UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2019

□  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _______ to _________

Commission File No. 001-39215

Professional Holding Corp.

(Exact  name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

396 Alhambra Circle, Suite 255

Coral Gables, FL 33134 (786) 483-1757

(Address, including zip code, and telephone number, including area code, of Registrant’s  principal executive offices)

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

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates of the registrant, based on the closing price of the shares of common stock on January 7, 2020 as reported by the Nasdaq Global Select Market on such date was approximately $174.5 million. The registrant has elected to use January 7, 2020, which was the initial trading date on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, as the calculation date because on June 28, 2019 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter), the registrant was a privately held company. Shares of the registrant’s common stock held by each executive officer, director and holder of 5% or more of the outstanding common stock have been excluded in that such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This calculation does not reflect a determination that certain persons are affiliates of the registrant for any other purpose. 

The number of shares outstanding of Professional Holding Corporation common stock, par value $0.01 per share, as of March 30, 2020, was 13,547,565.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Certain portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the 2020 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “2020 Proxy Statement”) are incorporated by reference into Part III of this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

When used in theis report, “the Company,” “we,” and “our” may refer to Professional Holding Corp. individually, Professional Holding Corp. and its subsidiaries, or our wholly owned subsidiary Professional Bank.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION

The public may read and copy any materials the Company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20549 (information on the operation of tht Public Reference Room is available by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330).  The SEC also maintains a website that contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov.

The Company makes available on its website www.myprobank.com its code of ethics and charters of the Auidt Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board of Directors.  Neither our website nor the information contained on that site, or connected to that site, is incorporated by referenced inot the Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains certain forward-looking statements, as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such forward-looking statements reflect our current opinions, expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, assumptions or projections regarding, among other things, future events or future results, in contrast with statements that reflect historical facts. These statements are often, but not always, made through the use of conditional words such as “anticipate,” “intend,” “believe,” “estimate,” “plan,” “seek,” “project” or “expect,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could” or “should” or the negative versions of these terms or other comparable terminology. These forward-looking statements are not historical facts, and are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about our industry, management’s beliefs and certain assumptions made by management, many of which, by their nature, are inherently uncertain and beyond our control. Accordingly, we caution you that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks, assumptions and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in these forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, actual results may prove to be materially different from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements.

Important factors related to forward-looking statements may include, among others, risks and assumptions regarding:

If one or more events related to these or other risks or uncertainties materialize or intensify, or if our underlying assumptions prove to be incorrect, actual results may differ materially from what we anticipate. Accordingly, you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements included in this prospectus are made only as of the date of the Annual Report on Form 10-K. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict which will arise. We do not undertake, and specifically decline, any obligation to update any such statements or to publicly announce the results of any revisions to any of such statements to reflect future events or developments, except as may be required by law.

PART I

Item 1. Business

General

Professional Holding Corp. is a Florida corporation and a financial holding company.

We were incorporated in 2014 and headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida. We operate primarily through our wholly owned subsidiary, Professional Bank, a Florida state-chartered bank, which commenced operations in 2008. We focus on providing creative, relationship-driven commercial banking products and services designed to meet the needs of our clients. Our clients are small to medium sized businesses, the owners and operators of these businesses, and other professionals, entrepreneurs and high net worth individuals.

We believe that we have developed a reputation in our market for highly customized services, and we continue to seek new ways to meet our clients’ financial needs. We offer a full line of deposit products, cash management services and commercial and residential loan programs, as well as online/digital and mobile banking capabilities. We firmly believe our clients place value on our local and timely decision-making, coupled with the high-quality service that we provide. Approaching our clients’ challenges from a different point of view is at the heart of our culture, as our bankers are extremely familiar with our clients’ businesses, enabling us to more accurately assess risk, while developing mutually acceptable credit structures for the bank and its clients.

In October 2019, we opened our Digital Innovation Center in Cleveland, Ohio to support our investments in technology and infrastructure and to continue enhancing our service offerings. It is staffed by former employees of national banking institutions and global consulting firms with experience in banking technology and growth strategies. We recently released our first Apple Watch app, a person-to-person, or P2P, payment service with immediate clearing capabilities that can be used with any other bank in the country. We plan to use our technology platform to create a comprehensive digital bank, including enabling the opening of online accounts through our website. We believe that our technology platform will allow us to compete with larger financial institutions by offering a cutting-edge digital client experience that can be specifically tailored to multiple demographics, while also continuing the customized concierge service that our clients have come to expect.

Since February 7, 2020, the principal market on which our Class A Common Stock is traded is the Nasdaq Global Select Marketplace under the symbol “PFHD.” On February 11, 2020, we announced the closing of our initial public offering (“IPO”) of 3,565,000 shares of our Class A Common Stock, which included an additional 465,000 shares in connection with the exercise in full of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. The closing of the IPO resulted in total net proceeds of approximately $61.3 million, after deducting an underwriting discount of 7%, before expenses. The IPO price of the Class A Common Stock was $18.50 per share.

On March 26, 2020, we closed a merger with  Marquis Bancorp, Inc., or MBI, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Marquis Bank, a Florida state-chartered bank.  Each share of MBI common stock outstanding was converted into 1.2048 shares of our Class A Common Stock, with cash paid in lieu of any fractional shares. At the closing of the merger we issued approximately 4,227,816 shares of our Class A Common Stock.  No MBI shareholders exercised appraisal rights. In addition, all stock options of MBI granted and outstanding on the closing date of the merger were converted into an option to purchase shares of our Class A Common Stock based on the exchange ratio. Upon completion of the merger, the pro forma combined institution had approximately $1.7 billion in total assets, excluding purchase accounting adjustments, total net loans of $1.3 billion and total deposits of $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2019, excluding purchase accounting adjustments.

At March 26, 2020 (after the merger with MBI) we conduct our banking operations from eight branches and four loan production offices located exclusively in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach or Miami-Dade metropolitan statistical area, or MSA, which encompasses three rapidly growing counties in Florida: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. We are now the 12th largest independent community bank in Florida and the fourth largest independent community bank in South Florida. 

We believe our investments in people, our platform and technology, as well as our ongoing efforts to attract talented banking professionals, will facilitate future growth and enhanced profitability. Our focus, culture, brand and reputation throughout our market enhance our ability to continue to grow organically, successfully recruit talented bankers and pursue opportunistic acquisitions throughout Florida in the future.

Our Business Strategy

Our business strategy is comprised of the following components:

Organic Growth in Our Attractive Market.  Our organic growth strategy to date has primarily focused on gaining market share in the South Florida market. For several reasons, including a business friendly and low tax environment, strong population growth, we believe our market provides abundant opportunities to continue to expand our client base, grow loans and deposits and gain overall market share. Our team of bankers has been an important factor contributing to our organic growth by both broadening our bandwidth with existing clients and expanding our client base. Our team has a track record of originating quality loans, evidenced by our relatively low level of nonperforming assets and credit losses since our strategic pivot in 2013, and durable deposit relationships through a variety of channels in our market while maintaining a premier client experience. The depth of our team’s market knowledge and long-term relationships in the South Florida market are the keys to our strong referral network.

As a result of consolidation in the banking industry in Florida, we believe that there are few locally-based banks that are dedicated to providing our level of sophistication and service to small to medium sized businesses, the owners and operators of these businesses as well as other professionals, entrepreneurs and high net worth individuals in our current and future markets. From 2005 through 2019, the number of Florida-based community banks has decreased from approximately 300 to 109.

Florida Banking Market Overview

Note: Mergers include completed transactions only; New Charters include approved applications only

(1)Source: FDIC Decisions on Bank Applications

(2)Source: FDIC Failed Bank List

(3)Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence. Include U.S. Bank, Savings Bank and Thrift completed, whole-entity transactions where the target was headquartered in the state of Florida and the completion date was between 1/1/2005 and 12/31/2019; Excludes acquisitions where the acquired bank was not consolidated into the acquiring financial institution.

(4)Source: FDIC Statistics on Depository Institutions Report

This consolidation has allowed us to hire talented bankers in our market and we will continue to seek out such bankers and teams of bankers who prefer a local, independent, and agile platform to that of a more bureaucratic, regional financial institution. Our goal is to continue our growth to service increasingly larger and sophisticated clients, while remaining agile enough to be a superior, speed-based competitor in acquiring new clients. In an effort to keep our operating costs low while continuing to seek opportunities for growth, we have typically established new banking teams in lower cost loan production offices before committing to opening a more expensive full-service branch. By establishing banking teams in lower cost loan production offices, we are able to avoid long-term lease commitments, costly branch improvements and related costs until our new banking team has attracted a sufficient number of banking relationships and earning assets. Once the newly hired team achieves a certain financial scale, we evaluate the economics of opening a full-service branch. This strategy has allowed us to achieve significant growth while prudently managing our expansion costs and maintaining our strong credit quality.

We believe both culture and brand are at the core of our messaging when attracting and retaining both bankers and clients. We believe continued consolidation throughout Florida will provide us with additional opportunities to grow in both our current footprint and beyond into other Florida metropolitan areas. To capitalize on these opportunities, we intend to (i) continue to evaluate lift-outs of high-performing banking teams, (ii) leverage the relationships and contacts of our existing bankers to identify and target suitable business and individual clients, and (iii) develop comprehensive banking relationships with these businesses and individuals by delivering competitive banking products and services comparable to that of larger institutions while providing the superior client service expected of a smaller community bank.

Strategic Acquisitions.   We will continue to selectively evaluate acquisitions to complement our organic growth opportunities, and believe having a publicly traded common stock improves our ability to compete for those acquisitions. We believe that many small to medium sized banking organizations in the larger Florida market face significant scale and operational challenges, regulatory pressure, management succession issues and shareholder liquidity needs which may make them potential acquisition targets. According to the FDIC, as of December 31, 2019, there were 92 banks and thrifts headquartered in Florida, each with total assets of less than $1.5 billion, collectively totaling approximately $32.5 billion in assets. Of those 92 institutions, 30 were headquartered in the Miami-Dade MSA with aggregate assets totaling approximately $13.3 billion. We believe that most of the other potential acquirors in our market are significantly larger

banking institutions compared to us, which we believe makes us an attractive potential acquiror for many of these small to medium sized banking organizations in the Florida market. As a result, with the option of using our publicly traded stock as currency, we believe we will have a distinct competitive advantage versus most of the larger competitors throughout Florida.

Continue to Improve Operational Efficiency and Increase Profitability.    We are committed to enhancing our profitability, which historically has been impacted by our ambitious growth and investments in our platform. Between December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2019, our total assets increased from $302.0 million to $1.1 billion. The growth in total assets was accompanied by a 242.5% increase in full-time employees and the expansion from two branch locations to nine banking locations. As a result of this rapid growth, our average return on average assets and our average efficiency ratio were 0.39% and 76.5%, respectively, for the four fiscal years ended December 31, 2015 to 2018. For the year ended December 31, 2019, our ROAA and efficiency ratio were 0.26% and 87.5%, respectively.

While our investments in personnel and infrastructure have limited our profitability in recent years, we believe we are positioned for continued balance sheet growth and higher profitability without significant additional capital investments. We have also created an operating platform, which is expected to improve our operating efficiencies in the areas of technology, data processing, regulatory compliance and human resources. Our Digital Innovation Center, which is tasked with collaborating with leading-edge financial technology, or fintech, firms, payment vendors, other financial firms and our core provider to develop or integrate best-in-class technology, will also help to improve our productivity, workflows, communication and efficiency, while enhancing our client experience and broadening our digital service offerings.

Furthermore, we believe that our acquisition of MBI will further enhance our efficiency and profitability by improving our ability to achieve operational efficiencies and cost savings by integrating MBI’s operations into our existing operations, including branch locations, leveraging our ability to grow organically through offering our products and services to existing MBI clients, and positioning us to benefit from increased credit portfolio diversity and lending capacity.

Our Market

The Miami-Dade MSA, which encompasses Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties, is among the most vibrant in the United States, characterized by a rapidly growing population, a high level of job growth, an affordable cost of living and a pro-growth business climate. The Miami-Dade MSA is one of the top MSAs in the Southeast as measured by both deposits and by population and is one of the largest business markets in Florida. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence estimates, Florida is the third most populous state in the United States and approximately 29% of the population of Florida resides in the Miami-Dade MSA. Florida continues to experience significant population and employment growth on a statewide basis, with the state’s population increasing from 12.9 million in 1990 to an estimated 21.8 million in 2020. Additionally, according to the Federal Reserve, Florida has the fourth largest contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) by state in the United States, equating to the 17th largest economy in the world. The Miami-Dade MSA has the 12th largest contribution to GDP by MSA in the United States according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis based on 2017 data, the most recent available. This continued growth of the Florida market, as well as the consolidation in the banking industry within the state is expect to provide us with opportunities for growth.

Supervision and Regulation

We must comply with state and federal banking laws and regulations that control virtually all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations generally aim to protect our depositors, not necessarily our shareholders or our creditors. Any changes in applicable laws or regulations may materially affect our business and prospects. Proposed legislative or regulatory changes may also affect our operations. The following description summarizes some of the laws and regulations to which we are subject. References to applicable statutes and regulations are brief summaries, do not purport to be complete, and are qualified in their entirety by reference to such statutes and regulations.

Professional Holding Corp.

We are registered with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve as a financial holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, or BHC Act. As a result, we are subject to supervisory regulation and examination by the Federal Reserve. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the BHC Act, and other federal laws subject financial holding companies to particular restrictions on the types of activities in which they may engage, and to a range of supervisory requirements and activities, including regulatory enforcement actions for violations of laws and regulations.

Permitted Activities

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act modernized the U.S. banking system by: (i) allowing bank holding companies that qualify as “financial holding companies,” such as Professional Holding Corp., to engage in a broad range of financial and related activities; (ii) allowing insurers and other financial service companies to acquire banks; (iii) removing restrictions that applied to bank holding company ownership of securities firms and mutual fund advisory companies; and (iv) establishing the overall regulatory scheme applicable to bank holding companies that also engage in insurance and securities operations. The general effect of the law was to establish a comprehensive framework to permit affiliations among commercial banks, insurance companies, securities firms, and other financial service providers. Activities that are financial in nature are broadly defined to include not only banking, insurance, and securities activities, but also merchant banking and additional activities that the Federal Reserve, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, determines to be financial in nature, incidental to such financial activities, or complementary activities that do not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally.

In contrast to financial holding companies, bank holding companies are limited to managing or controlling banks, furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries, and engaging in other activities that the Federal Reserve determines by regulation or order to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. In determining whether a particular activity is permissible, the Federal Reserve must consider whether the performance of such an activity reasonably can be expected to produce benefits to the public that outweigh possible adverse effects. Possible benefits include greater convenience, increased competition, and gains in efficiency. Possible adverse effects include undue concentration of resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interest, and unsound banking practices. Despite prior approval, the Federal Reserve may order a bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate ownership or control of any subsidiary when the Federal Reserve has reasonable cause to believe that a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of any bank subsidiary of that bank holding company may result from such an activity.

Changes in Control

Subject to certain exceptions, the BHC Act and the CBCA, together with the applicable regulations, require Federal Reserve approval (or, depending on the circumstances, no notice of disapproval) prior to any acquisition of “control” of a bank or bank holding company. Under the BHC Act, a company (a broadly defined term that includes partnerships among other things) that acquires the power, directly or indirectly, to direct the management or policies of an insured depository institution or to vote 25% or more of any class of voting securities of any insured depository institution is deemed to control the institution  and to be a bank holding company. A company that acquires less than 5% of any class of voting security (and that does not exhibit the other control factors) is presumed not to have control. For ownership levels between the 5% and 25% thresholds, the Federal Reserve has developed an extensive body of law on the circumstances in which control may or may not exist. The current guidance includes a 2008 policy statement on minority equity investments in banks and bank holding companies that generally permits investors to (i) acquire up to 33% of the total equity of a target bank or bank holding company, subject to certain conditions, including (but not limited to) that the investing firm does not acquire 15% or more of any class of voting securities, and (ii) designate at least one director, without triggering the various regulatory requirements associated with control. In April 2019, the Federal Reserve proposed several changes to its control rules under the BHC Act; when or if this proposal will be finalized is unknown.

Under the CBCA, if an individual or a company that acquires 10% or more of any class of voting securities of an insured depository institution or its holding company and either that institution or company has registered securities under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, or no other person will own a greater percentage of that class of voting securities

immediately after the acquisition, then that investor is presumed to have control and may be required to file a change in bank control notice with the institution’s or the holding company’s primary federal regulator. Our Class A Common Stock is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act.

As a financial holding company, we are required to obtain prior approval from the Federal Reserve before (i) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of a bank or bank holding company, (ii) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the outstanding voting stock of any bank or   bank holding company (unless we own a majority of such bank’s voting shares), or (iii) acquiring, merging or consolidating with any other bank or bank holding company. In determining whether to approve a proposed bank acquisition, federal bank regulators will consider, among other factors, the effect of the acquisition on competition, the public benefits expected to be received from the acquisition, the projected capital ratios and levels on a post-acquisition basis, and the companies records of addressing the credit needs of the communities they serve, including the needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of the bank, under the Community Reinvestment Act of  1977.

Under Florida law, a person or entity proposing to directly or indirectly acquire control of a Florida bank must also obtain permission from the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. Florida statutes define “control” as either (i) indirectly or directly owning, controlling or having power to vote 25% or more of the voting securities of a bank; (ii) controlling the election of a majority of directors of a bank; (iii) owning, controlling, or having power to vote 10% or more of the voting securities as well as directly or indirectly exercising a controlling influence over management or policies of a bank; or (iv) as determined by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. These requirements will affect us because the Bank is chartered under Florida law and changes in control of the Company are indirect changes in control of the   Bank.

Tying

Financial holding companies and their affiliates are prohibited from tying the provision of certain services, such as extending credit, to other services or products offered by the holding company or its affiliates, such as deposit products.

Capital; Dividends; Source of Strength

The Federal Reserve imposes certain capital requirements on financial holding companies under the BHC Act, including a minimum leverage ratio and a minimum ratio of “qualifying” capital to risk-weighted assets. These requirements are described below under “Capital Regulations.” Subject to its capital requirements and certain other restrictions, we are generally able to borrow money to make a capital contribution to the Bank, and such loans may be repaid from dividends paid from the Bank to us. We are also able to raise capital for contributions to the Bank by issuing securities without having to receive regulatory approval, subject to compliance with federal and state securities laws.

It is the Federal Reserve’s policy that bank holding companies should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs and financial condition. It is also the Federal Reserve’s policy that bank holding companies should not maintain dividend levels that undermine their ability to be a source of strength to its banking subsidiaries. Additionally, the Federal Reserve has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policies and has discouraged payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels unless both asset quality and capital are very strong. The Federal Reserve possesses enforcement powers over bank 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 ability to proscribe the payment of dividends by banks and bank holding companies.

Bank holding companies are expected to consult with the Federal Reserve before redeeming any equity or other capital instrument included in tier 1 or tier 2 capital prior to stated maturity, if such redemption could have a material effect on the level or composition of the organization’s capital base. In addition, a bank holding company may not repurchase shares equal to 10% or more of its net worth if it would not be well-capitalized (as defined by the Federal Reserve) after giving effect to such repurchase. Bank holding companies experiencing financial weaknesses, or that are

at significant risk of developing financial weaknesses, must consult with the Federal Reserve before redeeming or repurchasing common stock or other regulatory capital instruments.

In accordance with Federal Reserve policy, which has been codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, we are expected to act as a source of financial strength to the Bank and to commit resources to support the Bank in circumstances in which we might not otherwise do so. In furtherance of this policy, the Federal Reserve may require a financial holding company to terminate any activity or relinquish control of a non-bank subsidiary (other than a non-bank subsidiary of a bank) upon the Federal Reserve’s determination that such activity or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness or stability of any subsidiary depository institution of the financial holding company. Further, federal bank regulatory authorities have additional discretion to require a financial holding company to divest itself of any bank or non-bank subsidiary if the agency determines that divestiture may aid the depository institution’s financial condition.

Safe and Sound Banking Practices

Bank holding companies and their non-banking subsidiaries are prohibited from engaging in activities that represent unsafe and unsound banking practices or that constitute a violation of law or regulations. Under certain conditions the Federal Reserve may conclude that certain actions of a bank holding company, such as a payment of a cash dividend, would constitute an unsafe and unsound banking practice. The Federal Reserve also has the authority to regulate the debt of bank holding companies, including the authority to impose interest rate ceilings and reserve requirements on such debt. Under certain circumstances the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to file written notice and obtain its approval prior to purchasing or redeeming its equity securities, unless certain conditions are met.

Professional Bank

Professional Bank is a state-chartered commercial banking institution that is chartered by and headquartered in the State of Florida and is subject to supervision and regulation by the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. The Florida Office of Financial Regulation supervises and regulates all areas of our operations including, without limitation, the making of loans, the issuance of securities, the conduct of our corporate affairs, and the satisfaction of capital adequacy requirements, the payment of dividends, and the establishment or closing of banking centers. We are also a member bank of the Federal Reserve System, which makes our operations subject to broad federal regulation and oversight by the Federal Reserve. In addition, our deposit accounts are insured by the FDIC up to the maximum extent permitted by law, and the FDIC has certain supervisory and enforcement powers over us.

As a state-chartered bank in the State of Florida, we are empowered by statute, subject to the limitations contained in those statutes, to take and pay interest on, savings and time deposits, to accept demand deposits, to make loans on residential and other real estate, to make consumer and commercial loans, to invest, with certain limitations, in equity securities and in debt obligations of banks and corporations and to provide various other banking services for the benefit of our clients. Various consumer laws and regulations also affect our operations, including state usury laws, laws relating to fiduciaries, consumer credit and equal credit opportunity laws, and fair credit reporting. In addition, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991, or FDICIA, prohibits insured state-chartered institutions from conducting activities as principal that are not permitted for national banks. A bank, however, may engage in an otherwise prohibited activity if it meets its minimum capital requirements and the FDIC determines that the activity does not present a significant risk to the Deposit Insurance   Fund.

Economic Growth Act

The Economic Growth Act, which was signed into law in May 2018, provides certain limited amendments to the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as certain targeted modifications to prior financial services reform regulatory requirements. As a result of the Economic Growth Act, we expect to experience the rollback of some of the more burdensome requirements resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act. Provisions in the Economic Growth Act generally address access to mortgage credit; consumer access to credit; protections for veterans, consumers, and homeowners; and protections for student borrowers. One of the Economic Growth Act’s highlights with potential implications for us is its increase in the asset threshold under the Federal Reserve’s Small Bank Holding Company Policy Statement from $1.0 billion to $3.0 billion. Another potentially significant provision is the Economic Growth Act’s requirement that the federal bank

regulatory agencies adopt a threshold for a community bank leverage ratio, or CBLR, of not less than 8.0% and not more than 10.0% for banking organizations with $10.0 billion or less in total consolidated assets and that meet certain other conditions. A qualifying organization that satisfies the CBLR is deemed to satisfy the capital rules and to be well-capitalized for the purpose of the prompt corrective action regulations, subject to certain exceptions. The agencies have proposed a CBLR of 9.0%, but we do not know if or when the agencies will finalize the proposal. A number of the other specific provisions of this legislation are discussed in other parts of this “Supervision and Regulation” section.

At this time, it is difficult to anticipate the continued impact this expansive legislation will have on our business, our clients, and the financial industry generally. Changes resulting from further implementation of, changes to or repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act may impact the profitability of our business activities, require changes to certain of our business practices, impose upon us more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements, or otherwise adversely affect our business. These changes may also require us to invest significant management attention and resources to evaluate and make any changes necessary to comply   with new statutory and regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with any new requirements may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition.

Safety and Soundness Standards / Risk Management

The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines establishing operational and managerial standards to promote the safety and soundness of federally insured depository institutions. The guidelines set forth standards for internal controls, information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, compensation, fees and benefits, asset quality and earnings.

In general, the safety and soundness guidelines prescribe the goals to be achieved in each area, and each institution is responsible for establishing its own procedures to achieve those goals. If an institution fails to comply with any of the standards set forth in the guidelines, the financial institution’s primary federal regulator may require the institution to submit a plan for achieving and maintaining compliance. If a financial institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement a compliance plan that has been accepted by its primary federal regulator, the regulator is required to issue an order directing the institution to cure the deficiency. Until the deficiency cited in the regulator’s order is cured, the regulator may restrict the financial institution’s rate of growth, require the financial institution to increase its capital, restrict the rates the institution pays on deposits or require the institution to take any action the regulator deems appropriate under the circumstances. Noncompliance with the standards established by the safety and soundness guidelines may also constitute grounds for other enforcement action by the federal bank regulatory agencies, including cease and desist orders and civil money penalty assessments.

During the past decade, the bank regulatory agencies have increasingly emphasized the importance of sound risk management processes and strong internal controls when evaluating the activities of the financial institutions they supervise. Properly managing risks has been identified as critical to the conduct of safe and sound banking activities and has become even more important as new technologies, product innovation and the size and speed of financial transactions have changed the nature of banking markets. The agencies have identified a spectrum of risks facing a banking institution including, but not limited to, credit, market, liquidity, operational, legal and reputational risk. In particular, recent regulatory pronouncements have focused on operational risk, which arises from the potential that inadequate information systems, operational problems, breaches in internal controls, fraud or unforeseen catastrophes will result in unexpected losses. New products and services, third party risk management and cybersecurity are critical sources of operational risk that financial institutions are expected to address in the current environment.

The Bank is expected to have active board and senior management oversight; adequate policies, procedures and limits; adequate risk measurement, monitoring and management information systems; and comprehensive internal controls.

Reserves

The Federal Reserve requires all depository institutions to maintain reserves against transaction accounts (noninterest-bearing and NOW checking accounts). The balances maintained to meet the reserve requirements imposed by the Federal Reserve may be used to satisfy liquidity requirements. An institution may borrow from the Federal

Reserve Bank “discount window” as a secondary source of funds, provided that the institution meets the Federal Reserve Bank’s credit standards.

Dividends

The Bank is subject to legal limitations on the frequency and amount of dividends that can be paid to the Company. The Federal Reserve may restrict the ability of the Bank to pay dividends if such payments would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice. Additionally, as of January 1, 2019, financial institutions are required to maintain a capital conservation buffer of at least 2.5% of risk-weighted assets in order to avoid restrictions on capital distributions and other payments. If a financial institution’s capital conservation buffer falls below the minimum requirement, its maximum payout amount for capital distributions and discretionary payments declines to a set percentage of eligible retained income based on the size of the buffer. See “Capital Regulations,” below for additional details on this new capital requirement.

In addition, Florida law and Federal regulation place restrictions on the declaration of dividends from state-chartered banks to their holding companies. Pursuant to the Florida Financial Institutions Code, the board of directors of a state-chartered bank, after charging off bad debts, depreciation and other worthless assets, if any, and making provisions for reasonably anticipated future losses on loans and other assets, may quarterly, semi-annually or annually declare a dividend of up to the aggregate net profits of that period combined with the bank’s retained net profits for the preceding two years and, with the approval of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation and Federal Reserve, declare a dividend from retained net profits which accrued prior to the preceding two years. Before declaring such dividends, 20% of the net profits for the preceding period as is covered by the dividend must be transferred to the surplus fund of the bank until this fund becomes equal to the amount of the bank’s common stock then issued and outstanding. A state-chartered bank may not declare any dividend if (i) its net income (loss) from the current year combined with the retained net income (loss) for the preceding two years aggregates a loss or (ii) the payment of such dividend would cause the capital account of the bank to fall below the minimum amount required by law, regulation, order or any written agreement with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation or a federal regulatory agency. Under Federal Reserve regulations, a state member bank may, without the prior approval of the Federal Reserve, pay a dividend in an amount that, when taken together with all dividends declared during the calendar year, does not exceed the sum of the bank’s net income during the current calendar year and the retained net income of the prior two calendar years. The Federal Reserve may approve greater amounts.

Insurance of Accounts and Other Assessments

Our deposit accounts are currently insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund generally up to a maximum of $250,000 per separately insured depositor. We pay deposit insurance assessments to the Deposit Insurance Fund, which are determined through a risk-based assessment system.

Under the current system, deposit insurance assessments are based on a bank’s assessment base, which is defined as average total assets minus average tangible equity. For established small institutions, such as the Bank, the FDIC sets deposit assessment rates based on the Financial Ratios Method, which takes into account several ratios that reflect leverage, asset quality, and earnings at each individual institution and then applies a pricing multiplier that is the same for all institutions. An institution’s rate must be within a certain minimum and a certain maximum, and the range varies based on the institution’s composite CAMELS rating. The deposit insurance assessment is calculated by multiplying the bank’s assessment base by the total base assessment rate.

All FDIC-insured institutions have been required to pay assessments to the FDIC at a current annual rate of approximately five tenths of a basis point of its assessment base to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation, or FICO, an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the Savings Association Insurance Fund. The last of the FICO bonds mature in 2019. The FDIC made its final collection of the assessment for these bonds in March 2019. FDIC-insured institutions accordingly are no longer required to pay the FICO bond assessment.

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

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders

Pursuant to Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation W, the authority of the Bank to engage in transactions with related parties or “affiliates” or to make loans to insiders is limited. Loan transactions with an affiliate generally must be collateralized and certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates, including the sale of assets, the payment of money or the provision of services, must be on terms and conditions that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing for comparable nonaffiliated transactions. In addition, the Bank generally may not purchase securities issued or underwritten by affiliates.

Loans to executive officers and directors of an insured depository institution or any of its affiliates or to any person who directly or indirectly, or acting through or in concert with one or more persons, owns, controls or has the power to vote more than 10% of any class of voting securities of a bank, which we refer to as 10% Shareholders, or to any political or campaign committee the funds or services of which will benefit those executive officers, directors, or 10% Shareholders or which is controlled by those executive officers, directors or 10% Shareholders, are subject to Sections 22(g) and 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act and the corresponding regulations (Regulation O) and Section 13(k) of the Exchange Act relating to the prohibition on personal loans to executives (which exempts financial institutions in compliance with the insider lending restrictions of Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act). Among other things, these loans must be made on terms substantially the same as those prevailing on transactions made to unaffiliated individuals and certain extensions of credit to those persons must first be approved in advance by a disinterested majority of the entire board. Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act prohibits loans to any of those individuals where the aggregate amount exceeds an amount equal to 15% of an institution’s unimpaired capital and surplus plus an additional 10% of unimpaired capital and surplus in the case of loans that are fully secured by readily marketable collateral, or when the aggregate amount on all of the extensions of credit outstanding to all of these persons would exceed our unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Section 22(g) identifies limited circumstances in which we are permitted to extend credit to executive officers of the Bank.

Community Reinvestment Act

The Community Reinvestment Act and its corresponding regulations are intended to encourage banks to help meet the credit needs of the communities they serve, including low and moderate income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound banking practices. These regulations provide for regulatory assessment of a bank’s record in meeting the credit needs of its market area. Federal banking agencies are required to publicly disclose each bank’s rating under the Community Reinvestment Act. The Federal Reserve considers a bank’s Community Reinvestment Act rating when the bank submits an application to establish bank branches, merge with another bank, or acquire the assets and assume the liabilities of another bank. In the case of a financial holding company, the Community Reinvestment Act performance record of all banks involved in a merger or acquisition are reviewed in connection with the application to acquire ownership or control of shares or assets of a bank or to merge with another bank or bank holding company. An unsatisfactory record can substantially delay or block the transaction. We received a satisfactory rating on our most recent Community Reinvestment Act assessment.

Capital Regulations

The federal banking regulators have adopted risk-based, capital adequacy guidelines for financial holding companies and their subsidiary banks based on the Basel III standards. Under these guidelines, assets and off-balance sheet items are assigned to specific risk categories each with designated risk weightings. The new risk-based capital guidelines are designed to make regulatory capital requirements more sensitive to differences in risk profiles among banks and bank holding companies, to account for off-balance sheet exposure, to minimize disincentives for holding liquid assets, and to achieve greater consistency in evaluating the capital adequacy of major banks throughout the world. The resulting capital ratios represent capital as a percentage of total risk-weighted assets and off-balance sheet items. Final rules implementing the capital adequacy guidelines became effective, with various phase-in periods, on January 1,

2015 for community banks. All of the rules were fully phased in as of January 1, 2019. These final rules represent a significant change to the prior general risk-based capital rules and are designed to substantially conform to the Basel III international standards.

In computing total risk-weighted assets, bank and bank holding company assets are given risk-weights of 0%, 20%, 50%, 100% and 150%. In addition, certain off-balance sheet items are given similar credit conversion factors to convert them to asset equivalent amounts to which an appropriate risk-weight will apply. Most loans will be assigned to the 100% risk category, except for performing first mortgage loans fully secured by 1-to-4 family and certain multi-family residential property, which carry a 50% risk rating. Most investment securities (including, primarily, general obligation claims on states or other political subdivisions of the United States) will be assigned to the 20% category, except for municipal or state revenue bonds, which have a 50% risk-weight, and direct obligations of the U.S. Treasury or obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, which have a 0% risk-weight. In covering off-balance sheet items, direct credit substitutes, including general guarantees and standby letters of credit backing financial obligations, are given a 100% conversion factor. Transaction-related contingencies such as bid bonds, standby letters of credit backing nonfinancial obligations, and undrawn commitments (including commercial credit lines with an initial maturity of more than one year) have a 50% conversion factor. Short-term commercial letters of credit are converted at 20% and certain short-term unconditionally cancelable commitments have a 0% factor.

Under the final rules, minimum requirements increased for both the quality and quantity of capital held by banking organizations. In this respect, the final rules implement strict eligibility criteria for regulatory capital instruments and improves the methodology for calculating risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity. Consistent with the international Basel III framework, the rules include a new minimum ratio of Common Equity Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets of 4.5%. The rules also create a Common Equity Tier 1 Capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. This buffer is added to each of the three risk-based capital ratios to determine whether an institution has established the buffer. The rules raise the minimum ratio of Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets from 4% to 6% and include a minimum leverage ratio of 4% for all banking organizations. If a financial institution’s capital conservation buffer falls below 2.5% — e.g., if the institution’s Common Equity Tier 1 Capital to Risk-Weighted Assets is less than 7.0% — then capital distributions and discretionary payments will be limited or prohibited based on the size of the institution’s buffer. The types of payments subject to this limitation include dividends, share buybacks, discretionary payments on Tier 1 instruments, and discretionary bonus payments.

The new capital regulations may also impact the treatment of accumulated other comprehensive income, or AOCI, for regulatory capital purposes. Under the new rules, AOCI generally flows through to regulatory capital, however, community banks and their holding companies may make a one-time irrevocable opt-out election to continue to treat AOCI the same as under the old regulations for regulatory capital purposes. This election was required to be made on the first call report or bank holding company annual report (on form FR Y-9C) filed after January 1, 2015. We made the opt-out election.   Additionally, the new rules also permit community banks with less than $15 billion in total assets to continue to count certain non-qualifying capital instruments issued prior to May 19, 2010 as Tier 1 capital, including trust preferred securities and cumulative perpetual preferred stock (subject to a limit of 25% of Tier 1 capital). However, non-qualifying capital instruments issued on or after May 19, 2010 do not qualify for Tier 1 capital treatment.

Additionally, effective August 30, 2018, under the Federal Reserve Board’s Small Bank Holding Company and Savings and Loan Holding Company Policy Act, bank holding companies with less than $3 billion in total consolidated assets are considered small bank holding companies. The small bank holding company policy statement eases the transfer of ownership of small community banks by allowing their holding companies to operate with higher levels of debt than would normally be permitted and excludes them from consolidated capital requirements. As such, we are excluded from consolidated capital requirements until such time that our total consolidated assets exceed $3 billion or the Federal Reserve Board decides that we are no longer to be considered a small bank holding company. However, if we were to be subject to the consolidated capital requirements, we would be in compliance.

On November 21, 2018, federal regulators released a proposed rulemaking that would, if enacted, provide certain banks and their holding companies with the option to elect out of complying with the Basel III capital rules. Under the proposal, a qualifying community banking organization would be eligible to elect the community bank leverage ratio framework if it has a community bank leverage ratio, or CBLR, greater than 9% at the time of election.

A qualifying community banking organization, or QCBO, is defined as a bank, a savings association, a bank holding company or a savings and loan holding company with:

A QCBO may elect out of complying with the Basel III capital rules if, at the time of the election, the QCBO has a CBLR above 9%. The numerator of the CBLR is referred to as “CBLR tangible equity” and is calculated as the QCBO’s total capital as reported in compliance with Call Report and FR Y-9C  instructions, which are referred to as Reporting Instructions, prior to including non-controlling interests in consolidated subsidiaries, less:

The denominator of the CBLR is the QCBO’s average assets, calculated in accordance with Reporting Instructions and less intangible assets and deferred tax assets deducted from CBLR tangible equity. We will continue to monitor this rulemaking. If and when the rulemaking goes into effect, we will consider whether it would be possible and advantageous at that time to elect to comply with the community bank leverage ratio framework.

Commercial Real Estate Concentration Guidelines

The federal banking regulators have implemented guidelines to address increased concentrations in commercial real estate loans. These guidelines describe the criteria regulatory agencies will use as indicators to identify institutions potentially exposed to commercial real estate concentration risk. An institution that has (i) experienced rapid growth in commercial real estate lending, (ii) notable exposure to a specific type of commercial real estate, (iii) total reported loans for construction, land development, and other land representing 100% or more of total capital, or (iv) total commercial real estate (including construction) loans representing 300% or more of total capital and the outstanding balance of the institutions commercial real estate portfolio has increased by 50% or more in the prior 36 months, may be identified for further supervisory analysis of a potential concentration risk.

As of December 31, 2019, the Bank’s ratio of construction and development loans to total capital was 43.3%, its ratio of total commercial real estate loans to total capital was 283.3% and, therefore, the Bank was under the 100% and 300% thresholds, respectively, set forth in clauses (iii) and (iv) above. As of December 31, 2019, Marquis Bank’s ratio of construction loans to total capital was 29.2%, below the 100% threshold in clause (iii) above. Its ratio of total commercial real estate loans to total capital was 339.9%, and this portfolio had increased by approximately 64.3% since December 31, 2016. Marquis Bank thus exceeded the 300% regulatory guideline threshold for commercial real estate, set forth in clause (iv) above. As a result, we are not deemed to have a concentration in commercial real estate lending under applicable regulatory guidelines, but Marquis Bank may be deemed to have such a concentration. However, we expect that the combined institution will fall below the regulatory guideline thresholds and would be deemed not to have a concentration in commercial real estate.

Prompt Corrective Action

Federal law and regulations establish a capital-based regulatory scheme designed to promote early intervention for troubled banks and require the FDIC to choose the least expensive resolution of bank failures. The capital-based regulatory framework contains five categories of compliance with regulatory capital requirements, including “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized,” and “critically undercapitalized.” To qualify as a “well-capitalized” institution under the new rules in effect as of January 1, 2015, a bank must have a leverage ratio of not less than 5%, a Tier 1 Common Equity ratio of not less than 6.5%, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of not less than 8%, and a total risk-based capital ratio of not less than 10%, and the bank must not be under any order or directive from the appropriate regulatory agency to meet and maintain a specific capital level.

Under the regulations, the applicable agency can treat an institution as if it were in the next lower category if the agency determines (after notice and an opportunity for hearing) that the institution is in an unsafe or unsound condition or is engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice. The degree of regulatory scrutiny of a financial institution will increase, and the permissible activities of the institution will decrease, as it moves downward through the capital categories.

Immediately upon becoming undercapitalized, a depository institution becomes subject to the provisions of Section 38 of the FDIA which: (i) restrict payment of capital distributions and management fees; (ii) require that the appropriate federal banking agency monitor the condition of the institution and its efforts to restore its capital; (iii) require submission of a capital restoration plan; (iv) restrict the growth of the institution’s assets; and (v) require prior approval of certain expansion proposals. The appropriate federal banking agency for an undercapitalized institution also may take any number of discretionary supervisory actions if the agency determines that any of these actions is necessary to resolve the problems of the institution at the least possible long-term cost to the deposit insurance fund, subject in certain cases  to specified procedures. These discretionary supervisory actions include: (i) requiring the institution to raise additional capital; (ii) restricting transactions with affiliates; (iii) requiring divestiture of the institution or the sale of the institution to a willing purchaser; and (iv) any other supervisory action that the agency deems appropriate. These and additional mandatory and permissive supervisory actions may be taken with respect to significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized institutions.

As of December 31, 2019, we exceeded the requirements contained in the applicable regulations, policies and directives pertaining to capital adequacy to be classified as “well capitalized” and are unaware of any material violation or alleged violation of these regulations, policies or directives (see table below). Rapid growth, poor loan portfolio performance, or poor earnings performance, or a combination of these factors, could change our capital position in a relatively short period of time, making additional capital infusions necessary.

Interstate Banking and Branching

The BHC Act, as amended by the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, or the Riegle-Neal Act, permits adequately capitalized and managed financial and bank holding companies to acquire banks in any state. State laws prohibiting interstate banking or discriminating against out-of-state banks are preempted. States are not permitted to enact laws opting out of this provision; however, states are allowed to adopt a minimum age restriction requiring that target banks located within the state be in existence for a period of time, up to a maximum of five years, before a bank may be subject to the Riegle-Neal Act. Also, the Dodd-Frank Act added deposit caps, which prohibit acquisitions that result in the acquiring company controlling 30% or more of the deposits of insured banks and thrift institutions held in the state in which the target maintains a branch or 10% or more of the deposits nationwide. States have the authority to waive the 30% deposit cap. State-level deposit caps are not preempted as long as they do not discriminate against out-of-state institutions, and the federal deposit caps apply only to initial entry acquisitions.

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, national banks and state banks are able to establish branches in any state if that state would permit the establishment of the branch by a state bank chartered in that state. Florida law permits a state bank to establish a branch of the bank anywhere in the state. Accordingly, a bank with its headquarters outside the State of Florida may establish branches anywhere within the state.

Anti-money Laundering

The USA PATRIOT Act provides the federal government with additional powers to address terrorist threats through enhanced domestic security measures, expanded surveillance powers, increased information sharing and broadened anti-money laundering requirements. By way of amendments to the Bank Secrecy Act, or BSA, the USA PATRIOT Act puts in place measures intended to encourage information sharing among bank regulatory and law enforcement agencies. In addition, certain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act impose affirmative obligations on a broad range of financial institutions.

The USA PATRIOT Act and the related Federal Reserve regulations require banks to establish anti-money laundering programs that include, at a minimum:

Additionally, the USA PATRIOT Act requires each financial institution to develop a customer identification program, or CIP, as part of its anti-money laundering program. The key components of the CIP are identification, verification, government list comparison, notice and record retention. The purpose of the CIP is to enable the financial institution to determine the true identity and anticipated account activity of each customer. To make this determination, among other things, the financial institution must collect certain information from customers at the time they enter into the customer relationship with the financial institution. This information must be verified within a reasonable time. Furthermore, all customers must be screened against any CIP-related government lists of known or suspected terrorists. On May 11, 2018, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued a final rule under the BSA requiring banks to identify and verify the identity of the natural persons behind their customers that are legal entities — the beneficial owners. We and our affiliates have adopted policies, procedures and controls designed to comply with the BSA and the USA PATRIOT Act.

Moreover, South Florida has been designated as a “High Intensity Financial Crime Area,” or HIFCA, by FinCEN and a “High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,” or HIDTA, by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The HIFCA program is intended to concentrate law enforcement efforts to combat money laundering efforts in higher-risk areas. The HIDTA designation makes it possible for local agencies to benefit from ongoing HIDTA-coordinated program initiatives that are working to reduce drug use. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the sanctions programs and rules administered and enforced by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Regulatory Enforcement Authority

Federal and state banking laws grant substantial regulatory authority and enforcement powers to federal and state banking regulators. This authority permits bank regulatory agencies to assess civil money penalties, to issue cease and desist or removal orders, and to initiate injunctive actions against banking organizations and institution-affiliated parties. In general, these enforcement actions may be initiated for either violations of laws or regulations or for unsafe or unsound practices. Other actions or inactions may provide the basis for enforcement action, including misleading or untimely reports filed with regulatory authorities.

Federal Home Loan Bank System

The Bank is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, which is one of 11 regional Federal Home Loan Banks. Each FHLB serves as a quasi-reserve bank for its members within its assigned region. It is funded primarily from funds deposited by member institutions and proceeds from the sale of consolidated obligations of the FHLB system. A FHLB makes loans to members (i.e., advances) in accordance with policies and procedures established by the Board of Trustees of the FHLB.

As a member of the FHLB of Atlanta, the bank is required to own capital stock in the FHLB in an amount at least equal to 0.09% (or 9 basis points), which is subject to annual adjustments, of the Bank’s total assets at the end of each calendar year (up to a maximum of $15 million), plus 4.25% of its outstanding advances (borrowings) from the FHLB of Atlanta under the activity-based stock ownership requirement. As of December 31, 2019, the Bank was in compliance with this requirement.

Privacy

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, federal banking regulators adopted rules limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. The rules require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to nonaffiliated third parties.

Overdraft Fee Regulation

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act prohibits financial institutions from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machines, or ATM, and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions. If a consumer does not opt in, any ATM transaction or debit that overdraws the consumer’s account will be denied. Overdrafts on the payment of checks and regular electronic bill payments are not covered by this new rule. Before opting in, the consumer must be provided a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service, and the consumer’s choices. Financial institutions must provide consumers who do not opt in with the same account terms, conditions and features (including pricing) that they provide to consumers who do opt in.

Consumer Laws and Regulations

The Bank is also subject to other federal and state consumer laws and regulations that are designed to protect consumers in transactions with banks. While the list set forth below is not exhaustive, these laws and regulations include the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Mortgage Disclosure Improvement Act, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, among others. These laws and regulations mandate certain disclosure requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with clients when taking deposits or making loans to such clients. The Bank must comply with the applicable provisions of these consumer protection laws and regulations as part of its ongoing client relations.

In addition, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issues regulations and standards under these federal consumer protection laws that affect our consumer businesses. These include regulations setting “ability to repay” standards for residential mortgage loans and mortgage loan servicing and originator compensation standards, which generally require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer’s ability to repay any consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling (excluding an open-end credit plan, timeshare plan, reverse mortgage, or temporary loan) and establishes certain protections from liability under this requirement for loans that meet the requirements of the “qualified mortgage” safe harbor. In addition, on October 3, 2015, the new TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure, or TRID, rules for mortgage closings took effect for new loan applications. The new TRID rules were further amended in 2017.

Future Legislative Developments

Future federal or Florida legislation may change banking statutes and the environment in which our banking subsidiary and we operate in substantial and unpredictable ways. We cannot determine the ultimate effect that potential legislation, if enacted, or implementing regulations with respect thereto, would have upon our financial condition or results of operations or that of our banking subsidiary.

Current Expected Credit Loss Accounting Standard

In June 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, issued a new current expected credit loss rule, or CECL, which requires banks to record, at the time of origination, credit losses expected throughout the life of the asset portfolio on loans and held-to-maturity securities, as opposed the current practice of recording losses when it is probable that a loss event has occurred. The update also amends the accounting for credit losses on available-for-sale debt securities and financial assets purchased with credit deterioration. The accounting standard change will be effective for us, as a smaller reporting company, on January 1, 2023 after the FASB elected to delay implementation for smaller reporting companies. The change in accounting standards could result in an increase in our reserve for probable loan losses and require us to book loan losses sooner than under the current requirements. We are taking the necessary steps to be in compliance with the CECL accounting standard which we expect will become a critical accounting policy.

Effect of Governmental Monetary Policies

The commercial banking business is affected not only by general economic conditions, but also by the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve. Changes in the discount rate on member bank borrowing, availability of borrowing at the “discount window,” open market operations, changes in the Fed Funds  target interest rate, the imposition of changes in reserve requirements against member banks’ deposits and assets of foreign banking centers and the imposition of and changes in reserve requirements against certain borrowings by banks and their affiliates are some of the instruments of monetary policy available to the Federal Reserve. These monetary policies are used in varying combinations to influence overall growth and distributions of bank loans, investments and deposits, which may affect interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks and are expected to continue to do so in the future. The Federal Reserve’s policies are primarily influenced by the dual mandate of price stability and full employment, and to a lesser degree by short-term and long-term changes in the international trade balance and in the fiscal policies of the U.S. Government. Future changes in monetary policy and the effect of such changes on our business and earnings in the future cannot be predicted.

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR)

We have contracts, including loan agreements, which are currently indexed to LIBOR. The use of LIBOR as a reference rate in the banking industry is beginning to decline. In 2014, a committee of private-market derivative participants and their regulators, the Alternative Reference Rate Committee, or 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, or 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. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. provided guidance on fallback contract language related to derivative transactions in late 2019. We are currently evaluating risks and potential process changes arising from these developments.

Income Taxes

We are subject to income taxes at the federal level and subject to state taxation based on the laws of each state in which we operate. We file a consolidated federal tax return with a fiscal year ending on December 31. On December 22, 2017, the United States enacted tax reform legislation known as the H.R.1, commonly referred to as the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” resulting in significant modifications to existing law. We completed the accounting for the effects of the new

law during this period. Our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019, reflected certain effects of the new law, which included a reduction in the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, as well as other changes.

Coronavirus Pandemic

Beginning in January 2020 concerns related to the spread of the novel coronavirus COVID-19 started to cause economic disruptions in Asia and Europe. Ultimately, the spreading virus resulted in extremely negative consequences for worldwide financial markets. In early March 2020, it became apparent that novel coronavirus COVID-19 was going to have a negative impact in the United States and the Company began preparing for potential disruptions and government limitations of activity in the markets in which we serve. This included testing of our remote access systems and enhancing awareness to our digital banking offerings. We believe that our investments in technology, digital platforms, and electronic banking should allow our customers and employees to transact business even during times of uncertainty. We also have increased our oversight and analysis of credits in vulnerable industries such as hotels and hospitality in an attempt to improve loan performance and reduce credit risk. Given the fluidity of the situation, the duration and broader impact of the novel coronavirus COVID-19 on the extended economy, financial markets, and our business remain unknown.

 Item 1A. Risk Factors

An investment in our common stock is subject to risks inherent in our business. The following discussion highlights the risks that management believes are material for our Company, but do not necessarily include all the risks that we may face. You should carefully consider the risk factors and uncertainties described below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K in evaluating an investment in our common stock.

Our business operations and lending activities are concentrated in South Florida, and we are more sensitive to adverse changes in the local economy than our more geographically diversified competitors.

Unlike many of our larger competitors that maintain significant operations located outside of our market area, substantially all of our clients are concentrated in South Florida. In addition, we have a high concentration of loans secured by real estate located in South Florida. As of December 31, 2019, approximately $654.7 million, or 82.6%, of our loans, included real estate as a component of collateral. If our acquisition of MBI was completed as of December 31, 2019, approximately $1.13 billion, or 84.1% of our loans, would have included real estate as a component of collateral on a pro forma basis. Additionally, approximately 94.1% of our real estate loans have real estate collateral located in South Florida. Therefore, our success depends upon the general economic conditions in this area, which may differ from the economic conditions in other areas of the U.S. or the U.S. generally.

Our real estate collateral provides an alternate source of repayment in the event of default by the borrower; however, the value of the collateral may decline during the time the credit is outstanding. The concentration of our loans in the South Florida area subjects us to risk that a downturn in the economy or recession in this area could result in a decrease in loan originations and increases in delinquencies and foreclosures, which would have a greater effect on us than if our lending were more geographically diversified. If we are required to liquidate the collateral securing a loan during a period of reduced real estate values to satisfy the debt, our earnings and capital could be adversely affected. Moreover, since a large portion of our portfolio is secured by properties located in South Florida, the occurrence of a natural  disaster, such as a hurricane, or a man-made disaster could result in a decline in loan originations, a decline in the value or destruction of mortgaged properties and an increase in the risk of delinquencies, foreclosures or loss on loans originated by us. We may suffer further losses due to the decline in the value of the properties underlying our mortgage loans, which would have an adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

As a result, our operations and profitability may be more adversely affected by a local economic downturn in South Florida than those of our more geographically diverse competitors. A downturn in the local economy generally may lead to loan losses that are not offset by operations in other markets; it may also reduce the ability of our clients to grow or maintain their deposits with us. For these reasons, any regional or local economic downturn that affects South Florida, or existing or prospective borrowers or depositors in South Florida, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. From time to time, our Bank may provide financing to clients who live or

have companies or properties located outside our core market. In such cases, we would face similar local market risk in those communities for these clients.

Our business and operations may be adversely affected in numerous and complex ways by weak economic conditions.

Our business and operations, which primarily consist of lending money to clients in the form of loans, borrowing money from clients in the form of deposits, and investing in securities, are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States. In recent years there has been a gradual improvement in the U.S. economy as evidenced by a rebound in the housing market, lower unemployment and higher equity capital markets; however, economic growth has been uneven, and opinions vary on the strength and direction of the economy. If the U.S. economy weakens (as is possible due to chaning conditions being caused by the coronavirus COVID-19), our growth and profitability from our lending, deposit and investment operations could be adversely affected. Uncertainty about the federal fiscal policymaking process, the medium- and long-term fiscal outlook of the federal government and future tax rates are concerns for U.S. businesses, consumers and investors. Uncertainties also have arisen regarding the potential for a reversal or renegotiation of international trade agreements and the impact such actions and other policies the current administration may have on economic and market conditions. Such market instability may hinder future U.S. economic growth, which could adversely affect our assets, business, cash flow, financial condition, liquidity, prospects and results of operations.

Natural disasters and severe weather events in Florida can have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operations.

Our operations and our client base are primarily located in South Florida. This region is vulnerable to natural disasters and severe weather events or acts of God, such as hurricanes or tropical storms, which can have an adverse impact on our business, financial condition and operations, cause widespread property damage and have the potential to significantly depress the local economies in which we operate. Future adverse weather events in Florida could potentially result in extensive and costly property damage to businesses and residences, depress the value of property serving as collateral for our loans, force the relocation of residents, and significantly disrupt economic activity in the region. For example, in September 2017, Hurricane Irma caused significant damage and disruption to local business operations.

We cannot predict the extent of damage that may result from such adverse weather events, which will depend on a variety of factors that are beyond our control, including, but not limited to, the severity and duration of the event, the timing and level of government responsiveness and the pace of economic recovery. In addition, the nature, frequency and severity of these adverse weather events and other natural disasters may be exacerbated by climate change. If a significant adverse weather event, or other natural disaster were to occur, it could have a materially adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and our business, as well as potentially increase our exposure to credit and liquidity risks.

We face strong competition from financial services companies and other companies that offer banking services.

We operate in the highly competitive financial services industry and face significant competition for clients from financial institutions located both within and beyond our current market. We compete with commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, mortgage banking firms, consumer finance companies, securities brokerage firms, insurance companies, money market funds, non-bank financial services companies and other community banks and super-regional and national financial institutions operating within or near the areas we serve. Certain competitors often are larger, operate in more markets and have   far greater resources and are able to conduct more intensive and broader-based promotional efforts to reach both commercial and individual clients. In addition, as client preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for banks to expand their geographic reach by providing services over the internet and for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems.

The banking industry is experiencing rapid changes in technology and, as a result, our future success will depend in part on our ability to address our clients’ needs by using technology. Client loyalty can be influenced by a competitor’s

new products, especially offerings that could provide cost savings or a higher return to the client. Increased lending activity of competing banks has also led to increased competitive pressures on loan rates and terms for high quality credits. We may not be able to compete successfully with other financial institutions in our market, and we may have to pay higher interest rates to attract deposits and accept lower yields to attract loans, resulting in lower net interest margins and reduced profitability.

Moreover, many of our non-bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our activities and may have greater flexibility in competing for business. We also face strong competition from credit unions, which are exempt from the payment of income taxes and, as a result, can frequently offer lower rates on loans or pay higher rates on deposits. The financial services industry could also become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. In addition, some of our current commercial banking clients may seek alternative banking sources as they develop needs for credit facilities larger than we may be able to accommodate. Our inability to compete successfully in the markets in which we operate could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, prospects or results of operations.

We may not effectively execute on our expansion strategy, which may adversely affect our ability to maintain our historical growth and earnings trends.

We have grown rapidly over the last several years. Financial institutions that grow rapidly can experience significant difficulties as a result of rapid growth. Our primary expansion strategy focuses on organic growth, supplemented by acquisitions of banking teams or other financial institutions; however, we may not be able to successfully execute on these aspects of our expansion strategy, which may cause our future growth rate to decline below our recent historical levels, or may prevent us from growing at all. More specifically, we may not be able to generate sufficient new loans and deposits within acceptable risk and expense tolerances or obtain the personnel or funding necessary for additional growth. Various factors, such as economic conditions and competition with other financial institutions, may impede or restrict the growth of our operations. Further, we may be unable to attract and retain experienced bankers, which could adversely affect our growth. The success of our strategy also depends on our ability to manage our growth effectively, which in turn depends on a number of factors, including our ability to adapt our credit, operational, technology and governance infrastructure to accommodate expanded operations. Even if we are successful in continuing our growth, such growth may not offer the same levels of potential profitability, and we may not be successful in controlling costs and maintaining asset quality in the face of that growth. Accordingly, our inability to maintain growth or to effectively manage growth, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may grow through mergers or acquisitions, a strategy which may not be successful or, if successful, may produce risks in successfully integrating and managing the merged companies or acquisitions and may dilute our shareholders.

As part of our growth strategy, we may pursue mergers and acquisitions of banks and non-bank financial services companies within or outside our principal market areas. We regularly seek to identify and explore specific acquisition opportunities as part of our ongoing business practices.. We may also explore other strategic opportunities both within and outside of our current market. We face significant competition from numerous other financial services institutions, many of which will have greater financial resources or more liquid securities than we do, when considering acquisition opportunities. Accordingly, attractive acquisition opportunities may not be available to us. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in identifying or completing any future acquisitions.

Mergers and acquisitions involve numerous risks, any of which could harm our business, including:

Mergers and acquisitions also frequently result in the recording of goodwill and other intangible assets, which are subject to potential impairments in the future and that could harm our financial results. In addition, if we finance acquisitions by issuing equity securities, our existing shareholders’ ownership may be diluted, which could negatively affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock.

As a result, we may not achieve the anticipated benefits of any such merger or acquisition, and we may incur costs in excess of what we anticipate. Our failure to successfully evaluate and execute mergers, acquisitions or investments or otherwise adequately address these risks could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our continued pace of growth may require us to raise additional capital in the future to fund such growth, and the unavailability of additional capital on terms acceptable to us could adversely affect us or our growth.

After giving effect to this offering, we believe that we will have sufficient capital to meet our capital needs for our current growth plans. However, we will continue to need capital to support our longer-term growth plans. If capital is not available on favorable terms when we need it, we will have to either issue additional shares of common stock or other securities on less than desirable terms or reduce our rate of growth until market conditions become more favorable. Either of such events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be unable to attract and retain highly qualified personnel, which could adversely and materially affect our competitive position.

Our future success depends on our ability to attract and retain our executive officers and other key employees. We may be unable to attract or retain qualified management and other key personnel in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among companies in the financial services business and related businesses, particularly in the South Florida area in which we operate. Consequently, we could have difficulty attracting or retaining experienced personnel and may be required to spend significant time and expend significant financial resources in our employee recruitment and retention efforts. Many of the other financial services companies with which we compete for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources and risk profiles different from ours. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high quality candidates than that which we may offer. If we are unable to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may have difficulty implementing our business strategy and achieving our business objectives.

We rely heavily on our executive management team, including our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Daniel R. Sheehan, and other key employees, and we could be adversely affected by the unexpected loss of their services.

We are led by an experienced core management team with substantial experience in the market we serve, and our operating strategy focuses on providing products and services through long-term relationship managers and maintaining good relationships between our largest clients and our senior management team. Accordingly, our success depends in large part on the performance of these key personnel, including our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Daniel R. Sheehan, as well as on our ability to attract, motivate and retain highly qualified senior and middle management. Competition for employees is intense and the process of locating key personnel with the combination of skills and attributes required to execute our business plan may be lengthy. If any of our executive officers or other key personnel leaves us, our financial condition and results of operations may suffer due to the loss of their skills, knowledge of our market, and years of industry experience and the difficulty of promptly finding qualified personnel to replace them. Additionally, our executive officers’ and key employees’ community involvement and diverse and extensive local business relationships are important to our success.

We may incur losses if we are unable to successfully manage interest rate risk.

Our profitability depends to a large extent on Professional Bank’s net interest income, which is the difference between income on interest earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and expense on interest-bearing liabilities such as deposits and borrowings. Our net interest income may be reduced if: (i) more interest earning assets than interest-bearing liabilities reprice or mature during a time when interest rates are declining or (ii) more interest-bearing liabilities than interest earning assets reprice or mature during a time when interest rates are rising.

Changes in the difference between short-term and long-term interest rates may also harm our business, and we are unable to predict changes in market interest rates, which are affected by many factors beyond our control. We generally use short-term deposits to fund longer-term assets, such as loans. When interest rates change, assets and liabilities with shorter terms reprice more quickly than those with longer terms, which could have a material adverse effect on our net interest margin. If market interest rates rise rapidly, interest rate adjustment caps may also limit increases in the interest rates on adjustable rate loans, which could further reduce our net interest income. Additionally, continued price competition for deposits will adversely affect our net interest margin.

Additionally, interest rate increases often result in larger payment requirements for our borrowers with variable rate loans, which increases 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. 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 reversal of income previously recognized, which could have an 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 incur costs 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.

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 clients often pursue long-term fixed rate credits, which could adversely affect our earnings and net interest margin if rates later increase. If short-term interest rates remain at their historically low levels for a prolonged period and assuming longer-term interest rates fall further, we could experience net interest margin compression as our interest earning assets would continue to reprice downward while our interest-bearing liability rates could fail to decline in tandem. Such an occurrence would have an adverse effect on our net interest income and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our allowance for loan losses may not be sufficient to absorb potential losses in our loan portfolio.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses that represents management’s judgment of probable losses and risks inherent in our loan portfolio. As of December 31, 2019, our allowance for loan losses totaled $6.5 million, which represented approximately 0.83% of our total loans held for investment. The level of the allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of general economic conditions, present political and regulatory conditions, diversification and seasoning of the loan portfolio, historic loss experience, identified credit problems, delinquency levels and adequacy of collateral. Determining the appropriate level of our allowance for loan losses is inherently subjective and requires management to make significant estimates of and assumptions regarding current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes.

Inaccurate management assumptions, deterioration of economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification or deterioration of  additional problem loans,  acquisition of problem loans and other factors (including third-party review and analysis), both within and outside of our control, may require us to increase our allowance for loan losses. In addition, our regulators, as an integral part of their periodic examinations, review our methodology for calculating, and the  adequacy of, our allowance for loan losses and may direct us to make additions to the allowance based on their judgments about information available to them at the time of their examination. Further, if actual charge-offs in future periods exceed the amounts allocated to our allowance for loan losses, we may need additional provisions for loan losses to restore the adequacy of our allowance for loan losses. Finally, the measure of our allowance for loan losses depends on the adoption and interpretation of accounting standards. The Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB, recently issued a new credit impairment model, the Current Expected Credit Loss, or CECL model, which is expected to become applicable to us on January 1, 2023 after the FASB elected to delay implementation for smaller reporting companies. CECL will require financial institutions to estimate and develop a provision for credit losses over the lifetime of the loan at origination, as opposed to reserving for incurred or probable losses up to the balance sheet  date. Under the CECL model, credit deterioration would be reflected in the income statement in the period of origination or acquisition of a loan, with changes in expected credit losses due to further credit deterioration or improvement reflected in the periods in which the expectation changes. Accordingly, the CECL model could require financial institutions, like the Bank, to increase their allowances for loan losses. Moreover, the CECL model may create more volatility in our level of allowance for loan losses. If we are required to materially increase our level of allowance for loan losses for any reason, such increase could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to manage our credit risk adequately, which could lead to unexpected losses.

Our primary business involves making loans to clients. The business of lending is inherently risky because the principal of or interest on the loan may not be repaid timely or at all or the value of any collateral supporting the loan may be insufficient to cover our outstanding exposure. These risks may be affected by the strength of the borrower’s business sector and local, regional and national market and economic conditions. Many of our loans are made to small to medium sized businesses that may be less able to withstand competitive, economic and financial pressures than larger borrowers. Our risk management practices, such as monitoring the concentration of our loans within specific industries, and our credit approval practices may not adequately reduce credit risk. Further, our credit administration personnel, policies and procedures may not adequately adapt to changes in economic or any other conditions affecting clients and the quality of the loan portfolio. A failure to effectively manage credit risk associated with our loan portfolio could lead to unexpected losses and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our commercial real estate and real estate construction loan portfolio exposes us to credit risks that may be greater than the risks related to other types of loans.

As of December 31, 2019, approximately $271.0 million, or 34.2%, of our loan portfolio was comprised of nonresidential real estate loans (including owner-occupied commercial real estate loans) and approximately $41.5 million, or 5.2%, of our total loans held for investment were construction and development loans. Further, as of December 31, 2019, our commercial real estate loans (excluding owner-occupied commercial real estate loans) totaled 283.3% and our construction and development loans totaled 43.3% of our total risk-based capital, respectively. These loans typically involve repayment that depends upon income generated, or expected to be generated, by the property

securing the loan and may be adversely affected by changes in the economy or local market conditions. These loans expose a lender to the risk of having to liquidate the collateral securing these loans at times when there may be significant fluctuation of commercial real estate values. Unexpected deterioration in the credit quality of our commercial real estate loan portfolio could require us to increase our allowance for loan losses, which would reduce our profitability and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Construction loans also involve risks because loan funds are secured by a project under construction, the value of which is uncertain prior to completion. It can be difficult to accurately evaluate the total funds required to complete a project, and construction lending often involves the disbursement of substantial funds with repayment dependent, in part, on the success of the ultimate project rather than the ability of a borrower or guarantor to repay the loan. If we are forced to foreclose on a project prior to completion, we may be unable to recover the entire unpaid portion of the loan. In addition, we may be required to fund additional amounts to complete a project, incur taxes, maintenance and compliance costs for a foreclosed property and may have to hold the property for an indeterminate period of time, any of which could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

A portion of our loan portfolio is comprised of commercial loans secured by receivables, inventory, equipment or other commercial collateral, the deterioration in value of which could expose us to credit losses.

As of December 31, 2019, approximately $129.5 million, or 16.3%, of our total loans held for investment were commercial loans to businesses. In general, these loans are collateralized by general business assets, including, among other things, accounts receivable, inventory and equipment, and most are backed by a personal guaranty of the borrower or principal. These commercial loans are typically larger in amount than loans to individuals and, therefore, have the potential for larger losses on a single loan basis. Additionally, the repayment of commercial loans is subject to the ongoing business operations of the borrower. The collateral securing such loans generally includes movable property such as equipment and inventory, which may decline in value more rapidly than we anticipate, exposing us to increased credit risk. Significant adverse changes in the economy or local market conditions in which our commercial lending clients operate could cause rapid declines in loan collectability and the values associated with general business assets resulting in inadequate collateral coverage that may expose us to credit losses and could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Appraisals and other valuation techniques we use in evaluating and monitoring loans secured by real property may not accurately reflect the net value of the collateral.

In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property, we generally require an appraisal of  the property; however, an appraisal is only an estimate of the value of the property at the time the appraisal  is made and, as real estate values may change significantly in value in relatively short periods of time (especially in periods of heightened economic uncertainty), the appraisal may not accurately describe the net value of the real property collateral after the loan is made. As a result, we may not be able to recover the full amount of any remaining indebtedness when we foreclose on and sell the relevant property, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We engage in lending secured by real estate and may be forced to foreclose on the collateral and own the underlying real estate, subjecting us to the costs and potential risks associated with the ownership of real property, or consumer protection initiatives or changes in state or federal law may substantially raise the cost of foreclosure or prevent us from foreclosing at all.

Since we originate loans secured by real estate, we may have to foreclose on the collateral property to protect our investment and may thereafter own and operate such property, in which case we would be exposed to the risks inherent in the ownership of real estate. The amount that we, as a mortgagee, may realize after a foreclosure depends on factors outside of our control, including, but not limited to, general or local economic conditions, environmental cleanup liabilities, assessments, interest rates, real estate tax rates, operating expenses of the mortgaged properties, our ability to obtain and maintain adequate occupancy of the properties, zoning laws, governmental and regulatory rules, and natural disasters. Our inability to manage the amount of costs or size of the risks associated with the ownership of real estate, or

write-downs in the value of other real estate owned, or OREO, could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Additionally, consumer protection initiatives or changes in state or federal law may substantially increase the time and expenses associated with the foreclosure process or prevent us from foreclosing at all. A number of states in recent years have either considered or adopted foreclosure reform laws that make it substantially more difficult and expensive for lenders to foreclose on properties in default. Additionally, federal regulators have prosecuted a number of mortgage servicing companies for alleged consumer law violations. If new state or federal laws or regulations are ultimately enacted that significantly raise the cost of foreclosure or raise outright barriers, they could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our financial condition, earnings and asset quality could be adversely affected if we are required to repurchase loans originated for sale.

We originate residential mortgage loans for sale to secondary market investors, subject to contractually specified and limited recourse provisions. Because the loans are intended to be originated within investor guidelines, using designated automated underwriting and product-specific requirements as part of the loan application, the loans sold have a limited recourse provision. In general, we may be required to repurchase a previously sold mortgage loan or indemnify an investor if there is non-compliance with defined loan origination or documentation standards including fraud, negligence, material misstatement in the loan documents, or non-compliance with applicable law. In addition, we may have an obligation to repurchase a loan if the mortgagor has defaulted early in the loan term or return profits made should the loan prepay within a short period. The potential mortgagor early default repurchase period is up to approximately 12 months after sale of the loan to the investor. The recourse period for fraud, material misstatement, breach of representations and warranties, non-compliance with law or similar matters could be as long as the term of the loan. Mortgages subject to recourse are collateralized by single-family residential properties. From January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2019, we have not repurchased any loans due to default, fraud, breach of representations, material misstatement, legal non-compliance or early prepayment. Should such loan repurchases become a material issue, our earnings and asset quality could be adversely impacted, which could adversely impact business, financial condition, and results of operations.

A lack of liquidity could impair our ability to fund operations and adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Liquidity is essential to our business. Liquidity risk is the potential that we will be unable to meet our obligations as they come due because of an inability to liquidate assets or obtain adequate funding. We rely on our ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment and maturity schedules of our loans and investment securities, respectively, to provide adequate liquidity to fund our operations. If we are unable to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, sales of our investment securities, sales of loans or other sources, it could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity and our ability to continue our growth strategy.

Our most important source of funds is deposits. As of December 31, 2019, approximately $599.3 million, or 67.1%, of our total deposits were negotiable order of withdrawal, or NOW, savings, and money market accounts. Historically our savings, money market deposit and NOW accounts have been stable sources of funds. However, these deposits are subject to potentially dramatic fluctuations in availability or price due to factors that may be outside of our control, such as a loss of confidence by clients in us or the banking sector generally, client perceptions of our financial health and general reputation, increasing competitive pressures from other financial services firms for consumer or corporate client deposits, changes in interest rates and returns on other investment classes, any of which could result in significant outflows of deposits within short periods of time or significant changes in pricing necessary to maintain current client deposits or attract additional deposits, increasing our funding costs and reducing our net interest income and net income.

Additional liquidity may be provided by our ability to borrow from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta, or the FHLB, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. As of December 31, 2019, we had $55.0 million of advances from the FHLB outstanding. We also may borrow funds from third-party lenders, such as other financial institutions. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize our activities, or on terms that are acceptable to us, could

be impaired by factors that affect us directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry. Our access to funding sources could also be affected by one or more adverse regulatory actions against us.

Any decline in available funding or cost of liquidity could adversely impact our ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet our expenses or fulfill obligations such as repaying our borrowings or meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could, in turn, have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We have several large depositor relationships, the loss of which could force us to fund our business through more expensive and less stable sources.

As of December 31, 2019, our ten largest depositors accounted for approximately $198.9 million in deposits, or approximately 22.3% of our total deposits. Withdrawals of deposits by any one of our largest depositors could force us to rely more heavily on more expensive and less stable funding sources. Consequently, the occurrence of any of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may be subject to environmental liabilities in connection with the real properties we own and the foreclosure on real estate assets securing our loan portfolio.

In the course of our business, we may foreclose on and take title to real estate or otherwise be deemed to be in control of property that serves as collateral on loans we make. As a result, we could be subject to environmental liabilities with respect to those properties. We may be held liable to governmental entities or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or we may be required to investigate or clean up hazardous or toxic substances or chemical releases at a property. The costs associated with investigation or remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property.

The cost of removal or abatement may substantially exceed the value of the affected properties or the loans secured by those properties, we may not have adequate remedies against the prior owners or other responsible parties and we may not be able to resell the affected properties either before or after completion of any such removal or abatement procedures. Other actions we may take to minimize the impact of environmental liabilities may not fully insulate us from such liabilities. Furthermore, despite these actions on our part, the value of the property as collateral will generally be substantially reduced or we may elect not to foreclose on the property and, as a result, we may suffer a loss upon collection of the loan. Any significant environmental liabilities could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We could recognize losses on investment securities held in our securities portfolio, particularly if interest rates increase or economic and market conditions deteriorate.

While we generally invest a significant majority of our total assets in loans (our loan to asset ratio was 75.2% as of December 31, 2019), we also invest a portion of our total assets (2.81% as of December 31, 2019) in investment securities with the primary objectives of providing a source of liquidity, providing an appropriate return on funds invested, managing interest rate risk, meeting pledging requirements and meeting regulatory capital requirements. As of December 31, 2019, the fair value of our available for sale investment securities portfolio was $28.4 million, which included a net unrealized loss of approximately $99,000.

Factors beyond our control can significantly and adversely influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio. For example, fixed-rate securities are generally subject to decreases in market value when interest rates rise. Additional factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults by the issuer or individual borrowers with respect to the underlying securities and instability in the credit markets. Any of the foregoing factors could cause other-than-temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized and/or unrealized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments

about the future financial performance and liquidity of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security as well as the Company’s intent and ability to hold the security for a sufficient period of time to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting interest rates, the financial condition of issuers of the securities and the performance of the underlying collateral, we may recognize realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

As a new public company, we may not efficiently or effectively create an effective internal control environment, and any future failure to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting could impair the reliability of our financial statements, which in turn could harm our business, impair investor confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and our access to the capital markets and cause the price of our Class A Common Stock to decline and subject us to regulatory penalties.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting and for evaluating and reporting on that system of internal control. Our internal control over financial reporting consists of a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. As a public company, we will be required to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other rules that govern public companies, which we previously were not required to comply with as a private company. In particular, we will be required to certify our compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act beginning with our second annual report on Form 10-K, which will require us to annually furnish a report by management on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. When evaluating our internal controls over financial reporting, we may identify material weaknesses that we may not be able to remediate in time to meet the applicable deadline imposed upon us for compliance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In addition, if we fail to achieve and maintain the adequacy of our internal controls, as such standards are modified, supplemented, or amended from time to time, we may not be able to ensure that we will be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We cannot be certain as to the timing of completion of our evaluation, testing, and any remediation actions or the impact of the same on our operations. If we are not able to implement the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner or with adequate compliance, our independent registered public accounting firm may issue an adverse opinion due to ineffective internal controls over financial reporting, and we may be subject to sanctions or investigations by regulatory authorities, such as the SEC. As a result, there could be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. In addition, we may be required to incur costs in improving our internal control system and hiring additional personnel. Any such action could negatively affect our results of operations and cash flows and the price of our Class A Common Stock may decline.

The accuracy of our financial statements and related disclosures could be affected if the judgments, assumptions or estimates used in our critical accounting policies are inaccurate.

The preparation of our financial statements and related disclosures in conformity with GAAP requires us to make judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Our critical accounting policies, which are included in the section captioned “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in this prospectus, describe those significant accounting policies and methods used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements that we consider critical because they require judgments, assumptions and estimates that materially affect our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures. As a result, if future events or regulatory views concerning such analysis differ significantly from the judgments, assumptions and estimates in our critical accounting policies, those events or assumptions could have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements and related disclosures, in each case resulting in our need to revise or restate prior period financial statements, cause damage to our reputation and the price of our Class A Common Stock and adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in accounting standards or regulatory interpretations of existing standards could materially impact our financial statements and disclosures.

From time to time the FASB or the SEC may change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes may subject us to new or changing accounting and reporting standards. In addition, the bodies that interpret the accounting standards (such as banking regulators or outside auditors) may change their interpretations or positions on how new or existing standards should be applied, which in many cases may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently and retrospectively, in each case resulting in our needing to revise or restate prior period financial statements, which could materially change our financial statements and related disclosures, cause damage to our reputation, adversely impact our business, financial condition and results of operations, and the price of our Class A Common Stock.

Our management team depends on data and modeling in their decision-making and inaccurate data or modeling approaches could negatively impact our decision-making ability or possibly subject us to regulatory scrutiny in the future.

We rely heavily on statistical and quantitative models and other quantitative analyses for bank decision-making, and the use of such analyses is becoming increasingly widespread in our operations. Liquidity stress testing, interest rate sensitivity analysis, the identification of possible violations of anti-money laundering regulations are all examples of areas in which we are dependent on models and the data that underlies them. While we believe these quantitative techniques and approaches improve our decision-making, they also create the possibility that faulty data or flawed quantitative approaches could negatively impact our decision-making ability. Secondarily, because of the complexity inherent in these approaches, misunderstanding or misuse of their outputs could similarly result in poor decision-making and have a negative impact on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Our operations could be interrupted if our third-party service providers experience difficulty, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking regulations.

We outsource some of our operational activities and accordingly depend on relationships with third-party providers for services such as core systems support, informational website hosting, internet services, online account opening and other processing services. Our business depends on the successful and uninterrupted functioning of our information technology and telecommunications systems, many of which also depend on third party providers. The failure of these systems, a cybersecurity breach involving any of our third-party service providers or the termination or change in terms of a third-party software license or service agreement on which any of these systems is based could interrupt our operations. Because our information technology and telecommunications systems interface with and depend on third-party systems, we could experience service denials if demand for such services exceeds capacity or such third-party systems fail or experience interruptions. Replacing vendors or addressing other issues with our third-party service providers could entail significant delay, expense and disruption of service.

As a result, if these third-party service providers experience difficulties, are subject to cybersecurity breaches, or terminate their services, and we are unable to replace them with other service providers, particularly on a timely basis, our operations could be interrupted. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period of time, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Even if we are able to replace third-party service providers, it may be at a higher cost to us, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Accordingly, our operations could be interrupted if any of our third-party service providers experience difficulty, are subject to cybersecurity breaches, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking regulations, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In addition, our failure to adequately oversee the actions of our third-party service providers could result in regulatory actions against the Bank, which could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

System failure or breaches of our network security could subject us to increased operating costs as well as litigation and other potential losses.

Our computer systems and network infrastructure could be vulnerable to hardware and cybersecurity issues. Our operations are dependent upon our ability to protect our hardware equipment against damage from fire, power loss, telecommunications failure or a similar catastrophic event. Threats to data security, including unauthorized access and cyber-attacks, rapidly emerge and change, exposing us to additional costs for protection or remediation and competing time constraints to secure our data in accordance with client expectations and statutory and regulatory requirements. We could also experience a breach by intentional or negligent conduct on the part of employees or other internal sources. Any damage or failure that causes an interruption in our operations could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations are also dependent upon our ability to protect our computer systems and network infrastructure, including our digital, mobile and internet banking activities, against damage from physical break-ins, cybersecurity breaches and other disruptive problems caused by the internet or other users. Such computer break-ins and other disruptions would jeopardize the security of sensitive data stored in and transmitted through our computer systems and network infrastructure, which may result in significant liability, damage our reputation and inhibit the use of our internet banking services by current and potential clients. We regularly add additional security measures to our computer systems and network infrastructure and implement procedures to mitigate the possibility of cybersecurity breaches, including firewalls and penetration testing. However, it is not feasible to defend against every risk being posed by changing technologies as well as criminals’ intent on committing cyber-crime, particularly given their increasing sophistication, and our security measures may not prevent a system breach.

Controls employed by our information technology department and third-party vendors could prove inadequate. We could also experience a breach by intentional or negligent conduct on the part of our employees or other internal sources, software bugs or other technical malfunctions, or other causes. As a result of any of these threats, our client accounts may become vulnerable to account takeover schemes or cyber-fraud. Our systems and those of our third-party vendors may also become vulnerable to damage or disruption due to circumstances beyond our or their control, such as from network failures, viruses and malware, power anomalies or outages, natural disasters and catastrophic events. A breach of our security or that of a third-party vendor that results in unauthorized access to our data could expose us to a disruption  or challenges relating to our daily operations, as well as to data loss, litigation, damages, fines and penalties, significant increases in compliance costs and reputational damage, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have a continuing need for technological change, and we may not have the resources to implement new technology effectively, or we may experience operational challenges when implementing new technology or technology needed to compete effectively with larger institutions may not be available to us on a cost-effective basis.

The financial services industry is undergoing rapid technological change, with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. In addition to serving clients better, the effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to reduce costs. Our future success will depend, at least in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our clients by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy client demands for convenience as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations as we continue to grow and expand our products and service offerings. We hope to address these demands through, among other things, our Digital Innovation Center and digital banking platform. However, we may experience operational and other challenges as we implement these new technology enhancements or products, which could impair our ability to realize the anticipated benefits from such new technology or require us to incur significant costs to remedy any such challenges in a timely manner.

Many of our larger competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements, and we may not be able to implement new technology-driven products and services timely, effectively or at all or be successful in marketing these products and services to our clients. Third parties upon whom we rely for our technology needs may not be able to develop on a cost-effective basis systems that will enable us to keep pace with such developments or we may, in order to remain competitive, be required to make significant capital expenditures, which may increase our

overall expenses and have a material adverse effect on our net income. As a result, our competitors may be able to offer additional or superior products compared to those that we will be able to provide, which would put us at a competitive disadvantage. We may lose clients seeking new technology-driven products and services to the extent we are unable to provide such products and services. Accordingly, the ability to keep pace with technological change is important, and the failure to do so could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to certain operational risks, including, but not limited to, client, employee or third-party fraud and data processing system failures and errors.

Employee errors and employee or client misconduct could subject us to financial losses or regulatory sanctions and seriously harm our reputation. Misconduct by our employees could include hiding unauthorized activities from us, improper or unauthorized activities on behalf of our clients or improper use of confidential information. It is not always possible to prevent employee errors and misconduct, and the precautions we take to prevent and detect this activity may not be effective in all cases. Employee errors could also subject us to financial claims for negligence.

We have implemented a system of internal controls designed to mitigate operational risks, including data processing system failures and errors and client or employee fraud, as well as insurance coverage designed to protect us from material losses associated with these risks, including losses resulting from any associated business interruption. If our internal controls fail to prevent or detect an occurrence, or if any resulting loss is not insured or exceeds applicable insurance limits, it could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

When we originate loans, we rely heavily upon information supplied by third parties, including the information contained in credit applications, property appraisals, title information, equipment pricing and valuation and employment and income documentation, in deciding which loans we will originate, as well as the terms of those loans. If any of the information upon which we rely is misrepresented, either  fraudulently or inadvertently, and the misrepresentation is not detected prior to funding, the value of the  loan may be significantly lower than expected, or we may fund a loan that we would not have funded or on terms that do not comply with our general underwriting standards. Whether a misrepresentation is made by the applicant, the borrower, one of our employees or another third party, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation. A loan subject to a material misrepresentation is typically unsellable or subject to repurchase if it is sold prior to detection of the misrepresentation. The sources of the misrepresentations are often difficult to locate, and it is often difficult to recover any of the resulting monetary losses we may suffer, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to claims and litigation pertaining to intellectual property.

Banking and other financial services companies, such as our Company, rely on technology companies and consultants to provide information technology products and services necessary to support their day-to-day operations. Technology companies frequently enter into litigation based on allegations of patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. Competitors of our vendors, or other individuals or companies, may from time to time claim to hold intellectual property sold or assigned to us. Such claims may increase in the future as the financial services sector becomes more reliant on information technology vendors. The plaintiffs in these actions frequently seek injunctions and substantial damages.

Regardless of the scope or validity of such patents or other intellectual property rights, or the merits of any claims by potential or actual litigants, we may have to engage in protracted litigation. Such litigation is often expensive, time-consuming, disruptive to our operations, and distracting to management. If we are found to infringe on one or more patents or other intellectual property rights, we may be required to pay substantial damages or royalties to a third party. In certain cases, we may consider entering into licensing agreements for disputed intellectual property, although no assurance can be given that such licenses can be obtained on acceptable terms or that litigation will not occur. These licenses may also significantly increase our operating expenses. If legal matters related to intellectual property claims were resolved against us or settled, we could be required to make payments in amounts that could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to manage the risks associated with our anticipated growth and potential expansion through de novo branching.

Our business strategy entails evaluating potential strategic opportunities which includes potentially growing through de novo branching. De novo branching carries with it certain potential risks, including significant startup costs and anticipated initial operating losses; regulatory approval risk; an inability to secure the services of qualified senior management to operate the de novo banking location and successfully integrate and promote our corporate culture; poor market reception for de novo banking locations established in markets where we do not have a preexisting reputation; challenges posed by local economic conditions; challenges associated with securing attractive locations at a reasonable cost; and the additional strain on management resources and internal systems and controls. Failure to adequately manage the risks associated with our anticipated growth through de novo branching could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in a highly regulated environment, and the laws and regulations that govern our operations, corporate governance, executive compensation and accounting principles, or changes in them, or our failure to comply with them, could adversely affect us.

Banking is highly regulated under federal and state law. As such, we are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and legal requirements that govern almost all aspects of our operations. These laws and regulations are not intended to protect our shareholders. Rather, these laws and regulations are intended to protect clients, depositors, the Deposit Insurance Fund and the overall financial stability of the United States. These laws and regulations, among other matters, prescribe minimum capital requirements, impose limitations on the business activities in which we can engage, limit the dividends or distributions that the Bank may pay to the Company, restrict the ability of institutions to guarantee our debt and impose certain specific accounting requirements on us that may be more restrictive and may result in greater or earlier charges to earnings or reductions in our capital than GAAP would require. Compliance with laws and regulations can be difficult and costly, and changes to laws and regulations often impose additional operating costs. Our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, even if the failure follows good faith effort or reflects a difference in interpretation, could subject us to restrictions on our business activities, enforcement actions and fines and other penalties, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations, regulatory capital levels and the price of our securities. Further, any new laws, rules and regulations, such as were imposed under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection  Act, or the Dodd Frank Act, could make compliance more difficult or expensive or otherwise adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Legislative and regulatory actions taken now or in the future may increase our costs and impact our business, governance structure, financial condition or results of operations.

Economic conditions that contributed to the financial crisis in 2008, particularly in the financial markets, resulted in government regulatory agencies and political bodies placing increased focus and scrutiny on the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act, which was enacted in 2010 in response to the financial crisis, significantly changed the regulation of financial institutions and the financial services industry. The Dodd-Frank Act and the regulations thereunder have affected both large and small financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, imposed new capital requirements on bank holding companies; changed the base for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, insurance assessments  to a bank’s average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity, rather than upon its deposit  base; permanently raised the current standard deposit insurance limit to $250,000; and expanded the FDIC’s authority to raise insurance premiums. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve, which has broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, and home-equity loans, and contains provisions on residential mortgage-related matters that address steering incentives, determinations as to a borrower’s ability to repay, prepayment penalties and disclosures to borrowers. Although the applicability of certain elements of the Dodd-Frank Act is limited to institutions with more than $10 billion in assets, there can be no guarantee that such applicability will not be extended in the future or that regulators or other third parties will not seek to impose such requirements on institutions with less than $10 billion in assets, such as the Bank. Compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations has and may continue to result in additional

operating and compliance costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.

On May 24, 2018, President Trump signed into law the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act,” or the Regulatory Relief Act, which amends parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as other laws that involve regulation of the financial industry. While the Regulatory Relief Act keeps in place fundamental aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act’s regulatory framework, it does change the regulatory framework for depository institutions with assets under $10 billion, such as the Bank, as well as easing some requirements for larger depository institutions. As more fully discussed under “Supervision and Regulation-Regulatory Relief Act,” the legislation includes a number of provisions which are favorable to bank holding companies, or BHCs, with total consolidated assets of less than $10 billion, such as the Company, and also makes changes to consumer mortgage and credit reporting regulations and to the authorities of the agencies that regulate the financial industry. Because a number of the provisions included in the Regulatory Relief Act require the federal banking agencies to undertake notice and comment rulemaking, it will likely take some time before these provisions are fully implemented.

Federal and state regulatory agencies frequently adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. Regulatory or legislative changes to laws applicable to the financial industry, if enacted or adopted, may impact the profitability of our business activities, require more oversight or change certain of our business practices, including the ability to offer new products, obtain financing, attract deposits, make loans and achieve satisfactory interest spreads and could expose us to additional costs, including increased compliance costs. These changes also may require us to invest significant management attention and resources to make any necessary changes to operations to comply and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Federal banking agencies periodically conduct examinations of our business, including compliance with laws and regulations, and our failure to comply with any supervisory actions to which we are or become subject as a result of such examinations could adversely affect us.

As part of the bank regulatory process, the Federal Reserve and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation periodically conduct examinations of our business, including compliance with laws and regulations. If, as a result of an examination, one of these agencies were to determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, asset sensitivity, risk management or other aspects of  any of  our operations have become unsatisfactory, or that the Company, the Bank or their respective management were in violation of any law or regulation, it could take a number of different remedial actions as it deems appropriate. These actions include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative actions to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in our capital levels, to restrict our growth, to assess civil monetary penalties against us, the Bank or their respective officers or directors, to remove officers and directors and, if it is concluded that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate the Bank’s deposit insurance. If we become subject to such regulatory actions, our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation could be adversely affected.

Financial institutions, such as the Bank, face a risk of noncompliance and enforcement action with the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering statutes and regulations.

The Bank Secrecy Act, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or the USA PATRIOT Act, 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 as appropriate. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, established by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to administer the Bank Secrecy Act, is authorized to impose significant civil money penalties for violations of those requirements and has recently engaged in coordinated enforcement efforts with the individual federal banking regulators, as well as the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. Additionally, South Florida has been designated as a “High Intensity Financial Crime Area,” or HIFCA, by FinCEN and a “High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area,” or HIDTA, by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The HIFCA program is intended to concentrate law enforcement efforts to combat money laundering efforts in higher-risk areas. The HIDTA designation makes it possible for local

agencies to benefit from ongoing HIDTA-coordinated program initiatives that are working to reduce drug use. There is also increased scrutiny of compliance with the sanctions programs and rules administered and enforced by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

In order to comply with regulations, guidelines and examination procedures in this area, we have dedicated significant resources to our anti-money laundering program, especially due to the regulatory focus on financial and other institutions located in South Florida. If our policies, procedures and systems are deemed deficient, we could be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions such as restrictions on our ability to pay dividends and the inability to obtain regulatory approvals to proceed with certain aspects of our business plans, including acquisitions and de novo  branching.

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations of certain regulatory agencies, such as the CFPB, designed to protect consumers, including the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, and fair lending laws, and failure to comply with these laws could lead to a wide variety of sanctions.

The CRA directs all insured depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are located, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Each institution is examined periodically by its primary federal regulator, which assesses the institution’s performance. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CFPB, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Reserve, and other federal agencies are responsible for enforcing these laws and regulations. The CFPB was created under the Dodd-Frank Act to centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection with broad rulemaking authority to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of federal consumer financial laws with respect to all financial institutions that offer financial products and services to consumers. The CFPB is also authorized to prescribe rules applicable to any covered person or service provider, identifying and prohibiting acts or practices that are “unfair, deceptive, or abusive” in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product. The ongoing broad rulemaking powers of the CFPB have potential to have a significant impact on the operations of financial institutions offering consumer financial products or services.

A successful regulatory challenge to our performance under the CRA, fair lending or consumer 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 an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Increases in FDIC insurance premiums could adversely affect our earnings and results of operations.

The deposits of our bank are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits and, accordingly, subject it to the payment of FDIC deposit insurance assessments. In order to maintain a strong funding position and restore the reserve ratios of the Deposit Insurance Fund following the financial crisis, the FDIC increased deposit insurance assessment rates and charged special assessments to all FDIC-insured financial institutions. Although the FDIC has since reduced premiums for most FDIC-insured institutions of our size, increases in assessment rates or special assessments may occur in the future, especially if there are significant additional financial institution failures. Any future special assessments increases in assessment rates or required prepayments in FDIC insurance premiums could reduce our profitability or limit our ability to pursue certain business opportunities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Federal Reserve may require us to commit capital resources to support the Bank.

The Federal Reserve requires a bank holding company to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks and to commit resources to support its subsidiary banks. Under the “source of strength” doctrine that was codified by the Dodd-Frank Act, the Federal Reserve may require a bank holding company to make capital injections into a troubled subsidiary bank at times when the bank holding company may not be inclined to do so and may

charge the bank holding company with engaging in unsafe and unsound practices for failure to commit resources to such a subsidiary bank. Accordingly, we could be required to provide financial assistance to the Bank if it experiences financial distress.

A capital injection may be required at a time when our resources are limited, and we may be required to borrow the funds or raise capital to make the required capital injection. Any loan by a bank holding company to its subsidiary bank is subordinate in right of payment to deposits and certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary bank. In the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee will assume any commitment by the holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank. Moreover, bankruptcy law provides that claims based on any such commitment will be entitled to a priority of payment over the claims of the holding company’s general unsecured creditors, including the holders of any note obligations. Thus, any borrowing by a bank holding company for the purpose of making a capital injection to a subsidiary bank often becomes more difficult and expensive relative to other corporate borrowings.

We could be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when our collateral cannot be foreclosed upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due. Any such losses could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition to being affected by general economic conditions, our earnings and growth are affected by the policies of the Federal Reserve. An important function of the Federal Reserve is to regulate the U.S. money supply and credit conditions. Among the instruments used by the Federal Reserve to implement these objectives are open market purchases and sales of securities by the Federal Reserve, adjustments of both the discount rate and the federal funds rate and changes in reserve requirements against bank deposits. These instruments are used in varying combinations to influence overall economic growth and the distribution of credit, bank loans, investments and deposits. Their use also affects interest rates charged on loans or paid on deposits. The monetary policies and regulations of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of commercial banks in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future. Although we cannot determine the effects of such policies on us at this time, such policies could adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Our future ability to pay dividends is subject to restrictions.

Holders of our Class A Common Stock (as well as our Class B Common Stock) are only entitled to receive dividends when, as and if declared by our Board out of funds legally available for dividends. Moreover, our ability to declare and pay dividends to our shareholders is highly dependent upon the ability of the Bank to pay dividends to us, the payment of which is subject to laws and regulations governing banks and financial institutions.

We have not paid any cash dividends on our capital stock since inception and we do not plan to pay cash dividends in the foreseeable future. Any declaration and payment of dividends on our common stock  in the future will depend on regulatory restrictions, our earnings and financial condition, our liquidity and capital requirements, the general economic climate, contractual restrictions, our ability to service any equity or debt obligations senior to our common stock and other factors deemed relevant by our Board. In addition, prior to the consummation of the merger with MBI, the terms of the MBI merger agreement prohibit us from issuing dividends without the written consent of MBI. Furthermore, consistent with our strategic plans, growth initiatives, capital availability, projected liquidity needs and other factors, we have made, and will continue to make, capital management decisions and policies that could adversely affect the amount of dividends, if any, paid to our shareholders. See “Dividend Policy.”

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policy in relation to the organization’s overall asset quality, current and prospective earnings and the level, composition and quality of capital. The guidance provides that we inform and consult with the Federal Reserve prior to declaring and paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period for which the dividend is being paid or that could result in an adverse change to our capital structure, which could impact our ability to pay dividends in the future.

The market price of our Class A Common Stock may be subject to substantial fluctuations, which may make it difficult for you to sell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired.

The market price of our Class A Common Stock may be highly volatile, which may make it difficult for you to resell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired. There are many factors that may affect the market price and trading volume of our Class A Common Stock, including, without limitation, the risks discussed elsewhere in this “Risk Factors” section and:

The stock market and, in particular, the market for financial institution stocks have experienced substantial fluctuations in recent years, which in many cases have been unrelated to the operating performance and prospects of particular companies. In addition, significant fluctuations in the trading volume in our Class A Common Stock may cause significant price variations to occur. Increased market volatility may materially and adversely affect the market price of our Class A Common Stock, which could make it difficult to sell your shares at the volume, prices and times desired.

In addition, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a particular company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. Such litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources.

We are an “emerging growth company,” and the reduced reporting requirements applicable to emerging growth companies may make our Class A Common Stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act. For as long as we continue to be an emerging growth company, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies but not to “emerging growth companies,” including, but not limited to:

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earlier of (1) the last day of the fiscal year (a) following the fifth anniversary of the completion of our offering, (b) in which we have total annual gross revenue of at least $1.07 billion, or (c) in which we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer, which means the market value of our common stock (including our Class A Common Stock and Class B Common  Stock) that is held by non-affiliates exceeds $700 million as of the prior December 31st, and (2) the date on which we have issued more than $1.0 billion in non-convertible debt during the prior three-year period. Investors may find our common stock less attractive if we choose to rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result of any choices to reduce future disclosure, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and the price of our common stock may be more volatile.

Under the JOBS Act, emerging growth companies can also delay adopting new or revised accounting standards until such time as those standards apply to private companies. We have elected to take advantage of this benefit and, as a result, our future financial statements may not be directly comparable to those of other public companies, including other financial institutions, which have implemented such new or revised accounting standards until we implement such new or revised accounting standards.

Substantial future sales of our Class A Common Stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the price of our Class A Common Stock to decline, even if our business is doing well.

Sales of our Class A Common Stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the market price of our common stock to decline, even if our business is doing well. All Class A Common Stock sold in

our offering will be freely transferable without restriction or additional registration under the Securities Act of 1933, or the Securities Act. Substantially all of the remaining Class A Common Stock outstanding after our offering will be available for sale upon the expiration of the 180-day lock-up period, subject to volume, notice and manner of sale restrictions as applicable to us under Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act.  Any or all of our Class A Common Stock may be released prior to expiration of the lock-up period at the discretion of the underwriter. To the extent these shares are released before the expiration of the lock-up period and sold into the market, the market price of our Class A Common Stock could decline.

Public company requirements may strain our resources and divert management’s attention, which could adversely impact our ability to execute our strategy and harm operating results.

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Nasdaq continued listing requirements and other applicable securities rules and regulations. Despite recent reforms made possible by the JOBS Act and other legislative and regulatory actions, compliance with these rules and regulations will nonetheless increase our legal and financial compliance costs, make some activities more difficult, time-consuming or costly and increase demand on our systems and resources, particularly after we are no longer an “emerging growth company.” The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires, among other things, that we file annual, quarterly, and current reports with respect to our business and operating results.

While the members of our Board and our executive officers have substantial experience relevant to our business, they have limited experience with operations as a public company upon which you can base your expectations of our future success or failure in complying with public company requirements. Our management may fail to comply with public company requirements, or may fail to do so effectively and efficiently, each would materially and adversely harm our ability to execute our strategy, and consequently, our operating results.

Furthermore, as a result of disclosure of information in this annual report and in filings required of a public company, our business and financial condition will become more visible, which may result in threatened or actual litigation, including by competitors and other third parties. If these claims are successful, our business and operating results could be harmed, and even if the claims do not result in litigation or are resolved in our favor, these claims, and the time and resources necessary to resolve them, could divert the resources of management and adversely affect our business, prospects, cash flow, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Our new public company status and these new rules and regulations will make it more expensive for us to obtain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our Board, particularly to serve on the audit committee and compensation committee, and qualified executive officers.

We are dependent upon the Bank for cash flow, and the Bank’s ability to make cash distributions is restricted.

Our primary asset is Professional Bank. We depend upon the Bank for cash distributions (through dividends on the Bank’s common stock) that we use to pay our operating expenses and satisfy our other financial obligations. Federal statutes, regulations and policies restrict the Bank’s ability to make cash distributions to us. These statutes and regulations require, among other things, that the Bank maintain certain levels of capital in order to pay a dividend. Further, the Bank’s regulators the ability to restrict the Bank’s payment of dividends by supervisory action. If the Bank is unable to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to satisfy our obligations or, if applicable, pay dividends on our common stock (including our Class A Common Stock and Class B Common Stock).

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2. Properties

Our holding company owns no real property.  Our corporate office is located at 396 Alhambra Circle, Suite 255, Coral Gables, Florida 33134.  At the end of 2019, our Company, through the Bank, operated a total of five branches and four loan production offices located exclusively in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach or Miami-Dade metropolitan statistical area, or MSA, which encompasses three rapidly growing counties in Florida: Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach counties. See Note 6 to the “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements” included in this Report on Form 10-K and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for additional information regarding our premises and equipment.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are periodically party to or otherwise involved in legal proceedings arising in the normal course of business, such as claims to enforce liens, claims involving the making and servicing of real property loans, and other issues incident to its businesses.  We do not believe any pending or threatened legal proceedings in the ordinary course would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or consolidated financial position.

 Item 4.Mine Safety Disclosures

Not applicable. 

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases

Since February 7, 2020, the principal market on which our Class A Common Stock is traded is the Nasdaq Global Select Marketplace under the symbol “PFHD.” As of March 25, 2020, there were 306 registered shareholders of our Class A Common Stock.

Relatedly, on February 11, 2020, we announced the closing of our initial public offering of 3,565,000 shares of our Class A Common Stock, which included an additional 465,000 shares in connection with the exercise in full of the underwriters’ option to purchase additional shares. The closing of the IPO resulted in total net proceeds of approximately $61.3 million, after deducting an underwriting discount of 7%, before expenses. The IPO price of the Class A Common Stock was $18.50 per share.

We intend to use the net proceeds from the intitial public offering to support our continued growth, including organic growth and potential future acquisitions.  For example, we may use the proceeds to fund acquitions of other insititutions or branches or other assets of other institituions.We used a portion of the funds to repay the prinicipal on our revolving line with Valley National Bank, N.A.  Proceeds held by us will be invested in short-term investements unitl needed for the uses described above.

Prior to our listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Marketplace there was not an established public trading market, although quotations for our Class A Common Stock were reported on the OTC Pink, or the Pink Open Market, under the symbol “PFHD.” The over-the-counter market for our Class A Common Stock is sporadic and at times limited and the prices at which such transactions occurred may not necessarily reflect the price that would be paid for our Class A Common Stock in an active market. Any over-the-counter market quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail mark-up, mark-down or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

We anticipate that the listing of our Class A Common Stock on the Nasdaq Global Market will result in a more active trading market for our Class A Common Stock. However, we cannot assure you that a liquid trading market for our Class A Common Stock will develop or be sustained. You may not be able to sell your shares quickly or at the market price if trading in our common stock is not active.

On September 5, 2019, we repurchased 200,000 shares of our Class A Common Stock at a price of $17.50 per share, for an aggregate purchase price of $3,500,000 from one of our largest shareholders, De Linea CV. This repurchase was a result of an unsolicited offer by De Linea CV to us to repurchase these shares. De Linea CV has entered into a lock-up agreement under which it agreed not to sell or otherwise transfer its remaining shares for a period of 180 days after the completion of our IPO.

Because we are a bank holding company and do not engage directly in business activities of a material nature, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders depends, in large part, upon our receipt of dividends from the Bank, which is also subject to numerous limitations on the payment of dividends under federal banking laws, regulations and policies.

Additionally, under the terms of subordinated notes due 2026, and the related subordinated note purchase agreements, which we assumed  upon consummation of our proposed acquisition of MBI, we are not permitted to declare or pay any dividends on our capital stock if an event of default occurs under the terms of the subordinated notes, excluding any dividends or distributions in shares of, or options, warrants or rights to subscribe for or purchase shares of, any class of our common stock and any declaration of a non-cash dividend in connection with the implementation of a shareholders’ rights plan.

Holders of our Class A Common Stock are only entitled to receive dividends when and if declared by our Board out of funds legally available for dividends. We have never paid any cash dividends on our common stock and we do not intend to pay dividends for the foreseeable future. As a Florida corporation, we are only permitted to pay dividends to shareholders if, after giving effect to the dividend, (i) the Company is able to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business and (ii) the Company’s assets exceeds the sum of Company’s (A) liabilities plus (B) the amount that would be needed for the Company to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholders whose preferential rights are superior to those receiving the dividend, if any.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Two years of financial data of the Company is set forth on page F-1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Our discussion and analysis of earnings and related financial data are presented herein to assist investors in understanding the financial condition of our Company at December 31, 2019 and 2018, and the results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2019 and 2018.  This discussion should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and related footnotes of our Company presented in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.  In addition to historical information, this discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actutal results to differ materially from management’s

expectations.  Factors that could cause such differences include, but are nto limited to, those described in the section titled “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Information”.

Overview

Our principal business is lending to and accepting deposits from small to medium sized businesses, the owners and operators of these businesses, as well as other professionals, entrepreneurs and high net worth individuals. We generate the majority of our revenue from interest earned on loans, investments and other interest earning assets, such as federal funds sold and interest earning deposits with other institutions; loan and deposit fees and service charges; and fees relating to the sale of mortgage loans, swap referrals and SBA loan originations. We incur interest expense on deposits and other borrowed funds, as well as operating expenses, such as salaries and employee benefits and occupancy expenses.

2019 Highlights

Highlights of our performance and financial condition as of and for the year ended December 31, 2019 and other key events that occurred during 2019 are provided below.

Results of Operations

Financial Condition

Other Highlights

The Merger

On March 26, 2020, we closed our merger with MBI and its wholly owned subsidiary, Marquis Bank, headquartered in Coral Gables, Florida. The acquisition of Marquis Bank added three branches to our Miami-Dade MSA footprint making us the 12th largest independent community bank based in Florida and the fourth largest independent community bank based in South Florida.  Each share of MBI common stock outstanding was converted into 1.2048 shares of our Class A Common Stock, with cash paid in lieu of any fractional shares. At the closing of the merger we issued approximately 4,227,816 shares of our Class A Common Stock.  No MBI shareholders exercised appraisal rights. In addition, all stock options of MBI granted and outstanding on the closing date of the merger were converted into an option to purchase shares of our Class A Common Stock based on the exchange ratio. Upon completion of the merger, the pro forma combined institution had approximately $1.7 billion in total assets, excluding purchase accounting adjustments, total net loans of $1.3 billion and total deposits of $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2019, excluding purchase accounting adjustments.

Rationale for the Merger.   We believe our acquisition of MBI will support our business model and allow us to expand our presence in our existing market. MBI’s operations will enhance our existing operations and enable us to add lenders and banking services in our existing market. We expect that our high-end service, technology platform and wide range of products and services will allow us to enhance relationships with MBI’s existing clients, as well as expanding our platform for generating new relationships.

We believe a number of factors will position us for significant improvements in growth and earnings within MBI’s franchise by:

As a result of the merger, we believe that we will be able to efficiently integrate MBI’s operations, expand its business opportunities and enhance our profitability. We believe that other opportunities for strategic acquisitions exist in the State of Florida, both within and without our current market.

Results of Operations for the Years Ended December 31, 2019, 2018, and 2017     

Net Income

The following table sets forth the principal components of net income for the periods indicated.

Year ended December 31, 2019 compared to year ended December 31, 2018

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2019 was $2.3 million, an increase of $230 thousand, or 10.9%, from net income for the year ended December 31, 2018 of $2.1 million. Interest income increased $11.5 million while interest expense increased $5.3 million, resulting in a net interest income increase of $6.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the same period in the prior year. The increase in our interest income was primarily due to growth and increased yield in our loan portfolio. Provision for loan losses decreased by $288 thousand for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the same period in the prior year due to the reclassification of unfunded provision reserves. Noninterest income increased $0.9 million and noninterest expense increased $7.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the same period in the prior year. The increase in noninterest expense for the year ended December 31, 2019 compared to the same period in the prior year was primarily a result of increased employee headcount, opening additional banking locations and opening our Digital Innovation Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

Year ended December 31, 2018 compared to year ended December 31, 2017

Net income for the year ended December 31, 2018 was $2.1 million, an increase of $0.3 million, or 16.1%, from net income for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $1.8 million. This increase was due to an increase in interest income primarily related to growth in our loan portfolio and rising interest rates, which improved loan yields. This increase in interest income was partially offset by a $3.0 million increase in interest expense due to deposit growth and increased rates paid on our deposit products, as well as a $6.7 million increase in noninterest expense related to increased employee headcount, an increase in banking locations and additional salary and benefits expense in preparation to open our Digital Innovation Center. The $0.1 million increase in noninterest income was primarily due to increased mortgage banking revenues and increased account fees and service charges, partially offset by a reduction in SBA origination fees and other fees and charges. Income tax expense decreased $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to the year ended December 31, 2017 due to the enactment of the Tax Act in December 2017, which reduced the corporate income tax rate. We also recognized a one-time charge in 2017 of approximately $0.7 million as a result of the revaluation of our deferred tax asset due to the change in the corporate tax rate.

Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin Analysis

We analyze our ability to maximize income generated from interest earning assets and control the interest expenses of our liabilities, measured as net interest income, through our net interest margin and net interest spread. Net interest income is the difference between the interest and fees earned on interest earning assets, such as loans and securities, and the interest expense paid on interest bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings, which are used to fund those assets. Net interest margin is a ratio calculated as annualized net interest income divided by average interest earning assets for the same period. Net interest spread is the difference between average interest rates earned on interest earning assets and average interest rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities.

Changes in market interest rates and the interest rates we earn on interest earning assets or pay on interest-bearing liabilities, as well as in the volume and types of interest earning assets, interest bearing and noninterest-bearing liabilities and shareholders’ equity, are usually the largest drivers of periodic changes in net interest income, net interest margin and net interest spread. Fluctuations in market interest rates are driven by many factors, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, deflation, macroeconomic developments, changes in unemployment rates, the money supply, political and international conditions and conditions in domestic and foreign financial markets. Periodic changes in the volume and types of loans in our loan portfolio are affected by, among other factors, the economic and competitive conditions in the Miami-Dade MSA, as well as developments affecting the real estate, technology, government services, hospitality and tourism and financial services sectors within the Miami-Dade MSA. Our ability to respond to changes in these factors by using effective asset-liability management techniques is critical to maintaining the stability of our net interest income and net interest margin as our primary sources of earnings.

The following table shows the average outstanding balance of each principal category of our assets, liabilities and shareholders’ equity, together with the average yields on our assets and the average costs of our liabilities for the periods indicated. Such yields and costs are calculated by dividing the annualized income or expense by the average daily balances of the corresponding assets or liabilities for the same period.

The following table presents information regarding the dollar amount of changes in interest income and interest expense for the periods indicated for each major component of interest earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities and distinguishes between the changes attributable to changes in volume and changes attributable to changes in interest rates. For purposes of this table, changes attributable to both rate and volume that cannot be segregated have been proportionately allocated to both volume and rate.