The Bank is subject to the primary regulatory oversight, supervision and examination of the FDIC and the Indiana DFI. These agencies have the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders if they determine that activities of the Bank regularly represent an unsafe and unsound banking practice or a violation of law. Federal law extensively regulates various aspects of the banking business such as reserve requirements, truth-in-lending and truth-in-savings disclosures, equal credit opportunity, fair credit reporting, trading in securities and other aspects of banking operations. Current federal law also requires banks, among other things, to make deposited funds available within specified time periods.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), an independent federal agency created under the Dodd-Frank Act, was granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, primarily with authority over banks and their affiliates with assets of more than $10 billion. TheAs the quarter ended December 31, 2019 iswas the fourth consecutive quarter that the Bank will have reported assets exceeding $10 billion. As a result,billion, effective as of the beginning of the second quarter of 2020, the Bank and its affiliates will becomebecame subject to CFPB supervisory and enforcement authority. See “- Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” and “- Consumer Financial Protection” below for additional information.

Capital adequacy is an important indicator of financial stability and performance. The Corporation and the Bank are subject to various regulatory capital requirements administered by the federal banking agencies including, in the case of both the Bank and arethe Corporation, the Basel III requirements discussed above under “- Capital Adequacy Guidelines for Bank Holding Companies (Basel III)” and, in the case of the Bank, the “prompt corrective action” requirements discussed below under “- FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 (FDICIA).” Under the regulations, a capital category is assigned to a capital category.  The assigned capital categorythe regulated entity, which is largely determined by four ratios that are calculated according to the applicable regulations: total risk-based capital, tier 1 risk-based capital, common equity tier 1 capital, and tier 1 leverage ratios. The ratios are intended to measure capital relative to assets and credit risk associated with those assets and off-balance sheet exposures of the entity. The capital category assigned to an entity can also be affected by qualitative judgments made by regulatory agencies about the risk inherent in the entity's activities that are not part of the calculated ratios.

There are five capital categories defined in the regulations, ranging from well capitalized“well capitalized” to critically undercapitalized.“critically undercapitalized”. Classification of a bank in any of the undercapitalized categories can result in actions by regulators that could have a material effect on a bank's operations. Quantitative measures established by regulation to ensure capital adequacy require the Bank to maintain minimum amounts and ratios of total andrisk-based capital, tier 1 capital and common equity tier 1 capital, in each case, to risk-weighted assets, and of tier 1 capital to average assets, or leverage ratio, all of which are calculated as defined in the regulations. Banks with lower capital levels are deemed to be undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized“undercapitalized”, “significantly undercapitalized” or critically undercapitalized,“critically undercapitalized”, depending on their actual levels. The appropriate federal regulatory agency may also downgrade a bank to the next lower capital category upon a determination that the bank is in an unsafe or unsound practice. Banks are required to monitor closely their capital levels and to notify their appropriate regulatory agency of any basis for a change in capital category.

The FDICIA requires, among other things, federal bank regulatory authorities to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to banks, which do not meet minimum capital requirements. For these purposes, FDICIA establishes five capital tiers: well capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized and critically undercapitalized. The FDIC has adopted regulations to implement the prompt corrective action provisions of FDICIA.

Basel III revised theThe "prompt corrective action" regulations by:require the following for well capitalized status:

•    a minimum CET1 ratio requirement at each level (other than critically undercapitalized), with the required CET1 ratio being 6.5 percent for well-capitalized status;

•    a minimum Tiertier 1 risk-based capital ratio for well-capitalized status beingof at least 8.0 percent;

•    a minimum total risk-based capital ratio of at least 10.0 percent; and

eliminating•    a provision that provides that a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1 may have a 3.0 percentminimum leverage ratio and still be well-capitalized.of 5.0 percent.

The FDICIA generally prohibits a depository institution from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the depository institution would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” banks are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. A bank’s compliance with such plan is required to be guaranteed by the bank’s parent holding company. If an “undercapitalized” bank fails to submit an acceptable plan, it is treated as if it is significantly undercapitalized. “Significantly undercapitalized” banks are subject to various requirements and restrictions, including an order by the FDIC to sell sufficient voting stock to become "adequately capitalized", requirements to reduce total assets and cease receipt of deposits from correspondent banks, and restrictions on compensation of executive officers. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions may not, beginning 60 days after becoming “critically undercapitalized,” make any payment of principal or interest on certain subordinated debt, extend credit for a highly leveraged transaction, or enter into any transaction outside the ordinary course of business. In addition, “critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator.

As of December 31, 2019,2022, the Bank was “well capitalized” based on the “prompt corrective action” ratios described above. It should be noted that a bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying the FDIC’s “prompt corrective action” regulations and that the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects.

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act has had a broad impact on the financial services industry, including significant regulatory and compliance changes. Although most of the required regulations of the Dodd-Frank Act have been promulgated and implemented (or are being implemented over time), there are additional regulations yet to be finalized by the authorized federal agencies. The changes resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act have impacted the profitability of the Corporation’s business activities, required changes to certain business practices, and imposed more stringent capital, liquidity and leverage requirements, and, when fully implemented, may further adversely affect our business. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act has resulted, and in the future will likely result, in:

The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the “Economic Growth Act”), which was enacted in May 2018, repealed or modified several provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. In particular, the asset threshold at which banks are subject to annual company-run stress tests were increased from $10 billion to $250 billion under the Economic Growth Act. As a result, the Corporation and the Bank willare not be subject to the Dodd-Frank Act stress testing requirements.

The Corporation’s management continues to take the steps necessary to minimize the adverse impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on its business, financial condition and results of operation.

In December 2013, United States banking regulators adopted final rules implementing theThe Volcker Rule, which was adopted under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Volcker RuleAct, places certain limitations on the trading activity of insured depository institutions and their affiliates subject to certain exceptions. The restricted trading activity includes purchasing or selling certain types of securities or instruments in order to benefit from short-term price movements or to realize short-term profits. Exceptions to the Volcker Rule include trading in certain U.S. Government or other municipal securities and trading conducted (i) in certain capacities as a broker or other agent, or as a fiduciary on behalf of customers, (ii) to satisfy a debt previously contracted, (iii) pursuant to repurchase and securities lending agreements, and (iv) in risk-mitigating hedging activities. The Volcker Rule also prohibits banking institutions from having an ownership interest in a hedge fund or private equity fund.

A banking entity that engages in proprietary trading (which excludes the exceptions discussed above) or covered fund-related activities or investments, and has total consolidated assets of more than $10 billion for two years, must implement and maintain a compliance program that meets certain minimum requirements and must also maintain certain documentation with respect to covered fund activities, in each case, as described in the Volcker Rule. While the Corporation’s total consolidated assets first exceeded $10 billion during the quarter ended March 31, 2019, the Volcker Rule has not had, and is not expected to have, a material impact on the Corporation or the Bank.

The Bank’s deposit accounts are currently insured by the Deposit Insurance Fund of the FDIC. The insurance benefit generally covers up to a maximum of $250,000 per separately insured depositor. As an FDIC-insured bank, our bank subsidiarythe Bank is subject to deposit insurance premiums and assessments to maintain the Deposit Insurance Fund. The Bank’s deposit insurance premium assessment rate depends on the asset and supervisory categories to which it is assigned. The FDIC has authority to raise or lower assessment rates on insured banks in order to achieve statutorily required reserve ratios in the Deposit Insurance Fund and to impose special additional assessments.

Deposit insurance assessments are based on average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity. Under the FDIC's risk-based assessment system, insured institutions with a least $10 billion in assets, such as the Bank, are assessed on the basis of a scoring system that combine the institution's regulatory ratings and certain financial measures. The scoring system assesses risk measures to produce two scores, a performance score and a loss severity score, that will be combined and converted to an initial assessment rate.

The performance score measures an institution's financial performance and its ability to withstand stress. The loss severity score quantifies the relative magnitude of potential losses to the FDIC in the event of an institution's failure. Once the performance and loss severity scores are calculated, thesethose scores will beare converted to a total score. An institution with a total score of 30 or less will pay the minimum base assessment rate, and an institution with a total score of 90 or more will pay the maximum initial base assessment rate. For total scores between 30 and 90, initial base assessment rates will rise at an increasing rate as the total score increases.

The Corporation's principal source of funds for dividend payments to shareholders is dividends received from the Bank. Banking regulations limit the maximum amount of dividends that a bank may pay without requesting prior approval of regulatory agencies. Under these regulations, the amount of dividends that may be paid in any calendar year is limited to the bank’s retained net income (as defined)defined under the regulations) for the current year plus those for the previous two years, subject to the capital requirements described above. As of December 31, 2019,2022, the amount available without prior regulatory approval for 2020 dividends from the Corporation’s subsidiaries (both banking and non-banking), without prior regulatory approval or notice, was $189,371,000.$288,725,000.

Under FDIC regulations, no FDIC-insured depository institution can accept brokered deposits unless it (i) is well capitalized, or (ii) is adequately capitalized and received a waiver from the FDIC. In addition, these regulations prohibit any depository institution that is not well capitalized from (a) paying an interest rate on deposits in excess of 75 basis points over certain prevailing market rates or (b) offering “pass through” deposit insurance on certain employee benefit plan accounts unless it provides certain notice to affected depositors. The Corporation and the Bank were well capitalized as of December 31, 2022.

The Bank is subject to a number of federal and state consumer protection laws that govern its relationship with customers. These laws include, but are not limited to:

Violations of applicable consumer protection laws can result in significant potential liability from litigation brought by customers, including actual damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees. Federal bank regulators, state attorneys general and state and local consumer protection agencies may also seek to enforce consumer protection requirements and obtain these and other remedies, including regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by the state and local attorneys general in each jurisdiction in which we operate and civil money penalties. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in the Corporation’s failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions that it may wish to pursue or prohibition from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

The consumer protection provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and the examination, supervision and enforcement of those laws and implementing regulations by the CFPB have created a more complex environment for consumer finance regulation. The CFPB has significant authority to implement and enforce federal consumer finance laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and new requirements for financial services products provided for in the Dodd-Frank Act, as well as the authority to identify and prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices. The review of products and practices to prevent such acts and practices is a continuing focus of the CFPB, and of banking regulators more broadly. The ultimate impact of this heightened scrutiny is uncertain but could result in changes to pricing, practices, products and procedures. It could also result in increased costs related to regulatory oversight, supervision and examination, additional remediation efforts and possible penalties. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act provides the CFPB with broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over various consumer financial products and services, including the ability to require reimbursements and other payments to customers for alleged legal violations and to impose significant penalties, as well as injunctive relief that prohibits lenders from engaging in allegedly unlawful practices. The CFPB also has the authority to obtain cease and desist orders providing for affirmative relief or monetary penalties. The Dodd-Frank Act does not prevent states from adopting stricter consumer protection standards. State regulation of financial products and potential enforcement actions could also adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (the “CRA”) requires depository institutions to assist in meeting the credit needs of their market areas consistent with safe and sound banking practice. Under the CRA, each depository institution is required to help meet the credit needs of its market areas by, among other things, providing investment in and credit to low- and moderate-income individuals and small businesses in those communities. These factors are also considered in evaluating mergers, acquisitions and applications to open a branch or facility. The applicable federal regulators regularly conduct CRA examinations to assess the performance of financial institutions and assign one of four ratings to the institution’s records of meeting the credit needs of its community. These ratings are outstanding, satisfactory, needs to improve or substantial noncompliance. During its last examination, a rating of “satisfactory”satisfactory was received by the Bank.

The federal banking regulators adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non-public information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors.

The Bank is also subject to regulatory guidelines establishing standards for safeguarding customer information. These guidelines describe the federal banking agencies’ expectations for the creation, implementation and maintenance of an information security program, which would include administrative, technical and physical safeguards appropriate to the size and complexity of the institution and the nature and scope of its activities. The standards set forth in the guidelines are intended to ensure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information, protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records and protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information that could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer.

A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (the “USA Patriot Act”) substantially broadened the scope of United States anti-money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations on financial institutions, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

The Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA”) requires financial institutions to develop policies, procedures, and practices to prevent and deter money laundering, and mandates that every bank havehas a written, board-approved program that is reasonably designed to assure and monitor compliance with the BSA. In addition, banks are required to adopt a customer identification program as part of itstheir BSA compliance program, and are required to file Suspicious Activity Reports when they detect certain known or suspected violations of federal law or suspicious transactions related to a money laundering activity or a violation of the BSA. The Bank is also required to (1) identify and verify, subject to certain exceptions, the identity of the beneficial owners of all legal entity customers at the time a new account is opened, and (2) include, in its anti-money laundering program, risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due diligence, which are to include procedures that: (a) assist in understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk profile, and (b) require ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information.

Failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution, 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.

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.

The Corporation and the Bank are subject to the Federal Reserve Act, which restricts financial transactions between banks and affiliated companies. The statute limits credit transactions between banks, affiliated companies and its executive officers and its affiliates. The statute prescribes terms and conditions for bank affiliate transactions deemed to be consistent with safe and sound banking practices. It also restricts the types of collateral security permitted in connection with the bank’s extension of credit to an affiliate. Additionally, all transactions with an affiliate must be on terms substantially the same or at least as favorable to the institution as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with non-affiliated parties.

The earnings of financial institutions are also affected by general economic conditions and prevailing interest rates, both domestic and foreign, and by the monetary and fiscal policies of the United States Government and its various agencies, particularly the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve regulates the supply of credit in order to influence general economic conditions, primarily through open market operations in United States Government obligations, varying the discount rate on financial institution borrowings, varying reserve requirements against financial institution deposits, and restricting certain borrowings by financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The monetary policies of the Federal Reserve have had a significant effect on the operating results of the Bank in the past and are expected to continue to do so in the future.

Additional legislation and administrative actions affecting the banking industry may be considered by the United States Congress, state legislatures and various regulatory agencies, including those referred to above. It cannot be predicted with certainty whether such legislation or administrative action will be enacted or the extent to which the banking industry, the Corporation or the Bank would be affected.

The following tables set forth statistical data on the Corporation and its subsidiaries.

The daily average balance sheet amounts, the related interest income or interest expense, and average rates earned or paid are presented in the following table:

The following table presents net interest income components on a tax-equivalent basis and reflects changes between periods attributable to movement in either the average balance or average interest rate for both earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. The volume differences were computed as the difference in volume between the current and prior year multiplied by the interest rate from the prior year. The interest rate changes were computed as the difference in rate between the current and prior year multiplied by the volume from the prior year.  Volume/Volume and rate variances have been allocated on the basis of the absolute relationship between volume variances and rate variances.

In determining the fair value of the investment securities portfolio, the Corporation utilizes a third party for portfolio accounting services, including market value input, for those securities classified as Level I1 and Level II2 in the fair value hierarchy.  The Corporation has obtained an understanding of what inputs are being used by the vendor in pricing the portfolio and how the vendor classified these securities based upon these inputs.  From these discussions, the Corporation’s management is comfortable that the classifications are proper.  The Corporation has gained trust in the data for two reasons:  (a) independent spot testing of the data is conducted by the Corporation through obtaining market quotes from various brokers on a periodic basis; and (b) actual gains or loss resulting from the sale of certain securities has proven the data to be accurate over time.   Fair value of securities classified as Level 3 in the valuation hierarchy were determined using a discounted cash flow model that incorporated market estimates of interest rates and volatility in markets that have not been active.

The following table summarizes the amortized cost, gross unrealized gains gross unrealizedand losses and approximate marketfair value of the investment securities available for sale at the dates indicated were:indicated.