SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
EverBank Financial Corp
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
(State of incorporation)
(Commission File Number)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
501 Riverside Ave., Jacksonville, FL
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each Class
Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value
New York Stock Exchange
Depositary Shares, each representing a 1/1,000th of a share of 6.75% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series A
New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.
Yes ý No o
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 o No ý
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 ý No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted 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 and post such files).
Yes ý No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer ý
Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer ¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
Smaller reporting company o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).
Yes o No ý
The aggregate market value of the registrant's outstanding voting common stock held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2013 (the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter), determined using the per share closing price on that date on the New York Stock Exchange of $16.56, was approximately $1,277,795,003. There was no non-voting common equity of the registrant outstanding on that date.
As of February 24, 2014, there were 122,690,732 shares of common stock outstanding.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
Portions of the Registrant's Proxy Statement for the annual meeting of stockholders scheduled to be held on May 22, 2014, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K where indicated. Such Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days of the Registrant's fiscal year ended December 31, 2013.
EverBank Financial Corp
This report contains certain statements that are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and are intended to be protected by the safe harbor provided therein. We generally identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “outlook,” “believes,” “expects,” “potential,” “continues,” “may,” “will,” “could,” “should,” “seeks,” “approximately,” “predicts,” “intends,” “plans,” “estimates,” “anticipates” or the negative version of those words or other comparable words. 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, you are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable as of the date made, expectations may prove to have been materially different from the results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Unless otherwise required by law, we also disclaim any obligation to update our view of any such risks or uncertainties or to announce publicly the result of any revisions to the forward-looking statements contained in this report. A number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, those factors described in Item 1A “Risk Factors” contained in this Annual Report and the following:
deterioration of general business and economic conditions, including the real estate and financial markets, in the United States and in the geographic regions and communities we serve;
risks related to liquidity, including the adequacy of our cash flow from operations and borrowings to meet our short-term liquidity needs;
changes in interest rates that affect the pricing of our financial products, the demand for our financial services and the valuation of our financial assets and liabilities, mortgage servicing rights and mortgage loans held for sale;
risk of higher loan and lease charge-offs;
legislative or regulatory actions affecting or concerning mortgage loan modification, refinancing and foreclosure;
risk of individual claims or further fines, penalties, equitable remedies, or other enforcement actions relating to our mortgage related practices;
our ability to comply with any supervisory actions to which we are or become subject as a result of examination by our regulators;
our ability to comply with the amended consent order and the terms and conditions of our settlement of the Independent Foreclosure Review, including the associated costs;
concentration of our residential and commercial real estate loan portfolios;
higher than normal delinquency and default rates affecting our mortgage banking business;
execution of current or future acquisition, reorganization or disposition transactions including, the risk that we may not realize anticipated benefits of such transactions;
limited ability to rely on brokered deposits as a part of our funding strategy;
concentration of mass-affluent clients and jumbo mortgages;
the effectiveness of the hedging strategies we use to manage our mortgage pipeline;
the effectiveness of our derivatives to manage interest rate risk;
delinquencies on our equipment leases and reductions in the resale value of leased equipment;
increases in loan repurchase requests and our reserves for loan repurchases;
failure to prevent a breach to our Internet-based system and online commerce security;
soundness of other financial institutions;
changes in currency exchange rates or other political or economic changes in certain foreign countries;
disruptions in the credit and financial markets in the United States and globally, including the effects of any downgrade in the United States government’s sovereign debt rating and the continued effects of the European sovereign debt crisis and declining currencies in certain emerging markets;
the competitive industry and market areas in which we operate;
historical growth rate and performance may not be a reliable indicator of future results;
fraudulent and negligent acts by loan applicants, other vendors and our employees;
costs of compliance or failure to comply with laws, rules, regulations and orders that govern our operations;
failure to establish and maintain effective internal controls and procedures;
impact of current and future legal and regulatory changes, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the Dodd-Frank Act) and the capital requirements promulgated by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (Basel Committee);
effects of changes in existing U.S. government or government-sponsored mortgage programs;
changes in laws and regulations that may restrict our ability to originate or increase our risk of liability with respect to certain mortgage loans;
legislative action regarding foreclosures or bankruptcy laws;
changes to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP);
environmental liabilities with respect to properties that we take title to upon foreclosure; and
inability of EverBank, our banking subsidiary, to pay dividends.
Item 1. Business
EverBank Financial Corp, a Delaware corporation, is a unitary savings and loan holding company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. References to “we,” “our,” “us,” or the “Company” refer to the holding company and its subsidiaries that are consolidated for financial reporting purposes. We are a diversified financial services company that provides a wide range of financial products and services to retail and commercial clients nationwide through scalable, low-cost distribution channels. We market and distribute our products and services primarily through our integrated online financial portal, which is augmented by our nationwide network of independent financial advisors, high-volume financial centers in targeted Florida markets and at other business offices and retail loan centers throughout the country. These channels are connected by technology-driven, centralized platforms which provide operating leverage throughout our business. As of December 31, 2013, we had total assets of $17.6 billion, total deposits of $13.3 billion and total equity of $1.6 billion.
Our principal executive offices are located at 501 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida and our telephone number is (904) 281-6000. Our common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, under the symbol “EVER.”
Financial Information About Our Business Segments
We evaluate our overall financial performance through three financial reporting segments: Banking and Wealth Management, Mortgage Banking and Corporate Services. Financial information with respect to our business segments including revenue, operating income or loss and total assets is contained in Note 30 to our consolidated financial statements included in this report.
Residential Lending and Servicing
We originate prime residential mortgage loans using a centrally controlled underwriting, processing and fulfillment infrastructure through retail offices in large metropolitan areas nationwide, consumer direct channels, financial centers and correspondent relationships. Our mortgage origination activities include originating, underwriting, closing, warehousing and selling to investors prime conforming and jumbo residential mortgage loans. We have recently expanded our retail and correspondent distribution channels and emphasized jumbo prime mortgages which we may retain on our balance sheet or sell into the secondary market. These channels and products are strategic to our balance sheet objectives and serve the needs of our core clients. In the third quarter 2013, we exited our wholesale broker lending channel and continued to focus on growing our retail and correspondent lending channels in order to focus on our core prime jumbo mortgage offering and position the business for a purchase driven origination market. We do not originate subprime loans, negative amortization loans or option adjustable-rate mortgage loans, and these products have never constituted a meaningful portion of our business.
We generate mortgage servicing business through the retention of servicing from our origination activities, whole loan acquisitions, and related servicing activities. Our mortgage servicing business includes collecting loan payments, remitting principal and interest payments to investors, managing escrow funds for the payment of mortgage-related expenses, such as taxes and insurance, responding to client inquiries, counseling delinquent mortgagors, supervising foreclosures and liquidations of foreclosure properties and otherwise administering our mortgage loan servicing portfolio for which we earn mortgage servicing and other ancillary fees. We service a diverse portfolio by both product and investor, including agency and private pools of mortgages secured by properties throughout the United States.
During the fourth quarter 2013, we entered into agreements to sell our default servicing operations and the rights to service and subservice UPB of $20.3 billion to Green Tree Servicing LLC, a subsidiary of Walter Investment Management Corp. In connection with the sale of the MSR, we need to receive approvals from certain investors, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which approvals have not yet been received. During the first quarter we amended the agreements related to the transaction with Green Tree Servicing LLC, in order to allow the closing to be extended past the first quarter, which may be necessary.
We believe that our residential lending and servicing expertise, knowledge and resources position us to make strategic investment decisions, effectively manage our loan and investment portfolio and capitalize on significant changes currently taking place in the industry. In addition to generating significant fee income, these activities provide us with direct asset acquisition opportunities and serve as a valuable complement to our core deposit activities, including the ability to:
invest in high-quality jumbo mortgage loans;
purchase, modify and redeliver government-guaranteed loans from securities we service;
leverage our mortgage banking expertise and resources to manage our loan portfolio and seek out diverse knowledge that impacts our investment strategies within our portfolio;
obtain incremental low-cost funding through the generation of escrow deposits;
cross-sell banking and wealth management products to our jumbo residential mortgage loan clients; and
provide credit products to our banking and wealth management clients.
We have historically originated a variety of commercial loans and leases, including owner-occupied commercial real estate, commercial investment property, mid-sized business commercial loans and equipment leases nationwide. In 2013, we consolidated all of our commercial lending activities under a realigned leadership team and believe that the new sales and reporting structure will help to drive efficiency and enhance our focus on cross-sell opportunities in markets where we have financially sophisticated residential lending and deposit clients.
Commercial Real Estate
We originate commercial real estate loans for the acquisition and refinance of stabilized commercial real estate for owner users, investors and developers. Our portfolio is diversified and consists of various loan sizes, property types, and locations. We have deep domain expertise in structuring loans for owner occupied, single tenant, multi-tenant commercial and multi-family properties. Our average loan size is $5.0 million to $6.0 million and our loans are structured as first mortgages secured by commercial real estate. We underwrite stabilized properties, with experienced borrowers, strong property/tenant cash flow and good collateral. We offer our clients competitive fixed and floating rates with flexible terms. As a lender who focuses on building relationships, we originate loans nationwide through our direct sales force and a network of mortgage bankers and other intermediaries. Our sales executives are located in nine offices across the U.S.and are also active in cross-selling with other EverBank business units. The commercial real estate business was integrated into a single platform and re-launched in 2013 following the acquisition of General Electric Capital Corporation's (GECC) Business Property Lending, Inc., or Business Property Lending (BPL) in 2012.
Our commercial finance platform includes the equipment finance and lender finance businesses. Our equipment finance division originates equipment leases and loans nationwide through relationships with over 600 equipment manufacturers, distributors and dealers with large groups of high quality clients. Our equipment leases and loans generally finance essential-use health care, office product, technology, industrial and other types of equipment primarily to small and medium-size lessees and borrowers. Our typical equipment financings range from approximately $10,000 to $5.0 million per transaction, with typical finance terms ranging from 36 to 60 months. We have significantly increased the origination activity within our equipment business since 2010 by expanding within both our served markets as well as expanding into new markets.
In 2011, we formed the lender finance business that focuses on providing revolving and term credit facilities secured by equipment and receivables primarily to specialty finance companies on a national basis. We have achieved significant growth in this business since inception, as new client acquisition has driven strong growth in committed facilities as both agent and participant. These credit facilities typically have an initial term of three to five years and range in size from $15.0 million to more than $50.0 million.
Our commercial finance activities provide us with access to approximately 25,000 small business clients nationwide, which creates opportunities to cross-sell our deposit, lending and wealth management products.
Mortgage Warehouse Finance
Our warehouse finance business provides loan financing to mid-sized, high-quality mortgage banking companies across the country with a proven track record of originating quality mortgages. Warehouse loans are short-term revolving facilities, primarily collateralized by agency and government residential loans originated by our clients. Our loan commitment sizes generally range from $20 million to $100 million.
Our investment analysis capabilities are a core competency of our organization. We supplement our organically originated assets by purchasing loans and securities when those investments have more attractive risk-adjusted returns than those we can originate. We actively monitor and capitalize on market conditions to maximize returns on our assets and evaluate other opportunities to deploy our capital based on our assessment of yield and risk characteristics of our portfolio. Our decisions to originate, hold, acquire, securitize or sell assets is grounded in our rigorous analytical approach to investment analysis and our disciplined approach to balancing risk against performance. Our flexibility to retain originated assets or acquire assets enables us to pursue attractive risk adjusted returns in a variety of market conditions and enhance shareholder value.
Our deposit franchise is focused on fostering strong relationships with a large number of financially sophisticated clients and provides a stable, flexible source of low-cost funds. Our distribution channels, operating platform and acquisition strategies are characterized by low operating costs and are designed to enable us to scale the business efficiently. Our unique products and product design, distribution and marketing strategies allow us to effectively control organic deposit growth, providing flexibility and efficiency in funding asset growth opportunities.
The majority of our deposit balances come from financially savvy, self-directed individuals, as well as small and mid-sized businesses. These clients maintain an average deposit balance per household (excluding escrow deposits) of $81,158 as of December 31, 2013, which we believe is more than three times the industry average.
All deposit clients can choose to manage their relationship with us through one of our full featured transactional platforms including the Online Financial Center or robust tablet and mobile applications, or interact with us by phone and through email, or visit one of our Financial Centers in Florida.
The World Markets division provides clients a toolkit for global diversification including $850 million in World Currency® deposits denominated in 20 foreign currencies and $164 million in MarketSafe® structured deposits. In addition, World Markets clients hold over $231 million of precious metals in custody with us in non-FDIC insured EverBank Metals Select® accounts.
We selectively acquire and manage our deposit client relationships through an integrated, multi-faceted distribution network including the following channels:
Consumer Direct. Our consumer direct channel includes Internet, email, telephone and mobile device access to products and services.
Financial Centers. We have a network of high-volume financial centers in key Florida metropolitan areas, including the Jacksonville, Naples, Ft. Myers, Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, Boca Raton, Tampa Bay and Clearwater markets with average deposits per branch of $216.3 million as of December 31, 2013.
Financial Intermediaries. We offer deposit and other products nationwide through relationships with 249 financial advisory firms representing over 1,900 independent financial professionals.
Business Banking. Generally small and mid-size businesses located across the country and business lending clients. Business banking tools include basic banking through sophisticated cash management alternatives.
We provide comprehensive financial advisory, planning, brokerage and other wealth management services to our mass-affluent and high net worth clients through our registered broker dealer and registered investment adviser subsidiaries. Wealth management is a long-term strategic initiative that we expect will be a significant focus for us in the foreseeable future, although we do not expect this initiative to materially affect our near-term revenue generation or earnings.
We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from various competitors including Internet banks and national, regional and community banks within the markets we serve. We also compete with many other types of financial institutions, such as savings and loan institutions, credit unions, mortgage companies, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companies and other financial intermediaries.
Competition for loans is often driven by interest rates, loan origination and related fees and services. Because of our lower all-in cost structure relative to our competition, we are often able to offer borrowers more favorable interest rates than may be available from other lenders. In addition, because we originate assets to hold on our balance sheet as well as sell in the secondary markets, we seek to attract borrowers by offering loan products such as jumbo residential mortgage loans that may not be available from other lenders.
Competition for deposit products is generally based on pricing because of the ease with which clients can transfer deposits from one institution to another. Our multi-channel deposit strategy has lower fixed operating costs than traditional models because we do not incur the expenses associated with primarily operating through a traditional branch network. In order to generate deposits, we pass a portion of these cost savings to our clients through competitive interest rates and fees. Besides price competition, we also seek to increase our deposit market share through product differentiation by offering deposit products that provide investment capabilities such as our WorldCurrency®, MarketSafe® and EverBank Metals Selectsm deposit products.
We also compete based on the accessibility of our product offerings through our multiple distribution channels. Finally, we seek to distinguish our products and services from other banks through the quality of our online offerings and website and mobile functionality.
Supervision and Regulation
We and EverBank are subject to comprehensive supervision and regulation that affect virtually all aspects of our operations. This supervision and regulation is designed primarily to protect depositors and the Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF), administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the banking system as a whole, and generally is not intended for the protection of stockholders. The following summarizes certain of the more important statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to us. See also the discussion under “Risk Factors-Regulatory and Legal Risk Factors.”
Recent Regulatory Developments
Mortgage servicing “horizontal review.” A “horizontal review” of the residential mortgage foreclosure operations of fourteen mortgage servicers, including EverBank, by the federal banking agencies resulted in formal enforcement actions against all of the banks subject to the horizontal review. On April 13, 2011, each of the Company and EverBank entered into a consent order with the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) with respect to EverBank's mortgage foreclosure practices and the Company's oversight of those practices. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) succeeded the OTS with respect to EverBank's consent order, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB) succeeded the OTS with respect to the Company's consent order. The consent orders require, among other things, that the Company establish a new compliance program for mortgage servicing and foreclosure operations and that the Company ensures that it has dedicated resources for communicating with borrowers, policies and procedures for outsourcing foreclosure or related functions and management information systems that ensure timely delivery of complete and accurate information. The Company was also required to retain an independent firm as part of an “Independent Foreclosure Review” program to conduct a review of residential foreclosure actions that were pending from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010 in order to determine whether any borrowers sustained financial injury as a result of any errors, misrepresentations or deficiencies and to provide remediation as appropriate.
In August 2013, EverBank reached an agreement with the OCC that ended its participation in the Independent Foreclosure Review program mandated by the April 2011 consent order and replaced it with an accelerated remediation process. The agreement includes a cash payment of approximately $39.9 million to be made by EverBank to a settlement fund, which will provide relief to qualified borrowers. In addition, EverBank will contribute approximately $6.3 million to organizations certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or other tax-exempt organizations that have as a principal mission providing affordable housing, foreclosure prevention and/or educational assistance to low and moderate income individuals and families. This agreement has not eliminated all of our risks associated with foreclosure-related practices, and it does not protect EverBank from potential individual borrower claims or class action lawsuits, any of which could result in additional expenses. Consistent with the agreement, an amendment to the April 2011 consent order was entered into on October 15, 2013. All terms of the April 2011 consent order that were not explicitly superseded by the amendment remain in effect without modification.
In October 2013, EverBank, along with other mortgage servicers, received a letter from the OCC requesting, in connection with the April 2011 consent order, that EverBank provide the OCC with an action plan, to identify errors and remediate borrowers serviced by EverBank for the period from January 1, 2011 through the present day, that may have been harmed by the same errors identified in the Independent Foreclosure Review. EverBank submitted its action plan in 2013, which did not require an independent third party review. At December 31, 2013, EverBank has accrued approximately $4 million for potential remediation payments to be made to borrowers.
In addition, other government agencies, including state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, continue to investigate various mortgage-related practices of the Company and other major mortgage servicers. The Company continues to cooperate with these investigations. These investigations could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies (including requiring default servicing or other process changes), or other enforcement actions, as well as significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation. The Company has evaluated subsequent events through the date in which financial statements are available to be issued and currently, the Company is unable to estimate any loss that may result from penalties or fines imposed by other governmental agencies; therefore, no amounts have been accrued.
Dodd-Frank Act. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The Dodd-Frank Act has had and will continue to have a broad impact on the financial services industry, imposing significant regulatory and compliance changes, including a fundamental restructuring of the supervisory regime applicable to federal savings associations (also referred to as thrifts) and savings and loan holding companies (also referred to as thrift holding companies), the imposition of increased capital, leverage and liquidity requirements, and numerous other provisions designed to improve supervision and oversight of, and strengthen safety and soundness within, the financial services sector. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act established a new framework of authority to conduct systemic risk oversight within the financial system distributed among new and existing federal regulatory agencies, including the Financial Stability Oversight Council, or Oversight Council, the FRB, the OCC and the FDIC.
Many of the requirements called for in the Dodd-Frank Act remain subject to final rulemaking or phase-in over time. Given the uncertainty associated with the implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act, the full extent of the impact such requirements will have on our operations continues to be unclear. The changes resulting from 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 the new requirements may negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. While we cannot predict what effect any presently contemplated or future changes in the laws or regulations or their interpretations would have on us, these changes could be materially adverse to our investors.
The following items provide a brief description of the relevant provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and their potential impact on our operations and activities, both currently and prospectively.
Change in Thrift Supervisory Structure. The Dodd-Frank Act, among other things, as of July 21, 2011, transferred the functions and personnel of the OTS among the OCC, FDIC and FRB. As a result, the OTS no longer supervises or regulates savings associations or savings and loan holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act preserves the federal savings association charter (which includes both federal savings associations and federal savings banks); however, supervision of federal savings associations, such as EverBank, has been transferred to the OCC. Most significantly for us, the Dodd-Frank Act has transferred the supervision of savings and loan holding companies, such as us, to the FRB while taking a number of steps to align the regulation of savings and loan holding companies to that of bank holding companies. The FRB has issued final rules to implement changes mandated by the Dodd-Frank Act, including requiring a savings and loan holding company to serve as a source of strength for its subsidiary depository institutions, requiring savings and loan holding companies to satisfy supervisory standards applicable to financial holding companies (e.g., “well capitalized” and “well managed” status) and, for most savings and loan holding companies, to elect to be treated as a financial holding company, in order to conduct those activities permissible for a financial holding company, and promulgating capital requirements for savings and loan holding companies (for example, under the so-called “Collins Amendment”). As a result of this change in supervision and related requirements, we also will generally be subject to new and potentially heightened examination and reporting requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act also provides various agencies with the authority to assess additional supervisory fees.
Creation of New Governmental Agencies. The Dodd-Frank Act creates various new governmental agencies such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an independent agency housed within the FRB. The CFPB has a broad mandate to issue regulations, examine compliance and take enforcement action under the federal consumer financial laws, including with respect to EverBank. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and regulations that are stricter than those regulations promulgated by the CFPB, and state attorneys general are permitted to enforce consumer protection rules adopted by the CFPB against certain institutions.
Limitation on Federal Preemption. The Dodd-Frank Act may reduce the ability of national banks and federal savings associations to rely upon federal preemption of state consumer financial laws. Although the OCC, as the new primary regulator of federal savings associations, has the ability to make preemption determinations where certain conditions are met, the new limitations placed on preemption determinations have the potential to create a patchwork of federal and state compliance obligations. This could, in turn, result in significant new regulatory requirements applicable to us, with attendant potentially significant changes in our operations and increases in our compliance costs. It could also result in uncertainty concerning compliance, with attendant regulatory and litigation risks. While some uncertainty remains as to how the OCC will address preemption determinations going forward, on July 20, 2011, the OCC issued a final rule implementing certain Dodd-Frank Act preemption provisions. Among other things, the rule states that federal savings associations, such as EverBank, are subject to the same laws, legal standards and OCC regulations regarding the preemption of state law as national banks. In promulgating the rule, the OCC stated that its prior preemption determinations and regulations remain valid. As a result, we expect EverBank should have the benefit of those determinations and regulations.
Mortgage Loan Origination and Risk Retention. The Dodd-Frank Act contains additional regulatory requirements that may affect our mortgage origination and servicing operations, result in increased compliance costs and may impact revenue. For example, in addition to numerous new disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including banks and savings associations. Most significantly, the new standards prohibit us from originating a residential mortgage loan without verifying a borrower's ability to repay, limit the total points and fees that we and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans to 3% of the total loan amount and prohibit certain prepayment penalty practices. Also, the Dodd-Frank Act, in conjunction with the FRB's final rule on loan originator compensation issued August 16, 2010 and effective April 1, 2011, prohibits certain compensation payments to loan originators and the steering of consumers to loans not in their interest because the loans will result in greater compensation for a loan originator. These standards will result in a myriad of new system, pricing and compensation controls in order to ensure compliance and to decrease repurchase requests and foreclosure defenses. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally requires lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans the lender sells and other asset-backed securities (ABS) that the securitizer issues if the loans have not complied with the ability to repay standards. The risk retention requirement generally will be 5%, but could be increased or decreased by regulation.
Annual Company-Run Stress Tests. We and EverBank are also subject to new stress testing requirements that implement provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act requiring banking organizations with total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion but less than $50 billion to conduct annual company-run stress tests, report the results to their primary federal regulator and the FRB, and publish a summary of certain aspects of the results. Under the rules, we and EverBank are required to conduct stress tests using certain scenarios that the FRB is required to publish by November 15 of each year (starting in 2013 for EverBank and 2016 for us) and
using financial statement data as of September 30 of that year. We are required to report the results to the FRB, and EverBank will be required to report the results to the OCC and the FRB, by March 31 of the year after the stress tests are conducted. In addition, the rules require us to publicly disclose a summary of certain aspects of the stress test results between June 15 and June 30 of the year after the stress tests are conducted starting in 2015 for EverBank and in 2017 for us. This process will be repeated in each subsequent year.
Stress testing requirements include baseline, adverse, and severely adverse economic and financial scenarios to assess potential impacts on our consolidated earnings, losses and capital over a nine quarter planning horizon. According to regulatory standards, a summary of the results of certain aspects of this stress analysis (initially, only under the severely adverse scenario) will be released publicly and will contain company specific information and results. It is anticipated that our capital ratios reflected in the stress test calculation will be an important factor considered by our regulators in evaluating whether proposed payments of dividends, or stock repurchases may be an unsafe or unsound practice and whether our capital levels are adequate to support our operations and growth.
The next capital planning and stress testing cycle runs from the fourth quarter of 2013 through the fourth quarter of 2015. Thus, the next capital planning and stress testing cycle, which began on October 1, 2013, overlaps with the implementation of the Basel III Capital Rules. EverBank will be participating in this stress testing cycle. On September 30, 2013, the FRB issued an interim final rule to clarify how banking organizations should incorporate the Basel III Capital Rules into their capital and business projections during the next cycle of capital plan submissions and stress tests. The interim final rule provides a one-year transition period for most banking organizations, including EverBank, with between $10 billion and $50 billion in total consolidated assets. Pursuant to the interim final rule, EverBank will be required to calculate its stress test projections using the FRB’s current regulatory capital rules during the upcoming stress test to allow time to adjust its internal systems to the revised capital framework.
Basel III. While we were historically required by the OTS to have a prudential level of capital to support our risk profile, the OTS did not subject savings and loan holding companies, such as us, to consolidated regulatory capital requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act will subject us to new capital requirements that are not less stringent than such requirements generally applicable to insured depository institutions, such as EverBank, or quantitatively lower than such requirements in effect for insured depository institutions as of July 21, 2010. The current risk-based capital guidelines that apply to EverBank are based upon the 1988 capital accord of the international Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the U.S. federal banking agencies on an interagency basis. In 2008, the banking agencies collaboratively began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as Basel II, for large or “core” international banks (generally defined for U.S. purposes as having total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more). Basel II emphasizes internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.
On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced agreement to a strengthened set of capital requirements for internationally active banking organizations in the United States and around the world, known as Basel III. The agreement is supported by the U.S. federal banking agencies and the final text of the Basel III rules was released by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision on December 16, 2010.
In July 2013, our primary federal regulator, the Federal Reserve, and EverBank’s primary federal regulator, the OCC, published final rules (Basel III Capital Rules) establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations. The Basel III Capital Rules implement the Basel Committee's December 2010 framework known as “Basel III” for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Basel III Capital Rules substantially revise the risk-based capital requirements applicable to savings and loan holding companies and depository institutions, including us and EverBank, compared to the current U.S. risk-based capital rules. The Basel III Capital Rules define the components of regulatory capital and address other issues affecting the numerator in banking institutions' regulatory capital ratios. The Basel III Capital Rules also address risk weights and other issues affecting the denominator in banking institutions' regulatory capital ratios and replace the existing risk-weighting approach, which was derived from the Basel I capital accords of the Basel Committee, with a more risk-sensitive approach based, in part, on the standardized approach in the Basel Committee's 2004 “Basel II” capital accords. The Basel III Capital Rules also implement the requirements of Section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act to remove references to credit ratings from the federal banking agencies' rules. The Basel III Capital Rules will become effective for the Company and EverBank on January 1, 2015 (subject to phase-in periods as discussed below).
The Basel III Capital Rules, among other things, (i) introduce a new capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1” (CET1), (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consist of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) define CET1 narrowly by requiring that most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expand the scope of the deductions/adjustments from capital as compared to existing regulations. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, for most banking organizations, including the Company, the most common form of Additional Tier 1 capital is non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, and the most common form of Tier 2 capital is subordinated notes and a portion of the allocation for loan losses, in each case, subject to the Basel III Capital Rules’ specific requirements.
Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the initial minimum capital ratios as of January 1, 2015 will be as follows:
4.5% CET1 to risk-weighted assets.
6.0% Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets.
8.0% Total capital to risk-weighted assets.
The Basel III Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets arising from temporary differences that could not be realized through net operating loss carrybacks and significant investments in non-consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1.
The Basel III Capital Rules also introduce a new “capital conservation buffer”, composed entirely of CET1, on top of these
minimum risk-weighted asset ratios. The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the capital conservation buffer will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall. When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the Basel III Capital Rules will require us and EverBank to maintain (i) a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 4.5%, plus the 2.5% capital conservation buffer, effectively resulting in a minimum ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets of at least 7%, (ii) a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to risk-weighted assets of at least 6.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer, effectively resulting in a minimum Tier 1 capital ratio of 8.5%, (iii) a minimum ratio of Total capital (that is, Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk-weighted assets of at least 8.0%, plus the capital conservation buffer, effectively resulting in a minimum total capital ratio of 10.5% and (iv) a minimum leverage ratio of 4%, calculated as the ratio of Tier 1 capital to average assets (as compared to a current minimum leverage ratio of 3% for banking organizations that either have the highest supervisory rating or have implemented the appropriate federal regulatory authority's risk-adjusted measure for market risk).
Under current capital standards, the effects of accumulated other comprehensive income items included in shareholders’ equity under U.S. GAAP (for example, mark-to-market of securities held in the available for sale portfolio and cumulative gains and losses on cash flow hedges), are excluded for the purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. Under the Basel III Capital Rules, the effects of certain accumulated other comprehensive items (except gains and losses on cash flow hedges where the hedged item is not recognized on a banking organization’s balance sheet at fair value) are not excluded; however, certain banking organizations, including us and EverBank, may make a one-time permanent election to continue to exclude these items. This election must be made concurrently with the first filing of certain of the Company’s and EverBank’s periodic regulatory reports in the beginning of 2015. The Company and EverBank are considering whether to make this election. The Basel III Capital Rules also preclude counting certain hybrid securities, such as trust preferred securities, as Tier 1 capital of bank or savings and loan holding companies. However for bank or savings and loan holding companies that had assets of less than $15 billion as of December 31, 2009 like us, trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010 can be treated as Additional Tier 1 capital to the extent that they do not exceed 25% of Tier 1 capital after applying all capital deductions and adjustments.
Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 will begin on January 1, 2015 and will be phased-in over a three-year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter until fully phased-in at January 1, 2018). The implementation of the capital conservation buffer will begin on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and be phased in over a three-year period (increasing by that amount on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019).
The Basel III Capital Rules prescribe a standardized approach for risk weightings that expand the risk-weighting categories from the current four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. government and agency securities to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. Specific changes to current rules impacting our determination of risk-weighted assets include, among other things:
Applying a 150% risk weight instead of a 100% risk weight for certain high volatility commercial real estate acquisition, development and construction loans.
Assigning a 150% risk weight to exposures (other than residential mortgage exposures, which remains at an assigned risk weighting of 100%) that are 90 days past due.
Providing for a 20% credit conversion factor for the unused portion of a commitment with an original maturity of one year or less that is not unconditionally cancellable (currently set at 0%).
Providing for a risk weight, generally not less than 20% with certain exceptions, for securities lending transactions based on the risk weight category of the underlying collateral securing the transaction.
Providing for a 100% risk weight for claims on securities firms.
Eliminating the current 50% cap on the risk weight for OTC derivatives.
In addition, the Basel III Capital Rules also provide more advantageous risk weights for derivatives and repurchase-style transactions cleared through a qualifying central counterparty and increase the scope of eligible guarantors and eligible collateral for purposes of credit risk mitigation.
Management believes, at December 31, 2013, that we and EverBank would meet all capital adequacy requirements under the Basel III Capital Rules on a fully phased-in basis if such requirements were currently effective.
Liquidity Requirements. Historically, the regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without required formulaic measures. The Basel III liquidity framework requires banks and savings associations and bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by institutions and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, going forward would be required by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR), is designed to ensure that the banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high-quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30-day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario. The other test, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (NSFR), is designed to promote more medium- and long-term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one-year time horizon. These requirements are intended to encourage banking entities to increase their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities and other sovereign debt as a component of assets and increase the use of long-term debt as a funding source. In October 2013, the federal banking agencies proposed rules implementing the LCR for advanced approaches banking organizations and a modified version of the LCR for bank holding companies and certain savings and loan holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets that are not advanced approach banking organizations, neither of which would apply to us or EverBank. The federal banking agencies have not yet proposed rules to implement the NSFR.
We are a unitary savings and loan holding company within the meaning of the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA). As such, we are registered as a savings and loan holding company and are subject to those regulations applicable to a savings and loan holding company. As
noted above, as of July 21, 2011, the functions and personnel of the OTS were transferred among the OCC, FDIC and FRB. We now are subject to examinations, supervision and reporting requirements by the FRB, and the FRB currently has enforcement authority over us. Among other things, this authority permits the FRB to restrict or prohibit activities that are determined to be a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of a subsidiary savings association. Similarly, EverBank is now subject to OCC supervision for purposes of safety and soundness supervision and examination and CFPB supervision and examination for purposes of consumer financial regulatory compliance. See “-Recent Regulatory Developments-Change in Thrift Supervisory Structure” above.
Currently, HOLA prohibits a savings and loan holding company, directly or indirectly, or through one or more subsidiaries, from, for example:
acquiring another savings institution or its holding company without prior written approval of the FRB;
acquiring or retaining, with certain exceptions, more than 5% of a non-subsidiary savings institution, a non-subsidiary holding company, or a non-subsidiary company engaged in activities other than those permitted by HOLA; or
acquiring or retaining control of a depository institution that is not insured by the FDIC.
In evaluating an application by a holding company to acquire a savings institution, the FRB must consider, among other factors, the financial and managerial resources and future prospects of the company and savings institution involved, the convenience and needs of the community and competitive factors.
A savings and loan holding company is required to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary savings associations.
As a unitary savings and loan holding company, we generally are not restricted under existing laws as to the types of business activities in which we may engage, provided that EverBank continues to satisfy the Qualified Thrift Lender (QTL), test. See “-Regulation of Savings Associations-QTL Test” below for a discussion of the QTL requirements. If we were to make a non-supervisory acquisition of another savings institution or of a savings institution that meets the QTL test and is deemed to be a savings institution and that will be held as a separate subsidiary, then we would become a multiple savings and loan holding company within the meaning of HOLA and would be subject to limitations on the types of business activities in which we can engage. HOLA limits the activities of a multiple savings institution holding company and its non-insured institution subsidiaries primarily to activities permissible for bank holding companies under Section 4(c) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (BHC Act), subject to the prior approval of the FRB, and to other activities authorized by regulation. A multiple savings and loan holding company that meets applicable capital, supervisory and other standards under applicable FRB regulations may elect to be treated as a financial holding company and engage in the broader range of financial activities permissible for a financial holding company under the BHC Act. We do not currently rely on our unitary savings and loan holding company status to engage in business activities that would not be permissible for a multiple savings and loan holding company.
Transactions between EverBank, including any of EverBank’s subsidiaries, and us or any of EverBank’s affiliates, are subject to various conditions and limitations. See “-Regulation of Savings Associations-Transactions with Related Parties” below. EverBank must seek approval from the FRB prior to any declaration of the payment of any dividends or other capital distributions to us. See “-Regulation of Savings Associations-Limitation on Capital Distributions” below.
EverBank is a federal savings association and, as such, is subject to extensive regulation, examination and supervision. Prior to July 21, 2011, EverBank’s primary regulator was the OTS. As noted above, as of July 21, 2011, supervision of EverBank as a federal thrift was transferred to the OCC. See “-Recent Regulatory Developments-Change in Thrift Supervisory Structure” above. EverBank also is subject to backup examination and supervision authority by the FDIC, as its deposit insurer. In addition, EverBank is subject to regulation and supervision by the CFPB with regard to federal consumer financial laws.
EverBank’s deposit accounts are insured up to applicable limits by the DIF, which is administered by the FDIC. EverBank must file reports with its federal regulators concerning its activities and financial condition. Additionally, EverBank must obtain regulatory approvals prior to entering into certain transactions, such as mergers with, or acquisitions of, other depository institutions, and must submit applications or notices prior to forming certain types of subsidiaries or engaging in certain activities through its subsidiaries. The OCC and the FDIC are responsible for conducting periodic examinations to assess EverBank’s safety and soundness and compliance with various regulatory requirements. This regulation and supervision establishes a comprehensive framework of activities in which a federal savings association can engage and is intended primarily for the protection of the DIF and depositors. The OCC and the FDIC have significant discretion in connection with their supervisory and enforcement activities and examination policies. Any change in such applicable activities or policies, whether by the federal banking regulators or U.S. Congress, could have a material adverse impact on us, EverBank and our operations.
The following discussion is intended to be a summary of the material banking statutes and regulations currently applicable to EverBank. The following discussion does not purport to be a comprehensive description of such statutes and regulations, nor does it include every federal and state statute and regulation applicable to EverBank. The following discussion must be considered in light of the risks associated with the Dodd-Frank Act described under “Risk Factors”.
Regulation of Savings Associations
Business Activities. EverBank derives its lending and investment powers from HOLA and the regulations thereunder, which are enforced by the OCC. Under these laws and regulations, EverBank currently may invest in:
mortgage loans secured by residential and commercial real estate;
commercial and consumer loans;
certain types of debt securities; and
EverBank may also establish service corporations to engage in activities not otherwise permissible for EverBank, including certain real estate equity investments and securities and insurance brokerage. These investment powers are subject to limitations, including, among others,
limitations that require debt securities acquired by EverBank to meet certain marketability and credit quality rating criteria and that limit EverBank’s aggregate investment in various types of loans to certain percentages of capital and/or assets.
The Dodd-Frank Act amended the BHC Act to require the federal financial regulatory agencies to adopt rules that prohibit insured depository institutions (such as EverBank) and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring certain unregistered investment companies (defined as hedge funds and private equity funds). The statutory provision is commonly called the “Volcker Rule”. The FRB adopted final rules implementing the Volcker Rule on December 10, 2013. The Volcker Rule became effective on July 21, 2012 and the final rules are effective April 1, 2014, but the FRB issued an order extending the period during which institutions have to conform their activities and investments to the requirements of the Volcker Rule to July 21, 2015. During our evaluation of the impact of these changes, investments with a carrying value of $257.2 million, at December 31, 2013, were identified that may be required to be sold. As a result, we were required to record an other than temporary impairment (OTTI) of $3.3 million as we were no longer able to assert that we will hold until recovery. We continue to evaluate the Volcker Rule and the final rules adopted thereunder. Although we are continuing to evaluate further impacts of the Volcker Rule and the final rules adopted thereunder, we do not currently anticipate that the Volcker Rule will have a material effect on the operations of the Company and EverBank.
Loans to One Borrower. Under HOLA, federal savings associations are generally subject to the same limits on loans to one borrower as are imposed on national banks. Generally, under these limits, the total amount of loans and extensions of credit made by a federal savings association to one borrower or related group of borrowers (which also includes credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing transactions) outstanding at one time and not fully secured by collateral may not exceed 15% of the savings association’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. In addition to, and separate from, the 15% limitation, the total amount of loans and extensions of credit made by a federal savings association to one borrower or related group of borrowers outstanding at one time and fully secured by readily-marketable collateral may not exceed 10% of the savings association’s unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus. Readily-marketable collateral includes certain debt and equity securities and bullion, but generally does not include real estate. At December 31, 2013, EverBank’s limit on loans to one borrower was approximately $246.2 million and $164.1 million, for the 15% limitation and 10% limitation, respectively. At December 31, 2013, EverBank’s largest aggregate amount of loans to a single borrower was $100.0 million, with seven separate borrowers each having total loans in this amount. At December 31, 2013, six of these lending relationships were with clients of our mortgage warehouse finance area and one lending relationship was with a client of our lender finance area. All seven of these loan relationships were performing in accordance with the terms of their loan agreements as of December 31, 2013.
QTL Test. HOLA requires a federal savings association to meet the QTL test by maintaining at least 65% of its “portfolio assets” in certain “qualified thrift investments” on a monthly average basis in at least nine months out of every 12 months. A federal savings association that fails the QTL test must either operate under certain restrictions on its activities or convert to a bank charter. A thrift that fails the QTL test is subject to the general dividend restrictions that would apply to a national bank and is prohibited from paying dividends at all (regardless of its financial condition) unless required to meet the obligations of a company that controls the thrift and specifically approved by the OCC and the FRB. In addition, violations of the QTL test are treated as violations of HOLA subject to remedial enforcement action. At December 31, 2013, EverBank maintained approximately 75.0% of its portfolio assets in qualified thrift investments. EverBank had also satisfied the QTL test in each of the twelve months prior to December 31, 2013 and, therefore, was a QTL.
Capital Requirements. Federal banking regulations currently require savings associations to meet three minimum capital standards:
a tangible capital requirement for federal savings associations to have tangible capital in an amount equal to at least 1.5% of adjusted total assets;
a leverage ratio requirement;
for federal savings associations assigned the highest composite rating of 1, to have core capital in an amount equal to at least 3% of adjusted total assets; or
for federal savings associations assigned any other composite rating, to have core capital in an amount equal to at least 4% of adjusted total assets, or a higher percentage if warranted by the particular circumstances or risk profile of the federal savings association; and
a risk-based capital requirement for savings associations to have capital in an amount equal to at least 8% of risk-weighted assets.
In determining the amount of risk-weighted assets for purposes of the risk-based capital requirement, a federal savings association must compute its risk-based assets by multiplying its assets and certain off-balance sheet items by risk-weights assigned by capital regulations. The OCC monitors the risk management of individual institutions. The OCC may impose a higher individual minimum capital requirement on institutions that it believes exhibit a higher degree of risk.
There currently are no regulatory capital requirements directly applicable to us as a unitary savings and loan holding company apart from the regulatory capital requirements for savings associations that are applicable to EverBank. However, as noted above and below, the FRB has issued final regulations implementing regulatory capital requirements applicable to savings and loan holding companies effective January 1, 2015. See "Recent Regulatory Developments--Dodd-Frank Act--Basel III" above.
At December 31, 2013, EverBank exceeded all applicable regulatory capital requirements.
Limitation on Capital Distributions. Federal banking regulations currently impose limitations upon certain capital distributions by savings associations, such as certain cash dividends, payments to repurchase or otherwise acquire its shares, payments to stockholders of another institution in a cash-out merger and other distributions charged against capital.
We are a legal entity separate and distinct from EverBank, and the OCC regulates all capital distributions by EverBank directly or indirectly to us, including dividend payments. For example, EverBank currently must obtain the approval of the OCC for a proposed capital distribution if the total amount of all of EverBank’s capital distributions (including any proposed capital distribution) for the applicable calendar year exceeds EverBank’s net income for that year-to-date period plus EverBank’s retained net income for the preceding two years. In the event EverBank is not required under applicable banking regulations to obtain OCC approval, EverBank must give prior notice of the dividend to the FRB, with a copy to the OCC, because EverBank is a subsidiary of a savings and loan holding company.
EverBank may not pay us dividends if, after paying those dividends, it would fail to meet the required minimum levels under risk-based capital guidelines and the minimum leverage and tangible capital ratio requirements, or in the event the OCC notifies EverBank that it is in need
of more than normal supervision. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA), an insured depository institution such as EverBank is prohibited from making capital distributions, including the payment of dividends, if, after making such distribution, the institution would become “undercapitalized.” Payment of dividends by EverBank also may be restricted at any time at the discretion of the appropriate regulator if it deems the payment to constitute an unsafe and unsound banking practice.
Additionally, as noted above, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes additional restrictions on the ability of any thrift that fails to become or remain a qualified thrift lender to pay dividends.
Liquidity. EverBank is required to maintain sufficient liquidity to ensure its safe and sound operation, in accordance with federal banking regulations.
Assessments. The OCC charges assessments to recover the costs of examining savings associations and their affiliates, processing applications and other filings, and covering direct and indirect expenses in regulating savings associations and their affiliates.
In establishing the amount of an assessment, the OCC may consider the nature and scope of the activities of the entity, the amount and type of assets it holds, the financial and managerial condition of the entity, and any other factor that is appropriate. Under current OCC regulations, the assessments charged to savings associations by the OCC are based on the same assessment schedule as is used for national banks. Assessments are due on March 31 and September 30 of each year. The semiannual assessment is based on an institution’s asset size and is calculated using a table and formula set forth in the OCC’s regulations. The OCC sets the specific rates each year. The OCC applies a condition-based surcharge to the semiannual assessment for institutions with a composite rating of 3, 4 or 5. The condition surcharge is determined by multiplying the general semiannual assessment by 1.5, in the case of any institution that receives a composite rating of 3, and 2.0 in the case of any institution that receives a composite rating of 4 or 5. The condition surcharge is assessed against, and limited to, the first $20 billion of the institution’s book assets.
Various agencies have the authority to assess additional supervision fees.
Branching. Subject to certain limitations, HOLA and regulations thereunder permit federally chartered savings associations to establish branches in any state or territory of the United States.
Transactions with Related Parties. EverBank’s authority to engage in transactions with its “affiliates” is limited by Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, (FRA). The applicable regulations for savings associations regarding transactions with affiliates generally conform to the requirements of the FRB's Regulation W, which is applicable to national banks and state-chartered member banks. In general, an affiliate of a federal savings association is any company that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with, the savings association, other than the savings association’s subsidiaries. For instance, we are deemed an affiliate of EverBank under these regulations.
Generally, Section 23A limits the extent to which a federal savings association may engage in “covered transactions” with any one affiliate to an amount equal to 10% of the federal savings association’s capital stock and surplus, and contains an aggregate limit on all such transactions with all affiliates to an amount equal to 20% of the federal savings association’s capital stock and surplus. Covered transactions are defined to include, among other things, a loan or extension of credit, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the FRB) from the affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, derivatives transactions and securities lending transactions where the bank has credit exposure to an affiliate, and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate.
Section 23A also establishes specific collateral requirements for loans or extensions of credit to, or guarantees, or acceptances of letters of credit issued on behalf of, an affiliate. Section 23B requires covered transactions and certain other transactions to be on terms and under circumstances, including credit standards, that are substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the federal savings association, as those prevailing at the time for transactions with or involving non-affiliates. Additionally, under the applicable regulations, a federal savings association is prohibited from:
making a loan or other extension of credit to an affiliate that is engaged in any non-bank holding company activity; and
purchasing, or investing in, securities issued by an affiliate that is not a subsidiary.
Restrictions also apply to extensions of credit to insiders, and such extensions of credit include, for example, credit exposure arising from derivatives transactions, and to the purchase of assets from insiders.
Tying Arrangements. EverBank is prohibited, subject to certain exceptions, from making loans or offering any other services, or fixing or varying the payment for making loans or providing services, on the condition that a client obtain some additional service from an affiliate or not obtain services from one of our competitors.
Enforcement. Under the FDIA, the OCC has primary enforcement responsibility over federal savings associations and has the authority to bring enforcement action against all “institution-affiliated parties,” including any controlling stockholder or any stockholder, attorney, appraiser and accountant who knowingly or recklessly participates in any violation of applicable law or regulation, breach of fiduciary duty, or certain other wrongful actions that have, or are likely to have, a significant adverse effect on an insured depository institution or cause it more than minimal loss. In addition, the FDIC has back-up authority to take enforcement action for unsafe and unsound practices. Formal enforcement action can include the issuance of a capital directive, cease and desist order, civil money penalty, removal of officers and/or directors, institution of proceedings for receivership or conservatorship and termination of deposit insurance. Additionally, the FRB has similar enforcement authority with regard to savings and loan holding companies and their institution-affiliated parties. The bank regulatory agencies are pursuing aggressive enforcement actions with respect to compliance and other legal matters involving financial activities, which heightens the risks associated with actual and perceived compliance failures.
Examination. The Company and EverBank are subject to periodic examinations covering many areas by the FRB and the OCC, respectively, and EverBank is subject to periodic examination by the CFPB for purposes of compliance with federal consumer financial laws. A savings institution must demonstrate its ability to manage its compliance responsibilities by establishing an effective and comprehensive oversight and monitoring program. The degree of compliance oversight and monitoring by the institution’s management may be considered in the scope and intensity of examinations of the institution.
Standards for Safety and Soundness. Pursuant to the requirements of the FDIA, the federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted the Interagency Guidelines Establishing Standards for Safety and Soundness, or the Guidelines. The Guidelines establish general safety and
soundness standards relating to internal controls, information and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the Guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risks and exposures specified in the Guidelines. Currently, if the OCC determines that a federal savings association fails to meet any standard established by the Guidelines, then the OCC may require the federal savings association to submit to the OCC an acceptable plan to achieve compliance. If the federal savings association fails to comply, the OCC may seek an enforcement order in judicial proceedings and impose civil monetary penalties.
In January 2014, the OCC proposed guidelines to establish minimum standards for risk governance that would apply to national banks and federal savings associations with $50 billion or more of average consolidated assets, as well as to smaller institutions that the OCC determines are highly complex or present a heightened risk. While EverBank currently has less than $50 billion in assets, it is not yet known how frequently, or in what instances, the OCC would apply the guidelines to smaller institutions or whether the OCC will develop separate guidelines for smaller institutions in the future.
Prompt Corrective Regulatory Action. Under the Prompt Corrective Action regulations applicable to federal savings associations, the OCC is required to take certain, and is authorized to take other, supervisory actions against undercapitalized savings associations, such as requiring compliance with a capital restoration plan, restricting dividends, asset growth, acquisitions, branching and new lines of business and, in extreme cases, appointment of a receiver or conservator. The severity of the action required or authorized to be taken increases as a federal savings association’s capital deteriorates. savings associations are classified into five categories of capitalization as “well capitalized,” “adequately capitalized,” “undercapitalized,” “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized.” A savings association’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the savings association’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes. Generally, a federal savings association is categorized as “well capitalized” if:
its total risk-based capital is at least 10%;
its Tier 1 risk-based capital is at least 6%;
its leverage ratio is at least 5% of its adjusted total assets; and
it is not subject to any written agreement, order, capital directive or prompt corrective action directive issued by the OCC (or, prior to July 21, 2011, the OTS), or certain regulations, to meet or maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure.
The OCC categorized EverBank as “well capitalized” following its last examination. At December 31, 2013, EverBank exceeded all regulatory capital requirements and was considered to be “well capitalized” with a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 9.0%, a total risk-based capital ratio of 14.3%, and a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 13.8%. However, there is no assurance that it will continue to be deemed “well capitalized” even if current capital ratios are maintained in the event that asset quality deteriorates.
With respect to EverBank, effective January 1, 2015, the Basel III Capital Rules revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA, by (i) introducing a CET1 ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5% for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio requirement for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8% (as compared to the current 6%); and (iii) eliminating the current provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3% leverage ratio and still be adequately capitalized. The Basel III Capital Rules do not change the total risk-based capital requirement for any “prompt corrective action” category.
Insurance Activities. EverBank is generally permitted to engage in certain insurance activities through its subsidiaries. Federal banking regulations implemented pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (GLB Act), prohibit, among other things, depository institutions from conditioning the extension of credit to individuals upon either the purchase of an insurance product or annuity or an agreement by the consumer not to purchase an insurance product or annuity from an entity that is not affiliated with the depository institution. The regulations also require prior disclosure of this prohibition to potential insurance product or annuity clients.
Incentive Compensation Arrangements. The banking agencies issued proposed rules in 2011 and previously issued guidance on sound incentive compensation policies. We and EverBank have undertaken efforts to ensure that our incentive compensation plans do not encourage inappropriate risks, consistent with three key principles—that incentive compensation arrangements should appropriately balance risk and financial rewards, be compatible with effective controls and risk management, and be supported by strong corporate governance.
Federal Home Loan Bank System. EverBank is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta (FHLB), which is one of the 12 regional Federal Home Loan Banks comprising the Federal Home Loan Bank system. Each Federal Home Loan Bank provides a central credit facility primarily for its member institutions as well as other entities involved in home mortgage lending. Any advances from a Federal Home Loan Bank must be secured by specified types of collateral, and all long-term advances may be obtained only for the purpose of providing funds for residential housing finance.
As a member of the FHLB, EverBank is required to acquire and hold shares of capital stock in the FHLB. EverBank was in compliance with this requirement with an investment in FHLB stock of $125.9 million and $155.9 million as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. EverBank’s capital stock in FHLB includes $107.7 million purchased during 2013 and $145.1 million purchased during 2012. The FHLB repurchased $137.7 million in 2013 and $85.5 million in 2012.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, the FHLB paid dividends of $3.4 million on the capital stock held by EverBank. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the FHLB paid dividends of approximately $1.8 million on the capital stock held by EverBank.
Federal Reserve System. EverBank is subject to provisions of the FRA and the FRB’s regulations pursuant to which depository institutions may be required to maintain reserves against their deposit accounts and certain other liabilities. Currently, savings associations must maintain reserves against transaction accounts (primarily negotiable order of withdrawal and regular interest and noninterest-bearing checking accounts). The FRB regulations establish the specific rates of reserves that must be maintained, which are subject to adjustment by the FRB. EverBank is currently in compliance with those reserve requirements. The required reserves must be maintained in the form of vault cash, a noninterest-bearing account at a Federal Reserve Bank, or a pass-through account as defined by the FRB.
EverBank is a member of the FDIC, and its deposits are insured through the DIF up to the amount permitted by law. EverBank is thus subject to FDIC deposit insurance premium assessments. The assessment base upon which insurance assessments are based is average
consolidated total assets less the average tangible equity of the insured depository institution. Assessment rates for large depository institutions, such as EverBank, are calculated using a “scorecard” that combines the supervisory risk ratings of the institution with certain forward-looking financial measures. The assessment rates are subject to adjustments based upon the insured depository institution’s ratio of: (1) long-term unsecured debt to the assessment base, (2) long-term unsecured debt issued by other insured depository institutions to the assessment base, and (3) brokered deposits to the assessment base. However, the adjustments based on brokered deposits to the assessment base will not apply so long as the institution is well capitalized and has a composite CAMELS rating of 1 or 2. The FDIC may make additional discretionary assessment rate adjustments.
The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum designated reserve ratio of the DIF from 1.15% to 1.35% of the estimated amount of total insured deposits, and eliminated the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds. The FDIC has set the long-range, minimum target reserve ratio at 2%.
The FDIC also collects a deposit-based assessment from insured depository institutions on behalf of The Financing Corporation. The funds from these assessments are used to service debt issued by The Financing Corporation in its capacity as a financial vehicle for the Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation. The Financing Corporation annualized assessment rate is set quarterly and in the fourth quarter of 2013 was $0.0062 per $100 of assessable deposits. These assessments will continue until the debt matures in 2017 through 2019.
Other Statutes and Regulations
The Company and EverBank are subject to a myriad of other statutes and regulations affecting their activities. Some of the more important include:
Bank Secrecy Act of 1970-Anti-Money Laundering. Financial institutions must maintain anti-money laundering programs that include established internal policies, procedures and controls, a designated compliance officer, an ongoing employee training program; and testing of the program by an independent audit function. The Company and EverBank are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must meet enhanced standards for due diligence and client identification in their dealings with foreign financial institutions and foreign clients. Financial institutions must take reasonable steps to conduct enhanced scrutiny of account relationships to guard against money laundering and to report any suspicious transactions, and law enforcement authorities have been granted increased access to financial information maintained by banks. Anti-money laundering obligations have been substantially strengthened as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act, enacted in 2001 and renewed in 2006. Bank regulators routinely examine institutions for compliance with these obligations and they must consider an institution’s compliance in connection with the regulatory review of applications. Failure of a financial institution to comply with anti-money laundering obligations could have serious legal, reputational and financial consequences for the institution. The regulatory authorities have imposed “cease and desist” orders and civil monetary penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.
Office of Foreign Assets Control Regulation. The United States has imposed economic sanctions that affect transactions with designated foreign countries, nationals and others which are administered by the U.S. Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required.
Community Reinvestment Act. EverBank is subject to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, as amended (CRA), and related regulations. The CRA states that all banks have a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with safe and sound operation, to help meet the credit needs for their entire communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA also charges the federal banking regulators, in connection with the examination of the institution or the evaluation of certain regulatory applications filed by the institution, with the responsibility to assess the institution’s record of fulfilling its obligations under the CRA. The federal banking regulators assign an institution a rating of “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve,” or “substantial non-compliance.” The regulatory agency’s assessment of the institution’s record is made available to the public. EverBank received a “satisfactory” rating following its most recent CRA examination.
Consumer Regulation. Activities of EverBank are subject to a variety of statutes and regulations designed to protect consumers. These laws and regulations include provisions that:
limit the interest and other charges collected or contracted for by EverBank, including new rules respecting the terms of credit cards and of debit card overdrafts;
govern EverBank’s disclosures of credit terms to consumer borrowers;
require EverBank to provide information to enable the public and public officials to determine whether it is fulfilling its obligation to help meet the housing needs of the community it serves;
prohibit EverBank from discriminating on the basis of race, creed or other prohibited factors when it makes decisions to extend credit;
govern the manner in which EverBank may collect consumer debts; and
prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices in the provision of consumer financial products and services.
Under the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, which took effect in 2010, EverBank is subject to additional requirements regarding credit card rates, fees and other terms. Among the requirements are (1) 45-days advance notice to a
cardholder before the interest rate on a card may be increased, subject to certain exceptions; (2) a ban on interest rate increases in the first year; (3) an opt-in for over-the-limit charges; (4) caps on high fee cards; (5) greater limits on the issuance of cards to persons below the age of 21; (6) new rules on monthly statements and payment due dates and the crediting of payments; and (7) the application of new rates only to new charges and of payments to higher rate charges.
Under rules regarding overdraft charges for debit card and automatic teller machine (ATM), automatic overdraft protection arrangements are prohibited, and banks must notify and obtain the consent of clients before enrolling them in an overdraft protection plan. These rules do not apply to overdraft protection on checks or to automatic bill payments.
As a result of the recent turmoil in the residential real estate and mortgage lending markets, there are several concepts currently under discussion at both the federal and state government levels that could, if adopted, alter the terms of existing mortgage loans, impose restrictions on future mortgage loan originations, diminish lenders’ rights against delinquent borrowers or otherwise change the ways in which lenders make and administer residential mortgage loans. If made final, any or all of these proposals could have a negative effect on the financial performance of EverBank’s mortgage lending operations, by, among other things, reducing the volume of mortgage loans that EverBank can originate and sell into the secondary market and impairing EverBank’s ability to proceed against certain delinquent borrowers with timely and effective collection efforts.
The deposit operations of EverBank are also subject to laws and regulations that:
require EverBank to adequately disclose the interest rates and other terms of consumer deposit accounts;
impose a duty on EverBank to maintain the confidentiality of consumer financial records and prescribe procedures for complying with administrative subpoenas of financial records;
require escheatment of unclaimed funds to the appropriate state agencies after the passage of certain statutory time frames; and
govern automatic deposits to and withdrawals from deposit accounts with EverBank and the rights and liabilities of clients who use ATMs, and other electronic banking services.
EverBank will likely face a significant increase in its consumer compliance regulatory burden as a result of the combination of the CFPB and the potentially significant rollback of federal preemption of state laws in the area.
Commercial Real Estate Lending. Lending operations that involve concentrations of commercial real estate loans are subject to enhanced scrutiny by federal banking regulators. Regulators have issued guidance with respect to the risks posed by commercial real estate lending concentrations. Commercial real estate loans generally include land development, construction loans and loans secured by multifamily property and non-farm, non-residential real property where the primary source of repayment is derived from rental income associated with the property. The guidance prescribes the following guidelines for examiners to help identify institutions that are potentially exposed to concentration risk and may warrant greater supervisory scrutiny:
total reported loans for construction, land development and other land represent 100% or more of the institution’s total capital; or
total commercial real estate loans represent 300% or more of the institution’s total capital, and the outstanding balance of the institution’s commercial real estate loan portfolio has increased by 50% or more during the prior 36 months.
As of December 31, 2013, we had approximately 4,000 employees. None of our employees are subject to collective bargaining agreements. We consider our relationships with our employees to be good.
Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports can be found free of charge on our website at www.abouteverbank.com/ir as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC maintains a website, www.sec.gov, which contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on our website at www.abouteverbank.com/ir. Printed copies of this information may be obtained, without charge, by written request to our Investor Relations department at 501 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32202.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
Risks Related to Our Business
General business and economic conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Our businesses and operations are sensitive to general business and economic conditions in the United States. If the U.S. economy is unable to steadily emerge from the recession that began in 2007 or if we experience worsening economic conditions, such as a so-called “double-dip” recession, our growth and profitability could be constrained. In addition, economic conditions in foreign countries can affect the stability of global financial markets, which could hinder the U.S. economic recovery. Financial markets remain concerned about the ability of certain European countries to finance and service their debt and about recent currency devaluations and inflation in certain emerging markets. The default by any one of these countries on their debt payments and deteriorating conditions in other countries could lead to weaker economic conditions in the United States. Weak economic conditions are characterized by deflation, fluctuations in debt and equity capital markets, including a lack of liquidity and/or depressed prices in the secondary market for mortgage loans, increased delinquencies on mortgage, consumer and commercial loans, residential and commercial real estate price declines and lower home sales and commercial activity. All of these factors are detrimental to our business. Our business is significantly affected by monetary and related policies of the U.S. federal government, its agencies and government-sponsored entities, or GSEs. Changes in any of these policies could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Liquidity risk could impair our ability to fund operations and jeopardize our financial condition.
Liquidity is essential to our business. Actions by the FHLB, or the FRB, may reduce our borrowing capacity. Additionally, we may not be able to attract deposits at competitive rates. An inability to raise funds through traditional deposits, brokered deposits, borrowings, the sale of securities or loans and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity or result in increased funding costs. Furthermore, we invest in several asset classes, including significant investments in MSR, which may be less liquid in certain markets. Liquidity may also be adversely impacted by bank supervisory and regulatory authorities mandating changes in the composition of our balance sheet to asset classes that are less liquid.
Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities or on terms that are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include a downturn in the markets in which our loans are concentrated or adverse regulatory action against us. In addition, our access to deposits may be affected by the liquidity and/or cash flow needs of depositors. Although we have historically been able to replace maturing deposits and FHLB advances as necessary, we might not be able to replace such funds in the future and can lose a relatively inexpensive source of funds and increase our funding costs if, among other things, clients move funds out of bank deposits and into alternative investments, such as the stock market, that are perceived as providing superior expected returns. Furthermore, an inability to increase our deposit base at all or at attractive rates would impede our ability to fund our continued growth, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
Our ability to raise funds through deposits or borrowings could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the continued deterioration in credit markets.
Although we consider our sources of funds adequate for our liquidity needs, we may be compelled to seek additional sources of financing in the future. We may be required to seek additional regulatory capital through capital raising at terms that may be very dilutive to existing common stockholders. Likewise, we may need to incur additional debt in the future to achieve our business objectives, in connection with future acquisitions or for other reasons. Any borrowings, if sought, may not be available to us or, if available, may not be on favorable terms.
Our financial results are significantly affected in a number of ways by changes in interest rates, which may make our results volatile from quarter to quarter.
Most of our assets and liabilities are monetary in nature, which subjects us to significant risks from changes in interest rates and can impact our net income and the valuation of our assets and liabilities. Our operating results depend to a great extent on our net interest margin, which is the difference between the amount of interest income we earn and the amount of interest expense we incur. If the rate of interest we pay on our interest-bearing deposits, borrowings and other liabilities increases more than the rate of interest we receive on loans, securities and other interest-earning assets, our net interest income, and therefore our earnings, would be adversely affected. Our earnings also could be adversely affected if the rates on our loans and other investments fall more quickly than those on our deposits, borrowings and other liabilities. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors beyond our control, including competition, general economic conditions and monetary and fiscal policies of various governmental and regulatory authorities, including the FRB. A strengthening U.S. economy could cause the FRB to increase short-term interest rates, which would increase our borrowing costs and may reduce our profit margins. A sustained low interest rate environment could cause many of our loans subject to adjustable rates to reprice downward to lower interest rates, which would decrease our loan yields and reduce our profit margins. Alternatively, mortgage origination volume and revenues usually decline during periods of rising or high interest rates and increase during periods of declining or low interest rates.
Changes in interest rates also have a significant impact on the carrying value of a significant percentage of the assets on our balance sheet. Our MSR are valued based on a number of factors, including assumptions about borrower repayment rates, which are heavily influenced by prevailing interest rates. When interest rates fall, borrowers are usually more likely to prepay their mortgage loans by refinancing them at a lower rate. As the likelihood of prepayment increases, the fair value of our MSR can decrease, which, in turn, may reduce earnings in the period in which the decrease occurs.
In addition, mortgage loans held for sale for which an active secondary market and readily available market prices exist and other interests we hold related to residential loan sales and securitizations are carried at fair value. The value of these assets may be negatively affected by changes in interest rates. We may not correctly or adequately hedge this risk, and even if we do hedge the risk with derivatives and other instruments, we may still incur significant losses from changes in the value of these assets or from changes in the value of the hedging instruments.
Even though originating mortgage loans, which benefit from declining rates, and servicing mortgage loans, which benefit from rising rates, can act as a “natural hedge” to soften the overall impact of changes in rates on our consolidated financial results, the hedge is not perfect, either in amount or timing. For example, the negative effect on revenue from a decrease in the fair value of residential MSR is generally immediate, but any offsetting revenue benefit from more originations and the MSR relating to the new loans would generally accrue over time.
We enter into forward starting swaps as a hedging strategy related to our expected future issuances of debt. This hedging strategy allows us to fix the interest rate margin between our interest earning assets and our interest bearing liabilities. A continued prolonged period of lower interest rates could affect the duration of our interest earning assets and adversely impact our operations in future periods.
We may be required to make further increases in our provisions for loan and lease losses and to charge-off additional loans and leases in the future, which could adversely affect our results of operations.
Despite historically low interest rates and signs of a recovering real estate market, weak employment and slow economic growth have continued. We maintain an allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL), which is a reserve established through a provision for loan and lease loss expense that represents management’s best estimate of probable losses inherent in our loan portfolio. The level of the allowance reflects management’s judgment with respect to:
continuing evaluation of specific credit risks;
current loan and lease portfolio quality;
present economic, political and regulatory conditions;
industry concentrations; and
other unidentified losses inherent in the current loan portfolio.
The determination of the appropriate level of the allowance for loan and lease losses involves a high degree of subjectivity and judgment and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and future trends, all of which may undergo material changes. Changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors both within and outside of our control, may require an increase in the allowance for loan and lease losses.
In addition, bank regulatory agencies periodically review our allowance for loan and lease losses and may require an increase in the provision for loan losses or the recognition of further loan charge-offs, based on judgments different than those of management. Any adjustments made to the ALLL resulting from regulatory review would still result in an adjustment to the ALLL in accordance with GAAP. If charge-offs in future periods exceed the allowance for loan and lease losses, we may need additional provisions to increase the allowance for loan and lease losses, which would result in a decrease in net income and capital, and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
We have undertaken certain actions to reposition our business in recent periods and these actions may be unsuccessful or may not fully achieve the results that we have intended.
In 2013, we exited our wholesale lending business. In addition, during 2013 we also consolidated all of our commercial lending activities under a realigned leadership team based on our belief that this sales and reporting structure will help to drive efficiency and enhance our focus on cross-sell opportunities in markets where we have strong residential lending and deposit clients.
During the fourth quarter 2013, we entered into agreements to sell our default servicing operations and the rights to service and subservice UPB of $20.3 billion to Green Tree Servicing LLC, a subsidiary of Walter Investment Management Corp. In connection with the sale of the MSR, we need to receive approvals from certain investors, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which approvals have not yet been received. We believe this sale, along with our wholesale broker lending exit, enhances the efficiency of our mortgage banking business and realigns our mortgage banking focus on our core preferred jumbo offering.
The success of these repositioning activities will depend, in part, on our ability to realize the anticipated benefits and cost savings from disposing of and centralizing the operation of these businesses. However, to realize these anticipated benefits and cost savings, we must successfully execute the transactions as planned and reduce related expenses and salary costs on the expected timeline which may not be possible because of evolving market and regulatory conditions and delays in obtaining, or the inability to obtain, required regulatory approvals. If we are not able to achieve these objectives, the anticipated benefits and cost savings of the repositioning activities may not be realized fully or at all or may take longer to realize than expected.
The sale of the MSR to Green Tree is subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions that if not satisfied may prevent the completion of the transaction, which could have a material adverse impact on our financial results.
The sale of the MSR to Green Tree Servicing LLC is subject to the satisfaction of certain closing conditions that are beyond our control, including the receipt of approvals from certain investors, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as the Federal Housing Finance Agency. If these closing conditions are not satisfied, we may be unable to complete the sale transaction and as a result we may retain both the servicing with respect to the MSR, and the default servicing platform. To the extent that we are unable to sell the MSR and the platform, we may fail to recognize the cost reductions previously anticipated. The failure to consummate the proposed transactions with Green Tree Servicing LLC could have a material adverse impact on our financial results.
Mortgage loan modification and refinancing programs and future legislative action may adversely affect the value of, and our returns on, residential mortgage-backed securities and on MSR.
Loan modification programs, future legislative or regulatory actions, including possible amendments to the bankruptcy laws, which result in the modification of outstanding residential mortgage loans, as well as changes in the requirements necessary to qualify for refinancing mortgage loans with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae, may adversely affect the value of, and the returns on, our portfolio of mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and on the value of our MSR. Our MSR is valued based on a number of factors, including assumptions about borrower repayment rates and costs of servicing. If the interest rate on a mortgage is adjusted, or if a borrower is permitted to refinance at a lower rate, or the costs of servicing or costs of foreclosures increase, the value of our MSR with respect to that mortgage can decrease, which, in turn, may reduce earnings in the period in which the decrease occurs. In addition, increases in servicing costs from changes to our foreclosure and other servicing practices, including resulting from the consent orders, adversely affects the fair value of our MSR.
Our gain on sale of loans could decrease in future periods if refinancing activity declines.
In prior periods we have seen elevated residential mortgage refinancing activity due to historically low interest rates as well as due to government programs such as Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and Home Affordable Refinancing Program (HARP). During 2013, we experienced heightened demand for mortgage loans by investors in the secondary market as a result of historically low interest rates and favorable risk adjusted yield on mortgage assets relative to other investments. This expanded secondary market activity has resulted in attractive resale opportunities which have resulted in elevated gain on sale of loans income during the year ended December 31, 2013.
More recently the FRB has indicated that it would phase out quantitative easing. As a result long-term interest rates rose during late 2013. In a rising interest rate environment, we would expect that refinancing volumes would decline, which could cause our originations of mortgage loans held for sale to decrease along with our gain on sale of loans.
The returns on our government insured mortgage pool buyouts could decrease as a result of changes in foreclosure timelines and costs.
We have a history of servicing FHA loans. As a servicer, the buyout opportunity is the right to purchase above market rate, government insured loans at par (i.e., the amount that has to be passed through to the GNMA security holder when repurchased). Each loan in a GNMA pool is insured or guaranteed by one of several federal government agencies, including the Federal Housing Administration, Department of Veterans’
Affairs or the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service. The loans must at all times comply with the requirements for maintaining such insurance or guarantee.
We expect loans that go through the foreclosure process will be settled generally within one to two years depending on the state’s foreclosure timelines. Changes to foreclosure regulations, bankruptcy proceedings, loss mitigation requirements and our inability to timely process foreclosures could extend the duration that these loans are held on our balance sheet. To the extent these risks extend the duration, our foreclosure costs and net interest margin could be negatively impacted. Operational capacity poses a risk to the claim through missed servicing milestones. Servicing operations must comply with the government agencies' servicing requirements in order to avoid interest curtailments (principal is not at risk).
Our commercial real estate loan portfolio exposes us to risks that may be greater than the risks related to our other mortgage loans.
At December 31, 2013, our commercial real estate loans, net of discounts, were $3.2 billion, or approximately 24% of our total loan portfolio, net of allowances. Commercial real estate loans generally carry larger loan balances and involve a greater degree of financial and credit risk than residential mortgage loans or home equity loans. The repayment of these loans is typically dependent upon the successful operation of the related real estate or commercial projects. If the cash flow from the project is reduced, a borrower’s ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Furthermore, the repayment of commercial mortgage loans is generally less predictable and more difficult to evaluate and monitor and collateral may be more difficult to dispose of in a market decline. In such cases, we may be compelled to modify the terms of the loan or engage in other potentially expensive work-out techniques. Any significant failure to pay on time by our borrowers would adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.
A significant portion of our loan portfolio is concentrated in California and Florida and events or circumstances which adversely affect the economies or real estate values in those states could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, approximately 27% and 10% of our residential loan portfolio was secured by real estate located in California and Florida, respectively, and 19% and 15% of our commercial and commercial real estate portfolios were secured by businesses and real estate located in California and Florida, respectively. Our loan concentration in these states subjects us to risk that a downturn in the local economy in either California or Florida could result in increases in delinquencies and foreclosures or losses on these loans. In addition, the occurrence of natural disasters in California or Florida, such as earthquakes or hurricanes, or man-made disasters, could result in a decline in the value or destruction of our mortgaged properties and an increase in the risk of delinquencies or foreclosures. The occurrence of any one of these factors could result in a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
We may become subject to additional risks as a result of the growth of our commercial lending business.
Our expansion into commercial lending could expose us to new markets where we have little commercial experience, which could result in losses that would affect our financial results. Historically we have originated commercial loans mostly in Florida, however over the past several years, we have developed a platform to generate commercial loans across the country. If we do not maintain strong underwriting standards as we have in the past, we may suffer losses if these loans fail to perform.
Conditions in the residential real estate market and higher than normal delinquency and default rates could adversely affect our business.
The origination and servicing of residential mortgages is a significant component of our business and our earnings may be adversely affected if real estate markets weaken and delinquency and default rates increase. If the frequency and severity of our loan delinquencies and default rates increase, we could experience losses on loans held for investment and on newly originated or purchased loans that we hold for sale. We may need to further increase our reserves for foreclosures if foreclosure rates increase.
A deteriorating real estate market and higher than normal delinquency and default rates on loans have other adverse consequences for our mortgage banking business, including:
cash flows and capital resources are reduced, as we are required to make cash advances to meet contractual obligations to investors, process foreclosures, maintain, repair and market foreclosed properties;
mortgage service fee revenues decline because we recognize these revenues only upon collection;
net interest income may decline and interest expense may increase due to lower average cash and capital balances and higher capital funding requirements;
mortgage and loan servicing costs rise;
an inability to sell our MSR in the capital markets due to reduced liquidity;
amortization and impairment charges on our MSR increase; and
realized and unrealized losses on and declines in the liquidity of securities held in our investment portfolio that are collateralized by mortgage obligations.
We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans with identified defects, indemnify the investor or guarantor, or reimburse the investor for credit loss incurred on the loan in the event of a material breach of representations or warranties.
We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans or reimburse investors as a result of breaches in contractual representations and warranties from our sales of loans we originate and servicing of loans originated by other parties. We conduct these activities under contractual provisions that include various representations and warranties, which typically cover ownership of the loan, compliance with loan criteria set forth in the applicable agreement, validity of the lien securing the loan and similar matters. We may be required to repurchase mortgage loans with identified defects, indemnify the investor or guarantor, or reimburse the investor for credit loss incurred on the loan in the event of a material breach of such contractual representations or warranties.
We experienced increased levels of repurchase demands beginning in 2010, which has led to material increases in our loan repurchase reserves relative to historical levels. We may need to increase such reserves in the future, which would adversely affect net income. As of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, our loan repurchase reserve for loans that we sold or securitized was $20.2 million, $27.0 million and $32.0 million, respectively, representing a 25% decrease during 2013 and a 16% decrease during 2012.
In addition, we also service residential mortgage loans where a GSE is the owner of the underlying mortgage loan asset. Prior to late 2009, we had not historically experienced a significant amount of repurchases related to the servicing of mortgage loans as we were indemnified by the seller of the servicing rights, but due to the failures of several of our counterparties, we have since experienced losses related to the repurchase of loans from GSEs and subsequent disposal or payment demands from the GSEs. As of December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, our reserve for servicing repurchase losses was $23.7 million, $26.0 million and $30.4 million, respectively, representing a 9% decrease during 2013 and a 14% decrease during 2012.
Recent foreclosure-related litigation may also present risks to us. A recent decision in the Southern District of New York in 2012 related to residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS), repurchase claims, could result in increased litigation. The plaintiff in the case sought to establish breaches of representations and warranties in large RMBS loan pools using small loan samples rather than proving a breach of every loan in the loan pool in order to exercise their repurchase right. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and concluded that relying on a small sample of loans is permissible, which indicates that loan pool repurchase claims may become more plaintiff-friendly and easier to prove and could increase our exposure to repurchase-related claims.
Moreover, increased enforcement activity related to Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured loans may present risk to us under the federal False Claims Act and other similar federal laws. While the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) may use its authority to seek civil money penalties, request indemnification of FHA insurance claims, and impose other penalties related to origination and servicing deficiencies in FHA loans, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has recently entered into several major agreements with FHA lenders to settle allegations of false claims in connection with the underwriting of FHA-insured loans and compliance with other FHA program requirements. These settlement agreements have resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement payments to the United States and HUD, as well as dedicated funds to be used for borrower assistance. As the False Claims Act permits the federal government to recover treble damages for claims based on false certifications, the potential liability for an FHA lender submitting insurance claims on the loans it originates could be significant.
If future repurchase demands remain at heightened levels or further increase, the severity of the repurchase requests increase, our success at appealing repurchase or other requests differs from past experience, or we are faced with increased FHA enforcement, we may need to increase our loan repurchase reserves, and increased repurchase obligations could adversely affect our financial position and results of operations. For additional information, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Loans Subject to Representations and Warranties.”
Our concentration of mass-affluent clients and “jumbo” mortgages in our residential mortgage portfolio makes us particularly vulnerable to a downturn in high-end real estate values and economic factors disproportionately affecting affluent consumers of financial services.
The FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will only purchase or guarantee so-called “conforming” loans, which may not exceed certain principal amount thresholds. As of December 31, 2013, a majority of our residential mortgage loans held for investment that are not government insured was comprised of “jumbo” loans based on the current threshold of $417,000 in most states, and 91% of the carrying value of our securities portfolio was comprised of residential nonagency investment securities, substantially all of which are backed by jumbo loans. Jumbo loans have principal balances exceeding the thresholds of the agencies described above, and tend to be less liquid than conforming loans, which may make it more difficult for us to rapidly rebalance our portfolio and risk profile than is the case for financial institutions with higher concentrations of conforming loan assets. In addition real estate securing jumbo loans tends to be concentrated in certain limited markets and real estate prices in those markets have historically been more volatile that in the median price range markets, which affects the default rates of these mortgages and the marketability of jumbo mortgages to investors. As a result, liquidity in the capital markets for such assets could be diminished and we could be faced with an inability to dispose of such assets or fully recover our losses in the event of a default.
Hedging strategies that we use to manage our mortgage pipeline may be ineffective to mitigate the risk of changes in interest rates.
We typically use derivatives and other instruments to hedge a portion of our mortgage banking interest rate risk. Hedging is a complex process, requiring sophisticated models and constant monitoring, and is not a perfect science. We may use hedging instruments tied to U.S. Treasury rates, London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), or Eurodollars that may not perfectly correlate with the value or income being hedged. Our mortgage pipeline consists of our commitments to purchase mortgage loans, or interest rate locks, and funded mortgage loans that will be sold in the secondary market. The risk associated with the mortgage pipeline is that interest rates will fluctuate between the time we commit to purchase a loan at a pre-determined price, or the client locks in the interest rate on a loan, and the time we sell or commit to sell the mortgage loan. Generally speaking, if interest rates increase, the value of an unhedged mortgage pipeline decreases, and gain on sale margins are adversely impacted. Typically, we economically hedge the risk of overall changes in fair value of loans held for sale by either entering into forward loan sale agreements, selling forward Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage-backed securities (MBS) or using other derivative instruments to economically hedge loan commitments and to create fair value hedges against the funded loan portfolios. We generally do not hedge all of the interest rate risk on our mortgage portfolio and have not historically hedged the risk of changes in the fair value of our MSR resulting from changes in interest rates. To the extent we fail to appropriately reduce our exposure to interest rate changes, our financial results may be adversely affected.
We could recognize realized and unrealized losses on securities held in our securities portfolio, particularly if economic and market conditions deteriorate.
As of December 31, 2013, the fair value of our securities portfolio was approximately $1.2 billion, of which approximately 91% was comprised of residential nonagency investment securities. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. These factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency downgrades of the securities, defaults by the issuer or individual mortgagors with respect to the underlying securities, changes in market interest rates and continued instability in the credit markets. Any of these factors could cause an other-than-temporary impairment in future periods and result in realized losses. The process for determining whether impairment is other-than-temporary usually requires difficult, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security 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 issuers 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 financial condition and results of operations.
Downgrades of the U.S. sovereign credit rating or its perceived credit worthiness could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.
The current uncertainty over U.S. fiscal policy could lead to future or further downgrades of the U.S. sovereign credit rating by one or more of the major credit rating agencies. The impact of any future or further downgrade of the U.S. sovereign credit rating or negative perception of the U.S. government’s creditworthiness could adversely affect the U.S. and global financial markets and economic conditions which may, directly or indirectly, have adverse effects on our operations, earnings and financial condition Among other things, a credit rating downgrade could adversely impact the value of the residential agency MBS held in our investment portfolio and may trigger requirements that we post additional collateral for trades relative to these securities.
We may experience higher delinquencies on our equipment leases and reductions in the resale value of leased equipment.
The realization of equipment values (i.e., residual values) during the life and at the end of the term of a lease is an important element of our commercial finance business. At the inception of each lease, we record a residual value for the leased equipment based on our estimate of the future value of the equipment at the expected disposition date. A decrease in the market value of leased equipment at a rate greater than the rate we projected, whether due to rapid technological or economic obsolescence, unusual or excessive wear-and-tear on the equipment, recession or other adverse economic conditions, or other factors, would adversely affect the current or the residual values of such equipment. Further, certain equipment residual values are dependent on the manufacturer’s or vendor’s warranties, reputation and other factors, including market liquidity. In addition, we may not realize the full market value of equipment if we are required to sell it to meet liquidity needs or for other reasons outside of the ordinary course of business. Consequently, we may not realize our estimated residual values for equipment. If we are unable to realize the expected value of a substantial portion of the equipment under lease, our business could be adversely affected.
Fluctuations in national, regional and local economic conditions may increase the level of charge-offs that we make to our lease portfolio, and, consequently, reduce our net income. We are not protected for all losses and any charge-off or related losses that we experience will negatively impact our results of operations.
We may become subject to a number of risks if we elect to pursue acquisitions and may not be able to acquire and integrate acquisition targets successfully if we choose to do so.
As we have done in the past, we may pursue acquisitions as part of our growth strategy. We may consider acquisitions of loans or securities portfolios, lending or leasing firms, commercial and small business lenders, residential lenders, direct banks, banks or bank branches, wealth and investment management firms, securities brokerage firms, specialty finance or other financial services-related companies. We expect that competition for suitable acquisition targets may be significant. Additionally, we must generally receive federal regulatory approval before we can acquire an institution or business. Such regulatory approval may be denied or, if granted, could be subject to conditions that materially affect the terms of the acquisition or our ability to capture some of the opportunities presented by the acquisition. We may not be able to successfully identify and acquire suitable acquisition targets on terms and conditions we consider to be acceptable.
Even if suitable candidates are identified and we succeed in consummating these transactions, acquisitions involve risks that may adversely affect our market value and profitability. These risks include, among other things: credit risk associated with acquired loans and investments; retaining, attracting and integrating personnel; loss of clients; reputational risks; difficulties in integrating or operating acquired businesses or assets; and potential disruption of our ongoing business operations and diversion of management’s attention. Through our acquisitions we may also assume unknown or undisclosed liabilities, fail to properly assess known contingent liabilities or assume businesses with internal control deficiencies. While in most of our transactions we seek to mitigate these risks through, among other things, adequate due diligence and indemnification provisions, we cannot be certain that the due diligence we have conducted is adequate or that the indemnification provisions and other risk mitigants we put in place will be sufficient.
Certain of our stockholders have director nomination rights through which they may influence the actions taken by us, and their interests may not align with our interests or the interests of our other stockholders.
Pursuant to an agreement between us and Sageview Partners L.P., (Sageview), Sageview has the right to designate a representative to be included in management’s slate of nominees recommended to stockholders of the Company for election as a member of our Board of Directors and has the right to appoint an observer who is permitted to attend meetings of our Board of Directors. In addition pursuant to an agreement between us and Lovett Miller Venture Fund II, Limited Partnership and Lovett Miller Venture Fund III, Limited Partnership, or together, Lovett Miller, Lovett Miller has the right to appoint an observer who is permitted to attend meetings of our Board of Directors.
These director nomination rights and observer rights will generally survive for each of Sageview and Lovett Miller, respectively, so long as such stockholder continues to own a specified percentage of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2013, Lovett Miller owns 842,546 shares of our common stock, or 0.69%, and Sageview owns 12,912,230 shares of our common stock, or 10.53%. As a result of their significant holdings of our common stock, and, in the case of Sageview, its right to designate members of our Board of Directors, these stockholders are expected to be able to continue to exert significant influence over our policies and management, potentially in a manner which may not be in our other stockholders’ best interests.
We may issue a new series of preferred stock or debt securities, which would be senior to our common stock and may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
We have issued one series of preferred stock, the Series A Preferred Stock. In the future, we may increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, which may include senior or subordinated notes, classes of preferred shares and/or common shares. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. Preferred shares and debt, if issued, have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend or interest payments that could limit our ability to make a distribution to the holders of our common stock. Future issuances and sales of parity preferred stock, or the perception that such issuances and sales could occur, may also cause prevailing market prices for the Series A Preferred Stock and our common stock to decline and may adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital in the financial markets at times and prices favorable to us. Further issuances of our common stock could be dilutive to holders of our common stock.
Our ability to rely on brokered deposits as a part of our funding strategy may be limited.
Deposits raised by EverBank continue to be a key part of our funding strategy. Our ability to maintain our current level of deposits or grow our deposit base could be affected by regulatory restrictions, including the possible imposition of prior approval requirements or restrictions on deposit growth through brokered channels, or restrictions on our rates offered. In addition, as a supervisory matter, reliance on brokered deposits as a significant source of funding is discouraged. As a result, in order to grow our deposit base, we will need to expand our non-brokered channels for deposit generation, including through new marketing and advertising efforts, which may require significant time, capital
and effort to implement. Further, we are likely to face significant competition for deposits from other banking organizations that are also seeking stable deposits to support their funding needs. If EverBank is unable to develop new channels of deposit origination, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial position.
We are exposed to risks associated with our Internet-based systems and online commerce security, including “hacking” and “identity theft.”
We operate primarily as an online bank with a small number of financial center locations and, as such, we conduct a substantial portion of our business over the Internet. We rely heavily upon data processing, including loan servicing and deposit processing, software, communications and information systems from a number of third parties to conduct our business.
Third party, or internal, systems and networks may fail to operate properly or become disabled due to deliberate attacks or unintentional events. Our operations are vulnerable to disruptions from human error, natural disasters, power loss, computer viruses, spam attacks, denial of service attacks, unauthorized access and other unforeseen events. Undiscovered data corruption could render our client information inaccurate. These events may obstruct our ability to provide services and process transactions. While we believe that we are in compliance with all applicable privacy and data security laws, an incident could put our client confidential information at risk.
Although we have not experienced a cyber incident which has been successful in compromising our data or systems, we can never be certain that all of our systems are entirely free from vulnerability to breaches of security or other technological difficulties or failures. We monitor and modify, as necessary, our protective measures in response to the perpetual evolution of cyber threats.
A breach in the security of any of our information systems, or other cyber incident, could have an adverse impact on, among other things, our revenue, ability to attract and maintain clients and business reputation. In addition, as a result of any breach, we could incur higher costs to conduct our business, to increase protection, or related to remediation. Furthermore our clients could blame us and terminate their account with us for a cyber incident which occurred on their own system or with that of an unrelated third party. In addition, a security breach could also subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability.
Our business may be impaired if a third party infringes on our intellectual property rights.
Our business depends heavily upon intellectual property that we have developed or will develop in the future. Monitoring infringement of intellectual property rights is difficult, and the steps we have taken may not prevent unauthorized use of our intellectual property. In the past, we have had to engage in enforcement actions to protect our domain names from theft, including administrative proceedings. We may in the future be unable to prevent third parties from acquiring domain names that infringe or otherwise decrease the value of our trademarks and other intellectual property rights. Intellectual property theft on the Internet is relatively widespread, and individuals anywhere in the world can purchase infringing domains or use our service marks on their pay-per-click sites to draw clients for competitors while exploiting our service marks. To the extent that we are unable to rapidly locate and stop an infringement, our intellectual property assets may become devalued and our brand may be tarnished. Third parties may also challenge, invalidate or circumvent our intellectual property rights and protections, registrations and licenses. Intellectual property litigation is expensive, and the outcome of an action could negatively impact our business, brand and profitability.
We may become involved in intellectual property or other disputes that could harm our business.
Third parties may assert claims against us, asserting that our marks, services, associated content in any medium, or software applications infringe on their intellectual property rights. The laws and regulations governing intellectual property rights are continually evolving and subject to differing interpretations. Trademark owners often engage in litigation in state or federal courts or oppositions in the United States Patent and Trademark Office as a strategy to broaden the scope of their trademark rights. If any infringement claim is successful against us, we may be required to pay substantial damages or we may need to seek to obtain a license of the other party’s intellectual property rights. We also could lose the expected future benefit of our marketing and advertising spending. Moreover, we may be prohibited from providing our services or using content that incorporates the challenged intellectual property.
The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.
Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, custody, counterparty or other relationships. At various times, we may have significant exposure to a relatively small group of counterparties, and we routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, mutual and hedge funds and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due to us. Losses suffered through such increased credit risk exposure could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We face increased risks with respect to our WorldCurrency® and other market-based deposit products.
As of December 31, 2013, we had outstanding market-based deposits of $1.0 billion, representing approximately 8% of our total deposits, the significant majority of which are WorldCurrency® deposits. Many of our WorldCurrency® depositors have chosen that family of products in order to diversify their portfolios with respect to foreign currencies. Appreciation of the U.S. dollar relative to foreign currencies, political and economic disruptions in foreign markets or significant changes in commodity prices or securities indices could significantly reduce the demand for our WorldCurrency® and other market-based products as well as a devaluation of these deposit balances, which could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity and results of operations. In addition, although we routinely use derivatives to offset changes to our deposit obligations due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates, commodity prices or securities indices to which these products are linked, these derivatives may not be effective. To the extent that these derivatives do not offset changes to our deposit obligations, our financial results may be adversely affected.
We operate in a highly competitive industry and market area.
We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include Internet banks and national, regional and community banks within the various markets we serve. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings and loan institutions, credit unions, mortgage companies, other finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companies and other financial intermediaries. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and
technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms and insurance companies can (unless laws are changed) merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting) and merchant banking. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures.
In addition, many of our competitors have significantly more physical branch locations than we do, which may be an important factor to potential clients. Because we offer our services over the Internet, we compete nationally for clients against financial institutions ranging from small community banks to the largest international financial institutions. Many of our competitors continue to have access to greater financial resources than we have, which allows them to invest in technological improvements. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could place us at a competitive disadvantage.
Our historical growth rate and performance may not be indicative of our future growth or financial results.
Our historical growth must be viewed in the context of the recent opportunities available to us as a result of the confluence of our access to capital at a time when market dislocations of historical proportions resulted in unprecedented asset acquisition opportunities. When evaluating our historical growth and prospects for future growth, it is also important to consider that while our business philosophy has remained relatively constant over time, our mix of business, distribution channels and areas of focus have changed frequently and dramatically over the last several years. Historically, we have entered and exited lines of business to adapt to changing market conditions and perceived opportunities, and may continue to do so in future periods.
In recent years, we have completed several significant transactions, including the acquisitions of MetLife Bank’s warehouse finance business and Business Property Lending from GECC in 2012, Tygris and Bank of Florida in 2010, the acquisition of a number of residential mortgage loan and securities portfolios in 2008 and 2009 and the divestiture of our reverse mortgage operations in 2008. These transactions, along with equity capital infusions, have significantly expanded our asset and capital base, product mix and distribution channels. We also benefited from significant purchase price discounts from certain of these transactions, which are highly accretive to our earnings and which may not be available in the future. Over the longer-term, we expect margins on loans to revert to longer-term historical levels.
We have historically generated a significant amount of fee income through the origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans. Fundamental changes in bank regulations and the mortgage industry, weak economic conditions and the historically low interest rate environment that has characterized the last several fiscal quarters make it difficult to predict our future results or draw meaningful comparisons between our historical results and our results in future fiscal periods. We materially increased our investments in residential MSR from 2008 through the first quarter of 2010. During that time, we also significantly increased our investments in nonagency residential collateralized mortgage obligation securities (CMOs). Due to concentration limits we adopted pursuant to new regulatory constraints and possible future regulatory guidance, our concentration in such asset classes has been reduced. We may not be able to achieve similar performance from alternative asset classes in the future.
We may not be able to sustain our historical rate of growth or grow our business at all. Because of the weak economic recovery and governmental intervention in the credit markets and mortgage lending industry, as well as increased delinquencies, it will be difficult for us to replicate our historical earnings growth as we continue to expand. We have benefited from the ongoing low interest rate environment, which has provided us with high net interest margins which we use to grow our business. Higher rates would compress our margins and may impact our ability to grow. Consequently, our historical results of operations will not necessarily be indicative of our future operations.
We are dependent on key personnel and the loss of one or more of those key personnel could harm our business.
Our future success significantly depends on the continued services and performance of our key management personnel. We believe our management team’s depth and breadth of experience in the banking industry is integral to executing our business plan. We also will need to continue to attract, motivate and retain other key personnel. The loss of the services of members of our senior management team or other key employees or the inability to attract additional qualified personnel as needed could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
We are subject to losses due to fraudulent and negligent acts on the part of loan applicants, correspondent lenders, other vendors and our employees.
When we originate mortgage loans, we rely heavily upon information supplied by loan applicants and third parties, including the information contained in the loan application, property appraisal, title information and employment and income documentation provided by third parties. If any of this information is misrepresented and such misrepresentation is not detected prior to loan funding, we generally bear the risk of loss associated with the misrepresentation.
Regulatory and Legal Risks
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, may adversely affect us.
We are subject to extensive regulation, supervision and legislation that govern almost all aspects of our operations. Intended to protect clients, depositors, the DIF and the overall financial system, these laws and regulations, among other matters, prescribe minimum capital requirements, impose limitations on the business activities in which we can engage, limit the dividend or distributions that EverBank can pay to us, restrict the ability of institutions to guarantee our debt, 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 generally accepted accounting principles, among other things. Compliance with laws and regulations can be difficult and costly, and changes to laws and regulations often impose additional compliance costs. We are currently facing increased regulation and supervision of our industry as a result of the financial crisis in the banking and financial markets, and, to the extent that we participate in any programs established or to be established by the U.S. Treasury or by the federal bank regulatory agencies, there will be additional and changing requirements and conditions imposed on us. Such additional regulation and supervision may increase our costs and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities. Further, our failure to comply with these laws and regulations, even if the failure is inadvertent or reflects a difference in interpretation, could subject us to restrictions on our business activities, fines and other penalties, any of which could adversely affect our results of operations, capital base and the price of our securities.
We and EverBank have entered into a consent order with the OTS, and failure to comply with the requirements of the consent order could have a negative impact on us and/or EverBank.
On April 13, 2011, we and EverBank each entered into a consent order with the OTS with respect to EverBank’s mortgage foreclosure practices and our oversight of those practices. The consent orders required, among other things, that we establish a new compliance program for our mortgage servicing and foreclosure operations and that we ensure that we have dedicated resources for communicating with borrowers, policies and procedures for outsourcing foreclosure or related functions and management information systems that ensure timely delivery of complete and accurate information. We were also required to retain an independent firm to conduct a review of residential foreclosure actions that were pending from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010 in order to determine whether any borrowers sustained financial injury as a result of any errors, misrepresentations or deficiencies and to provide remediation as appropriate. We are working to fulfill the requirements of the consent orders. In response to the consent orders, we have established an oversight committee of the Board of Directors to monitor the implementation of the actions required by the consent orders. Furthermore, we have enhanced and updated several policies, procedures, processes and controls to help ensure the mitigation of the findings of the consent orders, and submitted them to the FRB and the OCC (the applicable successors to the OTS) for review. In addition, we have enhanced our third-party vendor management system and our compliance program, hired additional personnel and retained an independent firm to conduct foreclosure reviews.
In August 2013, EverBank reached an agreement with the OCC which ended its participation in the Independent Foreclosure Review program mandated by the April 2011 consent order and replaced it with an accelerated remediation process. The agreement includes a cash payment of approximately $39.9 million made by EverBank to a settlement fund, which provides relief to qualified borrowers. In addition, we will contribute approximately $6.3 million to organizations certified by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or other tax-exempt organizations that have as a principal mission providing affordable housing, foreclosure prevention and/or educational assistance to low and moderate income individuals and families. This agreement has not eliminated all of our risks associated with foreclosure-related practices and it does not protect us from potential individual borrower claims or class actions lawsuits, which could result in additional expenses. Consistent with the agreement, an amendment to the April 2011 consent order was entered on October 15, 2013. All terms of the April 2011 consent order that were not explicitly superseded by the amendment remain in effect without modification. We may be subject to civil monetary penalties with respect to the consent order, but the federal banking agencies have not indicated what the amount of any such penalties would be.
In October 2013, we, along with other mortgage servicers, received a letter from the OCC requesting, in connection with the April 2011 consent order, that we provide the OCC with an action plan to identify errors and remediate any borrowers serviced by EverBank for the period from January 1, 2011 through the present day, that may have been harmed by the same errors identified in the Independent Foreclosure Review. EverBank submitted its action plan in 2013, and as of December 31, 2013, EverBank has accrued approximately $4 million for potential remediation payments to be made to borrowers. Any remedies or penalties that may be imposed on us as a result or arising out of the consent order, the action plan, or any other investigation or action related to mortgage origination or servicing may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, capital base and the price of our securities.
Mortgage servicing practices have also been the subject of a settlement agreement among the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 50 state attorneys general, and certain major mortgage servicers.
The OTS, the OCC and other government agencies, including state attorneys general and the U.S. Department of Justice, investigated various mortgage related practices of certain servicers, some of which practices were also the subject of the horizontal review. In March 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and 50 state attorneys general entered into separate consent judgments with five major mortgage servicers with respect to these matters. In total, the five mortgage servicers agreed to $25 billion in borrower restitution assistance and refinancing. Monetary sanctions imposed by the federal banking agencies as a consequence of the horizontal review are being held in abeyance, subject to provision of borrower assistance and remediation under the consent judgments. Certain other institutions subject to the consent decrees with the banking regulators announced in April 2011 have been contacted by the U.S. Department of Justice and state attorneys general regarding a settlement. If an investigation of EverBank were to occur, it could result in material fines, penalties, equitable remedies (including requiring default servicing or other process changes), other enforcement actions or additional litigation, and could result in significant legal costs in responding to governmental investigations and additional litigation. Any other requirements or remedies or penalties that may be imposed on us as a result of the horizontal review or any other investigation or action related to mortgage origination or servicing may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, capital base and the price of our securities.
We anticipate that costs associated with foreclosures will remain high and may adversely affect us.
We expect that mortgage-related assessments and waivers, costs, including compensatory fees assessed by the GSEs, and other costs associated with foreclosures will remain elevated as additional loans are delayed in the foreclosure process. This will likely continue to increase noninterest expenses, including increasing default servicing costs and legal expenses. In addition, changes to our processes and policies, including those required under the consent orders with federal bank regulators, are likely to result in further increases in our default servicing costs over the longer term. Delays in foreclosure sales may result in additional costs associated with the maintenance of properties or possible home price declines, result in a greater number of nonperforming loans and increased servicing advances and may adversely affect the collectability of such advances and the value of our MSR asset and real estate owned properties. In addition, the valuation of certain of our agency residential MBS could be negatively affected under certain scenarios due to changes in the timing of cash flows.
Governmental and other actions relating to recording mortgages in the name of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) may have adverse consequences on us.
Mortgage notes, assignments or other documents are often required to be maintained and are often necessary to enforce mortgages loans. There has been significant public commentary regarding the industry practice of recording mortgages in the name of MERS, as nominee on behalf of the note holder, and whether securitization trusts own the loans purported to be conveyed to them and have valid liens securing those loans. We currently use the MERS system for a substantial portion of the residential mortgage loans that we originate, including loans that have been sold to investors. A component of the consent orders described above requires significant changes in the manner in which we service loans identifying MERS as the mortgagee. Additionally, certain local and state governments have commenced legal actions against MERS and certain MERS members, questioning the validity of the MERS model. Other challenges have also been made to the process for transferring mortgage loans to securitization trusts, asserting that having a mortgagee of record that is different than the holder of the mortgage note could ‘break the chain of title’ and cloud the ownership of the loan. If certain required documents are missing or defective, or if the use of MERS is found not to be valid, we could be obligated to cure certain defects or in some circumstances be subject to additional costs and expenses in servicing mortgages. Our use of MERS as nominee for mortgages may also create reputational and other risks for us.
We are subject to extensive regulation and supervision and possible enforcement actions.
We and EverBank are subject to comprehensive supervision and regulation that affect virtually all aspects of our operations, and a significant amount of discretion is vested in the various regulatory authorities. This supervision and regulation is designed primarily to protect depositors and the DIF administered by the FDIC, and the banking system as a whole, and generally is not intended for the protection of stockholders. This regulation and supervision affects most aspects of our business, including lending practices, capital structure, dividend policy, and growth. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, instituted major regulatory, supervisory, and compliance changes. The key effects of the Dodd-Frank Act on our business are:
changes in the thrift supervisory structure;
changes to regulatory capital requirements;
creation of new governmental agencies with authority over our operations including the CFPB;
limitation on federal preemption; and
changes to mortgage loan origination and risk retention practices.
For a more detailed description of the Dodd-Frank Act, see “Supervision and Regulation.”
Other changes to statutes, regulations, or regulatory policies or supervisory guidance, including changes in their interpretation or implementation, may affect us in substantial ways that we cannot predict. Such changes could subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. Failure to comply with laws, regulations, policies, or guidance could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, including civil money penalties or reputational damage, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operation.
In addition, in January 2013, the CFPB issued final rules that are effective as of January 2014 and that require servicers to comply with new standards and practices with regard to: error correction; information disclosure; force-placement of insurance; information management policies and procedures; requiring information about mortgage loss mitigation options be provided to delinquent borrowers; providing delinquent borrowers access to servicer personnel with continuity of contact about the borrower’s mortgage loan account; and evaluating borrowers’ applications for available loss mitigation options. These rules also address initial rate adjustment notices for adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), periodic statements for residential mortgage loans, and prompt crediting of mortgage payments and response to requests for payoff amounts. As a result of these new regulations, we will likely see increased regulatory and compliance costs, which we may not be able to pass on to consumers.
We will soon be subject to more stringent capital standards.
We are subject to regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital that we must maintain. From time to time, the regulators change these capital adequacy guidelines. If we fail to meet these minimum capital guidelines and other regulatory requirements, we or our subsidiaries may be restricted in the types of activities we may conduct and may be prohibited from taking certain capital actions, such as paying dividends and repurchasing or redeeming capital securities.
In particular, the capital requirements applicable to us and EverBank under the recently adopted Basel III Capital Rules will begin to be phased-in starting in 2015. Once these new rules take effect, EverBank will be required to satisfy additional, more stringent, capital adequacy standards than it has in the past, and we, as a savings and loan holding company, will be subject to consolidated risk-based capital requirements for the first time. The Basel III Capital Rules, among other things, limit our ability to include certain assets, including MSR, in our calculation of our regulatory capital ratios. MSR currently comprise a significant portion of our regulatory capital. At December 31, 2013, our net MSR totaled $506.7 million. For a more detailed description of the Basel III Capital Rules, see “Regulation and Supervision.” Additionally, stress testing requirements may have the effect of requiring us or EverBank to comply with the requirements of the Basel III Capital Rules, or potentially even greater capital requirements, sooner than expected. While we and EverBank expect to meet the requirements of the Basel III Capital Rules, inclusive of the capital conservation buffer, as phased in by the FRB, we or EverBank may fail to do so. In that case, we may be required to raise additional capital at less attractive terms. In addition, these requirements could have a negative impact on our ability to lend, grow deposit balances, make acquisitions and make capital distributions in the form of increased dividends or share repurchases. Higher capital levels could also lower our earnings and return on equity.
Unfavorable results from ongoing stress tests conducted by us may adversely affect our ability to retain clients or compete for new business opportunities.
According to final rules from the FRB and OCC, we and EverBank will be required to publish a summary of the results of annual company-run stress tests conducted using data as of each September 30 by June of the following year. This process began in 2013 for EverBank and will repeat in each subsequent year. This process will begin in 2016 for us. Published summary results will be required to include certain measures that evaluate our and EverBank’s ability to absorb losses in severely adverse economic and financial conditions. We cannot predict how our clients will interpret and react to the published summary of these stress tests. Any potential misinterpretations and adverse reactions could limit our ability to attract and retain clients or to effectively compete for new business opportunities. The inability to attract and retain clients or effectively compete for new business may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.
Additionally, our regulators may require us or EverBank to raise additional capital or take other actions, or may impose restrictions on our business, based on the results of the stress tests. We may not be able to raise additional capital if required to do so, or may not be able to do so on terms which are advantageous to us or our current shareholders. Any such capital raises, if required, may also be dilutive to our existing stockholders.
We are highly dependent upon programs administered by government agencies or government-sponsored enterprises, such as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, to generate liquidity in connection with our conforming mortgage loans. Any changes in existing U.S. government or government-sponsored mortgage programs could materially and adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Our ability to generate revenues through securities issuances guaranteed by Ginnie Mae, or GNMA, and through mortgage loan sales to GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (as well as to other institutional investors), depends to a significant degree on programs administered by those entities. The GSEs play a powerful role in the residential mortgage industry, and we have significant business relationships with them. Many of the loans that we originate are conforming loans that qualify under existing standards for sale to the GSEs or for guarantee by GNMA. We also derive other material financial benefits from these relationships, including the assumption of credit risk by these GSEs on all loans sold to them that are pooled into securities, in exchange for our payment of guaranty fees, and the ability to avoid certain loan inventory finance costs through streamlined loan funding and sale procedures. Any discontinuation of, or significant reduction in, the operation of these GSEs or any significant adverse change in the level of activity in the secondary mortgage market or the underwriting criteria of these GSEs could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
Because nearly all other non-governmental participants providing liquidity in the secondary mortgage market left that market during the mortgage financial crisis, the GSEs have been the only significant purchasers of residential mortgage loans. It remains unclear when private investors may begin to re-enter the market in a meaningful way. As described above, GSEs (which are in conservatorship, with heavy capital support from the U.S. government, and subject to serious speculation about their future structure, if any) may not be able to provide the substantial liquidity upon which our residential mortgage loan business relies.
Federal, state and local consumer lending laws may restrict our ability to originate or increase our risk of liability with respect to certain mortgage loans and could increase our cost of doing business.
Federal, state and local laws have been adopted that are intended to eliminate certain lending practices considered “predatory.” These laws prohibit practices such as steering borrowers away from more affordable products, selling unnecessary insurance to borrowers, repeatedly refinancing loans, and making loans without a reasonable expectation that the borrowers will be able to repay the loans irrespective of the value of the underlying property. It is our policy not to make predatory loans, but these laws create the potential for liability with respect to our lending, servicing and loan investment activities. They increase our cost of doing business, and ultimately may prevent us from making certain loans and cause us to reduce the average percentage rate or the points and fees on loans that we do make.
Legislative action regarding foreclosures or bankruptcy laws may negatively impact our business.
Recent laws delay the initiation or completion of foreclosure proceedings on specified types of residential mortgage loans (some for a limited period of time), or otherwise limit the ability of residential loan servicers to take actions that may be essential to preserve the value of the mortgage loans underlying the MSR. Any such limitations are likely to cause delayed or reduced collections from mortgagors and generally increased servicing costs. Any restriction on our ability to foreclose on a loan, any requirement that we forego a portion of the amount otherwise due on a loan or any requirement that we modify any original loan terms will in some instances require us to advance principal, interest, tax and insurance payments, which is likely to negatively impact our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.
We are exposed to environmental liabilities with respect to properties that we take title to upon foreclosure that could increase our costs of doing business and harm our results of operations.
In the course of our activities, we may foreclose and take title to residential and commercial properties and become subject to environmental liabilities with respect to those properties. The laws and regulations related to environmental contamination often impose liability without regard to responsibility for the contamination. We may be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up costs incurred by these parties in connection with environmental contamination, or 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. Moreover, as the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based upon damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. If we ever become subject to significant environmental liabilities, our business, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations would be significantly harmed.
Anti-takeover provisions could adversely affect our stockholders.
We are a Delaware corporation and the anti-takeover provisions of the Delaware General Corporation Law may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control by prohibiting us from engaging in a business combination with an interested stockholder for a period of three years after the person becomes an interested stockholder, even if a change in control would be beneficial to our existing stockholders. In addition, our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated By-laws may discourage, delay or prevent a change in our management or control over us that stockholders may consider favorable. Our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated By-laws:
authorize the issuance of “blank check” preferred stock that could be issued by our Board of Directors to thwart a takeover attempt;
limit the ability of a person to own, control or have the power to vote more than 9.9% of our voting securities;
establish a classified board of directors, with directors of each class serving a three-year term;
require that directors only be removed from office for cause and only upon a majority stockholder vote;
provide that vacancies on our Board of Directors, including newly created directorships, may be filled only by a majority vote of directors then in office;
limit who may call special meetings of stockholders;
prohibit stockholder action by written consent, requiring all actions to be taken at a meeting of the stockholders; and
require supermajority stockholder voting to effect certain amendments to our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Amended and Restated By-laws.
In addition, there are substantial regulatory limitations on changes of control of savings and loan holding companies and federal savings associations. Any company that acquires control of a savings association becomes a “savings and loan holding company” subject to registration, examination and regulation by the FRB. “Control,” as defined under federal banking regulations, includes ownership or control of
shares, or holding irrevocable proxies (or a combination thereof), representing 25% or more of any class of voting stock, control in any manner of the election of a majority of the institution’s directors, or a determination by the FRB that the acquirer has the power to direct, or directly or indirectly to exercise a controlling influence over, the management or policies of the institution. Further, an acquisition of 10% or more of our common stock creates a rebuttable presumption of “control” under federal banking regulations. Additionally, there may be enhanced scrutiny of investments of less than 5% or more of any class of our common stock if certain control factors are present, including the amount of the investor’s proposed total capital investment. These provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire EverBank or us even if such an acquisition might be in the best interest of our stockholders.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
Item 2. Properties
We lease or sublease over 975,000 square feet of office, operations and retail space in 107 locations in 23 states. We also sublease out to third parties approximately 53,000 square feet of our leased space. We own one financial center in Naples, Florida and we own one office space in Jacksonville, Florida.
Our principal executive offices are located at 501 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32202. At this location we lease approximately 47,500 square feet under a lease that expires on June 30, 2017. We occupy one of our four Jacksonville financial centers at this location, occupying approximately 3,300 square feet under a separate lease that expires on June 30, 2017. We also occupy approximately 22,000 square feet of additional office space at this location, approximately 3,100 square feet of which is under a lease that expires on February 28, 2014, approximately 13,200 square feet of which is under a lease which expires on April 30, 2014, and approximately 5,700 square feet of which is under a lease that expires on May 31, 2016.
In addition to our headquarters, we conduct a majority of our mortgage operations and all of our mortgage servicing activities in Jacksonville, Florida.
We conduct the banking functions associated with our consumer direct channel in St. Louis, Missouri, our deposit operations are in Islandia, New York, our commercial finance activities are in Parsippany, New Jersey, our warehouse finance activities are in Boston, Massachusetts and Jacksonville, Florida and our commercial lending activities are conducted in Redmond, Washington and St. Louis, Missouri.
We evaluate our facilities to identify possible under-utilization and to determine the need for functional improvement and relocations. We believe that the facilities we lease are in good condition and are adequate to meet our current operational needs.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are subject to various claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of our business. Some of these matters include employee-related matters and inquiries and investigations by governmental agencies regarding our employment practices. We are not presently party to any legal proceedings the resolution of which we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition or cash flows.
EverBank is currently subject to the following legal proceedings:
Vathana Class Action
In April 2009, a putative class action entitled Vathana v. EverBank was filed in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, against EverBank on behalf of all persons who invested in certain EverBank foreign currency certificates of deposit between April 24, 2005 and April 24, 2009, whose certificates of deposit were closed by EverBank and who were allegedly improperly paid the value of the account. In May 2009, EverBank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, among other things, that EverBank breached its contract with its customers by invoking the force majeure provision when closing certain foreign currency certificates of deposit, and that at the time of account closing, utilizing an improper conversion rate. On March 15, 2010, a class was certified for purchasers of a WorldCurrency® Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic Krona which matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008. On October 14, 2010, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether EverBank breached its contract with the plaintiff by (1) failing to deliver Icelandic Krona when EverBank closed the plaintiff's Icelandic Krona certificates of deposit and (2) using commercially unreasonable conversion rates when converting from Icelandic Krona to U.S. Dollars. EverBank filed its reply and cross-motion for summary judgment on November 22, 2010. A hearing on all pending motions occurred on January 6, 2011. The plaintiff is seeking unspecified general and special damages for himself and all class members, along with costs and interest, and such other relief as the court deems proper.
On April 13, 2011, the court issued an order denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denying in part and granting in part EverBank's motion for summary judgment. The court agreed with EverBank that it did not breach the agreement as to the conversion rate paid to its customers. However, the court found it premature to establish that, based on the rulings as to the appropriateness of the closure rate, there is no other plausible damages theory. The court found that the plaintiffs could argue there is another date at which the measurement of damages is appropriate. On October 31, 2011 the parties served cross motions for summary judgment on whether EverBank breached its contract with the plaintiff by (1) failing to properly terminate the CD accounts and (2) improperly relying on the force majeure clause to close accounts. Plaintiff also argued that the closure of the Krona CDs constituted an amendment to the Terms and Conditions that required 30 days' notice under the Truth in Savings Act. On March 9, 2012, the Court entered an Order Granting Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that EverBank was permitted to close the customers Icelandic Krona CDs without notice to avoid losses to the customers or the bank. On September 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a brief appealing the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of EverBank. On October 9, 2012, EverBank filed its responsive brief and on November 9, 2012 Plaintiff's reply brief was filed. Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals occurred on February 14, 2014. We continue to believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously.
Arkansas Class Action
In October 2012, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Martha Smith in her Official Capacity as Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Clark County, Arkansas v. No Trustee On Deed Of Trust, Wilson and Associates, PLLC, EverHome Mortgage Company, et al., was filed in the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief seeking to enjoin the defendants from recording
documents without paying transfer taxes and affixing documentary stamps to the recorded documents. EverBank removed the case to federal court on November 7, 2012. On November 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the proceeding back to state court and on December 3, 2012 EverBank filed its response in opposition. EverBank and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss on December 17, 2012. On September 4, 2013, the court adopted the magistrate’s report and remanded the case to state court. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 9, 2013 and on October 21, 2013 plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Defendants filed a subsequent motion to dismiss on November 8, 2013. On November 25, plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss and a motion for class certification. Defendants filed their response in opposition to class certification on January 3, 2014. On February 7, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaratory judgment that transfer taxes are owed on non-judicial foreclosure sales; a response is due February 28, 2014. A hearing on all pending motions is scheduled for April 16, 2014. We continue to believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously.
Bock Material Patent Litigation
In April 2011, a complaint alleging patent infringement, entitled Joao Bock Transportation System, Inc. v. USAmeribank, EverBank, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiff alleges it is the owner of a patent and that defendants, including EverBank, have infringed on such patent by activities associated with online banking and account management services. The plaintiff is seeking damages to compensate the plaintiff for the alleged infringement, costs and attorneys' fees and permanent injunctive relief. EverBank filed an answer on September 16, 2011. On May 5, 2013 the court granted defendants motion to stay the lawsuit pending the final resolution of an action brought against the vendor supplying EverBank with the services alleged to infringe the referenced patents. Pursuant to the agreement under which EverBank licenses the patent in question, EverBank is indemnified against all losses related to claims for patent infringement.
Mortgage Electronic Registration Services Related Litigation
MERS, EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc. et al. filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio, and later removed to federal court and subsequently remanded to state court; (2) State of Iowa, by and through Darren J. Raymond, Plymouth County Attorney v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al., filed in March 2012 in the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County and later removed to federal court; (3) Boyd County, ex. rel. Phillip Hedrick, County Attorney of Boyd County, Kentucky, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; (4) St. Clair County, Illinois v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERSCORP, Inc. et al., filed in May 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois; (5) County of Multnomah v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in December 2012 in an Oregon state court and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon; (6) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and later removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; (7) County of Ramsey and County of Hennepin, Minnesota v. MERSCORP Holdings, Inc., et al. filed in February 2013 in the Second Judicial District Court, subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota and now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and (8) Jackson County, Missouri v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registrations Systems, Inc., et al., filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri and later removed to federal court where the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and now stayed due to the bankruptcy filing of defendant GMAC. In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs. We believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously. EverBank was previously subject to three additional lawsuits: (1) Christian County Clerk, et al. v. MERS and EverHome Mortgage Company filed in April 2011 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, which was the subject of an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint; (2) County of Union Illinois, et al. v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Services, Inc., et al. filed in April 2012 in the Circuit Court for the First Judicial Circuit, Union County, Illinois, later removed to federal court and which was the subject of an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint; and (3) Macon County, Illinois v. MERSCORP, Inc., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., et al. filed in July 2012 in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Macon County, Illinois, later removed to federal court and which was the subject of an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the lower court's dismissal of the complaint.
Peterson Class Action
In July 2011, plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint entitled Purnie Ray Peterson, et al. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al., in the Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin, Minnesota against EverBank, EverHome Mortgage Company and other lenders and foreclosure counsel. The complaint alleges slander of title, breach of fiduciary duty, due process violation, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and equitable estoppel. The plaintiffs assert that defendants do not have valid legal title to the original notes nor have physical possession of the same so the notes cannot be enforced and seek a determination that defendants have no lien interests in the properties and are permanently enjoined from failing to record assignments of securitized mortgage loans. The plaintiffs seek quiet title to their properties and a determination that defendants have invalid and voidable mortgages. The plaintiffs also seek a determination that defendants failed to pay appropriate filing fees, that plaintiffs' original notes are void, that all sums paid to defendants be returned, and that attorneys' fees and costs are awarded. On August 18, 2011, the lawsuit was removed to federal court and on August 29, 2011 a Joint Motion to Dismiss was filed by all defendants. A hearing on the Motion to Dismiss was heard on March 7, 2012. On May 31, 2012, the Court granted EverBank's Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on June 27, 2012 and their initial brief on August 16, 2012. Defendant's responsive brief was filed on October 17, 2012. On January 28, 2013 the appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the action. On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the court denied on March 14, 2013. Plaintiff failed to file a writ of certiorari within the required time frame and the case concluded prior to the end of the second quarter 2013.
Unified Messaging Material Patent Litigation
In February 2013, a complaint alleging patent infringement entitled Unified Messaging Systems, LLC. v. EverBank Financial Corp, was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiff alleges it is the owner of the '074, '141, '306, '313 and '148 patents and that EverBank has infringed on the patents through the use of webmail accessible via its website. EverBank filed its response to the complaint on April 29, 2013. A status conference was held September 27, 2013, and subsequent status conferences were held on November 26, 2013 and on January 17, 2014. The court has separated the defendants into Wave 1 and Wave 2, which includes EverBank. Currently, all dates for Wave 2 defendants are stayed until further order while the court addresses the claims against the Wave 1 defendants. Pursuant to the agreement under which EverBank licenses the patent in question, EverBank is indemnified against all losses related to claims for patent infringement.
Sarabi Class Action
On October 11, 2013, a putative class action entitled Mohammad Sarabi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EverBank Financial Corp was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging negligent and knowing or willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting EverBank from violating the TCPA in the future as well as statutory damages. On December 17, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming EverBank and dropping EverBank Financial Corp. Defendant filed an answer on December 20, 2013. A case management conference is scheduled for February 24, 2014. We believe the plaintiff's claims are without merit and intend to contest all such claims vigorously.
Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information and Price Range of Common Stock
Our common stock, par value $0.01 per share, is listed and traded on the NYSE, under the ticker symbol “EVER.” Our common stock has been listed since May 3, 2012. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common stock. The high and low sales prices of our common stock and the dividends paid on our common stock for each quarterly period since our effective date are reported below:
Market Price Range
Cash Dividends per Share
Year Ended December 31, 2013
Year Ended December 31, 2012
Second Quarter (from May 3, 2012)
According to the records of our transfer agent, as of February 24, 2014, there were approximately 150 holders of record of our common stock.
Our Board of Directors considers the feasibility of paying a cash dividend to its stockholders on a quarterly basis. Based on general practice, dividends are declared upon completion of a quarter and, if declared, are paid prior to the end of the subsequent quarter. EverBank is subject to certain regulatory restrictions that may limit its ability to pay dividends to us and, therefore, our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. EverBank must seek approval from the FRB prior to any declaration of the payment of any dividends or other capital distributions to us. EverBank may not pay dividends to us if, after paying those dividends, it would fail to meet the required minimum levels under risk-based capital guidelines and the minimum leverage and tangible capital ratio requirements, or in the event the OCC notified EverBank that it is in need of more than normal supervision. Further, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or FDIA, an insured depository institution such as EverBank is prohibited from making capital distributions, including the payment of dividends, if, after making such distribution, the institution would become “undercapitalized.” Payment of dividends by EverBank also may be restricted at any time at the discretion of the appropriate regulator if it deems the payment to constitute an “unsafe and unsound” banking practice. In addition, we must make dividend payments on our preferred shares and any class or series of capital stock ranking senior to the common stock, as well as make interest payments or other payments due on indebtedness and debt securities, if any, before any dividends can be paid on the common stock.
See "Limitation on Capital Distributions" under "Supervision and Regulation" in Item 1 of this report and Note 16 and Note 27 to our Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report for more information.
EverBank Financial Corp Stock Performance Graph
The following performance graph and table do not constitute soliciting material and the performance graph and table should not be deemed filed or incorporated by reference into any other previous or future filings by us under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that we specifically incorporate the performance graph and table by reference therein.
The following graph shows the cumulative total return for our common stock compared to the cumulative total returns for the Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 Index and the S&P Banks Index from May 3, 2012 (the date our common stock commenced trading on the NYSE) through December 31, 2013. The graph assumes that $100 was invested on May 3, 2012 in our common stock, the S&P 500 Index, and the S&P Banks Index. The cumulative total return on each investment assumes reinvestment of dividends.
EverBank Financial Corp
S&P 500 Index
S&P Banks Index
Issuer Purchases of Securities
The Company did not repurchase any outstanding common shares during the year ended December 31, 2013.
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The following selected financial information should be read in conjunction with ”Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our Consolidated Financial Statements and the related notes included in this report to fully understand factors that may affect the comparability of the information presented below.
The consolidated statements of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 are derived from our audited Consolidated Financial Statements included in this report. The consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the consolidated balance sheet data as of December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009 are derived from audited consolidated financial statements not included in this report.
Historical results are not necessarily indicative of future results.
We consummated several significant transactions in prior fiscal periods, including the acquisitions of Tygris in February 2010, banking operations of Bank of Florida in May 2010, MetLife's warehouse business in April 2012, and BPL in October 2012. Accordingly, our operating results for the historical periods presented below are not comparable and may not be predictive of future results.
Year Ended December 31,
(in millions, except share and per share data)
Income Statement Data:
Net interest income
Provision for loan and lease losses(1)
Net interest income after provision for loan and lease losses
Income before income taxes
Provision for income taxes
Net income from continuing operations
Discontinued operations, net of income taxes
Per Share Data:
Weighted-average common shares outstanding:
(units in thousands)
Earnings from continuing operations per common share:
Dividends declared per common share
Tangible common equity per common share(4)
As of December 31,
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents
Loans held for sale
Loans and leases held for investment, net
Total stockholders’ equity
For the year ended December 31, 2013, provision for loan and lease losses includes a $3.2 million increase related to restructuring cost and a $0.2 million decrease in non-accretable discount related to Bank of Florida acquired credit-impaired loans (ACI). For the year ended December 31, 2012, provision for loan and lease losses includes a $5.2 million increase in non-accretable discount related to Bank of Florida ACI, and a $6.0 million impact of adoption of troubled debt restructuring (TDR) guidance and policy change. For the year ended December 31, 2011, provision for loan and lease losses includes a $4.9 million increase in non-accretable discount related to Bank of Florida ACI, a $1.9 million impact of change in allowance for loan and leases losses (ALLL) methodology and a $10.0 million impact of adoption of TDR guidance and policy change. For the year ended December 31, 2010, provision for loan and lease losses includes a $6.2 million increase in non-accretable discount related to Bank of Florida ACI.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, noninterest income includes $95.0 million in recovery on MSR valuation allowance, $15.4 million in gain on early extinguishment of FHLB advances, a $5.9 million decrease related to restructuring cost and a $3.3 million decrease related to other-than-temporary impairment (OTTI) losses on investment securities. For the year ended December 31, 2012, noninterest income includes a $63.5 million impairment charge related to MSR. For the year ended December 31, 2011, noninterest income includes a $4.7 million gain on repurchase of trust preferred securities including $0.3 million resulting from the unwind of the associated cash flow hedge and a $39.5 million impairment charge related to MSR. For the year ended December 31, 2010, noninterest income includes a $68.1 million non-recurring bargain purchase gain associated with the Tygris acquisition, a $19.9 million gain on sale of investment securities due to portfolio concentration repositioning and a $5.7 million gain on repurchase of trust preferred securities.
For the year ended December 31, 2013, noninterest expense includes $78.2 million in non-recurring regulatory related expense and $22.1 million in restructuring cost. For the year ended December 31, 2012, noninterest expense includes $8.6 million in transaction expense and $28.6 million in non-recurring regulatory related expense. For the year ended December 31, 2011, noninterest expense includes $14.5 million in transaction expense, $12.6 million in non-
recurring regulatory related expense and an $8.7 million decrease in fair value of the Tygris indemnification asset. For the year ended December 31, 2010, noninterest expense includes $9.7 million in transaction expense, a $10.3 million loss on early extinguishment of acquired debt and a $22.0 million decrease in fair value of the Tygris indemnification asset. The carrying value of the Tygris indemnification asset has been $0 since March 31, 2011.
Calculated as tangible common shareholders’ equity divided by shares of common stock. Tangible common shareholders’ equity equals shareholders’ equity less goodwill, other intangible assets and perpetual preferred stock. Tangible common equity per common share is calculated using a denominator that includes actual period end common shares outstanding and for years prior to 2012, additional common shares assuming conversion of all outstanding convertible preferred stock to common stock. Tangible common equity per common share is a non-GAAP financial measure, and its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is book value per common share.
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion and analysis is intended to assist readers in understanding the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the Company and should be read in conjunction with our Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto included in this report.
In addition to historical financial information, the following discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates and beliefs, but that also involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Please see “Forward-Looking Statements” and “Item 1A. Risk Factors” for discussions of the uncertainties, risks and assumptions associated with these statements.
Certain prior period information in Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (MD&A) has been reclassified to conform to current period classifications.
Introduction and Overview
We are a savings and loan holding company which operates primarily through our direct subsidiary, EverBank (EB or EverBank). EB is a federally chartered thrift institution with its home office located in Jacksonville, Florida. References to “we,” “our,” “us,” or the “Company” refer to the holding company and its subsidiaries that are consolidated for financial reporting purposes. We are a diversified financial services company that provides innovative banking, lending and investment products and services to clients nationwide through scalable, low-cost distribution channels. Our business model attracts financially sophisticated, self-directed, mass-affluent clients and a diverse base of small and medium-sized business clients. We market and distribute our products and services primarily through our integrated online financial portal, which is augmented by our nationwide network of independent financial advisors, high-volume financial centers in targeted Florida markets and other financial intermediaries. These channels are connected by technology-driven centralized platforms, which provide operating leverage throughout our business.
We have a suite of asset origination and fee income businesses that individually generate attractive financial returns and collectively leverage our core deposit franchise and client base. We originate, invest in, sell and service residential mortgage loans, equipment leases, and various other consumer and commercial loans, as market conditions warrant. Our organic origination activities are scalable, significant relative to our balance sheet size and provide us with substantial growth potential. Our origination, lending and servicing expertise positions us to acquire assets in the capital markets when risk-adjusted returns available through acquisition exceed those available through origination. Our rigorous analytical approach provides capital markets discipline to calibrate our levels of asset origination, retention and acquisition. These activities diversify our earnings, strengthen our balance sheet and provide us with flexibility to capitalize on market opportunities.
Our deposit franchise fosters strong relationships with a large number of financially sophisticated clients and provides us with a stable and flexible source of low, all-in cost funding. We have a demonstrated ability to grow our client deposit base significantly with short lead time by adapting our product offerings and marketing activities rather than incurring the higher fixed operating costs inherent in more branch-intensive banking models. Our extensive offering of deposit products and services includes proprietary features that distinguish us from our competitors and enhance our value proposition to clients. Our products, distribution and marketing strategies allow us to generate substantial deposit growth while maintaining an attractive mix of high-value transaction and savings accounts.
Key Factors Affecting Our Business and Financial Statements
General Electric Capital Corporation (GECC) Business Property Lending, Inc. (BPL) Acquisition
In June 2012, we entered into a Stock and Asset Purchase Agreement and a Tax Matters Agreement with GECC pursuant to which we agreed to purchase all of the issued and outstanding stock of BPL, a wholly owned subsidiary of GECC. On October 1, 2012, we completed the purchase for approximately $2.4 billion in cash and announced the closing of the transaction. No debt was assumed in the acquisition. The acquisition included approximately $2.3 billion of performing business lending loans selected by us, the origination and servicing platforms and servicing rights relating to $2.9 billion of loans securitized by GECC.
Acquisition of Warehouse Finance Business
In April 2012, we acquired MetLife Bank’s warehouse finance business, including approximately $351.6 million in assets for a price of approximately $351.1 million. In connection with the acquisition, we hired 16 sales and operational staff from MetLife who were a part of the existing warehouse business. The warehouse business is operated out of locations in Boston, Massachusetts and Jacksonville, Florida.
Economic and Interest Rate Environment
The results of our operations are highly dependent on economic conditions and market interest rates. Beginning in 2007, turmoil in the financial sector resulted in a reduced level of confidence in financial markets among borrowers, lenders and depositors, as well as extreme volatility in the capital and credit markets. In response to these conditions, the Board of Governors of the FRB began decreasing short-term interest rates, with 11 consecutive decreases totaling 525 basis points between September 2007 and December 2008. To stimulate economic activity and stabilize the financial markets, the FRB maintained historically low market interest rates from 2009 to 2013. Market conditions have improved during this period as unemployment rates have declined to 6.7% in December 2013, and consumer confidence, GDP and average
home prices have all risen. Despite cumulative progress and an improved outlook in December 2013, the FRB has indicated that it would maintain its federal funds rate target at a near-zero range, which indicates low market interest rates will likely continue into 2014.
Net interest income is our largest source of income and is driven primarily as a function of the average balance of interest-earning assets, the average balance of interest-bearing liabilities and the spread between the contractual yield on such assets and the contractual cost of such liabilities. These factors are influenced by both the pricing and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities which, in turn, are impacted by external factors such as the local economy, competition for loans and deposits, the monetary policy of the FRB and market interest rates. The cost of our deposits is largely based on short-term interest rates which are driven primarily by the FRB’s actions. However, the yields generated by our loans and securities are typically driven by longer-term interest rates which are set by the market, or, at times by the FRB’s actions. Our net interest income is therefore influenced by movements in interest rates and the pace at which these movements occur. See “Risk Factors—We are subject to interest rate risk” and “Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”
In the latter half of the second quarter of 2013, the FRB indicated their intention to reduce their bond buying activities associated with quantitative easing 3 (QE3) if the economy continued to show improvement. The uncertainty around the FRB's intent created volatility in the capital markets and resulted in a market sell-off which drove the 10-year treasury yield from 1.7% on May 2, 2013 to 2.6% on June 25, 2013. These events had a direct impact on mortgage rates which increased sharply from 3.7% at the beginning of the second quarter 2013 to 4.4% at the end of the second quarter. Mortgage interest rates increase to a high of 4.7% in early September, however were down slightly throughout the remainder of the year and ended the year at 4.5%. In addition, the spreads over the treasury curve widened to levels experienced earlier in the year. Increases in mortgage rates impacted our origination volume as the number of borrowers eligible to refinance into lower rates was reduced. However, we have made substantial investments in our retail platform focusing on purchase money transactions in anticipation of the higher rate environment and slowed refinancing activity. Moreover, the expectation of slower prepayments due to refinancing has had a positive impact on the fair value and amortization of our mortgage servicing rights. We continue to monitor the status of the economy as well as the expected interest rate environment both in the near term and over the long term to best position our balance sheet to optimize risk-adjusted returns.
Our financial condition and the results of our operations are dependent upon the composition of our balance sheet and the assets which we originate, sell, and/or retain for investment. Proposed changes to the regulatory capital treatment of certain securities and asset classes could cause our management to reevaluate components of our capital structure as well as our exposure to certain assets. See “Item 1. Business-Supervision and Regulation-Recent Regulatory Developments-Dodd-Frank Act” under the headings “Annual Company-Run Stress Tests” and “Basel III" for more information.
Adjusted net income was $32 million for the fourth quarter of 20131, compared to $34 million for the third quarter of 2013 and $44 million for the fourth quarter of 2012. For the year, adjusted net income was $148 million, an increase of 3% over 2012.
GAAP net income was $18 million for the fourth quarter of 2013, compared to $33 million for the third quarter of 2013 and $29 million for the fourth quarter of 2012. For the year, GAAP net income was $137 million, an increase of 85% over 2012.
Adjusted diluted earnings per share was $0.24 in the fourth quarter 2013, an 8% decrease from $0.26 in the third quarter 2013 and a 29% decrease from $0.34 in the fourth quarter of 2012. For the full year 2013, adjusted diluted earnings per share was $1.11, a 13% decrease from $1.27 in 2012.
GAAP diluted earnings per share was $0.13, a 48% decrease from $0.25 in the third quarter of 2013 and a 41% decrease from $0.22 in the fourth quarter of 2012. For the year, GAAP diluted earnings per share was $1.02, a 70% increase from $0.60 in 2012.
Tangible common equity per common share was $11.57 at December 31, 2013, an increase of 12% compared to year end 2012.
Adjusted return on equity (ROE) was 10% and GAAP ROE was 9% for the full year 2013.
Retained asset generation of $1.6 billion for the fourth quarter, including commercial origination volume of $701 million, an increase of 45% and 99%, respectively, compared to the prior quarter.
Deployed excess liquidity to grow portfolio loans held for investment to $13.3 billion, an increase of 5% compared to the prior quarter, or 22% annualized.
Adjusted non-performing assets were 0.65% of total assets at December 31, 2013, a 36% decline compared to the prior quarter. Annualized net charge-offs to average loans and leases held for investment were 0.20% for the quarter.
1 Reconciliations of Non-GAAP financial measures can be found in the "Key Metrics" and "Quarterly Financial Data" sections.
Strong Loan Portfolio Growth
Total assets were $17.6 billion at December 31, 2013, flat compared to $17.6 billion at September 30, 2013. Consistent with our strategy to retain loans for our portfolio, total loans held for investment (HFI) increased $0.7 billion, or 5%, compared to the prior quarter, to $13.3 billion. Loans HFI for the referenced quarter end were comprised of:
(dollars in millions)
Mortgage pool buyouts
Total residential mortgages
Commercial real estate
Total commercial real estate and commercial finance
During the fourth quarter, residential loans HFI increased by 11% compared to the prior quarter to $5.2 billion, driven by continued growth in our high quality prime jumbo hybrid ARM portfolio. Mortgage pool buyouts declined 9% to $1.9 billion compared to the prior quarter. Total commercial real estate and commercial finance balances increased 5% compared to the prior quarter to $5.1 billion, driven by continued strength in our EverBank Commercial Finance platform. At December 31, 2013 our commercial platforms represented approximately 46% of loans HFI.
Loan Origination Activities
Organic asset generation totaled $2.7 billion and retained organic originations totaled $1.6 billion for the fourth quarter of 2013, a decrease of 12% and an increase of 45%, respectively, from the prior quarter. Total commercial originations for the fourth quarter increased 99% to $701 million, including commercial real estate and commercial finance originations of $266 million and $435 million, respectively.
Residential loan originations were $2.0 billion for the fourth quarter, a decrease of 26% compared to the prior quarter and a decrease of 32% year over year. Excluding the impact of our exit from the wholesale broker channel in the third quarter, origination volume decreased 16% compared to the prior quarter and 11% year over year. Prime jumbo origination volume was $808 million for the fourth quarter, an increase of 5% compared to the prior quarter and 43% year over year. The mix of purchase transactions increased to 43% of total originations, compared to 40% in the prior quarter. Our gain on sale margin increased 120 basis points during the quarter to 2.88%, as we executed on our strategy to sell agency conforming originations and retain prime jumbo originations.
The following table presents total organic loan and lease origination information by product type:
(dollars in millions)
Residential origination volume
Prime jumbo loans
Commercial origination volume
Commercial real estate
Total organic originations
Total deposits decreased by $0.4 billion, or 3%, to $13.3 billion at December 31, 2013, from $13.6 billion at September 30, 2013, and increased by $0.1 billion, or 1%, from $13.1 billion at December 31, 2012.
At December 31, 2013, our deposits were comprised of the following:
(dollars in millions)
Savings and money market accounts
Global market-based accounts
Time, excluding market-based
The primary metrics we use to evaluate and manage our financial results are described below. Although we believe these metrics are meaningful in evaluating our results and financial condition, they may not be directly comparable to similar metrics used by other financial services companies and may not provide an appropriate basis to compare our results or financial condition to the results or financial condition of our competitors. The following table sets forth the metrics we use to evaluate the success of our business and our resulting financial position and operating performance.
The table below includes certain financial information that is calculated and presented on the basis of methodologies other than in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. We believe these measures provide useful information to investors in evaluating our financial performance. In addition, our management uses these measures to gauge the performance of our operations and for business planning purposes. These non-GAAP financial measures, however, may not be comparable to similarly titled measures reported by other companies because other companies may not calculate these non-GAAP measures in the same manner. As a result, the usefulness of these measures to investors may be limited, and they should not be considered in isolation or as a substitute for measures prepared in accordance with GAAP. In the notes following the table we provide a reconciliation of these measures, or, in the case of ratios, the measures used in the calculation of such ratios, to the closest measures calculated directly from our GAAP financial statements.
As of and for the Year Ended
(dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
Yield on interest-earning assets
Cost of interest-bearing liabilities
Net interest spread
Net interest margin
Return on average assets
Return on average equity(1)
Adjusted return on average assets(2)
Adjusted return on average equity(3)
Credit Quality Ratios:
Adjusted non-performing assets as a percentage of total assets(4)
Net charge-offs to average loans and leases held for investment
ALLL as a percentage of loans and leases held for investment
Tier 1 leverage ratio (bank level)(5)
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio (bank level)(5)
Total risk-based capital ratio (bank level)(5)
Tangible common equity to tangible assets(6)
Tangible equity to tangible assets(6)
Average equity to average assets
Deposit growth (trailing 12 months)
Banking and Wealth Management Metrics:
Mortgage Banking Metrics: (in millions)
Unpaid principal balance of loans originated
Unpaid principal balance of loans serviced for the Company and others
Tangible common equity per common share(8)
Dividend payout ratio (9)
Due to the issuance of non-participating perpetual preferred stock during the fourth quarter of 2012, we amended our calculation for return on average equity. Beginning with the fourth quarter of 2012, return on average equity is calculated as net income less dividends declared on the Series A 6.75% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock divided by average common shareholders' equity (average shareholders' equity less average Series A 6.75% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock). Prior to the fourth quarter of 2012, return on average equity was calculated as net income divided by average shareholders' equity.
Adjusted return on average assets equals adjusted net income divided by average total assets. Adjusted net income is a non-GAAP measure of our financial performance and its most directly comparable GAAP measure is net income. Adjusted net income includes adjustments to our net income for certain significant items that we believe are not reflective of our ongoing business or operating performance.
A reconciliation of adjusted net income to net income, which is the most directly comparable GAAP measure, is as follows:
Adjusted Net Income
Year Ended December 31,
(dollars in thousands)
Gain on repurchase of trust preferred securities, net of tax
Transaction expense, net of tax
Non-recurring regulatory related expense, net of tax
Decrease in fair value of Tygris indemnification asset resulting from a decrease in estimated future credit losses, net of tax
Increase (decrease) in Bank of Florida non-accretable discount, net of tax
Impact of change in ALLL methodology, net of tax
Adoption of TDR guidance and policy change, net of tax
MSR impairment (recovery), net of tax
Restructuring cost, net of tax
OTTI losses on investment securities (Volcker Rule), net of tax
Tax expense (benefit) related to revaluation of Tygris net unrealized built-in losses, net of tax
Adjusted net income
Due to the issuance of non-participating perpetual preferred stock during the fourth quarter of 2012, we amended our calculation for adjusted return on average equity. Beginning with the fourth quarter of 2012, adjusted return on average equity is calculated as adjusted net income less dividends declared on the Series A 6.75% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock divided by average common shareholders' equity. Prior to the fourth quarter of 2012, adjusted return on average equity was calculated as adjusted net income divided by average shareholders' equity. Adjusted net income is a non-GAAP measure of our financial performance and its most directly comparable GAAP measure is net income. For a reconciliation of net income to adjusted net income, see Note 2 above.
We define non-performing assets (NPA), as non-accrual loans, accruing loans past due 90 days or more and foreclosed property. Our NPA calculation excludes government-insured pool buyout loans for which payment is insured by the government. We also exclude loans, leases and foreclosed property accounted for under Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 310-30 because we expect to fully collect the carrying value of such loans, leases and foreclosed property. For further discussion of NPA, see “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Loan and Lease Quality”.
The Tier 1 leverage ratio, the Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and the total risk-based capital ratio are regulatory financial measures that are used to assess the capital position of financial services companies and, as such, these ratios are presented at the bank level.
The Tier 1 leverage ratio is calculated as Tier 1 capital divided by adjusted total assets. The Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio is calculated as Tier 1 capital divided by total risk-weighted assets. The total risk-based capital ratio is calculated as total risk-based capital (total regulatory capital) divided by total risk-weighted assets.
Adjusted total assets is a non-GAAP financial measure and its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is bank level total assets. In calculating adjusted total assets, total assets are adjusted for goodwill, deferred tax assets disallowed from Tier 1 capital and other regulatory adjustments.
Total risk-weighted assets is a non-GAAP financial measure and its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is bank level total assets. Under the regulatory guidelines for risk-based capital, on-balance sheet assets and credit equivalent amounts of derivatives and off-balance sheet items are assigned to one of several broad risk categories according to the obligor or, if relevant, the guarantor or the nature of any collateral. The aggregate dollar amount in each risk category is then multiplied by the risk weight associated with that category. The resulting weighted values from each of the risk categories are aggregated for determining total risk-weighted assets.
Tier 1 capital is a non-GAAP financial measure and its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is bank level shareholders' equity. Tier 1 capital includes common equity and certain qualifying preferred stock less goodwill, disallowed deferred tax assets and other regulatory deductions.
Total risk-based capital (total regulatory capital) is a non-GAAP financial measure and its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is bank level shareholders' equity. Total risk-based capital (total regulatory capital) includes Tier 1 capital, ALLL, subject to limitations, and other regulatory adjustments.
A reconciliation of (1) Tier 1 capital to bank level shareholders' equity which is the most comparable GAAP financial measure, and (2) total risk-based capital (total regulatory capital) to bank level shareholders' equity which is the most comparable GAAP financial measure, is as follows:
Regulatory Capital (bank level)
(dollars in thousands)
Goodwill and other intangibles
Disallowed servicing asset
Disallowed deferred tax asset
Accumulated losses (gains) on securities and cash flow hedges
Tier 1 capital
Low-level recourse and residual interests
Allowance for loan and lease losses
Total regulatory capital
Adjusted total assets
In the calculation of the ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets, we deduct goodwill, intangible assets and perpetual preferred stock from the numerator and goodwill and intangible assets from the denominator. In the calculation of the ratio of tangible equity to tangible assets, we deduct goodwill and intangible assets from the numerator and the denominator. We believe these adjustments are consistent with the manner in which other companies in our industry calculate the ratio of tangible common equity to tangible assets and tangible equity to tangible assets.
A reconciliation of (1) tangible equity to shareholders’ equity, which is the most directly comparable GAAP measure, (2) tangible common equity to shareholders’ equity, which is the most directly comparable GAAP measure, (3) adjusted tangible common equity to shareholders’ equity, which is the most directly comparable GAAP measure, and (4) tangible assets to total assets, which is the most directly comparable GAAP measure, is as follows:
Tangible Equity, Tangible Common Equity and Tangible Assets
(dollars in thousands)
Perpetual preferred stock
Tangible common equity
The efficiency ratio represents noninterest expense from our Banking and Wealth Management segment as a percentage of total revenues from our Banking and Wealth Management segment. We use the efficiency ratio to measure noninterest costs expended to generate a dollar of revenue. Because of the significant costs we incur and fees we generate from activities related to our mortgage production and servicing operations, we believe the efficiency ratio is a more meaningful metric when evaluated within our Banking and Wealth Management segment.
Calculated as tangible common shareholders’ equity divided by shares of common stock. Tangible common shareholders’ equity equals shareholders’ equity less goodwill, other intangible assets and perpetual preferred stock. Tangible common equity per common share is calculated using a denominator that includes actual period end common shares outstanding and for years prior to 2012, additional common shares assuming conversion of all outstanding convertible preferred stock to common stock. Tangible common equity per common share is a non-GAAP financial measure, and its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is book value per common share. See Note 6 for a reconciliation of tangible common shareholders' equity to shareholders' equity.
Dividend payout ratio is calculated as dividends declared per common share divided by basic earnings per common share.
Analysis of Statements of Income
The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, information regarding (i) the total dollar amount of interest income of the Company from earning assets and the resultant average yields; (ii) the total dollar amount of interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities and the resultant average rate; (iii) net interest income; (iv) net interest spread; and (v) net interest margin.
Average Balance Sheet, Interest and Yield/Rate Analysis
Year Ended December 31,
(dollars in thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents
Loans held for sale
Loans and leases held for investment:
Commercial and commercial real estate
Lease financing receivables
Home equity lines
Consumer and credit card
Total loans and leases held for investment
Total interest-earning assets
Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity:
Market-based money market accounts
Savings and money market accounts, excluding market-based
Time, excluding market-based
Trust preferred securities