NYCB 2017 Annual Report

24 On December 18, 2017, the Senate Banking Committee passed a bipartisan regulatory reform bill, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S.2155). Among many other provisions, the bill would raise the designation as a SIFI to $250 billion in assets from $50 billion, end company run stress tests for banks under $250 billion in assets, and simplify capital calculations for community banks. There is no guarantee that the bill will pass or that it will pass in its current form. Our results of operations could be materially affected by further changes in bank regulation, or by our ability to comply with certain existing laws, rules, and regulations governing our industry. We are subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the following entities: (1) the NYSDFS, the chartering authority for both the Community Bank and the Commercial Bank; (2) the FDIC, as the insurer of the Banks’ deposits; (3) the FRB-NY, in accordance with objectives and standards of the U.S. Federal Reserve System; and (4) the CFPB, which was established in 2011 under the Dodd-Frank Act and given broad authority to regulate financial service providers and financial products. Such regulation and supervision governs the activities in which a bank holding company and its banking subsidiaries may engage, and are intended primarily for the protection of the Deposit Insurance Fund (“DIF”), the banking system in general, and bank customers, rather than for the benefit of a company’s stockholders. These regulatory authorities have extensive discretion in connection with their supervisory and enforcement activities, including with respect to the imposition of restrictions on the operation of a bank or a bank holding company, the imposition of significant fines, the ability to delay or deny merger or other regulatory applications, the classification of assets by a bank, and the adequacy of a bank’s allowance for loan losses, among other matters. Changes in such regulation and supervision, or changes in regulation or enforcement by such authorities, whether in the form of policy, regulations, legislation, rules, orders, enforcement actions, ratings, or decisions, could have a material impact on the Company, our subsidiary banks and other affiliates, and our operations. In addition, failure of the Company or the Banks to comply with such regulations could have a material adverse effect on our earnings and capital. See “Regulation and Supervision” in Part I, Item 1, “Business” earlier in this filing for a detailed description of the federal, state, and local regulations to which the Company and the Banks are subject. Our enterprise risk management framework may not be effective in mitigating the risks to which we are subject, based upon the size, scope, and complexity of the Company. As a financial institution, we are subject to a number of risks, including interest rate, credit, liquidity, legal/compliance, market, strategic, operational, and reputational. Our ERM framework is designed to minimize the risks to which we are subject, as well as any losses stemming from such risks. Although we seek to identify, measure, monitor, report, and control our exposure to such risks, and employ a broad and diverse set of risk monitoring and mitigation techniques in the process, those techniques are inherently limited because they cannot anticipate the existence or development of risks that are currently unknown and unanticipated. For example, economic and market conditions, heightened legislative and regulatory scrutiny of the financial services industry, and increases in the overall complexity of our operations, among other developments, have resulted in the creation of a variety of risks that were previously unknown and unanticipated, highlighting the intrinsic limitations of our risk monitoring and mitigation techniques. As a result, the further development of previously unknown or unanticipated risks may result in our incurring losses in the future that could adversely impact our financial condition and results of operations. Furthermore, an ineffective ERM framework, as well as other risk factors, could result in a material increase in our FDIC insurance premiums. Market Risks A decline in economic conditions could adversely affect the value of the loans we originate and the securities in which we invest. Although we take steps to reduce our exposure to the risks that stem from adverse changes in economic conditions, such changes nevertheless could adversely impact the value of the loans we originate, the securities we invest in, and our loan portfolios. Declines in real estate values and home sales, and an increase in the financial stress on borrowers stemming from high unemployment or other adverse economic conditions, could negatively affect our borrowers and, in turn, the repayment of the loans in our portfolio. Deterioration in economic conditions also could subject us and our industry to increased regulatory scrutiny, and could result in an increase in loan delinquencies, an increase in problem assets and foreclosures, and a decline in th e value of the collateral for our loans, which could reduce our customers’