both currently and prospectively.
Creation of New Governmental Authorities. The Dodd-Frank Act created various new governmental authorities such as the Oversight Council and the CFPB, an independent regulatory authority housed within the Federal Reserve. The CFPB has broad authority to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products. The CFPB officially came into being on July 21, 2011, and rulemaking authority for a range of consumer financial protection laws (such as the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, among others) transferred from the federal prudential banking regulators to the CFPB on that date. The Dodd-Frank Act gave the CFPB authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with more than $10 billion in assets for compliance with these federal consumer laws. The authority to supervise and examine depository institutions with $10 billion or less in assets for compliance with federal consumer laws remains largely with those institutions’ primary regulators. However, the CFPB may participate in examinations of these smaller institutions on a “sampling basis” and may refer potential enforcement actions against such institutions to their primary regulators. The CFPB also has supervisory and examination authority over certain nonbank institutions that offer consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act identifies a number of covered nonbank institutions, and also authorizes the CFPB to identify additional institutions that will be subject to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the CFPB may participate in examinations of Seacoast National, which currently has assets of less than $10 billion, and could supervise and examine our other direct or indirect subsidiaries that offer consumer financial products or services. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are stricter than those regulations promulgated by the CFPB, and state attorneys general are permitted to enforce consumer protection rules adopted by the CFPB against certain institutions.
Limitation on Federal Preemption. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly reduces the ability of national banks to rely upon federal preemption of state consumer financial laws. Although the OCC will have the ability to make preemption determinations where certain conditions are met, the broad rollback of federal preemption has the potential to create a patchwork of federal and state compliance obligations. This could, in turn, result in significant new regulatory requirements applicable to us, with attendant potential significant changes in our operations and increases in our compliance costs. It could also result in uncertainty concerning compliance, with attendant regulatory and litigation risks.
Mortgage Loan Origination and Risk Retention. The Dodd-Frank Act contains additional regulatory requirements that may affect our mortgage origination and servicing operations, result in increased compliance costs and may impact revenue. For example, in addition to numerous new disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including banks, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay. The CFPB recently issued rules that implement this “ability-to-repay” requirement and provide lenders
with protection from liability for “qualified mortgages,” as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Most significantly, the new “qualified mortgage” standards generally limit the total points and fees that we and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans to 3% of the total loan amount. Also, the Dodd-Frank Act, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve’s final rule on loan originator compensation issued August 16, 2010 and effective April 1, 2011, prohibits certain compensation payments to loan originators and steering consumers to loans not in their interest because it will result in greater compensation for a loan originator. In addition, the CFPB recently issued additional rules pertaining to loan originator compensation, and that established qualification, registration and licensing requirements for loan originators. These standards will result in a myriad of new system, pricing, and compensation controls in order to ensure compliance and to decrease repurchase requests and foreclosure defenses. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally requires lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans the lender sells and other asset-backed securities that the securitizer issues if the loans have not complied with the ability to repay standards. The risk retention requirement generally will be 5%, but could be increased or decreased by regulation.
Corporate Governance. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses many investor protection, corporate governance, and executive compensation matters that will affect most U.S. publicly traded companies. The Dodd-Frank Act (1) grants shareholders of U.S. publicly traded companies an advisory vote on executive compensation; (2) enhances independence requirements for Compensation Committee members; and (3) requires companies listed on national securities exchanges to adopt incentive-based compensation clawback policies for executive officers. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act requires federal regulators to issue regulations or guidelines to prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by providing excessive compensation or that may lead to material losses at certain financial institutions with $1 billion or more in assets. A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011; however, regulators have yet to issue final rules on the topic. Further, in June, 2010, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the FDIC jointly issued comprehensive final guidance designed to ensure that incentive compensation policies do not undermine the safety and soundness of banking organizations by encouraging employees to take imprudent risks. This regulation significantly restricts the amount, form, and context in which we pay incentive compensation to our employees.
Deposit Insurance. The Dodd-Frank Act permanently raises the standard maximum insurance amount to $250,000 and, through December 31, 2012, provided unlimited insurance coverage for noninterest-bearing demand transaction accounts. However, as of January 1, 2013 when this provision of the Dodd-Frank Act expired, all of a depositor’s accounts at an insured depository institution, including all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, are insured by the FDIC only up to the standard maximum deposit insurance amount ($250,000), for each deposit insurance ownership category. Amendments to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the “FDIA”) also revise the assessment base against which an insured depository institution’s deposit insurance premiums paid to the DIF will be calculated. Under the amendments, the assessment base will no longer be the institution’s deposit base, but rather its average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity. This may shift the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act made changes to the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF, increasing the minimum designated reserve ratio (“DRR”) from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminating the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. In December of 2010, the FDIC adopted a final rule setting the DRR at 2.0 percent. Furthermore, on February 7, 2011, the FDIC issued a final rule that modifies two adjustments added to the risk-based pricing system in 2009 (an unsecured debt adjustment and a brokered deposit adjustment), discontinues a third adjustment added in 2009 (the secured liability adjustment), and adds an adjustment for long-term debt held by an insured depository institution where the debt is issued by another insured depository institution. Additionally, effective July 21, 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act repealed the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits.
Capital Standards. Regulatory capital standards are expected to change as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, and in particular as a result of the Collins Amendment, as well as a separate, international regulatory capital initiative known as “Basel III,” which is discussed below. The Collins Amendment requires that the appropriate federal banking agencies establish minimum leverage and risk-based capital requirements on a consolidated basis for insured depository institutions and their holding companies. As a result, we and Seacoast National will be subject to the same capital requirements, and must include the same components in regulatory capital. One impact of the Collins Amendment is to prohibit bank and bank holding companies from including in their Tier 1 regulatory capital certain hybrid debt and equity securities issued on or after May 19, 2010 after a three-year phase-in period that begins January 1, 2013. Among the hybrid debt and equity securities included in this prohibition are trust preferred securities, which we have used in the past as a tool for raising additional Tier 1 capital and otherwise improving our regulatory capital ratios. However, the Collins Amendment does not apply to our trust preferred securities issued before May 19, 2010.
Shareholder Say-On-Pay Votes. The Dodd-Frank Act requires public companies to take shareholders’ votes on proposals addressing compensation (known as say-on-pay), the frequency of a say-on-pay vote, and the golden parachutes available to executives in connection with change-in-control transactions. Public companies must give shareholders the opportunity to vote on the compensation at least every three years and the opportunity to vote on frequency at least every six years, indicating whether the say-on-pay vote should be held annually, biennially, or triennially. The first say-on-pay vote occurred at our 2011 annual shareholders meeting. The say-on-pay, the say-on-parachute and the say-on-frequency votes are explicitly nonbinding and cannot override a decision of our board of directors.
Many of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented over time and most will be subject to implementing regulations over the course of several years. Given the extent of the changes brought about by the Dodd-Frank Act and the significant discretion afforded to federal regulators to implement those changes, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on our operations is unclear. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with the new requirements may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. While we cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on us, these changes could be materially adverse to our investors.
FDIC Insurance Special Assessment
On November 12, 2009, the FDIC adopted a final rule that required nearly all FDIC-insured depositor-institutions to prepay the DIF assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012. In addition, the FDIC voted to adopt a uniform three-basis point increase in assessment rates effective on January 1, 2011, which increase would be reflected in our prepaid assessments. As discussed above, the Dodd-Frank Act amended the statutory regime governing the DIF and the FDIC has issued implementing regulations that set the DRR at 2.0 percent and modify the rules for calculating the amount of an institution’s deposit insurance premiums.
Basel III
As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act’s Collins Amendment, we and Seacoast National will formally be subject to the same regulatory capital requirements. The current risk-based capital guidelines that apply to us are based upon the 1988 capital accord of the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the U.S. federal banking agencies on an interagency basis. In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord (“Basel II”) for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more). Basel II emphasizes internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.
On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced agreement to a strengthened set of capital requirements for internationally active banking organizations in the United States and around the world (“Basel III”). The agreement is supported by the U.S. federal banking agencies and the final text of the Basel III rules was released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on December 16, 2010. While the timing and scope of any U.S. implementation of Basel III remains uncertain, the following items provide a brief description of the relevant provisions of Basel III and their potential impact on our capital levels if applied to us.
New Minimum Capital Requirements. Subject to implementation by the U.S. federal banking agencies, Basel III would be expected to have the following effects on the minimum capital levels of banking institutions to which it applies when fully phased in on January 1, 2019:
•
Minimum Common Equity. The minimum requirement for common equity, the highest form of loss absorbing capital, will be raised from the current 2.0% level, before the application of regulatory adjustments, to 4.5% after the application of stricter adjustments. This requirement will be phased in by January 1, 2015. As noted below, total common equity required will rise to 7.0% by January 1, 2019 (4.5% attributable to the minimum required common equity plus 2.5% attributable to the “capital conservation buffer”).
•
Minimum Tier 1 Capital. The minimum Tier 1 capital requirement, which includes common equity and other qualifying financial instruments based on stricter criteria, will increase from 4.0% to 6.0% also by January 1, 2015. Total Tier 1 capital will rise to 8.5% by January 1, 2019 (6.0% attributable to the minimum required Tier 1 capital ratio plus 2.5% attributable to the capital conservation buffer, as discussed below).
•
Minimum Total Capital. The minimum Total Capital (Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) requirement will increase to 8.0% (10.5% by January 1, 2019, including the capital conservation buffer).
Capital Conservation Buffer. An initial capital conservation buffer of 0.625% above the regulatory minimum common equity requirement will begin in January 2016 and will gradually be increased to 2.5% by January 1, 2019. The buffer will be added to common equity, after the application of deductions. The purpose of the conservation buffer is to ensure that banks maintain a buffer of capital that can be used to absorb losses during periods of financial and economic stress. It is expected that, while banks would be allowed to draw on the buffer during such periods of stress, the closer their regulatory capital ratios approach the minimum requirement, the greater the constraints that would be applied to earnings distributions.
Countercyclical Buffer. Basel III expects regulators to require, as appropriate to national circumstances, a “countercyclical buffer” within a range of 0% to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital. The purpose of the countercyclical buffer is to achieve the broader goal of
protecting the banking sector from periods of excess aggregate credit growth. For any given country, it is expected that this buffer would only be applied when there is excess credit growth that is resulting in a perceived system-wide build up of risk. The countercyclical buffer, when in effect, would be introduced as an extension of the conservation buffer range.
Regulatory Deductions from Common Equity. The regulatory adjustments (i.e., deductions and prudential filters), including minority interests in financial institutions, and deferred tax assets from timing differences, would be deducted in increasing percentages beginning January 1, 2014, and would be fully deducted from common equity by January 1, 2018. Certain instruments that no longer qualify as Tier 1 capital, such as trust preferred securities, also would be subject to phase-out over a 10-year period beginning January 1, 2013.
Non-Risk Based Leverage Ratios. These capital requirements are supplemented by a non-risk-based leverage ratio that will serve as a backstop to the risk-based measures described above. In July 2010, the Governors and Heads of Supervision agreed to test a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3.0% during the parallel run period. Based on the results of the parallel run period, any final adjustments would be carried out in the first half of 2017 with a view to adopting the 3.0% leverage ratio on January 1, 2018, based on appropriate review and calibration.
Adoption. Basel III was endorsed at the meeting of the G-20 nations in November 2010 and the final text of the Basel III rules was subsequently agreed to by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on December 16, 2010. The agreement called for national jurisdictions to implement the new requirements beginning January 1, 2013, but implementation has been postponed as of November 9, 2012 due to the U.S. Congress and the U.S. federal banking agencies, including the OCC, reviewing the efficacy of changes from Basel III concepts into U.S. capital adequacy standards. No new timetable for implementation dates and transition periods to Basel III has been announced. While the Basel III changes as implemented in the United States will likely result in generally higher regulatory capital standards, it is difficult at this time to predict how any new standards will ultimately be applied to Seacoast National and us.
Bank Holding Company Regulation
As a bank holding company, we are subject to supervision and regulation by the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act. Bank holding companies generally are limited to the business of banking, managing or controlling banks, and other activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be closely related to banking, or managing or controlling banks and a proper incident thereto. We are required to file with the Federal Reserve periodic reports and such other information as the Federal Reserve may request. Ongoing supervision is provided through regular examinations by the Federal Reserve and other means that allow the regulators to gauge management’s ability to identify, assess and control risk in all areas of operations in a safe and sound manner and to ensure compliance with laws and regulations. The Federal Reserve may also examine our non-bank subsidiaries.
Expansion and Activity Limitations. Under the BHC Act, a bank holding company is generally permitted to engage in, or acquire direct or indirect control of more than 5 percent of the voting shares of, any company engaged in the following activities:
•
banking or managing or controlling banks;
•
furnishing services to or performing services for our subsidiaries; and
•
any activity that the Federal Reserve determines to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident to the business of banking, including:
•
factoring accounts receivable;
•
making, acquiring, brokering or servicing loans and usual related activities;
•
leasing personal or real property;
•
operating a non-bank depository institution, such as a savings association;
•
performing trust company functions;
•
providing financial and investment advisory activities;
•
conducting discount securities brokerage activities;
•
underwriting and dealing in government obligations and money market instruments;
•
providing specified management consulting and counseling activities;
•
performing selected data processing services and support services;
•
acting as agent or broker in selling credit life insurance and other types of insurance in connection with credit transactions;
•
performing selected insurance underwriting activities;
•
providing certain community development activities (such as making investments in projects designed primarily to promote community welfare); and,
•
issuing and selling money orders and similar consumer-type payment instruments
With certain exceptions, the BHC Act prohibits a bank holding company from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of voting shares of any company which is not a bank or bank holding company, and from engaging directly or indirectly in any activity other than banking or managing or controlling banks or performing services for its authorized subsidiaries. A holding company, may, however, engage in or acquire an interest in a company that engages in activities which the Federal Reserve has determined by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB”) substantially revised the statutory restrictions separating banking activities from certain other financial activities. Under the GLB, bank holding companies that are “well-capitalized” and “well-managed”, as defined in Federal Reserve Regulation Y, which have and maintain “satisfactory” Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (the “CRA”) ratings, and meet certain other conditions, can elect to become “financial holding companies”. Financial holding companies and their subsidiaries are permitted to acquire or engage in activities such as insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, travel agency activities, a broad range of insurance agency activities, merchant banking, and other activities that the Federal Reserve determines to be financial in nature or complementary thereto. In addition, under the merchant banking authority added by the GLB and Federal Reserve regulation, financial holding companies are authorized to invest in companies that
engage in activities that are not financial in nature, as long as the financial holding company makes its investment with the intention of limiting the term of its investment and does not manage the company on a day-to-day basis, and the invested company does not cross-market with any of the financial holding company’s controlled depository institutions. Financial holding companies continue to be subject to supervision and regulation of the Federal Reserve, but the GLB applies the concept of functional regulation to the activities conducted by subsidiaries. For example, insurance activities would be subject to supervision and regulation by state insurance authorities. While we have not become a financial holding company, we may elect to do so in the future in order to exercise the broader activity powers provided by the GLB. Banks may also engage in similar “financial activities” through subsidiaries. The GLB also includes consumer privacy provisions, and the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted extensive privacy rules implementing these statutory provisions.
The BHC Act permits acquisitions of banks by bank holding companies, such that we and any other bank holding company, whether located in Florida or elsewhere, may acquire a bank located in any other state, subject to certain deposit-percentage, age of bank charter requirements, and other restrictions. Federal law also permits national and state-chartered banks to branch interstate through acquisitions of banks in other states. Florida’s Interstate Branching Act (the “Florida Branching Act”) permits interstate branching. Under the Florida Branching Act, with the prior approval of the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, a Florida bank may establish, maintain and operate one or more branches in a state other than the State of Florida pursuant to a merger transaction in which the Florida bank is the resulting bank. In addition, the Florida Branching Act provides that one or more Florida banks may enter into a merger transaction with one or more out-of-state banks, and an out-of-state bank resulting from such transaction may maintain and operate the branches of the Florida bank that participated in such merger. An out-of-state bank, however, is not permitted to acquire a Florida bank in a merger transaction, unless the Florida bank has been in existence and continuously operated for more than three years.
Support of Subsidiary Banks by Holding Companies. Federal Reserve policy requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength and to preserve and protect its bank subsidiaries in situations where additional investments in a troubled bank may not otherwise be warranted. Notably, the Dodd-Frank Act has codified the Federal Reserve’s “source of strength” doctrine; this statutory change became effective July 21, 2011. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act’s new provisions authorize the Federal Reserve to require a company that directly or indirectly controls a bank to submit reports that are designed both to assess the ability of such company to comply with its “source of strength” obligations and to enforce the company’s compliance with these obligations. In addition, under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), where a bank holding company has more than one bank or thrift subsidiary, each of the bank holding company’s subsidiary depository institutions are responsible for any losses to the FDIC resulting from an affiliated depository institution’s failure. Accordingly, a bank holding company may be required to loan money to its bank subsidiaries in the form of capital notes or other instruments that qualify as capital under bank regulatory rules. However, any loans from the holding company to such subsidiary banks likely will be unsecured and subordinated to such bank’s depositors and perhaps to other creditors of the bank.
Capital Requirements
The Federal Reserve and the OCC have risk-based capital guidelines for bank holding companies and national banks, respectively. These guidelines require a minimum ratio of capital to risk-weighted assets (including certain off-balance-sheet activities, such as standby letters of credit) of 8%. At least half of the total capital must consist of common equity, retained earnings and a limited amount of qualifying preferred stock, less goodwill and certain core deposit intangibles (“Tier 1 capital”). The remainder may consist of non-qualifying preferred stock, qualifying subordinated, perpetual, and/or mandatory convertible debt, term subordinated debt and intermediate term preferred stock and up to 45% of pretax
unrealized holding gains on available for sale equity securities with readily determinable market values that are prudently valued, and a limited amount of any loan loss allowance (“Tier 2 capital” and, together with Tier 1 capital, “Total Capital”). The Federal Reserve has stated that Tier 1 voting common equity should be the predominant form of capital.
In addition, the Federal Reserve and the OCC have established minimum leverage ratio guidelines for bank holding companies and national banks, which provide for a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to adjusted average quarterly assets (“leverage ratio”) equal to 3%, plus an additional cushion of 1.0% to 2.0%, if the institution has less than the highest regulatory rating. The guidelines also provide that institutions experiencing internal growth or making acquisitions will be expected to maintain strong capital positions substantially above the minimum supervisory levels without significant reliance on intangible assets. All bank holding companies and banks are expected to hold capital commensurate with the level and nature of their risks, including the volume and severity of their problem loans, and higher capital may be required as a result of an institution’s risk profile. Lastly, the Federal Reserve’s guidelines indicate that the Federal Reserve will continue to consider a “tangible Tier 1 leverage ratio” (deducting all intangibles) in evaluating proposals for expansion or new activities.
The capital requirements applicable to us and Seacoast National are subject to change because, over the coming years, the regulatory capital framework is expected to change in important respects as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. In particular, as noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminates Tier 1 capital treatment for most trust preferred securities after a three-year phase-in period that begins January 1, 2013. Moreover, reflecting the importance that regulators place on managing capital and other risks, on June 16, 2011, the banking agencies also issued proposed guidance on stress testing for banking organizations with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets; this proposed guidance outlines four “high-level” principles for stress testing practices that should be a part of a banking organization’s stress-testing framework. The guidance calls for the framework to (i) include activities and exercises that are tailored to the activities of the organization; (ii) employ multiple conceptually sound activities and approaches; (iii) be forward-looking and flexible; and (iv) be clear, actionable, well-supported, and used in the decision-making process. In addition, the federal bank regulators have issued a series of guidance and rulemakings applicable to “large banks.” Many of these do not currently apply to us due to our asset size; however, these issuances could impact industry capital standards and practices in many, potentially unforeseeable ways.
FDICIA and Prompt Corrective Action
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (“FDICIA”), among other things, requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to take “prompt corrective action” regarding depository institutions that do not meet minimum capital requirements. FDICIA establishes five regulatory capital tiers: “well capitalized”, “adequately capitalized”, “undercapitalized”, “significantly undercapitalized”, and “critically undercapitalized”. A depository institution’s capital tier will depend upon how its capital levels compare to various relevant capital measures and certain other factors, as established by regulation. The FDICIA imposes progressively more restrictive restraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the category in which an institution is classified.
All of the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted regulations establishing relevant capital measures and relevant capital levels for federally insured depository institutions. The relevant minimum capital measures are the total risk-based capital ratio, Tier 1 capital ratio, and the leverage ratio. Under the regulations, a national bank will be (i) “well capitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 10% or greater, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6% or greater, and a leverage ratio of at least 5%, and is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive by a federal bank regulatory agency to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure,
(ii) “adequately capitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8% or greater, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 4% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4% or greater (3% in certain circumstances) and does not meet the definition of a “well capitalized” bank, (iii) “undercapitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 8% or a Tier 1 capital ratio of less than 4% or a leverage ratio that is less than 4% (3% in certain circumstances), (iv) “significantly undercapitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6% or a Tier I capital ratio of less than 3%, or a leverage ratio of less than 3%, or (v) “critically undercapitalized” if its tangible equity is equal to or less than 2% of average quarterly tangible assets. In order to qualify as well-capitalized or adequately capitalized, an insured depository institution must meet all three minimum requirements. At each successively lower capital tier, increasingly stringent corrective actions are or may be required. The federal bank regulatory agencies have authority to require additional capital.
As of December 31, 2012, the consolidated capital ratios of the Seacoast and Seacoast National were as follows:
We have agreed with the OCC to maintain a Tier 1 leverage capital ratio of at least 8.50 percent and a total risk-based capital ratio of at least 12.00 percent.
As previously noted, the regulatory capital framework will change in important respects as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. It is widely anticipated that the capital requirements for most insured depository institutions will increase, although the nature and amounts of the increase have not yet been specified.
FDICIA directs that each federal bank regulatory agency prescribe standards for depository institutions and depository institution holding companies relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth compensation, a maximum ratio of classified assets to capital, minimum earnings sufficient to absorb losses, a minimum ratio of market value to book value for publicly traded shares, and such other standards as the federal bank regulatory agencies deem appropriate.
FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distribution (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be undercapitalized. Undercapitalized depository institutions are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan for approval within 90 days of becoming undercapitalized. For a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the depository institution’s parent holding company must guarantee that the institution will comply with such capital restoration plan. The aggregate liability of the parent holding company is limited to the lesser of 5% of the depository institution’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized and the amount necessary to bring the institution into compliance with applicable capital standards. If a depository institution fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is significantly undercapitalized. If the controlling holding company fails to fulfill its obligations under FDICIA and files (or has filed against it) a petition under the federal Bankruptcy Code, the claim for such liability would be entitled to a priority in such bankruptcy proceeding over third party creditors of the bank holding company. In addition, an undercapitalized institution is subject to increased monitoring and asset growth restrictions and is required to obtain prior regulatory approval for acquisitions, new lines of business, and branching. Such an institution also is barred from soliciting, taking or rolling over brokered deposits.
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 within 90 days of becoming significantly undercapitalized, except under limited circumstances. Because our company and Seacoast National exceed applicable capital requirements, the respective managements of our company and Seacoast National do not believe that the provisions of FDICIA have had any material effect on our company and Seacoast National or our respective operations.
FDICIA also contains a variety of other provisions that may affect the operations of our company and Seacoast National, including reporting requirements, regulatory standards for real estate lending, “truth in savings” provisions, the requirement that a depository institution give 90 days’ prior notice to customers and regulatory authorities before closing any branch, and a prohibition on the acceptance or renewal of brokered deposits by depository institutions that are not well capitalized, or are adequately capitalized and have not received a waiver from the FDIC. Seacoast National was well capitalized at December 31, 2012, and brokered deposits are not restricted.
Payment of Dividends
We are a legal entity separate and distinct from Seacoast National and our other subsidiaries. Our primary source of cash, other than securities offerings, is dividends from Seacoast National. The prior approval of the OCC is required if the total of all dividends declared by a national bank (such as Seacoast National) in any calendar year will exceed the sum of such bank’s net profits for that year and its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. Federal law also prohibits any national bank from paying dividends that would be greater than such bank’s undivided profits after deducting statutory bad debts in excess of such bank’s allowance for possible loan losses.
In addition, we and Seacoast National are subject to various general regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain adequate capital above regulatory minimums. The appropriate federal bank regulatory authority may prohibit the payment of dividends where it has determined that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit payment thereof. The OCC and the Federal Reserve have indicated that paying dividends that deplete a national or state member bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsound and unsafe banking practice. The OCC and the Federal Reserve have each indicated that depository institutions and their holding companies should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.
Under a Federal Reserve policy adopted in 2009, the board of directors of a bank holding company must consider different factors to ensure that its dividend level is prudent relative to maintaining a strong financial position, and is not based on overly optimistic earnings scenarios, such as potential events that could affect its ability to pay, while still maintaining a strong financial position. As a general matter, the Federal Reserve has indicated that the board of directors of a bank holding company should consult with the Federal Reserve and eliminate, defer or significantly reduce the bank holding company’s dividends if:
•
its net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends;
•
its prospective rate of earnings retention is not consistent with its capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition; or
•
it will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios.
In 2012 and 2010, Seacoast National recorded a net loss and although Seacoast National recorded net income in 2011, no dividends were paid to us during any of these years.
Prior approval by the OCC is required if the total of all dividends declared by a national bank in any calendar year exceeds the bank’s “profits”, as defined, for that year combined with its retained net profits for the preceding two calendar years. Under this restriction, Seacoast National cannot distribute any dividends to us, without prior OCC approval, as of December 31, 2012.
In addition to these regulatory requirements and restrictions, our ability to pay dividends is also limited by the terms of our Series A Preferred Stock. Subject to limited exceptions, if we are not current in the payment of quarterly dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock, we are not permitted to pay dividends on our common stock. During the third quarter of 2011, the Federal Reserve lifted its restriction regarding our paying dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock. As a result, on August 15, 2011 we paid the dividend due and nine deferred dividends (plus accrued interest) to the Treasury, which at that time held our Series A Preferred Stock. Dividend payments on the Series A Preferred Stock are current at December 31, 2012. No dividends on our common stock were declared or paid in 2012.
Enforcement Policies and Actions; Formal Agreement with OCC
The Federal Reserve and the OCC monitor compliance with laws and regulations. Violations of laws and regulations, or other unsafe and unsound practices, may result in these agencies imposing fines or penalties, cease and desist orders, or taking other enforcement actions. Under certain circumstances, these agencies may enforce these remedies directly against officers, directors, employees and other parties participating in the affairs of a bank or bank holding company.
Seacoast National entered into a formal agreement with the OCC on December 16, 2008 to improve Seacoast National’s asset quality. Under the formal agreement, Seacoast National’s board of directors appointed a compliance committee to monitor and coordinate Seacoast National’s performance. The formal agreement provided for the development and implementation of written programs to reduce Seacoast National’s credit risk, monitor and reduce the level of criticized assets, and manage commercial real estate (“CRE”) loan concentrations in light of current adverse CRE market conditions. Seacoast National believes it has complied with all of the terms of this agreement.
The OCC and Seacoast National agreed by letter agreement that Seacoast National shall maintain specific minimum capital ratios by March 31, 2009 and subsequent periods, including a total risk based capital ratio of 12.00 percent and a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 7.50 percent. The agreed upon minimum capital ratios with the OCC were revised under the letter agreement to 12.00 percent for the total risk based capital ratio and 8.50 percent for the Tier l leverage ratio at January 31, 2010 and for subsequent periods. The federal bank regulatory agencies have begun seeking higher capital levels than the minimums due to market conditions and the OCC had indicated that Seacoast National, in light of risks in its loan portfolio and local economic conditions, especially in the real estate markets, should hold capital commensurate with such risks.
On January 10, 2013, Seacoast National executed a Stipulation and Consent to a Civil Monetary Penalty (the “Consent Agreement”) with the OCC. Under the Consent Agreement, Seacoast National,
without admitting or denying any wrongdoing, agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty in the amount of $26,950 as a settlement related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act and its implementing regulations.
Bank and Bank Subsidiary Regulation
Seacoast National is a national bank subject to supervision, regulation and examination by the OCC, which monitors all areas of operations, including reserves, loans, mortgages, the issuance of securities, payment of dividends, establishing branches, capital adequacy, and compliance with laws. Seacoast National is a member of the FDIC and, as such, its deposits are insured by the FDIC to the maximum extent provided by law. See “FDIC Insurance Assessments”.
Under Florida law, Seacoast National may establish and operate branches throughout the State of Florida, subject to the maintenance of adequate capital and the receipt of OCC approval.
The OCC has adopted the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (“FFIEC”) rating system and assigns each financial institution a confidential composite rating based on an evaluation and rating of six essential components of an institution’s financial condition and operations, including Capital Adequacy, Asset Quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity and Sensitivity to Market Risk, as well as the quality of risk management practices. For most institutions, the FFIEC has indicated that market risk primarily reflects exposures to changes in interest rates. When regulators evaluate this component, consideration is expected to be given to: management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor, and control market risk; the institution’s size; the nature and complexity of its activities and its risk profile, and the adequacy of its capital and earnings in relation to its level of market risk exposure. Market risk is rated based upon, but not limited to, an assessment of the sensitivity of the financial institution’s earnings or the economic value of its capital to adverse changes in interest rates, foreign exchange rates, commodity prices, or equity prices; management’s ability to identify, measure, monitor, and control exposure to market risk; and the nature and complexity of interest rate risk exposure arising from non-trading positions.
FNB Insurance, a Seacoast National subsidiary, is authorized by the State of Florida to market insurance products as an agent. FNB Insurance is a separate and distinct entity from Seacoast National and is subject to supervision and regulation by state insurance authorities. It is a financial subsidiary, but is inactive.
Standards for Safety and Soundness
The Federal Deposit Insurance Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe, by regulation or guideline, operational and managerial standards for all insured depository institutions relating to: (1) internal controls; (2) information systems and audit systems; (3) loan documentation; (4) credit underwriting; (5) interest rate risk exposure; and (6) asset quality.
The agencies also must prescribe standards for asset quality, earnings, and stock valuation, as well as standards for compensation, fees and benefits. The federal banking agencies have adopted regulations and Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness to implement these required standards. These guidelines set forth the safety and soundness standards used to identify and address problems at insured depository institutions before capital becomes impaired. Under the regulations, if a regulator determines that a bank fails to meet any standards prescribed by the guidelines, the regulator may require the bank to submit an acceptable plan to achieve compliance, consistent with deadlines for the submission and review of such safety and soundness compliance plans.
FDIC Insurance Assessments
Seacoast National’s deposits are insured by the FDIC’s DIF, and Seacoast National is subject to FDIC assessments for its deposit insurance, as well as assessments by the FDIC to pay interest on Financing Corporation (“FICO”) bonds.
The FDIC issued a final rule effective April 1, 2009 that changed the way that the FDIC’s assessment system differentiates for risk, made corresponding changes to assessment rates beginning with the second quarter of 2009, and made other changes to the deposit insurance assessment rules. These rules included a decrease for long-term unsecured debt, including senior and subordinated debt and, for small institutions with assets under $10 billion, a portion of Tier 1 capital; (2) an increase for secured liabilities above a threshold amount; and (3) an increase for brokered deposits above a threshold amount. These assessment rules increased assessments for banks that use brokered deposits above a threshold level to fund “rapid asset growth”. As a result, we were required to pay significantly increased premiums or additional special assessments.
To restore the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, all FDIC-insured institutions were required to prepay their deposit premiums for the next 3 years on December 30, 2009. The FDIC ruling also provided for maintaining the assessment rates at their current levels through the end of 2010, with a uniform increase of $0.03 per $100 of covered deposits effective January 1, 2011. On December 30, 2009, we prepaid $14.8 million of FDIC insurance premiums for the calendar quarters ending December 31, 2009 through December 31, 2012. For 2010 we recorded $3.8 million to expense in FDIC insurance premiums.
Effective April 1, 2011, and as discussed above (see “Recent Regulatory Developments” above), the FDIC began calculating assessments based on an institution’s average consolidated total assets less its average tangible equity in accordance with changes mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act. Changes to assessment rates were developed to approximate the same inflow of premiums to the FDIC, but with a shifting of the burden of deposit insurance premiums toward those depository institutions that rely on funding sources other than U.S. deposits. Initial base assessment rates applicable to second quarter 2011 assessments (and prospectively until the DIF reserve ratio reaches 1.15 percent) were as follows:
An institution’s overall rate may be higher by as much as 10 basis points or lower by as much as 5 basis points depending on adjustments to the base rate for unsecured debt and/or brokered deposits. Furthermore, under the new system, different rate schedules will take effect when the DIF reserve ratio reaches certain levels. For example, for banks in risk category II, the initial base assessment rate will be 14 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is below 1.15 percent, 12 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 1.15 percent and 2 percent, 10 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is between 2 percent and 2.5 percent and 9 basis points when the DIF reserve ratio is 2.5 percent or higher.
Since inception of the new schedule, Seacoast National’s overall rate for assessment calculations has been 14 basis points, the base rate for Risk Category II. For Seacoast National, the new methodology has had a favorable effect, with premiums totaling $2.9 million for 2011, comprised of amounts paid for
the first quarter of 2011 (under the old basis), and amounts paid for the second, third and fourth quarters of 2011, respectively (under the new basis), and premiums of $2.7 million for 2012. If an institution has a prepayment amount remaining after paying March 2013’s premium, the excess will be refunded on June 2013’s premium invoice. Seacoast National has a prepaid asset for FDIC insurance estimated at $4.6 million at December 31, 2012 and anticipates a refund will be forthcoming on our June 2013 invoice.
In addition, all FDIC-insured institutions are required to pay a pro rata portion of the interest due on bonds issued by the FICO. FICO assessments are set by the FDIC quarterly and ranged from 1.06 basis points in the first quarter of 2010 to 1.04 basis points in the last quarter of 2010, 1.02 basis points in the first quarter of 2011 to 0.68 basis points in the last quarter of 2011, and 0.66 basis points for all four quarters during 2012. The FICO assessment rate for the first quarter of 2013 is 0.64 basis points. FICO assessments of approximately $184,000, $146,000 and $125,000 were paid to the FDIC in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.
Participation in Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program
On October 3, 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) became law. Under the TARP authorized by the EESA, the Treasury established the CPP providing for the purchase of senior preferred shares of qualifying FDIC-insured depository institutions and their holding companies. On December 19, 2008, pursuant to a letter agreement (the “Purchase Agreement”), we sold 2,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock (the “Series A Preferred Stock”) and a warrant (the “Warrant”) to acquire 1,179,245 shares of common stock to the Treasury pursuant to the CPP for an aggregate consideration of $50 million. Pursuant to the terms of the Warrant, the successful public capital raise conducted by the Company during 2009 reduced the number of shares under the Warrant by 50 percent to 589,625 shares of common stock. The Treasury’s interest in outstanding Series A Preferred Stock was sold on April 3, 2012 to third parties and the Company repurchased the Warrant for $81,000 net of related expenses on May 30, 2012. Prior to April 3, 2012, and as a result of our participation in the CPP, we agreed to certain limitations on our executive compensation as discussed further below.
Specifically, we adopted the Treasury’s standards for executive compensation and corporate governance for the period during which the Treasury held the equity issued pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, including the common stock which could be issued pursuant to the Warrant. These standards generally applied to our chief executive officer, chief financial officer and the three next most highly compensated senior executive officers. The standards included:
•
ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution;
•
required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate;
•
prohibited making golden parachute payments to senior executives; and
•
an agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive.
On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed into law The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “ARRA”), commonly known as the economic stimulus or economic recovery package. The ARRA retroactively imposed certain new executive compensation and corporate expenditure limits and corporate governance standards on all current and future TARP recipients, including us, that were in addition to those previously announced by the Treasury, until the institution repaid the Treasury. The Treasury released an interim final rule on TARP standards for compensation and corporate governance on June 15, 2009, which implemented and further expanded the limitations and
restrictions imposed on executive compensation and corporate governance by the TARP CPP and ARRA. The Treasury interim final rules also prohibited any tax gross-up payments to senior executive officers and the next 20 highest paid executives; required “say on pay” vote in annual shareholders’ meeting; and imposed restrictions on bonus payments with the exceptions for long-term restricted stock.
In addition, we are also required to include certificates from our management in our annual report on Form 10-K regarding our compliance with all regulations summarized above during any applicable TARP period as a result of our participation in the TARP CPP.
As a result of the Treasury’s divestiture of our Series A Preferred Stock on April 3, 2012, certifications of compliance with TARP CPP will not be required after this report and executive compensation limitations under the TARP CPP and ARRA governance are no longer applicable. At December 31, 2012, the Company was current on all dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock. The board and management continue to review the Company’s potential capital management options. We currently believe that the Company’s overall level of capital is sufficient given the current economic environment, and view the $50 million in Series A Preferred Stock as an important component of our capital structure. We continue to believe that the achievement of our earnings and asset quality objectives are a priority and may precede any decision by us to repurchase the Series A Preferred Stock. We regularly consider various scenarios for repurchase of the Series A Preferred Stock, based on our outlook for earnings and asset quality. Our outlook currently suggests that repurchase of the Series A Preferred Stock in smaller installments may be a possibility. An important consideration will be the recovery of our deferred tax valuation allowance which could significantly improve our tangible common equity. Another important consideration will be the future capacity and ability of Seacoast National to pay dividends to the Company. As earnings continue to increase, we believe that more financing options will emerge when dividends can be prudently paid to the Company by Seacoast National.
Change in Control
Subject to certain exceptions, the BHC Act and the Change in Bank Control Act, together with regulations promulgated thereunder, require Federal Reserve approval prior to any person or company acquiring “control” of a bank or bank holding company. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company acquires 25 percent or more of any class of voting securities, and rebuttably presumed to exist if a person acquires 10 percent or more, but less than 25 percent, of any class of voting securities and either the company has registered securities under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or no other person owns a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction. In certain cases, a company may also be presumed to have control under the BHC Act if it acquires 5 percent or more of any class of voting securities.
On September 22, 2008, the Federal Reserve issued a policy statement on minority equity investments in banks and bank holding companies, that permits investors to (1) acquire up to 33 percent of the total equity of a target bank or bank holding company, subject to certain conditions, including (but not limited to) that the investing firm does not acquire 15 percent or more of any class of voting securities, and (2) designate at least one director, without triggering the various regulatory requirements associated with control.
Other Regulations
Anti-Money Laundering. The International Money Laundering Abatement and Anti-Terrorism Funding Act of 2001 specifies “know your customer” requirements that obligate financial institutions to take actions to verify the identity of the account holders in connection with opening an account at any U.S. financial institution. Banking regulators will consider compliance with the Act’s money laundering provisions in acting upon acquisition and merger proposals. Sanctions for violations of the Act can be imposed in an amount equal to twice the sum involved in the violating transaction, up to $1 million.
Under the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (“USA PATRIOT”) Act of 2001, financial institutions are subject to prohibitions against specified financial transactions and account relationships as well as enhanced due diligence and “know your customer” standards in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign customers.
The USA PATRIOT Act requires financial institutions to establish anti-money laundering programs with minimum standards that include:
•
the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;
•
the designation of a compliance officer;
•
an ongoing employee training program; and
•
an independent audit function to test the programs.
Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these anti-money laundering obligations and recently have been active in imposing “cease and desist” and other regulatory orders and money penalty sanctions against institutions found to be in violation of these requirements. In addition, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network is in the process of establishing new regulations that would require financial institutions to obtain beneficial ownership information for certain accounts, however, it has yet to establish final regulations on this topic.
Economic Sanctions. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) is responsible for helping to insure that U.S. entities do not engage in transactions with certain prohibited parties, as defined by various Executive Orders and acts of Congress. OFAC publishes, and routinely updates, lists of names of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts, including the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. If we find a name on any transaction, account or wire transfer that is on an OFAC list, we must undertake certain specified activities, which could include blocking or freezing the account or transaction requested, and we must notify the appropriate authorities.
Transactions with Related Parties. We are a legal entity separate and distinct from Seacoast National and our other subsidiaries. Various legal limitations restrict our banking subsidiaries from lending or otherwise supplying funds to us or our non-bank subsidiaries. We and our banking subsidiaries are subject to Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Regulation W thereunder. Section 23A defines “covered transactions” to include extensions of credit, and limits a bank’s covered transactions with any affiliate to 10% of such bank’s capital and surplus. All covered and exempt transactions between a bank and its affiliates must be on terms and conditions consistent with safe and sound banking practices, and banks and their subsidiaries are prohibited from purchasing low-quality assets from the bank’s affiliates. Finally, Section 23A requires that all of a bank’s extensions of credit to its affiliates be appropriately secured by acceptable collateral, generally United States government or agency securities.
We and our bank subsidiaries also are subject to Section 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, which generally requires covered and other transactions among affiliates to be on terms, including credit standards, that are substantially the same or at least as favorable to the bank or its subsidiary as those prevailing at the time for similar transactions with unaffiliated companies.
The Dodd-Frank Act generally enhances the restrictions on transactions with affiliates under Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, including an expansion of the definition of “covered transactions” and an increase in the amount of time for which collateral requirements regarding covered credit transactions must be satisfied. Specifically, Section 608 of the Dodd-Frank Act broadens the
definition of “covered transactions” to include derivative transactions and the borrowing or lending of securities if the transaction will cause a bank to have credit exposure to an affiliate. The revised definition also includes the acceptance of debt obligations of an affiliate as collateral for a loan or extension of credit to a third party. Furthermore, reverse repurchase transactions will be viewed as extensions of credit (instead of asset purchases) and thus become subject to collateral requirements. These expanded definitions took effect on July 21, 2012. The ability of the Federal Reserve to grant exemptions from these restrictions is also narrowed by the Dodd-Frank Act, including with respect to the requirement for the OCC, FDIC and Federal Reserve to coordinate with one another.
Concentrations in Lending. During 2006, the federal bank regulatory agencies released guidance on “Concentrations in Commercial Real Estate Lending” (the “Guidance”). The Guidance defines CRE loans as exposures secured by raw land, land development and construction (including 1-4 family residential construction), multi-family property, and non-farm nonresidential property where the primary or a significant source of repayment is derived from rental income associated with the property (that is, loans for which 50 percent or more of the source of repayment comes from third party, non-affiliated, rental income) or the proceeds of the sale, refinancing, or permanent financing of the property. Loans to Real Estate Investment Trusts (“REIT”) and unsecured loans to developers that closely correlate to the inherent risks in CRE markets would also be considered CRE loans under the Guidance. Loans on owner occupied CRE are generally excluded.
The Guidance requires that appropriate processes be in place to identify, monitor and control risks associated with real estate lending concentrations. This could include enhanced strategic planning, CRE underwriting policies, risk management, internal controls, portfolio stress testing and risk exposure limits as well as appropriately designed compensation and incentive programs. Higher allowances for loan losses and capital levels may also be required. The Guidance is triggered when CRE loan concentrations exceed either:
•
Total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land of 100 percent or more of a bank’s total risk based capital; or
•
Total reported loans secured by multifamily and nonfarm nonresidential properties and loans for construction, land development, and other land of 300 percent or more of a bank’s total risk based capital.
The Guidance also applies when a bank has a sharp increase in CRE loans or has significant concentrations of CRE secured by a particular property type.
The Guidance applies to our CRE lending activities for construction and land development loans. At December 31, 2012, we had outstanding $21.8 million in commercial construction and residential land development loans and $38.9 million in residential construction loans to individuals, which represents approximately 28 percent of Seacoast National’s total risk based capital at December 31, 2012, well below the Guidance’s threshold.
On October 30, 2009, the banking regulators issued a policy statement on “Prudent Commercial Real Estate Loan Workouts” (the “Policy Statement”), which replaced a previous policy statement issued by regulators in 1995. The regulators issued the Policy Statement in recognition of the difficulties that financial institutions may face when working with commercial real estate borrowers that are experiencing reduced operating cash flows, depreciated collateral values, or prolonged sales and rental absorption periods. Among other things, the Policy Statement identifies supervisory expectations for a bank’s risk management elements for loan workout programs, loan workout arrangements, classification of loans, and regulatory reporting and accounting considerations.
We have always had significant exposures to loans secured by commercial real estate due to the nature of our markets and the loan needs of both retail and commercial customers. We believe our long term experience in CRE lending, underwriting policies, internal controls, and other policies currently in place, as well as our loan and credit monitoring and administration procedures, are generally appropriate to managing our concentrations as required under the Guidance. The federal bank regulators are looking more closely at the risks of various assets and asset categories and risk management, and the need for additional rules regarding liquidity, as well as capital rules that better reflects risk. We have agreed with the OCC to manage our CRE risks. At December 31, 2012, the total CRE exposure for Seacoast National represents approximately 164 percent of total risk based capital, below the Guidance’s threshold. See “Item 1. Business-Enforcement Policies and Actions.”
Furthermore, the Dodd-Frank Act contains provisions that may impact our business by reducing the amount of our commercial real estate lending and increasing the cost of borrowing, including rules relating to risk retention of securitized assets. Section 941 of the Dodd-Frank Act requires, among other things, a loan originator or a securitizer of asset-backed securities to retain a percentage of the credit risk of securitized assets. Federal regulators have jointly issued a proposed rule to implement these requirements but have yet to issue final rules.
Community Reinvestment Act. We and our banking subsidiaries are subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”) and related federal bank regulatory agencies’ regulations. Under the CRA, all banks and thrifts have a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with their safe and sound operation, to help meet the credit needs for their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA requires a depository institution’s primary federal regulator, in connection with its examination of the institution, to assess the institution’s record of assessing and meeting the credit needs of the communities served by that institution, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The bank regulatory agency’s assessment of the institution’s record is made available to the public. Further, such assessment is required of any institution which has applied to: (i) charter a national bank; (ii) obtain deposit insurance coverage for a newly-chartered institution; (iii) establish a new branch office that accepts deposits; (iv) relocate an office; (v) merge or consolidate with, or acquire the assets or assume the liabilities of, a federally regulated financial institution, or (vi) expand other activities, including engaging in financial services activities authorized by the GLB. A less than satisfactory CRA rating will slow, if not preclude, expansion of banking activities and prevent a company from becoming or remaining a financial holding company.
Following the enactment of the GLB, CRA agreements with private parties must be disclosed and annual CRA reports must be made to a bank’s primary federal regulator. A bank holding company will not be permitted to become or remain a financial holding company and no new activities authorized under GLB may be commenced by a holding company or by a bank financial subsidiary if any of its bank subsidiaries received less than a “satisfactory” CRA rating in its latest CRA examination. Federal CRA regulations require, among other things, that evidence of discrimination against applicants on a prohibited basis, and illegal or abusive lending practices be considered in the CRA evaluation.
Privacy and Data Security. The GLB imposed new requirements on financial institutions with respect to consumer privacy. The GLB generally prohibits disclosure of consumer information to non-affiliated third parties unless the consumer has been given the opportunity to object and has not objected to such disclosure. Financial institutions are further required to disclose their privacy policies to consumers annually. Financial institutions, however, will be required to comply with state law if it is more protective of consumer privacy than the GLB. The GLB also directed federal regulators, including the FDIC and the OCC, to prescribe standards for the security of consumer information. Seacoast National is subject to such standards, as well as standards for notifying customers in the event of a security breach. Under federal law, Seacoast National must disclose its privacy policy to consumers,
permit customers to opt out of having nonpublic customer information disclosed to third parties in certain circumstances, and allow customers to opt out of receiving marketing solicitations based on information about the customer received from another subsidiary. States may adopt more extensive privacy protections. The Company is similarly required to have an information security program to safeguard the confidentiality and security of customer information and to ensure proper disposal. Customers must be notified when unauthorized disclosure involves sensitive customer information that may be misused.
Consumer Regulation. Activities of Seacoast National are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations designed to protect consumers. Rulemaking authority for these and other consumer financial protection laws transferred from the prudential regulators to the CFPB on July 21, 2011. These laws and regulations include provisions that:
•
limit the interest and other charges collected or contracted for by Seacoast National, including new rules respecting the terms of credit cards and of debit card overdrafts;
•
govern Seacoast National’s disclosures of credit terms to consumer borrowers;
•
require Seacoast National to provide information to enable the public and public officials to determine whether it is fulfilling its obligation to help meet the housing needs of the community it serves;
•
prohibit Seacoast National from discriminating on the basis of race, creed or other prohibited factors when it makes decisions to extend credit; and
•
govern the manner in which Seacoast National may collect consumer debts.
New rules on credit card interest rates, fees, and other terms took effect on February 22, 2010, as directed by the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (“CARD”) Act. Among the new requirements are (1) 45-days advance notice to a cardholder before the interest rate on a card may be increased, subject to certain exceptions; (2) a ban on interest rate increases in the first year; (3) an opt-in for over-the-limit charges; (4) caps on high fee cards; (5) greater limits on the issuance of cards to persons below the age of 21; (6) new rules on monthly statements and payment due dates and the crediting of payments; and (7) the application of new rates only to new charges and of payments to higher rate charges.
New rules regarding overdraft charges for debit card and automatic teller machine, or ATM, transactions took effect on July 1, 2010. These rules eliminated automatic overdraft protection arrangements now in common use and required banks to notify and obtain the consent of customers before enrolling them in an overdraft protection plan. For existing debit card and ATM card holders, the current automatic programs expired on August 15, 2010. The notice and consent process is a requirement for all new cards issued on or after July 1, 2010. The new rules do not apply to overdraft protection on checks or to automatic bill payments. In June 2011, pursuant to requirements of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule establishing standards for debit card interchange fees and prohibiting network exclusivity arrangements and routing restrictions. In addition, the CFPB issued final rules revising Regulation E, which governs electronic transactions, to implement certain Dodd-Frank requirements relating to “remittance transfer” transactions.
The CFPB recently issued rules that are likely to impact our residential mortgage lending practices, and the residential mortgage market generally, including rules that implement the “ability-to-repay” requirement and provide protection from liability for “qualified mortgages,” as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, which are scheduled to take effect on January 10, 2014. The CFPB has also issued a number of other mortgage-related rules, including new rules pertaining to loan originator compensation, and that establish qualification, registration and licensing requirements for loan originators. These and other changes are likely to impose restrictions on future mortgage loan originations, diminish lenders’
rights against delinquent borrowers or otherwise change the ways in which lenders make and administer residential mortgage loans. Any or all of these proposals could have a negative effect on the financial performance of Seacoast National’s mortgage lending operations, by, among other things, reducing the volume of mortgage loans that Seacoast National can originate and sell into the secondary market and impairing Seacoast National’s ability to proceed against certain delinquent borrowers with timely and effective collection efforts.
The deposit operations of Seacoast National are also subject to laws and regulations that:
•
require Seacoast National to adequately disclose the interest rates and other terms of consumer deposit accounts;
•
impose a duty on Seacoast National to maintain the confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribe procedures for complying with administrative subpoenas of financial records;
•
require escheatment of unclaimed funds to the appropriate state agencies after the passage of certain statutory time frames; and,
•
govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts with Seacoast National and the rights and liabilities of customers who use automated teller machines, or ATMs, and other electronic banking services. As described above, beginning in July 2010, new rules took effect that limited Seacoast National’s ability to charge fees for the payment of overdrafts for every day debit and ATM card transactions.
As noted above, Seacoast National will likely face a significant increase in its consumer compliance regulatory burden as a result of the combination of the newly-established CFPB and the significant roll back of federal preemption of state laws in the area. Furthermore, many of the consumer protection laws and regulations are subject to change resulting from the provisions in the Dodd-Frank Act and other developments, which in many cases call for revisions to implementing regulations. In addition, the responsibility for oversight of many consumer protection laws and regulations has, in large measure, transferred from the bank’s primary regulator to the CFPB. The CFPB has indicated that, in addition to specific statutory mandates, it is working on a wide range of initiatives to address issues in markets for consumer financial products and services. It is anticipated that the CFPB will engage in numerous other rulemakings in the near term that may impact our business, including by revising consumer protection regulations and associated disclosures.
Non-Discrimination Policies. Seacoast National is also subject to, among other things, the provisions of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (the “ECOA”) and the Fair Housing Act (the “FHA”), both of which prohibit discrimination based on race or color, religion, national origin, sex, and familial status in any aspect of a consumer or commercial credit or residential real estate transaction. The Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), and the federal bank regulatory agencies have issued an Interagency Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending that provides guidance to financial institutions in determining whether discrimination exists, how the agencies will respond to lending discrimination, and what steps lenders might take to prevent discriminatory lending practices. The DOJ has increased its efforts to prosecute what it regards as violations of the ECOA and FHA.
Enforcement Authority. Seacoast National and its “institution-affiliated parties,” including management, employees, agents, independent contractors and consultants, such as attorneys and accountants and others who participate in the conduct of the institution’s affairs, are subject to potential civil and criminal penalties for violations of law, regulations or written orders of a government agency. Violations can include failure to timely file required reports, filing false or misleading information or submitting inaccurate reports. Civil penalties may be as high as $1,000,000 a day for such violations, and criminal penalties for some financial institution crimes may include imprisonment for 20 years.
Regulators have flexibility to commence enforcement actions against institutions and institution-affiliated parties, and the FDIC has the authority to terminate deposit insurance. When issued by a banking agency, cease-and-desist orders may, among other things, require affirmative action to correct any harm resulting from a violation or practice, including restitution, reimbursement, indemnifications or guarantees against loss. A financial institution may also be ordered to restrict its growth, dispose of certain assets, rescind agreements or contracts, or take other actions determined to be appropriate by the ordering agency. The federal banking agencies also may remove a director or officer from an insured depository institution (or bar them from the industry) if a violation is willful or reckless.
Governmental Monetary Policies. The commercial banking business is affected not only by general economic conditions but also by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. Changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings, control of borrowings, open market operations, the imposition of and changes in reserve requirements against member banks, deposits and assets of foreign branches, the imposition of and changes in reserve requirements against certain borrowings by banks and their affiliates and the placing of limits on interest rates which member banks may pay on time and savings deposits are some of the instruments of monetary policy available to the Federal Reserve. These monetary policies influence to a significant extent the overall growth of all bank loans, investments and deposits and the interest rates charged on loans or paid on time and savings deposits. Recently, in response to the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has established several innovative programs to stabilize certain financial institutions and to ensure the availability of credit. The nature of future monetary policies and the effect of such policies on the bank’s future business and earnings, therefore, cannot be predicted accurately.
Evolving Legislation and Regulatory Action. Proposals for new statutes and regulations are frequently circulated at both the federal and state levels, and may include wide-ranging changes to the structures, regulations and competitive relationships of financial institutions. We cannot predict whether new legislation will be enacted and, if enacted, the effect that it, or any regulations, would have on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Other Regulatory Matters. We and our subsidiaries are subject to oversight by the SEC, FINRA, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and Nasdaq and various state securities regulators. We and our subsidiaries have from time to time received requests for information from regulatory authorities in various states, including state attorneys general, securities regulators and other regulatory authorities, concerning our business practices. Such requests are considered incidental to the normal conduct of business.
Statistical Information
Certain statistical and financial information (as required by SEC Guide 3) is included in response to Item 7 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Certain additional statistical information is also included in response to Item 6 and Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Item 1A.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
In addition to the other information contained in this Form 10-K, you should carefully consider the risks described below, as well as the risk factors and uncertainties discussed in our other public filings with the SEC under the caption “Risk Factors” in evaluating us and our business and making or continuing an investment in our stock. The risks contained in this Form 10-K are not the only risks that we face. Additional risks that are not presently known, or that we presently deem to be immaterial, could also harm our business, results of operations and financial condition and an investment in our stock. The trading price of our securities could decline due to the materialization of any of these risks, and our shareholders may lose all or part of their investment. This Form 10-K also contains forward-looking statements that may not be realized as a result of certain factors, including, but not limited to, the risks described herein and in our other public filings with the SEC. Please refer to the section in this Form 10-K entitled “Special Cautionary Notice Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” for additional information regarding forward-looking statements.
Risks Related to Our Business
Difficult market conditions have adversely affected and may continue to affect our industry.
We are exposed to downturns in the U.S. economy, and particularly the local markets in which we operate in Florida. Declines in the housing markets over the past several years, including falling home prices and sales volumes, and increasing foreclosures, have negatively affected the credit performance of mortgage loans and resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by financial institutions, including government-sponsored entities and major commercial and investment banks, as well as Seacoast National. These write-downs have caused many financial institutions to seek additional capital, to merge with larger and stronger institutions and, in many cases, to fail. This market turmoil and the tightening of credit have led to increased levels of commercial and consumer delinquencies, lack of consumer confidence, increased market volatility and reductions in business activity generally. The resulting economic pressure on consumers and lack of confidence in the financial markets has adversely affected our business, financial condition and results of operations. A worsening of these conditions would likely exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us and other financial institutions. In particular:
•
We are facing increased regulation of our industry, including as a result of recent regulatory reform initiatives by the U.S. government. Compliance with such regulations will increase our costs and may limit our ability to pursue business opportunities.
•
Market developments, government programs and the winding down of various government programs may continue to adversely affect consumer confidence levels and may cause adverse changes in borrower behaviors and payment rates, resulting in further increases in delinquencies and default rates, which could affect our loan charge-offs and our provisions for credit losses.
•
Our ability to assess the creditworthiness of our customers or to estimate the values of our assets and collateral for loans will be reduced if the models and approaches we use become less predictive of future behaviors, valuations, assumptions or estimates. We estimate losses inherent in our credit exposure, the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses and the values of certain assets by using estimates based on difficult, subjective, and complex judgments, including estimates as to the effects of economic conditions and how these economic conditions might affect the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans or the value of assets.
•
Our ability to borrow from other financial institutions on favorable terms or at all, or to raise capital, could be adversely affected by further disruptions in the capital markets or other events, including, among other things, deterioration in investor expectations and changes in the FDIC’s resolution authority or practices.
•
Failures of other depository institutions in our markets and increasing consolidation of financial services companies as a result of current market conditions could increase our deposits and assets, necessitating additional capital, and may have unexpected adverse effects upon our ability to compete effectively.
Nonperforming assets could result in an increase in our provision for loan losses, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.
At December 31, 2012 and 2011, our nonperforming loans (which consist of nonaccrual loans) totaled $41.0 million and $28.5 million, or 3.3 percent and 2.4 percent of the loan portfolio, respectively. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, our nonperforming assets (which include foreclosed real estate) were $52.8 million and $49.5 million, or 2.4 percent and 2.3 percent of assets, respectively. In addition, we had approximately $3.6 million and $5.0 million in accruing loans that were 30 days or more delinquent at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Our nonperforming assets adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans or other real estate owned, thereby adversely affecting our income, and increasing our loan administration costs. When we take collateral in foreclosures and similar proceedings, we are required to mark the related loan to the then fair market value of the collateral, which may result in a loss. These loans and other real estate owned also increase our risk profile and the capital our regulators believe is appropriate in light of such risks. Until economic and market conditions improve, we may incur additional losses relating to an increase in nonperforming loans. If economic conditions and market factors negatively and/or disproportionately affect some of our larger loans, then we could see a sharp increase in our total net charge-offs and also be required to significantly increase our allowance for loan losses. Any further increase in our nonperforming assets and related increases in our provision for losses on loans could negatively affect our business and could have a material adverse effect on our capital, financial condition and results of operations.
Seacoast National has adopted and implemented a policy to ensure Bank adherence to a written program designed to eliminate the basis of criticism of criticized assets as required by the OCC pursuant to the formal agreement that Seacoast National entered into with the OCC. While we have reduced our problem assets significantly through loan sales, workouts, restructurings and otherwise, decreases in the value of these remaining assets, or the underlying collateral, or in these borrowers’ performance or financial conditions, whether or not due to economic and market conditions beyond our control, could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the resolution of nonperforming assets requires significant commitments of time from management and our directors, which can be detrimental to the performance of their other responsibilities. There can be no assurance that we will not experience further increases in nonperforming loans in the future, or that nonperforming assets will not result in further losses in the future.
Our allowance for loan losses may prove inadequate or we may be adversely affected by credit risk exposures.
Our business depends on the creditworthiness of our customers. We periodically review our allowance for loan losses for adequacy considering economic conditions and trends, collateral values and credit quality indicators, including past charge-off experience and levels of past due loans and nonperforming assets. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses
involves a high degree of subjectivity and judgment and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. We cannot be certain that our allowance for loan losses will be adequate over time to cover credit losses in our portfolio because of unanticipated adverse changes in the economy, market conditions or events adversely affecting specific customers, industries or markets, or borrower behaviors towards repaying their loans. Generally speaking, the credit quality of our borrowers has deteriorated as a result of the economic downturn in our markets. Although there are now signs of economic recovery, if the credit quality of our customer base or their debt service behavior materially decreases further, if the risk profile of a market, industry or group of customers declines further or weaknesses in the real estate markets and other economics persist or worsen, or if our allowance for loan losses is not adequate, our business, financial condition, including our liquidity and capital, and results of operations could be materially adversely affected. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for loan losses and may require an increase in the provision for loan losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. If charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for loan losses, we will need additional provisions to increase the allowance for loan losses, which would result in a decrease in net income and capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Our ability to realize our deferred tax assets may be further reduced in the future if our estimates of future taxable income from our operations and tax planning strategies do not support our deferred tax amount. Additionally, the amount of net operating loss carry-forwards and certain other tax attributes realizable for income tax purposes may be reduced under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 382”) by sales of our capital securities.
As of December 31, 2012, we had deferred tax assets of $18.0 million after we recorded $44.8 million of valuation allowance based on management’s estimation of the likelihood of those deferred tax assets being realized. These and future deferred tax assets may be further reduced in the future if our estimates of future taxable income from our operations and tax planning strategies do not support the amount of the deferred tax asset.
The Company recorded income in 2011 that was higher than our loss for 2012, but as a result of more significant losses incurred in 2010, the Company was and is in a three-year cumulative pretax loss position at December 31, 2012. A cumulative loss position is considered significant negative evidence in assessing the prospective realization of a deferred tax asset from a forecast of future taxable income. We also consider all positive and negative evidence including the impact of recent operating results, reversal of existing taxable temporary differences, tax planning strategies and projected earnings with the statutory tax loss carryover period. This process requires significant judgment by management about matters that are by nature uncertain. If we were to conclude that significant portions of our deferred tax assets were not more likely than not to be realized (due to operating results or other factors), the required valuation allowance could adversely affect our financial position and results of operation, thereby negatively affecting our stock price.
The amount of net operating loss carry-forwards and certain other tax attributes realizable annually for income tax purposes may be reduced by an offering and/or other sales of our capital securities, including transactions in the open market by 5% or greater shareholders, if an ownership change is deemed to occur under Section 382. The determination of whether an ownership change has occurred under Section 382 is highly fact specific and can occur through one or more acquisitions of capital stock (including open market trading) if the result of such acquisitions is that the percentage of our outstanding common stock held by shareholders or groups of shareholders owning at least 5% of our common stock at the time of such acquisition, as determined under Section 382, is more than 50 percentage points higher than the lowest percentage of our outstanding common stock owned by such
shareholders or groups of shareholders within the prior three-year period. The sale of common stock in August 2009 is no longer within the prior three-year look back period as required by Section 382 and reduced, but did not eliminate the possible negative effects of a change in ownership. As previously disclosed on May 27, 2011, we adopted an amendment to our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended (“Articles of Incorporation”) that is intended to help preserve our net operating losses (the “Protective Amendment”), however, such amendment may not be effective.
Current and further deterioration in the real estate markets, including the secondary market for residential mortgage loans, have adversely affected us and may continue to adversely affect us.
The effects of ongoing mortgage market challenges, combined with the correction in residential real estate market prices and reduced levels of home sales, could result in further price reductions in single family home values, further adversely affecting the liquidity and value of collateral securing commercial loans for residential land acquisition, construction and development, as well as residential mortgage loans and residential property collateral securing loans that we hold, mortgage loan originations and gains on the sale of mortgage loans. Declining real estate prices have caused higher delinquencies and losses on certain mortgage loans, generally, particularly second lien mortgages and home equity lines of credit. Significant ongoing disruptions in the secondary market for residential mortgage loans have limited the market for and liquidity of most residential mortgage loans other than conforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. These trends could continue, notwithstanding various government programs to boost the residential mortgage markets and stabilize the housing markets. Declines in real estate values, home sales volumes and financial stress on borrowers as a result of job losses, interest rate resets on adjustable rate mortgage loans or other factors could have further adverse effects on borrowers that result in higher delinquencies and greater charge-offs in future periods, which would adversely affect our financial condition, including capital and liquidity, or results of operations. In the event our allowance for loan losses is insufficient to cover such losses, our earnings, capital and liquidity could be adversely affected.
Our real estate portfolios are exposed to weakness in the Florida housing market and the overall state of the economy.
Florida has experienced a deeper recession and more dramatic slowdown in economic activity than other states and the decline in real estate values in Florida has been significantly larger than the national average. The declines in home prices and the volume of home sales in Florida, along with the reduced availability of certain types of mortgage credit, have resulted in increases in delinquencies and losses in our portfolios of home equity lines and loans, and commercial loans related to residential real estate acquisition, construction and development. Further declines in home prices coupled with the continued economic recession in our markets and continued high or increased unemployment levels could cause additional losses which could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition, including our capital and liquidity.
Our concentration in commercial real estate loans could result in further increased loan losses.
Commercial real estate (“CRE”) is cyclical and poses risks of loss to us due to our concentration levels and risks of the asset. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, 41.5 percent and 44.0 percent of our loan portfolio were comprised of CRE loans. The banking regulators continue to give CRE lending greater scrutiny, and banks with higher levels of CRE loans are expected to implement improved underwriting, internal controls, risk management policies and portfolio stress testing, as well as higher levels of allowances for possible losses and capital levels as a result of CRE lending growth and exposures. During 2012, we recorded $10.8 million in provisioning for losses, compared to additions of $2.0 million in 2011 and $31.7 million in 2010, with 2010’s provisioning in part reflecting collateral evaluations in response to changes in the market values of land collateralizing acquisition and development loans.
Pursuant to the formal agreement that Seacoast National entered into with the OCC, Seacoast National adopted and implemented a written CRE concentration risk management program. We have continued to reduce our exposure to CRE; however, there is no guarantee that the program will effectively reduce our concentration in CRE.
While we resumed paying dividends on our preferred stock and distributions on our trust preferred securities, we continue to be restricted in otherwise paying cash dividends on our common stock.
We suspended dividend payments on our preferred and common stock and distributions on our trust preferred securities on May 19, 2009, as required by Federal Reserve policies governing dividends and distribution and in response to our operating losses at that time. On August 15, 2011, after conferring with the Federal Reserve, the Company’s board of directors approved the resumption of cash dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and distributions on our trust preferred securities. During the third quarter of 2011, we paid all previously deferred dividends and distributions on our Series A Preferred Stock and trust preferred securities, as well as the regularly scheduled payments. Although we resumed paying dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock and distributions on our trust preferred securities, there is no assurance that we will continue to receive approval to pay cash dividends on such securities in the future.
Dividend payments on our Series A Preferred Stock and distributions on our trust preferred securities are cumulative and therefore unpaid dividends and distributions were accrued and compounded prior to our payment during the third quarter of 2011. If we fail to make payments in the future, such future payments will also accrue and compound. In the event of any liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the affairs of our Company, holders of the Series A Preferred Stock shall be entitled to receive for each share of Series A Preferred Stock the liquidation amount plus the amount of any accrued and unpaid dividends.
Any potential dividends paid on our common stock would be declared and paid at the discretion of our board of directors and would be dependent upon our liquidity, financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant. Additionally, if we fail to make any dividend payments on the Series A Preferred Stock in the future, subject to certain limited exceptions, we would be unable to declare dividends on our common, junior preferred or pari passu preferred shares as long as the dividend payments on the Series A Preferred Stock are in arrears.
If we fail to maintain timely dividend payments on our Series A Preferred Stock, the holders may have the right to elect two directors to the Company’s board of directors.
Under the terms of our Series A Preferred Stock, if we fail to make quarterly dividend payments for an aggregate of six quarterly periods or more (whether or not consecutive), the holders of our Series A Preferred Stock have the right to elect two directors to our board of directors until all accrued but unpaid dividends have been paid. Dividends on our Series A Preferred Stock were current at December 31, 2012. However, if the Company again fails to make timely dividend payments for six quarterly periods, the holders of Series A Preferred Stock may elect to exercise their right, and as a result, we could face negative publicity and the composition and decision making authority of our board of directors could be significantly impacted.
If we do not redeem the shares of Series A Preferred Stock prior to February 15, 2014, the cost of this capital to us will increase substantially and could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and cash flows.
We have the right to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock, in whole or in part, at our option at any time. If we do not redeem the Series A Preferred Stock prior to February 15, 2014, the cost of this capital to us will increase substantially on and after that date, with the dividend rate increasing from 5.0% per annum to 9.0% per annum, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and cash flows. Any redemption by us of the Series A Preferred Stock would require prior regulatory approval from the Federal Reserve. We do not currently have regulatory approval to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock. Although we have no present intention to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock, we will continue to evaluate our overall capital position and we may seek such approval in the future and, if such approval is obtained (as to which no assurance can be given), redeem the Series A Preferred Stock. At this time, we continue to view this capital as an important component of our capital structure.
Liquidity risks could affect operations and jeopardize our financial condition.
Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our funding sources include federal funds purchases, securities sold under repurchase agreements, non-core deposits, and short- and long-term debt. We are also members of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (the “FHLB”) and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, where we can obtain advances collateralized with eligible assets. We maintain a portfolio of securities that can be used as a secondary source of liquidity. There are also other sources of liquidity available to us or Seacoast National should they be needed, including our ability to acquire additional non-core deposits, the issuance and sale of debt securities, and the issuance and sale of preferred or common securities in public or private transactions.
Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities or on terms which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include a downturn in the markets in which our loans are concentrated or adverse regulatory action against us. In addition, our access to deposits may be affected by the liquidity and/or cash flow needs of depositors. Although we have historically been able to replace maturing deposits and FHLB advances as necessary, we might not be able to replace such funds in the future and can lose a relatively inexpensive source of funds and increase our funding costs if, among other things, customers move funds out of bank deposits and into alternative investments, such as the stock market, that are perceived as providing superior expected returns. We may be required to seek additional regulatory capital through capital raises at terms that may be very dilutive to existing shareholders. In addition, our liquidity, on a parent only basis, is adversely affected by our current inability to receive dividends from Seacoast National without prior regulatory approval.
Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as further disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and deterioration in credit markets.
Our ability to receive dividends from our subsidiaries could affect our liquidity and ability to pay dividends.
We are a legal entity separate and distinct from Seacoast National and our other subsidiaries. Our primary source of revenue consists of dividends from Seacoast National. These dividends are the principal source of funds to pay dividends on our common stock and our Series A Preferred Stock and interest on our trust preferred securities and interest and principal on our debt.
Various laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends that Seacoast National may pay us and Seacoast National is currently restricted from distributing any dividends to us, without prior OCC approval. Also, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. Limitations on our ability to receive dividends from our subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and on our ability to pay dividends on common stock. Additionally, if our subsidiaries’ earnings are not sufficient to make dividend payments to us while maintaining adequate capital levels, we may not be able to make dividend payments to our common shareholders. We do not expect to pay dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future and expect to retain all earnings, if any, to support our capital adequacy and growth.
Our customers may pursue alternatives to bank deposits, causing us to lose a relatively inexpensive source of funding.
We may experience a decrease in customer deposits if customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market, as providing superior expected returns. When customers move money out of bank deposits in favor of alternative investments, we may lose a relatively inexpensive source of funds, and be forced to rely more heavily on borrowings and other sources of funding to fund our business and meet withdrawal demands, thereby increasing our funding costs and adversely affecting our net interest margin.
Consumers may decide not to use banks to complete their financial transactions, which could affect our net income.
Technology and other changes now allow parties to complete financial transactions without banks. For example, consumers can pay bills and transfer funds directly without banks. This process could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the income generated from those deposits.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act could increase our regulatory compliance burden and associated costs or otherwise adversely affect our business.
On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act represents a significant overhaul of many aspects of the regulation of the financial services industry.
The Dodd-Frank Act directs applicable regulatory authorities to promulgate regulations implementing its provisions, and its effect on the Company and on the financial services industry as a whole will be clarified as those regulations are issued. Certain provisions of the Act have been implemented by regulation, while others are expected to be implemented in the coming years. The Dodd-Frank Act addresses a number of issues, including capital requirements, compliance and risk management, debit card overdraft fees, healthcare, incentive compensation, expanded disclosures and corporate governance. The Dodd-Frank Act established a new, independent CFPB, which has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. States will be permitted to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and can enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. The CFPB is working on a wide range of consumer protection initiatives, including revisions to existing regulations, many of which will likely impact our business.
The Dodd-Frank Act will increase our regulatory compliance burden and may have a material adverse effect on us, including increasing the costs associated with our regulatory examinations and compliance measures. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as the resulting
regulations promulgated by federal agencies, may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage ratio requirements or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make necessary changes to comply with new laws and regulations. For a more detailed description of the Dodd-Frank Act, see “Item 1. Business-Supervision and Regulation” of this Form 10-K.
Higher FDIC deposit insurance premiums and assessments could adversely affect our financial condition.
FDIC insurance premiums we pay may be significantly higher in the future. Market developments have significantly depleted the insurance fund of the FDIC and reduced the ratio of reserves to insured deposits. The FDIC adopted a revised risk-based deposit insurance assessment schedule in 2009, raising deposit insurance premium rates, and also requiring all FDIC-insured institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for the fourth quarter of 2009 and for all of 2010, 2011 and 2012, which was paid on December 30, 2009.
We participated in the FDIC’s Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (“TLG”) for noninterest-bearing transaction deposit accounts that was extended and expired December 31, 2010. Institutions that participated in the program were required to pay an annualized fee of 15 to 25 basis points in accordance with their risk category rating assigned by the FDIC.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act, unlimited deposit insurance coverage on noninterest bearing transaction accounts to all FDIC insured institutions was approved through December 31, 2012. However, as of January 1, 2013 when this provision of the Dodd-Frank Act expired, all of a depositor’s accounts at an insured depository institution, including all noninterest-bearing transaction accounts, are insured by the FDIC up to the standard maximum deposit insurance amount ($250,000), for each deposit insurance ownership category. As of April 1, 2011, the FDIC implemented its new calculation methodology for insurance assessments, applying revised risk category ratings for calculating assessments to total assets less Tier 1 risk-based capital. Deposits are no longer utilized as the primary base and the base assessment rates vary depending on the DIF reserve ratio. We have not experienced any negative impact to our consolidated financial statements as a result of the new method.
Current levels of market volatility are unprecedented.
The capital and credit markets have been experiencing volatility and disruption for more than four years. In some cases, the markets have produced downward pressure on stock prices and credit availability for certain issuers without regard to those issuers’ underlying financial condition or performance. If current levels of market disruption and volatility continue or worsen, we may experience adverse effects, which may be material, on our ability to maintain or access capital and on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We are required to maintain capital to meet regulatory requirements, and if we fail to maintain sufficient capital, whether due to losses, an inability to raise additional capital or otherwise, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations, as well as our compliance with regulatory requirements, would be adversely affected.
Both we and Seacoast National must meet regulatory capital requirements and maintain sufficient liquidity and our regulators may modify and adjust such requirements in the future. Seacoast National agreed to an informal letter agreement with the OCC to maintain a Tier 1 leverage capital ratio of 8.50 percent and a total risk-based capital ratio of 12.00 percent, which are higher than the regulatory minimum capital ratios.
Our ability to raise additional capital, when and if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets, general economic conditions and a number of other factors, including investor perceptions regarding the banking industry and the market, governmental activities, many of which are outside our control, and on our financial condition and performance. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that we will be able to raise additional capital if needed or on terms acceptable to us. If we fail to meet these capital and other regulatory requirements, our financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be materially and adversely affected.
Although we currently comply with all capital requirements, we may be subject to more stringent regulatory capital ratio requirements in the future and we may need additional capital in order to meet those requirements. Our failure to remain “well capitalized” for bank regulatory purposes could affect customer confidence, our ability to grow, our costs of funds and FDIC insurance costs, our ability to pay dividends on common and preferred stock, make distributions on our trust preferred securities, our ability to make acquisitions, and our business, results of operations and financial condition, generally. Under FDIC rules, if Seacoast National ceases to be a “well capitalized” institution for bank regulatory purposes, its ability to accept brokered deposits and the interest rates that it pays may both be restricted.
Changes in accounting and tax rules applicable to banks could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.
From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in us restating prior period financial statements.
Our cost of funds may increase as a result of general economic conditions, FDIC insurance assessments, interest rates and competitive pressures.
We have traditionally obtained funds through local deposits and thus we have a base of lower cost transaction deposits. Generally, we believe local deposits are a cheaper and more stable source of funds than other borrowings because interest rates paid for local deposits are typically lower than interest rates charged for borrowings from other institutional lenders and reflect a mix of transaction and time deposits, whereas brokered deposits typically are higher cost time deposits. Our costs of funds and our profitability and liquidity are likely to be adversely affected if, and to the extent, we have to rely upon higher cost borrowings from other institutional lenders or brokers to fund loan demand or liquidity needs, and changes in our deposit mix and growth could adversely affect our profitability and the ability to expand our loan portfolio.
Current and proposed rules may impose additional executive compensation and corporate governance requirements that may adversely affect us and our business, including our ability to recruit and retain qualified employees.
As a result of the Treasury’s auction of our Series A Preferred Stock to third parties during 2012, the standards for executive compensation and corporate governance under the TARP CPP and AARA no longer apply to the Company. However, the Federal Reserve has proposed guidelines on executive compensation. Reflecting regulators’ focus on compensation issues, in 2010, the FDIC proposed, but did not finalize, a rule to incorporate employee compensation factors into the risk assessment system which would adjust risk-based deposit insurance assessment rates if the design of certain compensation programs does not satisfy certain FDIC goals to prevent executive compensation from encouraging undue risk-taking. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act requires banking regulators to issue regulations or
guidelines to prohibit incentive-based compensation arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by providing excessive compensation or that may lead to material loss at certain financial institutions with $1 billion or more in assets. Regulators have proposed, but not yet finalized, rules on the topic. Further, in June, 2010, the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the FDIC jointly issued comprehensive final guidance designed to ensure that incentive compensation policies do not undermine the safety and soundness of banking organizations by encouraging employees to take imprudent risks. This regulation significantly restricts the amount, form, and context in which we pay incentive compensation
These provisions and any future rules issued by the Federal Reserve and the FDIC or any other regulatory agencies could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain management capable and sufficiently motivated to manage and operate our business through difficult economic and market conditions. If we are unable to attract and retain qualified employees to manage and operate our business, we may not be able to successfully execute our business strategy.
The short-term and long-term impact of the new Basel III capital standards and the forthcoming new capital rules for non-Basel U.S. banks is uncertain.
On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced an agreement to a strengthened set of capital requirements for internationally active banking organizations in the United States and around the world, known as Basel III. When implemented by U.S. banking authorities, the new capital standards will impose higher minimums for capital ratios. It was anticipated that new capital requirements would be phased-in for U.S. financial institutions beginning in 2013. However, on November 9, 2012, U.S. regulators announced that the implementation of these rules would be delayed and regulators have not provided a specific timeframe for their implementation of these requirements. For a more detailed description of Basel III, see “Item 1. Business-Supervision and Regulation.”
Lending goals may not be attainable.
It may not be possible to safely, soundly and profitably make sufficient loans to creditworthy persons in the current economy to satisfy our prospective goals for commercial, residential and consumer lending volumes. Future demand for additional lending is unclear and uncertain, and opportunities to make loans may be more limited and/or involve risks or terms that we likely would not find acceptable or in our shareholders’ best interest. A lack of meeting our lending goals could adversely affect our results of operation and financial condition, liquidity and capital. Also, the profitability of funding such loans using deposits may be adversely affected by increased FDIC insurance premiums.
Federal banking agencies periodically conduct examinations of our business, including for compliance with laws and regulations, and our failure to comply with any supervisory actions to which we are or become subject as a result of such examinations may adversely affect us.
The Federal Reserve and the OCC periodically conduct examinations of our business and Seacoast National’s business, including for compliance with laws and regulations, and Seacoast National also may be subject to participation by the CFPB in its future regulatory examinations as discussed in the “Supervision and Regulation” section above. If, as a result of an examination, the Federal Reserve, the OCC and/or the CFPB were to determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, asset concentrations, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk, or other aspects of any of our or Seacoast National’s operations had become unsatisfactory, or that we or our management were in violation of any law, regulation or guideline in effect from time to time, the regulators may take a number of different remedial actions as they deem appropriate. These actions
include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative actions to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital, to restrict our growth, to change the composition of our concentrations in portfolio or balance sheet assets, to assess civil monetary penalties against our officers or directors or to remove officers and directors.
Our future success is dependent on our ability to compete effectively in highly competitive markets.
We operate in the highly competitive markets of Martin, St. Lucie, Brevard, Indian River and Palm Beach Counties in southeastern Florida, the Orlando, Florida metropolitan statistical area, as well as in more rural competitive counties in the Lake Okeechobee, Florida region. Our future growth and success will depend on our ability to compete effectively in these markets. We compete for loans, deposits and other financial services in geographic markets with other local, regional and national commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions, mortgage lenders, and securities and insurance brokerage firms. Many of our competitors offer products and services different from us, and have substantially greater resources, name recognition and market presence than we do, which benefits them in attracting business. Larger competitors may be able to price loans and deposits more aggressively than we can, and have broader customer and geographic bases to draw upon.
We are dependent on key personnel and the loss of one or more of those key personnel could harm our business.
Our future success significantly depends on the continued services and performance of our key management personnel. We believe our management team’s depth and breadth of experience in the banking industry is integral to executing our business plan. We also will need to continue to attract, motivate and retain other key personnel. The loss of the services of members of our senior management team or other key employees or the inability to attract additional qualified personnel as needed could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to losses due to fraudulent and negligent acts on the part of loan applicants, mortgage brokers, other vendors and our employees.
When we originate mortgage loans, we rely heavily upon information supplied by loan applicants and third parties, including the information contained in the loan application, property appraisal, title information and employment and income documentation provided by third parties. If any of this information is misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation.
The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.
Our ability to engage in routine funding and other transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems, losses of depositor, creditor and counterparty confidence and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. We could also experience increases in deposits and assets as a result of other banks’ difficulties or failure, which would increase the capital we need to support such growth.
We operate in a heavily regulated environment.
We and our subsidiaries are regulated by several regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the SEC, the FDIC, Nasdaq, and the CFPB. Our success is affected by state and federal regulations affecting banks and bank holding companies, the securities markets and banking, securities and insurance regulators. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect consumers and depositors, not shareholders. The financial services industry also is subject to frequent legislative and regulatory changes and proposed changes, the effects of which cannot be predicted. These changes, if adopted, could require us to maintain more capital, liquidity and risk controls which could adversely affect our growth, profitability and financial condition.
We are subject to internal control reporting requirements that increase compliance costs and failure to comply with such requirements could adversely affect our reputation and the value of our securities.
We are required to comply with various corporate governance and financial reporting requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as rules and regulations adopted by the SEC, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and Nasdaq. In particular, we are required to include management and independent registered public accounting firm reports on internal controls as part of our annual report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The SEC also has proposed a number of new rules or regulations requiring additional disclosure, such as lower-level employee compensation. We expect to continue to spend significant amounts of time and money on compliance with these rules. Our failure to track and comply with the various rules may materially adversely affect our reputation, ability to obtain the necessary certifications to financial statements, and the value of our securities.
Technological changes affect our business, and we may have fewer resources than many competitors to invest in technological improvements.
The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to serving clients better, the effective use of technology may increase efficiency and may enable financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to use technology to provide products and services that provide convenience to customers and to create additional efficiencies in operations. We may need to make significant additional capital investments in technology in the future, and we may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services. Many competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements.
Our information systems may experience an interruption or breach in security.
We rely heavily on communications and information systems provided both internally and externally to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems (such as a spike in transaction volume, a cyber attack or other unforeseen events) could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan and other systems. While we have policies and procedures and service level agreements designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. While we maintain an insurance policy which we believe provides sufficient coverage at a manageable expense for an institution of our size and scope with similar technological systems, we cannot assure that this policy would be sufficient to cover all related financial losses and damages should we experience any one or more of our or a third party’s systems failing or experiencing a cyber attack. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information
systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, including remediation costs and increased protection costs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The anti-takeover provisions in our Articles of Incorporation and under Florida law may make it more difficult for takeover attempts that have not been approved by our board of directors.
Florida law and our Articles of Incorporation include anti-takeover provisions, such as provisions that encourage persons seeking to acquire control of us to consult with our board, and which enable the board to negotiate and give consideration on behalf of us and our shareholders and other constituencies to the merits of any offer made. Such provisions, as well as supermajority voting and quorum requirements, a staggered board of directors and the Protective Amendment, may make any takeover attempts and other acquisitions of interests in us, by means of a tender offer, open market purchase, a proxy fight or otherwise, that have not been approved by our board of directors more difficult and more expensive. These provisions may discourage possible business combinations that a majority of our shareholders may believe to be desirable and beneficial. As a result, our board of directors may decide not to pursue transactions that would otherwise be in the best interests of holders of our common stock.
Hurricanes or other adverse weather events could negatively affect our local economies or disrupt our operations, which would have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.
Our market areas in Florida are susceptible to hurricanes, tropical storms and related flooding and wind damage. Such weather events can disrupt operations, result in damage to properties and negatively affect the local economies in the markets where we operate. We cannot predict whether or to what extent damage that may be caused by future hurricanes will affect our operations or the economies in our current or future market areas, but such weather events could result in a decline in loan originations, a decline in the value or destruction of properties securing our loans and an increase in the delinquencies, foreclosures or loan losses. Our business and results of operations may be adversely affected by these and other negative effects of future hurricanes, tropical storms, related flooding and wind damage and other similar weather events. As a result of the potential for such weather events, many of our customers have incurred significantly higher property and casualty insurance premiums on their properties located in our markets, which may adversely affect real estate sales and values in our markets.
The CFPB’s recently issued rules may have a negative impact on our loan origination process, and compliance and collection costs, which could adversely affect our mortgage lending operations and operating results.
The CFPB recently issued rules that are likely to impact our residential mortgage lending practices, and the residential mortgage market generally, including rules that implement the “ability-to-repay” requirement and provide protection from liability for “qualified mortgages,” as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, which are scheduled to take effect on January 10, 2014. The CFPB has also issued a number of other mortgage-related rules, including new rules pertaining to loan originator compensation, and that establish qualification, registration and licensing requirements for loan originators. These and other changes are likely to impose restrictions on future mortgage loan originations, diminish lenders’ rights against delinquent borrowers or otherwise change the ways in which lenders make and administer residential mortgage loans. These rules could have a negative effect on the financial performance of Seacoast National’s mortgage lending operations, by, among other things, reducing the volume of mortgage loans that Seacoast National can originate and sell into the secondary market, increasing its compliance burden and impairing Seacoast National’s ability to proceed against certain delinquent borrowers with timely and effective collection efforts.
We may engage in FDIC-assisted transactions in the future, which could present additional risks to our business.
We may have future opportunities to acquire the assets and liabilities of failed banks in FDIC-assisted transactions, which present general acquisition risks, as well as risks specific to these transactions. Although FDIC-assisted transactions typically provide for FDIC assistance to an acquiror to mitigate certain risks, which may include loss-sharing, where the FDIC absorbs most losses on covered assets and provides some indemnity, we would be subject to many of the same risks we would face in acquiring another bank in a negotiated transaction, without FDIC assistance, including risks associated with pricing such transactions, the risks of loss of deposits and maintaining customer relationships and the failure to realize the anticipated acquisition benefits in the amounts and within the timeframes we expect. In addition, because these acquisitions provide for limited diligence and negotiation of terms, these transactions will require additional resources, personnel and time, servicing acquired problem loans and costs related to integration of personnel and operating systems, the establishment of processes to service acquired assets, and require us to raise additional capital, which may be dilutive to our existing shareholders. If we are unable to manage these risks, FDIC-assisted acquisitions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us in the future.
While we currently seek continued organic growth, as our earnings and capital position improve, we may consider the acquisition of other businesses. We expect that other banking and financial companies, many of which have significantly greater resources, will compete with us to acquire financial services businesses. This competition could increase prices for potential acquisitions that we believe are attractive. Also, acquisitions are subject to various regulatory approvals. If we fail to receive the appropriate regulatory approvals, we will not be able to consummate an acquisition that we believe is in our best interests. Among other things, our regulators consider our capital, liquidity, profitability, regulatory compliance and levels of goodwill and intangibles when considering acquisition and expansion proposals. Any acquisition could be dilutive to our earnings and shareholders’ equity per share of our common stock.
The protective amendment contained in our articles of incorporation, which is intended to help preserve our net operating losses, may not be effective or may have unintended negative effects.
On May 27, 2011, we filed with the Florida Secretary of State Articles of Amendment to our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation adding a new Section 4.06 to Article IV thereto (the “Protective Amendment”) which is intended to help preserve certain tax benefits primarily associated with our net operating losses (“NOLs”).
Subject to certain exceptions pertaining to existing 5% or greater shareholders, the Protective Amendment generally will restrict any direct or indirect transfer (such as transfers of our stock that result from the transfer of interests in other entities that own our stock) if the effect would be to:
•
increase the direct or indirect ownership of our stock by any person (or any “public group” of shareholders, as that term is defined under Section 382) from less than 5% to 5% or more of our common stock;
•
increase the percentage of our common stock owned directly or indirectly by a person (or public group) owning or deemed to own 5% or more of our common stock; or
•
create a new public group.
Under the Protective Amendment, any direct or indirect transfer attempted in violation of the Protective Amendment is void ab initio as of the date of the prohibited transfer as to the purported transferee (or, in the case of an indirect transfer, the ownership of the direct owner of our common stock would terminate effective simultaneously with the transfer), and the purported transferee (or in the case of any indirect transfer, the direct owner) would not be recognized as the owner of the shares owned in violation of the Protective Amendment for any purpose, including for purposes of voting and receiving dividends or other distributions in respect of such common stock, or in the case of options or warrants, receiving our common stock in respect of their exercise. Prohibited transfers are also subject to other restrictions, as set forth in the articles of amendment.
Although the Protective Amendment is intended to reduce the likelihood of an “ownership change” under Section 382, which could reduce certain tax benefits associated with our NOLs, we cannot eliminate the possibility that an “ownership change” will occur even if the Protective Amendment is adopted since:
•
The Board of Directors can permit a transfer to an acquirer that results or contributes to an “ownership change” if it determines that such transfer is in the Company’s and our shareholders’ best interests.
•
Under the Florida Business Corporation Act, the articles of incorporation of a corporation may impose restrictions on the transfer of shares of the corporation. However, a restriction does not affect shares issued before the restriction was adopted unless the holders of such shares are parties to the restriction agreement or voted in favor of the restriction. A restriction on the transfer or registration of transfer of shares is valid and enforceable against the holder or a transferee of the holder if the restriction is authorized by Section 607.0627 of the Florida Business Corporation Act and its existence is noted conspicuously on the front or back of the certificate or is contained in the information statement required by Section 607.0626(2) of the Florida Business Corporation Act. Unless so noted, a restriction is not enforceable against a person without knowledge of the restriction. We intend to cause shares of our common stock issued after the effectiveness of the Protective Amendment to be issued with the relevant transfer restriction conspicuously noted on the certificate(s) representing such shares and therefore under Florida law such newly issued shares will be subject to the transfer restriction. We also intend to disclose such restrictions to persons holding our common stock in uncertificated form. For the purpose of determining whether a shareholder is subject to the Protective Amendment, we intend to take the position that all shares issued prior to the effectiveness of the Protective Amendment that are proposed to be transferred were voted in favor of the Protective Amendment, unless the contrary is established. We may also assert that shareholders have waived the right to challenge or otherwise cannot challenge the enforceability of the Protective Amendment, unless a shareholder establishes that it did not vote in favor of the Protective Amendment. Nonetheless, a court could find that the Protective Amendment is unenforceable, either in general or as applied to a particular shareholder or fact situation.
•
Despite the adoption of the Protective Amendment, there is still a risk that certain changes in relationships among shareholders or other events could cause an “ownership change” under Section 382. We cannot assure you that the Protective Amendment is effective or enforceable in all circumstances, particularly against shareholders who did not vote in favor of the proposal or who did not have notice of the acquisition restrictions at the time they subsequently acquire their shares. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that an “ownership change” will not occur even with the Protective Amendment.
As a result of these and other factors, the Protective Amendment serves to reduce, but does not eliminate, the risk that we will undergo an “ownership change.”
The Protective Amendment also requires any person attempting to become a holder of 5% or more of our common stock, as determined under Section 382, to seek the approval of our Board of Directors. This may have an unintended “anti-takeover” effect because our Board of Directors may be able to prevent any future takeover. Similarly, any limits on the amount of stock that a shareholder may own could have the effect of making it more difficult for shareholders to replace current management. Additionally, because the Protective Amendment may have the effect of restricting a shareholder’s ability to dispose of or acquire our common stock, the liquidity and market value of our common stock might suffer.
The Protective Amendment will expire on the earliest of:
•
the Board of Director’s determination that the Protective Amendment is no longer necessary for the preservation of our NOLs because of the amendment or repeal of Section 382 or any successor statute;
•
the beginning of a taxable year to which the Board of Directors determines that none of our NOLs may be carried forward;
•
such date as the Board of Directors otherwise determines that the Protective Amendment is no longer necessary for the preservation of tax benefits associated with our NOLs; or
•
three years from its adoption, unless reapproved by shareholders.
Risks Related to our Common Stock
We may issue additional shares of common or preferred stock, which may dilute the interests of our shareholders and may adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
We are currently authorized to issue up to 300 million shares of common stock, of which 94,837,170 shares were outstanding as of December 31, 2012, and up to 4 million shares of preferred stock, of which 2,000 shares are outstanding. Subject to certain Nasdaq requirements, our board of directors has authority, without action or vote of the shareholders, to issue all or part of the remaining authorized but unissued shares and to establish the terms of any series of preferred stock. These authorized but unissued shares could be issued on terms or in circumstances that could dilute the interests of other shareholders. If we elect to redeem the Series A Preferred Stock, we will likely have to raise additional capital by selling common stock, preferred stock or another type of security to be able to repurchase the Series A Preferred Stock.
Certain purchasers of our common stock under our previous dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan (“DRSPP”) may be entitled to rescind their purchases.
As a result of an administrative error, sales of 19,358 shares of our common stock under the DRSPP between September 23, 2009 and July 29, 2011, which represented 0.02% of our outstanding shares of common stock as of December 31, 2012, may have been made after the expiration of the applicable registration statement. As a result those sales may not have complied with the registration requirements of applicable securities laws, making them unregistered shares. We received only $33,392 in aggregate proceeds from these sales. A number of remedies may be available to DRSPP participants who acquired shares during that period, including a right to rescind their purchases to receive the full price paid by the DRSPP participants, plus interest. No dividends have been paid during this time. Those DRSPP participants who purchased unregistered shares pursuant to the DRSPP during this time frame and whose unregistered shares have fallen in value since the date of purchase could have an incentive to seek such a rescission. The number of shares and dollar amounts involved are immaterial from a financial point of view, but the sale of unregistered shares could subject us to regulatory sanctions by the SEC or other regulatory authorities that might result in the imposition of civil penalties or a rescission offering. Although we do not expect any such actions to have a material adverse effect on us, we are unable to predict the full consequences of these events and regulatory actions.
The Series A Preferred Stock diminishes the net income available to our common shareholders and earnings per common share and if we do not redeem our Series A Preferred Stock before February 15, 2014, the rate of dividends payable on our Series A Preferred Stock will increase.
The dividends accrued and the accretion on discount on the Series A Preferred Stock reduce the net income available to common shareholders and our earnings per common share. The Series A Preferred Stock is cumulative, which means that any dividends not declared or paid accumulate and are payable when dividend payments resume. Furthermore, if we do not redeem our Series A Preferred Stock before February 15, 2014, the rate of dividends payable on the Series A Preferred Stock will increase to 9.0% per annum from the current rate of 5.0% per annum, which will adversely affect our cash flows and liquidity in future periods. Shares of Series A Preferred Stock also receive preferential treatment in the event of liquidation, dissolution or winding up of Seacoast.
Holders of the Series A Preferred Stock have certain voting rights that may adversely affect our common shareholders, and the holders of shares of our Series A Preferred Stock may have different interests from, and vote their shares in a manner deemed adverse to, our common shareholders.
Holders of the Series A Preferred Stock have the following limited voting rights. So long as shares of the Series A Preferred Stock are outstanding, in addition to any other vote or consent of shareholders required by law or our Articles of Incorporation, the vote or consent of holders owning at least 66 2/3 percent of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock outstanding is required for:
•
any authorization, increase in the authorized amount of, or issuance of shares, or securities convertible into or exchangeable or exercisable for shares, ranking senior to the Series A Preferred Stock;
•
any amendment to the rights of the Series A Preferred Stock so as to adversely affect the rights, preferences, privileges or voting powers of the Series A Preferred Stock; or
•
consummation of any merger, share exchange or similar transaction unless the shares of Series A Preferred Stock remain outstanding, or if we are not the surviving entity in such transaction, are converted into or exchanged for preference securities of the surviving entity and the shares of Series A Preferred Stock remaining outstanding or such preference securities have such rights, preferences, privileges and voting powers, and limitations and restrictions thereof, taken as a whole, as are not materially less favorable
to the holders than the rights, preferences, privileges and voting powers, and limitations and restrictions thereof, of the shares of Series A Preferred Stock immediately prior to such consummation, taken as a whole.
Holders of Series A Preferred Stock could block the foregoing transactions, even where considered desirable by, or in the best interests of, holders of our common stock. The holders of Series A Preferred Stock may have different interests from the holders of our common stock, and could vote to disapprove transactions that are favored by, or are in the best interests of, our common shareholders.
Item 1B.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
Item 2.
Item 2. Properties
We and Seacoast National’s main office occupies approximately 66,000 square feet of a 68,000 square foot building in Stuart, Florida. This building, together with an adjacent 10-lane drive-through banking facility and an additional 27,000-square foot office building, are situated on approximately eight acres of land in the center of Stuart that is zoned for commercial use. The building and land are owned by Seacoast National, which leases out portions of the building not utilized by us and Seacoast National to unaffiliated third parties.
Adjacent to the main office, Seacoast National leases approximately 21,400 square feet of office space from third parties to house operational departments, consisting primarily of information systems and retail support. Seacoast National owns its equipment, which is used for servicing bank deposits and loan accounts as well as on-line banking services, and providing tellers and other customer service personnel with access to customers’ records. In addition, Seacoast National owns an operations center consisting of a 4,939 square foot building situated on 1.44 acres in Okeechobee, Florida. Our PGA Blvd. branch is utilized as a disaster recovery site should natural disasters or other events preclude use of Seacoast National’s primary operations center in Okeechobee.
Seacoast currently operates its Seacoast Marine Finance Division in a 2,009 square foot leased facility in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, a 430 square foot leased space in Alameda, California and a 1,200 square foot leased space in Newport Beach, California.
Seacoast National maintained approximately 35 branch offices and its main office in Florida at December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2012, the net carrying value of branch offices of Seacoast National (excluding the main office) was approximately $25.9 million. Seacoast National’s branch offices in 2012 are generally described as follows:
For additional information regarding our properties, please refer to Notes G and K of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in Our 2012 Annual Report, certain portions of which are incorporated herein by reference pursuant to Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.
Five new loan production offices are projected to open during the first and second quarters of 2013 in the Orlando and Palm Beach County markets. The new offices are generally described as follows:
Item 3.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We and our subsidiaries are subject, in the ordinary course, to litigation incident to the businesses in which we are engaged. Management presently believes that none of the legal proceedings to which we are a party are likely to have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, operating results or cash flows, although no assurance can be given with respect to the ultimate outcome of any such claim or litigation.
Item 4.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Not applicable.
Part II
Item 5.
Item 5. Market For Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Holders of our common stock are entitled to one vote per share on all matters presented to shareholders as provided in our Articles of Incorporation.
Our common stock is traded under the symbol “SBCF” on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, which is a national securities exchange (“Nasdaq”). As of March 11, 2013 there were 94,857,215 shares of our common stock outstanding, held by approximately 1,636 record holders.
The table below sets forth the high and low sale prices per share of our common stock on Nasdaq and the dividends paid per share of our common stock for the indicated periods.
Dividends
Dividends from Seacoast National are our primary source of funds to pay dividends on our common stock. Under the National Bank Act, national banks may in any calendar year, without the approval of the OCC, pay dividends to the extent of net profits for that year, plus retained net profits for the preceding two years (less any required transfers to surplus). The need to maintain adequate capital in Seacoast National also limits dividends that may be paid to us. Beginning in the third quarter of 2008, we reduced our dividend per share of common stock to de minimis $0.01. On May 19, 2009, the Company’s board of directors voted to suspend quarterly dividends on common stock entirely.
While we are current in the payment of quarterly dividends on the Series A Preferred Stock, any dividends paid on our common stock would be declared and paid at the discretion of our board of directors and would be dependent upon our liquidity, financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and such other factors as our board of directors may deem relevant. We do not expect to pay dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future and expect to retain all earnings, if any, to support our capital adequacy and growth.
Additional information regarding restrictions on the ability of Seacoast National to pay dividends to us is contained in Note C of the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” in our 2012 Annual
Report, portions of which are incorporated by reference herein, including in Part II, Item 8 of this report. See “Item 1. Business- Payment of Dividends” of this Form 10-K for information with respect to the regulatory restrictions on dividends.
Outstanding Warrants
On May 30, 2012, Seacoast repurchased the Warrant previously issued to the U.S. Treasury under the TARP CPP for $81,000 (net of related expenses). Seacoast had no warrants outstanding at December 31, 2012.
Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans
See the information included under Part III, Item 12, which is incorporated in response to this item by reference.
Item 6.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
Selected financial data of the Company is set forth under the caption “Financial Highlights” in the 2012 Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 7.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations is set forth under the caption “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in the 2012 Annual Report and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 7A.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
The narrative under the heading of “Market Risk” in the 2012 Annual Report is incorporated herein by reference. Table 19, “Interest Rate Sensitivity Analysis”, the narrative under the heading “Securities”, and the narrative under the heading “Interest Rate Sensitivity” in the 2012 Annual Report are incorporated herein by reference. The information regarding securities owned by us as set forth in Table 15, “Securities Available for Sale” and Table 16, “Securities Held for Investment,” in the 2012 Annual Report is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 8.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
The reports of KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, and the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the 2012 Annual Report are incorporated herein by reference. “Quarterly Consolidated Income Statements” are included in the 2012 Annual Report and are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 9.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure
None.
Item 9A.
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
Disclosure Controls and Procedures. We maintain disclosure controls and procedures that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed in our reports under the Exchange Act is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to management, including our Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in SEC Rule 13a-15 under the Exchange Act, management recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives.
In connection with the preparation of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, as of the end of the period covered by this report, an evaluation was performed, with the participation of the CEO and CFO, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as required by Rule 13a-15 of the Exchange Act. Based upon that evaluation, the CEO and CFO concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of the end of the period covered by this report.
Internal Control over Financial Reporting. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Our internal control system was designed to provide reasonable assurance to our management and board of directors regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes.
Management conducted an assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. This assessment was based on the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Based on this assessment, management believes that, as of December 31, 2012, our internal control over financial reporting was effective.
Our independent registered public accounting firm, KPMG LLP, has issued an attestation report on our internal control over financial reporting which is included in Exhibit 23.1 to this report.
Change in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our last fiscal quarter that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
Item 9B.
Item 9B. Other Information.
None.
Part III
Item 10.
Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance
Information concerning our directors and executive officers is set forth under the headings “Proposal 1-Election of Directors”, “Corporate Governance”, “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” and “Certain Family Relationships” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, incorporated herein by reference.
Item 11.
Item 11. Executive Compensation
Information regarding the compensation paid by us to our directors and executive officers is set forth under the headings “Executive Compensation,” “Compensation Discussion & Analysis,” “Compensation and Governance Committee Report” and “2012 Director Compensation” in the 2013 Proxy Statement which are incorporated herein by reference.
Item 12.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters
The following table sets forth information about our common stock that may be issued under all of our existing compensation plans as of December 31, 2012.
Equity Compensation Plan Information
December 31, 2012
(1) Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Shares reserved under this plan are available for issuance pursuant to the exercise of stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under the plan and may be granted as awards of performance shares, and awards of restricted stock or stock-based awards.
(2) Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan. Shares reserved under this plan are available for issuance pursuant to the exercise of stock options and stock appreciation rights granted under the plan, and may be granted as awards of restricted stock, performance shares, or other stock-based awards.
(3) Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended.
Additional information regarding the ownership of our common stock is set forth under the headings “Proposal 1-Election of Directors” and “Security Ownership of Management and Certain Beneficial Holders” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 13.
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence
Information regarding certain relationships and transactions between us and our officers, directors and significant shareholders is set forth under the heading “Salary and Benefits Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation” and “Certain Transactions and Business Relationships” and “Corporate Governance” in the 2013 Proxy Statement and is incorporated herein by reference.
Item 14.
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
Information concerning our principal accounting fees and services is set forth under the heading “Relationship with Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm; Audit and Non-Audit Fees” in the 2013 Proxy Statement, and is incorporated herein by reference.
Part IV
Item 15.
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules
(a)(1) List of all financial statements
The following consolidated financial statements and reports of independent registered public accounting firm of Seacoast, included in the 2012 Annual Report, are incorporated by reference into Part II, Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Reports of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011
Consolidated Statements of Income for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
Consolidated Statements of Shareholders’ Equity for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
(a)(2) List of financial statement schedules
All schedules normally required by Form 10-K are omitted, since either they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the financial statements or the notes thereto.
(a)(3) Listing of Exhibits
PLEASE NOTE: It is inappropriate for readers to assume the accuracy of, or rely upon any covenants, representations or warranties that may be contained in agreements or other documents filed as Exhibits to, or incorporated by reference in, this report. Any such covenants, representations or warranties may have been qualified or superseded by disclosures contained in separate schedules or exhibits not filed with or incorporated by reference in this report, may reflect the parties’ negotiated risk allocation in the particular transaction, may be qualified by materiality standards that differ from those applicable for securities law purposes, may not be true as of the date of this report or any other date, and may be subject to waivers by any or all of the parties. Where exhibits and schedules to agreements filed or incorporated by reference as Exhibits hereto are not included in these Exhibits, such exhibits and schedules to agreements are not included or incorporated by reference herein.
The following Exhibits are attached hereto or incorporated by reference herein (unless indicated otherwise, all documents referenced below were filed pursuant to the Exchange Act by Seacoast Banking Corporation of Florida, Commission File No. 0-13660):
Exhibit 3.1.1 Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, filed May 10, 2006.
Exhibit 3.1.2 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 23, 2008.
Exhibit 3.1.3 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.4 to the Company’s Form S-1, filed June 22, 2009.
Exhibit 3.1.4 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed July 20, 2009.
Exhibit 3.1.5 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 3, 2009.
Exhibit 3.1.6 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K/A, filed July 14, 2010.
Exhibit 3.1.7 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed June 25, 2010.
Exhibit 3.1.8 Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed June 1, 2011.
Exhibit 3.2 Amended and Restated By-laws of the Corporation
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 3.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 21, 2007.
Exhibit 4.1 Specimen Common Stock Certificate
Incorporated herein by reference from the Company’s Form 10-K, dated March 28, 2003.
Exhibit 4.2 Junior Subordinated Indenture
Dated as of March 31, 2005, between the Company and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee (including the form of the Floating Rate Junior Subordinated Note, which appears in Section 2.1 thereof), incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed April 5, 2005.
Exhibit 4.3 Guarantee Agreement
Dated as of March 31, 2005 between the Company, as Guarantor, and Wilmington Trust Company, as Guarantee Trustee, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed April 5, 2005.
Exhibit 4.4 Amended and Restated Trust Agreement
Dated as of March 31, 2005, among the Company, as Depositor, Wilmington Trust Company, as Property Trustee, Wilmington Trust Company, as Delaware Trustee and the Administrative Trustees named therein, as Administrative Trustees (including exhibits containing the related forms of the SBCF Capital Trust I Common Securities Certificate and the Preferred Securities Certificate), incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed April 5, 2005.
Exhibit 4.5 Indenture
Dated as of December 16, 2005, between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee (including the form of the Junior Subordinated Debt Security, which appears as Exhibit A to the Indenture), incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 21, 2005.
Exhibit 4.6 Guarantee Agreement
Dated as of December 16, 2005, between the Company, as Guarantor, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Guarantee Trustee, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 21, 2005.
Exhibit 4.7 Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust
Dated as of December 16, 2005, among the Company, as Sponsor, Dennis S. Hudson, III and William R. Hahl, as Administrators, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Institutional Trustee (including exhibits containing the related forms of the SBCF Statutory Trust II Common Securities Certificate and the Capital Securities Certificate), incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed December 21, 2005.
Exhibit 4.8 Indenture
Dated June 29, 2007, between the Company and LaSalle Bank, as Trustee (including the form of the Junior Subordinated Debt Security, which appears as Exhibit A to the Indenture), incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed July 3, 2007.
Exhibit 4.9 Guarantee Agreement
Dated June 29, 2007, between the Company, as Guarantor, and LaSalle Bank, as Guarantee Trustee, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed July 3, 2007.
Exhibit 4.10 Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust
Dated June 29, 2007, among the Company, as Sponsor, Dennis S. Hudson, III and William R. Hahl, as Administrators, and LaSalle Bank, as Institutional Trustee (including exhibits containing the related forms of the SBCF Statutory Trust III Common Securities Certificate and the Capital Securities Certificate), incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Form 8-K filed July 3, 2007.
Exhibit 4.11 Specimen Preferred Stock Certificate
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 23, 2008.
Exhibit 4.12 Stock Purchase Agreement
Dated October 23, 2009, between the Company and CapGen Capital Group III, L.P., incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed October 29, 2009.
Exhibit 4.13 Registration Rights Agreement
Dated October 23, 2009, between the Company and CapGen Capital Group III, L.P., incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed October 29, 2009.
Exhibit 4.14 Registration Rights Agreement
Dated as of April 8, 2010, among the Company and the investors named on the signature pages thereto, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K/A, filed July 14, 2010.
Exhibit 10.1 Amended and Restated Retirement Savings Plan*
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 15, 2011.
Exhibit 10.2 Amended and Restated Employee Stock Purchase Plan*
Incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Company’s Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A, filed with the Commission on April 27, 2009.
Exhibit 10.3 Dividend Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan
Incorporated by reference to the Company’s Form S-3 filed on November 9, 2011.
Exhibit 10.4 Executive Employment Agreement*
Dated January 18, 1994 between Dennis S. Hudson, III and the Bank, incorporated herein by reference from the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, dated March 28, 1995.
Exhibit 10.5 Executive Employment Agreement*
Dated January 2, 2007 between Harry R. Holland, III and the Bank, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed January 3, 2007.
Exhibit 10.6 2000 Long Term Incentive Plan as Amended*
Incorporated herein by reference from the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-8 File No. 333-49972, filed November 15, 2000.
Exhibit 10.7 Executive Deferred Compensation Plan*
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.12 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed March 30, 2001.
Exhibit 10.8 Change of Control Employment Agreement*
Dated December 24, 2003 between Dennis S. Hudson, III and the Company, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.14 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 29, 2003.
Exhibit 10.9 Change of Control Employment Agreement*
Dated December 24, 2003 between William R. Hahl and the Company, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.17 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 29, 2003.
Exhibit 10.10 Directors Deferred Compensation Plan*
Dated June 15, 2004, but effective July 1, 2004, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.23 to the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on March 17, 2005.
Exhibit 10.11 2008 Long-Term Incentive Plan*
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit A to the Company’s Proxy Statement on Form DEF 14A, filed March 18, 2008.
Exhibit 10.12 Letter Agreement
Dated December 19, 2008, between the Company and the United States Department of the Treasury incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 23, 2008.
Exhibit 10.13 Formal Agreement
Dated December 16, 2008, between the Company and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.4 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 23, 2008.
Exhibit 10.14 Waiver of Senior Executive Officers*
Dated December 19, 2008, issued to the United Stated Department of the Treasury incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.2 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 23, 2008.
Exhibit 10.15 Consent of Senior Executive Officers*
Dated December 19, 2008, issued to the United States Department of the Treasury incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.3 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed December 23, 2008.
Exhibit 10.16 Form of 409A Amendment to Employment Agreements with Dennis S. Hudson, III, William R. Hahl, A. Douglas Gilbert, O.Jean Strickland and H. Russell Holland, III*
Incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed January 5, 2009.
Exhibit 10.17 Letter Agreement Regarding Lead Director Position*
Dated October 24, 2012 between Roger O. Goldman and the Company, incorporated herein by reference from Exhibit 10.1 to the Company’s Form 8-K, filed October 29, 2012.
Exhibit 13 2012 Annual Report. The following portions of the 2012 Annual Report are incorporated herein by reference:
Financial Highlights
Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
Selected Quarterly Information-Quarterly Consolidated Income Statements
Consolidated Financial Statements
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
Financial Statements-Reports of Independent Certified Public Accountants
Exhibit 21 Subsidiaries of Registrant
Exhibit 23 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
Exhibit 31.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
Exhibit 32.1** Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 111 the Emergency Economic Stability Act, as amended
Exhibit 32.2** Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 111 the Emergency Economic Stability Act, as amended
Exhibit 99.1 31 C.F.R. § 30.15 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 99.2 31 C.F.R. § 30.15 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 101 Interactive Data File
* Management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.
** The certifications attached as Exhibits 32.1 and 32.2 accompany this Annual Report on Form 10-K and are “furnished” to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act.
(b) Exhibits
The response to this portion of Item 15 is submitted under item (a)(3) above.
(c) Financial Statement Schedules
None.
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
SEACOAST BANKING CORPORATION OF FLORIDA
(Registrant)
By:
/s/ Dennis S. Hudson, III
Dennis S. Hudson, III
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Date: March 13, 2013
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.