UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

PART I

ITEM I. BUSINESS

Overview

Our Business

Each bank is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by: (1) the Secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (“Illinois Secretary”) and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“Federal Reserve”) for Illinois-chartered banks; (2) the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) for nationally-chartered banks or (3) the Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions (“Wisconsin Department”) and the Federal Reserve for Town Bank.

We also engage in the retail origination and correspondent purchase of residential mortgages for sale into the secondary market through Wintrust Mortgage,Mortgage. Most originated and provide other loan closing services to a network of mortgage brokers. Mortgage banking operations are also performed within certain banks. Wintrust Mortgage, a division of Barrington Bank, sells many of itspurchased loans with servicing released. Some of our banks engage in loan servicing, as a portion of the loans sold by the banks into the secondary market are sold with servicing released. Certain originated loans are sold to the Company's banks with servicing of those loans retained.remaining within Wintrust Mortgage operations. Wintrust Mortgage maintains principal originationretail mortgage offices in a number of states, including Illinois, and originates loans in states through correspondent channels. Wintrust Mortgage also established offices at several of the banks and provides the banks with the ability to use an enhanced loan originationlargest concentration located in the Chicago, Minneapolis and documentation system. This allows Wintrust Mortgage and the banks to better utilize existing operational capacity and improve the product offering for the banks' customers.Los Angeles metropolitan areas.

We conduct our specialty finance businesses through indirect non-bank subsidiaries. Our wholly owned subsidiary, FIFC, engages in the premium finance receivables business, our most significant specialized lending niche, including commercial insurance premium finance and life insurance premium finance. We also engage in commercial insurance premium finance in Canada through our newly acquired wholly owned subsidiary FIFC Canada.

In their commercial insurance premium finance operations, FIFC and FIFC Canada make loans to businesses to finance the insurance premiums they pay on their commercial insurance policies. Approved medium and large insurance agents and brokers located throughout the United States and Canada assist FIFC and FIFC Canada, respectively in arranging each commercial premium finance loan between the borrower and FIFC or FIFC Canada. FIFC or FIFC Canada evaluates each loan request according to its own underwriting criteria including the amount of the down payment on the insurance policy, the term of the loan, the credit quality of the insurance company providing the financed insurance policy, the interest rate, the borrower's previous payment history, if any, and other factors deemed appropriate. Upon approval of the loan by FIFC or FIFC Canada, as the case may be, the borrower makes a down payment on the financed insurance policy, which is generally done by providing payment to the agent or broker, who then forwards it to the insurance company. FIFC or FIFC Canada may either forward the financed amount of the

(i.e., agent or broker) fraud. The Company performs ongoing credit and other reviews of the agents and brokers, and performs various internal audit steps to mitigate against the risk of any fraud.

The commercial and property premium finance business is subject to regulation in the majority of states. Regulation typically governs notices to borrowers prior to cancellation of a policy, notices to insurance companies, maximum interest rates and late fees and approval of loan documentation. FIFC is licensed or otherwise qualified to provide financing of commercial insurance policies in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and FIFC’s compliance department regularly monitors changes to regulations and updates policies and programs accordingly.

In 2007, FIFC began financingalso finances life insurance policy premiums generally used for estate planning purposes of high net-worth borrowers. These loans are originated directly with the borrowers with assistance from life insurance carriers, independent insurance agents, financial advisors and legal counsel. The cash surrender value of the life insurance policy is the primary form of collateral. In addition, these loans often are secured with a letter of credit, marketable securities or certificates of deposit. In some cases, FIFC may make a loan that has a partially unsecured position.

The life insurance premium finance business is governed under banking regulations but is not subject to additional systemic regulation. FIFC's compliance department regularly monitors the regulatory environment and the company's compliance with existing regulations. FIFC maintains a policy prohibiting the knowing financing of stranger-originated life insurance and has established procedures to identify and prevent the company from financing such policies. While a carrier could potentially put at risk the cash surrender value of a policy, which serves as FIFC's primary collateral, by challenging the validity of the insurance contract for lack of an insurable interest, FIFC believes it has strong counterclaims against any such claims by carriers, in addition to recourse to borrowers and guarantors as well as to additional collateral in certain cases.

Premium finance loans made by FIFC and FIFC Canada are primarily secured by the insurance policies financed by the loans. These insurance policies are written by a large number of insurance companies geographically dispersed throughout the country and Canada. Our premium finance receivables balances finance insurance policies which are spread among a large number of insurers, however one of the insurers represents approximately 11%12% of such balances and two additional insurers each of which represent approximately 4% of such balances. FIFC and FIFC Canada consistently monitor carrier ratings and financial performance of our carriers. In the event ratings fall below certain levels, most of FIFC's life insurance premium finance policies provide for an event of default and allow FIFC to have recourse to borrowers and guarantors as well as to additional collateral in certain cases. For the commercial premium finance business, the term of the loans is sufficiently short such that in the event of a decline in carrier ratings, FIFC or FIFC Canada, as the case may be, can restrict or eliminate additional loans to finance premiums to such carriers. The majority of premium finance receivables are purchased by the banks in order to more fully utilize their lending capacity as these loans generally provide the banks with higher yields than alternative investments.

We offer a full range of wealth management services through three separate subsidiaries, including trust and investment services, asset management and securities brokerage services. Our asset management company which operates underThese subsidiaries are subject to regulation by the name "Great Lakes Advisors, LLC, a Wintrust Wealth Management Company", isSecurities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and the result of the acquisitions of Wayne Hummer Asset Management Company in 2002, Lake Forest Capital Management Company in 2003, and Great Lakes Advisors in July 2011.Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

CTC, our trust subsidiary, offers trust and investment management services to clients through offices located in downtown Chicago and at various banking offices of our fifteen banks. CTC is subject to regulation, supervision and regular examination by the OCC. During 2012, the Company acquired the trust and investment management services of Suburban Bank & Trust Company.

The Company has employed certain strategies throughout 2013 and 2014 to manage net income amid an environment characterized by low interest rates and increased competition. In 2010, we further strengthened our capital position through offerings of common stock and tangible equity units that raised an aggregate of $540 million in net proceeds and repurchased our preferred stock issued to the U.S. Department of Treasury ("Treasury") under the Troubled Asset Relief Program at a price of $251.3 million, which included accrued and unpaid dividends of $1.3 million. In 2012,general, the Company raisedhas taken a steady and measured approach to grow strategically and manage expenses. Specifically, the Company has:

Our strategy and competitive position for each of our business segments is summarized in further detail, below.

We compete in the commercial banking industry through our banks in the communities they serve. The commercial banking industry is highly competitive and the banks face strong direct competition for deposits, loans and other financial related services. The banks compete with other commercial banks, thrifts, credit unions and stockbrokers. Some of these competitors are local, while others are statewide or nationwide.

As a mid-size financial services company, we expect to benefit from greater access to financial and managerial resources than our smaller local competitors while maintaining our commitment to local decision-making and to our community banking philosophy. In particular, we are able to provide a wider product selection and larger credit facilities than many of our smaller competitors, and we believe our service offerings help us in recruiting talented staff. Since the beginning of 2009, we have continuedWe continue to add more lenders throughout the community banking organization, many of whom have joined us because of our ability to offer a range of products and level of services which compete effectively with both larger and smaller market participants. We have continued to expand our product delivery systems, including a wide variety of electronic banking options for our retail and commercial customers which allow us to provide a level of service typically associated with much larger banking institutions. Consequently, management views technology as a great equalizer to offset some of the inherent advantages of its significantly larger competitors. Additionally, we have access to public capital markets whereas many of our local competitors are privately held and may have limited capital raising capabilities.

We also believe we are positioned to compete effectively with other larger and more diversified banks, bank holding companies and other financial services companies due to the multi-chartered approach that pushes accountability for building a franchise and

a high level of customer service down to each of our banking franchises. Additionally, we believe that we provide a relatively

Wintrust Mortgage a division of Barrington Bank, as well as the mortgage banking functions within the banks, competes with large mortgage brokers as well as other banking organizations. Consolidation, on-going investor push-backs, enhanced regulatory guidance and the promise of equal oversight for both banks and independent lenders have created challenges for small and medium-sized independent mortgage lenders. Wintrust Mortgage's size, bank affiliation, regulatory competency, branding, technology, business development tools and reputation makes the firm well positioned to compete in this environment. In 2013, we expanded our mortgage banking business through the acquisition of certain assets and liabilities of Surety Financial Services of Sherman Oaks, California. While earnings will fluctuate with the rise and fall of long-term interest rates, we expect that mortgage banking revenue will be a continuous source of revenue for us and our mortgage lending relationships will continue to provide franchise value to our other financial service businesses.

In 2012,2014 we furthered our growth strategy by purchasing, through certain of our banking subsidiaries, a number of additional banks and banking locations. In three FDIC-assisted transactions, we purchased a total of tenWe acquired 12 new banking locations three in Chicago, one in Hanover Park, Illinois, one in Crete, Illinois, two in Frankfort, Illinois, one in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, one in Steger, Illinoissouthern Wisconsin and one in St. John, Indiana. The location in St. John Indiana was subsequently closed and the Company divested of the three Chicago locations, comprising Second Federal Savings and Loan Association of Chicago ("Second Federal"), in February 2013. In addition, we acquired two new banking locations in a non-FDIC-assisted transaction in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago Illinois that were merged into Beverly Bank, as well as onemetropolitan area. Acquiring these banking location in Orland Park, Illinois through the acquisition of a branch of Suburban Bank & Trust Company ("Suburban") that was merged into Old Plank Trail Bank. Each of these acquisitionslocations allowed us to expand our franchise into strategic locations on a cost-effective basis. In addition, the Company opened new branch locations in Illinois in Prospect Heights and Evergreen Park. We believe that these strategic acquisitions and branch expansion will allow us to grow into contiguous markets which we do not currently service and expand our footprint.

FIFC encounters intense competition from numerous other firms, including a number of national commercial premium finance companies, companies affiliated with insurance carriers, independent insurance brokers who offer premium finance services and other lending institutions. Some of its competitors are larger and have greater financial and other resources. FIFC competes with these entities by emphasizing a high level of knowledge of the insurance industry, flexibility in structuring financing transactions, and the timely funding of qualifying contracts. We believe that our commitment to service also distinguishes us from our competitors. Additionally, we believe that FIFC's acquisition of a large life insurance premium finance portfolio and related assets in 2009 enhanced our ability to market and sell life insurance premium finance products. FIFC Canada competes with one national commercial premium finance company and a numberfew regional providers. In 2014, FIFC Canada expanded its operations through the acquisition of regional providers.two affiliated Canadian insurance premium funding and payment services companies.

Tricom competes with numerous other firms, including a small number of similar niche finance companies and payroll processing firms, as well as various finance companies, banks and other lending institutions. Tricom's management believes that its commitment to service distinguishes it from competitors. To the extent that other finance companies, financial institutions and payroll processing firms add greater programs and services to their existing businesses, Tricom's operations could be negatively affected.

Our wealth management companies (CTC, WHI and Great Lakes Advisors) compete with larger wealth management subsidiaries of other larger bank holding companies as well as with other trust companies, brokerage and other financial service companies, stockbrokers and financial advisors. We believe we can successfully compete for trust, asset management and brokerage business by offering personalized attention and customer service to small to midsize businesses and affluent individuals. We continue to recruit and hire experienced professionals from the larger Chicago area wealth management companies, which is expected to help in attracting new customer relationships.

Our business is subject to extensive regulation and supervision under federal and state laws and regulations. The Company is a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”), subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the Federal Reserve. Our subsidiary banks are subject to regulation, supervision, and examination by the agency that granted their banking charters-(i) the OCC for Barrington Bank, Crystal Lake Bank, Schaumburg Bank, Beverly Bank and Old Plank Trail Bank, our nationally-chartered subsidiary banks;Bank; (ii) the Illinois Secretary for Lake Forest Bank, Hinsdale Bank, North Shore CommunityWintrust Bank, Libertyville Bank, Northbrook Bank, Village Bank, Wheaton Bank, State Bank of Thethe Lakes and St. Charles Bank, each of which is an Illinois state-chartered bank;Bank; and (iii) the Wisconsin Department for Town Bank, a Wisconsin state-chartered bank.Bank. Our Illinois and Wisconsin state-chartered bank subsidiaries are also members of the Federal

Our non-bank subsidiaries generally are subject to regulation by their functional regulators, including state finance and insurance agencies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"),SEC, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Chicago Stock Exchange, the OCC, as well as by the Federal Reserve.

The following is a description of some of the laws and regulations that currently affect our business. By necessity, the descriptions below are summaries whichthat do not purport to be complete, and whichthat are qualified in their entirety by reference to those statutes and regulations discussed, and all regulatory interpretations thereof. In recent years, lawmakers and regulators have increased their focus on the financial services industry. Additional changes in applicable laws, regulations, or the interpretations thereof are possible, and could have a material adverse effect on our business or the business of our subsidiaries.

The Company is a bank holding company that has elected to be treated by the Federal Reserve as a financial holding company for purposes of the BHC Act. The activities of bank holding companies generally are limited to the business of banking, managing or controlling banks, and other activities determined by the Federal Reserve, by regulation or order prior to November 11, 1999, to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto. Impermissible activities for bank holding companies and their subsidiaries include activities that are related to commerce, such as retail sales of nonfinancial products or manufacturing.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (the “GLB Act”) amended the BHC Act to establishAs a new regulatory framework applicable to “financial holding companies,” which are bank holding companies that meet certain qualifications and elect financial holding company, status. Financial holding companies and their non-bank subsidiarieswe may engage in an expanded range of activities, including securities and insurance activities conducted as agent or principal that are considered to be financial in nature, ornature. Moreover, financial holding companies may engage in activities incidental or complementary to financial activities, if the Federal Reserve determines that such activities pose no substantial risk to the safety or soundness of depository institutions or the financial system in general, including the businesses conducted by our wealth management subsidiaries.

The BHC Act generally requires us to obtain prior approval from the Federal Reserve before acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5 percent5% of the voting shares of, or substantially all the assets of, a new bank, or to merge or consolidate with another bank holding company. As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, the BHC Act also now requires us to be well-capitalized and well-managed, notas opposed to merely adequately capitalized and adequately managed as was previously required, in order to acquire a bank located outside of our home state. In addition,Additionally, subject to certain exceptions, the BHC Act generally prohibits us from acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of voting shares of any company engaged in activities that are not permissible for us to engage in.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, and Federal Reserve regulations and policy require us to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength for our subsidiary banks, and to commit resources to support the banks. This support may be required even if doing so may adversely affect our ability to meet our other obligations.

Acquisitions of ourthe Company’s voting stock above certain thresholds may be subject to prior regulatory notice or approval under applicable federal and state banking laws. Investors are responsible for ensuring that they do not, directly or indirectly, acquire shares of our stock in excess of the amount that can be acquired without regulatory approval under the BHC Act, the Change in Bank Control Act, the Illinois Banking Act and Wisconsin Department.banking laws.

The Dodd-Frank Act strengthened the ability of the federal bank regulatory agencies to supervise and examine bank holding companies and their subsidiaries. To date, many final rulemakings underThe Dodd-Frank Act represents a sweeping reform of the U.S. supervisory and regulatory framework applicable to financial institutions and capital markets in the wake of the global financial crisis, certain aspects of which are described below in more detail. In particular, and among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act: created a Financial Stability Oversight Council as part of a regulatory structure for identifying emerging systemic risks and improving interagency cooperation; created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is authorized to regulate providers of consumer credit, savings, payment and other consumer financial products and services; narrowed the scope of federal preemption of state consumer laws enjoyed by national banks and federal savings associations and expanded the authority of state attorneys general to bring actions to enforce federal consumer protection legislation; imposed more stringent capital requirements on bank holding companies and subjected certain activities, including interstate mergers and acquisitions, to heightened capital conditions; with respect to mortgage lending, (i) significantly expanded requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property, (ii) imposed strict rules on mortgage servicing, and (iii) required the originator of a securitized loan, or the sponsor of a securitization, to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of securitized exposures unless the underlying exposures are qualified residential mortgages or meet certain underwriting standards; repealed the prohibition on the payment of interest on business checking accounts; restricted the interchange fees payable on debit card transactions for issuers with $10 billion in assets or greater; subject to numerous exceptions, prohibited depository institutions and affiliates from certain investments in, and sponsorship of, hedge funds and private equity funds and from engaging in proprietary trading; provided for enhanced regulation of advisers to private funds and of the derivatives markets; enhanced oversight of credit rating agencies; and prohibited banking agency requirements tied to credit ratings. These statutory changes shifted the regulatory framework for financial institutions, impacted the way in which they do business and have the potential to constrain revenues.

Numerous provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are required to be implemented through rulemaking by the appropriate federal regulatory agencies. Many of the required regulations have notbeen issued and others have been released for public comment, but have yet been completed. The exactto be released in final form. Furthermore, while the reforms primarily target systemically important financial service providers, their influence is expected to filter down in varying degrees to smaller institutions over time. We will continue to evaluate the effect of the Dodd-Frank Act changes; however, in many respects, the ultimate impact of the changing regulatory environment on our businessDodd-Frank Act will not be fully known for years, and operations depends upon the final implementing regulations and the actions of our competitors, customers, and other market participants. However, the changes mandated byno current assurance may be given that the Dodd-Frank Act, as well asor any other possiblenew legislative and regulatory changes, generally couldwill not have a significantnegative impact on us.the results of operations and financial condition of the Company and its subsidiaries. For afurther discussion of the most recent developments under the Dodd-Frank Act, see “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Overview and Strategy - Financial Regulatory Reform.”

The Dodd-Frank Act added a new Section 13 to the BHC Act, known as the so-called “Volcker Rule,Rule.” which generally restricts certainOn December 10, 2013, five U.S. financial regulators, including the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC, adopted final rules implementing the Volcker Rule. The final rules prohibit banking entities and their subsidiaries or affiliates, from (1) engaging in short-term proprietary trading activitiesfor their own accounts, and owning equity(2) having certain ownership interests in and relationships with hedge funds or sponsoring any private equity or hedge fund. The draft implementing regulations forfunds.  Further, the final rules are intended to provide greater clarity with respect to both the extent of those primary prohibitions and of the related exemptions and exclusions. These rules also require each regulated entity to establish an internal compliance program that is consistent with the extent to which it engages in activities covered by the Volcker Rule, were issued by various regulatory agencies in October 2011, butwhich must include (for the largest entities) making regular reports about those activities to regulators. Although the final rules provide some differences in compliance and reporting obligations based on size, the fundamental prohibitions of the Volcker Rule apply to banking entities of any size, including the Company and its bank subsidiaries. These rules are effective April 1, 2014, but the conformance period has been extended from its statutory end date of July 21, 2014 until July 21, 2015 for proprietary trading and until July 2017 to divest private equity and hedge funds.

We have not yet been adopted. In April 2012,evaluated the Federal Reserve announcedimplications of these rules on our investments and determined that entitiessome of the securities in our investment portfolio will be subject to the Volcker Rule would have until July 21, 2014and, absent any further amendments to comply. Under the proposed regulations, we (or our affiliates) may be restricted from engaging in proprietary trading, investing in third party hedge or private equity funds or sponsoring new funds unless we qualify for an exemption from the rule. We will not know the full impact of the Volcker Rule, will have to be divested or converted. In one instance, the need to divest that security at a fixed near-term date caused us to record an other-than-temporary impairment of $3.3 million on our operationsthat security in the fourth quarter of 2013. We do not believe that any other required divestitures or reporting requirements will have any material financial condition untilimplications on the final implementing regulations are adopted.

The Company and our subsidiary banksWe are subject to risk-basedvarious regulatory capital requirements both at the Company and at the subsidiary bank level. Failure to meet minimum capital requirements could result in certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have an adverse material effect on our financial statements. Under capital adequacy guidelines and the regulatory framework for prompt corrective action (described below), we must meet specific capital guidelines establishedthat involve

quantitative measures of our assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items as calculated under regulatory accounting policies. Our capital amounts and classification are also subject to judgments by the Federal Reserve, OCC,regulators regarding qualitative components, risk weightings, and FDIC. These guidelines defineother factors. We have consistently maintained regulatory capital and establish minimumratios at or above the well-capitalized standards. These capital ratiosrules have undergone significant changes with the adoption by the federal banking agencies of final rules that will implement Basel III requirements, which are discussed below.

Under capital rules in relation to assets, both on an aggregate basis andeffect for the year ended December 31, 2014, as adjusted for credit risks and off-balance sheet exposures. As a bank holding company, we arewere required to maintain a minimum ratio of qualifying total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8.0%, of which at least 4.0% must be in the form of Tier 1 capital (generally common equity, retained earnings and a limited amount of qualifying preferred stock, less goodwill and certain core deposit intangibles). The remainder may consist of Tier 2 capital, which, subject to certain conditions and limitations, consists of: the allowance for credit losses; perpetual preferred stock and related surplus; hybrid capital instruments; unrealized holding gains on marketable equity securities; perpetual debt and mandatory convertible debt securities; term subordinated debt and intermediate-term preferred stock. The Federal Reserve has stated that Tier 1 voting common equity should be the predominant form of capital.

Capital requirements for the banks generally parallel theFailure to meet minimum capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies. In addition, the federal banking agencies adopted a final rule which modified the risk-based capital standards to provide for consideration of interest rate risk when assessing the capital adequacy of a bank.could result in certain mandatory and possible additional discretionary actions by regulators that, if undertaken, could have an adverse material effect on our financial statements. Under this rule, the federal banking agencies must explicitly include a bank's exposure to declines in the economic value of its capital due to changes in interest rates as a factor in evaluating a bank's capital adequacy. The federal banking agencies also have adopted a joint policy statement providing guidance to banks for managing interest rate risk. The policy statement emphasizes the importance of adequate oversight by management and a sound risk management process. The assessment of interest rate risk management made by the banks' examiners will be incorporated into the banks' overall risk management rating and used to determine the effectiveness of management.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision has drafted frameworks for the regulation of capital and liquidity of internationally active banking organizations, the most recent of which is generally referred to as “Basel III.” For more information onIn July 2013, the federal banking agencies' June 2012 proposal, see “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Overview and Strategy - Financial Regulatory Reform.”

Under the final rules, compliance was required on January 1, 2015, for the Company, subject to a transition period for several aspects of the final rules, including the new minimum capital ratio requirements, the capital conservation buffer, and the regulatory capital adjustments and deductions. Requirements to maintain higher levels of capital could adversely impact our return on equity. We are still in the process of assessing the impacts of these complex final rules; however, we believe that we will continue to exceed all estimated well-capitalized regulatory requirements on a fully phased-in basis. For more information, see “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Overview and Strategy - Financial Regulatory Reform.”

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and non-banking subsidiaries. Since our consolidated net income consists largely of net income of our bank and non-bank subsidiaries, our ability to pay dividends depends largely upon our receipt of dividends from our subsidiaries. There are various federal and state law limitations on the extent to which our banking subsidiaries can declare and pay dividends to us, including minimum regulatory capital requirements, federal and state banking law requirements concerning the payment of dividends out of net profits or surplus, and general regulatory oversight to prevent unsafe or unsound practices. No assurances can be given that the banks will, in any circumstances, pay dividends to the Company.

In general, applicable federal and state banking laws prohibit, without prior regulatory approval, insured depository institutions, such as our bank subsidiaries, from making dividend distributions if such distributions are not paid out of available earnings, or would cause the institution to fail to meet applicable minimum capital requirements. In addition, our right, and the right of our shareholders and creditors, to participate in any distribution of the assets or earnings of our bank and non-bank subsidiaries is further subject to the prior claims of creditors of our subsidiaries.

Our ability to declare and pay dividends to our shareholders is similarly limited by federal banking law and Federal Reserve regulations and policy. Federal Reserve policy provides that a bank holding company should not pay dividends unless (i) the bank holding company's net income over the last four quarters (net of dividends paid) is sufficient to fully fund the dividends, (ii) the prospective rate of earnings retention appears consistent with the capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition of the bank holding company and its subsidiaries and (iii) the bank holding company will continue to meet minimum required capital adequacy ratios. The policy also provides that a bank holding company should inform the Federal Reserve reasonably in advance of declaring or paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period for which the dividend is being paid or that could result in a material adverse change to the bank holding company's capital structure. Bank holding companies also are required to consult with the Federal Reserve before increasing dividends or redeeming or repurchasing capital instruments. Additionally, the Federal Reserve could prohibit or limit the payment of dividends by a bank holding company if it determines that payment of the dividend would constitute an unsafe or unsound practice.

As a result of the Dodd-Frank Act, bank holding companies will be subject to an “early remediation” regime that is substantially similar to the prompt corrective action regime applicable to banks. The remedial actions also increase as the condition of the holding company decreases,deteriorates, although the proposed holding company regime would use several forward-looking triggers to identify when a holding company is in troubled condition, beyond just the capital ratios used under the prompt corrective action regime.

As of December 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, each of the Company's banks was categorized as “well capitalized.“well-capitalized.” In order to maintain the Company's designation as a financial holding company, the Company and each of the banks is required to maintain capital ratios at or above the “well capitalized”“well-capitalized” levels. Management is committed to maintaining the Company's capital levels above the “well-capitalized” levels established by the Federal Reserve for bank holding companies.

The federal bank regulatory agencies have broad authority to issue orders to depository institutions and their holding companies prohibiting activities that constitute violations of law, rule, regulation, or administrative order, or that represent unsafe or unsound banking practices, as determined by the federal banking agencies. The federal banking agencies also are empowered to require affirmative actions to correct any violation or practice; issue administrative orders that can be judicially enforced; direct increases in capital; limit dividends and distributions; restrict growth; assess civil money penalties against institutions or individuals who violate any laws, regulations, orders, or written agreements with the agencies; order termination of certain activities of holding companies or their non-bank subsidiaries; remove officers and directors; order divestiture of ownership or control of a non-banking subsidiary by a holding company; or terminate deposit insurance and appoint a conservator or receiver.

The FDIA imposes various requirements on insured depository institutions, including our subsidiary banks. Among other things, the FDIA includes requirements applicable to the closure of branches; merger or consolidation by or with another insured bank; additional disclosures to depositors with respect to terms and interest rates applicable to deposit accounts; uniform regulations for extensions of credit secured by real estate; restrictions on activities of and investments by state-chartered banks; and increased reporting requirements on agricultural loans and loans to small businesses. Under the “cross-guarantee” provision of the FDIA, insured depository institutions such as the subsidiary banks may be liable to the FDIC for any losses incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, by the FDIC resulting from the default of, or FDIC assistance to, any other commonly controlled insured depository institution. All of our subsidiary banks are commonly controlled within the meaning of the cross-guarantee provision.

The FDIA also requires the federal bank regulatory agencies to prescribe standards of safety and soundness, by regulations or guidelines, relating generally to operations and management, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation. The federal bank regulatory agencies have adopted a set of guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards pursuant to the FDIA. The guidelines establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, informational security, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, the guidelines require appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risks and exposures specified in the guidelines. The guidelines prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice, and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal shareholder.

The deposits of each of our subsidiary banks are insured by the DIF up to applicable limits. The Dodd-Frank Act increased the standard maximum deposit insurance amount toof $250,000 per depositor, and temporarily provided unlimited deposit insurance of the net amount of certain non-interest-bearing transaction accounts through December 31, 2012.

In addition, the Deposit Insurance Fund Act of 1996 authorizes the Financing Corporation (“FICO”) to impose assessments on DIF assessable deposits in order to service the interest on FICO's bond obligations. The FICO annualized assessment rate is $0.64adjusted quarterly and $0.66 per $100 of deposits for the firstfourth quarter of 2013 and the first quarter2014 was approximately 0.620 basis points (62 cents per $10,000 of 2012, respectively.assessable deposits).

Federal and state banking laws impose limits on the amount of credit a bank can extend to any one person (or group of related persons). The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of these restrictions for national banks under federal law to include credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing transactions. Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act also amended the FDIA to prohibit state-chartered banks (including certain of our banking subsidiaries) from engaging in derivative transactions unless the state lending limit laws take into account credit exposure to such transactions.

Applicable banking laws and regulations also place restrictions on loans by FDIC-insured banks and their affiliates to their directors, executive officers and principal shareholders.

The Dodd-Frank Act eliminated prohibitions under federal law against the payment of interest on demand deposits, thus allowing businesses to have interest-bearing checking accounts. Depending upon the market response, this change could have an adverse impact on our interest expense.

Under the anti-tying provisions of the BHC Act, among other things, each of our subsidiary banks is prohibited from conditioning the availability of any product or service, or varying the price for any product or service, on the requirement that the customer obtain some additional product or service from the bank or any of its affiliates, other than loans, deposits and trust services.

Certain “covered” transactions between a bank and its holding company or other non-bank affiliates are subject to various restrictions imposed by state and federal law and regulation. Such “covered transactions” include loans and other extensions of credit by the bank to the affiliate, investments in securities issued by the affiliate, purchases of assets from the affiliate, payments of fees or other distributions to the affiliate, certain derivative transactions that create a credit exposure to an affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of the affiliate. In general, these affiliate transaction rules limit the amount of covered transactions between an institution and a single affiliate, as well as the aggregate amount of covered transactions between an institution and all of its affiliates. In addition, covered transactions that are credit transactions must be secured by acceptable collateral, and all covered transactions must be on terms that are at least as favorable to the institution as then-prevailing in the market for comparable transactions with unaffiliated entities. Transactions between affiliated banks may be subject to certain exemptions under applicable federal law.

Under the CRA, a financial institution has a continuing and affirmative obligation, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution, to help meet the credit needs of its entire community, including low and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA does not establish specific lending requirements or programs for financial institutions nor does it limit an institution's discretion to develop the types of products and services that it believes are best suited to its particular community, consistent with the CRA.

TheOur banks and some other operating subsidiaries are also subject to many federal consumer protection statutes and regulations including the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the FCRA,Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act and analogous state statutes, the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Wintrust Mortgage, as a division of Barrington Bank & Trust Company, N.A. (“Wintrust Mortgage”), must also comply with many of these consumer protection statutes and regulations. Violation of these statutes can lead to significant potential liability for damages and penalties, in litigation by consumers as well as enforcement actions by regulators. Some of the key requirements of these laws:

During the past several years, Congress has amended these laws and federal regulators have proposed and finalized a number of significant amendments to the regulations implementing these laws. Among other things, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the OCC have adopted new rules applicable to the banks (and in some cases, Wintrust Mortgage, as a division of Barrington Bank)Mortgage) that govern consumer credit practices and disclosures, as well as rules that govern overdraft practices and disclosures. These rules may affect the profitability of our consumer banking activities.

TheAs described above, the Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) within the Federal Reserve, and bothCFPB. The law transferred to the CFPB existing regulatory authority with respect to many of these consumer related regulations, and gave the CFPB new authority under the Consumer Financial Protection Act.  In July 2011, many of the consumer financial protection functions previously assigned to other federal agencies shifted to the CFPB.  The CFPB now has broad rulemaking authority over a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to banks and other providers of financial products and services, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive practices,” to ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services, and to ensure that such markets are fair, transparent and competitive.  The Dodd-Frank Act also required the CFPB to adopt a number of new specific regulatory requirements.  These new rules may increase the costs of engaging in these activities for all market participants, including our subsidiaries.  In addition to the CFPB, other federal and state regulators have issued, and may in the future issue, regulations and guidance affecting aspects of our business. The developments may impose additional burdens on us and our subsidiaries.  The CFPB has broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority.  Although we and our subsidiary banks are not subject to CFPB examination, the actions taken by the CFPB, including from its rulemaking authority, may influence enforcement actions and positions taken by other federal and state regulators, including those with jurisdiction over us and our subsidiaries.  Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes state attorneys general and other state officials to enforce consumer protection rules issued by the CFPB.

The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act to impose a number of new requirements regarding the origination and servicing of residential mortgage loans. These amendments created a variety of new consumer protections,protections. First, it significantly expands underwriting requirements applicable to loans secured by 1-4 family residential real property and augments federal law combating predatory lending practices. In addition to numerous new disclosure requirements, the Dodd-Frank Act imposes new standards for mortgage loan originations on all lenders, including limitationsbanks and savings associations, in an effort to strongly encourage lenders to verify a borrower’s ability to repay, while also establishing a presumption of compliance for certain “qualified mortgages.” In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act generally requires lenders or securitizers to retain an economic interest in the credit risk relating to loans that the lender sells, and other asset-backed securities 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.

On January 10, 2013, the CFPB issued a final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s ability-to-repay requirements. Under the final rule, lenders, in assessing a borrower’s ability to repay a mortgage-related obligation, must consider eight underwriting factors: (i) current or reasonably expected income or assets; (ii) current employment status; (iii) monthly payment on the mannersubject transaction; (iv) monthly payment on any simultaneous loan; (v) monthly payment for all mortgage-related obligations; (vi) current debt obligations, alimony, and child support; (vii) monthly debt-to-income ratio or residual income; and (viii) credit history. The final rule also includes guidance regarding the application of, and methodology for evaluating, these factors.

Further, the final rule clarified that qualified mortgages do not include “no-doc” loans and loans with negative amortization, interest-only payments, balloon payments, terms in excess of 30 years, or points and fees paid by whichthe borrower that exceed 3% of the loan originatorsamount, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, for qualified mortgages, the rule mandated that the monthly payment be calculated on the highest payment that will occur in the first five years of the loan, and required that the borrower’s total debt-to-income ratio generally may not be compensated.more than 43%. The CFPB recentlyfinal rule also provided that certain mortgages that satisfy the general product feature requirements for qualified mortgages and that also satisfy the underwriting requirements of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (while they operate under federal conservatorship or receivership), or the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Veterans Affairs, or Department of Agriculture or Rural Housing Service, are also considered to be qualified mortgages. This second category of qualified mortgages will phase out as the aforementioned federal agencies issue their own rules regarding qualified mortgages, the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ends, and, in any event, after seven years.

releasedAs set forth in the Dodd-Frank Act, subprime (or higher-priced) mortgage loans are subject to the ability-to-repay requirement, and the final rule provided for a rebuttable presumption of lender compliance for those loans. The final rule also applied the ability-to-repay requirement to prime loans, while also providing a conclusive presumption of compliance (i.e., a safe harbor) for prime loans that are also qualified mortgages. Additionally, the final rule generally prohibited prepayment penalties (subject to certain exceptions) and set forth a 3-year record retention period with respect to documenting and demonstrating the ability-to-repay requirement and other provisions.

Previously existing regulations regarding severalconcerning the compensation of mortgage loan originators have been amended. As a result of these amendments, mortgage loan originators may not receive compensation based on a mortgage transaction’s terms or conditions other than the amount of credit extended under the mortgage loan. Further, the new requirements, includingstandards limit the requirementtotal points and fees that a bank and/or a broker may charge on conforming and jumbo loans to 3% of the total loan amount. Mortgage loan originators may receive compensation from a consumer or from a lender, but not both. These rules contain requirements designed to prohibit mortgage lender assessloan originators from “steering” consumers to loans that provide mortgage loan originators with greater compensation. In addition, the rules contain other requirements concerning recordkeeping.

On January 17, 2013, the CFPB announced rules to implement certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act relating to mortgage servicing. The new servicing rules require servicers to meet certain benchmarks for loan servicing and verifycustomer service in general. Servicers must provide periodic billing statements and certain required notices and acknowledgments, promptly credit borrowers’ accounts for payments received and promptly investigate complaints by borrowers and are required to take additional steps before purchasing insurance to protect the lender’s interest in the property. The new servicing rules also call for additional notice, review and timing requirements with respect to delinquent borrowers. The new servicing rules took effect on January 10, 2014.

In order to ensure compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act mortgage-related rules the Company consolidated its consumer mortgage loan origination and loan servicing operations within Wintrust Mortgage. All consumer mortgage applications are taken through Wintrust Mortgage which has extensively trained loan originators located at each of our branches. While in certain limited cases our banks may offer specialized consumer mortgages to our customers, we expect that on a borrower's “abilitygoing forward basis, consumer mortgages for all of our banks will be originated and closed by Wintrust Mortgage. Wintrust Mortgage then sells loans to repay” a residentialthird parties or to our banks. To the extent that we retain consumer mortgage loan. For further discussion of these regulations, see “Management's Discussionloans in our bank portfolios, our banks have engaged Wintrust Mortgage to provide loan servicing. We believe that by centralizing loan origination and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Overview and Strategy - Financial Regulatory Reform.”servicing operations we will not only meet the new compliance requirements, but reduce costs associated with such compliance.

The Dodd-Frank Act also amended the laws governing federal preemption of state laws as applied to national banks, and eliminated federal preemption for subsidiaries of national banks. These changes may subject the Company's national banks and their subsidiaries and divisions, including Wintrust Mortgage, to additional state regulation and enforcement.

The Dodd-Frank Act added a new statutory requirement that interchange fees for electronic debit transactions that are paid to or charged by payment card issuers (including our bank subsidiaries) be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer. The Act also gave the Federal Reserve the authority to establish rules regarding these interchange fees. The Federal Reserve issued final regulations that were effective in October 2011, and that limit interchange fees for electronic debit transactions to 21 cents plus .05% of the transaction, plus an additional one cent per transaction fraud adjustment. The rule also imposes requirements regarding routing and exclusivity of electronic debit transactions, and generally requires that debit cards be usable in at least two unaffiliated networks.

The Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) and USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 contain anti-money laundering (“AML”) and financial transparency provisions intended to detect, and prevent the use of the U.S. financial system for, money laundering and terrorist financing activities. The BSA, as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act, requires depository institutions and their holding companies to undertake activities including maintaining an anti-money launderingAML program, verifying the identity of clients, monitoring for and reporting suspicious transactions, reporting on cash transactions exceeding specified thresholds, and responding to requests for information by regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies. Each of our subsidiary banks is subject to the BSA and, therefore, is required to provide its employees with AML training, designate an AML compliance officer and undergo an annual, independent

audit to assess the effectiveness of its AML program. We have implemented policies, procedures and internal controls that are designed to comply with these AML requirements.

Legal requirements concerning the use and protection of client information affect many aspects of the Company's business, and are continuing to evolve. Current legal requirements include the privacy and information safeguarding provisions of the GLB Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the amendments adopted by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (the “FACT Act”), as well as state law requirements. The GLB Act requires a financial institution to disclose its privacy policy to consumer-purposecertain customers, and requires the financial institution to allow those customers to opt-out of some sharing of the customers' nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third persons. In accordance with these requirements, we and each of our banks and operating subsidiaries provide a written privacy to each affected customer when the customer relationship begins and an annual basis. As described in the privacy notice, we protect the security of information about our customers, educate our employees about the importance of protecting customer privacy, and allow ouraffected customers to opt out of certain types of information sharing. We and our subsidiaries also require business partners with which we share information to have adequate security safeguards and to follow the requirements of the GLB Act. The GLB Act, as interpreted by the federal banking regulators, and state laws require us to take certain actions, including possible notice to affected customers, in the event that sensitive customer information is comprised. We and/or each of the banks and operating subsidiaries may need to amend our privacy policies and adapt our internal procedures in that eventhe event that these legal requirements, or the regulators' interpretation of them, change, or if new requirements are added.

Like other lenders, the banks and several of our operating subsidiaries utilize credit bureau data in their underwriting activities. Use of such data is regulated under the FCRA, and the FCRA also regulates reporting information to credit bureaus, prescreening individuals for credit offers, sharing of information between affiliates, and using affiliate data for marketing purposes. Similar state laws may impose additional requirements on us, the banks and our operating subsidiaries.

WHI and Great Lakes Advisors are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state securities laws. WHI is registered as a broker-dealer with the SEC and in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Both WHI and Great Lakes Advisors are registered as investment advisers with the SEC. In addition, WHI is a member of several self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), including the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”)FINRA and the Chicago Stock Exchange. Although WHI is required to be registered with the SEC, much of its regulation has been delegated to SROs that the SEC oversees, including FINRA and the national securities exchanges. In addition to SEC rules and regulations, the SROs adopt rules, subject to approval of the SEC, that govern all aspects of business in the securities industry and conduct periodic examinations of member firms. WHI is also subject to regulation by state securities commissions in states in which it conducts business. WHI and Great Lakes Advisors are registered only with the SEC as investment advisers, but certain of their advisory personnel are subject to regulation by state securities regulatory agencies.

As a result of federal and state registrations and SRO memberships, WHI is subject to over-lappingoverlapping schemes of regulation whichthat cover all aspects of its securities businesses. Such regulations cover, among other things, minimum net capital requirements; uses and safekeeping of clients' funds; record-keeping and reporting requirements; supervisory and organizational procedures intended to assure compliance with securities laws and to prevent improper trading on material nonpublic information; personnel-related matters, including qualification and licensing of supervisory and sales personnel; limitations on extensions of credit in securities transactions; clearance and settlement procedures; “suitability” determinations as to certain customer transactions; limitations on the amounts and types of fees and commissions that may be charged to customers; and regulation of proprietary trading activities and affiliate transactions. Violations of the laws and regulations governing a broker-dealer's actions can result in censures, fines, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, revocation of licenses or registrations, the suspension or expulsion from the securities industry of a broker-dealer or its officers or employees, or other similar actions by both federal and state securities administrators, as well as the SROs.

As a registered broker-dealer, WHI is subject to the SEC's net capital rule as well as the net capital requirements of the SROs of which it is a member. Net capital rules, which specify minimum capital requirements, are generally designed to measure general financial integrity and liquidity and require that at least a minimum amount of net assets be kept in relatively liquid form. Rules of FINRA and other SROs also impose limitations and requirements on the transfer of member organizations' assets. Compliance with net capital requirements may limit the Company's operations requiring the intensive use of capital. These requirements restrict the Company's ability to withdraw capital from WHI, which in turn may limit itsthe Company's ability to pay dividends, repay debt or redeem or purchase shares of itsthe Company's own outstanding stock. WHI is a member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (“SIPC”), which subject to certain limitations, serves to oversee the liquidation of a member brokerage firm, and to return missing cash, stock and other securities owed to the firm's brokerage customers, in the event a member broker-dealer fails.

The general SIPC protection for customers' securities accounts held by a member broker-dealer is up to $500,000 for each eligible customer, including a maximum of $250,000 for cash claims. SIPC does not protect brokerage customers against investment losses.

WHI in its capacity as an investment adviser areis subject to regulations covering matters such as transactions between clients, transactions between the adviser and clients, custody of client assets and management of mutual funds and other client accounts. The principal purpose of regulation and discipline of investment firms is the protection of customers, clients and the securities markets rather than the protection of creditors and shareholders of investment firms. Sanctions that may be imposed for failure to comply with laws or regulations governing investment advisers include the suspension of individual employees, limitations on an adviser's engaging in various asset management activities for specified periods of time, the revocation of registrations, other censures and fines.

Employees

Available Information

The Company’s Internet address is www.wintrust.com. The Company makes available at this address, free of charge, its annual report on Form 10-K, its annual reports to shareholders, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.

The following statistical information is provided in accordance with the requirements of The Securities Act Industry Guide 3, Statistical Disclosure by Bank Holding Companies, which is part of Regulation S-K as promulgated by the SEC. This data should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto, and Management’s Discussion and Analysis which are contained in this Form 10-K.

An investment in our securities is subject to risks inherent to our business. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect Wintrust are described below. Before making an investment decision, you should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below together with all of the other information included or incorporated by reference in this report. Additional risks and uncertainties that management is not aware of or that management currently deems immaterial may also impair Wintrust's business operations. This report is qualified in its entirety by these risk factors. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. If this were to happen, the value of our securities could decline significantly, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Related to Our Business and Operating Environment

The U.S. economy was in a recession from the third quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2009, and economic activity continues to be restrained. The housing and real estate markets have also been experiencing extraordinary slowdownsvolatility since 2007. Additionally, unemployment rates remained historically high during these periods. These factors have had a significant negative effect on us and other companies in the financial services industry. As a lending institution, our business is directly affected by the ability of our borrowers to repay their loans, as well as by the value of collateral, such as real estate, that secures many of our loans. Market turmoil has led to an increase in charge-offs and has negatively impacted consumer confidence and the level of business activity. However, net charge-offs, excluding covered loans, decreased to $74.8$27.2 million in 20122014 from $103.3$56.1 million in 20112013 and non-performing loans, excluding covered loans, decreased to $118.2$78.7 million as of December 31, 20122014 from $120.1$103.3 million as of December 31, 2011.2013. Our balance of other real estate owned (“OREO”), excluding covered other real estate owned, was $62.9$45.6 million at December 31, 20122014 and $86.5$50.5 million at December 31, 2011.2013. Continued weakness or furtherresumed deterioration in the economy, real estate markets or unemployment rates, particularly in the markets in which we operate, will likely diminish the ability of our borrowers to repay loans that we have given them, the value of any collateral securing such loans and may cause increases in delinquencies, problem assets, charge-offs and provision for credit losses, all of which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Further, the underwriting and credit monitoring policies and procedures that we have adopted may not prevent losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Except for our premium finance business and certain other niche businesses, our success depends primarily on the general economic conditions of the specific local markets in which we operate. Unlike larger national or other regional banks that are more geographically diversified, we provide banking and financial services to customers primarily in the Chicago metropolitan and southeastsouthern Wisconsin metropolitanmarket areas. The local economic conditions in these areas significantly impact the demand for our products and services as well as the ability of our customers to repay loans, the value of the collateral securing loans and the stability of our deposit funding sources. Specifically, mostmany of the loans in our portfolio are secured by real estate located in the Chicago metropolitan area. OurLike many areas, our local market area has experienced negative changessignificant volatility in overall market conditions relating to real estate valuation. These market conditions are exacerbated by the liquidation of troubled assets into the market, which creates additional supply and drives appraised valuations of real estate lower.values in recent years. Further declines in economic conditions, including inflation, recession, unemployment, changes in securities markets or other factors impacting these local markets could, in turn, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Continued deteriorationDeterioration in the real estate markets where collateral for our mortgage loans is located could adversely affect the borrower's ability to repay the loan and the value of the collateral securing the loan, and in turn the value of our assets.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses that is intended to absorb credit losses that we expect to incur in our loan portfolio. At each balance sheet date, our management determines the amount of the allowance for loan losses based on our estimate of probable and reasonably estimable losses in our loan portfolio, taking into account probable losses that have been identified relating to

specific borrowing relationships, as well as probable losses inherent in the loan portfolio and credit undertakings that are not specifically identified.

Because our allowance for loan losses represents an estimate of probable losses, there is no certainty that it will be adequate over time to cover credit losses in the portfolio, particularly if there is continued deterioration in general economic or market conditions or events that adversely affect specific customers. In 2012,2014, we charged off $74.8$27.2 million in loans, excluding covered loans, (net of recoveries) and decreased our allowance for loan losses, excluding the allowance for covered loans, from $110.4$96.9 million at December 31, 20112013 to $107.4$91.7 million at December 31, 2012.2014. Our allowance for loan losses, excluding the allowance for covered loans, represents 0.91%0.64% of total loans, excluding covered loans outstanding at December 31, 2012,2014, compared to 1.05%0.75% at December 31, 2011.2013.

Although we believe our loan loss allowance is adequate to absorb probable and reasonably estimable losses in our loan portfolio, if our estimates are inaccurate and our actual loan losses exceed the amount that is anticipated, or if the loss assumptions we used in calculating our reserves are significantly different from those we actually experience, our financial condition and liquidity could be materially adversely affected.

For more information regarding our allowance for loan losses, see “Loan Portfolio and Asset Quality” under Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

The repayment of our commercial loans is dependent upon the financial success and viability of the borrower. If the economy remains weak for a prolonged period or experiences further deterioration or if the industry or market in which the borrower operates weakens, our borrowers may experience depressed or dramatic and sudden decreases in revenues that could hinder their ability to repay their loans. Our commercial loan portfolio totaled $2.9$3.9 billion or 24%26% of our total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2012,2014, compared to $2.5$3.3 billion, or 22%25% of our total loan portfolio, at December 31, 2011.2013.

Commercial loans are secured by different types of collateral related to the underlying business, such as accounts receivable, inventory and equipment. Should a commercial loan require us to foreclose on the underlying collateral, the unique nature of the collateral may make it more difficult and costly to liquidate, thereby increasing the risk to us of not recovering the principal amount of the loan. Accordingly, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected by defaults in this portfolio.

As of December 31, 20122014 and December 31, 2011,2013, approximately 40%43% and 42%45%, respectively, of our total loan portfolio was secured by real estate, the majority of which is commercial real estate. The commercial and residential real estate market continues to experience a variety of difficulties. In particular, market conditions indifficulties, including the Chicago metropolitan area, in which a majority of our real estate loans are concentrated, have declined significantly beginning in 2007. As a result of increased levels of commercial and consumer delinquencies and declining real estate values, which reduce the customer's borrowing power and the value of the collateral securing the loan, for the last five years, we have experienced higher than normal levels of charge-offs and provisions for loan losses.concentrated. Increases in commercial and consumer delinquency levels or continued declines in real estate market values would require increased net charge-offs and increases in the allowance for loan and lease losses, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We use analytical and forecasting models to estimate the effects of economic conditions on our loan portfolio and probable loan performance. Those models reflect certain assumptions about market forces, including interest rates and consumer behavior that may be incorrect. If our analytical and forecasting models’ underlying assumptions are incorrect, improperly applied, or otherwise inadequate, we may suffer deleterious effects such as higher than expected loan losses, lower than expected net interest income, or unanticipated charge-offs, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Wintrust is exposed to interest rate risk in its core banking activities of lending and deposit taking, since changes in prevailing interest rates affect the value of our assets and liabilities. Such changes may adversely affect our net interest income, which is the difference between interest income and interest expense. Our net interest income is affected by the fact that assets and liabilities reprice at different times and by different amounts as interest rates change. Net interest income represents our largest component of net income, and was $519.5$598.6 million and $461.4$550.6 million for the years ended December 31, 20122014 and 2011,2013, respectively.

Each of our businesses may be affected differently by a given change in interest rates. For example, we expect that the results of our mortgage banking business in selling loans into the secondary market would be negatively impacted during periods of rising

interest rates, whereas falling interest rates could have a negative impact on the net interest spread earned on deposits as we would be unable to lower the rates on many interest bearing deposit accounts of our customers to the same extent as many of our higher yielding asset classes.

Additionally, increases in interest rates may adversely influence the growth rate of loans and deposits, the quality of our loan portfolio, loan and deposit pricing, the volume of loan originations in our mortgage banking business and the value that we can recognize on the sale of mortgage loans in the secondary market.

Our liquidity position may be negatively impacted if economic conditions continue to suffer.

Liquidity is a measure of whether our cash flows and liquid assets are sufficient to satisfy current and future financial obligations, such as demand for loans, deposit withdrawals and operating costs. Our liquidity position is affected by a number of factors, including the amount of cash and other liquid assets on hand, payment of interest and dividends on debt and equity instruments that we have issued, capital we inject into our bank subsidiaries, proceeds we raise through the issuance of securities, our ability to draw upon our revolving credit facility and dividends received from our banking subsidiaries. Our future liquidity position may be adversely affected by multiple factors, including:

Continued weaknessWeakness or worsening of the economy, real estate markets or unemployment levels may increase the likelihood that one or more of these events will occur. If our liquidity is adversely effected,affected, it may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We face competition in attracting and retaining deposits, making loans, and providing other financial services (including wealth management services) throughout our market area. Our competitors include national, regional and other community banks, and a wide range of other financial institutions such as credit unions, government-sponsored enterprises, mutual fund companies, insurance companies, factoring companies and other non-bank financial companies. Many of these competitors have substantially greater resources and market presence than Wintrust and, as a result of their size, may be able to offer a broader range of products and services, as well as better pricing for those products and services, or newer technologies to deliver those products and services than we can. Several of our local competitors have experienced improvements in their financial condition over the past yearfew years and are better positioned to compete for loans, acquisitions and personnel. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and payment systems, and for banks that do not have a physical presence in our markets to compete for deposits.

Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:

If we are unable to compete effectively, we will lose market share and income from deposits, loans and other products may be reduced. This could adversely affect our profitability and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the past several years, we have completed numerous acquisitions of banks, other financial service related companies and financial service related assets, including acquisitions of troubled financial institutions, as more fully described below. We expect to continue to make such acquisitions in the future. Wintrust seeks merger or acquisition partners that are culturally similar, have experienced management, possess either significant market presence or have potential for improved profitability through financial management, economies of scale or expanded services. Failure to successfully identify and complete acquisitions likely will result in Wintrust achieving slower growth. Acquiring other banks, businesses or branches involves various risks commonly associated with acquisitions, including, among other things:

Acquisitions typically involve the payment of a premium over book and market values, and, therefore, some dilution of Wintrust's tangible book value and net income per common share may occur as a result of any future transaction. In addition, certain acquisitions may expose us to additional regulatory risks, including from foreign governments. Our ability to comply with any such regulations will impact the success of any such acquisitions. Furthermore, failure to realize the expected revenue increases, cost savings, increases in geographic or product presence, and/or other projected benefits from an acquisition could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our participation in FDIC-assisted acquisitions may present additional risks to our financial condition and results of operations.

As part of our growth strategy, we have made opportunistic partial acquisitions of troubled financial institutions in transactions facilitated by the FDIC including our recent acquisitions of First United Bank of Crete, Illinois ("First United Bank") and Charter National Bank and Trust ("Charter National") through our bank subsidiaries. These acquisitions, and any future FDIC-assisted transactions we may undertake, involve greater risk than traditional acquisitions because they are typically conducted on an accelerated basis, allowing less time for us to prepare for and evaluate possible transactions, or to prepare for integration of an acquired institution. These transactions also present risks of customer loss, strain on management resources related to collection and management of problem loans and problems related to the integration of operations and personnel of the acquired financial institutions. As a result, there can be no assurance that we will be able to successfully integrate the financial institutions we acquire, or that we will realize the anticipated benefits of the acquisitions. Additionally, while the FDIC may agree to assume certain losses in transactions that it facilitates, there can be no assurances that we would not be required to raise additional capital as a condition to, or as a result of, participation in an FDIC-assisted transaction. Any such transactions and related issuances of stock may have dilutive effect on earnings per share. Furthermore, we may face competition from other financial institutions with respect to proposed FDIC-assisted transactions.

We are also subject to certain risks relating to our loss sharing agreements with the FDIC. Under a loss sharing agreement, the FDIC generally agrees to reimburse the acquiring bank for a portion of any losses relating to covered assets of the acquired financial institution. This is an important financial term of any FDIC-assisted transaction, as troubled financial institutions often have poorer asset quality. As a condition to reimbursement, however, the FDIC requires the acquiring bank to follow certain servicing procedures. A failure to follow servicing procedures or any other breach of a loss sharing agreement by us could result in the loss of FDIC reimbursement. While we have established a group dedicated to servicing the loans covered by the FDIC loss sharing agreements, there can be no assurance that we will be able to comply with the FDIC servicing procedures. In addition, reimbursable losses and recoveries under loss sharing agreements are based on the book value of the relevant loans and other assets as determined by the FDIC as of the effective dates of the acquisitions. The amount that the acquiring banks realize on these assets could differ materially from the carrying value that will be reflected in our financial statements, based upon the timing and amount of collections

on the covered loans in future periods. Any failure to receive reimbursement, or any material differences between the amount of reimbursements that we do receive and the carrying value reflected in our financial statements, could have a material negative effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our customers rely upon our financial strength and stability and evaluate the risks of doing business with us. If we experience diminished financial strength or stability, actual or perceived, including due to market or regulatory developments, announced or

We are required by regulatory authorities to maintain adequate levels of capital to support our operations (see “-Risks Related to Our Regulatory Environment-If we fail to meet our regulatory capital ratios, we may be forced to raise capital or sell assets”) and as we grow, internally and through acquisitions, the amount of capital required to support our operations grows as well. We may need to raise additional capital to support continued growth both internally and through acquisitions. Any capital we obtain may result in the dilution of the interests of existing holders of our common stock.

Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on conditions in the capital markets at that time which are outside our control and on our financial condition and performance. If we cannot raise additional capital when needed, or on terms acceptable to us, our ability to further expand our operations through internal growth and acquisitions could be materially impaired and our financial condition and liquidity could be materially and negatively affected.

The Company's available-for-sale and trading securities are carried at fair value. Major disruptions in the capital markets experienced in the past fiveseven years have impacted investor demand for all classes of securities and resulted in volatility in the fair values of the Company's investment securities.

Accounting standards require the Company to categorize these according to a fair value hierarchy. As of December 31, 2012,2014, over 97%95% of the Company's available-for-sale securities were categorized in level 2 of the fair value hierarchy (meaning that their fair values were determined by quoted prices for similar assets or other observable inputs). Significant prolonged reduced investor demand could manifest itself in lower fair values for these securities and may result in recognition of an other-than-temporary or permanent impairment of these assets, which could lead to accounting charges and have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition and results of operations.

The remaining securities in our investment securities portfolio were categorized as level 3 (meaning that their fair values were determined by inputs that are unobservable in the market and therefore require a greater degree of management judgment). The determination of fair value for securities categorized in level 3 involves significant judgment due to the complexity of factors contributing to the valuation, many of which are not readily observable in the market. Recent market disruptions make valuation of such securities even more difficult and subjective. In addition, the nature of the business of the third party source that is valuing the securities at any given time could impact the valuation of the securities. Consequently, the ultimate sales price for any of these securities could vary significantly from the recorded fair value at December 31, 2012,2014, especially if the security is sold during a period of illiquidity or market disruption or as part of a large block of securities under a forced transaction.

There can be no assurance that decline in market value associated with these disruptions will not result in other-than-temporary or permanent impairments of these assets, which would lead to accounting charges which could have a material negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We continually implement new lines of business and offer new products and services within existing lines of business to offer our customers a competitive array of products and services. The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological

change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology can increase efficiency and enable financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. However, some new technologies needed to compete effectively result in incremental operating costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in operations. Many of our competitors, because of their larger size and available capital, have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could cause a loss of customers and have a material adverse effect on our business.

At the same time, there can be substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets for such services are still developing. In developing and marketing new lines of business and/or new products or services, we may invest significant time and resources. Initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business and/or new products or services may not be achieved, and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives, and shifting market preferences, may also impact the successful implementation of a new line of business or a new product or service. Furthermore, any new line of business and/or new product or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or new products or services could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We are increasingly dependent upon computer and other information technology systems to manage our business. We rely upon information technology systems to process, record, monitor and disseminate information about our operations. In some cases, we depend on third parties to provide or maintain these systems. While we perform a review of controls instituted by our critical vendors in accordance with industry standards, we must rely on the continued maintenance of these controls by the outside party, including safeguards over the security of customer data. Additionally, we must rely on our employees to safeguard access to our information technology systems and avoid inadvertent complicity with external security threats. If any of our financial, accounting or other data processing systems fail or have other significant shortcomings, we could be materially adversely affected. Security breaches in our online banking systems could also have an adverse effect on our reputation and could subject us to possible liability. Our systems may also be affected by events that are beyond our control, which may include, for example, computer viruses, electrical or telecommunications outages or other damage to our property or assets. Although we take precautions against malfunctions and security breaches, our efforts may not be adequate to prevent problems that could materially adversely effectaffect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Debit card numbers are susceptible to theft at the point of sale via the physical terminal through which transactions are processed and by other means of hacking. The security and integrity of these transactions are dependent upon retailers’ vigilance and willingness to invest in technology and upgrades. Despite third-party security risks that are beyond our control, we offer our customers protection against fraud and attendant losses for unauthorized use of debit cards in order to stay competitive in the marketplace. Offering such protection to our customers exposes us to potential losses which, in the event of a data breach at one or more retailers of considerable magnitude, may adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

We rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties in deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions. This information could include financial statements, credit reports, and other financial information. We also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties, or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports, or other financial information could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We believe that our future success depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain experienced personnel, including our senior management and other key personnel. Our business model is dependent upon our ability to provide high quality and personal service at our community banks.service. In addition, as a holding company that conducts its operations through our subsidiaries, we are focused on providing entrepreneurial-based compensation to the chief executives of each our business units. As a Company with start-up and growth oriented operations, we are cognizant that to attract and retain the managerial talent necessary to operate and grow our businesses we often have to compensate our executives with a view to the business we expect them to manage, rather than the size of the business they currently manage. Accordingly, any executive compensation restrictions may negatively impact our ability to retain and attract senior management. The departure of a senior manager or other key personnel may damage relationships with certain customers, or certain customers may choose to follow such personnel to a competitor. The loss of any of our senior managers or other key personnel, or our inability to identify, recruit and retain such personnel, could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

A significant portion of the Company's loan portfolio is secured by real property. In the ordinary course of business, the Company may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans. In doing so, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, the Company may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage. In addition, we own and operate a number of properties that may be subject to similar environmental liability risks.

Environmental laws may require the Company to incur substantial expenses and could materially reduce the affected property's value or limit the Company's ability to use or sell the affected property. The costs associated with investigation and remediation activities could be substantial. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. Although the Company has policies and procedures to perform an environmental review before initiating any foreclosure action on real property, these reviews may not be sufficient to detect all potential environmental hazards. The remediation costs

Periodically, as a result of our normal course of business, we are involved in claims and related litigation from our customers or employees. These claims and legal actions, whether meritorious or not, as well as reviews, investigations and proceedings by governmental and self-regulatory agencies could involve large monetary claims and significant legal expense. In addition, such actions may negatively impact our reputation in the marketplace and lessen customer demand. If such claims and legal actions are not decided in Wintrust's favor, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely impacted.

We engage in the origination and purchase of residential mortgages for sale into the secondary market. In connection with such sales, we make certain representations and warranties, which, if breached, may require us to repurchase such loans, substitute other loans or indemnify the purchasers of such loans for actual losses incurred in respect of such loans. Due, in part, to recent increased mortgage payment delinquency rates and declining housing prices during the post 2007 period, we have been receiving such requests for loan repurchases and indemnification payments relating to the representations and warranties with respect to such loans. We have been able to reach settlements with a number of purchasers, and believe that we have established appropriate reserves with respect to indemnification requests. While we have recently received fewer requests for indemnification, itIt is possible that the number of such requests will increase or that we will not be able to reach settlements with respect to such requests in the future. Accordingly, it is possible that losses incurred in connection with loan repurchases and indemnification payments may be in excess of our financial statement reserves, and we may be required to increase such reserves and may sustain additional losses associated with such loan repurchases and indemnification payments in the future. Increases to our reserves and losses incurred by us in connection with actual loan repurchases and indemnification payments in excess of our reserves could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Technology and other changes are allowing parties to complete financial transactions that historically have involved banks through alternative methods. For example, consumers can now maintain funds that would have historically been held as bank deposits in brokerage accounts or mutual funds. Consumers can also complete transactions such as paying bills and transferring funds directly without the assistance of banks. The process of eliminating banks as intermediaries could result in the loss of fee income, as well as the loss of customer deposits and the related income generated from those deposits. The loss of these revenue streams and the lower cost deposits as a source of funds could have a material adverse effect on our 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 the Federal Home Loan bankBank ("FHLB"), commercial banks, brokers and dealers, investment banks and other institutional clients. 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 collateral held by us cannot be realized or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount due to us. Any such losses could have material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our financial results have been and will continue to be impacted by our strategy of branch openings and de novo bank formationsformations. We expect to increase the opening of additional branches as market conditions improve and, branch openings. Whileif the recent financial crisis and interest rate environment has caused us to open fewer de novo banks, we expect to undertake additionaland economic climate and regulatory conditions become favorable, may resume de novo bank formations or branch openings when market conditions improve.formations. Based on our experience, we believe that it generally takes over 13 months for de novo banks to first achieve operational profitability, depending on the number of banking facilities opened, the impact of organizational and overhead expenses, the start-up phase of generating deposits and the time lag typically involved in redeploying deposits into attractively priced loans and other higher yielding earning assets. However, it may take longer than expected or more than the amount of time Wintrust has historically experienced for new banks and/or banking facilities to reach profitability, and there can be no guarantee that these newbranches or banks or branches will ever be profitable. Moreover, the FDIC's recent issuance extendingextension of the enhanced supervisory period for de novo banks from three to seven years, including higher capital requirements during this period, could also delay a new bank's ability to contribute to the Company's earnings and impact the Company's willingness to expand through de novo bank formation. To the extent we undertake additional de novo bank, branch and business formations, our level of reported net income, return on average equity and return on average assets will be impacted by startup costs associated with such operations, and it is likely to continue to experience the effects of higher expenses relative to operating income from the new operations. These expenses may be higher than we expected or than our experience has shown, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In the normal course of business, we, as well as our subsidiaries, are routinely subject to examinations from federal and state tax authorities regarding the amount of taxes due in connection with investments we have made and the businesses in which we have engaged. Recently, federal and state tax authorities have become increasingly aggressive in challenging tax positions taken by financial institutions. These tax positions may relate to among other things tax compliance, sales and use, franchise, gross receipts, payroll, property and income tax issues, including tax base, apportionment and tax credit planning. The challenges made by tax authorities may result in adjustments to the timing or amount of taxable income or deductions or the allocation of income among tax jurisdictions. If any such challenges are made and are not resolved in our favor, they could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Given the current economic and political environment and ongoing budgetary pressures, the enactment of new federal or state tax legislation may occur. The enactment of such legislation, or changes in the interpretation of existing law, including provisions impacting tax rates, apportionment, consolidation or combination, income, expenses and credits may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding our financial results and financial condition. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that affect the value of our assets or liabilities and financial results. Some of our accounting policies are critical because they require management to make difficult, subjective and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. If such estimates or assumptions underlying our financial statements are incorrect, we may experience

material losses. From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. These changes 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 retroactively, resulting in the restatement of prior period financial statements.

We are a bank holding company and our operations are primarily conducted by and through our 15 operating banks, which are subject to significant federal and state regulation. Cash available to pay dividends to our shareholders, repurchase our shares or repay our indebtedness is derived primarily from dividends received from our banks and our ability to receive dividends from our subsidiaries is restricted. Various statutory provisions restrict the amount of dividends our banks can pay to us without regulatory approval. The banks may not pay cash dividends if that payment could reduce the amount of their capital below that necessary to meet the “adequately capitalized” level in accordance with regulatory capital requirements. It is also possible that, depending upon the financial condition of the banks and other factors, regulatory authorities could conclude that payment of dividends or other payments, including payments to us, is an unsafe or unsound practice and impose restrictions or prohibit such payments. Our inability to receive dividends from our banks could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Anti-takeover provisions could negatively impact our shareholders.

Certain provisions of our articles of incorporation, by-laws and Illinois law may have the effect of impeding the acquisition of control of Wintrust by means of a tender offer, a proxy fight, open-market purchases or otherwise in a transaction not approved by our board of directors. For example, our board of directors may issue additional authorized shares of our capital stock to deter future attempts to gain control of Wintrust, including the authority to determine the terms of any one or more series of preferred stock, such as voting rights, conversion rates and liquidation preferences. As a result of the ability to fix voting rights for a series of preferred stock, the board has the power, to the extent consistent with its fiduciary duty, to issue a series of preferred stock to persons friendly to management in order to attempt to block a merger or other transaction by which a third party seeks control, and thereby assist the incumbent board of directors and management to retain their respective positions. In addition, our articles of incorporation expressly elect to be governed by the provisions of Section 7.85 of the Illinois Business Corporation Act, which would make it more difficult for another party to acquire us without the approval of our board of directors.

The ability of a third party to acquire us is also limited under applicable banking regulations. The Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 requires any “bank holding company” (as defined in that Act) to obtain the approval of the Federal Reserve prior to acquiring more than 5% of our outstanding common stock. Any person other than a bank holding company is required to obtain prior approval of the Federal Reserve to acquire 10% or more of our outstanding common stock under the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978. Any holder of 25% or more of our outstanding common stock, other than an individual, is subject to regulation as a bank holding company under the Bank Holding Company Act. For purposes of calculating ownership thresholds under these banking regulations, bank regulators would likely at least take the position that the minimum number of shares, and could take the position that the maximum number of shares, of Wintrust common stock that a holder is entitled to receive pursuant to securities convertible into or settled in Wintrust common stock, including pursuant to Wintrust's tangible equity units or warrants to purchase Wintrust common stock held by such holder, must be taken into account in calculating a shareholder's aggregate holdings of Wintrust common stock.

These provisions may have the effect of discouraging a future takeover attempt that is not approved by our board of directors but which our individual shareholders may deem to be in their best interests or in which our shareholders may receive a substantial premium for their shares over then-current market prices. As a result, shareholders who might desire to participate in such a transaction may not have an opportunity to do so. Such provisions will also render the removal of our current board of directors or management more difficult.

Risks Related to Our Regulatory Environment

As a banking institution, we are subject to regulations that require us to maintain certain capital ratios, such as the ratio of our Tier 1 capital to our risk-based assets. If our regulatory capital ratios decline, as a result of decreases in the value of our loan portfolio or otherwise, we will be required to improve such ratios by either raising additional capital or by disposing of assets. If we choose to dispose of assets, we cannot be certain that we will be able to do so at prices that we believe to be appropriate, and our future operating results could be negatively affected. If we choose to raise additional capital, we may accomplish this by selling additional shares of common stock, or securities convertible into or exchangeable for common stock, which could significantly dilute the ownership percentage of holders of our common stock and cause the market price of our common stock to decline. Additionally, events or circumstances in the capital markets generally may increase our capital costs and impair our ability to raise capital at any given time.

We are already subject to extensive federal and state regulation and supervision. The cost of compliance with such laws and regulations can be substantial and adversely affect our ability to operate profitably. While we are unable to predict the scope or impact of any potential legislation or regulatory action until it becomes final, it is possible that changes in applicable laws, regulations or interpretations hereof could significantly increase our regulatory compliance costs, impede the efficiency of our internal business processes, negatively impact the recoverability of certain of our recorded assets, require us to increase our regulatory capital, interfere with our executive compensation plans, or limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner including our plan for de novo growth and growth through acquisitions.

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, significantly changed the bank regulatory structure and affects the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies. The Dodd-Frank Act requires various federal agencies to adopt a broad range of new rules and regulations, including heightened capital requirements, and to prepare numerous studies and reports for Congress. Although many of these rules and studies are not yet completed, and the final impact of the Dodd-Frank Act will depend, in part, on the final form of the still to be rules and regulations, we have already experienced significant increases in compliance related costs and we expect compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act and its

The Dodd-Frank Act also enhanced provisions relating to affiliate and insider lending restrictions and loans-to-one-borrower limitations. Federal and state banking laws impose limits on the amount of credit a bank can extend to any one person (or group of related persons). The Dodd-Frank Act expanded the scope of these restrictions for national banks under federal law to include credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, repurchase agreements, and securities lending and borrowing transactions. Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act also amended the FDIA to prohibit state-chartered banks (including certain of our banking subsidiaries) from engaging in derivative transactions unless the state lending limit laws take into account credit exposure to such transactions.

Additional provisionsdiscussion of the Dodd-Frank Act are describedmay be found in this report under “Business - Supervision and Regulation” and “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations-Overview and Strategy-Financial Regulatory Reform.”

Given the uncertainty associated with the manner in which many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act will be implemented by the various regulatory agencies, the full extent of the impact that its requirements will have on our operations is unclear. However, its requirements may, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect upon the Company's business, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

The Dodd-Frank Act also established the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the “Bureau”)CFPB within the Federal Reserve, which now regulates consumer financial products and services. On July 21, 2011, many of the consumer financial protection functions previously assigned to other federal agencies shifted to the Bureau.CFPB. The BureauCFPB now has broad rulemaking authority over a wide range of consumer protection laws that apply to banks and other providers of consumer financial services, including the authority to prohibit “unfair, deceptive or abusive acts or practices,” and to enact regulations to ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services, and that such markets are fair, transparent and competitive. The Dodd-Frank Act also required the BureauCFPB to adopt a

number of new specific regulatory requirements. These new rules may increase the costs of engaging in these activities for all market participants, including our subsidiaries. Additionally, the BureauCFPB has broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority. Although we and our subsidiary banks are not subject to BureauCFPB examination, the actions taken by the BureauCFPB may influence enforcement actions and positions taken by other federal and state regulators, including those with jurisdiction over us and our subsidiaries. In addition, in the wake of the mortgage crisis of the last few years, federal and state banking regulators are closely examining the mortgage and mortgage servicing activities of depository financial institutions. Should the regulatory agencies have serious concerns with respect to our operations in this regard, the effect of such concerns could have a material adverse effect on our profits. Finally, the Dodd-Frank Act authorizes state attorneys general and other state officials to enforce certain consumer protection rules issued by the Bureau.CFPB.

In June 2012, the banking agencies proposed comprehensive revisions to their regulatory capital rules through three concurrent proposals which incorporate the requirements ofBoth the Dodd-Frank Wall Street ReformAct, which reformed the regulation of financial institutions in a comprehensive manner, and Consumer Protection Act as well as changes made by the Basel III internationalregulatory capital standards. The first proposal wouldreforms, which increase both the quantityamount and quality of capital that financial institutions must hold will impact our capital requirements. Specifically, in July 2013, the U.S. federal banking authorities approved the implementation of the Basel III Rule. The Basel III Rule is applicable to all U.S. banks that are subject to minimum capital requirements as well as to bank and saving and loan holding companies, other than “small bank holding companies” (generally bank holding companies with consolidated assets of less than $500 million). The Basel III Rule not only increases most of the required minimum regulatory capital ratios, it introduces a new Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio and add a requirement forthe concept of a capital conservation buffer. The Basel III Rule also expands the current definition of capital by establishing additional criteria that capital instruments must meet to be considered Additional Tier 1 Capital (i.e., Tier 1 Capital in addition to Common Equity) and Tier 2 Capital. A number of instruments that now generally qualify as Tier 1 Capital will not qualify or their qualifications will change when the Basel III Rule is fully implemented. The Basel III Rule has maintained the general structure of the current prompt corrective action thresholds while incorporating the increased requirements, including the Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio. In addition, proposed changes in regulatoryorder to be a “well-capitalized” depository institution under the new regime, an institution must maintain a Common Equity Tier 1 Capital ratio of 6.5% or more, a Tier 1 Capital ratio of 8% or more, a Total Capital ratio of 10% or more, and a leverage ratio of 5% or more. Institutions must also maintain a capital standards would phase-out trust preferred securities as a componentconservation buffer consisting of tierCommon Equity Tier 1 capital commencingCapital. Financial institutions became subject to the Basel III Rule on January 1, 2013. 2015 with a phase-in period through 2019 for many of the changes.

The second proposal would revise rules for calculating risk-weighted assets and apply an alternative to the useimplementation of credit ratings for calculating risk weighted assets with respect to residential mortgages, securitization exposures, and counterparty credit risk. The final proposal includes additional measures for the largest banking institutionsthese provisions, as well as for those with significant international exposure, which would not applyany other aspects of current or proposed regulatory or legislative changes to us. The proposal received extensive comments. In a joint press release issued in November 2012,laws applicable to the banking agencies stated that they do not expect anyfinancial industry, will impact the profitability of our business activities and may change certain of our business practices, including the proposed rulesability to become effective on the original target date of January 1, 2013. Further guidance on the status of the proposed rules is expected in early 2013.

In October 2012, the Federal Reserve published a final rule implementing the stress test requirements under the Dodd-Frank Act, which are designed to evaluate the sufficiency of a banking organization's capital to support its operations during periods of stress. As a bank holding company with between $10 billion and $50 billion in total consolidated assets, we will bewere required to conduct annual stress tests based on scenarios provided by the Federal Reserve, beginning in the fall of 2013, and will be required to

publicly disclose the results of our 2014 stress tests beginning in 2014.2015. This stress test requirement is expected to increasehas increased our compliance costs. We anticipate that our pro forma capital ratios, as reflected in the stress test calculations under the required stress test scenarios, will be an important factor considered by the Federal Reserve Board in evaluating whether proposed payments of dividends or stock repurchases are consistent with its prudential expectations. Requirements to maintain higher levels of capital or liquidity to address potential adverse stress scenarios could adversely impact our net income and our return on equity.

Recent insured institution failures, as well as deterioration in banking and economic conditions, have significantly increased FDIC loss provisions, resulting in a decline of its deposit insurance fund to historical lows. In addition, the Dodd-Frank Act made permanent a temporary increase in the limit on FDIC coverage to $250,000 per depositor. These developments have caused our FDIC insurance premiums to increase, and may cause additional increases. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act may further affect our FDIC insurance premiums. The Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions that change the assessment base for federal deposit insurance from the amount of insured deposits to average total consolidated assets less average tangible capital, eliminate the maximum size of the DIF, eliminate the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds, and increase the minimum reserve ratio of the DIF from 1.15% to 1.35%. Beginning in late 2010, the FDIC has issued regulations implementing some of these changes. The FDIC has indicated that the changes to the assessment base, and accompanying changes to the assessment rates, will generally not require an increase in the level of assessments, and may result in decreased assessments, for depository institutions with less than $10 billion in assets (such as each of our bank subsidiaries). However, thereThere is a risk that the banks' deposit insurance premiums will continue to increase if failures of insured depository institutions continue to deplete the DIF. Any such increase may negatively impact our financial condition and results of operations.

We provide financing for the payment of commercial insurance premiums and life insurance premiums on a national basis through our wholly owned subsidiary, FIFC, and financing for the payment of commercial insurance premiums in Canada through our wholly owned subsidiary, FIFC Canada. Commercial insurance premium finance loans involve a different, and possibly higher, risk of delinquency or collection than life insurance premium finance loans and the loan portfolios of our bank subsidiaries because these loans are issued primarily through relationships with a large number of unaffiliated insurance agents and because the borrowers are located nationwide. As a result, risk management and general supervisory oversight may be difficult. As of December 31, 2012,2014, we had $2.0$2.4 billion of commercial insurance premium finance loans outstanding, of which $1.7$2.0 billion were originated in the U.S. by FIFC and $267.9$311.5 million were originated in Canada by FIFC Canada. Together, these loans represented 16% of our total loan portfolio as of such date.

FIFC and FIFC Canada may also be more susceptible to third party fraud with respect to commercial insurance premium finance loans because these loans are originated and many times funded through relationships with unaffiliated insurance agents and brokers. In the second quarter of 2010, fraud perpetrated against a number of premium finance companies in the industry, including the property and casualty division of FIFC, increased both the Company's net charge-offs and provision for credit losses by $15.7 million. Acts of fraud are difficult to detect and deter, and we cannot assure investors that our risk management procedures and controls will prevent losses from fraudulent activity.

FIFC may be exposed to the risk of loss in our life insurance premium finance business because of fraud. While FIFC maintains a policy prohibiting the knowing financing of stranger-originated life insurance and has established procedures to identify and prevent the company from financing such policies, FIFC cannot be certain that it will never provide loans with respect to such a policy. In the event such policies were financed, a carrier could potentially put at risk the cash surrender value of a policy, which serves as FIFC's primary collateral, by challenging the validity of the insurance contract for lack of an insurable interest.

See the below risk factor “Widespread financial difficulties or credit downgrades among commercial and life insurance providers could lessen the value of the collateral securing our premium finance loans and impair the financial condition and liquidity of FIFC and FIFC Canada” for a discussion of further risks associated with our insurance premium finance activities.

While FIFC is licensed as required and carefully monitors compliance with regulation of each of its businesses, there can be no assurance that FIFC will not be negatively impacted by material changes in the regulatory environment. FIFC Canada is not

Additionally, to the extent that affiliates of insurance carriers, banks, and other lending institutions add greater service and flexibility to their financing practices in the future, our competitive position and results of operations could be adversely affected. FIFC's life insurance premium finance business could be materially negatively impacted by changes in the federal or state estate tax provisions. There can be no assurance that FIFC will be able to continue to compete successfully in its markets.

FIFC and FIFC Canada's premium finance loans are primarily secured by the insurance policies financed by the loans. These insurance policies are written by a large number of insurance companies geographically dispersed throughout the country. Our premium finance receivables balances finance insurance policies which are spread among a large number of insurers; however, one of the insurers represents approximately 11%12% of such balances and two additional insurers each of which represents approximately 4% of such balances. FIFC and FIFC Canada consistently monitorsmonitor carrier ratings and financial performance of our carriers. While FIFC and FIFC Canada can mitigate its risks as a result of this monitoring to the extent that commercial or life insurance providers experience widespread difficulties or credit downgrades, the value of our collateral will be reduced. FIFC and FIFC Canada are also subject to the possibility of insolvency of insurance carriers in the commercial and life insurance businesses that are in possession of our collateral. If one or more large nationwide insurers were to fail, the value of our portfolio could be significantly negatively impacted. A significant downgrade in the value of the collateral supporting our premium finance business could impair our ability to create liquidity for this business, which, in turn could negatively impact our ability to expand.

Our wealth management business in general, and WHI's brokerage operations in particular, present special risks not borne by community banks that focus exclusively on community banking. For example, the brokerage industry is subject to fluctuations in the stock market that may have a significant adverse impact on transaction fees, customer activity and investment portfolio gains and losses. Likewise, additional or modified regulations may adversely affect our wealth management operations. Each of our wealth management operations is dependent on a small number of professionals whose departure could result in the loss of a significant number of customer accounts. A significant decline in fees and commissions or trading losses suffered in the investment portfolio could adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, we are subject to claim arbitration risk arising from customers who claim their investments were not suitable or that their portfolios were inappropriately traded. These risks increase when the market, as as a whole, declines. The risks associated with retail brokerage may not be supported by the income generated by our wealth management operations.

ITEM 1B. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 2. PROPERTIES

The Company’s executive offices are located at 9700 W. Higgins Road, Rosemont, Illinois. The Company’s banks operate through 111140 banking facilities, the majority of which are owned. The Company owns 166201 automatic teller machines, the majority of which are housed at banking locations. The banking facilities are located in communities throughout the Chicago metropolitan area and southern Wisconsin. Excess space in certain properties is leased to third parties.

The Company’s wealth management subsidiaries have one location in downtown Chicago, one in Appleton, Wisconsin, and one in Florida, all of which are leased, as well as office locations at several of our banks. Wintrust Mortgage, a division of Barrington Bank, is headquartered in our corporate headquarters in Rosemont, Illinois and has 4048 locations in nineeleven states, all of which are leased, as well as office locations at several of our banks. FIFC has one location in Northbrook, Illinois which is owned and locations in Jersey City, New Jersey and Long Island, New York which are leased. FIFC Canada has twothree locations in Canada that are leased, located in Toronto, Ontario, Mississauga, Ontario and Vancouver, British Columbia. Tricom has one location in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin which is owned. In addition, the Company owns other real estate acquired for further expansion that, when considered in the aggregate, is not material to the Company’s financial position.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The Company and its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to pending and threatened legal action and proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Any such litigation currently pending against

In accordance with applicable accounting principles, the Company establishes an accrued liability for litigation actions and proceedings when those actions present loss contingencies which are both probable and estimable. In actions for which a loss is reasonably possible in future periods, the Company determines whether it can estimate a loss or range of possible loss. To determine whether a possible loss is estimable, the Company reviews and evaluates its subsidiaries is incidentalmaterial litigation on an ongoing basis, in conjunction with any outside counsel handling the matter, in light of potentially relevant factual and legal developments. This review may include information learned through the discovery process, rulings on substantive or dispositive motions, and settlement discussions.

On March 15, 2012, a former mortgage loan originator employed by Wintrust Mortgage Company, named Wintrust, Barrington Bank and its subsidiary, Wintrust Mortgage Company, as defendants in a Fair Labor Standards Act class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “FLSA Litigation”). The suit asserts that Wintrust Mortgage Company violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and challenges the manner in which Wintrust Mortgage Company classified its loan originators and compensated them for their work. The suit also seeks to assert these claims as a class. On September 30, 2013, the Court entered an order conditionally certifying an “opt-in” class in this case. Notice to the Company's businesspotential class members was sent on or about October 22, 2013, primarily informing the putative class of the right to opt-into the class and basedsetting a deadline for same. Approximately 15% of the notice recipients joined the class. On September 26, 2014, the Court stayed actions by opt-in plaintiffs with arbitration agreements, which reduced the class size by more than 40%. The Court also denied the opt-in plaintiffs’ motion for equitable tolling, which the Company anticipates will reduce the class size by an additional 15%. The Company has reserved an amount for the FLSA Litigation that is immaterial to its results of operations or financial condition. Such class action litigation necessarily involves substantial uncertainty and it is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate resolution or to determine whether, or to what extent, any loss with respect to this litigation may exceed the amounts reserved by the Company.

Based on information currently available to management,and upon consultation with counsel, management believes that the eventual outcome of suchany pending or threatened legal actions orand proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the operations or financial positioncondition of the Company. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations or financial condition for a particular period.

ITEM 4. MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.

PART II

The following performance graph compares the five-year percentage change in the Company’s cumulative shareholder return on common stock compared with the cumulative total return on composites of (1) all NASDAQ Global Select Market stocks for United States companies (broad market index) and (2) all NASDAQ Global Select Market bank stocks (peer group index). Cumulative total return is computed by dividing the sum of the cumulative amount of dividends for the measurement period and the difference between the Company’s share price at the end and the beginning of the measurement period by the share price at the beginning of the measurement period. The NASDAQ Global Select Market for United States companies’ index comprises all domestic common shares traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and the NASDAQ Small-Cap Market. The NASDAQ Global Select Market bank stocks index comprises all banks traded on the NASDAQ Global Select Market and the NASDAQ Small-Cap Market.

This graph and other information furnished in the section titled “Performance Graph” under this Part II, Item 5 of this Form 10-K shall not be deemed to be “soliciting” materials or to be “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission or subject to Regulation 14A or 14C, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Approximate Number of Equity Security Holders

As of February 22, 201323, 2015 there were approximately 1,5381,627 shareholders of record of the Company’s common stock.

Dividends on Common Stock

The Company’s Board of Directors approved the first semiannualsemi-annual dividend on the Company’s common stock in January 2000 and has continued to approve a semi-annual dividend since that time.until quarterly dividends were approved in 2014. The payment of dividends is subject to statutory restrictions and restrictions arising under the terms of our 8.00% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, Series A (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), the terms of the Company's 5.00% Non-Cumulative Perpetual Convertible Preferred Stock, Series C (the "Series C Preferred Stock"), the terms of the Company’s Trust Preferred Securities offerings the Company’s 7.5% tangible equity units and under certain financial covenants in the Company’s credit agreement.revolving and term facilities. Under the terms of the Company’s revolving credit facility amendedthese seperate facilities entered into on October 26, 2012,December 15, 2014, the Company is prohibited from paying dividends on any equity interests, including its common stock and preferred stock, if such payments would cause the Company to be in default under its credit facility.facilities or exceed a certain threshold.

On January 2013,22, 2015, Wintrust Financial Corporation announced that the Company’s Board of Directors approved a semi-annualquarterly cash dividend of $0.09$0.11 per share.share of outstanding common stock. The dividend was paidpayable on February 21, 201319, 2015 to shareholders of record as of February 7, 2013.5, 2015.

Reference is also made to Note 2019 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and “Liquidity and Capital Resources” contained in this Form 10-K for a description of the restrictions on the ability of certain subsidiaries to transfer funds to the Company in the form of dividends.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Therefore, there can be no assurances that future actual results will correspond to these forward-looking statements. The reader is cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement made by or on behalf of Wintrust.the Company. Any such statement speaks only as of the date the statement was made or as of such date that may be referenced within the statement. The Company undertakes no obligation to release revisionsupdate any forward-looking statement to these forward-looking statements or reflect events orthe impact of circumstances after the date of this Form 10-K. Persons are advised, however, to consult further disclosures management makes on related subjects in its reports filed with the SECSecurities and Exchange Commission and in its press releases.

OPERATING SUMMARY

Wintrust’s key measures of profitability and balance sheet changes are shown in the following table:

Please refer to the Consolidated Results of Operations section later in this discussion for an analysis of the Company’s operations for the past three years.

NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES/RATIOS