F.N.B. (FNB) Risk Factors

On February 5, 2024, FNBPA announced its entry into consent orders (together, the "Consent Orders") with the DOJ and the North Carolina State Department of Justice. The Consent Orders resolve allegations that, from 2017 to 2021, FNBPA-including as a successor in interest to Yadkin Bank, which FNBPA acquired in 2017, committed violations of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Regulation B), as well as the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Practices Act,within the Charlotte, North Carolina, and Winston-Salem, North Carolina assessment areas. The Consent Orders were approved by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on February 13, 2024. We are committed to full compliance with the Consent Orders; however, achieving such compliance will require attention from our management, and will cause us to bear costs to implement their terms. Actions taken to achieve compliance with the Consent Orders may affect our business or financial performance, and may require us to reallocate resources away from existing operations or to alter our business practices, operations, products and services, and risk management practices. Our failure to comply with the requirements of the Consent Orders could cause us to incur additional significant compliance costs or subject us to additional enforcement action, and any deficiencies in our compliance practices, as well as the terms of the Consent Orders, could result in additional inquiries, investigations or enforcement actions. Further, the existence of the Consent Orders may adversely affect our reputation in the communities we serve and among third parties with which we conduct business. Under the current regulatory framework governing proposed business combinations, an institution's compliance with the fair lending laws and whether it is subject to an open or pending enforcement action are significant factors for the federal banking agencies in determining whether a proposed transaction is consistent with safe and sound banking principles. Further, the OCC has announced a proposed rule to amend and enhance its regulatory framework for review of proposed national bank merger transactions under the Bank Merger Act (BMA). Under the OCC's proposed rule, the OCC staff is unlikely to view a proposed merger transaction involving an acquirer with an open or pending fair lending enforcement action as being consistent with approval under the BMA. Although the Consent Orders constitute the resolution of open enforcement actions, under the OCC's proposed rule ongoing compliance in a timely manner with the Consent Orders would be an important factor in the OCC's evaluation of any proposed transaction we may present to the OCC for approval. The Consent Orders will be in effect for a minimum of five years, which term could be longer depending upon the extent and timing of the requisite loan subsidies that will be paid by FNBPA to qualified applicants. Accordingly, if the OCC's proposed rule is adopted as proposed, our ability to pursue strategic growth initiatives involving combinations with other banking organizations may be substantially limited. As a result, should we pursue future bank acquisitions, we expect the bank regulatory approval process to be prolonged and more costly than we have experienced in the past, which restrictions could materially adversely affect our business, results of operation and financial condition.

The CRA, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions. The CRA requires the OCC, in connection with its examination of a national bank, to assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its community and to take such record into account in its evaluation of certain applications by such institution. All institutions insured by the FDIC must publicly disclose their rating. On October 24, 2023, the federal banking agencies issued a joint final rule to revise the regulations implementing CRA. FNBPA is considered a "large bank" under the final rule and therefore will be evaluated under new lending, retail services and products, community development financing and community development services tests in respect of our compliance with the statute and rule. The final rule also imposes certain data reporting requirements that will apply to FNBPA. As we prepare for implementation of the final rule, we expect to incur increased compliance costs, and we may be exposed to compliance-related risks after the final rule has been implemented in full. The fair lending laws prohibit discrimination in the provision of banking services on the basis of prohibited factors including, among others, race, color, national origin, gender, and religion. The enforcement of these laws has been an increasing focus for the CFPB and other regulators. Of note, in March 2022, the Director of the CFPB has indicated that the CFPB will prioritize enforcement of ECOA, as implemented by the CFPB's Regulation B, which prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction, by revising its Supervision and Examination Manual to explicitly incorporate anti-discrimination considerations in respect of evaluations of potential unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices (UDAAPs). The CFPB's action represents not only a continuation of the agency's commitment to a more aggressive enforcement approach, but also a shift in supervision and examination policy and procedure that may result in the commencement of enforcement actions against financial institutions involving a broader range of cited violations of the federal consumer financial laws and expanded allegations of UDAAPs. Under the fair lending laws, we may be liable if our policies result in a disparate treatment of or have a disparate impact on a protected class of applicants or borrowers and may also be subject to investigation by the DOJ. A successful challenge to our institution's performance under the CRA or fair lending laws and regulations could result in a wide variety of sanctions, including the required payment of damages and civil money penalties, injunctive relief, imposition of restrictions on mergers and acquisitions activity and restrictions on expansion activity. Private parties may also have the ability to challenge our performance under fair lending laws in private class action litigation.

The federal banking agencies, including the OCC, the CFPB, as well as the DOJ, have in recent years adopted a more aggressive enforcement posture in line with general enforcement priorities - specifically with respect to consumer protection issues and anti-discrimination lending laws. These government agencies have expressed a heightened interest in fair lending and loan servicing, mortgage loan origination and mortgage loan servicing, bank and financial institution sales practices, management of consumer accounts and the charging of overdraft and various other fees, fair credit reporting, predatory lending, debt collection, and meaningful disclosure of credit and savings terms, among others, and perform periodic reviews, examinations, and investigations in these areas. An adverse finding or outcome of any such review, examination, or investigation that involves an assertion of regulatory noncompliance or a violation of law could result in possible fines, penalties, restitution, or other forms of remediation that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or reputation. Further evaluation of recent developments after the failures of SIVB, SBNY, and FRC may lead to legislative and regulatory initiatives intended to prevent future bank failures, raise capital requirements and stem significant deposit outflows from the banking sector. Although we cannot predict with certainty which initiatives may be pursued by lawmakers and agency leadership, nor can we predict the terms and scope of any such initiatives, any potential changes could, among other things, subject us to additional costs and capital requirements, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer, and limit our future growth, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

On March 10, 2023, Silicon Valley Bank (SIVB) was closed by the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (the CDFPI). Two days later, on March 12, 2023, Signature Bank (SBNY) also failed. Nearly two months later, on May 1, 2023, First Republic Bank (FRC) was closed by the CDFPI. In each case, the FDIC was appointed as receiver. Each of these institutions experienced significant deposit losses in the run-up to their ultimate failures. Investor and customer confidence in the banking sector-particularly with regard to mid-size and larger regional banking organizations-waned in response to these failures. Further evaluation of recent developments in the banking sector has led to governmental initiatives intended to prevent future bank failures and stem significant deposit outflows from the banking sector, including (i) agency rulemaking to modify and enhance relevant regulatory requirements, specifically with respect to liquidity risk management, deposit concentrations, capital adequacy, stress testing and contingency planning, and safe and sound banking practices; and (ii) enhancement of the agencies' supervision and examination policies and priorities. Examiners at the federal banking agencies generally have increased their focus on levels of uninsured deposits, liquidity and contingency funding plans. We cannot predict with certainty which proposed rules will be adopted or if other initiatives may be pursued by lawmakers and agency leadership, nor can we predict the terms and scope of any such initiatives, including whether we would be impacted. However, any of the proposed or potential changes could, among other things, subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer, and limit our future growth, any of which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

Members of Congress and the leadership of the OCC, FDIC and CFPB have expressed a heightened interest in bank overdraft protection programs. The CFPB has used its supervision process to obtain additional information about financial institutions' overdraft practices and has indicated that it intends to pursue enforcement actions against financial institutions, and their executives, that oversee overdraft practices that are deemed to be unlawful. The CFPB also has published guidance containing instructions for financial institutions to avoid the imposition of unlawful overdraft fees. In January 2024, the CFPB proposed two rules addressing financial institutions' consumer overdraft and non-sufficient funds (NSF) fee practices by narrowing an existing exemption from the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) for the extension of overdraft credit, thereby subjecting overdraft credit to disclosure and other regulatory compliance obligations, and under those authorities prohibiting the imposition of NSF fees on transactions that are declined instantaneously or near-instantaneously. Further, in 2023, the CFPB brought enforcement actions and imposed substantial civil money penalties against certain financial institutions for overdraft practices and inadequate disclosures that the CFPB alleged to be unlawful and inadequately disclosed for, among other things, systematically and repeatedly charging fees to customers with insufficient funds in their accounts, charging overdraft fees without proper consent, and misleading customers about the terms and costs of overdraft coverage. Each of these actions is part of the CFPB's broader supervision and enforcement initiative targeting so-called consumer "junk fees." In addition, the OCC issued a bulletin in April 2023 to address the risks associated with national banks' overdraft protection programs and overdraft fees. Specifically, the OCC noted in the bulletin that "authorize positive, settle negative" (APSN) transaction and representment fee practices may present a heightened risk of violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 2010, which prohibits unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. An APSN transaction refers to the practice of assessing overdraft fees on debit card transactions that authorize when a customer's available balance is positive but later post to the account when the available balance is negative. Representment fees refer to assessing an additional fee each time a third party submits the same transaction for payment after a bank returns the transaction for non-sufficient funds. The OCC further noted that banks should establish and maintain sound risk management of overdraft protection programs by establishing effective board and management oversight and appropriate procedures and practices for managing risks associated with overdraft protection programs. In response to this increased governmental scrutiny of the financial services industry, and in anticipation of possible enhanced supervision and enforcement of overdraft protection practices in the future, certain banking organizations including FNB have modified their overdraft protection programs, including by discontinuing the imposition of overdraft transaction fees. These competitive pressures from our peers, as well as any adoption by our regulators of new rules or supervisory guidance, including the new rules proposed by the CFPB, or more aggressive examination and enforcement policies in respect of banks' overdraft protection practices, could cause us to modify our program and practices in ways that may have a negative impact on our revenue and earnings. In addition, as supervisory expectations and industry practices regarding overdraft protection programs change, our continued offering of overdraft protection may result in negative public opinion and increased reputation risk. Despite our effort to modify our overdraft practices to conform to recent regulatory guidance and expectations, and industry practices, we may remain subject to regulatory criticism or potential enforcement action, particularly in view of the CFPB's aggressive interpretations and guidance regarding bank overdraft practices, and potentially subject to negative public reaction through our continued offering of certain of these products and services.

Our financial performance depends, to a certain extent, upon global, domestic and local economic and political conditions, as well as governmental monetary policies. Conditions such as changes in interest rates, money supply, levels of employment and other factors beyond our control may have a negative impact on economic activity. Any contraction of economic activity, including an economic recession or an inflationary environment, may adversely affect our asset quality, deposit levels and loan demand and, therefore, our earnings. In particular, interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including global, domestic and local economic conditions and the policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies and, specifically, the FRB. Throughout 2022 and 2023, the FOMC raised the target range for the federal funds rate on 11 separate occasions citing economic and geopolitical disruptions, and signaled that current FRB direction is to begin lowering rates at some point during 2024 as inflation returns to more normalized levels. Financial institutions also face a comparatively heightened credit risk. Of note, because we have a significant amount of real estate loans, decreases in real estate values could adversely affect the value of property used as collateral, which, in turn, can adversely affect the value of our loan and investment portfolios. Adverse economic developments, specifically including inflation-related impacts, may have a negative effect on the ability of our borrowers to make timely repayments of their loans or to finance future home purchases. According to the FRB's October 2023 Financial Stability Report, commercial real estate (CRE) values remained elevated relative to fundamentals, even as prices continued to decline. While CRE values continue to fluctuate, some markets are showing signs of stabilizing prices. However, the outlook for CRE remains dependent on the broader economic environment and, specifically, how major subsectors respond to a rising interest rate environment and higher prices for commodities, goods and services. In any case, credit performance over the medium-and long-term is susceptible to economic and market forces and therefore forecasts remain uncertain, with some degree of instability in the CRE markets expected in the coming quarters as loans are refinanced in markets with higher vacancy rates under current economic conditions. Instability and uncertainty in the commercial and residential real estate markets, as well as in the broader commercial and retail credit markets, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Macroeconomic and geopolitical challenges and uncertainties affecting the stability of regions and countries around the globe could have a negative impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations. For instance, in response to the Russia-Ukraine war, the U.S. has imposed, and is likely to continue to impose, significant financial and economic sanctions and export controls against certain Russian organizations and individuals, with similar actions being taken by the European Union, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions. The Russian invasion and subsequent sanctions had and could continue to have certain negative impacts on global and regional financial markets and economic conditions. In addition, the attacks by Hamas on Israel in October 2023, Israel's response and a potential broader armed conflict in the Middle East are likely to continue impacting the global economy, including that of the United States and have added to concerns of a widening conflict in the Middle East. In particular, oil prices have become increasingly volatile in the aftermath of the attacks on Israel. Each of the developments described above, or any combination of them, could adversely affect our businesses, financial condition and results of operations.