Esquire Financial Holdings (ESQ) Risk Factors

From time to time, the FASB or the SEC may change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. Such changes may result in us being subject to new or changing accounting and reporting standards. In addition, the bodies that interpret the accounting standards may change their interpretations or positions on how these standards should be applied. These changes may be beyond our control, can be hard to predict, and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retrospectively, or apply an existing standard differently, also retrospectively, in each case resulting in our needing to revise or restate prior period financial statements.

Our management and board review and update the Company's internal controls over financial reporting, disclosure controls and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures. Any system of controls, however well designed and operated, is based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure to follow or circumvention of these controls, policies and procedures could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

In June 2016, the FASB issued an accounting standard update, "Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments," which replaced the current "incurred loss" model for recognizing credit losses with an "expected loss" model referred to as the CECL model. Under the CECL model, the Company is required to present certain financial assets carried at amortized cost, such as loans held for investment and held-to-maturity debt securities, at the net amount expected to be collected. The measurement of expected credit losses is based on information about past events, including historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts that affect the collectability of the reported amount. This measurement takes place at the time the financial asset is first entered into and periodically thereafter. This differs significantly from the "incurred loss" model previously required under current GAAP, which delays recognition until it is probable a loss has been incurred. The CECL model may create more volatility in the level of the allowance for credit losses ("ACL"). If the Company is required to materially increase its level of the ACL for any reason, such increase could adversely affect its business, financial condition and results of operations.

With a growing and generally unseasoned loan portfolio, our credit risk may continue to increase and our future performance could be adversely affected. While we believe we have underwriting standards designed to manage normal lending risks, it is difficult to assess the future performance of our loan portfolio due to the recent origination of many of these loans. As a result, it is difficult to predict whether any of our loans will become nonperforming or delinquent loans, or whether we will have any nonperforming or delinquent loans that will adversely affect our future performance. At December 31, 2023, the weighted average age of our loans was 6.62 years, 2.64 years, 2.33 years, 3.30 years and 1.07 years for our 1?–?4 family loans, multifamily loans, commercial real estate loans, commercial loans and consumer loans, respectively. At December 31, 2023, the weighted average age of our loan portfolio was 3.06 years, however, the average customer relationship is of a longer term.

Loan customers may not repay their loans according to the terms of their loans, and the collateral securing the payment of their loans may be insufficient to assure repayment. We may experience significant credit losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Various assumptions and judgments about the collectability of the loan portfolio are made, including the creditworthiness of borrowers and the value of the real estate and other assets serving as collateral for the repayment of many loans. In determining the amount of the allowance for credit losses, management reviews the loans and the loss and delinquency experience and evaluates economic conditions. At December 31, 2023, our allowance for credit losses as a percentage of total loans, net of unearned income, was 1.38%. The determination of the appropriate level of allowance is subject to judgment and requires us to make significant estimates of current credit risks and trends, all of which are subject to material changes. If assumptions prove to be incorrect, the allowance for credit losses may not cover probable incurred losses in the loan portfolio at the date of the financial statements. Significant additions to the allowance would materially decrease net income. We had one nonperforming multifamily loan totaling $10.9 million at December 31, 2023. Nonperforming loans may increase and nonperforming or delinquent loans may adversely affect future performance. In addition, federal and state regulators periodically review the allowance for credit losses and may require an increase in the allowance for credit losses or recognize further loan charge-offs. Any significant increase in our allowance for credit losses or loan charge-offs as required by these regulatory agencies could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. Bank regulators periodically review our allowance for credit losses and may require an increase to the provision for credit losses or further loan charge-offs. Any increase in our allowance for credit losses or loan charge-offs as required by these regulatory authorities may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

Unlike larger financial institutions that are more geographically diversified, a large portion of our business is concentrated primarily in the state of New York, and in New York City in particular. As of December 31, 2023, 35.5% of our loan portfolio was in New York and our loan portfolio had concentrations of 26.0% in New York City. If the local economy, and particularly the real estate market, declines, the rates of delinquencies, defaults, foreclosures, bankruptcies and losses in our loan portfolio would likely increase. As a result of this lack of diversification in our loan portfolio, a downturn in the local economy generally and real estate market specifically could significantly reduce our profitability and growth and adversely affect our financial condition.

At December 31, 2023, our consumer held for investment loans totaled $14.5 million, or 1.2% of our total loan portfolio, of which $2.4 million, or 16.6%, were post-settlement consumer loans. Consumer loan collections are dependent on the borrower's continuing financial stability and are therefore more likely to be affected by adverse personal circumstances, such as a loss of employment or unexpected medical costs. While our Consumer Litigation-Related Loans, which consist of post-settlement consumer loans, are typically well secured by the settlement amount, we can still be exposed to the financial stability of the borrower as a result of unforeseen rulings or administrative legal anomalies with a particular borrower's settlement that eliminate or greatly reduce their settlement amount. Furthermore, the application of various federal and state laws, including bankruptcy and insolvency laws, may limit our ability to recover on such loans. As we increase our purchases or originations of consumer loans, it may become necessary to increase our provision for credit losses in the event our losses on these loans increase, which would reduce our profits.

At December 31, 2023, we had $348.2 million of multifamily loans and $89.5 million of commercial real estate loans. Multifamily and commercial real estate loans represented 36.2% of our total loan portfolio at December 31, 2023. Multifamily and commercial real estate loans are often larger and involve greater risks than other types of lending because payments on such loans are often dependent on the successful operation or development of the property or business involved. Repayment of such loans is often more sensitive than other types of loans to adverse conditions in the real estate market or the general business climate and economy. Accordingly, a downturn in the real estate market and a challenging business and economic environment may increase our risk related to multifamily and commercial real estate loans. Unlike 1?–?4 family mortgage loans, which generally are made on the basis of the borrower's ability to make repayment from their employment and other income and which are secured by real property whose value tends to be more easily ascertainable, multifamily and commercial real estate loans typically are made on the basis of the borrower's ability to make repayment from the cash flow of the commercial venture. If the cash flow from business operations is reduced, the borrower's ability to repay the loan may be impaired. Due to the larger average size of each multifamily and commercial real estate loan as compared with other loans such as 1?–?4 family loans, as well as collateral that is generally less readily-marketable, losses incurred on a small number of multifamily and commercial real estate loans could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

At December 31, 2023, our commercial loans totaled $737.9 million, or 61.1% of our total loans, including $612.5 million of Commercial Litigation-Related Loans, which represented 83.0% of our commercial loans. We intend to increase our originations of commercial loans, including our Commercial Litigation-Related Loans, which consist of working capital lines of credit, case cost lines of credit, term loans to law firms, and other commercial litigation-related loans. These loans generally have more risk than 1?–?4 family mortgage loans and commercial loans secured by real estate. Since repayment of commercial loans, including our Commercial Litigation-Related Loans, depends on the successful receipt of settlement proceeds or the successful management and operation of the borrower's businesses, repayment of such loans can be affected by adverse court decisions and adverse conditions in the local and national economy. Commercial Litigation-Related Loans present unique credit risks in that attorney or law firm revenues can be volatile depending on the number of cases, the timing of court decisions, the timing of the overall judicial process, and the timing of those settlements as well as related payments on those settlements. In our experience, an average case can take two to four years to litigate and settle. Determining the value of an attorney's or law firm's case inventory (borrowing base) is also inherently an imprecise exercise. Though repayment of case lines is not dependent on a favorable case settlement, unfavorable outcomes can ultimately impact the cash flows of the borrower. An adverse development with respect to one loan or one Commercial Litigation-Related Loan credit relationship can expose us to significantly greater risk of loss compared to an adverse development with respect to a 1?–?4 family mortgage loan or a commercial real estate loan. Because we plan to continue to increase our originations of these loans, commercial loans generally have a larger average size as compared with other loans such as commercial real estate loans, and the collateral for commercial loans is generally less readily-marketable, losses incurred on a small number of commercial loans could have a disproportionate and material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

The majority of our banking assets are monetary in nature and subject to risk from changes in interest rates. Like most financial institutions, our earnings and cash flows depend to a great extent upon the level of our net interest income, or the difference between the interest income we earn on loans, investments and other interest earning assets, and the interest we pay on interest bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Changes in interest rates can increase or decrease our net interest income, because different types of assets and liabilities may react differently, and at different times, to market interest rate changes. When interest bearing liabilities mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest earning assets in a period, an increase in interest rates could reduce net interest income. Similarly, when interest earning assets mature or reprice more quickly, or to a greater degree than interest bearing liabilities, falling interest rates could reduce net interest income. Additionally, an increase in interest rates may, among other things, reduce the demand for loans and our ability to originate loans and decrease loan repayment rates. A decrease in the general level of interest rates may affect us through, among other things, increased prepayments on our loan portfolio and increased competition for deposits. Accordingly, changes in the level of market interest rates affect our net yield on interest earning assets, loan origination volume and our overall results. Although our asset-liability management strategy is designed to control and mitigate exposure to the risks related to changes in market interest rates, those rates are affected by many factors outside of our control, including governmental monetary policies, inflation, deflation, recession, changes in unemployment, the money supply, international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets.

On April 1, 2022, the Company finalized the sale of its legacy NFL consumer post settlement loan portfolio to a third party sponsored entity (or "Fund") in exchange for a nonvoting economic interest in the Fund as the loan portfolio's duration has extended over several years as a result of revisions to various claims administration protocols, the ongoing effects of the pandemic, revisions to qualifying physician requirements and the controversial use of race-based norms on former NFL players' concussion claims.  The following summarizes the chronology of related events and its impact to our risk: On December 10, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the "Court") appointed a special investigator in the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation (Case No. 12-md-2323) to ensure the integrity of the NFL Concussion Settlement Program, the efficient processing of valid claims, and impose appropriate sanctions if wrongdoing is found in response to allegations of fraudulent claims. Additionally, on May 8, 2019, the Court modified the rules regarding qualifying physicians by limiting NFL claimants to utilizing doctors in their immediate area (a range of 150 miles from the claimant's home address). We believe that these Court rulings, including other administrative processes enacted by the claims administrator, have extended the duration of the Fund's assets which may increase its credit risk and our risk of loss of our investment. Although we have not encountered any such fraud at this time within our portfolio, if it is determined that any of the Fund's NFL loan borrowers or others committed fraud when filing their application to the NFL Concussion Settlement Program or to Esquire Bank as originator for the related loan, we may experience a loss on our investment, which could have an adverse effect on our operating results. Specifically, the uncertainty related to our borrowers' ("claimants") access to qualified testing, doctors, their attorneys and other administrative support, has introduced incremental duration risk which may further extend the settlement of claims and payoff of the NFL loans beyond the contractual maturity. Moreover, in August 2020, certain former NFL players filed lawsuits with the Court challenging the use of "race norming" to systematically disfavor Black players who submitted claims in the NFL Concussion Settlement Program. In general, the lawsuits alleged that "race-norming" was being used in the claims administration process to artificially reduce estimates of Black players' pre-concussion cognitive functioning levels thereby concluding that Black players suffered lesser impairments from their concussions than their medical diagnoses and tests otherwise indicated.  As a result, the plaintiffs allege that Black claimants were determined not to qualify for settlement payments despite sustaining incapacitating injuries comparable to their white counterparts. In March 2021, the Court dismissed one of the lawsuits on procedural grounds. On June 2, 2021, the NFL and class counsel voluntarily pledged to abandon "race-norming" in the assessment of all settlement claims both prospectively and retrospectively. On October 23, 2021, there was further agreement that no race norms or race demographic estimates shall be used in the settlement program going forward and the NFL will not be able to appeal to settlement administrators to require race norms be applied. On March 4, 2022, the Court formally approved an agreement to eliminate any consideration of race in the Settlement Program and modified the neuropsychological testing protocol. Overall, we believe this may represent a positive development for NFL claimants but may again further extend the NFL portfolio duration as the claim settlement process is re-calibrated and new claims protocols are developed for retrospective and prospective claims. If the processing of claims for the Fund's loan portfolio continues to extend beyond our maturity for these loans due to the aforementioned fraud, revisions to qualifying physician requirements, revised protocols due to "race-norming" claims, or the additional administrative processes, portfolio delinquencies, credit downgrades and further losses as the result of possible charge-offs of these loans could occur or increase in the future, which would negatively impact our investment. As of December 31, 2023, the carrying amount of our investment in the Fund and our total exposure is $10.6 million.

The Bank has deposit accounts whose ownership is based on a fiduciary relationship. Part 330 of the FDIC's regulations generally states that the titling of the deposit account (together with the underlying records) must indicate the existence of the fiduciary relationship in order for insurance coverage to be available on a "pass-through" basis. Fiduciary relationships include, but are not limited to, relationships involving a trustee, agent, nominee, guardian, executor, or custodian. A bank with fiduciary deposit accounts with balances of more than $250,000 must diligently use the available data on these deposit accounts, including data indicating the existence of different principal and income beneficiaries to determine its best estimate of the uninsured portion of these accounts. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had approximately $684.2 million of law firm escrow (or trust) deposits that were evaluated by management to identify an appropriate estimate of FDIC insurance coverage that passes through each deposit account to the beneficial owner of the funds held in the account. To a lesser extent, the Bank maintains fiduciary accounts for our qualified settlement fund relationships as well as bankruptcy trustee relationships where management estimates are also employed to determine FDIC coverage.  Management's uninsured balance estimate may understate the amount of the Bank's uninsured deposits and may not reflect the assessment of the FDIC if the Bank is placed into receivership. Such understated amounts of uninsured deposits would result in less deposit insurance coverage available to our depositors and could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

As of December 31, 2023, approximately $381.6 million, or 27.1%, of our total Bank deposits of $1.4 billion, were not FDIC insured. This excludes $5.5 million of the Company's deposits held by the Bank. We have traditionally obtained funds through deposits for use in lending and investment activities. The interest rates stated for borrowings typically exceed the interest rates paid on deposits. Deposit outflows can occur for a number of reasons, including; clients may seek investments with higher yields, clients with uninsured deposits may seek greater financial security during prolonged periods of volatile and unstable market conditions or clients may simply prefer to do business with our competitors, or for other reasons. If a significant portion of our deposits were withdrawn, we may need to rely more heavily on more expensive borrowings and other sources of funding to fund our business and meet withdrawal demands, adversely affecting our net interest margin. The occurrence of any of these events could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Liquidity is essential to the Company's business. The Company relies on its ability to generate deposits and effectively manage the repayment of its liabilities to ensure that there is adequate liquidity to fund operations. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale and maturities of loans and securities and other sources could have a substantial negative effect on liquidity. The Company's most important source of funds is its deposits. Deposit balances can decrease when customers perceive alternative investments as providing a better risk adjusted return, which are strongly influenced by such external factors as the direction of interest rates, local and national economic conditions and the availability and attractiveness of alternative investments. Further, the demand for deposits may be reduced due to a variety of factors such as current negative trends in the banking sector, the level of and/or composition of our uninsured deposits, demographic patterns, changes in customer preferences, reductions in consumers' disposable income, the monetary policy of the FRB or regulatory actions that decrease customer access to particular products. If customers move money out of bank deposits and into other investments such as money market funds, the Company would lose a relatively low-cost source of funds, which would increase its funding costs and reduce net interest income. Any changes made to the rates offered on deposits to remain competitive with other financial institutions may also adversely affect profitability and liquidity. Other primary sources of funds consist of cash flows from operations, maturities and sales of investment securities and/or loans, brokered deposits, borrowings from the FHLB of New York and/or FRB discount window, and unsecured borrowings. The Company also may borrow funds from third-party lenders, such as other financial institutions. The Company's access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance or capitalize its activities, or on terms that are acceptable, could be impaired by factors that affect the Company directly or the financial services industry or economy in general, such as disruptions in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry, a decrease in the level of the Company's business activity as a result of a downturn in markets or by one or more adverse regulatory actions against the Company or the financial sector in general. Any decline in available funding could adversely impact the Company's ability to originate loans, invest in securities, meet expenses, or to fulfill obligations such as meeting deposit withdrawal demands, any of which could have a material adverse impact on its liquidity, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, counterparty or other relationships. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and routinely execute transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks and other institutional customers. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of a default by a counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when our collateral cannot be foreclosed upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the credit or derivative exposure due. Furthermore, successful operation of our payment processing business depends on the soundness of ISOs, third party processors, payment facilitators, clearing agents and others that we rely on to conduct our payment processing business. Any losses resulting from such third parties could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.