M&T Bank (MTB) 10-K2019 FY Annual report

10kmwilOo Ofr wh

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

or

Commission file number 1-9861

M&T BANK CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

716-635-4000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.  

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

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

Aggregate market value of the Common Stock, $0.50 par value, held by non-affiliates of the registrant, computed by reference to the closing price as of the close of business on June 30, 2019: $22,178,197,910.

Number of shares of the Common Stock, $0.50 par value, outstanding as of the close of business on January 31, 2020: 130,436,633 shares.

Documents Incorporated By Reference:

(1) Portions of the Proxy Statement for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of M&T Bank Corporation in Parts II and III.

M&T BANK CORPORATION

Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019

CROSS-REFERENCE SHEET

2

3

PART I

M&T Bank Corporation (“Registrant” or “M&T”) is a New York business corporation which is registered as a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (“BHCA”) and as a bank holding company (“BHC”) under Article III-A of the New York Banking Law (“Banking Law”). The principal executive offices of M&T are located at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203. M&T was incorporated in November 1969. M&T and its direct and indirect subsidiaries are collectively referred to herein as the “Company.” As of December 31, 2019 the Company had consolidated total assets of $119.9 billion, deposits of $94.8 billion and shareholders’ equity of $15.7 billion. The Company had 16,998 full-time and 775 part-time employees as of December 31, 2019.

At December 31, 2019, M&T had two wholly owned bank subsidiaries: Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company (“M&T Bank”) and Wilmington Trust, National Association (“Wilmington Trust, N.A.”). The banks collectively offer a wide range of retail and commercial banking, trust and wealth management, and investment services to their customers. At December 31, 2019, M&T Bank represented 99% of consolidated assets of the Company.

The Company from time to time considers acquiring banks, thrift institutions, branch offices of banks or thrift institutions, or other businesses within markets currently served by the Company or in other locations that would complement the Company’s business or its geographic reach. The Company has pursued acquisition opportunities in the past, continues to review different opportunities, including the possibility of major acquisitions, and intends to continue this practice.

Subsidiaries

M&T Bank is a banking corporation that is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. M&T Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Home Loan Bank System, and its deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) up to applicable limits. M&T acquired all of the issued and outstanding shares of the capital stock of M&T Bank in December 1969. The stock of M&T Bank represents a major asset of M&T. M&T Bank operates under a charter granted by the State of New York in 1892, and the continuity of its banking business is traced to the organization of the Manufacturers and Traders Bank in 1856. The principal executive offices of M&T Bank are located at One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York 14203. As of December 31, 2019, M&T Bank had 731 domestic banking offices located in New York State, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, a full-service commercial banking office in Ontario, Canada, and an office in George Town, Cayman Islands. As of December 31, 2019, M&T Bank had consolidated total assets of $119.4 billion, deposits of $96.4 billion and shareholder’s equity of $15.1 billion. The deposit liabilities of M&T Bank are insured by the FDIC through its Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”). As a commercial bank, M&T Bank offers a broad range of financial services to a diverse base of consumers, businesses, professional clients, governmental entities and financial institutions located in its markets. Lending is largely focused on consumers residing in New York State, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and on small and medium-size businesses based in those areas, although loans are originated through offices in other states and in Ontario, Canada. In addition, the Company conducts lending activities in various states through other subsidiaries. Trust and other fiduciary services are offered by M&T Bank and through its wholly owned subsidiary, Wilmington Trust Company. M&T Bank and certain of its subsidiaries also offer commercial mortgage loans secured by income producing properties or properties used by borrowers in a trade or business. Additional financial services are provided through other operating subsidiaries of the Company.

4

Wilmington Trust, N.A., a national banking association and a member of the Federal Reserve System and the FDIC, commenced operations on October 2, 1995. The deposit liabilities of Wilmington Trust, N.A. are insured by the FDIC through the DIF. The main office of Wilmington Trust, N.A. is located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890. Wilmington Trust, N.A. offers various trust and wealth management services. As of December 31, 2019, Wilmington Trust, N.A. had total assets of $4.7 billion, deposits of $3.9 billion and shareholder’s equity of $607 million.

Wilmington Trust Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a Delaware bank and trust company in March 1901 and amended its charter in July 2011 to become a nondepository trust company. Wilmington Trust Company provides a variety of Delaware based trust, fiduciary and custodial services to its clients. As of December 31, 2019, Wilmington Trust Company had total assets of $1.1 billion and shareholder’s equity of $632 million. Revenues of Wilmington Trust Company were $131 million in 2019. The headquarters of Wilmington Trust Company are located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890.

M&T Insurance Agency, Inc. (“M&T Insurance Agency”), a wholly owned insurance agency subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a New York corporation in March 1955. M&T Insurance Agency provides insurance agency services principally to the commercial market. As of December 31, 2019, M&T Insurance Agency had assets of $42 million and shareholder’s equity of $23 million. M&T Insurance Agency recorded revenues of $37 million during 2019. The headquarters of M&T Insurance Agency are located at 285 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202.

M&T Real Estate Trust (“M&T Real Estate”) was a Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust that traced its origin to the incorporation of M&T Real Estate, Inc. in July 1995. M&T Real Estate engaged in commercial real estate lending and provided loan servicing to M&T Bank. M&T Real Estate was merged into M&T Bank effective September 1, 2019.  Prior to its merger with M&T Bank, M&T Real Estate recorded $821 million of revenue in 2019.

M&T Realty Capital Corporation (“M&T Realty Capital”), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a Maryland corporation in October 1973. M&T Realty Capital engages in multifamily commercial real estate lending and provides loan servicing to purchasers of the loans it originates. As of December 31, 2019, M&T Realty Capital serviced or sub-serviced $21.0 billion of commercial mortgage loans for non-affiliates and had assets of $510 million and shareholder’s equity of $180 million. M&T Realty Capital recorded revenues of $174 million in 2019. The headquarters of M&T Realty Capital are located at One Light Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.

M&T Securities, Inc. (“M&T Securities”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank that was incorporated as a New York business corporation in November 1985. M&T Securities is registered as a broker/dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and as an investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Advisors Act”). M&T Securities is licensed as a life insurance agent in each state where M&T Bank operates branch offices and in a number of other states. It provides securities brokerage, investment advisory and insurance services. As of December 31, 2019, M&T Securities had assets of $55 million and shareholder’s equity of $44 million. M&T Securities recorded $94 million of revenue during 2019. The headquarters of M&T Securities are located at 285 Delaware Avenue, Buffalo, New York 14202.

Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Inc. (“WT Investment Advisors”), a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T Bank, was incorporated as a Maryland corporation on June 30, 1995. WT Investment Advisors, a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act, serves as an investment advisor to the Wilmington Funds, a family of proprietary mutual funds, and institutional clients. As of December 31, 2019, WT Investment Advisors had assets of $54 million and shareholder’s equity of $45 million. WT Investment Advisors recorded revenues of $38 million

5

in 2019. The headquarters of WT Investment Advisors are located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890.

Wilmington Funds Management Corporation (“Wilmington Funds Management”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T that was incorporated in September 1981 as a Delaware corporation. Wilmington Funds Management is registered as an investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act and serves as an investment advisor to the Wilmington Funds. Wilmington Funds Management had assets and shareholder’s equity of $63 million and $62 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2019. Wilmington Funds Management recorded revenues of $25 million in 2019. The headquarters of Wilmington Funds Management are located at 1100 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19890.

Wilmington Trust Investment Management, LLC (“WTIM”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of M&T and was incorporated in December 2001 as a Georgia limited liability company. WTIM is a registered investment advisor under the Investment Advisors Act and provides investment management services to clients, including certain private funds. As of December 31, 2019, WTIM has assets and shareholder’s equity of $22 million. WTIM recorded revenues of $4 million in 2019. WTIM’s headquarters is located at Terminus 27^th Floor, 3280 Peachtree Road N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30305.

The Registrant and its banking subsidiaries have a number of other special-purpose or inactive subsidiaries. These other subsidiaries did not represent, individually and collectively, a significant portion of the Company’s consolidated assets, net income and shareholders’ equity at December 31, 2019.

Segment Information, Principal Products/Services and Foreign Operations

Information about the Registrant’s business segments is included in note 22 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” and is further discussed in Part II, Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” The Registrant’s reportable segments have been determined based upon its internal profitability reporting system, which is organized by strategic business unit. Certain strategic business units have been combined for segment information reporting purposes where the nature of the products and services, the type of customer and the distribution of those products and services are similar. The reportable segments are Business Banking, Commercial Banking, Commercial Real Estate, Discretionary Portfolio, Residential Mortgage Banking and Retail Banking. The Company’s international activities are discussed in note 17 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

The only activity that, as a class, contributed 10% or more of the sum of consolidated interest income and other income in any of the last three years was interest on loans. The amount of income from such sources during those years is set forth on the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Income filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Supervision and Regulation of the Company

M&T and its subsidiaries are subject to the comprehensive regulatory framework applicable to bank and financial holding companies and their subsidiaries. Regulation of financial institutions such as M&T and its subsidiaries is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the FDIC’s DIF and the banking and financial system as a whole, and generally is not intended for the protection of shareholders, investors or creditors other than insured depositors.

Proposals to change the applicable regulatory framework may be introduced in the United States Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could

6

change banking statutes and the operating environment of the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other financial institutions. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to M&T or any of its subsidiaries could have a material effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of the Company.

Described hereafter are material elements of the significant federal and state laws and regulations applicable to M&T and its subsidiaries. The descriptions are not intended to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes and regulations described and do not include all pending or proposed changes in current laws or regulations.

Overview

M&T is registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”) as a financial holding company and BHC under the BHCA. As such, M&T and its subsidiaries are subject to the supervision, examination, reporting, capital and other requirements of the BHCA and the regulations of the Federal Reserve. In addition, M&T’s banking subsidiaries are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by, as applicable, the New York State Department of Financial Services (“NYSDFS”), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), the FDIC and the Federal Reserve and their consumer financial products and services are regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Further, financial services entities such as M&T’s investment advisor subsidiaries and M&T’s broker-dealer are subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), among others. Other non-bank affiliates and activities, particularly insurance brokerage and agency activities, are subject to other federal and state laws and regulations as well as licensing and regulation by state insurance and bank regulatory agencies. Although the scope of regulation and form of supervision may vary from state to state, insurance laws generally grant broad discretion to regulatory authorities in adopting regulations and supervising regulated activities. This supervision generally includes the licensing of insurance brokers and agents and the regulation of the handling of customer funds held in a fiduciary capacity as well as regulations requiring, among other things, maintenance of capital, record keeping, and reporting.

M&T Bank is a New York chartered bank and a member of the Federal Reserve. As a result, it is subject to extensive regulation, examination and oversight by the NYSDFS and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. New York laws and regulations govern many aspects of M&T Bank’s operations, including branching, dividends, subsidiary activities, fiduciary activities, lending, and deposit taking. M&T Bank is also subject to Federal Reserve regulations and guidance, including with respect to capital levels. Its deposits are insured by the FDIC to $250,000 per depositor, which also exercises regulatory oversight over certain aspects of M&T Bank’s operations. Certain subsidiaries of M&T Bank are subject to regulation by other federal and state regulators as well. For example, M&T Securities is regulated by the SEC, FINRA, SIPC, and state securities regulators, and WT Investment Advisors is also subject to SEC regulation.

Wilmington Trust, N.A. is a national bank with operations that include fiduciary and related activities with limited lending and deposit business. It is subject to extensive regulation, examination and oversight by the OCC which governs many aspects of its operations, including fiduciary activities, capital levels, office locations, dividends and subsidiary activities. Its deposits are insured by the FDIC to $250,000 per depositor, which also exercises regulatory oversight over certain aspects of the operations of Wilmington Trust, N.A.

7

Enhanced Prudential Standards

Under Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), as amended by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (“EGRRCPA”), U.S. bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, including M&T, are currently subject to enhanced prudential standards. The enhanced prudential standards include risk-based capital and leverage requirements, liquidity standards, risk management and risk committee requirements, stress test requirements and a debt-to-equity limit for companies that the Financial Stability Oversight Council has determined would pose a grave threat to systemic financial stability were they to fail such limits.

In October 2019, the Federal Reserve and the other Federal bank regulators adopted rules that tailor the application of the enhanced prudential standards to bank holding companies and of capital and liquidity requirements to bank holding companies and depository institutions (the “Tailoring Rules”). The Tailoring Rules assign each U.S. BHC with $100 billion or more in total consolidated assets, as well as its bank subsidiaries, to one of four categories based on its size and five other risk-based indicators: (1) cross-jurisdictional activity, (2) weighted short-term wholesale funding, (3) nonbank assets, (4) off-balance sheet exposure, and (5) status as a U.S. global systemically important BHC (“G-SIB”). Under the Tailoring Rules, M&T (and, pursuant to the Tailoring Rules, its depository institution subsidiaries) is subject to Category IV standards, which apply to banking organizations with at least $100 billion in total consolidated assets that do not meet any of the thresholds specified for Categories I through III.

Under the Tailoring Rules, Category IV firms, among other things, (1) are not subject to any Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”) (or, in certain cases, subject to reduced requirements), (2) remain eligible to opt-out of the requirement to recognize most elements of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”) in regulatory capital, (3) are no longer subject to company-run stress testing requirements, (4) are subject to supervisory stress testing on a biennial basis rather than an annual basis, (5) are subject to requirements to develop and maintain a capital plan on an annual basis and (6) are subject to certain liquidity risk management and risk committee requirements. Category IV firms continue not to be subject to (1) advanced approaches capital requirements, (2) the supplementary leverage ratio and (3) the countercyclical capital buffer. Other elements of the Tailoring Rules are discussed in further detail throughout this section.

M&T will continue to evaluate the impact of any changes in law and any new regulations promulgated, including changes in regulatory costs and fees, modifications to consumer products or disclosures required by the CFPB and the requirements of the enhanced supervision provisions, among others.

Permissible Activities under the BHC Act 

In general, the BHCA limits the business of a BHC to banking, managing or controlling banks, and other activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. In addition, bank holding companies are expected to serve as a managerial and financial source of strength to their subsidiary depository institutions, including committing resources to support such subsidiaries. This support may be required at times when M&T may not be inclined or able to provide it. In addition, any capital loans by a BHC to a subsidiary bank are subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a BHC’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the BHC to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to a priority of payment.

Bank holding companies that qualify and elect to be financial holding companies may engage in any activity, or acquire and retain the shares of a company engaged in any activity, that is either (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activity (as determined by the Federal Reserve,

8

by regulation or order, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) or (ii) complementary to a financial activity and does not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally (as solely determined by the Federal Reserve). Activities that are financial in nature include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and merchant banking.

M&T elected to become a financial holding company on March 1, 2011. To maintain financial holding company status, a financial holding company and all of its depository institution subsidiaries must be “well capitalized” and “well managed.” The failure to meet such requirements could result in material restrictions on the activities of M&T and may also adversely affect the Company’s ability to enter into certain transactions or obtain necessary approvals in connection therewith, as well as loss of financial holding company status. Additionally, if all of the Company’s depository institution subsidiaries have not received at least a “satisfactory” rating on its most recent examination under the the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”), it would not be able to commence any new financial activities or acquire a company that engages in such activities, although it would still be allowed to engage in activities closely related to banking and make investments in the ordinary course of conducting banking activities. See the section captioned “Community Reinvestment Act” included elsewhere in this discussion.

Distributions

M&T is a legal entity separate and distinct from its banking and other subsidiaries. Historically, the majority of M&T’s revenue has been from dividends paid to M&T by its subsidiary banks. M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. are subject to laws and regulations imposing restrictions on the amount of dividends they may declare and pay. Future dividend payments to M&T by its subsidiary banks will be dependent on a number of factors, including the earnings and financial condition of each such bank, and are subject to the limitations referred to in note 23 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data,” and to other statutory powers of bank regulatory agencies.

An insured depository institution is prohibited from making any capital distribution to its owner, including any dividend, if, after making such distribution, the depository institution fails to meet the required minimum level for any relevant capital measure, including the risk-based capital adequacy and leverage standards discussed herein.

Dividend payments by M&T to its shareholders and common stock repurchases by M&T are subject to the oversight of the Federal Reserve. As described below in this section under “Stress Testing and Capital Plan Review,” dividends and common stock repurchases (net of any new stock issuances as per a capital plan) generally may only be paid or made under a capital plan as to which the Federal Reserve has not objected.

Capital Requirements

M&T and its subsidiary banks are required to comply with applicable capital adequacy standards established by the federal banking agencies (the “Capital Rules”), which are based on the Basel Committee’s December 2010 final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards, referred to as “Basel III”.

Among other matters, the Capital Rules impose a capital measure called Common Equity Tier 1 Capital (“CET1”) to which most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures must be made. In addition, the Capital Rules specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting certain specified requirements. Pursuant to the Capital Rules, the

9

minimum capital ratios are as follows:

In calculating regulatory capital ratios M&T must assign risk weights to the Company’s assets and off-balance sheet items. M&T has an ongoing process to review data elements associated with certain assets that from time to time may affect how specific assets are classified and could lead to increases or decreases of the regulatory risk weights assigned to such assets.

The Capital Rules also impose a “capital conservation buffer” (“CCB”) of 2.5%, composed entirely of CET1, on top of the three minimum risk-weighted asset ratios listed above. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Thus, the effective minimum ratios applicable to M&T are (i) CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7%, (ii) Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.5% and (iii) total capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 10.5%. Banking institutions that fail to meet the effective minimum ratios once the CCB is taken into account will be subject to constraints on capital distributions, including dividends and share repurchases, and certain discretionary executive compensation. The severity of the constraints depends on the amount of the shortfall and the institution’s “eligible retained income” (that is, four quarter trailing net income, net of distributions and tax effects not reflected in net income). On April 10, 2018, the Federal Reserve issued a proposal designed to create a single, integrated capital requirement by combining the quantitative assessment of firms’ capital plans with the CCB requirement. Details of this proposal are discussed under “Stress Testing and Capital Plan Review” herein. Although the proposal, if adopted, would change the way in which the minimum ratios are calculated, firms would continue to be subject to progressively more stringent constraints on capital actions as they approach the minimum ratios.

CET1 consists of common stock instruments that meet the eligibility criteria in the Capital Rules, including common stock and related surplus, net of treasury stock, retained earnings, certain minority interests and, for certain firms, AOCI. As permitted under the Capital Rules, M&T made a one-time permanent election to neutralize certain AOCI components, with the result that those components are not recognized in M&T’s CET1. The Capital Rules also preclude certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities, from inclusion in bank holding companies’ Tier 1 capital. Thus, trust preferred securities no longer included in M&T’s Tier 1 capital may nonetheless be included as a component of Tier 2 capital on a permanent basis and irrespective of whether such securities otherwise meet the revised definition of Tier 2 capital set forth in the Capital Rules. M&T’s regulatory capital ratios are presented in note 23 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

The Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, certain deferred tax assets, and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1. The deductions and other adjustments to CET1 capital generally became fully phased-in on January 1, 2018, except that in November 2017, the federal banking regulators revised the Capital Rules to extend the then-current transitional treatment of these deductions for non-advanced approaches banking organizations (the “Transition Rule”) until revisions to the deductions became effective.

In July 2019, the federal banking regulators adopted rules intended to simplify the deductions for these items for banking organizations, such as M&T, that are not subject to the “advanced approaches” under the Capital Rules (the “Capital Simplification Rules”). The Capital

10

Simplifications Rules and the rescission of the Transition Rule were adopted by the Company as of January 1, 2020.

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms (the standards are commonly referred to as “Basel IV”). Among other things, these standards revise the Basel Committee’s standardized approach for credit risk (including by recalibrating risk weights and introducing new capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments,” such as unused credit card lines of credit) and provides a new standardized approach for operational risk capital. Under the Basel framework, these standards will generally be effective on January 1, 2022, with an aggregate output floor phasing in through January 1, 2027. Under the current U.S. capital rules, operational risk capital requirements and a capital floor apply only to advanced approaches institutions, and not to the Company. The impact of Basel IV will depend on the manner in which it is implemented by the federal banking regulators.

Stress Testing and Capital Plan Review

As part of the enhanced prudential requirements applicable to systemically important financial institutions, the Federal Reserve conducts periodic analyses of bank holding companies with at least $100 billion in total consolidated assets to determine whether the companies have sufficient capital on a consolidated basis necessary to absorb losses in baseline and severely adverse economic and financial scenarios generated by the Federal Reserve. For Category IV firms, such as M&T, these supervisory stress tests occur on a biennial basis, including 2020. The Federal Reserve may also use additional components in the severely adverse scenario or additional or more complex scenarios designed to capture salient risks to specific business groups. A summary of results of the Federal Reserve’s analysis under the severely adverse stress scenario is publicly disclosed. Under the Tailoring Rules, Category IV firms, including M&T, are no longer subject to company-run stress testing requirements. However, they remain subject to the quantitative review of their capital plans under CCAR, to required capital plan submissions, and to the associated reporting requirements.

In addition, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, such as M&T, must submit annual capital plans for approval as part of the Federal Reserve’s CCAR process. Covered bank holding companies may execute capital actions, such as paying dividends and repurchasing stock, only in accordance with a capital plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Federal Reserve (or any approved amendments to such plan). The comprehensive capital plans include a view of capital adequacy under various scenarios — including a BHC-defined baseline scenario, a baseline scenario provided by the Federal Reserve, at least one BHC-defined stress scenario, and severely adverse scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve. The CCAR process is intended to help ensure that these bank holding companies have robust, forward-looking capital planning processes that account for each company’s unique risks and that permit continued operations during times of economic and financial stress. Each of the bank holding companies participating in the CCAR process is also required to collect and report certain related data to the Federal Reserve on a quarterly basis to allow the Federal Reserve to monitor progress against the approved capital plans. Each capital plan must include a view of capital adequacy under the stress test scenarios described above. In connection with the adoption of the Tailoring Rules, the Federal Reserve stated that it expects to revise its guidance relating to capital planning to align with the categories of standards set forth in the Tailoring Rules, and the impact of the future proposal on M&T and its capital planning process will depend on the final form of the Federal Reserve’s revised guidance.

The Federal Reserve may object to a capital plan if the plan does not show that the covered BHC will maintain sufficient regulatory capital ratios on a pro forma basis under expected and stressful conditions throughout the nine-quarter planning horizon covered by the capital plan. The

11

rules also provide that a covered BHC may not make a capital distribution unless after giving effect to the distribution it will meet all minimum regulatory capital ratios. The Federal Reserve also incorporates an assessment of the qualitative aspects of the firm’s capital planning process into regular, ongoing supervisory activities and through targeted, horizontal assessments of particular aspects of capital planning. M&T’s annual CCAR capital plan is currently due in April each year. The Federal Reserve publishes the results of its supervisory stress tests and quantitative CCAR review of capital plans by June 30 of each year.

In addition to other limitations, M&T’s ability to make any capital distributions is contingent on the Federal Reserve’s non-objection to M&T’s capital plan. The Federal Reserve generally limits a BHC’s ability to make quarterly capital distributions – that is, dividends and share repurchases – if the amount of the BHC’s actual cumulative quarterly capital issuances of instruments that qualify as regulatory capital are less than the BHC had indicated in its submitted capital plan as to which it received a non-objection from the Federal Reserve.

As noted above, on April 10, 2018, the Federal Reserve issued a proposal designed to create a single, integrated capital requirement by combining the quantitative assessment of CCAR with the CCB requirement. If adopted, the proposal would replace the current static 2.5% CCB with a stress capital buffer (“SCB”) requirement. The SCB, subject to a minimum of 2.5%, would reflect stressed losses in the supervisory severely adverse scenario of the Federal Reserve’s supervisory stress tests and would also include four quarters of planned common stock dividends. The proposal would also introduce a stress leverage buffer (“SLB”) requirement, similar to the SCB, which would apply to the Tier 1 leverage ratio. In addition, the proposal would eliminate the quantitative objection provisions of CCAR but would require a BHC to reduce its planned capital distributions if those distributions would not be consistent with the applicable capital buffer constraints based on the BHC’s own baseline scenario projections. The Federal Reserve has stated that it intends to propose revisions to the stress buffer requirements that would be applicable to a Category IV BHC to align with the two-year supervisory stress testing cycle for Category IV bank holding companies.

Liquidity

The Federal Reserve and other banking regulators have adopted rules implementing a U.S. version of the Basel Committee’s LCR requirement, which is intended to ensure that banks hold sufficient amounts of so-called “high quality liquid assets” (“HQLA”) to cover the anticipated net cash outflows during a hypothetical acute 30-day stress scenario. Under the Tailoring Rules, Category IV firms with less than $50 billion in weighted short-term wholesale funding, including M&T, are no longer subject to any LCR requirement.

The Basel III framework also included a second standard, referred to as the Net Stable Funding Ratio (“NSFR”), which is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banks over a one-year time horizon. In May 2016, the Federal Reserve and other federal banking regulators issued a proposed rule that would implement the NSFR for large U.S. banking organizations. Although the NSFR has not been finalized, it is expected that the framework for applying any finalized NSFR will be consistent with the approach for the LCR requirement under the Tailoring Rules.

Under the Tailoring Rules, Category IV firms, including M&T, remain subject to liquidity risk management requirements, but these requirements are now tailored such that these firms are required to: (i) calculate collateral positions monthly, as opposed to weekly; (ii) establish a more limited set of liquidity risk limits; and (iii) monitor fewer elements of intraday liquidity risk exposures. These firms are now also subject to liquidity stress testing quarterly, rather than monthly, and are required to report liquidity data on the FR 2052a on a monthly basis. M&T remains subject to the liquidity buffer requirements.

12

Cross Guaranty Provision

The cross guaranty provisions in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) were enacted by Congress in the Financial Institutions, Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) and require each insured depository institution owned by the same BHC to be financially responsible for the failure or resolution costs of any affiliated insured institution. Generally, the amount of the cross guaranty liability is equal to the estimated loss to the DIF for the resolution of the affiliated institution(s) in default. The FDIC’s claim under the cross guaranty provision is superior to claims of shareholders of the insured depository institution or its BHC and to most claims arising out of obligations or liabilities owed to affiliates of the institution, but is subordinate to claims of depositors, secured creditors and holders of subordinated debt (other than affiliates) of the commonly controlled insured depository institution. The FDIC may decline to enforce the cross guaranty provision if it determines that a waiver is in the best interest of the DIF.

Volcker Rule

On December 10, 2013, the federal banking regulators and the SEC adopted the so-called Volcker Rule to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act limiting proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain hedge funds and private equity funds (defined as “covered funds” in the Volcker Rule). The Company does not engage in any significant amount of proprietary trading as defined in the Volcker Rule and implemented the required procedures for those areas in which trading does occur. The covered funds limits are imposed through a conformance period that ended in July 2017. The Company has sought, and received, from the Federal Reserve, a five-year extension (to July 21, 2022) to either divest or terminate its investment in one venture capital fund. In October 2019, the Federal Reserve, OCC, FDIC, CFTC and SEC finalized rules to tailor the application of the Volcker Rule based on the size and scope of a banking entity’s trading activities and to clarify and amend certain definitions, requirements and exemptions. These regulators have also stated their intention to engage in further rulemaking with respect to the implementing of regulations relating to covered funds, including potential changes to the definition of “covered funds” and the prohibitions on certain covered transactions.

Safety and Soundness Standards

Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies pursuant to the FDIA establish general standards relating to internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits. In general, these guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. Additionally, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the agency must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution is subject. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the agency may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

Limits on Undercapitalized Depository Institutions

The FDIA establishes a system of regulatory remedies to resolve the problems of undercapitalized institutions, referred to as the prompt corrective action. The federal banking regulators have established five capital categories (“well-capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized”) and must take certain mandatory

13

supervisory actions, and are authorized to take other discretionary actions, with respect to institutions which are undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized. The severity of these mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. The FDIC has specified by regulation the relevant capital levels for each category. The FDIA’s prompt corrective action provisions only apply to depository institutions and not to bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve’s regulations applicable to bank holding companies separately define “well capitalized.” A financial holding company that is not well-capitalized and well-managed (or whose bank subsidiaries are not well capitalized and well managed) under applicable prompt corrective action standards may be restricted in certain of its activities and ultimately may lose financial holding company status. Under existing rules, an institution that is not an advanced approaches institution is deemed to be “well capitalized” if it has (i) a CET1 ratio of at least 6.5%, (ii) a Tier 1 capital ratio of at least 8%, (iii) a Total capital ratio of at least 10%, and (iv) a Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least 5%.

An institution that is categorized as undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized is required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan to its appropriate federal banking regulator. Under the FDIA, in order for the capital restoration plan to be accepted by the appropriate federal banking agency, a BHC must guarantee that a subsidiary depository institution will comply with its capital restoration plan, subject to certain limitations. The BHC must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. An undercapitalized institution is also generally prohibited from increasing its average total assets, accepting brokered deposits or offering interest rates on any deposits significantly higher than prevailing market rates, making acquisitions, establishing any branches or engaging in any new line of business, except in accordance with an accepted capital restoration plan or with the approval of the FDIC. Institutions that are significantly undercapitalized or undercapitalized and either fail to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fail to implement an approved capital restoration plan 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 depository institutions failing to submit or implement an acceptable capital restoration plan are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator.

Transactions with Affiliates

There are various legal restrictions on the extent to which M&T and its non-bank subsidiaries may borrow or otherwise obtain funding from M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. In general, Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Federal Reserve Regulation W require that any “covered transaction” by M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. (or any of their respective subsidiaries) with an affiliate must in certain cases be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral and must be limited as follows: (a) in the case of any single such affiliate, the aggregate amount of covered transactions of the insured depository institution and its subsidiaries may not exceed 10% of the capital stock and surplus of such insured depository institution, and (b) in the case of all affiliates, the aggregate amount of covered transactions of an insured depository institution and its subsidiaries may not exceed 20% of the capital stock and surplus of such insured depository institution. “Covered transactions” are defined by statute to include, among other things, a loan or extension of credit, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve) from the affiliate, certain derivative transactions that create a credit exposure to an affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate. All covered transactions, including certain additional transactions (such as transactions with a third party in which an affiliate has a financial interest), must be conducted on market terms.

14

FDIC Insurance Assessments

Deposit Insurance Assessments. M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. deposits are insured by the DIF of the FDIC up to the limits set forth under applicable law. The FDIC imposes a risk-based premium assessment system that determines assessment rates for financial institutions. Deposit insurance assessments are based on average total assets minus average tangible equity. For larger institutions, such as M&T Bank, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss-severity score that are used to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses a bank’s capital level and supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution’s ability to withstand asset-related stress and funding-related stress. The FDIC has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations. Under the current system, premiums are assessed quarterly.

Under the FDIA, insurance of deposits may be terminated by the FDIC upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

Acquisitions

The BHCA requires every BHC to obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before: (1) it may acquire direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank or savings institution, if after such acquisition, the BHC will directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of the voting shares of the institution; (2) it or any of its subsidiaries, other than a bank, may acquire all or substantially all of the assets of any bank or savings institution; or (3) it may merge or consolidate with any other BHC. Financial holding companies are required to obtain prior approval from the Federal Reserve before acquiring certain nonbank financial companies with assets exceeding $10 billion.

The BHCA further provides that the Federal Reserve may not approve any transaction that would result in a monopoly or would be in furtherance of any combination or conspiracy to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the business of banking in any section of the United States, or the effect of which may be substantially to lessen competition or to tend to create a monopoly in any section of the country, or that in any other manner would be in restraint of trade, unless the anticompetitive effects of the proposed transaction are clearly outweighed by the public interest in meeting the convenience and needs of the community to be served. The Federal Reserve is also required to consider the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the bank holding companies and banks concerned and the convenience and needs of the community to be served. Consideration of financial resources generally focuses on capital adequacy and consideration of convenience and needs issues includes the parties’ performance under the CRA and compliance with consumer protection laws. The Federal Reserve must take into account the institutions’ effectiveness in combating money laundering. In addition, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the BHCA was amended to require the Federal Reserve, when evaluating a proposed transaction, to consider the extent to which the transaction would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the United States banking or financial system.

Executive and Incentive Compensation

Guidelines adopted by several federal banking agencies prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as “excessive” when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. The Federal Reserve issued comprehensive guidance on incentive compensation policies (the “Incentive Compensation Guidance”) intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness

15

of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk-taking. The Incentive Compensation Guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that do not encourage risk-taking beyond the organization’s ability to effectively identify and manage risks, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management, and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. These three principles are incorporated into the proposed joint compensation regulations under the Dodd-Frank Act noted below. Any deficiencies in compensation practices that are identified may be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect its ability to make acquisitions or perform other actions. The Incentive Compensation Guidance provides that enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements or related risk-management control or governance processes pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal bank regulatory agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive-based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities having at least $1 billion in total assets, such as M&T and M&T Bank. In June 2016, the agencies proposed rules to implement this requirement but these proposed rules have not been finalized.

In October 2016, the NYSDFS issued guidance emphasizing that its regulated banking institutions, including M&T Bank, must ensure that any incentive compensation arrangements tied to employee performance indicators are subject to effective risk management, oversight and control.

The scope and content of the banking regulators’ policies on incentive compensation are continuing to develop and are likely to continue evolving in the future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the ability of M&T and its subsidiaries to hire, retain and motivate their key employees.

Resolution Planning

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, as amended by EGRRCPA, certain bank holding companies are required to report periodically to the Federal Reserve and the FDIC a resolution plan for their rapid and orderly resolution in the event of material financial distress or failure. However, in connection with the release of the Tailoring Rules, the Federal Reserve and FDIC finalized rules in October 2019 which, among other things, adjust the review cycles and applicability of the agencies’ resolution planning requirements. Under these new rules, Category IV firms such as M&T are no longer required to submit resolution plans.

The FDIC has separately implemented a resolution planning rule that currently requires insured depository institutions with $50 billion or more in total assets, such as M&T Bank, to submit to the FDIC periodic plans for resolution in the event of the institution’s failure. In April 2019, the FDIC released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking about potential changes to its resolution planning requirements for insured depository institutions, such as M&T Bank, and the next round of insured depository institution resolution plan submissions will not be required until the rulemaking process is complete.

16

Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution or a Bank Holding Company

If the FDIC is appointed as conservator or receiver for an insured depository institution such as M&T Bank or Wilmington Trust, N.A., upon its insolvency or in certain other events, the FDIC has the power:

In addition, under federal law, the claims of holders of domestic deposit liabilities and certain claims for administrative expenses against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution, including claims of debt holders of the institution, in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver. As a result, whether or not the FDIC ever sought to repudiate any debt obligations of M&T Bank or Wilmington Trust, N.A., the debt holders would be treated differently from, and could receive, if anything, substantially less than, the depositors of the bank. The Dodd-Frank Act created a new resolution regime (known as “orderly liquidation authority”) for systemically important financial companies, including bank holding companies and their affiliates. Under the orderly liquidation authority, the FDIC may be appointed as receiver for the systemically important institution, and its failed subsidiaries, for purposes of liquidating the entity if, among other conditions, it is determined at the time of the institution’s failure that it is in default or in danger of default and the failure poses a risk to the stability of the U.S. financial system.

If the FDIC is appointed as receiver under the orderly liquidation authority, then the powers of the receiver, and the rights and obligations of creditors and other parties who have dealt with the institution, would be determined under the Dodd-Frank Act provisions, and not under the insolvency law that would otherwise apply. The powers of the receiver under the orderly liquidation authority were based on the powers of the FDIC as receiver for depository institutions under the FDIA. However, the provisions governing the rights of creditors under the orderly liquidation authority were modified in certain respects to reduce disparities with the treatment of creditors’ claims under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code as compared to the treatment of those claims under the new authority. Nonetheless, substantial differences in the rights of creditors exist as between these two regimes, including the right of the FDIC to disregard the strict priority of creditor claims in some circumstances, the use of an administrative claims procedure to determine creditors’ claims (as opposed to the judicial procedure utilized in bankruptcy proceedings), and the right of the FDIC to transfer claims to a “bridge” entity.

An orderly liquidation fund will fund such liquidation proceedings through borrowings from the Treasury Department and risk-based assessments made, first, on entities that received more in the resolution than they would have received in liquidation to the extent of such excess, and second, if necessary, on bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, such as M&T. If an orderly liquidation is triggered, M&T could face assessments for the orderly liquidation fund.

The FDIC has developed a strategy under the orderly liquidation authority referred to as the “single point of entry” strategy, under which the FDIC would resolve a failed financial holding

17

company by transferring its assets (including shares of its operating subsidiaries) and, potentially, very limited liabilities to a “bridge” holding company; utilize the resources of the failed financial holding company to recapitalize the operating subsidiaries; and satisfy the claims of unsecured creditors of the failed financial holding company and other claimants in the receivership by delivering securities of one or more new financial companies that would emerge from the bridge holding company. Under this strategy, management of the failed financial holding company would be replaced and shareholders and creditors of the failed financial holding company would bear the losses resulting from the failure.

Depositor Preference

Under federal law, depositors and certain claims for administrative expenses and employee compensation against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors, including depositors whose deposits are payable only outside of the United States and the parent BHC, with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.

Financial Privacy and Cyber Security

The federal banking regulators have adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a non-affiliated third party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In addition, consumers may also prevent disclosure of certain information among affiliated companies that is assembled or used to determine eligibility for a product or service, such as that shown on consumer credit reports and asset and income information from applications. Consumers also have the option to direct banks and other financial institutions not to share information about transactions and experiences with affiliated companies for the purpose of marketing products or services. Federal law makes it a criminal offense, except in limited circumstances, to obtain or attempt to obtain customer information of a financial nature by fraudulent or deceptive means.

In October 2016, the federal banking regulators jointly issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on enhanced cyber risk management standards that are intended to increase the operational resilience of large and interconnected entities under their supervision. If established, the enhanced cyber risk management standards would be designed to help reduce the potential impact of a cyber-attack or other cyber-related failure on the financial system. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking addresses five categories of cyber standards: (1) cyber risk governance; (2) cyber risk management; (3) internal dependency management; (4) external dependency management; and (5) incident response, cyber resilience, and situational awareness.

In March 2017, the NYSDFS implemented regulations requiring financial institutions regulated by the NYSDFS, including M&T Bank, to, among other things, (i) establish and maintain a cyber security program designed to ensure the confidentiality, integrity and availability of their information systems; (ii) implement and maintain a written cyber security policy setting forth policies and procedures for the protection of their information systems and nonpublic information; and (iii) designate a Chief Information Security Officer.

Many state regulators have been increasingly active in implementing privacy and cybersecurity standards and regulations, including implementing or modifying their data breach notification and

18

data privacy requirements. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act became effective on January 1, 2020.

Consumer Protection Laws and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Supervision

In connection with their respective lending and leasing activities, M&T Bank, Wilmington Trust, N.A. and certain of their subsidiaries, are each subject to a number of federal and state laws designed to protect borrowers and promote lending to various sectors of the economy. Such laws include: the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, and various state law counterparts. Furthermore, the CFPB has issued integrated disclosure requirements under the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that relate to the provision of disclosures to borrowers. There are also consumer protection laws governing deposit taking activities (e.g. Truth in Savings Act), as well securities and insurance laws governing certain aspects of the Company’s consolidated operations.

The Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB with broad powers to supervise and enforce most federal consumer protection laws. The CFPB has broad rule-making authority for a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to all banks and savings institutions, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive” acts and practices. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over all banks and savings institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, including M&T Bank.

One of the important rules in governing deposits is the Electronic Fund Transfer Act which, among other things, prohibits financial institutions from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machines (“ATM”) and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those type of transactions. If a consumer does not opt in, any ATM transaction or one-time debit card transaction sent for approval that exceeds the customer’s available balance will be declined. Overdrafts on other types of transactions (e.g. checks, recurring debit card transactions and ACH transactions) are not covered by this rule. Before opting in, the consumer must be provided a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service, and the consumer’s choices. Financial institutions must provide consumers who do not opt in with the same account terms, conditions and features (including pricing) that they provide to consumers who do opt in.

The CFPB has issued final rules that change the reporting requirements for lenders under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. The rules expand the range of transactions subject to the requirements to include most securitized residential mortgage loans and credit lines. The rules also increased the overall amount of data required to be collected and submitted, including additional data points about loans and borrowers.

In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal laws and regulations.

Community Reinvestment Act

The CRA is intended to encourage depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the communities in which they operate, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. CRA examinations are conducted by the federal agencies that are responsible for supervising depository institutions: the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC. A financial institution’s performance in helping to meet the credit needs of its community is evaluated in the context of information about the institution (capacity, constraints and business strategies), its community (demographic and economic data, lending, investment, and service opportunities), and its

19

competitors and peers. Upon completion of a CRA examination, an overall CRA Rating is assigned using a four-tiered rating system. These ratings are: “Outstanding,” “Satisfactory,” “Needs to Improve” and “Substantial Noncompliance.” The CRA evaluation is used in evaluating applications for future approval of bank activities including mergers, acquisitions, charters, branch openings and deposit facilities. M&T Bank has a current rating of “Outstanding.” M&T Bank is also subject to New York State CRA examination and is assessed using a 1 to 4 scoring system. M&T Bank currently has an “Outstanding” rating from the NYSDFS. Wilmington Trust, N.A. has been designated a special purpose trust company since March 3, 2016, and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the CRA. In April 2018, the U.S. Department of Treasury issued a memorandum to the federal banking regulators with recommended changes to the CRA’s implementing regulations to reduce their complexity and associated burden on banks. In December 2019, the OCC and FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to (i) clarify which activities qualify for CRA credit; (ii) update where activities count for CRA credit; (iii) create a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance; and (iv) provide for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. However, the Federal Reserve has not joined the proposed rulemaking. The Company will continue to evaluate the impact of any changes to the regulations implementing the CRA.

Bank Secrecy and Anti-Money Laundering

Federal laws and regulations impose obligations on U.S. financial institutions, including banks and broker/dealer subsidiaries, to implement and maintain appropriate policies, procedures and controls which are reasonably designed to prevent, detect and report instances of money laundering and the financing of terrorism and to verify the identity of their customers. In addition, these provisions require the federal financial institution regulatory agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution’s anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and BHC acquisitions. Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution.

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which drafts regulations implementing the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-money laundering and bank secrecy act legislation, has adopted rules that require financial institutions to obtain beneficial ownership information with respect to legal entities with which such institutions conduct business, subject to certain exclusions and exemptions. Bank regulators are focusing their examinations on anti-money laundering compliance, and M&T continues to monitor and augment, where necessary, its anti-money laundering compliance programs.

Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation

The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others. These are typically known as the “OFAC” rules based on their administration by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”). The OFAC-administered sanctions targeting countries take many different forms. Generally, however, they contain one or more of the following elements: (i) restrictions on trade with or investment in a sanctioned country, including prohibitions against direct or indirect imports from and exports to a sanctioned country and prohibitions on “U.S. persons” engaging in financial transactions relating to making investments in, or providing investment-related advice or assistance to, a sanctioned country; and (ii) a blocking of assets in which the government or specially designated nationals of the sanctioned country have an interest, by prohibiting transfers of property subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including property in the possession or control of U.S. persons). Blocked assets (e.g. property and bank deposits) cannot be paid out, withdrawn, set off or transferred in any manner without a license

20

from OFAC. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences.

Federal Reserve Policies

The earnings of the Company are significantly affected by the monetary and fiscal policies of governmental authorities, including the Federal Reserve. Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the Federal Reserve are open-market operations in U.S. Government securities and federal funds, changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowings and changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits. These instruments of monetary policy are used in varying combinations to influence the overall level of bank loans, investments and deposits, and the interest rates charged on loans and paid for deposits. The Federal Reserve frequently uses these instruments of monetary policy, especially its open-market operations and the discount rate, to influence the level of interest rates and to affect the strength of the economy, the level of inflation or the price of the dollar in foreign exchange markets. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of banking institutions in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. It is not possible to predict the nature of future changes in monetary and fiscal policies or the effect which they may have on the Company’s business and earnings.

Corporate Governance

M&T’s Corporate Governance Standards and the following corporate governance documents are also available on M&T’s website at the Investor Relations link: Disclosure and Regulation FD Policy; Executive Committee Charter; Nomination, Compensation and Governance Committee Charter; Audit Committee Charter; Risk Committee Charter; Financial Reporting and Disclosure Controls and Procedures Policy; Code of Ethics for CEO and Senior Financial Officers; Code of Business Conduct and Ethics; Employee Complaint Procedures for Accounting and Auditing Matters; and Excessive or Luxury Expenditures Policy. Copies of such governance documents are also available, free of charge, to any person who requests them. Such requests may be directed to M&T Bank Corporation, Shareholder Relations Department, One M&T Plaza, 8th Floor, Buffalo, NY 14203-2399 (Telephone: (716) 842-5138).

Competition

The Company competes in offering commercial and personal financial and wealth services with other banking institutions and thrifts and with firms in a number of other industries, such as credit unions, personal loan companies, sales finance companies, leasing companies, securities brokerage firms, mutual fund companies, hedge funds, wealth and investment advisory firms, insurance companies and other financial services-related entities. Furthermore, diversified financial services companies are able to offer a combination of these services to their customers on a nationwide basis. The Company’s operations are significantly impacted by state and federal regulations applicable to the banking industry. Moreover, provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the Interstate Banking Act and state banking laws have allowed for increased competition among diversified financial services providers and e-commerce and other Internet-based companies.

Other Information

Through a link on the Investor Relations section of M&T’s website at www.mtb.com, copies of M&T’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q and Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are made available, free of charge, as soon as reasonably practicable after electronically filing such material with, or furnishing it to, the SEC. Copies of such reports and other information are also available at no charge to any person who requests them or at www.sec.gov. Such

21

requests may be directed to M&T Bank Corporation, Shareholder Relations Department, One M&T Plaza, 8th Floor, Buffalo, NY 14203-2399 (Telephone: (716) 842-5138).

Statistical Disclosure Pursuant to Guide 3

See cross-reference sheet for disclosures incorporated elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Additional information is included in the following tables.

22

Table 1

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED YEAR-END BALANCES

Table 2

SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES AND OFFICES

23

Table 3

CONSOLIDATED EARNINGS

24

Table 4

COMMON SHAREHOLDER DATA

Table 5

CHANGES IN INTEREST INCOME AND EXPENSE(a)

25

M&T and its subsidiaries could be adversely impacted by a number of risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. As a financial institution certain risk elements are inherent in the ordinary course of the Company’s business activities and adverse experience with those risks could have a material impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, as well as on the values of the Company’s financial instruments and M&T’s common stock. The Company has developed a risk management process to identify, understand, mitigate and balance its exposure to significant risks. The following risk factors set forth some of the risks that could materially and adversely impact the Company, although there may be additional risks that are not presently material or known that may adversely affect the Company.

Market Risk

Weakness in the economy has adversely affected the Company in the past and may adversely affect the Company in the future.

Poor business and economic conditions in general or specifically in markets served by the Company could have adverse effects on the Company’s business including:

The Company’s business and financial performance is impacted significantly by market interest rates and movements in those rates. The monetary, tax and other policies of governmental agencies, including the Federal Reserve, have a significant impact on interest rates and overall financial market performance over which the Company has no control and which the Company may not be able to anticipate adequately.

As a result of the high percentage of the Company’s assets and liabilities that are in the form of interest-bearing or interest-related instruments, changes in interest rates, in the shape of the yield curve or in spreads between different market interest rates, can have a material effect on the Company’s business and profitability and the value of the Company’s assets and liabilities. For example, changes in interest rates or interest rate spreads may:

26

The monetary, tax and other policies of the government and its agencies, including the Federal Reserve, have a significant impact on interest rates and overall financial market performance. These governmental policies can thus affect the activities and results of operations of banking organizations such as the Company. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the national supply of bank credit and certain interest rates. The actions of the Federal Reserve influence the rates of interest that the Company charges on loans and that the Company pays on borrowings and interest-bearing deposits and can also affect the value of the Company’s on-balance sheet and off-balance sheet financial instruments. Also, due to the impact on rates for short-term funding, the Federal Reserve’s policies influence, to a significant extent, the Company’s cost of such funding.

In addition, the Company is routinely subject to examinations from various governmental taxing authorities. Such examinations may result in challenges to the tax return treatment applied by the Company to specific transactions. Management believes that the assumptions and judgment used to record tax-related assets or liabilities have been appropriate. Should tax laws change or the tax authorities determine that management’s assumptions were inappropriate, the result and adjustments required could have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations. M&T cannot predict the nature or timing of future changes in monetary, tax and other policies or the effect that they may have on the Company’s business activities, financial condition and results of operations.

The forecasted discontinuation of LIBOR and the emergence of one or more alternative benchmark indices to replace LIBOR could adversely impact the Company’s business and results of operations.

The Company’s floating-rate funding, certain hedging transactions and certain of the  Company’s products, such as floating-rate loans and mortgages, determine the applicable interest rate or payment amount by reference to a benchmark rate, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), or to an index, currency, basket or other financial metric. LIBOR and certain other benchmark rates are the subject of recent national, international, and other regulatory guidance and proposals for reform. In July 2017, the Chief Executive of the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) announced that the FCA intends to stop persuading or compelling its panel banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. Consequently, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether and to what extent panel banks will continue to provide submissions for the calculation of LIBOR, such that the continuation of LIBOR on the current basis cannot and will not be guaranteed after 2021. Similarly, it is not possible to predict whether and for how long LIBOR will continue to be viewed as an acceptable market benchmark, what new or existing benchmark rate or rates may become accepted

27

alternatives to LIBOR, or what the effect of any such changes in industry views or alternatives may be on the markets for LIBOR-linked financial instruments.

Regulators and various financial industry groups have sponsored or formed committees (e.g., the Federal Reserve-sponsored Alternative Reference Rates Committee) to, among other things, facilitate the identification of an alternative benchmark index to replace LIBOR, and publish consultations on recommended practices for transitioning away from LIBOR, including (i) the utilization of recommended fallback language for LIBOR-linked financial instruments, and (ii) development of alternative pricing methodologies for recommended alternative benchmarks such as the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”). SOFR is a measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight, collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, and is based on directly observable U.S. Treasury-based repurchase transactions.  At this time, it is still not possible to predict whether these recommendations and proposals will be broadly accepted in the market, whether they will continue to evolve, and what the effect of their implementation may be on the markets for floating-rate financial instruments.

The discontinuation of LIBOR or changes in market perceptions of the acceptability of LIBOR as a benchmark could result in changes to the Company’s risk exposures (for example, if the anticipated discontinuation of LIBOR adversely affects the availability or cost of floating-rate funding and, therefore, the Company’s exposure to fluctuations in interest rates) or otherwise result in losses on a product or having to pay more or receive less on securities that the Company has issued or owns. A substantial portion of the Company’s on- and off-balance sheet financial instruments (many of which have terms that extend beyond 2021) are indexed to LIBOR, including interest rate swap agreements and other contracts used for hedging and trading account purposes, loans to commercial customers and consumers (including mortgage loans and other loans), and long-term borrowings. In addition, such uncertainty could result in pricing volatility and increased capital requirements, loss of market share in certain products, adverse tax or accounting impacts, and compliance, legal and operational costs and risks.

The Company established an enterprise-wide LIBOR transition program in 2019.  An impact assessment has been completed to identify on- and off-balance sheet exposures, systems, processes, models, customers, and employees affected by the discontinuation of LIBOR.  The Company continues to develop and execute plans to transition products associated with LIBOR to alternative reference rates. 

The Company’s business and performance is vulnerable to the impact of volatility in debt and equity markets.

As most of the Company’s assets and liabilities are financial in nature, the Company’s performance is sensitive to the performance of the financial markets. Turmoil and volatility in U.S. and global financial markets can be a major contributory factor to overall weak economic conditions, leading to some of the risks discussed herein, including the impaired ability of borrowers and other counterparties to meet obligations to the Company. Financial market volatility may:

28

Volatility in the markets for real estate and other assets commonly securing financial products has been and may continue to be a significant contributor to overall volatility in financial markets. In addition, unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by the imposition of tariffs or other limitations on international trade and travel, which can result in market volatility, negatively impact client activity, and adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s regional concentrations expose it to adverse economic conditions in its primary retail banking office footprint.

The Company’s core banking business is largely concentrated within the Company’s retail banking office network footprint, located principally in New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. Therefore, the Company is, or in the future may be, particularly vulnerable to adverse changes in economic conditions in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.

Risks Relating to Compliance and the Regulatory Environment

The Company is subject to extensive government regulation and supervision and this regulatory environment can be and has been significantly impacted by financial regulatory reform initiatives.

The Company is subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the financial system as a whole, not stockholders. These regulations and supervisory guidance affect the Company’s lending practices, capital structure, amounts of capital, investment practices, dividend policy, growth and expansionary activity, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, policies or supervisory guidance could result in civil or criminal penalties, including monetary penalties, the loss of FDIC insurance, the revocation of a banking charter, other sanctions by regulatory agencies, and/or reputation damage, which could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. In this regard, government authorities, including the bank regulatory agencies, can pursue aggressive enforcement actions with respect to compliance and other legal matters involving financial activities, which heightens the risks associated with actual and perceived compliance failures and may also adversely affect the Company’s ability to enter into certain transactions or engage in certain activities, or obtain necessary regulatory approvals in connection therewith. In general, the amounts paid by financial institutions in settlement of proceedings or investigations have increased substantially and are likely to remain elevated. In some cases, governmental authorities have required criminal pleas or other extraordinary terms as part of such settlements, which could have significant collateral consequences for a financial institution, including loss of customers, restrictions on the ability to access the capital markets, and the inability to operate certain businesses or offer certain products for a period of time. In addition, enforcement matters could impact the Company’s supervisory and CRA ratings, which may in turn restrict or limit the Company’s activities.

29

Any new regulatory requirements or changes to existing requirements could require changes to the Company’s businesses, result in increased compliance costs and affect the profitability of such businesses. Additionally, such activity could affect the behaviors of third parties with which the Company deals in the ordinary course of business, such as rating agencies, insurance companies and investors. Heightened regulatory practices, requirements or expectations could affect the Company in substantial and unpredictable ways, and, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

There have been significant revisions to the laws and regulations applicable to the Company that have been enacted or proposed in recent months. These and other rules to implement the changes have yet to be finalized, and the final timing, scope and impact of these changes to the regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions remain uncertain. For more information on the regulations to which the Company is subject and recent initiatives to reform financial institution regulation, see Part I, Item 1 — Business in this report.

M&T may be subject to more stringent capital and liquidity requirements.

Bank holding companies, including M&T, are subject to capital and liquidity standards imposed as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act (as amended by EGRRCPA) and the U.S. Basel III-based capital rules. For additional information, see “Capital Requirements” under Part I, Item 1 —  Business.

From time to time, regulators may implement changes to these regulatory capital adequacy and liquidity requirements. If the Company fails to meet these minimum capital adequacy and liquidity guidelines and other regulatory requirements, its business activities, including lending, and its ability to expand, either organically or through acquisitions, could be limited. It could also result in M&T being required to take steps to increase its regulatory capital that may be dilutive to shareholders or limit its ability to pay dividends or otherwise return capital to shareholders, or sell or refrain from acquiring assets. In addition, the liquidity-related provisions of the Federal Reserve’s liquidity-related enhanced prudential supervision requirements may reduce the Company’s ability to invest in other longer-term assets even if deemed more desirable from a balance sheet management perspective.

EGRRCPA, the Tailoring Rules and other recent rulemaking have in some cases reduced the capital or liquidity requirements applicable to M&T (e.g., the Company is no longer subject to any LCR requirement, and the same is expected to be true for any finalized NSFR). However, Basel IV significantly revises the Basel capital framework, and the impact on the Company will depend on the manner in which the revisions are implemented in the U.S. with respect to firms such as M&T.

M&T’s ability to return capital to shareholders and to pay dividends on common stock may be adversely affected by market and other factors outside of its control and will depend, in part, on a review of its capital plan by the Federal Reserve.

Any decision by M&T to return capital to shareholders, whether through a common stock dividend or through a common stock share repurchase program, requires the approval of M&T’s Board of Directors and depends in large part on receiving regulatory approval, including through the Federal Reserve’s CCAR process and the supervisory stress tests required under the Dodd-Frank Act whereby M&T’s financial position is tested under assumed severely adverse economic conditions. Prior to the public disclosure of a BHC’s CCAR results, the Federal Reserve will provide the BHC with the results of its supervisory stress test and will offer a one-time opportunity for the BHC to reduce planned capital distributions through the submission of a revised capital plan. The Federal Reserve may object to any capital plan in which a BHC’s regulatory capital ratios inclusive of adjustments to planned capital distributions, if any, would not meet the minimum requirements

30

throughout a nine-quarter period under severely adverse stress conditions. If the Federal Reserve objects to M&T’s capital plan, it could impose restrictions on M&T’s ability to return capital to shareholders, including through paying dividends, entering into acquisitions or repurchasing its common stock, which in turn could negatively impact market and investor perceptions of M&T. M&T cannot be certain that the Federal Reserve will not object to future capital plans.

In addition, Federal Reserve capital planning and stress testing rules generally limit a BHC’s ability to make quarterly capital distributions – dividends and common stock share repurchases – if the amount of actual cumulative quarterly capital issuances of instruments that qualify as regulatory capital are less than the BHC had indicated in its submitted capital plan as to which it received a non-objection from the Federal Reserve. As such, M&T’s ability to declare and pay dividends on its common stock, as well as the amount of such dividends, will depend, in part, on its ability to issue stock in accordance with its capital plan or to otherwise remain in compliance with its capital plan, which may be adversely affected by market and other factors outside of M&T’s control.

If an orderly liquidation of a systemically important BHC or non-bank financial company were triggered, M&T could face assessments for the Orderly Liquidation Fund (“OLF”).

The Dodd-Frank Act created a mechanism, the OLF, for liquidation of systemically important bank holding companies and non-bank financial companies. The OLF is administered by the FDIC and is based on the FDIC’s bank resolution model. The Secretary of the U.S. Treasury may trigger a liquidation under this authority after consultation with the President of the U.S. and after receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve upon a two-thirds vote. Liquidation proceedings will be funded by the OLF, which will borrow from the U.S. Treasury and impose risk-based assessments on covered financial companies. Risk-based assessments would be first made on entities that received more in the resolution than they would have received in the liquidation to the extent of such excess, and second, if necessary, on, among others, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, such as M&T. Any such assessments may adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Credit Risk

Deteriorating credit quality could adversely impact the Company.

As a lender, the Company is exposed to the risk that customers will be unable to repay their loans in accordance with the terms of the agreements, and that any collateral securing the loans may be insufficient to assure full repayment. Credit losses are inherent in the business of making loans.

Factors that influence the Company’s credit loss experience include overall economic conditions affecting businesses and consumers, generally, but also residential and commercial real estate valuations, in particular, given the size of the Company’s real estate loan portfolios. Factors that can influence the Company’s credit loss experience include: (i) the impact of residential real estate values on loans to residential real estate builders and developers and other loans secured by residential real estate; (ii) the concentrations of commercial real estate loans in the Company’s loan portfolio; (iii) the amount of commercial and industrial loans to businesses in areas of New York State outside of the New York City area and in central Pennsylvania that have historically experienced less economic growth and vitality than many other regions of the country; (iv) the repayment performance associated with first and second lien loans secured by residential real estate; and (v) the size of the Company’s portfolio of loans to individual consumers, which historically have experienced higher net charge-offs as a percentage of loans outstanding than loans to other types of borrowers.

31

Commercial real estate valuations can be highly subjective as they are based upon many assumptions. Such valuations can be significantly affected over relatively short periods of time by changes in business climate, economic conditions, interest rates and, in many cases, the results of operations of businesses and other occupants of the real property. Similarly, residential real estate valuations can be impacted by housing trends, the availability of financing at reasonable interest rates, governmental policy regarding housing and housing finance, and general economic conditions affecting consumers.

The Company maintains an allowance for credit losses which represents, in management’s judgment, the amount of losses inherent in the loan and lease portfolio. The allowance is determined by management’s evaluation of the loan and lease portfolio based on such factors as the differing economic risks associated with each loan category, the current financial condition of specific borrowers, the economic environment in which borrowers operate, the level of delinquent loans, the value of any collateral and, where applicable, the existence of any guarantees or indemnifications. Management believes that the allowance for credit losses as of December 31, 2019 appropriately reflects incurred credit losses inherent in the loan and lease portfolio. However, there is no assurance that the allowance is sufficient to cover such credit losses.

The Company may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty, or other relationships. The Company has exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely executes transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose the Company to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, the Company’s credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by the Company cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due to the Company. Any resulting losses could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity Risk

The Company must maintain adequate sources of funding and liquidity.

The Company must maintain adequate funding sources in the normal course of business to support its operations and fund outstanding liabilities, as well as meet regulatory expectations. The Company primarily relies on deposits to be a low cost and stable source of funding for the loans it makes and the operations of its business. Core customer deposits, which include noninterest-bearing deposits, interest-bearing transaction accounts, savings deposits and time deposits of $250,000 or less, have historically provided the Company with a sizeable source of relatively stable and low-cost funds. In addition to customer deposits, sources of liquidity include borrowings from third party banks, securities dealers, various Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Company’s liquidity and ability to fund and operate the business could be materially adversely affected by a variety of conditions and factors, including financial and credit market disruptions and volatility or a lack of market or customer confidence in financial markets in general, which may result in a loss of customer deposits or outflows of cash or collateral and/or ability to access capital markets on favorable terms. Negative news about the Company or the financial services industry generally may reduce market or customer confidence in the Company, which could in turn materially adversely affect the Company’s liquidity and funding. Such reputational damage may result in the loss of customer deposits, the inability to sell or securitize loans or other assets, and downgrades in one or more of the Company’s credit ratings, and may also negatively affect the

32

Company’s ability to access the capital markets. A downgrade in the Company’s credit ratings, which could result from general industry-wide or regulatory factors not solely related to the Company, could adversely affect the Company’s ability to borrow funds, including by raising the cost of borrowings substantially, and could cause creditors and business counterparties to raise collateral requirements or take other actions that could adversely affect M&T’s ability to raise capital. Many of the above conditions and factors may be caused by events over which M&T has little or no control. There can be no assurance that significant disruption and volatility in the financial markets will not occur in the future.

If the Company is unable to continue to fund assets through customer bank deposits or access funding sources on favorable terms or if the Company suffers an increase in borrowing costs or otherwise fails to manage liquidity effectively, the Company’s liquidity, operating margins, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

M&T relies on dividends from its subsidiaries for its liquidity.

M&T is a separate and distinct legal entity from its subsidiaries. M&T typically receives substantially all of its revenue from subsidiary dividends. These dividends are M&T’s principal source of funds to pay dividends on common and preferred stock, pay interest and principal on its debt, and fund purchases of its common stock. Various federal and/or state laws and regulations, as well as regulatory expectations, limit the amount of dividends that M&T’s banking subsidiaries and certain non-bank subsidiaries may pay. Regulatory scrutiny of capital levels at bank holding companies and insured depository institution subsidiaries has increased in recent years and has resulted in increased regulatory focus on all aspects of capital planning, including dividends and other distributions to shareholders of banks, such as parent bank holding companies. See Item 1 —  Business, Distributions” for a discussion of regulatory and other restrictions on dividend declarations. Also, M&T’s right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of that subsidiary’s creditors. Limitations on M&T’s ability to receive dividends from its subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on its liquidity and ability to pay dividends on its stock or interest and principal on its debt, and ability to fund purchases of its common stock.

Strategic Risk

The financial services industry is highly competitive and creates competitive pressures that could adversely affect the Company’s revenue and profitability.

The financial services industry in which the Company operates is highly competitive. The Company competes not only with commercial and other banks and thrifts, but also with insurance companies, mutual funds, hedge funds, securities brokerage firms and other companies offering financial services in the U.S., globally and over the Internet. Some of the Company’s non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations the Company is, and may have greater flexibility in competing for business. In particular, the activity and prominence of so-called marketplace lenders and other technological financial services companies has grown significantly in recent years and is expected to continue growing. The Company competes on the basis of several factors, including capital, access to capital, revenue generation, products, services, transaction execution, innovation, reputation and price. Over time, certain sectors of the financial services industry have become more concentrated, as institutions involved in a broad range of financial services have been acquired by or merged into other firms. These developments could result in the Company’s competitors gaining greater capital and other resources, such as a broader range of products and services and geographic

33

diversity. The Company may experience pricing pressures as a result of these factors and as some of its competitors seek to increase market share by reducing prices or paying higher rates of interest on deposits.

Finally, technological change is influencing how individuals and firms conduct their financial affairs and is changing the delivery channels for financial services. Financial technology providers, who invest substantial resources in developing and designing new technology (in particular digital and mobile technology), are beginning to offer more traditional banking products (either directly or through bank partnerships) and may in the future be able to provide additional services by obtaining a bank-like charter, such as the OCC’s fintech charter. As a result, the Company may have to contend with a broader range of competitors including many that are not located within the geographic footprint of its banking office network. Further, along with other participants in the financial services industry, the Company frequently attempts to introduce new technology-driven products and services that are aimed at allowing the Company to better serve customers and to reduce costs. The Company may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services that allow it to remain competitive or be successful in marketing these products and services to its customers.

Difficulties in combining the operations of acquired entities with the Company’s own operations may prevent M&T from achieving the expected benefits from its acquisitions.

M&T has expanded its business through past acquisitions and may do so in the future. Inherent uncertainties exist when integrating the operations of an acquired entity. Acquiring other entities involves potential risks that could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, including:

34

Operational Risk

The Company is subject to operational risk which could adversely affect the Company’s business and reputation and create material legal and financial exposure.

Like all businesses, the Company is subject to operational risk, which represents the risk of loss resulting from human error, inadequate or failed internal processes and systems, and external events. Operational risk also encompasses reputational risk and compliance and legal risk, which is the risk of loss from violations of, or noncompliance with, laws, rules, regulations, prescribed practices or ethical standards, as well as the risk of noncompliance with contractual and other obligations. The Company is also exposed to operational risk through outsourcing arrangements, and the effect that changes in circumstances or capabilities of its outsourcing vendors can have on the Company’s ability to continue to perform operational functions necessary to its business. Although the Company seeks to mitigate operational risk through a system of internal controls that are reviewed and updated, no system of controls, however well designed and maintained, is infallible. Control weaknesses or failures or other operational risks could result in charges, increased operational costs, harm to the Company’s reputation or foregone business opportunities.

M&T could suffer if it fails to attract and retain skilled personnel.

M&T’s success depends, in large part, on its ability to attract and retain key individuals and to have a diverse workforce. Competition for qualified and diverse candidates in the activities in which the Company engages and markets that the Company serves is significant, and the Company may not be able to hire candidates and retain them. Growth in the Company’s business, including through acquisitions, may increase its need for additional qualified personnel. The Company is increasingly competing for personnel with financial technology providers and other less regulated entities who may not have the same limitations on compensation as the Company does. If the Company is not able to hire or retain highly skilled and qualified individuals, it may be unable to execute its business strategies and may suffer adverse consequences to its business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Company’s compensation practices are subject to review and oversight by the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC and other regulators. The federal banking agencies have issued joint guidance on executive compensation designed to help ensure that a banking organization’s incentive compensation policies do not encourage imprudent risk taking and are consistent with the safety and soundness of the organization. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act required those agencies, along with the SEC, to adopt rules to require reporting of incentive compensation and to prohibit certain compensation arrangements. If as a result of complying with such rules the Company is unable to attract and retain qualified employees, or do so at rates necessary to maintain its competitive position, or if the compensation costs required to attract and retain employees become more significant, the Company’s performance, including its competitive position, could be materially adversely affected.

The Company’s information systems may experience interruptions or breaches in security.

The Company relies heavily on communications and information systems, including those of third-party service providers, to conduct its business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in disruptions to its accounting, deposit, loan and other systems, and adversely affect the Company’s customer relationships. While the Company has policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of these possible events, there can be no assurance that any such failure, interruption or security breach will not occur or, if any does occur, that it can be sufficiently or timely remediated.

35

Information security risks for large financial institutions such as M&T have increased significantly in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, such as Internet and mobile banking to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, hackers, terrorists, nation-states, activists and other external parties. There have been increasing efforts on the part of third parties, including through cyber attacks, to breach data security at financial institutions or with respect to financial transactions. There have been several instances involving financial services and consumer-based companies reporting unauthorized access to and disclosure of client or customer information or the destruction or theft of corporate data, including by executive impersonation and third party vendors. There have also been several highly publicized cases where hackers have requested “ransom” payments in exchange for not disclosing customer information.

As cyber threats continue to evolve, the Company may be required to expend significant additional resources to continue to modify or enhance its layers of defense or to investigate and remediate any information security vulnerabilities. The techniques used by cyber criminals change frequently, may not be recognized until launched and can be initiated by a variety of actors, including terrorist organizations and hostile foreign governments. These techniques may include attempts to fraudulently induce employees, customers or others to disclose sensitive information in order to gain access to data or systems. These risks may increase as the use of mobile payment and other Internet-based applications expands.

Further, third parties with which the Company does business, as well as vendors and other third parties with which the Company’s customers do business, can also be sources of information security risk to the Company, particularly where activities of customers are beyond the Company’s security and control systems, such as through the use of the Internet, personal computers, tablets, smart phones and other mobile services. Security breaches affecting the Company’s customers, or systems breakdowns or failures, security breaches or employee misconduct affecting such other third parties, may require the Company to take steps to protect the integrity of its own systems or to safeguard confidential information of the Company or its customers, thereby increasing the Company’s operational costs and adversely affecting its business.

The occurrence of any failure, interruption or security breach of the Company’s systems or those of third-party service providers (or, in turn, providers to such third-party providers), particularly if widespread or resulting in financial losses to customers, could damage the Company’s reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject the Company to additional regulatory scrutiny and potential sanctions, or expose it to civil litigation and financial liability.

The Company is also subject to laws and regulations relating to the privacy of the information of clients, employees or others, and any failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose the Company to liability and/or reputational damage. As new privacy-related laws and regulations, such as the cybersecurity regulation of the NYSDFS, are implemented, the time and resources needed for the Company to comply with such laws and regulations, as well as its potential liability for non-compliance and reporting obligations in the case of data breaches, may significantly increase. In addition, the Company is increasingly subject to laws and regulations relating to privacy, surveillance, encryption and data use in the jurisdictions in which it operates. Compliance with these laws and regulations may require changes to policies, procedures and technology for information security and segregation of data, which could, among other things, make the Company more vulnerable to operational failures, and to monetary penalties for breach of such laws and regulations.

M&T relies on other companies to provide key components of the Company’s business infrastructure.

Third parties provide key components of the Company’s business infrastructure such as banking services, processing, and Internet connections and network access. Any disruption in such services provided by these third parties or any failure of these third parties to handle current or higher

36

volumes of use could adversely affect the Company’s ability to deliver products and services to clients and otherwise to conduct business. Technological or financial difficulties of a third party service provider could adversely affect the Company’s business to the extent those difficulties result in the interruption or discontinuation of services provided by that party. The Company may not be insured against all types of losses as a result of third party failures and insurance coverage may be inadequate to cover all losses resulting from system failures or other disruptions. Failures in the Company’s business infrastructure could interrupt the operations or increase the costs of doing business.

Additionally, the Company is exposed to the risk that a service disruption at a common service provider to our third-party service providers could impede their ability to provide services to the Company. Notwithstanding any attempts to diversify its reliance on third parties, the Company may not be able to effectively mitigate operational risks relating to its vendors’ use of common service providers.

The Company is or may become involved from time to time in suits, legal proceedings, information-gathering requests, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies that may lead to adverse consequences.

Many aspects of the Company’s business and operations involve substantial risk of legal liability. M&T and/or its subsidiaries have been named or threatened to be named as defendants in various lawsuits arising from its or its subsidiaries’ business activities (and in some cases from the activities of companies M&T has acquired). In addition, from time to time, M&T is, or may become, the subject of governmental and self-regulatory agency information-gathering requests, reviews, investigations and proceedings and other forms of regulatory inquiry, including by bank and other regulatory agencies, the SEC and law enforcement authorities. The SEC has announced a policy of seeking admissions of liability in certain settled cases, which could adversely impact the defense of private litigation. M&T is also at risk when it has agreed to indemnify others for losses related to legal proceedings, including for litigation and governmental investigations and inquiries, such as in connection with the purchase or sale of a business or assets. The results of such proceedings could lead to significant civil or criminal penalties, including monetary penalties, damages, adverse judgments, settlements, fines, injunctions, restrictions on the way in which the Company conducts its business, or reputational harm.

Although the Company establishes accruals for legal proceedings when information related to the loss contingencies represented by those matters indicates both that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company does not have accruals for all legal proceedings where it faces a risk of loss. In addition, due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and unpredictability of the outcome of legal proceedings, amounts accrued may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company from the legal proceedings in question. Thus, the Company’s ultimate losses may be higher, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued for legal loss contingencies, which could adversely affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

Business Risk

Changes in accounting standards could impact the Company’s financial condition and results of operations.

The accounting standard setters, including the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”), the SEC and other regulatory bodies, periodically change the financial accounting and reporting

37

standards that govern the preparation of the Company’s consolidated financial statements. These changes can be difficult to predict and can materially impact how the Company records and reports its financial condition and results of operations. For example, Accounting Standards Update 2016-13, Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments, became effective January 1, 2020, and substantially changes the accounting for credit losses on loans and other financial assets. The adoption of the standard has resulted in an increase in the allowance for credit losses of approximately $132 million. In some cases, the Company could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, which would result in the restating of the Company’s prior period financial statements. Information about recently adopted and not as yet adopted accounting standards is included in note 26 of Notes to Financial Statements included in Part II, Item 8 — Financial Statements and Supplemental Data of this Form 10-K.

The Company’s reported financial condition and results of operations depend on management’s selection of accounting methods and require management to make estimates about matters that are uncertain.

Accounting policies and processes are fundamental to the Company’s reported financial condition and results of operations. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the reported amounts of assets or liabilities and financial results. Several of M&T’s accounting policies are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. Pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles, management is required to make certain assumptions and estimates in preparing the Company’s financial statements. If assumptions or estimates underlying the Company’s financial statements are incorrect, the Company may experience material losses.

Management has identified certain accounting policies as being critical because they require management’s judgment to ascertain the valuations of assets, liabilities, commitments and contingencies. A variety of factors could affect the ultimate value that is obtained either when earning income, recognizing an expense, recovering an asset, valuing an asset or liability, or recognizing or reducing a liability. M&T has established detailed policies and control procedures that are intended to ensure these critical accounting estimates and judgments are well controlled and applied consistently. In addition, the policies and procedures are intended to ensure that the process for changing methodologies occurs in an appropriate manner. Because of the uncertainty surrounding judgments and the estimates pertaining to these matters, M&T could be required to adjust accounting policies or restate prior period financial statements if those judgments and estimates prove to be incorrect. For additional information, see Part II, Item 7 — Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, “Critical Accounting Estimates” and Note 1, “Significant Accounting Policies,” of Notes to Financial Statements in Part II, Item 8.

The Company’s models used for business planning purposes could perform poorly or provide inadequate information.

The Company uses quantitative models to assist in measuring risks and estimating or predicting certain financial values. The models used may not accurately account for all variables and may fail to predict outcomes accurately and/or may overstate or understate certain effects. Poorly designed, implemented, or managed models present the risk that the Company’s business decisions that consider information based on such models will be adversely affected due to inadequate or inaccurate information, which may damage the Company’s reputation and adversely affect its reported financial condition and results of operations. As a result, the Company may not adequately prepare for future

38

events and may suffer losses due to these failures. Also, information the Company provides to the public or to its regulators based on poorly designed, implemented, or managed models could be inaccurate or misleading. Decisions that regulators make, including those related to capital distributions to stockholders, could be affected adversely due to the perception that the quality of the models used to generate the relevant information is insufficient.

The Company is exposed to reputational risk.

A negative public opinion of the Company and its business can result from any number of activities, including the Company’s lending practices, corporate governance and regulatory compliance, acquisitions and actions taken by regulators or by community organizations in response to these activities. Significant harm to the Company’s reputation could also arise as a result of regulatory or governmental actions, litigation, employee misconduct or the activities of customers, other participants in the financial services industry or the Company’s contractual counterparties, such as service providers and vendors. In particular, a cyber security event impacting the Company’s or its customers’ data could have a negative impact on the Company’s reputation and customer confidence in the Company and its cyber security. Damage to the Company’s reputation could also adversely affect its credit ratings and access to the capital markets.

Additionally, whereas negative public opinion once was primarily driven by adverse news coverage in traditional media, the increased use of social media platforms facilitates the rapid dissemination of information or misinformation, which magnifies the potential harm to the Company’s reputation.

Severe weather, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism and other external events could significantly impact the Company’s business.

Severe weather, natural disasters, acts of war or terrorism and other adverse external events could have a significant impact on the Company’s ability to conduct business. Such events could affect the stability of the Company’s deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue and/or cause the Company to incur additional expenses. Although the Company has established disaster recovery plans and procedures, and monitors for significant environmental effects on its properties or its investments, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Discussions of the specific risks outlined above and other risks facing the Company are included within this Annual Report on Form 10-K in Part I, Item 1 “Business,” and Part II, Item 7 “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.” Furthermore, in Part II, Item 7 under the heading “Forward-Looking Statements” is included a description of certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions identified by management that are difficult to predict and that could materially affect the Company’s financial condition and results of operations, as well as the value of the Company’s financial instruments in general, and M&T common stock, in particular.

In addition, the market price of M&T common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to a number of other factors, including changes in securities analysts’ estimates of financial performance, volatility of stock market prices and volumes, rumors or erroneous information, changes in market valuations of similar companies and changes in accounting policies or procedures as may be required by the FASB or other regulatory agencies.

39

Item 1B.Unresolved Staff Comments.

None.

Both M&T and M&T Bank maintain their executive offices at One M&T Plaza in Buffalo, New York. This twenty-one story headquarters building, containing approximately 300,000 rentable square feet of space, is owned in fee by M&T Bank and was completed in 1967. M&T, M&T Bank and their subsidiaries occupy approximately 98% of the building and the remainder is leased to non-affiliated tenants. At December 31, 2019, the cost of this property (including improvements subsequent to the initial construction), net of accumulated depreciation, was $11.0 million.

M&T Bank owns and occupies an additional facility in Buffalo, New York (known as M&T Center) with approximately 395,000 rentable square feet of space.  At December 31, 2019, the cost of this building (including improvements subsequent to acquisition), net of accumulated depreciation, was $14.0 million.

M&T Bank also owns and occupies three separate facilities in the Buffalo area which support certain back-office and operations functions of the Company. The total square footage of these facilities approximates 290,000 square feet and their combined cost (including improvements subsequent to acquisition), net of accumulated depreciation, was $27.3 million at December 31, 2019.

M&T Bank owns a facility in Syracuse, New York with approximately 160,000 rentable square feet of space. Approximately 39% of that facility is occupied by M&T Bank. At December 31, 2019, the cost of that building (including improvements subsequent to acquisition), net of accumulated depreciation, was less than $1 million. In January 2020, M&T Bank agreed to sell this facility with an expected closing date in the second quarter of 2020.

M&T Bank owns facilities in Wilmington, Delaware, with approximately 340,000 (known as Wilmington Center) and 295,000 (known as Wilmington Plaza) rentable square feet of space, respectively. M&T Bank occupies approximately 88% of Wilmington Center and 8% of Wilmington Plaza. At December 31, 2019, the cost of these buildings (including improvements subsequent to acquisition), net of accumulated depreciation, was $39.7 million and $12.3 million, respectively.

M&T Bank also owns facilities in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Millsboro, Delaware with approximately 220,000 and 325,000 rentable square feet of space, respectively. M&T Bank occupies approximately 29% and 95% of those facilities, respectively. At December 31, 2019, the cost of those buildings (including improvements subsequent to acquisition), net of accumulated depreciation, was $9.0 million and $11.8 million, respectively.

No other properties owned by M&T Bank have more than 100,000 square feet of space. The cost and accumulated depreciation and amortization of the Company’s premises and equipment is detailed in note 5 of Notes to Financial Statements filed herewith in Part II, Item 8, “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

Of the 733 domestic banking offices of M&T’s subsidiary banks at December 31, 2019, 289 are owned in fee and 444 are leased.

40

M&T and its subsidiaries are subject in the normal course of business to various pending and threatened legal proceedings and other matters in which claims for monetary damages are asserted. On an on-going basis management, after consultation with legal counsel, assesses the Company’s liabilities and contingencies in connection with such proceedings. For those matters where it is probable that the Company will incur losses and the amounts of the losses can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an expense and corresponding liability in its consolidated financial statements. To the extent the pending or threatened litigation could result in exposure in excess of that liability, the amount of such excess is not currently estimable. Although not considered probable, the range of reasonably possible losses for such matters in the aggregate, beyond the existing recorded liability, was between $0 and $50 million. Although the Company does not believe that the outcome of pending litigations will be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, it cannot rule out the possibility that such outcomes will be material to the consolidated results of operations for a particular reporting period in the future.

ESOP Matters:  Wilmington Trust, N.A. provides retirement services, including serving in certain trustee roles relating to Employee Stock Ownership Plans (“ESOPs”).  Beginning in 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced that it would increase its focus on ESOP transactions, particularly with regard to valuation issues relating to ESOP transactions.  Beginning in late 2013, Wilmington Trust, N.A. began receiving requests for information and subpoenas relating to certain ESOP transactions for which it acted as trustee.  In June 2016, Wilmington Trust, N.A. received a DOL subpoena seeking information on its global ESOP trustee business. In addition to these investigations, the DOL has commenced three lawsuits against Wilmington Trust, N.A. relating to its role as trustee of three ESOP transactions. In July 2019, Wilmington Trust, N.A. reached a settlement in principle with the DOL to resolve certain pending DOL ESOP matters.  Although a formal settlement agreement has yet to be finalized and executed, the Company does not expect that the agreed-upon settlement will have a material incremental impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position or results of operations.  Wilmington Trust, N.A.  is also currently a defendant in five pending private party lawsuits relating to its role as trustee for five ESOP transactions.  Under applicable transaction documents, Wilmington Trust, N.A. may be entitled to indemnification by the ESOP plan sponsors. These matters could result in damages, settlements, penalties, restitution, reputational damage or additional costs and expenses.

Due to their complex nature, it is difficult to estimate when litigation and investigatory matters such as these may be resolved. As set forth in the introductory paragraph to this Item 3 — Legal Proceedings, losses from current litigation and regulatory matters which the Company is subject to that are not currently considered probable are within a range of reasonably possible losses for such matters in the aggregate, beyond the existing recorded liability, and are included in the range of reasonably possible losses set forth above.

Not applicable.

41

Executive Officers of the Registrant

Information concerning M&T’s executive officers is presented below as of February 19, 2020. The year the officer was first appointed to the indicated position with M&T or its subsidiaries is shown parenthetically. In the case of each entity noted below, officers’ terms run until the first meeting of the board of directors after such entity’s annual meeting, which in the case of M&T takes place immediately following the Annual Meeting of Shareholders, and until their successors are elected and qualified.

René F. Jones, age 55, is chief executive officer, chairman of the board and a director of M&T and M&T Bank (2017).  Previously, he was an executive vice president (2006) of M&T and a vice chairman (2014) of M&T Bank with responsibility for the Company’s Wealth and Institutional Services Division, Treasury Division, and Mortgage and Consumer Lending Divisions. Mr. Jones is chairman of the board and a director (2014) of Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, and is a director (2007) of M&T Insurance Agency. Mr. Jones is chairman of the board and a director (2014) of Wilmington Trust Company. Previously, Mr. Jones served as chief financial officer (2005) of M&T, M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, N.A. and had held a number of management positions within M&T Bank’s Finance Division since 1992.

Richard S. Gold, age 59, is president, chief operating officer and a director of M&T and M&T Bank (2017).  Mr. Gold oversees the Consumer Banking, Business Banking, Legal, Human Resources and Enterprise Transformation Divisions. Previously, he was an executive vice president (2006) and chief risk officer (2014) of M&T and was a vice chairman and chief risk officer (2014) of M&T Bank. Mr. Gold had been responsible for overseeing the Company’s governance and strategy for risk management, as well as relationships with key regulators and supervisory agencies.  He served as a senior vice president of M&T Bank from 2000 to 2006 and has held a number of management positions since he began his career with M&T Bank in 1989.  Mr. Gold is chairman, president and chief executive officer (2018) and a director (2017) of Wilmington Trust, N.A.

Kevin J. Pearson, age 58, is a vice chairman (2020) and a director (2018) of M&T and is a vice chairman (2014) and a director (2018) of M&T Bank. He is a member of the Directors Advisory Council (2006) of the New York City/Long Island Division of M&T Bank. Mr. Pearson has oversight of the Commercial Banking, Credit, Technology and Banking Operations, and Wealth and Institutional Services Divisions. Previously, Mr. Pearson served as an executive vice president of M&T and M&T Bank, and has held a number of management positions since he began his career with M&T Bank in 1989. He is chairman of the board and a director (2018) of Wilmington Trust Company, an executive vice president and a director of Wilmington Trust, N.A. (2014), and a director (2018) of Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors.

Robert J. Bojdak, age 64, is an executive vice president and chief credit officer (2004) of M&T and M&T Bank, and is responsible for the Company’s Credit Division, including the Credit Risk Management Division. From April 2002 to April 2004, Mr. Bojdak served as senior vice president and credit deputy for M&T Bank. He is an executive vice president and a director (2004) of Wilmington Trust, N.A.

Janet M. Coletti, age 56, is an executive vice president (2015) of M&T and M&T Bank, overseeing the Company’s Human Resources Division. Ms. Coletti previously served as senior vice president of M&T Bank, most recently responsible for the Business Banking Division, and has held a number of management positions within M&T Bank since 1985.

42

John L. D’Angelo, age 57, is an executive vice president and chief risk officer (2017) of M&T and M&T Bank.  Mr. D’Angelo is responsible for overseeing the Company’s governance and strategy for risk management, as well as relationships with key regulators and supervisory agencies.  Mr. D’Angelo is an executive vice president and chief risk officer (2018) of Wilmington Trust, N.A. and an executive vice president and a director (2017) of Wilmington Trust Company.  He served as a senior vice president and general auditor of M&T Bank from 2005 to 2017 and has held a number of positions since he began his career with M&T Bank in 1987.      

William J. Farrell II, age 62, is an executive vice president (2011) of M&T and M&T Bank, and is responsible for managing administrative and business development functions of the Company’s Wealth and Institutional Services Division, which includes Institutional Client Services and M&T Insurance Agency. Mr. Farrell joined M&T through the Wilmington Trust Corporation acquisition. He joined Wilmington Trust Corporation in 1976, and held a number of senior management positions, most recently as executive vice president and head of the Corporate Client Services business. Mr. Farrell is president, chief executive officer and a director (2012) of Wilmington Trust Company, an executive vice president and a director (2013) of Wilmington Trust, N.A. and a director (2016) of Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors.

Christopher E. Kay, age 54, is an executive vice president (2018) of M&T and M&T Bank, and is responsible for all aspects of Consumer Banking, including the Mortgage, Consumer Lending and Retail businesses, and Business Banking and Marketing.  Prior to joining M&T in 2018, Mr. Kay served as chief innovation officer at Humana from 2014 to 2018 and as managing director of Citi Ventures from 2007 to 2013.  

Darren J. King, age 50, is an executive vice president (2010) and chief financial officer (2016) of M&T and executive vice president (2009) and chief financial officer (2016) of M&T Bank. Mr. King has responsibility for the overall financial management of the Company and oversees the Finance and Treasury Divisions.  Prior to his current role, Mr. King was the Retail Banking executive with responsibility for overseeing Business Banking, Consumer Deposits, Consumer Lending and M&T Bank’s Marketing and Communications team. Mr. King previously served as senior vice president of M&T Bank and has held a number of management positions within M&T Bank since 2000. Mr. King is an executive vice president (2009) and chief financial officer (2016) of Wilmington Trust, N.A. and a director of M&T Insurance Agency (2018).

Gino A. Martocci, age 54, is an executive vice president (2014) of M&T and M&T Bank, and is responsible for managing M&T Bank’s commercial banking lines of business.  Mr. Martocci is responsible for directing strategic growth and business line development activities across the Company’s footprint for commercial customers.  Previously, Mr. Martocci co-managed the Bank’s commercial banking lines of business. He is also responsible for M&T Realty Capital. Mr. Martocci was a senior vice president of M&T Bank from 2002 to 2013, serving in a number of management positions. He is chairman of the board (2018) and a director (2009) of M&T Realty Capital, and a member of the New York City Mortgage Investment Committee. Mr. Martocci is also a member of the Directors Advisory Council of the New York City/Long Island (2013) and the New Jersey (2015) Divisions of M&T Bank.

43

Doris P. Meister, age 64, is an executive vice president (2016) of M&T and M&T Bank, and is responsible for overseeing the Company’s wealth management business, including Wilmington Trust Wealth Management, M&T Securities and Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors. Ms. Meister is an executive vice president and a director (2016) of Wilmington Trust, N.A., an executive vice president and director of Wilmington Trust Company (2016) and chairman of the board, chief executive officer and a director (2017) of Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors. Prior to joining M&T in 2016, Ms. Meister served as President of U.S. Markets for BNY Mellon Wealth Management from 2009 to 2016 and prior to that was a Managing Director of the New York office of Bernstein Global Wealth Management.

Michael J. Todaro, age 58, is an executive vice president (2015) of M&T and M&T Bank, and is responsible for Enterprise Transformation, a division of the Company dedicated to improving business processes, removing impediments to progress and evaluating/integrating external opportunities. Previously, Mr. Todaro was responsible for the Mortgage, Consumer Lending and Customer Asset Management Divisions. Mr. Todaro previously served as senior vice president of M&T Bank and has held a number of management positions within M&T Bank’s Mortgage Division since 1995. He is an executive vice president (2015) of Wilmington Trust, N.A.

Michele D. Trolli, age 58, is an executive vice president (2005) and chief technology and operations officer (2018) of M&T and M&T Bank. Previously, she was chief information officer (2005) of M&T and M&T Bank. Ms. Trolli leads a wide range of the Company’s Technology and Banking Operations, which includes banking services, corporate services, digital and telephone banking, the enterprise data office, enterprise and cyber security, and enterprise technology.

D. Scott N. Warman, age 54, is an executive vice president (2009) and treasurer (2008) of M&T and M&T Bank. He is responsible for managing the Company’s Treasury Division, including asset/liability management, funding, investment and derivative portfolio management, capital markets foreign exchange trading and sales. Mr. Warman previously served as senior vice president of M&T Bank and has held a number of management positions within M&T Bank since 1995. He is an executive vice president and treasurer of Wilmington Trust, N.A. (2008) and is an executive vice president and treasurer of Wilmington Trust Company (2012).

44

PART II

M&T’s common stock is traded under the symbol MTB on the New York Stock Exchange. See cross-reference sheet for disclosures incorporated elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for market prices of M&T’s common stock, approximate number of common shareholders at year-end, frequency and amounts of dividends on common stock and restrictions on the payment of dividends.

During the fourth quarter of 2019, M&T did not issue any shares of its common stock that were not registered under the Securities Act of 1933.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

The following table provides information as of December 31, 2019 with respect to shares of common stock that may be issued under M&T’s existing equity compensation plans. M&T’s existing equity compensation plans include the M&T Bank Corporation 2019 Equity Incentive Compensation Plan, which has been previously approved by shareholders, and the M&T Bank Corporation 2008 Directors’ Stock Plan and the M&T Bank Corporation Deferred Bonus Plan, each of which did not require shareholder approval.

The table does not include information with respect to shares of common stock subject to outstanding options and rights assumed by M&T in connection with mergers and acquisitions of the companies that originally granted those options and rights. Footnote (1) to the table sets forth the total number of shares of common stock issuable upon the exercise of such assumed options and rights as of December 31, 2019, and their weighted-average exercise price.

Equity compensation plans adopted without the approval of shareholders are described below:

2008 Directors’ Stock Plan. M&T maintains a plan for non-employee members of the Board of Directors of M&T and the members of its Directors Advisory Council, and the non-employee members of the Board of Directors of M&T Bank, which allows such directors and advisory directors to receive all or a portion of their directorial compensation in shares of M&T common stock.

45

Deferred Bonus Plan. M&T maintains a deferred bonus plan which was frozen effective January 1, 2010 and did not allow any additional deferrals after that date. Prior to January 1, 2010, the plan allowed eligible officers of M&T and its subsidiaries to elect to defer all or a portion of their annual incentive compensation awards and allocate such awards to several investment options, including M&T common stock. At the time of the deferral election, participants also elected the timing of distributions from the plan. Such distributions are payable in cash, with the exception of balances allocated to M&T common stock which are distributable in the form of shares of common stock.

Performance Graph

The following graph contains a comparison of the cumulative shareholder return on M&T common stock against the cumulative total returns of the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index, compiled by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., and the S&P 500 Index, compiled by Standard & Poor’s Corporation, for the five-year period beginning on December 31, 2014 and ending on December 31, 2019. The KBW Nasdaq Bank Index is a modified market capitalization weighted index consisting of 24 banking stocks representing leading large U.S. national money centers, regional banks and thrift institutions.

Comparison of Five-Year Cumulative Return*

Shareholder Value at Year End*

* Assumes a $100 investment on December 31, 2014 and reinvestment of all dividends.

In accordance with and to the extent permitted by applicable law or regulation, the information set forth above under the heading “Performance Graph” shall not be incorporated by reference into any future filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), or the Exchange Act and shall not be deemed to be “soliciting material” or to be “filed” with the SEC under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

46

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

On July 17, 2019 M&T’s Board of Directors authorized a new stock repurchase program to repurchase up to $1.635 billion of common shares, including the remaining shares not purchased related to M&T’s 2018 revised capital plan. In total, M&T repurchased 8,257,000 common shares for $1.35 billion during 2019.

During the fourth quarter of 2019, M&T purchased shares of its common stock as follows: