Associated Banc-Corp (ASB) 10-K2021 FY Annual report

This document, including the documents that are incorporated by reference, contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. You can identify forward-looking statements by words such as "may," "should," "expect," "plan," "anticipate," "intend," "believe," "estimate," "predict," "potential," "continue," "could," "future," "outlook," or the negative of those terms or other words of similar meaning. You should read statements that contain these words carefully because they discuss our future expectations or state other "forward-looking" information. Such forward-looking statements may relate to our financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance, or business and are based upon the beliefs and assumptions of our management and the information available to our management at the time these disclosures are prepared. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that we may not be able to accurately predict or control and our actual results may differ materially from those we described in our forward-looking statements. Shareholders should be aware that the occurrence of the events discussed under the heading Risk Factors in this document, and in the information incorporated by reference herein, could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. These factors, many of which are beyond our control, include the following.

Associated Banc-Corp is a bank holding company registered pursuant to the BHC Act. Our bank subsidiary, Associated Bank traces its history back to the founding of the Bank of Neenah in 1861. We were incorporated in Wisconsin in 1964 and were inactive until 1969 when permission was received from the Federal Reserve to acquire three banks. At December 31, 2021, we owned one nationally chartered commercial bank headquartered in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which serves local communities across the upper Midwest, one nationally chartered trust company headquartered in Wisconsin, and 12 limited purpose banking and nonbanking subsidiaries either located in or conducting business primarily in our three state branch footprint (Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota) that are closely related or incidental to the business of banking or financial in nature. Measured by total assets reported at December 31, 2021, we are the largest commercial bank holding company headquartered in Wisconsin.

Through Associated Bank and various nonbanking subsidiaries, we provide a broad array of banking and nonbanking products and services to individuals and businesses through 215 banking branches at December 31, 2021, serving more than 100 communities, primarily within our three state branch footprint. Our business is primarily relationship-driven and is organized into three reportable segments: Corporate and Commercial Specialty; Community, Consumer, and Business; and Risk Management and Shared Services.

See Note 21 Segment Reporting of the notes to consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for additional information concerning our reportable segments.

We are not dependent upon a single or a few customers, the loss of which would have a material adverse effect on us.

We are very fortunate to have a diverse, committed team of approximately 4,000 colleagues who are capable, determined and empowered to drive our company forward. None of our colleagues are represented by unions.

As of December 31, 2021, as a result of these efforts, our colleague diversity representation is as follows:

We continue to develop and implement programs to support DE&I:

In 2021, we supported our diverse customers and communities as follows:

Our DE&I efforts have been recognized by our communities as follows:

The financial services industry is highly competitive. We compete for loans, deposits, and financial services in all of our principal markets. We compete directly with other bank and nonbank institutions located within our markets, internet-based banks, out-of-market banks and bank holding companies that advertise or otherwise serve our markets, money market funds and other mutual funds, brokerage houses, and various other financial institutions. Additionally, we compete with insurance companies, leasing companies, regulated small loan companies, credit unions, governmental agencies and commercial entities offering financial services products, including nonbank lenders and so-called financial technology companies. Competition involves, among other things, efforts to retain current customers and to obtain new loans and deposits, the scope and types of services offered, interest rates paid on deposits and charged on loans, as well as other aspects of banking. We also face direct competition from subsidiaries of bank holding companies that have far greater assets and resources than ours.

The Corporation and its banking and nonbanking subsidiaries are subject to extensive regulation and oversight both at the federal and state levels. The following is an overview of the statutory and regulatory framework that affects the business of the Corporation and our subsidiaries.

As a registered bank holding company under the BHC Act, we are regulated, supervised, and examined by the Federal Reserve. In connection with applicable requirements, bank holding companies file periodic reports and other information with the Federal Reserve. The BHC Act also governs the activities that are permissible for bank holding companies and their affiliates and permits the Federal Reserve, in certain circumstances, to issue cease and desist orders and other enforcement actions against bank holding companies and their nonbanking affiliates to correct and curtail unsafe or unsound banking practices. Under the Dodd-Frank Act and longstanding Federal Reserve policy, bank holding companies are required to act as a source of financial strength to each of their banking subsidiaries pursuant to which such holding company may be required to commit financial resources to support such subsidiaries in circumstances when, absent such requirements, they might not otherwise do so. The BHC Act further regulates holding company activities, including requirements and limitations relating to capital, transactions with officers, directors and affiliates, securities issuances, dividend payments, inter-affiliate liabilities, extensions of credit, and expansion through mergers and acquisitions.

The BHC Act allows certain qualifying bank holding companies that elect treatment as “financial holding companies” to engage in activities that are financial in nature and that explicitly include the underwriting and sale of insurance. The Parent Company thus far has not elected to be treated as a financial holding company. Bank holding companies that have not elected such treatment generally must limit their activities to banking activities and activities that are closely related to banking.

Effective September 30, 2020, the Federal Reserve finalized a rule that simplifies and increases transparency of its rules for determining when one company controls another company for purposes of the BHC Act and, on March 31, 2021, the Federal Reserve published interpretive guidance regarding the final rule and related regulatory control matters. The amended control rule thus far has had, and will likely continue to have, a meaningful impact on control determinations related to investments in banks and bank holding companies and investments by bank holding companies in nonbank companies.

Associated Bank and our nationally chartered trust company subsidiary are regulated, supervised and examined by the OCC. The OCC has primary supervisory and regulatory authority over the operations of Associated Bank and the Corporation's trust

company subsidiary. As part of this authority, Associated Bank and our trust company subsidiaries are required to file periodic reports with the OCC and are subject to regulation, supervision and examination by the OCC. To support its supervisory function, the OCC has the authority to assess and charge fees on all national banks according to a set fee schedule. Due to increased operating efficiencies, the OCC reduced the rates in all fee schedules by 3 percent for the 2021 calendar year, thus reducing the assessment fees that Associated Bank paid in 2021. This reduction was in addition to the OCC's final rule passed in 2020, which reduced the assessments paid to the OCC on September 30, 2020 in response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. On December 1, 2021, the OCC published its assessment rates for the 2022 calendar year, maintaining the rates from 2021.

The Economic Growth Act also enacted several important changes in some technical compliance areas, for which the banking agencies have now issued certain corresponding guidance documents and implemented regulations, including:

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to cause extensive disruptions to the global economy, to businesses, and to the lives of individuals throughout the world. On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill that was intended to provide relief in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. There have also been a number of regulatory actions intended to help mitigate the adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on borrowers, including several mandates from the bank regulatory agencies, requiring financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bank regulatory agencies ensured that adequate flexibility will be given to financial institutions who work with borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and indicated that they would not criticize institutions who do so in a safe and sound manner. Further, the bank regulatory agencies have encouraged financial institutions to report accurate information to credit bureaus regarding relief provided to borrowers and have urged the importance of financial institutions to continue assisting those borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, on April 3, 2020, the bank regulatory agencies issued a joint policy statement to facilitate mortgage servicers’ ability to place consumers in short-term payment forbearance programs. This policy statement was followed by an interim final rule, on June 23, 2020, that makes it easier for consumers to transition out of financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The rule makes it clear that servicers do not violate Regulation X (which places restrictions and requirements upon lenders, mortgage brokers, or servicers of home loans related to consumers when they apply for and receive mortgage loans) by offering certain COVID-19-related loss mitigation options based on an evaluation of limited application information collected from the borrower. A final rule issued by the bank regulatory agencies

on June 28, 2021 permits servicers to also offer certain COVID-19 related loan modification options based on the evaluation of an incomplete application. Federal and state moratoria on evictions and foreclosures that were implemented during 2020 in response to COVID-19 were extended late into 2021. Although these programs generally have expired, governmental authorities may take additional actions in the future to limit the adverse impact of COVID-19 on borrowers and tenants.

The PPP, originally established under the CARES Act and extended under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021, authorized financial institutions to make federally-guaranteed loans to qualifying small businesses and non-profit organizations. These loans carry an interest rate of 1% per annum and a maturity of 2 years for loans originated prior to June 5, 2020 and 5 years for loans originated on or after June 5, 2020. The PPP provides that such loans may be forgiven if the borrowers meet certain requirements with respect to maintaining employee headcount and payroll and the use of the loan proceeds after the loan is originated. The initial phase of the PPP, after being extended multiple times by Congress, expired on August 8, 2020. However, on January 11, 2021, the SBA reopened the PPP for First Draw PPP loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations that did not receive a loan through the initial PPP phase. Further, on January 13, 2021, the SBA reopened the PPP for Second Draw PPP loans to small businesses and non-profit organizations that did receive a loan through the initial PPP phase. Maximum loan amounts were also increased for accommodation and food service businesses. Although the PPP ended in accordance with its terms on May 31, 2021, outstanding PPP loans continue to go through the process of either obtaining forgiveness from the SBA or pursuing claims under the SBA guaranty.

We are required to obtain prior Federal Reserve approval before acquiring more than 5% of the voting shares, or substantially all of the assets, of a bank holding company, bank or savings association. In addition, the prior approval of the OCC is required for a national bank to merge with another bank or purchase the assets or assume the deposits of another bank. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, and the acquiring institution’s record of addressing the credit needs of the communities it serves, including the needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the bank, under the CRA.

On July 9, 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. Among other initiatives, the Executive Order encouraged the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices under the BHC Act and the Bank Merger Act and adopt a plan for revitalization of such practices. There are many steps that must be taken by the agencies before any formal changes to the framework for evaluating bank mergers can be finalized and the prospects for such action are uncertain at this time; however, the adoption of more expansive or prescriptive standards may have an impact on our acquisition activities. See the Risk Factors section for a more extensive discussion of this topic.

The Parent Company is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and other nonbanking subsidiaries. A substantial portion of our cash flow comes from dividends paid to us by Associated Bank. The OCC’s prior approval of the payment of dividends by Associated Bank to the Parent Company is required only if the total of all dividends declared by the Bank in any calendar year exceeds the sum of the Bank’s retained net income for that year and its retained net income for the preceding two calendar years, less any required transfers to surplus. Federal law also prohibits national banks from paying dividends that would be greater than the bank’s undivided profits after deducting statutory bad debt in excess of the bank’s allowance for loan losses. In addition, under the FDICIA, an IDI, such as the Bank, is prohibited from making capital distributions, including the payment of dividends, if, after making such distribution, the institution would become “undercapitalized” (as such term is used in the FDICIA).

In addition, we and the Bank are subject to various general regulatory policies and requirements relating to the payment of dividends, including requirements to maintain adequate capital above regulatory minimums. The appropriate federal regulatory authority is authorized to determine under certain circumstances relating to the financial condition of a bank or bank holding company that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit payment thereof. Under the Dodd-Frank Act and the requirements of the Federal Reserve, the Parent Company, as a bank holding company, is required to serve as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank. In addition, consistent with its “source of strength” policy, the Federal Reserve has stated that, as a matter of prudent banking, a bank holding company should not maintain a level of cash dividends to its shareholders that places undue pressure on the capital of its bank subsidiaries, or that can be funded only through additional borrowings or other arrangements that may undermine the bank holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength. The appropriate federal regulatory authorities have indicated that paying dividends that

deplete a bank’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice and that banking organizations should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings.

We are subject to various regulatory capital requirements both at the Parent Company and at the Bank level administered by the Federal Reserve and the OCC, respectively. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements could result in certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have an adverse material effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action (described below), we must meet specific capital guidelines that involve quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting policies. Our capital amounts and classification are also subject to judgments by the regulators regarding qualitative components, risk weightings, and other factors. We have consistently maintained regulatory capital ratios at or above the well capitalized standards.

In 2013, the Federal Reserve and the OCC issued final rules establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. These rules implemented certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III. The final rules seek to strengthen the components of regulatory capital, increase risk-based capital requirements, and make selected changes to the calculation of risk-weighted assets. The final rules, among other things:

Through subsequent rulemaking, the federal banking agencies provided certain forms of relief to banking organizations that are not subject to the capital rule's advanced approaches, such as the Corporation.

For instance, non-advanced approaches institutions are subject to simpler regulatory capital requirements for MSAs, certain DTAs arising from temporary differences, investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions, and requirements for the amount of capital issued by a consolidated subsidiary of a banking organization and held by third parties (sometimes referred to as a minority interest) that is includable in regulatory capital.

In addition, certain general requirements of the capital rules have been eliminated in respect of non-advanced approaches institutions, including (i) the capital rule’s 10 percent CET 1 capital deduction threshold that applies individually to MSAs, temporary difference DTAs, and significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions in the form of common stock; (ii) the aggregate 15 percent CET1 capital deduction threshold that subsequently applies on a collective basis across such items; (iii) the 10 percent CET1 capital deduction threshold for non-significant investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions; and (iv) the deduction treatment for significant investments in the capital of

unconsolidated financial institutions not in the form of common stock. Accordingly, banking organizations not subject to the advanced approaches capital rule may deduct from CET1 capital any amount of MSAs, temporary difference DTAs, and investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions that individually exceeds 25 percent of CET1 capital.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision published the last version of the Basel III accord in 2017, generally referred to as “Basel IV.” The Basel Committee stated that a key objective of the revisions incorporated into the framework is to reduce excessive variability of risk-weighted assets, which will be accomplished by enhancing the robustness and risk sensitivity of the standardized approaches for credit risk and operational risk. This will facilitate the comparability of banks’ capital ratios, constraining the use of internally modeled approaches, and complementing the risk-weighted capital ratio with a finalized leverage ratio and a revised and robust capital floor. Leadership of the Federal Reserve, OCC, and FDIC, who are tasked with implementing Basel IV, supported the revisions. 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 Corporation. The impact of Basel IV on us will depend on the manner in which it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

In June 2016, the FASB issued an accounting standard update, “Financial Instruments-Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments,” which replaced the “incurred loss” model for recognizing credit losses with an “expected loss” model referred to as the CECL model. Under the CECL model, we are required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and HTM debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is to be based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. On December 21, 2018, the federal banking agencies approved a final rule modifying their regulatory capital rules and providing an option to phase in over a period of three years the day-one regulatory capital effects of the CECL model. The final rule also revises the agencies’ other rules to reflect the update to the accounting standards. The final rule took effect April 1, 2019. However, on August 26, 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a final rule that allows institutions that adopted the CECL accounting standard in 2020 the option to mitigate the estimated capital effects of CECL for two years, followed by a three-year transition period. Taken together, these measures offer institutions a transition period of up to five years. The Corporation elected to utilize the 2020 Capital Transition Relief as permitted under applicable regulations.

As part of the regulatory relief provided by the Economic Growth Act, the asset threshold requiring IDIs to conduct and report to their primary federal bank regulators annual company-run stress tests was raised from $10 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets and the requirement was made “periodic” rather than annual. The Economic Growth Act also provided that bank holding companies under $100 billion in assets were no longer subject to stress testing requirements. The amended regulations also provide the Federal Reserve with discretion to subject bank holding companies with more than $100 billion in total assets to enhanced supervision. In addition, Section 214 of the Economic Growth Act and its implementing regulation prohibit the federal banking agencies from requiring the Bank to assign a heightened risk weight to certain HVCRE ADC loans as previously required under the Basel III Capital Rules. Notwithstanding these regulatory amendments, the federal banking agencies indicated through interagency guidance that the capital planning and risk management practices of institutions with total assets less than $100 billion would continue to be reviewed through the regular supervisory process. Although the Corporation will continue to monitor and stress test its capital consistent with the safety and soundness expectations of the federal regulators, the Corporation no longer publishes stress testing results as a result of the legislative and regulatory amendments.

The Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the CFPB have extensive supervisory authority over their regulated institutions, including, among other things, the power to compel higher reserves, the ability to assess civil money penalties, the ability to issue cease-and-desist or removal orders and the ability to initiate injunctive actions. In general, these enforcement actions may be initiated for violations of laws and regulations or for unsafe or unsound banking practices. Other actions or inactions by the Parent Company may provide the basis for enforcement action, including misleading or untimely reports.

Federal banking regulators are authorized and, under certain circumstances, required to take certain actions against banks that fail to meet their capital requirements. The federal banking agencies have additional enforcement authority with respect to undercapitalized depository institutions.

“Well capitalized” institutions may generally operate without supervisory restriction. “Adequately capitalized” institutions cannot normally pay dividends or make any capital contributions that would leave them undercapitalized; they cannot pay a management fee to a controlling person if, after paying the fee, they would be undercapitalized; and they cannot accept, renew or roll over any brokered deposit unless the bank has applied for and been granted a waiver by the FDIC.

We note that the Economic Growth Act provides that reciprocal deposits are not treated as brokered deposits in the case of a “well capitalized” institution that received an “outstanding” or a “good” rating on its most recent examination to the extent the amount of such deposits does not exceed the lesser of $5 billion or 20% of the bank’s total liabilities.

The federal banking agencies are required to take action to restrict the activities of an “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” or “critically undercapitalized” IDI. Any such bank must submit a capital restoration plan that is guaranteed by the parent holding company. Until such plan is approved, it may not increase its assets, acquire another institution, establish a branch or engage in any new activities, and generally may not make capital distributions. In certain situations, a federal banking agency may reclassify a well-capitalized institution as adequately capitalized and may require an adequately capitalized or undercapitalized institution to comply with supervisory actions as if the institution were in the next lower category.

Institutions must file a capital restoration plan with the OCC within 45 days of the date it receives a notice from the OCC that it is “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” or “critically undercapitalized.” Compliance with a capital restoration plan must be guaranteed by a parent holding company. In addition, the OCC is permitted to take any one of a number of discretionary supervisory actions, including but not limited to the issuance of a capital directive and the replacement of senior executive officers and directors.

Finally, bank regulatory agencies have the ability to impose higher than normal capital requirements known as individual minimum capital requirements for institutions with a high-risk profile.

At December 31, 2021, the Bank satisfied the capital requirements necessary to be deemed “well capitalized.” In the event of a change to this status, the imposition of any of the measures described above could have a material adverse effect on the Corporation and on its profitability and operations. The Corporation’s shareholders do not have preemptive rights and, therefore, if the Corporation is directed by the OCC or the FDIC to issue additional shares of common stock, such issuance may result in dilution in shareholders’ percentage of ownership of the Corporation.

Associated Bank is a member of the FDIC and pays an insurance premium to the FDIC based upon its assessment rates on a quarterly basis. Deposits are insured up to applicable limits by the FDIC and such insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

Under the Dodd-Frank Act, a permanent increase in deposit insurance was authorized to $250,000 per depositor, per IDI for each account ownership category.

The Dodd-Frank Act also set the minimum DIF reserve ratio at 1.35% of estimated insured deposits. The FDIC was required to attain this ratio by September 30, 2020. The Dodd-Frank Act also required the FDIC to define the deposit insurance assessment base for an IDI as an amount equal to the institution’s average consolidated total assets during the assessment period minus average tangible equity. The assessment rate schedule for larger institutions like Associated Bank (i.e., institutions with at least $10 billion in assets) differentiates between such large institutions by use of a “scorecard” that combines an institution’s CAMELS ratings with certain forward-looking financial information to measure the risk to the DIF. Pursuant to this “scorecard” method, two scores (a performance score and a loss severity score) will be combined and converted to an initial base assessment rate. The performance score measures an institution’s financial performance and ability to withstand stress. The loss severity score measures the relative magnitude of potential losses to the DIF in the event of the institution’s failure. Total scores are converted pursuant to a predetermined formula into an initial base assessment rate. Assessment rates range from 2.5 bp to 45 bp for large institutions. Premiums for Associated Bank are now calculated based upon the average balance of total assets minus average tangible equity as of the close of business for each day during the calendar quarter.

On June 22, 2020, the FDIC issued a final rule that mitigates the deposit insurance assessment effects of participating in the PPP, the PPPLF and MMLF. Pursuant to the final rule, the FDIC generally removes the effect of PPP lending in calculating an institution's deposit insurance assessment. The final rule also provides an offset to an institution's total assessment amount for the increase in its assessment base attributable to participation in the PPP and MMLF. The final rule became effective on April

1, 2020 and treatment of PPP loans as liquid assets under the rule remained in effect until July 30, 2021, which date represented the expiration of the final extension of the PPPLF authorized by the Federal Reserve. Other adjustments remain in effect until further rulemaking.

The FDIC has the flexibility to adopt actual rates that are higher or lower than the total base assessment rates adopted without notice and comment, if certain conditions are met.

On September 30, 2018, the DIF reserve ratio reached 1.36 percent, exceeding the statutorily required minimum reserve ratio of 1.35 percent ahead of the September 30, 2020 deadline required under the Dodd-Frank Act. FDIC regulations provide that, upon reaching the minimum, surcharges on IDIs with total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more will cease. The last quarterly surcharge was reflected in the Bank’s December 2018 assessment invoice, which covered the assessment period from July 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018. The Bank's assessment invoices have not included a quarterly surcharge since that time.

Assessment rates, which declined for all banks when the reserve ratio first surpassed 1.15 percent in the third quarter of 2016, are expected to remain unchanged. Assessment rates are scheduled to decrease when the reserve ratio exceeds 2 percent.

DIF-insured institutions pay a FICO assessment in order to fund the interest on bonds issued in the 1980s in connection with the failures in the thrift industry. The FICO assessment was computed on assets as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. These assessments continued until the bonds matured in September 2019. The Corporation’s assessment rate for FDIC was approximately 6 bp for 2021.

The FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of and require reporting by FDIC-insured institutions. It is also authorized to terminate a depository bank’s deposit insurance upon a finding by the FDIC that the bank’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices or has violated any applicable rule, regulation, order or condition enacted or imposed by the bank’s regulatory agency. The termination of deposit insurance for our national bank subsidiary would have a material adverse effect on our earnings, operations and financial condition.

Historically, deposit insurance premiums we have paid to the FDIC have been deductible for federal income tax purposes; however, the Tax Act disallows the deduction of such premium payments for banking organizations with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more. For banks with less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets, such as ours, the premium deduction is phased out based on the proportion of a bank’s assets exceeding $10 billion.

Section 29 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act and FDIC regulations thereunder limit the ability of an IDI, such as the Bank, to accept, renew or roll over brokered deposits unless the institution is well-capitalized under the prompt corrective action framework described above, or unless it is adequately capitalized and obtains a waiver from the FDIC. In addition, less than well-capitalized banks are subject to restrictions on the interest rates they may pay on deposits. The characterization of deposits as "brokered" may result in the imposition of higher deposit assessments on such deposits. As mandated by the Economic Growth Act, the FDIC adopted a final rule in February 2019 to include a limited exception for reciprocal deposits for FDIC-IDIs that are well rated and well capitalized (or adequately capitalized and have obtained a waiver from the FDIC as mentioned above). Under the limited exception, qualified FDIC-IDIs, like the Bank, are able to except from treatment as "brokered" deposits up to $5 billion or 20 percent of the institution's total liabilities in reciprocal deposits (which is defined as deposits received by a financial institution through a deposit placement network with the same maturity (if any) and in the same aggregate amount as deposits placed by the institution in other network member banks).

On December 15, 2020, the FDIC issued a final rule amending its regulations governing brokered deposits. The rule sought to clarify and modernize the FDIC's regulatory framework for brokered deposits. Notable aspects of the rule include (1) the establishment of bright-line standards for determining whether an entity meets the statutory definition of "deposit broker"; (2) the identification of a number of business relationships in which the agent of nominee is automatically not deemed to be a "deposit broker" because their primary purpose is not the placement of funds with depository institutions (the "primary purpose exception"; (3) the establishment of a more transparent application process for entities that seek the "primary purpose exception", but do not qualify as one of the identified business relationships to which the exception is automatically applicable; and (4) the clarification that third parties that have an exclusive deposit-placement arrangement with only one IDI are not considered a "deposit broker." The final rule took effect on April 1, 2021 and full compliance is required by January 1, 2022.

The federal banking agencies have adopted the Interagency Guidelines for Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines establish certain safety and soundness standards for all depository institutions. The

operational and managerial standards in the Guidelines relate to the following: (1) internal controls and information systems; (2) internal audit systems; (3) loan documentation; (4) credit underwriting; (5) interest rate exposure; (6) asset growth; (7) compensation, fees and benefits; (8) asset quality; and (9) earnings. Rather than providing specific rules, the Guidelines set forth basic compliance considerations and guidance with respect to a depository institution. Failure to meet the standards in the Guidelines, however, could result in a request by the OCC to one of the nationally chartered banks to provide a written compliance plan to demonstrate its efforts to come into compliance with such Guidelines. Failure to provide a plan or to implement a provided plan requires the appropriate federal banking agency to issue an order to the institution requiring compliance.

Transactions between our national banking subsidiary and its related parties or any affiliate are governed by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. An affiliate is any company or entity, which controls, is controlled by or is under common control with the bank. In a holding company context, at a minimum, the parent holding company of a national bank, and any companies that are controlled by such parent holding company, are affiliates of the bank. Generally, Sections 23A and 23B (i) limit the extent to which an institution or its subsidiaries may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of such institution’s capital stock and surplus, and contain an aggregate limit on all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20% of such capital stock and surplus, and (ii) require that all such transactions be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable, to the institution or subsidiary as those provided to a nonaffiliate. The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans, purchase of assets, issuance of a guarantee and similar types of transactions. Certain types of covered transactions must be collateralized according to a schedule set forth in the statute based on the type of collateral.

Certain transactions with our directors, officers or controlling persons are also subject to conflicts of interest regulations. Among other things, these regulations require that loans to such persons and their related interests be made on terms substantially the same as for loans to unaffiliated individuals and must not create an abnormal risk of repayment or other unfavorable features for the financial institution. See Note 4 Loans of the notes to consolidated financial statements in Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, for additional information on loans to related parties.

Associated Bank is subject to periodic CRA reviews by the OCC. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions and does not limit the ability of such institutions to develop products and services believed best-suited for a particular community. An institution’s CRA assessment may be used by its regulators in their evaluation of certain applications, including a merger, acquisition or the establishment of a branch office. An unsatisfactory rating may be used as the basis for denial of such an application. The Bank received a “Satisfactory” CRA rating in its most recent evaluation.

We are subject to a number of U.S. federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to consumer privacy and data protection. Under privacy protection provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and its implementing regulations and guidance, we are limited in our ability to disclose certain non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. Financial institutions, such as the Bank, are required by statute and regulation to notify consumers of their privacy policies and practices and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. In addition, such financial institutions must appropriately safeguard their customers’ nonpublic, personal information.

Federal banking agencies, including the OCC, have adopted guidelines for establishing information security standards and cybersecurity programs for implementing safeguards under the supervision of the board of directors. These guidelines, along with related regulatory materials, increasingly focus on risk management and processes related to information technology and the use of third parties in the provision of financial services. In October 2016, the federal banking agencies issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on enhanced cybersecurity risk-management and resilience standards that would apply to large and interconnected banking organizations and to services provided by third parties to these firms. These enhanced standards would apply only to depository institutions and depository institution holding companies with total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more, which would not currently include the Corporation.

Recent cyberattacks against banks and other financial institutions that resulted in unauthorized access to confidential customer information have prompted the federal banking regulators to issue extensive guidance on cybersecurity. Among other things, financial institutions are expected to design multiple layers of security controls to establish lines of defense and ensure that their risk management processes address the risks posed by compromised customer credentials, including security measures to authenticate customers accessing internet-based services. A financial institution also should have a robust business continuity program to recover from a cyberattack and procedures for monitoring the security of third-party service providers that may have access to nonpublic data at the institution. During 2021, the Corporation did not discover any material cybersecurity incidents.

The BSA, which is intended to require financial institutions to develop policies, procedures, and practices to prevent and deter money laundering, mandates that every national bank have a written, board-approved program that is reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the BSA. The program must, at a minimum: (1) provide for a system of internal controls to assure ongoing compliance; (2) provide for independent testing for compliance; (3) designate an individual responsible for coordinating and monitoring day-to-day compliance; and (4) provide training for appropriate personnel. In addition, national banks are required to adopt a customer identification program as part of their BSA compliance program. National banks are also required to file SARs when they detect certain known or suspected violations of federal law or suspicious transactions related to a money laundering activity or a violation of the BSA. In May 2016, the regulations implementing the BSA were amended, effective May 2018, to explicitly include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence and procedures for understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile. In addition, FinCEN promulgated customer due diligence and customer identification rules that require banks to identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners of all legal entity customers (other than those that are excluded) at the time a new account is opened (other than accounts that are exempted), which rules became effective on May 11, 2018.

In addition to complying with the BSA, the Bank is subject to the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is designed to deny terrorists and criminals the ability to obtain access to the United States’ financial system and has significant implications for depository institutions, brokers, dealers, and other businesses involved in the transfer of money. The Patriot Act mandates that financial service companies implement additional policies and procedures and take heightened measures designed to address any or all of the following matters: customer identification programs, money laundering, terrorist financing, identifying and reporting suspicious activities and currency transactions, currency crimes, and cooperation between financial institutions and law enforcement authorities.

On December 3, 2019, three federal banking agencies and FinCEN issued a joint statement clarifying the compliance procedures and reporting requirements that banks must file for customers engaged in the growth or cultivation of hemp, including a clear statement that banks need not file a SAR on customers engaged in the growth or cultivation of hemp in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. This statement does not apply to cannabis-related business; thus, the statement only pertains to customers who are lawfully growing or cultivating hemp and are not otherwise engaged in unlawful or suspicious activity.

compensation to victims) will receive not more than 30 percent of the monetary sanctions collected and will receive increased protections; (3) increased penalties for violations of the BSA; (4) improvements to existing information sharing provisions that permit financial institutions to share information relating to SARs with foreign branches, subsidiaries, and affiliates (except those located in China, Russia, or certain other jurisdictions) for the purpose of combating illicit finance risks; and (5) expanded duties and powers of FinCEN. Many of the amendments require the Department of Treasury and FinCEN to promulgate rules. On December 8, 2021, FinCEN issued proposing regulations that would implement the amendments with respect to beneficial ownership.

The rule became effective on January 1, 2020, and banking entities were required to comply as of January 1, 2021. Although we benefit from significantly reduced compliance obligations due to the level of our trading assets being below the $20 billion threshold, we remain subject to the modified rules and requirements related to covered funds. On June 25, 2020, the five U.S. financial regulators with responsibility for implementing the Volcker Rule issued a final rule that modifies the Volcker Rule's prohibition on banking entities' investing in or sponsoring "covered funds." The final rule (1) streamlines the covered funds portion of the rule; (2) addresses the extraterritorial treatment of certain foreign funds; and (3) permits banking entities to offer financial services and engage in other activities that do not raise concerns that the Volcker Rule was intended to address.

In July 2010, the federal banking agencies issued guidance on sound incentive compensation policies that applies to all banking organizations supervised by the agencies (thereby including both the Parent Company and the Bank). Pursuant to the guidance, to be consistent with safety and soundness principles, a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should: (1) provide employees with incentives that appropriately balance risk and reward; (2) be compatible with effective controls and risk management; and (3) be supported by strong corporate governance including active and effective oversight by the banking organization’s board of directors. Monitoring methods and processes used by a banking organization should be commensurate with the size and complexity of the organization and its use of incentive compensation.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the federal banking agencies and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines for specified regulated entities, such as us, having at least $1 billion in total assets, to prohibit incentive-based payment arrangements that encourage inappropriate risk taking by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder with excessive compensation, fees, or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive-based compensation arrangements. The agencies have not yet finalized these rules; however, on October 14, 2021, the SEC signaled a renewed interest in this rulemaking initiative by re-opening the comment period on a proposed rule issued originally in 2015 regarding "clawbacks" of incentive-based executive compensation.

The Federal Reserve will review, as part of its standard, risk-focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Corporation, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These

reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk-management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

The scope and content of the U.S. banking regulators’ policies on executive compensation may continue to evolve in the near future. It cannot be determined at this time whether compliance with such policies will adversely affect the Corporation’s ability to hire, retain and motivate its key employees.

Federal and applicable state banking laws also require us to take steps to protect consumers. Bank regulatory agencies are increasingly focusing attention on compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations. These laws include disclosures regarding truth in lending, truth in savings, and funds availability.

To promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services, the Dodd-Frank Act established the CFPB. This agency is responsible for interpreting and enforcing federal consumer financial laws, as defined by the Dodd-Frank Act, that, among other things, govern the provision of deposit accounts along with mortgage origination and servicing. Some federal consumer financial laws enforced by the CFPB include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, TILA, the Truth in Savings Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, RESPA, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The CFPB is also authorized to prevent any institution under its authority from engaging in an unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice in connection with consumer financial products and services.

Under TILA as implemented by Regulation Z, mortgage lenders are required to make a reasonable and good faith determination based on verified and documented information that a consumer applying for a mortgage loan has a reasonable ability to repay the loan according to its terms. Mortgage lenders are required to determine consumers’ ability to repay in one of two ways. The first alternative requires the mortgage lender to consider the following eight underwriting factors when making the credit decision: (1) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (2) current employment status; (3) the monthly payment on the covered transaction; (4) the monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (5) the monthly payment for mortgage-related obligations; (6) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (7) the monthly DTI ratio or residual income; and (8) credit history. Alternatively, the mortgage lender can originate QMs, which are entitled to a presumption that the creditor making the loan satisfied the ATR requirements. In general, a QM is a mortgage loan without negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, or terms exceeding 30 years. In addition, to be a QM the points and fees paid by a consumer cannot exceed 3% of the total loan amount. Further, on December 10, 2020, the CFPB issued two final rules related to QM loans. The first rule replaces the strict 43 percent DTI threshold for QM loans and provides that, in addition to existing requirements, a loan receives a conclusive presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay if the APR does not exceed the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more as of the date the interest rate is set. Further, a loan receives a rebuttable presumption that the consumer had the ability to repay if the APR exceeds the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction by 1.5 percentage points or more but by less than 2.25 percentage points. The second rule creates a new category of "seasoned" QMs for loans that meet certain performance requirements. That rule allows a non-QM loan or a "rebuttable presumption" QM loan to receive a safe harbor from ATR liability at the end of a "seasoning" period of at least 36 months as a "seasoned QM" if it satisfies certain product restrictions, points-and-fees limits, and underwriting requirements, and the loan meets the designated performance and portfolio requirements during the "seasoning period." The mandatory compliance date under the first final rule was July 1, 2021, but subsequently was delayed by the CFPB to October 1, 2022. The second final rule will apply to covered transactions for which institutions receive an application after the compliance date for the first final rule. The Corporation is predominantly an originator of compliant QMs.

Additionally, the CFPB has the authority to take supervisory and enforcement action against banks and other financial services companies under the agency’s jurisdiction that fail to comply with federal consumer financial laws. As an IDI with total assets of more than $10 billion, the Bank is subject to the CFPB’s supervisory and enforcement authorities. The Dodd-Frank Act also permits states to adopt stricter consumer protection laws and state attorneys general to enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB. As a result of these aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bank operates in a stringent consumer compliance environment. Therefore, the Bank is likely to incur additional costs related to consumer protection compliance, including but not limited to potential costs associated with CFPB examinations, regulatory and enforcement actions and consumer-oriented litigation, which is likely to increase as a result of the consumer protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The CFPB has been active in bringing enforcement actions against banks and other financial institutions to enforce consumer financial laws. The federal financial regulatory agencies, including the OCC and states attorneys general, also have become increasingly active

in this area with respect to institutions over which they have jurisdiction. We have incurred and may in the future incur additional costs in complying with these requirements.

Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC has backup enforcement authority over a depository institution holding company, such as the Parent Company, if the conduct or threatened conduct of such holding company poses a risk to the DIF, although such authority may not be used if the holding company is generally in sound condition and does not pose a foreseeable and material risk to the DIF. The Dodd-Frank Act may have a material impact on the Corporation’s and the Bank’s operations, particularly through increased compliance costs resulting from possible future consumer and fair lending regulations. See the Risk Factors section for a more extensive discussion of this topic.

Our earnings and growth, as well as the earnings and growth of the banking industry, are affected by the credit policies of monetary authorities, including the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the national supply of bank credit in order to combat recession and curb inflationary pressures. Among the instruments of monetary policy used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market operations in U.S. government securities, changes in reserve requirements against member bank deposits, and changes in the Federal Reserve discount rate. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth of bank loans, investments, and deposits, and may also affect interest rates charged on loans or paid for deposits. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve authorities have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to have such an effect in the future.

In view of changing conditions in the national economy and in money markets, as well as the effect of credit policies by monetary and fiscal authorities, including the Federal Reserve, it is difficult to predict the impact of possible future changes in interest rates, deposit levels, and loan demand, or their effect on our business and earnings or on the financial condition of our various customers.

In addition to regulation, supervision and examination by federal banking agencies, the Corporation and certain of its subsidiaries, including those that engage in securities brokerage, dealing and investment advisory activities, are subject to other federal and applicable state securities laws and regulations, and to supervision and examination by other regulatory authorities, including the SEC, FINRA, NYSE, DOL and others.

Separately, in June 2019, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC adopted Regulation Best Interest, which, among other things, establishes a new standard of conduct for a broker-dealer to act in the best interest of a retail customer when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to such customer. The new rule requires us to review and possibly modify our compliance activities, which is causing us to incur some additional costs. In addition, state laws that impose a fiduciary duty also may require monitoring, as well as require that we undertake additional compliance measures.

The widespread availability of multiple COVID-19 vaccines and corresponding rates of vaccination generally have been effective in curtailing rates of infection in many parts of the United States and, in turn, mitigating many of the adverse social and economic effects of the pandemic; however, a significant portion of the population remains unvaccinated and the efficacy of the vaccines in preventing infection and serious illness is believed to wane over time and may be diminished in the face of new coronavirus variants. Accordingly, the pandemic, and related efforts to contain it, continue to disrupt global economic activity and functioning of the financial markets, impact interest rates and monetary policy decisions, increase economic and market uncertainty, and disrupt trade and supply chains. There have been trillions of dollars in economic stimulus packages initiated by the Federal Reserve and the federal government, including the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, as expanded by the PPP and Health Care Enhancement Act, and more recently, the Economic Aid Act, in an effort to counteract the significant economic disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic. However, there can be no assurance that these packages will continue to be effective in stimulating and sustaining economic activity, and additional governmental stimulus and related interventions may be needed. Moreover, as economic conditions relating to the pandemic have improved over time, the Federal Reserve has

shifted its focus to limiting the inflationary and other potentially adverse effects of the extensive pandemic-related government stimulus, which signals the potential for a continued period of economic uncertainty even if the pandemic subsides.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to vary significantly by region, and the full extent of the effects of the pandemic on the U.S. and global economies, labor markets and financial markets are still being determined. Any future development will be highly uncertain and cannot be predicted, including the scope and duration of the pandemic, the effectiveness of our remote working arrangements, third party providers’ ability to support our operations, and any further action taken by governmental authorities and other third parties in response to the pandemic. The uncertain future development of this crisis could materially and adversely affect our business, operations, operating results, financial condition, liquidity or capital levels.

In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic’s continued and ultimately cumulative impact on global economic activity, there have been a number of regulatory governmental actions that also impact our operations and financial condition. Due to the unforeseen nature of the pandemic, any future developments and resulting regulatory action is highly uncertain and cannot be predicted. However, to date, there have been a number of bank regulatory actions and legislative changes intended to help mitigate the adverse economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on borrowers, including temporary bans on evictions and foreclosures and mandates requiring financial institutions to work constructively with borrowers affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and mandatory loan forbearances.

On March 27, 2020, the CARES Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was a $2.2 trillion economic stimulus bill that was intended to provide relief in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, on December 27, 2020, The Economic Aid Act was signed into law as part of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021, which, among other things, directed financial regulators to support community development financial institutions and minority depository institutions and directs Congress to re-appropriate $429 billion in unobligated CARES Act funds.

Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2021 and continuing into early 2022, the Omicron variant of the coronavirus has spread substantially and rapidly throughout the United States and globally. As a result, social and economic activity has been disrupted in many parts of the country. In response, members of Congress have begun to evaluate the prospects of approving additional stimulus payments, principally for businesses that have been most impacted by the recent increase in COVID-19 infections; however, the prospects and timing for any additional COVID-19 relief measures are not clear at this time.

During 2020, the governors of many states in which we do business or in which our borrowers and loan collateral are located issued temporary bans on evictions and foreclosures, which have now expired. Similar bans were implemented by FNMA and FHLMC, which have also expired. To the extent similar bans are again implemented, we would again expect to experience declines in borrower loan payments which may have a material impact on our earnings.

The economic disruption in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant increase in delinquencies and loans on non-accrual status across all of our loan portfolios, particularly our commercial loan portfolio as certain industries have been particularly hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has adversely affected the ability of many of our borrowers to repay their loans. As of December 31, 2021, our commercial loan portfolio includes $1.4 billion of outstanding loans to borrowers in key industries which may see elevated risk as a result of the current economic dynamics, representing 5.7% of total loans. These key exposures include: $830 million of loans to retailers and shopping centers, $227 million of loans to borrowers in the hotel industry, $98 million to restaurant-related borrowers, and approximately $230 million across various exposures, which have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The unemployment rate has improved in recent months; however, disruptions in the labor markets caused by or relating to the pandemic and associated fluctuations in

rates of employment may have a significant adverse impact on the ability of our residential and multi-family borrowers to repay their loans.

Our success depends, to a certain extent, upon local, national and global economic and political conditions, as well as governmental monetary policies. Conditions such as an economic recession, the impact of international trade negotiations on local and national economies, rising unemployment, changes in interest rates, money supply and other factors beyond our control may adversely affect our asset quality, deposit levels and loan demand and, therefore, our earnings. Because we have a significant amount of real estate loans, decreases in real estate values could adversely affect the value of property used as collateral. The OCC recently reported that although U.S. economic activity was strong throughout much of 2021, banks remain in strong condition with sound capital and liquidity levels and financial market conditions are favorable, U.S. economic activity is expected to moderate in 2022 due to factors including elevated levels of inflation and corresponding upward pressure on interest rates, high levels of commercial debt and uncertainty in both the commercial and residential real estate markets. As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to disrupt economic activity significantly, financial institutions face increased credit risk, strategic risk, operational risk, and compliance risk. Adverse changes in the economy may also have a negative effect on the ability of our borrowers to make timely repayments of their loans, which could have an adverse impact on our earnings. Consequently, declines in the economy could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

There continues to be discussion and dialogue regarding potential changes to U.S. trade policies, legislation, treaties and tariffs with countries such as China and those within the European Union. The prior Administration imposed certain tariffs and retaliatory tariffs, as well as other trade restrictions on products and materials that our customers import or export. These restrictions may cause the prices of our customers' products to increase, which could reduce demand for such products, or reduce our customers' margins, and adversely impact their revenues, financial results, and ability to service debt. This in turn could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, to the extent changes in the political environment have a negative impact on us or on the markets in which we operate our business, our results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely impacted in the future. Although the current Administration has expressed interest in improving relations with key transatlantic partners, including by relaxing certain tariffs imposed by the prior Administration, the trade policies of the current Administration remain somewhat unsettled. Accordingly, it remains unclear what the U.S. government or foreign governments will or will not do with respect to tariffs already imposed, additional tariffs that may be imposed, or international trade agreements and policies.

All borrowers have the potential to default, and our remedies in the event of such default (such as seizure and/or sale of collateral, legal actions, and guarantees) may not fully satisfy the debt owed to us. We maintain an allowance for credit losses, which is a reserve established through a provision for credit losses charged to expense, that represents management’s best estimate of probable credit losses over the life of the loan within the existing portfolio of loans. The allowance for credit losses, in the judgment of management, is necessary to reserve for estimated credit losses and risks inherent in the loan portfolio. The level of the allowance for credit losses reflects management’s continuing evaluation of industry concentrations; specific credit risks; loan loss experience; current loan portfolio quality; present economic, political, and regulatory conditions; and unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio. The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for credit losses inherently involves a high degree of subjectivity and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks using existing qualitative and quantitative information, all of which may undergo material changes. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans, and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for credit losses. In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for credit losses and may require an increase in the provision for credit losses or the recognition of additional loan charge offs, based on judgments different than those of management. An increase in the allowance for credit losses would result in a decrease in net income, and possibly risk-based capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2021, approximately 64% of our loan portfolio consisted of commercial and industrial, real estate construction, CRE loans, asset-based lending, and PPP loans (collectively, "commercial loans"). Commercial loans are generally viewed as having more inherent risk of default than residential mortgage loans or other consumer loans. Further, the commercial loan balance per borrower is typically larger than that for residential mortgage loans and other consumer loans, implying higher potential losses on an individual loan basis. Because our loan portfolio contains a number of commercial loans with balances over $25 million, the deterioration of one or a few of these loans could cause a significant increase in nonaccrual loans, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our policy generally has been to originate CRE loans primarily in the eight states in which the Bank operates. At December 31, 2021, CRE loans, including owner occupied, investor, and real estate construction loans, totaled $7.2 billion, or 30%, of our total loan portfolio. As a result of our growth in this portfolio over the past several years and planned future growth, these loans require more ongoing evaluation and monitoring and we are implementing enhanced risk management policies, procedures and controls. CRE loans generally involve a greater degree of credit risk than residential mortgage loans because they typically have larger balances and are more affected by adverse conditions in the economy. Because payments on loans secured by CRE often depend upon the successful operation and management of the properties and the businesses which operate from within them, repayment of such loans may be affected by factors outside the borrower’s control, such as adverse conditions in the real estate market or the economy or changes in government regulation. In recent years, CRE markets have been experiencing substantial growth, and increased competitive pressures have contributed significantly to historically low capitalization rates and rising property values. CRE prices, according to many U.S. CRE indices, are currently above the 2007 peak levels that contributed to the financial crisis. Accordingly, the federal bank regulatory agencies have expressed concerns about weaknesses in the current CRE market and have applied increased regulatory scrutiny to institutions with CRE loan portfolios that are fast growing or large relative to the institutions' total capital. Our failure to adequately implement enhanced risk management policies, procedures and controls could adversely affect our ability to increase this portfolio going forward and could result in an increased rate of delinquencies in, and increased losses from, this portfolio. At December 31, 2021, nonaccrual CRE loans totaled $61 million, or approximately 1% of our total portfolio of CRE loans.

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions, we may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports, and other financial information. We may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties, or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports, or other financial information could cause us to enter into unfavorable transactions, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We settle funds on behalf of financial institutions, other businesses and consumers and receive funds from clients, card issuers, payment networks and consumers on a daily basis for a variety of transaction types. Transactions we facilitate include wire transfers, debit card, credit card and electronic bill payment transactions, supporting consumers, financial institutions and other businesses. These payment activities rely upon the technology infrastructure that facilitates the verification of activity with counterparties and the facilitation of the payment. If the continuity of operations or integrity of processing were compromised, this could result in a financial loss to us due to a failure in payment facilitation. In addition, we may issue credit to consumers, financial institutions or other businesses as part of the funds settlement. A default on this credit by a counterparty could result in a financial loss to us.

A significant portion of our loan portfolio is secured by real property. During the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses which may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use or sell the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase our exposure to environmental liability. Although we have policies and procedures to perform an environmental review before lending against or initiating any

foreclosure action on real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The Corporation requires liquidity to meet its deposit and debt obligations as they come due. Access to liquidity could be impaired by an inability to access the capital markets or unforeseen outflows of deposits. Risk factors that could impair our ability to access capital markets include a downturn in our Midwest markets, difficult credit markets, credit rating downgrades, or regulatory actions against the Corporation. The Corporation’s access to deposits can be impacted by the liquidity needs of our customers as a substantial portion of the Corporation’s liabilities are demand while a substantial portion of the Corporation’s assets are loans that cannot be sold in the same timeframe. Historically, the Corporation has been able to meet its cash flow needs as necessary. If a sufficiently large number of depositors sought to withdraw their deposits for whatever reason, the Corporation may be unable to obtain the necessary funding at favorable terms.

Our earnings and cash flows are largely dependent upon our net interest income. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including general economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, in particular, the Federal Reserve. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and investments and the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but such changes could also affect (i) our ability to originate loans and obtain deposits; (ii) the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities; and (iii) the average duration of our mortgage portfolio and other interest-earning assets. In response to the economic conditions resulting from the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Reserve's target federal funds rate has been reduced nearly to 0%. Despite recent elevated levels of inflation and corresponding pressure to raise interest rates, the Federal Reserve recently has indicated that it intends to continue this approach until such time that substantial further progress has been made towards achieving the Federal Reserve's maximum employment objectives. Accordingly, the yield on our assets may decline to a greater extent than the decline in our cost of interest-bearing liabilities which, in turn, could reduce our net interest margin, spread and net income.

If the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster rate than the interest rates received on loans and other investments, our net interest income, and therefore earnings, could be adversely affected. Earnings could also be adversely affected if the interest rates received on loans and other investments fall more quickly than the interest rates paid on deposits and other borrowings. The Corporation's interest rate risk profile is such that a higher or steeper yield curve adds to income while a flatter yield curve is relatively neutral, and a lower or inverted yield curve, such as experienced during the past year, generally has a negative impact on earnings. Our most significant interest rate risk may be further declines in the absolute level of interest rates or the prolonged continuation of the current low rate environment, as this would generally lead to further compression of our net interest margin, reduced net interest income, and devaluation of our deposit base.

Although management believes it has implemented effective asset and liability management strategies, including the potential use of derivatives as hedging instruments, to reduce the potential effects of changes in interest rates on our results of operations, any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Also, our interest rate risk modeling techniques and assumptions likely may not fully predict or capture the impact of actual interest rate changes on our balance sheet.

Changes in interest rates can impact our mortgage-related revenues and net revenues associated with our mortgage activities. A decline in mortgage rates generally increases the demand for mortgage loans as borrowers refinance, but also generally leads to accelerated payoffs. Conversely, in a constant or increasing rate environment, we would expect fewer loans to be refinanced and a decline in payoffs. Although we use models to assess the impact of interest rates on mortgage-related revenues, the estimates of revenues produced by these models are dependent on estimates and assumptions of future loan demand, prepayment speeds and other factors which may differ from actual subsequent experience.

The Corporation maintains an investment portfolio consisting of various high quality liquid fixed-income securities. The total book value of the securities portfolio, which includes FHLB and Federal Reserve Bank stocks, as of December 31, 2021, was $6.8 billion and the estimated duration of the aggregate portfolio was approximately 5.4 years. The nature of fixed-income

securities is such that changes in market interest rates impact the value of these assets. Based on the duration of the Corporation’s investment securities portfolio, a one percent decrease in market rates is projected to increase the market value of the investment securities portfolio by approximately $331 million, while a one percent increase in market rates is projected to decrease the market value of the investment securities portfolio by approximately $366 million.

The Corporation earns revenue from the fees it receives for originating mortgage loans and for servicing mortgage loans. When rates rise, the demand for mortgage loans tends to fall, reducing the revenue the Corporation receives from loan originations. At the same time, revenue from MSRs can increase through increases in fair value. When rates fall, mortgage originations tend to increase and the value of MSRs tends to decline, also with some offsetting revenue effect. Even though the origination of mortgage loans can act as a "natural hedge," the hedge is not perfect, either in amount or timing. For example, the negative effect on revenue from a decrease in the fair value of residential MSRs is immediate, but any offsetting revenue benefit from more originations and the MSRs relating to the new loans would accrue over time. It is also possible that even if interest rates were to fall, mortgage originations may also fall or any increase in mortgage originations may not be enough to offset the decrease in the MSRs value caused by the lower rates.

The Corporation typically uses derivatives and other instruments to hedge its mortgage banking interest rate risk. The Corporation generally does not hedge all of its risks and the fact that hedges are used does not mean they will be successful. Hedging is a complex process, requiring sophisticated models and constant monitoring. The Corporation could incur significant losses from its hedging activities. There may be periods where the Corporation elects not to use derivatives and other instruments to hedge mortgage banking interest rate risk. See Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, Note 24 Recent Developments, for details on the accounting policy change from LOCOM to fair value accounting.

The LIBOR is the reference rate used for many of our transactions, including our lending and borrowing and our purchase and sale of securities, as well as the derivatives that we use to manage risk related to such transactions. However, a reduced volume of interbank unsecured term borrowing coupled with recent legal and regulatory proceedings related to rate manipulation by certain financial institutions has led to international reconsideration of LIBOR as a financial benchmark. The FCA, which regulates the process for establishing LIBOR, announced in July 2017 that the sustainability of LIBOR cannot be guaranteed. Accordingly, although the FCA confirmed the extension of overnight and 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month LIBOR through June 30, 2023 in order to accord financial institutions greater time with which to manage the transition from LIBOR, the FCA is no longer persuading, or compelling, banks to submit to LIBOR. The federal banking agencies, including the OCC, previously determined that banks must cease entering into any new contract that uses LIBOR as a reference rate by no later than December 31, 2021. In addition, banks have been encouraged to identify contracts that extend beyond June 30, 2023 and implement plans to identify and address insufficient contingency provisions in those contracts.

The Corporation has multiple alternative reference rates available to customers, and there can be no assurances on which benchmark rate(s) may become the primary replacement to LIBOR for purposes of financial instruments that are currently referencing LIBOR. Following the discontinuance of LIBOR, there may be uncertainty or differences in the calculation of the applicable interest rate or payment amount depending on the terms of the governing instruments, and such discontinuation may increase operational and other risks to the Corporation and the industry.

While there is no consensus on what rate or rates may become accepted alternatives to LIBOR, and the OCC has opined that national banks may use any reference rate for its loans that a bank determines to be appropriate for its funding model and customer needs, a group of large banks, the ARRC, selected the SOFR as an alternative to LIBOR. SOFR has been published by the FRBNY since May 2018, and it is intended to be a broad measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities. The FRBNY reports that SOFR includes all trades in the Broad General Collateral Rate, plus bilateral U.S. Treasury repurchase agreement transactions cleared through the delivery-versus-payment service offered by the FICC, a subsidiary of DTCC.

The FRBNY currently publishes SOFR daily on its website at https://apps.newyorkfed.org/markets/autorates/sofr. The FRBNY states on its publication page for SOFR that use of SOFR is subject to important disclaimers, limitations and indemnification obligations, including that the FRBNY may alter the methods of calculation, publication schedule, rate revision practices or availability of SOFR at any time without notice.

Because SOFR is published by the FRBNY based on data received from other sources, the Bank has no control over its determination, calculation or publication. There can be no assurance that SOFR will not be discontinued or fundamentally altered in a manner that is materially adverse to the parties that utilize SOFR as the reference rate for transactions. There is no assurance that SOFR will be widely adopted as the replacement reference rate for LIBOR (or that the Corporation will ultimately decide to adopt SOFR as the reference rate for its lending or borrowing transactions).

The AFX has also created the Ameribor as another potential replacement for LIBOR. Ameribor is calculated daily as the volume-weighted average interest rate of the overnight unsecured loans on AFX. Because of the difference in how it is constructed, Ameribor may diverge significantly from LIBOR in a range of situations and market conditions.

The market transition away from LIBOR to an alternative reference rate, including SOFR or Ameribor, is complex and could have a range of adverse effects on the Corporation's business, financial condition, and results of operations. In particular, any such transition could:

In addition, the implementation of LIBOR reform proposals may result in increased compliance costs and operational costs, including costs related to continued participation in LIBOR and the transition to a replacement reference rate or rates. We cannot reasonably estimate the expected cost.

The Parent Company is a separate and distinct legal entity from its banking and other subsidiaries. A substantial portion of the Parent Company’s revenue comes from dividends from its subsidiaries. These dividends are the principal source of funds to pay dividends on the Parent Company’s common and preferred stock, and to pay interest and principal on the Parent Company’s debt. Various federal and/or applicable state laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends that the Bank and certain of our nonbanking subsidiaries may pay to us. Also, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event the Bank subsidiary is unable to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to service debt, pay obligations, or pay dividends on our common and preferred stock. The inability to receive dividends from the Bank could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We operate in many different businesses in diverse markets and rely on the ability of our employees and systems to process transactions. Operational risk is the risk of loss resulting from our operations, including but not limited to, the risk of fraud by employees or persons outside the Corporation, the execution of unauthorized transactions, errors relating to transaction processing and technology, breaches of our internal control systems or failures of those of our suppliers or counterparties, compliance failures, cyber-attacks, technology failures, or unforeseen problems encountered while implementing new computer systems or upgrades to existing systems, business continuation and disaster recovery issues, and other external events. Insurance coverage may not be available for such losses, or where available, such losses may exceed insurance limits. This risk of loss also includes the potential legal actions that could arise as a result of an operational deficiency or as a result of noncompliance with applicable regulatory standards, adverse business decisions or their implementation, and customer attrition

due to potential negative publicity. The occurrence of any of these events could cause us to suffer financial loss, face regulatory action and suffer damage to our reputation.

In the normal course of our business, we collect, process, and retain sensitive and confidential client and customer information on our behalf and on behalf of other third parties. Despite the security measures we have in place, our facilities and systems may be vulnerable to cyber-attacks, security breaches, acts of vandalism, computer viruses, malware, misplaced or lost data, programming and/or human errors, or other similar events.

In addition to cyber-attacks or other security breaches involving the theft of sensitive and confidential information, hackers have engaged in attacks against large financial institutions, designed to disrupt key business services, such as customer-facing web sites. Critical infrastructure sectors, including financial services, increasingly have been the targets of cyber-attacks, including attacks emanating from foreign countries such as the attack on the information technology company SolarWinds, which affected many Fortune 500 companies as well as U.S. government agencies. Cyber-attacks involving large financial institutions, including denial of service attacks designed to disrupt external customer-facing services, nation state cyberattacks and ransomware attacks designed to deny organizations access to key internal resources or systems, as well as targeted social engineering and email attacks designed to allow unauthorized persons to obtain access to an institution's information systems and data or that of its customers, are becoming more common and increasingly sophisticated. Further, threat actors are increasingly seeking to target vulnerabilities in software systems used by large numbers of banking organizations in order to conduct malicious cyber activities. These types of attacks have resulted in increased supply chain and third-party risk. Because the methods of cyber-attacks change frequently or, in some cases, are not recognized until launch, we are not able to anticipate or implement effective preventive measures against all possible security breaches and the probability of a successful attack cannot be predicted. Although we employ detection and response mechanisms designed to contain and mitigate security incidents, early detection may be thwarted by persistent sophisticated attacks and malware designed to avoid detection.

We also face risks related to cyber-attacks and other security breaches in connection with card transactions that typically involve the transmission of sensitive information regarding our customers through various third parties. Some of these parties have in the past been the target of security breaches and cyber-attacks, and because the transactions involve third parties and environments that we do not control or secure, future security breaches or cyber-attacks affecting any of these third parties could impact us through no fault of our own, and in some cases we may have exposure and suffer losses for breaches or attacks relating to them. We also rely on numerous other third party service providers to conduct other aspects of our business operations and face similar risks relating to them. While we conduct security assessments on our higher risk third party service providers, we cannot be sure that their information security protocols are sufficient to withstand a cyber-attack or other security breach.

Cyber security risks for financial institutions also have evolved as a result of the use of new technologies, devices and delivery channels to transmit data and conduct financial transactions. The adoption of new products, services and delivery channels contribute to a more complex operating environment, which enhances operation risk and presents the potential for additional structural vulnerabilities. In addition, the ongoing and widespread remote work environment necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic has subjected institutions to additional cybersecurity vulnerabilities and risks.

The Corporation regularly evaluates its systems and controls and implements upgrades as necessary. The additional cost to the Corporation of our cyber security monitoring and protection systems and controls includes the cost of hardware and software, third party technology providers, consulting and forensic testing firms, insurance premium costs and legal fees, in addition to the incremental cost of our personnel who focus a substantial portion of their responsibilities on cyber security.

Any successful cyber-attack or other security breach involving the misappropriation, loss or other unauthorized disclosure of confidential customer information or that compromises our ability to function could severely damage our reputation, erode confidence in the security of our systems, products and services, expose us to the risk of litigation and liability, disrupt our operations and have a material adverse effect on our business. Any successful cyber-attack may also subject the Corporation to regulatory investigations, litigation or enforcement, or require the payment of regulatory fines or penalties or undertaking costly remediation efforts with respect to third parties affected by a cyber security incident, all or any of which could adversely affect the Corporation’s business, financial condition or results of operations and damage its reputation.

The Corporation may be subject to the data risks and cyber security vulnerabilities of the acquired company until the Corporation has sufficient time to fully integrate the acquiree’s customers and operations. Although the Corporation conducts comprehensive due diligence of cyber-security policies, procedures and controls of our acquisition counterparties, and the Corporation maintains adequate policies, procedures, controls and information security protocols to facilitate a successful integration, there can be no assurance that such measures, controls and protocols are sufficient to withstand a cyber-attack or other security breach with respect to the companies we acquire, particularly during the period of time between closing and final integration.

Any failure, interruption, or breach in security or operational integrity of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan, and other systems. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption, or security breach of our information systems, we cannot completely ensure that any such failures, interruptions, or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions, or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny, or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We outsource certain information system and data management and processing functions to third party providers, including, among others, Fiserv, Inc. and its affiliates to compete in a rapidly evolving financial marketplace. These third party service providers are sources of operational and informational security risk to us, including risks associated with operational errors, information system interruptions or breaches, and unauthorized disclosures of sensitive or confidential client or customer information. Concentration among larger third party providers servicing large segments of the banking industry can also potentially affect wide segments of the financial industry. If third party service providers encounter any of these issues, or if we have difficulty communicating with them, we could be exposed to disruption of operations, loss of service or connectivity to customers, reputational damage, and litigation risk that could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or our business.

Third party vendors provide key components of our business infrastructure, such as internet connections, network access and core application processing. While we have selected these third party vendors in accordance with supervisory requirements, we do not control their actions. Any problems caused by these third parties, including as a result of their not providing us their services for any reason or their performing their services poorly, could adversely affect our ability to deliver products and services to our customers and otherwise to conduct our business. Replacing these third party vendors could also entail significant delay and expense.

Integral to our performance is the continued efficacy of our technical systems, operational infrastructure, relationships with third parties and the vast array of associates and key executives in our day-to-day and ongoing operations. Failure by any or all of these resources subjects us to risks that may vary in size, scale and scope. This includes, but is not limited to, operational or technical failures, ineffectiveness or exposure due to interruption in third party support, as well as the loss of key individuals or failure on the part of key individuals to perform properly. Although management has established policies and procedures to address such failures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to changes in tax law that could increase our effective tax rates. These law changes may be retroactive to previous periods and as a result could negatively affect our current and future financial performance. For example, legislation enacted in 2017 resulted in a reduction in our federal corporate tax rate from 35% in 2017 to 21% in 2018, which had a favorable impact on our earnings and capital generation abilities. However, this legislation also enacted limitations on certain deductions, such as the deduction of FDIC deposit insurance premiums, which partially offset the anticipated increase in net

earnings from the lower tax rate. During 2021, Congress debated various proposals for increase in the corporate tax rate and possible surcharges on corporate share repurchases as part of the funding for various spending initiatives. Any such increase in the corporate tax rate or surcharges would adversely affect our results of operations in future periods.

In addition, the Bank’s customers experienced and likely will continue to experience varying effects from both the individual and business tax provisions of the Tax Act and other future changes in tax law and such effects, whether positive or negative, may have a corresponding impact on our business and the economy as a whole.

In assessing whether the impairment of investment securities is related to a deterioration in credit factors, management considers the length of time and extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, the financial condition and near-term prospects of the issuer, and the intent and ability to retain our investment in the security for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value in the near term.

Under current accounting standards, goodwill is not amortized but, instead, is subject to impairment tests on at least an annual basis or more frequently if an event occurs or circumstances change that reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. A decline in our stock price or occurrence of a triggering event following any of our quarterly earnings releases and prior to the filing of the periodic report for that period could, under certain circumstances, cause us to perform a goodwill impairment test and result in an impairment charge being recorded for that period which was not reflected in such earnings release. During 2021, the annual impairment test conducted in May, using a qualitative assessment, indicated that the estimated fair value of all of the Corporation’s reporting units exceeded the carrying value. In the event that we conclude in a future assessment that all or a portion of our goodwill may be impaired, a non-cash charge for the amount of such impairment would be recorded to earnings. Such a charge would have no impact on tangible capital. At December 31, 2021, we had goodwill of $1.1 billion, which represents approximately 27% of stockholders’ equity.

In assessing the realizability of DTAs, management considers whether it is more likely than not that some portion or all of the DTAs will not be realized. Assessing the need for, or the sufficiency of, a valuation allowance requires management to evaluate all available evidence, both negative and positive, including the recent trend of quarterly earnings. Positive evidence necessary to overcome the negative evidence includes whether future taxable income in sufficient amounts and character within the carryback and carryforward periods is available under the tax law, including the use of tax planning strategies. When negative evidence (e.g., cumulative losses in recent years, history of operating loss or tax credit carryforwards expiring unused) exists, more positive evidence than negative evidence will be necessary.

The impact of each of these impairment matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Generating returns that satisfy clients in a variety of asset classes is important to maintaining existing business and attracting new business. Administering or managing assets in accordance with the terms of governing documents and applicable laws is also important to client satisfaction. Failure in either of the foregoing areas can expose us to liability, and result in a decrease in our revenues and earnings.

The current and anticipated effects of climate change are creating an increasing level of concern for the state of the global environment. As a result, political and social attention to the issue of climate change has increased. In recent years, governments across the world have entered into international agreements to attempt to reduce global temperatures, in part by limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Congress, state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies have continued to propose and advance numerous legislative and regulatory initiatives seeking to mitigate the effects of climate change. Such initiatives have been pursued with rigor under the current Administration. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, of which the OCC is a member, published a report in October 2021 identifying climate-related financial risk as an "emerging threat" to financial stability. The leadership of the federal banking agencies, including the Comptroller of the Currency, have emphasized that climate-related risks are faced by banking organizations of all types and sizes, specifically including physical and transition risks, and are in the process of enhancing supervisory expectations regarding banks' risk management practices. To that end, in December 2021, the OCC published proposed principles for climate risk management by larger banking organizations. The OCC also has appointed its first ever Climate Change Risk Officer and established an internal

climate risk implementation committee in order to assist with these initiatives and to support the agency's efforts to enhance its supervision of climate change risk management.

Such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, adversely impact our employee base, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue, and/or cause us to incur additional expenses. Although management has established disaster recovery policies and procedures, the occurrence of any such event could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

The policies of the Federal Reserve impact us significantly. The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money and credit in the United States. Its policies directly and indirectly influence the rate of interest earned on loans and paid on borrowings and interest-bearing deposits and can also affect the value of financial instruments we hold. Those policies determine to a significant extent our cost of funds for lending and investing. Changes in those policies are beyond our control and are difficult to predict. Federal Reserve policies can also affect our borrowers, potentially increasing the risk that they may fail to repay their loans. For example, a tightening of the money supply by the Federal Reserve could reduce the demand for a borrower’s products and services. This could adversely affect the borrower’s earnings and ability to repay its loan, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, both within and beyond our principal markets, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional, and internet banks within the various markets in which we operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loans, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative and regulatory changes and continued consolidation. In July 2018, the OCC announced that it will begin accepting applications from financial technology companies to become special purpose national banks. Although the OCC's authority to issue special purpose bank charters to nonbank financial technology companies continues to be subject to ongoing litigation, similar developments are likely to result in even greater competition within all areas of our operations.

In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for nonbanks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. In addition, some of the largest technology firms are engaging in joint ventures with the largest banks to provide and/or expand financial service offerings with a technological sophistication and breadth of marketing that smaller institutions do not have. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Federal budget deficit concerns and the potential for political conflict over legislation to raise the U.S. government's debt limit may increase the possibility of a default by the U.S. government on its debt obligations, related credit-rating downgrades, or an economic recession in the United States. Many of our investment securities are issued by the U.S. government and government agencies and sponsored entities. As a result of uncertain domestic political conditions, including potential future federal government shutdowns, the possibility of the federal government defaulting on its obligations for a period of time due to debt ceiling limitations or other unresolved political issues, investments in financial instruments issued or guaranteed by the federal government pose liquidity risks. In connection with prior political disputes over U.S. fiscal and budgetary issues leading to the U.S. government shutdown in 2011, S&P lowered its long term sovereign credit rating on the U.S. from AAA to AA+. A further downgrade, or a downgrade by other rating agencies, as well as sovereign debt issues facing the governments of other countries, could have a material adverse impact on financial markets and economic conditions in the U.S. and worldwide.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions through alternative methods that historically have involved banks. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts, mutual funds or general-purpose reloadable prepaid cards. Consumers can also complete transactions, such as paying bills and/or transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks.

Transactions utilizing digital assets, including cryptocurrencies, stablecoins and other similar assets, have increased substantially. Certain characteristics of digital asset transactions, such as the speed with which such transactions can be conducted, the ability to transact without the involvement of regulated intermediaries, the ability to engage in transactions across multiple jurisdictions, and the anonymous nature of the transactions, are appealing to certain consumers notwithstanding the various risks posed by such transactions. Accordingly, digital asset service providers - which, at present are not subject to the extensive regulation as banking organizations and other financial institutions - have become active competitors for our customers' banking business. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries, known as "disintermediation," could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost of deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our success depends on the general economic conditions of the specific local markets in which we operate, particularly Wisconsin, Illinois and Minnesota. Local economic conditions have a significant impact on the demand for our products and services, as well as the ability of our customers to repay loans, on the value of the collateral securing loans, and the stability of our deposit funding sources. A significant decline in general local economic conditions caused by inflation, recession, unemployment, changes in securities markets, changes in housing market prices, or other factors could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations and profitability are impacted by general business and economic conditions in the United States and abroad. These conditions include short-term and long-term interest rates, inflation, money supply, political issues, legislative and regulatory changes, fluctuations in both debt and equity capital markets, broad trends in industry and finance, the strength of the United States economy, and uncertainty in financial markets globally, all of which are beyond our control. A deterioration in economic conditions, including those arising from government shutdowns, defaults, anticipated defaults or rating agency downgrades of sovereign debt (including debt of the U.S.), or increases in unemployment, could result in an increase in loan

delinquencies and NPAs, decreases in loan collateral values, and a decrease in demand for our products and services, among other things, any of which could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

From time to time, we may implement new lines of business or offer new products and services within existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products and services, we may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as competitive alternatives and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business and/or a new product or service. Furthermore, strategic planning remains important as we adopt innovative products, services, and processes in response to the evolving demands for financial services and the entrance of new competitors, such as out-of-market banks and financial technology firms. Any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls, so we must responsibly innovate in a manner that is consistent with sound risk management and is aligned with the Bank's overall business strategies. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business and/or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services, including the potential utilization of blockchain technology to provide alternative high speed payment systems. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

As part of our growth strategy, we regularly evaluate merger and acquisition opportunities and conduct due diligence activities related to possible transactions with other financial institutions and financial services companies. As a result, negotiations may take place and future mergers or acquisitions involving cash, debt, or equity securities may occur at any time. We seek merger or acquisition partners that are culturally similar, have experienced management, and possess either significant market presence or have potential for improved profitability through financial management, economies of scale, or expanded services.

Acquiring other banks, businesses, or branches involves potential adverse impact to our financial results and various other risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including, among other things:

Acquisitions also involve operational risks and uncertainties, and acquired companies may have unknown or contingent liabilities, exposure to unexpected asset quality problems that require write-downs or write-offs (as well as restructuring and impairment or other charges), difficulty retaining key employees and customers and other issues that could negatively affect our business. We may not be able to realize any projected cost savings, synergies or other benefits associated with any such acquisition we complete. Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values and, therefore, some dilution of our tangible book value and net income per common share may occur in connection with any future transaction. Failure to successfully integrate the entities we acquire into our existing operations could increase our operating costs significantly and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

In addition, we face significant competition from other financial services institutions, some of which may have greater financial resources than we do, when considering acquisition opportunities. Accordingly, attractive opportunities may not be available to us and there can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying or completing future acquisitions.

Acquisitions by the Corporation, particularly those of financial institutions, are subject to approval by a variety of federal and state regulatory agencies (collectively, "regulatory approvals"). The process for obtaining these required regulatory approvals has become substantially more difficult in recent years. Regulatory approvals could be delayed, impeded, restrictively conditioned or denied due to existing or new regulatory issues the Corporation has, or may have, with regulatory agencies, including, without limitation, issues related to BSA compliance, CRA issues, fair lending laws, fair housing laws, consumer protection laws, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices regulations, and other similar laws and regulations. We may fail to pursue, evaluate or complete strategic and competitively significant acquisition opportunities as a result of our inability, or perceived or anticipated inability, to obtain regulatory approvals in a timely manner, under reasonable conditions or at all. The regulatory approvals may contain conditions on the completion of the merger that adversely affect our business following the closing, or which are not anticipated or cannot be met. Difficulties associated with potential acquisitions that may result from these factors could have a material adverse impact on our business, and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.

Moreover, in July 2021, President Biden issued an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy which encouraged the federal banking agencies to review their current merger oversight practices. The Executive Order has received significant public support from members of Congress as well as a majority of the board members of the FDIC. In addition, the Director of the CFPB has publicly sought a greater role for the CFPB in the evaluation of proposed bank mergers. Any enhanced regulatory scrutiny of bank mergers and acquisitions and revision of the framework for merger application review may adversely affect the marketplace for such transactions, could result in our acquisitions in future periods being delayed, impeded or restricted in certain respects and result in new rules that possibly limit the size of financial institutions we may be able to acquire in the future and alter the terms for such transactions.

We are subject to extensive federal and applicable state regulation and supervision, primarily through Associated Bank and certain nonbank subsidiaries. Banking regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds, and the banking system as a whole, not shareholders. These regulations affect our lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy, and growth, among other things. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations, and policies for possible changes, and proposed changes can be expected from the new Administration. Changes to statutes, regulations, or regulatory policies, including changes in interpretation or implementation of statutes, regulations, or policies, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways. Such changes could subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer, and/or increase the ability of nonbanks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, or policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties, and/or reputation damage, which could have a material

adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations. While we have policies and procedures designed to prevent these types of violations, there can be no assurance that such violations will not occur.

Significantly, the enactment of the Economic Growth Act, and the promulgation of its implementing regulations, repealed or modified several important provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, the Economic Growth Act and its implementing regulations raised the total asset thresholds to $250 billion for Dodd-Frank Act annual company-run stress testing, leverage limits, liquidity requirements, and resolution planning requirements for bank holding companies, subject to the ability of the Federal Reserve to apply such requirements to institutions with assets of $100 billion or more to address financial stability risks or safety and soundness concerns.

Accordingly, the effect of banking legislation and regulations remains uncertain. The implementation, amendment, or repeal of federal banking laws or regulations may affect the banking industry as a whole, including our business and results of operations, in ways that are difficult to predict.

In addition, in September 2016, the CFPB and OCC entered into a consent order with a large national bank alleging widespread improper sales practices, which prompted the federal bank regulatory agencies to conduct a horizontal review of sales practices throughout the banking industry. The elevated attention has resulted in continued additional regulatory scrutiny and regulation of incentive arrangements, which could adversely impact the delivery of services and increase compliance costs.

Democrats assumed control of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in 2021, albeit with a majority in the Senate found only in the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris. With control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, Democrats are now able to set the policy agenda both legislatively and in the regulatory agencies that have rulemaking and supervisory authority over the financial services industry generally and the Bank specifically. Congressional committees with jurisdiction over the banking sector have pursued oversight and legislative initiatives in a variety of areas, including addressing climate-related risks, promoting diversity and equality within the banking industry and addressing other ESG matters, improving competition in the banking sector and enhancing oversight of bank mergers and acquisitions, establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets and markets, and oversight of the COVID-19 pandemic response and economic recovery. The prospects for the enactment of major banking reform legislation under the new Congress are unclear at this time.

Moreover, the turnover of the presidential administration resulted in certain changes in the leadership and senior staffs of the federal banking agencies, the CFPB, CFTC, SEC, and the Treasury Department, with certain significant leadership positions yet to be filled, including the Comptroller of the Currency, the Chair of the FDIC and three vacancies among the Governors of the Federal Reserve Board, including the Vice Chair for Supervision. These changes have impacted the rulemaking, supervision, examination and enforcement priorities and policies of the agencies and likely will continue to do so over the next several years. The potential impact of any changes in agency personnel, policies and priorities on the financial services sector, including the Bank, cannot be predicted at this time.

The SEC's Regulation Best Interest which was implemented in 2019 established a new standard of conduct for a broker-dealer to act in the best interest of a retail customer when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities to such customer. The regulation required us to review and modify our compliance activities, including our policies, procedures, and controls, which caused us to incur additional costs. In addition, state laws that impose a fiduciary duty also may require monitoring, as well as require that we undertake additional compliance measures. In addition, the Bank's insurance agency subsidiary is also subject to regulation and supervision in the various states in which it operates. The implementation and administration by the SEC of Regulation Best Interest, as well as any new state laws that impose a fiduciary duty, may negatively impact our results of operation, as well as increase costs associated with legal, compliance, operations, and information technology.

The CFPB has broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act with respect to financial institutions that offer covered financial products and services to consumers. As an independent bureau within the Federal Reserve System, the CFPB may impose requirements more severe than the previous bank regulatory agencies. The

CFPB has also been directed to write rules identifying practices or acts that are unfair, deceptive or abusive in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service. The CFPB has initiated enforcement actions against a variety of bank and non-bank market participants with respect to a number of consumer financial products and services that has resulted in those participants expending significant time, money and resources to adjust to the initiatives being pursued by the CFPB. The CFPB has pursued a more aggressive enforcement policy with respect to a range of regulatory compliance matters under the current Administration. CFPB enforcement actions may serve as precedent for how the CFPB interprets and enforces consumer protection laws, including practices or acts that are deemed to be unfair, deceptive or abusive, with respect to all supervised institutions, which may result in the imposition of higher standards of compliance with such laws. Moreover, the Bank is subject to supervision and examination by the CFPB for compliance with the CFPB’s regulations and policies. The costs and limitations related to this additional regulatory reporting regimen have yet to be fully determined, although they may be material, and the limitations and restrictions that will be placed upon the Bank with respect to its consumer product offerings and services may produce significant, material effects on the Bank’s (and the Corporation’s) profitability.

Federal and state banking regulators closely examine the mortgage and mortgage servicing activities of depository financial institutions. Should any of these regulators have serious concerns with respect to our mortgage or mortgage servicing activities in this regard, the regulators' response to such concerns could result in material adverse effects on our growth strategy and profitability. Further, staff changes to key positions within the CFPB under the current administration have resulted in the CFPB pursuing more strict enforcement policies, specifically in the area of fair lending, loan servicing, collections and other consumer related areas.

We may be required to repurchase residential mortgage loans, or to reimburse the purchaser for losses with respect to residential mortgage loans, which have been sold to secondary market purchasers in the event there are breaches of certain representations and warranties contained within the sales agreements, such as representations and warranties related to credit information, loan documentation, collateral and insurability. Consequently, we are exposed to credit risk, and potentially funding risk, associated with sold loans. As a result we have established reserves in our consolidated financial statements for potential losses related to the residential mortgage loans we have sold. The adequacy of the reserves and the ultimate amount of losses incurred will depend on, among other things, the actual future mortgage loan performance, the actual level of future repurchase and reimbursement requests, the actual success rate of claimants, actual recoveries on the collateral and macroeconomic conditions. Due to uncertainties relating to these factors, there can be no assurance that the reserves we establish will be adequate or that the total amount of losses incurred will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Revenues derived from transaction fees associated with overdraft protection programs offered to our customers represent a significant portion of our noninterest income. In 2021, the Corporation collected approximately $22 million in overdraft transaction fees. In recent months, certain members of Congress and the leadership of the OCC and CFPB have expressed a heightened interest in bank overdraft protection programs. In December 2021, the CFPB published a report providing data on banks’ overdraft and non-sufficient funds fee revenues as well as observations regarding consumer protection issues relating to participation in such programs. The CFPB has indicated that it intends to pursue enforcement actions against banking organizations, and their executives, that oversee overdraft practices that are deemed to be unlawful. In addition, the Comptroller of the Currency has identified potential options for reform of national bank overdraft protection practices, including providing a grace period before the imposition of a fee, refraining from charging multiple fees in a single day and eliminating fees altogether.

In response to this increased congressional and regulatory scrutiny, and in anticipation of enhanced supervision and enforcement of overdraft protection practices in the future, certain banking organizations have begun to modify their overdraft protection programs, including by discontinuing the imposition of overdraft transaction fees. These competitive pressures from our peers, as well as any adoption by our regulators of new rules or supervisory guidance or more aggressive examination and enforcement policies in respect of banks’ overdraft protection practices, could cause us to modify our program and practices in ways that may have a negative impact on our revenue and earnings, which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, as supervisory expectations and industry practices regarding overdraft

protection programs change, our continued offering of overdraft protection may result in negative public opinion and increased reputation risk.

We are subject to federal and applicable state income tax regulations. Income tax regulations are often complex and require interpretation. Changes in income tax regulations could negatively impact our results of operations. In the normal course of business, we are routinely subject to examinations and challenges from federal and applicable state tax authorities regarding the amount of taxes due in connection with investments we have made and the businesses in which we have engaged. Recently, federal and state taxing authorities have become increasingly aggressive in challenging tax positions taken by financial institutions. These tax positions may relate to tax compliance, sales and use, franchise, gross receipts, payroll, property and income tax issues, including tax base, apportionment and tax credit planning. The challenges made by tax authorities may result in adjustments to the timing or amount of taxable income or deductions or the allocation of income among tax jurisdictions. If any such challenges are made and are not resolved in our favor, they could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

From time to time, customers make claims and take legal action pertaining to the performance of our fiduciary responsibilities. Whether customer claims and legal action related to the performance of our fiduciary responsibilities are founded or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to us, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of us and our products and services, as well as impact customer demand for those products and services. Any financial liability or reputation damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may be involved from time to time in a variety of litigation arising out of our business. Our insurance may not cover all claims that may be asserted against us, and any claims asserted against us, regardless of merit or eventual outcome, may harm our reputation. Should the ultimate judgments or settlements in any litigation exceed our insurance coverage, they could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operation for any period. In addition, we may not be able to obtain appropriate types or levels of insurance in the future, nor may we be able to obtain adequate replacement policies with acceptable terms, if at all.

The Economic Growth Act, which was enacted in 2018, represents modest reform to the regulation of the financial services industry primarily through certain amendments of the Dodd-Frank Act. However, many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that have increased our compliance costs, such as the Volcker Rule, the Durbin amendment restricting interchange fees, and the additional supervisory authority of the CFPB, remain in place. Certain of the provisions amended by the Economic Growth Act took effect immediately, while others are subject to ongoing joint agency rulemakings. It is not possible to predict when any final rules would ultimately be issued through any such rulemakings, and what the specific content of such rules will be. Although we expect to benefit from many aspects of this legislative reform, the legislation and any implementing rules that are ultimately issued could have adverse implications on the financial industry, the competitive environment, and our ability to conduct business. In addition, the federal banking agencies indicated through interagency guidance that the capital planning and risk management practices of institutions with total assets less than $100 billion would continue to be reviewed through the regular supervisory process, which may offset the impact of the Economic Growth Act's changes regarding stress testing and risk management.

Reputation risk, or the risk to our earnings and capital from negative public opinion, is inherent in our business. Negative public opinion could adversely affect our ability to keep and attract customers and expose us to adverse legal and regulatory consequences. Negative public opinion could result from our actual or alleged conduct in any number of activities, including lending or foreclosure practices, corporate governance, regulatory compliance, mergers and acquisitions, and disclosure, sharing or inadequate protection of customer information, and from actions taken by government regulators and community organizations in response to that conduct. Because we conduct most of our business under the "Associated Bank" brand, negative public opinion about one business could affect our other businesses.

We have established a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Related Party Transaction Policies and Procedures to address the ethical conduct of business and to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based, in part, on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our related controls and procedures or failure to comply with the established Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Related Party Transaction Policies and Procedures could have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations, and/or financial condition.

Price volatility may make it more difficult for you to sell your securities when you want and at prices you find attractive. Our securities prices can fluctuate widely in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:

General market fluctuations, industry factors, and general economic and political conditions and events, such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes, or credit loss trends, could also cause our securities prices to decrease regardless of our operating results.

We are not restricted from issuing additional securities, including preferred stock, common stock and securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock. The issuance of additional shares of common stock or the issuance of convertible securities would dilute the ownership interest of our existing common shareholders. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of an equity offering, as well as other sales of a large block of shares of our common stock or similar securities in the market after an equity offering, or the perception that such sales could occur. Both we and our regulators perform a variety of analyses of our assets, including the preparation of stress case scenarios, and as a result of those assessments we could determine, or our regulators could require us, to raise additional capital.

Although we have historically paid a quarterly cash dividend to the holders of our common stock, holders of our common stock are not entitled to receive dividends. Downturns in the domestic and global economies could cause our board of directors to consider, among other things, the elimination of dividends paid on our common stock. This could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Furthermore, as a bank holding company, our ability to pay dividends is subject to the guidelines of the Federal Reserve regarding capital adequacy and dividends. Dividends also may be limited as a result of safety and soundness considerations.

Shares of the common stock are equity interests in us and do not constitute indebtedness. As such, shares of the common stock will rank junior to all of our indebtedness and to other non-equity claims against us and our assets available to satisfy claims against us, including our liquidation. Additionally, holders of our common stock are subject to prior dividend and liquidation rights of holders of our outstanding preferred stock. Our board of directors is authorized to issue additional classes or series of preferred stock without any action on the part of the holders of our common stock, and we are permitted to incur additional debt. Upon liquidation, lenders and holders of our debt securities and preferred stock would receive distributions of our available assets prior to holders of our common stock. Furthermore, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon any of our subsidiaries’ liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of that subsidiary’s creditors, including holders of any preferred stock of that subsidiary.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, and federal banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to our shareholders. The combination of these provisions may prohibit a non-negotiated merger or other business combination, which, in turn, could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our common stock is not a bank deposit and, therefore, is not insured against loss by the FDIC, any other deposit insurance fund, or by any other public or private entity. An investment in our common stock is inherently risky for the reasons described in this "Risk Factors" section and elsewhere in this report and is subject to the same market forces that affect the price of common stock in any company. As a result, if you acquire our common stock, you may lose some or all of your investment.

An entity (including a "group" composed of natural persons) owning or controlling with the power to vote 25% or more of our outstanding common stock, or 5% or more if such holder otherwise exercises a "controlling influence" over us, may be subject to regulation as a "bank holding company" in accordance with the BHC Act. In addition, (1) any bank holding company or foreign bank with a U.S. presence may be required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve under the BHC Act to acquire or retain 5% or more of our outstanding common stock, and (2) any person not otherwise defined as a company by the BHC Act and its implementing regulations may be required to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve under the Change in Bank Control Act to acquire or retain 10% or more of our outstanding common stock. Becoming a bank holding company imposes certain statutory and regulatory restrictions and obligations, such as providing managerial and financial strength for its bank subsidiaries. Regulation as a bank holding company could require the holder to divest all or a portion of the holder’s investment in our common stock or such nonbanking investments that may be deemed impermissible or incompatible with bank holding company status, such as a material investment in a company unrelated to banking. Further, on January 30, 2020, the Federal Reserve finalized a rule that simplifies and increases the transparency of its rules for determining when one company controls another company for purposes of the BHC Act. The rule became effective September 30, 2020. The rule has and will likely continue to have a meaningful impact on control determinations related to investments in banks and bank holding companies and investments by bank holding companies in nonbank companies.

Over the past several years, we have faced increased competition for residential mortgage loans due to the unprecedented involvement of the GSEs in the mortgage market as a result of the economic crisis, which has caused the interest rate for 30 year fixed-rate mortgage loans that conform to GSE guidelines to remain artificially low. In addition, the U.S. Congress has expanded the conforming loan limits in many of our operating markets, allowing larger balance loans to continue to be acquired by the GSEs. However, the President of the United States and proposed key cabinet nominees have indicated that reforming the GSE system is a priority item on the administration’s regulatory agenda. It is unknown at this time what reforms, if any, will be made, the extent of the future involvement in the residential mortgage market and the impact of any reforms on that market and the United States economy as a whole.

Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding our financial results and condition. Some of these policies require the use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. Some of our 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. If such estimates or assumptions underlying our financial statements are incorrect, we may experience material losses.

From time to time, the FASB and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards or the interpretation of those standards that govern the preparation of our external financial statements. These changes are beyond our control, can be hard to predict and could materially impact how we report our results of operations and financial condition. We could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in our restating prior period financial statements in material amounts.

Management regularly reviews and updates our internal controls, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the controls are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls and procedures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition.

Our success depends, in large part, on our ability to attract and retain skilled people. Competition for the best people in most activities engaged in by us can be intense, and we may not be able to hire sufficiently skilled people or to retain them. The unexpected loss of services of one or more of our key personnel could have a material adverse impact on our business because of their skills, knowledge of our markets, years of industry experience, and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified replacement personnel.

Our business is primarily relationship-driven in that many of our key employees have extensive customer relationships. Loss of a key employee with such customer relationships may lead to the loss of business if the customers were to follow that employee to a competitor or otherwise choose to transition to another financial services provider. While we believe our relationship with our key personnel is good, we cannot guarantee that all of our key personnel will remain with our organization. Loss of such key personnel could result in the loss of some of our customers.

At December 31, 2021, Associated Bank operated 215 banking branches serving over 100 different communities throughout Wisconsin, Illinois, and Minnesota. Most of the banking locations are freestanding buildings owned by us, with a drive thru and a parking lot; a smaller subset resides in supermarkets and office towers, which are generally leased. Associated Bank also operated loan production offices in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Texas. 

Patrick E. Ahern has been Executive Vice President and Chief Credit Officer of Associated and Associated Bank since February 2020. He served as Deputy Chief Credit Officer from October 2019 to February 2020. Ahern joined Associated as a Senior Vice President in 2010 to manage the CRE portfolio underwriting and administrative teams, before moving into the role Corporate Senior Credit Officer in 2018. He has more than 30 years of experience in CRE and corporate credit, including experience with LaSalle Bank and Bank of America.

Matthew R. Braeger has been Executive Vice President and Chief Audit Executive of Associated and Associated Bank since February 2018. He served as Deputy Chief Audit Executive from October 2017 to February 2018. He joined Associated in April 2013 as Senior Vice President, Business Support Audit Director. Previously, he held audit management positions with Fiserv, Inc. and public accounting audit roles with Ernst & Young, LLP. Braeger has more than 20 years of auditing experience, primarily in banking technology and financial services.

Christopher J. Del Moral-Niles has been Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of Associated and Associated Bank since March 2012. He joined Associated in July 2010 and previously served as Associated’s Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer, and as Corporate Treasurer. From 2006 to 2010, he held various leadership roles for The First American Corporation and its subsidiaries, including serving as Corporate Treasurer and as divisional President of First American Trust, FSB. From 2003 to 2006, Mr. Niles held various positions with Union Bank, including serving as Senior Vice President and Director of Liability Management. Prior to his time with Union Bank, Mr. Niles spent a decade as a financial services investment banker supporting mergers and acquisitions of financial institutions, bank and thrift capital issuances, and bank funding transactions.

Nicole M. Kitowski has been Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of Associated and Associated Bank since February 2018. She joined Associated in 1992 and has held leadership roles in Consumer Banking, Operations and Technology, and Corporate Risk, including Deputy Chief Risk Officer from March 2016 to February 2018 and Corporate BSA, AML, OFAC Officer from June 2014 to March 2016.

Timothy J. Lau has been Executive Vice President, Head of Community Markets of Associated and Associated Bank since June 2014. Mr. Lau previously served as Executive Vice President, Head of Private Client and Institutional Services from December 2010 to June 2014. He joined Associated in 1989 and has held a number of senior management positions in Consumer and Small Business Banking, Residential Lending, and Commercial Banking.

Paul G. Schmidt has been Executive Vice President, Head of CRE of Associated and Associated Bank since January 2016. He joined Associated in April 2015 as Executive Vice President of CRE. He was named Deputy Head of CRE in September 2015. Mr. Schmidt brings more than 32 years of banking experience to Associated. Most recently, he held the position of Executive Vice President, Division Manager, CRE at Wells Fargo from 2002 to 2015.

Tammy C. Stadler has been Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of Associated and Associated Bank since July 2021. She previously served as Executive Vice President, Principal Accounting Officer from April 2017 until July 2021. She joined Associated in April 1996 as Corporate Tax Director and has served as Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller since April 2014. From 1992 to 1996 she was the Assistant Treasurer and Taxes for Air Wisconsin Airline Corp. From 1990 to 1992 she held the position of Senior Tax Analyst with Fort Howard Paper Corp. Prior to her time with Fort Howard, Ms. Stadler worked as a certified public accountant with Coopers and Lybrand and Deloitte and Touche.

David L. Stein has been Executive Vice President, Head of Consumer and Business Banking of Associated and Associated Bank since January 2017 and was named Madison Market President in January 2019. He was previously Executive Vice President, Head of Consumer and Commercial Banking from April 2014 until January 2017 and Executive Vice President, Head of Retail Banking from June 2007 until April 2014. He was the President of the Southwest Region of Associated Bank from January 2005 until June 2007. He held various positions with J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and one of its predecessors, Bank One Corporation, from 1989 until joining Associated in 2005.

John A. Utz has been Executive Vice President, Head of Corporate Banking and Milwaukee Market President of Associated and Associated Bank since September 2015 and was Head of Wealth Management from April 2020 to July 2021. He joined Associated in March 2010 with upwards of 20 years of banking experience, having previously served as President of Union Bank’s UnionBanCal Equities and head of its Capital Markets division from September 2007 to March 2010, and as head of the National Banking and Asset Management teams from October 2002 to September 2007.

Information in response to this item is incorporated by reference to the discussion of dividend restrictions under Part I, Item 1, Business - Supervision and Regulation - Holding Company Dividends, and in Note 10 Stockholders' Equity of the notes to consolidated financial statements included under Part II, Item 8, Financial Statements and Supplementary Data, of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Corporation’s common stock is traded on the NYSE under the symbol ASB.

The number of shareholders of record of the Corporation’s common stock, $0.01 par value, as of January 31, 2022, was 7,456. Certain of the Corporation’s shares are held in “nominee” or “street” name and the number of beneficial owners of such shares is 29,039.

Payment of future dividends is within the discretion of the Board of Directors and will depend, among other factors, on earnings, capital requirements, and the operating and financial condition of the Corporation. The Board of Directors makes the dividend determination on a quarterly basis.

During the fourth quarter of 2021, the Corporation repurchased $25 million of common stock, including $25 million of open market purchases and approximately $285,000 of repurchases related to tax withholding settlements on equity compensation, or approximately 1.1 million shares, of common stock in the aggregate. The repurchase details are presented in the table below. For a detailed discussion of the common stock and depositary share purchases during 2021 and 2020, see Part II, Item 8, Note 10 Stockholders' Equity of the notes to consolidated financial statements.

Set forth below is a line graph (and the underlying data points) comparing the yearly percentage change in the cumulative total shareholder return (change in year-end stock price plus reinvested dividends) on the Corporation’s common stock with the cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index and the S&P 400 Regional Banks Sub-Industry Index for the period of five fiscal years commencing on January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2021. The S&P 400 Regional Banks Sub-Industry Index is comprised of stocks on the S&P Total Market Index that are classified in the regional banks sub-industry. The graph assumes the respective values of the investment in the Corporation’s common stock and each index were $100 on December 31, 2016. Historical stock price performance shown on the graph is not necessarily indicative of the future price performance.

The Total Shareholder Return Performance Graph shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this Annual Report on Form 10-K into any filing under the Securities Act or under the Exchange Act, except to the extent the Corporation specifically incorporates this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under such Acts.

The following discussion is management’s analysis to assist in the understanding and evaluation of the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation. It should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and footnotes and the selected financial data presented elsewhere in this report. Within the tables presented, certain columns and rows may not sum due to the use of rounded numbers for disclosure purposes.

The Corporation is a bank holding company headquartered in Wisconsin, providing a broad array of banking and nonbanking products and services to businesses and consumers primarily within our three-state footprint. The Corporation’s primary sources of revenue, through the Bank, are net interest income (predominantly from loans and investment securities) and noninterest income (principally fees and other revenue from financial services provided to customers or ancillary services tied to loans and deposits).

Net interest income is the primary source of the Corporation’s revenue. Net interest income is the difference between interest income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest expense on interest-bearing deposits and other borrowings used to fund interest-earning and other assets or activities. Net interest income is affected by the amount and composition of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, as well as the sensitivity of the balance sheet to changes in interest rates, including characteristics such as the fixed or variable nature of the financial instruments, contractual maturities, re-pricing frequencies, loan prepayment behavior, and the use of interest rate derivative financial instruments.

Interest rate spread and net interest margin are utilized to measure and explain changes in net interest income. Interest rate spread is the difference between the yield on earning assets and the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities that fund those assets. The net interest margin is expressed as the percentage of net interest income to average earning assets. The net interest margin exceeds the interest rate spread because net free funds, principally noninterest-bearing demand deposits and stockholders’ equity, also support earning assets. To compare tax-exempt asset yields to taxable yields, the yield on tax-exempt loans and investment securities is computed on a fully tax-equivalent basis. Net interest income, interest rate spread, and net interest margin are discussed on a fully tax-equivalent basis.

Table 2 provides average balances of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, the associated interest income and expense, and the corresponding interest rates earned and paid, as well as net interest income, interest rate spread, and net interest margin on a fully tax-equivalent basis for the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019. Table 3 presents additional information to facilitate the review and discussion of fully tax-equivalent net interest income, interest rate spread, and net interest margin.

The provision for credit losses is predominantly a function of the Corporation’s reserving methodology and judgments as to other qualitative and quantitative factors used to determine the appropriate level of the ACLL, which focuses on changes in the size and character of the loan portfolio, changes in levels of individually evaluated and other nonaccrual loans, historical losses and delinquencies in each portfolio category, the risk inherent in specific loans, concentrations of loans to specific borrowers or industries, existing economic conditions and economic forecasts, the fair value of underlying collateral, and other factors which could affect potential credit losses. The forecast the Corporation used for December 31, 2021 was the Moody's baseline scenario from December 2021 over a 2 year reasonable and supportable period with straight-line reversion to historical losses over the second year of the period. See additional discussion under the sections titled Loans, Credit Risk, Nonperforming Assets, and Allowance for Credit Losses on Loans.