Annual Report (10-k)

The following risk factors could affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. These risk factors should be considered in connection with evaluating the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report because they could cause the actual results and conditions to differ materially from those projected in forward-looking statements. Before you buy our common stock, you should know that investing in our common stock involves risks, including the risks described below. The risks that are highlighted here are not the only ones we face. If the adverse matters referred to in any of the risks actually occur, our business, financial condition or operations could be adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you may lose all or part of your investment.

Adverse changes in economic conditions or interest rates may negatively affect our earnings, capital and liquidity.

The results of operations for financial institutions, including our bank, may be materially and adversely affected by changes in prevailing local and national economic conditions, including declines in real estate market values and the related declines in value of our real estate collateral, rapid increases or decreases in interest rates and changes in the monetary and fiscal policies of the federal government. Our profitability is heavily influenced by the spread between the interest rates we earn on loans and investments and the interest rates we pay on deposits and other interest-bearing liabilities. Substantially all of our loans are to businesses and individuals in Western, Central, and Southeastern Michigan, and any decline in the economy of these areas could adversely affect us. Like most banking institutions, our net interest spread and margin will be affected by general economic conditions and other factors that influence market interest rates and our ability to respond to changes in these rates. At any given time, our assets and liabilities may be such that they will be affected differently by a given change in interest rates.

Significant declines in the value of commercial real estate could adversely impact us.

Approximately 65% of our total commercial loans, or about 56% of our total loans, relate to commercial real estate. Stressed economic conditions may reduce the value of commercial real estate and strain the financial condition of our commercial real estate borrowers, especially in the land development and non-owner occupied commercial real estate segments of our loan portfolio. Those difficulties could adversely affect us and could produce losses and other adverse effects on our business.

Market volatility may adversely affect us.

The capital and credit markets may experience volatility and disruption. In some cases, the markets have produced downward pressure on stock prices and credit availability for certain issuers without apparent regard to those issuers’ underlying financial strength. Future levels of market disruption and volatility may have an adverse effect, which may be material, on our ability to access capital and on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our future success is dependent on our ability to compete effectively in the highly competitive banking industry.

We face substantial competition in all phases of our operations from a variety of different competitors. Our future growth and success will depend on our ability to compete effectively in this highly competitive environment. We compete for deposits, loans and other financial services with numerous Michigan-based and national and regional banks, thrifts, credit unions and other financial institutions as well as other entities that provide financial services, including securities firms and mutual funds. Some of the financial institutions and financial service organizations with which we compete are not subject to the same degree of regulation as we are. Many of our competitors have been in business for many years, have established customer bases, are larger, have substantially higher lending limits than we do and offer larger branch networks and other services which we do not, including trust and international banking services. Most of these entities have greater capital and other resources than we do, which, among other things, may allow them to price their services at levels more favorable to the customer and to provide larger credit facilities than we do. This competition may limit our growth or earnings. Under specified circumstances (that have been modified by the Dodd-Frank Act and EGRRCPA), securities firms and insurance companies that elect to become financial holding companies under the Bank Holding Company Act may acquire banks and other financial institutions. Federal banking law affects the competitive environment in which we conduct our business. The financial services industry is also likely to become more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies to provide financial services. These technological advances may diminish the importance of depository institutions and other financial intermediaries in the transfer of funds between parties.

Our risk management systems may fall short of their intended objectives.

We seek to monitor and control our risk exposure through a risk and control framework encompassing a variety of separate but complementary financial, credit, operational, compliance and legal reporting systems, internal controls, management review processes and other mechanisms. Our risk management process seeks to balance our ability to profit from investing or lending positions with our exposure to potential losses. While we employ a broad and diversified set of risk monitoring and risk mitigation techniques, those techniques and the judgments that accompany their application cannot anticipate every economic and financial outcome or the specifics and timing of such outcomes. Thus, we may, in the course of our activities, incur losses.

We may not be able to successfully adapt to evolving industry standards and market pressures.

Our success depends, in part, on the ability to adapt products and services to evolving industry standards. There is increasing pressure to provide products and services at lower prices. This can reduce net interest income and noninterest income from fee-based products and services. In addition, the widespread adoption of new technologies could require us to make substantial capital expenditures to modify or adapt existing products and services or develop new products and services. We may not be successful in introducing new products and services in response to industry trends or developments in technology, or those new products may not achieve market acceptance. As a result, we could lose business, be forced to price products and services on less advantageous terms to retain or attract clients, or be subject to cost increases. As a result, our business, financial condition, or results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our inability to execute or integrate potential future acquisitions successfully could impede us from realizing all of the benefits of the acquisitions, which could weaken our operations.

In addition to pursuing organic growth, we may also pursue strategic acquisition opportunities that we believe will fit our core philosophy and culture, enhance our profitability and provide appropriate risk-adjusted returns. These acquisition opportunities could be material to our business and involve a number of risks, including the following:

If we are unable to successfully integrate potential future acquisitions, we could be impeded from realizing all of the benefits of those acquisitions and could weaken our business operations. The integration process may disrupt our business and, if implemented ineffectively, may preclude realization of the full benefits expected by us and could harm our results of operations. In addition, the overall integration of the combining companies may result in unanticipated problems, expenses, liabilities and competitive responses, and may cause our stock price to decline. The difficulties of integrating an acquisition include, among others:

Finally, even if the operations of an acquisition are integrated successfully, we may not realize the full benefits of the acquisition, including the synergies, cost savings or growth opportunities we expect. These benefits may not be achieved within the anticipated time frame as well.

Our inability to overcome these risks could have an adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy, which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.

Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and we routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial industry. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. Even routine funding transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the financial instrument exposure due us. There is no assurance that any such losses would not materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

The timing and effect of Federal Reserve Board policy normalization remains uncertain.

In September 2014, the Federal Reserve Board announced principles it would follow to implement monetary policy normalization, that is, to raise the Federal funds rate and other short-term interest rates to more historically normal levels and to reduce the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings, so as to promote its statutory mandate of maximum employment and price stability. The Federal Open Market Committee (“FOMC”) took the initial step in that process by raising the Federal funds rate by 25 basis points in December 2015, the first such action since December 2008. Subsequently, the FOMC refined the normalization principles and announced greater detail about its planned approach. In September 2017, the FOMC announced the start of a gradual reduction in the Federal Reserve’s securities holdings, commencing in October 2017. In each of March, June, September and December 2018, the FOMC raised the Federal funds rate by 25 basis points, and announced its intention to continue to raise the Federal funds rate gradually over the next few years. In January 2019, the FOMC announced its intention to continue to implement monetary policy in a regime in which an ample supply of reserves ensures that control of the Federal funds and other short-term interest rates is exercised primarily through adjustment of its administered rates. The FOMC stated that it was prepared to adjust the details of the reduction of its balance sheet in light of economic and financial developments, and would be prepared to use its full range of tools, including changing the size and composition of its balance sheet, if future economic conditions warranted a more accommodative monetary policy than could be achieved solely by reducing the Federal funds rate.

In July 2019, the FOMC announced the cessation of the reduction in its securities portfolio and reduced the Federal funds rate by 25 basis points. In August 2019, the FOMC commenced reinvestment of principal payments received from agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities (“MBS”) in Treasury securities and agency MBS, as well as the rollover of maturing Treasury securities in its portfolio. In September 2019, the FOMC again lowered the Federal funds rate by 25 basis points. In October 2019, the FOMC issued a reaffirmation of its January 2019 statement, and announced that in light of recent and expected increases in the Federal Reserve’s non-reserve liabilities and in order to maintain ample reserve balances over time at or above levels prevailing in early September 2019, the Federal Reserve would purchase Treasury bills at least into the second quarter of 2020. The statement also announced that the Federal Reserve would conduct term and overnight repurchase agreement operations at least through January 2020 to ensure that the supply of reserves remained ample, even during periods of sharp increases in non-reserve liabilities, and to mitigate the risk of money market pressures. At its regular October 2019 meeting, the FOMC again lowered the Federal funds rate by 25 basis points. There can be no assurance that the operations announced in October 2019 will continue, that they will be effective to accomplish their stated policy goals, or as to the actual impact of those operations and policies on the financial markets, the broader economy, or on our business, financial condition, results of operations, access to credit or the trading price of our common stock.

The effect of financial services legislation and regulations remains uncertain.

In response to the financial crisis, on July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Act, the most comprehensive reform of the regulation of the financial services industry since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. Among many other things, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for increased supervision of financial institutions by regulatory agencies, more stringent capital requirements for financial institutions, major changes to deposit insurance assessments by the FDIC, prohibitions on proprietary trading and sponsorship or investment in hedge funds and private equity funds by insured depository institutions, holding companies, and their affiliates, heightened regulation of hedging and derivatives activities, a greater focus on consumer protection issues, in part through the formation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) having powers formerly split among different regulatory agencies, extensive changes to the regulation of residential mortgage lending, imposition of limits on interchange transaction and network fees for electronic debit transactions and repeal of the prohibition on payment of interest on demand deposits. Many of the Dodd-Frank Act’s provisions have delayed effective dates, while other provisions require implementing regulations of various federal agencies, some of which have not yet been adopted in final form.

On February 3, 2017, however, President Trump signed Executive Order 13772, specifying new core principles for regulating the U.S. financial system. Among other things, the President directed the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with federal regulatory agencies, to review existing laws and regulations and report on the extent to which they were consistent with the core principles. The Treasury Department has published several reports in response to the Executive Order. In addition, beginning in February 2017, Congress passed, and the President signed, more than a dozen resolutions under the Congressional Review Act, repealing various federal regulations, including regulations adopted by the CFPB.

On May 24, 2018, EGRRCPA was enacted, amending numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. While some of the changes affect only much larger institutions, a number of provisions relax or eliminate restrictions applicable to us and our bank. Among these latter changes are: simplified capital adequacy requirements; exemption from the proprietary trading and other restrictions of the Volcker Rule; less frequent periodic supervisory examinations; reductions in certain periodic reporting requirements; exclusion of specified amounts of reciprocal deposits, received by our bank from other insured depository institutions, from the “brokered deposit” limitations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act; revised capital treatment for certain high volatility commercial real estate loans; and relaxation of certain requirements applicable to residential mortgage loans made to our customers.

While some of those EGRRCPA changes became effective immediately upon enactment, many others required implementing regulations by the federal banking agencies before becoming effective. At the dates indicated, the federal banking agencies adopted regulations in final form, applicable to us and our bank, implementing EGRRCPA provisions simplifying capital adequacy requirements (September 2019), granting exemption from the proprietary trading and other restrictions of the Volcker Rule (July 2019), reducing the frequency of periodic supervisory examinations (December 2018), reducing certain periodic reporting requirements (June 2019), excluding specified amounts of reciprocal deposits, received by our bank from other insured depository institutions, from the “brokered deposit” limitations of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (March 2019), providing clarifications and revised capital treatment for certain high volatility commercial real estate loans as well as clarifying the capital treatment of certain financings of one-to-four family residential properties and the development of land (November 2019), and relaxing appraisal requirements for certain real property mortgage transactions (September 2019).

Other proposals to modify existing regulations are pending. For example, the FDIC (which regulates our bank) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) proposed in December 2019 significant revisions to their respective versions of the existing uniform regulations (jointly adopted by the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and the OCC) that implement the Community Reinvestment Act. The Federal Reserve (which regulates our company) has not proposed changes to its version of the existing joint regulations. There can be no assurance whether or when any proposed changes in existing regulations will be adopted.

Thus, the effect of financial services legislation and regulations remains uncertain. The implementation, amendment, or repeal of federal financial services laws or regulations may limit our business opportunities, impose additional costs on us, impact our revenues or the value of our assets, or otherwise adversely affect our business.

Our credit losses could increase and our allowance may not be adequate to cover actual loan losses.

The risk of nonpayment of loans is inherent in all lending activities, and nonpayment, when it occurs, may have a materially adverse effect on our earnings and overall financial condition as well as the value of our common stock. Our focus on commercial lending may result in a larger concentration of loans to small businesses. As a result, we may assume different or greater lending risks than other banks. We make various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of our loan portfolio and provide an allowance for losses based on several factors. If our assumptions are wrong, our allowance may not be sufficient to cover our losses, which would have an adverse effect on our operating results. The actual amounts of future provisions for loan losses cannot be determined at this time and may exceed the amounts of past provisions. Additions to our allowance decrease our net income.

We rely heavily on our management and other key personnel, and the loss of any of them may adversely affect our operations.

We are and will continue to be dependent upon the services of our management team, including our executive officers and our other senior managers. The unanticipated loss of our executive officers, or any of our other senior managers, could have an adverse effect on our growth and performance.

In addition, we continue to depend on our key commercial loan officers. Several of our commercial loan officers are responsible, or share responsibility, for generating and managing a significant portion of our commercial loan portfolio. Our success can be attributed in large part to the relationships these officers as well as members of our management team have developed and are able to maintain with our customers as we continue to implement our community banking philosophy. The loss of any of these commercial loan officers could adversely affect our loan portfolio and performance, and our ability to generate new loans. Many of our key employees have signed agreements with us agreeing not to compete with us in one or more of our markets for specified time periods if they leave employment with us. However, we may not be able to effectively enforce such agreements.

Some of the other financial institutions in our markets also require their key employees to sign agreements that preclude or limit their ability to leave their employment and compete with them or solicit their customers. These agreements make it more difficult for us to hire loan officers with experience in our markets who can immediately solicit their former or new customers on our behalf.

Future sales of our common stock or other securities may dilute the value of our common stock.

In many situations, our Board of Directors has the authority, without any vote of our shareholders, to issue shares of our authorized but unissued preferred or common stock, including shares authorized and unissued under our equity incentive plans. In the future, we may issue additional securities, through public or private offerings, in order to raise additional capital. Any such issuance would dilute the percentage of ownership interest of existing shareholders and may dilute the per share book value of the common stock. In addition, option holders under our stock-based incentive plans may exercise their options at a time when we would otherwise be able to obtain additional equity capital on more favorable terms.

We are subject to significant government regulation, and any regulatory changes may adversely affect us.

The banking industry is heavily regulated under both federal and state law. These regulations are primarily intended to protect customers, the federal deposit insurance fund, and the stability of the U.S. financial system, not our creditors or shareholders. Existing state and federal banking laws subject us to substantial limitations with respect to the making of loans, the purchase of securities, the payment of dividends and many other aspects of our business. Some of these laws may benefit us, others may increase our costs of doing business, or otherwise adversely affect us and create competitive advantages for others. Regulations affecting banks and financial services companies undergo continuous change, which may be accelerated by the recent change in the federal administration, and we cannot predict the ultimate effect of these changes, which could have a material adverse effect on our profitability or financial condition. Federal economic and monetary policy may also affect our ability to attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory interest spreads.

Minimum capital requirements have increased.

The provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act relating to capital to be maintained by financial institutions approach convergence with the standards (generally known as Basel III) adopted in December, 2010 by the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. Among other things, those standards contain a narrower definition of elements qualifying for inclusion as Tier 1 capital and higher minimum risk-based capital levels than those specified in previous U.S. law and regulations. In July, 2013, the U.S. federal bank regulatory agencies adopted regulations to implement the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and Basel III for U.S. financial institutions. The new regulations became applicable to us and our bank effective January 1, 2015.

The new regulations implemented (i) revised definitions of regulatory capital elements, (ii) a new common equity Tier 1 (“CET 1”) minimum capital ratio requirement, (iii) an increase in the existing minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement, (iv) new limits on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if an institution does not hold a specified amount of CET 1 (called a capital conservation buffer) in addition to the amount required to meet its minimum risk-based capital requirements, (v) new risk-weightings for certain categories of assets, and (vi) other requirements applicable to banking organizations which have total consolidated assets or total consolidated on-balance sheet foreign exposure exceeding specified amounts (that are greatly in excess of those of us and our bank), which elect to use the advanced measurement approach for calculating risk-weighted assets, or which are subsidiaries of banking organizations that use the advanced measurement approach (“Advanced Approaches Entities”).

Among other things, the new regulations generally require banking organizations to recognize in regulatory capital most components of accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”), including accumulated unrealized gains and losses on available for sale securities. This requirement, which was not imposed under previous risk-based capital regulations, may be avoided by banking organizations, such as us and our bank, that are not Advanced Approaches Entities, by making a one-time, irrevocable election on the first quarterly regulatory report following the date on which the regulations become effective as to them. We made the one-time, irrevocable election regarding the treatment of AOCI on March 31, 2015.

In addition, the new regulations (unlike the original proposal), permit companies such as us, which had total assets of less than $15 billion on December 31, 2009, and had issued trust preferred securities on or prior to May 19, 2010, to continue to include such securities in Tier 1 capital.

On January 1, 2015, for banking organizations such as us and our bank that are not Advanced Approaches Entities, the new regulations mandated a minimum ratio of CET 1 to standardized total risk-weighted assets (“RWA”) of 4.5%, an increased ratio of Tier 1 capital to RWA of 6.0% (compared to the prior requirement of 4.0%), a total capital ratio (that is, the sum of Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital to RWA) of 8.0%, and a minimum leverage ratio (that is, Tier 1 capital to adjusted average total consolidated assets) of 4.0%. The calculation of these amounts is affected by the new definitions of certain capital elements. The capital conservation buffer comprised solely of CET 1 was phased-in commencing January 1, 2016, beginning at 0.625% of RWA and rising to 2.5% of RWA on January 1, 2019. Failure by a banking organization to maintain the aggregate required minimum capital ratios and capital conservation buffer will impair its ability to make certain distributions (including dividends and stock repurchases) and discretionary bonus payments to executive officers.

In July 2019, the federal banking agencies adopted final rules applicable to banking organizations, like us and our bank, that are not Advanced Approaches Entities. Those rules, which became effective January 1, 2020, provide simpler regulatory capital requirements with respect to mortgage servicing assets, certain deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences, and investments in the capital of unconsolidated financial institutions, than those previously applied. The same rule-making also simplified the calculation for the amount of capital issued by a consolidated subsidiary of a banking organization and held by third parties (sometimes referred to as a minority interest) that is includable in regulatory capital.

The increased minimum capital requirements may adversely affect our ability (and that of our bank) to pay cash dividends, reduce our profitability, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In the event of a need for additional capital to meet these requirements, there can be no assurance of our ability to raise funding in the equity and capital markets. Factors that we cannot control, such as the disruption of financial markets or negative views of the financial services industry generally, could impair our ability to raise qualifying equity capital. In addition, our ability to raise qualifying equity capital could be impaired if investors develop a negative perception of our financial prospects. If we were unable to raise qualifying equity capital, it might be necessary for us to sell assets in order to maintain required capital ratios. We may be unable to sell some of our assets, or we may have to sell assets at a discount from market value, either of which could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and financial condition.

On May 24, 2018, EGRRCPA was enacted, amending numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. Among other things, the new law directs the federal banking agencies to develop a Community Bank Leverage Ratio (“CBLR”). The CBLR, to be set between 8% and 10% of tangible equity capital to average total consolidated assets, would apply to Qualified Community Banks. The law defines Qualified Community Banks as those depository institutions and depository institution holding companies having total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion that meet other specified risk criteria, to be determined by regulations of the federal banking agencies based on factors prescribed in the statute. A Qualified Community Bank satisfying the CBLR, by reason of the EGRRCPA provision, would be deemed to be in compliance with all applicable leverage and risk-based capital requirements and, in the case of a depository institution, be deemed “well-capitalized” for purposes of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

In February 2019, the federal banking agencies published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rule-making to implement this EGRRCPA capital adequacy provision. Final rules were adopted by each of the federal banking agencies in November 2019, which became effective January 1, 2020. The final rules represent an alternative to the capital adequacy rules that became applicable to us and our bank on January 1, 2015, and that are described above (the generally applicable rules).

The final rules are available to each “Qualifying Community Banking Organization” as defined in the final rules (a “QCBO”). To be a QCBO, a banking organization must satisfy the following criteria: (i) not be an Advanced Approaches Entity; (ii) have a leverage capital ratio greater than 9%; (iii) total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion; (iv) total off-balance sheet exposures (excluding certain derivatives) of 25% or less of total consolidated assets; and (v) a sum of total trading assets and trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets. For this purpose, the leverage capital ratio of a banking organization is the ratio of its Tier 1 capital to its average total consolidated assets.

A banking organization meeting the QCBO criteria may elect to opt in to the CBLR framework (an electing banking organization). An electing banking organization is deemed to have met the “well-capitalized” ratio requirements of, and otherwise to be in compliance with, the generally applicable rules. It will not be required to calculate and report risk-based capital ratios under the generally applicable rules. In the case of an electing banking organization that is an insured bank, it will also be considered to have met the well-capitalized ratio requirements of the prompt corrective action provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

If an electing banking organization subsequently fails to satisfy any of the criteria of a QCBO, but continues to report a leverage capital ratio greater than 8%, it may continue to use the CBLR framework for a grace period of up to two quarters. As long as the electing banking organization can return to compliance with all of the QCBO criteria within the two quarters, it will continue to be deemed to meet the “well-capitalized” ratio requirements and be in compliance with the generally applicable rules. A banking organization will be required to comply with the generally applicable rules, and file the relevant regulatory reports, if it: (i) is unable to restore compliance with all of the QCBO criteria (including the greater than 9% leverage capital ratio) during the two-quarter grace period; (ii) reports a leverage capital ratio of 8% or less; or (iii) ceases to satisfy the QCBO criteria because of a merger transaction.

In February 2019, the federal banking agencies published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rule-making to implement this EGRRCPA capital adequacy provision. The proposal would establish a CBLR of 9% tangible equity to average total consolidated assets. Under the proposal, a bank or bank holding company having less than $10 billion in average total consolidated assets would need to meet several requirements in order to be a Qualified Community Bank. The proposed requirements include that the bank or bank holding company: have no affiliation with a banking organization subject to the advanced approaches capital rule; have mortgage servicing rights of 25% or less of CBLR tangible equity; have deferred tax assets arising from temporary timing differences, net of valuation allowances, of 25% or less of CBLR tangible equity; have off-balance-sheet exposures (excluding derivative exposures and unconditionally cancellable commitments) of 25% or less of total consolidated assets; have total trading assets and trading liabilities of 5% or less of total consolidated assets; and have a CBLR greater than 9%. As required by EGRRCPA, the proposal also includes detailed provisions addressing the treatment of a formerly Qualified Community Bank that failed to satisfy one or more of the proposed requirements, or whose CBLR fell below 9%. There can be no assurance whether, or when, this proposed rule-making will lead to the adoption of regulations, or as to the content of any regulations eventually adopted.

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, and such capital may not be available when needed or at all.

We may need or want to raise additional capital in the future to provide us with sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet our commitments and business needs, particularly if our asset quality or earnings were to deteriorate significantly. Our ability to raise additional capital will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control, and our financial performance. Economic conditions and any loss of confidence in financial institutions generally may increase our cost of funding and limit access to certain customary sources of capital.

There can be no assurance that capital will be available on acceptable terms or at all. Any occurrence that may limit our access to the capital markets, such as a decline in the confidence of equity or debt purchasers, or counterparties participating in the capital markets, may adversely affect our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, potentially, our liquidity. Also, if we need to raise capital in the future, we may have to do so when many other financial institutions are also seeking to raise capital and would have to compete with those institutions for investors. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a materially adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in the method of determining Libor, or the replacement of Libor with an alternative reference rate, may adversely affect interest income or expense.

Many of the commercial loans we make bear interest at a floating rate based on Libor, the London inter-bank offered rate. We pay interest on certain subordinated notes related to our trust preferred securities at rates based on Libor.

On July 27, 2017, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority, which oversees Libor, formally announced that it could not assure the continued existence of Libor in its current form beyond the end of 2021, and that an orderly transition process to one or more alternative benchmarks should begin. In June 2017, the Alternative Reference Rates Committee (“ARRC”), a steering committee comprised of large U.S. financial institutions organized by the Federal Reserve, announced that it had selected a modified version of the unpublished Broad Treasuries Financing Rate as the preferred alternative reference rate for U.S. dollar obligations. That rate, now referred to as the Secured Overnight Funding Rate (“SOFR”), is determined based upon actual transactions in certain portions of the bi-lateral and tri-party overnight repurchase agreement markets for certain U.S. Treasury obligations. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York began publication of the SOFR in April 2018.

In February 2018, an international consortium of market participant trade associations published the IBOR Global Benchmark Survey 2018 Transition Roadmap (“Roadmap”). The Roadmap summarizes the background to the use of inter-bank offered rate benchmarks, discusses perceived reasons for reform, and identifies problems that may be encountered in making a transition to new interest rate benchmarks. Those potential problems include market adoption, liquidity, legal, valuation and risk management, infrastructure, tax, accounting, governance and control, and regulatory issues.

In May 2018, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange began trading SOFR futures contracts. The existence of a futures market may permit the development of a SOFR term curve. In July 2018, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) issued bonds using SOFR (an overnight rate) as a pricing mechanism. This was possible because of an unusual bond structure, in which interest was payable quarterly, but the interest reset period was daily.

In January 2019, ICE Benchmark Administration, the current provider of Libor, proposed for comment to market participants a U.S. Dollar ICE Bank Yield Index. This index would be based on two types of U.S. dollar-denominated transaction data: primary market wholesale, unsecured funding transactions for large, internationally active banks; and secondary market transactions in wholesale, unsecured bonds issued by large, internationally active banks. These data would be used to construct a yield curve from which one-month, three-month and six-month settings could be obtained. Following comments from market participants on its initial proposal, in October 2019, the ICE Benchmark Administration announced changes to the methodology of calculation of its index (which it is continuing to test), and its intent both to seek contractual commitments from large, internationally active banks to provide primary market U.S. dollar funding data, and to develop a robust governance framework for the production of its index. If those steps were accomplished and the resulting index were accepted by market participants, it might furnish commercial bank-based term rates more directly comparable to the existing structure of Libor than the government securities repurchase agreement-based overnight SOFR.

During 2019, among other things, the ARRC published a white paper on ways in which market participants could use SOFR in cash markets, conducted surveys of market participants, engaged with cognizant U.S. government agencies regarding tax, securities, and derivatives issues presented by the transition from Libor, published sample transition provisions for a variety of types of loan and note agreements, and investigated methods by which a forward-looking term SOFR index could be established. To facilitate the development of a generally-recognized forward-looking SOFR index, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (“FRBNY”) recently announced that, on March 2, 2020, it would begin publication of 30-, 90-, and 180-day SOFR Averages, as well as a SOFR Index. The announcement described the respective methods of calculation of the SOFR Averages and the SOFR Index, and specifics regarding their publication. FRBNY also stated that, following launch of the SOFR Averages and the SOFR Index, it would consider the potential benefits of introducing calendar month-based rates and/or adding further tenors as additional reference rates.

In July 2019, both FNMA and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“FHLMC”) announced their intention to develop new adjustable-rate mortgage loan products based on SOFR. In February 2020, FNMA and FHLMC each announced that they would: (i) require inclusion of ARRC-recommended transition language in all single-family adjustable rate mortgage (“ARM”) loans closed on or after June 1, 2020; (ii) require all Libor-based single-family and multi-family ARM loans to have loan application dates on or before September 30, 2020 in order to be eligible for acquisition; and (iii) cease acquisition of single-family and multi-family Libor ARM loans on or before December 31, 2020. In addition, each of FNMA and FHLMC stated that they anticipate beginning acquisition of SOFR ARM loans during the second half of 2020, using an index based upon SOFR averages.

Bank regulatory agencies reiterated their resolve that the banking organizations they supervise should be prepared for the phase-out of Libor. In December 2019, the OCC highlighted the issue in its semiannual risk perspective, noting that its examiners will be monitoring institutions’ exposure to Libor and their strategies to mitigate resulting risks. Also in December 2019, the New York Department of Financial Services wrote to each of its regulated institutions, noting the impending unavailability of Libor, the development of SOFR, and the risks posed by transition, and required by February 2020, a written response from each institution regarding its own risk assessment and planning. In January 2020, the Bank of England and the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority underscored the unavailability of Libor after 2021, and demanded to see “clear evidence of engagement” from February 2020 that institutions were making the transition from Libor in their operations.

It is unclear whether, or in what form, Libor will continue to exist after 2021. Any transition to an alternative benchmark will require careful consideration and implementation so as not to disrupt the stability of financial markets. If Libor ceases to exist, we may need to take a variety of actions, including negotiating certain of our agreements based on an alternative benchmark that may be established, if any. There is no guarantee that a transition from Libor to an alternative benchmark will not result in financial market disruptions, significant changes in benchmark rates, or adverse changes in the value of certain of our loans, and our income and expense.

Our accounting policies and methods are the basis for how we prepare our consolidated financial statements, and they require management to make estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain.

Accounting policies and processes are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. We must exercise judgment in selecting and applying many of these accounting policies and processes so they comply with U.S. GAAP. In some cases, we must select the accounting policy or method to apply from two or more alternatives, any of which may be reasonable under the circumstances, yet may result in our reporting materially different results than would have been reported under a different alternative.

We have identified certain accounting policies as being critical because they require us to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. Materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions or estimates. We have established detailed policies and control procedures that are intended to ensure these critical accounting estimates and judgments are well controlled and applied consistently. In addition, the policies and procedures are intended to ensure that the process for changing methodologies occurs in an appropriate manner. Because of the uncertainty surrounding management’s judgments and the estimates pertaining to these matters, we cannot guarantee that we will not be required to adjust accounting policies or restate prior period financial statements. For additional information, see “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” beginning on page F-4 of this Annual Report and “Note 1 – Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” beginning on page F-42 of this Annual Report.

We continually encounter technological change, and we may have fewer resources than our competitors to continue to invest in technological improvements.

The banking industry is undergoing technological changes with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to better serving customers, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands for convenience as well as create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements than we do. There can be no assurance that we will be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers.

Our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws and the laws of the State of Michigan contain provisions that may discourage or prevent a takeover of our company and reduce any takeover premium.

Our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, and the corporate laws of the State of Michigan, include provisions which are designed to provide our Board of Directors with time to consider whether a hostile takeover offer is in our and our shareholders’ best interest. These provisions, however, could discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or prevent a change in control. The provisions also could diminish the opportunities for a holder of our common stock to participate in tender offers, including tender offers at a price above the then-current market price for our common stock. These provisions could also prevent transactions in which our shareholders might otherwise receive a premium for their shares over then-current market prices, and may limit the ability of our shareholders to approve transactions that they may deem to be in their best interest.

The Michigan Business Corporation Act contains provisions intended to protect shareholders and prohibit or discourage various types of hostile takeover activities. In addition to these provisions and the provisions of our Articles of Incorporation and By-laws, federal law requires the Federal Reserve Board’s approval prior to acquiring “control” of a bank holding company. All of these provisions may delay or prevent a change in control without action by our shareholders and could adversely affect the price of our common stock.

The full impact of recent changes in U.S. tax laws remains uncertain.

The enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the “Act”) on December 22, 2017 made significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code, many of which are highly complex and may require interpretations and implementing regulations. As a result of the Act’s reduction of the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 21%, we recorded a one-time, non-cash charge to federal income tax expense of $1.3 million during the fourth quarter of 2017 to reduce the value of our net deferred tax assets. See Note 11 of our Consolidated Financial Statements.

Furthermore, the expected impact of certain aspects of the statute remains unclear and subject to change. The Act includes a number of provisions that will have an impact on the banking industry, borrowers and the market for residential real estate. These changes include: a lower limit on the deductibility of mortgage interest on single-family residential mortgage loans; the elimination of interest deductions for home equity loans; a limitation on the deductibility of business interest expense; and a limitation on the deductibility of property taxes and state and local income taxes. The Act may have an adverse effect on the market for and the valuation of residential properties, as well as on the demand for such loans in the future, and could make it harder for borrowers to make their loan payments. The value of the properties securing such loans in our loan portfolio may be adversely impacted as a result of the changing economics of home ownership. Such an impact could require an increase in our provision for loan losses, which would reduce our profitability and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

There is a limited trading market for our common stock.

The price of our common stock has been, and will likely continue to be, subject to fluctuations based on, among other things, economic and market conditions for bank holding companies and the stock market in general, as well as changes in investor perceptions of our company. The issuance of new shares of our common stock also may affect the market for our common stock.

Our common stock is traded on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “MBWM.” The development and maintenance of an active public trading market depends upon the existence of willing buyers and sellers, the presence of which is beyond our control. While we are a publicly-traded company, the volume of trading activity in our stock is still relatively limited. Even if a more active market develops, there can be no assurance that such a market will continue, or that our shareholders will be able to sell their shares at or above the price at which they acquired shares.

Our business is subject to operational risks.

We, like most financial institutions, are exposed to many types of operational risks, including the risk of fraud by employees or outsiders, unauthorized transactions by employees or operational errors. Operational errors may include clerical or record keeping errors or those resulting from faulty or disabled computer or telecommunications systems. Given our volume of transactions, certain errors may be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and successfully corrected. Our necessary dependence upon automated systems to record and process our transaction volume may further increase the risk that technical system flaws or employee tampering or manipulation of those systems will result in losses that are difficult to detect.

We may also be subject to disruptions of our operating systems arising from events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, including, for example, computer viruses or electrical or telecommunications outages, which may give rise to losses in service to customers and to loss or liability to us. We are further exposed to the risk that our external vendors may be unable to fulfill their contractual obligations to us, or will be subject to the same risk of fraud or operational errors by their respective employees as are we, and to the risk that our or our vendors’ business continuity and data security systems prove not to be adequate. We also face the risk that the design of our controls and procedures proves inadequate or is circumvented, causing delays in detection or errors in information. Although we maintain a system of controls designed to keep operational risks at appropriate levels, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses from operational risks in the future that may be material in amount.

We face the risk of cyber-attack to our computer systems.

In the ordinary course of business, we collect and store sensitive data, including proprietary business information and personally identifiable information of our customers and employees in systems and on networks. The secure processing, maintenance and use of this information is critical to our operations. To date, we have not experienced a significant compromise, significant data loss or any material financial losses related to cybersecurity attacks, but our systems and those of our customers and third-party service providers are under constant threat, and it is possible that we could experience a significant event in the future. Cybersecurity threats include unauthorized access, loss or destruction of data (including confidential client information), account takeovers, unavailability of service, computer viruses or other malicious code, cyber-attacks and other events. These threats may derive from human error, fraud or malice on the part of employees or third parties, or may result from accidental technological failure. If one or more of these events occurs, it could result in the disclosure of confidential client information, damage to our reputation with our clients and the market, additional costs to us (such as repairing systems or adding new personnel or protection technologies), regulatory penalties and financial losses, to both us and our clients and customers. Such events could also cause interruptions or malfunctions in our operations (such as the lack of availability of our online banking system), as well as the operations of our clients, customers or other third parties. Risks and exposures related to cybersecurity attacks are expected to remain high for the foreseeable future due to the rapidly evolving nature and sophistication of these threats, as well as due to the expanding use of internet banking, mobile banking and other technology-based products and services by us and our customers. Although we maintain safeguards to protect against these risks, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer losses in the future that may be material in amount.

In March 2015, federal regulators issued two related statements regarding cybersecurity. One statement indicates that financial institutions should design multiple layers of security controls to establish lines of defense and to ensure that their risk management processes also address the risk posed by compromised customer credentials, including security measures to reliably authenticate customers accessing internet-based services of the financial institution. The other statement indicates that a financial institution’s management is expected to maintain sufficient business continuity planning processes to ensure the rapid recovery, resumption and maintenance of the institution’s operations after a cyber-attack involving destructive malware. A financial institution is also expected to develop appropriate processes to enable recovery of data and business operations and address rebuilding network capabilities and restoring data if the institution or its critical service providers fall victim to this type of cyber-attack. In August 2019, the federal bank regulatory agencies issued a statement recommending that banking organizations use a standardized approach to assess and improve cybersecurity preparedness. The agencies noted that the use of standardized tools, such as the FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool, makes firms better able to track their progress over time, and to share information and best practices with other financial institutions, a behavior which the bank regulatory agencies encourage. Although guidance of this nature does not have the full force and effect of law, it sets out supervisory priorities and expectations regarding safe and sound operation. Failure to observe such guidance may result in supervisory identification of unsafe or unsound practices or other deficiencies in risk management or other areas that do not constitute violations of law or regulation.

The value of securities in our investment securities portfolio may be negatively affected by disruptions in securities markets.

Prices and volumes of transactions in the nation’s securities markets can be affected suddenly by economic crises, or by other national or international crises, such as national disasters, acts of war or terrorism, changes in commodities markets, or instability in foreign governments. Disruptions in securities markets may detrimentally affect the value of securities that we hold in our investment portfolio, such as through reduced valuations due to the perception of heightened credit and liquidity risks. There can be no assurance that declines in market value associated with these disruptions will not result in other-than-temporary impairments of these assets, which would lead to accounting charges that could have a material adverse effect on our net income and capital levels.

Damage to our reputation could materially harm our business.

Our relationship with many of our clients is predicated upon our reputation as a fiduciary and a service provider that adheres to the highest standards of ethics, service quality and regulatory compliance. Adverse publicity, regulatory actions, litigation, operational failures, the failure to meet client expectations and other issues with respect to one or more of our businesses could materially and adversely affect our reputation, our ability to attract and retain clients or our sources of funding for the same or other businesses. Preserving and enhancing our reputation also depends on maintaining systems and procedures that address known risks and regulatory requirements, as well as our ability to identify and mitigate additional risks that arise due to changes in our businesses and the marketplaces in which we operate, the regulatory environment and client expectations. If any of these developments has a material effect on our reputation, our business will suffer.