Because such forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements. The foregoing list of important factors is not exclusive and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these factors or any of our forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this document or, in the case of documents incorporated by reference, the dates of those documents. We do not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of us except as required by applicable law.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 30, 2009, the Company completed a common stock offering of 6.25 million shares, at $12.00 per share, for new capital proceeds of approximately $70.7 million (net of expenses). Subsequent to the end of the quarter, the underwriters of the offering exercised a 10% over-allotment option and Metro Bancorp issued an additional 625,000 common shares for net proceeds of approximately $7.1 million. This successful capital offering occurred just one quarter after a successful conversion of our entire information technology system from TD Bank, N.A. (“TD”) to our new service provider, Fiserv Solutions, Inc. (“Fiserv”). The conversion included the transition of data processing, item processing and many other ancillary services. At the same time of the conversion, the Company rebranded to Metro Bancorp, Inc. and its subsidiary bank, Commerce Bank/Harrisburg, changed its name to Metro Bank.
The Company recorded a net loss of $490,000, or $(0.08) per share, for the third quarter versus net income of $3.4 million, or $0.52 per fully-diluted share, for the same period one year ago. Impacting the third quarter results were the following:
· | One-time charges associated with the transition of data processing, item processing and technology network services as well as the Company’s rebranding totaled approximately $1.8 million during the third quarter. The Company also incurred a higher level of salary and benefits, data processing and telecommunication costs related to additional personnel and information technology infrastructure to perform certain services in-house which were previously performed by TD. These higher expenses were partially offset by the recognition of the remaining $2.75 million of the total $6.0 million fee Metro received from TD. This fee was to partially defray the total costs of transition and rebranding. |
· | The Company made a total provision for loan losses of $3.7 million for the third quarter vs. $1.7 million for the third quarter of 2008. |
· | Net interest margin on a fully taxable basis for the three months ended September 30, 2009 was 3.92% compared to 4.11% for the same period in 2008. Average interest earning assets for the quarter were the same as the third quarter of 2008; however, the level of interest income earned was offset by a decrease in the yield on those earning assets as a result of a 175 basis point reduction in short-term market interest rates by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past twelve months. |
Total revenues for the three months ended September 30, 2009 were $25.5 million, down $485,000, or 2%, from the same period in 2008. Total revenues for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 were $74.3 million, down $1.9 million, or 2%, from the same period in 2008. Net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $1.0 million, or ($0.16) per share compared to net income of $10.1 million, or $1.55 per fully diluted share recorded during the first nine months of 2008.
The decrease in net income and net income per share was a direct result of the increase in noninterest expenses associated with the transition of data processing, item processing and technology network services to a new provider and the costs associated with a rebranding of the Company as well as higher provisions to the Bank’s allowance for loan losses.
For the first nine months of 2009, total net loans increased by $33.6 million, or 2%, from $1.42 billion at December 31, 2008 to $1.46 billion at September 30, 2009. Over the past twelve months, total net loans excluding loans held for sale, grew by $87.5 million, or 6%, from $1.37 billion to $1.46 billion. This growth was represented across most loan categories, reflecting a continuing commitment to the credit needs of our customers and our market footprint. Our loan to deposit ratio, which includes loans held for sale, was 85% at September 30, 2009 compared to 90% at December 31, 2008.
Total deposits increased $103.0 million, or 6%, from $1.63 billion at December 31, 2008 to $1.74 billion at September 30, 2009. During the same period, core deposits grew by $96.8 million, or 6%, as well. Over the past twelve months, our total consumer core deposits increased by $158.9 million, or 24%. Total borrowings decreased by $241.5 million from $379.5 million at December 31, 2008 to $138.1 million at September 30, 2009, primarily as a result of our common stock offering, continued deposit growth and principal paydowns on investment securities. Of the total borrowings at September 30, 2009, $83.7 million were short-term and $54.4 million were considered long-term.
Nonperforming assets and loans past due 90 days at September 30, 2009 totaled $32.0 million, or 1.53%, of total assets, as compared to $27.9 million, or 1.30% of total assets, at December 31, 2008 and $12.2 million, or 0.57%, of total assets one year ago. The Company’s third quarter provision for loan losses totaled $3.7 million, as compared to $1.7 million recorded in the third quarter of 2008. The increase in the provision for loan losses over the prior year is a result of the Company’s gross loan growth (excluding loans held for sale) of $88.2 million over the past twelve months as well as the increase in the level of nonperforming loans from September 30, 2008 to September 30, 2009. The allowance for loan losses totaled $14.6 million as of September 30, 2009, an increase of $730,000, or 5%, over the total allowance at September 30, 2008 and compared to $16.7 million at December 31, 2008. The allowance represented 0.99% and 1.00% of gross loans outstanding at September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively and compared to 1.16% of gross loans at December 31, 2008.
Total net charge-offs for the third quarter were $8.4 million vs. $22,000 for the third quarter of 2008. Total net charge-offs for the first nine months of 2009 were $12.7 million compared to $929,000 for the first nine months of 2008. Approximately $6.0 million, or 71%, of total charge-offs for the third quarter of 2009 were associated with only five different relationships. And
approximately $10.1 million, or 79%, of total loan charge-offs year-to-date 2009 were associated with a total of seven different relationships.
The financial highlights for the first nine months of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008 are summarized below:
(in millions, except per share amounts) | | September 30, 2009 | | | September 30, 2008 | | | % Change | |
| | | | | | | | | |
Total assets | | $ | 2,086.5 | | | $ | 2,125.3 | | | | (2 | ) % |
Total loans (net) | | | 1,456.6 | | | | 1,369.1 | | | | 6 | |
Total deposits | | | 1,737.0 | | | | 1,689.8 | | | | 3 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Total revenues | | $ | 74.3 | | | $ | 76.2 | | | | (2 | ) % |
Total noninterest expenses | | | 66.1 | | | | 57.3 | | | | 15 | |
Net income (loss) | | | (1.0 | ) | | | 10.1 | | | | (110 | ) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Diluted net income (loss) per share | | $ | (0.16 | ) | | $ | 1.55 | | | | (110 | )% |
We expect to continue the pattern of expanding our footprint not only with the aforementioned acquisition of Republic First but also by branching into contiguous areas of our new and existing markets, and by filling gaps between existing store locations. Accordingly, we anticipate notable balance sheet and revenue growth as a result of the expansion. Additionally, we expect to incur direct acquisition expenses as we consummate the merger with Republic First including expenses to combine the operations of the two companies. We also anticipate that the recent core system conversion will result in increased levels of expense in future periods than in previous periods. Operating results for the remainder of 2009 and the years that follow could also be heavily impacted by the overall state of the local and global economy.
APPLICATION OF CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Our accounting policies are fundamental to understanding Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. Our accounting policies are more fully described in Note 1 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements described in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008. Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These principles require our management to make estimates and assumptions about future events that affect the amounts reported in our consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Since future events and their effects cannot be determined with absolute certainty, actual results may differ from those estimates. Management makes adjustments to its assumptions and estimates when facts and circumstances dictate. We evaluate our estimates and assumptions on an ongoing basis and predicate those estimates and assumptions on historical experience and on various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Management believes the following critical accounting policies encompass the more significant assumptions and estimates used in preparation of our consolidated financial statements.
Allowance for Loan Losses. The allowance for loan losses represents the amount available for estimated losses existing in the loan portfolio. While the allowance for loan losses is maintained at a level believed to be adequate by management for estimated losses in the loan portfolio, the determination of the allowance is inherently subjective, as it involves significant estimates by management, all of which may be susceptible to significant change.
While management uses available information to make such evaluations, future adjustments to the allowance and the provision for loan losses may be necessary if economic conditions or loan credit quality differ substantially from the estimates and assumptions used in making the
evaluations. The use of different assumptions could materially impact the level of the allowance for loan losses and, therefore, the provision for loan losses to be charged against earnings. Such changes could impact future financial results.
We perform monthly, systematic reviews of our loan portfolios to identify potential losses and assess the overall probability of collection. These reviews include an analysis of historical default and loss experience, which results in the identification and quantification of loss factors. These loss factors are used in determining the appropriate level of allowance necessary to cover the estimated probable losses in various loan categories. Management judgment involving the estimates of loss factors can be impacted by many variables, such as the number of years of actual default and loss history included in the evaluation.
The methodology used to determine the appropriate level of the allowance for loan losses and related provisions differs for commercial and consumer loans and involves other overall evaluations. In addition, significant estimates are involved in the determination of the appropriate level of allowance related to impaired loans. The portion of the allowance related to impaired loans is based on either (1) discounted cash flows using the loan’s effective interest rate, (2) the fair value of the collateral for collateral-dependent loans, or (3) the observable market price of the impaired loan. Each of these variables involves judgment and the use of estimates. In addition to calculating and the testing of loss factors, we periodically evaluate qualitative factors which include:
| · | changes in lending policies and procedures, including changes in underwriting standards and collection, charge-off and recovery practices not considered elsewhere in estimating credit losses; |
| · | changes in the volume and severity of past due loans, the volume of nonaccrual loans and the volume and severity of adversely classified or graded loans; |
| · | changes in the nature and volume of the portfolio and the terms of loans; |
| · | changes in the value of underlying collateral for collateral-dependent loans; |
| · | changes in the quality of the institution’s loan review system; |
| · | changes in the experience, ability and depth of lending management and other relevant staff; |
| · | the existence and effect of any concentrations of credit and changes in the level of such concentrations; |
| · | changes in international, national, regional and local economic and business conditions and developments that affect the collectability of the portfolio, including the condition of various market segments; and |
| · | the effect of other external factors such as competition and legal and regulatory requirements on the level of estimated credit losses in the institution’s existing portfolio. |
Management judgment is involved at many levels of these evaluations.
An integral aspect of our risk management process is allocating the allowance for loan losses to various components of the loan portfolio based upon an analysis of risk characteristics, demonstrated losses, industry and other segmentations and other more judgmental factors.
Stock-Based Compensation. Effective January 1, 2006, the Company adopted Share-Based Payment guidance using the modified prospective method. The guidance requires compensation costs related to share-based payment transactions to be recognized in the income statement (with limited exceptions) based on the grant-date fair value of the stock-based compensation issued.
Compensation costs are recognized over the period that an employee provides service in exchange for the award. The grant-date fair value and ultimately the amount of compensation expense recognized is dependent upon certain assumptions we make such as the expected term the options will remain outstanding, the volatility and dividend yield of our company stock and risk free interest rate. This critical Accounting policy is more fully described in Note 14 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.
Other than Temporary Impairment of Investment Securities. We perform periodic reviews of the fair value of the securities in the Company’s investment portfolio and evaluate individual securities for declines in fair value that may be other than temporary. If declines are deemed other than temporary, an impairment loss is recognized against earnings and the security is written down to its current fair value.
Effective April 1, 2009, the Company adopted the provisions to fair value measurement guidance regarding Recognition and Presentation of Other-Than-Temporary Impairments. This critical Accounting policy is more fully described in Note 9 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009.
Fair Value Measurements. Effective January 1, 2008, the Company adopted fair value measurements guidance, which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and expands disclosures about fair value measurements. The Company is required to disclose the fair value of financial assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value within a fair value hierarchy. The fair value hierarchy prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value, giving the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurement) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). These disclosures appear in Note 8 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements described in this interim report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009. Judgment is involved not only with deriving the estimated fair values but also with classifying the particular assets recorded at fair value in the fair value hierarchy. Estimating the fair value of impaired loans or the value of collateral securing foreclosed assets requires the use of significant unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). At September 30, 2009, the fair value of assets based on level 3 measurements constituted 3% of the total assets measured at fair value. The fair value of collateral securing impaired loans or constituting foreclosed assets is generally determined based upon independent third party appraisals of the properties, recent offers, or prices on comparable properties in the proximate vicinity. Such estimates can differ significantly from the amounts the Company would ultimately realize from the loan or disposition of underlying collateral.
The Company’s available for sale investment security portfolio constitutes 97% of the total assets measured at fair value and is primarily classified as a level 2 fair value measurement (quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs that are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability). Management utilizes third party service providers to aid in the determination of the fair value of the portfolio. If quoted market prices are not available, fair values are generally based on quoted market prices of comparable instruments. Securities that are debenture bonds and pass through mortgage backed investments that are not quoted on an exchange, but are traded in active markets, were obtained from matrix pricing on similar securities.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
Average Balances and Average Interest Rates
Interest-earning assets averaged $1.94 billion for the third quarter of 2009, the same as for the
third quarter in 2008. For the quarter ended September 30, total loans receivable including loans held for sale, averaged $1.48 billion in 2009 and $1.37 billion in 2008, respectively. For the same two quarters, total securities averaged $460.5 million and $568.7 million, respectively. The decrease is a result of principal repayments, sales and calls which more than offset purchases during the same period. These cash flows were used to fund loan growth and to reduce the level of borrowed funds rather than redeploy the cash flows back into investment securities at a reduced net interest spread given the overall low interest rate environment.
The average balance of total deposits increased $135.0 million, or 8%, for the third quarter of 2009 compared to the third quarter of 2008. Total interest-bearing deposits averaged $1.41 billion, compared to $1.31 billion for the third quarter one year ago and average noninterest bearing deposits increased by $33.9 million, or 12%. Short-term borrowings, which consists of overnight advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank, securities sold under agreements to repurchase and overnight federal funds lines of credit, averaged $140.0 million for the third quarter of 2009 versus $268.2 million for the same quarter of 2008.
The fully-taxable equivalent yield on interest-earning assets for the third quarter of 2009 was 5.07%, a decrease of 75 basis points (“bps”) from the comparable period in 2008. This decrease resulted from lower yields on our loan and securities portfolios during the third quarter of 2009 as compared to the same period in 2008. Floating rate loans represent approximately 41% of our total loans receivable portfolio. The majority of these loans are tied to the New York prime lending rate which decreased 200 bps during the first quarter of 2008 and subsequently decreased another 200 bps throughout the remainder of 2008, following similar decreases in the overnight federal funds rate by the Federal Open Market Committee. Approximately $98.9 million, or 24%, of our investment securities have a floating interest rate and provide a yield that consists of a fixed spread tied to the one month London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”) interest rate. The average one month LIBOR interest rate decreased approximately 235 bps over the past twelve months from an average rate of 2.62% during the third quarter 2008 compared to a rate of 0.27% for the third quarter of 2009. The Company experienced a decline in yield in the investment portfolio primarily due to the call of seven agency debentures totaling $41.5 million with a weighted average yield of 5.46%.
As a result of the extremely low level of current general market interest rates, including the one-month LIBOR and the New York prime lending rate, we expect the yields we receive on our interest-earning assets will continue to be lower throughout the remainder of 2009.
The average rate paid on our total interest-bearing liabilities for the third quarter of 2009 was 1.38%, compared to 2.00% for the third quarter of 2008. Our deposit cost of funds decreased 43 bps from 1.42% in the third quarter of 2008 to 0.99% for the third quarter of 2009. The average cost of short-term borrowings decreased from 2.18% to 0.63% during the same period. The aggregate average cost of all funding sources for the Company was 1.15% for the third quarter of 2009, compared to 1.71% for the same quarter of the prior year. The decrease in the Company’s deposit cost of funds is primarily related to the lower level of general market interest rates present during the third quarter as compared to the same period in 2008. At September 30, 2009, $501.9 million, or 29%, of our total deposits were those of local municipalities, school districts, not-for-profit organizations or corporate cash management customers, where the interest rates paid are indexed to either the 91-day Treasury bill, the overnight federal funds rate, or 30-day LIBOR interest rate. Late in the third quarter and early fourth quarter each year our indexed deposits experience seasonally high growth in balances and can comprise as much as 30-35% of our total deposits during those periods. The average interest rate of the 91-day Treasury bill decreased from 1.65% in the third quarter of 2008 to 0.17% in the third quarter of 2009 thereby significantly reducing the average interest rate paid on these deposits. The decrease in the Company’s borrowing cost of funds is primarily related to the decrease in the overnight federal funds interest rate which decreased by 175 bps between September 30, 2008 and September 30, 2009.
Interest-earning assets averaged $1.98 billion for the first nine months of 2009, compared to $1.87 billion for the same period in 2008. For the same two periods, total loans receivable including loans held for sale, averaged $1.49 billion in 2009 and $1.28 billion in 2008. Total securities averaged $487.8 million and $586.9 million for the first nine months of 2009 and 2008, respectively. The decrease, as previously mentioned with respect to the third quarter, was due to utilizing cash flows from the investment portfolio to fund loan growth and reduce the level of borrowed funds rather than redeploy those dollars back into investment securities.
The overall net growth in interest-earning assets was funded primarily by an increase in the average balance of total deposits. Total average deposits, including noninterest bearing funds, increased by $125.5 million for the first nine months of 2009 over the same period of 2008 from $1.55 billion to $1.67 billion. Short-term borrowings averaged $217.6 million and $245.4 million in the first nine months of 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The fully-taxable equivalent yield on interest-earning assets for the first nine months of 2009 was 5.13%, a decrease of 86 bps versus the comparable period in 2008. This decrease resulted from lower yields on our loan and securities portfolios during the first nine months of 2009 as compared to the same period in 2008, again, as a result of the lower level of general market interest rates present during the first nine months of 2009 versus the same period in 2008.
The average rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities for the first nine months of 2009 was 1.41%, compared to 2.16% for the first nine months of 2008. Our deposit cost of funds decreased from 1.51% in the first nine months of 2008 to 1.04% for the same period in 2009. The aggregate cost of all funding sources was 1.19% for the first nine months of 2009, compared to 1.85% for the same period in 2008.
Net Interest Income and Net Interest Margin
Net interest income is the difference between interest income and interest expense. Interest income is generated from interest earned on loans, investment securities and other interest-earning assets. Interest expense is paid on deposits and borrowed funds. Changes in net interest income and net interest margin result from the interaction between the volume and composition of interest-earning assets, related yields and associated funding costs. Net interest income is our primary source of earnings. There are several factors that affect net interest income, including:
| · | the volume, pricing mix and maturity of earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities; |
| · | market interest rate fluctuations; and |
Net interest income, on a fully tax-equivalent basis, for the third quarter of 2009 decreased by $881,000, or 4.0%, from the same period in 2008. This decrease was a result of a decrease in the yield on earning assets partially offset by a reduction in interest rates paid on deposits and short-term borrowing sources, both as previously discussed above. Interest income, on a tax-equivalent basis, on interest-earning assets totaled $24.9 million for the third quarter of 2009, a decrease of $3.6 million, or 13%, from 2008. Interest income on loans receivable, on a tax-equivalent basis, decreased by $1.4 million, or 6%, from the third quarter of 2008. This is primarily the result of a $2.5 million decrease due to lower interest rates associated with our floating rate loans and new fixed rate loans generated over the past twelve months partially offset by a $1.1 million increase in loan interest income due to a higher level of loans receivable outstanding. The lower rates are a direct result of the decreases in the New York prime lending rate following similar decreases in the federal funds rate. Interest income on the investment securities portfolio decreased by $2.3 million, or 33%, for the third quarter of 2009 as compared to the same period last year. This was a result of a decrease in the average balance of the investment securities portfolio of $108.2 million, or 19%, from the third quarter one year ago combined with a decrease of 82 bps on the average rate earned on those securities from third quarter 2008 to third quarter 2009. Due to the significant decrease in short-term interest rates that occurred throughout the past twelve months, the cash flows from principal repayments on the investment securities portfolio accelerated dramatically. These cash flows were used to fund the continued loan growth and were not redeployed back into the securities portfolio.
Interest expense for the third quarter decreased $2.7 million, or 33%, from $8.4 million in 2008 to $5.6 million in 2009. Interest expense on deposits decreased by $1.3 million, or 24%, from the third quarter of 2008 while interest expense on short-term borrowings decreased by $1.3 million, or 85%, for the same period.
Net interest income, on a fully tax-equivalent basis, for the first nine months of 2009 increased by $123,000, or 0.2%, over the same period in 2008. Interest income on interest-earning assets totaled $76.3 million for the first nine months of 2009 a decrease of $8.3 million, or 10%, below the same period in 2008. Interest income on loans outstanding decreased by $1.4 million, or 2.0%, from the first nine months of 2008 and interest income on investment securities decreased by $6.9 million, or 31%, compared to the same period last year. Total interest expense for the first nine months decreased $8.4 million, or 32%, from $26.0 million in 2008 to $17.5 million in 2009. Interest expense on deposits decreased by $4.5 million, or 26%, for the first nine months of 2009 versus the first nine months of 2008. Interest expense on short-term borrowings decreased by $3.8 million, or 79%, for the first nine months of 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. Interest expense on long-term debt totaled $3.5 million for the first nine months of 2009, as compared to $3.7 million for the first nine months of 2008. The decreases in interest income and interest expense directly relate to the significantly lower level of general market interest rates present in the first nine months of 2009 compared to the first nine months of 2008.
Changes in net interest income are frequently measured by two statistics: net interest rate spread and net interest margin. Net interest rate spread is the difference between the average rate earned on interest-earning assets and the average rate incurred on interest-bearing liabilities. Our net interest rate spread on a fully taxable-equivalent basis was 3.69% during the third quarter of 2009 compared to 3.82% during the same period in the previous year. Our net interest rate spread on a fully taxable-equivalent basis was 3.72% during the first nine months of 2009 versus 3.83% during the first nine months of 2008. Net interest margin represents the difference between interest income, including net loan fees earned, and interest expense, reflected as a percentage of average interest-earning assets. The fully tax-equivalent net interest margin decreased 19 bps, from 4.11% for the third quarter of 2008 to 3.92% for the third quarter of 2009, as a result of the decreased yield on interest earning assets partially offset by the decrease in the cost of funding sources as previously discussed. For the first nine months of 2009 and 2008, the fully taxable-equivalent net interest margin was 3.94% and 4.14%, respectively.
Provision for Loan Losses
Management undertakes a rigorous and consistently applied process in order to evaluate the allowance for loan losses and to determine the level of provision for loan losses, as previously stated in the Application of Critical Accounting Policies. We recorded a provision of $3.7 million to the allowance for loan losses for the third quarter of 2009 as compared to $1.7 million for the third quarter of 2008. The loan loss provision for the first nine months was $10.6 million and $4.1 million for 2009 and 2008, respectively. The increase in the provision for loan losses for both the quarter and year to date over the prior year is a result of the Company’s gross loan growth of $88.2 million over the past twelve months, combined with the level of nonperforming loans at September 30, 2009 and the amount of net charge-offs incurred during the first nine months of 2009. Nonperforming loans totaled $25.1 million at September 30, 2009, down from $27.1 million at December 31, 2009 and compared to $11.7 million at September 30, 2008. Total nonperforming assets were $32.0 million at September 30, 2009 compared to $27.9 million as of December 31, 2008 and up from $12.2 million at September 30, 2008. Nonperforming assets as a percentage of total assets increased from 1.30% at December 31, 2008 to 1.53% at September 30, 2009. This same ratio was 0.57% at September 30, 2008. See the sections in this Management’s Discussion and Analysis on asset quality and the allowance for loan losses for further discussion regarding nonperforming loans and our methodology for determining the provision for loan losses.
Net loan charge-offs for the third quarter of 2009 were $8.4 million, or 2.29% (annualized) of average loans outstanding, compared to net charge-offs of $22,000, or 0.01% of average loans outstanding, for the same period in 2008. During the third quarter 2009, the Company charged off five relationships totaling $6.0 million of the total $8.4 million of net charge offs for the quarter. Of the $10.1 million, approximately $6.0 million, or 60%, were commercial real estate loans and $4.0 million, or 40%, were commercial business loans. At the time of chargeoff, the Bank had existing provisions totaling approximately $8.0 million, or 80%, of the aggregate amount charged off for the period.
Net charge-offs for the first nine months of 2009 were $12.7 million, or 1.17% (annualized) of average loans outstanding, compared to net charge-offs of $929,000, or 0.10% of average loans outstanding for the same period in 2008. Approximately $10.1 million, or 79%, of total loan charge-offs year-to-date were associated with a total of seven different relationships. Of the $6.0 million, approximately $3.7 million, or 62%, were commercial real estate loans and $2.3 million, or 38%, were commercial business loans. At the time of chargeoff, the Bank had existing provisions totaling approximately $5 million, or 83%, of the aggregate amount charged off for the period.
The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of period-end gross loans outstanding was 0.99% at September 30, 2009, as compared to 1.16% at December 31, 2008, and 1.00% at September 30, 2008.
Noninterest Income
Noninterest income for the third quarter of 2009 increased by $488,000, or 8%, from the same period in 2008. During the third quarter of 2009, the Company recorded net gains of $1.5 million on sales of investment securities. These gains were partially offset by a $952,000 charge for other-than-temporary impairment on three private-label collateralized mortgage obligations in the Bank’s investment securities portfolio. Further detailed discussion of the impairment charge can be found in Note 9 of this Form 10-Q. Core noninterest income, comprised primarily of deposit service charges and fees, totaled $6.3 million, a decrease of $75,000, or 1%, from the third quarter of 2008. The decrease in core noninterest income is due to a lower level of fee income associated with non sufficient funds (“NSF”) activity as well as lower fee income associated with debit cards and ATM transactions. Customer usage of these products was down slightly in 2009 which resulted in lower levels of fee income as compared to the third quarter one year ago. Noninterest income for the third quarter of 2009 included $238,000 of net gains on sales of loans compared to net gains of $177,000 on sales of loans during the third quarter of 2008.
Noninterest income for the first nine months of 2009 decreased by $1.6 million, or 8%, compared to the same period in 2008. Deposit service charges and fees decreased 4%, from $17.9 million for the first nine months of 2008 to $17.2 million in the first nine months of 2009. The decrease in deposit service charges and fees is primarily attributable to a lower level of fee income associated with NSF activity as well as debit card and ATM transactions as described above. The 2009 net gain on the sale of loans is comprised of $921,000 of gains on the sale of residential and small business loans, partially offset by a $627,000 loss on the sale of student loans. Total gains of $574,000 for the first nine months of 2008 were associated with sales of residential loans. The loss on the sale of student loans was related to management’s decision to sell a $12.2 million portion of the Bank’s student loan portfolio due to the low level of yields on those loans combined with a higher level of servicing costs. Included in noninterest income for the first nine months of 2009 was a $2.3 million charge for other-than-temporary-impairment on private-label CMO’s in the Bank’s investment portfolio.
Noninterest Expenses
For the third quarter of 2009, noninterest expenses increased by $3.4 million, or 18%, over the same period in 2008. Included in noninterest expenses for the third quarter of 2009 were one-time charges of approximately $1.8 million associated with the transition of data processing, item processing and technology network services to a new service provider as well as costs associated with rebranding to Metro Bank. Salary and benefits expenses, data processing costs and related expenses increased due to maintaining our own technological infrastructure which was previously supported by TD. Prior to the third quarter of 2009, we paid TD to maintain the network and technology infrastructure for our Company. A comparison of noninterest expenses for certain categories for the three months ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008 is presented in the following paragraphs.
Salary and employee benefits expenses, which represent the largest component of noninterest expenses, increased by $1.1 million, or 12%, for the third quarter of 2009 over the third quarter of 2008. This increase includes the impact of additional staffing in our operations and information technology departments to facilitate the conversion process as well as to handle functions that were previously performed by TD but are now performed in-house. The increase was also partially a result of higher overall benefit plan costs.
Occupancy expenses totaled $1.9 million for the third quarter of 2009, a decrease of $82,000, or 4%, from the third quarter of 2008, while furniture and equipment expenses increased 22%, or $232,000, from the third quarter of 2008. The increase in furniture and equipment was related to an increase in depreciation and maintenance expenses associated with 2009 fixed asset purchases that were made as a result of our conversion and rebranding initiative.
Advertising and marketing expenses totaled $830,000 for the three months ending September 30, 2009, an increase of $175,000, or 27%, from the same period in 2008. This is primarily due to a higher level of brand promotional activity as a result of the total rebranding of the Company which occurred in June 2009 and carried into the third quarter.
Data processing expenses increased by $734,000, or 41%, in the third quarter of 2009 over the three months ended September 30, 2008. The increase was due to costs associated with processing additional transactions as a result of the growth in the number of accounts serviced combined with expenses associated with conversion of systems and processing from TD to Fiserv.
Regulatory assessments and related fees totaled $830,000 for the third quarter of 2009 and were $289,000, or 53%, higher than for the third quarter of 2008. The Bank, like all financial institutions whose deposits are guaranteed by the FDIC, pays a quarterly premium for such deposit coverage. The rates charged by the FDIC have increased substantially in 2009 compared to prior years.
Telephone expenses totaled $1.4 million for the third quarter of 2009, an increase of $847,000, or 147%, from the third quarter of 2008. This increase was related to the increase in costs associated with supporting the newly enhanced technological infrastructure built prior to our transition to Fiserv. In addition we experienced increased call center volume and utilized higher call center staffing levels throughout the third quarter to assist customers with post conversion questions.
As mentioned previously, included in noninterest expenses for the third quarter of 2009 were one-time charges of approximately $1.8 million associated with the transition of all services from TD, along with rebranding costs associated with changing the Bank’s name. Total noninterest expenses for the third quarter of 2009 were offset partially by the recognition of $2.75 million of the total $6.0 million fee paid to Metro Bank from TD. This fee was used to partially defray the costs of transition and rebranding. The impact of the one-time charges offset by this fee are reflected in the Core System Conversion/Branding expense line on the Company’s Consolidated Statement of Operations. Also included in noninterest expenses was $250,000 associated with the Company’s pending acquisition of Republic First which is expected to close upon regulatory approval. We expect to incur additional costs associated with the acquisition of Republic First during the fourth quarter of 2009.
Other noninterest expenses increased by $577,000, or 21%, for the three-month period ended September 30, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008. The primary reason for the increase related to lending expenses and noncredit related losses.
For the first nine months of 2009, noninterest expenses increased by $8.7 million, or 15%, over the same period in 2008. A comparison of noninterest expenses for certain categories for the nine months ending September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008 is presented in the following paragraphs.
Salary expenses and employee benefits, increased by $4.2 million, or 15%, for the first nine months of 2009 over the first nine months of 2008. This increase includes the impact of additional staffing in our operations and information technology departments to facilitate the conversion process as well as to handle functions that were previously performed by TD but are now performed in-house. The increase was also partially a result of higher overall employee benefit plan costs.
Occupancy expenses totaled $6.0 million for the first nine months of 2009, a decrease of $121,000, or 2%, from the first nine months of 2008. Furniture and equipment expenses increased 5%, or $162,000, from the first nine months of 2008. The increases as compared to first nine months of 2008 were related to higher levels of depreciation on fixed assets and maintenance expense as a result of our conversion and rebranding initiative.
Advertising and marketing expenses totaled $1.9 million for the nine months ending September 30, 2009, a decrease of $443,000, or 19%, from the same period in 2008. This is primarily due to a large reduction in actively promoting our previous brand during the first half of 2009 prior to the rebranding efforts which occurred in June 2009 and the third quarter of this year. The impact of one-time costs associated with the rebranding are included in the conversion/branding line on the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations.
Data processing expenses increased by $1.4 million, or 26%, for the first nine months of 2009 over the nine months ended September 30, 2008. The increase was due to costs associated with processing additional transactions as a result of the growth in the number of accounts serviced combined with enhancements to current systems prior to our conversion of data processing and item processing from TD. Also included in data processing expenses were additional costs that resulted from building a new network infrastructure to support the daily operations of the Company post conversion.
Regulatory assessments of $3.3 million were $976,000, or 43%, higher for the first nine months of 2009 compared to the nine months ended September 30, 2008. The increase primarily relates to a one-time special assessment fee levied by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation against all FDIC-insured financial institutions in the second quarter of 2009 to bolster the level of the Bank Insurance Fund which is available to cover possible future bank failures. The one time special assessment amounted to $960,000 for Metro Bank. Included in total regulatory expenses for the first half of 2008 were costs incurred to address the matters identified by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) in a formal written agreement and a consent order which the Bank entered into with the OCC in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Both the formal written agreement and the consent order between the Bank and the OCC were terminated on November 7, 2008. The absence of similar expenses during the first nine months of 2009 has been offset by higher quarterly FDIC fees for deposit insurance coverage.
Telephone expenses totaled $3.0 million for the first nine months of 2009, an increase of $1.2 million, or 70%, over the first nine months of 2008. This increase was related to an increase in costs with supporting the newly enhanced technological infrastructure built prior to our transition to Fiserv in addition to the increased call center volume which we experienced post conversion. Costs associated with call center services are higher with our new provider and this impact is reflected in the increased level of telephone expenses for both the third quarter and for the first nine months of 2009 over the respective periods in 2008.
Merger/Acquisition charges totaled $655,000 for the first nine months of 2009 versus no such expense for the same period in 2008. We expect additional merger-related expenses during the fourth quarter of 2009 as we work to close this transaction upon the receipt of regulatory approval.
Other noninterest expenses increased by $1.0 million, or 15%, for the nine-month period ending September 30, 2009, compared to the same period in 2008. The increase is primarily due to costs related to lending activities and noncredit related losses.
One key measure that management utilizes to monitor progress in controlling overhead expenses is the ratio of annualized net noninterest expenses (less nonrecurring) to average assets. For purposes of this calculation, net noninterest expenses equal noninterest expenses less noninterest income. For the third quarter of 2009 this ratio equaled 2.75% and for the third quarter of 2008 this ratio equaled 2.51%. For the nine month period ending September 30, 2009, this ratio equaled 3.01% compared to 2.57% for the nine-month period ending September 30, 2008.
Another productivity measure utilized by management is the operating efficiency ratio. This ratio expresses the relationship of noninterest expenses (less nonrecurring) to net interest income plus noninterest income (less nonrecurring). For the quarter ending September 30, 2009, the operating efficiency ratio was 88.6%, compared to 74.4% for the similar period in 2008. This ratio equaled 87.1% for the first nine months of 2009, compared to 75.3% for the first nine months of 2008. The increase in the operating efficiency ratio primarily relates to the increase in noninterest expenses in 2009 relating to supporting our change in the technological infrastructure.
Provision for Federal Income Taxes
The benefit realized for federal income taxes was $502,000 for the third quarter of 2009 as a result of a pretax loss of $992,000, compared to a provision for federal income taxes of $1.5 million for the same period in 2008. For the nine months ending September 30, the benefit realized was $1.4 million for 2009 compared to a provision of $4.6 million in 2008. The effective tax benefit rate for the first nine months of 2009 was 57.6% due to the proportion of tax free income to a total pretax loss as compared to the effective tax rate of 31.3% for the first nine months of 2008. This change in effective tax rate and the corresponding provision during 2009 was primarily due to recording a pre-tax loss for both the three months and nine months ended September 30, 2009 compared to pre-tax income for the comparable periods in 2008. The Company’s statutory rate was 35% in both 2009 and in 2008.
Net Income (Loss) and Net Income (Loss) per Share
Net loss for the third quarter of 2009 was $490,000, a decrease of $3.9 million, or 114%, from the $3.4 million of net income recorded in the third quarter of 2008. The decrease was due to a $973,000 decrease in net interest income, a $2.0 million increase in the provision for loan losses, and a $3.4 million increase in noninterest expenses partially offset by a $488,000 increase in noninterest income and a $2.0 million decrease in the provision for income taxes.
Net loss for the first nine months of 2009 was $1.0 million, a decrease of $11.2 million, or 110%, from the $10.1 million of net income recorded in the first nine months of 2008. The decrease was due to a $291,000 decrease in net interest income, a $1.6 million decrease in noninterest income, a $6.6 million increase in the provision for loan losses and an $8.7 million increase in noninterest expenses partially offset by a $6.0 million decrease in the provision for income taxes.
Basic loss per common share was $(0.08) for the third quarter of 2009, compared to earnings per share of $0.54 for the third quarter of 2008. For the first nine months of 2009 and 2008, basic loss and earnings per share were $(0.16) and $1.59, respectively. Diluted earnings per common share decreased $0.60, to a loss of $(0.08), for the third quarter of 2009, compared to net income of $0.52 for the third quarter of 2008. For the first nine months in 2009, loss per common share was $(0.16) compared to fully diluted earnings per share of $1.55 for the same period in 2008.
Return on Average Assets and Average Equity
Return on average assets (“ROA”) measures our net income (loss) in relation to our total average assets. Our annualized ROA for the third quarter of 2009 was (0.09)%, compared to 0.66% for the third quarter of 2008. The ROA for the first nine months in 2009 and 2008 was (0.06)% and 0.68%, respectively. Return on average equity (“ROE”) indicates how effectively we can generate net income on the capital invested by our stockholders. ROE is calculated by dividing annualized net income or loss by average stockholders' equity. The ROE was (1.47)% for the third quarter of 2009, compared to 11.96% for the third quarter of 2008. The ROE for the first nine months of 2009 was (1.10)%, compared to 11.98% for the first nine months of 2008. Both ROA and ROE for the third quarter and year to date of 2009 were directly impacted by the net losses recorded for those two periods compared to net income recorded for the same periods in 2008.
FINANCIAL CONDITION
Securities
During the first nine months of 2009, the total investment securities portfolio decreased by $100.4 million from $494.2 million to $393.8 million. The cash flows from principal repayments, calls of securities and investment sales were used to fund loan growth and to reduce borrowed funds rather than redeploy these cash flows back into investment securities at a reduced net interest spread. The unrealized loss on available for sale securities decreased by $13.9 million from $26.6 million at December 31, 2008 to $12.7 million at September 30, 2009 as a result of improving market values in both agency and non-agency securities.
Sales of securities of $47.0 million and $3.4 million in the securities available for sale (“AFS”) and held to maturity (“HTM”) portfolios, respectively occurred during the first nine months of 2009. The sales from the HTM portfolio were primarily mortgage-backed securities with small remaining residual principal balances.
During the first nine months of 2009, AFS decreased by $44.7 million, from $341.7 million at December 31, 2008 to $297.0 million at September 30, 2009 as a result of principal repayments, investment sales, and calls partially offset by an improvement in unrealized losses associated with those securities in the AFS portfolio. The AFS portfolio is comprised of U.S. Government agency securities, mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations. At September 30, 2009, the after-tax unrealized loss on AFS securities included in stockholders’ equity totaled $8.3 million, compared to $17.3 million at December 31, 2008. The weighted average life of the AFS portfolio at September 30, 2009 was approximately 3.0 years compared to 4.9 years at December 31, 2008 and the duration was 2.5 years at September 30, 2009 compared to 4.0 years at December 31, 2008. The current weighted average yield was 3.79% at September 30, 2009 compared to 4.19% at December 31, 2008. In addition to the normal run-off of higher coupon mortgage-backed securities, the primary driver of this decline in yield has been the anticipated call, throughout 2009, of seven agency debentures totaling $41.5 million with a weighted average yield of 5.46%.
During the first nine months of 2009, the carrying value of securities in the HTM portfolio decreased by $55.7 million from $152.6 million to $96.9 million as a result of calls of U.S. Government agency securities totaling $36.5 million combined with principal repayments and sales as discussed above. The securities held in this portfolio include tax-exempt municipal bonds, collateralized mortgage obligations, corporate debt securities and mortgage-backed securities. The weighted average life of the HTM portfolio at September 30, 2009 was approximately 3.2 years compared to 4.1 years at December 31, 2008 and the duration was 2.8 years at September 30, 2009 compared to 3.4 years at December 31, 2008. The current weighted average yield was 4.84% at September 30, 2009 compared to 5.02% at December 31, 2008. The reduction in yield was the result of the above-mentioned calls on higher-yielding U.S. Government agency securities.
Total investment securities aggregated $393.8 million, or 19%, of total assets at September 30, 2009 as compared to $494.2 million, or 23%, of total assets at December 31, 2008.
The average fully-taxable equivalent yield on the combined investment securities portfolio for the first nine months of 2009 was 4.13% as compared to 5.00% for the similar period of 2008.
The Bank’s investment securities portfolio consists primarily of U.S. Government agency securities, U.S. Government sponsored agency mortgage-backed obligations and private-label collateralized mortgage obligations (CMO’s). The securities of the U.S. Government sponsored agencies and the U.S. Government mortgage-backed securities have little credit risk because their principal and interest payments are backed by an agency of the U.S. Government. Private label CMO’s are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government nor are their principal and interest payments guaranteed. Historically, most private label CMO’s have carried a AAA bond rating on the underlying issuer, however, the subprime mortgage problems and decline in the residential housing market in the U.S. throughout 2008 and 2009 have led to ratings downgrades and subsequent other-than-temporary impairment of many types of CMO’s.
The unrealized losses in the Company’s investment portfolio at September 30, 2009 are associated with two different types of securities. The first type includes eight government agency sponsored CMO’s, all of which have yields that are indexed to a spread over the one month London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR). Management believes that the unrealized losses on the Company’s investment in these federal agency CMO’s were primarily caused by their low spread to LIBOR. The second type of security in the Company’s investment portfolio with unrealized losses at September 30, 2009 was private label CMO’s. As of September 30, 2009, the Company owned thirty-one private label CMO securities in its investment portfolio with a total book value of $132.1 million. Management performs periodic assessments of these securities for other-than-temporary impairment. As part of this assessment, the Bank uses a third-party source for the monthly pricing of its portfolio. Under fair value measurement guidance, both the third-party and the Bank consider these indications to be based upon Level 2 inputs through matrix pricing, observed quotes for similar assets, and/or market-corroborated inputs.
See the detailed discussion in Note 9 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in this interim report on Form 10Q for details regarding our assessment and the determination of other-than-temporary impairment.
Loans Held for Sale
Loans held for sale are comprised of student loans and selected residential loans the Bank originates with the intention of selling in the future. Occasionally, loans held for sale also include selected Small Business Administration (“SBA”) loans and business and industry loans that the Bank decides to sell. These loans are carried at the lower of cost or estimated fair value, calculated in the aggregate. At the present time, the majority of the Bank’s residential loans are originated with the intent to sell to the secondary market unless the loan is nonconforming to the secondary market standards or if we agree not to sell the loan due to a customer’s request. The residential mortgage loans that are designated as held for sale are sold to other financial institutions in correspondent relationships. The sale of these loans takes place typically within 30 days of funding. At December 31, 2008 and September 30, 2009, there were no past due or impaired residential mortgage loans held for sale. SBA loans are held in the Company’s loan receivable portfolio unless or until the Company’s management determines a sale of certain loans is appropriate. At the time such a decision is made, the SBA loans are moved from the loans receivable portfolio to the loans held for sale portfolio. Total loans held for sale were $13.3 million at September 30, 2009 and $41.1 million at December 31, 2008. At September 30, 2009, loans held for sale were comprised of $7.1 million of student loans and $6.2 million of residential mortgages as compared to $34.4 million of student loans, $2.9 million of SBA loans and $3.8 million of residential loans at December 31, 2008. The change was the result of sales of $42.7 million in student loans, $5.7 million of SBA loans and $78.0 million in residential loans, offset by originations of $101.5 million in new loans held for sale. There were $5.7 million of SBA loans moved from the loans receivable portfolio to the loans held for sale portfolio during the first nine months of 2009. Loans held for sale, as a percent of total assets, were less than 1% at September 30, 2009 and 2% at December 31, 2008.
Loans Receivable
During the first nine months of 2009, total gross loans receivable increased by $31.5 million, from $1.44 billion at December 31, 2008, to $1.47 billion at September 30, 2009. During this period, we moved $5.7 million of SBA loans to the loans held for sale portfolio. Gross loans receivable represented 85% of total deposits and 71% of total assets at September 30, 2009, as compared to 88% and 67%, respectively, at December 31, 2008. Total loan originations during the first nine months of 2009 were below historical norms for the Bank as compared to prior years. This is due to a combination of lower demand and the current economic conditions combined with a much more stringent enforcement of credit standards for new loans in the current economic environment. As the economy slowly improves, we expect loan demand to increase and therefore expect a higher level of originations during 2010 as compared to 2009.
The following table reflects the composition of the Company’s loan portfolio as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
(dollars in thousands) | | As of 9/30/2009 | | | % of Total | | | As of 9/30/2008 | | | % of Total | | | $ Change | | | % Change | |
Commercial | | $ | 498,669 | | | | 34 | % | | $ | 434,236 | | | | 31 | % | | $ | 64,433 | | | | 15 | % |
Owner-occupied | | | 275,353 | | | | 19 | | | | 266,989 | | | | 19 | | | | 8,364 | | | | 3 | |
Total Commercial | | | 774,022 | | | | 53 | | | | 701,225 | | | | 50 | | | | 72,797 | | | | 10 | |
Consumer / residential | | | 309,156 | | | | 21 | | | | 325,778 | | | | 24 | | | | (16,622 | ) | | | (5 | ) |
Commercial real estate | | | 388,076 | | | | 26 | | | | 356,034 | | | | 26 | | | | 32,042 | | | | 9 | |
Gross Loans | | | 1,471,254 | | | | 100 | % | | | 1,383,037 | | | | 100 | % | | $ | 88,217 | | | | 6 | % |
Less: Allowance for loan losses | | | (14,618 | ) | | | | | | | (13,888 | ) | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net Loans | | $ | 1,456,636 | | | | | | | $ | 1,369,149 | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Loan and Asset Quality
Nonperforming assets include nonperforming loans and foreclosed real estate. Nonperforming assets at September 30, 2009, were $32.0 million, or 1.53%, of total assets as compared to $27.9 million, or 1.30%, of total assets at December 31, 2008. Total nonperforming loans (nonaccrual loans, loans past due 90 days and still accruing interest and restructured loans) were $25.1 million at September 30, 2009 compared to $27.1 million at December 31, 2008. Foreclosed real estate totaled $6.9 million at September 30, 2009 and $743,000 at December 31, 2008. At September 30, 2009, forty-two loans were in the nonaccrual commercial category ranging from $5,000 to $3.0 million and twenty-nine loans were in the nonaccrual commercial real estate category ranging from $25,000 to $3.8 million. At December 31, 2008, twenty-two loans were in the nonaccrual commercial category ranging from $11,000 to $3.1 million and eighteen loans were in the nonaccrual commercial real estate category ranging from $22,000 to $6.6 million. Loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing were $5,000 at September 30, 2009 and $0 at December 31, 2008. Management’s Allowance for Loan Loss Committee has performed a detailed review of the nonperforming loans and of the collateral related to these credits and believes the allowance for loan losses remains adequate for the level of risk inherent in these loans.
Impaired loans and other loans related to the same borrowers total $2.4 million at September 30, 2009. Those impaired loans required a specific allocation of $918,000 at September 30, 2009. This was a decrease of $6.8 million compared to impaired loans requiring a specific allocation at December 31, 2008. During the first nine months of 2009, there were forty-seven loans added totaling $12.7 million to the loans requiring a specific allocation and sixty loans totaling $23.1 million that no longer required a specific allocation at September 30, 2009. Additional loans of $39.3 million, considered by our internal loan review department as potential problem loans at September 30, 2009, have been evaluated as to risk exposure in determining the adequacy for the allowance for loan losses. Additional loans that were evaluated as to risk exposure increased from $8.8 million at December 31, 2008 to $39.3 million at September 30, 2009.
Nonperforming loans increased from $11.7 million at September 30, 2008 to $25.1 million at September 30, 2009. The increase in nonperforming loans experienced by the Bank from September 30, 2008 to September 30, 2009 primarily resulted from the addition of nineteen commercial relationships totaling $14.7 million at September 30, 2009. The nineteen relationships mentioned account for $894,000 of the total specific allocation at September 30, 2009. After the additional of the nineteen relationships, nonperforming commercial loans consisted of 35 relationships. At September 30, 2008, total nonperforming commercial loans were $10 million and consisted of 20 relationships.
The Bank obtains third-party appraisals by a Bank pre-approved certified general appraiser on nonperforming loans secured by real estate at the time the loan is determined to be non-performing. Appraisals are ordered by the Bank’s Real Estate Loan Administration Department which is independent of both loan workout and loan production functions.
No charged-off amount was different from what was determined to be fair value of the collateral (net of estimated costs to sell) as presented in the appraisal for any period presented.
Any provision or charge-off is accounted for upon receipt and satisfactory review of the appraisal and in no event, later than the end of the quarter in which the loan was determined to be non-performing. No significant time lapses during this process have occurred for any period presented.
The Bank also considers the volatility of the fair value of the collateral, timing and reliability of the appraisal, timing of the third party’s inspection of the collateral, confidence in the Bank’s lien on the collateral, historical losses on similar loans, and other factors based on the type of real estate securing the loan. As deemed necessary, the Bank will perform inspections of the collateral to determine if an adjustment of the value of the collateral is necessary.
Partially charged off loans with an updated appraisal remain on non-performing status and are subject to the Bank’s standard recovery policies and procedures, including, but not limited to, foreclosure proceedings, a forbearance agreement, or classified as a Troubled Debt Restructure, unless collectability of the entire contractual balance of principal and interest (book and charged off amounts) is no longer in doubt, and the loan is current or will be brought current within a short period of time.
The table below presents information regarding nonperforming loans and assets at September 30, 2009 and 2008 and at December 31, 2008.
| Nonperforming Loans and Assets |
(dollars in thousands) | September 30, 2009 | | December 31, 2008 | | September 30, 2008 | |
Nonaccrual loans: | | | | | | |
Commercial | $ 8,833 | | $ 6,863 | | $ 7,083 | |
Consumer | 984 | | 492 | | 164 | |
Real Estate: | | | | | | |
Construction | 4,580 | | 7,646 | | 731 | |
Mortgage | 10,694 | | 12,121 | | 3,657 | |
Total nonaccrual loans | 25,091 | | 27,122 | | 11,635 | |
Loans past due 90 days or more and still accruing | 5 | | - | | 33 | |
Restructured loans | - | | - | | - | |
Total nonperforming loans | 25,096 | | 27,122 | | 11,668 | |
Foreclosed real estate | 6,875 | | 743 | | 535 | |
Total nonperforming assets | $ 31,971 | | $ 27,865 | | $ 12,203 | |
Nonperforming loans to total loans | 1.71 | % | 1.88 | % | 0.84 | % |
Nonperforming assets to total assets | 1.53 | % | 1.30 | % | 0.57 | % |
Nonperforming loan coverage | 58 | % | 62 | % | 119 | % |
Nonperforming assets / capital plus allowance for loan losses | 15 | % | 21 | % | 10 | % |
Allowance for Loan Losses
The following table sets forth information regarding the Company’s provision and allowance for loan losses.
Allowance for Loan Losses |
| Three Months Ended | | Year Ended | | Nine Months Ended |
| September 30, | | | | September 30, | |
(dollars in thousands) | 2009 | | 2008 | | December 31, 2008 | | 2009 | | 2008 | |
Balance at beginning of period | $ 19,337 | | $ 12,210 | | $ 10,742 | | $ 16,719 | | $ 10,742 | |
Provisions charged to operating expense | 3,725 | | 1,700 | | 7,475 | | 10,625 | | 4,075 | |
| 23,062 | | 13,910 | | 18,217 | | 27,344 | | 14,817 | |
Recoveries of loans previously charged-off: | | | | | | | | | | |
Commercial | 19 | | 1 | | 145 | | 139 | | 132 | |
Consumer | - | | 1 | | 25 | | 5 | | 24 | |
Real estate | 35 | | - | | - | | 41 | | - | |
Total recoveries | 54 | | 2 | | 170 | | 185 | | 156 | |
Loans charged-off: | | | | | | | | | | |
Commercial | (3,878) | | - | | (1,426) | | (6,224) | | (884) | |
Consumer | (2) | | (24) | | (173) | | (21) | | (132) | |
Real estate | (4,618) | | - | | (69) | | (6,666) | | (69) | |
Total charged-off | (8,498) | | (24) | | (1,668) | | (12,911) | | (1,085) | |
Net charge-offs | (8,444) | | (22) | | (1,498) | | (12,726) | | (929) | |
Balance at end of period | $ 14,618 | | $ 13,888 | | $ 16,719 | | $ 14,618 | | $ 13,888 | |
Net charge-offs (annualized) as a percentage of average loans outstanding | 2.29 | % | 0.01 | % | 0.11 | % | 1.17 | % | 0.10 | % |
Allowance for loan losses as a percentage of period-end loans | 0.99 | % | 1.00 | % | 1.16 | % | 0.99 | % | 1.00 | % |
The Company recorded provisions of $10.6 million to the allowance for loan losses during the first nine months of 2009, compared to $4.1 million for the same period in 2008. Net charge-offs for the first nine months of 2009 totaled $12.7 million, or 1.17% (annualized) of average loans outstanding compared to $929,000, or 0.10%, for the same period last year.
The allowance for loan losses as a percentage of total loans receivable was 0.99% at September 30, 2009, compared to 1.16% at December 31, 2008; the decrease was primarily due to increased charge-offs throughout the first nine months of 2009 partially offset by the increased provision and loan growth.
Premises and Equipment
During the first nine months of 2009, premises and equipment increased by $6.5 million, or 7%, from $87.1 million at December 31, 2008 to $93.6 million at September 30, 2009. This increase was due to the purchase of $11.1 million of new fixed assets offset by depreciation and amortization on existing assets of $3.8 million and the loss on disposal of fixed assets of $839,000 primarily related to rebranding and conversion activities.
Other Assets
Other assets increased by $46.9 million from December 31, 2008 to September 30, 2009. The increase related to $43.0 million receivable for investment securities sold that had not settled at the end of September 2009 and a $6.1 million increase on foreclosed real estate, partially offset by reductions of other miscellaneous assets. The proceeds of the investment sales were subsequently received in October 2009 and the receivable balance was reduced accordingly. Approximately $4.5 million, or 73%, of the increase in foreclosed assets was associated with one property purchased at a sheriff’s sale during the third quarter of 2009 as collateral for a nonperforming loan.
Deposits
Total deposits at September 30, 2009 were $1.74 billion, up $103.0 million, or 6%, from total deposits of $1.63 billion at December 31, 2008. Core deposits totaled $1.72 billion at September 30, 2009, compared to $1.63 billion at December 31, 2008, an increase of $96.8 million, or 6%,. During the first nine months of 2009, core consumer deposits increased $92.1 million, or 13%, core commercial deposits decreased $70.4 million while core government deposits increased by $75.1 million. Total noninterest bearing deposits increased by $26.6 million, or 9%, from $280.6 million at December 31, 2008 to $307.2 million at September 30, 2009.
The average balances and weighted average rates paid on deposits for the first nine months of 2009 and 2008 are presented in the table below.
| | Nine Months Ending September 30, | |
| | 2009 | | | 2008 | |
( in thousands) | | Average Balance | | | Average Rate | | | Average Balance | | | Average Rate | |
Demand deposits: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Noninterest-bearing | | $ | 303,227 | | | | | | $ | 277,212 | | | | |
Interest-bearing (money market and checking) | | | 764,587 | | | | 0.93 | % | | | 719,092 | | | | 1.66 | % |
Savings | | | 336,821 | | | | 0.59 | | | | 347,100 | | | | 1.19 | |
Time deposits | | | 268,720 | | | | 3.09 | | | | 204,446 | | | | 3.63 | |
Total deposits | | $ | 1,673,355 | | | | | | | $ | 1,547,850 | | | | | |
Short-Term Borrowings
Short-term borrowings used to meet temporary funding needs consist of short-term and overnight advances from the Federal Home Loan Bank, securities sold under agreements to repurchase and overnight federal funds lines of credit. At September 30, 2009, short-term borrowings totaled $83.7 million as compared to $300.1 million at December 31, 2008. The average rate paid on the short-term borrowings was 0.59% during the first nine months of 2009, compared to an average rate paid of 2.54% during the first nine months of 2008. The decrease in borrowings is a result of applying the proceeds from the previously mentioned capital offering combined with an increase in deposits partially offset by an increase in loans outstanding. The decreased rate paid on the borrowings is a direct result of the decreases in short-term interest rates implemented by the Federal Reserve Board throughout 2008 as previously discussed in this Form 10-Q.
Long-Term Debt
Long-term debt totaled $54.4 million at September 30, 2009 compared to $79.4 million at December 31, 2008. The decrease is a result of the maturity of a $25 million Federal Home Loan Bank convertible select borrowing in the third quarter of 2009. As of September 30, 2009, our long-term debt consisted of Trust Capital Securities through Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust I, Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust II and Commerce Harrisburg Capital Trust III, our Delaware business trust subsidiaries as well as a longer-term borrowing through the FHLB of Pittsburgh. At September 30, 2009, all of the Capital Trust Securities qualified as Tier I capital for regulatory capital purposes for both the Bank and the Company. Proceeds of the trust capital securities were used for general corporate purposes, including additional capitalization of our wholly-owned banking subsidiary. As part of the Company’s Asset/Liability management strategy, management utilized the Federal Home Loan Bank convertible select borrowing product during 2007 with a $25.0 million borrowing with a 5 year maturity and a six month conversion term at an initial interest rate of 4.29%.
Stockholders’ Equity and Capital Adequacy
At September 30, 2009, stockholders’ equity totaled $195.7 million, up $81.3 million, or 71%, from $114.5 million at December 31, 2008. Stockholders’ equity at September 30, 2009 included $8.3 million of unrealized losses, net of income tax benefits, on securities available for sale. Excluding these unrealized losses, gross stockholders’ equity increased by $72.3 million, or 55%, from $131.8 million at December 31, 2008, to $204.0 million at September 30, 2009 as a result of the proceeds from shares issued through our common stock offering in September as well as through our stock option and stock purchase plans.
On August 6, 2009, Metro Bancorp filed a shelf registration statement on Form S-3 with the SEC which will allow the Company, from time to time, to offer and sell up to a total aggregate of $250 million of common stock, preferred stock, debt securities, trust preferred securities or warrants, either separately or together in any combination. While Metro has always been well capitalized under federal regulatory guidelines, the shelf registration better positions the Company to take advantage of potential opportunities for growth and to address current economic conditions.
On September 30, 2009, the Company completed the common stock offering of 6.25 million shares, at $12.00 per share, for new capital proceeds (net of expenses) of $70.7 million. Subsequent to the end of the quarter, the underwriters exercised their 10% over-allotment option and Metro issued an additional 625,000 common shares for additional net proceeds of $7.1 million. The total net proceeds of $77.9 million have significantly strengthened Metro’s capital ratios far beyond regulatory guidelines for “well-capitalized” status and position the Company for strong future growth including our proposed acquisition of Republic First Bancorp, Inc.
Banks are evaluated for capital adequacy based on the ratio of capital to risk-weighted assets and total assets. The risk-based capital standards require all banks to have Tier 1 capital of at least 4% and total capital (including Tier 1 capital) of at least 8% of risk-weighted assets. Tier 1 capital includes common stockholders' equity and qualifying perpetual preferred stock together with related surpluses and retained earnings. Total capital includes total Tier 1 capital, limited life preferred stock, qualifying debt instruments and the allowance for loan losses. The capital standard based on average assets, also known as the “leverage ratio,” requires all, but the most highly-rated, banks to have Tier 1 capital of at least 4% of total average assets. At September 30, 2009, the Bank met the definition of a “well-capitalized” institution.
The following tables provide a comparison of the Consolidated and the Bank-only risk-based capital ratios and leverage ratios to the minimum regulatory requirements for the periods indicated.
Consolidated | | September 30, 2009 | | | December 31, 2008 | | | Minimum For Adequately Capitalized Requirements | | | Minimum For Well-Capitalized Requirements | |
Capital Ratios: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Risk-based Tier 1 | | | 13.07 | % | | | 9.67 | % | | | 4.00 | % | | | 6.00 | % |
Risk-based Total | | | 13.89 | | | | 10.68 | | | | 8.00 | | | | 10.00 | |
Leverage ratio (to average assets) | | | 11.10 | | | | 7.52 | | | | 3.00 - 4.00 | | | | 5.00 | |
Bank | | September 30, 2009 | | | December 31, 2008 | | | Minimum For Adequately Capitalized Requirements | | | Minimum For Well-Capitalized Requirements | |
Capital Ratios: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Risk-based Tier 1 | | | 11.63 | % | | | 9.67 | % | | | 4.00 | % | | | 6.00 | % |
Risk-based Total | | | 12.45 | | | | 10.68 | | | | 8.00 | | | | 10.00 | |
Leverage ratio (to average assets) | | | 9.88 | | | | 7.52 | | | | 3.00 - 4.00 | | | | 5.00 | |
Interest Rate Sensitivity
Our risk of loss arising from adverse changes in the fair value of financial instruments, or market risk, is composed primarily of interest rate risk. The primary objective of our asset/liability management activities is to maximize net interest income while maintaining acceptable levels of interest rate risk. Our Asset/Liability Committee (“ALCO”) is responsible for establishing policies to limit exposure to interest rate risk and to ensure procedures are established to monitor compliance with those policies. Our Board of Directors reviews the guidelines established by ALCO.
Our management believes the simulation of net interest income in different interest rate environments provides a meaningful measure of interest rate risk. Income simulation analysis captures not only the potential of all assets and liabilities to mature or reprice, but also the probability that they will do so. Income simulation also attends to the relative interest rate sensitivities of these items and projects their behavior over an extended period of time. Finally, income simulation permits management to assess the probable effects on the balance sheet not only of changes in interest rates, but also of proposed strategies for responding to them.
Our income simulation model analyzes interest rate sensitivity by projecting net interest income over the next twenty-four months in a flat rate scenario versus net interest income in alternative interest rate scenarios. Our management continually reviews and refines its interest rate risk management process in response to the changing economic climate. Currently, our model projects a 200 basis point (“bp”) increase and a 100 bp decrease during the next year, with rates remaining constant in the second year.
Our ALCO policy has established that income sensitivity will be considered acceptable if overall net interest income volatility in a plus 200 or minus 100 bp scenario is within 4% of net interest income in a flat rate scenario in the first year and 5% using a two-year planning window.
The following table compares the impact on forecasted net interest income at September 30, 2009 of a plus 200 and minus 100 basis point (bp) change in interest rates to the impact at September 30, 2008 in the same scenarios.
| | September 30, 2009 | | | September 30, 2008 | |
| | | | | | |
| | 12 Months | | | 24 Months | | | 12 Months | | | 24 Months | |
Plus 200 | | | 2.9 | % | | | 8.2 | % | | | (1.4 | )% | | | (0.4 | )% |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Minus 100 | | | (1.7 | ) | | | (4.1 | ) | | | 0.4 | | | | 0.2 | |
The forecasted net interest income variability in all interest rate scenarios indicate levels of future interest rate risk within the acceptable parameters per the policies established by ALCO. Management continues to evaluate strategies in conjunction with the Company’s ALCO to effectively manage the interest rate risk position. Such strategies could include purchasing floating rate investment securities to collateralize growth in government deposits, altering the mix of deposits by product, utilizing risk management instruments such as interest rate swaps and caps, or extending the maturity structure of the Bank’s short-term borrowing position.
We used many assumptions to calculate the impact of changes in interest rates, including the proportionate shift in rates. Our actual results may not be similar to the projections due to several factors including the timing and frequency of rate changes, market conditions and the shape of the interest rate yield curve. Actual results may also differ due to our actions, if any, in response to the changing interest rates.
Management also monitors interest rate risk by utilizing a market value of equity model. The model assesses the impact of a change in interest rates on the market value of all our assets and liabilities, as well as any off-balance sheet items. Market value of equity is defined as the market value of assets less the market value of liabilities plus the market value of off-balance sheet items. Market value of equity is calculated in the current rate scenario, as well as in rate scenarios that assume an immediate 200 bp increase and a 100 bp decrease from the current level of interest rates. Our ALCO policy indicates that the level of interest rate risk is unacceptable if the immediate change in rates would result in a loss of more than 30% of the market value calculated in the current rate scenario. This measurement of interest rate risk represents a change from the previously reported metric which focused on the change in the excess of market value over book value in each of the interest rate scenarios. At September 30, 2009 the market value of equity calculation indicated acceptable levels of interest rate risk in all scenarios per the policies established by ALCO.
The market value of equity model reflects certain estimates and assumptions regarding the impact on the market value of our assets and liabilities given an immediate plus 200 or minus 100 bp change in interest rates. One of the key assumptions is the market value assigned to our core deposits, or the core deposit premiums. Using an independent consultant, we have completed and updated comprehensive core deposit studies in order to assign core deposit premiums to our deposit products as permitted by regulation. The studies have consistently confirmed management’s assertion that our core deposits have stable balances over long periods of time, are generally insensitive to changes in interest rates and have significantly longer average lives and durations than our loans and investment securities. Thus, these core deposit balances provide an internal hedge to market fluctuations in our fixed rate assets. Management believes the core deposit premiums produced by its market value of equity model at September 30, 2009 provide an accurate assessment of our interest rate risk. At September 30, 2009, the average life of our core deposit transaction accounts was 8.0 years.
Liquidity
The objective of liquidity management is to ensure our ability to meet our financial obligations. These obligations include the payment of deposits on demand at their contractual maturity, the repayment of borrowings as they mature, the payment of lease obligations as they become due, the ability to fund new and existing loans and other funding commitments and the ability to take advantage of new business opportunities. Our ALCO is responsible for implementing the policies and guidelines of our board-governing liquidity.
Liquidity sources are found on both sides of the balance sheet. Liquidity is provided on a continuous basis through scheduled and unscheduled principal reductions and interest payments on outstanding loans and investments. Liquidity is also provided through the following sources: the availability and maintenance of a strong base of core customer deposits, maturing short-term assets, the ability to sell investment securities, short-term borrowings and access to capital markets.
Liquidity is measured and monitored daily, allowing management to better understand and react to balance sheet trends. On a quarterly basis, our board of directors reviews a comprehensive liquidity analysis. The analysis provides a summary of the current liquidity measurements, projections and future liquidity positions given various levels of liquidity stress. Management also maintains a detailed liquidity contingency plan designed to respond to an overall decline in the condition of the banking industry or a problem specific to the Company.
The Company’s investment portfolio consists mainly of mortgage-backed securities and collateralized mortgage obligations that do not have stated maturities. Cash flows from such investments are dependent upon the performance of the underlying mortgage loans and are generally influenced by the level of interest rates. As rates increase, cash flows generally decrease as prepayments on the underlying mortgage loans slow. As rates decrease, cash flows generally increase as prepayments increase. In the current distressed market environment which has adversely impacted the pricing on certain securities in the Company’s investment portfolio, the Company would not be inclined to act on a sale of such available for sale securities for liquidity purposes. If the Company attempted to sell certain securities of its investment portfolio, current economic conditions and the lack of a liquid market could affect the Company’s ability to sell those securities, as well as the value the Company would be able to realize.
The Company and the Bank’s liquidity are managed separately. On an unconsolidated basis, the principal source of our revenue is dividends paid to the Company by the Bank. The Bank is subject to regulatory restrictions on its ability to pay dividends to the Company. The Company’s net cash outflows consist principally of interest on the trust-preferred securities, dividends on the preferred stock and unallocated corporate expenses.
We also maintain secondary sources of liquidity which can be drawn upon if needed. These secondary sources of liquidity include federal funds lines of credit, repurchase agreements and borrowing capacity at the Federal Home Loan Bank. At September 30, 2009, our total potential liquidity through these secondary sources was $413.9 million, of which $305.3 million was currently available, as compared to $277.8 million available out of our total potential liquidity of $627.7 million at December 31, 2008. The $213.8 million decrease in potential liquidity was entirely due to a decrease in the calculated borrowing capacity at the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB). FHLB borrowing capacity is determined based on asset levels on a quarterly lag, with the decrease reflecting the Bank’s lower level of qualifying unpledged investment securities. The $241.5 million reduction in utilization of this capacity resulted from the fact that deposit growth, proceeds received from the Company’s stock offering and runoff in our investment portfolio outpaced our loan growth in the third quarter of 2009.
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Our exposure to market risk principally includes interest rate risk, which was previously discussed. The information presented in the Interest Rate Sensitivity subsection of Part I, Item 2 of this Report, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, is incorporated by reference into this Item 3.
Item 4. Controls and Procedures
Quarterly evaluation of the Company’s Disclosure Controls and Internal Controls. As of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report, the Company has evaluated the effectiveness of the design and operation of its “disclosure controls and procedures” (“Disclosure Controls”). This evaluation (“Controls Evaluation”) was done under the supervision and with the participation of management, including the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”).
Limitations on the Effectiveness of Controls. The Company’s management, including the CEO and CFO, does not expect that their Disclosure Controls or their “internal controls and procedures for financial reporting” (“Internal Controls”) will prevent all errors and all fraud. The Company’s Disclosure Controls are designed to provide reasonable assurance that the information provided in the reports we file under the Exchange Act, including this quarterly Form 10-Q report, is appropriately recorded, processed and summarized. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the Company have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision-making can be faulty and that breakdowns can occur because of simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people, or by management override of the control. The design of any system of controls is also based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. The Company conducts periodic evaluations to enhance, where necessary, its procedures and controls.
Based upon the Controls Evaluation, the CEO and CFO have concluded that, subject to the limitations noted above, there have not been any changes in the Company’s controls and procedures for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Additionally, the CEO and CFO have concluded that the Disclosure Controls are effective in reaching a reasonable level of assurance that management is timely alerted to material information relating to the Company during the period when its periodic reports are being prepared.
Not applicable.
Part II -- OTHER INFORMATION
On or about June 19, 2009, Members 1st Federal Credit Union (“Members 1st”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Metro Bancorp, Inc., Metro Bank, Republic First Bancorp, Inc. and Republic First Bank. Members 1st’s claims are for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. It is Members 1st’s assertion that Metro’s use of a red letter “M” alone, or in conjunction with its trade name METRO, purportedly infringes Members 1st’s federally registered and common law trademark for the mark M1st (stylized). Metro intends to defend the case vigorously and has strong defenses to the claims. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief. In light of the preliminary state of the proceeding, it is not possible to assess potential costs and damages if Members 1st were successful in the proceeding notwithstanding Metro’s defenses. Management does not believe, however, that such an outcome would have a material adverse effect on Metro.
We incorporate by reference into this Quarterly Report on form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 30, 2009 the following portion of a document previously filed with the SEC:
The section of our Prospectus Supplement dated September 24, 2009 and filed with the SEC on September 24, 2009 pursuant to Rule 424(b) related to our Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-161114), under the heading “Risk Factors”. See Exhibit 99.1 Risk Factors.
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds.
No items to report for the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities.
No items to report for the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.
No items to report for the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
No items to report for the quarter ended September 30, 2009.
2.1 | First Amendment dated as of July 31,2009 to Agreement and Plan of Merger dated as of November 7, 2008 between Metro Bancorp, Inc. and Republic First Bancorp, Inc. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 31, 2009) |
| |
4.1 | Form of Common Stock Certificate (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to the Company’s Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on September 29, 2009) |
| |
4.2 | Form of Senior Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.7 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on August 6, 2009) |
| |
4.3 | Form of Subordinated Indenture (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.8 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on August 6, 2009) |
| |
4.4 | Certificate of Trust of Metro Capital Trust IV (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.11 to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed with the SEC on August 6, 2009) |