Edgar Filing: First Foundation Inc.

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

Smaller reporting company

Form 10-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

x	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013

¨	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission file number: 000-55090

FIRST FOUNDATION INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

California

20-8639702

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation or organization)

(I.R.S. Employer

Identification No.)

18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700

Irvine, CA 92612

92612

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(949) 202-4160

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, par value, $.001 per share

(Title of Class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No x.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 of 15(d) of the Act. YES ¨ NO x.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports); and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES x NO ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ¨ No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” and “non-accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ¨ No x

No market existed for registrant’s Common Stock on either the last day of the second quarter of fiscal 2013 or the last day of fiscal 2013.

As of March 21, 2014, a total of 7,733,514 shares of registrant’s Common Stock were outstanding.

FIRST FOUNDATION INC.

ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS


		Page No.
FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS			ii

	PART I
Item 1	Business		1
Item 1A	Risk Factors		19
Item 1B	Unresolved Staff Comments		32
Item 2	Properties		33
Item 3	Legal Proceedings		33
Item 4	Mine Safety Disclosures		33

	PART II

Item 5	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities		34
Item 6	Selected Financial Data		36
Item 7	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		38
Item 8	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data		64
Item 9	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures		104
Item 9A	Controls and Procedures		104
Item 9B	Other Information		104

	PART III

Item 10	Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant		105
Item 11	Executive Compensation		109
Item 12	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters		114
Item 13	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence		115
Item 14	Principal Accountant Fees and Services		118

	PART IV

Item 15	Exhibits and Financial Statements and Schedules		119

Signatures			S-1

Index to Exhibits			E-1

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

In addition to historical information, this document contains forward-looking statements (as such term is defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Forward-looking statements are those that predict or describe future events or trends or that do not relate solely to historical matters. However, our actual results and financial performance in the future will be affected by known and currently unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause our actual results or financial performance in the future to differ materially from the results or financial performance that may be expressed, predicted or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, among others, those set forth below in ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS, and readers of this report are urged to read the cautionary statements contained in that Section of this Report. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words like “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “believes,” “intends,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “project” and “continue” and similar expressions. Readers of this document are cautioned not to place undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the respective dates on which such statements were made and which are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results and the timing of certain events to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

First Foundation Inc. expressly disclaims any intent or any obligation to release publicly any revisions or updates to any of the forward-looking statements contained in this report to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document or the occurrence of currently unanticipated events or developments or to conform such forward-looking statements to actual results or to changes in its opinions or expectations, except as may be required by applicable law.

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

Unless we state otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “our,” and “us” refer to First Foundation Inc., a California corporation, (or FFI or the Company) and its consolidated subsidiaries, First Foundation Advisors (or FFA) and First Foundation Bank (or FFB).

We are a California based financial services company that provides a comprehensive platform of personalized financial services to high net-worth individuals and their families, family businesses and other affiliated organizations. We consider high net-worth individuals to be individuals with net worth, excluding their primary residence, of over $1.0 million. Our integrated platform provides investment management, wealth planning, consulting, trust and banking products and services to effectively and efficiently meet the financial needs of our clients. We have also established a lending platform that offers loans to individuals and entities that own and operate multifamily residential and commercial real estate properties. In addition, we provide business banking products and services to small to moderate-sized businesses and professional firms, and consumer banking products and services to individuals and families who would not be considered high net-worth. As of December 31, 2013, we had $2.59 billion of assets under management (or AUM), $1.04 billion of total assets, $904 million of loans and $802 million of deposits. Our investment management, wealth planning, consulting, and trust services provide us with substantial, fee-based, recurring revenues, such that in 2013, our non-interest income was 36% of our total revenues.

Our strategy is focused on expanding our strong and stable client relationships by delivering high quality, coordinated investment management, wealth planning, consulting, trust and banking products and services. We are able to maintain a client-focused approach by recruiting and retaining experienced and qualified staff, including highly qualified relationship managers, private bankers and financial planners.

We intend to continue to grow our business by (i) cross-selling our services among our wealth management and banking clients; (ii) obtaining new client referrals from existing clients, attorney and accountant referral sources and through referral agreements with asset custodial firms; (iii) marketing our services directly to prospective new clients; (iv) adding experienced relationship managers and private bankers who may have established client relationships that we can serve; (v) establishing de novo wealth management offices in select markets, both within and outside our existing market areas; and (vi) making opportunistic acquisitions of complementary businesses.

As a bank holding company, we are subject to regulation and examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (or the Federal Reserve Board or FRB) and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (or the FRBSF) under delegated authority from the FRB. As an Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (or FDIC) insured, California state chartered bank, FFB is subject to regulation and examination by the FDIC and the California Department of Business Oversight (or the DBO). FFB also is a member of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco (or “FHLB”), which provides it with a source of funds in the form of short-term and long-term borrowings. FFA is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, or Investment Advisers Act, and is subject to regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, under that Act.

Through FFA and FFB, we offer a comprehensive platform of personalized financial services to high net-worth individuals and their families, family businesses and other affiliated organizations. Our integrated platform provides investment management, wealth planning, consulting, trust and banking products and services to effectively and efficiently meet the financial needs of our clients. Our broad range of financial product and services are more consistent with those offered by larger financial institutions, while our high level of personalized service, accessibility and responsiveness to our clients are more typical of the services offered by boutique investment management firms and community banks. We believe this combination of an integrated platform of comprehensive financial services and products and personalized and responsive service differentiates us from many of our competitors and has contributed to the growth of our client base and our business.

Overview of our Investment Advisory and Wealth Management Business

FFA is a fee-based investment adviser which provides investment advisory services primarily to high net-worth individuals, their families and their family businesses, and other affiliated organizations. FFA strives to provide its clients with a high level of personalized service by its staff of experienced relationship managers. As of December 31, 2013, FFA had total $2.59 billion of AUM. FFA’s operations comprise the investment management, wealth planning and consulting segment of our business.

Overview of Our Banking Business

FFB is engaged in private and commercial banking, offering a broad range of personal and business banking products and services and trust services to its clients. Its private banking services include a variety of deposit products, including personal checking, savings and money market deposits and certificates of deposit, single family real estate loans, and consumer loans. FFB also provides the convenience of online and other personal banking services to its clients. FFB’s business banking products and services include multifamily and commercial real estate loans, commercial term loans and lines of credit, transaction and other deposit accounts, online banking and enhanced business services. FFB has also established a lending platform that offers loans to individuals and entities who own and operate multifamily residential and commercial real estate properties. In addition, FFB provides its products and services to individuals and families who would not be considered high net-worth, small to moderate sized businesses and professional firms. At December 31, 2013, FFB had $1.04 billion of total assets, $904 million of loans and $802 million of deposits. FFB’s operations comprise the trust and banking segment of our business.

Relationship Managers and Private Bankers

Our operating strategy has been to build strong and stable long-term client relationships, one at a time, by delivering high quality, coordinated investment management, wealth planning, consulting, trust and banking products and services. The success of this strategy is largely attributable to our experienced and high quality client relationship managers and private bankers. The primary role of our relationship managers and private bankers, in addition to attracting new clients, is to develop and maintain a strong relationship with their clients and to coordinate the services we provide to their clients. We have experienced low turnover in our client service personnel and we believe we can continue to attract and retain experienced and client-focused relationship managers and private bankers. At December 31, 2013, we employed 16 relationship managers and 20 private bankers.

Wealth Management Products and Services

FFA provides fee-based investment advisory services and wealth management and consulting services primarily for high net-worth individuals and their families, family businesses and other affiliated organizations (including public and closely-held corporations, family foundations and private charitable organizations). FFA provides high net-worth clients with personalized services designed to enable them to reach their personal and financial goals and by coordinating FFA’s investment advisory and wealth management services with risk management and estate and tax planning services provided by outside service providers, for which FFA does not receive commissions or referral fees. FFA’s clients benefit from certain cost efficiencies available to institutional managers, such as block trading, access to institutionally priced no-load mutual funds, ability to seek competitive bid/ask pricing for bonds, low transaction costs and investment management fees charged as a percentage of the assets managed, with tiered pricing for larger accounts.

FFA’s investment management team strives to create diversified investment portfolios for its clients that are individually designed, monitored and adjusted based on the discipline of fundamental investment analysis. FFA focuses on creating investment portfolios that are commensurate with a client’s objectives, risk preference and time horizon, using traditional investments such as individual stocks and bonds and mutual funds. FFA also provides comprehensive and ongoing advice and coordination regarding estate planning, retirement planning, charitable and business ownership issues, and issues faced by executives of publicly-traded companies.

AUM at FFA has grown at a compound annual growth rate of 19.2% over the four year period ending December 31, 2013. Changes in our AUM reflects additions from new clients, the gains or losses recognized from investment results, additional funds received from existing clients, withdrawals of funds by clients, and terminations. During the 3 year period ending December 31, 2013, additions from new clients and net gains from investment results were 71% and 29%, respectively, of the total of additions from new clients and net gains from investment results.

FFA does not provide custodial services for its clients. Instead, client investment accounts are maintained under custodial arrangements with large, well established brokerage firms, either directly or through FFB. However, FFA advises its clients that they are not obligated to use those services and that they are free to select securities brokerage firms and custodial service providers of their own choosing. FFA has entered into referral agreements with certain of the asset custodial firms that provide custodial services to our clients. Under these arrangements, the asset custodial firms provide referrals of prospective new clients whose increase in wealth warrants a more personalized and expansive breadth of financial services that we are able to provide in exchange for a fee. This fee is either a percentage of the fees we charge to the client or a percentage of the AUM of the client. The asset custodial firms are entitled to continue to receive these fees for as long as we continue to provide services to the referral client. These referral agreements do not require the client to maintain their assets at the custodial firm and are fully disclosed to the client prior to our providing services to them.

FFA also provides wealth management services, consisting of financial, investment and economic advisory and related services, to high-net-worth individuals and their families, family businesses, and other affiliated organizations (including public and closely-held corporations, family foundations and private charitable organizations). Those services include education, instruction and consultation on financial planning and management matters, and Internet-based data processing administrative support services involving the processing and transmission of financial and economic data primarily for charitable organizations.

Banking Products and Services

Through FFB, we offer a wide range of loan products, deposit products, business and personal banking services and trust services. Our loan products are designed to meet the credit needs of our clients in a manner that, at the same time, enables us to effectively manage the credit and interest rate risks inherent in our lending activities. Deposits represent our principal source of funds for making loans and investments and acquiring other interest-earning assets. The yields we realize on our loans and other interest-earning assets and the interest rates we pay to attract and retain deposits are the principal determinants of our banking revenues. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

FFB also provides trust services to clients in California and Nevada. Those services, which consist primarily of the management of trust assets, complement the investment and wealth management services that FFA offers to our clients and, as a result, provide us with cross-selling opportunities. Additionally, trust service fees provide an additional source of noninterest income for us. At December 31, 2013, trust AUM totaled $341 million.

Our lending activities serve the credit needs of high net-worth individuals and their businesses, owners of multifamily and commercial real estate properties, individuals and families who would not be considered high net-worth, small to moderate size businesses and professional firms in our market areas. As a result we offer a variety of loan products consisting of multifamily and single family residential real estate loans, commercial real estate loans, commercial term loans and lines of credit, and consumer loans. We handle all loan processing, underwriting and servicing at our administrative office in Irvine, California.

The following table sets forth information regarding the types of loans that we make, by amounts and as a percentage of our total loans outstanding at December 31:


	2013				2012
*(dollars in thousands)*	Balance		% of Total		Balance		% of Total
Outstanding principal balance:
Loans secured by real estate:
Residential properties:
Multifamily	$	405,984		44.9%	$	367,412		49.4%
Single family		227,096		25.2%		155,864		21.0%

Total loans secured by residential properties		633,080		70.1%		523,276		70.4%
Commercial properties		154,982		17.2%		132,217		17.8%
Land		3,794		0.4%		7,575		1.0%

Total real estate loans		791,856		87.7%		663,068		89.2%
Commercial and industrial loans		93,255		10.3%		67,920		9.1%
Consumer loans		18,484		2.0%		12,585		1.7%

Total loans	$	903,595		100.0%	$	743,573		100.0%

Residential Mortgage Loans – Multi-family: We make multi-family residential mortgage loans for terms up to 30 years primarily for properties located in Southern California. These loans generally are adjustable rate loans with interest rates tied to a variety of independent indexes; although in some cases these loans have fixed interest rates for periods ranging from 3 to 7 years and adjust thereafter based on an applicable index. These loans generally have interest rate floors, payment caps, and prepayment penalties. The loans are underwritten based on a variety of underwriting criteria, including an evaluation of the character and creditworthiness of the borrower and guarantors, loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratios, borrower liquidity and credit history. In addition, we perform stress testing for changes in interest rates, capitalization rates and other factors and review general economic trends such as lease rates, values and absorption rates. We typically require personal guarantees from the owners of the entities to which we make such loans.

Residential Mortgage Loans – Single-family: We offer single family residential mortgage loans primarily as an accommodation to our existing clients. In most cases, these take the form of non-conforming loans and FFB does not sell or securitize any of its single family residential mortgage loan originations. FFB does not originate loans defined as high cost by state or federal banking regulators. The majority of FFB’s single family residential loan originations are collateralized by first mortgages on real properties located in Southern California. These loans are generally adjustable rate loans with fixed terms ranging from 3 to 7 years terms. These loans generally have interest rate floors and payment caps. The loans are underwritten based on a variety of underwriting criteria, including an evaluation of the character and creditworthiness of the borrower and guarantors, loan-to-value and debt to income ratios, borrower liquidity, income verification and credit history. In addition, we perform stress testing for changes in interest rates and other factors and review general economic trends such as market values.

Commercial Real Estate Loans: Our commercial real estate loans are secured by first trust deeds on nonresidential real property. These loans generally are adjustable rate loans with interest rates tied to a variety of independent indexes; although in some cases these loans have fixed interest rates for periods ranging from 3 to 7 years and adjust thereafter based on an applicable index. These loans generally have interest rate floors, payment caps, and prepayment penalties. The loans are underwritten based on a variety of underwriting criteria, including an evaluation of the character and creditworthiness of the borrower and guarantors, loan-to-value and debt service coverage ratios, borrower liquidity and credit history. In addition, we perform stress testing for changes in interest rates, cap rates and other factors and review general economic trends such as lease rates, values and absorption rates. We typically require personal guarantees from the owners of the entities to which we make such loans.

Commercial Loans: We offer commercial term loans and commercial lines of credit to our clients. Commercial loans generally are made to businesses that have demonstrated a history of profitable operations. To qualify for such loans, prospective borrowers generally must have operating cash flow sufficient to meet their obligations as they become due, and good payment histories. Commercial term loans are either fixed rate loans or adjustable rate loans with interest rates tied to a variety of independent indexes and are made for terms ranging from one to five years. Commercial lines of credit are adjustable rate loans with interest rates usually tied to the Wall Street Journal prime rate, are made for terms ranging from one to two years, and contain various covenants, including a requirement that the borrower reduce its credit line borrowings to zero for specified time periods during the term of the line of credit. The loans are underwritten based on a variety of underwriting criteria, including an evaluation of the character and creditworthiness of the borrower and guarantors, debt service coverage ratios, historical and projected client income, borrower liquidity and credit history. In addition, we perform stress testing for changes in interest rates and other factors and review general economic trends in the client’s industry. We typically require personal guarantees from the owners of the entities to which we make such loans.

Consumer Loans: We offer a variety of consumer loans and credit products, including personal installment loans and lines of credit, and home equity lines of credit designed to meet the needs of our clients. Consumer loans are either fixed rate loans or adjustable rate loans with interest rates tied to a variety of independent indexes and are made for terms ranging from one to ten years. The loans are underwritten based on a variety of underwriting criteria, including an evaluation of the character creditworthiness and credit history of the borrower and guarantors, debt to income ratios, borrower liquidity, income verification, and the value of any collateral securing the loan. Consumer loan collections are dependent on the borrower’s ongoing cash flows and financial stability and, as a result, generally pose higher credit risks than the other loans that we make.

For all of our loan offerings, we utilize a comprehensive approach in our underwriting process. This includes the requirement that all factors considered in our underwriting be appropriately documented. In our underwriting, our primary focus is always on the borrower’s ability to repay. However, because our underwriting process allows us to view the totality of the borrower’s capacity to repay, concerns or issues in one area can be compensated for by other favorable financial criteria. This personalized and detailed approach allows us to better understand and meet our clients’ lending needs.

Bank Deposit Products

We offer a wide range of deposit products, including personal and business checking, savings accounts, interest-bearing negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, money market accounts and time certificates of deposit. The following table sets forth information regarding the type of deposits which our clients maintained with us and the average interest rates on those deposits as of December 31:


	2013						2012
*(dollars in thousands)*	Amount		% of Total		Weighted Average Rate		Amount			Weighted Average Rate
Demand deposits:
Noninterest-bearing	$	217,782		27.1%		-	$	131,827	20.3%		-
Interest-bearing		217,129		27.1%		0.504%		103,085	15.9%		0.558%
Money market and savings		121,260		15.1%		0.499%		91,278	14.0%		0.488%
Certificates of deposits		245,866		30.7%		0.606%		323,551	49.8%		0.732%

Total	$	802,037		100.0%		0.398%	$	649,741	100.0%		0.522%

As of December 31, 2013, our 6 largest bank depositors accounted for, in the aggregate, 36% of our total deposits. See ITEM 1A - RISK FACTORS.

Insurance Services

Through First Foundation Insurance Services (or FFIS), a wholly owned subsidiary of FFB, we offer life insurance products provided by unaffiliated insurance carriers from whom we collect a brokerage fee.

Competition

The banking and investment and wealth management businesses in California and Las Vegas, Nevada, generally, and in FFI’s market areas, in particular, are highly competitive. A relatively small number of major national and regional banks, operating over wide geographic areas, including Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank, Comerica, Union Bank and Bank of America, dominate the Southern California banking market. Those banks, or their affiliates, also offer private banking and investment and wealth management services. We also compete with large, well known private banking and wealth management firms, including City National, First Republic, Northern Trust and Boston Private. Those banks and investment and wealth management firms generally have much greater financial and capital resources than we do and as a result of their ability to conduct extensive advertising campaigns and their relatively long histories of operations in Southern California, are generally better known than us. In addition, by virtue of their greater total capitalization, the large banks have substantially higher lending limits than we do, which enables them to make much larger loans and to offer loan products that we are not able to offer to our clients.

We compete with these much larger banks and investment and wealth management firms primarily on the basis of the personal and “one-on-one” service that we provide to our clients, which many of these competitors are unwilling or unable to provide, other than to their wealthiest clients, due to costs involved or their “one size fits all” approaches to providing financial services to their clients. We believe that our principal competitive advantage is our ability to offer our banking, trust, and investment and wealth management services through one integrated platform, enabling us to provide our clients with the efficiencies and benefits of dealing with a cohesive group of professional advisors and banking officers working together to assist our clients to meet their personal investment and financial goals. We believe that only the largest financial institutions in our area provide similar integrated platforms of products and services, which they sometimes reserve for their wealthiest and institutional clients. In addition, while we also compete with many local and regional banks and numerous local and regional investment advisory and wealth management firms, we believe that only a very few of these banks offer investment or wealth management services and that a very few of these investment and wealth management firms offer banking services and, therefore, these competitors are not able to provide such an integrated platform of comprehensive financial services to their clients. This enables us to compete effectively for clients who are dissatisfied with the level of service provided at larger financial institutions, yet are not able to receive an integrated platform of comprehensive financial services from other regional or local financial service organizations.

While we provide our clients with the convenience of technological access services, such as remote deposit capture and internet banking, we compete primarily by providing a high level of personal service associated with our private banking focus. As a result, we do not try to compete exclusively on pricing. However, because we are located in a highly competitive market place and because we are seeking to grow our businesses, we attempt to maintain our pricing in line with our principal competitors.

Supervision and Regulation

Both federal and state laws extensively regulate bank holding companies and banks. Such regulation is intended primarily for the protection of depositors and the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund and is not for the benefit of shareholders. Set forth below are summary descriptions of the material laws and regulations that affect or bear on our operations. Those summaries are not intended, and do not purport, to be complete and are qualified in their entirety by reference to the laws and regulations that are summarized below.

First Foundation Inc.

General. First Foundation Inc. is a registered bank holding company subject to regulation under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “Holding Company Act”). Pursuant to that Act, we are subject to supervision and periodic examination by, and are required to file periodic reports with the FRB.

As a bank holding company, we are allowed to engage, directly or indirectly, only in banking and other activities that the FRB has determined, or in the future may deem, to be so closely related to banking or managing or controlling banks as to be a proper incident thereto. Business activities designated by the FRB to be closely related to banking include the provision of investment advisory, securities brokerage, insurance agency and data processing services, among others.

As a bank holding company, we also are required to obtain the prior approval of the FRB for the acquisition of more than 5% of the outstanding shares of any class of voting securities, or of substantially all of the assets, by merger or purchase, of (i) any bank or other bank holding company and (ii) any other entities engaged in banking-related businesses or that provide banking-related services.

Under FRB regulations, a bank holding company is required to serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to its subsidiary banks and may not conduct its operations in an unsafe or unsound manner. In addition, it is the FRB’s policy that a bank holding company, in serving as a source of strength to its subsidiary banks, should stand ready to use available resources to provide adequate capital funds to its subsidiary banks during periods of financial stress or adversity and should maintain the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary banks. For that reason, among others, the FRB requires all bank holding companies to maintain capital at or above certain prescribed levels. A bank holding company’s failure to meet these requirements will generally be considered by the FRB to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice or a violation of the FRB’s regulations or both, which could lead to the imposition of restrictions on the offending bank holding company, including restrictions on its further growth.

Additionally, among its powers, the FRB may require any bank holding company to terminate an activity or terminate control of, or liquidate or divest itself of, any subsidiary or affiliated company that the FRB determines constitutes a significant risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of the bank holding company or any of its banking subsidiaries. The FRB also has the authority to regulate provisions of a bank holding company’s debt, including authority to impose interest ceilings and reserve requirements on such debt. Subject to certain exceptions, bank holding companies also are required to file written notice and obtain approval from the FRB prior to purchasing or redeeming their common stock or other equity securities. A bank holding company and its non-banking subsidiaries also are prohibited from implementing so-called tying arrangements whereby clients may be required to use or purchase services or products from the bank holding company or any of its non-bank subsidiaries in order to obtain a loan or other services from any of the holding company’s subsidiary banks.

Because FFB is a California state chartered bank, the Company also is a bank holding company within the meaning of Section 3700 of the California Financial Code. As such, we are subject to examination by, and may be required to file reports with, the DBO.

Financial Services Modernization Act. The Financial Services Modernization Act, which also is known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, was enacted into law in 1999. The principal objectives of that Act were to establish a comprehensive framework to permit affiliations among commercial banks, insurance companies, securities and investment banking firms, and other financial service providers. Accordingly, the Act revised and expanded the Bank Holding Company Act to permit a bank holding company system meeting certain specified qualifications to engage in a broader range of financial activities to foster greater competition among financial services companies both domestically and internationally.

The Financial Services Modernization Act also contains provisions that expressly preempt and make unenforceable any state law restricting the establishment of financial affiliations, primarily related to insurance. That Act also:

•

broadened the activities that may be conducted by national banks, bank subsidiaries of bank holding companies, and their financial subsidiaries;

•

provided an enhanced framework for protecting the privacy of consumer information;

•

adopted a number of provisions related to the capitalization, membership, corporate governance, and other measures designed to modernize the Federal Home Loan Bank system;

•

modified the laws governing the implementation of the Community Reinvestment Act (“CRA”), which is described in greater detail below; and

•

addressed a variety of other legal and regulatory issues affecting both day-to-day operations and long-term activities of banking institutions.

According to current FRB regulations, activities that are financial in nature and may be engaged in by financial holding companies, through their non-bank subsidiaries, include

•

securities underwriting, dealing and market making;

•

sponsoring mutual funds and investment companies;

•

engaging in insurance underwriting; and

•

engaging in merchant banking activities.

Before a bank holding company may engage in any of the financial activities authorized by the Financial Services Modernization Act, it must file an application with its Federal Reserve Bank that confirms that it meets certain qualitative eligibility requirements established by the FRB. A bank holding company that meets those qualifications and files such an application will be designated as a “financial holding company,” in which event it will become entitled to affiliate with securities firms and insurance companies and engage in other activities, primarily through non-banking subsidiaries, that are financial in nature or are incidental or complementary to activities that are financial in nature.

A bank holding company that does not qualify as a financial holding company may not engage in such financial activities. Instead, as discussed above, it is limited to engaging in banking and such other activities that have been determined by the FRB to be closely related to banking.

Privacy Provisions of the Financial Services Modernization Act. As required by the Financial Services Modernization Act, federal banking regulators have adopted rules that limit the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties. Pursuant to the rules, financial institutions must provide:

•

initial notices to clients about their privacy policies, describing the conditions under which banks and other financial institutions may disclose non-public personal information about their clients to non-affiliated third parties and affiliates;

•

annual notices of their privacy policies to current clients; and

•

a reasonable method for clients to “opt out” of disclosures to nonaffiliated third parties.

Acquisitions of Control of Banks. The Holding Company Act and the Change in Bank Control Act of 1978, as amended, together with regulations of the FRB, require FRB approval before any person or company may acquire “control” of a bank holding company, subject to exemptions for some transactions. Control is conclusively presumed to exist if an individual or company (i) acquires 25% or more of any class of voting securities of a bank holding company or (ii) has the direct or indirect power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a bank holding company, whether through ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise; provided that no individual will be deemed to control a bank holding company solely on account of being a director, officer or employee of the bank holding company. Control is presumed to exist if a person acquires 10% or more but less than 25% of any class of voting securities of a bank holding company with securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act or if no other person will own a greater percentage of that class of voting securities immediately after the transaction.

However, as a bank holding company, we must obtain the prior approval of the FRB to acquire more than five percent of the outstanding shares of voting securities of a bank or another bank holding company.

Dividends. It is the policy of FRB that bank holding companies should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of income available over the past year, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the holding company’s expected future needs for capital and liquidity and to maintain its financial condition. It is also an FRB policy that bank holding companies should not maintain dividend levels that undermine their ability to be a source of financial strength for their banking subsidiaries. Additionally, due to the current financial and economic environment, the FRB has indicated that bank holding companies should carefully review their dividend policies and has discouraged dividend payment ratios that are at maximum allowable levels unless both asset quality and capital are very strong.

Recent Legislation and Governmental Actions. From time to time, federal and state legislation is enacted which can affect our operations and our operating results by materially increasing the costs of doing business, limiting or expanding the activities in which banks and other financial institutions may engage, or altering the competitive balance between banks and other financial services providers.

The recent economic recession and credit crisis that, among other measures, required the federal government to provide substantial financial support to the largest of the banks and other financial service organizations in the United States, led the U.S. Congress to adopt a number of new laws, and the U.S. Treasury Department and the federal banking regulators, including the FRB and the FDIC, to take broad actions, to address systemic risks and volatility in the U.S. banking system. Set forth below are summaries of such recently adopted laws and regulatory actions, which are not intended to be complete and which are qualified in their entirety by reference to those laws and regulations.

The Dodd-Frank Act: On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank was signed into law. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly changes federal banking regulation. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act created a new Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify systemic risks in the banking and financial system and gives federal regulators new authority to take control of and liquidate banking institutions and other financial firms facing the prospect of imminent failure that would create systemic risks to the U.S. financial system. The Dodd-Frank Act also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which is a new independent federal regulator with broad powers and authority to administer and regulate federal consumer protection laws.

Set forth below is a summary description of some of the key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that may affect us. The description does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Dodd-Frank Act itself.

Imposition of New Capital Standards on Bank Holding Companies. The Dodd-Frank Act required the FRB to apply consolidated capital requirements to bank holding companies that are no less stringent than those currently applied to depository institutions, such as FFB. The FRB implemented this requirement by its adoption of the new Basel III capital rules in June 2013. See “—First Foundation Bank—New Basel III Capital Rules” below.

Increase in Deposit Insurance and Changes Affecting the FDIC Insurance Fund. The Dodd-Frank Act permanently increased the maximum deposit insurance amount for banks, savings institutions and credit unions to $250,000 per depositor. Additionally, the Dodd-Frank Act eliminates the federal statutory prohibition against the payment of interest on business checking accounts, which is likely to increase the competition for and interest that banks pay on such accounts. The Dodd-Frank Act also broadens the base for FDIC insurance assessments, which will now be based on the average consolidated total assets, less tangible equity capital, of an insured financial institution and which may result in increases in FDIC insurance assessments for many FDIC insured banks. The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to increase the reserve ratio of the Deposit Insurance Fund from 1.15% to 1.35% of insured deposits by 2020 and eliminates the requirement that the FDIC pay dividends to insured depository institutions when the reserve ratio exceeds certain thresholds.

Executive Compensation Provisions. The Dodd-Frank Act directs federal banking regulators to promulgate rules prohibiting the payment of excessive compensation to executives of depository institutions and their holding companies with assets in excess of $1.0 billion.

Limitations on Conversion of Bank Charters. The Dodd-Frank Act prohibits a bank or other depository institution from converting from a state to federal charter or vice versa while it is subject to a cease and desist order or other formal enforcement action or a memorandum of understanding with respect to a significant supervisory matter, unless the appropriate federal banking agency gives notice of the conversion to the federal or state regulatory agency that issued the enforcement action and that agency does not object within 30 days.

Interstate Banking. The Dodd-Frank Act authorizes national and state banks to establish branches in other states to the same extent as a bank chartered by that state would be permitted to branch. Previously, banks could only establish branches in other states if the host state expressly permitted out-of-state banks to establish branches in that state. Accordingly, banks will be able to enter new markets more freely.

Extension of Limitations on Banking Transactions by Banks with their Affiliates. The Dodd-Frank Act applies Section 23A and Section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act (governing transactions with insiders of banks and other depository institutions) to derivative transactions, repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing transactions that create credit exposure to an affiliate or an insider of a bank. Any such transactions with any affiliates must be fully secured. In addition, the exemption from Section 23A for transactions with financial subsidiaries has been eliminated. The Dodd-Frank Act also expands the definition of affiliate for purposes of quantitative and qualitative limitations of Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act to include mutual funds advised by a depository institution or any of its affiliates.

Debit Card Fees. The Dodd-Frank Act provides that the amount of any interchange fee charged by a debit card issuer with respect to a debit card transaction must be reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the card issuer and requires the FRB to establish standards for reasonable and proportional fees which may take into account the costs of preventing fraud. As a result, the FRB adopted a rule, effective October 1, 2011, which limits interchange fees on debit card transactions to a maximum of 21 cents per transaction plus 5 basis points of the transaction amount. A debit card issuer may recover an additional one cent per transaction for fraud prevention purposes if the issuer complies with certain fraud-related requirements prescribed by the FRB. Although, as a technical matter, this new limitation applies only to institutions with assets of more than $10 billion, it is expected that many smaller institutions will reduce their interchange fees in order to remain competitive with the larger institutions that are required to comply with this new limitation.

Consumer Protection Provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Dodd-Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency, called the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), which has been granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws, including the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Truth in Lending Act, Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, Fair Debt Collection Act, the Consumer Financial Privacy provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and certain other statutes. The CFPB has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to the compliance by depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets with federal consumer protection laws and regulations. Smaller institutions are subject to rules promulgated by the CFPB, but continue to be examined and supervised by federal banking regulators for consumer compliance purposes. The CFPB has authority to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive practices in connection with the offering of consumer financial products. The Dodd-Frank Act also (i) authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages, including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay, and (ii) will allow borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act permits states to adopt consumer protection laws and standards that are more stringent than those adopted at the federal level and, in certain circumstances, permits state attorneys general to enforce compliance with both the state and federal financial consumer protection laws and regulations.

In January 2013, the CFPB approved certain mortgage lending reform regulations impacting the Truth in Lending Act (the “TILA”) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). Among other things, those reforms:

•

expand the population of loans that are subject to higher cost loan regulations and additional disclosures;

•

prohibit the payment of compensation to mortgage brokers based on certain fees or premiums, such as yield spread premiums, payable by or charged to home borrowers;

•

increase the regulation of mortgage servicing activities, including with respect to error resolution, forced-placement insurance and loss mitigation and collection activities;

•

require financial institutions to make a reasonable and good faith determination that the borrower has the ability to repay the residential mortgage loan before it is approved for funding and provides that the failure of a financial institution to make such a determination will entitle the borrower to assert that failure as a defense to any foreclosure action on the mortgage loan; and

•

impose appraisal requirements for high cost loans and loans secured by first mortgage liens on residential real estate.

The CFPB issued final rules for residential mortgage lending, which became effective January 10, 2014, including definitions for “qualified mortgages” and detailed standards by which leaders must satisfy themselves of the borrower’s ability to repay the loan and revised forms of disclosure under the TILA and RESPA.

First Foundation Bank

General. FFB is subject to primary supervision, periodic examination and regulation by (i) the FDIC, which is its primary federal banking regulator, and (ii) the DBO, because FFB is a California state chartered bank.

Various requirements and restrictions under Federal and California banking laws affect the operations of FFB. These laws and the implementing regulations, which are promulgated by federal and state bank regulatory agencies, can determine the extent of supervisory control to which a bank will be subject by its federal and state bank regulators. These laws and regulations cover most aspects of a bank’s operations, including:

•

the reserves a bank must maintain against deposits and for possible loan losses and other contingencies;

•

the types of deposits it obtains and the interest it is permitted to pay on different types of deposit accounts;

•

the types of and limits on loans and investments that a bank may make;

•

the borrowings that a bank may incur;

•

the number and location of wealth banking offices that a bank may establish;

•

the rate at which it may grow its assets;

•

the acquisition and merger activities of a bank;

•

the amount of dividends that a bank may pay; and

•

the capital requirements that a bank must satisfy.

If, as a result of an examination of a federally regulated bank, a bank’s primary federal bank regulatory agency, such as the FDIC, were to determine that the financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity, or other aspects of a bank’s operations had become unsatisfactory or that the bank or its management was in violation of any law or regulation, that agency has the authority to take a number of different remedial actions as it deems appropriate under the circumstances. These actions include the power:

•

to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” banking practices;

•

to require that affirmative action be taken to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice;

•

to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced;

•

to require the bank to increase its capital;

•

to restrict the bank’s growth;

•

to assess civil monetary penalties against the bank or its officers or directors;

•

to remove officers and directors of the bank; and

•

if the federal agency concludes that such conditions cannot be corrected or there is an imminent risk of loss to depositors, to terminate a bank’s deposit insurance, which in the case of a California state chartered bank would result in revocation of its charter and require it to cease its banking operations.

Additionally, under California law the DBO has many of these same remedial powers with respect to FFB.

Permissible Activities and Subsidiaries. California law permits state chartered commercial banks to engage in any activity permissible for national banks. Those permissible activities include conducting many so-called “closely related to banking” or “nonbanking” activities either directly or through their operating subsidiaries.

Federal Home Loan Bank System. FFB is a member of the FHLB. Among other benefits, each regional Federal Home Loan Bank serves as a reserve or central bank for its members within its assigned region and makes available loans or advances to its member banks. Each regional Federal Home Loan Bank is financed primarily from the sale of consolidated obligations of the overall Federal Home Loan Bank system. As an FHLB member, FFB is required to own a certain amount of capital stock in the FHLB. At December 31, 2013, FFB was in compliance with the FHLB’s stock ownership requirement. Historically, the FHLB has paid dividends on its capital stock to its members.

Federal Reserve Board Deposit Reserve Requirements. The FRB requires all federally-insured depository institutions to maintain reserves at specified levels against their transaction accounts. At December 31, 2013, FFB was in compliance with these requirements.

Dividends and Other Transfers of Funds. Cash dividends from FFB are one of the principal sources of cash (in addition to any cash dividends that might be paid to us by FFA) that is available to the Company for its operations and to fund any cash dividends that our board of directors might declare in the future. We are a legal entity separate and distinct from FFB and FFB is subject to various statutory and regulatory restrictions on its ability to pay cash dividends to us. Those restrictions would prohibit FFB, subject to certain limited exceptions, from paying cash dividends in amounts that would cause FFB to become undercapitalized. Additionally, the FDIC and the DBO have the authority to prohibit FFB from paying cash dividends, if either of those agencies deems the payment of dividends by FFB to be an unsafe or unsound practice.

The FDIC also has established guidelines with respect to the maintenance of appropriate levels of capital by banks under its jurisdiction. Compliance with the standards set forth in those guidelines and the restrictions that are or may be imposed under the prompt corrective action provisions of federal law could limit the amount of dividends which FFB may pay. Also, until September 2014, we are required to obtain the prior approval of the FDIC before FFB may pay any dividends.

Single Borrower Loan Limitations. With certain limited exceptions, the maximum amount of obligations, secured or unsecured, that any borrower (including certain related entities) may owe to a California state bank at any one time may not exceed 25% of the sum of the shareholders’ equity, allowance for loan losses, capital notes and debentures of the bank. Unsecured obligations may not exceed 15% of the sum of the shareholders’ equity, allowance for loan losses, capital notes and debentures of the bank.

Restrictions on Transactions between FFB and the Company and its other Affiliates. FFB is subject to Federal Reserve Act Sections 23A and 23B and FRB Regulation W, which impose restrictions on any extensions of credit to, or the issuance of a guarantee or letter of credit on behalf of, the Company or any of its other subsidiaries; the purchase of, or investments in, Company stock or other Company securities, the taking of such securities as collateral for loans; and the purchase of assets from the Company or any of its other subsidiaries. These restrictions prevent the Company and any of its subsidiaries from borrowing from FFB unless the borrowings are secured by marketable obligations in designated amounts, and such secured loans and investments by FFB in the Company or any of its subsidiaries are limited, individually, to 10% of FFB’s capital and surplus (as defined by federal regulations) and, in the aggregate, for all loans made to and investments made in the Company and its other subsidiaries, to 20% of FFB’s capital and surplus. California law also imposes restrictions with respect to transactions involving the Company and any other persons that may be deemed under that law to control FFB.

Safety and Soundness Standards. Banking institutions may be subject to potential enforcement actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices or for violating any law, rule, regulation, or any condition imposed in writing by its primary federal banking regulatory agency or any written agreement with that agency. The federal banking agencies have adopted guidelines designed to identify and address potential safety and soundness concerns that could, if not corrected, lead to deterioration in the quality of a bank’s assets, liquidity or capital. Those guidelines set forth operational and managerial standards relating to such matters as:

•

internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems;

•

risk management;

•

loan documentation;

•

credit underwriting;

•

asset growth;

•

earnings; and

•

compensation, fees and benefits.

In addition, federal banking agencies have adopted safety and soundness guidelines with respect to asset quality. These guidelines provide six standards for establishing and maintaining a system to identify problem assets and prevent those assets from deteriorating. Under these standards, an FDIC-insured depository institution is expected to:

•

conduct periodic asset quality reviews to identify problem assets, estimate the inherent losses in problem assets and establish reserves that are sufficient to absorb those estimated losses;

•

compare problem asset totals to capital;

•

take appropriate corrective action to resolve problem assets;

•

consider the size and potential risks of material asset concentrations; and

•

provide periodic asset quality reports with adequate information for the bank’s management and the board of directors to assess the level of asset risk.

These guidelines also establish standards for evaluating and monitoring earnings and for ensuring that earnings are sufficient for the maintenance of adequate capital and reserves.

Capital Standards and Prompt Corrective Action. The Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”) provides a framework for regulation of federally insured depository institutions, including banks, and their parent holding companies and other affiliates, by their federal banking regulators. Among other things, the FDIA requires the relevant federal banking regulator to take “prompt corrective action” with respect to a depository institution if that institution does not meet certain capital adequacy standards, including requiring the prompt submission of an acceptable capital restoration plan if the depository institution’s bank regulator has concluded that it needs additional capital.

Supervisory actions by a bank’s federal regulator under the prompt corrective action rules generally depend upon an institution’s classification within one of five capital categories, which is determined on the basis of a bank’s Tier 1 leverage ratio, Tier 1 capital ratio and total capital ratio. Tier 1 capital consists principally of common stock and nonredeemable preferred stock and retained earnings.

Under current regulations a depository institution’s capital category under the prompt corrective action regulations will depend upon how its capital levels compare with various relevant capital measures and the other factors established by the relevant federal banking regulations. Those regulations, which will change effective January 1, 2015 due to the adoption of new Basel III capital rules (discussed below), provide that a bank will be:

•

“well capitalized” if it has a Tier 1 leverage ratio of 5.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 6.0% or greater and a total risk-based capital ratio of 10.0% or greater, and is not subject to any order or written directive by any such regulatory agency to meet and maintain a specific capital level for any capital measure;

•

“adequately capitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of 8.0% or greater, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of 4.0% or greater, and a leverage ratio of 4.0% or greater and is not “well capitalized”;

•

“undercapitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio that is less than 8.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 4.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 4.0%;

•

“significantly undercapitalized” if it has a total risk-based capital ratio of less than 6.0%, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio of less than 3.0% or a leverage ratio of less than 3.0%; and

•

“critically undercapitalized” if its tangible equity is equal to or less than 2.0% of average quarterly tangible assets.

If a bank that is classified as a well-capitalized institution is determined (after notice and opportunity for hearing), by its federal regulatory agency to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or to be engaging in an unsafe or unsound practice, that agency may, under certain circumstances, reclassify the bank as adequately capitalized. If a bank has been classified as adequately capitalized or undercapitalized, its federal regulatory agency may nevertheless require it to comply with bank supervisory provisions and restrictions that would apply to a bank in the next lower capital classification, if that regulatory agency has obtained supervisory information regarding the bank (other than with respect to its capital levels) that raises safety or soundness concerns. However, a significantly undercapitalized bank may not be treated by its regulatory agency as critically undercapitalized.

The FDIA generally prohibits a bank from making any capital distributions (including payments of dividends) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the bank would thereafter be “undercapitalized.” “Undercapitalized” banks are subject to growth limitations and are required to submit a capital restoration plan. The federal regulatory agency for such a bank may not accept the bank’s capital restoration plan unless the agency determines, among other things, that the plan is based on realistic assumptions and is likely to succeed in restoring the bank’s capital. In addition, for a capital restoration plan to be acceptable, the bank’s parent holding company must guarantee that the bank will comply with its capital restoration plan. The bank holding company also is required to provide appropriate assurances of performance. Under such a guarantee and assurance of performance, if the bank fails to comply with its capital restoration plan, the parent holding company may become subject to liability for such failure in an amount up to the lesser of (i) 5.0% of its bank subsidiary’s total assets at the time it became undercapitalized, and (ii) the amount which is necessary (or would have been necessary) to bring the bank into compliance with all applicable capital standards as of the time it failed to comply with the plan.

If an undercapitalized bank fails to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan, it will be treated as if it is “significantly undercapitalized.” In that event, the bank’s federal regulatory agency may impose a number of additional requirements and restrictions on the bank, including orders or requirements (i) to sell sufficient voting stock to become “adequately capitalized,” (ii) to reduce its total assets, and (iii) cease the receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. “Critically undercapitalized” institutions are subject to the appointment of a receiver or conservator.

New Basel III Capital Rules. The current risk-based capital rules applicable to domestic banks and bank holding companies are based on the 1988 capital accord of the International Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), which is comprised of central banks and bank supervisors and regulators from the major industrialized countries. The Basel Committee develops broad policy guidelines for use by each country’s banking regulators in determining the banking supervisory policies and rules they apply. In December 2010, the Basel Committee issued a new set of international guidelines for determining regulatory capital, known as “Basel III”. In June 2012, the FRB issued, for public comment, three notices of proposed rulemaking which, if adopted, would have made significant changes to the regulatory risk-based capital and leverage requirements for banks and bank holding companies (“banking organizations”) in the United States consistent with the Basel III guidelines.

In July 2013, the FRB adopted final rules (the “New Capital Rules”) establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations, and the FDIC adopted substantially identical rules on an interim basis. The rules implement the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework for strengthening international capital standards as well as certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The New Capital Rules substantially revise the risk-based capital requirements applicable to U.S. banking organizations, including the Company and FFB, from the current U.S. risk-based capital rules, define the components of capital and address other issues affecting the capital ratios applicable to banking organizations. The New Capital Rules also replace the existing approach used in risk-weighting of a banking organization’s assets with a more risk-sensitive approach. The New Capital Rules will become effective for the Company and FFB on January 1, 2015 (subject in the case of certain of those Rules to phase-in periods).

Among other things, the New Capital Rules (i) introduce a new capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET-1”), (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET-1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) apply most deductions and adjustments to regulatory capital measures to CET-1 and not to the other components of capital, thus potentially requiring banking organizations to achieve and maintain higher levels of CET-1 in order to meet minimum capital ratios, and (iv) expand the scope of the deductions and adjustments from capital as compared to existing capital rules.

Under the New Capital Rules, as of January 1, 2015 the minimum capital ratios will be:


CET-1 to risk-weighted assets	4.5	%
Tier 1 capital (i.e., CET-1 plus Additional Tier 1) to risk-weighted assets	6.0	%
Total capital (i.e., Tier 1 plus Tier 2) to risk-weighted assets	8.0	%
Tier 1 capital-to-average consolidated assets as reported on consolidated financial statements⁽¹⁾	4.0	%

(1)

Commonly referred to as a banking institution’s “leverage ratio”.

When fully phased in on January 1, 2019, the New Capital Rules also will require the Company and FFB, as well as most other bank holding companies and banks, to maintain a 2.5% “capital conservation buffer,” composed entirely of CET-1, on top of the minimum risk-weighted asset ratios set forth in the above table. This capital conservation buffer will have the effect of increasing (i) the CET-1-to-risk-weighted asset ratio to 7.0%, (ii) the Tier 1 capital-to-risk-weighted asset ratio to 8.5%, and (iii) the Total capital-to-risk weighted asset ratio to 10.5%.

The capital conservation buffer is designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. Banking organizations with a ratio of CET-1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum, but below the capital conservation buffer, will face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and executive compensation based on the amount of the shortfall. The implementation of the capital conservation buffer will begin on January 1, 2016 at 0.625%, and will increase by 0.625% on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019.

The New Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET-1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, deferred tax assets dependent upon future taxable income, and significant investments in common equity issued by nonconsolidated financial entities be deducted from CET-1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET-1 or all such categories, in the aggregate, exceed 15% of CET-1. The deductions and other adjustments to CET-1 will be phased in incrementally between January 1, 2015 and January 1, 2018. Additionally, the impact may be mitigated prior to or during the phase-in period by the determination of other than temporary impairments (“OTTI”) and additional accumulation of retained earnings. Under current capital standards, the effects of certain items of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (“AOCI”) included in capital are excluded for purposes of determining regulatory capital ratios. By contrast, under the New Capital Rules, the effects of certain items of AOCI will not be excluded. However, most banking organizations, including the Company and FFB, may make a one-time permanent election, not later than January 1, 2014, to continue to exclude these items from capital. We have not yet determined whether to make this election.

The New Capital Rules require that trust preferred securities be phased out from Tier 1 capital by January 1, 2016, except in the case of banking organizations with total consolidated assets of less than $15 billion, which will be permitted to include trust preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010 in Tier 2 capital, without any limitations.

In the case of FFB, the New Capital Rules also revise the “prompt corrective action” regulations under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, by (i) introducing a CET-1 ratio requirement at each capital quality level (other than critically undercapitalized), with a minimum ratio of 6.5% for a bank to qualify for well-capitalized status; (ii) increasing the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for each category, with the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio for well-capitalized status being 8% (as compared to the current 6%); and (iii) requiring a leverage ratio of 4% to be adequately capitalized (as compared to the current 3% leverage ratio for a bank with a composite supervisory rating of 1) and a leverage ratio of 5% to be well-capitalized. The New Capital Rules do not, however, change the total risk-based capital requirement for any “prompt corrective action” category.

The New Capital Rules prescribe a standardized approach for calculating risk-weighted assets that expand the risk-weighting categories from the current four Basel I-derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a larger and more risk-sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0% for U.S. Government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories. In addition, the New Capital Rules also provide more advantageous risk weights for derivatives and repurchase-style transactions cleared through a qualifying central counterparty and increase the scope of eligible guarantors and eligible collateral for purposes of credit risk mitigation.

FDIC Deposit Insurance. In addition to supervising and regulating state chartered non-member banks, the FDIC insures deposits, up to prescribed statutory limits, of all federally insured banks and savings institutions in order to safeguard the safety and soundness of the banking and savings industries. The FDIC insures client deposits through the Deposit Insurance Fund (the “DIF”) up to prescribed limits for each depositor. The Dodd-Frank Act increased the maximum deposit insurance amount from $100,000 to $250,000. The DIF is funded primarily by FDIC assessments paid by each DIF member institution. The amount of each DIF member’s assessment is based on its relative risk of default as measured by regulatory capital ratios and other supervisory factors. Pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, the FDIC is authorized to set the reserve ratio for the DIF annually at between 1.15% and 1.50% of estimated insured deposits. The FDIC may increase or decrease the assessment rate schedule on a semi-annual basis. The Dodd-Frank Act increased the minimum reserve ratio from 1.15% of estimated deposits to 1.35% of estimated deposits (or a comparable percentage of the asset-based assessment base described above). The Dodd-Frank Act requires the FDIC to offset the effect of the increase in the minimum reserve ratio when setting assessments for insured depository institutions with less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, such as FFB. The FDIC has until September 30, 2020 to achieve the new minimum reserve ratio of 1.35%.

Additionally, all FDIC-insured institutions are required to pay assessments to the FDIC to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation (“FICO”), an agency of the Federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the DIF. The FICO assessment rates, which are determined quarterly, averaged 0.066% of insured deposits in fiscal 2013. These assessments will continue until the FICO bonds mature in 2017.

The FDIC may terminate a depository institution’s deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices that pose a risk to the DIF or that may prejudice the interest of the bank’s depositors. Pursuant to California law, the termination of a California state chartered bank’s FDIC deposit insurance would result in the revocation of the bank’s charter, forcing it to cease conducting banking operations.

Community Reinvestment Act and Fair Lending Developments. Like all other federally regulated banks, FFB is subject to fair lending requirements and the evaluation of its small business operations under the CRA. The CRA generally requires the federal banking agencies to evaluate the record of a bank in meeting the credit needs of its local communities, including those of low and moderate income neighborhoods in its service area. A bank’s compliance with its CRA obligations is based on a performance-based evaluation system which determines the bank’s CRA ratings on the basis of its community lending and community development performance. A bank may have substantial penalties imposed on it and generally will be required to take corrective measures in the event it violates its obligations under the CRA. Federal banking agencies also may take compliance with the CRA and other fair lending laws into account when regulating and supervising other activities of a bank or its bank holding company. Moreover, when a bank holding company files an application for approval to acquire a bank or another bank holding company, the FRB will review the CRA assessment of each of the subsidiary banks of the applicant bank holding company, and a low CRA rating may be the basis for denying the application.

USA Patriot Act of 2001 and Bank Secrecy Act. In October 2001, the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism of 2001 (USA Patriot Act) was enacted into law in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The USA Patriot Act was adopted to strengthen the ability of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to work cohesively to combat terrorism on a variety of fronts. Of particular relevance to banks and other federally insured depository institutions are the USA Patriot Act’s sweeping anti-money laundering and financial transparency provisions and various related implementing regulations that:

•

establish due diligence requirements for financial institutions that administer, maintain, or manage private bank accounts and foreign correspondent accounts;

•

prohibit U.S. institutions from providing correspondent accounts to foreign shell banks;

•

establish standards for verifying client identification at account opening;

•

set rules to promote cooperation among financial institutions, regulatory agencies and law enforcement entities in identifying parties that may be involved in terrorism or money laundering;

Under implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Treasury Department, banking institutions are required to incorporate a client identification program into their written money laundering plans that includes procedures for:

•

verifying the identity of any person seeking to open an account, to the extent reasonable and practicable;

•

maintaining records of the information used to verify the person’s identity; and

•

determining whether the person appears on any list of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations.

The Company and FFB also are subject to the federal Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, as amended, or the Bank Secrecy Act, which establishes requirements for recordkeeping and reporting by banks and other financial institutions designed to help identify the source, volume and movement of currency and monetary instruments into and out of the United States to help detect and prevent money laundering and other illegal activities. The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions to develop and maintain a program reasonably designed to ensure and monitor compliance with its requirements, to train employees to comply with and to test the effectiveness of the program. Any failure to meet the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act can involve substantial penalties and result in adverse regulatory action. FFI and FFB have each adopted policies and procedures to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act.

Consumer Laws and Regulations. The Company and FFB are subject to a broad range of federal and state consumer protection laws and regulations prohibiting unfair or fraudulent business practices, untrue or misleading advertising and unfair competition. Those laws and regulations include:

•

The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994, or HOEPA, which requires additional disclosures and consumer protections to borrowers designed to protect them against certain lending practices, such as practices deemed to constitute “predatory lending.”

•

The Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or the FACT Act, which requires banking institutions and financial services businesses to adopt practices and procedures designed to help deter identity theft, including developing appropriate fraud response programs, and provides consumers with greater control of their credit data.

•

The Truth in Lending Act, or TILA, which requires that credit terms be disclosed in a meaningful and consistent way so that consumers may compare credit terms more readily and knowledgeably.

•

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA, which generally prohibits, in connection with any consumer or business credit transactions, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age (except in limited circumstances), or the fact that a borrower is receiving income from public assistance programs.

•

The Fair Housing Act, which regulates many lending practices, including making it unlawful for any lender to discriminate in its housing-related lending activities against any person because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, handicap or familial status.

•

The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, or HMDA, which includes a “fair lending” aspect that requires the collection and disclosure of data about applicant and borrower characteristics as a way of identifying possible discriminatory lending patterns and enforcing anti-discrimination statutes.

•

The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, which requires lenders to provide borrowers with disclosures regarding the nature and cost of real estate settlements and prohibits certain abusive practices, such as kickbacks.

•

The National Flood Insurance Act, or NFIA, which requires homes in flood-prone areas with mortgages from a federally regulated lender to have flood insurance.

•

The Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, or SAFE Act, which requires mortgage loan originator employees of federally insured institutions to register with the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry, a database created by the states to support the licensing of mortgage loan originators, prior to originating residential mortgage loans.

Regulation W. The FRB has adopted Regulation W to comprehensively implement Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act. Sections 23A and 23B and Regulation W limit transactions between a bank and its affiliates and limit a bank’s ability to transfer to its affiliates the benefits arising from the bank’s access to insured deposits, the payment system and the discount window and other benefits of the Federal Reserve System. The statute and regulation impose quantitative and qualitative limits on the ability of a bank to extend credit to, or engage in certain other transactions with, an affiliate (and a non-affiliate if an affiliate benefits from the transaction). However, certain transactions that generally do not expose a bank to undue risk or abuse the safety net are exempted from coverage under Regulation W.

Historically, a subsidiary of a bank was not considered an affiliate for purposes of Sections 23A and 23B, since their activities were limited to activities permissible for the bank itself. However, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act authorized “financial subsidiaries” that may engage in activities not permissible for a bank. These financial subsidiaries are now considered affiliates that are subject to Sections 23A and 23B. Certain transactions between a financial subsidiary and another affiliate of a bank are also covered by Sections 23A and 23B and under Regulation W.

First Foundation Advisors

Registered Investment Adviser Regulation. FFA is a registered investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act, and the SEC’s regulations promulgated thereunder. The Investment Advisers Act imposes numerous obligations on registered investment advisers, including fiduciary, recordkeeping, operational, and disclosure obligations. FFA is also subject to regulation under the securities laws and fiduciary laws of certain states and to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA, and to regulations promulgated thereunder, insofar as it is a “fiduciary” under ERISA with respect to certain of its clients. ERISA and the applicable provisions of the Code, impose certain duties on persons who are fiduciaries under ERISA, and prohibit certain transactions by the fiduciaries (and certain other related parties) to such plans. The foregoing laws and regulations generally grant supervisory agencies broad administrative powers, including the power to limit or restrict FFA from conducting its business in the event that it fails to comply with such laws and regulations. Possible sanctions that may be imposed in the event of such noncompliance include the suspension of individual employees, limitations on the business activities for specified periods of time, revocation of registration as an investment adviser and/or other registrations, and other censures and fines. Changes in these laws or regulations could have a material adverse impact on the profitability and mode of operations of FFI and its subsidiaries.

Future Legislation

Congress may enact legislation from time to time that affects the regulation of the financial services industry, and state legislatures may enact legislation from time to time affecting the regulation of financial institutions chartered by or operating in those states. Federal and state regulatory agencies also periodically propose and adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. The substance or impact of pending or future legislation or regulation, or the application thereof, cannot be predicted, although enactment of the proposed legislation could impact the regulatory structure under which we operate and may significantly increase our costs, impede the efficiency of our internal business processes, require us to increase our regulatory capital and modify our business strategy, and limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements, as described at page (ii) “Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements.” We believe that the risks described below are the most important factors which may cause our actual results of operations in the future to differ materially from the results set forth in the forward-looking statements contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. However, our businesses and financial performance could be materially and adversely affected in the future by other risks or developments that either are not known to us at the present time or are currently immaterial to our business. Such risks could include, but are not necessarily limited to, unexpected changes in government regulations, unexpected adverse changes in local, national or global economic or market conditions and the commencement of litigation against us.

Risks Affecting our Business

We could incur losses on the loans we make.

Loan defaults and the incurrence of losses on loans are inherent risks in our business. The incurrence of loan losses necessitate loan charge-offs and write-downs in the carrying values of a bank’s assets and, therefore, can adversely affect a bank’s results of operations and financial condition. As a result, our results of operations will be directly affected by the volume and timing of loan losses, which for a number of reasons can vary from period to period. The risks of loan losses are exacerbated by economic recessions and downturns, as evidenced by the substantial magnitude of the loan losses which many banks incurred as a result of the economic recession that commenced in 2008 and continued into 2010, or by other events that can lead to local or regional business downturns. Although an economic recovery in the U.S. has begun, unemployment remains high and there continues to be uncertainties about the strength and sustainability of the recovery. If the economic recovery were to remain weak or economic conditions were again to deteriorate, our borrowers may fail to perform in accordance with the terms of their loans and loan charge-offs and asset write-downs could increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

If our allowance for loan and lease losses is not adequate to cover actual or estimated future loan losses, our earnings may decline.

On a quarterly basis we conduct various analyses to estimate the losses and risks inherent in our loan portfolio. However, this evaluation requires us to make a number of estimates and judgments regarding the financial condition of our borrowers, the fair value of the properties collateralizing the loans we have made to them and economic trends that could affect the ability of borrowers to meet their loan payment obligations to us and our ability to offset or mitigate loan losses by foreclosing and reselling the real properties collateralizing many of those loans. Based on those estimates and judgments, we make determinations, which are necessarily subjective, with respect to the adequacy of our allowance for loan and lease losses, or ALLL, and the extent to which it is necessary to increase our ALLL by making additional provisions for loan and lease losses through a charge to income. Inaccurate management assumptions, deterioration of economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding existing loans, identification of additional problem loans and other factors, both within and outside of our control, may require us to increase our ALLL. In addition, our regulators, as an integral part of their examination process, periodically review our loan portfolio and the adequacy of our ALLL and may require adjustments based on judgments different than those of management. Further, if actual charge-offs in future periods exceed the amounts allocated to the ALLL, we may need additional provision for loan losses to restore the adequacy of our ALLL. If we are required to materially increase our level of ALLL for any reason, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

Adverse changes in economic conditions in Southern California could disproportionately harm us.

The substantial majority of our clients and the properties securing a large proportion of the loans we have made and will continue to make are located in Southern California, where foreclosure rates and unemployment have remained high relative to most other regions of the country. A downturn in economic conditions, or even the continued weakness of the economic recovery in California, or the occurrence of natural disasters, such as earthquakes or fires, which are more common in Southern California than in other parts of the country, could harm our business by:

•

reducing loan demand which, in turn, would lead to reductions in our net interest margins and net interest income;

•

adversely affecting the financial capability of borrowers to meet their loan obligations to us, which could result in increases in loan losses and require us to make additional provisions for possible loan losses, thereby adversely affecting our operating results or causing us to incur losses in the future; and

•

causing reductions in real property values that, due to our reliance on real properties to collateralize many of our loans, could make it more difficult for us to prevent losses from being incurred on nonperforming loans through the foreclosure and sale of those real properties.

Adverse changes in economic and market conditions, and changes in government regulations and government monetary policies could materially and negatively affect our business and results of operations.

Our business and results of operations are directly affected by factors such as political, economic and market conditions, broad trends in industry and finance, legislative and regulatory changes, changes in government monetary and fiscal policies and inflation, all of which are beyond our control. Deterioration in economic conditions, whether caused by global, national, regional or local concerns or problems, or a further downgrade in the United States debt rating, could result in the following consequences, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects:

•

a deterioration in the credit quality of our banking clients;

•

an increase in loan delinquencies and losses;

•

an increase in problem assets and foreclosures;

•

declines in the values of real properties collateralizing the loans we make;

•

the need to increase our ALLL;

•

fluctuations in the value of, or impairment losses which may be incurred with respect to, FFB’s investment securities;

•

decreases in the demand for our products and services;

•

increases in competition for low cost or non-interest bearing deposits; and

•

decreases in the investment management and advisory fees we generate.

Changes in interest rates could reduce our net interest margin and net interest income.

Income and cash flows from our banking operations depend to a great extent on the difference or “spread” between the interest we earn on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and the interest rates we pay on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. Interest rates are highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, including general economic conditions, the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board, and competition from other banks and financial institutions. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, will influence the origination and market value of and our yields on loans and investment securities and the interest we pay on deposits and on our borrowings. If we are unable to adjust our interest rates on loans and deposits on a timely basis in response to such changes in economic conditions or monetary policies, our earnings could be adversely affected. In addition, if the rates of interest we pay on deposits, borrowings and other interest-bearing liabilities increase faster than we are able to increase the rates of interest we charge on loans or the yields we realize on investments and other interest-earning assets, our net interest income and, therefore, our earnings will decrease. Rising interest rates also generally result in a reduction in loan originations, declines in loan repayment rates and reductions in the ability of borrowers to repay their current loan obligations, which could result in increased loan defaults and charge-offs and could require increases to our ALLL. Additionally, we could be prevented from increasing the interest rates we charge on loans or from reducing the interest rates we offer on deposits due to price competition from other banks and financial institutions with which we compete. Conversely, in a declining interest rate environment, our earnings could be adversely affected if the interest rates we are able to charge on loans or other investments decline more quickly than those we pay on deposits and borrowings.

Residential real estate loans represent a high percentage of the loans we make, making our results of operations vulnerable to downturns in the real estate market.

At December 31, 2013, loans secured by multifamily and single family residences represented 70% of FFB’s outstanding loans. The repayment of residential real estate loans is highly dependent on the market values of the real properties that collateralize these loans and on the ability of the borrowers to meet their loan repayment obligations to us, which can be adversely affected by economic downturns that lead to increases in unemployment, or by rising interest rates which can increase the amount of the interest borrowers are required to pay on their loans. As a result, our operating results are more vulnerable to adverse changes in the real estate market than other financial institutions with more diversified loan portfolios and we could incur losses in the event of changes in economic conditions that disproportionately affect the real estate markets.

Liquidity risk could adversely affect our ability to fund operations and hurt our financial condition.

Liquidity is essential to our banking business, as we use cash to make loans and purchase investment securities and other interest-earning assets and to fund deposit withdrawals that occur in the ordinary course of our business. Our principal sources of liquidity include earnings, deposits, Federal Home Loan Bank (or FHLB) borrowings, sales of loans or investment securities held for sale, and repayments by clients of loans we have made to them, and capital contributions that we may make to FFB with proceeds from sales of our common stock or from borrowings that we may incur. If the ability to obtain funds from these sources becomes limited or the costs of those funds increase, whether due to factors that affect us specifically, including our financial performance, or due to factors that affect the financial services industry in general, including weakening economic conditions or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial services industry as a whole, then our ability to grow our banking and investment advisory and wealth management businesses would be harmed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Our 6 largest deposit clients account for 36% of our total deposits.

As of December 31, 2013, our 6 largest bank depositors accounted for, in the aggregate, 36% of our total deposits. As a result, a material decrease in the volume of those deposits by a relatively small number of our depositors could reduce our liquidity, in which event it could became necessary for us to replace those deposits with higher-cost deposits, lower-yielding securities or FHLB borrowings, which would adversely affect our net interest income and, therefore, our results of operations.

Although we plan to grow our business by acquiring other banks, there is no assurance that we will succeed in doing so.

One of the key elements of our business plan is to grow our banking franchise and increase our market share, and for that reason, we intend to take advantage of opportunities to acquire other banks. However, there is no assurance that we will succeed in doing so. Our ability to execute on our strategy to acquire other banks may require us to raise additional capital and to increase FFB’s capital position to support the growth of our banking franchise, and will also depend on market conditions, over which we have no control. Moreover, any bank acquisitions will require the approval of our bank regulators and there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such approvals on acceptable terms, if at all.

Expansion of our banking franchise may not increase our profitability and may adversely affect our future operating results.

Since we commenced our banking business in October 2007, we have grown our banking franchise by establishing three new wealth management offices in Southern California and one in Las Vegas, Nevada and acquiring two new offices in Palm Desert and El Centro, California as part of our acquisition of Desert Commercial Bank, or DCB. We plan to continue to grow our banking franchise both organically and through potential acquisitions of other banks. However, the implementation of our growth strategy will pose a number of risks, including:

•

the risk that any newly established wealth management offices will not generate revenues in amounts sufficient to cover the start-up costs of those offices, which would reduce our income or possibly cause us to incur operating losses;

•

the risk that any bank acquisitions we might consummate in the future will prove not to be accretive to or may reduce our earnings if we do not realize anticipated cost savings or if we incur unanticipated costs in integrating the acquired banks into our operations or if a substantial number of the clients of the acquired banks move their banking business to our competitors;

•

the risk that such expansion efforts will divert management time and effort from our existing banking operations, which could adversely affect our future financial performance; and

•

the risk that the additional capital which we may need to support our growth or the issuance of shares in any bank acquisitions will be dilutive of the share ownership of our existing shareholders.

We recently obtained a $7.5 million five year term loan that is secured by a pledge of all of FFB’s shares, which could have a material adverse effect on our business if we are not able to meet certain financial covenants or repay the loan.

In April 2013, we entered into a five year term loan agreement pursuant to which we obtained $7.5 million of funds from another bank. We are using the proceeds of the loan to fund the growth of our businesses, which includes the contribution of equity to FFB. In order to obtain that loan, however, we were required to pledge all of the shares of FFB stock to the bank lender as security for our payment and other obligations under that loan agreement. Additionally, the loan agreement contains a number of financial and other covenants which we are required to meet over the five year term of the loan. As a result, such borrowings may make us more vulnerable to general economic downturns and competitive pressures, which could cause us to fail to meet one or more of those financial covenants. If we were unable to meet any of those covenants, we could be required to repay the loan sooner than its maturity date in May 2018. If we are unable to repay the loan when due, whether at maturity or earlier, the lender would have the right to sell our FFB shares to recover the amounts that are due it by us under the loan agreement. Since the stock of FFB comprises one of our most important assets on which our success is dependent, an inability on our part to repay the loan would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects and cause us to incur significant losses. See the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Financial Condition—Term Loan” for additional information about this loan.

We face intense competition from other banks and financial institutions and other wealth and investment management firms that could hurt our business.

We conduct our business operations primarily in Southern California, where the banking business is highly competitive and is dominated by large multi-state and in-state banks with operations and offices covering wide geographic areas. We also compete with other financial service businesses, including investment advisory and wealth management firms, mutual fund companies, and securities brokerage and investment banking firms that offer competitive banking and financial products and services as well as products and services that we do not offer. Larger banks and many of those other financial service organizations have greater financial and marketing resources that enable them to conduct extensive advertising campaigns and to shift resources to regions or activities of greater potential profitability. They also have substantially more capital and higher lending limits, which enable them to attract larger clients and offer financial products and services that we are unable to offer, putting us at a disadvantage in competing with them for loans and deposits and investment management clients. If we are unable to compete effectively with those banking or other financial services businesses, we could find it more difficult to attract new and retain existing clients and our net interest margins, net interest income and investment management advisory fees could decline, which would adversely affect our results of operations and could cause us to incur losses in the future.

In addition, our ability to successfully attract and retain investment advisory and wealth management clients is dependent on our ability to compete with competitors’ investment products, level of investment performance, client services and marketing and distribution capabilities. If we are not successful in attracting new and retaining existing clients, our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects may be materially and adversely affected.

The loss of key personnel or inability to attract additional personnel could hurt our future financial performance.

We currently depend heavily on the contributions and services provided by Rick Keller, our Executive Chairman, Scott Kavanaugh, Chief Executive Officer of FFI and FFB, John Hakopian, President of FFA, Dave Rahn, President of FFB and John Michel, Chief Financial Officer of FFI, FFB and FFA, as well as a number of other key management personnel. Our future success also will depend, in part, on our ability to attract and retain additional qualified relationship managers, private banking officers and investment managers. Competition for such personnel is intense and we may not succeed in retaining our existing personnel or attracting additional personnel we will need to continue to grow our business. If we are unable to continue to retain the services of any of our existing executive management personnel, or attract and retain qualified relationship managers, private banking officers and investment managers, our ability to retain existing clients or attract new clients could be adversely affected and our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects could be significantly harmed.

Banking laws and government regulations may adversely affect our operations, restrict our growth or increase our operating costs.

We are also subject to extensive supervision and regulation by federal and California state bank regulatory agencies. The primary objective of these agencies is to protect bank depositors and not shareholders, whose respective interests often differ. These regulatory agencies have the legal authority to impose restrictions which they believe are needed to protect depositors, even if those restrictions would adversely affect the ability of a banking institution to expand its business, restrict its ability to pay cash dividends, cause its costs of doing business to increase, or hinder its ability to compete with less regulated financial services companies.

We are also subject to numerous laws and government regulations that are applicable to banks and other financial institutions, including:

Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations. We are required to comply with various consumer protection laws, including the Community Reinvestment Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act and other fair lending laws and regulations impose nondiscriminatory lending requirements on financial institutions.

Bank Secrecy Act and other Anti-Money Laundering Laws and Regulations. As a financial institution, we are required by the Bank Secrecy Act, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and other anti-money laundering laws and regulations, to institute and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and file suspicious activity and currency transaction reports as appropriate. We are also subject to increased scrutiny of compliance with the rules enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

If the policies, procedures or systems which we have adopted to comply with these laws and regulations are found by any regulatory or other government agencies to be deficient or we fail to comply with any of these banking laws or regulations, we would be subject to liability, including fines and regulatory actions, which may lead to the imposition of restrictions on our ability to pay dividends or to proceed with certain aspects of our business plan, including our acquisition plans. Additionally, a failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us. Due, moreover, to the complex and technical nature of many of these laws and government regulations, inadvertent violations may and sometimes do occur. In such an event, we would be required to correct or implement measures to prevent a recurrence of such violations, which could increase our operating costs. If more serious violations were to occur, the regulatory agencies could limit our activities or growth, fine us, or ultimately put FFB out of business if it was to encounter severe liquidity problems or a significant erosion of capital below the minimum amounts required under applicable bank regulations. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects.

The enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act and the new capital rules pose uncertainties for our business and are likely to increase our costs of doing business in the future.

On July 21, 2010, the President signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or the Dodd-Frank Act, into law. Changes made by the Dodd-Frank Act include, among others: (i) the establishment of new requirements on banking, derivative and investment activities, including modified capital requirements, (ii) the repeal of the prohibition on the payment of interest on business demand deposit accounts, (iii) the imposition of limitations on debit card interchange fees, (iv) the promulgation of enhanced financial institution safety and soundness regulations, (v) increases in assessment fees and deposit insurance coverage, and (vi) the establishment of new regulatory bodies, such as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or the BCFP. The BCFP has been granted rulemaking authority over several federal consumer financial protection laws and, in some instances, has the authority to examine and supervise and enforce compliance by banks and other financial service organizations with these laws and regulations. Certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act were made effective immediately; however, much of the Dodd-Frank Act is subject to further rulemaking and/or studies. As a result, we are not able to fully assess the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act will have on us until final rules are adopted and implemented. However, we expect that the Dodd-Frank Act and its implementing regulations will increase the costs of doing business for us and other banking institutions. We also expect that the repeal of the prohibition on the payment by banks of interest on business demand deposits will result in increased “price” competition among banks for such deposits, which could increase the costs of funds to us (as well as to other banks) and result in a reduction in our net interest margins and income in the future.

In July 2013, the FRB adopted final rules (the “New Capital Rules”) establishing a new comprehensive capital framework for U.S. banking organizations based on capital guidelines adopted by the International Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (the “Basel Committee”), and the FDIC adopted substantially identical rules on an interim basis. The rules not only implement the Basel Committee’s December 2010 framework for strengthening international capital standards, but also certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The New Capital Rules substantially revise and heighten the risk-based capital requirements applicable to U.S. banking organizations, including FFI and FFB, from the current U.S. risk-based capital rules and replace the existing approach used in risk-weighting of a banking organization’s assets with a more risk-sensitive approach. The New Capital Rules will become effective for FFI and FFB on January 1, 2015 (subject in the case of certain of those rules to phase-in periods). These new Capital Rules will increase the amount of capital which both FFI and FFB will have to maintain and it is expected that it will also increase the costs of capital for bank holding companies and banks in the United States. See “Supervision and Regulation—First Foundation Bank—New Basel III Capital Rules” for additional information regarding these new capital requirements.

The fair value of our investment securities can fluctuate due to factors outside of our control.

As of December 31, 2013, the fair value of our investment securities portfolio was $59.1 million. Factors beyond our control can significantly influence the fair value of securities in our portfolio and can cause potential adverse changes to the fair value of these securities. These factors include, but are not limited to, rating agency actions in respect of the securities, defaults by the issuer or with respect to the underlying securities, changes in market interest rates and continued instability in the capital markets. Any of these factors, among others, could cause other-than-temporary impairments and realized and/or unrealized losses in future periods and declines in other comprehensive income, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects. In addition, the process for determining whether impairment of a security is other-than-temporary usually requires complex, subjective judgments about the future financial performance and liquidity of the issuer and any collateral underlying the security in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security.

Premiums for federal deposit insurance have increased and may increase even more.

The FDIC uses the Deposit Insurance Fund, or DIF, to cover insured deposits in the event of bank failures, and maintains that Fund by assessing insurance premiums on FDIC-insured banks and other depository institutions. The increase in bank failures during the three years ended December 31, 2010 caused the DIF to fall below the minimum balance required by law, forcing the FDIC to raise the insurance premiums assessed on FDIC-insured banks in order to rebuild the DIF. Depending on the frequency and severity of bank failures in the future, the FDIC may further increase premiums or assessments. In addition, our FDIC insurance premiums will increase as we grow our banking business. Such increases in FDIC insurance premiums would increase our costs of doing business and, therefore, could adversely affect our results of operations and earnings in the future.

Technology and marketing costs may negatively impact our future operating results.

The financial services industry is constantly undergoing technological changes in the types of products and services provided to clients to enhance client convenience. Our future success will depend upon our ability to address the changing technological needs of our clients and to compete with other financial services organizations which have successfully implemented new technologies. The costs of implementing technological changes, new product development and marketing costs may increase our operating expenses without a commensurate increase in our business or revenues, in which event our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

We rely on communications, information, operating and financial control systems technology from third-party service providers, and we could suffer an interruption in those systems.

We rely heavily on third-party service providers for much of our communications, information, operating and financial control systems technology, including our internet banking services and data processing systems. Any failure or interruption, or breaches in security, of these systems could result in failures or interruptions in our client relationship management, general ledger, deposit, servicing and/or loan origination systems and, therefore, could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Additionally, interruptions in service and security breaches could lead existing clients to terminate their business relationships with us, could make it more difficult for us to attract new clients and subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny and possibly financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may bear costs associated with the proliferation of computer theft and cyber-crime.

In the ordinary course of our business, we are required to collect, use and hold data concerning our clients. Threats to data security, including unauthorized access and cyber-attacks, rapidly emerge and change, exposing us to additional costs for protection or remediation and competing time constraints to secure our data in accordance with customer expectations and statutory and regulatory requirements. It is difficult or impossible to defend against every risk being posed by changing technologies, as well as against criminals who are intent on committing cyber-crime. Increasing sophistication of cyber-criminals and terrorists make keeping up with new threats difficult and could result in security breaches. Patching and other measures to protect existing systems and servers could be inadequate, especially on systems that are being retired. Controls employed by our information technology department and cloud vendors could prove inadequate. We could also experience a breach by intentional or negligent conduct on the part of employees or other internal sources. Our systems and those of our third-party vendors may become vulnerable to damage or disruption due to circumstances beyond our or their control, such as from catastrophic events, power anomalies or outages, natural disasters, network failures, and viruses and malware.

A breach of our security that results in unauthorized access to our data could expose us to a disruption or challenges relating to our daily operations, as well as to data loss, litigation, damages, fines and penalties, significant increases in compliance costs, and reputational damage, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and prospects.

Our ability to attract and retain clients and employees could be adversely affected if our reputation is harmed.

The ability of FFB and FFA to attract and retain clients and key employees could be adversely affected if our reputation is harmed. Any actual or perceived failure to address various issues could cause reputational harm, including a failure to address any of the following types of issues: legal and regulatory requirements; the proper maintenance or protection of the privacy of client and employee financial or other personal information; record keeping; money-laundering; potential conflicts of interest and ethical issues. Moreover, any failure to appropriately address any issues of this nature could give rise to additional regulatory restrictions, and legal risks, which could lead to costly litigation or subject us to enforcement actions, fines, or penalties and cause us to incur related costs and expenses. In addition, our banking, investment advisory and wealth management businesses are dependent on the integrity of our banking personnel and our investment advisory and wealth managers. Lapses in integrity could cause reputational harm to our businesses which could result in the loss of clients and, therefore, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are exposed to risk of environmental liabilities with respect to real properties that we may acquire.

From time to time, in the ordinary course of our business, we acquire, by or in lieu of foreclosure, real properties which collateralize nonperforming loans (often referred to as “Real Estate Owned” or “REO”). As an owner of such properties, we could become subject to environmental liabilities and incur substantial costs for any property damage, personal injury, investigation and clean-up that may be required due to any environmental contamination that may be found to exist at any of those properties, even if we did not engage in the activities that led to such contamination and those activities took place prior to our ownership of the properties. In addition, if we are the owner or former owner of a contaminated site, we may be subject to common law claims by third parties seeking damages for environmental contamination emanating from the site. If we were to become subject to significant environmental liabilities or costs, our business, financial conditions, results of operations and prospects could be materially and adversely affected.

We may incur significant losses as a result of ineffective risk management processes and strategies.

We seek to monitor and control our risk exposure through a risk and control framework encompassing a variety of separate but complementary financial, credit, operational, compliance systems, and internal control and management review processes. However, those systems and review processes and the judgments that accompany their application may not be effective and, as a result, we may not anticipate every economic and financial outcome in all market environments or the specifics and timing of such outcomes, particularly in the event of the kinds of dislocations in market conditions experienced over the last several years, which highlight the limitations inherent in using historical data to manage risk. If those systems and review processes prove to be ineffective in identifying and managing risks, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our investment advisory and wealth management business may be negatively impacted by changes in economic and market conditions.

Our investment advisory and wealth management businesses may be negatively impacted by changes in general economic and market conditions because the performance of those businesses is directly affected by conditions in the financial and securities markets. The financial markets and businesses operating in the securities industry are highly volatile (meaning that performance results can vary greatly within short periods of time) and are directly affected by, among other factors, domestic and foreign economic conditions and general trends in business and finance, and by the threat, as well as the occurrence of global conflicts, all of which are beyond our control. We cannot assure you that broad market performance will be favorable in the future. Declines in the financial markets or a lack of sustained growth may result in a decline in the performance of our investment advisory and wealth management business and may adversely affect the market value and performance of the investment securities that we manage, which could lead to reductions in our investment management and advisory fees, because they are based primarily on the market value of the securities we manage and could lead some of our clients to reduce their assets under management by us. If any of these events occur, the financial performance of our investment advisory and wealth management business could be materially and adversely affected.

The investment management contracts we have with our clients are terminable without cause and on relatively short notice by our clients, which makes us vulnerable to short term declines in the performance of the securities under our management.

Like most other companies with an investment and wealth management business, the investment and wealth management contracts we have with our clients are typically terminable by the client without cause upon less than 30 days’ notice. As a result, even short term declines in the performance of the securities we manage, which can result from factors outside our control such as adverse changes in market or economic condition or the poor performance of some of the investments we have recommended to our clients, could lead some of our clients to move assets under our management to other asset classes such as broad index funds or treasury securities, or to investment advisors which have investment product offerings or investment strategies different than ours. Therefore, our operating results are heavily dependent on the financial performance of our investment portfolios and the investment strategies we employ in our investment advisory businesses and even short-term declines in the performance of the investment portfolios we manage for our clients, whatever the cause, could result in a decline in assets under management and a corresponding decline in investment management fees, which would adversely affect our results of operations.

The market for investment managers is extremely competitive and the loss of a key investment manager to a competitor could adversely affect our investment advisory and wealth management business.

We believe that investment performance is one of the most important factors that affect the amount of assets under our management. As a result, we rely heavily on our investment managers to produce attractive investment returns for our clients. However, the market for investment managers is extremely competitive and is increasingly characterized by frequent movement of investment managers among different firms. In addition, our individual investment managers often have regular direct contact with particular clients, which can lead to a strong client relationship based on the client’s trust in that individual manager. As a result, the loss of a key investment manager to a competitor could jeopardize our relationships with some of our clients and lead to the loss of client accounts. Losses of such accounts could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

FFA’s business is highly regulated, and the regulators have the ability to limit or restrict our activities and impose fines or other sanctions on FFA’s business.

FFA is registered as an investment adviser with the SEC under the Investment Advisers Act and its business is highly regulated. The Investment Advisers Act imposes numerous obligations on registered investment advisers, including fiduciary, record keeping, operational and disclosure obligations. Moreover, the Investment Advisers Act grants broad administrative powers to regulatory agencies such as the SEC. If the SEC or other government agencies believe that FFA has failed to comply with applicable laws or regulations, these agencies have the power to impose fines, suspensions of individual employees or other sanctions, which could include revocation of FFA’s registration under the Investment Advisers Act. Changes in legal, regulatory, accounting, tax and compliance requirements also could adversely affect FFA’s operations and financial results, by, among other things, increasing its operating expenses and placing restraints on the marketing of certain investment products. Like other investment management companies, FFA also faces the risks of lawsuits by clients. The outcome of regulatory proceedings and lawsuits is uncertain and difficult to predict. An adverse resolution of any regulatory proceeding or lawsuit against FFA could result in substantial costs or reputational harm to FFA and, therefore, could have an adverse effect on the ability of FFA to retain key relationship and wealth managers and existing clients or attract new clients, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We are also subject to the provisions and regulations of ERISA to the extent that we act as a “fiduciary” under ERISA with respect to certain of our clients. ERISA and the applicable provisions of the federal tax laws, impose a number of duties on persons who are fiduciaries under ERISA and prohibit certain transactions involving the assets of each ERISA plan which is a client, as well as certain transactions by the fiduciaries (and certain other related parties) to such plans.

We may be adversely affected by the soundness of other financial institutions or and brokerage firms.

In addition, FFA does not provide custodial services for its clients. Instead, client investment accounts are maintained under custodial arrangements with large, well established brokerage firms, either directly or through FFB. As a result, the performance of, or even rumors or questions about, one or more of the brokerage firms that serve as custodian on our accounts could adversely affect the confidence of FFA’s customers in the services provided by those brokerage firms or otherwise adversely impact their custodial holdings. Such an occurrence could negatively impact the ability of FFA to attract or retain its customer relationships and, as a result, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Risks related to Ownership of our Common Stock

We do not plan to pay dividends for the foreseeable future. Additionally, our ability to pay dividends is subject to regulatory and other restrictions.

In order to implement our growth strategy, it is our policy to retain cash for our businesses and, as a result, we have never paid any cash dividends and we have no plans to pay cash dividends at least for the foreseeable future. Additionally, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders is restricted by California and federal law. Moreover, the term loan agreement we entered into in April 2013 prohibits us from paying cash dividends to our shareholders without the lender’s prior written consent. See the section entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Financial Condition—Term Loan” for additional information about this loan.

Our ability to pay dividends is also dependent on the payment to us of dividends by FFB and FFA, which are subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions as well. FFA’s ability to pay cash dividends to us is restricted under California law. FFB’s ability to pay dividends to us is limited by various banking statutes and regulations. Moreover, based on their assessment of the financial condition of FFB or other factors, the FDIC or the DBO could find that the payment of cash dividends to us by FFB would constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice and, therefore, prohibit FFB from paying cash dividends to us, even if FFB meets the statutory requirements to do so. See the section entitled “Dividend Policy” for additional information about our dividend policy.

No public market presently exists, and there is no assurance that an active trading market will develop, for our common stock.

Our common stock is not listed and does not trade on any securities exchange or in the over-the-counter market. As a result, the ability of our shareholders to sell, and for other investors to purchase, shares of our common stock is quite limited. Consequently, investors and our existing shareholders may be unable to liquidate their investments in our shares if the need or desire to do so arises and, as a result, may be required to hold their shares indefinitely. If we are able to list our shares on NASDAQ or another national securities exchange, there is no assurance that an active trading market will develop for our shares that would enable our shareholders to readily sell their shares if or when the need or desire to do so arises. Moreover, if the trading market for our common stock ultimately proves to be limited, even after our shares are listed on an exchange, then, the limited trading market may cause fluctuations in the market prices of our common stock to be exaggerated, leading to price volatility in excess of that which would occur in a more active trading market for our common stock.

If a market does develop for our common stock, market prices and trading volume of our common stock may be volatile.

Even if a market develops for our common stock, the market prices of our common stock may be volatile and the trading volume may fluctuate and cause significant price variations to occur. We cannot assure you that, if a market does develop for our common stock, the market prices of our common stock will not fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the prices of ours shares or result in fluctuations in those prices or in trading volume of our common stock could include the following, many of which are outside of our control:

•

quarterly variations in our operating results or the quality of our earnings or assets;

•

operating results that vary from the expectations of management, securities analysts, and investors;

•

changes in expectations as to our future financial performance;

•

the operating and securities price performance of other companies that investors believe are comparable to us;

•

our implementation of our growth strategy and performance of acquired businesses that vary from the expectations of securities analysts and investors;

•

the adoption of new more costly government regulations that are applicable to our businesses or the imposition of regulatory restrictions on us;

•

our past and future dividend practices;

•

future sales of our equity or equity-related securities;

•

changes in global financial markets and global economies and general market conditions, such as interest rates, stock, commodity or real estate valuations or volatility; and

•

announcements of strategic developments, material acquisitions and other material events in our business or in the businesses of our competitors.

Share ownership by our officers and directors and certain agreements make it more difficult for third parties to acquire us or effectuate a change of control that might be viewed favorably by other shareholders.

As of December 31, 2013, our executive officers and directors owned, in the aggregate, 34% of our outstanding shares. As a result, if the officers and directors were to oppose a third party’s acquisition proposal for, or a change in control of, FFI, the officers and directors may have sufficient voting power to be able to block or at least delay such an acquisition or change in control from taking place, even if other shareholders would support such a sale or change of control. In addition, a number of FFI’s officers have change of control agreements which could increase the costs and, therefore, lessen the attractiveness of an acquisition of FFI to a potential acquiring party. See the section entitled “Executive Compensation—Change of Control Agreements” for additional information about the change of control arrangements we have with certain executive officers.

Our corporate governance documents, and certain corporate and banking laws applicable to us, could make a takeover attempt, which may be beneficial to our shareholders, more difficult.

Our Board of Directors, or Board, has the power, under our articles of incorporation, to issue additional shares of common stock and create and authorize the sale of one or more series of preferred stock without having to obtain shareholder approval for such action. As a result, our Board could authorize the issuance of shares of a series of preferred stock to implement a shareholders rights plan (often referred to as a “poison pill”) or could sell and issue preferred shares with special voting rights or conversion rights, which could deter or delay attempts by our shareholders to remove or replace management, and attempts of third parties either to engage in proxy contests or to acquire control of FFI. In addition, our charter documents:

•

enable our Board to fill vacant directorships except for vacancies created by the removal of a director;

•

enable our Board to amend our bylaws without shareholder approval subject to certain exceptions; and

•

require compliance with an advance notice procedure with regard to business to be brought by a shareholder before an annual or special meeting of shareholders and with regard to the nomination by shareholders of candidates for election as directors.

Furthermore, federal and state banking laws and regulations applicable to us require prior regulatory application and approval of certain transactions involving control of FFI or of FFB. These provisions may discourage potential acquisition proposals and could delay or prevent a change of control, including under circumstances in which our shareholders might otherwise receive a premium over the market price of our common stock.

Our articles of incorporation permit our Board of Directors to authorize and sell shares of preferred stock on terms that could discourage a third party from making a takeover that may be beneficial to our shareholders

Our Board of Directors has the power, under our articles of incorporation, to create and authorize the sale of one or more series of preferred stock without having to obtain shareholder approval for such action. As a result, the Board could authorize the issuance of shares of a series of preferred stock to implement a shareholders rights plan (often referred to as a “poison pill”) or could sell and issue preferred shares with special voting rights or conversion rights, which could deter or delay attempts by our shareholders to remove or replace management, and attempts of third parties either to engage in proxy contests or to acquire control of the Company.

We may sell additional shares of common stock in the future which could result in dilution to our shareholders.

A total of approximately 12 million authorized but unissued shares of our common stock are available for future sale and issuance by action of our board of directors. Accordingly, our shareholders could suffer dilution in their investment in our common stock and their percentage share ownership if we were to sell additional shares in the future.

We have elected under the JOBS Act to use an extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards.

We are electing to take advantage of the extended transition period afforded by the Jumpstart our Business Startups Act of 2012, or the JOBS Act, for the implementation of new or revised accounting standards. As a result, we will not be required to comply with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies or we cease to be an “emerging growth” company as defined in the JOBS Act. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financial statements of companies that comply with public company effective dates.

The reduced disclosures and relief from certain other significant disclosure requirements that are available to emerging growth companies may make our common stock less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company,” as defined in the JOBS Act, and we intend to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that apply to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies.” These exemptions include the following:

•

not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”);

•

less extensive disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our periodic reports and proxy statements; and

•

exemptions from the requirements to hold nonbinding advisory votes on executive compensation and shareholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved.

In addition, even if we comply with the greater obligations of public companies that are not emerging growth companies, we may avail ourselves of the reduced requirements applicable to emerging growth companies from time to time in the future, so long as we are an emerging growth company.

We will remain an emerging growth company for up to five years, though we may cease to be an emerging growth company earlier under certain circumstances, including if, before the end of such five years, we are deemed to be a large accelerated filer under the rules of the SEC (which depends on, among other things, having a market value of common stock held by non-affiliates in excess of $700 million). If a trading market were to develop for our shares in the future, then, because we will be relying on one or more of these exemptions, investors and securities analysts may find it more difficult to evaluate our common stock, and some investors may find our common stock less attractive, and, as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock, which could result in a reductions and greater volatility in the prices of our common stock.

Further, Section 102(b)(1) of the JOBS Act exempts emerging growth companies from being required to comply with new or revised financial accounting standards until private companies (that is, those that have not had a Securities Act registration statement declared effective or do not have a class of securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) are required to comply with the new or revised financial accounting standards. The JOBS Act provides that a company may elect to opt out of the extended transition period and comply with the requirements that apply to non-emerging growth companies, but any such election to opt out will be irrevocable. We have elected not to opt out of such extended transition period which means that when a standard is issued or revised and it has different application dates for public or private companies, we, as an emerging growth company, can adopt the new or revised standard at the time private companies adopt the new or revised standard. This may make our financial statements not comparable with those of other public companies which are neither emerging growth companies nor emerging growth companies that have opted out of using the extended transition period.

Pursuant to the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting for so long as we are an “emerging growth company.”

Under existing SEC rules and regulations, we will be required to disclose changes made in our internal control over financial reporting on a quarterly basis and management will be required to assess the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and our internal control over financial reporting annually. However, under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act until we are no longer an “emerging growth company.”

Our internal control over financial reporting does not currently meet the standards required by Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and failure to achieve and maintain effective internal control over financial reporting in accordance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could have a material adverse effect on our business and stock prices.

We have not been required to maintain internal control over financial reporting in a manner that meets the standards that are made applicable to publicly traded companies under Section 404(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Once we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” our independent registered public accounting firm will be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting on an annual basis. The rules governing the standards that must be met for our management to assess our internal control over financial reporting are complex and require significant documentation, testing and possible remediation, which could significantly increase our operating expenses.

If we identify material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting in the future, or if we cannot comply with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in a timely manner or attest that our internal control over financial reporting is effective, we may not be able to report our financial results accurately and timely. As a result, investors and clients may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports; our liquidity, access to capital markets, and perceptions of our creditworthiness could be adversely affected; and the market price of our common stock could decline. In addition, we could become subject to investigations by the stock exchange on which our securities are listed, SEC, the Federal Reserve or the FDIC, or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources. These events could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

We may also encounter problems or delays in implementing any changes necessary to make a favorable assessment of our internal control over financial reporting or in completing the implementation of any requested improvements that may be needed for this purpose. If we cannot favorably assess the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in our financial information which could adversely affect the price of our common stock.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not applicable.

Item 2. Properties.

Our headquarters and administrative offices are located at 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700, Irvine, California 92612. In addition, we operate seven wealth management offices located, respectively, in Newport Beach, Pasadena, West Los Angeles, Palm Desert, El Centro and San Diego, California and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of these offices are leased pursuant to non-cancelable operating leases that will expire between 2015 and 2020.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings.

In the ordinary course of business, we are subject to claims, counter claims, suits and other litigation of the type that generally arise from the conduct of financial services businesses. We are not aware of any threatened or pending litigation that we expect will have a material adverse effect on our business operations, financial condition or results of operations.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not applicable.

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities.

Market Information

As of February 28, 2013, a total of 7,733,514 shares of our common stock were issued and outstanding which were held of record by 903 shareholders. No shares of preferred stock had been issued or were outstanding and we do not have any current plans to sell or issue any shares of preferred stock.

There is currently no public trading market or publicly available quotations for our common stock.

Dividend Policy and Restrictions on the Payment of Dividends

We have not previously paid cash dividends on our common stock. It is our current intention to invest our cash flow and earnings in the growth of our businesses and, therefore, we have no plans to pay cash dividends for the foreseeable future.

Additionally, our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders is subject to the restrictions set forth in the California General Corporation Law (the “CGCL”). The CGCL provides that a corporation may pay a dividend to its shareholders if the amount of the corporation’s retained earnings immediately prior to the dividend, equals or exceeds the amount of the proposed dividend plus, if the corporation has shares of preferred stock outstanding, the amount of the unpaid accumulated dividends on those preferred shares. The CGCL further provides that, in the event that sufficient retained earnings are not available for the proposed dividend, a corporation may nevertheless pay a dividend to its shareholders if, immediately after the dividend, the value of its assets would equal or exceed the sum of its total liabilities plus, if the corporation has shares of preferred stock outstanding, the amount of the unpaid accumulated dividends on those preferred shares. In addition, since we are a bank holding company subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board, it may become necessary for us to obtain the approval of the FRB before we can pay cash dividends to our shareholders. In addition, the loan agreement governing our $7.5 million term loan requires us to obtain the prior approval of the lender for the payment by us of any dividends to our shareholders.

Cash dividends from our two wholly-owned subsidiaries, First Foundation Bank and First Foundation Advisors, represent the principal source of funds available to us, which we might use to pay cash dividends to our shareholders or for other corporate purposes. Since FFA is a California corporation, the same dividend payment restrictions, described above, that apply to us under the CGCL also apply to FFA. In addition the laws of the State of California, as they pertain to the payment of cash dividends by California state chartered banks, limit the amount of funds that FFB would be permitted to dividend to us more strictly than does the CGCL. In particular, under California law, cash dividends by a California state chartered bank may not exceed, in any calendar year, the lesser of (i) the sum of its net income for the year and its retained net income from the preceding two years (after deducting all dividends paid during the period), or (ii) the amount of its retained earnings.

Additionally, until September 2014, we are required to obtain prior approval from the FDIC before the Bank may pay any dividends. Also, because the payment of cash dividends has the effect of reducing capital, capital requirements imposed on the Bank by the DBO and the FDIC may operate, as a practical matter, to preclude the payment, or limit the amount of, cash dividends that might otherwise be permitted to be made under California law; and the DBO and the FDIC, as part of their supervisory powers, generally require insured banks to adopt dividend policies which limit the payment of cash dividends much more strictly than do applicable state laws.

Furthermore, the loan agreement governing our $7.5 million term loan requires us to obtain the prior approval of the lender for the payment by us of any dividends to our shareholders.

Restrictions on Intercompany Transactions

Sections 23A and 23B of the Federal Reserve Act, and the implementing regulations thereunder, limit transactions between a bank and its affiliates and limit a bank’s ability to transfer to its affiliates the benefits arising from the bank’s access to insured deposits, the payment system and the discount window and other benefits of the Federal Reserve System. Those Sections of the Act and the implementing regulations impose quantitative and qualitative limits on the ability of a bank to extend credit to, or engage in certain other transactions with, an affiliate (and a non-affiliate if an affiliate benefits from the transaction).

Equity Compensation Plans

Certain information with respect to our equity compensation plans, as of December 31, 2013, is set forth in Item 12, in Part III of this Report and is incorporated herein by this reference.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

During 2013, we sold the following securities in transactions that were exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (or Securities Act):

Sales of Common Stock:

•

In March 2013, we sold an aggregate of 38,734 shares of our common stock in a private offering to a total of 6 accredited investors at a price of $15.00 per share in cash, which generated gross proceeds to us of $0.6 million.

•

In December 2013, we sold issued an aggregate 318,987 shares of our common stock in a private offering to a total of 32 accredited investors at a price of $18.00 per share in cash, which generated gross proceeds to us of $5.7 million.

The sales of these shares were made in reliance on the exemptions from registration under Section 4(2) of, and Regulation D and Rule 506 promulgated under, the Securities Act. The sales were made solely to accredited investors exclusively by officers of FFI, for which they did not receive any compensation (other than reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses in accordance with FFI’s expense reimbursement policies), and no general advertising or solicitations were employed in connection with the offer or sale of the shares. The purchasers of these shares represented their intention to acquire the shares for investment only, and not with a view to offer or sell any such shares in connection with any distribution of the shares, and appropriate restrictive legends were set forth in the stock purchase agreements entered into by the investors, and on the share certificates issued, in such transactions.

Grants of Stock Options and Restricted Stock. During 2013, we granted options to purchase up to 19,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $15.00 per share, and up to 5,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $18.00 per share and awarded 6,666 shares of restricted shares of our common stock, the vesting of which is contingent on the continued service with the Company of the recipient over a period of three years from the date of grant.

The issuance of shares on exercise of options and the issuances of restricted shares were deemed to be exempt from registration under the Securities Act in reliance on either Section 4(2) of the Securities Act, including in some cases, Regulation D and Rule 506 promulgated thereunder, or Rule 701 promulgated under Section 3(b) of the Securities Act, as transactions by an issuer not involving a public offering or transactions pursuant to compensatory benefit plans and contracts relating to compensation as provided under Rule 701. The purchasers of securities in each such transaction represented their intention to acquire the shares for investment only and not with a view to offer or sell any such shares in connection with any distribution of the securities, and appropriate legends were affixed to the share certificates and instruments issued in such transactions.

In January 2014, we filed a registration statement on Form S-8 to register, under the Securities Act, the shares of common stock issuable under our Equity Incentive Plans, including the shares subject to the options and the restricted shares granted in 2013.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

With the exception of the certain items included in the selected performance and capital ratios, the following selected consolidated financial information as of and for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and the selected consolidated financial information as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 has been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

You should read the following selected financial and operating data in conjunction with other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the information set forth in the sections entitled “Capitalization” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations”, as well as our consolidated financial statements and the related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The average balances used in computing certain ratios, have been computed using daily averages, except for average equity, which is computed using the average of beginning and end of month balances. Our historical results as set forth below are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in any future period. In addition, as described elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, on August 15, 2012 we consummated the acquisition of DCB. The results of operations and other financial data of DCB for all periods prior to the date of its acquisition are not included in the table below and, therefore, our results and other financial data for these prior periods are not comparable in all respects to those for the periods subsequent to that acquisition. In addition, the income statement data set forth below may not be predictive of our future operating results.


	As of and for the Year Ended December 31,
*(In thousands, except share and per share data)*	2013		2012⁽¹⁾		2011
Selected Income Statement Data:
Net interest income	$	35,674	$	27,729	$	20,141
Provision for loan losses		2,395		2,065		2,297
Noninterest Income:
Asset management, consulting and other fees		18,240		15,326		13,211
Other⁽²⁾		1,584		1,294		4,489
Noninterest expense		43,622		34,476		26,446
Income before taxes		9,481		7,808		9,098
Net income		7,851		5,801		9,098

Share and Per Share Data:
Net income per share:
Basic	$	1.06	$	0.88	$	1.48
Diluted		1.01		0.85		1.42
Shares used in computation:
Basic		7,424,210		6,603,533		6,164,283
Diluted		7,742,215		6,831,955		6,393,713
Tangible book value per share⁽³⁾	$	11.18	$	9.94	$	7.98
Shares outstanding at end of period⁽⁴⁾		7,733,514		7,366,126		6,166,574

Selected Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	56,954	$	63,108	$	10,098
Loans, net of deferred fees		903,645		743,627		524,103
Allowance for loan and lease losses (“ALLL”)		(9,915)		(8,340)		(6,550)
Total assets		1,037,360		830,509		551,584
Noninterest-bearing deposits		217,782		131,827		66,383
Interest-bearing deposits		584,255		517,914		340,443
Borrowings⁽⁵⁾		141,603		100,000		91,000
Shareholders’ equity⁽⁴⁾		86,762		73,580		49,197
Selected Performance and Capital Ratios:
Return on average assets		0.86%		0.80%		1.91%
Return on average equity		10.2%		9.9%		20.7%
Net yield on interest-earning assets		4.06%		4.20%		4.43%
Efficiency ratio⁽⁶⁾		78.6%		77.7%		77.4%
Noninterest income as a % of total revenues		35.7%		37.5%		46.8%


	As of and for the Year Ended December 31,
*(In thousands, except share and per share data)*	2013		2012⁽¹⁾		2011
Tangible common equity to tangible assets⁽³⁾		8.34%		8.82%		8.92%
Tier 1 leverage ratio		8.67%		9.19%		8.92%
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		13.04%		13.60%		13.54%
Total risk-based capital ratio		14.30%		14.85%		14.80%

Other Information:
Assets under management (end of period)	$	2,594,961	$	2,229,116	$	1,827,436
NPAs to total assets		0.32%		0.17%		0.00%
Charge-offs to average loans		0.10%		0.04%		0.05%
Ratio of ALLL to loans⁽⁷⁾		1.16%		1.25%		1.25%
Number of wealth management offices		7		6		4

(1)	Includes the results of operations of DCB for the period from the date of its acquisition on August 15, 2012 to December 31, 2012.

(2)	2011 amount includes a $3.7 million gain on the sale of other real estate owned.

(3)	Tangible common equity, (also referred to as tangible book value) and tangible assets, are equal to common equity and assets, respectively, less $0.3 million of intangible assets as of December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012. As of December 31, 2011, we did not have any intangible assets.

(4)

In December 2013, we sold and issued 318,987 shares of our common stock, at a price of $18 per share, in a private offering. We sold a total of 413,172 shares in a private offering, at a price of $15 per share, of which 374,438 were sold and issued in 2012 and 38,734 shares were sold and issued in 2013. Effective August 15, 2012, we issued a total of 815,447 shares of our common stock, valued at $15.00 per share, to the former DCB shareholders in our acquisition of DCB in exchange for all of the outstanding shares of DCB.

(5)	Borrowings consist primarily of overnight and short-term advances obtained by FFB from the Federal Home Loan Bank.

(6)	The efficiency ratio is the ratio of noninterest expense to the sum of net interest income and noninterest income.

(7)	This ratio excludes loans acquired in our acquisition of DCB, as generally accepted accounting principles in the United States, or GAAP, requires estimated credit losses for acquired loans to be recorded as discounts to those loans.

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis is intended to facilitate the understanding and assessment of significant changes and trends in our results of operations in the year ended, and our financial condition at, December 31, 2013, as compared to our results of operation in and our financial condition at December 31, 2012. This discussion and analysis is based on and should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes thereto contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition to historical information, this discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause results to differ materially from management’s expectations. Some of the factors that could cause results to differ materially from expectations are discussed in the sections entitled “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”) and accounting practices in the banking industry. Certain of those accounting policies are considered critical accounting policies, because they require us to make estimates and assumptions regarding circumstances or trends that could materially affect the value of those assets, such as economic conditions or trends that could impact our ability to fully collect our loans or ultimately realize the carrying value of certain of our other assets. Those estimates and assumptions are made based on current information available to us regarding those economic conditions or trends or other circumstances. If changes were to occur in the events, trends or other circumstances on which our estimates or assumptions were based, or other unanticipated events were to occur that might affect our operations, we may be required under GAAP to adjust our earlier estimates and to reduce the carrying values of the affected assets on our balance sheet, generally by means of charges against income, which could also affect our results of operations in the fiscal periods when those charges are recognized.

Utilization and Valuation of Deferred Income Tax Benefits. We record as a “deferred tax asset” on our balance sheet an amount equal to the tax credit and tax loss carryforwards and tax deductions (collectively “tax benefits”) that we believe will be available to us to offset or reduce income taxes in future periods. Under applicable federal and state income tax laws and regulations, tax benefits related to tax loss carryforwards will expire if they cannot be used within specified periods of time. Accordingly, the ability to fully use our deferred tax asset related to tax loss carryforwards to reduce income taxes in the future depends on the amount of taxable income that we generate during those time periods. At least once each year, or more frequently, if warranted, we make estimates of future taxable income that we believe we are likely to generate during those future periods. If we conclude, on the basis of those estimates and the amount of the tax benefits available to us, that it is more likely, than not, that we will be able to fully utilize those tax benefits prior to their expiration, we recognize the deferred tax asset in full on our balance sheet. On the other hand, if we conclude on the basis of those estimates and the amount of the tax benefits available to us that it has become more likely, than not, that we will be unable to utilize those tax benefits in full prior to their expiration, then, we would establish a valuation allowance to reduce the deferred tax asset on our balance sheet to the amount with respect to which we believe it is still more likely, than not, that we will be able to use to offset or reduce taxes in the future. The establishment of such a valuation allowance, or any increase in an existing valuation allowance, would be effectuated through a charge to the provision for income taxes or a reduction in any income tax credit for the period in which such valuation allowance is established or increased.

Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses. Our ALLL is established through a provision for loan losses charged to expense and may be reduced by a recapture of previously established loss reserves, which are also reflected in the statement of income. Loans are charged against the ALLL when management believes that collectability of the principal is unlikely. The ALLL is an amount that management believes will be adequate to absorb estimated losses on existing loans that may become uncollectible based on an evaluation of the collectability of loans and prior loan loss experience. This evaluation also takes into consideration such factors as changes in the nature and volume of the loan portfolio, overall portfolio quality, review of specific problem loans, current economic conditions and certain other subjective factors that may affect the borrower’s ability to pay. While we use the best information available to make this evaluation, future adjustments to our ALLL may be necessary if there are significant changes in economic or other conditions that can affect the collectability in full of loans in our loan portfolio.

Adoption of new or revised accounting standards. We have elected to take advantage of the extended transition period afforded by the JOBS Act, for the implementation of new or revised accounting standards. As a result, we will not be required to comply with new or revised accounting standards that have different effective dates for public and private companies until those standards apply to private companies or we cease to be an “emerging growth” company as defined in the JOBS Act. As a result of this election, our financial statements may not be comparable to the financials statements of companies that comply with public company effective dates.

We have two business segments, “Banking” and “Investment Management, Wealth Planning and Consulting” (“Wealth Management”). Banking includes the operations of FFB and FFIS and Wealth Management includes the operations of FFA. The financial position and operating results of the stand-alone holding company, FFI, are included under the caption “Other” in certain of the tables that follow, along with any consolidation elimination entries.

Recent Developments and Overview

On April 19, 2013, we entered into a term loan note agreement with an unaffiliated bank lender under which we borrowed $7.5 million. These borrowings bear interest at a rate equal to ninety day Libor plus 4.0% per annum. The term of the loan is five years. The loan agreement requires us to make monthly payments of principal and interest, the amounts of which are determined on the basis of a 10 year amortization schedule, with a final payment of the unpaid principal balance, in the amount of $3.8 million plus accrued but unpaid interest, at the maturity date of the loan in May 2018. We have the right, in our discretion, to prepay the loan at any time in whole or, from time to time, in part, without any penalties or premium. We are required to meet certain financial covenants during the term of the loan. As security for our repayment of the loan, we pledged all of the common stock of FFB to the lender. See “Financial Condition—Term Loan” below for additional information regarding this loan.

We opened a wealth management office in Las Vegas in the second quarter of 2013 and we moved into our permanent 10,000 square foot leased office in the third quarter of 2013. In the fourth quarter of 2013, we relocated our Irvine wealth management office to a 2,900 square foot leased office in Newport Beach, California.

On August 15, 2012, we completed the acquisition of DCB in exchange for the issuance of 815,447 shares of common stock, valued at $15.00 per share. As a result of the DCB Acquisition, FFB acquired $35 million of cash, $9 million of securities, $90 million of loans, $6 million of deferred taxes and other assets, and assumed $127 million of deposits along with the operations of DCB. In addition, FFB acquired branches in Palm Desert and El Centro, California. During the first quarter of 2013, we finished the integration of DCB into our operations.

We have continued to grow both our Banking and Wealth Management operations. Comparing 2013 to 2012, we have increased our revenues (net interest income and noninterest income) by 25%. This growth in revenues is the result of the growth in FFB’s total interest-earning assets and in AUM in Wealth Management.

During 2013, total loans and total deposits in Banking increased 22% and 23%, respectively, while the AUM in Wealth Management increased by $366 million or 16% and totaled $2.59 billion as of December 31, 2013. The growth in AUM includes the addition of $242 million of net new accounts and $237 million of gains realized in client accounts during 2013.

The results of operations for Banking reflect the benefits of this growth as income before taxes for Banking increased $2.7 million from $10.0 million in 2012 to $12.7 million in 2013. Because we continue to add new staff and locations as part of our business plan, the increases in our revenues in Wealth Management were offset by increases in noninterest expenses. On a consolidated basis, our earnings before taxes increased from $7.8 million in 2012 to $9.5 million in 2013 as the increase from Banking was offset by a $1.0 million increase in corporate expenses in 2013 as compared to 2012.

Results of Operations

Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.

Our net income for 2013 was $7.9 million, as compared to $5.8 million for 2012. The proportional increase in net income was more than the proportional increase in income before taxes because of a decrease in our effective tax rate from 26% in 2012 to 17% in 2013. In 2013 and 2012, the valuation allowance for deferred taxes was reduced by $2.4 million and $1.0 million, respectively, resulting in lower effective tax rates as compared to a normalized income tax provision of 42%.

Income before taxes was $9.5 million in 2013 as compared to $7.8 million in 2012. The following is a comparison of our income before taxes between 2013 and 2012.

The following tables show key operating results for each of our business segments for the years ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Banking		Wealth Management		Other		Total
*2013:*
Interest income	$	39,181	$	-	$	-	$	39,181
Interest expense		3,288		-		219		3,507

Net interest income		35,893		-		(219)		35,674
Provision for loan losses		2,395		-		-		2,395
Noninterest income		3,514		16,715		(405)		19,824
Noninterest expense		24,302		17,400		1,920		43,622

Income (loss) before taxes on income	$	12,710	$	(685)	$	(2,544)	$	9,481


*2012:*
Interest income	$	30,874	$	-	$	-	$	30,874
Interest expense		3,145		-		-		3,145

Net interest income		27,729		-		-		27,729
Provision for loan losses		2,065		-		-		2,065
Noninterest income		2,599		14,250		(229)		16,620
Noninterest expense		18,280		14,896		1,300		34,476

Income (loss) before taxes on income	$	9,983	$	(646)	$	(1,529)	$	7,808

The primary sources of revenue for Banking are net interest income, fees from its deposits, trust and insurance services, and certain loan fees. The primary sources of revenue for Wealth Management are asset management fees assessed on the balance of AUM and fees charged for consulting and administrative services. Compensation and benefit costs, which represent the largest component of noninterest expense accounted for 62% and 76%, respectively, of the total noninterest expense for Banking and Wealth Management in 2013.

General. As a result of an increase in income before taxes for Banking, which was partially offset by an increase in corporate expenses, consolidated income before taxes increased $1.7 million in 2013 as compared to 2012. Income before taxes in Banking was $2.7 million higher in 2013 as compared to 2012 as higher net interest income and higher noninterest income was partially offset by a higher noninterest expenses. The loss before taxes for Wealth Management for 2013 was comparable to the loss for 2012 as increases in noninterest income were offset by increases in noninterest expenses. Our operating losses in Wealth Management are due in part to our continued investment in new relationship managers which are a key component in growing our revenues. Typically, it takes up to three years to realize enough revenues to cover the costs associated with hiring and retaining a new relationship manager. Corporate expenses were $1.0 million higher in 2013 as compared to 2012 due to increased sales and marketing activities, increased allocations of compensation costs from FFB and interest costs on the term loan.

Net Interest Income. The following tables set forth information regarding (i) the total dollar amount of interest income from interest-earning assets and the resultant average yields on those assets; (ii) the total dollar amount of interest expense and the average rate of interest on our interest-bearing liabilities; (iii) net interest income; (iv) net interest rate spread; and (v) net yield on interest-earning assets for the year ended December 31:


	2013						2012
*(dollars in thousands)*	Average Balances		Interest		AverageYield /Rate		Average Balances		Interest		Average Yield /Rate
Interest-earning assets:
Loans	$	803,808	$	37,918		4.72%	$	626,866	$	30,552		4.87%
Securities		37,325		864		2.31%		16,047		193		1.20%
Fed funds and deposits		37,918		399		1.05%		17,346		129		0.75%

Total interest-earning assets		879,051		39,181		4.46%		660,259		30,874		4.68%

Noninterest-earning assets:
Nonperforming assets		2,778						1,232
Other		18,875						12,631

Total assets	$	900,704					$	674,122

Interest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits	$	165,736		856		0.52%	$	43,776		251		0.58%
Money market and savings		99,826		434		0.44%		92,404		516		0.56%
Certificates of deposit		279,470		1,877		0.67%		283,677		2,151		0.76%

Total interest-bearing deposits		545,032		3,167		0.58%		419,857		2,918		0.70%
Borrowings		84,409		340		0.40%		99,257		227		0.23%

Total interest-bearing liabilities		629,441		3,507		0.56%		519,114		3,145		0.61%

Noninterest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits		186,760						92,641
Other liabilities		7,813						4,970

Total liabilities		824,014						616,725
Stockholders’ equity		76,690						57,397

Total liabilities and equity	$	900,704					$	674,122

Net Interest Income			$	35,674					$	27,729

Net Interest Rate Spread						3.90%						4.07%

Net Yield on Interest-earning Assets						4.06%						4.20%

Net interest income is impacted by the volume (changes in volume multiplied by prior rate), interest rate (changes in rate multiplied by prior volume) and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. The following table provides a breakdown of the changes in net interest income due to volume and rate changes between 2013 as compared to 2012.


	Increase (Decrease) due to				Net Increase (Decrease)
*(dollars in thousands)*	Volume		Rate		Net Increase (Decrease)
Interest earned on:
Loans	$	8,373	$	(1,007)	$	7,366
Securities		396		275		671
Fed funds and deposits		201		69		270

Total interest-earning assets		8,970		(663)		8,307

Interest paid on:
Demand deposits		634		(29)		605
Money market and savings		39		(121)		(82)
Certificates of deposit		(32)		(242)		(274)
Borrowings		(38)		151		113

Total interest-bearing liabilities		603		(241)		362

Net interest income	$	8,367	$	(422)	$	7,945

Net interest income increased 29% from $27.7 million in 2012 to $35.7 million in 2013 because of a 33% increase in interest-earning assets and because we realized $1.1 million of interest income in 2013 on the net recovery of mark to market adjustments related to payoffs of acquired loans, which were partially offset by a decrease in our net interest rate spread. Excluding this net recovery, the yield on total interest-earning assets would have been 4.34%, the net interest rate spread would have been 3.78% and the net yield on interest-earning assets would have been 3.94% in 2013. Excluding the net recovery on acquired loans, the decrease in the net interest rate spread from 4.07% in 2012 to 3.94% in 2013 was due to a decrease in yield on total interest-earning assets which was partially offset by a decrease in rates paid on interest-bearing liabilities. The decrease in yield on interest-earning assets reflected the decrease in interest rates in the overall market, prepayments of higher yielding loans, and an increase in the proportion of lower yielding securities and deposits to total interest-earning assets. The decrease in rates on interest-bearing liabilities from 0.61% in 2012 to 0.56% in 2013 was due to decreases in market interest rates on deposits which were partially offset by increased borrowing costs related to interest on the FFI term loan.

Provision for loan losses. The provision for loan losses represents our determination of the amount necessary to be charged against the current period’s earnings to maintain the ALLL at a level that is considered adequate in relation to the estimated losses inherent in the loan portfolio. The provision for loan losses is impacted by changes in loan balances as well as changes in estimated loss assumptions and charge-offs and recoveries. The amount of our provision also takes into consideration such factors as changes in the nature and volume of the loan portfolio, overall portfolio quality, review of specific problem loans, current economic conditions and certain other subjective factors that may affect the ability of borrowers to meet their repayment obligations to us. The provision for loan losses was $2.4 million for 2013 and $2.1 million for 2012. The increase in the provision for loan losses in 2013 as compared to 2012 was the result of higher loan balances and a $0.5 million increase in charge-offs which were partially offset by reductions in estimated loss assumptions.

Noninterest income. Noninterest income for Banking includes fees charged to clients for trust services and deposit services, prepayment and late fees charged on loans and intercompany fees charged for services provided to Wealth Management. The following table provides a breakdown of noninterest income for Banking for the years ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	2013		2012
Trust fees	$	1,785	$	1,170
Deposit charges		366		143
Prepayment fees		846		779
Other		517		507

Total noninterest income	$	3,514	$	2,599

The $0.9 million increase in noninterest income for Banking in 2013, as compared to 2012 was due primarily to higher trust fees. The increase in trust fees reflects the continuing growth of the trust operations as evidenced by the higher level of trust AUM, which has increased to $341 million as of December 31, 2013.

Noninterest income for Wealth Management includes fees charged to high net-worth clients for managing their assets and for providing financial planning consulting services, as well as fees for administration services provided to family foundations and private charitable organizations. The following table provides a breakdown of noninterest income for Wealth Management for the years ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	2013		2012
Asset management fees	$	15,560	$	12,983
Consulting and administration fees		1,164		1,341
Other		(9)		(74)

Total noninterest income	$	16,715	$	14,250

The $2.5 million increase in noninterest income in Wealth Management in 2013, as compared to 2012 was primarily due to increases in asset management fees of 20%. That increase was primarily due to the 19% increase in the AUM balances used for computing the asset management fees in 2013 as compared to 2012.

Noninterest Expense. The following table provides a breakdown of noninterest expense for Banking and Wealth Management for the years ended December 31:


	Banking				Wealth Management
*(dollars in thousands)*	2013		2012		2013		2012
Compensation and benefits	$	14,971	$	11,208	$	13,176	$	11,673
Occupancy and depreciation		4,568		3,656		1,922		1,393
Professional services and marketing		1,752		1,000		1,536		1,179
Other expenses		3,011		2,416		766		651

Total noninterest expense	$	24,302	$	18,280	$	17,400	$	14,896

The $6.0 million increase in noninterest expense in Banking during 2013 as compared to 2012 was due primarily to increases in staffing and costs associated with FFB’s higher balances of loans and deposits and our continuing expansion, including the DCB Acquisition in August 2012. Compensation and benefits for Banking increased $3.8 million during 2013 as compared 2012 as the number of full-time equivalent employees, (“FTE”) in Banking increased to 123.1 during 2013 from 87.9 during 2012. The $0.9 million increase in occupancy and depreciation costs for Banking during 2013 as compared to 2012 was due to the four additional offices being open at some time during 2013 as compared to 2012 and the expansion into additional space at the administrative office in the second quarter of 2013. Those increases were partially offset by reduced operating system costs relating to $0.6 million

of costs incurred in 2012 as part of FFB’s conversion to a new core processing system. Professional services and marketing for Banking, which includes costs for legal, accounting, consulting and information technology services, as well as management fees paid to FFA for providing asset management services for FFB’s trust clients, increased $0.8 million during 2013 as compared to 2012. This increase was due primarily to additional consulting and legal costs incurred in relation to strategic activities of FFB and an increase in asset management fees related to trust clients. Other expenses for Banking, which include office related costs, FDIC and other regulatory assessments, director fees, insurance costs, loan related expenses, employee reimbursements and REO expenses, increased 0.6 million during 2013 as compared to 2012. This increase was primarily due to a $0.3 million charge to REO reserves in 2013 and $0.1 million increases in employee reimbursements and in loan related expenses, both of which were related to our continued growth.

The $2.5 million increase in noninterest expense in Wealth Management during 2013 as compared to 2012 was primarily due to increases in staffing and costs associated with our continuing expansion and growth. Compensation and benefits for Wealth Management increased $1.5 million during 2013 as compared to 2012 as the number of FTE in Wealth Management increased to 53.4 during 2013 from 44.7 during 2012. The $0.5 million increase in occupancy and depreciation costs for Wealth Management during 2013 as compared to 2012 was due to additional offices being open during all or a portion of 2013 as compared to 2012 and $0.2 million of costs incurred related to an upgrade of our asset management operating system. Professional services and marketing for Wealth Management, which includes costs for legal, accounting and information technology services, as well as recurring referral fees paid to third parties, increased $0.4 million during 2013 as compared to 2012. This $0.4 million increase was due primarily to higher referral fees related to the increased asset management fees and higher recruiting fees paid related to the increase in staffing during 2013. Other expenses for Wealth Management, which include office related costs, insurance costs and employee reimbursements did not change significantly in 2013 as compared to 2012.

Years Ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Our net income for 2012 was $5.8 million, as compared to $9.1 million for 2011. The proportional decrease in net income was greater than the proportional decrease in income before taxes because of an increase in our effective tax rate from 0% in 2011 to 26% in 2012. In 2012 and 2011, the valuation allowance for deferred taxes was reduced by $1.0 million and $3.6 million, respectively, resulting in lower effective tax rates as compared to a normalized income tax provision of 42%.

Income before taxes was $7.8 million in 2012 as compared to $9.1 million in 2011. The following is a comparison of our income before taxes between 2012 and 2011.

The following tables show key operating results for each of our business segments for the years ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Banking		Wealth Management		Other		Total
*2012:*
Interest income	$	30,874	$	-	$	-	$	30,874
Interest expense		3,145		-		-		3,145

Net interest income		27,729		-		-		27,729
Provision for loan losses		2,065		-		-		2,065
Noninterest income		2,599		14,250		(229)		16,620
Noninterest expense		18,280		14,896		1,300		34,476

Income (loss) before taxes on income	$	9,983	$	(646)	$	(1,529)	$	7,808


*2011:*
Interest income	$	23,022	$	-	$	-	$	23,022
Interest expense		2,881		-		-		2,881

Net interest income		20,141		-		-		20,141
Provision for loan losses		2,297		-		-		2,297
Noninterest income		5,094		12,719		(113)		17,700
Noninterest expense		12,137		13,027		1,282		26,446

Income (loss) before taxes on income	$	10,801	$	(308)	$	(1,395)	$	9,098

The primary sources of revenue for Banking are net interest income and fees from its deposit, trust and insurance services. The primary sources of revenue for Wealth Management are asset management fees assessed on the balance of AUM and fees charged for consulting and administrative services. For 2012, compensation and benefits comprised 61% and 78%, respectively, of the total noninterest expense for Banking and Wealth Management, respectively.

General: In 2011, FFB realized a $3.7 million gain on sale of REO which is included in noninterest income in Banking. Excluding the gain on sale of REO, income before taxes for Banking increased to $10.0 million in 2012 from $7.1 million in 2011 due primarily to higher net interest income and higher noninterest income which were partially offset by higher noninterest expenses. The net loss before taxes in Wealth Management increased to $0.6 million in 2012 from $0.3 million in 2011 as higher noninterest expenses in 2012 were only partially offset by higher asset management fees.

Net Interest Income: The following tables set forth information regarding (i) the total dollar amount of interest income from interest-earning assets and the resultant average yields on those assets; (ii) the total dollar amount of interest expense and the average rate of interest on our interest-bearing liabilities; (iii) net interest income; (iv) net interest rate spread; and (v) net yield on interest-earning assets for the years ended December 31:


	2012						2011
*(dollars in thousands)*	Average Balances		Interest		Average Yield /Rate		Average Balances		Interest		Average Yield /Rate
Interest-earning assets:
Loans	$	626,866	$	30,552		4.87%	$	436,247	$	22,864		5.24%
Securities		16,047		193		1.20%		9,710		135		1.35%
Fed funds and deposits		17,346		129		0.75%		8,902		23		0.26%

Total interest-earning assets		660,259		30,874		4.68%		454,859		23,022		5.06%

Noninterest-earning assets:
Nonperforming assets		1,232						467
Other		12,631						3,876

Total assets	$	674,122					$	459,202

Interest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits	$	43,776		251		0.58%	$	11,375		74		0.65%
Money market and savings		92,404		516		0.56%		60,844		405		0.67%
Certificates of deposit		283,677		2,151		0.76%		225,263		2,312		1.03%

Total interest-bearing deposits		419,857		2,918		0.70%		297,482		2,791		0.94%
Borrowings		99,257		227		0.23%		60,375		90		0.15%

Total interest-bearing liabilities		519,114		3,145		0.61%		357,857		2,881		0.81%

Noninterest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits	$	92,641					$	59,650
Other liabilities		4,970						2,641

Total liabilities		616,725						420,148
Stockholders’ equity		57,397						39,054

Total liabilities and equity	$	674,122					$	459,202

Net Interest Income			$	27,729					$	20,141

Net Interest Rate Spread						4.07%						4.26%

Net Yield on Interest-earning Assets						4.20%						4.43%


	Increase (Decrease) due to				Net Increase (Decrease)
*(dollars in thousands)*	Volume		Rate		Net Increase (Decrease)
Interest earned on:
Loans	$	9,406	$	(1,718)	$	7,688
Securities		78		(20)		58
Fed funds and deposits		35		71		106

Total interest-earning assets		9,519		(1,667)		7,852

Interest paid on:
Demand deposits		186		(9)		177
Money market and savings		186		(75)		111
Certificates of deposit		528		(689)		(161)
Borrowings		75		62		137

Total interest-bearing liabilities		975		(711)		264

Net interest income	$	8,544	$	(956)	$	7,588

The yield on interest-earning assets and the rate on interest-bearing liabilities have been impacted by the continuing decreases in market interest rates, which resulted in a 37 basis point decrease in the yield on average loans and a 20 basis point decrease in the rate paid on interest-bearing liabilities in 2012 as compared to 2011. Because the decrease in our yield on loans was greater than our decrease in the rate on interest-bearing liabilities, our net interest rate spread decreased to 4.07% in 2012 as compared to 4.26% in 2011. Because the loans and deposits acquired in the DCB Acquisition were valued at fair value, the results related to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the DCB Acquisition did not have a significant impact on our net yield on interest-earning assets in 2012.

Provision for loan losses: Our provision for loan losses in 2012 was $2.1 million as compared to $2.3 million in 2011 because the increase in our net loans in 2012, excluding the loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition, was 24% less than the increase in our net loans in 2011. The impact of this decrease was partially offset by a $0.3 million increase in net charge-offs in 2012 as compared to 2011. Under accounting guidelines, FFB is required to provide a calculated reserve for loan losses for its outstanding loan balances, including those acquired in the DCB Acquisition. However, these guidelines also require FFB to record the calculated reserve for acquired loans as a reduction of the carrying balance of those loans on the date they are acquired, and then amortize this calculated reserve into income for each loan over the life of the loan. Therefore, the ALLL represents the estimated credit losses of all loans not acquired in the DCB Acquisition, plus any deficiency in the estimated credit losses, which is included as a reduction of the carrying balance of those loans, for the loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition. Excluding the loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition, FFB’s ALLL levels at December 31, 2012 and 2011 equaled 1.25% of the respective loan balances then outstanding.

Noninterest income: The following table provides a breakdown of noninterest income for Banking for the years ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	2012		2011
Trust fees	$	1,170	$	555
Prepayment fees		779		208
Gain on sale of REO		-		3,695
Other		650		636

Total noninterest income	$	2,599	$	5,094

During 2009, FFB foreclosed on properties securing two participation loans, with a book value of $3.6 million, resulting in a $0.3 million charge-off and the transfer of the remaining outstanding balances to REO. Subsequently, FFB recorded $1.9 million and $1.4 million provisions for REO losses related to these properties in 2010 and 2009, respectively. During 2011, we reached a settlement agreement with the bank which sold us these participation loans. As a result of the settlement we transferred the properties to the other bank and recognized a $3.7 million gain on sale of REO in 2011.

Excluding the $3.7 million gain on sale of REO recognized in 2011, the $1.2 million increase in noninterest income in Banking for 2012, as compared to 2011, was due to increased activity levels in the trust operations of FFB as well as increased fees related to the prepayment of loans. Trust AUM increased from $135 million at the beginning of 2011 to $309 million at the end of 2012. Loan prepayments totaled $116 million in 2012 as compared to $61 million in 2011.

The following table provides a breakdown of noninterest income for Wealth Management for the years ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	2012		2011
Asset management fees	$	12,983	$	11,338
Consulting and administration fees		1,341		1,393
Other		(74)		(12)

Total noninterest income	$	14,250	$	12,719

Asset management fees increased by 15% in 2012 as compared to 2011 due to a 21% increase in the average billable AUM which was partially offset by a decrease in the weighted average investment advisory fee rate. At December 31, 2012, AUM totaled $2.23 billion as compared to $1.83 billion at December 31, 2011 and $1.56 billion at December 31, 2010.

Noninterest Expense: The following table provides a breakdown of noninterest expense for Banking and Wealth Management for the years ended December 31:


	Banking				Wealth Management
*(dollars in thousands)*	2012		2011		2012		2011
Compensation and benefits	$	11,208	$	7,808	$	11,673	$	10,091
Occupancy and depreciation		3,656		1,786		1,393		1,226
Professional services and marketing		1,000		501		1,179		1,231
Other expenses		2,416		2,042		651		479

Total noninterest expense	$	18,280	$	12,137	$	14,896	$	13,027

The increase in noninterest expense in Banking during 2012 as compared to 2011 was due to increases in staffing, increases in noninterest expenses as a result of the DCB Acquisition and costs associated with our higher balances of loans and deposits. Compensation and benefits increased $3.4 million in 2012 as compared to 2011 as the number of FTE in Banking increased to 87.9 FTE during 2012 as compared to 58.6 FTE during 2011. The increase in staffing was primarily due to the opening of our new office in West Los Angeles and increased staffing related to the DCB Acquisition. The $1.9 million increase in occupancy and depreciation for Banking in 2012 as compared to 2011 reflects the facility costs for those branches acquired or opened in 2012 as well as the full year of costs related to the branch and corporate expansions that occurred in 2011. The $0.5 million increase in professional services and marketing for Banking in 2012 as compared to 2011 was due to costs related to our increased activities, including information technology upgrades and projects and increased management fees paid on trust AUM. The $0.4 million increase in other expenses in 2012 as compared to 2011 reflects costs related to our continuing growth including FDIC insurance premiums and general office costs.

The $1.9 million increase in noninterest expenses in Wealth Management during 2012 as compared to 2011 was primarily due to $1.6 million of higher compensation and benefits costs resulting from increased staffing associated with opening of our new office in West Los Angeles and increased incentive compensation related to the growth in AUM. Staffing for Wealth Management increased to 44.7 FTE in 2012 from 42.0 FTE in 2011.

Financial Condition

The following table shows the financial position for each of our business segments, and of FFI and elimination entries used to arrive at our consolidated totals which are included in the column labeled Other, at December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Banking		Wealth Management		Other and Eliminations		Total
*2013:*
Cash and cash equivalents	$	56,795	$	2,134	$	(1,975)	$	56,954
Securities AFS		59,111		-		-		59,111
Loans, net		893,364		366		-		893,730
Premises and equipment		2,286		863		100		3,249
FHLB Stock		6,721		-		-		6,721
Deferred taxes		11,426		865		(239)		12,052
REO		375		-		-		375
Other assets		3,840		717		611		5,168

Total assets	$	1,033,918	$	4,945	$	(1,503)	$	1,037,360

Deposits	$	809,306	$	-	$	(7,269)	$	802,037
Borrowings		134,000		-		7,063		141,063
Intercompany balances		857		248		(1,105)		-
Other liabilities		4,018		2,590		890		7,498
Shareholders’ equity		85,737		2,107		(1,082)		86,762

Total liabilities and equity	$	1,033,918	$	4,945	$	(1,503)	$	1,037,360

*2012:*
Cash and cash equivalents	$	62,965	$	1,895	$	(1,752)	$	63,108
Securities AFS		5,813		-		-		5,813
Loans, net		734,778		509		-		735,287
Premises and equipment		1,661		657		66		2,384
FHLB Stock		8,500		-		-		8,500
Deferred taxes		8,734		981		340		10,055
REO		650		-		-		650
Other assets		3,509		638		565		4,712

Total assets	$	826,610	$	4,680	$	(781)	$	830,509

Deposits	$	653,671	$	-	$	(3,930)	$	649,741
Borrowings		100,000		-		-		100,000
Intercompany balances		1,451		205		(1,656)		-
Other liabilities		3,302		2,168		1,718		7,188
Shareholders’ equity		68,186		2,307		3,087		73,580

Total liabilities and equity	$	826,610	$	4,680	$	(781)	$	830,509

Our consolidated balance sheet is primarily affected by changes occurring in our Banking operations as our Wealth Management operations do not maintain significant levels of assets. Banking has experienced and is expected to continue to experience increases in its total assets as a result of our growth strategy.

During 2013, total assets for the Company and FFB increased by $207 million. For FFB, during 2013, loans and deposits increased $160.2 million and $155.6 million, respectively, cash and cash equivalents decreased by $6.2 million, securities AFS increased by $53.3 million and FHLB advances increased by $34.0 million. Borrowings at FFI increased by $7.1 million during 2013. During 2012, our consolidated total assets increased by $278.9 million primarily due to a $278.0 million increase in assets at FFB. As a result of the DCB Acquisition, FFB’s total assets and deposits increased $139.9 million and $126.9 million, respectively, in 2012. Excluding the DCB Acquisition, loans and deposits at FFB increased $129.6 million and $116.9 million, respectively during 2012.

Cash and cash equivalents, certificates of deposit and securities: Cash and cash equivalents, which primarily consist of funds held at the Federal Reserve Bank or at correspondent banks, including fed funds, decreased $6.2 million during 2013. Changes in cash equivalents are primarily affected by the funding of loans, investments in securities, and changes in our sources of funding: deposits, FHLB advances and FFI borrowings. The $53.0 million increase in cash and cash equivalents during 2012 includes the $34.9 million received in the DCB Acquisition.

Securities available for sale: The following table provides a summary of the Company’s AFS securities portfolio at December 31:


	Amortized		Gross Unrealized				Estimated
*(dollars in thousands)*	Cost		Gains		Losses		Fair Value
*2013:*
US Treasury security	$	300	$	-	$	-	$	300
FNMA and FHLB Agency notes		10,496		-		(716)		9,780
Agency mortgage-backed securities		50,983		-		(1,952)		49,031

Total	$	61,779	$	-	$	(2,668)	$	59,111

*2012:*
US Treasury Securities	$	300	$	-	$	-	$	300
FHLB Agency Notes		5,513		-		-		5,513

Total	$	5,813	$	-	$	-	$	5,813

The US Treasury Securities are pledged as collateral to the State of California to meet regulatory requirements related to FFB’s trust operations.

The $53.3 million increase in AFS Securities reflected our actions to increase our on-balance sheet sources of liquidity.

The scheduled maturities of securities AFS, other than agency mortgage backed securities, and the related weighted average yield is as follows as of December 31, 2013:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Less than 1 Year		1 Through 5 years		5 Through 10 Years		After 10 Years		Total
*Amortized Cost:*
US Treasury securities	$	300	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	300
FNMA and FHLB Agency notes		-		-		10,496		-		10,496

Total	$	300	$	-	$	10,496	$	-	$	10,796

Weighted average yield		0.21%		0.00%		1.78%		0.00%		1.74%

*Estimated Fair Value:*
US Treasury securities	$	300	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	300
FNMA and FHLB Agency notes		-		-		9,780		-		9,780

Total	$	300	$	-	$	9,780	$	-	$	10,080

Agency mortgage backed securities are excluded from the above table because such securities are not due at a single maturity date. The weighted average yield of the agency mortgage backed securities as of December 31, 2013 was 2.63%.

Loans. The following table sets forth our loans, by loan category, as of December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	2013		2012
Outstanding principal balance:
Loans secured by real estate:
Residential properties:
Multifamily	$	405,984	$	367,412
Single family		227,096		155,864

Total real estate loans secured by residential properties		633,080		523,276
Commercial properties		154,982		132,217
Land		3,794		7,575

Total real estate loans		791,856		663,068
Commercial and industrial loans		93,255		67,920
Consumer loans		18,484		12,585

Total loans		903,595		743,573
Premiums, discounts and deferred fees and expenses		50		54

Total	$	903,645	$	743,627

The $160.0 million increase in loans during 2013 was the result of loan originations and funding of existing credit commitments of $353.4 million, offset by $193.4 million of payoffs and scheduled principal payments. During 2012, the $219.5 million increase in loans was the result of $90.1 million in loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition and loan originations and funding of existing credit commitments of $279.4 million, partially offset by $150.0 million of payoffs and scheduled principal payments.

The scheduled maturities, as of December 31, 2013, of the performing loans categorized as land loans and as commercial and industrial loans, are as follows:


	Scheduled Maturity						Loans With a Scheduled Maturity After One Year
*(dollars in thousands)*	Due in One Year or Less		Due After One Year Through Five Years		Due After Five Years		Loans With Fixed Rates		Loan With Adjustable Rates
Land loans	$	2,933	$	19	$	842	$	19	$	842
Commercial and industrial loans	$	50,272	$	17,968	$	24,671	$	41,775	$	864

Deposits: The following table sets forth information with respect to our deposits and the average rates paid on deposits, as of December 31:


	2013				2012
*(dollars in thousands)*	Amount		Weighted Average Rate		Amount		Weighted Average Rate
Demand deposits:
Noninterest-bearing	$	217,782		-	$	131,827		-
Interest-bearing		217,129		0.504%		103,085		0.558%
Money market and savings		121,260		0.499%		91,278		0.488%
Certificates of deposits		245,866		0.606%		323,551		0.732%

Total	$	802,037		0.398%	$	649,741		0.522%

The $152.3 million increase in deposits during 2013 and, excluding the $126.9 million in deposits acquired in the DCB Acquisition, the $116.9 million increase in deposits during 2012, reflects the organic growth of our Banking operations.

As market interest rates have continued to decline, FFB has been able to lower the cost of its deposit products. As a result, the weighted average rate of interest-bearing deposits has decreased from 0.65% at December 31, 2012 to 0.55% at December 31, 2013, while the weighted average interest rates of both interest-bearing and noninterest-bearing deposits have decreased from 0.52% at December 31, 2012 to 0.40% at December 31, 2013.

The maturities of our certificates of deposit of $100,000 or more were as follows as of December 31, 2013:


*(dollars in thousands)*
3 months or less	$	50,851
Over 3 months through 6 months		76,070
Over 6 months through 12 months		80,833
Over 12 months		22,192

Total	$	229,946

FFB utilizes a third party program called CDARs which allows FFB to transfer funds of its clients in excess of the FDIC insurance limit (currently $250,000) to other institutions in exchange for an equal amount of funds from clients of these other institutions. This has allowed FFB to provide FDIC insurance coverage to its clients. As of December 31, 2013 FFB held $90.1 million of CDARs deposits. Under certain regulatory guidelines, these deposits are considered brokered deposits. As of December 31, 2013, FFB did not have any other brokered certificates of deposit.

Borrowings: At December 31, 2013, our borrowings consisted of $134.0 million of overnight FHLB advances at FFB and a $7.1 million term loan at FFI. At December 31, 2012, our borrowings consisted of $100.0 million of overnight FHLB advances. These FHLB advances were paid in full in the early parts of January 2014 and January 2013, respectively. Because FFB utilizes overnight borrowings, the balance of outstanding borrowings fluctuates on a daily basis. The average balance of overnight borrowings was $79.3 million during 2013, as compared to $99.3 million during 2012. The maximum amount of short-term FHLB advances outstanding at any month-end during 2013, and 2012, was $134.0 million, and $197.0 million, respectively.

Term Loan. In April 2013, we obtained a $7.5 million five year term loan from an unaffiliated bank lender. The principal amount of the loan bears interest at a rate of 90 day Libor plus 4.0% per annum. The loan agreement requires us to make monthly payments of principal and interest, the amounts of which are determined on the basis of a 10 year amortization schedule, with a final payment of the unpaid principal balance, in the amount of $3.8 million, plus accrued but unpaid interest, at the maturity date of the loan, which will be in May 2018. We have the right, in our discretion, to prepay all or a portion of the loan at any time, without any penalties or premium. We have pledged all of the common stock of FFB to the lender as security for the performance of our payment and other obligations under the loan agreement. The loan agreement obligates us to meet certain financial covenants, including the following:

•

a Tier 1 capital (leverage) ratio at FFB of at least 5.0% at the end of each calendar quarter;

•

a total risk-based capital ratio at FFB of not less than 10.0% at the end of each calendar quarter;

•

a ratio at FFB of nonperforming assets to net tangible capital, as adjusted, plus our ALLL, of not more than 40.0% at the end of each calendar quarter;

•

a ratio at FFB of classified assets to tier 1 capital, plus our ALLL, of no more than 50.0% at the end of each calendar quarter;

•

a consolidated fixed charge coverage ratio of not less than 1.50 to 1.0, measured quarterly for the immediately preceding 12 months; and

•

minimum liquidity at all times of not less than $1.0 million.

As of December 31, 2013, we were in compliance with all of those financial covenants.

The loan agreement also prohibits FFI (but not FFB or FFA) from doing any of the following without the lender’s prior approval: (i) paying any cash dividends to our shareholders, (ii) incurring any other indebtedness, (iii) granting any security interests or permitting the imposition of any liens, other than certain permitted liens, on any of FFI’s assets, or (iv) entering into significant merger or acquisition transactions outside of our banking operations. The loan agreement provides that if we fail to pay principal or interest when due, or we commit a breach of any of our other obligations or covenants in the loan agreement, or certain events occur that adversely affect us, then, unless we are able to cure such a breach, we will be deemed to be in default of the loan agreement and the lender will become entitled to require us to immediately pay in full the then principal amount of and all unpaid interest on the loan. If in any such event we fail to repay the loan and all accrued but unpaid interest, then the lender would become entitled to sell our FFB shares which we pledged as security for the loan in order to recover the amounts owed to it.

Delinquent Loans, Nonperforming Assets and Provision for Credit Losses

Loans are considered past due following the date when either interest or principal is contractually due and unpaid. Loans on which the accrual of interest has been discontinued are designated as nonaccrual loans. Accrual of interest on loans is discontinued when reasonable doubt exists as to the full, timely collection of interest or principal and, generally, when a loan becomes contractually past due for 90 days or more with respect to principal or interest. However, the accrual of interest may be continued on a well-secured loan contractually past due 90 days or more with respect to principal or interest if the loan is in the process of collection or collection of the principal and interest is deemed probable. The following tables provide a summary of past due and nonaccrual loans as of December 31:


	Past Due and Still Accruing								Total Past Due and Nonaccrual
*(dollars in thousands)*	30–59 Days		60-89 Days		90 Days or More		Nonaccrual		Total Past Due and Nonaccrual		Current		Total
*2013:*
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	1,820	$	1,820	$	631,260	$	633,080
Commercial properties		-		-		417		598		1,015		153,967		154,982
Land		-		-		1,480		-		1,480		2,314		3,794
Commercial and industrial loans		-		2,744		1,315		344		4,403		88,852		93,255
Consumer loans		-		-		-		132		132		18,352		18,484

Total	$	-	$	2,744	$	3,212	$	2,894	$	8,850	$	894,745	$	903,595


Percentage of total loans		0.00%		0.30%		0.36%		0.32%		0.98%

*2012:*
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	146	$	146	$	523,130	$	523,276
Commercial properties		2,012		-		-		-		2,012		130,205		132,217
Land		-		-		3,169		524		3,693		3,882		7,575
Commercial and industrial loans		1,188		1,113		11		97		2,409		65,511		67,920
Consumer loans		-		147		-		-		147		12,438		12,585

Total	$	3,200	$	1,260	$	3,180	$	767	$	8,407	$	735,166	$	743,573


Percentage of total loans		0.43%		0.17%		0.43%		0.10%		1.13%

The amount of delinquent loans and nonaccrual loans have been adversely impacted by the loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition. As of December 31, 2013, of the $6.1 million in loans over 90 days past due and on nonaccrual, $3.1 million, or 51%, were loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition. As of December 31, 2013, the Company had $0.1 million of loans classified as troubled debt restructurings, which are included as nonaccrual loans in the table above.

The following is a breakdown of our loan portfolio by the risk category of loans at December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Pass		Special Mention		Substandard		Impaired		Total
*2013:*
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	630,832	$	-	$	-	$	2,248	$	633,080
Commercial properties		150,053		-		4,108		821		154,982
Land		2,314		-		1,480		-		3,794
Commercial and industrial loans		88,166		43		2,047		2,999		93,255
Consumer loans		18,309		-		175		-		18,484

Total	$	889,674	$	43	$	7,810	$	6,068	$	903,595


*2012:*
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	519,288	$	-	$	1,731	$	2,257	$	523,276
Commercial properties		127,803		-		4,414		-		132,217
Land		3,818		-		3,214		543		7,575
Commercial and industrial loans		62,000		889		2,295		2,736		67,920
Consumer loans		12,387		127		71		-		12,585

Total	$	725,296	$	1,016	$	11,725	$	5,536	$	743,573

As of December 31, 2013, $7.8 million of the loans classified as substandard and $1.0 million of the loans classified as impaired were loans acquired in the DCB acquisition.

We consider a loan to be impaired when, based upon current information and events, we believe that it is probable that we will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan. We measure impairment using either the present value of the expected future cash flows discounted at the loan’s effective interest rate, or the fair value of the properties collateralizing the loan. Impairment losses are included in the allowance for loan losses through a charge to provision for loan losses. Adjustments to impairment losses due to changes in the fair value of the property collateralizing an impaired loan are considered in computing the provision for loan losses. Loans collectively reviewed for impairment include all loans except for loans which are individually reviewed based on specific criteria, such as delinquency, debt coverage, adequacy of collateral and condition of property collateralizing the loans. Impaired loans include nonaccrual loans (excluding those collectively reviewed for impairment), certain restructured loans and certain performing loans less than ninety days delinquent (“other impaired loans”) which we believe are not likely to be collected in accordance with contractual terms of the loans.

In 2012, we purchased loans, for which there was, at acquisition, evidence of deterioration of credit quality since origination and it was probable, at acquisition, that all contractually required payments would not be collected. The carrying amount of these purchased credit impaired loans is as follows at December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	2013		2012
Outstanding principal balance:
Loans secured by real estate:
Residential properties	$	-	$	2,574
Commercial properties		5,543		5,567
Land		2,331		6,137

Total real estate loans		7,874		14,278
Commercial and industrial loans		2,489		2,621
Consumer loans		260		276

Total loans		10,623		17,175
Unaccreted discount on purchased credit impaired loans		(2,945)		(5,782)

Total	$	7,678	$	11,393

Allowance for Loan Losses.

The following table summarizes the activity in our ALLL for the year ended December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Beginning Balance		Provision for Loan Losses		Charge-offs		Recoveries		Ending Balance
*2013:*
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	4,355	$	1,802	$	-	$	-	$	6,157
Commercial properties		936		561		(57)		-		1,440
Commercial and industrial loans		2,841		71		(763)		-		2,149
Consumer loans		208		(39)		-		-		169

Total	$	8,340	$	2,395	$	(820)	$	-	$	9,915


*2012:*
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	3,984	$	646	$	(275)	$	-	$	4,355
Commercial properties		1,218		(282)		-		-		936
Commercial and industrial loans		1,104		1,737		-		-		2,841
Consumer loans		244		(36)		-		-		208

Total	$	6,550	$	2,065	$	(275)	$	-	$	8,340

Excluding the loans acquired in the DCB Acquisition, our ALLL as a percentage of total loans was 1.16% and 1.25% as of December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2012, respectively.

The amount of the ALLL is adjusted periodically by charges to operations (referred to in our income statement as the “provision for loan losses”) (i) to replenish the ALLL after it has been reduced due to loan write-downs or charge-offs, (ii) to reflect increases in the volume of outstanding loans, and (iii) to take account of changes in the risk of potential loan losses due to a deterioration in the condition of borrowers or in the value of property securing non–performing loans or adverse changes in economic conditions. The amounts of the provisions we make for loan losses are based on our estimate of losses in our loan portfolio. In estimating such losses, we use economic and loss migration models that are based on bank regulatory guidelines and industry standards, and our historical charge-off experience and loan delinquency rates, local and national economic conditions, a borrower’s ability to repay its borrowings, and the value of any property collateralizing the loan, as well as a number of subjective factors. However, these determinations involve judgments about changes and trends in current economic conditions and other events that can affect the ability of borrowers to meet their loan obligations to us and a weighting among the quantitative and qualitative factors we consider in determining the sufficiency of the ALLL. Moreover, the duration and anticipated effects of prevailing economic conditions or trends can be uncertain and can be affected by a number of risks and circumstances that are outside of our control. If changes in economic or market conditions or unexpected subsequent events were to occur, or if changes were made to bank regulatory guidelines or industry standards that are used to assess the sufficiency of the ALLL, it could become necessary for us to incur additional, and possibly significant, charges to increase the ALLL, which would have the effect of reducing our income.

In addition, the FDIC and the DBO, as an integral part of their examination processes, periodically review the adequacy of our ALLL. These agencies may require us to make additional provisions for loan losses, over and above the provisions that we have already made, the effect of which would be to reduce our income.

The following table presents the balance in the ALLL and the recorded investment in loans by impairment method at December 31:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Allowance for Loan Losses								Unaccreted Credit Component Other Loans
	Evaluated for Impairment				Purchased Impaired		Total
	Individually		Collectively		Purchased Impaired		Total
*2013:*
Allowance for loan losses:
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	-	$	6,157	$	-	$	6,157	$	36
Commercial properties		190		1,250		-		1,440		290
Land		-		-		-		-		26
Commercial and industrial loans		925		1,224		-		2,149		126
Consumer loans		-		169		-		169		11

Total	$	1,115	$	8,800	$	-	$	9,915	$	489

Loans:
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	2,248	$	630,832	$	-	$	633,080	$	3,449
Commercial properties		821		150,053		4,108		154,982		23,968
Land		-		2,314		1,480		3,794		1,939
Commercial and industrial loans		2,999		88,209		2,047		93,255		10,354
Consumer loans		-		18,441		43		18,484		160

Total	$	6,068	$	889,849	$	7,678	$	903,595	$	39,870


*2012:*
Allowance for loan losses:
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	-	$	4,355	$	-	$	4,355	$	62
Commercial properties		-		936		-		936		617
Land		-		-		-		-		129
Commercial and industrial loans		1,536		1,305		-		2,841		302
Consumer loans		-		208		-		208		19

Total	$	1,536	$	6,804	$	-	$	8,340	$	1,129

Loans:
Real estate loans:
Residential properties	$	2,257	$	519,288	$	1,731	$	523,276	$	5,121
Commercial properties		-		128,035		4,182		132,217		39,862
Land		543		3,818		3,214		7,575		4,521
Commercial and industrial loans		2,736		62,989		2,195		67,920		16,512
Consumer loans		-		12,514		71		12,585		324

Total	$	5,536	$	726,644	$	11,393	$	743,573	$	66,340

The column labeled “Unaccreted Credit Component Other Loans” represents the amount of unaccreted credit component discount for the other loans acquired in the DCB acquisition, and the stated principal balance of the related loans. The discount is equal to 1.23% and 1.70% of the stated principal balance of these loans as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Liquidity

Liquidity management focuses on our ability to generate, on a timely and cost-effective basis, cash sufficient to meet the funding needs of current loan demand, deposit withdrawals, principal and interest payments with respect to outstanding borrowings and to pay operating expenses. Our liquidity management is both a daily and long-term function of funds management. Liquid assets are generally invested in marketable securities or held as cash at the FRB or other financial institutions.

We monitor our liquidity in accordance with guidelines established by our Board of Directors and applicable regulatory requirements. Our need for liquidity is affected by our loan activity, net changes in deposit levels and the maturities of our borrowings. The principal sources of our liquidity consist of deposits, loan interest and principal payments and prepayments, investment management and consulting fees, FHLB advances and proceeds from borrowings and sales of shares by FFI. The remaining balances of the Company’s lines of credit available to draw down totaled $174.2 million at December 31, 2013.

Cash Flows Provided by Operating Activities. During the year ended December 31, 2013 operating activities provided net cash of $11.2 million, comprised primarily of our net income of $7.9 million and $4.3 million of non-cash charges, including provisions for loan losses, REO losses, stock based compensation expense and depreciation and amortization, offset by $1.3 million non-cash deferred tax benefit recognized in our net income. In 2012, operating activities provided net cash of $8.4 million, comprised primarily of net income of $5.8 million and $3.3 million of non-cash charges, including provision for loan losses, stock based compensation expense and depreciation and amortization, partially offset by a $2.1 million non-cash deferred tax benefit recognized in our net income.

Cash Flows Used in Investing Activities. During the year ended December 31, 2013, investing activities used net cash of $217.0 million, primarily to fund a $160.8 million net increase in loans and a $56.1 million net increase in securities AFS. In 2012, investing activities used net cash of $86.0 million, primarily to fund a $129.9 million net increase in loans, which was partially offset by a $10.4 million decrease net decrease in AFS securities and FHLB stock and $34.9 million of cash acquired in the DCB Acquisition.

Cash Flow Provided by Financing Activities. During the year ended December 31, 2013, financing activities provided net cash of $199.7 million, consisting primarily of a net increase of $152.3 million in deposits, a net increase of $41.1 million in borrowings and $6.3 million received from the sale of shares in a private offering. In 2012, financing activities provided net cash of $130.6 million, consisting primarily of a net increase of $116.0 million in deposits, a net increase of $9.0 million in borrowings, and $5.6 million from the sale of shares in a private offering.

Ratio of Loans to Deposits. The relationship between gross loans and total deposits can provide a useful measure of a bank’s liquidity. Since repayment of loans tends to be less predictable than the maturity of investments and other liquid resources, the higher the loan-to-deposit ratio the less liquid are our assets. On the other hand, since we realize greater yields on loans than we do on other interest-earning assets, a lower loan-to-deposit ratio can adversely affect interest income and earnings. As a result, our goal is to achieve a loan-to-deposit ratio that appropriately balances the requirements of liquidity and the need to generate a fair return on our assets. At December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, the loan-to-deposit ratios at FFB were 110.4%, and 112.4%, respectively.

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

The following table provides the off-balance sheet arrangements of the Company as of December 31, 2013:


*(dollars in thousands)*
Commitments to fund new loans	$	3,580
Commitments to fund under existing loans, lines of credit		88,292
Commitments under standby letters of credit		1,527

Some of the commitments to fund existing loans, lines of credit and letters of credit are expected to expire without being drawn upon. Therefore, the total commitments do not necessarily represent future cash requirements. As of December 31, 2013, FFB was obligated on $46.0 million of letters of credit to the FHLB which were being used as collateral for public fund deposits, including $36.0 million of deposits from the State of California.

Asset and Liability Management: Interest Rate Risk

Interest rate risk is inherent in financial services businesses. Management of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities in terms of rate and maturity has an important effect on our liquidity and net interest margin. Interest rate risk results from interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities maturing or repricing at different times, on a different basis or in unequal amounts. The Board of Directors of FFB approves policies and limits governing the management of interest rate risk. The asset / liability committee formed by these policies is responsible for monitoring our interest rate risk and providing periodic reports to the Board of Directors regarding our compliance with these policies and limits. We have established three primary measurement processes to quantify and manage our interest rate risk. These include: (i) gap analysis which measures the repricing mismatches of asset and liability cash flows; (ii) net interest income simulations which are used to measure the impact of instantaneous changes in interest rates on net interest income over a 12 month forecast period; and (iii) economic value of equity calculations which measure the sensitivity of our economic value of equity to simultaneous changes in interest rates.

Gap Analysis. Under this analysis, rate sensitivity is measured by the extent to which our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities reprice or mature at different times. Rate sensitivity gaps in which the repricing of interest-earning assets exceed the repricing of interest-bearing liabilities tend to produce an expanded net yield on interest-earning assets in rising interest rate environments and a reduced net yield on interest-earning assets in declining interest rate environments. Conversely, when the repricing of interest-bearing liabilities exceed the repricing of interest-earning assets, the net yield on interest-earning assets generally declines in rising interest rate environments and increases in declining interest rate environments. The following table sets forth the interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities on the basis of when they reprice or mature as of December 31, 2013:


*(dollars in thousands)*	Less than 1 year		From 1 to 3 Years		From 3 to 5 Years		Over 5 Years		Total
Interest-earnings assets:
Cash equivalents	$	56,954	$	-	$	-	$	-	$	56,954
Securities, FHLB stock		12,233		9,102		7,753		39,592		68,500
Loans		151,521		143,593		289,987		318,688		903,789
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Deposits:
Interest-bearing checking		(217,129)		-		-		-		(217,129)
Money market and savings		(121,260)		-		-		-		(121,260)
Certificates of deposit		(221,414)		(24,452)		-		-		(245,866)
Borrowings		(141,063)		-		-		-		(141,063)

Net: Current Period	$	(480,158)	$	128,243	$	297,560	$	358,280	$	303,925

Net: Cumulative	$	(480,158)	$	(351,915)	$	(54,355)	$	303,925

The cumulative positive total of $304.0 million reflects the funding provided by noninterest-bearing deposits and equity. Because we had a $480.2 million net negative position at December 31, 2013 for the repricing period of less than one year, the result of this analysis indicate that we would be adversely impacted by a short term increase in interest rates and would benefit from a short term decrease in interest rates.

However, the extent to which our net interest margin will be impacted by changes in prevailing interest rates will depend on a number of factors, including how quickly interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities react to interest rate changes. It is not uncommon for rates on certain assets or liabilities to lag behind changes in the market rates of interest. Additionally, prepayments of loans and early withdrawals of certificates of deposit could cause interest sensitivities to vary. As a result, the relationship or “gap” between interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, as shown in the above table, is only a general indicator of interest rate sensitivity and the effect of changing rates of interest on our net interest income is likely to be different from that predicted solely on the basis of the interest rate sensitivity analysis set forth in the above table.

Net Interest Income Simulations (or NII). Under this analysis, we use a simulation model to measure and evaluate potential changes in our net interest income resulting from changes in interest rates. This model measures the impact of instantaneous shocks of 100, 200, 300 and 400 basis points on our net interest income over a 12 month forecast period. The computed changes to our net interest income between hypothetical rising and declining rate scenarios for the twelve month period beginning December 31, 2013 are as follows:


Assumed Instantaneous Change in Interest Rates	Estimated Increase (Decrease) in Net Interest Income
+ 100 basis points		(6.12	) %
+ 200 basis points		(11.06	) %
+ 300 basis points		(15.84	) %
+ 400 basis points		(20.22	) %
- 100 basis points		0.99	%
- 200 basis points		0.80	%

We did not include scenarios below the minus 200 basis point scenario because we believe those scenarios are not meaningful based on current interest rate levels. The NII results indicate that we would be adversely impacted by a short term increase in interest rates and would benefit from a short term decrease in interest rates. The results of the NII are hypothetical, and a variety of factors might cause actual results to differ substantially from what is depicted. These could include non-parallel yield curve shifts, changes in market interest rate spreads and the actual reaction to changes in interest rate levels of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. It is not uncommon for rates on certain assets or liabilities to lag behind changes in the market rates of interest. Additionally, prepayments of loans and early withdrawals of certificates of deposit could cause interest sensitivities to vary.

Economic Value of Equity Calculations (or EVE). The EVE measures the sensitivity of our market value equity to simultaneous changes in interest rates. EVE is derived by subtracting the economic value of FFB’s liabilities from the economic value of its assets, assuming current and hypothetical interest rate environments. EVE is based on all of the future cash flows expected to be generated by the FFB’s current balance sheet, discounted to derive the economic value of FFB’s assets & liabilities. These cash flows may change depending on the assumed interest rate environment and the resulting changes in other assumptions, such as prepayment speeds. The computed changes to our economic value of equity between hypothetical rising and declining rate scenarios as of December 31, 2013 are as follows:


Assumed Simultaneous Change in Interest Rates	Estimated Increase (Decrease) in Economic Value of Equity
+ 100 basis points		(8.3	) %
+ 200 basis points		(17.9	) %
+ 300 basis points		(17.2	) %
+ 400 basis points		(14.7	) %
- 100 basis points		(12.4	) %
- 200 basis points		(19.3	) %

We did not include scenarios below the minus 200 basis point scenario because we believe those scenarios are not meaningful based on current interest rate levels. The EVE results indicate that we would be adversely impacted by a short term increase in interest rates and a short term decrease in interest rates. This differs from the NII results because, in the current interest rate environment, assumed interest rate floors for loans eliminates the benefit normally derived for loans in a declining interest rate environment. The results of the EVE are hypothetical, and a variety of factors might cause actual results to differ substantially from what is depicted. These could include non-parallel yield curve shifts, changes in market interest rate spreads and the actual reaction to changes in interest rate levels of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. It is not uncommon for rates on certain assets or liabilities to lag behind changes in the market rates of interest. Additionally, prepayments of loans and early withdrawals of certificates of deposit could cause interest sensitivities to vary.

The results of these analyses and simulations do not contemplate all of the actions that we may undertake in response to changes in interest rates. In response to actual or anticipated changes in interest rates, we have various alternatives for managing and reducing FFB’s exposure to interest rate risk, such as entering into hedges and obtaining long-term fixed rate FHLB advances. To date, we have not entered into any hedges or other derivative instruments for this or any other purpose and it is our policy not to use derivatives or other financial instruments for trading or other speculative purposes.

Capital Resources and Dividends

Under federal banking regulations that apply to all United States based bank holding companies and federally insured banks, the Company (on a consolidated basis) and FFB (on a stand-alone basis) must meet specific capital adequacy requirements that, for the most part, involve quantitative measures, primarily in terms of the ratios of their capital to their assets, liabilities, and certain off-balance sheet items, calculated under regulatory accounting practices. Under those regulations, which are based primarily on those quantitative measures, each bank holding company must meet a minimum capital ratio and each federally insured bank is determined by its primary federal bank regulatory agency to come within one of the following capital adequacy categories on the basis of its capital ratios: (i) well capitalized; (ii) adequately capitalized; (iii) undercapitalized; (iv) significantly undercapitalized; or (v) critically undercapitalized.

Certain qualitative assessments also are made by a banking institution’s primary federal regulatory agency that could lead the agency to determine that the banking institution should be assigned to a lower capital category than the one indicated by the quantitative measures used to assess the institution’s capital adequacy. At each successive lower capital category, a banking institution is subject to greater operating restrictions and increased regulatory supervision by its federal bank regulatory agency.

The following table sets forth the capital and capital ratios of FFI (on a consolidated basis) and FFB as of the respective dates indicated below, as compared to the respective regulatory requirements applicable to them:


	Actual				For Capital Adequacy Purposes				To Be Well Capitalized Under Prompt Corrective Action Provisions
*(dollars in thousands)*	Amount		Ratio		Amount		Ratio		Amount		Ratio
FFI
December 31, 2013
Tier 1 leverage ratio	$	85,268		8.67%	$	39,321		4.00%
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		85,268		13.04%		26,150		4.00%
Total risk-based capital ratio		93,465		14.30%		52,300		8.00%

December 31, 2012
Tier 1 leverage ratio	$	72,909		9.19%	$	31,730		4.00%
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		72,909		13.60%		21,446		4.00%
Total risk-based capital ratio		79,636		14.85%		42,891		8.00%

FFB
December 31, 2013
Tier 1 leverage ratio	$	84,243		8.61%	$	39,115		4.00%	$	48,894		5.00%
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		84,243		12.95%		26,017		4.00%		39,025		6.00%
Total risk-based capital ratio		92,399		14.21%		52,034		8.00%		65,042		10.00%

December 31, 2012
Tier 1 (core) capital ratio	$	67,515		8.56%	$	31,563		4.00%	$	39,454		5.00%
Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio		67,515		12.68%		21,292		4.00%		31,939		6.00%
Total risk-based capital ratio		74,194		13.94%		42,585		8.00%		53,231		10.00%

As of each of the dates set forth in the above table, the Company (on a consolidated basis) exceeded the minimum required capital ratios applicable to it and FFB (on a stand-alone basis) qualified as a well-capitalized depository institution under the capital adequacy guidelines described above. As a condition of approval of the DCB Acquisition by the FDIC, FFB is required to maintain a Tier 1 Leverage Ratio of 8.5% through August 15, 2014.

As of December 31, 2013, the amount of capital at FFB in excess of amounts required to be Well Capitalized was $35.3 million for the Tier 1 Leverage Ratio, $45.2 million for the Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and $27.4 million for the Total risk-based capital ratio. No conditions or events have occurred since December 31, 2013 which we believe have changed FFI’s or FFB’s capital adequacy classifications from those set forth in the above table.

During the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, FFI made capital contributions to FFB of $8.5 million and $5.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2013, FFI had $8.0 million of available capital and, therefore, has the ability and financial resources to contribute additional capital to FFB, if needed.

Due to the adoption in June 2013 of the Basel III capital guidelines by the FRB and the FDIC, effective beginning on January 1, 2015, FFI and FFB will be required to meet higher and more stringent capital requirements than those that currently exist. For additional information regarding the Basel III capital rules, see “Supervision and Regulation—First Foundation Bank—New Basel III Capital Rules” elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We did not pay dividends in 2013 or 2012 and we have no plans to pay dividends at least for the foreseeable future. Instead, it is our intention to retain internally generated cash flow to support our growth. Moreover, the payment of dividends is subject to certain regulatory restrictions, which are discussed in ITEM 1 – “Business - Supervision and Regulation—Dividends.” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. In addition, the agreement governing the term loan obtained by FFI in April 2013 provides that we must obtain the prior consent of the lender to pay dividends to our shareholders.

We had no material commitments for capital expenditures as of December 31, 2013. However, we intend to take advantage of opportunities that may arise in the future to grow our businesses, including by opening additional wealth management offices or acquiring complementary businesses that we believe will provide us with attractive risk-adjusted returns, although we do not have any immediate plans, arrangements or understandings relating to any material acquisition. As a result, we may seek to obtain additional borrowings and to sell additional shares of our common stock to raise funds which we might need for these purposes. There is no assurance, however, that, if required, we will succeed in obtaining additional borrowings or selling additional shares of our common stock on terms that are acceptable to us, if at all, as this will depend on market conditions and other factors outside of our control, as well as our future results of operations. See ITEM 1A – “RISK FACTORS. We may sell additional shares of common stock in the future which could result in dilution to our shareholders” for information regarding the impact that future sales of our common stock may have on the share ownership of our existing shareholders.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

FIRST FOUNDATION INC

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on the Consolidated Financial Statements			65

Consolidated Balance Sheets: December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012			66

Consolidated Income Statements: Years Ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012			67

Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income: Years Ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012			68

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Shareholders’ Equity: Years Ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012			69

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows: Years Ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012			70

Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements			71

LOGO

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders

First Foundation Inc. and Subsidiaries

Irvine, California

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of First Foundation Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 and the related consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of First Foundation Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013 and 2012, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

LOGO

Laguna Hills, California

March 17, 2014

LOGO

FIRST FOUNDATION INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)


	December 31,
	2013		2012
ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	$	56,954	$	63,108
Securities available-for-sale (“AFS”)		59,111		5,813

Loans, net of deferred fees		903,645		743,627
Allowance for loan and lease losses (“ALLL”)		(9,915)		(8,340)

Net loans		893,730		735,287

Premises and equipment, net		3,249		2,384
Investment in FHLB stock		6,721		8,500
Deferred taxes		12,052		10,055
Real estate owned (“REO”)		375		650
Other assets		5,168		4,712

Total Assets	$	1,037,360	$	830,509


LIABILITIES AND SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Liabilities:
Deposits	$	802,037	$	649,741
Borrowings		141,063		100,000
Accounts payable and other liabilities		7,498		7,188

Total Liabilities		950,598		756,929

Commitments and contingencies		-		-

Shareholders’ Equity
Common Stock, par value $.001: 20,000,000 shares authorized; 7,733,514 and 7,366,126 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively		8		7
Additional paid-in-capital		76,334		69,434
Retained earnings		11,990		4,139
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax		(1,570)		-

Total Shareholders’ Equity		86,762		73,580

Total Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity	$	1,037,360	$	830,509

(See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements)

FIRST FOUNDATION INC.

CONSOLIDATED INCOME STATEMENTS

(In thousands, except share and per share amounts)


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2013		2012
Interest income:
Loans	$	37,918	$	30,552
Securities		864		193
Fed funds sold and interest-bearing deposits		399		129

Total interest income		39,181		30,874

Interest expense:
Deposits		3,167		2,918
Borrowings		340		227

Total interest expense		3,507		3,145

Net interest income		35,674		27,729
Provision for loan losses		2,395		2,065

Net interest income after provision for loan losses		33,279		25,664

Noninterest income:
Asset management, consulting and other fees		18,240		15,326
Other income		1,584		1,294

Total noninterest income		19,824		16,620

Noninterest expense:
Compensation and benefits		28,760		23,267
Occupancy and depreciation		6,556		5,068
Professional services and marketing costs		4,003		2,720
Other expenses		4,303		3,421

Total noninterest expense		43,622		34,476

Income before taxes on income		9,481		7,808
Taxes on income		1,630		2,007

Net income	$	7,851	$	5,801


Net income per share:
Basic	$	1.06	$	0.88
Diluted	$	1.01	$	0.85
Shares used in computation:
Basic		7,424,210		6,603,533
Diluted		7,742,215		6,831,955

(See accompanying notes to the consolidated financial statements)

FIRST FOUNDATION INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME

(In tho