WSFS Financial (WSFS) 10-K2019 FY Annual report

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, and exhibits thereto, contains estimates, predictions, opinions, projections and other “forward-looking statements” as that phrase is defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements include, without limitation, references to the Company’s predictions or expectations of future business or financial performance as well as its goals and objectives for future operations, financial and business trends, business prospects and management’s outlook or expectations for earnings, revenues, expenses, capital levels, liquidity levels, asset quality or other future financial or business performance, strategies or expectations. The words “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “estimate,” “target,” “project” and similar expressions, among others, generally identify forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are based on various assumptions (some of which may be beyond the Company’s control) and are subject to risks and uncertainties (which change over time) and other factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from those currently anticipated. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to:

These risks and uncertainties and other risks and uncertainties that could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition or future prospects are discussed herein, including under the heading “Risk Factors,” and in other documents filed by the Company with the SEC. We caution readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. The Company disclaims any duty to revise or update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the Company for any reason, except as specifically required by law.

Pursuant to section 5(c) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA), federal savings banks are generally permitted to invest up to 400% of their total regulatory capital in nonresidential real estate loans and up to 20% of their assets in commercial loans, but no more than 10% may be in loans that do not qualify as small business loans. As a federal savings bank that was formerly chartered as a Delaware savings bank, the Bank has certain additional lending authority.

Commercial, commercial owner-occupied, commercial mortgage and construction loans have higher levels of risk than residential mortgage lending. These loans typically involve larger loan balances concentrated with single borrowers or groups of related borrowers. In addition, the payment experience on loans secured by income-producing properties is typically dependent on the successful operation of the related real estate project and may be more subject to adverse conditions in the commercial real estate market or in the general economy than residential mortgage loans. The majority of our commercial and commercial real estate loans are concentrated in Delaware and Pennsylvania.

We offer commercial real estate mortgage loans on multi-family properties and on other commercial real estate. Generally, loan-to-value ratios for these loans do not exceed 80% of appraised value at origination.

Our commercial mortgage portfolio was $2.2 billion at December 31, 2019. Generally, this portfolio is diversified by property type, with no type representing more than 28% of the portfolio. The largest type is retail-related (non-mall, neighborhood shopping centers and other retail) with balances of $635.3 million at December 31, 2019. The average size of a loan in the commercial mortgage portfolio is $0.8 million and only 17 loans are greater than $12.0 million, with two loans greater than $24.0 million.

We offer commercial construction loans to developers. In some cases these loans are made as “construction/permanent” loans, which provides for disbursement of loan funds during construction with the option of conversion to mini-permanent loans (one - five years) upon completion of construction. These construction loans are short-term, usually not exceeding two years, with interest rates indexed to our WSFS prime rate, the “Wall Street” prime rate or LIBOR, in most cases, and are adjusted periodically as these indices change. The loan appraisal process includes the same evaluation criteria as required for permanent mortgage loans, but also takes into consideration: completed plans, specifications, comparables and cost estimates. Prior to approval of each loan, these criteria are used as a basis to determine the appraised value of the subject property when completed. Our policy requires that all appraisals be reviewed independently from our commercial business development staff. At origination, the loan-to-value ratios for construction loans generally do not exceed 75%. The initial interest rate on the permanent portion of the financing is determined by the prevailing market rate at the time of conversion to the permanent loan. At December 31, 2019, $928.7 million was committed for construction loans, of which $581.1 million was outstanding. The residential construction and land development (CLD) portfolio represented $249.3 million, or 3%, of total loans and 18% of Tier 1 capital (Tier 1 + ALLL), and the commercial CLD portfolio represented $227.3 million, or 3%, of total loans. These portfolios include $23.3 million of “land hold” loans, which are land loans not currently being developed, at December 31, 2019.

Commercial and industrial and owner-occupied commercial loans include loans for working capital, financing equipment and real estate acquisitions, business expansion and other business purposes. These relationships generally range in amounts of up to $70.0 million with an average loan balance in the portfolio of $0.3 million and terms ranging from less than one year to ten years. The loans generally carry variable interest rates indexed to our WSFS prime rate, “Wall Street” prime rate or LIBOR. At December 31, 2019, our commercial and industrial and owner-occupied commercial loan portfolios were $3.3 billion and represented 40% of our total loan portfolio. These loans are diversified by industry, with no industry representing more than 18% of the portfolio.

Federal law limits the Bank’s extensions of credit to any one borrower to 15% of our unimpaired capital (approximately $204.8 million), and an additional 10% if the additional extensions of credit are secured by readily marketable collateral. Extensions of credit include outstanding loans as well as contractual commitments to advance funds, such as standby letters of credit. At December 31, 2019, no borrower had collective (relationship) total extensions of credit exceeding these legal lending limits. Our internal "House Limit" to any one borrowing relationship is $70.0 million.

Generally, we originate held-for-sale residential first mortgage loans with loan-to-value ratios of up to 80% and require private mortgage insurance or government guarantee for up to 35% of the mortgage amount for mortgage loans with loan-to-value ratios exceeding 80%. On a very limited basis, we have originated or purchased loans with loan-to-value ratios exceeding 80% without a private mortgage insurance requirement or government guarantee. At December 31, 2019, the balance of all such loans was approximately $9.8 million.

Our residential mortgage loans generally are underwritten and documented in accordance with standard underwriting criteria published by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Agency, Veterans Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other secondary market participants to assure maximum eligibility for subsequent sale in the secondary market.

To protect the propriety of our liens, we require borrowers to provide title insurance. We also require fire, extended coverage casualty and flood insurance (where applicable) for properties securing residential loans. All properties securing our residential loans are appraised by independent, licensed and certified appraisers and are subject to review in accordance with our standards.

The majority of our adjustable-rate, residential loans have interest rates that adjust yearly after an initial period. The change in rate for the first adjustment date could be higher than the typical limited rate change of two percentage points at each subsequent adjustment date. Adjustments are generally based upon a margin (currently 2.50% for U.S. Treasury index; 2.25% for LIBOR index) over the weekly average yield on U.S. Treasury securities adjusted to a constant maturity, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve).

Usually, the maximum rate on these loans is five percent above the initial interest rate. We underwrite adjustable-rate loans under standards consistent with private mortgage insurance and secondary market underwriting criteria. We do not originate adjustable-rate mortgages with payment limitations that could produce negative amortization.

The adjustable-rate mortgage loans in our loan portfolio help mitigate the risk related to our exposure to changes in interest rates. However, there are unquantifiable credit risks resulting from potential increased costs to the borrower as a result of re-pricing adjustable-rate mortgage loans. During periods of rising interest rates, the risk of default on adjustable-rate mortgage loans may increase due to the upward adjustment of interest costs to the borrower. Further, although adjustable-rate mortgage loans allow us to increase the sensitivity of our asset base to changes in interest rates, the extent of this interest sensitivity is limited by the periodic and lifetime interest rate adjustment limitations. Accordingly, yields on our adjustable-rate mortgages may not adjust sufficiently to compensate for increases to our cost of funds during periods of extreme interest rate increases.

The original contractual loan payment period for residential loans is normally 10 to 30 years. Because borrowers may refinance or prepay their loans without penalty, these loans tend to remain outstanding for a substantially shorter period of time. First mortgage loans customarily include “due-on-sale” clauses. This provision gives us the right to declare a loan immediately due and payable in the event the borrower sells or otherwise disposes of the real property subject to the mortgage. We enforce due-on-sale clauses through foreclosure and other legal proceedings to the extent available under applicable laws.

In general, loans are sold without recourse except for the repurchase right arising from standard contract provisions covering violation of representations and warranties or, under certain investor contracts, a default by the borrower on the first payment. We also have limited recourse exposure under certain investor contracts in the event a borrower prepays a loan in total within a specified period after sale, typically 120 days. The recourse is limited to a pro rata portion of the premium paid by the investor for that loan, less any prepayment penalty collectible from the borrower. There was one repurchase in 2019 with minimal impact, and no repurchases in 2018 and 2017.

Our primary consumer credit products (excluding first mortgage loans) are home equity lines of credit and equity-secured installment loans. At December 31, 2019, home equity lines of credit outstanding totaled $370.5 million and equity-secured installment loans totaled $375.0 million. In total, these product lines represented 66% of total consumer loans. Typically, maximum loan to value (LTV) limits are 85% for primary residences and 70-80% for all other properties. At December 31, 2019, we had $484.2 million in total commitments for home equity lines of credit. Home equity lines of credit offer customers the convenience of checkbook and debit card access, and revolving credit features for a portion of the life of the loan and typically are more attractive in a low interest rate environment. Home equity lines of credit expose us to the risk that falling collateral values may leave us inadequately secured. This credit risk is mitigated as the loans amortize over time.

During 2019 we purchased certain second-lien home equity installment loans through our partnership with Spring EQ, LLC (Spring EQ). These select loans meet or exceed our current underwriting standards and are similar to home equity loans originated through our branch network. Also, during 2019, we grew student loans through our partnership with LendKey Technologies Inc. (LendKey). At December 31, 2019, the LendKey student loans totaled $133.7 million, which are primarily to consolidate existing student debt and are also underwritten in accordance with our current credit standards. The student loans portfolio also includes $127.7 million (as of December 31, 2019) of loans acquired from Beneficial, which are U.S. government guaranteed with little risk of credit loss.

The following table shows the composition of our consumer loan portfolio at year-end for the last five years:

We engage in traditional lending activities primarily in Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey, and contiguous areas of neighboring states. As a federal savings bank, however, we may originate, purchase and sell loans throughout the U.S. We purchase loans from outside our traditional lending area through our relationships with Spring EQ and LendKey, when such purchases are deemed appropriate. We originate fixed-rate and adjustable-rate residential loans through our banking offices and WSFS Mortgage, our mortgage banking company.

Any significant modification or additional exposure to one borrowing relationship exceeding $7.5 million must be approved by the Loan Committee. The Executive Committee of the Board of Directors reviews the minutes of the Loan Committee meetings. The Executive Committee also approves new credit exposures exceeding $20.0 million and new credit exposures in excess of $10.0 million for customers with higher risk profiles or larger existing relationship exposures. Depending upon their experience and management position, individual officers of the Bank have the authority to approve smaller loan amounts. Our credit policy includes a “House Limit” to any one borrowing relationship, which increased from $40.0 million to $70.0 million in March 2019 in connection with the Beneficial acquisition, consistent with overall growth in capital and the size of our loan portfolio. In rare circumstances, we will approve exceptions to the “House Limit.” Our policy allows for only 10 such relationships with an aggregate exposure of 10% of Tier I Capital plus ALLL. At December 31, 2019, two relationships exceeded the $70.0 million “House Limit.”

At December 31, 2019, we serviced $165.7 million of residential first mortgage loans and reverse mortgage loans for others, compared to $98.6 million at December 31, 2018. We also serviced residential first mortgage loans and reverse mortgage loans for our own portfolio totaling $1.0 billion and $218.1 million at December 31, 2019 and 2018 respectively. The increase in servicing portfolio during 2019 was primarily due to the Beneficial acquisition.

Our consumer lending activity is conducted through our branch offices, our partnerships with Spring EQ and LendKey and referrals from other parts of our business. We originate a variety of consumer credit products including home improvement loans, home equity lines of credit, automobile loans, unsecured lines of credit and other secured and unsecured personal installment loans.

We offer government-insured reverse mortgages to our customers. These loans do not close in our name and we process them as a reverse mortgage broker. During 2019 and 2018, we originated $0.6 million and $3.4 million in reverse mortgages, respectively.

We earn fee income from lending activities, including fees for originating loans, servicing loans and selling loans and loan participations. We also receive fee income for making commitments to originate construction, residential and commercial real estate loans. Additionally, we collect fees related to existing loans which include prepayment charges, late charges, assumption fees and interest rate swap fees. As part of the loan application process, the borrower also may pay us for out-of-pocket costs to review the application, whether or not the loan is closed.

Most loan fees are not recognized in our Consolidated Statements of Income immediately, but are deferred as adjustments to yield in accordance with GAAP, and are reflected in interest income over the expected life of the loan. Those fees represented interest income of $7.1 million, $5.5 million and $5.1 million during 2019, 2018 and 2017 respectively. Loan fee income was mainly due to fee accretion on new and existing loans (including the acceleration of the accretion on loans that paid early), loan growth and prepayment penalties. The increase in loan fee income was concentrated in commercial and industrial and construction loans due to the associated growth in these portfolio categories.

Our results of operations can be negatively impacted by nonperforming assets, which include nonaccruing loans, other real estate owned and restructured loans. Nonaccruing loans are those on which the accrual of interest has ceased. Loans are placed on nonaccrual status immediately if, in our opinion, collection is doubtful, or when principal or interest is past due 90 days and collateral is insufficient to cover principal and interest payments. Interest accrued, but not collected at the date a loan is placed on nonaccrual status, is reversed and charged against interest income. In addition, the accretion of net deferred loan fees is suspended when a loan is placed on nonaccrual status. Subsequent cash receipts are applied either to the outstanding principal balance or recorded as interest income, depending on our assessment of the ultimate collectability of principal and interest.

We manage our portfolio to identify problem loans as promptly as possible and take immediate actions to minimize losses. To accomplish this, our Loan Administration and Risk Management Department monitors the asset quality of our loans and investments in real estate portfolios and reports such information to the Credit Policy, Audit and Executive Committees of the Board of Directors and the Bank’s Controller’s Department.

We manage our liquidity risk and funding needs through our Treasury function and our Asset/Liability Committee. We have significant experience managing our funding needs through both borrowings and deposit growth.

As a financial institution, we and the Bank have access to several sources of funding. Among these are:

Our branch strategy has been focused on expanding our market penetration and retail footprint in Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey and attracting new customers in part to provide additional deposit growth. Core customer deposit growth (customer deposits excluding CDs) was $3.2 billion during 2019, a 67% increase over 2018, primarily due to deposits acquired from Beneficial. Excluding $3.0 billion of core customer deposits acquired from Beneficial, core customer deposits increased $248.3 million in 2019, primarily due to increases of $192.8 million in money market accounts and $140.7 million in no- and low-cost checking deposit accounts, partially offset by a decrease of $85.2 million in savings deposits.

WSFS Bank is the largest locally-headquartered community bank in the Delaware and greater Philadelphia region. WSFS Bank primarily attracts deposits through its retail branch offices and loan production offices, in Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey, as well as through our digital banking platforms.

WSFS Bank offers various deposit products to our customers, including savings accounts, demand deposits, interest-bearing demand deposits, money market deposit accounts and certificates of deposit. In addition, WSFS Bank accepts “jumbo” certificates of deposit with balances in excess of $100,000 from individuals, businesses and municipalities.

As a member of the FHLB, we are able to obtain FHLB advances. At December 31, 2019, we had $112.7 million in FHLB advances with a weighted average rate of 2.28%, compared with $328.5 million with a weighted average rate of 2.52% at December 31, 2018. Outstanding advances from the FHLB had rates ranging from 1.50% to 2.79% at December 31, 2019. Pursuant to collateral agreements with the FHLB, the advances are secured by qualifying first mortgage loans, qualifying fixed-income securities, FHLB stock and an interest-bearing demand deposit account with the FHLB. As a member of the FHLB, we are required to purchase and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLB in an amount at least equal to 0.10% of our member asset value plus 4.00% of advances outstanding. As of December 31, 2019, our FHLB stock investment totaled $21.1 million, compared with $19.3 million at December 31, 2018.

We received $1.5 million in dividends from the FHLB during both 2019 and 2018. For additional information regarding FHLB stock, see Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

In 2005, the Trust issued $67.0 million aggregate principal amount of Pooled Floating Rate Securities at a variable interest rate of 177 basis points over the three-month LIBOR rate. These securities are callable and have a maturity date of June 1, 2035.

During 2019 and 2018, we purchased federal funds as a short-term funding source. At December 31, 2019, we had purchased $195.0 million in federal funds at an average rate of 1.60%, compared to $158.0 million at an average rate of 2.52% at December 31, 2018. As of December 31, 2019 and 2018, we had no securities under agreements to repurchase as a funding source.

The Company and the Bank are subject to extensive federal and state banking laws, regulations, and policies that are intended primarily for the protection of depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and the banking system as a whole, and not for the protection of our other creditors and stockholders. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is the Bank’s primary regulator and the Federal Reserve is the Company’s primary regulator. As of the first quarter of 2019, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) regulates the Bank’s compliance with federal consumer financial protection laws.

The statutes enforced by, and regulations and policies of, these agencies affect most aspects of our business, including prescribing permissible types of activities and investments, the amount of required capital and reserves, requirements for branch offices, the permissible scope of our activities and various other requirements.

The Bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC to the fullest extent allowed by law. As an insurer of bank deposits, the FDIC promulgates regulations, conducts examinations, requires the filing of reports and generally supervises the operations of all institutions to which it provides deposit insurance.

The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in 2010, imposed new restrictions and an expanded framework of regulatory oversight for financial institutions and their holding companies, including insured depository institutions. The law also established the CFPB as an independent bureau in the Federal Reserve System. Some of the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have increased our expenses, decreased our revenues, and changed the activities in which we engage.

In May 2018, the Economic Growth Act was signed into law. The Economic Growth Act amends portions of the Dodd-Frank in order to provide regulatory relief to banking organizations such as ourselves. However, several but not all of the reforms are limited to banking organizations with fewer than $10 billion in total consolidated assets. At December 31, 2018, we were below this ceiling. After our merger with Beneficial, which closed on March 1, 2019, our total consolidated assets at both the Company and Bank levels now exceed $10 billion, and thus we are not eligible for many of these changes, including relief from the Volcker Rule, potential relief from risk-based capital requirements, and possible relief from some mortgage lending rules.

One reform relating to the capital treatment of certain commercial real estate (CRE) loans will affect us, notwithstanding our asset size, the current Basel III Capital Rules require a banking organization to risk weight certain CRE loans that were determined to have high volatility at 150% rather than at 100% for other CRE loans. In order to avoid high volatility commercial real estate (HVCRE) status and the higher risk weight, a CRE loan had to meet several requirements, including an equity contribution form the borrower in the form of cash, unencumbered readily marketable assets, or paid development expenses out of pocket. A lender could not return the contribution to the borrower until the loan was paid off or replaced with permanent financing. The Economic Growth Act replaced the HVCRE category with a narrower category for HVCRE acquisition, development, and construction (HVCRE ADC) loans. Among other things, a borrower may now make the necessary equity contribution in the form or real property or improvements, and the lender may reclassify an HVCRE ADC loan more easily, enabling the lender to return the equity contribution to the borrower more quickly. The federal banking agencies issued a final rule in November 2019 to implement these changes. We have not yet determined the impact of these changes on our CRE loan portfolio.

In 2013, the Federal banking agencies approved final rules implementing the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) capital guidelines for U.S. banking organizations. Under the final rules as of January 2015, minimum requirements increased for both the quantity and quality of capital maintained by the Company and the Bank. The rules included a new common equity Tier 1 capital (CETI) to risk-weighted assets minimum ratio of 4.5%, raised the minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets from 4.0% to 6.0%, required a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8.0%, and required a minimum Tier 1 leverage ratio of 4.0%.

In addition, the capital rules subject a banking organization to certain limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers if the organization does not maintain a capital conservation buffer: a ratio of CET1 to total risk-based assets of at least 2.5% on top of the minimum risk-based capital requirements. As a result, the Company and the Bank must adhere to the following minimum capital ratios to satisfy the Basel III Capital Rule requirements and to avoid limitations on capital distributions and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers: (i) 4.0% tier 1 leverage; (ii) 7.0% CET 1 risk-based capital; (iii) 8.5% tier 1 risk-based capital; and (iv) 10.5% total risk-based capital.

The final rules also revised the standards for an insured depository institution to be “well-capitalized” under the banking agencies’ prompt corrective action framework, requiring a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%, Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.0% and total capital ratio of 10.0%, while leaving unchanged the existing 5.0% leverage ratio requirement. Strict eligibility criteria for regulatory capital instruments were also implemented under the final rules. Newly issued trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock may no longer be included in Tier 1 capital. However, for depository institution holding companies of less than $15 billion in total consolidated assets, such as the Company, most outstanding trust preferred securities and other non-qualifying securities issued prior to May 19, 2010 are permanently grandfathered and may be included in Tier 1 capital (up to a limit of 25% of Tier 1 capital, excluding non-qualifying capital instruments). At December 31, 2019, we had approximately $67.0 million of trust preferred securities outstanding, all of which are counted as Tier 1 capital.

As of December 31, 2019, the Company and the Bank met the applicable standards on a fully phased-in basis, and the Bank was “well-capitalized” under the prompt corrective action rules.

In 2014, the Federal banking agencies adopted a “liquidity coverage ratio” requirement (LCR) for large internationally active banking organizations, and in 2016, the agencies proposed a “net stable funding ratio” standard (NSFR) for the same group of institutions. The LCR measures an organizations’ ability to meet liquidity demands over a 30-day horizon; the NSFR would test the same capacity over a one-year horizon. Neither requirement applies directly to the Company or the Bank, but the policies embedded in them may inform the work of the examiners as they consider our liquidity.

The Federal Reserve has issued rules under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, as amended by a section of the Dodd-Frank Act, known as the Durbin Amendment, to limit interchange fees that an issuer may receive or charge for an electronic debit card transaction. Under the rules, the maximum permissible interchange fee that an issuer may receive for an electronic debit transaction is the sum of 21 cents per transaction and five basis points multiplied by the value of the transaction. In addition, the rules allow for an upward adjustment of no more than one cent to an issuer’s debit card interchange fee if the issuer develops and implements policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve the fraud-prevention standards set out in the rule.

The interchange fee requirements do not apply to fees charged by issuers that, together with their affiliates, have assets of less than $10.0 billion on the annual measurement date (December 31). At December 31, 2019, our total consolidated assets at both the Company and Bank levels exceed $10 billion, and, under the terms of the regulation, we must comply with the Durbin Amendment rules no later than July 1, 2020.

In 2014, a committee of private-market derivative participants and their regulators, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee (ARRC), was convened by the Federal Reserve to identify an alternative reference interest rate to replace LIBOR. In June 2017, the ARRC announced the Secured Overnight Funding Rate (SOFR), a broad measure of the cost of borrowing cash overnight collateralized by Treasury securities, as its preferred alternative to LIBOR. In July 2017, the Chief Executive of the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates LIBOR, announced its intention to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR to the administrator of LIBOR after 2021. In April 2018, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York began to publish SOFR rates on a daily basis, and the ARRC and other institutions continue to take steps to advance SOFR as an alternative benchmark.

Given LIBOR’s extensive use across financial markets, the transition away from LIBOR presents various risks and challenges to financial markets and institutions, including to the Company. The Company’s commercial and consumer businesses issue, trade, and hold various products that are indexed to LIBOR. As of December 31, 2019, the Company had approximately $1.5 billion of loans and $957.3 million of derivatives, including notional value of $25.0 million of balance sheet swaps and $932.3 million of customer guarantees, indexed to LIBOR that mature after 2021. In addition, the Company had approximately $167.0 million of debt securities outstanding that are indexed to LIBOR (either currently or in the future) as of December 31, 2019. The Company had no investment securities, repurchase and resale agreements or FHLB advances indexed to LIBOR as of December 31, 2019.

Due to the uncertainty surrounding the future of LIBOR, it is expected that the transition will span several reporting periods through, and potentially beyond, the end of 2021. A cross-functional team from Finance, Lending, Risk and IT is leading our efforts to monitor this activity and evaluate the related risks and potential process changes arising from the transition from LIBOR. Once the initial assessment efforts are completed, the cross-functional team, with assistance from external resources as needed, will lead the transition effort. For additional information related to the potential impact surrounding the transition from LIBOR on the Company’s business, see Item 1A. Risk Factors.

The Company is a registered savings and loan holding company and is subject to the regulation, examination, supervision and reporting requirements of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve conducts regular safety and soundness examinations or inspections of the Company, which result in ratings for risk management, financial condition, and potential impact on subsidiary depository institution(s), a composite rating, and a rating for subsidiary depository institution(s) (referred to collectively as the “RFI/C(D)” rating). The Federal Reserve treats the ratings and the examination reports as highly confidential, and they are not available to the public.

Federal law generally prohibits a savings and loan holding company, without prior regulatory approval, from acquiring direct or indirect control of all, or substantially all, of the assets of any other savings association or savings and loan holding company, or more than 5% of the voting shares of a savings association or savings and loan holding company. These provisions also prohibit, among other things, any director or officer of a savings and loan holding company, or any individual who owns or controls more than 25% of the voting shares of such holding company, from acquiring control of any savings association that is not a subsidiary of such savings and loan holding company, unless the acquisition is approved by the Federal Reserve. Comparable restrictions apply to a savings and loan holding company’s acquisition or control of a bank or bank holding company although in such event the savings and loan holding company would become a bank holding company.

The Company is a grandfathered unitary thrift holding company, a status that allows us to acquire companies or business lines that engage in a wide range of non-banking activities. Should we lose that status, we will be constrained in our ability to acquire many non-banking companies or business lines. We do not currently own any companies that a non-grandfathered unitary thrift holding company would not be allowed to hold.

Savings and loan holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in activities that represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or constitute violations of laws or regulations. For example, the Federal Reserve opposes any repurchase of common stock or any other regulatory capital instrument if the repurchase would be inconsistent with the savings and loan holding company’s prospective capital needs and continued safe and sound operation. As another example, a savings and loan holding company may not impair its subsidiary savings association’s soundness by causing it to make funds available to non-depository subsidiaries or their customers if the Federal Reserve believes it not prudent for the Company to do so. The Federal Reserve can assess civil money penalties on a party for unsafe and unsound activities conducted on a knowing or reckless basis, if those activities caused more than a minimal loss to an institution or pecuniary gain to the party. The penalties can range up to $25,000 for certain reckless violations and up to $1.0 million for certain knowing violations for each day such a violation continues.

Confirming a longstanding policy of the Federal Reserve, the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Company to act as a source of financial strength to the Bank in the event of financial distress at the Bank. Under this standard, the Company is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when the Company would not otherwise be inclined to do so. The Federal Reserve also expects the Company to provide managerial support to the Bank as needed. The Federal Reserve may require a savings and loan holding company to terminate an otherwise lawful activity or divest control of a subsidiary if the activity or subsidiary poses a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness, or stability of a subsidiary savings association and is inconsistent with sound banking principles.

In addition, pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the capital rules for savings and loan holding companies are no less stringent than those that apply to their subsidiary savings associations.

The principal sources of the Company’s cash are debt issuances and dividends from the Bank, supplemented by dividends from its operating subsidiaries (Cypress, Powdermill, West Capital and Christiana Trust DE). Our earnings and activities are affected by federal, state and local laws and regulations. For example, these include limitations on the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to the holding company and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve that holding companies should pay cash dividends on common stock only out of earnings available for the period for which the dividend is being paid and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future capital needs and current and prospective financial condition. The policy provides that holding companies should not maintain a level of cash dividends that undermines the holding company’s ability to serve as a source of strength to its banking subsidiary. Consistent with this policy, a banking organization should have comprehensive policies on dividend payments that clearly articulate the organization’s objectives and approaches for maintaining a strong capital position and achieving the objectives of the Federal Reserve’s policy statement.

In 2009, the Federal Reserve issued a supervisory letter providing greater clarity to its policy statement on the payment of dividends by holding companies. In this letter, the Federal Reserve stated that when a holding company’s board of directors considers the payment of dividends, it should consider, among other things, the following factors: (i) overall asset quality, potential need to increase reserves and write down assets, and concentrations of credit; (ii) the potential for unanticipated losses and declines in asset values; (iii) implicit and explicit liquidity and credit commitments, including off-balance sheet and contingent liabilities; (iv) the quality and level of current and prospective earnings, including earnings capacity under a number of plausible economic scenarios; (v) current and prospective cash flow and liquidity; (vi) the ability to serve as an ongoing source of financial and managerial strength to depository institution subsidiaries insured by the FDIC, including the extent of double leverage and the condition of subsidiary depository institutions; (vii) other risks that affect the holding company’s financial condition and are not fully captured in regulatory capital calculations; (viii) the level, composition, and quality of capital; and (ix) the ability to raise additional equity capital in prevailing market and economic conditions (the Dividend Factors). It is particularly important for a holding company’s board of directors to ensure that the dividend level is prudent relative to the organization’s financial position and is not based on overly optimistic earnings scenarios. In addition, a holding company’s board of directors should strongly consider, after careful analysis of the Dividend Factors, reducing, deferring, or eliminating dividends when the quantity and quality of the holding company’s earnings have declined or the holding company is experiencing other financial problems, or when the macroeconomic outlook for the holding company’s primary profit centers has deteriorated. The Federal Reserve further stated that, as a general matter, a holding company should eliminate, defer or significantly reduce its distributions if: (i) its net income available to shareholders for the past four quarters, net of dividends previously paid during that period, is not sufficient to fully fund the dividends, (ii) its prospective rate of earnings retention is not consistent with its capital needs and overall current and prospective financial condition, or (iii) it will not meet, or is in danger of not meeting, its minimum regulatory capital adequacy ratios. Failure to do so could result in a supervisory finding that the holding company is operating in an unsafe and unsound manner.

Additionally, as discussed above, the Federal Reserve possesses enforcement powers over savings and loan holding companies and their non-bank subsidiaries to prevent or remedy actions that represent unsafe or unsound practices, or violations of applicable statutes and regulations. Among these powers is the authority to proscribe the payment of dividends by bank and savings and loan holding companies.

Cypress and West Capital are registered investment advisers under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Investment Advisers Act) and as such are supervised by the SEC. The Investment Advisers Act imposes numerous obligations on registered investment advisers, including record-keeping, operational and marketing requirements, disclosure obligations and prohibitions on fraudulent activities. The SEC is authorized to institute proceedings and impose sanctions for violations of the Investment Advisers Act, ranging from fines and censure to termination of an investment adviser’s registration. Investment advisers also are subject to certain state securities laws and regulations. Noncompliance with the Investment Advisers Act or other federal and state securities laws and regulations could result in investigations, sanctions, disgorgement, fines and reputation damage.

As a federally chartered savings association the Bank is subject to regulation, examination and supervision by the OCC. The OCC conducts regular safety and soundness examinations of the Bank, which result in ratings for capital, asset quality, management, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity to market risk and a composite rating (referred to collectively as the “CAMELS” rating). The OCC treats the CAMELS ratings and the examination reports as highly confidential, and they are not available to the public. The lending activities and other investments of the Bank must comply with various federal regulatory requirements. The OCC periodically examines the Bank regarding information technology, asset management/trust, and compliance with certain regulatory requirements. The Bank must file reports with the OCC describing its activities and financial condition, including a quarterly “call report” that is publicly available. The FDIC also has the authority to conduct special examinations of the Bank. The CFPB has exclusive authority to examine the Bank for compliance with federal consumer financial laws. The Bank is also subject to certain reserve requirements promulgated by the Federal Reserve.

The Bank is subject to certain restrictions in its dealings with us and our affiliates. Transactions between savings associations and any affiliate are governed by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, with additional limitations found in Section 11 of the Home Owners’ Loan Act. An affiliate of a savings association, generally, is any company or entity which controls or is under common control with the savings association. Some but not all subsidiaries of a savings association may be exempt from the definition of an affiliate. In a holding company context, the parent holding company of a savings association (such as the Company) and any companies which are controlled by such parent holding company are affiliates of the savings association. Generally, Sections 23A and 23B (i) limit the extent to which the savings association 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 limit the aggregate of 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 that would be provided to a non-affiliate. The term “covered transaction” includes the making of loans to an affiliate, purchase of assets from an affiliate, issuance of a guarantee on behalf of an affiliate and several other types of transactions. Extensions of credit to an affiliate usually must be over-collateralized. In addition to the restrictions imposed by Sections 23A and 23B, the Home Owners’ Loan Act also prohibits a savings association from (i) lending or otherwise extending credit to an affiliate that engages in any activity impermissible for bank holding companies, or (ii) purchasing or investing in any stocks, bonds, debentures, notes or similar obligations of any affiliate, except for the purchase of shares of a subsidiary.

Restrictions also apply to extensions of credit by the Bank to its executive officers, directors, principal shareholders, and their related interests and to similar individuals at the Company and the Bank’s affiliates. In general, such extensions of credit (i) may not exceed certain dollar limitations, (ii) must be made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with third parties, and (iii) must not involve more than the normal risk of repayment or present other unfavorable features. Certain extensions of credit also require the approval of the Bank’s Board of Directors.

The Bank may not extend credit, lease, sell property, or furnish any service or fix or vary the consideration for them on the condition that (i) the customer obtain or provide some additional credit, property, or service from or to the Bank or the Company or their subsidiaries (other than a loan, discount, deposit, or trust service or that are related to and usually provided in connection with any such product or service) or (ii) the customer not obtain some other credit, property, or services from a competitor, except to the extent reasonable conditions are imposed to assure the soundness of the credit extended. The Federal banking agencies have, however, allowed banks and savings associations to offer combined-balance products and otherwise to offer more favorable terms if a customer obtains two or more traditional bank products. The law authorizes the Federal Reserve to grant additional exceptions by regulation or order.

The regulatory capital rules require savings associations to maintain common equity Tier 1 equal to 4.5% of risk-weighted assets, Tier 1 capital equal to 6% of risk-weighted assets, total capital (the aggregate of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital) equal to 8% of risk-weighted assets, and a leverage ratio of Tier 1 capital to average total consolidated assets equal to 4%. A related set of rules discussed below under “Prompt Corrective Action,” imposes additional requirements based on the same ratios. Separately, the Home Owners’ Loan Act requires a savings association to maintain a ratio of tangible capital to total assets of at least 1.5%. In general terms, tangible capital is Tier 1 capital less intangible assets and certain other assets.

Under the revised capital rules, the components of common equity Tier 1 capital include common stock instruments (including related surplus), retained earnings, and certain minority interests in the equity accounts of fully consolidated subsidiaries (subject to certain limitations). A savings association must make certain deductions from and adjustments to the sum of these components to determine common equity Tier 1 capital. The required deductions for federal savings associations include, among other items, goodwill (net of associated deferred tax liabilities), certain other intangible assets (net of deferred tax liabilities), certain deferred tax assets, gains on sale in connection with securitization exposures and investments in and extensions of credit to certain subsidiaries engaged in activities not permissible for national banks. The adjustments require several complex calculations and include adjustments to the amounts of deferred tax assets, mortgage servicing assets, and certain investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions that are includable in common equity Tier 1 capital. Additional Tier 1 capital includes noncumulative perpetual preferred stock and related surplus, and certain minority interests in the equity accounts of fully consolidated subsidiaries not included in common equity Tier 1 capital (subject to certain limitations). Tier 2 capital includes subordinated debt with a minimum original maturity of five years, related surplus, certain minority interests in in the equity accounts of fully consolidated subsidiaries not included in Tier 1 capital (subject to certain limitations), and limited amounts of a bank’s allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL). Certain deductions and adjustments are necessary for both additional Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital.

The revised capital rules also modified the risk weights for several types of assets. The risk weights range from 0% for cash, U.S. government securities, and certain other assets, 50% for qualifying residential mortgage exposures, 100% for corporate exposures and non-qualifying mortgage loans and certain other assets, to 600% for certain equity exposures. Loans that are past due by 90 days or more must be risk-weighted at 150%. Mortgage servicing assets and certain deferred tax assets that are not deducted from common equity Tier 1 capital in accordance with required adjustments are risk-weighted at 250%.

The capital rules finalized in 2013 applied a risk weight of 150% to “high volatility commercial real estate loans,” commercial real estate CRE loans that failed to meet certain prerequisites. Among them was an equity contribution by a borrower of 15% of a project’s value, in the form of cash or unencumbered readily marketable assets. Additionally, a lender could not reclassify an HVCRE loan and return to the 100% risk weight until the loan was paid off or replaced by permanent financing. The Economic Growth Act revised this risk weight in several ways, limiting the 150% risk weight to “high volatility acquisition, development, and construction” loans and lifting some of the previous restrictions. A borrower now may make the 15% contribution in the form of equity in the project without jeopardizing the 100% risk weight. A lender may reclassify the loan and risk weight it at 100% before maturity.

At December 31, 2019, the Bank was in compliance with the minimum common equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital, total capital, tangible capital and leverage capital requirements.

The Company is subject to similar minimum capital requirements as the Bank, except that the Company is not subject to a tangible capital requirement. As of December 31, 2019, the Company was in compliance with the minimum common equity Tier 1 capital, Tier 1 capital, total capital, and leverage capital requirements.

All banks and savings associations are subject to a “prompt corrective action” regime. This regime is designed primarily to impose increasingly stringent limits on insured depository institutions as their capital deteriorates below certain levels. There are five different capital levels: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. A well-capitalized institution usually is entitled to various regulatory advantages, such as expedited treatment of applications, and no express restrictions on brokered deposits. The revised capital rules summarized above raised the thresholds for well-capitalized status. In order to be “well capitalized”, an OCC-regulated savings association must have a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.5%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.0%, a total capital ratio of 10.0%, and a 5.0% leverage ratio, and not be subject to any written agreement, order or capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the OCC. An adequately capitalized savings association must maintain a common equity Tier 1 capital ratio of 4.5%, a Tier 1 capital ratio of 6.0%, a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0%, and a leverage ratio of 4.0%. If a savings association falls below any one of these floors, it becomes undercapitalized and subject to a variety of restrictions on its operations. There is no tangible capital requirement under prompt corrective action.

As of December 31, 2019, the Bank met all of the prerequisites for well-capitalized status. Although savings and loan holding companies are not subject to prompt corrective action, the Federal Reserve uses the same capital ratios to identify well capitalized holding companies for various purposes. For the Company to be “well capitalized,” the Bank must be well-capitalized and the Company must not be subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive, or prompt corrective action directive issued by the Federal Reserve to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure. As of December 31, 2019, the Company met all the requirements to be deemed well-capitalized.

Both OCC and Federal Reserve regulations govern capital distributions by Federal savings associations to their holding companies. Covered distributions include cash dividends, stock repurchases and other transactions charged to the capital account of a savings association. A savings association must file a notice with the Federal Reserve at least 30 days before making any capital distribution. The association also must file an application with the OCC for approval of a capital distribution if either (1) the total capital distributions for the current calendar year (including the proposed capital distribution) exceed the sum of the institution’s net income for that year to date plus the institution’s retained net income for the preceding two years, (2) the institution would not be at least adequately capitalized following the distribution, (3) the distribution would violate any applicable statute, regulation, agreement or OCC-imposed condition, or (4) the institution is not eligible for expedited treatment of its filings. In certain situations, a Federal savings association may be able to file a notice with the OCC rather than an application; in other situations, no application or notice is required for the OCC, although notice to the Federal Reserve still is necessary. During 2019, the Bank paid dividends to the Company after receiving approval from the OCC.

The OCC may prohibit a proposed capital distribution, which would otherwise be permitted by OCC regulations, if the OCC determines that such distribution would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice.

Under federal law, an insured depository institution cannot make any capital distribution if the capital distribution would cause the institution to become undercapitalized or if it is already undercapitalized. The FDIC also prohibits an insured depository institution from paying dividends on its capital stock or interest on its capital notes or debentures (if such interest is required to be paid only out of net profits) or distributing any of its capital assets while it remains in default in the payment of any assessment due the FDIC. The Bank is currently not in default in any assessment payment to the FDIC.

The Bank’s deposits are insured to the maximum extent permitted by the Deposit Insurance Fund. As insurer, the FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of, and to require reporting by, insured institutions. It also may prohibit any insured institution from engaging in any activity determined by regulation or order to pose a serious threat to the FDIC. The FDIC also has the authority to initiate enforcement actions against savings associations, after giving the OCC an opportunity to take such action.

The maximum deposit insurance amount per depositor per insured depository institution per certain types of accounts is $250,000.

The FDIC uses a risk-based premium system to calculate quarterly assessments for FDIC-insured institutions. It has revised its methodology from time to time. The current methodology, which has been in place since the third quarter of 2016, has a range of assessment rates from 3 basis points to 30 basis points on insured deposits. All insured depository institutions with the exception of large and complex banking organizations are assigned to one of three risk categories based on their composite CAMELS ratings. Each of the three risk categories has a range of rates, and the rate for a particular institution is determined based on seven financial ratios and the weighted average of its component CAMELS ratings. The FDIC may adjust assessment rates downward as the reserve ratio of the Deposit Insurance Fund exceeds 2.0% and higher thresholds. As of December 31, 2019, the reserve ratio was 1.41%. Future changes in insurance premiums could have an adverse effect on the operating expenses and results of operations and we cannot predict what insurance assessment rates will be in the future.

The FDIC may terminate the deposit insurance of any insured depository institution, including us, if it determines after a hearing that the institution has engaged or is engaging in unsafe or unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, order or any condition imposed by an agreement with the FDIC. It also may suspend deposit insurance temporarily during the hearing process for the permanent termination of insurance, if the institution has no tangible capital. Management is not aware of any existing circumstances that would result in termination of our deposit insurance.

Pursuant to regulations of the Federal Reserve, a savings association must maintain reserves against its transaction accounts. During 2019, no reserves were required to be maintained on the first $16.3 million of transaction accounts, reserves of 3% were required to be maintained against the next $107.9 million of transaction accounts and a reserve of 10% was required to be maintained against all remaining transaction accounts. These percentages are subject to adjustment by the Federal Reserve. Because required reserves must be maintained in the form of vault cash or in a noninterest bearing account at a Federal Reserve Bank, the effect of the reserve requirement may reduce the amount of an institution’s interest-earning assets.

The Bank maintains branch offices in three states, Delaware, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A federal savings association may open new branch offices in any state or relocate branch offices. Prior OCC approval is necessary unless the association is an “eligible” savings association and meets certain other conditions. The Bank currently qualifies as an eligible savings association. If prior approval is necessary, the OCC will consider the effect of the acquisition on a safe and sound banking system, the branch office's role in providing fair access to financial services by helping to meet the credit needs of the entire community, the association's compliance with laws and regulations, and the fair treatment of customers including efficiency and better service. If a federal savings association acquires branch offices through a merger with or through a branch purchase from another bank or savings association, the acquiring federal savings association must submit a Bank Merger Act application to the OCC, which requires a favorable decision on the acquisition of the branch offices. The Bank's growth strategy, which includes strategic acquisitions, will involve regulatory review and approval of additional branch offices. The Bank has grown its branch office network primarily through mergers with other institutions, rather than branch office purchases or de novo offices. A federal savings association also may open agency offices for certain purposes without prior OCC approval. The Bank does not have any agency offices and has no plans to open any such offices.

The Bank’s offerings of retail products and services to consumers are subject to a large number of statutes and regulations designed to protect the finances of consumers and to promote lending to various sectors of the economy and population. These laws include, but are not limited to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and their implementing regulations. Beginning in the first quarter of 2020, the CFPB has exclusive authority to examine the Bank for compliance with these laws. States may adopt more stringent consumer financial protection statutes that could apply to us as well. State attorneys general also may file suit to enforce federal and state laws.

The change in leadership at the CFPB in 2017, the release of a new strategic plan and the publication of formal requests for information on possible changes to its general supervisory program and its enforcement program suggest that the CFPB may be taking a different approach to its implementation of consumer financial protection laws than the agency did when it first began operations, but we are unable to predict what effect, if any, these changes may have on the Bank.

Since its creation in 2011, the CFPB has issued a number of significant rules, including rules that affect nearly every aspect of the residential mortgage lending and servicing process, from origination through maturity or foreclosure. Among other things, the rules require home mortgage lenders to: (i) develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with a “reasonable ability to repay” test and identify whether a loan meets a new definition for a “qualified mortgage,” in which case a rebuttable presumption exists that the creditor extending the loan has satisfied the reasonable ability to repay test; (ii) implement new or revised disclosures, policies and procedures for originating and servicing mortgages including, but not limited to, pre-loan counseling, early intervention with delinquent borrowers and specific loss mitigation procedures for loans secured by a borrower’s principal residence; (iii) comply with additional restrictions on mortgage loan originator hiring and compensation; (iv) comply with new disclosure requirements and standards for appraisals and certain financial products; and (v) maintain escrow accounts for higher-priced mortgage loans for a longer period of time. Some of these rules may be modified, but the CFPB has not finalized any changes.

Several Federal statutes and regulations require savings associations (as well as banks and other financial institutions) to take several steps to protect nonpublic consumer financial information. The Bank has prepared a privacy policy, which it must disclose to consumers annually. In some cases, the Bank must obtain a consumer's consent before sharing information with an unaffiliated third party, and the Bank must allow a consumer to opt out of the Bank's sharing of information with its affiliates for marketing and certain other purposes. Additional conditions come into play in the Bank's information exchanges with credit reporting agencies. The Bank's privacy practices and the effectiveness of its systems to protect consumer privacy are one of the subjects covered in the OCC's periodic compliance examinations.

The Federal banking agencies pay close attention to the cybersecurity practices of savings associations, banks, and their holding companies and affiliates. The interagency council of the agencies, the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, has issued several policy statements and other guidance for banks as new cybersecurity threats arise. FFIEC has recently focused on such matters as compromised customer credentials and business continuity planning. Examinations by the banking agencies now include review of an institution’s information technology and its ability to thwart or mitigate cyber attacks.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires federal savings associations and other financial institutions to establish a risk-based system of internal controls reasonably designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The principal requirements for an insured depository institution include (i) establishment of an anti-money laundering program that includes training and audit components; (ii) establishment of a "know your customer" program involving due diligence to confirm the identity of persons seeking to open accounts and to deny accounts to those persons unable to demonstrate their identities; (iii) the filing of currency transaction reports for deposits and withdrawals of large amounts of currency; (iv) additional precautions for accounts sought and managed for non-U.S. persons; and (v) verification and certification of money laundering risk with respect to private banking and foreign correspondent banking relationships. For many of these tasks a bank must keep records to be made available to its primary federal regulator. Anti- money laundering rules and policies are developed and enforced by a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), but compliance by individual institutions is also overseen by their primary federal regulator, in the Bank's case, the OCC.

Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance has been a special focus of the OCC and the other Federal banking agencies in recent years. Any non-compliance is likely to result in an enforcement action, often with substantial monetary penalties and reputation damage. A savings association or bank that is required to strengthen its compliance program often must put on hold any initiatives that require banking agency approval.

The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), an office within the U.S. Treasury Department, administers laws and Executive Orders that prohibit U.S. entities from engaging in transactions with certain prohibited parties. OFAC publishes lists of persons and organizations suspected of aiding, harboring or engaging in terrorist acts, known as Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Generally, if a bank or savings association identifies a transaction, account or wire transfer relating to a person or entity on an OFAC list, it must freeze the account or block the transaction, file a suspicious activity report and notify the appropriate authorities.

All savings associations and banks are subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which requires each such institution to help meet the credit needs of low- to moderate-income communities and individuals within the institution’s assessment area. CRA does not impose specific lending requirements, and it does not contemplate that a savings association or bank would take any action inconsistent with safety and soundness. The Federal banking agencies evaluate the performance of each of their regulated institutions periodically. Evaluations that result in a conclusion of “Needs to Improve” or “Unsatisfactory” may block or impede regulatory approvals for other actions by an institution. The agencies recently proposed significant changes to the CRA rules, but we do not know when or if the changes will be finalized and what their impact on the Bank would be.

The Bank received a rating of “Satisfactory” in its most recent performance evaluation, dated August 7, 2017, for its then-existing assessment area of the state of Delaware and Montgomery, Chester, and Delaware counties in Pennsylvania. With the merger with Beneficial, the Bank’s branch network expanded, and the Bank anticipates that the OCC will use a larger assessment area in the next CRA evaluation that may include additional counties in the Philadelphia area and counties in southern New Jersey.

We prepare our financial statements in accordance with U.S. GAAP. To supplement our financial information presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP, we provide the following non-GAAP financial measures in Item 1: core ROA, the tangible common equity to tangible assets ratio, core EPS, and core ROTCE. We believe these measures provide investors with useful information for understanding of the company’s performance when analyzing changes in our underlying business between reporting periods and provide for greater transparency with respect to supplemental information used by management in its financial and operational decision making. We believe the presentation of these non-GAAP financial measures, when used in conjunction with GAAP financial measures, is a useful financial analysis tool that can assist investors in assessing the company’s operating performance and underlying prospects. This analysis should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for analysis of our results as reported under GAAP.

We are exposed to downturns in the Delaware and greater Philadelphia region, Mid-Atlantic and overall U.S. economy and housing markets. Unfavorable economic trends, sustained high unemployment, and declines in real estate values can cause a reduction in the availability of commercial credit and can negatively impact the credit performance of commercial and consumer loans, resulting in increased write-downs. These negative trends can cause economic pressure on consumers and businesses and diminish confidence in the financial markets, which may adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to access capital. A worsening of these conditions, such as a recession or economic slowdown, would likely exacerbate the adverse effects of these difficult market conditions on us and others in the financial services industry. In particular, we may face the following risks in connection with these events:

Our operating income and net income depend to a significant extent on our net interest margin, which is the difference between the interest yields we receive on loans, securities and other interest-earning assets and the interest rates we pay on interest-bearing deposits and other liabilities. Net interest margin is affected by changes in market interest rates, because different types of assets and liabilities may react differently, and at different times, to market interest rate changes. When interest-bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly than interest-earning assets in a period, an increase in market rates of interest could reduce net interest income. Similarly, when interest-earning assets mature or reprice more quickly than interest-bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce net interest income. These rates are highly sensitive to many factors beyond our control, including competition, general economic conditions and monetary and fiscal policies of various governmental regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve.

We seek to manage our risk from changes in market interest rates by adjusting the rates, maturity, repricing, and balances of our different types of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, but these interest rate risk management techniques are not capable of eliminating such risks and they may not be as effective as we intend. A rapid increase or decrease in interest rates could have an adverse effect on our net interest margin and results of operations. The results of our interest rate sensitivity simulation models depend upon a number of assumptions which may prove to be inaccurate. We may not be able to successfully manage our interest rate risk. In addition, increases in market interest rates and/or adverse changes in the local residential real estate market, the general economy or consumer confidence would likely have a significant adverse impact on our noninterest income, as a result of reduced demand for residential mortgage loans that we pre-sell.

Interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers, which increase the potential for default and could result in a decrease in the demand for loans. At the same time, the marketability of the property securing a loan may be adversely affected by any reduced demand resulting from higher interest rates. In a declining interest rate environment, there may be an increase in prepayments on loans as borrowers refinance their loans at lower rates. In addition, in a low interest rate environment, loan customers often pursue long-term fixed rate credits, which could adversely affect our earnings and net interest margin if rates increase. Changes in interest rates also can affect the value of loans, securities and other assets. An increase in interest rates that adversely affects the ability of borrowers to pay the principal or interest on loans may lead to an increase in nonperforming assets and a reduction of income recognized, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and cash flows. Further, when we place a loan on nonaccrual status, we reverse any accrued but unpaid interest receivable, which decreases interest income. At the same time, we continue to have a cost to fund the loan, which is reflected as interest expense, without any interest income to offset the associated funding expense. Thus, an increase in the amount of nonperforming assets would have an adverse impact on net interest income.

Our net interest income varies as a result of changes in interest rates as well as changes in interest rates across the yield curve. When interest rates are low, borrowers have an incentive to refinance into mortgages with longer initial fixed rate periods and fixed rate mortgages, causing our securities to experience faster prepayments. Increases in prepayments on our portfolio will cause our premium amortization to accelerate, lowering the yield on such assets. If this happens, we could experience a decrease in interest income, which may negatively impact our results of operations and financial position.

Future changes in interest rates may reduce the market value of our investment securities. In addition, our securities portfolio is subject to risk as a result of our exposure to the credit quality and strength of the issuers of the securities or the collateral backing such securities. Any decrease in the value of the underlying collateral will likely decrease the overall value of our securities, affecting equity and possibly impacting earnings.

Our nonperforming assets, which consist of non-accrual loans, assets acquired through foreclosure and troubled debt restructurings (TDRs) adversely affect our net income in various ways. We do not record interest income on nonaccrual loans and assets acquired through foreclosure. We must establish an allowance for loan and lease losses which reserves for losses inherent in the loan portfolio that are both probable and reasonably estimable. From time to time, we also write down the value of properties in our portfolio of assets acquired through foreclosure to reflect changing market values. Additionally, there are legal fees associated with the resolution of problem assets as well as carrying costs such as taxes, insurance and maintenance related to assets acquired through foreclosure. The resolution of nonperforming assets requires the active involvement of management, which can distract management from daily operations and other income producing activities. Finally, if our estimate of the allowance for loan and lease losses is inadequate, we will have to increase the allowance for loan and lease losses accordingly, which will have an adverse effect on our earnings. Significant increases in the level of our nonperforming assets from the current level, or greater than anticipated costs to resolve these credits, will have an adverse effect on our earnings.

Our commercial loan portfolio includes commercial and industrial loans, commercial real estate loans and construction and land development loans. Commercial real estate loans generally carry larger loan balances and involve a greater degree of risk of nonpayment or late payment than home equity loans or residential mortgage loans. Any significant failure to pay or late payments by our customers would adversely affect our earnings. The increased credit risk associated with these types of loans is a result of several factors, including the concentration of principal in a limited number of loans and borrowers, the larger size of loan balances, and the potential that adverse changes in general economic conditions can adversely affect income-producing properties. A portion of our commercial real estate, construction and land development and commercial and industrial loan portfolios includes a balloon payment feature. A number of factors may affect a borrower’s ability to make or refinance a balloon payment, including the financial condition of the borrower, the prevailing local economic conditions and the prevailing interest rate environment.

Furthermore, commercial and industrial loans secured by owner-occupied properties are dependent upon the successful operation of the borrower’s business. If the operating company suffers difficulties, including reduction in sales volume and/or profitability, the borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Loans secured by properties where repayment is dependent upon payment of rent by third party tenants or the sale of the property may be impacted by loss of tenants, lower lease rates needed to attract new tenants or the inability to sell a completed project in a timely fashion and at a profit.

The occurrence of a major natural or environmental disaster, public health crisis or similar catastrophic event, as well as significant climate change effects such as rising sea levels or wildfires, especially in densely populated geographic areas, could increase our credit losses and credit related expenses. A natural disaster, public health crisis or catastrophic event or other significant climate change effect that either damages or destroys residential or multifamily real estate underlying mortgage loans or REO properties, or negatively affects the ability of borrowers to continue to make payments on loans, could increase our serious delinquency rates and average loan loss severity in the affected areas. Such events could also cause downtowns in economic and market conditions generally, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial results. We may not have adequate insurance coverage for some of these natural, catastrophic, public health or climate change-related events.

Our success depends primarily on the general economic conditions and housing markets in the state of Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania, southern New Jersey and northern Virginia, as a large portion of our loans are made to customers in these markets. This makes us vulnerable to a downturn in the local economy and real estate markets in these areas. Declines in real estate valuations in these markets would lower the value of the collateral securing those loans, which could cause us to realize losses in the event of increased foreclosures. Local economic conditions have a significant impact on the ability of borrowers to repay loans as well as our ability to originate new loans. In addition, weakening in general economic conditions such as inflation, recession, unemployment, natural disasters or other factors beyond our control could negatively affect demand for loans, the performance of our borrowers and our financial results.

We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the loans in our portfolio, including the creditworthiness of our borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many of our loans. In determining the amount of the allowance for loan and lease losses, we review our loans and our loss and delinquency experience, and we evaluate economic conditions. If our assumptions are incorrect, our allowance for loan and lease losses may not be sufficient to cover probable or incurred losses in our loan portfolio, resulting in unanticipated losses and additions to our allowance for loan and lease losses. While we believe that our allowance for loan and lease losses was adequate at December 31, 2019, there is no assurance that it will be sufficient to cover future loan and lease losses, especially if there is a significant deterioration in economic conditions. Material additions to our allowance for loan and lease losses could materially decrease our net income.

A key part of our strategy is to grow deposits. The market for deposits is highly competitive, with intense competition in attracting and retaining deposits. We compete on the basis of the rates we pay on deposits, features and benefits of our products, the quality of our customer service and the competitiveness of our digital banking capabilities. Our ability to originate and maintain deposits is also highly dependent on the strength of the Bank and the perceptions of customers and others of our business practices and our financial health. Adverse perceptions regarding our reputation could lead to difficulties in attracting and retaining deposits accounts. Negative public opinion could result from actual or alleged conduct in a number of areas, including lending practices, regulatory compliance, inadequate protection of customer information or sales and marketing activities, and from actions taken by regulators or others in response to such conduct.

The demand for the deposit products we offer may also be reduced due to a variety of factors, such as demographic patterns, changes in customer preferences, reductions in consumers’ disposable income, regulatory actions that decrease customer access to particular products or the availability of competing products. Competition from other financial services firms and others that use deposit funding products may affect deposit renewal rates, costs or availability. Changes we make to the rates offered on our deposit products may affect our profitability and liquidity.

The FDIA prohibits an insured bank from accepting brokered deposits or offering interest rates on any deposits significantly higher than the prevailing rate in the bank’s normal market area or nationally (depending upon where the deposits are solicited), unless it is “well capitalized,” or it is “adequately capitalized” and receives a waiver from the FDIC. A bank that is “adequately capitalized” and accepts brokered deposits under a waiver from the FDIC may not pay an interest rate on any deposit in excess of 75 basis points over certain prevailing market rates. There are no such restrictions under the FDIA on a bank that is “well capitalized” and at December 31, 2019, the Bank met or exceeded all applicable requirements to be deemed “well capitalized” for purposes of the FDIA. However, the Bank may not continue to meet these requirements. Limitations on the Bank’s ability to accept brokered deposits for any reason (including regulatory limitations on the amount of brokered deposits in total or as a percentage of total assets) in the future could materially adversely impact our funding costs and liquidity. Any limitation on the interest rates the Bank can pay on deposits could competitively disadvantage us in attracting and retaining deposits and have a material adverse effect on our business. In December 2019, the FDIC proposed changes to its brokered deposit rule, but we cannot predict what changes, if any, would be finalized or what the impact on the Bank would be.

Our principal sources of liquidity include customer deposits, FHLB borrowings, brokered certificates of deposit, sales of loans, repayments to the Bank from borrowers and paydowns and sales of investment securities. Our ability to obtain funds from these sources could become limited, or our costs to obtain such funds could increase, due to a variety of factors, including changes in our financial performance, the imposition of regulatory restrictions on us, or adverse developments in the capital markets, including weakening economic conditions or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole. If our ability to obtain necessary funding is limited or the costs of such funding increase, our ability to meet our obligations or grow our banking business would be adversely affected and our financial condition and results of operations could be harmed.

We are subject to extensive federal and state regulation, supervision and examination governing almost all aspects of our operations. The laws and regulations governing our business are intended primarily to protect depositors, our customers, the public, the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund, and the banking system as a whole, and not our stockholders or holders of our debt. The Federal Reserve is the primary federal regulator for the Company and the OCC is the Bank’s primary regulator. The banking laws, regulations and policies applicable to us govern a variety of matters, including certain debt obligations, changes in control, maintenance of adequate capital, and general business operations, including permissible types, amounts and terms of loans and investments, the amount of reserves held against deposits, restrictions on dividends, establishment of new offices and the maximum interest rate that may be charged by law. In addition, federal and state banking regulators have broad authority to supervise our banking business, including the authority to prohibit activities that represent unsafe or unsound banking practices or constitute violations of statute, rule, regulation or administrative order. Failure to appropriately comply with any such laws, regulations or regulatory policies could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties or damage to our reputation, all of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

We are subject to changes in federal and state banking statutes, regulations and governmental policies, and their interpretation or implementation. Regulations affecting banks and other financial institutions in particular are undergoing continuous review and frequently change and the ultimate effect of such changes cannot be predicted. Regulations and laws may be modified at any time, and new legislation may be enacted that will affect us. Any changes in any federal and state law, as well as regulations and governmental policies could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including ways that may adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

Some of the regulatory changes mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act have increased our expenses, decreased our revenues and changed the activities in which we choose to engage. The Dodd-Frank Act as amended by the Economic Growth Act impose various requirements on banking organizations with more than $10 billion in total consolidated assets and exempt those with fewer assets from some obligations. As of December 31, 2019, we exceeded the $10 billion threshold, after the acquisition of Beneficial and accordingly we have become subject to requirements from which we had been or would have been exempt. Among other things, we will become subject to limits on interchange fees that we may charge on debit card transactions, and we are now under the jurisdiction of the CFPB regarding consumer finance laws. We will remain subject to the Volcker Rule, and certain amendments to the capital rules that benefit small community institutions do not extend to us. Additional compliance costs may adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects.

Certain of our subsidiaries are registered with the SEC as investment advisers and, as such, are subject to regulation, supervision and enforcement by the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act.

The Bank Secrecy Act, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, and other laws and regulations require financial institutions, among other duties, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports when appropriate. These laws and regulations also provide that we are ultimately responsible to ensure our third party vendors adhere to the same laws and regulations. In addition to other bank regulatory agencies, FinCEN is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the state and federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, CFPB, Drug Enforcement Administration, and Internal Revenue Service.

We are also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by OFAC regarding, among other things, the prohibition on transacting business with, and the need to freeze assets of, certain persons and organizations identified as a threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. If our policies, procedures and systems or those of our third party vendors are deemed deficient, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions, which may include restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the necessity to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including any acquisition plans. Any of these results could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

The Community Reinvestment Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose community investment and nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CFPB, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. Adverse findings in an evaluation of an institution’s performance under the Community Reinvestment Act or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity, restrictions on expansion, and restrictions on entering new business lines. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge an institution’s performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation. Such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and future prospects.

The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of money and credit in the U.S. Its policies determine in large part the cost of funds for lending and investing and the return earned on those loans and investments, both of which affect our net interest margin. Its policies can also adversely affect borrowers, potentially increasing the risk that they may fail to repay their loans. Congress controls fiscal policy through decisions on taxation and expenditures. Depending on industries and markets involved, changes to tax law and increased or reduced public expenditures could affect us directly or the business operations of our customers. Changes in Federal Reserve policies, fiscal policy, and our regulatory environment generally are beyond our control, and we are unable to predict what changes may occur or the manner in which any future changes may affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Although we expect that the capital and debt markets will cease to use LIBOR as a benchmark in the near future and no later than December 31, 2021, we cannot predict whether LIBOR will actually cease to be available after 2021, whether SOFR will become the market benchmark in its place or what impact such a transition may have on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The selection of SOFR as the alternative reference rate for these products currently presents certain market concerns because SOFR (unlike LIBOR) does not have an inherent term structure. A methodology has been developed to calculate SOFR-based term rates, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has said that it will publish such rates daily in the early part of 2020. However, the methodology has not been tested, and the market reaction is not foreseeable. In addition, SOFR may not be a suitable alternative to LIBOR for all of our financial products, and it is uncertain what other rates might be appropriate for that purpose. It is uncertain whether these other indices will remain acceptable alternatives for such products, or how long it will take us to develop the systems and processes necessary to purchase adjustable rate mortgages tied to SOFR or other new indices.

The replacement of LIBOR also may result in economic mismatches between different categories of instruments that now consistently rely on the LIBOR benchmark. For example, the SOFR-based term rates that ARRC has developed for adjustable rate mortgages would be calculated in a different way and with different results than calculations of the SOFR-based term rates for floating rate notes and securitizations.

We have a significant amount of financial products, including mortgage loans, mortgage-related securities, other debt securities and derivatives, that are tied to LIBOR, and we continue to enter into transactions involving such products that will mature after 2021. Inconsistent approaches to a transition from LIBOR to an alternative rate among different market participants and for different financial products may cause market disruption and operational problems, which could adversely affect us, including by exposing us to increased basis risk and resulting costs in connection, and by creating the possibility of disagreements with counterparties.

Banking and thrift organizations with $10 billion or more in assets are subject to debit card interchange fee restrictions set forth in section 1075 of the Dodd-Frank Act, known as the Durbin Amendment, and implemented by regulations of the Federal Reserve, cap the maximum debit interchange fee that an issuer may receive per transaction at the sum of 21 cents plus five basis points. An issuer that adopts certain fraud prevention procedures may charge an additional one cent per transaction. Debit card issuers with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, are exempt from these interchange fee restrictions. For issuers originally under the $10 billion asset threshold but that expand above it, the exemption ceases to apply as of July 1st of the year following the calendar year in which the issuer has total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more at year-end. In March 2019, the Bank merged with Beneficial Bank, and as of December 31, 2019, held approximately $12.3 billion in assets. As a result, the Bank will become subject to the interchange restrictions of the Durbin Amendment beginning July 1, 2020. WSFS is evaluating and monitoring the financial impact of becoming subject to the Durbin Amendment.

Additionally, an insured depository institution with $10 billion or more in total assets is subject to supervision, examination, and enforcement with respect to consumer protection laws by the CFPB. Under its current policies, the CFPB will assert jurisdiction in the first quarter after the call reports of merging insured depository institutions, on a combined basis, show total consolidated assets of $10 billion or more for four consecutive quarters, including quarters ended prior to the mergers. As a result, WSFS Bank becomes subject to CFPB supervision, examination, and enforcement at the beginning of the first quarter of 2020.

Other regulatory requirements apply, and have previously applied, to insured depository institution holding companies and insured depository institutions with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets. Congress and/or regulatory agencies may impose new requirements or surcharges on such institutions in the future. The Economic Growth Act, includes provisions that, as they are implemented, relieve banking organizations with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets (and that satisfy certain other conditions) from risk-based capital requirements, restrictions on proprietary trading and investment and sponsorship in hedge funds and private equity funds known as the Volcker Rule, and certain other regulatory requirements. By exceeding $10 billion in total consolidated assets, WSFS and WSFS Bank will not qualify for any of this relief.

There is no assurance that the benefits of the mergers will outweigh the regulatory costs resulting from WSFS and WSFS Bank growing to more than $10.0 billion in total consolidated assets.

We have established processes and procedures intended to identify, measure, monitor and control material risks to which we are subject, including, for example, credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, strategic risk and operational risk.

We seek to monitor and control our risk exposure through a framework that includes our risk appetite statement, enterprise risk assessment process, risk policies, procedures and controls, reporting requirements, credit risk culture and governance structure. Management of our risks in some cases depends upon the use of analytical and/or forecasting models. If the models that we use to manage these risks are ineffective at predicting future losses or are otherwise inadequate, we may incur unexpected losses or otherwise be adversely affected. In addition, the information we use in managing our credit and other risk may be inaccurate or incomplete as a result of error or fraud, both of which may be difficult to detect and avoid. There may also be risks that exist, or that develop in the future, that we have not appropriately anticipated, identified or mitigated, including when processes are changed or new products and services are introduced. If our risk management framework does not effectively identify and control our risks, we could suffer unexpected losses or be adversely affected, and that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Failures in, or breaches of, our computer systems and network infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors or other service providers, including as a result of cyber-attacks, could disrupt our business, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our computer equipment against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect the computer systems and network infrastructure utilized by us, including our Internet banking activities, against damage from physical break-ins, cybersecurity breaches and other disruptive problems caused by the Internet or other users. Cybersecurity breaches and other disruptions would jeopardize the security of information stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability to us and damage to our reputation, and may discourage current and potential customers from using our Internet banking services. Our security measures, including firewalls and penetration testing, may not prevent or detect future potential losses from system failures or cybersecurity breaches.

In the normal course of business, we collect, process, and retain sensitive and confidential information regarding our customers. Although we devote significant resources and management focus to ensuring the integrity of our systems through information security and business continuity programs, our facilities and systems, and those of our third-party service providers, are vulnerable to external or internal security breaches, acts of vandalism, computer viruses, misplaced or lost data, programming or human errors, or other similar events. In particular, the technologies and digital solutions we have introduced as part of our Delivery Transformation initiative, including our enhanced website and personalized messaging app, are susceptible to these events. We and our third-party service providers have experienced all of these events in the past and expect to continue to experience them in the future. These events could interrupt our business or operations, result in significant legal and financial exposure, supervisory liability, regulatory enforcement action, damage to our reputation, loss of customers and business or a loss of confidence in the security of our systems, products and services. Although the impact to date from these events has not had a material adverse effect on us, we cannot be sure this will be the case in the future. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Information security risks for financial institutions like us have increased recently in part because of new technologies, the use of the internet and telecommunications technologies (including mobile devices) to conduct financial and other business transactions and the increased sophistication and activities of organized crime, perpetrators of fraud, hackers, terrorists and others. In addition to cyber-attacks or other security breaches involving the theft of sensitive and confidential information, hackers recently have engaged in attacks against large financial institutions that are designed to disrupt key business services, such as consumer-facing web sites. We are not able to anticipate or implement effective preventive measures against all security breaches of these types, especially because the techniques used change frequently and because attacks can originate from a wide variety of sources. Our early detection and response mechanisms may be thwarted by sophisticated attacks and malware designed to avoid detection.

Our use of third-party service providers exposes us to the risk of failures in their risk and control environments. We outsource certain key functions to external parties, including some that are critical to financial reporting (including our use of hedge accounting), valuations, our mortgage-related investment activity, loan underwriting, and loan servicing. We may enter into other key outsourcing relationships in the future and continue to expand our existing reliance on third-party service providers. If one or more of these key external parties were not able to perform their functions for a period of time, perform them at an acceptable service level or handle increased volumes, or if one of them experiences a disruption in its own business or technology from any cause, our business operations could be constrained, disrupted, or otherwise negatively affected. Our use of third-party service providers also exposes us to the risk of losing intellectual property or confidential information and to other harm, including to our reputation. Our ability to monitor the activities or performance of third-party service providers may be constrained, which may make it difficult for us to assess and manage the risks associated with these relationships.

Goodwill and other intangible assets arise when a business is purchased for an amount greater than the net fair value of its identifiable assets. We have recognized goodwill as an asset on the balance sheet in connection with several recent acquisitions. We evaluate goodwill and intangibles for impairment at least annually. Although we have determined that goodwill and other intangible assets were not impaired during 2019, a significant and sustained decline in our stock price and market capitalization, a significant decline in our expected future cash flows, a significant adverse change in the business climate, slower growth rates or other factors could result in impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets. Any future write-down of the goodwill or intangible assets could result in a material charge to earnings.

From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) or the SEC may change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of the Company’s financial statements. In addition, the FASB, SEC, banking regulators and the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm may also amend or even reverse their previous interpretations or positions on how various standards should be applied. These changes may be difficult to predict and could impact how we prepare and report the Company’s financial statements. In some cases, the Company could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, potentially resulting in the Company restating prior period’s financial statements.

For more information related to the impacts of ASU 2016-13, see Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

From time to time, we have and may become party to various litigation claims and legal proceedings. Our businesses involve the risk that clients or others may sue us, claiming that we have failed to perform under a contract or otherwise failed to carry out a duty perceived to be owed to them. Our trust, custody and investment management businesses are particularly subject to this risk. This risk may be heightened during periods when credit, equity or other financial markets are deteriorating in value or are particularly volatile, or when clients or investors are experiencing losses. In addition, as a publicly-held company, we are subject to the risk of claims under the federal securities laws, and volatility in our stock price and those of other financial institutions increases this risk. Actions brought against us may result in injunctions, settlements, damages, fines or penalties, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations or require changes to our business. Even if we defend ourselves successfully, the cost of litigation may be substantial, and public reports regarding claims made against us may cause damage to our reputation among existing and prospective clients or negatively impact the confidence of counterparties, rating agencies and stockholders, consequently negatively affecting our earnings.

In the ordinary course of our business, we also are subject to various regulatory, governmental and enforcement inquiries, investigations and subpoenas. These may be directed generally to participants in the businesses in which we are involved or may be specifically directed at us. In enforcement matters, claims for disgorgement, the imposition of civil and criminal penalties and the imposition of other remedial sanctions are possible.

WSFS Bank provides indenture trustee and loan agency services, including administrative and collateral agent fee-based services for first lien, second lien, debtor-in-possession and exit facilities, and WSFS Bank professionals work with ad hoc committees, unsecured creditors’ committees, borrowers and other professionals involved in restructuring and bankruptcy. In this capacity, in the normal course of business, WSFS Bank may be named as a party in litigation. Although WSFS Bank has no credit or direct exposure in conjunction with this administrative role, the fact that the Bank’s name appears in the case caption may create the erroneous impression that WSFS Bank may have financial exposure in such a lawsuit.

Actual outcomes, losses and related expenses of pending legal proceedings may differ materially from assessments and estimates, and may exceed the amount of any reserves we have established, which could adversely affect our reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

We are pursuing a significant growth strategy for our business. Our growth initiatives have required us to recruit experienced personnel to assist in such initiatives. The failure to retain such personnel would place significant limitations on our ability to successfully execute our growth strategy. In addition, as we expand our lending beyond our current market areas, we could incur additional risk related to those new market areas. We may not be able to expand our market presence in our existing market areas or successfully enter new markets.

A weak economy, low demand and competition for credit may impact our ability to successfully execute our growth plan and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations, reputation and growth prospects. While we believe we have the executive management resources and internal systems in place to successfully manage our future growth, there can be no assurance growth opportunities will be available or that we will successfully manage our growth.

We regularly evaluate potential acquisitions and expansion opportunities. If appropriate opportunities present themselves, we expect to engage in selected acquisitions or other business growth initiatives or undertakings. We may not successfully identify appropriate opportunities, may not be able to negotiate or finance such activities and such activities, if undertaken, may not be successful.

We have historically pursued acquisitions, and may seek acquisitions in the future. We may not be able to successfully identify suitable candidates, negotiate appropriate acquisition terms, complete proposed acquisitions, successfully integrate acquired businesses into the existing operations, or expand into new markets. Once integrated, acquired operations may not achieve levels of revenues, profitability, or productivity comparable with those achieved by our existing operations, or otherwise perform as expected.

Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including difficulties in the integration of the operations, technologies, services and products of the acquired companies, and the diversion of management’s attention from other business concerns. We may not properly ascertain all such risks prior to an acquisition or prior to such a risk impacting us while integrating an acquired company. As a result, difficulties encountered with acquisitions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Furthermore, we must generally receive federal regulatory approval before we can acquire another insured depository institution or its holding company. In determining whether to approve a proposed acquisition, federal regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the financial condition of the acquiring institution and the target, the future prospects of the acquiring institution, including current and projected capital levels, the competence, experience, and integrity of management, compliance with laws and regulations, the convenience and needs of the communities to be served, including the acquiring institution’s record of compliance under the Community Reinvestment Act, and the effectiveness of the acquiring institution in combating money laundering. In addition, we cannot be certain when or if, or on what terms and conditions, any required regulatory approvals will be granted. Consequently, we may not obtain regulatory approval for a proposed acquisition on acceptable terms or at all, in which case we would not be able to complete the acquisition despite the time and expenses invested in pursuing it.

If we are unable to successfully combine the business of WSFS and Beneficial, the anticipated benefits of the merger, including expected revenue synergies, may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. As with any merger of financial institutions, integration efforts have diverted management attention and resources, and, although we have completed the systems integration and rebranding of Beneficial, there may be business disruptions that affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients, customers, depositors and employees or to achieve the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the merger. These integration matters could have an adverse effect on WSFS for an undetermined period following the completed systems integration of Beneficial.

Although we have completed the systems integration of Beneficial, we expect to continue to incur substantial expenses in connection with combining the business, operations, networks, systems, technologies, policies and procedures of Beneficial. Although we have assumed that a certain level of transaction and combination expenses would be incurred, there are a number of factors beyond our control that could affect the total amount or the timing of combination expenses. Due to these factors, the transaction and combination expenses associated with the merger could exceed the savings we expect to achieve from the elimination of duplicative expenses and the realization of economies of scale and cost savings following the consummation of the merger. As a result of these expenses, we expect to continue to take charges against our earnings even though the merger and systems integration are complete, and the aggregate amount and timing of such charges are uncertain at present.

We have devoted substantial resources to our strategic Delivery Transformation initiative. The success of this initiative will depend on, among other things, our ability to upgrade our technology and digital solutions in a manner that improves experiences of customers and employees. If we are unable to successfully achieve this objective, the anticipated benefits of the Delivery Transformation initiative may not be realized fully, or at all, or may take longer to realize than expected. Additionally, the implementation of new technologies and digital solutions may cause business disruptions that affect our ability to maintain relationships with clients, customers, depositors and employees and could have an adverse effect on WSFS for an undetermined period.

We use quantitative models to help manage certain aspects of our business and to assist with certain business decisions, including estimating probable loan losses, measuring the fair value of financial instruments when reliable market prices are unavailable and estimating the effects of changing interest rates and other market measures on our financial condition and results of operations. Our modeling methodologies rely on many assumptions, historical analyses and correlations. These assumptions may be incorrect, particularly in times of market distress, and the historical correlations on which we rely may no longer be relevant. Additionally, as businesses and markets evolve, our measurements may not accurately reflect this evolution. Even if the underlying assumptions and historical correlations used in our models are adequate, our models may be deficient due to errors in computer code, bad data, misuse of data, or the use of a model for a purpose outside the scope of the model’s design.

As a result, our models may not capture or fully express the risks we face, may suggest that we have sufficient capitalization when we do not, or may lead us to misjudge the business and economic environment in which we will operate. If our models fail to produce reliable results on an ongoing basis, we may not make appropriate risk management or other business or financial decisions. Furthermore, strategies that we employ to manage and govern the risks associated with our use of models may not be effective or fully reliable, and as a result, we may realize losses or other lapses.

During the fourth quarter of 2018, the Board of Directors of the Company approved a stock buyback program that enables us to repurchase up to 3,136,978 shares of common stock after the closing of our acquisition of Beneficial, which occurred on March 1, 2019.

Under the program, purchases may be made from time to time in the open market or through negotiated transactions, subject to market conditions and other factors, and in accordance with applicable securities laws. The program is consistent with our intent to return a minimum of 25% of annual net income to stockholders through dividends and share repurchases while maintaining capital ratios in excess of “well-capitalized” regulatory benchmarks.